Should the Government Intervene? : RSS 2.0http://www.plime.com/law/f/3701/1/low.mtmen-usplime.com2008, plime.com.Plime/1http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rssShould the Government Intervene? : RSS 2.0http://www.plime.com/images/logo.gifhttp://www.plime.com/law/f/3701/1/low.mtm<![CDATA[tundramonkey @ 3/25/2008 1:54:28 PM]]>« coldbladed : Something no one has addressed, which may be deemed irrelevant anyway :P, is that these parents, according to the doctrine they follow, now believe their children will go to hell.

What if it was a child of a Catholic family that was suffering with no cure or end in sight and the doctors/government decided to perform an assisted suicide against the family's will? Another child, allegedly, condemned to hell by the government.

Pardon my devil's advocate.Interesting point.

I don't think the government should ever choose when to end someone's life. I don't think anyone should choose when or how to end the life of another human.

I definitely don't think assisted suicide is something that should be allowed for children. It's one thing for a child to decide to stop fighting, as TM pointed out, but it's another thing for someone else to end that child's life, whether the child consents or not.]]>http://www.plime.com/law/f/3701/1/rss2_0.rss#q31http://www.plime.com/law/f/3701/1/rss2_0.rss#q31law <![CDATA[tundramonkey @ 3/25/2008 1:49:14 PM]]>« icepigs : I stand corrected...

however - this brings up a whole NEW question...

Who is going to pay for all of this?



My main goal of my argument in this thread is not because I think the parents should be able to withhold health care...

It was to get everyone to think the whole thing through.

Are YOU willing to give up your religious freedoms because a group of government appointed doctors say that you're wrong?

Are YOU willing to increase your taxes to cover the cost of these treatments and the legal battles the decisions will cause?

Are YOU willing to give more power and authority to the government (whom most of you seem to despise right now).

You can't just say "yes, someone should intervene" without thinking the ENTIRE process through and figuring out if you're willing to take the BAD along with the good.

I personally am all for taking power AWAY from the government and giving it back to the people.I take it for granted that my government will pay for my health care and cover all costs - and that's something I need to stop doing.

Yes, I am willing to see my taxes rise even more to pay for better health care. I don't have a problem with my taxes as they are, and I don't really have a problem with our health care system, either.

I also would allow the government to infringe on my religion if it meant saving a life. I cannot put a price tag on someone else's life.

And yes, I will HAPPILY give more power to my government, with whom I am rather content, actually.]]>http://www.plime.com/law/f/3701/1/rss2_0.rss#q30http://www.plime.com/law/f/3701/1/rss2_0.rss#q30law <![CDATA[coldbladed @ 3/25/2008 1:00:38 PM]]>
What if it was a child of a Catholic family that was suffering with no cure or end in sight and the doctors/government decided to perform an assisted suicide against the family's will? Another child, allegedly, condemned to hell by the government.

Pardon my devil's advocate.

[edit] I'll add a note to state more plainly what is implied above: To these people their eternal salvation is at risk, something that is far more significant than their comparatively short life. What is another 40-60 years of life when compared to infinity?
Mathematically: zero.]]>http://www.plime.com/law/f/3701/1/rss2_0.rss#q29http://www.plime.com/law/f/3701/1/rss2_0.rss#q29law <![CDATA[mahler87 @ 3/25/2008 11:56:51 AM]]>« 2manyusernames : It is perfectly fine for people to believe whatever religion they want. It isn't necessarily perfectly fine for them to practice whatever religion they want to.I have never been able to put into words what you just said, and I think you make an excellent point.

Also, with regard to the cavities thing, I think something like that recently happened in the Baltimore area but I can't find the article at the moment.]]>http://www.plime.com/law/f/3701/1/rss2_0.rss#q28http://www.plime.com/law/f/3701/1/rss2_0.rss#q28law <![CDATA[TraumaMamma @ 3/25/2008 11:45:10 AM]]>« larknet : Warning! Hijacking in progress!

