After reading yet another government intervention in a parent/child medical case, I just thought I'd start my own thread about what do you think in general about the government telling a parent what they can and can't do in certain situations when it involves your children.

Where should the government draw the line? Has the government crossed that line in the two cases mentioned on the Cafe' board? (the 550 lb boy and the boy with cancer). Both moms took the children and ran away.

When does the government cross the line? I'm thinking of parents who don't want their children to get their immunizations. What if the government decided to arrest those parents?

I think the government should step in long before these situations arise...and prevent dumb people from procreating! Just kidding....but only sort of. Fire away!

__________________
I was walking home one night and a guy hammering on a roof called me a paranoid little weirdo. In morse code. -Emo Phillips

Oops! I just noticed I spelled "intervention" wrong in the title. Tried to change it but can only change what's in the message part!

Edited to Add: Thanks cjs for PMing me on how to correct it. After all these years, I just learned something new!!

I somewhat agree with CJS216. Too many people in our society have little to no moral compass. Not that the "government" is the ultimate example, but, I think something should be done about certain instances in our society. It's a very fine line to walk, tho. Who is the judge of what is right or wrong then???

I have not been following these stories mentioned above. Are they claiming child abuse? Is that how they are stepping in?

It's sad, but, you need a license to catch a fish, but, just about anyone, young or old, can have a child. Maybe some mandatory parenting/budgeting courses???

As a side note, I would like to see people who don't have their animals spayed/neutered, get a fine. I know, in reality not gonna happen, but, something needs to be done about all these unwanted animals........urggghhhh.

__________________
Doing the right thing isn't always the same as doing the easy thing.

Are you sitting down? I was going to post the exact same sentiments, except I am not kidding.

I've said for a long time that just because any two people can get body parts together doesn't make them parents. The worst are the teens who we, as taxpayers, now support through wic, food stamps, subsidized child care, nurseries in the high schools, medical care, etc.

Before anyone laments I am a meanie in that I would deny a child medical care, I am not. I am saying that IF the child wasn't created in the first place until the parent(S) and I mean the boy and the girl, were mature, had the opportunity for an education, and have the financial means, then go for it.

I realize there are so many variables and woe to the those who pop in and tell me circumstances / things change after the birth, etc. I am sick of the "single parent" card being played. Have more self esteem, have more responsibility and think about who you fool around with before you go down that road. Fool being a key word.

The above relate back to personal responsibility. Back to the op's query, no, I don't want any more government intervention. The gov has already gone way beyond in people's lives and we don't need a bit more.

dl

I think you have to step back and consider what defines "parental matters" vs. "legal matters." Some would argue that the two cases sited on this message board constitute abuse (barring a medical condition in the obesity case). What if the child was undernourished? Could the government step in then? If a father rapes his daughter? Beats his son?

__________________
If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition, and then admit that we just don't want to do it.

- Stephen Colbert.

The government and people in general needs to stay out of the family business. The way I look at it chemo can be very hard why would someone be so greedy to torture their child with it. The parents take the responsibility for the care of the child from the time he/she is conceived - leave them be. They will have to deal with their guilt if the child dies and they will have to answer to Go# for their actions.

__________________
Laura
Please visit my blog
http://mylifeinlaurasworld.blogspot.com/

Well said. I DO NOT want the government telling me what to do with my life or how I should parent. Of coarse, I think Dr. Kivorkian (spelling?) shouldn't have been gone after by the cops. If I had a terminal disease I might have called him.

__________________
Proud to say I haven't shopped at a Wal-Mart since Sept 2003

You think the kid is going to go gentle into that good night without medical care? I highly doubt it.

__________________
If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition, and then admit that we just don't want to do it.

- Stephen Colbert.

The way I look at it, why would the parents deprive this child of a chance to live? I don't care about their guilt -- if the child dies because they refuse medical attention, how is that not child abuse?

__________________

Reading is Fundamental.

I have a question for those who think refusing medical care for their child in any circumstance is child abuse...

Say you are an animal rights activist. You are against animal testing, are vegan, etc. Your child needs a heart transplant or they will die. Doc says a baboon (or whatever animal) has a heart that will work in your child's body and save them. You are against this because of your beliefs and love for animals. Should you be forced to do this surgery for your child?

