Parents on trial for not forcing chemo treatments on son.

[mindwise]

You think the state can make a better decision than the parents? Or you think sometimes the state makes a better decision and sometimes the parents do and we have to decide which one to follow based on how good an argument they make...

Well, it's obviously very complex, and intertwined with the other discussion on morals in which you and foolkiller have gotten me to think a lot (thanks)

I'm with you that most of the time parents will make the best decision most of the time, or at least a good enough decision.
Probably better then 'the system' if you will.

But i don't think all parents make the best decision all the time.

And of the time parents do not take the best decision, it's probalbly trivial.
And even if it's not so trivial, i think it's just part of life
Sometimes however, it's where life itself may part.
There are imo unacceptable situations for that.
I mean, well i am hesitant to come with scenario's, so i'll just keep it at reality

Not to bash on religion because some children are born into families indoctrinating with racial hate for example, but to remain on a more clear example.

If a 10 year old kid of devout Jehovah's Witnesses has an accident and needs a blood transfusion, or chances are 90/10 the child will die.
Then i the parents may to choose for the child ,to abstain from the transfusion (because of their religious beliefs) i don't think this choice should be respected, the child should be given the blood transfusion regardless.
I can show you the pictures of children who actually died in such cases, i'm not saying it was because of this, but plain statistics would suggest at least 90% of them might have lived.

Other cases are known where refusal of vaccination has caused deaths.

In such cases i think the option that is most likely to save the child should be paramount, even the wish of a 13 yo if the child wishes to die.

Where to draw the line, 16, 18, 33, i don't know, i think 21 or so... after a proper education and at least some exposure to (somewhat) responsible life.

Of course this applies to cases as 'home education' and other things, which is worth a discussion too.. but back to the issue...

In the case presented, things are extremely difficult to determine because of the nature of cancer. But we are all sure we have (at least?) a single shot at life.
with cancer, the longer untreated, the worse it probably gets. but noonce can know what treatment will work, if at all.
And like was mentioned, spending your last year alive in chemo is not an improvement.
But we also need to consider medicine progresses every day, and cancer has got a lot of attention.
I am not a medical expert, so i cannot judge this case, but i think that if there is some chance to prologue his life a couple of years, this is preferred.

The important thing again, is that for someone who cannot take the decision, the best decision should be taken for him regardless of the source.

what mechanism to decide?, well, i am not sure, do you have a proposition?

Rgds,

 

[Prosthetic]

Mindwise, here in America 16 is the age where you can "make" your own decisions in these cases. Personally, I still think it should be the kids decision, I would hate for religious belief of the parents make a kid die.

 

[Danoff]

If a 10 year old kid of devout Jehovah's Witnesses has an accident and needs a blood transfusion, or chances are 90/10 the child will die.
Then i the parents may to choose for the child ,to abstain from the transfusion (because of their religious beliefs) i don't think this choice should be respected, the child should be given the blood transfusion regardless.

That would amount to state violation of religious freedom, and property rights. It sounds to me like you're in favor of freedom as long as the result is to your liking. But when people choose to hurt themselves or make poor choices, suddenly freedom is unacceptable. You can't have one without the other.

Other cases are known where refusal of vaccination has caused deaths.

Are you proposing that the state can mandate vaccinations for your children? That's extremely dangerous ground.

The important thing again, is that for someone who cannot take the decision, the best decision should be taken for him regardless of the source.

The "best" decision is impossible to judge. All we can do is put the "best" people in a position to make a decision.

You'd have a much stronger case if you were talking about a child who wanted medication and parents who did not want the child to have it. In that case, I think allowing the child to choose emancipation and possibly foster care is the proper course.

 

[FoolKiller]

Are you proposing that the state can mandate vaccinations for your children? That's extremely dangerous ground.

Let me think.

Swine flu vaccinations killed at least 25 people.
Vaccinations are being blamed as a possible cause of autism.
And you are forcing someone to allow you to inject viruses into their systems.

Oh, and I nearly forgot the newest trend of vaccinationg for things that have very vague links to bacteria, like cervical cancer.


Yeah, forced vaccinations are a very, very dangerous ground.

