Who decides what is best for your child?

What asinine assumptions did I make?

You're the one that said I "ALWAYS" trust anything the medical industry says. I suppose it's ok for you to make asinine assumptions, but when the same question is asked of you, I'm somehow out of line?

The point I'm making is that I would trust a medical professional over something I read, or watched, on the internet.

This is the EXACT point I'm trying to make. What gives a parent the right to withhold a legitimate medical treatment and force their child to be treated in a way that is not in her best interest?

I don't care what alternative treatments you would seek out. You have the right to do whatever you want to YOUR body. I don't think you have the right to force those treatments on a child.

 

But the government does?

 

I think it should be handled exactly how it was handled in this case.

The doctor - who is also responsible for the care of his/her patients - and the parents can each present their facts to mediator. If the parents can provide a second, or third opinion, and prove (with science) that their "alternative treatment" is effective then they should be allowed to carry on.

If the doctor can prove that withholding treatment is NOT in the best interest of the child, and could possibly result in death, then it should be treated like any other case of child abuse.

 

So chemo can no longer "possibly result in death"? Science disagrees.

And why is it the doctor's responsibility? Because he knows more about medical treatment? If that's the case, should parents be thrown in jail for giving their children McDonald's because a nutritionist said it's bad for them? Is football for blind children child abuse also?

This is what consent forms are for. Doctors give advice. Not rulings.

 

Risk vs benefit. There is a risk of dying from chemotherapy, but the chance of dying from Leukemia without it is almost certain.

 

It's the doctor's responsibility because the parent's place their daughter in his care. They MADE IT his responsibility.

The rest of your post is just a slippery slope argument.

 

There are medical professionals who believe if you smoke weed, you are unfit to raise a child. If you go to such a doctor, and tell them you smoke weed, is it their responsibility to call CPS on you?

And if the child becomes the doctor's responsibility (no idea where you got this from), then shouldn't the doctor be charged in a case of accidental death? Meaning EVERY chemo case that ends in death? Isn't that manslaughter? Would be if he wasn't a "medical professional". And all doctors are not equal. What if he recommended chemo prematurely?

 

Again, more slippery slope arguments. This is why we have a court of law... to look at individual cases, and make a ruling based on the facts presented.

To your first scenario, there is still such a thing as "doctor-client privilege". If the doctor is convinced that you are putting your child's life at risk by smoking cannabis, then it is up to him to prove it.

If your child dies accidentally in the care of your doctor, and you feel it was because of wrong-doing, then you have the right to present your facts to a court.

Why don't you answer my very simple questions that I posed several pages back?

At what point does the child's right to life outweigh a parent's right to make any/all decisions?

What gives a parent the right to withhold medical treatment from a sick child?

Do you think a parent has the right to withhold food from a child? How do delineate the difference between withholding food and withholding life-saving medical care?

 

1. When a parent's decision is intentionally to harm the child. Putting babies in microwaves, beating them with chairs, kicking and punching them, etc.

2. Responsibility for the child. If your kid takes your car and wrecks into someone, YOU are responsible. If your kid goes missing, and you do NOTHING, YOU get in trouble. If you fall asleep and your kid sets the kitchen on fire, YOU are responsible. If YOU are responsible for what THEY DO, how do you NOT have the right to decide what THEY DO? What if the parent AND the child don't want chemo? When children are legally allowed to sign their own consent forms, you'll have a point.

3. Food is a necessity for 100% of people to live. There has NEVER been a person to live without eating. There HAVE been people who have cancer that has gone into remission or outright disappeared completely without chemo.


The reason I'm arguing you on this is because I'm living with chronic disease and in your opinion my parents should be in prison and I should've been raised in a foster home. This is not just a hypothetical for me.

 

You say that parents are responsible for caring for their children.

But if no one is allowed to hold them accountable, then they have no responsibility at all.

 

I think the OP was never really answered and this thread has descended into semantics.

The government does not decide what is best for the child. Like hell.

The parents do. The government was overstepping its authority. End of discussion. The fundamental principle is is that the government isnt allowing parents the right to raise their children the way they see fit. I can only see this as an incremental step towards a further tightening iron grip by the state.

 

Chemotherapy doesn't always help the patient. Sometimes, it just kills them faster and reduces their quality of life.

Furthermore, it's generally impossible to prove after the fact whether or not chemotherapy actually helped the patient if the patient dies. There are way too many factors to take into consideration to say with any significant amount of certainty that chemo made things worse. As long as doctors follow the general consensus within medicine, they're pretty safe regardless of whether their actions were the best given the knowledge available.

Finally, not all chemo drugs are created equal. Some have better results than others. Something tells me that if the government was going to force someone to take certain drugs, they weren't going to receive the best possible care.

-------------

Yes, people have a right not to be murdered. No, people do not have a "right to live".

The parents deciding what's best has a line. If the parents decide that it's best for them to physically or sexually abuse their child, then obviously, what the parents decide is not what's best.

 

But the law IS allowed to hold them accountable. I just listed multiple scenarios of that exact thing.

 

You are the one that continuously argues against the state.

These types of cases have been fought for decades, and legal precedent has established that a parent does not always have the final say over their child's medical care if they are not acting in their best interest. There IS a point where the child's right to life out weighs parental control. Our courts are there to help define that line.

 

When I was 13, my doctor said I was malnourished and needed a feeding tube. I decided I didn't want it, and my parents let me make the decision. My parents/me denied treatment. According to you, this is when they go to jail, and I go to a foster home and live with a bunch of people that are destined to be fucked up. When I was 14, I decided to get the feeding tube. Not because I wanted it or thought I needed it, but because my doctor kept recommending it and I was getting tired of hearing the same shit every 3 months. I kept that feeding tube until I was 16, when it fell out, and I decided I did not want it replaced. I still don't have it @ age 22. But I do have a fucked up abdomen and can NEVER have a 6 pack. And there's still a scar that looks like a hole. You can imagine how much fun I have at the beach. My parents should be in jail according to you, OMG they denied me FOOD....SMH. Like I said, it sets a bad precedent. Yes, there are situations where the gov'ts choice would make more sense, but they do NOT have the right to decide what happens to YOUR child.

 

The fuck Penelope?

Seriously, medical decisions are made within the family. It is 100% up to the parents and child to make the decisions on what they want to do.

Parents should guide their child through the situation and the child should ultimately get the final say if they are old enough.

Fuck the government. Fuck your bullshit. Fuck anyone telling my family what to do in medical situations.

Why is there even a conversation going on about this???

 

I'd rather be dead than be taken from my parents, held by government thugs, and be emotionally scarred for the rest of my fucking life.

Get a grip already...

 

[quote name='"Penelope420"']

So you believe that a parent has the right to withhold life-saving medical treatment from their children?

Does a parent have the right to withhold food from their children?

At what point does the child's right to life outweigh the parent's right to make any/all decisions?

I mean, I'm sure you wouldn't support a parent's right to starve their child to death? Or maybe you do...[/quote]

But where do you stand on abortion hmmmm? Penelope