Should the government be able to force you to seek treatment

Life, the universe, and everything.
Forum rules
- No personal attacks against players or staff members - please be civil!
- No posting of mature images/links, keep content SFW. If it's NSFW, don't post it on these forums.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Should the government be able to force you to seek treatment

Postby kiryan » Tue Jun 23, 2009 9:56 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090623/ap_ ... rced_chemo

Should the government be able to order this 13 year old boy, who does not want chemo therapy to treat his cancer, to continue to receive chemo therapy because it is medically making him get better?

Why?

When do we start ordering fat people not to drink non diet soda and eat candy? Parents not to get divorced (because of its impact on the children)?
avak
Sojourner
Posts: 672
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:01 am

Re: Should the government be able to force you to seek treatment

Postby avak » Tue Jun 23, 2009 10:21 pm

No. The government should not be able to force 'you' to seek treatment. The government should, however, continue to be involved in the welfare of our youth. Therefore, demanding treatment is tantamount to the welfare of this child. The alternative would be to remove him from his biological parents and then administer treatment.

"But what if the parents believe alternative treatments would cure the child?"

If the parents produce a body of peer reviewed literature proving the efficacy of their proposed treatments then they should be allowed to use them. Western medicine may not be perfect, but there is ample evidence to show the best course of treatment for this child. The rest is speculation.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Should the government be able to force you to seek treatment

Postby Sarvis » Tue Jun 23, 2009 10:29 pm

I don't know if I have an answer on this one, but let's reword the question a bit shall we: Should the government let a 13 year old boy commit suicide?
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Should the government be able to force you to seek treatment

Postby kiryan » Wed Jun 24, 2009 2:38 am

lets couch it yet another way

should the government be getting in the way of the natural result?

or

should the government be invading this boys "right to privacy" over his body and ordering him to physically and emotionally undergo treatment that he does not agree with?

or does the right to privacy only extend to women aborting their babies?
avak
Sojourner
Posts: 672
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:01 am

Re: Should the government be able to force you to seek treatment

Postby avak » Wed Jun 24, 2009 2:46 am

The point is that he is a minor and therefore unable to make decisions of this magnitude for himself. Or do you think his parents have taken a hands off approach and the 13 year old is calling the shots?

Since this seems to be a theme...imagine an infant in a hospital...two years old. Her parents want her to start a fasting ritual that is religiously important to them. The result of the fast will be likely fatal to the infant...is this acceptable?
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Should the government be able to force you to seek treatment

Postby Ragorn » Wed Jun 24, 2009 3:21 am

Nope, I think this is completely insane.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Should the government be able to force you to seek treatment

Postby Corth » Wed Jun 24, 2009 4:25 am

Does anyone really disagree with the government's authority to intervene when negligent parents create a harmful environment for their children? These parents are taking it a step further and are wilfully harming their child. Its a routine treatment for a treatable cancer. To me this is a no-brainer. The parents are incapable of making decisions in the best interest of the child. This is exactly the type of situation where government should get involved.

On the other hand, Kiryan's slippery slope point is well taken. Its not such an extreme jump to go from something like this to saying that parents aren't preparing healthy meals - take their kids away. Ultimately one hopes that common sense and reason prevail.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth

Goddamned slippery mage.
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Re: Should the government be able to force you to seek treatment

Postby Kifle » Wed Jun 24, 2009 8:57 am

Every time I see this story on the news, I am at quite a loss as to whether or not I agree with the rights of the child (family) or the neglect of the parents and the government's invasion into their private lives with noble cause. On one hand, you have the ideals that this country was founded on (freedom of religion); on the other hand, you have advances in technology that negate the archaic foundations of which many of these beliefs are built. One part of me wants to say let them choose so that their genes do not spread further than they have; another part of me wants to agree with the state and force the child into treatment.