 

[///M-Spec]

Someone has to speak for (make decisions for) the child - because he cannot do so himself. We have two choices, we can allow his parents to speak for him, or we can allow the state to do so.

There are about a thousand reasons (many of which are painfully obvious) why we should choose the parents as the decision makers here rather than the state.

That's really all there is to it.

Do you think there should be a limit to the types of decisions a parent can make for a child? Or should it be wide open?


Oh gods. I'm posting in opinions again... /tongue in cheek


M

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

That would amount to state violation of religious freedom, and property rights. It sounds to me like you're in favor of freedom as long as the result is to your liking. But when people choose to hurt themselves or make poor choices, suddenly freedom is unacceptable. You can't have one without the other.

What if the kid doesn't want to be a Jehovah's Witness. Would that be a violation of his rights or is the kid too young?

 

[Danoff]

Do you think there should be a limit to the types of decisions a parent can make for a child? Or should it be wide open?

Obviously children retain some rights. So no, it should definitely not be wide open. But the rights they retain are a much smaller set than adults enjoy. In this case, the child's wishes and the parents wishes coincide - so there is no issue of parents attempting to trample the child's rights.

We don't allow children to make their own medical decisions. A parent can force their child to take medication. This is critical because children lack the judgment necessary to determine whether they should take medication. (They also lack the judgment necessary to determine whether to eat broccoli, liver, or run around naked wearing their diaper as a hat.)

Parents can force children to do any of these things. But there is a mechanism for children to have their wishes override those of their parents - in order to do that, though, they have to convince a judge that they'd be better off under the care of the state.

...so it seems to me that the system is not broken.

What if the kid doesn't want to be a Jehovah's Witness. Would that be a violation of his rights or is the kid too young?

You'd have a much stronger case if you were talking about a child who wanted medication and parents who did not want the child to have it. In that case, I think allowing the child to choose emancipation and possibly foster care is the proper course.

 

[Northstar]

A couple articles posted in my paper today.
Daniel's parents agree to chemo, get custody

Hausers: Enticed, then abandoned?

 

[mindwise]

It sounds to me like you're in favor of freedom as long as the result is to your liking. But when people choose to hurt themselves or make poor choices, suddenly freedom is unacceptable. You can't have one without the other.

Come on man, now you are just looking for things, i outlined it quite careful and i explicitly mentioned "but to remain on a more clear example." please don't go this route, what people are you talking about?

My complete post referenced children for whom decisions are made, and this:

Where to draw the line, 16, 18, 33, i don't know, i think 21 or so... after a proper education and at least some exposure to (somewhat) responsible life.

Could have given you a hint wrt to my position on decisions by 'grown ups' if you will. You can also ask me, because i fully support things like euthanasia (and yes, in isolated cases also for children).
Please Danoff, this is the second time you're doing this and i am not amused.

If your 'people' are obviously children, then YES, i do think we need to protect them against themselves at times. (think of things like forced anorexia treatment). (not in every case, before i read i wrote that, but in cases with grave risks to health).

That would amount to state violation of religious freedom, and property rights.

property rights ? sounds great in this case, but anyway, my opinion was not about any legal position, it is just my opinion, and in the JW specific example, consider it as my take on the right of 'freedom from religion' [i know it's freedom OF religion, you don't have to point that out].
A child also has that right has it not, or would you say a 6 year old child can decide the religion it follows is it's parents religion?

Are you proposing that the state can mandate vaccinations for your children? That's extremely dangerous ground.

Fair enough, but so are smallpox and polio etc and on that topic:

Let me think.
Swine flu vaccinations killed at least 25 people.
Vaccinations are being blamed as a possible cause of autism.
And you are forcing someone to allow you to inject viruses into their systems.
Oh, and I nearly forgot the newest trend of vaccinationg for things that have very vague links to bacteria, like cervical cancer.
Yeah, forced vaccinations are a very, very dangerous ground.

Sure,25 dead, it's terrible, but since you are counting, please also count the good things vaccination has done.....take smallpox (from 'untrusty Wiki')

Smallpox is believed to have emerged in human populations about 10,000 BC.[2] The disease killed an estimated 400,000 Europeans each year during the 18th century (including five reigning monarchs), and was responsible for a third of all blindness.[3] Of all those infected, 20–60%—and over 80% of infected children—died from the disease.[6]

and also realize that the choice of some 'not to vaccinate', can in some cases also be a decision for many other people who do want to.

