[TDDance234]

LUconn wrote:

southern Reckoner has taken examples of extremes (95.3% vs 10%) because that is easier to swallow for state intervention vs parental choice. What about 75%, 50%. Where would the state draw the line?

Excellent question! I wish I could draw a line in the sand and give an answer. The extremes are easier to see and this particular case is one of those extremes. I have to yield that question to Bioethic experts, local gov, and state gov. However, the Federal gov needs to stay out of it. My personal opinion is at least 70% with greater than 80% more preferential for gov intervention. I prefer less gov interference as possible. Anything between 50-70% would be somewhat acceptable. Below 50%, let the parents decide.

It should be up to the parents, period. It's not the government's job to protect us from ourselves. period.

I have a hard time agreeing to that when it's a child in question. If this was an adult and they declined to have treatment, that's one thing and are capable of making such decisions. However, you HAVE to protect the child.

This is no different than child services taking a child away due to unsanitary living situations. Should we let children crawl around in dog poop because the parents think that's the best way to raise a child?

[Libertine]

Parent's selling their children's sexual services to cover illegal drug use agree as well.

That is true, however, it is far different than the chemo case because the selling of a child's sexual services encroaches on the child's personal liberty.

Would the parent's refusal to allow proper medical care for a dying child then not encroach on the child's personal right to life?

[Dr. Sheh]

Parent's selling their children's sexual services to cover illegal drug use agree as well.

That is true, however, it is far different than the chemo case because the selling of a child's sexual services encroaches on the child's personal liberty.

Would the parent's refusal to allow proper medical care for a dying child then not encroach on the child's personal right to life?

That depends on the definition of 'proper medical care'. I know there are plenty of people that will disagree with me on this, but sometimes chemo is not the best treatment. Sure, it can work. But there are plenty of instances where chemo is equally destructive to other nearby organs or tissues that help the body fight disease, reducing the body's future ability to combat disease. My father had cancer, but decided against chemo in favor of an all natural remedy having to do with organic foods and juice from a juicemaker. He has been cancer free for 3 years now. Does this prove that all-natural is the only way to go? Obviously not. The point is that you should be able to chose a method because there are other ways.

Regardless, it is a sad day when the government decides what you can and can't do with your that God gave you that is within the bounds of personal and Christian liberty. It would be ridiculous for the government to put all fat people on diets becuase they are fat and it is hazardous to your health. But we seem to be moving that direction to, with more taxes on fats, sugary drinks, etc. Finally, there are other legitimate treatments for cancer other than chemo, and all of them are not just scams or invented by nut jobs.

[Ed Dantes]

Matshark is right on. The government has absolutely no jurisdiction in this case to intervene and become the parent. This is another situation where the government encroaches on personal liberty. There are also many many other instances in which the government has no authority, but that's the libertarian in me speaking

Then where is the line? Is there a line? What if a parent decided to lock a kid in the basement and not feed them? I've seen those cases before. Should the gov't intervene? What constitutes 'child endangerment'?

[matshark]

The government HAS NO RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT US FROM OURSELVES. PERIOD.

class action suit against vaccine manufacturers...

[Ed Dantes]

The government HAS NO RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT US FROM OURSELVES. PERIOD.

class action suit against vaccine manufacturers...

#1) Vaccines do not cause autism. At this point you might as well argue that the sun revolves around the earth.

#2) What about a parent who locks a kid in a basement and won't feed him? Obviously the kid needs food to live. In some cases, a kid needs chemo to live.

[LUconn]

Did you watch that video? It's absurd. Ben Zeller (the father): "It was an adverse reaction to the vaccine. No doubt in my mind." Oh fantastic. What medical school did you go to and how long have you been studying seizures? Or are you just the kid's dad grasping for an explanation of a horrible situation? Even the doctor is a little fishy. First of all he's a Canadian doctor and their poor pay due to universal health care breeds less than quality doctors (I'm half joking). But he's assembling pictures of children to show proof of this occurring. And the way he's getting these pictures is asking parents across the country to send him pictures if they believe this has happened to their child? Not exactly a scientific way of gathering "proof".

[matshark]

#1) Vaccines do not cause autism. At this point you might as well argue that the sun revolves around the earth.

um, not true, because the court has ruled that they HAVE caused these problems in the kids.

#2) What about a parent who locks a kid in a basement and won't feed him? Obviously the kid needs food to live. In some cases, a kid needs chemo to live.

Do you want limited government, or do you want the government determining every aspect of your life? The nature of government is to constantly expand. Give it an inch, it will take (forcefully - or via taxes, zoning codes, etc...) a mile.

[Ed Dantes]

#1) Vaccines do not cause autism. At this point you might as well argue that the sun revolves around the earth.

um, not true, because the court has ruled that they HAVE caused these problems in the kids.

