the cost of free-will

alt ctrl del said:
What's the difference between this and starving your child because you believe that with enough faith, the holy spirit is going to put food on the plate or some nonsense?
Click to expand...

The difference is that your example is one of non-consent between parent and child, whereas the case with the boy is consensual between he and his parents.

---

Using the power of law to force medical treatment upon a child who does not want it based on religious convictions is a violation of civil rights.


cheers,
Ian
 
aeon said:
Using the power of law to force medical treatment upon a child who does not want it based on religious convictions is a violation of civil rights.
Click to expand...

He is dependant upon his parents to make decisions for him, who are not eqipped to make those decisions themselves. It's not a decision he is making on his own.

The government forces children to go to school (it's the law), there's no reason why they should not force them to take care of themselves physically if they are already forcing them to take care of themselves mentally. Suppose we really let people have the freedom to do whatever they like; school systems would disband and deteriorate, regions would become even more secular and divided, civil unrest would rise and overall productivity would fall. Humanity and it's infrustructure would deteriorate and progress would become slower than a snail.

Government creates cohesion which allows humanity to build on itself, creating more opportunities and chances for greater progress as a whole.

E Pluribus Unum.

When he is 18 he can go win a Darwin award. No one will care.
 
Last edited:
Ok, just to continue playing devil's advocate here....

Wyote said:
... when you have the best option out there and you choose an option less likely to succeed, that is neglect.
Click to expand...

True, maybe chemo is the best option to heal the kid, but here you are making the assumption that healing the kid is the "best" course of action to take.

Now obviously I don't know the family and how strong their religious convictions are, but let's just say for arguments sake that they are extremely convicted. What if, in forcing their son to have the treatment and be healed, they feel that they have committed a grievous sin, and for the rest of their lives feel shame and heartache because of it? What if every time they see their son alive they are reminded of this sin and feel pangs of shame and regret? What if the son also has (or grows to have) the same convictions, and feels that his entire life is a travesty because he was forced to be healed and live?

How is forcing them into lifelong suffering "better" than allowing them to conduct their lives according to their belief system and live (or die) in peace with a clear conscience and unfettered heart?
 
Haha, well if they are bitter about being given the gift of life (for a second time!?) then they are truly insane and I feel sorry for them.

You're probably right.
 
The kid had a 90% chance of living with chemo therapy. Chances are the kid will die without it. Endangering the life of a child is akin to abuse, and abuse of a child should not be tolerated by the state.

The parents are morons.
 
Wyote said:
Haha, well if they are bitter about being given the gift of life (for a second time!?) then they are truly insane and I feel sorry for them.
Click to expand...


I agree with you.

I just think it's not my (nor the government's) place to tell someone they shouldn't go for the Darwin award... ;)

(Unless going for the Darwin would endanger others, as previously mentioned.)
 
dylan said:
I just think it's not my (nor the government's) place to tell someone they shouldn't go for the Darwin award... ;)

(Unless going for the Darwin would endanger others, as previously mentioned.)
Click to expand...

And I totally agree with you on that point as well. I just don't currently know of better alternatives for saving people from their own stupidity (should we even bother?). The current government (US and global) isn't even a good system for it, it's just the one already in use.
 
Last edited:
aeon said:
Using the power of law to force medical treatment upon a child who does not want it based on religious convictions is a violation of civil rights.
Click to expand...
I disagree.

No child should be considered, by law, to be a part of a religion until their majority. This is because they are too young to know what is right or questionable. I was a Christian by force when I was a child, my parents dragged me along to church every sunday, they only taught me anglican christianity, they only showed me christian worldviews and they didn't teach me options.

When I turned 13 I had moved from the small country town (Emerald, QLD) to Brisbane and surrounded by a multitude of other faiths and cultures. I could from then choose. But people who are cloistered off from other cultures don't get that choice, and they don't get knowledge. A morally objective state should be able to overrule parents that make negligent decisions for their child in order to save their life. It's proactive life saving, rather than just executing the parents for what amounts to murder after the child is dead from their negligence.
 
wtf an insightful post from Shai Gar.

I'm worried.
 