This is a tricky issue, i realize that, but if you want my blunt opinion,i'm not suggesting to force life threatening vaccination on everyone, but please let's evaluate every instance carefully. There are times i support eradication, and yes, if necessary by force.
if someone calls me 'immoral' for that, i care, but i still support it and i even believe it's the right thing to do. especially in the case of children.

The "best" decision is impossible to judge. All we can do is put the "best" people in a position to make a decision.

And you say that is nearly always the parents? or just that you have 'a thousand reasons' for that?
Or do 'the best people' depend on the decision that has to be made?
Like an oncologist in the case of cancer, and an ER Doctor in a situation the doctor deems a blood transfusion may be needed?

All i said is that the child has the right that the best choice be taken for him.
What mechanism to determine what is the best choice i left to you..

what mechanism to decide?, well, i am not sure, do you have a proposition?

But now you have given a mechanism, when you apply that to the JW blood issue, whose decision is it then? the parents or the Doctor?

You'd have a much stronger case if you were talking about a child who wanted medication and parents who did not want the child to have it. In that case, I think allowing the child to choose emancipation and possibly foster care is the proper course.

I think the bloodtransfusion case is strong enough, the scenario you present is pretty obvious indeed, hardly any discussion.
But, funny enough, nowhere did i mention anything about foster care, and i think it is now you who is on thin ice. foster care for a (singel) disagreement on medical care? That does not yet mean the child is not living in loving family, i think your stepping to far ahead here.
On top of that, if we apply your "put the "best" people in a position to make a decision", it would not really be an issue, or am i missing something?

In many religious cases, the child does not want to let down the parents or god or whoever.
Sure, i can expect 'but some people died because of contaminated blood'.....That's certainly what the Jehovah's claim.
Oddly enough, that's not the reason they refuse a blood transfusion. And in a life threatening situation, it's not really significant imo.

 

[FoolKiller]

Sure,25 dead, it's terrible, but since you are counting, please also count the good things vaccination has done.....take smallpox (from 'untrusty Wiki')

Do not mistake my defending the right to make unwise choices as condoning that action. I support legalizing all drugs and prostitution, but I do not condone the use of drugs or prostitution. Similarly, I find forced vaccinations a violation of rights, but I encourage everyone to get them for such things as smallpox, the seasonal flu, mumps, measles, etc. Heck, I got a pneumonia vaccine just last month.

Defending the right to do something is not the same as encouraging those to do it. I defend rights, but I encourage intelligent thinking.

and also realize that the choice of some 'not to vaccinate', can in some cases also be a decision for many other people who do want to.

Aside from parents vs children or guardians vs dependents how so? If I opt to not get a vaccine I do not prevent anyone else from getting it. And the reason we have a parent/guardian situation is because those in their care are believed to not be able to make their own decision on the topic. Picking and choosing which cases should be over-ruled leads to a slippery slope, which eventually leads to government trampling the rights of people in all cases for the "common good" when in truth the best thing for the common good is the defense of rights.

There are times i support eradication, and yes, if necessary by force.

Why use force to get disease eradication? Why trample rights? It is not necessary if your science is good (as it is in most vaccination cases, although the autism debate is causing issues there) and you properly educate the public. But sometimes, such as the 1976 swine flu vaccine, it is not and the result is that you kill more people than the disease. Or you attempt to force vaccines that are questionable, such as the cervical cancer "vaccine" situation the US recently dealt with.

 

[///M-Spec]

Obviously children retain some rights. So no, it should definitely not be wide open. But the rights they retain are a much smaller set than adults enjoy. In this case, the child's wishes and the parents wishes coincide - so there is no issue of parents attempting to trample the child's rights.

We don't allow children to make their own medical decisions. A parent can force their child to take medication. This is critical because children lack the judgment necessary to determine whether they should take medication. (They also lack the judgment necessary to determine whether to eat broccoli, liver, or run around naked wearing their diaper as a hat.)

