[jikin]

Yahoo news feed had another random article today about the courts taking on cases where parents were denying medical attention for their children. While the cases that were being brought up were specifically about religious beliefs regarding this issue, I've seen cases where religion wasn't involved in the decision. My only request is that this doesn't turn into a "Oh my God! those religious fanatics are indoctrinating their children!!!!" discussion and more of a "Where do parental rights end?" discussion. The issue can involve everything from simple inoculations to risky surgeries and life threatening treatments.

So:
At what point should a parent's rights over their child's body end?
Should parents even have a right over their child's body?
How old should a child be to make his own medical decisions? (I'm thinking of a recent case where a 13 year old did not want chemotherapy, and he ran away with his mother to avoid it.)
At what point is refusing medical treatment for your child considered abuse?
Can the opposite be true; should seeking treatment for a severely disabled child just so the parents can prolong their life also be considered abuse?

[Brion]

There was an old law and order episode on this issue... title of the show was.. What Child is this... I used it in class once... Most states still prosecute medical neglect if the child is harmed or dies regardless. Parents have an affirmative duty to act in a reasonable manner to protect the health and welfare of thier children... It is an interesting question though at what point the child gets to decide... My guess would be around the age of 16 or they would have to go to court to "prove" that their decision is their own.

[jikin]

	Originally Posted by Brion To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It is an interesting question though at what point the child gets to decide... My guess would be around the age of 16 or they would have to go to court to "prove" that their decision is their own.

How would they go about proving it? There are many children who have strong convictions on one thing or another and sometimes it has nothing to do with their parent's teachings. Unfortunately adults look at children and teens as being uninformed and not having original thoughts of their own.

	Parents have an affirmative duty to act in a reasonable manner to protect the health and welfare of thier children

That is true, but what should happen when the state and the parent disagree on what is best to protect the health of their child? Should a court be allowed to order treatment that a parent thinks is wrong, either for health or religious reasons?

Also should the "reasonable manner" include the idea of extending the life of a severly disabled child? Could subjecting a child to treatment after treatment mearly to make them last longer be seen as unreasonable, and even neglectful, in some cases? While that is a stickier situation that I doubt the state would want to mess with, are there times when they should?

[themuzicman]

I am very leery of giving the state (especially the judiciary) the power to mandate medical treatment over the objections of parents. I know there are extreme cases like this, but they make for bad case law. In the case of Minnesota, the couple was pursuing (or was going to pursue) a more "holistic" approach with some other doctor.

Granted that there may have been a higher success rate for one treatment over another, but to have the government mandating medical treatment to parents for their kids is scary. Next on the list is the first doctor who recommends a particular treatment over another to a parent, who says that they don't want it, and the doctor goes running to the courts to force the parent to do things his way.

Kids are under the care of parents for a reason. We remove kids for abuse and neglect. Whether we agree or disagree with their medical decisions, we ought to honor them, when they are making them.

[Monte314]

I agree with the muzicman, and with his reasons.

With 300 million people in America, there will be cases of parents making decisions with which the majority disagrees. Unfortunately, these are the high-publicity "poster children" that too often come to characterize such issues in the mind of an undiscriminating public.

The government should leave families alone, except under the most egregious of situations. In particular, I don't believe it has any business interfering in medical choices parents make for their children, whether "religiously motivated" or not. Uncle Sam already goes too far in his well-intended but unwarranted intrusion into family life.

[Freedom Geek]

The parent's right over their child should end when direct harm is occuring. Preventing your child from getting lifesaving anti-biotics qualifies as neglect, giving them junk food does not. It is an area that must be tread very carefully in as not to give the government any more power than is absolutely necessary to prevent this sort of coercion from occurring.
Look at it like underage sex, maybe they'd choose to go down that path anyway later in life but right now it's basically equal to using coercion to prevent them from accessing medical treatment.
There is no correct age at which a child should be able to take care of their own medical choices as everyone ages differently, some will be ready by say 10 years old but generally around 15 years old.
Giving a child real, scientifically backed medical treatment should never be considered abuse.

[Monte314]

... and YOU will decide what's "harmful"?

[Broken Mind]

If you mandate direct harm than circumcision would be disallowed, no?

[Antares]

	Originally Posted by Monte314 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	... and YOU will decide what's "harmful"?

I don't know. It's a hard question. What about parents who refuse their children chemotherapy for religious reasons? There's no definite answers on this, but I say the state should have the right to look into these cases (where the child could die or be permanently disabled), and parents can give reasons as to why the treatment isn't administered. As long as their reasons are valid and they can provide empirical evidence that what they're doing is best for their child's health. So "god told me so" is not a reason.

[jikin]

	Originally Posted by Antares To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I don't know. It's a hard question. What about parents who refuse their children chemotherapy for religious reasons?

