Is it right for the state to make your medical decisions?
13 year old Daniel Hauser was diagnoesd with cancer in January, took one round of recommended chemotherapy, then him and his parents opted out of the rest of the chemo's for religious reasons... and to proceed with his healing through altnerative medicine. The state claims this is medical neglect because they don't want to do it the "western medical" way, and a judge ordered him to complete chemotherapy, while being granted alternative treatment on the side, or he'd be sent to a foster home and forced into chemo.
Does the state really have the right to make somene's medical decisions? Isn't this a bit, unethical?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/05/13/health/main5011247.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_5011247
EDIT: The article states the family doesn't want their child to have chemo for religious reasons, but not to do religious healing (whatever the heck that is) but to do alternative healing. Which if you read the article, would have been a method of increased nutrients and just basically a huge diet shift.
Also, this article is one of the old ones; this topic is all over the news and has plenty of updates to the case. But my whole aim is about if the government really deserves the right to say "take these drugs because your only other option is death and if you decide not to take them, we will force you to take them." While the government is ignoring the fact there are other ways to seek treatment and they're basically denying any other option besides western treatment.
Yes
Side Score: 27
|
 |
No
Side Score: 32
|
|
|
|
|
The title of this debate is somewhat misleading. If you are an adult then I would argue that the state has no right to force you into curing yourself. But if the person concerned is a child then the state has every right to intervene in order to protect it. People assume that just because you are the parent, you somehow "own" the child and have the right to decide for it. But that is really not the case. In the eyes of the law parents are the adults responsible for providing for a minor and keeping him/her safe. If the child needs therapy as prescribed by the specialists and the parents refuse to provide that treatment to their child because of their "beliefs" then the parents are acting "irresponsibly" and the law has to kick in. This is no different to Jehovah's Witnesses refusing to allow blood transfusions when they are required. If you are an adult then you have every right to lead your life according to your "beliefs" and die for them if you so choose. But you can't enforce your beliefs onto a minor when they are in urgent need and their life depends on help. It is outrageous and if it was up to me I would arrest the parents for obstructing medical help and attempted murder by negligence. Side: yes
ever heard of religious freedom? if their religion is against that, then its their choice. some one should talk to the kid alone, to make sure its not just the parentals talking, but at 13, he should be able to figure it out. but, personally, i beleive a healthy soul is more important than a healthy body, bc if you die and go somewhere good, thats better than being healthy here on earth being a horrible person. so if they think that it is bad, than let them make that choice. Side: No
Absolutely utterly wrong. "if their religion is against that, then its their choice." Yes, it's their choice to reject medical help for them and them alone. It is not, however, their choice to allow their religious beliefs to hinder the the treatment of their child. What you're essentially saying is that it is okay for a parent to allow their child to die. That is absolutely not okay. It has nothing to do with religious freedom; infact, this would be pandering to religion in the highest extreme, and I'll explain why in my next point. "some one should talk to the kid alone, to make sure its not just the parentals talking, but at 13, he should be able to figure it out." No, the child cannot make this decision because the child in this case in 13. If a child cannot be expected to make sensible decisions by themselves about drinking, smoking, voting, crimes (at 13 you are not held accountable in the same way you are as an an adult), etc, then how can you expect them to make an extremely difficult decision about whether they will greatly reduce their chances of living by rejecting proper medical treatment. There are no religious children; only children of religious parents. How it is expected that a 13 year old child can correctly grasp and make an intelligent decision about religion is beyond me. This is a black and white case of the parents religious views causing them to neglect and endanger the life of their child. They should be held accountable for this, and the state was absolutely dead right to go through with the action that they did. Side: yes
ever heard of religious freedom? Yes. Just as the parents are free to believe in anything they want, so is the child free from having to die from those beliefs. if their religion is against that, then its their choice. Sure. But that might not be the child's religion. some one should talk to the kid alone, to make sure its not just the parentals talking, but at 13, he should be able to figure it out. What exactly is the 13 year old supposed to figure out? That his parents are wrong in letting him die? That the religion his parents have taught him for 13 years might not be the religion he will believe when he is 30? That his parents would rather obey the religion than save his life? According to your logic, the only way for this child to have the therapy is for him to turn against his parents. In my eyes that is tragic. So I completely agree with the government stepping in and enforcing the therapy. In that way the child doesn't have the added anxiety of having disobeyed his parents. a healthy soul is more important than a healthy body, bc if you die and go somewhere good, thats better than being healthy here on earth being a horrible person Who said the child was a horrible person?! If you are implying that going against his parents' beliefs makes him horrible, then you are one screw up individual. Since when is wanting to be healthy a horrible thing? According to that last part, next time you get a cold, maybe you shouldn't take nothing to fight it. Just let it spread into your lungs. Let it kill you. Because it's better to go "somewhere good" than to be healthy and horrible on earth. Side: yes