Just a quick one then back to your normally scheduled thread...

I enjoy this kind of logical educated debate on a topic. One of the many reasons I am a Plimer.

Back to you, Dave (whoever he is).I enjoy it too. I luv this place.]]>http://www.plime.com/law/f/3701/1/rss2_0.rss#q27http://www.plime.com/law/f/3701/1/rss2_0.rss#q27law <![CDATA[punthe @ 3/25/2008 11:43:57 AM]]>« larknet : Warning! Hijacking in progress!

Just a quick one then back to your normally scheduled thread...

I enjoy this kind of logical educated debate on a topic. One of the many reasons I am a Plimer.

Back to you, Dave (whoever he is).Agreed!]]>http://www.plime.com/law/f/3701/1/rss2_0.rss#q26http://www.plime.com/law/f/3701/1/rss2_0.rss#q26law <![CDATA[larknet @ 3/25/2008 11:34:49 AM]]>
Just a quick one then back to your normally scheduled thread...

I enjoy this kind of logical educated debate on a topic. One of the many reasons I am a Plimer.

Back to you, Dave (whoever he is).]]>http://www.plime.com/law/f/3701/1/rss2_0.rss#q25http://www.plime.com/law/f/3701/1/rss2_0.rss#q25law <![CDATA[TraumaMamma @ 3/25/2008 11:34:48 AM]]>« punthe : I'm going to have to disagree here.

First, I am sorry to hear aboot this loss. It truely is a tragedy. However, I don't believe any child that age or even under the age of 12 can really understand the true meaning of death. I think that children in this type of situation are just in pain and sick and hurt by the treatment and are wanting all of the steps in the remedy to stop because of the pain. I don't believe the child really understands that if you stop treatment entirely due to the pain and sickness it causes, that they will more than likely die... FOREVER.

Forever has a much different meaning to a child than it does to an adult. The child hasn't experienced enough of life to really grasp what they are asking for. I am not saying that this is always the case. There are some rare ocassions, but I don't believe children can really make that descision for themselves. (IMO)

*Edit: Please don't take this personally, TM. I mean no disrespect. It is only my opinion. You know you rock my plimate world! ; )I am not taking it personal at all. Children DO understand and even come to terms with death. You are shortchanging just how intuitive those little critters are! (I wish to go into Hospice actually, when I get my RN degree).

That child fought and fought. His sister who was 7 at the time donated her OWN bone marrow to try and save him TWICE, to no avail. A painful procedure for her.

Every option and treatment was exhausted. Anthony was tired. He told his mother and staff when he was done fighting. His mother is not ignorant nor illiterate, in fact, she is a nurse, herself.

Could I have done that? I cannot say. I hope I never have to, but I think her loss will forever stick in the back of my head if I ever should have to make such a decision and she would be a person I would talk to about it.

She held him for hours after he passed and dressed him in his fav pj's. They had to pry him from her. As a mom, I can understand never wanting to let go.

We keep people alive for own own sake I think, and even carry guilt that we don't do enough, or we should have done a bazillion other things.

I have to believe if anyone I loved said that they were suffering and was ready to quit treatments, I would respect that, no matter what their age.

None of this truely applies to simple things that can and should be fixed to avoid death.]]>http://www.plime.com/law/f/3701/1/rss2_0.rss#q24http://www.plime.com/law/f/3701/1/rss2_0.rss#q24law <![CDATA[larknet @ 3/25/2008 11:25:44 AM]]>« tundramonkey : In my opinion, the government should definitely intervene.

I do not see children as property of the parents, and I think our government should be concerned about the welfare of all of its citizens, children included. If the children aren't "property" of the parents, do you want them to be the "property" of the government? I, for one, would NEVER withhold any health care from my children, especially the life-saving kind. I would not relinquish my parental rights to another person, I don't care who it is. When you become a parent you take on certain responsibilities and some people let their beliefs interfere with those responsibilities.

