State seizes cancer patient from family

[rageous]

This is just unreal. Texas takes girl from family because she and her family don't want radiation treatment for cancer.


Please read. (http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/2236872228)

[midwinter]

There was a case just like this recently here in Utah.

[Chris Cuilla]

Perhaps the 10 scareiest words:

"I'm from the government and I have come to help."

It is becoming increasingly obvious that the government knows better than we do. They know better about parenting especially.

[midwinter]

I think it's a really fascinating question. If parents withhold medical treatment from a child, is it abuse?

[a_greer]

Originally posted by midwinter
I think it's a really fascinating question. If parents withhold medical treatment from a child, is it abuse? Well it depends, will the "treatment" cure the problem or prolong the pain and suffering?

Watching someone suffer with / die from cancer is not easy, IF the girl wanted the treatment, the state did the right thing, if dhe did not then the state is wrong.

[Aurora]

Government wants complete say so on our life, Law,after Law,after Law........Until they cant pass any more. How many Laws do we we have on the books now? Big Brother needs to get out but that will never happen because the control freaks have control allready. This reminds me of Communism or something else. Not Freedom and Liberty.

[a_greer]

Originally posted by Aurora
Government wants complete say so on our life, Law,after Law,after Law........Until they cant pass any more. How many Laws do we we have on the books now? Big Brother needs to get out but that will never happen because the control freaks have control allready. This reminds me of Communism or something else. Not Freedom and Liberty. amen, but there is not a god damned thing we can do, republican, dem, ind, green, lib, they are all owned by someone, they all want more power, I think it is high time we tossed tee in the harbor again.

[Aurora]

Originally posted by a_greer
amen, but there is not a god damned thing we can do, republican, dem, ind, green, lib, they are all owned by someone, they all want more power, I think it is high time we tossed tee in the harbor again. What ever happen to representing America?The Common man, the American worker? Lawyers,Lawyers and Lawyers. Our forfathers didnt intend on a bunch of G.D. Lawyers running this country but its what we have ended up with. Remember Rome. The State continues its march towards Totalitarianism. The State Tells all what is good for them. If this is our State of the Union we dont need it.

[midwinter]

If a parent refuses to take a child to the hospital for a broken leg, is it abuse?

If a parent refuses to take a child to the doctor for an appendectomy, is it abuse?

I'm just asking, considering the larger question is where "care" ends and "abuse" begins. And by extension, since we all want the gummit to stay out of our business, at what point can the state say "No. As a parent, you don't have the right to treat your child this way."

[Aurora]

The Girl had allready gone through Chemo but the Dr's want to Nuke her cancer now.

[Gon]

Good question midwinter.

I would say the broken leg / appendectomy cases are abuse, while this is not.

The difference is that appendectomy and fixing a broken leg are safe, free of side effects. No one in their right mind would *not* do those things.

Not so with radiation therapy, if I understand correctly.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by Gon
Good question midwinter.

I would say the broken leg / appendectomy cases are abuse, while this is not.

The difference is that appendectomy and fixing a broken leg are safe, free of side effects. No one in their right mind would *not* do those things.

Not so with radiation therapy, if I understand correctly.

I think you have it.

[rageous]

Originally posted by Gon
The difference is that appendectomy and fixing a broken leg are safe, free of side effects. No one in their right mind would *not* do those things.

Don't be so sure of this. My girlfriend is a Christian Scientist, and for those who don't know, they think prayer heals all and if you give in a go to a doctor you're a poor CS follower. She and I have had many arguments about injuries to our future children and how to deal with them. She insists that if one of our children were to break their leg, compound fracture and all, she'd try and pray to heal the child. She also won't commit to saying at what point she'll quit trying and just take the kid to a doctor.

I completely disagree with her on this, and get incredulous when she suggests letting a child writhe in pain while she tries to prove she's a good Christian Scientist. But at the same time, if that is her religious belief, does the government have the right to take her child should something like that happen? I have a tough time saying yes or no in that case.

Anyway, my point is don't just think people's "right mind" is always going to choose modern medicine. She's no idiot (currently pulling a 3.7 GPA at Carnegie Mellon majoring in Information Systems and also 2nd in her class in the Naval ROTC program as a Marine option), but her right mind would not immediately pick medical care (at least she says so) in the case of a broken leg or cancer...

