Court forcing 16 yr old with cancer into chemo

[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.

[SzczerbiakManiac]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

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.

Sing it brother!
(visible mojo)

[Morrigoon]

I suppose you've got me there, Alex. I do hold some conflicting positions. You could say my 'line' is jagged.

But I think there is a difference between refusing to allow someone to introduce something into their body, and forcing them To introduce something into their body. Refusing to allow entry (eg: drugs) is supporting the body in its "natural" state, versus forcibly introducing something (like chemo) which is forcing a non-naturally occurring disposition. Even if the naturally-occurring one is terminal.

In other words, if they're already dying, not forcing them to live is one thing... taking someone who isn't dying and doing something to them which may kill them is another.

[Morrigoon]

As far as religion is concerned, I think the old adage about everything in moderation holds true. Neither extreme position is ideal. I think the happy middle is that people hold some spiritual beliefs, but that they not be freakazoid about it.

Proselytizers are annoying... whether the religion they're evangelizing is christianity, hare krishna, atheism, or any other form of radical religion.

[Tref]

Originally Posted by Morrigoon

Proselytizers are annoying... whether the religion they're evangelizing is christianity, hare krishna, atheism, or any other form of radical religion.

Unless, of course, they're right about everything, in which case we're all screwed! Just ask Jack Chick! Whoa! Hey!

[tracilicious]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

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.

True that.

As far as the seatbelt/cancer analogy goes, I don't find it incredibly fitting. I'm assuming that with the cancer thing they are researching, thinking, talking to specialists, in general trying extremely hard to make the best choice for their child. With the seatbelt thing they just don't care. I think deliberate intent should count for something.

My line is basically wherever my personal philosophies fall. I'm all for people choosing whatever medical treatment they feel is best, so I would side with the family. My line is wavy and portable.