Parents can force children to do any of these things. But there is a mechanism for children to have their wishes override those of their parents - in order to do that, though, they have to convince a judge that they'd be better off under the care of the state.

...so it seems to me that the system is not broken.

Why don't we allow children to make their own medical decisions? I'm not trying to sound cheeky here; we just need to start from the beginning to see where our opinions diverge.


M

 

[Danoff]

Come on man, now you are just looking for things, i outlined it quite careful and i explicitly mentioned "but to remain on a more clear example." please don't go this route, what people are you talking about?

My complete post referenced children for whom decisions are made, and this:

Could have given you a hint wrt to my position on decisions by 'grown ups' if you will. You can also ask me, because i fully support things like euthanasia (and yes, in isolated cases also for children).
Please Danoff, this is the second time you're doing this and i am not amused.

The "people" I was referring to are the parents. You seem to be all for their freedom/responsibility to choose for their child until their choices are not to your liking - then you think they should not have any say in the matter.

You can't have it both ways. If you think the parents should be in the decision-making position, you need to be prepared for some parents to make choices you disagree with.

A child also has that right has it not, or would you say a 6 year old child can decide the religion it follows is it's parents religion?

I would say a parent can decide that their 6-year-old go through certain medical procedures or religious traditions regardless of what the 6-year-old says.

and also realize that the choice of some 'not to vaccinate', can in some cases also be a decision for many other people who do want to.

I admit that in some cases the government, as a necessary evil, may need to step in. But that should be a last resort.

And you say that is nearly always the parents? or just that you have 'a thousand reasons' for that?
Or do 'the best people' depend on the decision that has to be made?
Like an oncologist in the case of cancer, and an ER Doctor in a situation the doctor deems a blood transfusion may be needed?

The people in the best position to make a decision on behalf of the child are its parents/guardians. Not doctors, not senators, and not the president.

All i said is that the child has the right that the best choice be taken for him.
What mechanism to determine what is the best choice i left to you..

I choose to have the parents decide.... but you don't seem to agree.

But, funny enough, nowhere did i mention anything about foster care, and i think it is now you who is on thin ice.

Yes. I brought up foster care - for a reason.

foster care for a (singel) disagreement on medical care?

If the child wants life-saving medication and the parents do not want the child to have it, would you prefer that the child died? I would prefer that the child had the ability to select new parents.

This is obviously an extreme circumstance. Emancipation is a child asking the state to intervene on his behalf in hopes of finding guardians who are more reasonable. I think if the child wants this, the avenue needs to be there.

Why don't we allow children to make their own medical decisions? I'm not trying to sound cheeky here; we just need to start from the beginning to see where our opinions diverge.

For the same reason we don't let them drive, own firearms, vote, or drink. Because they are assumed to lack the judgment necessary to do so responsibly until their brain and experience develops to an arbitrary extent. After that point, we refuse (as a society) to restrict those freedoms.

 

[mindwise]

Do not mistake my defending the right to make unwise choices as condoning that action.

?? how did you get from what i said to this ??

Aside from parents vs children or guardians vs dependents how so? If I opt to not get a vaccine I do not prevent anyone else from getting it.

Sure, i already conceded your 'individual rights', but in such case, neither are you preventing someone from getting the disease from you either. Perhaps such a scenario sounds far out, but i think it is not an impossible scenario:
With incubation time and not knowing if someone else was already vaccinated, one might just infect other people. That's all i meant.
surely there is a conflict of interest in that case.
Some deceases thought to have been eradicated are surfacing again
Such choices do not just affect the invidual, a bit like dangerous driving which is illegal.

I fully understand you have a complete point with individual rights (still talking outside the 'child' thing) but i also see a point in i.e. quarantining people to protect from possible spreading of a disease. (i'm NOT saying you are against it (or for it ), and though that is not forced vaccination (which would obviously be too late) it's somewhat related i think.

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: At least three diseases that were thought to have been eradicated years ago through routine immunization of children are being reported again in Kerala. The resurgence of "vaccine-preventable" diseases such as diphtheria, tetanus, Pertussis (whooping cough) and measles has become a major public health concern.

(the Hindu, 2005)

Why use force to get disease eradication?