ever heard of religious freedom? if their religion is against that, then its their choice. what if my religion involves killing puppies and eating children? but at 13, he should be able to figure it out the human brain isn't done developing until the early 20's, 21-24 usually... and have you talked to a 13 year old lately? They're practically retarded. i beleive a healthy soul is more important than a healthy body, bc if you die and go somewhere good, thats better than being healthy here on earth being a horrible person by that logic you should kill all babies just in case they turn into "horrible people" - that way they are sure to go to "someplace good." I'm just saying, your logic has a couple flaws. Side: yes
2
points
In this case, yes. The boy is only 13-year-old. He isn't old enough to make a decision with such risky and horrible consequences that could result in the loss of his life. What his parents are doing is neglecting his health. It is not proven that religious methods can heal a person, but the tradional medical procedures were proven to have worked before in the past and even now, in the present. Side: yes
1
point
If this is religious type healing that I cannot agree with it, but if it is alternative medicine that they are practicing then this is a very important thing to note. The article itself is not clear on what procedures will be put into place. Chemotherapy is one of the biggest failures of western and modern medicine, yet the AMA has convinced the public and its doctors to accept this vicious treatment of cancer. It does more harm than good. This information has not only come from research, but also a trusted friend who has 40 years medical expertise. Just wanted to let you know. Side: No
Yes. Not that the State is right in many cases. In this case, the cancer the boy has has a very good recovery rate with chemo. Now, for many cancers, chemo is a waist of time, money, and the little bit of life the patient has left... and the little paranoid voice in my head says it's often a case of corporate America trying to squeeze every last dime out of the dying. But the paranoid voices in my head, and whether this is the right decision in this specific case aside, It would be dangerous to allow a legal precedence where the wellfare of a child can be decided based on the religion of a parent. Now, most of the crazy religious aren't so crazy when it comes to medicine. But we cannot discriminate between the rites of the crazy religious vs. the rites of the crazier religious, regardless of the specific case. An extreme example: In Africa there is at least one tribe, though I think several, that practice female genital mutilation on their children in order that they cannot enjoy sex for the rest of their life. There are many samples like this, and many less gruesome right here in America of fundamentalists wanting to forgo medicine for prayer or what have you. Once a State allows one case, even if the parents aren't necessarily super crazy but just a little crazy, it creates an opening for the super crazies as well. So, every case has to be treated the same, that if a child's life may be in clear danger, the state needs to maintain the rite to treat the child regardless of the parent's wishes. Science should always take precedence over religion I think, like, if a school district is a majority super crazy and wants to not teach evolution but that the earth is 4k years old or whatever, the children need to be protected from these crazy people. And once the children are adults, they can believe any crazy thing they want. But when it comes to the physical health (as opposed to the mental health) it's even more important. Even accepting that the U.S. health industry is basically corrupt, innefficient, and years behind pretty much every other developed country and several under developed countries. Still though, it is the lesser of two evils. Side: yes
1
point
I just wanted to share this with you. Links are on the article as well as sourcing to journals. http://articles.mercola.com/sites/ Side: No
|
2
points
Keep in mind the story behind this question. Your answer can and should relate to that story. The boy is only 13-years-old. Do you really think it is fair to let his life hang in the hands of his parents, and his parents alone? How would you like it if your mother took away your inhaler and instead did rain dances, claiming that it'll heal you Side: yes
1
point
Keep in mind the story behind this question. Your answer can and should relate to that story. The boy is only 13-years-old. Do you really think it is fair to let his life hang in the hands of his parents, and his parents alone? How would you like it if your mother took away your inhaler and instead did rain dances, claiming that it'll heal your lungs? Would you prefer that the state step-in and provide you with the proper medical attention you need and deserve? Side: yes
Although i'm against parents not allowing a child to receive medical treatment because of religious views, chemotherapy is an optional treatment that is also a harsh treatment. Those who receive it suffer, no doubt. A parent should be allowed to decide on whether the child should die in comfort or live and suffer (for only a few months more if lucky). Side: No
