0 votes

Poll: Should parents be allowed to refuse treatments for their sick children?

http://www.newsvine.com/_question/2009/05/15/2822182-should-...

***And are they going to force the parents to pay for the chemo?

OBAMA = O.ne B.ig A.ss M.istake A.merica!



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Lacandy: You've made the Pro-Life argument

It seems almost all DP is in agreement that a parent has 100% right to refuse treatments for their children -- to make all medical decisions.

This will need to include abortion - as well.

Both positions are the RP position and the Individualist position
---Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness
---Anti-Welfarist argument
---Free-Market position

Octobox

Unfortunately, polls are meaningless...

Most especially true in this instance.

The question you are really trying to ask is this:

"Should the government be able to decide what is best for you or your child?"

The answer is no.

I may not know the truth, but I know when I'm being lied to...

I may not know the truth, but I know when I'm being lied to...

depends on which side of the

depends on which side of the border you're standing.

like the old saying goes, if you don't like the rules, go somewhere where you do like the rules.

the government has no legal authority to tell you to butcher

your children with these barbaric Cancer rituals of slice and dice then radiate the hell out of you when there are so many good ways to cure cancer .

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Live like you mean it ..... Your life is your own !

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Stop the NWO....It's just illumi..Naughty !

Morality

Judges intervene all the time on behalf of the patient. Once you are a patient, the hospital must do what it can to "save you" including getting the court to intervene.

I wonder if the child in question has insurance?

The right of the patient or parent supercedes that of government


Yes, there will be times when in some people's opinions that will be unfortunate, however when the government steps in to force people to do things, they will begin forcing everyone.


Ron Paul's Convention Speech

Chemo can kill....

in many cases.....
if a parent chooses to use alternative means or some other .... that should be their freedom to do....

I can't believe "authorities" are looking for her to arrest -

my father was dying when he was taking chemo - it shuts down all your immune systems ...then he stopped .... he began eating - and is doing great for over 2 years since stopping ....

(I do know it has been helpful is some cases too)

but - it is still poisons being put into your system

and if a parent doesn't go for that - more power to them!

agreed

Fortune Favors the Bold

It depends on whether the treatment is risky, and the consent of the patient. In a case where the child wants the treatment, but the parents refuse, I can see the case for forcing the parents to allow treatment.

Fortune Favors the Bold

Forced Medication


Tyrant judges need some of their own medicine.


Ron Paul's Convention Speech

If

abortion is legal and sending our soldiers to get killed in a war based on lies is o.k. . How can they possibly argue that they are concerned for the welfare of the child?

The government has set precedent that it sides with choice. They are arguing against that stance.

You can say that again!

Government = Death on all fronts! :(

"Bad men cannot make good citizens. It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom." Patrick Henry

"Bad men cannot make good citizens. It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom." Patrick Henry

Well said.

I wish it were otherwise.

No they should not be able to refuse

the state. How dare anyone think that parents have rights. The state is supreme all hail the state.

Please report to DHS anyone who dare question the state.

Chemo kills. It's terrible for you.

It's like taking a shotgun to your face in order to clear up a zit.

"This nation will remain the land of the free only so long as it is the home of the brave."

Chemo has been described

as setting the house on fire to kill the rats inside, hoping that happens before the house burns down. Many times chemo just destroys the quality of the rest of your life.
Who gets to make the decision? The patient or the government? If the patient is a child, the parents or the government?
The doctors will never guarantee the success of chemo, so the decision is never clearcut.

Agreed

My dad was still getting chemo two weeks before he died - more like starved to death because of chemo.... why? I don't know. But he wouldn't try marijuana because its illegal.

FP, I have seen such scenes myself,

and the sheer immorality, inhumanity and downright insanity of denying a dying and suffering person ANY drug that might relieve their pain and suffering just boggles my mind --- how anyone can condone such action is the very essence of cruel irrationality, IMO.

Stupid stupid comment

And a terrible analogy. Chemo is extremely rough, but there are countless people who are still alive today because of it.

of course!! If not the

of course!! If not the parents, then who.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/14150181/Why-Doctors-Do-Not-Take-C...

It is the duty of the PARENTS to raise their children. Although, sometimes we may disagree with their tactics. Otherwise we should travel around the world and confiscate all of the children in the world, such as Aboriginals in Australia, for crawling around in trees, and near fire. We should take all of the kids of eskimos for not having running water, or furnaces in their homes. and so on.