In the end, I'm glad I'm not the one making this decision. As Corth said, I think it should be left to common sense on a case by case basis with no firm decisions being made precedent much like korematsu vs. US. I am glad that the kid is being treated, regardless of how he is getting the treatment.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Should the government be able to force you to seek treatment

Postby Ragorn » Wed Jun 24, 2009 12:56 pm

The story's evolving a bit, so let me clarify why I care.

The family doesn't want chemo, the kid doesn't want chemo. All parties involved (including the kid) are aware that the risk of death is very high if chemotherapy is not undertaken. That said, they've chosen not to do it. To me, that sounds like a very simple medical decision. They've chosen death over treatment. The key factor for me is that the child understands the options and understands his choice. The government is intervening because someone decided that a 13 year old is not capable of making important decisions for himself. That, I disagree with.

Now, parents of young children who pray to god for healing instead of giving their babies medicine? They should rot in prison. They're inflicting their ineffective religious views on an innocent and uncomprehending child, and for that, they should burn.

This doesn't appear to be that kind of situation.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Should the government be able to force you to seek treatment

Postby Sarvis » Wed Jun 24, 2009 1:07 pm

Ragorn wrote:This doesn't appear to be that kind of situation.


It is. They've just spent 13 years impressing those beliefs in the kid, to the point where he's going to let himself die for it. 13 isn't old enough to decide things for a reason, and it isn't because 13 year olds have a good grasp of consequences, logic or even independent thought.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
spunionring
Sojourner
Posts: 173
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 11:17 pm
Contact:

Re: Should the government be able to force you to seek treatment

Postby spunionring » Wed Jun 24, 2009 1:31 pm

first of all, yes ppl who dont want to seek medical treatment because of 'religious reason' are crazy and a bit scary imo

however, i totally support anyone's right to not seek medical treatments. especially when it comes to such a complex issue as cancer.

i may believe the parents are crazy, sure. but do i believe that I or the court or anyone knows so much better that they can tell ppl what to do with their bodies / children. no. it is their right to choose what they believe is right, and what they believe is best. no court should define THAT.

if in a particular circumstances its really crazy, then community pressure and disapproval = OK.

But, i think that this is an incredibly difficult decision for people to make. the courts should always respect that.
avak
Sojourner
Posts: 672
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:01 am

Re: Should the government be able to force you to seek treatment

Postby avak » Wed Jun 24, 2009 1:57 pm

Uh yeah. Remember that polygamist cult bust in Texas a year or so ago? Extremely young kids were entering in to "spiritual marriages" with much, much older men. The general consensus was that the kids were fine with it because they had been indoctrinated from birth to see that practice as acceptable. So, can we say that this practice was okay because the children understood what they were agreeing to? That is the whole point of protecting minors. Society has deemed children at a certain age to be generally incapable of good decision making...especially under coercion from an adult. Statutory rape??
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Should the government be able to force you to seek treatment

Postby Corth » Wed Jun 24, 2009 2:10 pm

Keep in mind this kid isn't quite all there. He has some serious mental 'challenges'. At 13 years old he is illiterate.

Plus I do have to agree with Sarvis - at 13, even if you have a properly developed brain, you basically parrot your parent's beliefs. There is little independent thought.

I don't believe a 13 year old has the capacity to make medical decisions on his own. Thats why he is not given a choice. If the parents can't choose for him then it should be someone appointed by the state.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
spunionring
Sojourner
Posts: 173
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 11:17 pm
Contact:

Re: Should the government be able to force you to seek treatment

Postby spunionring » Wed Jun 24, 2009 2:35 pm

first of all, there's a custodial parent who is responsible for making decisions for their child. so statutory rape isnt really comparable.

the issue here, is whether a parent has the right to raise their child however they want, without hurting their child. even when the views that they encourage in their child, may be really really weird, and even lead to decisions that most people dont agree with. if you have kids and meet other parents, this question looks you in the face all the time. ANYONE CAN MAKE BABIES :P you dont have to be smart of sane or qualified or anything.

