Do Parents Have the Right to Refuse Medical Treatment for Their Kids?

RedBedroom wrote:This is such an impossible topic. The non-treatment issues are usually due to religious beliefs so it sucks because if courts start ruling on this matter, we are going to see terminally ill kids getting chemo and/or radiation in situations, they want to spend their final weeks/months feeling good, and extended family will take that to court. Especially in split families.

Supernova wrote:I can't see one good reason for denying a blood transfusion to a child whose life depends on it. I can't see why any religion would deem that necessary.

CeCe wrote:

But there ARE some religions that do that. Jehovah Witnesses don't allow blood transfusions. Couldn't find any other religion that has the issue with blood although they could be out there. At one time they didn't allow vaccinations either. Then you have other groups of people who believe if "the lord" wants you healed he will do it himself. A lot of craziness out there that's caused the courts to get involved to put a stop to it.

Supernova wrote:But modern medicine isn't always right...

A Florida mom who was forced to remain in a hospital on bed rest has just won a case for pregnant women everywhere.

Pregnant women still have the right to refuse medical treatment, a Florida court of appeals has decided.

Samantha Burton was six months pregnant with what would have been her third child when she went to the doctor complaining of complications to her pregnancy.

The doctor told her she was facing miscarriage if she didn't stay in the hospital on bed rest. When she refused, the Florida State Attorney's office secured a hospitalization order that locked her in the hospital for three days -- when she miscarried anyway.

According to the new court ruling quoted on Tampa Bay Online, "A patient's fundamental constitutional right to refuse medical intervention 'can only be overcome if the state has a compelling state interest great enough to override this constitutional right.'"

In this case, the state failed to prove locking Burton in a hospital was better for her fetus.

The fact is, women when pregnant are still human beings in and of themselves. Being locked up in a hospital is akin to being treated as a caged animal -- and why? Because she was pregnant?

If she'd simply been an adult suffering from cancer, she'd have been allowed to go home and die of her own accord.

Burton made it clear she didn't want an abortion and she sought medical treatment because she didn't want the fetus to die. She wasn't showing a wanton disregard -- anything but.

But when she disagreed with a doctor, she wasn't given the chance to make decisions about her own body.

Burton says she fought this even though her case was technically over because she didn't want other women afraid of seeking prenatal care.

Doctors aren't infallible. Ceding constitutional rights to them sets us out on a dangerous precipice.