NationStates Jolt Archive

Inspired by the direction of the topic in the screening for infant diseases thread

Do you think parents should have the right to refuse necessary or lifesaving procedures for their underage children?

(poll coming)

My first instinct is to say "Hell no!"

However, I have to think about it a bit, as I could see the legal dangers in such a position.

My first instinct is to say "Hell no!"

However, I have to think about it a bit, as I could see the legal dangers in such a position.
Yes includuding parental responsibility of care for miners (as legaly defined)

Allowing a parent to refuse necessary medical care for his/her child is like allowing child abuse. No, parents shouldn't be allowed to refuse necessary, life saving medical care.

I think not. This is due to the fact that the parents have no right to refuse care for their children when their lives are at stake regardless of what their religious beliefs are. Letting your children die when there is an opportunity to save them that doessn't put the parent in danger or anything is usually criminal, and to make an exception in this cas is ridiculuous. After all, what if my "religion" involved hurting or putting chlidren in danger? Would it be accpetable solely because it is the parent's rights?

for the most part i would say no, just being the parent of a cild give you no right to control the health and well being of another human being. but of course there may be certain circumstances where th overnment has no right to choose either :)

for the most part i would say no, just being the parent of a cild give you no right to control the health and well being of another human being. but of course there may be certain circumstances where th overnment has no right to choose either :)
And what circumstances are thoes?

No!

When the child is too young to understand his/her religion
or something like that. parents shouldn't be allowed to prevent life saving
measures. And when child is old enough to deside, he's old
enough to deside.

I replied no only in the case of under-age children. My opinions differ in the case of adult choices.

I replied no only in the case of under-age children. My opinions differ in the case of adult choices.
Yup same thats why it was stated ... if you are old enough to make your own choices you are alowed to do what you want unless it harms others (my opinion)

The parent should provide all necessities of life including the right to medical care. However, I think they should be able to refuse from certain doctor's if they disagree with the policy, and be able to seek one that has a policy more fitting to them.

The parent should provide all necessities of life including the right to medical care. However, I think they should be able to refuse from certain doctor's if they disagree with the policy, and be able to seek one that has a policy more fitting to them.

What if 100 doctors say one thing, and one crackpot says another?

And what circumstances are thoes?

Perhaps when the circumstances are not very clear?

If we have five doctors saying X and five doctors saying Y, then the parents should certainly decide.

If there are a multitude of possible treatments, the parents should certainly be informed and decide.

However, if 100 doctors are saying X and the parents either can't find any that agree with them or find only 1 or 2, perhaps one can prove that their own biases are getting in the way of them doing what is in the best interest of the child?

Perhaps when the circumstances are not very clear?

If we have five doctors saying X and five doctors saying Y, then the parents should certainly decide.

If there are a multitude of possible treatments, the parents should certainly be informed and decide.

However, if 100 doctors are saying X and the parents either can't find any that agree with them or find only 1 or 2, perhaps one can prove that their own biases are getting in the way of them doing what is in the best interest of the child?
Yeah a deffinate problimatical spot ...doctors do not always agree on things

PARENTS HAVE NO RIGHTS!!!

THE GOVERNMENT OWNS YOUR CHILDREN!

But seriously, I think that parents shouldn't be allowed to keep lifesaving treatment from their kids. It's not a big issue, tho, as the overwhelming majority of parents would do all they can to save their children.

I put "other." If the child isn't mature enough to decide for themselves it puts the parents in the position of needing to make the decision. If the child is old enough to speak for himself, a judge can decide if he's mature enough to make decisions, but generally they'd be considered mature enough to say "I want to live."

If the issue is the withdrawal of life support or refusal to continue with painful but not neccesarily helpful treatment, the child should have some say if deemed mature enough.

As far as children too young to offer an opinion, a parent should only be able to refuse treatment if prevailing medical opinion is that the treatment will only prolong life a short time and won't result in a decent quality of life. If a child will die anyway and it's life will be nothing but pain, why make them suffer?

Inspired by the direction of the topic in the screening for infant diseases thread

Do you think parents should have the right to refuse necessary or lifesaving procedures for their underage children?

(poll coming)

I more or less agree with Bitchkitten with a qualified "no."

If the treatment you are talking about is extremely grueling/painful with a very low chance of success, then I don't necessarily see that the parents are doing a bad thing by refusing treatment, even if it is the only option available.

If it's something like refusing antibiotics in favor of exorcism to treat pneumonia, you better f-ing believe I'd support medical intervention.

I put "other." If the child isn't mature enough to decide for themselves it puts the parents in the position of needing to make the decision. If the child is old enough to speak for himself, a judge can decide if he's mature enough to make decisions, but generally they'd be considered mature enough to say "I want to live."

If the issue is the withdrawal of life support or refusal to continue with painful but not neccesarily helpful treatment, the child should have some say if deemed mature enough.

As far as children too young to offer an opinion, a parent should only be able to refuse treatment if prevailing medical opinion is that the treatment will only prolong life a short time and won't result in a decent quality of life. If a child will die anyway and it's life will be nothing but pain, why make them suffer?

That's pretty much where I am leaning as well. If there is no "prevailing medical opinion" and several options are open, of course the parents should make that decision. However, if there is an obvious prevailing opinion among the medical community and the child's life can be saved, I don't think the parents should have the option of refusing, especially not for any religion or philosophy which the child has not been allowed to decide (or flat out doesn't agree) for themselves.