i say 'without hurting their child' because they did not give the kid cancer. choosing how to live with it, is a hard choice, and its unfair to construe such a choice in a situation that was already leading to death, as being inflicted by the parents. This isnt euthenasia, the child still has to live with the cancer until it kills him (by law).

now while i may not approve of what most americans teach their kids, ive also known alot of people who were taken away from their parents by the state. the state / foster parents / family members who take them in... often end up being a far more unhealthy situation than, say, growing up with mormons.

you think the children that lived in the 'cult' in texas have just forgotten their 'raised from birth' beliefs and moved on to become regular people?
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Should the government be able to force you to seek treatment

Postby Sarvis » Wed Jun 24, 2009 2:45 pm

spunionring wrote:first of all, there's a custodial parent who is responsible for making decisions for their child. so statutory rape isnt really comparable.


Would it be ok for the custodian to decide a child should have sex?

the issue here, is whether a parent has the right to raise their child however they want, without hurting their child. even when the views that they encourage in their child, may be really really weird, and even lead to decisions that most people dont agree with. if you have kids and meet other parents, this question looks you in the face all the time. ANYONE CAN MAKE BABIES :P you dont have to be smart of sane or qualified or anything.

i say 'without hurting their child' because they did not give the kid cancer. choosing how to live with it, is a hard choice, and its unfair to construe such a choice in a situation that was already leading to death, as being inflicted by the parents. This isnt euthenasia, the child still has to live with the cancer until it kills him (by law).

now while i may not approve of what most americans teach their kids, ive also known alot of people who were taken away from their parents by the state. the state / foster parents / family members who take them in... often end up being a far more unhealthy situation than, say, growing up with mormons.


I'm sorry, but you'll have to explain exactly how choosing NOT to cure a deadly disease fails to equate to harming the child.

you think the children that lived in the 'cult' in texas have just forgotten their 'raised from birth' beliefs and moved on to become regular people?


What's your point? Are you saying they would have been better off under the continued influence of the cult? Are you saying that since they had already been harmed we should have just let it continue? Should we have just waited until they drank the kool-aid?
Last edited by Sarvis on Wed Jun 24, 2009 2:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Should the government be able to force you to seek treatment

Postby Ragorn » Wed Jun 24, 2009 2:47 pm

Here's the thing for me. The right of life or death is, without hyperbole, the most important and the most fundamental right that we have as living beings. If a person consciously chooses to die, whether it's a terminally ill patient, an elderly person confined to a hospital bed, or an emo teenager contemplating suicide, then I firmly believe that they should have the right to end their own life.

I believe that counselling should be available and freely offered to these individuals, particuarly troubled teenagers. However, at the end of the day, couselling is just a different person's attempt to instill their beliefs in you regarding the value and purpose of life. Life is not inherently sacred... it is not a guaranteed universal truth that life should always be protected, even against the wishes of the person choosing to die. If someone chooses to die, we should let them.

Yeah, this kid has probably been indoctorinated with religious beliefs, and you already know how I feel about religion. But you know what? They're his beliefs, and he has the right to practice them, regardless of how old he is. He's killing himself, but he has the right to do that. He's not harming anyone else in the process.

Interesting that Corth, the libertarian, advocates government intervention in this thread. While I, the atheist, am arguing for protection of religious freedom.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Should the government be able to force you to seek treatment

Postby Sarvis » Wed Jun 24, 2009 2:49 pm

Were the kid older, I would probably agree with you Rags... but at 13 I don't think the kid has the capacity to choose for himself. It's as likely as not that he is simply following his parents' wishes.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Ambar
Sojourner
Posts: 2872
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Our House in Va.
Contact:

Re: Should the government be able to force you to seek treatment

Postby Ambar » Wed Jun 24, 2009 4:35 pm

I bet this 13 year old child doesnt know what pain and agony he is faced with if allowed to accept non treatment, I wonder if these freakazoid parents have told him that :(

