Denying transfusions

Orion

Article in the Irish Times today. Two parents are objecting to their premature child getting a blood transfusion even if doctors decide it's necessary to save the life of the child. (NB: The article doesn't mention that they are Jehovah's Witnesses - it only says they have their own religious beliefs).

Irish Times wrote:

A premature baby must be given a life-saving blood transfusion despite the religious objections of its parents, the High Court ruled at a special sitting on Christmas Eve.

Mr Justice George Birmingham directed that the transfusion be made only if doctors at the National Maternity Hospital considered it absolutely necessary to save the boy child, identified as "Baby B."

What do people think of this? Personally, I think that the child should be taken off the parents and made a ward of the court - they should not be allowed any further decisions regarding that child - ever! If they are prepared to let the child die then they are not fit to be parents. That may appear harsh but it's what I think. No child should be allowed die because of the parents' religion - end of story(imo ofc).

This isn't the first time this has come before the courts. There was a couple in Wexford who refused a transfusion to their teenage son who was hit by a car. They were Witnesses and objected on religious grounds. The boy subsequently died needlessly. The court heard the case too late to save him iirc. Again I fully believe that the other children of this couple should be taken off them so that this can never happen again.

Now I don't want to confuse this one with the lady in the Coombe who is currently going to court because she got a transfusion against her will. That case (apart from being quite complicated - different stories being told) is about her own body. IMO people have every right to decide what happens to their own bodies. But nobody has the right to decide that a child should die just because the parents follow a certain religion and make a decision based on a particular interpretation of the bible.

[edit]I didn't know whether to post this under Christianity or not. I posted here because my objection is non-religious (as am I) even if the parents' objections are.

mike65

Agree, no person should deny someone else medical assistance on the grounds of personal ethics.

Mike.

Tar.Aldarion

mike65 wrote: »

Agree, no person should deny someone else medical assistance on the grounds of personal ethics.

Mike.

.

deman

Macros42 wrote: »

they should not be allowed any further decisions regarding that child - ever!

+1

seamus

There's no such thing as a religious child, only a child of religious parents.

Since a child (under 18) does not have the capacity to make such decision, then their right to life should always override their parents' religious wishes.
With the exception of very few scenarios*, where an adult wishes to allow their religion to override their right to life, I say let them at it.

*Most obviously where the person is mentally unbalanced or where they are the sole provider for dependents

Orion

seamus wrote: »

There's no such thing as a religious child, only a child of religious parents.

Macros42 wrote:

No child should be allowed die because of the parents' religion

I chose my words carefully. And I've read Dawkins too

There is no benefit to taking a child from their parents. It only inflicts needless suffering on everyone involved.
Children of married parents are in legal limbo in this country, they can't be adopted only fostered.
As much as you disagree with their morals, I hope you can appreciate that in their own warped way these people thought they were doing the best by their children, as opposed to having any deliberate intention to harm them.
The high court ruling is enough.

Nevyn

The child was considered in the case of the new mother refusing a transfusion becasue at the time she was the only known relative of the new born and that was the reason the court order was issues to give her the transfusion.

If the court deems the transfustion is needed for the baby then the baby gets made a ward of the court/state for the duration of the treatment and then it returns to the care of the parents.

Parents have the right over thier children's bodies otherwise those that get a child's ears peirced for thier first birthday for cultural reasons or get thier child circumsided for relgious reasons would find themself in court for abuse.

Parents can also refuse to give medication to thier children the same way they can refuse to give them meat.

metrovelvet

Macros,

I can understand where you are coming from but you are getting into very dangerous territory.

How far can the state go, especially a state which is making an absolute mess of the health system. THis state has compromised more lives with its bad planning and you think they are the solution?

You have the right to refuse medical treatment.

metrovelvet

Thaedydal wrote: »

Parents have the right over thier children's bodies otherwise those that get a child's ears peirced for thier first birthday for cultural reasons or get thier child circumsided for relgious reasons would find themself in court for abuse.

Parents can also refuse to give medication to thier children the same way they can refuse to give them meat.

Hmmnnn.... no not really. They dont have the right to hurt or damage their childrens bodies. Female circumcicision is illegal in many western hospitals and the parents would be dragged into court for that. For some odd reason, male circumcision is acceptable. And up until recently partial birth abortion was also allowed [interesting now that it isnt they shove the baby back into the mother and then kill it so its not technically "partial birth."]

And vaccinations.... in the US you HAVE to get them or you wont be allowed in school, creches, etc.

