Parental Rights, Religion and Government Mandates.
By ParaTed2k
@ParaTed2k (22940)
Sheboygan, Wisconsin
March 27, 2008 3:12pm CST
Here in Wisconsin, an 11 year old girl died of diabetic ketoacidosis. Her parents are being charged with murder because they chose to pray for the child instead of seek medical treatment.
Ok, yes I think the parents were dead wrong here, but I'm not writing this to discuss their discision.
What I do want to discuss is their right to make decisions for their child.
In the medical community there is a lot of emphasis put on the question of who has the right to make medical decisions for someone deemed unable to make decisions for themselves. But how can we call it a "right" if there is only one acceptable choice?
The government says that, since medical treatment was available to this girl, the parents should have used it.
Why? Just because that is what the attorney general would have done?
What if the parents did seek medical help? What if the ambulance crew, ER staff and doctors did "everything they could", but what the child died? What if the child died from a side effect of one of the treatments given her?
Would we then be discussing murder charges against the parents for allowing their child to die at the hands of modern medicine? Would attorney's general be drawing up charges against the paramedics, ER staff or doctors?
Where is it written that medical treatment is "all we can do"? Why are we so flippant about death by medical treatment, but we are outraged by any other means of care?
I don't agree with what the parents did, but are we ready to further the false and dangerous argument that medical treatment is the only acceptable choice?
If so, why do we lie parental choices at all?
5 people like this
8 responses
@mansha (6298)
• India
27 Mar 08
In India parents do decide and sometimes I must say its the wrong choice but is the only choice. We had a maid whose brother was suffering from some kind of white cell disease. His WBC count was dropping rapidly and the treatment required was very expensive for her. The family cold ardly fish out 100Rs while treatment even with hospitals help would have costed around 5000-10,000 Rs. When we came to know this me and my friend decided that we will collect money for the child. But that very day the father of the child brought him home from the hospital and packed his stuff and took the child back to his village, telling our maid that its too expensive treatment and he will pray for his kid and will take him to his native village's temple.
When we went to her in the evening we came to know this. We were sorry to see the boy go and maid was also crying knowing now its all over for her brother a mere 12 year old kid. Being this India and we have no such child helplines or treatment facilities we could do nothing about it and till date it pinches me that a life was lost for noe reason. erhaps if the father would have waited a bit longer help could have been arranged.I feel God also helps those who help themselves. God always finds the means to help you , its up to you to take it or leave it. In this case God had made them available all means of treatent , it was up to them to either keep praying or take the help available.
@HawaiiGopher (1009)
• Belgium
28 Mar 08
It's cases like those that really make me believe in having a universal health care system.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
28 Mar 08
How does a universal healthcare system help parents through this at all?
@HawaiiGopher (1009)
• Belgium
29 Mar 08
Oh, I don't know? It only keeps their child alive longer under affordable circumstances.
1 person likes this
@Myrrdin (3599)
• Canada
27 Mar 08
At worst this is negligence not murder. This is not a case I'd like to try. It could be said that not only are they ignoring parental choice they are also ignoring the right to religious freedoms.
Personally I think the parents should face some criminal charges, but that is because the way I see it they allowed their child to die for a fairy tale, but then I wouldn't be sticking to my beliefs about personal freedoms if I didn't say that they had a right to their beliefs. The question is did they have the right to make that decision for their child, and also did the state have a right to call their decision wrong. In the end though haven't the parents suffered enough for their decision?
2 people like this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
27 Mar 08
This may sound wishy washy because of what I've said so far, but I do think the parents should be charged to. Negligence is what they did, so that is what they should be charged with.
If they are secure in their their faith enough to let their daughter die, then they should be secure enough in their faith to accept whatever God allows to happen to them as a result.
Murder is nothing more than an district attorney acting out of emotion instead of enforcing the law.
1 person likes this
@Myrrdin (3599)
• Canada
28 Mar 08
I don't think you sound wishy washy at all. Stating that you are opposed to the murder case, but that they should face criminal charges is not contradictory.
I think like you, they have a right to believe what they want, but when that belief endangers the child they had best be ready to face the consequences, thank you for helping me align my belief on personal freedoms and my belief that what these people did was wrong. Seems even a conservative impart wisdom, who knew ;).
