Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They say he has a 90% chance of survival if he gets the chemo. Are these people just mentally ill or what? I can't imagine betting my kids life on some unproven method let alone take guidance from someone who has been convicted of fraud in connection to the very thing they want his help with.
They say he has a 90% chance of survival if he gets the chemo. Are these people just mentally ill or what? I can't imagine betting my kids life on some unproven method let alone take guidance from someone who has been convicted of fraud in connection to the very thing they want his help with.
Sure, let them decide to withhold treatment. But when the kid dies, they should be prosecuted for child endangerment. People do idiotic things in the name of religion.
They say he has a 90% chance of survival if he gets the chemo. Are these people just mentally ill or what? I can't imagine betting my kids life on some unproven method let alone take guidance from someone who has been convicted of fraud in connection to the very thing they want his help with.
I didn't read the article that you linked to, but I wanted to answer that question in your title. I DO think that parents should be able to refuse treatment for their children.
Just because a doctor has a medical degree doesn't mean that he knows everything about each child as an individual. If a parent wants to take the "risk" and explore other options for treatment, I think it their right to do so.
Even people that don't make choices based on religious reasons, may have very valid reasons why they choose to forego the medical treatment that is advised. I think it is up to the parents, not the doctors, to make the call.
I didn't read the article that you linked to, but I wanted to answer that question in your title. I DO think that parents should be able to refuse treatment for their children.
Just because a doctor has a medical degree doesn't mean that he knows everything about each child as an individual. If a parent wants to take the "risk" and explore other options for treatment, I think it their right to do so.
Even people that don't make choices based on religious reasons, may have very valid reasons why they choose to forego the medical treatment that is advised. I think it is up to the parents, not the doctors, to make the call.
Read the article.
I think on a case by case basis that it would be acceptable to withhold treatment.
If I find out my daughter has a severe untreatable cancer from which she will die with or without treatment in 2 months (For Example) then I think that is an acceptable reason.
There is NO reason for this child to die other than his idiotic parents want to refuse treatment, without which he will have a 5% chance of recovery. With treatment he has a 95% chance of survival. That is better than the average walk down the street. These parents think a 13 year old child is a Tribal Elder and Shaman. By the way according to the article this is a child who can't read. Now... personally, I don't see it. I know 13 year olds that are mature enough to take part in that decision. After reading the article I don't think these PARENTS are capable of making health decisions. The sad part is his mother says she still won't comply with the courts decision even if they rule in favor of treatment.
I also must comment, the child has such a great lawyer, he went through the hearing and everything without even speaking to the boy. What a deal.
I really don't know how to parse 1) my aversion for big government and my strong belief that people have a right to their own bodies and beliefs, from 2) my equally strong belief that children have to right to protection from abuse and neglect.
In short, a parent who wishes to refuse treatment for his kids, also has a responsibility to demonstrate that this reason for doing so is sound and well-founded. In particular, they must be able to provide some kind of evidence that the welfare of the child will not be seriously endangered by withholding treatment.
There are many treatments that are not well-established as absolute remedies for a medical condition. For example, an elderly adult who has degenerative disc disease has many treatment options open to him, none of which holds out a particularly high promise of relief, but all have been shown to be helpful in some cases. I'm not conversant with pediatrics, but I'm sure there must be conditions in that specialty that are similarly inexact. To compel a parent to blindly accept a medical judgment does not sit well with me. But neither does the view that a parent has a right to blindly endanger his child without a firm understanding of the real-world options and risks.
I intentionally did not address the particulars of the OP, because I generally believe that a clearer view of the philosophy can be held if not clouded by the specifics of an individual case. It is too easy to be emotionally swayed by a set of particulars and lose sight of the principle.
I didn't read the article that you linked to, but I wanted to answer that question in your title. I DO think that parents should be able to refuse treatment for their children.
Just because a doctor has a medical degree doesn't mean that he knows everything about each child as an individual. If a parent wants to take the "risk" and explore other options for treatment, I think it their right to do so.
Even people that don't make choices based on religious reasons, may have very valid reasons why they choose to forego the medical treatment that is advised. I think it is up to the parents, not the doctors, to make the call.
I agree. A parent should be able to make the choice. So basically you are not allowed a choice unless it's the mainstream one???
Sure, let them decide to withhold treatment. But when the kid dies, they should be prosecuted for child endangerment. People do idiotic things in the name of religion.
What if they chose chemo and the child died? Could they procecute for child endangerment?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