(sorry for responding so late, we are on the West Coast and didn't catch it until now)]]>http://www.plime.com/law/f/3701/1/rss2_0.rss#q23http://www.plime.com/law/f/3701/1/rss2_0.rss#q23law <![CDATA[punthe @ 3/25/2008 11:12:34 AM]]>« TraumaMamma: I agree with you 100%, but when the child voices they are too tired to go on, (cancer, kidney failure, etc) the child should be able to make that choice. And even at 2 yrs old, I have seen them be ready to MAKE that choice.

My coworkers grandson tolerated picc lines, chemo, bone marrow transfusions, and radiation at 18 months and wasn't hardly sick during ALL of those treatments.

One day, he pushed away the needle and cried and said, "No more". He fought and tolerated SO many invasive procedures, and one day, he just looked sicker than normal and gave up.I'm going to have to disagree here.

First, I am sorry to hear aboot this loss. It truely is a tragedy. However, I don't believe any child that age or even under the age of 12 can really understand the true meaning of death. I think that children in this type of situation are just in pain and sick and hurt by the treatment and are wanting all of the steps in the remedy to stop because of the pain. I don't believe the child really understands that if you stop treatment entirely due to the pain and sickness it causes, that they will more than likely die... FOREVER.

Forever has a much different meaning to a child than it does to an adult. The child hasn't experienced enough of life to really grasp what they are asking for. I am not saying that this is always the case. There are some rare ocassions, but I don't believe children can really make that descision for themselves. (IMO)

*Edit: Please don't take this personally, TM. I mean no disrespect. It is only my opinion. You know you rock my plimate world! ; )]]>http://www.plime.com/law/f/3701/1/rss2_0.rss#q22http://www.plime.com/law/f/3701/1/rss2_0.rss#q22law <![CDATA[badbud @ 3/25/2008 11:07:49 AM]]>Are YOU willing to give up your religious freedoms because a group of government appointed doctors say that you're wrong?As a medical professional, a(recently)former practicing catholic, and a woman who has CHOSEN not to have children - There isn't a single person on this Earth that has the authority to make my medical decisions while I'm conscious. Church, state, or otherwise. But the original question is not about my religious freedom, it was about the rights of a CHILD. So yeah, I'm willing to allow the government to control the rights of a child to stay alive.


Are YOU willing to increase your taxes to cover the cost of these treatments and the legal battles the decisions will cause?
Yes sir, I am! Right now. Sign me up! And by the way, if 51% of my taxes didn't go to national defense I don't think I'd need to pay more taxes.


Are YOU willing to give more power and authority to the government (whom most of you seem to despise right now).
You need to be a little more specific...]]>http://www.plime.com/law/f/3701/1/rss2_0.rss#q21http://www.plime.com/law/f/3701/1/rss2_0.rss#q21law <![CDATA[2manyusernames @ 3/25/2008 11:07:03 AM]]>« TraumaMamma : I agree with you 100%, but when the child voices they are too tired to go on, (cancer, kidney failure, etc) the child should be able to make that choice. And even at 2 yrs old, I have seen them be ready to MAKE that choice. Yes, of course there is a huge difference in allowing someone to be relieved of suffering. There is no reason that they should be forced to be kept alive when there is no or little help of being cured.

I am strictly speaking about standard medical treatment that can cure a person. Refusing to allow a child blood transfusions should be considered the same as withholding food and water.]]>http://www.plime.com/law/f/3701/1/rss2_0.rss#q20http://www.plime.com/law/f/3701/1/rss2_0.rss#q20law <![CDATA[cheeselog1234 @ 3/25/2008 11:03:52 AM]]>
There is no blanket policy here. Every case is examined individually. That is why there is a Dept. of Childrens Services at the local government level.

Government is leery about intervening in any situation involving religion.

