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.
I am thinking of the cases where the government steps in and forces parents to have their kids get chemotherapy, even though their personal beliefs are in opposition to such intrusive procedures (I am thinking of the boy a few year's back who had cancer and the government stepped in and forced his parents to get chemo for him).
What gives the government the right to dictate "appropriate" medical procedures?
Their are people who do not believe in blood transfusions, yet, the government can step in and insist that they be given such transfusions.
The premise seems to be that extending life is the governments right and that "they" know what is best for a person, despite any evidence to the contrary.
In the case of the chemo, what if the parent has determined that the cure is worse than the disease? What if they don't believe that death is the worst thing that can happen to someone?
Or what if, instead of a child being the person who is forced to receive medical care over the objection of parents, it is an elderly adult who has always avoided doctors and doesn't believe in traditional medical care. What if the person then develops some condition or disease where surgery is recommended and they don't want it? Because they're elderly, can the government step in and say "we know what's best for you - we are going to force you to have x. y, z procedures for your own good?
What are the laws that allow the government to dictate medical care procedures, how did these laws come to be in existence, and why is it considered ok for the government to say what kinds of medical procedures are appropriate and how is this weighed against a person's particular beliefs?
If I don't want a blood transfusion and would rather die, why would anyone be able to interfere in that decision? I am looking for what these laws are and how they ever came into existence in a country that touts personal freedoms.
The government has been overstepping it's boundries for years....they are supposed to keep the COUNTRY (not necessarily, the individuals) safe from the country's enemies.....that's it! They are NOT supposed to keep us safe from ourselves or our decisions.
They are not supposed to support us, financially or emotionally.
So, in answer to your question....NO, the gov't should not interfere with anyone's medical decisions.
I am thinking of the cases where the government steps in and forces parents to have their kids get chemotherapy, even though their personal beliefs are in opposition to such intrusive procedures (I am thinking of the boy a few year's back who had cancer and the government stepped in and forced his parents to get chemo for him).
What gives the government the right to dictate "appropriate" medical procedures?
Their are people who do not believe in blood transfusions, yet, the government can step in and insist that they be given such transfusions.
The premise seems to be that extending life is the governments right and that "they" know what is best for a person, despite any evidence to the contrary.
In the case of the chemo, what if the parent has determined that the cure is worse than the disease? What if they don't believe that death is the worst thing that can happen to someone?
Or what if, instead of a child being the person who is forced to receive medical care over the objection of parents, it is an elderly adult who has always avoided doctors and doesn't believe in traditional medical care. What if the person then develops some condition or disease where surgery is recommended and they don't want it? Because they're elderly, can the government step in and say "we know what's best for you - we are going to force you to have x. y, z procedures for your own good?
What are the laws that allow the government to dictate medical care procedures, how did these laws come to be in existence, and why is it considered ok for the government to say what kinds of medical procedures are appropriate and how is this weighed against a person's particular beliefs?
If I don't want a blood transfusion and would rather die, why would anyone be able to interfere in that decision? I am looking for what these laws are and how they ever came into existence in a country that touts personal freedoms.
Regarding blood transfusions and the government 'forcing' someone to receive one against their will, do you happen to have a link to a credible story?
The reason I ask is that I have worked with patient charts for 14 years as a medical coder in 9 different states, and I have NEVER seen one where this happened, especially -- but not excusively -- where the patient was a Jehovah's Witness.
It doesn't happen.
As far as the rest of your premise, with the exception of children of Christian Scientists whose medical neglect would mean the certain demise of that child without legal intervention***, what other specific instances of governmental intrusion (eg, forced medical procedures/drug therapy/etc) can you provide?
Again, in 14 years I have yet to see cases of government-forced appendectomies, knee replacements, cardiac bypass, et al. That goes for the elderly, as well. In cases where the elderly patient is not of sound mind and has a legal medical Power of Attorney to make decisions, then yes, it would be possible that some procedures and treatments authorized by the POA would be objectionable to the patient if they were able and of sound mind to make their grievances heard. It is then up to the medical staff (and sometimes Risk Management and/or an in-house ethics board) to intervene if the POA's decisions are not in keeping with the best interests of the patient. In cases such as these that I have worked on, it is typically a scenario in which the POA is demanding intrusive treatments, long-term ventilation, or repeated CPR rescues to keep a patient alive who is to the point of (or past) imminent natural death.
