The Town of Odyssey

It is the norm.

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-05-19/us/m ... y?_s=PM:US

http://www.patriotsaints.com/MyChildMyC ... kerJensen/

http://www.thenhf.com/article.php?id=405

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/s ... chemo.html

The Hamilton case is not particularly rare or unusual and is "the kind of thing that we struggle with in health care all the time," said Brendan Leier, a clinical ethicist with the University of Alberta and the Stollery Children's Hospital in Edmonton.

Hmm...I think I like the solution a few of them seem to have come up with...having the government monitor the child as they go through alternative treatments to the cancer...it ensures that the parents ARE doing something to help their child that has the potential of working, that they aren't just sitting by and letting their child die, but also makes it so that the government doesn't demand that they follow one specific treatment option. I don't blame parents for not wanting their kids exposed to chemo, and to them, it is the best course of action to avoid complications that may occur later in life as a result of the chemo or radiation. However, they should still be researching and making sure experts are there to help their kids, and not just random snake oil witch doctors, which, of course, are always a concern. I don't know...just my random thoughts...it at least seems like a better solution than the government taking over completely.

I agree it's a step in the right direction but it still has the problem of making the assumption that the government should decide what's best for your child.

True, but a better compromise than what we have now that still allows parents discretion to decide on a treatment for their child.

No sorry for the misunderstanding but by step in the right direction I mean towards parents have complete control over their child's healthcare. The government has no right at all to say what care a child should receive. Medical care should be between the patient, or in the case of a child the child's parents, and the doctor and nobody else.

I don't like government involved in things but basically if some parent decides "I AM A GENIUS! We shall cure my child's illness by not feeding it for 30 days!" or something, SOMEONE has to step in. I don't think parents have the right to kill their children, unfortunately. I've been bugging my congressman about putting forth legislation for post-birth abortions but it hasn't been going well. But my point is if government can step in to stop a family from neglect that will lead to the death of the child, isn't not getting reasonable treatment that will result in the death of the child also neglect?

I realize that you never said that you would even support the stopping of child abuse, but I'm assuming you aren't in favor of it being legal because government control is bad.

I think that child abuse is a very tough subject to deal with, I agree that parents should not be allowed to abuse their children by not feeding them or beating them. The way in which abuse is determined and dealt with though needs to be changed, because right now an anonymous tip of uncertain validity can result in children being taken away from their parents.

Now as for medical treatment I think parents should be allowed to choose any and all alternatives for their child, with the obvious exceptions of starving or beating them, including refusing medical care all together. To do otherwise would be to set a precedent that the government can go beyond protecting children from direct abuse and begin making decisions about quality of life for children and intervening when the government believes the child's quality of life isn't high enough.

But then how can I test my theory of beating cancer out of children?

Lol, Top...

Ayn Rand wrote:I think that child abuse is a very tough subject to deal with, I agree that parents should not be allowed to abuse their children by not feeding them or beating them. The way in which abuse is determined and dealt with though needs to be changed, because right now an anonymous tip of uncertain validity can result in children being taken away from their parents.

Mmm...It is usually investigated pretty well before anything drastic happens. Occasionally and tragically there is an extreme mistake, but generally they are well investigated. We should be working to eliminate those mistakes as well as continuous improvement of the rest of the system, as sometimes they have difficult times with figuring out what to do with the kids once they are out of the abusive situation. But that's another topic...

Ayn Rand wrote:Now as for medical treatment I think parents should be allowed to choose any and all alternatives for their child, with the obvious exceptions of starving or beating them, including refusing medical care all together. To do otherwise would be to set a precedent that the government can go beyond protecting children from direct abuse and begin making decisions about quality of life for children and intervening when the government believes the child's quality of life isn't high enough.

Good parameters...though still leaves some questions such as "but isn't prayer the best healing?"

SoccerLOTR wrote:very tough subject. I agree with...both of you. Which doesn't work. I don't know how parents could refuse medical care for their children and just let them die...sometimes God's healing comes in the form of medical advances. I can't justify either position on what should be mandated by the government. On the one hand, someone needs to look out for the kids...but on the other hand, I don't like giving the government so much power to decide what is best (slippery slope ideology). I'm very much...undecided on what can be done in these situations.

Kinda in the same shoe as you are. To much governmental control is bad unless we must set ourselves up a parameter on what a government can and can't do, but I don't want to see children getting hurt or dieing because the parents refusal of medical treatments all in the name of God because that itself is morally wrong.

Discussing this with an Atheist though and it will just bring up another reason why they believe religion itself should be eradicated.

Here’s a very recent story on this.
This is a side of the issue I’d never heard of before, premature birth. The cases I’ve heard about were of grown children that had diseases that the parents refused to treat. In this case, the couple had a child born prematurely and refused to get it medical help to stay alive.

In this situation, I cannot see any valid defense of their actions. I still hold that it’s wrong in the other cases, but I understand where some technicalities might be inserted. In this one though, the choice is beyond clear. Premature babies need medical aid to survive. If you don’t provide it, they will die. You don’t have a choice in this one, the moral responsibility is clear.

I think this is a tricky case but I would still have to say that the state can't tell these parents what to do with their child. Yes personally I agree with you premature babies need medical care but can we really force that view on everyone? I mean some people might argue against home births or births at midwife centers without doctors, does society have the right to make that decision for parents?

Once again, I acknowledge and agree with your point.
So once again, this forces us to break the topic into two parts.
1) Should the government dictate what cases require treatment?
Difficult to answer, depends on the situation perhaps.
2) Do parents have a moral responsibility to provide care for their children?
Easy to answer, absolutely as long as it’s within reason.

With the case of premature births, obviously the second part is clear. It’s black and white, get help and the child might live, don’t get help and it will definitely die.
For the first one, still a difficult call. I would want to say yes because this is so clear-cut it should transfer from the parents to the government, but as you say that sets precedent for other situations.
It’s a frustratingly difficult decision.