...or blood transfusions....In the area of religious based decisions it seems that the major religions are given a bit more (grudging) permission to follow their faith than the smaller ones. The recent case with the boy who was ordered by the courts to undergo the chemotherapy was not a member of a major recognized religion. I wonder if he and his parents had been if they courts would have weighed in the same direction.

....or normal innoculations due to the (seemingly scientifically mocked) question of whether they can be linked to autism.


Another question just came to mind: what if the child is of what could be called a good reasoning age (pick whatever suits your definition), but he and the parent disagree on the treatment. Who should get the final word? Should it be the parent because "they know best"? Or should it be the child because it's their body?

[thod]

I see it not so much in terms of parents rights, but parents obligations. A child is not a piece of property that the parent can do with as they please. The adult has the role of guardian, it makes decisions on behalf of the child, hence the child has less rights than an adult. Should the guardian neglect these obligations, for example a drug addict may neglect it to the point of not supplying food, then they have de facto resigned that role. This is much the same as a worker that refuses to work but also refuses to resign.

Drawing the limits on this role is where the questions arise since the only alternative is that the role be taken up by the state. There are some oddballs out there that would impose great suffering on the child in the name of their beliefs. It is the degree to which we are willing to condone such suffering before we intervene that matters.

For example suppose you saw a father beating a child with a baseball bat in the street. Now some would say it is his right to do as he will. What they forget is that it is also my right to as I will and that right means I can go over and intervene. We all have the right to affect other peoples lives, and do, just as they affect ours. The word 'outlaw' has lost much of its original meaning. An outlaw had no recourse to the law, you could go shoot them and they could not appeal to the police. Few people would choose to be outlaw because every nut job would see a consequence free victim.

[Freedom Geek]

	Originally Posted by Broken Mind To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If you mandate direct harm than circumcision would be disallowed, no?

Sure. How is it different than say lobbing an arm off the child other than in terms of scale. It is depriving the child of a choice, if they want to get circumcised they can when they're older.

	Originally Posted by Monte314 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	... and YOU will decide what's "harmful"?

No, not me. I'm inclined to say a panel of experts but then again who chooses the experts.
Overall though if there is an overwhelming amount of evidence stating that a given treatment does work then, while I'm generally inclined to keep the government out of it, a lesser amount of coercion occurs when the medical treatment is mandated to children younger then say 10.

Originally Posted by jikin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

...or blood transfusions....In the area of religious based decisions it seems that the major religions are given a bit more (grudging) permission to follow their faith than the smaller ones. The recent case with the boy who was ordered by the courts to undergo the chemotherapy was not a member of a major recognized religion. I wonder if he and his parents had been if they courts would have weighed in the same direction. ....or normal innoculations due to the (seemingly scientifically mocked) question of whether they can be linked to autism. Another question just came to mind: what if the child is of what could be called a good reasoning age (pick whatever suits your definition), but he and the parent disagree on the treatment. Who should get the final word? Should it be the parent because "they know best"? Or should it be the child because it's their body?

If they are of a good reasoning age then they own there body and have the right to refuse treatment.

[rickster]

Originally Posted by Monte314 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I agree with the muzicman, and with his reasons. With 300 million people in America, there will be cases of parents making decisions with which the majority disagrees. Unfortunately, these are the high-publicity "poster children" that too often come to characterize such issues in the mind of an undiscriminating public. The government should leave families alone, except under the most egregious of situations. In particular, I don't believe it has any business interfering in medical choices parents make for their children, whether "religiously motivated" or not. Uncle Sam already goes too far in his well-intended but unwarranted intrusion into family life.

Fifteen years of living and working in a socialized environment has reinforced this view for me. As the state's powers increase in family intervention, not only are parental rights diminished but their duty of responsibility disappears as well. The government here (Australia) has a particularly poor record in supporting family self-determination as well as the welfare of children. In my experience parents overwhelmingly make the best, fairest and most loving choices for their children, but it is becoming increasingly more difficult.

The "undiscriminating public" is listened to by politicians and government. Do-gooders running around screaming "Somebody should do something about this!" unfortunately get the ear of thick politicians who just want to put their name on a Bill, and don't really give a shit. I personally despise any religious beliefs which could bring about any harm to a child, but kids have always died at the hands of stupid or careless parents. Government needs to be supporting families, not running them.

[Monte314]

	Originally Posted by Antares To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I don't know. It's a hard question. What about parents who refuse their children chemotherapy for religious reasons?

Does "chemotherapy" include innoculations? Vitamins? Psychoactive drugs for ADD? Flouridated water? Euthanasia?

Where does this stop? Once the social engineers find some circumstance that allows them to come into somebody's home, push the parents aside, and stick a needle into their kid's arm, that precedent will be applied to your kids, too. And then, to YOU. Government paternalism knows no limits once the train is allowed to leave the station. Parents will be replaced by bureacrats, common sense by a regulation book, and love by jurisprudence.