But--that would be the POA dictating medical care, NOT the government.
If an elderly person does not want certain procedures performed, then they should have a medical will and a DNR in place for their protection. Not protection from the government, but from medical staff who will otherwise perform their duties to sustain life.
I suppose there's always the Terri Schiavo case, but we all know what particular political persuasion was responsible for that travesty....
I'm not going to provide links - I am just responding to popular news stories I have heard of - don't know what you mean about "particular political persuasion" - I don't want to get into a "liberal/conservative" debate . . .
I specifically asked which laws give the government the right to overstep someone's personal beliefs, re: to determine what is "appropriate" medical care.
And I have heard of cases where people who object to blood transfusions were forced to allow their children to receive them.
There are very good reasons the State has laws for the protection of children. Contrary to what some in this thread believe, you do not have the right to with hold medical treatment that is in the best interests of a minor. I do not have the right to let my child die because I'm opposed to blood transfusions for myself. I do not have the right to allow my child to go blind because I'm opposed to medical treatment that is a tried and true remedy.
I may have the right to oppose treatment that is unproven and experimental or treatment that is unproven. I may have the right to not allow life prolonging treatment in terminal cases.
It's not cut and dried as is the sase in most medical ethics. That is why we have courts!!!
I'm not going to provide links - I am just responding to popular news stories I have heard of
Well of course not. So, essentially this is you speculating about fabricated/imagined scenarios in order to generate hysteria?
Quote:
- don't know what you mean about "particular political persuasion" - I don't want to get into a "liberal/conservative" debate . . .
I may have to be convinced of this one.
Quote:
I specifically asked which laws give the government the right to overstep someone's personal beliefs, re: to determine what is "appropriate" medical care.
Actually, you didn't in so many words.
There is no national standard of what constitutes medical neglect with regard to children. The specifics become a state matter, generally with oversight by each state's CPS division.
Quote:
And I have heard of cases where people who object to blood transfusions were forced to allow their children to receive them.
Now see? Your concern isn't with the harm of medical neglect of a child, it's with the protection of the religious persuasion of their parent, an adult...is the true purpose of your thread the ever-popular 'war on christianity'?
Transfusions for adults who object to them simply do not occur, because an ADULT can legally consent or withdraw consent for medical intervention.
A child cannot do so, and must depend on the adults responsible for their care to act responsibly and in their best interest. When their religious beliefs contradict that and put the child at risk, then the state has a case to intervene.
Certainly you don't believe in the right of a parent to beat a child to a bloody pulp, starve them, pimp them, or marry them off at age 9 IF that parent believes it is dictated by their religion, do you?
Is your thread about the rights of children to a safe environment and access to appropriate medical care, or the right of a religious nut to abuse or neglect their child according to their particular interpretation of their religion?
Last edited by rayneinspain; 03-30-2012 at 01:24 PM..
For a rational adult...no way. If an adult doesn't want to receive life saving care, then that's their choice. For a child...I don't know. Should parents be able to decide they don't want their child to have a life saving blood transfusion? Your job as a parent is to make the best decision for your child. If a parent is beating their child, leaving him or her alone for days at a time, or otherwise not providing proprer care, then the government intervenes. I don't know if there are any clear answers on the issue, but I can't imagine someone letting a child die because the parents refuse care.
Last edited by strawberrykiki; 03-30-2012 at 01:17 PM..
Reason: clarity
I'm not going to provide links - I am just responding to popular news stories I have heard of - don't know what you mean about "particular political persuasion" - I don't want to get into a "liberal/conservative" debate . . .
I specifically asked which laws give the government the right to overstep someone's personal beliefs, re: to determine what is "appropriate" medical care.
And I have heard of cases where people who object to blood transfusions were forced to allow their children to receive them.
No. Once that door is opened they can ban anything in the name of healthcare.
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.
