NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/07/21/sick.teen.ap/index.html

Now I am not saying that the kid or his parents are making the right decision. I personally think that it's in the kid's best interest to listen to his doctors.

BUT this kid is sane and informed. His parents are sane and informed. They KNOW the risks vs. rewards of their decisions and they have the RIGHT to make it. I think it's utter bullshit that the state can step in and FORCE conventional medical treatment on an unwilling teen and against the wishes of his unwilling parents.

This goes too far.

Agreed. I never did trust medications.

I bet if it'd been Tom Cruise who was forced people would've cared..

I agree. Darwin is not amused.

If Prince Charles was in Power!
*Shakes fist*

If Prince Charles was in Power!
*Shakes fist*

You Damn Skippy! :)

This is a gross infraction of his civil rights. On a scale that would appaul the Bush administration, it's just disgusting.

This is a gross infraction of his civil rights. On a scale that would appaul the Bush administration, it's just disgusting.
x10

This sickens me. So, it isn't enough that the state knows what's best for his education, parents, house, cars, etc., even against his wishes, now they know what's best for his healthcare!?

Damn, I hope this kid lives 2 more years so he can sue the government for this gross infringement of not only his constitutional, but HUMAN rights.

Am I a jackass for saying that if the kid was stupid enough to forgo real treatment in the name of an inane "alternative" that he was stupid enough to die for it without his genes being missed by the gene-pool?

I'm really split. I mean, if it was his parents money, and his educated descision doing it, it was stupid, but not illegal. If it was his parents money, and not his choice, or it was the state's money, the judge was entirely correct.

Something does need to be done about all the idiots who beleive in "alternative" medicines, because selective pressure isn't doing the job. I suggest some sort of info-campaign, and lawsuits against "alternative" practitioners who make false claims.

I mean, if it was his parents money, and his educated descision doing it, it was stupid, but not illegal.
Exactly. It doesn't matter how "stupid" the choice is, it's HIS and his PARENTS choice of what to do. But, of course and as always, the State wants to be the baby's father... :rolleyes:


Something does need to be done about all the idiots who beleive in "alternative" medicines, because selective pressure isn't doing the job. I suggest some sort of info-campaign, and lawsuits against "alternative" practitioners who make false claims.
But who are you to say they're "idiots" or "[making] false claims"? There have been cases of diseases or people in hopeless conditions making recoveries due to these "[idiotic] ... alternative medicines". I think a person should be free to try WHATEVER options they want, then decide on which one works. It doesn't do anyone any good if the state arbitrarially decides "hey, this is the best option!" and then all others are banned.

Am I a jackass for saying that if the kid was stupid enough to forgo real treatment in the name of an inane "alternative" that he was stupid enough to die for it without his genes being missed by the gene-pool?

I'm really split. I mean, if it was his parents money, and his educated descision doing it, it was stupid, but not illegal. If it was his parents money, and not his choice, or it was the state's money, the judge was entirely correct.

Something does need to be done about all the idiots who beleive in "alternative" medicines, because selective pressure isn't doing the job. I suggest some sort of info-campaign, and lawsuits against "alternative" practitioners who make false claims.

I'm certainly not going to dispute that alternative medicine is risky. Though I am comfortable saying that there are folk medicines and non-traditional medical techniques that occasionally surprise the bejesus out of traditional western medicine.

I'm also not going to dispute that this kid and his parents are making a wrong decision. But it's their wrong decision to make. *nod*

You Damn Skippy! :)
WTF, i ain't no Aussie...Ain't a whitey either
:mad:

But who are you to say they're "idiots" or "[making] false claims"? There have been cases of diseases or people in hopeless conditions making recoveries due to these "[idiotic] ... alternative medicines". I think a person should be free to try WHATEVER options they want, then decide on which one works. It doesn't do anyone any good if the state arbitrarially decides "hey, this is the best option!" and then all others are banned.

While we're at it, why don't we let people try what they want as laws. If they want to commit murder, cool! We could also let people try the facts that they like. Libel would the next big thing! And... While we're at it, why not let advertisers try out their own kind of advertisement. It doesn't matter if it's true, so long as it's their choice!

I don't think the state has a place in it, but I think that private action group ought to confront the idiocy that is alternative "medicine". Folk cures often had some root (hehe) in the truth, but for the most part modern science already exploits that. In this case, the young man was going to eat an organic diet and consider that treatment to be the equivalent of chemotherapy. While organic foods are great if you are trying to avoid carcinogens, they don't make jack shit difference once you've already got cancer.

Magic is all fine and nice, but it isn't real. In the real world, cold hard facts, and not doctored "statistics" are what matters. When most folk rememdies are either less effective versions of a medicine we already use, or not medicine at all, they are not an alternative, they are suicide.

I'm really split. I mean, if it was his parents money, and his educated descision doing it, it was stupid, but not illegal. If it was his parents money, and not his choice, or it was the state's money, the judge was entirely correct.


I agree.

If the boys parents are footing the bill, then as sane people they have the right to seek whatever treatment they feel is right, especially if the boy's desires are the same.

If the state is paying, then it should have the right to spend it on proven, conventional cancer treatments.
Ive known two people with Hodgekins disease, and both survived due to conventional treatment.
In the boys case, his preffered treatments will indirectly kill him.

Yet another part of me says this may be child endangerment.
Hodgekins, as far as I know, is usually survivable if caught early enough, and with proper treatment.
If his parents dont want thier child to die, they should seek an actual doctor.
Perhaps one with a nice shiny degree, and not some new age guru asswipe in Mexico.

I suppose I reserve judgement, until I see the rest of the story.

Bet you the kid will die on the operating table - then you'll have one hell of an ambluance chaser lawsuit and a new patient's rights movement.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/07/21/sick.teen.ap/index.html

Now I am not saying that the kid or his parents are making the right decision. I personally think that it's in the kid's best interest to listen to his doctors.

BUT this kid is sane and informed. His parents are sane and informed. They KNOW the risks vs. rewards of their decisions and they have the RIGHT to make it. I think it's utter bullshit that the state can step in and FORCE conventional medical treatment on an unwilling teen and against the wishes of his unwilling parents.

This goes too far.

Force him.

Loco Parentis isn't latin for the right to be a crazy parent.

Tell that lot to do as told and keep the traps SHUT.

Force him.

Dare I ask for your reason to intrude upon his privacy? Surely, he has the right to decide what happens to his own body…

Refusing treatment might be stupid, but it is his choice. Not mine, not yours, not the governments.

Bet you the kid will die on the operating table - then you'll have one hell of an ambluance chaser lawsuit and a new patient's rights movement.

The state wants him to recieve chemotherapy. There's no need for an operating table.

BUT this kid is sane and informed. His parents are sane and informed.

You sure about that? Sounds pretty INsane to me.

the state decided that a minor has no right to refuse lifesaving treatments.

the mexican herbal treatment is NO treatment. its not going to cure hodgkins disease.

seems to me that if he still wants to die in 2 years, he can make that decision then. until then the state has decided that he will live.

Now the government can step and tell you if you have the right to pull the plug on terminal illness, treat or not treat an illness. It's getting outside the realm of governmental rights and responsibilities in my opinion.

The government's function is to do for the people what they CANNOT do for themselves. The government is not our parent and should not make decisions about our health (and a great many other things).

Am I a jackass for saying that if the kid was stupid enough to forgo real treatment in the name of an inane "alternative" that he was stupid enough to die for it without his genes being missed by the gene-pool?

I'm really split. I mean, if it was his parents money, and his educated descision doing it, it was stupid, but not illegal. If it was his parents money, and not his choice, or it was the state's money, the judge was entirely correct.

Something does need to be done about all the idiots who beleive in "alternative" medicines, because selective pressure isn't doing the job. I suggest some sort of info-campaign, and lawsuits against "alternative" practitioners who make false claims.

I am sorry but I seem to be on the exact oppsite side of the agrument as you.

For years doctors have been treating me like some gunia pig for new meds most of which were placebos. They gave me ever diagnosis under the sun and Now i hate them and don't believe a word they say. If it were my choice I'd never see one again unless I actually felt very sick.

I love alternitive medicines! They make you feel better, and can sometimes bring you back to 200% instead of just 100%. Yes there are quacks out their but ALmost all Real Doctors are Quacks too! so either way you'll either get better or worse i say do what works for you and if the State says no MOVE!

http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/07/21/sick.teen.ap/index.html

Now I am not saying that the kid or his parents are making the right decision. I personally think that it's in the kid's best interest to listen to his doctors.

BUT this kid is sane and informed. His parents are sane and informed. They KNOW the risks vs. rewards of their decisions and they have the RIGHT to make it. I think it's utter bullshit that the state can step in and FORCE conventional medical treatment on an unwilling teen and against the wishes of his unwilling parents.

This goes too far.
A 16 year old still doesn't have a properly developed brain to make life or death decisions. The state has a compelling interest here. Sorry.

