Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Grey Templar wrote:
But the government doesn't have any right to say what the child wants. The closest we can get to someone who knows what the child wants are the parents. All they wanted was to try a treatment option that was available. They were trying to improve his quality of life. They were not actively harming him, unlike all the so called "medical professionals".

I completely agree and empathise they they were trying to do the right thing. I have no trouble in understanding that they believed they were doing the right thing. But I disagree that they actually were doing the right thing. I also disagree that they were not harming the child. This is a restatement of what I wrote before - they can truely believe they are doing the right thing and causing no harm when in actuality they are causing harm.

And the government - as the legal extension of society - absolutely has the power to step in when good people, through their best intentions, cause harm.

 d-usa wrote:
And that's the argument for why female genital mutilation should be allowed, or why parents should be able to harvest organs from their children, or why parents should be able to let their children die from cancer, or why parents should be able to force an abortion on their child or force it to carry a pregnancy to term.

Parents should never be the almighty decision maker when it becomes evident that the decision is no longer about the patient. All patients deserve their own independent voice.

The Patient comes first, not the parent, at any time.
The Doctors have every right to overrule, even have parents arrested if they are acting in negative interests of child in the extreme.

Idealy, any decision should be made in a combined and informed process for both. This is a rafe case that forced the Doctors to apply for court orders, and such for full Authority on care choices.
This case like this maybe comes up once In a year, or rarer out of millions of cases treated.

Lets say what if Charlie had been an autistic kid who had an accident and had to be put on a ventilator for the rest of his life, but he was in constant pain? do you think the government should have the right to euthanize him too even if his parents don't want you to?

I think a parent who is knowingly leaving their child in constant pain, is a pretty gakky parent. Especially since the kid is autistic and possible completely unable to comprehend why they are in pain to begin with.

Seriously, what kind of fethed up scenario is that that you're actually going to argue the kid's best interest is to be kept alive? The parents in this hypothetical are clearly wrong.

This is a major slippery slope which leads to a bad place where the government can kill you just because you have what they consider a terminal illness or because "you are suffering".

Dude. This is like one of the most heart breaking stories to come out in years, but its outcome is hardly an indicator that we're on the verge of soylent green becoming a reality. 1000% overreaction.

 Henry wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
But the government doesn't have any right to say what the child wants. The closest we can get to someone who knows what the child wants are the parents. All they wanted was to try a treatment option that was available. They were trying to improve his quality of life. They were not actively harming him, unlike all the so called "medical professionals".

I completely agree and empathise they they were trying to do the right thing. I have no trouble in understanding that they believed they were doing the right thing. But I disagree that they actually were doing the right thing. I also disagree that they were not harming the child. This is a restatement of what I wrote before - they can truely believe they are doing the right thing and causing no harm when in actuality they are causing harm.

And the government - as the legal extension of society - absolutely has the power to step in when good people, through their best intentions, cause harm.

Right. So just so we are clear.

You are 100% ok with the government having absolute carte blanc to say "hey, this person should die because its the best thing for them".

You are ok with giving the government absolute power to kill any citizen if the government has, for whatever reason, decided that its in that persons best interest.

Surely you realize that the potential for abuse here is insane. Absolutely insane. Any intelligent person should be able to see this, and any decent person should be appalled to the core that anybody would even consider this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:


Dude. This is like one of the most heart breaking stories to come out in years, but its outcome is hardly an indicator that we're on the verge of soylent green becoming a reality. 1000% overreaction.

If people like you keep saying stuff like this, yes we are on the verge of soylent green becoming reality.

 Grey Templar wrote:


You are 100% ok with the government having absolute carte blanc to say "hey, this person should die because its the best thing for them".

That's what a court system and injunctions are for.

You are ok with giving the government absolute power to kill any citizen if the government has, for whatever reason, decided that its in that persons best interest.

Just turn that 1000% up to 2000% XD gonna be honest I don't think the structural integrity is gonna hold at that level.

Surely you realize that the potential for abuse here is insane.

Surely you're not so riled up on this, not to realize that you're alternative is equally ripe in potential for abuse? "Legal guardian is always right" was literally given three examples on the last page of how it can be abused in completel violation of basic human decency, let alone quality of patient care.

 Grey Templar wrote:

But, the doctors do not have the right to make that call. The parents are the legal guardians of the baby. They should be the ones to make the decision.

The doctors have legal authority. You can argue the morality of that, but that's how it is.

Doctors should never force a particular course of action.