[paleoeco]

I'm curious. Say we have a family who is very religious, and they have a 10 year old child. Let's have two scenarios:

1) The Father says God told him to chop off his son's right arm, so the Father does so.

2) Child gets gangrene in his arm and the doctor says he can treat it with antibiotics to save the arm, or without treatment, he'll have to amputate the arm. The Father says that "God told him that He (God) will heal the child" and refuses medical treatment.

The end result from both situations is identical. Both result in the child losing his arm. Both of these results is because the Father believed that God told him to take a particular course of action.

Why is scenario #1 not allowed because it's abuse, but scenario #2 is allowed because parents have the right deny medical treatment for their children?

[phej]

Originally Posted by Monte314 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Does "chemotherapy" include innoculations? Vitamins? Psychoactive drugs for ADD? Flouridated water? Euthanasia? Where does this stop? Once the social engineers find some circumstance that allows them to come into somebody's home, push the parents aside, and stick a needle into their kid's arm, that precedent will be applied to your kids, too. And then, to YOU. Government paternalism knows no limits once the train is allowed to leave the station. Parents will be replaced by bureacrats, common sense by a regulation book, and love by jurisprudence.

Wow, I didn't expect Monte to be so libertarian. Just outta curiosity, is there something specific about government paternalism that affected your family? (If I'm overstepping my bounds, my apologies.)

Originally Posted by paleoeco To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I'm curious. Say we have a family who is very religious, and they have a 10 year old child. Let's have two scenarios: 1) The Father says God told him to chop off his son's right arm, so the Father does so. 2) Child gets gangrene in his arm and the doctor says he can treat it with antibiotics to save the arm, or without treatment, he'll have to amputate the arm. The Father says that "God told him that He (God) will heal the child" and refuses medical treatment. The end result from both situations is identical. Both result in the child losing his arm. Both of these results is because the Father believed that God told him to take a particular course of action. Why is scenario #1 not allowed because it's abuse, but scenario #2 is allowed because parents have the right deny medical treatment for their children?

Why does it matter to you? Some religions believe this or that. If there's a prohibition on specific kinds of medical care (e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses and blood), it is part of their belief system and you should respect that.

[Monte314]

	I'm curious. Say we have a family who is very religious....

Did anyone here suggest that parental control over a child's health includes the authority to commit overtly criminal acts?

This is exactly the kind of sophistry and philosophical gerrymandering that is used to justify indiscriminate arrogation of parental rights to the government: "OMG! What if somebody intentionally cuts their kid's arm off!?". I would not have expected anyone here to propose an obvious strawman as a viable talking point.

Does anyone remember how Alan Turing, one of the fathers of the computer age, died? You know, the guy principally responsible for breaking the Nazi Enigma coding system, a fundamental contribution to the Allied victory in World War II?

Turing was a homosexual; he was hauled into court and ordered to undergo chemical treatment to destroy his libido. Rather than face this, he committed suicide.

This is where government paternalism takes us. Those who "know what's best for you" will make sure that you get it. It surprises me that those aware of the gross excesses of the medieval church (so-called) in this area think it will be any different under a secular authority. Paternalism is not about "religion"... it's about POWER.

I'll say it again: leave families alone.

(And, yes, Monte is more of a Libertarian than most would guess; in this case, it is because he believes that institutions God established should not be re-engineered by institutions men establish.)

[paleoeco]

No, it's not sophistry. And I'm not arguing for the intrusion of the government into parental right - where did I suggest a preference for this?

We live in a society in which it is perfectly acceptable for Scenario #2 to occur, out of respect for the the family's free practice of religion. We live in a society in which it is perfectly acceptable for the Government to intervene on behalf of the child's welfare in Scenario #1, in contravention to the family's free practice of religion.

What is the bright line that separates these two scenarios? Is it the "active vs. passive" that makes the distinction? Is it because one is a disease and one is not?

We all understand is that all rights have limits. The point is where do we draw the line?

In the 2 above scenarios, what makes government intrustion OK in one, but not the other.

Only when we can define what the philosophical line separating these two scenarios, and explain the why, are we then truly safe from indiscrimate intrusion by the government, as future intrusions can be benchmarked against the line.

	Originally Posted by phej To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Why does it matter to you? Some religions believe this or that. If there's a prohibition on specific kinds of medical care (e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses and blood), it is part of their belief system and you should respect that.

My repsonse to phej is a somewhat a bit OT, but it's in relation to the specific question of "why it matters to me".

