Who has final say for a child's well-being?

Question

Tina Carlsen took her 9 month old son from the hospital because she wanted to try alternative medicines to help with her son's kidney problems. Doctors wanted to do dialysis and eventually surgery. Tina now faces "up to a year in prison if convicted on second degree kidnapping charges" (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13612547). The mother suggests that she had the right to choose what was best for her child. The doctors said no. However, the laws in that state say that a doctor can only overide a parent if there is a life threatening emergency, which was not present in this case. Also, how does this debate affect the abortion issue? Death is certainly not in a child's medical best interest! What do you think?

Sorry about the bad link, try this one
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13720273/

The abortion concept posed in this question refers to the rights of life of children and the rights of parents. It illustrates the contrast between the parent's choice to end a life in the womb with the loss of a parent's right to allow the child to have access to different medical treatment, or to die a natural death.

Answer 1

The real problem is, that the government is taking more and more family rights away to bolster their control of everything and everybody. A self regulating family unit, as used to be the norm until about 50 years ago, can withstand even moderate government meddling. The powers that be put a stop to that.
Now government often acts, that essentially citizen are OWNED by the government.
Parents aren't allowed to teach their children discipline under threat of prison, and I am NOT talking about child abuse.
Parents are prosecuted for KIDNAPPING their own children, because some jerk of a judge decreed who the child BELONGS to (the state of course).
People wake up, freedom, which this country has always prided itself for has been diminished drastically, and is on a respirator, ready to expire.
What a shame, that our children and grandchildren will never experience what freedom is like. Reading and talking about it, is not only no replacement, but, I am sorry, it is nothing.
It is like North Korea calling itself a democratic country (right there in their name). It's a sorry joke, and just calling something by a name, doesn't make it that!
Thomas Jefferson would be aghast if he could see what the American public has allowed this country to become, by picking people to lead that are not only incompetent, but actively destroying this country.
Dr. Spock helped this slide downhill in the early '50s, by telling the parents not to teach their children how to live, as they had done in the past (and not badly!!!). He himself, in the late '80s admitted that he had been an idiot (which I knew already 50 years ago!!!), and had no idea what he was talking about.
He learned, though to late to make a difference. The damage has been done.
The government has now started its own plan, whereby the children that were not taught proper societal behavior, get picked off sometimes even before they turn 21 and put into prison for doing what their parents had been prevented to teach them NOT to do at a young age.
That's why we have to (?) build more prisons and in fact have more people in prison than any other non 3rd world country. Our prison population is about 1% of the population, and often for the most stupid of reasons (and idiotic laws that should never have been enacted).
Enough, it makes me sick to contemplate what is being done to this country by people who were elected to be its stewards.
People, let's take back our country!!!

Answer 2

Funny how we live in a society that says on one hand that we can with-hold food & water from people who can't feed themselves and that's "dying with dignity" but a mother has to take the first word of doctors who want to put her child through painful treatments with no guarantees.
Laws vary from state to state but this is seriously a travesty of justice to even consider imprisoning this mother. These doctors could have asked the local children's authorities to make sure the child was receiving some kind of medical help if they were really concerned for the boy.
This sounds more like they want this baby for a guinea pig or just to make money from expenseive treatments.
As for abortion, this child is 9 months old with a birth certificate so abortion has nothing to do with this.
This baby has a right to life under the law but that does not give the doctors the right to oppose alternative options when the child is not in immediate danger.
Child welfare agency supervision and counselling can achieve much more than imprisoning a mother when her son needs her nearby for comfort.

Answer 3

Normally the parent has all say
unless said parent is or may cause harm to the child.
such is in "child abuse".
in this case removing the kid from a doctors care endangers the child so the legal system will step in.
how does this debate affect the abortion issue?
it doesn't as this case has nothing to do with abortion.
and to use a medical argument, there are many cases where an abortion is the only way to save the mother and the baby will never grow to term.
an ectopic pregnancy, (a fertilized egg has implanted outside the uterus, usually in the fallopian tubes) Is the main reason.
if left untreated chances are good both will die!
so you'll never fully remove abortion as a medical treatment.

