Court forcing 16 yr old with cancer into chemo

[Alex]

So, in this case, if you were a judge asked to intercede one way or the other, which way would you go?

[blueerica]

I'm torn.

I'll have to deliberate.

[tracilicious]

I would allow the treatment, were I the judge in question. I think health care decisions should be left up to the family.

[Alex]

So no line for you? There is no decision making by the parents that could be so bad that government should intervene?

[Stan4dSteph]

I would say that the kid should stick with the chemo if I were the judge. As blueerica said, it's a fine line, but in this case I would have sided with the proven treatment versus the unproven, given that the decision was not based on any personal belief system.

[Morrigoon]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

So no line for you? There is no decision making by the parents that could be so bad that government should intervene?

Slippery slope right there. Freedom to make your own decisions means being free to make what others perceive as the "wrong" decision. Telling people they're free only to make the government-perceived "right" decision isn't freedom at all.

Yes, some people do make horrible horrible choices. Yes, as parents that negatively affects another human being. But without the freedom to take risks and be innovative, we cannot advance. If someone believes there's a better way, and they believe it strongly enough that they feel it's worth putting their own child's life on the line (or feel the alternative is so horrible that it's worth the risk), then perhaps we take a chance and allow them to try to be innovative. If they're wrong, they suffer the most, so you have to assume they don't take the decision lightly. If they're right, all of society benefits from advances in treatment.

There are drawbacks on either side of the argument, and it's true most people are idiots. But I'd rather be a free idiot making my own decisions than a cared-for automaton living under Big Brother's watchful eye.

[innerSpaceman]

Originally Posted by The Conscience of the LoT

You must spread some mojo around before giving it to Morrigoon again.

Fine. Public mojo then.

[Alex]

And yet we are a society that does imposes itself on all kinds of personal decisions that don't even involve another human being.

If I can't choose to let my child ride in a car without a seatbelt (thereby increasing the risks of death by .01%) why am I allowed to choose a course of treatment that would (for sake of argument) increase the risk of death by 20%?


I believe, Morrigoon, that you are on record as supporting (despite generally libertarian views) criminalization of certain drugs because the idiot damages are just too high? So it would seem you do have a line where the government steps in to prevent "stupid" decisions.

[Morrigoon]

And yet, I see no problem with legalizing prostitution (though, just to continue my trend of incompatible philosophies, it's partly because by legalizing it, they can set restrictions on how it's done, including mandatory screenings, health coverage provided by the cathouse in question, etc.)

I hardly think that the lasting effects of wearing a seatbelt are even remotely close to the possible lasting effects of having someone inject chemicals into your body. Also, someone not wearing a seatbelt can go flying around a vehicle, injuring other passengers who were smart enough to belt themselves, or hurtling out of a car where they could hit god-knows-who/what. Likewise with certain drugs - if you're doing something which can force its way into my body against my will (such as anything airborne like cigarette smoke or pot), then I'm going to have an issue with that, whereas I have no problem with alcohol being legal, in spite of its history of being abused.

[Alex]

So you do have a line on what choices people are allowed to make without government intervention. That is what I was asking.

If the line is direct impact on others then the decisions of parents would seem to fit that criteria pretty well.

And if over the course of a life not wearing a seatbelt increases the chance of death and injury by 0.1% while over the course of the life of a person with cancer switching to treatment B increases the chances of death and injury by 20% I don't really see where you're making the distinction that one is acceptable and one is not. The risk of death for not wearing a seatbelt is really very small, the risk of death from untreated cancer is really very high.

Also, the argument about the kid being ejected from a car and killing a bystander would the same justification for making it illegal for me to keep my laptop case in the back seat or making cars illegal outright.

And the odds of a alcoholic doing something because of alcohol that directly and negatively impacts me is probably much higher than the odds of the same from a pot user.

My recollection was that you support the criminalization of cocaine and heroin. Is that correct? Those would seem to have very low chance of being forcibly introduced into my body.



As for my views, I'm pretty absolutist on the parental right to make almost any stupid decision on behalf of their minor children (including alternative treatments, not wearing a seatbelt, smoking, playing with guns, etc.).


As far as I'm concerned the most harmful thing you can do to a child short of direct violence is raise them within religion. So if I don't get to outlaw what I think are the stupidest decisions parents could make I don't see why others should get to do theirs.

But for the most part society (and I think most of the people on this board) disagree with me and so I'm just exploring the edges of that.