The only time you have absolute rights over your childrens bodies is when they are still in yours. And even then that is a legal and political right... philospohically and morally is another debate.

Rev Hellfire

mike65 wrote: »

Agree, no person should deny someone else medical assistance on the grounds of personal ethics.

Mike.

Would that life was so simple. There are times when it is preferable to deny treatment based on possible quality of life. This is a purely subjective decision but one which can and at times must be taken.

Just because you can save a life doesn't mean that you always should.

metrovelvet

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Would that life was so simple. There are times when it is preferable to deny treatment based on possible quality of life. This is a purely subjective decision but one which can and at times must be taken.

Just because you can save a life doesn't mean that you always should.

Abortion and euthansia are two examples of this.

Nevyn

:rolleyes:

Children do not have the right to thier own bodily integrity until they are adults,
hence altering a child/minor for the likes of pericing, tatoos or surgery their parent/guardian must consent for them the same as for any medical procedure ( barring extreme emgercies ) and even then the parent/guardian can object and the dr has to persuade them and consider getting the hospital and socail workers to get the courts to intervene.

People forget how much medical consent a person/parent needs to give and that they can withhold it.

Orion

metrovelvet wrote: »

How far can the state go, especially a state which is making an absolute mess of the health system. THis state has compromised more lives with its bad planning and you think they are the solution?

You have the right to refuse medical treatment.

One of the primary functions of the state is the protection of children. I think this falls squarely under that. The health system is a mess but that's not really relevant. Doctors and nurses are damn hard workers - it's not their fault that the system is deeply flawed. And it is the doctors who, in this case, want to provide life-saving medical treatment and if left to the parents it would be refused.

And if you read my first post again I said that an adult can refuse medical treatment. But this is not about an adult refusing treatment to him or herself. It is about 2 people refusing life-saving treatment to another who cannot decide for himself.

Rev Hellfire wrote:

Would that life was so simple. There are times when it is preferable to deny treatment based on possible quality of life.

I agree it's not that simple in other circumstances - such as someone dying from cancer, brain death, etc.. But this is not a quality of life decision - it's a life or no life decision.

Thaedydal wrote:

Parents can also refuse to give medication to thier children the same way they can refuse to give them meat.

But if that medication or treatment will cause death then making that decision is wrong imo. Even (or especially) if it is made on religious grounds.

moonbaby wrote:

There is no benefit to taking a child from their parents. It only inflicts needless suffering on everyone involved.
Children of married parents are in legal limbo in this country, they can't be adopted only fostered.
As much as you disagree with their morals, I hope you can appreciate that in their own warped way these people thought they were doing the best by their children, as opposed to having any deliberate intention to harm them.
The high court ruling is enough.

I do appreciate their intentions are good. But afaic they are still wrong. And you are right about fostering for children of married parents ofc. I thought I'd added another option in my original post but didn't for some reason. The only other option I can think of is that the child is made a ward of the court for all medical decisions. If a parent is willing to let a child die because of a nuts interpretation in the bible then those decisions should be taken out of their hands.

When I read this article this morning I actually said to my partner that these loons should be "****ing sterilised". While that may be a little extreme it does indicate how strongly I feel about people who are willing to let their child die needlessly.



I do realise that some of my comments above may appear to be flaming but accept my word that I do not intend to flame or troll in the slightest. It's just my strong feelings coming across through a text forum.

Nevyn

Macros42 wrote: »

One of the primary functions of the state is the protection of children.

Please cite your sources on this please. I think you will find that children in this republic have very few rights at all esp as we still have not ratified the un charter on the rights of the child.

Macros42 wrote: »

I agree it's not that simple in other circumstances - such as someone dying from cancer, brain death, etc.. But this is not a quality of life decision - it's a life or no life decision.

But if that medication or treatment will cause death then making that decision is wrong imo. Even (or especially) if it is made on religious grounds.

With in minutes of both my children being born I was asked to give permission for a vitamin K injection to insure clotting, I would have been well with in my rights to refuse. If I had of refused it could not have been administered and the consultant would have to think about going to the hospital to get a court oder to have it administered.

If I had of refused and the children died as a result then I might have had charges of negligence put against me that is if and only if the DPP thought that they had a case.

Macros42 wrote: »

I do appreciate their intentions are good. But afaic they are still wrong. And you are right about fostering for children of married parents ofc. I thought I'd added another option in my original post but didn't for some reason. The only other option I can think of is that the child is made a ward of the court for all medical decisions. If a parent is willing to let a child die because of a nuts interpretation in the bible then those decisions should be taken out of their hands.

