Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
This whole discussion splits me right down the middle.
On one side, I'm not sure I want to be a society where we force people to subscribe to medical practices they don't believe in or are against. Who are we to decide that a person must be forced to have medical process A performed on them when sure, it may save their life, but that person may struggle with the reason why they lived for the rest of their lives and may not lead a happy life due to that. Regardless of whether the person is Caucasian, Native, Chinese, etc.
But on the other side we have movement likes the anti-vaccine crowd and their claims of what it does to their children, then that jibberish gets spread and people start making poorly informed decisions which affect the well being of their children.
I'd be curious to see what some of you in the "they killed her" camp think about Right To Die laws. To me, it's kind of the same ballpark. How far does a society need to go to ensure people live, if they're having a negative impact on a family unit by forcing someone to live? For sure, the child aspect is different, but the impact on the family can be just as negative.
|
I don't think "Right to die laws" are relevant to this discussion.
We can't compare privlages, responsibilites, and laws that are afforded to/affect adults to this situation.
The relevant thing in this situation is that minors are not able to make these sorts of important decisions, and parents have a duty to care for their children and to not endanger them.
If I'm just straight up stupid and don't think it's necessary for an infant to be bundled up in -30 weather becasue I think crystals will keep them warm am I being a responsible parent? Should I not be forced to bundle up my child because I believe in "Alternative Thermodynamics"?
How is that fundamentally differnet than what is going on here?
The parents had two choices:
1) continue with treatment under the advice of a qualified medical staff who have given your daughter a 75% chance of survival, and with the understanding that the treatment is difficult, and things will likely get worse before they get better, but it is very likely your daughte will survive
2) cease treatment and go see some quack. The consequences being that things will get worse, they will not get better, and your daughter will die
Anyone who choses choice 2 is clearly not making a rational decision. It doesn't matter how strongly you belive in your crystals, by using them to keep your kid warm, or to cure her cancer, you are directly responsible for increasing the danger and harm done to your child.
If we all agree someone shouldn't be able to do things like take an infant out in -30 weather under the belief that cyrstals will keep them warm, why should they be able to use them to cure cancer?