Disagree. They should when a patient can't have a voice. That's how we stop parents demanding their kids die because blood transfusions are against their religion or because their raped 12 year old can't safely carry that baby to term.

They need consent, and should always need consent.

The patient can't consent.

They should never have the right to override the people who have that right.

Circular reasoning. I don't accept that the right to artificially prolong a painful life belongs to anyone but a the person suffering it. So I don't think doctors are overriding anyone at all.

So yes. They did break the Hippocratic oath.

This does not logically follow your above statements. You've not established that they have caused harm.

They denied treatment to someone whose legal guardians wanted to continue treatment (which legally is the same as the person being treated saying he wants to continue treatment).

No they didn't. As noted, the doctors have legal authority.

We could also say they should be charged with kidnapping because they held someone against their will from leaving(to go seek treatment elsewhere).

No they didn't, A) Charlie didn't ask to leave, because he can't, and B) the people with legal authority didn't want him to go.

But the government doesn't have any right to say what the child wants.

Again, the government has had zero input whatsoever. They have no legal right to interfer in any way.

The closest we can get to someone who knows what the child wants are the parents. All they wanted was to try a treatment option that was available. They were trying to improve his quality of life. They were not actively harming him, unlike all the so called "medical professionals".

You're making enormous, unconnected leaps here. Firstly, the parents are exactly as clueless as to Charlie's wishes as anyone else. Because he has never (and will never be able, irrespective of any treatment) be able to communicate them. And 'active harm'? What complete nonsense.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Henry wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
But the government doesn't have any right to say what the child wants. The closest we can get to someone who knows what the child wants are the parents. All they wanted was to try a treatment option that was available. They were trying to improve his quality of life. They were not actively harming him, unlike all the so called "medical professionals".

I completely agree and empathise they they were trying to do the right thing. I have no trouble in understanding that they believed they were doing the right thing. But I disagree that they actually were doing the right thing. I also disagree that they were not harming the child. This is a restatement of what I wrote before - they can truely believe they are doing the right thing and causing no harm when in actuality they are causing harm.

And the government - as the legal extension of society - absolutely has the power to step in when good people, through their best intentions, cause harm.

Right. So just so we are clear.

You are 100% ok with the government having absolute carte blanc to say "hey, this person should die because its the best thing for them".

You are ok with giving the government absolute power to kill any citizen if the government has, for whatever reason, decided that its in that persons best interest.

Surely you realize that the potential for abuse here is insane. Absolutely insane. Any intelligent person should be able to see this, and any decent person should be appalled to the core that anybody would even consider this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:


Dude. This is like one of the most heart breaking stories to come out in years, but its outcome is hardly an indicator that we're on the verge of soylent green becoming a reality. 1000% overreaction.

If people like you keep saying stuff like this, yes we are on the verge of soylent green becoming reality.

Okay, you are taking this hyperbole way too far and it is hurting the arguments you agree with. Nobody has carte blanc to do anything with a patient, ever. Nobody has the absolute power to kill any citizen just because it is in that persons best interest. The idea that people would abuse this system to kill off people for what I assume is just "funsies" according to your argument, is ridiculous and honestly insulting to me personally, as a person who works in the field.

Edit: Just so we are clear, not all doctors take the Hippocratic oath anymore and even when they did, it is not a binding agreement in any form. It is just a ceremonial thing. You cannot be charged or prosecuted or anything stupid like that for breaking it.

Denying a treatment is not inherently a violation of the Hippocratic oath. If the treatment is pointless, unsafe, untested, unready,, etc, then in keeping with that oath, they will deny it as they may inflict greater harm and consume great resources, for no appreciable benefit, and that is perfectly in keeping with that oath.

In this case, the treatment was unready for human testing, had a very small success probability, and even if successful would left the child a veggie, and likely would just extend the mechanical operation of his body a couple extra years, and nothing more. For most doctors, that treatment is just unnecessary trauma on a terminal patient, and refusing that would absolutely be in line with their oath. Tragic and sad, to be sure, but not against their oath at all.

Talking about the doctors as Kidnappers is...well, straying strongly into hyperbole-land.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:


You are 100% ok with the government having absolute carte blanc to say "hey, this person should die because its the best thing for them".

That's what a court system and injunctions are for.

You are ok with giving the government absolute power to kill any citizen if the government has, for whatever reason, decided that its in that persons best interest.

Just turn that 1000% up to 2000% XD gonna be honest I don't think the structural integrity is gonna hold at that level.