When I read this article this morning I actually said to my partner that these loons should be "****ing sterilised". While that may be a little extreme it does indicate how strongly I feel about people who are willing to let their child die needlessly.

Due this countries appalling track record in reguards to children and parental rights and the backlash due to the abuse of wards of the court and state it is not surprising that unfit parents are left with their children.

Orion

Thaedydal wrote: »

Please cite your sources on this please. I think you will find that children in this republic have very few rights at all esp as we still have not ratified the un charter on the rights of the child.

It's an opinion. It is an absolute disgrace that we have not ratified that Charter and I was already fully aware of it. I didn't mention the Irish state - I meant the State referring to all States. And my opinion on this is based on philosophical and sociological readings. The fact that some (or many) neglect that duty doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

JimiTime

Macros42 wrote: »

If they are prepared to let the child die then they are not fit to be parents. That may appear harsh but it's what I think. No child should be allowed die because of the parents' religion - end of story(imo ofc).

I'm assuming you're anti abortion also?

Orion

My opinion on abortion is just like the topic - complicated - but I'm not against it. I don't see the relevance tho. This is about a child that has been born.

metrovelvet

Macros42 wrote: »

One of the primary functions of the state is the protection of children. I think this falls squarely under that. ]

Um have you noticed the history of the Irish state and its protection of children? How about making sick children travel from all over to go to a hospital in Dublin. How about the institutionalised abuse that went on, endorsed by the state?

Macros42 wrote: »

The health system is a mess but that's not really relevant. Doctors and nurses are damn hard workers - it's not their fault that the system is deeply flawed. And it is the doctors who, in this case, want to provide life-saving medical treatment and if left to the parents it would be refused.]

The health system is a mess because the state has made a mess of it, and you want these same people, the state, to make life or death decisins around a child.

Macros42 wrote: »

And if you read my first post again I said that an adult can refuse medical treatment. But this is not about an adult refusing treatment to him or herself. It is about 2 people refusing life-saving treatment to another who cannot decide for himself..]

So who should make the decision, the HSE?

Macros42 wrote: »

But if that medication or treatment will cause death then making that decision is wrong imo. Even (or especially) if it is made on religious grounds...]

If it causes death made on other grounds is that ok?

Macros42 wrote: »

My opinion on abortion is just like the topic - complicated - but I'm not against it. I don't see the relevance tho. This is about a child that has been born. ...]

It is relevant because you are condemning parents who make decisions that will end or possible end their child's life.

Is a child not a child unless it has been given birth to?

Theydydal wrote:

With in minutes of both my children being born I was asked to give permission for a vitamin K injection to insure clotting, I would have been well with in my rights to refuse. If I had of refused it could not have been administered and the consultant would have to think about going to the hospital to get a court oder to have it administered....

I was given no such option. But.... I could have refused a section even though I was told the babys heart rate was dropping, I could have aborted him right through to before the birth, I could have refused to go to the hospital, etc etc.

What I could not have refused on behalf of the child: the vitamin K injection [although I found out later that I could have refused it as it was synthetic - if it were natural then I wouldnt have had the right to refuse, the hiv test he took, the yellow heated lamps they put him under, those drope they put in their eyes... cant remember what its called.

Ultimately, the state is what allows parents to do or not do to their children. That is why infanticide is a crime, why child abuse is a crime, why corporal pumnishment is a crime, why clitorectamies are also a crime, because you dont have absolute rights over your children's bodies.

Orion

metrovelvet: I had an answer typed and then just deleted it. You are not addressing the subject - instead you are addressing the shortfalls of our Government. How about you take the argument to a perfect state with a perfect government that acts perfectly and then answer the question I asked based on that. The shortfalls of our government, HSE, health system, legal system etc are not what I am talking about. I am talking about parents making a decision that will result in their child's death and whether they should have that right or not.

And this is now the second time you have brought up abortion - I am not getting sucked in that argument. If you want a discussion on abortion start another thread and I may or may not post on it.

metrovelvet

You are talking about these children being taken into state care.

You are talking about rights, which are state endorsed powers granted to the individual.

I have brought up abortion because that is arguably a parent taking his or her child's life. If you condemn those who refuse blood transfusions then you arguablly should also condemn those who have abortions and support that any future children they have should be put into state care or that such women have birth control implants court ordered.

You are also focusing on religion; that it is not an acceptable ground on which to make such decisions.

So as far as I can see, the state, religion, and these political institutions' relationship with the individual's body as well as a minor's body, is at the core of your argument.