Also, it is up to the medical professionals to report potential cases to the government.

Medical costs in the United States are so high because it is privatized. If the US had socialized medicine then our taxes would be much higher. Medical care costs a lot of money no matter what - it's just a matter of how it is financed - privately or publicly.

In reality, The US government subsidizes medical costs anyway...]]>http://www.plime.com/law/f/3701/1/rss2_0.rss#q19http://www.plime.com/law/f/3701/1/rss2_0.rss#q19law <![CDATA[icepigs @ 3/25/2008 10:49:58 AM]]>« badbud : The 12 yr old boy in Baltimore died from a cavity, that turned into an abscess, that created a sinus into his brain.

He died not because his parents withheld treatment for religious reasons, but because they could not afford dental treatment and were unaware of the seriousness of the boys condition.

In the simplest and most disgusting terms, he died because he was poor.I stand corrected...

however - this brings up a whole NEW question...

Who is going to pay for all of this?







My main goal of my argument in this thread is not because I think the parents should be able to withhold health care...

It was to get everyone to think the whole thing through.

Are YOU willing to give up your religious freedoms because a group of government appointed doctors say that you're wrong?

Are YOU willing to increase your taxes to cover the cost of these treatments and the legal battles the decisions will cause?

Are YOU willing to give more power and authority to the government (whom most of you seem to despise right now).

You can't just say "yes, someone should intervene" without thinking the ENTIRE process through and figuring out if you're willing to take the BAD along with the good.



I personally am all for taking power AWAY from the government and giving it back to the people.]]>http://www.plime.com/law/f/3701/1/rss2_0.rss#q18http://www.plime.com/law/f/3701/1/rss2_0.rss#q18law <![CDATA[badbud @ 3/25/2008 10:48:35 AM]]>And isn't this the government infringing on your religious freedoms?As an adult, you have the right to surrender your human rights if you choose to do so, for whatever reasons you choose.

I don't believe you have the right to take away the rights of a child.]]>http://www.plime.com/law/f/3701/1/rss2_0.rss#q17http://www.plime.com/law/f/3701/1/rss2_0.rss#q17law <![CDATA[SpamTrap @ 3/25/2008 10:45:43 AM]]>http://www.plime.com/law/f/3701/1/rss2_0.rss#q16http://www.plime.com/law/f/3701/1/rss2_0.rss#q16law <![CDATA[TraumaMamma @ 3/25/2008 10:43:34 AM]]>« 2manyusernames : Yes, you can die from cavities. That is such a rare case as to not be a serious issue.

The government should be able to force dialysis or a transplant on a child. A person should not be allowed to deny their child a functioning kidney or something that will perform the actions of a kidney just because their "god" tells them to do so, or for any reason for that matter.

If it is a crime to starve a child because god tells you that you can live on air than it is an equal crime to withhold blood, filtering out waste products, and other medically required services.

Common sense will draw the line. A medical board of 3 doctors can determine that the child will die without the services.

Personally I would even go further. If some a*****e con man convinces someone, even an adult that they can heal you by laying on hands or "holy" water, psychic healing, etc and their victim dies, that person should be charged with involuntary manslaughter at the very least.

Again if the conman convinces them that he can heal them with a touch he can possibly be charged with a crime if he charges the victim money. If it is a crime to take their money, they it should be a crime if they die or even suffer greater injuries due to the scam.I agree with you 100%, but when the child voices they are too tired to go on, (cancer, kidney failure, etc) the child should be able to make that choice. And even at 2 yrs old, I have seen them be ready to MAKE that choice.

My coworkers grandson tolerated picc lines, chemo, bone marrow transfusions, and radiation at 18 months and wasn't hardly sick during ALL of those treatments.

One day, he pushed away the needle and cried and said, "No more". He fought and tolerated SO many invasive procedures, and one day, he just looked sicker than normal and gave up.

And he was peaceful about it. His mother respected it.