( Show Spoiler )

In the individual case, it doesn't really matter to me. I could genuinely care less of someone of a religious belief felt it was morally OK for them to let their child die instead of providing life-saving medical care. However, the argument that "free practice of religion" somehow is a trump card is frequently played out. I do believe there needs to be societal line in the sand, if you will, that even religious belief cannot cross. An example that is of concern to me: is how pharmacists and doctors can withhold medicine (birth control pills) or treatment (medicine to prevent conception in the case of rape) because to do so would violate "their free practice of religion".

[Monte314]

	Originally Posted by paleoeco To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'm not arguing FOR the intrusion of the government into parental right. What I think we have to understand is that ALL RIGHTS HAVE LIMITS. The point is WHERE do we draw the line?

Good point, and I agree. My contention is that those who think they are competent to "draw the line" will have no compunction about moving the line when it suits them. And they will.

This concerns me, because what I see happening in this particular area has already put us on the slippery slope. I won't live to see where this goes; but most of you will. God help you.

[paleoeco]

	Originally Posted by Monte314 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Good point, and I agree. My contenhtion is that those who think they are competent to "draw the line" will have no compunction about moving the line when it suits them. And they will. This concerns me, because what I see happening in this particular area has already put us on the slippery slope. I won't live to see where this goes; but most of you will. God help you.

Since we are already on the slippery slope, it makes it all the more necessary to define the line. If no definition is ever provided, there's no way to prevent government over-reaching.

Even if a debate is held at a later time about moving the line, it's a debate that's being had. To provide no starting point other than to argue nebulously about it being on a slipperly slope, is to give free reign.

In life, virtually any decision based on a value judgment is a slippery slope. The point is that internally we have a line we will not cross. I will do X, but once it gets to this point I will not. Why do we not argue where the line ought to be when it comes to things such as government intrusion?

[phej]

	Originally Posted by paleoeco To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Since we are already on the slippery slope, it makes it all the more necessary to define the line. If no definition is ever provided, there's no way to prevent government over-reaching.

Why do you want a bright line? I don't think that you can make one. The two forces for this particular argument are religious freedom and the interests of the child. There. There's your line, your fulcrum. Now we just need add the particulars of an individual case to see how things work out. But that's the rub, where the line goes is defined by the particulars of the individual case, not generalities.

[paleoeco]

Originally Posted by phej To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Why do you want a bright line? I don't think that you can make one. The two forces for this particular argument are religious freedom and the interests of the child. There. There's your line, your fulcrum. Now we just need add the particulars of an individual case to see how things work out. But that's the rub, where the line goes is defined by the particulars of the individual case, not generalities.

While you are correct in the description of the two forces, I disagree with your lack of a desire to find a line. In fact, I believe is this "attitude" that prevents appropriate discussions of thorny issues and leads to a believe in rights being absolute.

Given the two scenarios I originally provided, I think it's entirely applicable for the state to say that freedom to practice ones religion does not prevent the State from acting on behalf of a child's welfare when the option is active physical harm done to the child in furtherance of the parent's religious belief.

This establishes a line. A parent can, under no circumstances, argue that their freedom to practice a relgion can trump the child's welfare if the state says that a child cannot be maimed in the name of a parent's religion. This guiding principle is why no one thinks twice about the state intervening in Scenario #1.

Scenario #2 is trickier. But, now, the question becomes how do we judge scenario #2 against the line we established regarding Scenario #1.

The point is that it is from the specific scenarios that we can draw guidelines as to how to judge cases with dissimiliar facts, but similar situations. This is generally how case law and precedent works. Very rare is it that two cases are factually identical, but it is also very rare that a case presents such a unqiue situation as to have no precedent.

[Monte314]

	A parent can, under no circumstances, argue that their freedom to practice a relgion can trump the child's welfare if the state says that a child cannot be maimed in the name of a parent's religion.

Unless mom wants to abort her fetus one hour before its natural birth and sacrifice the carcass to Mother Earth; her religious rights are quite secure.

[Rudy]

paleoeco makes a very good point, though. What is the distinction between the two scenarios?

I don't think it's enough, Monte, to say that one is obviously different than the other. We have to decide why it's different, or we already are on a slippery slope.

[Prunesquallor]

Originally Posted by thod To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I see it not so much in terms of parents rights, but parents obligations. A child is not a piece of property that the parent can do with as they please. The adult has the role of guardian, it makes decisions on behalf of the child, hence the child has less rights than an adult. Should the guardian neglect these obligations, for example a drug addict may neglect it to the point of not supplying food, then they have de facto resigned that role. This is much the same as a worker that refuses to work but also refuses to resign....

Thod has a good point; it isn't a right. It's a responsibility.

If someone is not living up to their responsibilities, then they ought to be taken away from them.

Given the lack of trust in the alternatives, however, I would say that this shouldn't be easy to do. More of a last resort. And that this should be clear, so the 'slippery slope' people don't get too frightened.