[groverat]

rageous:

Best of luck dealing with that, but make sure you get it worked out 100% long before this theoretical kid ever makes it into the world to have a broken leg, eh? :)

[rageous]

Good luck I will need!

:)

And yes, we've pretty much concluded it won't be wise to have kids until she's done with her stint in the Marines, which is 9 years from now. So we'll have LOTS of time to keep fighting about this. JOY!

[Aurora]

Originally posted by groverat
rageous:

Best of luck dealing with that, but make sure you get it worked out 100% long before this theoretical kid ever makes it into the world to have a broken leg, eh? :) I wonder how many broken legs have been cured by prayer......0...........would be my guess. This is the kind of crap that scares me as a Former Hospital corpsman. People who dismiss real world science.:rolleyes: Sure prayer may help(May) but if you want a cure i would look to proven science. There are many who think the Bible is the answer to all:no: Guess they dont know that not only did man write the thing but also decided on what books would and wouldnt be in the Bible. Mankind is Stuck in fantasyland.

[tonton]

Do christian Scientists use Band-Aids? Do they take antibiotics for strep-throat (which is a simple infection that can kill you if you don't treat it)? I mean where do they draw the line? There must be a line somewhere.

[rageous]

Originally posted by tonton
Do christian Scientists use Band-Aids? Do they take antibiotics for strep-throat (which is a simple infection that can kill you if you don't treat it)? I mean where do they draw the line? There must be a line somewhere.

I'm in no position to speak for all of Christian Science. But in her case the answers are no and no. Actually, she has been remarkably healthy throughout her life. The worst thing she's ever had was a severe ear infection as a small child. In that case, her mom did the prayer thing, but after a while her dad (who is catholic) stepped in and took her to the hospital.

[rageous]

Originally posted by Aurora
I wonder how many broken legs have been cured by prayer......0...........would be my guess. This is the kind of crap that scares me as a Former Hospital corpsman. People who dismiss real world science.:rolleyes: Sure prayer may help(May) but if you want a cure i would look to proven science. There are many who think the Bible is the answer to all:no: Guess they dont know that not only did man write the thing but also decided on what books would and wouldnt be in the Bible. Mankind is Stuck in fantasyland.

I challenged her a bit not too long ago by asking how many times this has happened, and she insists it has. But of course the only "evidence" is people who have written in to Christian Science Sentinel telling their stories. I have searched exhaustively and found no scientific verification of any such thing.

I wouldn't go so far as to say she's stuck in fantasy land. I respect her devotion to her faith, and also her openness about many of it's shortcomings. She doesn't believe the healing aspect to be a shortcoming though. I respectfully disagree.

[Powerdoc]

Originally posted by midwinter
I think it's a really fascinating question. If parents withhold medical treatment from a child, is it abuse?

Yes it's a very important question.

I know a case where , granted to the justice and against the advice of the parents (a child of 10 is not able to make his own decision on such a case), a child was cured of leukemia with the help of chemotherapy.
The parents where against this, and want to cure the child with sect's like therapy.
If the justice (the grand parents asked for) did not have done anything, the child will be dead now.


Note, that least in france, such cases are extemely rare.

Such cases are only bring to justice , when the live is threatened, and that obviously the alternate cure suggested by parents are BS.

[Powerdoc]

Originally posted by rageous
Don't be so sure of this. My girlfriend is a Christian Scientist, and for those who don't know, they think prayer heals all and if you give in a go to a doctor you're a poor CS follower. She and I have had many arguments about injuries to our future children and how to deal with them. She insists that if one of our children were to break their leg, compound fracture and all, she'd try and pray to heal the child. She also won't commit to saying at what point she'll quit trying and just take the kid to a doctor.

I completely disagree with her on this, and get incredulous when she suggests letting a child writhe in pain while she tries to prove she's a good Christian Scientist. But at the same time, if that is her religious belief, does the government have the right to take her child should something like that happen? I have a tough time saying yes or no in that case.

Anyway, my point is don't just think people's "right mind" is always going to choose modern medicine. She's no idiot (currently pulling a 3.7 GPA at Carnegie Mellon majoring in Information Systems and also 2nd in her class in the Naval ROTC program as a Marine option), but her right mind would not immediately pick medical care (at least she says so) in the case of a broken leg or cancer...

