Msnbc poll Should the gov intervene if

[LaurenG]

A child's parents and doctors disagree about treatment?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3080261/

[GreenArrow]

1. the child's parents

get to decide.

[AX10]

2. inclinded to the "no" side

[Ravenseye]

3. Parents without question

They might make a bad decision, but it's their's to make.

Taking it to it's extreme end, the government could come in and say that each child requires an implant with all their data on it that can be tracked from space. A parent should be able to decline that procedure.

Granted the case here involves cancer and chemotherapy, but I dont' care what a doctor says.

The best piece of advice I got as to being a parent is that I'm responsible for my child, so take advice, but i'm responsible for her so the decision is mine to make.

[babylonsister]

4. Keep the gov't out of it! Was nothing learned from Schiavo? nt

[denverbill]

5. Yes.

If the parents are religious quacks who believe feeding their child grass will cure bubonic plague, then by all means.

[seabeyond]

15. what about the parents that have a child

they have loved, taken care of, and raised for twelve years, dying of cancer, have spent a long period of chemo ect.....and are pretty sure it isnt working, but cause the doctor wants to continue the chemo, against the parent and childs wishes that child is taken away from the family, and in the process of dying is living with a foster family.

what about the school that sees my son is extreme add, and though he is being given tools to learn and deal with this behavior the state decides i need to drug him, regardless if i think it is a good idea. and the pharmecutical companies havent done research on the child taking these drugs, not to mention all the other reason to not drug the child. yet, they decide i dont have a say in it, and if i dont give the child the drug he is taken away from me

what about the parent with a 6 year old. being allowed to go across the street, looking both ways. and the parent sees the child didnt look both ways, and it being a big enough deal the parent tells that kid, you didnt look, it is such a to do to look for cars you are getting a spanking. two swats on the butt. and the government decides that child needs to be pulled from the home

getting scary

all three of these are becoming a possiblity

[Horse with no Name]

18. Okay one by one

Scenario #1
Outrageous! This shouldn't happen. The child is terminal. No amount of chemo can help. When my dad had cancer, one day the doctor just told..."Sometimes it's just time to go home and realize that the cancer won". Thus ended treatment. She needs her family.
Scenario #2
I have a child that was diagnosed with ADHD. Very supportive school and administration, doctors, etc.
They modified her studies, gave her compassionate teachers, didn't label her school records as having ADHD.
She was on Ritalin for a year. In that year, was hospitalized twice for dehydration (once on Christmas day).
My decision was to take her off. School was very supportive.
OTOH, I have a friend in a different school district that wasn't supportive. Labelled him ADHD on his school records--poor kid had a tough time. No medications were effective enough. The school wanted him zoned out and they never achieved that. Kid ended up in boot camp at age 12 because the school refused him and the parent had nothing else she could do. With his school records, no other school would take him.
I don't agree with the kids being doped up. I think that there has to be a better way, although I don't know what it is.
Scenario #3
I don't spank my kids. However, some do.
I just think it is too easy to lose control with all of the pressures of parenting and financial and work pressures, etc, and that many can just vet their anger on their child unintentionally.
With that being said, I was spanked as a child. My friends were spanked. Some pediatricians advocate it.
It is a strong enforcer--especially in the event as you described.
I don't think a couple swats on the butt hurt a child, but the problem that I see--again--is the escalation of the couple of swats on the butt that result in a beating.
When my 2-yr old granddaughter does something that could be injurious to her, I swat her hand with 2 fingers and say "No" firmly.
Otherwise, we do time outs.

[Rainbowreflect]

17. I agree that in cases where parents will not get basic care

or allow a blood transfusion the government should step in.
But decisions on how this child's cancer should be treated is up to the child & parent.
I now many smart, educated adults who decided not to have or continue chemo or radiation.

[City Lights]

6. So far, 58% say yes.

:eyes:

[Horse with no Name]

7. It truly depends

IF it is a matter of religious principles--such as giving blood to a Jehovah Witness, antibiotics to a Christian Scientist, etc--then yes, the government needs to step in if it is a matter of life or death with life being lost (that could be saved) as the motivator.
(in several of these instances that I have witnessed--the parents were actually thankful the decision was out of their hands--that way they didn't face excommunication and their child was treated. Not in all instances though.)
IF it is a matter of a difference of opinion on a course of treatment that doesn't create a life or death situation, then the parents should prevail.
IF it is a matter that a child is on life support, clinging to life, then the wishes of the parents should supercede any government or hospital entity. If the parents choose to let a child die or if they choose to let him live--that decision shouldn't be interfered with.

[napi21]

8. absolutely NOT!

