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.
The poll question was cut off; apparently it was too long.
The question is "should parents be permitted to refuse live-saving medical treatment for their minor children due to religious or other beliefs?"
This is obviously inspired by the 13 year old whose mother does not want him to receive chemo.
The question, in proper context, should be - "Should parents be permitted to choose life-saving medical treatment for their minor children that is different from the treatment offered by the Medical Investment Complex?"
Yup - even considering prayer as a treatment.
The answer is yes.
The government should not be forcing Big Pharma on anyone per se, or anyone under the guardianship of another.
If the government wants to go to court for an opinion on whether religion is irrational, fine! - But that question makes the same challenge as to whether the 1st Amendment is irrational as well.
The question, in proper context, should be - "Should parents be permitted to choose live-saving medical treatment for their minor children that is different from the treatment offered by the Medical Investment Complex?"
Yup - even considering prayer as a treatment.
The answer is yes.
The government should not be forcing Big Pharma on anyone per se, or anyone under the guardianship of another.
If the government wants to go to court for an opinion on whether religion is irrational, fine! - But that question makes the same challenge as to whether the 1st Amendment is irrational as well.
I'm assuming your opinion includes situations in which a lack of treatment is almost certain to cause the child's death, correct?
Location: The Chatterdome in La La Land, CaliFUNia
39,031 posts, read 23,012,380 times
Reputation: 36027
Quote:
Originally Posted by ergohead
The question, in proper context, should be - "Should parents be permitted to choose live-saving medical treatment for their minor children that is different from the treatment offered by the Medical Investment Complex?"
Yup - even considering prayer as a treatment.
The answer is yes.
The government should not be forcing Big Pharma on anyone per se, or anyone under the guardianship of another.
If the government wants to go to court for an opinion on whether religion is irrational, fine! - But that question makes the same challenge as to whether the 1st Amendment is irrational as well.
Wow! This is the first time I have ever agreed with you!
I should mention - I just realized the other thread on this topic had a poll. For some reason, I thought that was only a discussion and did not include a poll, hence the creation of this thread.
This poll is public, though, so there is a difference and all votes are welcome and appreciated. This thread is also more general and not devoted to that specific child.
No. This isn't about situations where parents want to kill their children. It's about physician(s) or the state overriding delusional beliefs.
Well, you are allowed any delusional belief you want as long as it doesn't harm another person.
Of course, that is an after the fact assessment.
I don't like Obama's new preventative crime idea where you can be arrested or detained for a crime "someone" thinks you are bound to commit.
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.