"A parent should be allowed to decide on whether the child should die in comfort or live and suffer (for only a few months more if lucky)." Chemotherapy has an extremely good cure and extremely long survival rate with Hodgkin's lymphoma, as this boy had. Infact, it's so effective that it's one of the few cancers that allows scientists to study the long-term affects of chemotherapy on people in older life. Side: yes
1
point
Here is that proof I'd been looking for...links are on the article. Side: No
2
points
Already solved through voluntary means. A written statement concerning future medical treatment is a health care advance directive, which may include a 1) living will and 2) a health care power of attorney. A living will explains your wishes and your goals of care. A health care power of attorney appoints another person (sometimes called an "agent") to make your health care decisions if you are unable to do so. Side: No
1
point
This is 100% against the law. (I'll be back to state why) I am 100% against chemotherapy. (not based on religion but by science) The state needs to accept different forms of medical treatments. It's a long story of the AMA and its manipulation of government policy. I had to look through my archives, but found the article I was looking for. This is a great account of what has unfolded in our government and view on medicine. http://www.naturalnews.com/025428.html There is a homeopathic doctor in Germany that has an 80%+ success rate with cancer treatment. (i wish I could remember his name right now) Side: No
"This is 100% against the law." I hope for America's sake that it isn't. What decisions are children allowed to make at 13? Can they decide to smoke, drink, drive or have sex? Of course not; they are considered far too young to make intelligable decisions about these actions. Similarly, a child of that age does not have the ability to correctly grasp, understand and come to a logical conclusion about their religious views. There are no religious children, only children of religious parents. This is a case of whether or not the state was going to allow the parents to endanger the life of their child, and the state made the absolute right decision. "The state needs to accept different forms of medical treatments. It's a long story of the AMA and its manipulation of government policy." The description doesn't specifically mention the form of alternative treatment that was going to be tried. If, however, we are talking about homeopathy, then you should understand the homeopathy doesn't have a single case of an experiment carried out in reasonable scientific conditions that showed that a homeopathic treatment had any greater success in the treatment of an ailment then a similarly administered placebo. [1][2] That is absolute fact. No manipulation, no lies, no cover-ups; homeopathy does not work. If you believe that water has memory (this is genuinely the explination for why homepathy works) then go ahead and use it; do not, however, force it upon your children. "There is a homeopathic doctor in Germany that has an 80%+ success rate with cancer treatment." I would absolutely love to see some evidence from any scientific studies for this. Heresay and claims from his own website will not count. I want to see independant tests to show this success rate, please. Side: yes
1
point
On your first note, I agree with most of it except that fact of saying that chemotherapy is not endangering to the child's life. Since when was applying radiation to humans a "healthy" thing? There are other methods out there that are not so invasive. There are methods that are not main stream. Why are they not common place? Again, the politics the AMA has pushed for years and years. And to state on top of this, the only reason I know what I know comes from an expert in the field that I have personally had many conversations with. I cannot speak to the degree that he can, but I get the gist of it. Let me be clear on something here. The word homeopathy in the states isn't as clear as it may be in the UK. I usually use terms as alternative healthcare and preventative healthcare. Which we can insert to be clear. This obviously changes the conversation. Side: No
1
point
1
point
As Beinglostats says, it is 100% against the law for any state to do so and I say it's 100% unethical as well. You cannot force treatment on someone if they do not want it but I suspect this has more to do with the child not being of age to make his own decisions. I suppose one could make an argument about the parents not being good but what about Christian Scientists? They don't believe in medicine either and get away with not having anything to do with prescribed procedures every day! Of course if they didn't believe in these procedures I don't know why they sought this kind of help to begin with! Side: No
Have you read what they were going to do to treat the cancer instead? "Daniel's lymphoma was diagnosed in January, and he was given one round of chemotherapy in February. But instead of returning for a second round of the treatment in March, the Hausers opted for an alternative treatment involving a nutritious diet, drinking ionized water, and taking vitamins and herbal supplements. His mother testified the regiment was based mostly on information she found on the Internet. " There is no other word to describe this but 'neglect'. Side: yes
1
point
great follow up article, a bit late, on this exact topic: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/ Side: No
If a person has a religious reason to do or not do something regarding their own health I believe that they should have that right. On that same wave length, a lack of religion should also be respected when someone is making choices about their own health. Unless the person is psycho. Side: No
1
point
|