Even if you had a perfect government, whatever that means, but it has totalitarin rings to it, is it the governments right to overrule religious practises of the individual?

Orion

metrovelvet wrote: »

You are also focusing on religion; that it is not an acceptable ground on which to make such decisions.

Even if you had a perfect government, whatever that means, but it has totalitarin rings to it, is it the governments right to overrule religious practises of the individual?

A perfect government can mean whatever you want it to mean. My point was to leave our government and state institutions and their many flaws out of it. :rolleyes:

I am focusing on religion because that is the reason given for denying the treatment to the minors. I didn't just pick on religion for the sake of it.

And I am not suggesting that the state override the rights of the individual. In the cases I am discussing the individual was not asked for his opinion on his religious practices. And even if he was in both cases they wouldn't have been taken into account as the parents' were the ones refusing treatment. And again I ask you to re-read my original post (and my first reply to you). An adult has every right to refuse treatment on whatever grounds imo. Even if it means death. It's your body do what you want with it. This is about a living, breathing, outside the womb, person who is not being given a choice by his own parents because of their religion.

And I am still not getting into the abortion discussion. They are not even close to being analogous.

Zombrex

A parent should not have the right to refuse an action designed to prevent harm or death to their child if this harm is reasonably expected to occur if said action is not carried out.

A parent can no more refuse a life saving blood transfusion than they can refuse fire brigade access to their house to help their child trapped in the burning house.

Rev Hellfire

Wicknight wrote: »

A parent should not have the right to refuse an action designed to prevent harm or death to their child if this harm is reasonably expected to occur if said action is not carried out.

As has been said before such absolute dictates simply don't work in the real world. Surgeons and doctors will often encounter situations where it may be preferable to discontinue or avoid a particular course of treatment and may not feel qualified to make that call. Leaving it to the family who ultimately will be responsible for their care.

There is of course the reverse of the topic in which a medical team may wish to discontinue a treatment and the family demand it continuance; for example with coma's and associated brain traumas. If life is so precious should their wishes override the wishes of the doctors there ?

Zombrex

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

As has been said before such absolute dictates simply don't work in the real world.

Of course, which is why I put "reasonably" in there.

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

There is of course the reverse of the topic in which a medical team may wish to discontinue a treatment and the family demand it continuance; for example with coma's and associated brain traumas. If life is so precious should their wishes override the wishes of the doctors there ?

You are slightly missing the point some what. The point is the best interests of the child need to be protected. The question is who is best to determine that, not who has the right to do to the child what they wish. It would be hard pressed to decide that dying (when there is a reasonable chance of survival) is in the best interests of the child, therefore a person (parent or doctor) cannot decide that it is actually in the best interests of the child.

Rev Hellfire

So would I be correct then in saying that you would hold the position that the life of the child (or adult) should be protected regardless of the wishes of both the parents and doctors ?

seamus

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

So would I be correct then in saying that you would hold the position that the life of the child (or adult) should be protected regardless of the wishes of both the parents and doctors ?

Pendantic I know, but Doctors would rarely have "wishes" about a certain course of action. Their own ethics and the oath may sometimes compel them to obtain a court judgement to save a life, but I can't think of any reason why a doctor would want a child to die, rather they would advise that allowing death may be the best course of action.

Sleepy

What reason can you think of that should excuse a parent from witholding treatment of a newborn Rev Hellfire?

I mean, I can understand allowing someone to die if they're only going to live a tortured existence e.g. a terminal illness which is extremely painful but for an otherwise healthy child, how could anyone justify refusing them treatment on any grounds?

As for parents refusing treatment on 'religious grounds', they should be taken out and shot. This is just one of the many reasons I've come to the conclusion that we shouldn't tolerate religious beliefs in any form.

Orion

Sleepy wrote: »

What reason can you think of that should excuse a parent from witholding treatment of a newborn Rev Hellfire?

I mean, I can understand allowing someone to die if they're only going to live a tortured existence e.g. a terminal illness which is extremely painful but for an otherwise healthy child, how could anyone justify refusing them treatment on any grounds?

You just answered your own question there.

As for parents refusing treatment on 'religious grounds', they should be taken out and shot. This is just one of the many reasons I've come to the conclusion that we shouldn't tolerate religious beliefs in any form.

Wow - and I thought I was being extreme

Rev Hellfire

seamus wrote: »

I can't think of any reason why a doctor would want a child to die, rather they would advise that allowing death may be the best course of action.

