[quote name='"Penelope420"'] 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.[/quote] If a doctor can be charged for malpractice for killing a embryo that was just conceived how can abortion be anything but murder?
[quote name='"Penelope420"'] 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.[/quote] If the doctor is accusing the parents of child mistreatment why would the burden of proof be on the parents? Why wouldnt the doctor have to proove his assertions against them instead? Seems you have your logic backwards
I think you seriously need to tone down the rhetoric. You are either willfully or ignorantly misrepresenting my position. I never once said that these parents should go to jail or the child should be taken away from them. So, there is no "according to me" anything in what you're arguing. I have no reason whatsoever to think you or your parents, or anyone else should go to jail for the situation you discussed. For fuck's sake. Let's be clear... I absolutely believe in a person's right to medical privacy. I honestly do not know how many times I need to keep repeating that. I also believe that parents have a LOT of rights when it comes to how they choose to raise their children. I think favor and the burden of doubt should always be given to the parents. I say that as a parent, as an aunt, and a friend to many other parents. Who all want the right to raise their children how they want to. But a parent's rights are not infinite. A parent CAN infringe upon the rights of their children. That is the main point I'm making here. And a child does not have the same financial, legal, mental, or physical resources to equally protect his or herself from their parent's decisions or actions. You can distract from the issue all you want to with red herrings about the efficacy of chemotherapy vs. alternative treatments (alternative medicine, btw, can be just as dangerous as chemotherapy). Those are details of this particular case that NONE of us are privy to, so it is absolutely useless to debate them. And abortion has absolutely nothing to do with this argument. I'm talking about alive children, and their rights. The question is who protects the right of the child if there IS a situation where someone strongly believes the parents are grievously infringing upon the child's rights? I'm not talking about "the state". I'm talking about the child's grandparents, or their aunts and uncles, or their teachers who are with the child for hours a day? How do these people help to protect the children they care about? More often then not these are NOT criminal issues. These are civil cases, and they are solved CIVILLY. These parents weren't on trial, nor should they be. The state acts as a mediator that uses a framework of civil laws and case precedent, to bring together medical experts, family, and everyone else who is deeply involved in the case, and allow them all to hear ALL of the facts surrounding the case, and hopefully people can come to a voluntary agreement that is in the best interest of the child. Again, civil cases, not criminal. It only becomes criminal in extreme circumstances- like drowning your kids in a bathtub. How else do you propose we solve these types of domestic civil cases?
When is a child alive Penelope? You are very inconsistent when it comes to children, life, and "expert" opinions. I am very torn when it comes to abortion, I would not pay or push for one but I would not force my views on anyone else either not even my daughter. But as a anarcho-capitalist I believe in private property rights and that starts with owning ones self, and to me life starts at conception the beginning. Otherwise were do you draw the line. If you are raped that violates your private property and abortion is viable. If your life is threatened that threatens your private property and again I can see the case for abortion. But if it is for no other reason it is violating another life "private property". But you seem to want it both ways am I wrong?
I'm not going to debate abortion. It has nothing to do with this topic. You can do a search for past abortion threads if you want to read up on my opinions.
[quote name='"Penelope420"'] 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.[/quote] If a doctor can prove that a human exist at conception should abortion be considered murder?
[quote name='"Penelope420"'] 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.[/quote] Is abortion acting in the best interest of the child ? That is if a doctor or expert or family member or someone deeply involved can prove? I'm sorry for beating a dead horse its just your positions on "living children" and ones not born yet really contradict themselves. No response needed
Wait, Penelope is pro-choice? Pretty odd stance when you seem to care sooooo much about the health of young children...
Please, continue with the red herrings and keep distracting from the topic at hand. I'm not going to explain to you guys the difference between a child with individual rights, a woman with individual rights, and a fetus. Go back to biology class if you need that lesson.
So a fetus isn't the same as a child? So, if the parents would have had some way of knowing that their baby would eventually get cancer down the road, and would wind up in a battle for her life, back in the womb, and therefore decided to abort her then, it would have been okay by you? What if they had had a way of knowing, decided to carry the child to term anyway, just so that they could spend what time she would have with them together, as she was normally, not some drugged out zombie on chemo that sleeps for 22 hours a day? Why is this scenario suddenly worse in your opinion than if they had simply aborted her as a fetus? And what gives you or the state the right to judge them for making the decision they did? At least they got to spend some precious time with her while they could.
GC logic - parents should have the ability to make medical decisions that lead to the death of their child. Also, abortion is wrong.
Statist logic- the state knows what's best for your children, not you. And yes, abortion simply because a baby is unwanted is murder. Murder is wrong.
So let me get this straight... You guys say you believe in a parent's right to medical privacy. Unless it's a pregnant woman? Then it's ok for the state to interfere? A person owns their body. Unless it's a pregnant woman? Again, your mock outrage over abortion is nothing but a red herring. The hypocrisy is just amusing.
I made it absolutely clear that I do not think that the state knows better then a parent what is best for the child. But of course, you are going to keep ignoring that because clearly you have more relevant topics to discuss... like abortion, and how you know better then me what is best for my body.
Sorry Penelope but logically I think its clear you've lost this argument. The government shouldn't have more rights than parents do deciding these things - they're notoriously bad at it. I also personally know two very good friends who've gone through chemo for leukemia. They're lives are forever scarred (one is dead thanks purely to chemo, made him go literally insane prior to his death). BOTH of their doctors specifically told me that if they ever got leukemia, they wouldn't opt for chemo. Several nurses have told me the same. There are much worse things than death and some horrific ways to die. Chemo can save lives for sure, but a parent has the right to weigh in on that incredibly tough decision. If the Government can use force whenever they feel things "aren't in the child's best interesst" the list is absolutely endless. This is never, nor should it ever, be the Governments role.