Yes, Chemo DOES affect the body, look what it is killing! It has no regard for healthy tissue, it attacks it all! There are tests done while on chemo, you cant even take it if your heart and / or kidneys /liver do not pass the respective tests

The fatigue? It is killing blood cells, it makes you throw up and feel not like eataing, you NEED the sleep to help fight this crap, but here are drugs that counteract the side effects. While I feel every parent has the right to rear their child as they see fit, in this case they are killing their child .. the impact on their other children is going to be terrible :( Religious beliefs be damned, they are killing their child :( So many people cannot have children at all and to see parents being allowed to refuse life saving treatment just astonishes me.
"When a child is born, so is a grandmother."

-Italian Proverb
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Should the government be able to force you to seek treatment

Postby Corth » Wed Jun 24, 2009 4:51 pm

Ragorn wrote:Interesting that Corth, the libertarian, advocates government intervention in this thread. While I, the atheist, am arguing for protection of religious freedom.


Yeah, I got a kick out of that as well.

One thing you aren't addressing is the mental limitations of this particular child. You mentioned before that you believe a 13 year old is capable of making life or death decisions for himself. Does that apply to -this- 13 year old?

Now lets assume that you have a 13 year old that is clearly incapble of making decisions for himself. Say hes autistic, or has a low IQ or whatever. Should his parents be allowed to choose death on his behalf rather than undergo routine treatment?

I'm all for allowing people to die if they want to, so long as they are capable of making such a decision. I just don't believe a 13 year old, even if he is perfectly normal, is capable of making such a decision - and certainly not one with diminished mental capacity. Moreover, it is very troubling to me that a parent could be allowed to choose death whether or not the minor is capable of making that choice.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Should the government be able to force you to seek treatment

Postby Corth » Wed Jun 24, 2009 4:58 pm

As an aside. Children, with the consent of their parents, choose to die rather than undergo treatment fairly often. These are in cases where the illness is terminal and treatment just prolongs life at considerable discomfort. Nobody gets any courts involved. Rather in this case you have a very treatable cancer. Hence the reason that the doctor/hospital went to court to compel treatment. There is an element of reasonableness built into the system. If the child's decision to die is reasonable, nobody stops it. This only becomes a national news story when the parent and/or child are completely off the wall.

As a society, we don't allow negligent parents to retain custody of their children. Why would we allow a willfully harmful parent to do so?
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Should the government be able to force you to seek treatment

Postby Ragorn » Wed Jun 24, 2009 5:13 pm

I wasn't aware of the reduced mental capacity of the child. I think that may change things.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Should the government be able to force you to seek treatment

Postby Corth » Wed Jun 24, 2009 5:18 pm

The diminished mental capacity actually makes the debate less interesting. Much more to argue about if the kid is physically normal (aside from the illness) but wants to die rather than undergo a routine treatment, and the parents agree.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Should the government be able to force you to seek treatment

Postby kiryan » Wed Jun 24, 2009 10:51 pm

I wasn't aware of the diminshed mental ability either.

--

"The point is that he is a minor and therefore unable to make decisions of this magnitude for himself. Or do you think his parents have taken a hands off approach and the 13 year old is calling the shots? "

Yet they can decide to have sex and get abortions without parental consent or notification.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Should the government be able to force you to seek treatment

Postby Sarvis » Wed Jun 24, 2009 11:05 pm

kiryan wrote:I wasn't aware of the diminshed mental ability either.

--

"The point is that he is a minor and therefore unable to make decisions of this magnitude for himself. Or do you think his parents have taken a hands off approach and the 13 year old is calling the shots? "

Yet they can decide to have sex and get abortions without parental consent or notification.


Is it just me, or has Kiryan been trying to work abortion into every thread lately?

