Healthy infant confiscated from family to be force-medicated by the government

[steveh_131]

I guess this comes down to something rather simple. I want intervention to save the life of a starving child. The opposition is saying, not my kid, not my problem. Let him die. I am confident in the morality of my decision to save a life. The child doesn't want to starve. The child doesn't want to be confined to a wheel chair. The child doesn't want the death sentence of AIDS. No child wants to die. And yet, libertarians wonder why they can't win elections.

If this is your moral imperative, can I safely assume that in the absence of government intervention you would personally break into this woman's home and take her infant from her because she wasn't administering the medications that you think she should?

 

[level.eleven]

If this is your moral imperative, can I safely assume that in the absence of government intervention you would personally break into this woman's home and take her infant from her because she wasn't administering the medications that you think she should?

No, vigilante justice has no legitimacy and is bad for a society. I would work to establish a legal authority with the backing of the rule of law and its subsequent administration. This is a tired libertarian canard used to justify inaction.

 

[tyrajam]

We are all 100% terminal. People die from everything. Influenza kills tens of thousands of people in the USA every year. A cut on your finger can kill you from infection. Death is literally around every corner.

Come on, this is a cop out and you know it. Influenza can kill. An infection can kill. If untreated, AIDS will kill, and in a matter of months. Rambone, I respect your thoughts and I agree with the vast majority of your posts. But it seems like you are projecting this particular circumstance onto other situations that just aren't the same.

EDIT: just had to share. I'm told one wants Rice Krispies and the other wants oatmeal. And guess what: I'm gonna let them have it. Should I expect the knock at the door because I'm using imaginary force to deny them good nutrition by virtue of the fact that I'm providing less-than-ideal nutrition?

Thank you for that wonderful example, because feeding a child something that may have a more nutritious option is the same thing as withholding medication and sentencing your child to certain and immanent death.

Wow. You really are a lib. This government was not created to protect the weak.

I hope you don't believe that you are a conservative because you are not. You are an anarchist stuck in an endless philosophical loop. The one legitimate use of government is to protect the rights of the people, things like the right to life. You cannot choose to withhold all food from a child. You cannot choose to withhold medication from your child when it is the only thing that will keep him alive.

 

[jbombelli]

I love how some of you are saying that I should subject my kids to the whims of the state and "modern medicine" when thousands upon thousands of people every year die of complications they would not have been subjected to had they not gone to the doctor or hospital.

It's perfectly alright with you if my kid dies due to some complication from some treatment or other, but not if he dies because I refused to subject him to a potentially lethal vaccine.

There sure are a lot of nanny statists around here who think they get to decide what's best, and be held harmless when their decisions result in the deaths of others.

 

[Survivalcookie]

Wow. guess many of you have not been around a preschooler in a while...kids fall and skin their knees, their hands this produces blood, kids lose teeth and bleed they have runny noses, they wipe their noses with their hands and ply on...I am not sure but I would think it would be in snot.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Under the law, there are categories of consent. Informed consent is the gold standard, wherein a responsible party chooses for him/herself what treatments s/he wishes to receive. Implied consent follows that, and is used (for example) if a child is allowed to go to the park before Mom gets home, falls and hurts himself, and no parent can be quickly located to give permission to take him to the ER. I can, in that circumstance, take the child to the ER. We'll worry about locating the parent later, but for the moment, it's implied that the reasonable, prudent person would want his/her injured child to receive care.

Should this child have been taken from his home and forced to receive treatment determined by others? I have to say no, he should not. It is the parents' choice. Don't like that? Change the law. While you're at it, better take a look at the Constitution, because that's the source of that law. Case in point: A child has been bit by a rattlesnake. Because of a delay getting him to care and because rattlesnake venom is hemolytic (destroys blood cells), the treatment requires the administration of a unit of packed red blood cells (PRBC). Most of you see where this is going: The child has been raised by parents who are Jehovah's Witness, or some other faith that does not permit the administration of blood products.
Should the state take custody of the child and force him to receive a treatment that his religious belief tells him will condemn his soul to Hell for all eternity, to satisfy the consciences of people who believe differently?
What of the Jewish child who must take insulin? Not so much today, but at one time, the only available preparation of insulin was from a porcine source. Granted, he would not be eating it, but still putting it in his body. (And yes, I'm aware that Judaism does have some pretty solid exceptions for such necessities, but consider the situation, not the exceptions, please)
I'm not aware of any forbidden substances in Christianity, and this is not a religious discussion anyway, but I make that point only to say that the large majority here do not have any concept of the importance of such prohibitions to an observant person.