Answer 4

Abortion has nothing to do with this issue as you don't have a child that has been BORN. Let's worry about the ones that are already alive.

If I recall from a law class I took in college, the reason they let doctors override parents in life threateing situations is a result of a certain religion that did not believe in medical treatment and children were dying as a result. Because the children are not of age and not able to make these decisions themselves, the Government owes them a duty to protect them.

Answer 5

On the abortion part I agree, that is not in the child's best interest and it should be leagl for it to be done. As for the medical end on q child that has been born, i beleive the mother has the opertunity to try alternative medication on a minor situation but if it doens't have improvment in ex amount of time then the docotr should override and treat the child.

Answer 6

unfortunally this will be decided in court, lets hope she gets a simpathetic jury, and that she has a valuable reason to take the child. My sister works at childrens hospital as an ER nurse and she gives birth to crack heads babies all the time, and they will almost fight her to take the kid home that night, which can't happen. My sister even told me about a lady that was detained in jail for 3 days because she was all drugged up and was saying senial things about the baby. But needless to say the lady got to take the baby home. Just sad becasue you don't know that the parents are capeable of doing what is right for the child.

Answer 7

There are a lot of do-gooders who have decided that they, with the power of the government backing them, know better what to do with a child than the parents.

This is an abominable, loathsome extension of government into the privacy of a family. And to think that so many fail to see this intrusion as bad, yet think the NSA looking at phone records to prevent future attacks is the most awful thing.

But it is this type of intrusion that destroys the concepts of freedom and limited government in the Constitution.

Answer 8

It seems the mother has a right to try. It's a tough issue. If the child's life is not at stake immediately, she should try! It will not affect the abortion debate at all because those who are OK with abortion do not see the aborted fetus as a child.

Answer 9

I didnt go into msnbc to check yr data it says the link is expired.
However it is really outrageous what people and law can make to harm a person even a mother who is tryihng to save her child. YOu state that "death is not in a child's medical best interest" so Im not sure what happened if this person took her child for euthanasia (?).
No I definetely woul dnot take my child for that.

IT IS NOT A DOCTOR WHO HAS THE FINAL SAY ON A MOTHER'S OFFSPRING. IT IS GOD.
IF A MOTHER TOOK HER CHILD AWAY FROM HOSPITAL IT IS HER RIGHT TO DO IT SO,
EVEN AGAINST HOSPITAL RECOMMENDATIONS.

I TOOK MYSELF OUT OF A HOSPITAL THAT NEARLY KILLED ME WITH THEIR STRONG HORRIBLE MEDICATIONS. It was John Hopkins of all the medical centers. I got worse than at any other moment in my life the moment i entered that hospital. ANd as I saw it fit, I told them I ws not going to stay there and signed off myself to get out of hospital even against doctor's recommendations. AS SOON AS I GOT OUT AND THEY STOPPED PUMPING INME THE MEDS THAT WERE NEARLY KILLING ME, I GOT BETTER AND ALL WENT AWAY.

goverment, hospitals, doctors have no right to say over a mother's decision unless the mother is incompetent herslef to make any decision.

THIS WORLD IS CRAZY SUFFICE IT TO SAY. TO PUT A PERSON IN PRISON FOR TRYING TO SAVE HER CHILD? ALL THE COURTS AND THE REST WANT IS MULA %%%%&&&&
INSTEAD OF PUTTING REAL CRIMINALS IN JAIL THEY THROW MOMS'

THIS SOCIETY IS TURNING RIDICULOUS TOTALLY OUT OF WHACK.

Answer 10

I think the parents have the say for what their child needs best, unless the child can think for himself. I think no one outside of the immediate family should tell the parents what to do.