I'm sorry but in this instance I agree with the state.

If he were an adult, it would be his choice. If it was one of the parents who was sick, it would be his/her choice.

However he's a minor, and the parents have a duty to ensure that they do the VERY best for their child. In this they are failing that duty and allowing him to die when they don't have to.

They are failing in their obligation, thus the state needs to enforce that obligation.

I believe that if a doctor determines that there is a 0% chance of him surviving without the prescribed modern medical treatment that he is refusing it is a suicide attempt and should be prevented as such. Note: at 16 he is not his own legal guardian, his parents are. It is up to them. He has no legal right to refuse the treatment that they choose.

This goes too far.
Why? This boy's life can be saved. He was going to let himself die.

I believe that if a doctor determines that there is a 0% chance of him surviving without the prescribed modern medical treatment that he is refusing it is a suicide attempt and should be prevented as such. Note: at 16 he is not his own legal guardian, his parents are. It is up to them. He has no legal right to refuse the treatment that they choose.

I um...wow, agree with you. It's worth noting however that the PARENTS want this treatment.

And in doing so, they are failing as parents. The state should ONLY step in when the parents have blatantly failed to protect their children.

As they have done here.

I um...wow, agree with you. It's worth noting however that the PARENTS want this treatment.

And in doing so, they are failing as parents. The state should ONLY step in when the parents have blatantly failed to protect their children.

As they have done here.

We agree. Hell is freezing as I type. hehe. :D

Interesting point on the parents. I agree again. If they are letting him kill himself it serves the interest of the state to stop them. It is an abuse of power. It is interesting to wonder though, what would be going on if he was 2 years older....

if he were 2 years old, then he would have hit that magical line of adulthood and have the right to refuse medical treatment.

As a minor though he does not have that right, it is the obligation of the parents to make decisions for him, and it is the obligation of the parent to make choices in the best interest of the child.

This choice is not in his best interest. In fact it is suicide. So while he would have that right IF he were an adult, he is not, and the parents should be made to ensure they do the best for their child.

While we're at it, why don't we let people try what they want as laws. If they want to commit murder, cool!
Ever heard of a duel?

While we're at it, why not let advertisers try out their own kind of advertisement. It doesn't matter if it's true, so long as it's their choice!
Only the sith think in absolutes. The problem with the left is they're incapable of ever being happy because they have to go extreme with everything, should advertisers be punished for outright lieing about thier product? Most ceartainly, but misleading? No. Thier job is to make money, but people have to be heald accountible for thier actions. A common koan I say to people is;

There is an exseption to everything.
But not everything is the exseption.

Magic is all fine and nice, but it isn't real.
Who the fuck made you an expert? You can't tell me what's real and what isn't, Magick is as fake as Bush destroying our economy.. And yes, remember to spell magick with a K will you?

In the real world, cold hard facts, and not doctored "statistics" are what matters.
When one person does something, it's a fact, when thousands of people do it, it's a stastic..

When most folk rememdies are either less effective versions of a medicine we already use, or not medicine at all, they are not an alternative, they are suicide.
Your criminalization of the simpler, cheaper, and traditional remedities is frightning. You remind me of something I'd expect to see on a 1984 novel.. Let people make that descision for themself and thier children, if you don't like it, tough titties.. That's why we're the land of the free, not "the land of cold hard facts".

Why? This boy's life can be saved. He was going to let himself die.

Was he?

x10

This sickens me. So, it isn't enough that the state knows what's best for his education, parents, house, cars, etc., even against his wishes, now they know what's best for his healthcare!?

Damn, I hope this kid lives 2 more years so he can sue the government for this gross infringement of not only his constitutional, but HUMAN rights.

So you support the right to have oneself euthanised too ?
Welcome to the club :)

Why? This boy's life can be saved. He was going to let himself die.

And he should not be allowed to do that because.. eeehm..... it is his life to end ?

I have never vested much trust in doctors or the pharmecuetical(sp?) industry anyway, but I'll try to keep that out of my analysis of the situation; In which I think what the state is doing is something quite near and dear to criminal.

I dont understand the states' vested intrest in what treatment he recieves. Notice that this is in fact the case, instead of life or death, until such time as we know the treatments he is already recieving are not in fact helping him. Beyond this subtle point, is the fact that the boy and his parents both claim that the chemotherapy visibly worsened the state he was in, enough to add yet another illness to his condition.

Outside the area of wether or not the treatments are effective, is the fact that what the government did may have been well outside its rights. Beyond any vague obligations, that have no basis in the actual aurgument- it remains to be seen that the state constitution allows for the state to act in such a manner. Just because government percieves a "problem" doesnt mean they should immediatly legislate every part of it, or that they should even be allowed to.

And many "home remedies" and even "superstitions" are being revealed to have basis in fact. For example (This doesnt actually have to do with medicine) It was discovered that some elderly can in fact, predict weather- due to the affects of heightened moisture on arthritis. This was something scientists used to laugh about too.

Your criminalization of the simpler, cheaper, and traditional remedities is frightning.

What you fail to point out one thing, they may be simpler, cheaper and traditional, but I note you didn't actually say they work.

Let people make that descision for themself and thier children, if you don't like it, tough titties.. That's why we're the land of the free, not "the land of cold hard facts".

Parents have the obligation to ensure their children are protected, not hold on to some whack job believe that "holistic medicine" will cure his cancer, a claim that is in no way backed up by science.

The government should not allow parents to have the authority to legally kill their children.

And he should not be allowed to do that because.. eeehm..... it is his life to end ?

No it isn't. He's a minor, he doesn't have the right to refuse medical treatment. And his parents do not have the right to make choices that would kill their children.

Unless you suggest it's perfectly ok for parents to let their children run with sissors, play with matches, and do drugs, becuase they "want to".

And many "home remedies" and even "superstitions" are being revealed to have basis in fact. For example (This doesnt actually have to do with medicine) It was discovered that some elderly can in fact, predict weather- due to the affects of heightened moisture on arthritis. This was something scientists used to laugh about too.

The fact that changes in atmospheric pressure (not moisture as you say) can be felt in old joints has been known for a while.

Point me to anything that says a good diet can cure cancer.

And he should not be allowed to do that because.. eeehm..... it is his life to end ?
He could live to do great things which would be in his own and society's interests. He should slip away cos of a mistake in his youth. Besides, surely as a society we should be pushing for a culture of life where none need die if at all possible.

With a name like 'Starchild' :rolleyes: I think we can see that he and his parents are fundamentalist hippies (yes, it seems there can be such a thing).

I am undecided about this, on the one hand I do not think he should have the right to refuse treatment at his age, on the other hand, society could do without people that stubborn and dumb.

What you fail to point out one thing, they may be simpler, cheaper and traditional, but I note you didn't actually say they work.

Problem with that little jab is that there are no "real" cures for cancer. Chemotherapy (the treatment they are using on the kid) doesnt always work either. It's also no guarentee that the same cancer wont come back to the same spot. There is no cure for cancer, just treatments which might eventually eliminate the disease (emphasis on "might") and ways to slow down growth.

Parents have the obligation to ensure their children are protected, not hold on to some whack job believe that "holistic medicine" will cure his cancer, a claim that is in no way backed up by science.

The government should not allow parents to have the authority to legally kill their children.

Its intellectually dishonest to put refusing a treatment on the same level as murder.

I am undecided about this, on the one hand I do not think he should have the right to refuse treatment at his age, on the other hand, society could do without people that stubborn and dumb.I know: Kill the parents, treat the child; it's a win-win!:D

He could live to do great things which would be in his own and society's interests. He should slip away cos of a mistake in his youth. Besides, surely as a society we should be pushing for a culture of life where none need die if at all possible.

Some people need to die. Think of death as chlorine for the genepool. :)

Its intellectually dishonest to put refusing a treatment on the same level as murder.

I never used the word "murder". However I would consider that intentionally denying your child medicine that well might save his life in exchange for a bullshit holistic approach that will almost certainly lead to his death, quite well fits into the definition of depraved indifference to human life.

Which does fit the definition in many states of manslaughter...

I never used the word "murder". However I would consider that intentionally denying your child medicine that well might save his life in exchange for a bullshit holistic approach that will almost certainly lead to his death, quite well fits into the definition of depraved indifference to human life.

Which does fit the definition in many states of manslaughter...

Unless the bullshit holistic approach works.

I never used the word "murder". However I would consider that intentionally denying your child medicine that well might save his life in exchange for a bullshit holistic approach that will almost certainly lead to his death, quite well fits into the definition of depraved indifference to human life.

Which does fit the definition in many states of manslaughter...

You still arent adressing the condition that made his parents seek out this help in the first place. The treatments the doctors chose wasnt working and made the child sick.

Unless the bullshit holistic approach works.

Of which there is no evidence to suggest that it will, and no data to back up any such claim empirically or statistically.