/sex isn't a life or death decision
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
avak
Sojourner
Posts: 672
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:01 am

Re: Should the government be able to force you to seek treatment

Postby avak » Wed Jun 24, 2009 11:25 pm

I think the fair response would be: abortions terminate a non-viable life and do not harm the mother (in most cases). However, in most states, even abortions require the consent of the parent. I think US law has a fairly consistent treatment of the maturity of minors. Exceptions would probably include the drinking age and the age at which kids can get drivers licenses.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Should the government be able to force you to seek treatment

Postby kiryan » Thu Jun 25, 2009 3:04 pm

Hmm... I am pretty darn sure there are at least several states that allow children, minors who are by definition incapable of making their own decisions, get abortions without parental consent.

In virtually every state they can have sex within a couple year age band and the parents have absolutely no legal recourse.

--

I enjoy pointing out the differences in how we treat some decisions. Abortion and sexual activity of minors are rights or choices that society has deemed children can make... while refusing cancer treatments means your crazy and the government has to choose for you.

Where is the RIGHT to privacy over your body that Roe vs Wade was built on? or does this right only apply if you are a woman who wants to kill her baby?

Why is a 13 year old child mature enough to get an abortion, yet not mature enough to decide he'd rather let nature takes its course and die?

Can I remind you at what the leading bio ethics researchers were saying after octo mom? Pregnant women are not always able to make rational decisions and sometimes their doctors may need to make the "right" decision for them... Have no doubt that these "experts" drive public policy and public opinion to a lesser degree.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Should the government be able to force you to seek treatment

Postby Sarvis » Thu Jun 25, 2009 3:11 pm

kiryan wrote:In virtually every state they can have sex within a couple year age band and the parents have absolutely no legal recourse.


Why should the parents have legal recourse? What the fuck is wrong with Christians that they think sex should be a crime? You think it's sinful. We get it. Stop trying to punish others for your beliefs.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Should the government be able to force you to seek treatment

Postby Sarvis » Thu Jun 25, 2009 3:18 pm

kiryan wrote:Hmm... I am pretty darn sure there are at least several states that allow children, minors who are by definition incapable of making their own decisions, get abortions without parental consent.

In virtually every state they can have sex within a couple year age band and the parents have absolutely no legal recourse.

--

I enjoy pointing out the differences in how we treat some decisions. Abortion and sexual activity of minors are rights or choices that society has deemed children can make


5 states. 5 states is hardly society, and it mostly means they haven't made a law about it at this point... not that society condones it. You're reaching, at best.

... while refusing cancer treatments means your crazy and the government has to choose for you.


Abortions and sex are not fatal to the child making the decision.

Where is the RIGHT to privacy over your body that Roe vs Wade was built on? or does this right only apply if you are a woman who wants to kill her baby?


Children do not actually have that right. Their parents have to make those decisions for them, your abortion argument notwithstanding for the reasons I stated earlier.

Why is a 13 year old child mature enough to get an abortion, yet not mature enough to decide he'd rather let nature takes its course and die?


They aren't, in either case. 90% of our society does not think a 13 year old can decide on an abortion without parental involvement.

Can I remind you at what the leading bio ethics researchers were saying after octo mom? Pregnant women are not always able to make rational decisions and sometimes their doctors may need to make the "right" decision for them... Have no doubt that these "experts" drive public policy and public opinion to a lesser degree.


You're really rambling further and further off topic now. None of this is about a pregnant woman. If you want to debate abortion, create a thread for abortion.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Should the government be able to force you to seek treatment

Postby kiryan » Thu Jun 25, 2009 3:31 pm

http://www.statehealthfacts.org/compare ... 10&ind=460

I count 18 states with no law, or where the law is not enforced. Then there are 6 additional that allow waivers which one would hope are only used in sexual abuse situations.

Hardly your 5.