The point is, once government is allowed to force a kid to get chemotherapy, what is to keep them from forcing vaccines, flu shots, pharmacueticals, drinking diet soda, and anything else that is 'perceived' to be good for you, but really is worse?

I, of course, would say that the reason this is happening is because the parents have a birth certificate, and subsequent social security number, which 'legally' makes the kid the property of the State, or the Fed., so it is ultimately the Feds decision.

http://www.google.com/custom?q=birth+certificate&cof=AH%3Ace...

depends

Are the parents going to try alternative treatments that have proven success? Just because you have a kid doesn't mean you know how to raise one. There are bad and ignorant parents out there. I've read about Christian Scientists who denied their child antibiotics for strep throat and the kid dies. That to me is close to murder since the treatment is proven and fairly safe. On the other hand I don't like the Feds coming in and forcing treatment because that is a slippery slope. The best solution is to be involved in your community and know your neighbors. These things should probably be solved locally or state by state.

Excellent point

I hate the notion of the fed gov't jumping in on moral issues too, but there are a lot of nutcases out there who don't make sane or logical decisions concerning their children's welfare.

This, to me, is another "right to life" issue and this kid's parents are completely wacked. I'm glad that the kid will get a chance at life. He'll be glad too in a few years if he makes it.

reedr3v's picture

The problem is that when people look to

the State to"save"people,they imagine a wise, benevolent father/mother figure that can discern the truth and bestow fair, impartial, good services to us. But the reality of past and current history is that bureaucrats with their hands out to providers almost always believe their establishment lines with no proof, no scrutiny of alternatives, no responsibility for failures and disasters.
Chemo is highly questionable with many doctors and patients admitting that zapping diseases is destructive. The over-reliance on cut/burn/poison and absence of research into building health has resulted in an aged population that survives longer but is sick and dependent on constant drugs and interventions to prop them up as they slowly decline and die.

Freedom means taking responsibility. Some will make poor judgments and not survive. But if we give the State control, everyone will suffer from medical stagnation, lack of innovative and diverse treatment approaches, and continued ruination of the health of the population. Bankruptcy will cause a whole generation of new health issues as people won't have access to dental and other health services as the State strangles providers who try any new, less expensive approach or even offer service for barter, etc.

Excellent point

I hate the notion of the fed gov't jumping in on moral issues too, but there are a lot of nutcases out there who don't make sane or logical decisions concerning their children's welfare.

This, to me, is another "right to life" issue and this kid's parents are completely wacked. I'm glad that the kid will get a chance at life. He'll be glad too in a few years if he makes it.

Why is it

that the only parental decision we are allowed to make is whether we abort or not!

I understand what you are getting at, however to abort or not

is not a parental decision, it is a womans decision. A parental decision would come after the birth of a child and of course there would be two parents.

I forgot

the men who contribute the sperm don't have a say.

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or really forgot that

"the men who contribute the sperm don't have a say."

But, I am glad you remembered.

Thank you for saying that

This whole "woman's right" crap has always driven me insane!

I support the Hausers

I am in complete support of Colleen and Daniel Hauser for acting bravely and honestly in the face of the Law. Quite simply, the Establishment discredits natural healing methods because its preservation depends so highly on keeping the masses sick and dependent on It.

I am overjoyed to read of people standing up for their rights, their physical and spiritual rights, to heal themselves and frankly not deliberately do themselves more harm no matter what spin the government puts on it (i.e. neglect). It takes a lot more love and energy to heal yourself or a loved one through natural, spiritual means, than by simply swallowing the tube of chemicals and hoping for the best. If someone honestly believes chemotherapy is the best way to go, I cannot judge, but I've witnessed nothing but horror stories in regards to "cancer treatment." I've seen too many people die shortly after starting chemo.

However I have had the pleasure of knowing a man who completely healed his cancers (yes, multiple) with the help of some very powerful herbs, drastic change in environment and lifestyle, and meditation. He was resigned to die in Alaska three years ago, and he's walking around cancer-free in Hawaii today.

I'd like to say to the judge: leave the Hausers the hell alone! Sadly there are enough zombies out there downing pharmaceuticals by the barrel; don't ruin two more lives just because of your force-fed "legal principles."

Lovelovelove

I've known many people who

I've known many people who have had cancer and not one of them survived chemo. The only ones I know that became well used natural cures like Gerson or other alternative therapies. Chemo kills.