Would it be ok of me to push him off a 100 foot building in the hopes that the impact will knock the tumor right out of him?

This is probably the statistical equivilant.

You still arent adressing the condition that made his parents seek out this help in the first place. The treatments the doctors chose wasnt working and made the child sick.

You ever take antibiotics?

Doctor ever warn you not to stop in the middle?

Yeah, chemo makes people ill, it's unfortunate. But from my understanding they didn't let it go through the course, they stopped in the middle.

Of course it didn't bloody work, they stopped it before it could.

Of which there is no evidence to suggest that it will, and no data to back up any such claim empirically or statistically.

Would it be ok of me to push him off a 100 foot building in the hopes that the impact will knock the tumor right out of him?

This is probably the statistical equivilant.

I'm not going to argue about unproven alternative medicine vs. modern western medicine because I'll side with modern western medicine every time.

However, the most powerful instrument for curing disease and injury is the mind. I think the kid has a better chance with a dubious treatment he has total faith in than he does in a modern medical treatment he doesn't.

I'm not going to argue about unproven alternative medicine vs. modern western medicine because I'll side with modern western medicine every time.

However, the most powerful instrument for curing disease and injury is the mind. I think the kid has a better chance with a dubious treatment he has total faith in than he does in a modern medical treatment he doesn't.

Your opinion, however i totally disagree with that statement, and while I think most doctors would agree that modern practice, and a faith in modern practice is the best, they'd take modern practice with no faith over a bullshit practice with total faith every time.

http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=27&ContentID=614

^Chemo is no wonder cure, and not even universally effective.

I'm back to reiterate.

He's 16. SIXTEEN. In some countries he's old enough to vote! When I was 16, I was damn well able to make choices regarding my future and life! I think, however, it's more saddening that you are arguing that a 16-year-old "doesn't have the mental capacity" to make life-and-death situations. A 9-year-old, yes, but he's 16! I'm pretty damn sure he knows what death is, and he has made a choice. The State should have no right to force their wishes on him.

And besides, what about his brain will magically change between 16 and 18 to suddenly give him the "mental capacity"? His brain is fully developed. 18 is only an arbitrary age. Also, he's in Grade 10 (assuming by age), and he's probably already being forced to make tough decisions about what he wants in life. Why can he not make choices about his healthcare? Or should the State decide what courses he should take and what university he should go to?

A 16 year old still doesn't have a properly developed brain to make life or death decisions. The state has a compelling interest here. Sorry.

I heard somewhere that the frontal... part of the brain is fully developed by the age of 16 (unless there is a mental retarding...thing). I'll look for a link.

The government should not allow parents to have the authority to legally kill their children.

If he wants to do it his parents should let him. He's a big boy, if he wants doesn't want chemotherapy and wants to live out the remainder of his life without the pain that chemo brings it's his and his parents decision to make.

I thought there was something in our nations laws about freedom of medicine. I could be wrong.

Just as I believe in a persons right to commit suicide or kill themselves slowly with an unhealthy lifestyle I believe this kid should have the right to use alternative medicine if that's what he and his parents choose.

I'm surprised it even went to court. That's pretty stupid... I think teh state should be required to pay for the treatment that they are requiring the kid to take.

I'm back to reiterate.

He's 16. SIXTEEN. In some countries he's old enough to vote! When I was 16, I was damn well able to make choices regarding my future and life! I think, however, it's more saddening that you are arguing that a 16-year-old "doesn't have the mental capacity" to make life-and-death situations. A 9-year-old, yes, but he's 16! I'm pretty damn sure he knows what death is, and he has made a choice. The State should have no right to force their wishes on him.

It doesn't matter what his development is. Under the laws of the state and country, he's a minor.


And besides, what about his brain will magically change between 16 and 18 to suddenly give him the "mental capacity"? His brain is fully developed. 18 is only an arbitrary age. Also, he's in Grade 10 (assuming by age), and he's probably already being forced to make tough decisions about what he wants in life. Why can he not make choices about his healthcare? Or should the State decide what courses he should take and what university he should go to?

It doesn't matter what changes take place between 16 and 18. Under the laws of the state and country he's a minor.

He can not make those decisions because under law it is not his decision to make. Don't like it? Vote for someone who will change it, that's the essence of a democratic republic system.

If he wants to do it his parents should let him.
You're forgetting: his parents WANT him to try the alternatives as much as he does. It's the State that wants to tell him which treatments he can use.
It doesn't matter what his development is. Under the laws of the state and country, he's a minor.

...

It doesn't matter what changes take place between 16 and 18. Under the laws of the state and country he's a minor.

He can not make those decisions because under law it is not his decision to make. Don't like it? Vote for someone who will change it, that's the essence of a democratic republic system.

You're forgetting the same thing. His LEGAL GUARDIANS are supporting him in his decision. Obviously, of course, the State knows what's best for him, over him himself AND his parents. This is my issue. I don't care how "stupid" the treatment is, the fact that both the boy AND his parents want this means that they should have that option. Plus, it's THEIR money. Unless the State is going to pay this chemo bill, then they should have the free choice on that issue alone.

If he wants to do it his parents should let him. He's a big boy, if he wants doesn't want chemotherapy and wants to live out the remainder of his life without the pain that chemo brings it's his and his parents decision to make.

Hear that parents? if your children want to play with matches and run with sissors, let them, it's what they want to do!

Parents have the obligation to make decisions in the best interests of their children. Often what is the "best interest" is subjective. Letting him die to a treatment that flat out won't work is not

Just as I believe in a persons right to commit suicide or kill themselves slowly with an unhealthy lifestyle


This brings up an interesting point. I know there is really no strength in "slippery slope" aurguments, but does this not set some sort of legal precedent that could potentionally be used to charge parents with "Endangerment" because they arent raising their child the state-certified way? Such things already happen in education, and could easily extend to lifestyle.

Letting him die to a treatment that flat out won't work is not
Oh, what, this one? http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=27&ContentID=614

Hear that parents? if your children want to play with matches and run with sissors, let them, it's what they want to do!
Your straw man is very lovely.

This has nothing to do with the argument in question. Running with sissors or playing with matches aren't alternative treatments to cancer. Please keep on topic.

The government should not allow parents to have the authority to legally kill their children.
O Rly? What's your stance on abortion then?

O Rly? What's your stance on abortion then?

A fetus isn't a person, thus having an abortion isn't killing a child.

A 16 year old, however, is.

Your straw man is very lovely.

This has nothing to do with the argument in question. Running with sissors or playing with matches aren't alternative treatments to cancer. Please keep on topic.


Running with sissors, playing with matches, and taking part in a BS procedure that will do NOTHING to cure your cancer are all activities that present great risk with absolutly no benefit what so ever.

They are the same.

A fetus isn't a person, thus having an abortion isn't killing a child.

A 16 year old, however, is.
Your ass-backward views and pseudo-nazi stances to enforce your moral law over others has proven everything I need inorder to make you irrelevant to this discussion. Good day sir.

You're forgetting the same thing. His LEGAL GUARDIANS are supporting him in his decision. Obviously, of course, the State knows what's best for him, over him himself AND his parents. This is my issue. I don't care how "stupid" the treatment is, the fact that both the boy AND his parents want this means that they should have that option. Plus, it's THEIR money. Unless the State is going to pay this chemo bill, then they should have the free choice on that issue alone.

So you support the right for parents to let their children play with matches if they want to?

The fact is, if the parents are advocating a course of treatment that will do absolutly NOTHING to help him, and WILL result in his death, damned right the state knows better.

We do it all the time. Beat your child half to death? Neglectful. Don't feed it? Neglectful.

Do something that endangers your child, which includes denying it a treatment which may well save his life over a treatment which WILL NOT? Neglectful.

And don't say that's what the kid wants. As a minor it doesn't matter what he wants.

Your ass-backward views and pseudo-nazi stances

Of course, how foolish of me, I never understood how "if you do shit that will result in the death of your child then you don't deserve to have control over your child" was naziesq.

please explain that one to me.

I'm sorry, I will not, now or ever, support a parent's right to do whatever the hell they want to. parents have an obligation, social, moral, and most importantly, LEGAL, to do what is in the best interests of the child. Allowing your child to die when there is a VERY good chance he can live is NOT in the best interests of the child. It is neglect, plain and simple.

And once again it doesn't matter worth a damn what the child wants, he's a child, he is not empowered to make that decision.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/07/21/sick.teen.ap/index.html

Now I am not saying that the kid or his parents are making the right decision. I personally think that it's in the kid's best interest to listen to his doctors.

BUT this kid is sane and informed. His parents are sane and informed. They KNOW the risks vs. rewards of their decisions and they have the RIGHT to make it. I think it's utter bullshit that the state can step in and FORCE conventional medical treatment on an unwilling teen and against the wishes of his unwilling parents.

This goes too far.
Tough call.