--

Children have at least some rights.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Should the government be able to force you to seek treatment

Postby Sarvis » Thu Jun 25, 2009 3:42 pm

kiryan wrote:http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparetable.jsp?cat=10&ind=460

I count 18 states with no law, or where the law is not enforced. Then there are 6 additional that allow waivers which one would hope are only used in sexual abuse situations.

Hardly your 5.

--

Children have at least some rights.


I had gone by Wikipedia's stats:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minors_and ... ted_States

Anyone want to find a third source?
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Re: Should the government be able to force you to seek treatment

Postby Kifle » Thu Jun 25, 2009 9:10 pm

Kiryan, I don't think you can equate abortion and its various rights here because you are ignoring the quality of life of the child being born as well as the child getting the abortion. Yes, death is a part of both this situation and abortion, but the quality of life of the child can easily be equated to the quality of life of the child seeking death through non-treatment. If an 11yr old girl has a baby, do you want that 11yr old raising that child? Do you want the parents of an 11yr old pregnant girl to raise that child? In all honesty, and I want you to really think about this, what kind of life does both the new child and the 11yr old single mother look forward to? The new child will have so much mental damage by the time they are 11, the cycle has a high rate of repeating itself -- among other issues that will probably make this child's life horrible. Granted, this is not a strong argument -- as strong as just not saying the two situations are equal -- but it should be addressed if we are talking about abortions for minors, especially those who are so far away from "adulthood."

The idea of ignoring quality of life can be equated to just about anything you expect quality from. Would you buy a broken TV? No, because when you get something, you want it to be of the best possible quality. Life is no different. When there is a new life being created, it should be of the best possible quality available. If this quality is equatable to a broken tv, such as with the 11yr old mother, that life should be revoked if the parent deems it necessary (with the guidance of those who are mature enough to make those decisions) -- not only because the new life has a horribly low probability of average "success" or "happiness," but also because the life of the young mother will also be lowered by not having the decision of abortion.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Should the government be able to force you to seek treatment

Postby kiryan » Fri Jun 26, 2009 7:43 pm

real quick becuase i gotta go

I understand the principles and I agree that its an unfortunate situation and that the mother will have a poorer life (generally speaking) and so will the child. It may be a cycle... it may be that we allow it to be a cycle. Regardless, I can not get behind the idea that ok so you kill the child so that the mother can have a better life, so that society doesn't have to pay for it.

You want to talk about responsibility, the responsible thing to do is to have the child, not kill it. The responsible thing is to spend your life making up for the mistake you made (getting pregnant), sacrificing whatever dreams you had because you gambled and lost (or work harder and still achieve those dreams).

The responsible thing to do would be not to be having sex if you are not ready to handle the natural and predictable consequences. We aren't against sex for kids just because its in the bible. Its a foolish policy at best.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Should the government be able to force you to seek treatment

Postby Sarvis » Fri Jun 26, 2009 7:47 pm

kiryan wrote:real quick becuase i gotta go

I understand the principles and I agree that its an unfortunate situation and that the mother will have a poorer life (generally speaking) and so will the child. It may be a cycle... it may be that we allow it to be a cycle. Regardless, I can not get behind the idea that ok so you kill the child so that the mother can have a better life, so that society doesn't have to pay for it.

You want to talk about responsibility, the responsible thing to do is to have the child, not kill it. The responsible thing is to spend your life making up for the mistake you made (getting pregnant), sacrificing whatever dreams you had because you gambled and lost (or work harder and still achieve those dreams).


Is it responsible to bring a child into a life where it's own chances of success and "dream fulfillment" are reduced or non-existent due to poverty?

The responsible thing to do would be not to be having sex if you are not ready to handle the natural and predictable consequences. We aren't against sex for kids just because its in the bible. Its a foolish policy at best.


You DO realize that you can have sex without getting pregnant, right? Condoms, the pill, various other contraceptives...

