Should parents never be allowed to interfer with what doctors believe is the best treatment of their children,

Question

regardless of what that treatment involves, such as:
Blood Transfusions;
Circumcism;
Stem Cells Taken From Aborted Fetuses;
HPV Vacination;
Termination of a Pregnancy; or
any other treatment which doctors are in a far better position to make an informed decision on than any parents that have not received an advanced medical degree and regardless of their religious beliefs?

Answer 1

Of course they should be allowed to make those decisions! Drs make mistakes over and over! I happen to be a victim of one of those Drs! Its none of their business what the parents decide!

Answer 2

> Stem Cells Taken From Aborted Fetuses;

Only liars claim stem cells involve abortions, and only the lazy and ignorant believe it without learning on their own.


> regardless of what that treatment involves, such as:
> Blood Transfusions;
> Circumcism;
> HPV Vacination;
> Termination of a Pregnancy; or
> any other treatment which doctors are in a far better position to make an informed decision on than any parents that have not received an advanced medical degree and regardless of their religious beliefs?

By your argument, you should turn off your computer and stop using it since you doutbless can't explain how it works; at least that would stop you from blathering your inane drivel. If you're going to make the ridiculous claim that "people shouldn't use medical treatments they don't know anything about," at least do everyone else a favour and follow it yourself.

When someone is old enough to make an informed decision, that person can choose to die by their own stupidity. But until a person reaches that age, he or she should be protected.

Denying proven medical treatment and causing death is no different than beating a child to death. Actually, that's not true: beating the child to death would be more humane and quicker, with less suffering.


.

Answer 3

The fundamental issue here is one of consent to medical treatment, and exactly who is competent to give that consent. Treatment without consent, when consent is possible, is assault.

The situations you've outlined are all different. In the case of the termination of pregnancy, I would assume that the child is able to provide the consent, unless she is seriously mentally incapacitated. A girl of a suitable age should also be able to consent or not to HPV vaccination, and her will takes primacy over that of her parents.

Blood transfusions are usually given in life threatening situations. If the child is not competent to consent or refuse, then I would support overriding a parent's refusal if the child's life was in danger.

Male (non medically indicated) circumcision is a grey area. I don't have a clear view on this. Female circumcision is clearly child abuse, and should always be refused.

As for stem cells - still hypothetical, but I could imagine a transfusion-like scenario.

Complex question!

Answer 4

No. Religious beliefs should ALWAYS be the final deciding factor in any conflict like that. If we start requiring people to take certain actins, acept certain ideas or behave in certain ways regardless of religious belief, then it paves the way for completely ignoring ALL things of a religious nature. It would make it possible for lawmakers to deicde what religious ideas ar acceptable, and which ones are to be ignored simply becasue they don't agree with them. Religious belief is SACRISANCT, regardless of what the particular religion or belief is. The moment that is interfered with on any level, it makes is possible to have a state mandated religion, a state mandated way of worshiping and believing. Any while some may thing that such a thing would be of benefit...NONE of us as willing to take the chance that the religion we follow might not be the one that is mandated.

Answer 5

Bob Look really close at my avatar. I am a nurse and have been one for 36 years. HIV,AIDS,HEP B,C are BLOODBORNE PATHOGENS. Blood can be infected with these and passed on to unsuspecting people in transfusions. This information has been made available since the 1980's and before. The person giving blood may not know they are sick or are a carrier of a disease. It is then on the honor system that the blood is taken, packaged, and given to some unknowing person. Blood, after it is given, cannot be tested for disease. Every single unit, pint whatever would have to be tested and that is expensive. People have reactions to blood and the transfusion has to be stopped. The changes you mention above are to be a matter of conscience. I make a decision I have to answer for it. As parent and protector of my minor children you bet I would keep them from a blood transfusion. Bloodless surgery is on an upswing as are blood expanders. People who are not Witnesses are refusing transfusions. I know things and have seen things you would never want to know. Not all Drs. are good, and the shortcut is the only way for them. Many have died needless deaths because of transfusions, and they were not even needed. Hospitals make a lot of money off administering blood, not the blood as it is free, therefore one of the reasons blood is pushed. Loss of blood is not the problem, loss of volume in veins and arteries is. They can collapse. Blood expanders keep the volume up and veins and arteries open. Red Blood Cells take 72 hrs to be produced and out into the blood stream. There are drugs that can be given to increase RBC production. Be informed, ignorance is not bliss. I hope you never have to watch a family suffer because their loved on contracted HIV/AIDS, HEP BorC from a dirty unit of blood. Some people even lie to donate because some states pay blood donors. The almighty drink or drug is more important than an innocent life. I hope you never have to see the ravages of full blown AIDS as the person turns into a maniac and tries to bite and claw everyone in sight because their brain is eaten up with the virus. I'll keep anyone I can away from blood. Jehovah knows best, he created us and when he says abstain, he means abstain. I am addressing you as a nurse, not one of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Answer 6

It depends on whether the situation is life threatening. I have no medical degree but if the situation involves any of my children i think as parents we should have enough sense to tell whether the situation needs a professional opinion, not that all medical opinions of doctors with degrees have the right answers for treatment either. Some times they can be very wrong as we read and see on the news.
The percentage either way is the same.

Answer 7

We have lifted doctors up as gods in our society. While it is true that the United States has the best healthcare in the world, there are still mistakes made. Doctors are human and we seem to forget that at times. All that said, I believe that we have a right to use other treatments for our children than what is offered by the medical doctors.

Answer 8

I have only ever seen 1 transfusion reaction in 16 years and that was an easy fix. I have seen many lives saved by blood. Why don't Jehovah's Witnesses take blood over a stupid Bible passage. I am embarassed that Charles Taze Russell is from Pittsburgh. As an adult they can make a decision, but as a child if they need blood they should get it.

Answer 9

Here's another question - should YOU be allowed to interfere with what doctors believe is the best treatment for YOU? Would you want to just go to a doctor, and have absolutely NO say in what they do to you?

Here's another question - if you were a doctor, would you want anyone's life, a child or an adult's to be ENTIRELY up to you? Tricky surgeries that might be a patient's only hope could end badly. If the decision is that of the person or family, they share in the responsibility for the outcome. If it was the sole decision of the doctor, he will open himself (or herself) up to a LOT of blame should something go wrong.

But let's take your question a bit further - should you be allowed to choose how you dicipline your child, or should leading child psychologists make that decision for you? Should you be allowed to choose what your child eats, or should a licensed nutritionist pick out all meals?

You have to draw a line somewhere. If the choice of medical care can be taken away from one group for one reason, then you open the door to taking all decisions away.

I believe it comes down to freedom of choice. As an adult, I have the freedom to choose how I want my life to go. As the guardian of a child, I have the freedom to choose for them, until they are old enough to make their own choises.

Answer 10

I think that parents should have the final say.

In cases that are clearly life-threatening or maiming, doctors should have a fast-track to a court order based on 2 or 3 medical opinions that the child's life is in danger.

Parents almost always rely on doctors, and both almost always want what's best for the kids, but it ain't a perfect system, and in extreme cases, the kids need a legal advocate.

Answer 11

Parents have a right to decide the best medical treatment for their children.

Cost, risk of operation, and quality of care are other factors that a parent considers when deciding appropriate health care for a child.