The question is, "Why is the parents' shared opinion acceptable to the law when the basis is a belief that cannot be proven but unacceptable when they have solid, demonstrable, evidentiary facts to explain their decision?" ETA: And a more significant question: Why do the parents have to justify and explain their decision to anyone else in the first place?

The examples of intentional abuse and intentional denial of sustenance are red herrings and straw men. These parents were not abusing their child. As others have said, emotionally, I feel for the child who suffers in the situations described. We, however, are a nation of laws, not of men, and I cannot condone the use of governmental force to deny parental rights solely because some jackwagon in a white coat, blue uniform, or a black robe doesn't like the parents' decisions.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[CTS]

Bill,

On the grounds of not taking the AZT, I agree this child should not have been removed. However if their stated reasoning had been the mothers insistence on breastfeeding the child, I would support it. There's a vast chasm between making a choice on medical treatment and intentionally exposing the child to another source of HIV infection when he may potentially not already have it (infant tests are not considered accurate).

 

[rambone]

Come on, this is a cop out and you know it. Influenza can kill. An infection can kill. If untreated, AIDS will kill, and in a matter of months. Rambone, I respect your thoughts and I agree with the vast majority of your posts. But it seems like you are projecting this particular circumstance onto other situations that just aren't the same.

Not so fast... We only need to look to the child's mother to show a case for not going the mainstream route. She was in the identical situation as a child and the drugs were killing her.

The argument boils down to a numbers game. What you are advocating is that parental decisions be based on statistics of survival. As long as you always do everything the mainstream, corporate/government-sanctioned way, you will be happy. Do something alternative, lose your family.

I don't think statistical acrobatics or majority rule are good enough standards to tell families how to live.

 

[Kraor]

Bill, you hit it right on the head.. Amen.

 

[level.eleven]

Courts have made the JW moot dating back to the 1950s. One reached the Supreme Court.

“the right to practice religion freely does not include liberty to expose…the child…to ill health or death"

The majority (with the exception of one) of subsequent cases have maintained the trend, reiterating the views of earlier cases and emphasising three main points:

• The child’s interests and those of the state outweigh parental rights to refuse medical treatmen
• Parental rights do not give parents life and death authority over their children
• Parents do not have an absolute right to refuse medical treatment for their children based on their religious beliefs.

1000's of lifesaving interventions are done every year in the country.

Justifying compulsory blood transfusion based on four points—(1) minimal danger, (2) treatment efficacy, (3) lack of alternative treatments, and (4) based on religious beliefs—adults cannot choose to be responsible for the death of their children and, declaring no interest in Biblical interpretation, the court stated clearly that, if parental religious beliefs placed a child’s life in danger then the state could intervene to protect the child.

Children of Jehovah

Sorry folks, you can't kill your kids through inaction. When choosing sides of your ideology vs. a dead kid, society has chosen life. Rightly so.

 

[rambone]

Lindsey's dad said that he'd rather see his baby daughter live naturally for 3 happy years than for 6 miserable years on toxic drugs. Think about that. That's a powerful statement, and I'm sure it weighed heavily on him.

Some people would prefer that his home was SWAT-teamed, his family destroyed, and the parents sent to prison. Because not following your doctor's advice is tantamount to child abuse.

This treatment has a lot of similarities to chemotherapy. I've seen people dying of chemo treatments; an excruciating , miserable death. They pass away in complete agony and with ZERO quality of life. It leaves you wondering, how many years could this person have lived without poisoning themselves? Could their last time on earth be better spend doing something other than laying in bed and vomiting up their food?

Not only do I sympathize with this family in their decision to decline the drugs, I would most likely make the same decisions. Compassion is more than artificially extending every person's life, regardless of the side-effects and consequences.

 

[steveh_131]

No, vigilante justice has no legitimacy and is bad for a society. I would work to establish a legal authority with the backing of the rule of law and its subsequent administration. This is a tired libertarian canard used to justify inaction.

Would you draw your gun to protect that child if you saw a parent getting ready to chop his head off? I would hope so. I would.

Yet you aren't ready to accept this sort of responsibility. The responsibility of saying "I know better than you how to care for your child. I am equating your medical choices with murder, and I am willing to escalate force up to and including killing you to prevent that". Asking the government to do so is no different than doing it yourself.

