I was watching an episode of Family Guy and...

[dannno]

ok

but what about children? they have no way of protecting themselves against ignorant parents.

What if the state is ignorant, or worse, what if they are corrupt? Don't you know how big pharma operates? They buy off politicians. If we can force expensive medical treatments on people, then big pharma will send more lobbyists to D.C. to make sure that THEIR treatment is forced on everybody they can.

 

[camp_steveo]

It's called 'due process'. Children aren't the only victims in society. If a crime is committed, we have mechanisms in place to deal with it. The presumption of innocence is the keystone of our criminal justice system. Take seat belt laws....sounds like a great idea, right? But by advocating those laws, you are advocating having an officer peer into your vehicle to enforce those laws. We have become a nation of sheep looking to the 'government' for direction.

so, if a child is diagnosed with cancer and the parents decline medical treatment, is that a crime?

 

[camp_steveo]

Look, the issue is not really this particular case, even a hypothetical. The real issue is the precedent state forced "medical" care presents. Are there some people out there who, for whatever reason good or bad, choose not to send their kids to the hospital? Yep. Just like there are some parents who choose not to send their kids to the state run school.

If we take a hypothetical like this, and react in with this "think of the children" nonsense please pause for a minute and actually think of the children. If we allow the state to mandate a child is taken for treatment for cancer, perhaps a good thing; tell me then how, many kids will be ordered to receive mandatory treatment for more benign, even relative, things like ADD or depression?

In the scheme of things, the number of parents that would endanger their child over their religious beliefs is very small; but the number of kids the state would inevitably order to treatment would be invariably large, and most of the cases I guarantee would be things like ADD, depression, ADHD and other psychological issues that our truly relative. Don't leave out flu shots, mandatory vaccinations, and this list could go on and on and on.

"Big Pharma... they care about the kids." gimme a fuckin break

If we are to live in a land ruled by law, then we need to be very careful in the precedents we set. If we are incapable of setting precedents carefully, than Murray Rothbard is completely right in abolishing the state. It is often evil wins us over with trifles of good.

The point is not about all medical issues. it's only about a diagnosis that ultimately could be a death sentence for the child.

 

[Jingles]

>I was watching an episode of Family Guy

There's your problem!

 

[camp_steveo]

What if the state is ignorant, or worse, what if they are corrupt? Don't you know how big pharma operates? They buy off politicians. If we can force expensive medical treatments on people, then big pharma will send more lobbyists to D.C. to make sure that THEIR treatment is forced on everybody they can.

If we win, and our society actually changes this will no longer be the case. The age of corporatism will be over.

If we are talking about a medical system based on free market principals, shouldn't the parents have a legal obligation to at least try to gain access to serious treatment for a serious disease?

 

[bolil]

Sure it is, for now. But that sets a precedent that the state has the right to "protect" the child from death. Well, what about depression that too can lead to death. ADD can lead to depression. Any number of psychological issues can lead to depression, so lets keep those prescriptions flowin! Shit, the flu can kill, so lets mandate everyone get a flu shot. Since we are talking about the good of the children, it is a well known fact that obesity can lead to death, the cause of obesity is ignorant parents... and since we can't tell which ones are going to be ignorant before hand it seems the only avenue we have to protect the children is to force all parents to bring their kids in for monthly physicals, on their own dime of course. Parents who don't comply, we will just take there kids and put them in foster homes where they are SURE to be treated with more consideration and love. Right? That's the unsaid implications in what you just said. And quite frankly I am disgusted you care so little for children in the name of a child.

You like looking at the narrow issue, I can't help but see ramifications. Hey, the bailout kept food on alot of kids tables. Invading Iraq may have killed thousands of children, but the next generation will have it SOOOOO much better.

 

[bolil]

Who would obligate them? Maybe you?

 

[camp_steveo]

I see what you are saying. It is a slippery slope.

I just want to believe that if a child is literally dying of cancer and not being treated we would want to do something. It is really hard to say that we should just let the parents get away with allowing their child to die when they could have possibly prevented the death.

 

[Revolution9]

Children have liberties too. Thus, I do believe the government does play a role in helping children receive the health care they deserve. A lot of what these super-religious parents are doing is called child-abuse, and they should be tried for that.

And if they just happen to be aware that chemo is massive poisoning and kills much more than cancer cells this hobgoblin will be rolled out as the reason. I would not be surprised if that was the decision in this case but the will of the parents are being undermined by the AMA and big pharma. Peoples faith in modern western medicine is astounding. I believe I read stats that chemo patients had higher mortality rates than non-chemo cancer patients, who often go into remission with not much more than a lifestyle change of habits.

Rev9

 

[otherone]

so, if a child is diagnosed with cancer and the parents decline medical treatment, is that a crime?