She claim to be a Christian scientist , but I don't think she has the right to use the word Christian (and I don't even speak of scientist).
A christian, will pray for healing, but he will follow the medical cares. The vast majority of christians are doing this, and JP2 was a good example.
Sorry to said that of your girl friend, but this Christian thing as more to do with sectarism than religion.

[midwinter]

It is incredibly interesting to me that some of you are railing against the government for taking this child away to give her treatment and yet, on the other hand, believe that no one in their right mind would deny needed medical treatment.

And Chris's example is perfect. CS believers are the case-in-point, as are various other kinds of religions. Do they gave a right to deny medical treatment to their children? Does the gummit have the right to step in?

[Chris Cuilla]

Well, it certainly might appear as if there are some 1st amendment issues at play here.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

Now, this is not a case of "congress passing a law"...but it is a case of the government operating (supposedly) within the law to (possibly) "prohibit the free excercise of religion".

Some questions:

1. Is the government acting to "prohibit the free excercise of religion" a direct violation of this constitutional clause? Why? Why not? Should it be?

2. Does the definition of "religion" matter here? Why? Why not? Who gets to define it?

3. Is there some other societal, cultural or government right that trumps the one above (freedom of religion)? What is it? Where is it specified?

Now we have two people involved (connected through a parent-child relationship) which complicates things a bit more. What if my "free excercise of religion" calls for me to deny modern medical care (as "Christian Scientists" appear to believe and live out) to my family. Let's assume it is my child. Arguments can be made that he/she doesn't have the maturity/capacity to make such decisions on their own (depending on age of course...but there maybe other characteristics besides age). What gives the government the right to step in here? Who judges when a child has such capacity or not? What criteria is used? Is it merely age?

Now...having said all of this...I fundamentally disagree with the "Christian Scientist" view on this subject of medical care. I am a Christian and believe that God has provided modern medical care and technology through the creativity, intellect and ingenuity of mankind working to develop it. (Of course I don't worship modern medical technology, which much of American culture seems to do as well.)

I think people should make use of modern medical technologies.

Cancer-related treatments make things a bit more complicated still.

I wonder whether 100 years from now people will be looking back at chemotherapy and radiation treatments like the "bleeding with leaches" of days past. I'm not doctor...I'm just saying...sometimes the things we assume to be so grand are not "all that" in the larger scheme of things.

So, things like chemo and radiation are somewhat questionable or controversial.

Finally, having said all of that. This particular case doesn't really appear to about religion...but the government forcing a medical procedure. Where is their right to do this?

[shetline]

Originally posted by rageous
My girlfriend is a Christian Scientist, and for those who don't know, they think prayer heals all and if you give in a go to a doctor you're a poor CS follower.
She's of course withholding all sex until you're properly married in the Eyes of God, right?

If not, there's a curious ranking of priorities regarding where to lapse in strict adherence and where not too. Okay for a little pre-marital boinking, not okay while a child is suffering from cancer?

[New]

I would like to point out that this girl also has constitutional rights, and even human rights. And that it might be a question about if the parents are violating her rights by denying treatment.

As long has she is not an adult, it is also the states job to guarantee her these rights.

[the cool gut]

Originally posted by New
I would like to point out that this girl also has constitutional rights, and even human rights. And that it might be a question about if the parents are violating her rights by denying treatment.

As long has she is not an adult, it is also the states job to guarantee her these rights.

And besides all that, she is a future tax payer.

[rageous]

Originally posted by shetline
She's of course withholding all sex until you're properly married in the Eyes of God, right?

If not, there's a curious ranking of priorities regarding where to lapse in strict adherence and where not too. Okay for a little pre-marital boinking, not okay while a child is suffering from cancer?

Perhaps we'll not go into intimate detail about my relationship with my girlfriend?

[rageous]

Originally posted by Powerdoc
She claim to be a Christian scientist , but I don't think she has the right to use the word Christian (and I don't even speak of scientist).
A christian, will pray for healing, but he will follow the medical cares. The vast majority of christians are doing this, and JP2 was a good example.
Sorry to said that of your girl friend, but this Christian thing as more to do with sectarism than religion.

