Parents don't have the right to harm or neglect their children. If they do, they lose custody. That's how it works.

My initial post was responding directly to what Sick said, and had nothing at all to do with sending police to drag an adult to chemo treatments.

What my post was in response to:

I'm still not sure where your "self-determination" issue comes in, in light of what was said and what I was directly responding to.

i'm assuming that you feel the authorities should share your views on the capacity of the kid to determine what treatments he should receive. your response to Sick is linked to sending the police to drag adults to chemo by virtue of the reasoning you provided: that the child should should not be considered capable of making rational decisions regarding his treatment (ie, self-determination) in part because his guardian provided him with 'bad' cultural values.

blaugh, my ability to explain is bad. here's what i'm trying to say: i don't think that one's cultural values are a valid point of consideration when someone is deciding whether or not one is fit to determine one's treatment options. i feel that this is true regardless of one's age.

I made no value judgments in my post. I said the child had been presented with two scenarios:

a) Unknown people (doctors) who say that in order to cure him they will have to inject him with medicines that will cause him pain and suffering in order to cure him
b) A trusted parent who says that Native American prayer ceremonies will painlessly cure him

and that he had chosen choice B. Sick stated the child himself had chosen choice B, and I was stating why I did not believe that should be taken into consideration -- not because of any value placed on the method of treatment, but because of the relative value the child himself would place on the choices offered to him.

You are reading far more into what I said than what's there. I was addressing Sick's statement that the boy himself had refused treatment.

What I'm saying is that the boy's refusal of treatment and his desire to pursue alternative methods of treatment is, at his age and state of mental development, obviously influenced by his mother's beliefs and his innate human desire to prevent causing himself pain, and thus should not be factored into any arguments.

If you agree with me that a 13 year old does not have the capacity to make these decisions, then you and I are arguing the same point; however, you've taken offense to the fact that I referenced a reason that has been cited for the boy's refusal of treatment.



If his mother believed that small orange kangaroos from Alpha Centauri would be landing on Earth soon and bringing flowers whose smell cured cancer, would we be having this discussion?

Whether or not the child has the capacity to make such a decision should be made on a case by case basis. Using an arbitrary number like age leads to complications because children do not mature in a linear fashion. It is impossible to know from here whether or not the child in question is
capabale of making the decision to reject treatment for his condition.

Case by case basis sounds good in theory, but how are you going to do that in practice? You could argue along the same lines when it comes to voting, having sex, owning guns, signing a contract or drinking alcohol.

From what we know, it seems highly unlikely that the kid is in any position to make an informed decision.

Except, in the US, almost every state has statutes that state children are not to be deemed neglected or mistreated because they are receiving treatment solely by spiritual means.

_____

And, Shalome, you know I think these people are idiots. I've said so. But my original argument was against the stance that "the kid's sick, so he must get treatment no matter what," as if it's a clear-cut ethical issue. The fact is it's an incredibly complicated ethical issue.

The parents refuse treatment based on their beliefs. The state rules they can't refuse treatment; to do so would be neglect. The kid himself refuses treatment; the state rules that because of the belief system he was raised in he lacks the capacity to provide informed consent*.

Basically, the state has implied that you're free to make your own medical decisions, as long as you make the decision everyone thinks you should. If you make the wrong decision, they'll find a way to overrule you. I'm not entirely comfortable with the implications.



*Edit: Which is probably the right decision, as you said, but it brings up a whole host of other philosophical questions concerning beliefs and whether we ever really have free choice, etc.

I'm not sure if you're generalizing the larger argument, but in this specific case it appears that the father of the boy would not refuse treatment, and is actually openly pleading with the mother to return home with their son.

it seemed to me to be more than a simple reference. it seemed to me that you viewed him as being unfit to make good decisions because he accepted his mother's ridiculous beliefs--that you see his acceptance of his mother's beliefs as evidence that he's unfit to make good decisions. we wouldn't be having this conversation if his mother believed in space kangaroos because that sort of belief is generally indicative of mental unbalance. in this case, the mother is apparently held to be of sound mind, so while i find her beliefs to be painfully stupid, i have to defend their validity.

Add to that list "being allowed to reproduce" and you and I will be on the same page, even if you are being facetious. So many people for so long have been abusing privileges that I wouldn't mind seeing the line moved around a bit. I know some awfully ridiculous people who shouldn't be allowed to participate in elections yet.

To further expand on this, according to Minnesota Statute 609.378:

Yes, nothing like stigmatizing Jews and demonizing those "not like us" to get your point across. It's a tactic as old as humans and I wish we could evolve past it.

As for the people who think that faith in God alone is going to cure their children, I think they are ignoring a very key principle, namely that science isn't incompatible with faith. Indeed, I believe that God granted humans the ability to improve their lot on earth and that this includes advances made in medicine that keep us all living longer and living without as much pain and suffering.

Finally, I wonder why Cheney is so hellbent on fighting this one-man war. Perhaps he fully expects information to be released to the public that will so conclusively prove he engaged in illegal activities beyond what has already been revealed that he is trying to wage a PR campaign to save his own hide.

Ill give you the benefit of the doubt, but I wont believe it until I see it. Everything else stands.

The doctor discovers cancer. This is the case. An ethical question is raised. A medical ethicist is consulted. If the child is deemed unfit to make the decision and the parent is deemed unfit to make the decision then a proxy decion maker would be apointed. It isn't right to make the assumtion the child would folow the mother's belief set automatically. How many children of religious parents abandon their parents belief systems once they are emancipated or reach the age of majority?

Quoted from the article itself:
Caplan, one of the nation's foremost medical ethicists, said religious exceptions are bad public policy because effective medical treatment for a child shouldn't be sacrificed for a parent's beliefs.

edit: in my previous post the words "from here" were intended to imply our lofty perch upon the internet.