I hope this enlightens you. It is a court ruling. Guess what side the judges favored.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/02/12/au ... pstoryview


If that fails to convince you, you might find some friends here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society

[Ed Dantes]

#2) What about a parent who locks a kid in a basement and won't feed him? Obviously the kid needs food to live. In some cases, a kid needs chemo to live.

Do you want limited government, or do you want the government determining every aspect of your life? The nature of government is to constantly expand. Give it an inch, it will take (forcefully - or via taxes, zoning codes, etc...) a mile.

You didn't answer the question. You just kind of spoke in platitudes. Are you a member of the Barack Obama speechwriting school?

[matshark]

#2) What about a parent who locks a kid in a basement and won't feed him? Obviously the kid needs food to live. In some cases, a kid needs chemo to live.

Do you want limited government, or do you want the government determining every aspect of your life? The nature of government is to constantly expand. Give it an inch, it will take (forcefully - or via taxes, zoning codes, etc...) a mile.

You didn't answer the question. You just kind of spoke in platitudes. Are you a member of the Barack Obama speechwriting school?

yes, lets just insinuate everyone who disagrees with us is a flat-earther... thats mature.

I did answer the question. I don't think it is the government's place to step in and do something in these types of situations. I think it's the role of the citizens around them to make a difference. By giving the government power to act in these situations, you remove yet another freedom from the people. (In this case, the right of the parents to raise their children as they see fit and to care for them as THEY SEE BEST
)

Saying that the nature of government is to expand and that if you give it an inch, it will take a mile is not a platitude. It's the very REASON the constitution and the bill of rights were created - to RESTRICT government from EXPANDING!

It amazes me how people born into a system where the government has already usurped many of their rights, treats that usurpation as normal - not sensing that they are being deprived of rights, because they have never known the difference.

I'm really not sure how you won political poster of the year. I'm not impressed.

[LUconn]

so you are against the police doing anything for a child being starved in the basement... I think you've kind of talked your way into a corner. You're basically not even libertarian. You're bordering on an anarchist.

[GoUNCA]

Everyone shouldn't just go and jump on the "the government is telling me what to do" wagon. In this case it seems the government is siding with the physician(s). Note that it isn't just one doctor, it would be multiple doctors, otherwise the family could just go until they find a doctor who says that treatment isn't necessary. In this case it seems the kid has been neglected to such a point that any physician who says no treatment would be operating beneath the standard of care and would risk losing his/her license.

This doesn't seem like a big deal to me. I'm not sure why you guys are making it a big deal. The government wants doctors orders followed and really doesn't care what those doctors orders are. If this only is to maintain the culture of "If I get sick I go to the doctor" over "if I get sick I go to a shahman/priest/guy down the street/snake tonic salesman" then this is a good thing.

If they want to kill the kid they could always move to Oregon or Washington and get the physician to do it for them.

Matshark indeed is sounding like an anarchist. I wonder what his thoughts on police are....goodness. Come on guys, it is possible to not take an extreme position on issues.

[GoUNCA]

Also wanted to tell matshark to never eat fish (especially large fish) because the amount of mercury in them is absolutely huge. I'd hate for him (or offspring) to become autistic. Heavy metals do crazy things we don't really understand yet, but you can get them from a lot of different things (food, acid rain, amalgam fillings, breathing air outside). The low rate of autism is probably indicative of the just how much mercury plays a role. I'll buy the argument that those who are autistic might have been due to mercury, but it seems that they are probably genetically predisposed to develop autism from mercury. We have this with a lot of things like heart attacks and drugs like cialis and viagra, but we certainly aren't trying to ban them. Now, if a large percentage of vaccinated children were becoming autistic (clearly not the case) then I would say we should change our vaccination system. We probably are looking to do that anyway, science takes time though.

[Ed Dantes]

First, Matshark, I wasn't calling you a flat-earther because you disagreed with me. I called you a flat-earther because you completely rejected science in favor of your preconceived notion. I'm trying to help you, here. You need to see the ridiculousness of your claims. People need to analyze the facts, not give in to hysterics.



My opinion on the entire chemotherapy debate is as such:

I posted this asking for sides, and where you would draw the line... but to me, it's a trick question.

It is the responsibility is to protect man from man. When it aims to protect man from self, it becomes tyrannical. But in situations where man is harming another, such as murdering someone, or in the case I posited, locking a child in a basement, then yes, it is a necessary function of the government to intervene.

There are areas where the law is murky, such as in this chemotherapy situation. Well, in that case, when there becomes a question about how the law is interpreted, it becomes a matter of the courts.

Laws are there for a reason. Judges are there for a reason. Let the legislators legislate, let the judges adjudicate. And so they have.