There are certain religions who don't believe in medical interference of any kind, and we respect that belief. I don't agree with them, but it's their right.

The Gov't should act with that same respect for parental authority.

[Horse with no Name]

13. You might be surprised to know

that Children's Hospitals face this with regularity.
They have attorneys on staff and judges ready to make these decisions 24/7/365 and a child can be taken into protective custody in a matter of an hour.
The rights of the child always supercede the rights of the parents (in minor children). The parents have chosen the religion. The child has not.
He therefore cannot be bound to die by something that he didn't choose.
Commenting on this case in the OP however, I wouldn't choose radiation for my child in the same circumstance.
This child is 12-years old and old enough to comprehend what is happening to her. She should have a choice. There isn't any indicator to show that if she has radiation treatments she will live and if she doesn't have them she will die.
Purely subjective from the physician's view.
That is not enough in my opinion to force her to do this.

[napi21]

19. Yes, I am surprised by that info. But it sounds like there is a high

loophole in all of this. You say you would not choose radiation for your child and because she is 12 she should have a choice. As I understand it, a child doesn't have a LEGAL say until they are 18, so where do you draw the line? I can see the same staff of attorneys disagree with you, and then what? I still think the final decision should remain with the parents or legal guardian of the minor.

[Horse with no Name]

20. Not in Texas

I don't think any loopholes exist for this.
I said personally I would not choose radiation. Not solely because my child didn't want it, but because there isn't a clear enough link of it's effectiveness in this situation and there are some pretty bad side effects to the treatment. I would weigh the risk to benefits of the procedure.
But then again, because of my experiences, I am not completely sure that I would consent to a liver transplant for my child either, but that is another story.
Children do not have rights to make their decisions, this is true, but they should have their voice heard to those that make decisions that affect them.
If they can testify to a crime in court, their testimony should be crucial in making decisions.
Like I stated, this questioned is multi-faceted. I believe that consideration should be given to the parents where it can, but in the case where their beliefs will harm the child, they have to be overruled, or else have appoint a guardian ad litum for the child.
Removing a sick child from the parents--unless clearly abused--seems too extreme in my opinion.

[Double T]

9. We need to get all of our politicians to stop legislating medical...

treatment. Who the hell do they think they are. Oh, I forgot...God.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. Yes. If it endangers the child.

[tk2kewl]

11. there is way too much gray area for this to be a yes/no question

if its a "we don't believe in medicine" thing then maybe the government should intervene.

if its a "i want my child's last days to be peaceful" thing probably stay the hell away.

that being said there DOES need to be the ability for a court to weigh these issues, hence we need sane judges.

[plcdude]

12. I think that

the needs and health of the child should be the most important criterion for any action to be taken on the child's behalf. If the doctors feel that the parents are not placing the health and well-being of their child first and it can be shown that the treatment is warranted and/or necessary then it is the obligation of the medical profession to seek legal recourse through the judicial system. On the other hand if the medical professionals cannot adequately justify their procedures then the parents should use this system to prevent them from doing so. We are the government and we shall utilize our system of laws to protect the health and well-being of all of us. To pose the survey question as is done here is once again a crude and simplistic slanting of a very complex issue. My response is NO. But it is not about so-called government intervention.

[medeak]

14. alternative medicine

is not quackery. Physicians are educated by the huge pharmaceutical corps.

Am speaking from personal experience. My mom was given 6 months to live.. that was 12 years ago. She sought alternative medicine and declined radiation and chemo as treatment was worse than the disease. Her oncologists can't get over her still being healthy with no reoccurence of cancer.

There was a family in Utah faced with same diliemma... they were forced to move to Idaho. Guess what.. their child is doing fantastic and Utah has conceded they will not take child away.

[Horse with no Name]

16. On further rant--after doing some research on this

Apparently the child was at a hospital in Corpus Christi.
This same hospital affiliate was one where my ex-sister in law was taken several months ago complaining of chest pain.
She was stuck off in a room and nobody did anything.
She came in via ambulance. Protocol would have been for her to be immediately attached to monitors, put on oxygen, etc and assessed immediately.
Her husband was in the room 5 min and then he went to his car.
Took him 10 min to get back.
When he got back, they had just wheeled her to a cardiac room in full cardiac arrest. She was down at least 5 min before anyone checked on her--then took at least 3-4 minutes to get her life support started in another room.
She is now trached and in a chronic vegetative state. IF proper protocol was followed, chances are she would be just fine now.
Okay off rant.
This child is now at a world-renowned cancer center for a second opinion which is what the parents wanted in the first place. I wouldn't take Driscoll's position as being correct either without a second opinion.
I would accept what MDA has to say in this manner as the gold standard.
I hope things work out for this family.