Asking the government to use this sort of force is not morally distinct from doing it yourself.

 

[steveh_131]

Sorry folks, you can't kill your kids through inaction. When choosing sides of your ideology vs. a dead kid, society has chosen life. Rightly so.

Real life example.

My daughter stopped breastfeeding at a few weeks of age. She developed GERD. She threw up everything she ate. She was losing weight and dying.

Our pediatrician loaded her up with meds. Meds that honestly made her worse, yet he refused to change them. He recommended a formula, one for very sensitive stomachs. It was basically partially digested cow milk with a bunch of added corn syrup. Awesome. Oh, and he told us to give her prilosec.

"What dosage," we asked?

"Oh, I don't know. Maybe half a pill."

One pill is an adult dose. Half a pill for a 9lb infant? Is this guy serious? Didn't check a book, didn't go by her weight.

She's still dying. His next recommendation? Another med that is known to cause permanent neurological damage. Ok.

She's still dying. Final recommendation? Put this additive in her formula. I spend a fortune on it, look at the ingredients, and guess what it is? Corn syrup.

F this guy. We did our own research. Stopped these awful meds. Her symptoms mimicked a cow milk allergy. So we tried some goat milk. Better, but not great. Switched to raw goat milk. She's 2 now. Didn't start growing hair until 18 months, but severe malnourishment will do that.

We went against these doctor's orders. We of course lied to him and told him we did what he wanted. If we hadn't, I am fairly certain he would have reported us and tried to have our child taken. And she could very well be dead now if he had. He was killing her. And he is one of the top rated pediatricians in this area.

But that's ok with you, right? You think it's A-OK to send government agents into my home to abduct and ultimately kill my child, because I'm not following the guidelines of modern medicine?

That is messed up, man.

 

[jbombelli]

Real life example.

My daughter stopped breastfeeding at a few weeks of age. She developed GERD. She threw up everything she ate. She was losing weight and dying.

Our pediatrician loaded her up with meds. Meds that honestly made her worse, yet he refused to change them. He recommended a formula, one for very sensitive stomachs. It was basically partially digested cow milk with a bunch of added corn syrup. Awesome. Oh, and he told us to give her prilosec.

"What dosage," we asked?

"Oh, I don't know. Maybe half a pill."

One pill is an adult dose. Half a pill for a 9lb infant? Is this guy serious? Didn't check a book, didn't go by her weight.

She's still dying. His next recommendation? Another med that is known to cause permanent neurological damage. Ok.

She's still dying. Final recommendation? Put this additive in her formula. I spend a fortune on it, look at the ingredients, and guess what it is? Corn syrup.

F this guy. We did our own research. Stopped these awful meds. Her symptoms mimicked a cow milk allergy. So we tried some goat milk. Better, but not great. Switched to raw goat milk. She's 2 now. Didn't start growing hair until 18 months, but severe malnourishment will do that.

We went against these doctor's orders. We of course lied to him and told him we did what he wanted. If we hadn't, I am fairly certain he would have reported us and tried to have our child taken. And she could very well be dead now if he had. He was killing her. And he is one of the top rated pediatricians in this area.

But that's ok with you, right? You think it's A-OK to send government agents into my home to abduct and ultimately kill my child, because I'm not following the guidelines of modern medicine?

That is messed up, man.

Come on. He knows better than you. Just ask him.

 

[level.eleven]

Would you draw your gun to protect that child if you saw a parent getting ready to chop his head off? I would hope so. I would.

Yet you aren't ready to accept this sort of responsibility. The responsibility of saying "I know better than you how to care for your child. I am equating your medical choices with murder, and I am willing to escalate force up to and including killing you to prevent that". Asking the government to do so is no different than doing it yourself.

Asking the government to use this sort of force is not morally distinct from doing it yourself.

You just repeated the tired, anarchist canard you stated earlier. If you can't differentiate between the United States' system of jurisprudence (fair trial, checks and balances, case law, centuries of legal theory, legal protections afforded to the accused, etc.) and vigilantism, we are probably at an impasse. Even Superman turned the bad guys over to the cops.

 

[level.eleven]

Real life example.

My daughter stopped breastfeeding at a few weeks of age. She developed GERD. She threw up everything she ate. She was losing weight and dying.

