[thoughtomator]

So... medical care is compulsory now? For whatever the doctor orders?

Frightening. Chemotherapy is no joke - it destroys people. In the future we will look upon it with horror at the barbarity of the procedure.

Only the parents should have the legal right to make this decision. A doctor or a government agent should not be able to dictate to a person what treatments they will undergo.

[John Farson]

J.S. Mill jumped the shark from classical liberalism to modern liberalism.

[mlmr]

Eighteen more had expected survival rates of greater than 50 percent. All but three of the remainder would likely have had some benefit from clinical help." Prayer and medication often work better than prayer alone.


Remember folks.... survival rate means that there is breathing and a heartbeat.... severe brain damage or huge amounts of painful proceedures followd by increasing incapacity are not factored in. An Amish family I was aware of lost custody of their infant for experimatnal chemo purposes. The child had a always fatal cancer and the hospical wanted to prolong the poor souls life at great phycical costs. The parents preference was to take the child home and care for it until death. There are many of us who believe that we are to live as long as we are given but that we are not to fear death for it is just a prelude.

[ravinson]

I refer to myself as a "responsible libertarian" because I believe that absolute individual responsibility is the foundation of libertarianism and what makes it a superior political philosophy. Children are the products of their parents and so outsiders (eg. the state) have no justifiable reason for imposing their will on the children of others.

There are strategies available other than the use of force that can be employed to try to persuade parents to make different choices for their children, and force is almost always ineffective in dealing with people who make questionable parenting decisions anyway. If you accept the proposition that the government has a right to make any particular parenting decision, then you are giving them jusitfication for making all parenting decisions, because the phrase "in the best interests of the child" can mean anything the government wants it to mean from time to time to suit their purposes.

[TennesseeProfessor]

I'm astounded that this topic would be considered worthy of debate. Let me summarize the issue:

A child has been treated for cancer, but there is a high chance that without furthut treatment the cancer will return; the resurgance could even be fatal. On the other hand, chemotheropy has very severe side effects, and could permanently stunt the childs growth. If the child is too young to decide whether the risks are too high, who can act on the child's behalf?

1. The family
2. The government

If that was too hard for you, try an easier problem:

A very poor family can not afford to move out of the high-crime area they currently live in. They have decided that, instead of working two jobs to afford a more expensive home, they will home-school their child so that he or she will have a good chance at a college scholarship and a better life. Neither of them have any sort of teaching certification. The government points out that it has a foster home in a very safe neighborhood, where "trained professionals" will educate the children. Who gets to decide whether the child remains with his or her parents or goes to the institution?

1. The family
2. The govenment

[Snuffington]

Mill follows this by then advocating universal state mandated education. Surely, Mill would regard proper medical care as even more important to the welfare of a child than education. As much as it pains me to say so, Mill is probably right.

Hoo--ahh! I wondered when I would see a libertarian reach this logical conclusion. And here it is.

First of all the caveats... Yes I realize there are libertarians with a sufficient moral core they would avoid this error. Yes I realize this is not a consensus opionion among libertarians, and this author's conclusion can't be assumed to be held by all who call themselves libertarians. Yes I realize there are other ideologies even more prone to this sort of thing.

That being said...

Oh heck.. it will have to wait. Brief version: pure libertarianism must lead this direction. Why? Because it is based on the individual. Back later to fill in more.

[nmh]

"Secular humanist William Harwood makes an interesting point about equality before the law in Free Inquiry: "Since killing children by substituting prayer for necessary medical procedures is a criminal offense for Catholics, that makes it a criminal offense for Christian Scientists and Jehovah's Witnesses as well." "

Sometimes I have to do more than roll my eyes at ridiculous statements based on ignorance by choice.

If it is an offense to a Catholic that does NOT mean it HAS to be an offense to a Christian Scientist r a Jehovah's Witness SINCE their beliefs are DIFFERENT.

[nmh]

"Secular humanist William Harwood makes an interesting point about equality before the law in Free Inquiry: "Since killing children by substituting prayer for necessary medical procedures is a criminal offense for Catholics, that makes it a criminal offense for Christian Scientists and Jehovah's Witnesses as well." "

Sometimes I have to do more than roll my eyes at ridiculous statements based on ignorance by choice.

If it is an offense to a Catholic that does NOT mean it HAS to be an offense to a Christian Scientist r a Jehovah's Witness SINCE their beliefs are DIFFERENT. They don't ALL look to the Bible for their beliefs.

I say this secular humanist is an ass. Furthermore his uninteresting statement proves he doesn't think.

[nmh]

Taking the parents to court is a tragedy here. All the controversy is based on another fallible mortals OPINION. They are OFTEN wrong.

[secretagent]

later read

[StriperSniper]

BTTT