Artemis Leon wrote:And that's good enough? Parents should be allowed to kill their children, because most of them will choose not to?
You're completely ignoring the fact that I'm talking about "legally perilous". Once you start allowing the state to make decision x about a minor's health, other decisions may surely follow. I'm simply looking at it from a legal standpoint.
22/7 wrote: I simply argued that the best scenario is really to allow the parents to make the decision, as this will usually not lead to the death of the child.
Whereas leaving it up to the doctors will lead to the death of the child even less often. Because they're trained and certified medical professionals that have some idea what they're talking about, and the parents are some randomly selected pair of people whose only inherent qualifications are occasionally-functioning gonads.
As above, it's the best scenario when trying to avoid legal pitfalls, not necessarily the best scenario when trying to avoid dead children. And again, as above, once a doctor has the right to force treatment on a child (or the state has the right, or anyone other than the parents), you take a step down the slippery slope of all children being wards of the sate.
CrayolaTwo wrote:And really, you can't view diseases with a one-size-fits-all mindset. Sure, almost everything if left untreated will kill you. But we are at such drastically different levels of treatment for them.
I am mostly concerned with the children remaining in this home. These people are not capable of being parents.
First of all, if refusing treatment will lead to death, then it's the exact same decision, simply on different timescales, so the disease is, indeed the same thing. Not all diseases are fatal (ish), and so those should not be treated as the same. But if the disease is fatal (when left untreated) then it all falls into the same category. Secondly, I agree that there should be lots of concern for the children's health here. I'm not arguing that what the parents did was right, I'm simply saying that the legally-least-perilous approach is to leave the decision in the hands of the parents.
Azrael wrote:... Or perhaps I was disagreeing with your stated opinion that the least perilous approach is leaving the judgment purely with the parents.
You know. Sorta like that.
How did every single person who replied to my post miss the fact that I was saying it was the least perilous in a legal sense? *Checks* Yup, it's there. Are we not reading each other's posts now?
Azrael wrote:Also: Are you really defending entering a discussion about a news story without having read that story? Really?
What I said had a qualifier on it. If
she refused treatment, it's basically the same as the cancer patient mentioned earlier. How is anything in the article going to invalidate what I wrote? If you can legitimately answer that question, then I'll be glad to admit I was wrong here. But I can't for the life of me see any amount of information that would invalidate that point.
psyck0 wrote:This is why I despise religion. Utterly despise it. All it has ever done in our history is hold us back and harm us.
You're not one of those people who sees gray very often, are you? Enter Fearbears: "This is retarded, you're an idiot."