Since it's obvious that the teen is competent, and since most states allow teens of that age to apply for "emancipation" from their parents, I don't agree with the judge's decision either.

Tough call.

Since it's obvious that the teen is competent, and since most states allow teens of that age to apply for "emancipation" from their parents, I don't agree with the judge's decision either.

I agree that at 16 it's a rough line, and he probably IS mature enough to make his own decisions.

However the law defines him as a minor, and is not the judge's job to define the law it is his job to ENFORCE the law, and UNDER LAW he is a minor.

And as a minor it is the job of his parents' to do things in his best interests. And taking a course of action that will almost certainly result in his, otherwise likely preventable, death, is the very DEFINITION of neglect.

You're forgetting: his parents WANT him to try the alternatives as much as he does. It's the State that wants to tell him which treatments he can use.


Yeah, sorry I phrased that badly but it makes sense it context... with the quote...

The chemo will make anyone sick but, if it doesn't work in the last precious time you have left you are in pain (you'd be in pain anyway but the chemo won't help). If I felt I was going to die I might refuse treatment too and live life to the fullest instead of being sicker then I had to. Sure he's a minor but his parents are not and they made the decsion together.

which includes denying it a treatment they didn't just say no when he asked for treatment neither of them wanted it and it's his life. He needs his parent's consent because he;s a minor but they;ve decided what they want and they should have the right to do so. The right to his own life and "the Right to be Wrong"

Hear that parents? if your children want to play with matches and run with sissors, let them, it's what they want to do!

Parents have the obligation to make decisions in the best interests of their children. Often what is the "best interest" is subjective. Letting him die to a treatment that flat out won't work is not


Dude, HOW DO YOU KNOW IT WON'T WORK?

They have been trying out meds on me for years and none of them "had the desired effect" AKA "Worked".

On the other hand, My altrunive medicnine have worked far better than any some idioic docter ever perscribed.

When it comes to Canser though, I totally suport going to the Canser Treatment Centers of RI, they treat the whole person not just the canser, there he could most likely get his Chemo AND his diet and Vitemin regimend. Both sides would be happy.

and if you say once more that something you personally have never tried doesn't work- especially in that rude way- I think I'll have to find a Mod to talk to.

How exactly are 'a sugar-free, organic diet and herbal supplements' going to cure cancer?

The chemotherapy didn't make him worse either. It made him 'nauseated and weak'. A well know side effect that he would have been warned against.

Add in the fact that he apparently went into remission before a reoccurance. It worked once, why not again?

Bleedin' hippies.

well at the Canser Treatment Centers of RI, they could have the "Westerized Mecisine" way (= spew!) and the Alterintve way (=yay!) at the same time. so i don't see why we are still argueing. If it's possible for both sides to get what they want than I say that is the way to go.

they can't do what both sides want. The family doesn't want the treatment the state does.

they can't do what both sides want. The family doesn't want the treatment the state does.

Does the State own us now? It gets to make all our life and death decisions for us because we're too stupid to make our own? God, I hope not!

Playing with matches is a straw man because there is a 100% survival rate if you don't.
A better analogy to this is:
You have some disease in your arm. If it is not cured it will kill you.
Either A) The doctors could amputate the arm. It might cure it, but on the (pretty big) chance it doesn't, you're missing an arm for the rest of your life with no effect.
OR
B) You do some alternative treatment and get only the placebo effect. You still have the arm here, but have a greater chance of dying.

Can the court force you to lose the arm?

And mind you, in my analogy it was just the loss of an arm, as opposed to the usual chemo side effects, which generally are strong enough, at least, to be classified as a disease by themselves.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/07/21/sick.teen.ap/index.html

Now I am not saying that the kid or his parents are making the right decision. I personally think that it's in the kid's best interest to listen to his doctors.

BUT this kid is sane and informed. His parents are sane and informed.

Apparently not, if they want to treat cancer with herbs and sugar.

They KNOW the risks vs. rewards of their decisions and they have the RIGHT to make it. I think it's utter bullshit that the state can step in and FORCE conventional medical treatment on an unwilling teen and against the wishes of his unwilling parents.

This goes too far.

The trouble with this situation is that the kid is probably not quite ready for this decision at this point in his life (refusing probably life-saving treatment because "it made him nauseated and weak" kind of proves that).

And the parents are making a decision concerning the child's well-being, and allowing this treatment could be considered negligent.

This is a gross infraction of his civil rights. On a scale that would appaul the Bush administration, it's just disgusting.

When were children given the civil rights to refuse potentially life-saving medical treatment?

The trouble with this situation is that the kid is probably not quite ready for this decision at this point in his life (refusing probably life-saving treatment because "it made him nauseated and weak" kind of proves that).

I don't know precisely how I feel about this particular issue, but how would you respond if I were to reply that the kid, by virtue of being a rational human being, has a basic right to autonomy that cannot be violated simply because we disagree with the choices he makes?

After all, he isn't harming anyone else.

Your ass-backward views and pseudo-nazi stances to enforce your moral law over others has proven everything I need inorder to make you irrelevant to this discussion. Good day sir.

This one gave me a chuckle.

I don't know precisely how I feel about this particular issue, but how would you respond if I were to reply that the kid, by virtue of being a rational human being, has a basic right to autonomy that cannot be violated simply because we disagree with the choices he makes?

After all, he isn't harming anyone else.

You said it yourself, kid. As a minor he does not have the full rights to self determiniation that adults do. As much as we might find it issues with someone who is 16, thinking they are "close enough", the law has set the line to 18. He has not reached that point, and as mature as he may be, he is NOT an adult, and he is not empowered to make that decision for himself.

It may be that he is an exceptionally mature individual, and SHOULD be, based on maturity. But the law does not draw those lines, and the judge, as an agent of the law, should not draw those lines. All he should do is look at him and say "16, under law 16 is a minor, my duty is to UPHOLD the law, not decide what the law SHOULD be, this is the law, I will treat him as a minor."

It's somewhat disconcerning that those of who remember who we were at 16 may think of ourselves as capable of making those choices...but the law has drawn the line where it is, and at 16 he is still the charge of his parents, and those parents have a legal obligation to do what is in their child's best interest. And not protesting this move off chemo is NOT in that child's best interest. And acting in a way blatantly against your child's best interest, in a way likely to cause harm....is the definition of neglect.

Thinking it over, I think this teenager shouldn't be permitted to refuse treatment, for one simple reason - we don't know what kind of pressure his parents are putting on him.

If it were not for that factor, I would let him refuse treatment.

I don't know precisely how I feel about this particular issue, but how would you respond if I were to reply that the kid, by virtue of being a rational human being, has a basic right to autonomy that cannot be violated simply because we disagree with the choices he makes?

After all, he isn't harming anyone else.

I question whether someone at the age of 16 is competent to make a life-altering decision. The conclusion this kid comes to only confirms my decision.

I don't trust 16 year olds to make competent decisions on the road, so I can't really trust this one to make competent decisions on how to treat cancer.

I admit that this is a tough line to draw, and that this kid may actually be competent for this decision, but I also don't want to actually draw this line, because most his age aren't.

Thinking it over, I think this teenager shouldn't be permitted to refuse treatment, for one simple reason - we don't know what kind of pressure his parents are putting on him.

If it were not for that factor, I would let him refuse treatment.

Agreed, they named him Starchild. So whatever beliefs they may have obviously overwhelm their true concern for his wellbeing.

*snip*

The judge may well have been acting as the law demands, I'm not disputing that. I am asking whether the law is right - what the moral course of action in this circumstance is.

I question whether someone at the age of 16 is competent to make a life-altering decision.

But why is it our judgment to decide whether or not they are "competent"? It is their life. If they do not think they are competent, they can leave it to someone else. This teenager did not.

The conclusion this kid comes to only confirms my decision.

What if it were made by someone who was thirty? Would it be based on any less irrational premises? Yet I don't think there would be many people advocating forcing a thirty year old to undergo a medical treatment she does not want to undergo.

I don't trust 16 year olds to make competent decisions on the road, so I can't really trust this one to make competent decisions on how to treat cancer.

What if this teenager has a different set of values than the legislators do? What if, say, he ascribed to a religion that forbade the use of these kinds of cancer treatments? Or maybe (purely hypothetically, I'm not arguing that it is in fact the case) he would rather die than undergo the treatment? Perhaps we can question his reasoning (because he's only a teenager), but on what basis can we question his value system?

The judge may well have been acting as the law demands, I'm not disputing that. I am asking whether the law is right - what the moral course of action in this circumstance is.

Well, we need to define two things, maturity and neglect.

I think the age of 18 is pretty good for these things, it's old enough where it will cover MOST people, and young enough where its' not forcing the bulk of people who really should have the rights of adulthood to sit around as "minors" waiting for the immature folks to catch up.

You can't decide it on a case by case basis, not only would it be a beurocratic MESS, but it wouldn't be practical for the system to decide something as subjective as "morality".