Well I would say to you that you really have no right to tell people that they can or can not refer to themselves as Christians if they have a different take on things than you might.

In addition, I brought her up as an example of someone who's religious beliefs might put them in hot water with states looking to run your life as soon as they see an opening. Which means I brought her up in relevant context. This wasn't an open invitation to tell her what right she has to call herself a christian of any kind, nor an invitation to talk about that state of our sexual relations (ala shetline). Both subjects are completely irrelevant to the discussion.

So let's get back on track.

[Powerdoc]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla


I wonder whether 100 years from now people will be looking back at chemotherapy and radiation treatments like the "bleeding with leaches" of days past. I'm not doctor...I'm just saying...sometimes the things we assume to be so grand are not "all that" in the larger scheme of things.

So, things like chemo and radiation are somewhat questionable or controversial.

Finally, having said all of that. This particular case doesn't really appear to about religion...but the government forcing a medical procedure. Where is their right to do this?

I also wich that future medecine, will blow away chemo and radiation, but this therapy work for Hodgkin. Hodgkin was the first cancer cured by chemo and radiation. It do not work all the times, but the results are pretty good. No alternative have displayed somme efficiency.
When people suffer of Hodgkin and you don't want to do chemo and radiation, you give him a death sentance.

Does the parents have the right to starve their childrens, if their religions or behavioring told them this ? Do they have the right to hurt their childrens, to emprison them ? to rape them if they are tantrist practicionner (yes it exist) ?
No the rights of parents are limited.

[Powerdoc]

Originally posted by rageous
Well I would say to you that you really have no right to tell people that they can or can not refer to themselves as Christians if they have a different take on things than you might.

In addition, I brought her up as an example of someone who's religious beliefs might put them in hot water with states looking to run your life as soon as they see an opening. Which means I brought her up in relevant context. This wasn't an open invitation to tell her what right she has to call herself a christian of any kind, nor an invitation to talk about that state of our sexual relations (ala shetline). Both subjects are completely irrelevant to the discussion.

So let's get back on track.

Sorry if I hurted you. I said my comment about chritians, just to point it out, that most christians will disagree with the scientific christian thing.

On a side note, it's always dangerous to speak of our relatives on internet ;)
BTW it's great that you demonstrate that dispite your differences you love her.
My best wishes to you both in life.
Now we can go back on topic :D

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by New
I would like to point out that this girl also has constitutional rights, and even human rights. And that it might be a question about if the parents are violating her rights by denying treatment.

You know...when I read the article...I get the impression that the parents are actually quite concerned about their daughter's well-being and are questioning the medical care she has been given and the advice they are getting. This is a right too.

Bottom-line, this is a government forced medical procedure. And that should concern us all.

Secondly, it is yet another example of government trumping a parents rights to care for and be involved with important medical decisions related to their children.

Perhaps we should just put all children into the custody of the government until they become adults.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Bottom-line, this is a government forced medical procedure. And that should concern us all.

But, again, don't parents have an obligation to get their children medical treatment? And if they don't, who will make sure the children receive care?

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by midwinter
But, again, don't parents have an obligation to get their children medical treatment?

Parents do have an obligation to care for their children and sometimes this involves medical treatments.

From everything I see in the posted article, the parents do appear to have their daughter's best care at heart, they have used medical treatments already (chemotherapy), and they are questioning the medical wisdom, advise of the next recommended treatment.

"They say their daughter's cancer is in remission and they object to her getting the radiation treatment after undergoing a round of chemotherapy."

So it is not as if they have rejected all medical treatment. They obviously have concerns and doubts about the next, recommended course of action.

But, of course, it's the doctors who are recommending it...so it must be the correct and only course of action.

And then there is this baloney:

"Katie Wernecke's parents decided to drop their objection to the treatment after the tests were disclosed during a juvenile court hearing Friday. Katie, who turned 13 on Saturday, will remain in state custody as her therapy gets under way."

That is just wrong.

Originally posted by midwinter
And if they don't, who will make sure the children receive care?

Why...the government of course.

:rolleyes:

[Powerdoc]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla


But, of course, it's the doctors who are recommending it...so it must be the correct and only course of action.