.
[Because there is nothing good about deceases like polio. polio for example is a terrible disease that destroys lives, i think humanity is better off without it, it's good to have principles such as 'individual rights', but there are cases in which such principles just for the principle of it does not make sense, at least not to me.
We also need to be practical at times.

Why trample rights? It is not necessary if your science is good (as it is in most vaccination cases, although the autism debate is causing issues there) and you properly educate the public.

Because it's shown time and again that for some people 1+1 =/= 2
But the 'free choice' they make can and sometimes does have an unnecessary yet devastating effect on many other people..

But sometimes, such as the 1976 swine flu vaccine, it is not and the result is that you kill more people than the disease. Or you attempt to force vaccines that are questionable, such as the cervical cancer "vaccine" situation the US recently dealt with.

Sure, i already acknowledged that, i wonder why you didn't quote what i said right before that passage?

This is a tricky issue, i realize that, but if you want my blunt opinion,i'm not suggesting to force life threatening vaccination on everyone, but please let's evaluate every instance carefully. There are times i support eradication, and yes, if necessary by force.

===

For the same reason we don't let them drive, own firearms, vote, or drink. Because they are assumed to lack the judgment necessary to do so responsibly until their brain and experience develops to an arbitrary extent. After that point, we refuse (as a society) to restrict those freedoms.

But if it was legal (and there are countries where it is), it is fine for parents to give a loaded gun to a 6 year old, if the kids wants it and the parents agree, then that's all there is to it right?

You seem to be all for their freedom/responsibility to choose for their child until their choices are not to your liking - then you think they should not have any say in the matter.

Indeed, and "You seem to be all for their freedom/responsibility to choose for their child until" the law prohibits it (which can be a definition of society ^). of course the law is never wrong, so what on earth am i thinking here.....
if the parents decide for the kid the best choice is taking a considerable risk of dying because of some obscure bible verse, then that indeed is way over my threshold of 'not to my liking' to want to stop such nonsense from happening. The kids on the cover underneath are really dead now, so foster care won't be necessary.

(The cover of the May 22, 1994 Awake magazine)

 

[FoolKiller]

?? how did you get from what i said to this ??

I was just clarifying because I wasn't completely clear on your meaning.

Sure, i already conceded your 'individual rights', but in such case, neither are you preventing someone from getting the disease from you either. Perhaps such a scenario sounds far out, but i think it is not an impossible scenario:
With incubation time and not knowing if someone else was already vaccinated, one might just infect other people. That's all i meant.

So, let me get this straight, by not getting vaccinated, thus risking catching the disease myself, I may also cause someone else, not vaccinated, to catch that disease? I made a choice to take that risk and so did whoever caught the disease from me. If the vaccines are working I am not endangering anyone who chose to get a vaccine, correct?

Some deceases thought to have been eradicated are surfacing again
Such choices do not just affect the invidual, a bit like dangerous driving which is illegal.

Yes, these disease are resurfacing again, large part due to way too many parents buying into the sketchy autism debate. Of course, the question for these parents is if they find risking a lifelong condition, autism, is worth preventing a disease that has a chance of recovery. For a parent that believes the autism risk is too high what right does anyone have to force them get their child vaccinated? Better yet, what do you do if further study does show autism linked directly to vaccines? Do you force them to take whichever risk the government finds acceptable or let them decide?

That is the main issue with the vaccine debate: That either choice has risks, but one of those risks is a permanent condition.

I fully understand you have a complete point with individual rights (still talking outside the 'child' thing) but i also see a point in i.e. quarantining people to protect from possible spreading of a disease.

How far does your thought on quarantining go? Recoverable disease, such as mumps, may allow a person the ability to go out in public, but the almost sure to kill you diseases, like small pox, kind of self-quarantine as the patient isn't going anywhere on their own.

The problem with quarantine is that while in some cases it may be deemed necessary it has to be well thought out first, because it is basically imprisoning someone just for getting sick.

Because it's shown time and again that for some people 1+1 =/= 2

I see people do stupid things every single day, but I do not desire to take away their right to do so, and I take my own proper actions to make sure their bad decisions do not inadvertently affect me. In this case, I do get a vaccine.