Now, once we say that at 16 he's a minor, we recognize his right to NOT make certain choices for himself, and that it is the parent's job. However it is not simply a case of substituting the parent's choice for his own. Parents must have the legal obligation to make choices in the child's best interest, otherwise it is neglect.

The only debate seems that is this choice in the child's best interest. It is not "does he have the right not to act in his best interest?" since as a minor, he does not in this case. Nor is it "do the parents have a right not to act in his best interest" as they are his parents, and thus they do not.

The only question is, was this possibly in his best interest, or is it so far afield of anything that might even REMOTELY be in his best interest, that it constitutes neglect? I believe so.

But why is it our judgment to decide whether or not they are "competent"? It is their life. If they do not think they are competent, they can leave it to someone else. This teenager did not.

As a minor, that is not his choice to make.





if he were an adult, it would be equally as irrational. however an ADULT has the right to make choices like that. A minor does not.



[QUOTE]What if this teenager has a different set of values than the legislators do? What if, say, he ascribed to a religion that forbade the use of these kinds of cancer treatments? Or maybe (purely hypothetically, I'm not arguing that it is in fact the case) he would rather die than undergo the treatment? Perhaps we can question his reasoning (because he's only a teenager), but on what basis can we question his value system?

As a minor, it doesn't MATTER what HE thinks. It matters what his PARENTS thing, and as parents they must act in that child's best interests. We must evaluate his parents' choices and determine if they could be in his best interests or not, and it seems pretty obvious that in THIS instance, they are not.

But why is it our judgment to decide whether or not they are "competent"? It is their life. If they do not think they are competent, they can leave it to someone else. This teenager did not.

The trouble is that incompetent people often do not realize that they are incompetent.

What if this 16 year old had sex with his 40 year old gym class instructer? Would we deem him competent?

How about if he were 14 and refused treatment? 12? 10?

What if it were made by someone who was thirty? Would it be based on any less irrational premises? Yet I don't think there would be many people advocating forcing a thirty year old to undergo a medical treatment she does not want to undergo.

We can assume that the 30 year old has developed all of the faculties required to make this decision. We can conclusively say that the 30 year old is stupid and can live or die with his stupidity.

I don't know if we can say the same for the 16 year old.

What if this teenager has a different set of values than the legislators do? What if, say, he ascribed to a religion that forbade the use of these kinds of cancer treatments? Or maybe (purely hypothetically, I'm not arguing that it is in fact the case) he would rather die than undergo the treatment? Perhaps we can question his reasoning (because he's only a teenager), but on what basis can we question his value system?

We don't question his value system, it is irrelevant.

We question the faculties with which he derives his value system and his reasoning.

EDIT: It seems your line of questioning leads us to either allow full self-determination to children, or to disallow self-determination for adults.

If that is not the case, then you must define a point along a person's life where they become capable of make reasonable, informed decisions of this magnitude.

EDIT: It seems your line of questioning leads us to either allow full self-determination to children, or to disallow self-determination for adults.

If that is not the case, then you must define a point along a person's life where they become capable of make reasonable, informed decisions of this magnitude.

Exactly, it is not mutually exclusive. We must pick SOME point in which one crossed that line from child to adult. 18 seems to be a pretty good line, and works by and large. Maybe we could evaluate shifting it in situations like this, but as it stands now, it is 18, and he isn't there yet.

The trouble is that incompetent people often do not realize that they are incompetent.

Then that is their problem, and their responsibility.

What if this 16 year old had sex with his 40 year old gym class instructer? Would we deem him competent?

How about if he were 14 and refused treatment? 12? 10?

I have no answer. This is indeed the vulnerability of my argument - it is easily subject to reductio ad absurdum.

I do think, though, that if we hold that a sixteen year old should be denied personal autonomy because he is insufficiently competent, it has much wider implications that most of us would be far less reluctant to accept. But that's more relevant to the next section of your post.

We can assume that the 30 year old has developed all of the faculties required to make this decision. We can conclusively say that the 30 year old is stupid and can live or die with his stupidity.

I don't know if we can say the same for the 16 year old.

The thirty year old is clearly not competent to make the decision, no more than the sixteen year old is. If they were, they (probably) wouldn't be making the decisions they make.

Are most adults really "competent" enough to understand the full implications of the medical treatment they accept or refuse? If we accept that this teenager is not rational enough to make decisions for himself, where does the logic stop? Should we have a benevolent dictator, too, because, as Plato pointed out, governing is at least as difficult as medicine?

What I'm really arguing against here is the double standard that seems prevalent among social liberals (myself most definitely included) in our society - the notion that personal autonomy is absolute, or near-absolute, when it comes to adults, but subject to all sorts of arbitrary restrictions when it comes to teenagers and young children.

We don't question his value system, it is irrelevant.

Well, it's at least potentially relevant to the decision he's making.

Let's say that he is in fact a supergenius. He is familiar with all the empirical evidence, all the science, etc. involved in the treatment. He knows precisely what he will face if he refuses treatment and precisely what he will face if he accepts treatment.

There is still a basis for him to make the decision he made - he might prefer the rationally predictable consequences of treatment refusal to the rationally predictable consequences of treatment acceptance.

We are all making the assumption that if he knew what he were doing, he would make a different choice - and that may well be. But what if it's not? What right to we have to say that because we would evaluate the consequences differently, he should as well?

We question the faculties with which he derives his value system and his reasoning.

Isn't it at least conceivable that his faculties are fine, and his value system simply differs from ours?

EDIT: It seems your line of questioning leads us to either allow full self-determination to children, or to disallow self-determination for adults.

Well, sort of. I think we should have a serious moral standard for when a person has a right to personal autonomy and when she doesn't, and we should hold to it. I don't think "eighteen or older" is a serious moral standard, especially if we are going to apply it as broadly as we do now.

We can, of course, discuss the practical manifestation of that moral standard, and it may end up being that the status quo is the best practical solution, but we have to define the moral standard first.

If that is not the case, then you must define a point along a person's life where they become capable of make reasonable, informed decisions of this magnitude.

I don't know.

I think necessary conditions should include basic rationality and a conception of self. I also tend to think that there are others - but in defining them, I run into numerous problems.

The thirty year old is clearly not competent to make the decision, no more than the sixteen year old is. If they were, they wouldn't be making the decisions they make.

One can be competant and still make choices against his best interest. We decide a line, we have decided that line is 18

Are most adults really "competent" enough to understand the full implications of the medical treatment they accept or refuse? If we accept that this teenager is not rational enough to make decisions for himself, where does the logic stop? Should we have a benevolent dictator, too, because, as Plato pointed out, governing is at least as difficult as medicine?

When we reach the line that society has deemed we are old enough to make those choices. Society has picked that line to be 18, not 16.

What I'm really arguing against here is the double standard that seems prevalent among social liberals (myself most definitely included) in our society - the notion that personal autonomy is absolute, or near-absolute, when it comes to adults, but subject to all sorts of arbitrary restrictions when it comes to teenagers and young children.

As you said, can be reduced to absurdity.

We wouldn't ever let a 2 year old make major life decisions for himself would we? 4? 6? 10? 12? 14? There needs to be, at SOME POINT, a line, where we say, enough, you're old enough, you now have that freedom. That line has been picked to be 18. He's not there.


Let's say that he is in fact a supergenius. He is familiar with all the empirical evidence, all the science, etc. involved in the treatment. He knows precisely what he will face if he refuses treatment and precisely what he will face if he accepts treatment.

There is still a basis for him to make the decision he made - he might prefer the rationally predictable consequences of treatment refusal to the rationally predictable consequences of treatment acceptance.

We must, at some point, draw a line in the sand and say HERE it is, here's the point where you're an adult. If he were a supergenious he would still be a child.

Isn't it at least conceivable that his faculties are fine, and his value system simply differs from ours?

It's irrelevant what his faculties are. He is a chilld.

if he were an adult, it would be equally as irrational. however an ADULT has the right to make choices like that. A minor does not.

This is precisely the double standard I am talking about.

Why the distinction?

Well, sort of. I think we should have a serious moral standard for when a person has a right to personal autonomy and when she doesn't, and we should hold to it. I don't think "eighteen or older" is a serious moral standard, especially if we are going to apply it as broadly as we do now.

We can, of course, discuss the practical manifestation of that moral standard, and it may end up being that the status quo is the best practical solution, but we have to define the moral standard first.

Vote your concious. If you find it immoral vote for those that will change it. If enough agree, your candidates will win and it will be changed. The genious of democracy. The fact is, the majority of society HAS accepted 18 as that line.

This is precisely the double standard I am talking about.

Why the distinction?

Because a 2 year old should NEVEr be allowed to make important decisions about his life, he's bloody 2.

Nor should a 4 year old.

or an 8 year old.

As we get older and older our capacity gets more and more, but the only way to eliminate the distinction is to give EVERYONE the same autonomy, and giving a child that is just...well...stupid.

