parental rights re medical care (Daniel Hauser case)

[cali]

Poll question: parental rights re medical care (Daniel Hauser case)

Do parental rights trump the interest of the state in a case where they refuse a medical treatment for their child that's been proven to produce a cure 90% of the time?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

1. To those voting yes, If I may. . .

A charlatan comes to town. Talks a good talk, pulls out ancient looking books, claims that they are the word of god, and preaches from those pages. He's good. Real good. and people believe. He tells them that the power of those ancient pages have the power to enrich, heal, and more, but only if they pray hard enough, and believe it with all their heart. One second of doubt, and they lose. But if their hearts are pure, all that they seek will be theirs.

A doctor comes to town. Sees that there is a subset of diabetes present. He is a surly, sarcastic, extremely intelligent person who suffers no fools. He starts giving insulin, curing those who did not know the cause of their illness.

The charlatan is pissed. Jealous. All that money going to the doctor used to be going to him. He bans his followers from seeing that "fraud, that fake, that DOCTOR!"
(makes him out to be a liberal, no less)

So you folks voting yes support the religious creep, the charlatan, the fraud, who convinced people that prayer will save them from their diabetes, while insulin does not?

fuck that logic. Because it is not logic. No religion can survive the onslaught that science unconsciously creates, because science provides answers, whereas religion replaces logic and thought with blind, idiotic, self-defeating faith.

[cali]

2. true as all that may be, I don't think it applies to the situation

re parents' rights to make medical decisions for their kids v the interest of the state in protecting children.

Must say, I find the early results of this poll interesting.

[The2ndWheel]

3. The problem of choice is that

everyone else also has choice. So, as usual, it comes down to might makes right. If your particular choice, at a particular time, in a particular place, doesn't fit with the particular laws made by particular people, at particular times, in particular places, you can suffer the consequences of your particular choice, even if you think it's the right choice, and had no say in the writing of those particular laws that govern your particular choices. Those laws are as arbitrary as the choices, because they're both made by particular people, in particular places, at particular times.

[Laelth]

4. This is a VERY tough question from a legal standpoint.

There is no clear answer as we have competing values at work. On the one hand we desire to protect the innocent, and we want to cure the sick. On the other hand we have a fundamental right to rear our children as we see fit, and we have a first amendment that guarantees freedom of religion and freedom from a state religion.

On these kinds of questions, our ideals are in conflict, and there is no easy resolution. I voted "dunno."

:dem:

-Laelth

[ChairmanAgnostic]

9. you are correct as the child approaches adulthood

but this brainwashed sickly yute is 13!
No 13 yr old, much less a religious brainwashed kid has the understanding or maturity to make life changing decisions. The state MUST act.

[malaise]

39. So the state acts and takes the child away from his parents

The child is sent to a foster home. The second chemo treatment fails just like the first and the child now dies with a bunch of strangers around him instead of his own family.

Fugging madness.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

40. At least they tried.

Better to die by illness than to be murdered by neglect by your own parents.

[Gormy Cuss]

10. This is a tough question from a legal standpoint, but it's not about freedom of religion.

If the court ordered an adult to undergo treatment that was against his/her personal faith that would be true.

The case is about whether the state has a compelling interest to supersede the parents' authority because of the potential for harm to a child. It is a difficult determination and I hope that the judge weighed all of the arguments carefully.

[ThomWV]

14. I don't think that's true at all. All children are wards of the state, entrusted to their parents

and if the parent fails in their obligation to do what is best for the child - including providing appropriate health care when needed - then the state is perfectly entitled to step in to protect the child.

[Laelth]

19. My understanding is different.

The state may become a ward of any child in its jurisdiction, but until the state elects to make said child a ward (and the state must go through legal processes to make a child a ward and, thereby, protect the parents' right to due process) the child is not a ward. Until the child is a ward, parents have a fundamental right (protected at strict scrutiny) to rear their children as they see fit.

As I said, we have strong, competing interests at work in this question.

:dem:

-Laelth

[ChairmanAgnostic]

20. not completely true.

In any emergency situation, the court will act immediately, assign a guardian, rip the kid out of a dangerous situation faster than you can blink an eye. In illinois, in good faith, the public guardian can actually spot a horrible situation and remove the kid immediately.

The parents may have their day in court, but until that happens, that kid is out of there.

[Laelth]

22. Due process rights can be violated in an emergency.

And states do that regularly, I agree. When that happens, the state becomes the physical custodian and legal custodian of the child on a temporary basis. The child does not automatically become a ward of the state. It takes due process to strip away parental rights on a permanent basis.

:dem:

-Laelth

[sinkingfeeling]

5. In this case, I believe the 'child' has expressed his own desire to stop chemo. Just because he's

under 18, does his opinion not count?

[cali]

7. nope. it doesn't count from a legal standpoint.

personally, I think his wishes should be heard, but not necessarily abided by. The child in question evidently suffers from some disabilities. He's been homeschooled and he can't read.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

16. reading is the devil's tool. confuses the dear angels with facts, and all.

and we KNOW what facts cause!

[DiverDave]

6. My friends cousin had juvenile diabetes

Her parents were convinced by a faker, one of 'gods chosen' to pray her condition away.

She died, a 14 year old girl murdered by her own parents.
You cannot imagine the pain my friend and his family went through.

To withhold ANY treatment based on the healing powers of prayer isn't only stupid, it's criminal.

14 years old, she died with the life saving medicine just down the block, or at the nearest pharmacy.

[cali]

8. tragic. I agree with you. The child in this case has a 90%+ chance

of beating cancer with chemo, and a very small one without it.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

11. and they blamed her for insufficient faith, the bastards.