But the 'free choice' they make can and sometimes does have an unnecessary yet devastating effect on many other people.

By that definition you could outlaw any number of things that we all enjoy every day. In fact, the US does that already. I don't intend to open the door for them to do it even more.

Sure, i already acknowledged that, i wonder why you didn't quote what i said right before that passage?

Because in the case of the 1976 swine flu case it was not known that it would be risky until after people began getting sick. Your comment had no bearing on that case, and the cervical cancer "vaccine" is not life threatening, although they did attempt to force it on all 12-year-old girls.

The problem with the 1976 case is that Congress, with good intentions like yours, chose to violate the rights of US citizens. Only two members, both doctors, voted against it. If they had known that its effect would have been deaths and even permanent conditions they wouldn't have voted for it. But they did, and in the end swine flu killed one person while the forced vaccines did much, much worse. Had the vaccines been voluntary the issues would have still existed, but once it became apparent there was a problem others could have chosen to not get it.

 

[///M-Spec]

For the same reason we don't let them drive, own firearms, vote, or drink. Because they are assumed to lack the judgment necessary to do so responsibly until their brain and experience develops to an arbitrary extent. After that point, we refuse (as a society) to restrict those freedoms.

Okay, so we're still on the same page so far. But here's the rub: children are judged 'not competent' to make decisions about their own medical care (as well as all the other things you mention) --but you think they should be allowed to select new parents? I just don't follow that.


M

 

[FoolKiller]

Okay, so we're still on the same page so far. But here's the rub: children are judged 'not competent' to make decisions about their own medical care (as well as all the other things you mention) --but you think they should be allowed to select new parents? I just don't follow that.


M

If they feel their parents are also not competent they can take their case to a judge. The judge must determine this, as any kid that wanted to run away because he doesn't like vegetables could claim emancipation otherwise.

 

[mindwise]

I was just clarifying because I wasn't completely clear on your meaning.

Solved, i'm just a bit on my toes since some other 'incidents' (not by you as you clarified, thanks)

So, let me get this straight, by not getting vaccinated, thus risking catching the disease myself, I may also cause someone else, not vaccinated, to catch that disease? I made a choice to take that risk and so did whoever caught the disease from me. If the vaccines are working I am not endangering anyone who chose to get a vaccine, correct?

Yes, well i have to admit the 'incubation time' and 'not yet vaccinated' was a bit far-fetched. I must take this back since i am not sure vaccination would always be needed once a virus was 'erradicated' for a decade or 10
(i suppose not because even if everyone was willing to get vaccinated, it would not be achievable to vaccinate everyone. Hence i am braking the 'unrealistic scenario' rule i took over from you.
But i hope you get the point, if it would (here we go again) apply to a certain situation, would that change things for you? (just curious)

Yes, these disease are resurfacing again, large part due to way too many parents buying into the sketchy autism debate. Of course, the question for these parents is if they find risking a lifelong condition, autism, is worth preventing a disease that has a chance of recovery. For a parent that believes the autism risk is too high what right does anyone have to force them get their child vaccinated? Better yet, what do you do if further study does show autism linked directly to vaccines? Do you force them to take whichever risk the government finds acceptable or let them decide?

Well, it depends on the nature of the decease and the (to be fair 'estimated) risks, but i can imagine a point where i see the balance shift to 'force', yes.

That is the main issue with the vaccine debate: That either choice has risks, but one of those risks is a permanent condition.

yes., see above.

How far does your thought on quarantining go? Recoverable disease, such as mumps, may allow a person the ability to go out in public, but the almost sure to kill you diseases, like small pox, kind of self-quarantine as the patient isn't going anywhere on their own.

yes, something like that, of course the 'contamination level' and spread method (body contact / avian) are important factors too.

The problem with quarantine is that while in some cases it may be deemed necessary it has to be well thought out first, because it is basically imprisoning someone just for getting sick.

Fair enough, but i still agree to the answer above i think. i guess one of the problems is that the more serious the threat, the less time there is.

I see people do stupid things every single day, but I do not desire to take away their right to do so, and I take my own proper actions to make sure their bad decisions do not inadvertently affect me. In this case, I do get a vaccine.
By that definition you could outlaw any number of things that we all enjoy every day. In fact, the US does that already. I don't intend to open the door for them to do it even more.