Line must be SOMEWHERE, and it can't be on an individual basis, unless you can conceive of a way of handling millions of people a year and having to evaluate whether THIS 16 year old is capable of being an adult but THAT 19 year old is not....it's impractical to the point of impossibility.

The thirty year old is clearly not competent to make the decision, no more than the sixteen year old is. If they were, they wouldn't be making the decisions they make.

I am not referring to competency in medicine, I am referring to an intellectual competency, a developmental competency.

The thirty-year old may not have all of the knowledge required for an informed decision, but he has all of the faculties required for a reasoned decision.

What I'm really arguing against here is the double standard that seems prevalent among social liberals (myself most definitely included) in our society - the notion that personal autonomy is absolute, or near-absolute, when it comes to adults, but subject to all sorts of arbitrary restrictions when it comes to teenagers and young children.

The double standard is based on very real biological and psychological differences between the two groups.

Let's say that he is in fact a supergenius. He is familiar with all the empirical evidence, all the science, etc. involved in the treatment. He knows precisely what he will face if he refuses treatment and precisely what he will face if he accepts treatment.

There is still a basis for him to make the decision he made - he might prefer the rationally predictable consequences of treatment refusal to the rationally predictable consequences of treatment acceptance.

We are all making the assumption that if he knew what he were doing, he would make a different choice - and that may well be. But what if it's not? What right to we have to say that because we would evaluate the consequences differently, he should as well?

Isn't it at least conceivable that his faculties are fine, and his value system simply differs from ours?

I am not saying that he would definitively make a different choice. It is quite possible that this order could be blocked until the kid is of legal age, and then he can sign his own death warrant.

However, this is a matter of precedent, and from my experience, I would argue that the vast majority of children are not capable of weighing all aspects of this decision. So when a child comes to a conclusion that is direct opposition to those experts that are dealing directly with his case, it is far, far more likely that the kid's decision can be based on his lack of faculties.

One can be competant and still make choices against his best interest.

Sure. What does that prove? Why should anyone but the person in question determine his self-interest and the means to achieve it?

We decide a line, we have decided that line is 18

When we reach the line that society has deemed we are old enough to make those choices. Society has picked that line to be 18, not 16.

Society is not always right.

As you said, can be reduced to absurdity.

Not that part of my argument, rather, my personal preference for choosing "personal autonomy" and not "benevolent tyranny."

I also think that the other side can be reduced to absurdity. That's why I'm trying to find a decent solution somewhere in between - hopefully closer to the "personal autonomy" side.

We wouldn't ever let a 2 year old make major life decisions for himself would we? 4? 6? 10? 12? 14? There needs to be, at SOME POINT, a line, where we say, enough, you're old enough, you now have that freedom.

A line, legally. A standard, morally. I want to know the moral standard for the line.

That line has been picked to be 18. He's not there.

And that does not prove that the line should be at 18.

It's irrelevant what his faculties are. He is a chilld.

Again, the double standard. If he is as mature and as competent as the average adult, why in the world shouldn't he be granted the same rights? Even if he's not, do we really want to live in a society where people deemed more "competent" than we are on certain subjects concerning our personal lives can make decisions for us?

It seems arbitrary to have one set of moral standards for people under eighteen, and another for people older than eighteen.

It seems arbitrary to have one set of moral standards for people under eighteen, and another for people older than eighteen.

It's absolutly arbitrary. The only way to avoid that arbitrary system is to put something in place where each person would be judged on their own intellect, maturity, and capacity, and upon doing so, be considered an adult.

Now please explain how we're going to do that in a nation where millions are born every year. What standards would you include? Would a mathematic genius who has the emotional maturity of a 10 year old qualify? How about someone who is very emotionally stable but is kinda slow?

It is impractical bordering on impossible to do this on a case by case basis, so a somewhat arbitrary but generally practical line must be forged.

I am not referring to competency in medicine, I am referring to an intellectual competency, a developmental competency.

The thirty-year old may not have all of the knowledge required for an informed decision, but he has all of the faculties required for a reasoned decision.

What difference does it make? Whether he lacks the facts or lacks the reasoning skills, he is still incapable of making a reasoned decision. However well you can shoot a gun, if you can't see the target it doesn't help you much.

The double standard is based on very real biological and psychological differences between the two groups.

Of course. But, again, I would use the benevolent dictatorship example. Some people, for biological and psychological reasons, are better suited to making political decisions than others. Ignoring the practical difficulties of ensuring benevolence and selecting the best people (because I'm looking for a theoretical standard here), isn't there still something morally wrong with that notion?

I am not saying that he would definitively make a different choice. It is quite possible that this order could be blocked until the kid is of legal age, and then he can sign his own death warrant.

However, this is a matter of precedent, and from my experience, I would argue that the vast majority of children are not capable of weighing all aspects of this decision. So when a child comes to a conclusion that is direct opposition to those experts that are dealing directly with his case, it is far, far more likely that the kid's decision can be based on his lack of faculties.

Fair enough.

WTF, i ain't no Aussie...Ain't a whitey either
:mad:
Hahaha ROLFMAO. Does it happen a lot? Are you Maori, or Asian?

It's absolutly arbitrary. The only way to avoid that arbitrary system is to put something in place where each person would be judged on their own intellect, maturity, and capacity, and upon doing so, be considered an adult.

Now please explain how we're going to do that in a nation where millions are born every year. What standards would you include? Would a mathematic genius who has the emotional maturity of a 10 year old qualify? How about someone who is very emotionally stable but is kinda slow?

It is impractical bordering on impossible to do this on a case by case basis, so a somewhat arbitrary but generally practical line must be forged.

You're misunderstanding my position.

It may be perfectly acceptable, under the practical constraints of our present society, to have the laws we have now. But we can't know how it should work in practice until we know what the ideal would be.

You're misunderstanding my position.

It may be perfectly acceptable, under the practical constraints of our present society, to have the laws we have now. But we can't know how it should work in practice until we know what the ideal would be.

The ideal would be each person is given adulthood at the point where they are able to demonstrate that they are capable of being responsible for their own actions, up to a point of a certain age (20ish?) where we finally say fuck it, you're old enough to be responsible (except in the case of actual mental retardation etc.)

that's the IDEAL, and we could NEVER implement something like that. So a somewhat arbitrary yet overall well reasoned line in the sand has to do.

The ideal would be each person is given adulthood at the point where they are able to demonstrate that they are capable of being responsible for their own actions,

What does "capable of being responsible for their own actions" mean? In a sense, this teenager is already "responsible" for his own actions - it is, after all, his own mind that is making the decisions (assuming away parental pressure) and he that will suffer its consequences.

up to a point of a certain age (20ish?) where we finally say fuck it, you're old enough to be responsible (except in the case of actual mental retardation etc.)

You're still holding to a "line" conception here, only making it more individualized.

Isn't it at least conceivable, though, that if there are some decisions most sixteen year olds aren't capable of making concerning their own lives, there are also some complex decisions that most people are never capable of making concerning their own lives?

What does "capable of being responsible for their own actions" mean? In a sense, this teenager is already "responsible" for his own actions - it is, after all, his own mind that is making the decisions (assuming away parental pressure) and he that will suffer its consequences.


OK, capable of reasonably and rationally weighing the options and evaluating the pros and cons of his decisions.




Isn't it at least conceivable, though, that if there are some decisions most sixteen year olds aren't capable of making concerning their own lives, there are also some complex decisions that most people are never capable of making concerning their own lives?

What you seem to be advocating is either "autonomy for all!" or "autonomy for none!"

I don't believe adults should be denied personal autonomy, I don't think children should be afforded full personal autonomy. Thus the difference between children and adults.

OK, capable of reasonably and rationally weighing the options and evaluating the pros and cons of his decisions.

That's a clearer statement. But why should we adopt the same standards for all "restricted" decisions?

What you seem to be advocating is either "autonomy for all!" or "autonomy for none!"

No, I'm not. To tell the truth, I'm not sure what I should be advocating, and for the moment I'm more focused on explaining what I think is wrong with the usual standards people advocate.

Like most other people, I'm for a standard that is somewhere in between those two options - but I also want a standard that's consistent, makes sense, and corresponds reasonably well with my moral intuitions, and that's what I can't find.

I don't believe adults should be denied personal autonomy, I don't think children should be afforded full personal autonomy. Thus the difference between children and adults.

Good, our basic intuitions agree. But why? Of late I can't help but think that my very ardent advocacy of adult personal autonomy can't be consistently reconciled with my stance on proper restrictions for the autonomy of children.

That's a clearer statement. But why should we adopt the same standards for all "restricted" decisions?



No, I'm not. To tell the truth, I'm not sure what I should be advocating, and for the moment I'm more focused on explaining what I think is wrong with the usual standards people advocate.