I'm just wondering if the whole thing here is that this is cancer or if you would think the same way in any instance. This was a question asked in a class I took in college and the answers were interesting so I thought I would ask it here

__________________
Proud to say I haven't shopped at a Wal-Mart since Sept 2003

They are the parents not us! No I couldn't let MY child die without trying to save him but they are falling on their belief in natural medicines and what everyone is forgetting is its their choice not ours.

__________________
Laura
Please visit my blog
http://mylifeinlaurasworld.blogspot.com/

In reply to sexysmurf about using a baboon heart if needed. Since I do have a child my son Tommy who was born with several serious heart defects I believe I can speak or answer this question. While I am a huge animal activist and also do not eat meat, it would stop right there, I would sadly really very sorry for the life of the donated animals heart, however it could never ever ever compare to the live of my son. Like I have always said there are certain things I believe in, however when it comes to the health of my children, those are my beliefs and it would never prevent me from affecting or risking the life of my child under no circumstances. No way in my mind would I ever believe in any religion that another power could have saved my sons life without medical and surgical intervention. The sad part is that if more people would be organ donors there would be so many more lives saved. Being a organ donor is a personal choice, but I honestly feel if god forbid a life is loss yet their organs can help another person live then why not, then we would not have to turn to a animal.But again the first most important issue is and always will be for me the life of my child. Peace. Catherine

Thanks Catherine for responding!

__________________
Proud to say I haven't shopped at a Wal-Mart since Sept 2003

Your most welcome.. peace. Catherine

So, if a child was badly cut and bled to death because a parent decided to pray instead of call an ambulance, that would be OK?

__________________
If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition, and then admit that we just don't want to do it.

- Stephen Colbert.

A child, like the one in this case, who has Hodgkins disease, will die a painful death without treatment. The child was already starting to have pain when the mass was re growing. So it is ok to allow your child to suffer in pain?? This disease is easy to get into remission and stays there for a LONG LONG time...

I dont believe they are claiming "child abuse" but Medical neglect... that is a whole different bag to open. My EXH was charged with this because he held insurance on my son and refused to give me the info and refused to make appts despite a judge telling him to. He spent three days in jail over it however in the end he made the appt. The judge was NOT happy...

__________________
Be careful what you wish for.....

Dannic so very sorry that happened to your child. No child should ever ever suffer at any costs.. I sincerely hope that more people would separate themselves from their personal views and realize that sometimes more then sometimes we must seek medical interventions. When my son was only 3 weeks old it was so painful for me and my dh to let go of Tommy when they wheeled him away for open heart surgery, but we knew without it Tommy would not be here today .Of course when he came out of surgery and had so many tubes all over and stuff, the doctors assured us everything went well and each day he slowly improved, but no praying alone was going to cure Tommy.. I pray that no one single child suffers in any way shape or form... Peace. Catherine

I think parents have the right to choose medical care for their child, but not when their choice will almost certainly result in the child's death. I know, it's a fine line, maybe a slippery slope, but I don't think it's right for a parent to choose to allow a child to die when medicine could save him.

__________________

Reading is Fundamental.

I don't even see it as being that slippery of a slope. It should be possible to a data-driven criteria whereby pursuing medical treatment is required to save a life. If a given treatment has been demonstrated to save life 75% (or some similarly high, above 50/50) of the time, a parent cannot neglect it.

I mean, c'mon, if you had a 90% chance of winning the powerball, would you buy the ticket? Of course you would!

cj/

__________________
I was walking home one night and a guy hammering on a roof called me a paranoid little weirdo. In morse code. -Emo Phillips

This one is hard for me to give a concrete answer. First of all, the boy has a great prognosis w/ treatment. There is no argument w/ that. And w/ that, he needs to be treated, and I think mom needs to step up to the plate. At the age of 13, his opinion should not even matter. My son was diagnosed at age 15. There was never any question; yes, this is the protocol that you will follow, and we did. The schedule really sucked, btwn the radiation, the visits to our oncologist, the hospital stays, the puking, and all the surgery, it was quite inconvenient. But would I have opted to stay home and give him echinacea, and ionized water, and wait for a cure, HELL NO!! That being said, he just had his two year scans, and he was as clean as a whistle. But I wonder, if something had been detected, at the age of 18 now, being able to make his own decisions about his body, and knowing how horrible the treatment is, and seeing so many kids be sick (not by the cancer, but by the treatment), and still die, can you blame them for just wanting to try to be normal as long as they can be? I just don't know....