Well, i';ll take your word for it, i live in the Neterlands, and i'm told we're a very liberal country by i.e. americans

 

[///M-Spec]

If they feel their parents are also not competent they can take their case to a judge. The judge must determine this, as any kid that wanted to run away because he doesn't like vegetables could claim emancipation otherwise.

So basically you think the state should be the final arbiter on who is fit to be a parent? Dan, you agree with this?


M

 

[FoolKiller]

So basically you think the state should be the final arbiter on who is fit to be a parent?

When it comes to things such as human rights violations, such as abuse, yes. If parents have shown incompetence to the point that they do violate the rights we do grant to children then the state is the final arbiter, as defense of human rights is what the government is supposed to do.

Of course, there are likely to be situations, such as the one that started this thread, where I would say the state is over stepping their legal bounds, which is a major issue I have with the government as a whole right now.

So, in a simple answer to your question: Yes, but the state has some very narrow constraints within which it can make that final call.

 

[///M-Spec]

Well let's put the Hauser case aside for the moment. I would prefer for us to discuss ideally, what the state should and should not do, before we get into where this particular case fits in. Let's see if Dan is on board with your response before we go on.


M

 

[Danoff]

Well let's put the Hauser case aside for the moment. I would prefer for us to discuss ideally, what the state should and should not do, before we get into where this particular case fits in. Let's see if Dan is on board with your response before we go on.

Emancipation is initiated by the child but carried out by the state. At no point is the child trusted to judge whether emancipation is a necessary course of action, and at no point is the child trusted to select new guardians (if that happens).

If the parents insist upon a course of action that will threaten the life of the child and the child did not agree, I think it is acceptable for the child to ask the state to interfere on his behalf - not to make the parenting decision or force the parents to make any decisions (either of which would be a completely improper role for the state), but to either emancipate the child from guardianship altogether, or to place the child under foster care.

This is obviously to be used in extreme circumstances, and I would say that each of the cases need to involve preserving the life of the child (eg: parental refusal of basic medical treatment, nutrition, shelter,...) or severe permanent damage (eg: medicine, education, physical abuse...).

Children are always an incredibly tricky subject for freedom-loving people. They clearly need a subset of rights, and it's often difficult to determine which rights they have, how, and when.

So if we take this case and twist it a bit to make it more difficult - assuming the child wanted the chemo and the parents refused. I think it's a very difficult call as to whether that is sufficient grounds for emancipation. I would lean toward "yes", given that the parents are supposed to act as guardians - but I wouldn't be horrified if the answer were "no". A few things are critical here. We cannot require the parents to:

- Provide the child with chemo
- Consent to government-provided chemo
- Abide the child's wishes

The only course of action is to revoke guardianship and give it to someone else (or no one). And a demonstrable threat to the child's life or permanent well being should be required to do so (which I tend to think this example would satisfy).

 

[///M-Spec]

Why does the wishes of the child have any bearing on whether or not the state can emancipate the child or uphold the decisions or guardianship of his/her parents? We have already concluded the child is not competent to judge what is in his or her best interests. Therefore, in plain English, we've already decided what the child wants doesn't matter.

Think about this: what if the child isn't old enough to speak? Do we only grant the possibility of emancipation to children old enough say "I don't want to go home with mommy?"

Going from the framework we have built so far, the moral authority for emancipation must come from outside the wants of the child. But rather, from the obligation of the state to protect the child's welfare.

Also, Dan, I don't know if you realize this or not, but you didn't really answer my question. If the child is to be removed from the custody of his or her parents, who makes the final decision? The child, the parent of the state? Who is the final arbiter of this?


M

 

[FoolKiller]

Why does the wishes of the child have any bearing on whether or not the state can emancipate the child or uphold the decisions or guardianship of his/her parents? We have already concluded the child is not competent to judge what is in his or her best interests. Therefore, in plain English, we've already decided what the child wants doesn't matter.

Think about this: what if the child is not young to speak? Do we only grant the possibility of emancipation to children old enough say "I don't want to go home with mommy?"

The moral authority for emancipation must come from outside the wants of the child.