Our pediatrician loaded her up with meds. Meds that honestly made her worse, yet he refused to change them. He recommended a formula, one for very sensitive stomachs. It was basically partially digested cow milk with a bunch of added corn syrup. Awesome. Oh, and he told us to give her prilosec.

"What dosage," we asked?

"Oh, I don't know. Maybe half a pill."

One pill is an adult dose. Half a pill for a 9lb infant? Is this guy serious? Didn't check a book, didn't go by her weight.

She's still dying. His next recommendation? Another med that is known to cause permanent neurological damage. Ok.

She's still dying. Final recommendation? Put this additive in her formula. I spend a fortune on it, look at the ingredients, and guess what it is? Corn syrup.

F this guy. We did our own research. Stopped these awful meds. Her symptoms mimicked a cow milk allergy. So we tried some goat milk. Better, but not great. Switched to raw goat milk. She's 2 now. Didn't start growing hair until 18 months, but severe malnourishment will do that.

We went against these doctor's orders. We of course lied to him and told him we did what he wanted. If we hadn't, I am fairly certain he would have reported us and tried to have our child taken. And she could very well be dead now if he had. He was killing her. And he is one of the top rated pediatricians in this area.

But that's ok with you, right? You think it's A-OK to send government agents into my home to abduct and ultimately kill my child, because I'm not following the guidelines of modern medicine?

That is messed up, man.

Nothing wrong here. You administered care to the child. It also sounds like you need a new doctor.

Should I tell an equally emotional story were medicine saved the life of a child? Somehow this situation morphed into you have to everything your doctor tells you while the crux remains neglect, or the lack of any care given at all.

 

[steveh_131]

Nothing wrong here. You administered care to the child. It also sounds like you need a new doctor.

Should I tell an equally emotional story were medicine saved the life of a child?

The mother in this very story was doing exactly what I did. Disregarded the advice of 'modern medicine' that she disagreed with and that her experience had shown was wrong.

Yet you support her child being ripped from her arms and nearly killed, but not mine?

 

[steveh_131]

You just repeated the tired, anarchist canard you stated earlier. If you can't differentiate between the United States' system of jurisprudence (fair trial, checks and balances, case law, centuries of legal theory, legal protections afforded to the accused, etc.) and vigilantism, we are probably at an impasse. Even Superman turned the bad guys over to the cops.

That is a difference in method. Not in morality.

Either way, it comes down to a man with a gun taking her child from her. Whether it's you personally doing it or asking government agents to do it makes no difference from the perspective of morality. Am I less guilty of murder, morally, if I hire an assassin or kill the person myself? No.

If you're not morally willing to be the man pointing the gun, then you have no business asking others to do it for you.

 

[Zoub]

F this guy. We did our own research. Stopped these awful meds.

For the Non-parents in this thread it is impossible for you to fully get what Steve wrote here.

You see, he is a Father of an infant and he is saying the Doctor, probably a pediatric specialist too, is not treating his daughter properly. He is NOT curing her. He tried to work with this Doctor but eventually logic wins out and you come to the conclusion that this Doctor is failing at his job.

This is no easy conclusion to arrive at but when you do it will change you. Not every parent even gets to experience this level of failure. I suggest you listen to the ones who have BTDT.

It is very easy to say to friends and family, after they bury my body, sue the crap out of all of them but no one takes my kid while I am here. Seriously, coming to that conclusion is very easy.

After 9/11 or even a local bank robbery when the school will not release your child to you, it is very easy.

When you have watched your own child on a breathing tube, it is very easy.

A Mother makes life and the Govt. decides to take it away and own "it" for its own benefit. The Govt does not see it as a child they see it as a control issue over the parents. It is not a child, just a vector of a virus. The kid was not dying from anything, just a carrier of a virus. The parents were not giving up on the child, just exploring their options. Oops, they don't get to have any options, not even with their own child. If being born with a virus is all it takes, we are all in trouble.

Break out the wrist bands and yellow stars.

 

[level.eleven]

The mother in this very story was doing exactly what I did. Disregarded the advice of 'modern medicine' that she disagreed with and that her experience had shown was wrong.

Yet you support her child being ripped from her arms and nearly killed, but not mine?

Not quite. Each case need be handled differently. That is why we have a system of jurisprudence were each side get to state their case. Had you done nothing, and at two years you weren't able to show weight gain, then your cases may be more similar. This baby was born with a treatable, curable actually, disease and denied treatment with the alternative being ride it out - do nothing, more similar to the transfusion case than yours.