Surely you realize that the potential for abuse here is insane.

Surely you're not so riled up on this, not to realize that you're alternative is equally ripe in potential for abuse? "Legal guardian is always right" was literally given three examples on the last page of how it can be abused in completel violation of basic human decency, let alone quality of patient care.

The potential abuse of a legal guardian is far far less worse than the guaranteed abuse that a government with total power and authority to kill any injured or sick citizen would be.

The government is not your friend. It should never be given anything close to this kind of authority. This is about as evil as you could get.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadwinter wrote:


Okay, you are taking this hyperbole way too far and it is hurting the arguments you agree with. Nobody has carte blanc to do anything with a patient, ever. Nobody has the absolute power to kill any citizen just because it is in that persons best interest. The idea that people would abuse this system to kill off people for what I assume is just "funsies" according to your argument, is ridiculous and honestly insulting to me personally, as a person who works in the field.

Incorrect. That just happened in this case. The doctors went to the government, and the government said "yeah, you can kill this kid".

This sets a dangerous precedent for it to keep occuring anytime you have a terminally ill patient.

What if you have someone who has stage 4 cancer. The doctor is sure that this person will die eventually and suggests that they stop treatment and just die. The patient decides he wants to continue treatment. The doctor then, according to the arguments of all the sick people in this thread, could legally go to the government and get an order to take away this person's right to choose to continue treatment and give that custody to the government.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Right. So just so we are clear.

You are 100% ok with the government having absolute carte blanc to say "hey, this person should die because its the best thing for them"

Well, since you've gone straight for the hyperbole, sure, what the hell, why not. Let's give the Prime Minister the power to assassinate whomever they want at will.

Let's ignore the law, let's ignore parliamentary precedent, let's ignore the courts, let's ignore the limits on parliamentary privilege, let's ignore the powers of the populace to pressure, recall and re-elect MPs.

Death squads all around!

If given the choice between letting an independent body rule on treatments that are in the best interest of the patient or letting parents do whatever they want with a patient because they are the parent, it's a pretty easy choice to make for me.

And to argue that this decision means that the government can kill anyone for any reason is the stupidest thing I have heard this month, and I say that with Trump as a president.

 Grey Templar wrote:
The potential abuse of a legal guardian is far far less worse than the guaranteed abuse that a government with total power and authority to kill any injured or sick citizen would be.

The government is not your friend. It should never be given anything close to this kind of authority. This is about as evil as you could get.

The government didn't kill anyone. Doctors made a determination, parents disagreed they went to court, court heard arguments and rendered a verdict. This is no where even close to some kind of dystopia.

You gotta dial it back man. Like jesus you are overreacting in a way that makes me concerned for your quality of life (and I'm a self admitted donkey-cave XD)

 LordofHats wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
The potential abuse of a legal guardian is far far less worse than the guaranteed abuse that a government with total power and authority to kill any injured or sick citizen would be.

The government is not your friend. It should never be given anything close to this kind of authority. This is about as evil as you could get.

The government didn't kill anyone. Doctors made a determination, parents disagreed they went to court, court heard arguments and rendered a verdict. This is no where even close to some kind of dystopia.

You gotta dial it back man. Like jesus you are overreacting in a way that makes me concerned for your quality of life (and I'm a self admitted donkey-cave XD)

No the government definitely did kill him. They were the ones who had the power to say Yes or No. They said Yes. Ergo, they did do the deed through the doctor.

No, its not total dystopia yet. But this is how you get one. Little things like this which advance over time, and people like you who go along with it and buy all the BS to justify it.

 Grey Templar wrote:
What if you have someone who has stage 4 cancer. The doctor is sure that this person will die eventually and suggests that they stop treatment and just die. The patient decides he wants to continue treatment. The doctor then, according to the arguments of all the sick people in this thread, could legally go to the government and get an order to take away this person's right to choose to continue treatment and give that custody to the government.

That theoretical is so radically divorced from what actually just happened that I can only suggest you go and read up on the case.

 Grey Templar wrote:
The doctors went to the government, and the government said "yeah, you can kill this kid".

The kid was already dead, nobody killed him.

The failure of the parents to make a rational decision about treating the child based on the actual condition, rather than treating themselves based on a failure to accept reality, is what lead to this point.

Truth is that you, the parents, and many people, actually cared less about the child than the people making the actual decision to do what is in the best interest of that child.