@sudiptacallingu (10879)
• India
28 Mar 08
what other choices do you suggest? There are many branches of medicine and not all of them conform to the allopathic branch of modern science but they are all medical treatments nonetheless. You can talk of homeopathy, ayurveda or holistic healing but they are all human interventions trying to cure a sick person. And if parents don’t have the right to take decisions for a minor then who does? Parents may be right or wrong (after all its human to err) and they may certainly not have the complete knowledge available on a certain topic, but who else do you entrust you 11yr old to, if not yourself? I think the parents would have done the same for themselves, i.e. prayed and hoped for divine intervention in similar situation. I don’t think its really a question of choice, but an option to remain ignorant to the outside world and the benefits it can offer to us. You can pray all you want, that path to solace is always there but if you just pray when your child is on deathbed and then console yourself thinking that God had more need for her, then its downright idiocy on your part (sorry did not mean YOU, just framing of sentence).
1 person likes this
@sudiptacallingu (10879)
• India
31 Mar 08
Sorry I still could not understand your response. You are saying homeopathy, so is that not a medical option? I may call a quack even, but that is also some form of treatment. If I just leave a sick child to die, then I am sorry, but that certainly tantamounts to murder.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
28 Mar 08
That's what I mean. If the parents had of chosen homeopathic or other alternatives would they be under the same accusations of murder?
Is medical the only option parents are allowed?
@emeraldisle (13139)
• United States
27 Mar 08
I've heard of similar cases and I think they are right to go after the parents. They could do more then just pray for the child and that is the operative point. They did not do ]"everything they could".
They had a responsibility to take care of the child and to do all they could to make sure the child grew up healthy. For myself I could not sit back and just pray while watching my child suffer. If they wanted to pray, fine go for it, but also let the child see the doctor. See what else could be done. My thought is medical science was put there to help us out, if you believe in God then don't you think God sent it there to be of use?
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
27 Mar 08
I agree! But...
Is just seeing a physician doing "everything they could"? What if herbology, nutrition, chiropractic, accupunture... etc could have helped? Should we punish parents for not trying "everything"? Or just not trying medical?
If the government did intervene, and forced the child to go through medical treatment, and ended up dying, should we hold the medical profession to the same standard as the parents?
Or are we merely saying that medical treatment is the only choice allowed by law?
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
27 Mar 08
Oh, I agree that medical is the best course of action here. I also disagree with the parents' decision here. What I am interested in here is discussing how we can say that parents (or anyone else legally designated to make medical decisions for someone else) have the "right" to make decisions at all, if we're only willing to acknowledge one choice?
If only one choice is available, we're lying if we say there is a "right" at all.
1 person likes this
@mememama (3076)
• United States
27 Mar 08
with this type of diabetes, alternative medicine does not work. Nothing can bring the pancreas back to making insulin once it stops. Although I am kind of sick of how the media is putting attention on that the girl hasn't seen a doctor since she was 3 and how she didn't get yearly checkups-so what? They don't screen for diabetes during annual checkups, it's more like "hey my kid looks like she's dying, let's do something now" kind of situation.
1 person likes this
@Debs_place (10520)
• United States
28 Mar 08
That is a good question.
I work with developmentally disabled adults, the state pays for their care 100%, yet the parents have the say in their medical treatment.
Last fall, I was assaulted by one of these guys, he is around 6 ft tall and closing in on 280 pounds. We were at a park, he just started pounding on my head for no reason.
I got a concussion. He has done similar items to at least 6 or 7 people in the past 7 months, most have been assaulted multiple times.
He has put his head through the wall multiple times, he has also smashed a plate glass window and a car window with his head. He also punches himself in the head for no reason.
Mom, sent him away as a child because she could not handle him, she is scared of him. When staff brings him down to visit his family, she wants at least 2 staff members to control him.
BTW - Mom, will not let the doctor's prescribe medication to make him more manageable, she does not care that he is hurting himself or staff members.
I don't understand why Mom sends her son away because she is scared of him, yet considers it acceptable for him to assault us on a regular basis.
He also has other behaviors, including assaulting his peers that I have not mentioned here.
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
28 Mar 08
You brought up this situation in another thread, and I agree, it is a great example of a parent who is trying to play both sides.
She seems to want the government to relieve her of her responsibilities, but demands her rights also.
