Should parents be allowed to refuse their kids being medically treated in life/death situations? Like say, a child is determined to have cancer or needs a blood transfusion....but the parents don't believe in common medicine or in transfusions. Should they have the right to refuse treatment if the alternative could very well be fatal?

Nope. That scenario isn't the same as not allowing your child to wear a certain hairstyle or something like that. Life or death situation and you want to refuse medical treatment? Kid should be removed from your custody. The ONLY way I can accept that is if the treatment would make the situation worse or the child sicker and there isn't a chance that he/she would get much better.

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.

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.

They already have ruled on this. Look up the case of 13-year-old Daniel Hauser.

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. Now, I can understand not taking recommended medicines, etc., smaller scale stuff like that, as a kid EVERY medicine I took made me puke, chloraseptic throat spray, children's Tylenol, zinc lozenges, Pepto Bismol, the only things I could take that didn't bother me were Triaminic and Vicks 44D, everything else had me sicker than I already was. And I can also understand not wanting to go through with a certain operation if you have doubts, and getting several more opinions and even seeking out alternative treatments, but to just stand by and do nothing, that I can't see. But modern medicine isn't always right, it's always changing and the people involved don't know everything though they like to try to convince the world that they do and they apparently have the law convinced that they do.

No they don't. Their personal opinions about medicine are their own; they don't have the right to refuse FDA-approved treatments to their children in situations that can mean life or death.

It's a gray situation. On one hand, their child should not be denied treatment that can save their life. But on the other hand, the moment government starts being able to override the medical decisions of the parent, we've reached VERY dangerous territory.

It's one of those situations where the solution to an actual problem might be worse than the problem.

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.

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.

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.

I've known about the Jehovah Witnesses for years, never made any sense. They prohibit blood transfusions because they see it as being just like eating the blood, which makes me wonder what they must think of artificial insemination.

Supernova wrote:

But modern medicine isn't always right...

Boy howdy

Quote :

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.

I think the baby was still born after a Cesarean anyway.

In Life and Death situations absolutely not and I believe the law and CPS can step in and override a parent wanting to stop medical treatment that can save their childs life. They dont got the right to impose their position if it's to the health of the kid!

Shame on any parent who'd put the well being of their kid behind their personal believes.