 Grey Templar wrote:
. No, its not total dystopia yet. But this is how you get one. Little things like this which advance over time, and people like you who go along with it and buy all the BS to justify it.

Just to be clear, those of us who support the outcome are not just sheeple. Many of us have thought through the many ethical problems of the situation and have decided that not only is this the right outcome, but that this is actually the compassionate society we want to have.

 Henry wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
What if you have someone who has stage 4 cancer. The doctor is sure that this person will die eventually and suggests that they stop treatment and just die. The patient decides he wants to continue treatment. The doctor then, according to the arguments of all the sick people in this thread, could legally go to the government and get an order to take away this person's right to choose to continue treatment and give that custody to the government.

That theoretical is so radically divorced from what actually just happened that I can only suggest you go and read up on the case.

No its really not.

Legally, there is no difference between a person having custody of themselves, or another person having custody of another. If a parent has custody over their child, or the child is grown and has custody of themselves, legally the right to pick treatments is identical. It's just a case of whose mouth the decision comes from.

So yes, this case has set a precedent which would theoretically allow a doctor to take away a patients custody of himself and give it to the government if the doctor felt that the patient wasn't making medical decisions that were in his best interest. It's the next logical step.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
The doctors went to the government, and the government said "yeah, you can kill this kid".

The kid was already dead, nobody killed him.

The failure of the parents to make a rational decision about treating the child based on the actual condition, rather than treating themselves based on a failure to accept reality, is what lead to this point.

Truth is that you, the parents, and many people, actually cared less about the child than the people making the actual decision to do what is in the best interest of that child.

Whatever lets you sleep at night bro. But seriously, you'd have to have a seriously sick mind to think that. Turning it around to claim that I, and the parents, are the actual monsters here.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:


You are 100% ok with the government having absolute carte blanc to say "hey, this person should die because its the best thing for them".

That's what a court system and injunctions are for.

You are ok with giving the government absolute power to kill any citizen if the government has, for whatever reason, decided that its in that persons best interest.

Just turn that 1000% up to 2000% XD gonna be honest I don't think the structural integrity is gonna hold at that level.

Surely you realize that the potential for abuse here is insane.

Surely you're not so riled up on this, not to realize that you're alternative is equally ripe in potential for abuse? "Legal guardian is always right" was literally given three examples on the last page of how it can be abused in completel violation of basic human decency, let alone quality of patient care.

The potential abuse of a legal guardian is far far less worse than the guaranteed abuse that a government with total power and authority to kill any injured or sick citizen would be.

The government is not your friend. It should never be given anything close to this kind of authority. This is about as evil as you could get.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadwinter wrote:


Okay, you are taking this hyperbole way too far and it is hurting the arguments you agree with. Nobody has carte blanc to do anything with a patient, ever. Nobody has the absolute power to kill any citizen just because it is in that persons best interest. The idea that people would abuse this system to kill off people for what I assume is just "funsies" according to your argument, is ridiculous and honestly insulting to me personally, as a person who works in the field.

Incorrect. That just happened in this case. The doctors went to the government, and the government said "yeah, you can kill this kid".

This sets a dangerous precedent for it to keep occuring anytime you have a terminally ill patient.

What if you have someone who has stage 4 cancer. The doctor is sure that this person will die eventually and suggests that they stop treatment and just die. The patient decides he wants to continue treatment. The doctor then, according to the arguments of all the sick people in this thread, could legally go to the government and get an order to take away this person's right to choose to continue treatment and give that custody to the government.

Okay so, no this is not what is happening and no the government cannot do that. You clearly have no clue what you are talking about and are riding out an emotional thing here. The doctor can say they are stopping all treatment, but then the patient can say "Okay, I am going to get a second opinion" then go and get treated somewhere else or seek further treatment. At that point, the doctor cannot do anything to stop the person, nor can the government. The situation with the child is different because the child is not making the decision, but the legal guardians. Why would the doctor care if they were seeking more treatment? He knows the person will die. If the person gets a second opinion and lives, sweet. Good job other doctor. But that is the end of it. No courts or anything.

You are mixing up very important things in this case.

Based on the reasoning on some, I am a serial killer and should be locked up for life and probably get the needle.

I have personally killed people in front of their family members, because we stopped CPR even though they didn't want us to.

I'm a heartless monster. Why oh why didn't I care about the family members emotional inability to face the truth the "patient"!