Like most other people, I'm for a standard that is somewhere in between those two options - but I also want a standard that's consistent, makes sense, and corresponds reasonably well with my moral intuitions, and that's what I can't find.



Good, our basic intuitions agree. But why? Of late I can't help but think that my very ardent advocacy of adult personal autonomy can't be consistently reconciled with my stance on proper restrictions for the autonomy of children.

Because children lack the capacity to judge what is the best choice for them. Although we must respect an adult's decision to make choices that are NOT good for himself, we at least recognize potentially that they are able to make that determination for themselves. Children are not.

Because children lack the capacity to judge what is the best choice for them. Although we must respect an adult's decision to make choices that are NOT good for himself, we at least recognize potentially that they are able to make that determination for themselves. Children are not.

So you've said already. But, again, are we really prepared to accept its implications? Aren't there complex decisions that most adults can't handle any more than most children can? If an adult has a history of bad judgment, wouldn't it make sense to say that she is in fact not able to make "that determination for [herself]"?

So you've said already. But, again, are we really prepared to accept its implications? Aren't there complex decisions that most adults can't handle any more than most children can? If an adult has a history of bad judgment, wouldn't it make sense to say that she is in fact not able to make "that determination for [herself]"?

Which?

How exactly are 'a sugar-free, organic diet and herbal supplements' going to cure cancer?

It might not cure it but it could deffinitely help. Sugar-free equals you'll be getting most of your energy from protiens and fats (as all carbohydrates turn into sugar in the body..) Protiens are the building blocks of the body. And cancer is nothing but a corruption of your celluar structure. So if protiens repair cells, put two and two together..

Which?

To make decisions that are "NOT good" for her, at least by society's standards.

It might not cure it but it could deffinitely help. Sugar-free equals you'll be getting most of your energy from protiens and fats (as all carbohydrates turn into sugar in the body..) Protiens are the building blocks of the body. And cancer is nothing but a corruption of your celluar structure. So if protiens repair cells, put two and two together..

How are all those proteins supposed to repaire cellular structure if, lacking carbohydrates, they are all broken down to fuel the body?

To make decisions that are "NOT good" for her, at least by society's standards.

lemme restate, what are the more complex questions that most people are not able to answer?

lemme restate, what are the more complex questions that most people are not able to answer?

How do we organize society?

Some of the smartest humans on the planet have been arguing about it for centuries, and we still have little consensus on a wide range of important questions.

Because children...
He is NOT a child. He is 16. Go up to a 16-year-old and call him a child, and you will get punched in the face.

You seem to be all fine in saying he somehow cannot comprehend his actions, but then, I say, why do we charge 16-year-olds as adults when they commit a crime? Or is it that they have the faculties to comprehend punishment, but not their life?

The double standard sickens me.

Edit: Just to clarify my position: I agree that children should not be awarded full self-determination. I however resent the age at which a person is no longer considered a "child". I believe this age should be closer to 14 than 18.

Oh, and remember when defining this arbitrary age: In revolutionary France, the age of adulthood was 25. Would you argue that everyone is a child until that age? Societies are wrong sometimes, and their mistakes must be mended.

He is NOT a child. He is 16. Go up to a 16-year-old and call him a child, and you will get punched in the face.

He's not an adult until the law defines him as such.

You seem to be all fine in saying he somehow cannot comprehend his actions,
Please show me when I said that. I have said the LAW defines him as a child, and therefore under the LAW he is a child.

Don't like it? Vote for a representative that will change it. That's democracy, aint it grand?

but then, I say, why do we charge 16-year-olds as adults when they commit a crime? Or is it that they have the faculties to comprehend punishment, but not their life?

Because that is how our democratically elected representatives have decided it to be.

The double standard sickens me.

Then vote to change it. Don't like it, don't support it. Don't get pissy at me because that's what the law says now. Under law he's a child. Ergo he's a child.

I'm getting pissy at you because of your blatant disregard for both his and his parents rights, because of some arbitrary "line in the sand" which you think is God's gift to man.

And I'd prefer revolution to voting; democracy doesn't work, and simply opresses the individual. This case is an example of that.

How do we organize society?

Some of the smartest humans on the planet have been arguing about it for centuries, and we still have little consensus on a wide range of important questions.

Simply put, a society can not function with such subjective standards in place to decide who can say what. It just can't. We have neither the capacity nor the wherewithall to figure out how to deal with that beurocracy.

So for society to function we need to recognize:

1) children can't manage their life in a positive sense

2) at some point, most people do gain the capacity to do such

And draw a line between them. Maybe it's not fair to everyone. Maybe it denies some people some things, and grants to others things they shouldn't have, but to figure it out on case to case basis would be impossible. So we pick a point and stick with it.

otherwise we'll spend far more time debating than doing, and our society would grind to a halt.

Don't like it? Vote for a representative that will change it. That's democracy, aint it grand?

Do you think democracies should be permitted to arbitrarily restrain the rights of anyone, or just of teenagers?

You're going to jump on my use of the word "arbitrarily," but consider what you're arguing first - that because democratic processes have made a certain decision, we shouldn't be questioning it.

I'm getting pissy at you because of your blatant disregard for both his and his parents rights, because of some arbitrary "line in the sand" which you think is God's gift to man.

And I'd prefer revolution to voting; democracy doesn't work, and simply opresses the individual. This case is an example of that.

Oh right, let's overthrow a government elected by the people in the name of rights!

No...wait...that's fucking stupid.

Oh right, let's overthrow a government elected by the people in the name of rights!

No...wait...that's fucking stupid.
I fail to see how it's stupid? The rights of the individual should ALWAYS come before the rights of a group, in this case the "democratically elected government". The right to vote, especially in a representative democracy, is meaningless if you have no other rights. Ever heard of a tyranny by majority?

But I digress. I don't want to hijack this topic.

Do you think democracies should be permitted to arbitrarily restrain the rights of anyone, or just of teenagers?

You're going to jump on my use of the word "arbitrarily," but consider what you're arguing first - that because democratic processes have made a certain decision, we shouldn't be questioning it.
I couldn't agree more.

Do you think democracies should be permitted to arbitrarily restrain the rights of anyone, or just of teenagers?

You're going to jump on my use of the word "arbitrarily," but consider what you're arguing first - that because democratic processes have made a certain decision, we shouldn't be questioning it.

I think in a liberal society, such as ours, we have defined and described certain rights. I think we have also recognized that for society to function we must, at some point, recognize at which point one is capable of functioning as an adult in that society, and when one is not.

I think that for a society ot function, children can't be afforded the full rights of citizenship because...well, they're fucking children. That's what parents are for. You can't give a child the ability to govern his life, he is incapable of making rational decisions. A child can not self govern.

And since it is impractical if not impossible to evaluate EVERYONE on a case by case basis to see when they ARE capable of such, a line is necessary to dfine that difference. Where that line falls is largely the product of a society, but it SHOULD, in my opinion, fall at some point where it most benefits the majority, without being overly burdensome, and I think 18 does that pretty well by and large.

I don't think the government can "arbitrarily" limit anyone's rights. I think it can define when you gain those rights, and when you have yet to gain them (you can't "take away" a right that has not vested to you yet). So I'm against arbitrarily taking away rights, I do recognize that it is necessary to at some point recognize WHEN those rights begin for individuals, and that "when" IS somewhat arbitrary, I conceide.

But there's really no better way to do that.

Simply put, a society can not function with such subjective standards in place to decide who can say what. It just can't. We have neither the capacity nor the wherewithall to figure out how to deal with that beurocracy.

So for society to function we need to recognize:

1) children can't manage their life in a positive sense

2) at some point, most people do gain the capacity to do such

And draw a line between them. Maybe it's not fair to everyone. Maybe it denies some people some things, and grants to others things they shouldn't have, but to figure it out on case to case basis would be impossible. So we pick a point and stick with it.

otherwise we'll spend far more time debating than doing, and our society would grind to a halt.

No, you're misunderstanding me again. I'm not just talking about children's rights, I'm talking about the general topic of the benevolent deprivation of freedom.

If we're going to be setting standards on who is competent enough for liberty, we should be making them consistent - and that means that if the incapability of a teenager to make competent decisions regarding his medical treatment indicates that he should not make them, the (contestable) incapability of human populations to make competent decisions regarding how to organize their societies indicates that, at best, it is a "lesser evil" to permit them to do so.

right to vote, especially in a representative democracy, is meaningless if you have no other rights. Ever heard of a tyranny by majority?

Ever hear of the constitution? True democracy, without restriction, is anarchy.

I think that for a society ot function, children can't be afforded the full rights of citizenship because...well, they're fucking children. That's what parents are for. You can't give a child the ability to govern his life, he is incapable of making rational decisions. A child can not self govern.
But wait a second... In the article, the parents are encouraging him to seek alternative treatments. So who is it going to be? The parents or the State? Who should control our children?

I definatly hope it's not the State...