Do you really think that Doctors are recommanding radiations just for the fun ?
Remission is not guerison. One malign cell that survive and the cancer can raise again.

This recommandations are build upon huge statistic studies who compare differents types of Hodgkin cancer, what cure was the bests ....
It's not doctor franzy, but the conclusion of hundreds of statistical studies. This statistical studies include nearly all the people suffering of cancers.

This child may be cured without radiation, but if the cancer raise again, the chances that he is cured will decreased.

If you take 10 people, that you stop the treatement immedialty after the remission, most of them will die.
Now you can do the whole treatment, and unfortunately some of them will also die, but less of them.

What you call doctors analysis is in this particular case, the conclusions of perpetual (it's always change) analysis of this cancers and the way they are treated.

[addabox]

So let me see if I got this: everybody here pretty much agrees that things like failing to attend to your child's broken leg or appendicitis amounts to child abuse, at which point it would be appropriate for the state to step in. I'm guessing that this is because the link between the problem and efficacious treatment is intuitively obvious.

Just to be clear, we could perhaps expand the list of "medical conditions we mostly agree the state has a right and obligation to insure that a child gets treatment for" to include things like gaping wounds, rotted teeth, severe burns, malnutrition, etc.

So we don't seem to actually have a problem with some kind of overriding principal that it is outrageous for the state to mandate certain medical procedures for children, if the parents can't or won't see to it. At least I hope no one is going to claim that the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness includes the right to allow your children to languish, suffer and die.

The problem seems to arise when the relationship between treatment and the result are a little blurrier, and we have to rely less on our own sense of how things work and more on what "doctors think", as in the case at hand.

From the doctor's perspective, radiation as a follow-up to chemo (given the particulars of this child's case) may be as self evidently a reasonable treatment as antibiotics are for a severe infection, with as predictably disastrous results should that treatment be denied.

But because it's not a slam-dunk (we all know she might die, anyway), it's much easier to second guess the doctors and the state, and suspect them of arrogance and "playing god", than when we ourselves can feel relatively sure that the treatment (as in setting a broken leg) will perform as advertised.

It's interesting how that problem-- the wisdom of taking action in the face of something less than perfect knowledge of the outcome-- keeps repeating as a theme in conservative attacks on government.

Global warming: the government has no right to act because it can't know for sure. Environmental regulation: almost always misdirected because environmental complexity precludes certainty. Product safety: "the jury's still out" on what really causes cancer.

But in the real world, of course, you always have to decide that some amount of evidence is enough to take action, even when don't have the luxury of knowing for sure.

So the government is obliged to make what is necessarily a judgment call in the matter of which denial of treatment constitutes child endangerment, and having made that call is obliged to follow through with action.

Unless you're prepared to claim that any procedure without a 100% predictable outcome must be regarded as elective insofar as it applies to children, I can't see how else it could be.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by addabox
It's interesting how that problem-- the wisdom of taking action in the face of something less than perfect knowledge of the outcome-- keeps repeating as a theme in conservative attacks on government.

Wow. You know, I hadn't ever noticed/thought of it that way.

[Powerdoc]

Originally posted by addabox
So let me see if I got this: everybody here pretty much agrees that things like failing to attend to your child's broken leg or appendicitis amounts to child abuse, at which point it would be appropriate for the state to step in. I'm guessing that this is because the link between the problem and efficacious treatment is intuitively obvious.

Just to be clear, we could perhaps expand the list of "medical conditions we mostly agree the state has a right and obligation to insure that a child gets treatment for" to include things like gaping wounds, rotted teeth, severe burns, malnutrition, etc.

So we don't seem to actually have a problem with some kind of overriding principal that it is outrageous for the state to mandate certain medical procedures for children, if the parents can't or won't see to it. At least I hope no one is going to claim that the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness includes the right to allow your children to languish, suffer and die.

The problem seems to arise when the relationship between treatment and the result are a little blurrier, and we have to rely less on our own sense of how things work and more on what "doctors think", as in the case at hand.

From the doctor's perspective, radiation as a follow-up to chemo (given the particulars of this child's case) may be as self evidently a reasonable treatment as antibiotics are for a severe infection, with as predictably disastrous results should that treatment be denied.