 Vaktathi wrote:
Denying a treatment is not inherently a violation of the Hippocratic oath. If the treatment is pointless, unsafe, untested, unready,, etc, then in keeping with that oath, they will deny it as they may inflict greater harm and consume great resources, for no appreciable benefit, and that is perfectly in keeping with that oath.

In this case, the treatment was unready for human testing, had a very small success probability, and even if successful would left the child a veggie, and likely would just extend the mechanical operation of his body a couple extra years, and nothing more. For most doctors, that treatment is just unnecessary trauma on a terminal patient, and refusing that would absolutely be in line with their oath. Tragic and sad, to be sure, but not against their oath at all.

Talking about the doctors as Kidnappers is...well, straying strongly into hyperbole-land.

In this case the Doctors had right to refuse tp treat and to sadly let nature take its course it would have anyway.
The judge made a balanced choice, and weighed heavily both arguments.

This was one of the highest ranking family court judges in UK, and a senior UK judge and legal expert.
With elite medical teams. None of the choices or arguments where taken lightly.

 Henry wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
. No, its not total dystopia yet. But this is how you get one. Little things like this which advance over time, and people like you who go along with it and buy all the BS to justify it.

Just to be clear, those of us who support the outcome are not just sheeple. Many of us have thought through the many ethical problems of the situation and have decided that not only is this the right outcome, but that this is actually the compassionate society we want to have.

Your "compassionate society" is actually a society of institutionalized murder. With the thin veil of saying "its in your best interest".

Enjoy your total lack of freedom in the future.

 Grey Templar wrote:


Whatever lets you sleep at night bro. But seriously, you'd have to have a seriously sick mind to think that. Turning it around to claim that I, and the parents, are the actual monsters here.

They are, they really are.

Anyone with any actual experience in this will tell you that.

Nobody is talking about giving the government total power and authority to kill any injured or sick citizen.

We are not talking about Big Government and "Death Panels" killing people who are no longer useful or productive.

We are talking about society telling the parents to accept reality. The treatment would have a very tiny chance of success, and even if so, would not undo the damage that has already left this child basically a vegetable. All that would be accomplished is delaying the inevitable for a short time, at great expense and with no possibility for improvement in the patient's quality of life.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:


You are 100% ok with the government having absolute carte blanc to say "hey, this person should die because its the best thing for them".

That's what a court system and injunctions are for.

You are ok with giving the government absolute power to kill any citizen if the government has, for whatever reason, decided that its in that persons best interest.

Just turn that 1000% up to 2000% XD gonna be honest I don't think the structural integrity is gonna hold at that level.

Surely you realize that the potential for abuse here is insane.

Surely you're not so riled up on this, not to realize that you're alternative is equally ripe in potential for abuse? "Legal guardian is always right" was literally given three examples on the last page of how it can be abused in completel violation of basic human decency, let alone quality of patient care.

The potential abuse of a legal guardian is far far less worse than the guaranteed abuse that a government with total power and authority to kill any injured or sick citizen would be.

The government is not your friend. It should never be given anything close to this kind of authority. This is about as evil as you could get.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadwinter wrote:


Okay, you are taking this hyperbole way too far and it is hurting the arguments you agree with. Nobody has carte blanc to do anything with a patient, ever. Nobody has the absolute power to kill any citizen just because it is in that persons best interest. The idea that people would abuse this system to kill off people for what I assume is just "funsies" according to your argument, is ridiculous and honestly insulting to me personally, as a person who works in the field.

Incorrect. That just happened in this case. The doctors went to the government, and the government said "yeah, you can kill this kid".

This sets a dangerous precedent for it to keep occuring anytime you have a terminally ill patient.

What if you have someone who has stage 4 cancer. The doctor is sure that this person will die eventually and suggests that they stop treatment and just die. The patient decides he wants to continue treatment. The doctor then, according to the arguments of all the sick people in this thread, could legally go to the government and get an order to take away this person's right to choose to continue treatment and give that custody to the government.

Okay so, no this is not what is happening and no the government cannot do that. You clearly have no clue what you are talking about and are riding out an emotional thing here. The doctor can say they are stopping all treatment, but then the patient can say "Okay, I am going to get a second opinion" then go and get treated somewhere else or seek further treatment. At that point, the doctor cannot do anything to stop the person, nor can the government. The situation with the child is different because the child is not making the decision, but the legal guardians. Why would the doctor care if they were seeking more treatment? He knows the person will die. If the person gets a second opinion and lives, sweet. Good job other doctor. But that is the end of it. No courts or anything.