Ever hear of the constitution? True democracy, without restriction, is anarchy.
You seem completely ignorant of the theories of both Anarchism and Libertarianism. Please do a little research on them, then try arguing with my position. And I'm not arguing the complete disolution of government and the creation of an anarchy, I'm advocating severe limitations on government power, which includes the bloated system of "representation" currently in place.

But I again state I do not want to hijack this topic.

But wait a second... In the article, the parents are encouraging him to seek alternative treatments. So who is it going to be? The parents or the State? Who should control our children?

I definatly hope it's not the State...

The parents, up until the point where they become neglectful, at which point they have failed their obligation as parents.


You seem completely ignorant of the theories of both Anarchism and Libertarianism. Please do a little research on them, then try arguing with my position.

Oh please, I have a degree in political science...do you?

If you really want to have this debate, let's have at it. Laws exist to protect society (IE "the group"). YOUR statement, quoted as you said it:

"The rights of the individual should ALWAYS come before the rights of a group"

Thus the right for me to shoot you in the face should come before the right of society to be free from murderers. And society, without ANY restriction on personal rights (cause as you said, individual rights should ALWAYS [IE without exception] come first) is anarchy.

LIBERALISM however is the theory that, in general, personal rights should not be limited in so far as the expression of those rights does not cause harm to those who do not wish to be harmed. Which is not what you said, you said they should "ALWAYS" come first, so don't try to back out of that. And not even classical liberals believe this should apply to children.

To say it should ALWAYS come first means that the government can NEVER restrict personal rights of ANY sort for the benefit of society. Know what happens then? Ever read Hobbes?

Yes, I have read Hobbes, and I do not agree with his State of Nature.

I misrepresented my position in the heat of the argument. I believe that personal absolutes do always come before those of a group, HOWEVER, that yes they should be limited when they interfere with another human's individual rights. ONLY THEN should the government be able to restrict personal rights. In this case, the boy's choice to persue alternative treatment does NOT interfere with anyone else's individual rights. Therefore, there should be NO basis for the restriction, especially not when his legal guardians aprove.

Oh, and I frankly don't care what "Classical Liberals" or any other political philosopher for that matter thinks. I hold my own views, not those of someone 300 years dead.

Edit: It is 3:15 AM and I am tired. I shall leave this discussion for now. Carry on.

In this case, the boy's choice to persue alternative treatment does NOT interfere with anyone else's individual rights.

OK, the 6 year old child that decides to run away from because her parents didn't buy her that pony she wanted for her birthday should be allowed to?

After all, that's what she wants, and it's not interefering with anyone elses rights...

Now, if you say no, that this is a rediculous hypothetical, ask yourself why. Is it because we shouldn't be allowing a 6 year old child to chose her own actions with complete autonomy? If so, where do you put that line, and how is that any less arbitrary than where society has put it, at 18?

And if you say yes....really? You're saying it's fine if a child runs away from home for lack of a pony, as long as she wants to?

Let me pose another hypothetical. There is a group out there called the breatharians. They believe that humans do not really NEED food, and if we train ourselves, we can subsist purely on the natural energies of the earth, absorbing them like a sponge, and that hunger pains are mostly psychological, we feel hungry because society tells us we should feel hungry (yes, this group does exist).

Now lets say two breatharians get together, and have a child. Let's say they indoctrinate that child to their belief. The child, believing he does not need food, refuses to eat. The parents, believing this to be proper, do not feed him.

Now, if the child does not want to eat, do you support the right for the parents to chose to not give their child food? Or do you call depriving your child of food what it is, neglect?

Does the State own us now? It gets to make all our life and death decisions for us because we're too stupid to make our own? God, I hope not!
You and me both, my friend. You and me both. Sigh. :(

I agree that at 16 it's a rough line, and he probably IS mature enough to make his own decisions.

However the law defines him as a minor, and is not the judge's job to define the law it is his job to ENFORCE the law, and UNDER LAW he is a minor.

And as a minor it is the job of his parents' to do things in his best interests. And taking a course of action that will almost certainly result in his, otherwise likely preventable, death, is the very DEFINITION of neglect.
I know. This is one of the things that makes this such a tough case. :(

You said it yourself, kid. As a minor he does not have the full rights to self determiniation that adults do. As much as we might find it issues with someone who is 16, thinking they are "close enough", the law has set the line to 18. He has not reached that point, and as mature as he may be, he is NOT an adult, and he is not empowered to make that decision for himself.

It may be that he is an exceptionally mature individual, and SHOULD be, based on maturity. But the law does not draw those lines, and the judge, as an agent of the law, should not draw those lines. All he should do is look at him and say "16, under law 16 is a minor, my duty is to UPHOLD the law, not decide what the law SHOULD be, this is the law, I will treat him as a minor."

It's somewhat disconcerning that those of who remember who we were at 16 may think of ourselves as capable of making those choices...but the law has drawn the line where it is, and at 16 he is still the charge of his parents, and those parents have a legal obligation to do what is in their child's best interest. And not protesting this move off chemo is NOT in that child's best interest. And acting in a way blatantly against your child's best interest, in a way likely to cause harm....is the definition of neglect.
And yet, in most states a minor of 16 can petition the courts to become "emancipated." Perhaps that's something this young man should consider, although with cancer that's "iffy." :(

What difference does it make? Whether he lacks the facts or lacks the reasoning skills, he is still incapable of making a reasoned decision. However well you can shoot a gun, if you can't see the target it doesn't help you much.

That last analogy would show my argument better.

The 16 year old can't see the target. The 30 year old can see the target, he just fails to aim.

In other words, one is responsible for a lack of facts, one is not responsible for a lack of knowledge.

Of course. But, again, I would use the benevolent dictatorship example. Some people, for biological and psychological reasons, are better suited to making political decisions than others. Ignoring the practical difficulties of ensuring benevolence and selecting the best people (because I'm looking for a theoretical standard here), isn't there still something morally wrong with that notion?

That is slavery.

A mistake filled life of one's own choosing is far better than a perfect life of another's choosing.

I am still awaiting someone to tell me whether two breatharians who raise a bretharian child would be in their rights to withhold food from that child, if that's what both the parents, and the child wanted.

Anyone who says "well....no, that's neglectful and they shouldn't be allowed to do that" has just recognized my overall point, and it's just a matter of degrees.

I'm getting pissy at you because of your blatant disregard for both his and his parents rights, because of some arbitrary "line in the sand" which you think is God's gift to man.

Neither he nor his parents have the right to make this decision. I agree that 16 is a hazy area to draw this line, but certainly you must agree that the line has to be drawn somewhere.

And I'd prefer revolution to voting; democracy doesn't work, and simply opresses the individual. This case is an example of that.

I prefer it to the alternative.

I am still awaiting someone to tell me whether two breatharians who raise a bretharian child would be in their rights to withhold food from that child, if that's what both the parents, and the child wanted.

Anyone who says "well....no, that's neglectful and they shouldn't be allowed to do that" has just recognized my overall point, and it's just a matter of degrees.

How about a 14 year old girl who wants to be a model, who, with the help of her parents, begins a diet of laxatives and diet pills.

That last analogy would show my argument better.

The 16 year old can't see the target. The 30 year old can see the target, he just fails to aim.

In other words, one is responsible for a lack of facts, one is not responsible for a lack of knowledge.

I assume you mean "one is not responsible for a lack of reasoning ability," because "lack of facts" and "lack of knowledge" seem to be equivalent in this instance.

Frankly, I don't see why this distinction is morally relevant; it's true that while the teenager is innately incompetent and the thirty year old is simply incompetent by circumstances, but they're both still incompetent. The notion that because the thirty year old did not seek to learn all she was capable of learning about all possible medical conditions she could suffer, somehow she "deserves" what she gets, seems weak to me.

That is slavery.

A mistake filled life of one's own choosing is far better than a perfect life of another's choosing.

I completely agree. That means that issues of competence are things that should be weighed against other concerns - there is an immorality in violating someone's liberty even if someone more competent will make the decisions as a result. The problem I am trying to resolve, very much unsuccessfully at the moment, is how to reconcile the tendency to emphasize preventing incompetence as far as children go and the tendency to emphasize personal autonomy as far as adults go.

If incompetence can be a justifiable excuse for restricting the liberty of children, it should similarly be a justifiable excuse for restricting the liberty of adults. If we can justify negating the refusal of an unpressured teenager to undergo medical treatment because he is incompetent, it is at least conceivable that, in certain circumstances, we can justify the most unfree of despotisms by appealing to the welfare of those being ruled, as long as the rulers are benevolent and more competent than their subjects. It is similarly conceivable that issues on which I tend to take a pretty absolutist position in favor of personal autonomy - suicide, drugs, sexual promiscuity - such a stance cannot be justified, because of the clear possibility that there are some adults who are incompetent at handling such decisions, and that their behaviors can indicate such. That's a conclusion I have trouble accepting.