It isn't an easy question, so there are no easy answers here.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
29 Mar 08
Myrrdin, my logical side agrees with you, but my years of education, training and experiences on the subject tell a different story.
Those with legal authority to make medical decisions often do have rights, but are absolved of responsibilities.
@Myrrdin (3599)
• Canada
28 Mar 08
In my opinion on this case, in sending the child away she has waived all rights to restrict treatment methods. If she is admitting she is incapable of managing the child and asks for someone else to manage them she has no right to restrict the methods of management. Except in the case where said management constitutes abuse, but since that would be illegal anyways it is a non issue.
1 person likes this
@olivebranch56 (910)
• United States
31 Mar 08
Ted I agree with your thinking completely on this issue. I too do not agree with the parents decision, but having said that, I don't run my children to the Doctors office every time they get a sniffle, or a fever. Let's say my child's sniffle turns into something more, and they say why didn't you bring him/her in sooner to be treated, We are going to call in CPS, because now your child has the flu. This may sound ludicrous, but the way the government is trying to run our parental rights it could very well happen. Take the woman who had a child who was obese a few years back. She was reported to CPS, they took her child, even though she tried to tell them she was not over feeding him, as it turned out he had a pituitary gland gone haywire, but the authorities didn't bother to get any test done, and the woman had no insurance for the child, again this should never happen to a child in the USA, but that is a different subject. It took this woman months to get her child back. This is the kind of thing that is already happening, so how do we know what they will do to us as parents next? This is serious business and if the American people don't soon get their heads out of the sand, we will have no rights left, parental or otherwise.
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
31 Mar 08
Exactly! It's disgusing!
When I was in EMT school, we learned about "consent laws". There are several kinds of consent, based on the age and alertness of the patient.
A child can't give consent, so it is up to the parent, guardian or other person in charge of the child. If a parent chooses not to give consent for treatment, but we feel they need it, do you know what we were told to do?
We were told to call the police and have the child taken into "protective custody". Then the police can turn the child over to us and "consent" to treatment.
In other words, if we decided that the child needed treatment, the ONLY right the parents had was to choose to agree with us.
@StrawberryKisses (2833)
• Canada
28 Mar 08
In my opinion I think the parents should have been doing EVERYTHING possible not just one or the other. They can pray and still have the doctors try their best as well. I don't believe in letting children suffer and if my children ever got cancer or anything that ws potentially deadly I would not only pray for them but I would send them for treatments as well.
Your right about the attorney general. There is no way they would bring charges on doctors for trying to save a life and failing but that is the difference here. The doctors giving treatment to this little girl was a way at trying to save her life. In my opinion praying isn't enough most of the time. Why should your child suffer if they don't have to.
I don't think the parents should be on trial for murder I think they should be charged witht neglect. to me the murder charge is too harsh for doing what you believe in.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
28 Mar 08
I agree, I would do everythying possible too, but why does it seem like medical is always the "everything possible".
Medicine kills more people per year than war. True, it saves far more people than it kills, but that doesn't mean it is "safe".
@HawaiiGopher (1009)
• Belgium
28 Mar 08
The parents had absolutely no right to hold back the daughter from a possible chance at survival. It's situations like these which enrage the non-religious communities. Relying on miracles over modern medication technology is, in my opinion, pure idiocy.
When it comes down to the rights here, I don't believe we should give much of a choice. It's either, proceed with no chance of surviving or proceed with a chance at surviving. Of course there will be risks, there are always risks in life.
As for money, that is the only thing that really comes into conflict with posing obligations on individuals. If a family cannot afford it than the government is not in a position to force the family to cure a child with money they just don't have. Hence, why universal health care should be implemented.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
28 Mar 08
Wow, force the parents to use medical care. Force the child to use medical care. Force the taxpayers to pay for it all.
No wonder you are a one note samba on universal health care. Force by government mandate is all you seem understand.
Do you respect parental rights in anything?
@HawaiiGopher (1009)
• Belgium
29 Mar 08
Para, when it comes to someone's life, I say that we should do everything to sustain it for the longest amount of time possible. Therefore, I don't believe the parents had the 'right' to let their child's condition deteriorate when they had the chance to actually save the child.
Mememama, I'm aware that in the United States they cannot deny emergency treatment to someone based on whether or not they can pay. From what I understand, they have to treat the individual until he or she is stable enough to give insurance information or otherwise can be forced to leave.