Surely they are same thing. If you withhold a treatment in knowledge of a high likelihood of death you must at some level wish for the child to die.

Zombrex

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

So would I be correct then in saying that you would hold the position that the life of the child (or adult) should be protected regardless of the wishes of both the parents and doctors ?

The interests of the child should be protected regardless of the wishes of both the parents or the doctors. Its a subtle but important difference.

For me to say that the life of the child should always be protected no matter what would actually be contradicting my own statement above. There are circumstances where staying alive may not actually be in the best interest of the child, for example a child dying of very painful disease.

The important point is that the parents interests do not over ride those of the child. If the parent wishes the child is a good JW that does not over ride the child's interest. The child isn't a JW (I subscribe to Dawkin's idea that there are no religious children).

Rev Hellfire

Sleepy wrote: »

What reason can you think of that should excuse a parent from witholding treatment of a newborn Rev Hellfire?

I mean, I can understand allowing someone to die if they're only going to live a tortured existence e.g. a terminal illness which is extremely painful but for an otherwise healthy child, how could anyone justify refusing them treatment on any grounds?

For a 100% healthy child I think we can all agree that every course of action should be followed to preserve its life.

But you do get cases where say with a disabled child where they aren't in physical pain but have a very limited quality of life in which you might decide it is better to let them die, even if treating them aggressively will not worsen their condition nor help it either, they'll live but be no better or worse off at the end.

Zombrex

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

But you do get cases where say with a disabled child where they aren't in physical pain but have a very limited quality of life in which you might decide it is better to let them die, even if treating them aggressively will not worsen their condition nor help it either, they'll live but be no better or worse off at the end.

Do you think it is in the best interests of that disabled child to be dead?

Rev Hellfire

Wicknight wrote: »

Do you think it is in the best interests of that disabled child to be dead?

In some cases yes.

Zombrex

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

In some cases yes.

Fair enough.

Can I ask if the child isn't suffering what would be an example of one (a case)?

Nevyn

metrovelvet wrote: »

I have brought up abortion because that is arguably a parent taking his or her child's life. If you condemn those who refuse blood transfusions then you arguablly should also condemn those who have abortions and support that any future children they have should be put into state care or that such women have birth control implants court ordered.

That is one of the most screwed up things I have ever read in this forum.

metrovelvet

Well there has already been discussion of some states judhes wanting to place birth control impants in the women who have been convicted of child abuse. In fact, I believe it may have already been practised.

If you believe the state should take over.... when you harm your kids...

Rev Hellfire

Wicknight wrote: »

Fair enough.

Can I ask if the child isn't suffering what would be an example of one (a case)?

Of course you can
Lets take a child with profound cerebral palsy, you can be dealing with someone who has very limited cognitive abilities, but not in any real distress on a day to day basis. Surely it is better to only go so far in such a situation to save the child in the event of illness. For all concerned the child's death may be the better outcome.

Zombrex

There are a number of flaws in comparing this to abortion

Firstly, one of the central debates in the issue of abortion is whether or not the fetus actually is considered a full human being with all the rights that come with that. One cannot compare these two moral choices unless one has first determined that they are at least coming from an equal starting point, which (as the many debates on abortion on this forum testifies to) has not been established.

Secondly, there is a difference between the choice of a parent to over rule a willing action (the doctors want to give the child blood, and the person who originally owned the blood has consented to that happening) and a parent being forced to use their body for the continuing survival of their child. A closer analogy to abortion would be whether or not doctors should take blood from the parent without their consent and give it to the child.

So really I don't think comparing this to abortion really works. Apples and Oranges and all that.

Nevyn

metrovelvet wrote: »

Well there has already been discussion of some states judhes wanting to place birth control impants in the women who have been convicted of child abuse. In fact, I believe it may have already been practised.

If you believe the state should take over.... when you harm your kids...

so you don't' believe in rehabilitation or court ordered counsellings
or parenting classes then ?

as for court order contraception it will never happen in this country.

Zombrex

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Surely it is better to only go so far in such a situation to save the child in the event of illness. For all concerned the child's death may be the better outcome.

Sorry I'm still not following (TBH I'm ignorant of the effect of illness on a cerebral palsy sufferer). Better in what way? What is the down side for the child if doctors try as much as they can to cure them of illness?

Nevyn

In the case of a child needing medical care and thier legal guardians refusing it boils down to the state providing an advocate for the child and we all saw how well that went here in the ms D case of the teen in care enduring a non vivible pregnancy and how the HSE who on the behalf of the state was acting as legal guardian refused to her travel for a medical proceedure.