You are mixing up very important things in this case.

Except that is exactly what the parents were trying to do. Get him to the US for a second opinion and other treatments. The Uk government and his doctor there denied him that.

Would just like to point out (now that I've recovered from my nap.) that hospitals going to courts over patients is quite common, it happens pretty much on a daily basis. You just don't normally see it in the news.


Mostly it happens in situations like this, where the person receiving the care has no word (due to their illness) and the doctors and the family are at a massive disagreement over the care options.

A case that springs to mind is when a woman was suffering from pre-eclampsia and was refusing treatment, despite the fact that it would kill her and kill her child. So the doctors went to court to give treatment for the child to live. It was granted. And then the woman sued the hospital for GBH and she won.

 Grey Templar wrote:
No the government definitely did kill him. They were the ones who had the power to say Yes or No. They said Yes. Ergo, they did do the deed through the doctor.

If only I could get people to be so passionate about the death penalty...

No, its not total dystopia yet. But this is how you get one

We could say that about any government policy under the sun if we were willing to make the slope slippery enough, and you're basically running on a slippery sheer drop cliff here.

Little things like this which advance over time, and people like you who go along with it and buy all the BS to justify it.

I get the distinct impression there's something else going on here, because this kind of wild overreaction is not normal. It's starting to feel like I'm kicking a small child having a tantrum... so yeah. Just gonna go over there *points and walks away*

Yes, its totally an overreaction and throwing a tantrum to find it morally wrong for the government to be able to kill someone because "they're suffering".

At least the US government only kills people by cutting Medicaid and food stamps, like a civilized nation unlike our socialist cousins.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Legally, there is no difference between a person having custody of themselves, or another person having custody of another. If a parent has custody over their child, or the child is grown and has custody of themselves, legally the right to pick treatments is identical. It's just a case of whose mouth the decision comes from.

So yes, this case has set a precedent which would theoretically allow a doctor to take away a patients custody of himself and give it to the government if the doctor felt that the patient wasn't making medical decisions that were in his best interest. It's the next logical step.

Again, this is wrong. A parent only has custody over their child until a certain point. If I am in the room with a parent and their kid and the parent turns around and punches the kid square in the nose. Guess what, that parent has just lost the right to make decisions for that kid. I am required, legally as a mandated reporter, to report that abuse to the government and appropriate parties. Then I am required to remove that child from the parent in order to keep the child safe.

The issue here is ethics and when doctors/courts are allowed to step in and tell the parents they have gone too far. Seeking further treatment is, in my opinion, not going too far. But again, that also depends on the type of treatment they are seeking. They were seeking legitimate medical help from a professional. They should be allowed to go. If they were taking the child to a back woods shaman who sacrifices animals to the gods in order to cleanse a disease, then I would have had an issue.

But, you clearly need to step back and take a breather, look at this again. Read up on your ethics.

 LordofHats wrote:


If only I could get people to be so passionate about the death penalty...

Not the same thing. Killing someone who has been convicted of a heinous crime is not the same as deciding to kill an innocent person whose only crime was being sick.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Legally, there is no difference between a person having custody of themselves, or another person having custody of another. If a parent has custody over their child, or the child is grown and has custody of themselves, legally the right to pick treatments is identical. It's just a case of whose mouth the decision comes from.

So yes, this case has set a precedent which would theoretically allow a doctor to take away a patients custody of himself and give it to the government if the doctor felt that the patient wasn't making medical decisions that were in his best interest. It's the next logical step.

Again, this is wrong. A parent only has custody over their child until a certain point. If I am in the room with a parent and their kid and the parent turns around and punches the kid square in the nose. Guess what, that parent has just lost the right to make decisions for that kid. I am required, legally as a mandated reporter, to report that abuse to the government and appropriate parties. Then I am required to remove that child from the parent in order to keep the child safe.

The issue here is ethics and when doctors/courts are allowed to step in and tell the parents they have gone too far. Seeking further treatment is, in my opinion, not going too far. But again, that also depends on the type of treatment they are seeking. They were seeking legitimate medical help from a professional. They should be allowed to go. If they were taking the child to a back woods shaman who sacrifices animals to the gods in order to cleanse a disease, then I would have had an issue.

But, you clearly need to step back and take a breather, look at this again. Read up on your ethics.

Punching a kid in the nose is not the same as desperately looking for medical treatment. You should probably be the one reading up on ethics, along with everybody else in this thread.