I think there is a fine line. Yes, to a point. Infections are easily fixed. Asthma can be treated. Every situation is individual. I hate for the govt to be involved in more than it is, but if the child cannot say what they want, someone needs to look out for them.

Reminds me of the joke...On helping ourselves a bit. God did give us TOOLS to fix things.

A guy called Jacob finds himself in dire trouble. His business has gone bust and he's in serious financial trouble. He's so desperate that he decides to ask God for help. He goes into the chapel and begins to pray...........
"God, please help me, I've lost my business and if I don't get some money, I'm going to lose my house as well, please let me win the lotto".

Lotto night comes and somebody else wins it. Jacob goes back to the synagogue. "God, please let me win the lotto, I've lost my business, my house and I'm going to lose my car as well". Lotto night comes and Jacob still has no luck!!

Back to the chapel. "My God, why have you forsaken me?? I've lost my business, my house, my car and my wife and children are starving. I don't often ask you for help and I have always been a good servant to you. Why won't you just let me win the lotto this one time so I can get my life back in order???".

Suddenly there is a blinding flash of light as the heavens open and Jacob is confronted by the voice of GOD himself: "JACOB, MEET ME HALF WAY ON THIS ONE, BUY A TICKET!!".]]>http://www.plime.com/law/f/3701/1/rss2_0.rss#q15http://www.plime.com/law/f/3701/1/rss2_0.rss#q15law <![CDATA[badbud @ 3/25/2008 10:40:38 AM]]>« icepigs : But that was a medically preventable death. Does this not fall into the exact situation you're talking about? Parents withholding needed medical attention due to religious reasons?

The 12 yr old boy in Baltimore died from a cavity, that turned into an abscess, that created a sinus into his brain.

He died not because his parents withheld treatment for religious reasons, but because they could not afford dental treatment and were unaware of the seriousness of the boys condition.

In the simplest and most disgusting terms, he died because he was poor.]]>http://www.plime.com/law/f/3701/1/rss2_0.rss#q14http://www.plime.com/law/f/3701/1/rss2_0.rss#q14law <![CDATA[restlesschicken @ 3/25/2008 10:38:53 AM]]>
the cost of health care in the U.S. is obscene. privatized hospitals and health care institutions, and the insurance companies are a scam. does anybody know the cost of a blood transfusion, or an organ transplant? i know from example (not my personal example, thankfully) that to just reattach a finger tip can cost nearly 60,000 dollars. $60k, for a freaking finger tip. needless to say, the guy in the accident went without reattaching the finger. i'd imagine other operations like a new kidney would go up to hundreds of thousands.

so what'll it be ... take your child in for an operation and face family debt for a couple generations, or take a snowball's chance in hell with faith healing?

(if somebody would like to challenge my cynical view, i'd welcome it. i'm reasonably healthy, but i really don't want to actually forgo a live-saving operation because my family can't ever get the money to do so.)]]>http://www.plime.com/law/f/3701/1/rss2_0.rss#q13http://www.plime.com/law/f/3701/1/rss2_0.rss#q13law <![CDATA[icepigs @ 3/25/2008 10:31:23 AM]]>« 2manyusernames : Yes, you can die from cavities. That is such a rare case as to not be a serious issue.But that was a medically preventable death. Does this not fall into the exact situation you're talking about? Parents withholding needed medical attention due to religious reasons?

« 2manyusernames : Common sense will draw the line.
If only common sense were common.

« 2manyusernames
A medical board of 3 doctors can determine that the child will die without the services.
Aahh! The first answer to my question.

This deserves a follow up....who choses the 3 doctors? What credentials do they have? What type of doctor will they be? Will they have an MD or a DO? Or will a DC count? (They are all nationally recognized doctors).

What if I can find 3 doctors that disagree with your three doctors? Will it then be tied up in the courts as I fight to go with the recommendation of my doctors?