The foolish policy is to expect kids to listen to you when they're alone with the opposite sex for more than 5 minutes and their hormones are so strong they can barely think of anything BUT sex.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Re: Should the government be able to force you to seek treatment

Postby Kifle » Fri Jun 26, 2009 8:15 pm

kiryan wrote:real quick becuase i gotta go

I understand the principles and I agree that its an unfortunate situation and that the mother will have a poorer life (generally speaking) and so will the child. It may be a cycle... it may be that we allow it to be a cycle. Regardless, I can not get behind the idea that ok so you kill the child so that the mother can have a better life, so that society doesn't have to pay for it.

You want to talk about responsibility, the responsible thing to do is to have the child, not kill it. The responsible thing is to spend your life making up for the mistake you made (getting pregnant), sacrificing whatever dreams you had because you gambled and lost (or work harder and still achieve those dreams).

The responsible thing to do would be not to be having sex if you are not ready to handle the natural and predictable consequences. We aren't against sex for kids just because its in the bible. Its a foolish policy at best.


I agree, Kiryan. It is dodging responsibility, and in that sense, it is wrong. If the social strain on the government wasn't as bad as it is, if the world weren't as populated as it is, and if the unborn child were already cognizant of its own life, I would be with you on this; however, none of these things are true; therefore, I can't see how abortion, even though it is "murder" in a sense, fulfills enough negatives to become ethically wrong at this point. We can justify wars, you do it in the bible. Murder is not a black and white area which is how I think you're treating it in this case; however, you will agree that it is more grey when it comes to things like war and maybe capital punishment. Granted, there are different justifications for each of these, but the point is that there are justifications. I think at some point, the pros outweigh the cons in each situation, and the pros at this point in the stage of humanity outweigh the cons for abortion -- and I think stem cell research pushes this debate even further in favor of certain types of abortion.

Abortion itself is still a bit of a grey matter as well. I don't claim to have great medical knowledge, so I can't say at what point I think it is right or wrong to abort, but realizing that abortion can't also be looked at as a black and white matter is wrong as well... imo.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Todrael
Sojourner
Posts: 1454
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2001 6:01 am
Location: MI, USA
Contact:

Re: Should the government be able to force you to seek treatment

Postby Todrael » Fri Jun 26, 2009 11:10 pm

I need the legal ability to commit suicide at a time and place of my choosing so that I can undergo a life-saving procedure. Religious objections, the inability to understand basic science, and general squeamishness about death make this legally impossible in every state of the US. Instead, it's more likely that my brain (the seat of my personhood) will die while my body is still alive, whether through Alzheimers, dementia, or some government-imposed life support system.

The rest of the debate revolves around the question, "What is a person and what rights should they receive?" or even more confusingly, "What types of persons are there and how should we treat them?"

For shock value, I often use the argument that people should not be considered human beings until around the age of five. Before then, the parents are free to dispose of them as they will. Not that I consider that to be a good thing... but it does start to look at the issues.

Every process can be broken down. Some say life, and therefore duty toward that life, begin at conception. Others say when the body is capable of maintaing itself independent of the mother. Others have shorter or longer definitions. But each of these moments is arbitrary, and often encompasses a wide range of independent moments when broken down still further. Breaking down conception, does life begin when the sperm penetrates the egg? Or when the genetic code is finalized? What part of the chemical process begets 'life'? It's a series of steps, a complete process, not an 'on/off' switch.

What is a person? I don't know the answer to that question. If I did, I'm sure the neuroscientists and AI theorists would give me a nobel prize. What rights should they receive? Well, I don't know that either, so I guess I'll just go with whatever won't land me in jail.

A lot of this just doesn't make sense to me. We spend so much time discussing it and thinking about it, but in the end, people will still do what they can get away with, and we'll still have to deal with the consequences imposed on us by others who feel differently. Welcome to "society".
-Todrael Azz'miala, Ravager
Get Toril Guides and Maps at Todrael's Lair
Get Item Stats at TorilEQ

Return to “T2 General Discussion Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 30 guests