20 May 09
Originally posted by PalynkaThese are hard cases. I'm uncomfortable with the State overriding the treatment wishes of parents. I regard it as relevant that the child here is a teenager, not an infant - he has some capability to make rational decisions based on the information available to him. His decision not to have the chemo should be very relevant.
I wonder if the courts would do the same regarding homeopathic treatments.
I think it's easy to think of more intermediate cases where things become very ambiguous. Leaving the decision relatively discretionary is always a possibility, of course, but never very satisfying.
Overall, I lean to the State staying out of this. I also think that "neglect" statutes are so vaguely worded that virtually any decision of a parent could arguably be considered "neglect" by "experts" and that the inference in family matters by courts in the last several decades has reached epidemic proportions.
20 May 09
Adults should be free to be retarded as long as they only harm themselves, but children need to be protected from retarded parents. So if a child is denied optimal medical care the government should step in. This includes protection against unnecessary circumcision.
Also, homeopathy, alternative medicine etc. should be heavily taxed to steer people in the right direction.
20 May 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWhy is the State better qualified to decide what is "optimal medical care" for a child than their parents?
Adults should be free to be retarded as long as they only harm themselves, but children need to be protected from retarded parents. So if a child is denied optimal medical care the government should step in. This includes protection against unnecessary circumcision.
Also, homeopathy, alternative medicine etc. should be heavily taxed to steer people in the right direction.
20 May 09
Originally posted by no1marauderNot at all, but I wouldn't object to a policeman intervening if they saw a parent leading their child across a busy road wearing a blindfold and earplugs...
Perhaps an "independent" panel of experts could also be convened every time someone wants to cross the street with their child as well.
20 May 09
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaThere may be some benefits concerning HIV infections, yes. But do they outweigh the 1% or so risk of severe and permanent injury, and the trauma inflicted upon the child?
You just get carried away by your atheism, I guess. There are still papers being published about its benefits.
In any case, if any adult wants to be circumcised to lower the risk of HIV infections (or other possible benefits) I'm not stopping them.
20 May 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThere are also other benefits, like reducing the risk of urinary tract infections in boys, for example.
There may be some benefits concerning HIV infections, yes. But do they outweigh the 1% or so risk of severe and permanent injury, and the trauma inflicted upon the child?
In any case, if any adult wants to be circumcised to lower the risk of HIV infections I'm not stopping them.
It seems you're just too eager to attack religious practices but picked one which isn't a clear cut case at all.
20 May 09
Originally posted by PalynkaI doubt the possible benefits outweigh the disadvantages. But if it's reasonably established that they do, I do not oppose circumcision.
There are also other benefits, like reducing the risk of urinary tract infections in boys, for example.
It seems you're just too eager to attack religious practices but picked one which isn't a clear cut case at all.