« 2manyusernames : Personally I would even go further. If some a*****e con man convinces someone, even an adult that they can heal you by laying on hands or "holy" water, psychic healing, etc and their victim dies, that person should be charged with involuntary manslaughter at the very least.
But what about medical doctors that say they can heal you and fail? Isn't this a double standard?

And isn't this the government infringing on your religious freedoms?]]>http://www.plime.com/law/f/3701/1/rss2_0.rss#q12http://www.plime.com/law/f/3701/1/rss2_0.rss#q12law <![CDATA[2manyusernames @ 3/25/2008 10:20:45 AM]]>
The government should be able to force dialysis or a transplant on a child. A person should not be allowed to deny their child a functioning kidney or something that will perform the actions of a kidney just because their "god" tells them to do so, or for any reason for that matter.

If it is a crime to starve a child because god tells you that you can live on air than it is an equal crime to withhold blood, filtering out waste products, and other medically required services.

Common sense will draw the line. A medical board of 3 doctors can determine that the child will die without the services.

Personally I would even go further. If some a*****e con man convinces someone, even an adult that they can heal you by laying on hands or "holy" water, psychic healing, etc and their victim dies, that person should be charged with involuntary manslaughter at the very least.

Again if the conman convinces them that he can heal them with a touch he can possibly be charged with a crime if he charges the victim money. If it is a crime to take their money, they it should be a crime if they die or even suffer greater injuries due to the scam.]]>http://www.plime.com/law/f/3701/1/rss2_0.rss#q11http://www.plime.com/law/f/3701/1/rss2_0.rss#q11law <![CDATA[punthe @ 3/25/2008 10:01:49 AM]]>Death from untreated cavities

Obviously a rare and extreme case. Though, point duely noted.]]>http://www.plime.com/law/f/3701/1/rss2_0.rss#q10http://www.plime.com/law/f/3701/1/rss2_0.rss#q10law <![CDATA[icepigs @ 3/25/2008 9:56:18 AM]]>« tundramonkey : I think the line should be life and death. I child won't die from not getting his cavities filled, but he probably will if he doesn't get that transfusion.

We have the means of keeping people alive so much more now than ever, and I don't think a religion should deny a person of his/her right to live.Who's to decide what's life and death? Yes, you can die from cavities. Read about a 12 year old boy who died from untreated cavities.


That's why I want to know WHO gets to decide when the government can step in......who decides what is life and death.]]>http://www.plime.com/law/f/3701/1/rss2_0.rss#q9http://www.plime.com/law/f/3701/1/rss2_0.rss#q9law <![CDATA[icepigs @ 3/25/2008 9:52:55 AM]]>« 2manyusernames : That is a pretty obvious answer. Obviously not getting a transfusion or a new kidney will kill the child. Having cavities, poor vision, or wrinkled skin is not a guaranteed death sentence.I used those as extreme examples...but where do you draw the line? Who's to determine when the government should override the parents wishes?

Theoretically, a child can live without a kidney if they are on dialysis. So, should the government force dialysis on the child until the child is 18 and can decide (as a legal adult) if they want the transplant or not?]]>http://www.plime.com/law/f/3701/1/rss2_0.rss#q8http://www.plime.com/law/f/3701/1/rss2_0.rss#q8law <![CDATA[tundramonkey @ 3/25/2008 9:52:26 AM]]>« icepigs:The question is - where do you draw the line?

If the child needs a transfusion? A new kidney? Has cavities? Needs Lasik? Wants Botox?

I agree that these parents are idiots and should be charged with child abuse...however, I'm never for giving the government more authority over me and my decisions.I think the line should be life and death. I child won't die from not getting his cavities filled, but he probably will if he doesn't get that transfusion.