So the state or agents of the state are not always in the best intrest of a child or minor.

Nevyn

Wicknight wrote: »

Sorry I'm still not following (TBH I'm ignorant of the effect of illness on a cerebral palsy sufferer). Better in what way? What is the down side for the child if doctors try as much as they can to cure them of illness?

It is about the quality not quantity of life.

Zombrex

Thaedydal wrote: »

It is about the quality not quantity of life.

How do you rank the quality of life of being dead?

Rev Hellfire

Wicknight wrote: »

Sorry I'm still not following (TBH I'm ignorant of the effect of illness on a cerebral palsy sufferer). Better in what way? What is the down side for the child if doctors try as much as they can to cure them of illness?

In that example there is no cure so the question arises that when you encounter a situation that has a likelihood of death should you actually treat them beyond facilitating their immediate comfort.

You are dealing with someone who will be in care for there natural lives and wholly dependent on others, typically their family.

In such a case for both the child, the family (due to the impact caring for such a child will cause to them) and the state/doctors (due to the cost of maintaining them) everyone may be better off if they expire.

Nevyn

Wicknight wrote: »

How do you rank the quality of life of being dead?

Sometimes people are better off dead.

Just because we can do all sorts of invasive surgery and treatments does not mean that we should and were a person or thier medical guardian draws the line will differ.

Unfortunately we don't have living wills in this country which stipulate the level of intervention a person will permit..

Zombrex

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

In that example there is no cure so the question arises that when you encounter a situation that has a likelihood of death should you actually treat them beyond facilitating their immediate comfort.

Why wouldn't you? Again, what is the down side (for the child)?

Everyone will eventually die, but I wouldn't say Don't bother curing my 80 year old grand mother, sure if we do she probably only has 5 or 10 years left anyway.

So, if this handicapped person isn't in pain by being alive, what exactly is the downside for them to continue to exist?

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

In such a case for both the child, the family () and the state/doctors (due to the cost of maintaining them) everyone may be better off if they expire.

Well you have given me a reason why the parents would be better off ("due to the impact caring for such a child will cause to them") and you gave me a reason why the health service would be better off ("due to the cost of maintaining them")

But you seem to have missed a reason why the child would actually be better off dead. And that is after all the only reason that actually matters.

Zombrex

Thaedydal wrote: »

Sometimes people are better off dead.

Yes we have established that, I'm asking what are the circumstances of "sometimes" Under what circumstances is someone better off dead, what circumstances is that an improvement on the quality of life they enjoy.

Give that the quality of life of someone who is dead is zero, one would have to have a very poor painful suffering existence (what I would call a minus quality of life) to argue that they would be better off dead.

Someone who is mentally handicapped is still alive. Someone born like that has only ever known that life, their quality of life is as high as it ever is. To argue that these people would be better off dead simply because they don't enjoy the same quality of life as an able bodied person, is a pretty strange argument.

metrovelvet

Thaedydal wrote: »

so you don't' believe in rehabilitation or court ordered counsellings
or parenting classes then ?

as for court order contraception it will never happen in this country.

Rehab yes. Counselling and parenting classes? No not really. Between how clean is your house and what not to wear there are already too many people telling us how to live.

The government has this magical way of ****ing everyhting up. For example, some neighbors of my mothers: the children were absconded and taken into foster care because the father was an "alcoholic". They were returned two weeks later with knat infested heads and stomach viruses.

Ibelieve counselling and parenting classes [obviously depending on the quality of the instructor and the counsellor] are in general good things, but they should come from the will of the person who wants to improve.

metrovelvet

Wicknight wrote: »

The interests of the child should be protected regardless of the wishes of both the parents or the doctors. Its a subtle but important difference.

For me to say that the life of the child should always be protected no matter what would actually be contradicting my own statement above. There are circumstances where staying alive may not actually be in the best interest of the child, for example a child dying of very painful disease.

The important point is that the parents interests do not over ride those of the child. If the parent wishes the child is a good JW that does not over ride the child's interest. The child isn't a JW (I subscribe to Dawkin's idea that there are no religious children).

What if the treatment itself is more painful thant the disease, like is often the case with HIV cocktails? Should the parent have the right to refuse it?

OP - Id be interested in your views on vaccinations and the refusal of parents to adminsiter them. WOuld you consider that putting their lives at risk?

Zombrex

metrovelvet wrote: »

What if the treatment itself is more painful thant the disease, like is often the case with HIV cocktails? Should the parent have the right to refuse it?

If it is the best interests of the child.