20 May 09
Originally posted by no1marauderI generally do agree with you.
Why is the State better qualified to decide what is "optimal medical care" for a child than their parents?
In some cases where the parents are making objectively negligent positions though and that's where I tend to feel there may be a reason to intercede.
20 May 09
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyHold the fort.
Exactly. I fail to see how one can see this point EXCEPT in the case of an unwanted pregnancy.
I didn't say that parents had an unlimited power to tell their minor children what they should do. I said as between the State and a child's parents, the one who should be considered a priori more qualified to decide for the child what medical care should be afforded is the parent.
IF in this case the 13 year old wanted chemotherapy and the parents objected, I'd say he was old enough to make that decision and override his parent's objections. Ditto for a teenager facing an unwanted pregnancy.
20 May 09
Originally posted by no1marauderSo if parents deem a thorough beating of therapeutic use, should it be allowed?
Hold the fort.
I didn't say that parents had an unlimited right to tell their minor children what they should do. I said as between the State and a [b]child's parents, the one who should be considered a priori more qualified to decide for the child what medical care should be afforded is the parent.
IF in thi ...[text shortened]... ion and override his parent's objections. Ditto for a teenager facing an unwanted pregnancy.[/b]
20 May 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraSuppose an independent team of medical experts thought it would be a good idea to treat a child's depression with electroshock treatment, cutting out bits of his brain, giving him large doses of strong, personality altering drugs, etc. etc. Should it be allowed?
So if parents deem a thorough beating of therapeutic use, should it be allowed?
20 May 09
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderwhat jurisdiction or legal right would such a team have with respect to the child?
Suppose an independent team of medical experts thought it would be a good idea to treat a child's depression with electroshock treatment, cutting out bits of his brain, giving him large doses of strong, personality altering drugs, etc. etc. Should it be allowed?
who gets to decide what is in the best interest of the child?
According to one prominent expert on the legal rights associated with child welfare:
snip
"Positive and negative rights and immunities protect the children from exploitation such as child labor. Liberties and power rights would entail decisions such as abortion. Due process is a mixture of the two types of rights. The question of whether to grant more rights to children should be accompanied by the question of whether such action would benefit them."
Also, for legal info on child welfare, see http://www.megalaw.com/top/children.php
20 May 09
Originally posted by no1marauderFortunately, medicine has advanced far enough to make this question irrelevant.
Suppose an independent team of medical experts thought it would be a good idea to treat a child's depression with electroshock treatment, cutting out bits of his brain, giving him large doses of strong, personality altering drugs, etc. etc. Should it be allowed?