But because it's not a slam-dunk (we all know she might die, anyway), it's much easier to second guess the doctors and the state, and suspect them of arrogance and "playing god", than when we ourselves can feel relatively sure that the treatment (as in setting a broken leg) will perform as advertised.

It's interesting how that problem-- the wisdom of taking action in the face of something less than perfect knowledge of the outcome-- keeps repeating as a theme in conservative attacks on government.

Global warming: the government has no right to act because it can't know for sure. Environmental regulation: almost always misdirected because environmental complexity precludes certainty. Product safety: "the jury's still out" on what really causes cancer.

But in the real world, of course, you always have to decide that some amount of evidence is enough to take action, even when don't have the luxury of knowing for sure.

So the government is obliged to make what is necessarily a judgment call in the matter of which denial of treatment constitutes child endangerment, and having made that call is obliged to follow through with action.

Unless you're prepared to claim that any procedure without a 100% predictable outcome must be regarded as elective insofar as it applies to children, I can't see how else it could be.

You made here a very good post, and resume of the situation.
I will also add, that most of the occidental countries (for the others I don't know) act like US. It seems that we have a sort of agreement on this subject coming from the people in charge of justice of our countries.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by Powerdoc
Do you really think that Doctors are recommanding radiations just for the fun ?

That's what I meant at all. Just taking a jab at the holy doctor priesthood. If a doctor says it we better all sit up and take notice.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by addabox
So let me see if I got this: everybody here pretty much agrees that things like failing to attend to your child's broken leg or appendicitis amounts to child abuse, at which point it would be appropriate for the state to step in. I'm guessing that this is because the link between the problem and efficacious treatment is intuitively obvious.

Just to be clear, we could perhaps expand the list of "medical conditions we mostly agree the state has a right and obligation to insure that a child gets treatment for" to include things like gaping wounds, rotted teeth, severe burns, malnutrition, etc.

So we don't seem to actually have a problem with some kind of overriding principal that it is outrageous for the state to mandate certain medical procedures for children, if the parents can't or won't see to it. At least I hope no one is going to claim that the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness includes the right to allow your children to languish, suffer and die.

You're creating a straw man. No one can reasonably interpret this from the actions of the parents in the case central to this thread. The parent did seek treatment for their child. They were obviously concerned about her well-being. Seeing pictures of the kids doesn't reveal any obvious signs of abuse, neglect or other mal-treatment. Finally, when test results revealed the remission had stopped, they did agree to radiation treatment.

This sounds much more like a knee-jerk reaction of a DCFS department "deciding" that the parents were abusing their child.


Originally posted by addabox
and the state, and suspect them of arrogance and "playing god",

I always second-guess the state. Don't you?


Originally posted by addabox
So the government is obliged to make what is necessarily a judgment call in the matter of which denial of treatment constitutes child endangerment, and having made that call is obliged to follow through with action.

Hmmm...

We have obliged the government to do an awful lot.

Just remember, the more we "oblige/expect/demand/desire the government to do" the less freedom we will have. It is a fairly simple equation actually.

[addabox]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
You're creating a straw man. No one can reasonably interpret this from the actions of the parents in the case central to this thread. The parent did seek treatment for their child. They were obviously concerned about her well-being. Seeing pictures of the kids doesn't reveal any obvious signs of abuse, neglect or other mal-treatment. Finally, when test results revealed the remission had stopped, they did agree to radiation treatment.

This sounds much more like a knee-jerk reaction of a DCFS department "deciding" that the parents were abusing their child.

I guess then we would disagree about what constitutes a "knee-jerk" reaction. If the medical consensus was that radiation was a necessary part of an effective course of treatment, and the parents refused that treatment based on by my read pretty idiosyncratic grounds (the child is unique and the cancer is unique), then how is that materially different from refusing, say, a follow-up course of antibiotics after that appendectomy develops an infection?

You could argue that the parents had sought treatment for the appendicitis, but it doesn't really follow that that act somehow indemnifies the parents against being obliged to seek any further medical intervention, should it be deemed necessary.

Developments that post-date the original custody decision have no bearing on that decision.


Hmmm...

We have obliged the government to do an awful lot.

