Do you thinks its right for the State or Fedreal government to interfer with family rights?

Question

In the news recently a young boy and his family want to try alternatives to treat their sons cancer. I had a friend who was diagnosed with liver cancer.. after a year he search other ways. He found a diet which included lots of brown rice. One year later, after a series of tests, he showed no cancer!
I mean they are not denying him treatment, they was every oppurtunity to travel other avenues. Next thing you know the govt will try to control every aspect of our lives.

Answer 1

they already are. Remember you can not control your kids, a spanking is good for them, but big brother will jail you for it. They want the kids to grow up, not knowing what the hell* their supposed to do, they find an easy way out, (Drugs, robbery) so big brother has the right to shoot them. The government puts it nose into far too many things that it shouldn't. The problem with the world today, EVERYBODY wants all people the SAME. the golden rule now is Do What I Say Or Else.

Answer 2

Let me first point out one obvious logical error in your argument and that is that you're assuming that brown rice cured your friend's liver cancer. You don't know whether it did or did not. What if the cancer went into spontaneous remission and would have done so, had the person gone on a pineapple or whatever diet. You don't know that and you cannot draw that conclusion.

The law requires doctors to do the best to save a person's life. They've studied medicine and have a much better knowledge base than you or I have to evaluate what is wrong with a person physically.

Let me give you an example of what you're advocating:
Assume a family believes that reading the bible and handling snakes is a way to cure diseases. You know very well that this variety of people exist in America.
Now, assume that this family has a young child with pneumonia. Pneumonia is easily curable with some penicillin.
Would it be right to deny that child access to penicillin because it would infringe upon that family's rights to treat the disease by waving the bible around and throwing snakes from one person to the next?
Next thing you know, the child dies from an easily curable disease. So then you've had your "family rights" and a dead child. What do you think about that child's rights? Doesn't it have a right to live?

I think you should think a bit more about what it is you're advocating there.

Answer 3

Your example of a child with cancer is not a good one for your question, because 99% of cancer treatment is considered to be experimental. As long as the boys parents were doing SOMETHING, then they were getting him treatment.

If the family in the news story you referenced are saying that the government won't let them decide on a course of treatment for the boy, then someone is lying ... either the parents are not seeking a true treatment, or they are just lying altogether in order to get people to make donations for their son's medical costs.

As for the government controlling every aspect of our lives, do you feel that adults have the right to torture their kids mentally, physically, and sexually without interference?

An abused or neglected child is EVERYONE's business.

Answer 4

While I am all for parents being in control of how they raise children, as a teacher I have to question if they can. I have seen some really horrable things going on in the way parents treat children, but also there are a lot of parents that are not properly educating their children. When a teacher ask a student to do something and the student says Go *** yourself, there is a problem with the way that student is being taught at home. Bring back the days when if you did something like that you got a real punishment at home, where your parents would teach you not to act like that in public. When I see kids getting better education at home, I will support what you are saying, but until that happens, the government has to do something.

Answer 5

Not only should the state government stay out of a families rights but the federal government should stay out of the rights of each individual state. The feds have super-imposed their authority in state natters and that is against the Constitution. Just as some States impose their authority in family matters. The Constitution has been reduced to scrap paper.

Answer 6

Too late, they already do.

Government has a duty to protect minors and if they are not getting proper care, then yes, the Government must step in. They do go to extremes at times, but alternative medicine is not viewed as legitimate to our Government.

Answer 7

the federal government does not administration expenses of interest, the Federal Reserve economic business enterprise does, yet only short-term expenses, referred to as the Fed funds and decrease cost cost. The Fed funds cost is the cost banks cost one yet another for in one day lending, and the decrease cost cost is what the Fed expenses banks. expenses of interest are only the cost of money. by using elevating and reducing funds's cost, you may substitute the provision. while the Fed sees enterprise and client interest is only too sluggish, they decrease the cost (cost of money), thereby including supply. They do the alternative while they see too lots debt and stupid investments. The Fed does have a mechanism to impact long term expenses; they'd desire to purchase or sell Treasury bonds. despite if, i won't manage to think of of any time in recent historic previous they have accomplished this different than to stability their very own portfolio. meaning they have not intentionally signalled to the industry long-term expenses are too extreme or too low.

Answer 8

The government does and should have some right of involvement in family matters. The question is how much the government can be involved. I don't think they should be involved in medical treatment.