That is what is so vile about these religious freaks. They say pray, and you shall receive. When you don't 99.999871456% of the time, they BLAME YOU for not praying hard enough.

what surprises me is that this issue is even an issue at DU. Do people here actually support Faith based medicine? Healing by prayer? Anyone else for going back to the 16th century? Anyone? Anyone? Buehler?

[cali]

12. it's a big issue.

in another thread, I saw a number of people repudiating science as definatively as any fundy.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

13. sigh. . . . See what 8 yrs of bush did to everyone?

what a sad, screwed up day.

[cali]

21. it is discouraging. As are the poll responses.

I hope a lot more people vote and the ratio for/against, changes.

[jgraz]

37. Quite the reverse. We got 8 years of Bush because of this know-nothing mentality

It makes me extremely depressed to see alleged "liberals" mouthing the party line of creationists and climate-change deniers.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

38. good points.

But also, scary points, so please stop making them. Can't take any more of this.
I am still pissed about the Gitmo vote.

[jgraz]

41. I get that a lot.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

42. :)

actually, don't
stop
DON'T
STOP
DON'T STOP!

[jgraz]

43. I get that a lot, too.

But in a TOTALLY different context.

:evilgrin:

[The2ndWheel]

15. Ultimately, will humans exist to serve the state?

Will the people will be of, by, and for the government? At some point, does it become inefficient for the role of parent to exist?

[cali]

17. absurd. the position of the state in balancing protecting the interests of

a minor child with the rights of the parents, is legitimate and longstanding.

[The2ndWheel]

23. And also inefficient

If we want the children to grow up with the same opportunities, in the same healthy environments, etc, then how can so much of a child's life be left to chance?

[cali]

24. I have no idea what you're trying to say.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

18. tell me you are joking. Please.

If a parent is sodomizing his son and daughter each day, since the age of three, can the state step in? (I had a case like that once. The most vile set of facts I have ever seen)

If a parent is deliberately not feeding or clothing his kids? can the state take them away and allow them to survive?

If a parent is deliberately preventing fundamental health care, life-saving health care for a kid who has been brainwashed from birth, and is incapable of knowing right from wrong, can the state act on the kid's behalf?

The whole point about having a society is to share the wealth, share the burden, specialize to become efficient, and to protect each member. Kids, in particular, cannot be protected easily, unless the state can interfere with the sperm donor's and the egg hatcher's rights as parental units if those parental units do not meet some basic, life-saving standard. Otherwise, you relegate kids to a role of property, chattel, cattle even, and make them subservient to the whims and crimes that some parents might commit.

The logical end of your argument will mean that kids are slaves to their parents, no matter how bad the parents are.

[The2ndWheel]

26. Why would I be joking?

"The whole point about having a society is to share the wealth, share the burden, specialize to become efficient, and to protect each member. Kids, in particular, cannot be protected easily, unless the state can interfere with the sperm donor's and the egg hatcher's rights as parental units if those parental units do not meet some basic, life-saving standard. Otherwise, you relegate kids to a role of property, chattel, cattle even, and make them subservient to the whims and crimes that some parents might commit."

Like I asked, at some point, will it become inefficient to have the role of parent exist? Will parenting become a specialized occupation regulated by the state? How can you leave the life of the child to the whims of diverse sets of parents with goals that may not coincide with the requirements of the state for the health and welfare of future productive members of society?

[cali]

28. no, parenting will not become obsolete

the state can assist parenting. it can't actually parent. and of course you can have diverse parenting with goals that don't fit with the state. You seem to embrace a view of the state that has no use for the individual.

[The2ndWheel]

33. Other than as a taxpayer, I can't think of one

Alright, we're also expendable on the battlefield.

However, please don't take that as I'm endorsing the corporate side of the coin. The corporation has no use for us other than as a consumer.......................and we're also expendable on the battlefield.

We're slowly becoming cogs in the machine, molded by the state, worn out by the corporation.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

34. precisely what mandatory skuling is - govt input in the ejukashun of kids

[endarkenment]

25. It is murder to withold proven effective treatment for a fatal disease.

So of course the state should intervene. This is not a religious freedom/parental rights issue.

[cali]

27. I don't think it's murder, but it is criminal neglect

[endarkenment]

31. criminal neglect resulting in death: negligent homicide. nt.

[TahitiNut]

29. It's NOT parental "rights" ... it's a parental DUTY to act as a guardian of the child's RIGHTS.

I lose may patience with the rhetoric that infers some innate AUTHORITY or POWER attained by a parent over a child's choices and welfare. It just ain't so. Parents, as human beings, have their own "rights" but that does not include some unchecked and unconstrained power over their children - whose RIGHTS are, under a system of governance that purports to protect individual human rights, of higher priority than parental custody.

There's a distinction between rights and entitlements ... and there's an essential need to comprehend WHOSE 'rights' and WHOSE 'entitlements' are being balanced.

[cali]

32. lose your patience at the legal framework because I framed

the question correctly. There are parental rights and under our system of law, parents do have a high degree of authority over their minor childrens' choices. Parental rights are clearly not unrestrained, but they are highly regarded in the eyes of the laws. Personally, I think this cuts both ways.

[TahitiNut]

35. Horse shit.

:shrug:

[cali]

36. you may think the legal system re parental rights is bullshit

but that won't make it magically vanish.

[WeDidIt]

30. The Danieal Hauser case is cut and dried.

The state was faced with a choice whereby treament has a 90% survival rate and the choice the parents wanted to go with has a 0% survival rate.

It's a cut and dried case. No question that the state is doing the right thing.