Only if proven malicious.
If you refuse to get your child a flu shot, and the child dies, is that a crime? If you can't afford to pay for our over-bloated healthcare, and the child dies, is that a crime? If your child dies of pneumonia, because you forgot to make him wear his scarf, is that a crime? If you get a second opinion, and the second opinion MD doesn't recommend chemo, and the child dies, is that a crime? Allowing the State to 'use their discretion' creates an out of control state.

 

[camp_steveo]

I believe I read stats that chemo patients had higher mortality rates than non-chemo cancer patients, who often go into remission with not much more than a lifestyle change of habits.

Rev9

Do you remember where you read that?

 

[camp_steveo]

Only if proven malicious.

You may be right.

It may not be a crime. However, does a terminal diagnosis give the state the authority to intervene, even though no malice was intended?

 

[otherone]

Children have liberties too. Thus, I do believe the government does play a role in helping children receive the health care they deserve.

I can't let this statement go. The very definition of "Liberty" is what's left over after government is given powers. What you mean to say is 'children have RIGHTS'. And can you explain your 'healthcare they deserve' comment?

 

[otherone]

You may be right.

It may not be a crime. However, does a terminal diagnosis give the state the authority to intervene, even though no malice was intended?

Malice is proven after the fact. Remember the presumption of innocence? Should the ATF take your gun away because you might use it?

 

[camp_steveo]

“...when a child’s life or health is endangered by his or her parents’ decisions regarding the child’s medical care, the state may, in some circumstances, temporarily intervene without violating the parents’ constitutional rights,” Justice Jill Parrish wrote in a unanimous decision.

h XX p://www.sltrib.com/csp/cms/sites/sltrib/pages/printerfriendly.csp?id=51525460

Christian Scientist parents rejected surgery for their son, suffering from a bowel condition, in favor of spiritual treatment. In that situation, Massachusetts’ Supreme Judicial Court ruled that parents, despite their religious beliefs, are obligated to rely on conventional medicine to treat their critically ill children.

h XX p://healthland.time.com/2011/04/14/is-it-murder-if-a-parent-withholds-cancer-treatment-from-her-child/#ixzz1lixkoqDA

 

[Lishy]

What happened in your life to get you to the point where you trust politicians who are owned by big pharma enough to make everybody's health care decisions?!

Imagine there IS a cure for cancer that is found in nature and everybody could be cured of cancer, except that big pharma wants to make money so they use the medical establishment to push a treatment that costs nearly a half million dollars instead of a cure that costs $10? What if I told you that was happening today, and because people support politicians and the laws they make with regard to health care, there are now a few people who are very wealthy and millions of people who are significantly poorer because they or a relative had these expensive cancer treatments?

If you just follow the simple rule that government shouldn't be running our lives, then individuals can decide what the best decision is rather than corrupt men in D.C. Some people will make mistakes, but they will be small, whereas the government through force can make absolutely HUGE mistakes for almost everybody.

Never said anything about trusting their cures for cancer, but more-so in the general scope of things for illness. If you try to pray away something which DOES have a cure, you are neglecting your child. Money is one issue, but making no effort whatsoever for at least alternative cures is another issue. It's a parent's responsibility to research.

I hear magic mushrooms can cure cluster headaches.

Also, which 10 buck cancer treatment are you referring to?

 

[camp_steveo]

Justice Rutledge writing the majority opinion in Prince v. Massachusetts:

Parents may be free to become martyrs themselves. But it does not follow they are free, in identical circumstances, to make martyrs of their children before they have reached the age of full and legal discretion when they can make that choice for themselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_v._Massachusetts

Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the government has broad authority to regulate the actions and treatment of children. Parental authority is not absolute and can be permissibly restricted if doing so is in the interests of a child's welfare. While children share many of the rights of adults, they face different potential harms from similar activities.

 

[ConCap]

So a parent has the right to endanger their own child? Bullcrap. Children are human too. They have natural rights. Letting a parent use them as a guinea pig is just ignoring their right to liberty.

Are you saying, if the Government finds it necessary, they have the right to take that child away or intervene it the Childs behalf, despite the wishes of the parent?

 

[dannno]

Wasn't saying that. I think I actually specifically said that atheists can come to the liberty message.

Of course they can, the numbers show that.

The question is by what mechanism does religion deter people from liberty since obviously religious people vote overwhelmingly against it?

Is religion truly benefiting our liberty when we see those who are without religion are the ones begging for liberty the most?

I think liberty is a huge cornerstone of Christianity in a philosophical sense, I just don't know how to explain that to hundreds of millions of Christians in this country who are brainwashed toward statism because they think the government should force people to act like they are told to act on Sunday by their Minister.

 

[ConCap]

Children have liberties too. Thus, I do believe the government does play a role in helping children receive the health care they deserve.

Are you saying, if the Government finds it necessary, they have the right to take that child away or intervene on the Childs behalf, despite the wishes of the parent?

Even if it is your child?