Of Two Minds A Bit On This One....

[Ravenshire]

It was a rhetorical question. :p

Yeah, I know. These types of questions over self determination just hit very close to home for me.

If you're sane and well informed, I believe the decision is up to you, not some meddling bastard, who knows nothing about you that isn't in your case file, sitting a bench in some court room.

Our state, here in The States, is a vassal (not that this language is even half appropriate, given the structure of our state) to it's public, and explicitly so.

It really is too bad that the ideals have been lost by those who seek to lead.

[TheRealJoeFish]

If you're sane and well informed, I believe the decision is up to you, not some meddling bastard, who knows nothing about you that isn't in your case file, sitting a bench in some court room.

I absolutely 100% agree, but here's the thing:

Do we let a sane, well-informed 5-year-old decide not to get chemo?
A sane, well-informed 9-year-old?

I've said earlier in this thread, and I'll say it again, that I think 18 is too high an age at which to start letting people make their own medical decisions.

But the age can't be 4, can it? So, again, I ask, how do we deal with it?

Because if the answer is "in a certain age range, it's on a case-by-case basis," then the "meddling bastard sitting on a bench in some court room" is going to have a much greater say in far more cases.

[Faith No More]

I absolutely 100% agree, but here's the thing:

Do we let a sane, well-informed 5-year-old decide not to get chemo?
A sane, well-informed 9-year-old?

I've said earlier in this thread, and I'll say it again, that I think 18 is too high an age at which to start letting people make their own medical decisions.

But the age can't be 4, can it? So, again, I ask, how do we deal with it?

Because if the answer is "in a certain age range, it's on a case-by-case basis," then the "meddling bastard sitting on a bench in some court room" is going to have a much greater say in far more cases.

It's time for science!

I think the best way would be to look at the studies of adolescent brains and their conclusion making skills to determine an appropriate age at which a human being can be considered emotionally and rationally fit enough to be responsible for his/her life. Sure, it would be a bit of a messy process and creating a rigid line in the sand would be imperfect, but it sure beats the hell out of letting any joe schmo with a robe on determining what we do with our bodies.

[Ravenshire]

If you're sane and well informed, I believe the decision is up to you, not some meddling bastard, who knows nothing about you that isn't in your case file, sitting a bench in some court room.

I absolutely 100% agree, but here's the thing:

Do we let a sane, well-informed 5-year-old decide not to get chemo?
A sane, well-informed 9-year-old?

I've said earlier in this thread, and I'll say it again, that I think 18 is too high an age at which to start letting people make their own medical decisions.

But the age can't be 4, can it? So, again, I ask, how do we deal with it?

Because if the answer is "in a certain age range, it's on a case-by-case basis," then the "meddling bastard sitting on a bench in some court room" is going to have a much greater say in far more cases.

I tend to side with the parents when they are sane and well informed. In this case, that is not the case.

If my children were ever stricken with this type of disease, I would hope the state would recognize that I am in my right mind and was making well informed decisions even if that meant allowing them to die to avoid otherwise unavoidable, pointless suffering. Otherwise the state may as well tell all parents that every decision they ever make about their children is subject to scrutiny by the courts and their children will be taken from their care at any time with or without notice.

I agree that no 5-year old can make sane informed life and death decisions and there is a place for state intervention. However, it's the parent's job. As long as the parent is sane and well informed, the state needs to stay the fuck out.

[Minimalist]

I tend to side with the parents when they are sane and well informed. In this case, that is not the case.

Who is to say that you are right and they are wrong?

[Losty]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/01/conne...motherapy/

Connecticut’s top court rejects teen’s plea to end state-ordered chemotherapy

Connecticut’s top court on Thursday rejected a request by a teenager diagnosed with cancer to halt the state-ordered chemotherapy treatments she has been receiving, saying her rights had not been violated.

I suppose there needs to be a cut-off point but OTOH 17 is not 5 or 6.

Wha..?? I'm confused. And too lazy to click link. We have a constitutional right to refuse medical treatment. How the hell can there be a state ordered chemotherapy. That seems kind of fucked up.

---

If you're sane and well informed, I believe the decision is up to you, not some meddling bastard, who knows nothing about you that isn't in your case file, sitting a bench in some court room.

I absolutely 100% agree, but here's the thing:

Do we let a sane, well-informed 5-year-old decide not to get chemo?
A sane, well-informed 9-year-old?

I've said earlier in this thread, and I'll say it again, that I think 18 is too high an age at which to start letting people make their own medical decisions.

But the age can't be 4, can it? So, again, I ask, how do we deal with it?

Because if the answer is "in a certain age range, it's on a case-by-case basis," then the "meddling bastard sitting on a bench in some court room" is going to have a much greater say in far more cases.

Ahh now I get it.

Umm...what's the age when children get to choose which parent they want to live with if their parents are divorced. I think that's a fair age.

---

Another question I have is, what hospital would administer chemotherapy to an unwilling patient? And what if she refuses? Do they arrest her? Do they strap her down in a chair in her jail cell and administer her chemo?
If she is legally sane, she knows that not having chemo means she will die, and she knows what death means....it's just seems sick to force treatment on someone. My position is almost always on the side of the person who wishes to refuse treatment.

[Ravenshire]

I tend to side with the parents when they are sane and well informed. In this case, that is not the case.

Who is to say that you are right and they are wrong?

You're right. I know very little about this particular case. What I have gleaned is that the parents (and the patient) in the case are either very poorly informed about the consequences of stopping treatment, or in denial about the consequences, and that treatment is likely to be beneficial. If that is indeed the case, the state is justified in stepping in to protect the kid.

If the parents and the patient are all well informed then the state needs to get the fuck out.

[Minimalist]

How far should the state go in this?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-yo...-children/

The ethical negligence of parents who refuse to vaccinate their children

In fact, a study published in the journal Pediatrics showed that 1 in 10 parents in the United States now forgo or delay vaccinations for their kids.

Does the state, as Losty hints, strap them to a chair and vaccinate them 'for their own good?' Since this decision actually impacts others far more than one person refusing chemotherapy it would seem the state would be on even steadier ground by forcibly immunizing kids.

Can you imagine the shit storm that would result?

[Ravenshire]

From the article:

Some doctors choose not to care for families who refuse to vaccinate their children.

While it's pooh-poohed in the article, I like this idea. If your too thick-headed to listen to the guy who spent eight (or more) years in school studying this shit, he should send you packing. All of them should. Doctors frequently refuse to treat other patients who disregard their health (smokers and heavy drinkers come to mind here). Why not assholes who want to put their children and others at risk.

Also from the article:

The medical community can't do this alone. Schools must insist that children cannot start kindergarten without being vaccinated.

Another great idea that used to be but isn't any longer. Getting a kid into public school without immunizations used to be a real bitch. Now you just sign a waiver claiming that you "understand the risks" and your kid is in. Of course, the fuck-tards understand exactly jack shit.

I don't think the state should force parents to immunize. Take away as many of the kids opportunity to spread the lethal diseases?!? Hell yeah. No public school, no public rec centers (government funded, at least), no public library time, etc...