Just remember, the more we "oblige/expect/demand/desire the government to do" the less freedom we will have. It is a fairly simple equation actually.

Sure, but I guess part of my point is that decisions and distinctions that restrict freedoms always have to be made in the teeth of uncertainty. We do it all the time as a society-- what degree of wrongdoing constitutes a felony, the age of consent, speed limits, property rights, etc.

All of these limits are broadly accepted as right and necessary, but they all to some degree make arbitrary distinctions between sanctioned and unsanctioned behavior.

So no, every time the "state" makes such a distinction I don't assume that it represents a manifestation of a slippery slope towards totalitarianism, because it appears to me to be part and parcel of the normative functioning of any state.

[Powerdoc]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
That's what I meant at all. Just taking a jab at the holy doctor priesthood. If a doctor says it we better all sit up and take notice.

If you do not agree with a doctor advice you are free, to ask for an another advice. When a patient seems to not trust me, I give them the advice to see an another doctor. I never consider what I said to be holy, but I just try to do my best.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by Powerdoc
If you do not agree with a doctor advice you are free, to ask for an another advice. When a patient seems to not trust me, I give them the advice to see an another doctor. I never consider what I said to be holy, but I just try to do my best.

The issue isn't that they don't trust you. It's a general resistance to authority—especially if that authority comes from education.

[Powerdoc]

Originally posted by midwinter
The issue isn't that they don't trust you. It's a general resistance to authority—especially if that authority comes from education.

Perhaps you are right.

I am always worried to see that a patient will not make the best decision, but I respect his free will, so he has the right to do whatever he want, even his decision will lead to his death. In this latter case, my only obligation is to told him the consequences of his decisions.

For a child, my advice differ : the child is not mature enough to make his own decision, but I don't think the parents has the right to do whatever they want with this life.
Luckily since I work for my own, I never dealt with this situation.
The only decision I made, was to refuse ear surgery (proeminents ears) to two childs : the parents wanted it, but the child refused it. As this surgery is not mandatory and can be performed at any age, I respect the advice of the kid in this situation. Needless to say, that the parents where very angry.

[Gon]

Originally posted by addabox
Sure, but I guess part of my point is that decisions and distinctions that restrict freedoms always have to be made in the teeth of uncertainty. We do it all the time as a society-- what degree of wrongdoing constitutes a felony, the age of consent, speed limits, property rights, etc.

All of these limits are broadly accepted as right and necessary, but they all to some degree make arbitrary distinctions between sanctioned and unsanctioned behavior.

So no, every time the "state" makes such a distinction I don't assume that it represents a manifestation of a slippery slope towards totalitarianism, because it appears to me to be part and parcel of the normative functioning of any state.Protecting minors and the mentally disabled is a place in the legal system where things really are pretty arbitrary.

In the context of equal citizens, however, I think many of those issues are largely black and white. Property rights for example. I think property rights should be totally, or almost absolute. I do not think the state should have the power to confiscate personal property like land simply because they claim to "need" it. This stuff is routine where I live. It amounts to robbery and communism. The landowner does not even get a decent approximation of market price, only what the state wants to pay. Of course in a forced "trade" there is no way to arrive at a totally fair price, but at the very least there should be neutral judges and there should be significant additional compensation on top of that to lessen the blow and to make it less attractive for the state to use this power in the first place.

I acknowledge there are "shifty" facets of property rights, like when something like pollution indirecly affects a property. That is no reason to accept what you correctly termed as small steps towards totalitarianism, in other cases that *are* clear cut!

I am not familiar with the US legal terms so I do not know the exact meaning "felony" carries, but most crimes are also pretty much black and white if the facts of the situation are known. Not many people would dispute it's a crime to assault another person physically, for instance. The arbitrary/sliding part is the severity of the action and of the punishment.

Any bureaucracy will grow if unchecked. When did you last see a government seeking to limit its own power, collect less taxes, to erase restrictive laws rather than drafting new ones? There is plenty reason to question the decisions made by the state.

[Gon]

I don't think doctors deserve any blame for someone making a law that gives them power they should not have. It's the lawmaker's fault.

Also I don't think most doctors want a huge responsibility like that, beyond the already great responsibility they have in carrying out their real work: making diagnoses, giving advice, carrying out treatment.