We have the means of keeping people alive so much more now than ever, and I don't think a religion should deny a person of his/her right to live.

edit: Doh! 2man, you and I were answering at the same time. Great minds think alike, I guess.]]>http://www.plime.com/law/f/3701/1/rss2_0.rss#q7http://www.plime.com/law/f/3701/1/rss2_0.rss#q7law <![CDATA[2manyusernames @ 3/25/2008 9:50:23 AM]]>« icepigs : The question is - where do you draw the line?

If the child needs a transfusion? A new kidney? Has cavities? Needs Lasik? Wants Botox?

I agree that these parents are idiots and should be charged with child abuse...however, I'm never for giving the government more authority over me and my decisions.That is a pretty obvious answer. Obviously not getting a transfusion or a new kidney will kill the child. Having cavities, poor vision, or wrinkled skin is not a guaranteed death sentence.]]>http://www.plime.com/law/f/3701/1/rss2_0.rss#q6http://www.plime.com/law/f/3701/1/rss2_0.rss#q6law <![CDATA[2manyusernames @ 3/25/2008 9:48:45 AM]]>
If the child doesn't die, than attempted homicide and whatever other charges can be tacked on.

It is perfectly fine for people to believe whatever religion they want. It isn't necessarily perfectly fine for them to practice whatever religion they want to.

I believe the parents should be charged with a crime even when it is some 14-year old kid that refuses the medical treatment. He has been brainwashed by the adults.]]>http://www.plime.com/law/f/3701/1/rss2_0.rss#q5http://www.plime.com/law/f/3701/1/rss2_0.rss#q5law <![CDATA[icepigs @ 3/25/2008 9:48:36 AM]]>« tundramonkey : In my opinion, the government should definitely intervene. The question is - where do you draw the line?

If the child needs a transfusion? A new kidney? Has cavities? Needs Lasik? Wants Botox?

I agree that these parents are idiots and should be charged with child abuse...however, I'm never for giving the government more authority over me and my decisions.]]>http://www.plime.com/law/f/3701/1/rss2_0.rss#q4http://www.plime.com/law/f/3701/1/rss2_0.rss#q4law <![CDATA[punthe @ 3/25/2008 9:41:32 AM]]>
I am anything but religious and the situations you describe above are some of the many reasons why.]]>http://www.plime.com/law/f/3701/1/rss2_0.rss#q3http://www.plime.com/law/f/3701/1/rss2_0.rss#q3law <![CDATA[tundramonkey @ 3/25/2008 9:35:14 AM]]>
I do not see children as property of the parents, and I think our government should be concerned about the welfare of all of its citizens, children included. Here in North America, as well as in much of Europe and parts of Asia, excellent health care is available and accessable to almost everyone, and I don't think that religion should interfere with any person's access to this, regardless of that person's age.

One thing that puzzles me is the fact that (here, at least) it's usually groups that support abortion bans that disagree with government intervention in the situations I linked to above.

I also think that parents who refuse their children vital medical services should be charged with child abuse. Failing to seek medical attention or to help an ill or dying child when good help/medical professionals are nearby should be considered neglect, in my opinion. Sure, the parents may mean well, but I think in cases like this the government needs to protect the children.]]>http://www.plime.com/law/f/3701/1/rss2_0.rss#q2http://www.plime.com/law/f/3701/1/rss2_0.rss#q2law
Should the Government Intervene?
 < 1 2 >
<![CDATA[tundramonkey @ 3/25/2008 9:35:06 AM]]>this article this morning about a baby girl who died because her parents didn't seek medical attention reminded me of other similar incidents. I was particularly reminded of the highly publicized sextuplets, where the province of British Columbia seized three of the four surviving babies in order to ensure they recieved life-saving blood transfusion that their religious parents had been refusing.

This makes me wonder: should the government intervene in circumstances such as this, where a child's life is dependant on medical aid the parents refuse for religious reasons, or should the parents alone be allowed to decide their child's fate?

I'm interested on hearing your views on this.]]>http://www.plime.com/f/3701/1/rss2_0.rss#q1http://www.plime.com/f/3701/1/rss2_0.rss#q1law