What medical decisions should the government to dictate (i.e., remove your ability to choose)?

Answer 1

Tough call. All medical decisions should be made after appropriate counseling. I would be okay with the government intervening in the case of someone incapable of making the decision themself, or if a child was in danger (i.e. taking medical custody).

In a way, I think that would extend to abortion. In general, I'm okay with abortion, but I am not totally decided on the issue. So I'm not sure what I feel about the government's role in that.

Euthanasia should be up to the individual in the case of life threatening illness, though again, there should be counseling. I can understand the government putting some restrictions on that.

Addition:
Some other good points above - I'd like for the government to regulate medical procedures and drugs for our own safety.

Answer 2

I do not think the government has the right to dictate any medical decisions; it seems to have a hard enough time doing it's own proper job.

Any medical decisions should be made by the patient, the spouse or partner, family in the absence of the patients ability or no spouse/partner and the doctors involved with the patient care. Let the doctors do their job without bureaucratic interference.

Answer 3

Interesting question. If the Government decided to dictate that a medical procedure take place pre birth that would eradicate homosexuality, would the Christian population think that it was a good thing? If the right to 'choose' a lifestyle is an important thing to Christians, why do they fight so vehamently againts those that choose a different path.

What about the Abortion issue. If the government could change genes such that abortion would become as abhorrent as it is to Christians, to everybody, would the procedure justify the result?

Answer 4

I think it should only govern in two areas. one to curtail the obesity and uglyness epidemic (mandatory lipo and plastic surgery for ugly and fat people) and 2, most importantly,

When that decision is not a decision about your OWN health care, but that of your child's.

if you as a parent, are the custodial parent, guardian or decision maker for a minor, then the government needs to step in to dictate what is a reasonable course of treatment if you as a parent/guardian are not going to make that decision on your own or refuse to provide them acess to such treatment.

This is not a question of infringing on your own situation, but on that of a child who cannot make thier own medical decisions as they likely aren't emancipated from thier parents yet. Even a 17 year old, is likely to have never been exposed to the real world so if a parent choses to because of religion or any other reason, withold medical treament up to an objective standard of what should be done (obviously you can't force them to fly to chicago for an experimental cancer treatment) they should be held for MURDER 2 (reckless endangerment) NOT negligent homicide if they refuse that course of treatment, and if caught beforehand, the state should step in and be able to terminate thier parental rights in the best interests of a child just as if they would if the child was neglected due to living in a drug home.

A situation like that where a parent will on thier own beliefs (which the child is often brainwashed into thinking at an early age) withold medical attention thus creating an unsafe home for a child just as if there were arms and drug dealers going in and out of the house and mommy and daddy were meth heads.

Answer 5

The government regulates and dictates nearly all of your medical decisions as it must approve the choice before it is offered (the FDA). I cannot choose to have my brain removed as it is not an FDA approved procedure, no hospital will do it. We appoint the government to convene a commitee of medical professionals so that we don't all need to get an MD in order to make decisions about our health care.

Answer 6

All medical practices are regulated by the goverment in one way or another. Even wheelchairs must be approved by the FDA. Nor can I go to a doctor and ask to have my foot amputated if there is no warrant for the procedure.

There is an interesting case where people with a specific mental illness believe one or more limbs do not belong on their body. Many of these people tried to amputate it themselves when doctors refused. Now, some doctors are attempting to relieve them of this odd burden and getting in trouble for it.

On another note, in some cases your insurance company dictates how medical decisions are made even more than you or your doctor (that is unless you pay for it out of pocket).

Answer 7

None. There is no warrant under the Constitution for the Federal government to any involvement in medical affairs. Most state government constitutions have similar provisions.

Answer 8

Absolutely none! In a perfect world, the best care and treatment that will produce the best possible outcome should be available to all, regardless of age and financial status! Remember all those who serve as Senators or congressmen, and any other high ranking govt. official is garanteed the best! For life!

No one should be able to sit at a desk and decide who is worthy and who is not!

Answer 9

NONE! the government should have no say in what i do to my own body. let's say the government stepped in and said my epilepsy wasn't severe enough for meds?? yeah, no way man! they were not set up to govern the people in that manner.old georgie would roll over in his grave!!!

Answer 10

None. The government is there to represent us. It does not have the moral right to make choices for anyone, or deny anyone's free will.