Child Protective Services

[David S]

I was one but only because the child is too young and the parents aren't providing her with treatment.

There was no indication the parents were negligently depriving her of needed treatment. But chemo and radation can both be brutal treatments and there is no guarantee they will work. Doctors sometimes recommend treatments that have little chance of success and cause great discomfort to the patient. Its sometimes a difficult decision, but who should make it?

The parents gave birth to this girl. They fed her, clothed her, cared for her when she was sick, comforted her when she was frightened, played games with her and loved her.  Government didn't do any of those things. So who should decide?

In your own case Jake who would you want to make the decision; a government bureaucrat who doesn't know you or your parents?

[J. J.]

It seems to me that the government acting to protect the child from parents that have some mental issues.  That seems reasonable, as no other person or entity seems willing to intervene there.

So it's not the right of the parents to raise their children how they see fit? Even if treatment would violate their religious beliefs you would approve?

I would.  Medical science must come before personal beliefs.  Parents denying medical treatment to their children on supposedly religious grounds has been ruled a crime.  What benevolent religion would deny a child the right to live?

As most of you know, I have medical problems.  I've seen a lot of doctors.  Of the 5 orthopedic surgeons that I've contacted, four of them insisted that I should have surgery.  Of the neuralogist, neurosurgeon, two rehabilitation specialists that I've contacted (including the people they recommended), said unanimously that I should not do it.  The fifth, reputed to be the best in town, refused to see me, stating that, since I'd had a previous surgery, it be too problematic.  Interestingly, he was the one with the best reputation.

On question two of the four, their responces were, that with surgery, there would be about a 60% chance of me being "better", but that it would solve the problem and that I would not be able to function in a work environment.  When I indicated that the nueralogist felt that surgery would not solve the problem; the othopedic surgeon, said, "He's not a surgeon."

Now, I could be cynical and say that the reason they recommend surgery is that they will profit from it.  There is another possibility.  The are so specialized, they don't see the alternatives.

In this case, the court quite wisely ordered more diagnostic tests.  If I were the patient and the doctor insisted on this treatment without further testing, I would have three words for him, "You are fired."

BTW:  After I told told one of the surgeons that I wasn't interested, he said, "You'll be back."  A year later, I received a letter from him stating that he was no longer practicing.  With hindsight, it was a perfect choice.

[??????????]

follow up

That's really a tough call.   I think most people beyond the most hardcore of libertarians would agree that the courts need to step in in at least some cases (such as physical abuse severe enough to warrant ER visits).   The question is where to step in.   I know some faiths (most notably Christian Science) don't believe in doctors at all, and though I am willing to let adults die because they refuse treatment, I am not so sure about minors.

What I do know is that I lack enough details on the case to make an absolute judgement of right or wrong.

So basically you would remove the rights of parents to raise their children in the best way they see fit? Correct?

"Democrats, the realy pro CHOICE party!"

[Citizen James]

follow up

That's really a tough call.   I think most people beyond the most hardcore of libertarians would agree that the courts need to step in in at least some cases (such as physical abuse severe enough to warrant ER visits).   The question is where to step in.   I know some faiths (most notably Christian Science) don't believe in doctors at all, and though I am willing to let adults die because they refuse treatment, I am not so sure about minors.

What I do know is that I lack enough details on the case to make an absolute judgement of right or wrong.

So basically you would remove the rights of parents to raise their children in the best way they see fit? Correct?

"Democrats, the realy pro CHOICE party!"

Yes, I would think it clear that children who are severely beaten by their parents to the point of life threatening injuries need to be placed in protective custody.  You actually disagree with that?   Seriously?

We also don't favor the right of people to capture their neighbors and sell them into slavery.   We don't even think people have a right to choose to shoplift.   I guess we're just a bunch of hardcore authoritarians.

States, you're a real hoot.   .

[??????????]

follow up

That's really a tough call.   I think most people beyond the most hardcore of libertarians would agree that the courts need to step in in at least some cases (such as physical abuse severe enough to warrant ER visits).   The question is where to step in.   I know some faiths (most notably Christian Science) don't believe in doctors at all, and though I am willing to let adults die because they refuse treatment, I am not so sure about minors.

What I do know is that I lack enough details on the case to make an absolute judgement of right or wrong.

So basically you would remove the rights of parents to raise their children in the best way they see fit? Correct?

"Democrats, the realy pro CHOICE party!"

Yes, I would think it clear that children who are severely beaten by their parents to the point of life threatening injuries need to be placed in protective custody.  You actually disagree with that?   Seriously?

Did I say that? Hell no. As I've said the whole thread I support the parents RIGHT to treat their children medically as they best see fit. But whatever, bleh.

[David S]

In some cases cancer treatments like chemo and radation are successful and in some cases they are not. One friend of mine was saved from Leukemia by chemo. But another friend in his early 60s was Dxed with lung cancer during a physical. Prior to that he didn't know anything was wrong. The doctors used radation which caused nasty burns on his chest. Then the cancer spread to his brain. The doctor said don't worry we can fix that. Then they put him on chemo and then he was dead. It was about 6 months from Dx to death. In my opinion he would have lived his final months in better health and happiness if he had done nothing. He might even have lived longer.

My mother died of breast cancer. Initially they put her on hormone therapy. That worked well. It kept her alive and in reasonably good health for about 5 years, but eventually the cancer becomes immune to that type of treatment and the doctors resort to chemo. Chemo was much more brutal. One treatment of that and she was dead. Now admittedly she was old and frail at the time. But I think chemo caused enough distress to her system to push her over the edge.

I'm rambling a bit but the point of all that is that chemo and radation are not surefire and they can cause the patient a lot of pain. Its just a race to see what  the treatment kills first, the cancer or you.

This is a very difficult decision to make, and as JJ points out the doctors are not always right. He is also right in saying that the doctors make money by treating you, not necessarily by doing what is best for you.

IMHO the decision for a child should be made by the people who are most concerned for her well being, her parents not some bureaucrat. The parents should be armed with all the facts; probability of survival with and without treatment, treatment options, and quality of life with and without treatment. Then they should be allowed to decide.