And tactful too, apparently.

I was just jokin' with ya. Good post though.
 
Tact? That's where you use a sledgehammer to perform an abortion on an inviable baby after it has been born in the mothers view right?
 
I don't think the gov't should tell citizens how to live, and I don't think that crazy parents should possess the FREEDOM to let their child die.

What about the child's rights? Who is going to stand up for those? What freedom does the child posses in this situation? That kid is being denied the right to live by his parents, basically. So it makes sense for the gov't to step in, then.
 
IndigoSensor said:
Ok, that makes it a little worse, but I still feel the way I do. If a family (including the child) so wishes to use alternative medicine to try to heal a disease, then let them. The gov't has NO PLACE what so ever to order someone to have treatment for an illness, particuarlly if it isn't contegious like in this case.

I'm sorry this just really makes me mad. The government has no right to tell us how to take care of ourselves (except when it could harm others).
Click to expand...
Ok, I'd like to find some legitimate stats on people cured of cancer through alternative methods in relation to people cured using conventional medicine.

I think holistic medicine is quackery. An old friend of mine was seeing a Chiropractor who practiced holistic medicine and he ended up becoming even more sick as a result of the treatment.
 
I am fearful that the courts have authority over how we conduct our medical business. I am fearful how it interferes with religious practices. Yes, the parents are morons but how in the world does the court have the authority over someone's life to force medical practice on someone? They essentially have granted them self the right to choose whether this kid lives or dies. What if this were a 17 year old kid on life support who was a vegetable? Does the court have the right to force the parents to keep their kid on machines when there is no hope that they will ever come out of their vegetable state? There needs to be a line drawn somewhere and I think the government should stay the fuck away from medical procedures. The parents ARE trying to get the kid help, sure it isn't chemo but they are following what their religion. (And since the courts are forcing this operation, they better be paying for it). I think the court is appropriating powers they do not have the right to. I hope this goes to the supreme court.
 
Ok..
What about those vegan parents who killed their baby with whatever the hell they were feeding him? The child died of malnutrition. But hey, at least the parents were feeding him...

I believe they were charged with child abuse. I'll be damned if I can't find the article.. but I'll search for it.

If an adult chooses alternative medicine opposed to conventional methods. Good for them. That's their right. But a child is dependant upon the decisions of its parents. If the parents can't provide proper care or make healthy decisions should the child suffer?

This whole thing has more to do with child abuse than the gov't trying to establish some sort of totalitarian reign on our bodies.. Or does anyone have an example of a case where the gov't forced an adult into chemotherapy???
 
alt ctrl del said:
Ok..
What about those vegan parents who killed their baby with whatever the hell they were feeding him? The child died of malnutrition. But hey, at least the parents were feeding him...

I believe they were charged with child abuse. I'll be damned if I can't find the article.. but I'll search for it.

If an adult chooses alternative medicine opposed to conventional methods. Good for them. That's their right. But a child is dependant upon the decisions of its parents. If the parents can't provide proper care or make healthy decisions should the child suffer?

This whole thing has more to do with child abuse than the gov't trying to establish some sort of totalitarian reign on our bodies.. Or does anyone have an example of a case where the gov't forced an adult into chemotherapy???
Click to expand...


You bring up so good counter arguments but I am still very weary on this...I say the supreme court should decide
 
aeon said:
---

Using the power of law to force medical treatment upon a child who does not want it based on religious convictions is a violation of civil rights.


cheers,
Ian
Click to expand...

I have to ask how you(all of you posting) feel about the "child" part? Replace the word "child" with the word "person" and does the attitude of the person commenting on this subject change? If so, then what is the acceptable "age of accountability" in this specific state? Are there other extenuating circumstances like "living on his own" or "paying his own bills"? If this were an adult, would the state have the power to force this treatment?
For some reason, I feel the age of the child has more to do with the court's decision than any other factor involved. The state may feel in line with the law because of the age of the child or young man. Big "IF", but what if the child were an adult of legal age to be in the military? How would the same state rule in this same situation then? I want to know if AGE is the main thing here. Does religion really have anything to do with the court's decision? I wonder...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top