M

As the husband of a woman who was taken from her biological parents before she was three, I can guarantee you that it is not always left up to the child being able to speak their thought on the matter.

The moral authority for emancipation does come from outside the wants of the child, which is why, as Danoff and I have both stated at this point, it is carried out by the state. A child may request it, but that means nothing more than if a babysitter reported abuse. In both cases the state will investigate the case and then determine if emancipation is actually the best course of action for maintaining the safety of a child. A child's wish for emancipation at the beginning does nothing more than bring attention to a potentially problematic situation.

In some cases you may find a child desires emancipation just because they don't like the legitimate rules set by the parents. In other cases you may find that child doesn't desire emancipation, but they don't realize that they are being abused. If the child is old enough to speak their mind intelligently, like a teenager, their opinion may have more weight than say a five-year-old child. I know in my parents' divorce their was a custody battle over me, but not my brother. I was 12 and he was 16. His opinion was accepted by the courts, mine wasn't because I was not yet 14, which was apparently some form of legal line drawn for such cases. In the end, my brother's opinion was the same as mine and that was taken into account. I'm sure my father's infidelity didn't help his case much either, but that is beside the point.

 

[///M-Spec]

^ Sounds good so far, FK. I also added a little more to my post and changed my grammar error.

EDIT: Okay, let me nitpick for a second. You guys use the language "carried out by the state". I am using the language "the state is the final arbiter". There's an important distinction between the two phrases. One has significantly more authority than the other.

The state is not simply carrying out someone's wishes: it is making a decision and has been given the moral authority to do so by "the people of the state of (insert state of child's residence here)".

I promise next time I'll try harder to finish a post before I hit the "save" button ;P


M

 

[Danoff]

The child's wishes are not entirely irrelevant. What I am saying is that if there is a conflict between the parents and the child, the parents win if the state does not intervene. If there is not a conflict, unless there is some sort of rights violation, the state cannot intervene.

What I am describing is a situation in which the child can have some say over critical decisions even above the parents if the state recognizes it. Otherwise, some sort of rights violation must occur for the child to be removed.

Allow me to flesh out my point a bit with a hypothetical (these always work ).


Scenario 1
A child is being abused. The child's teacher reports it to the state. The state investigates, finds that the parents are guilty of assault/battery/whatever else, throws the parents in jail for rights violations and emancipates the child.

Anyone can uphold the rights of the child. It doesn't matter who. If you see a parent about to punch a child in the face, you're totally authorized to protect that child with force (same for adults).

Scenario 2
A child's parents are refusing to allow him to accept a blood transfusion. The child wishes the blood transfusion and it may save his life. This is a severe conflict. Life is on the line, the person who's life is on the line is being forced against his/her wishes to take extreme unnecessary risk. This kind of forcible endangerment is a kind of rights violation (given that children have strange fuzzy rights, it's not a clear-cut area). Since it is a rights violation, the state is authorized to intervene. But I would argue that if it were not forcible, if it were voluntary endangerment, it would not be a rights violation.

Scenario 3
This is analogous to the case this thread is about. The child does not want to have a medical procedure, and the parents concur. In this case, where is the rights violation? One might argue that children are not capable of giving their consent in a situation like this - but who else's judgment can we use? The state can only interfere if someone's rights are being violated, and I can't figure out how that's happening.

- Is the child being forced to do something against his will? No. (if the answer were yes, it's a gray area)
- Is the child being physically assaulted? No.
- Is the child's property being taken? No.
- Does the child have a right to arbitrary levels of medical care? No.
- Do the parents have freedom of religion? Yes.
- Do the parents have the authority to speak for the child on religious matters? Yes.
- Do the parents have the authority to speak for the child on medical matters? Yes.
- Does the state have a right to force medical care upon anyone? No.

I don't see any way in which this scenario is within the realm of state interference.

 

[///M-Spec]

So I've been way too busy lately to give this thread the adequate attention it deserves....

..you guys wanna pick up where we left off?


M

 

[Danoff]

So I've been way too busy lately to give this thread the adequate attention it deserves....

..you guys wanna pick up where we left off?

Well, you know me. I'm always up for a discussion.