Parental rights versus the State
wbbanjo at YAHOO.COM
Thu May 21 14:04:53 MDT 2009
Some of your propositions would fit well with the UN Charter on the rights of the child. I would oppose that charter and favor the parents as the decision makers for their children in matters of health, education, and welfare.
The authority in this case should not rest on percentage or chances of survival. It should rest on parental rights and a constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion, even if the exercise of those rights and freedoms fail to produce what the medical establishment would judge to be a "healing." Much of "accepted" medical practice, itself, is really rather hit and miss. If doctors set bones and perform necessary surgical procedures, they tend to do pretty well. But in other areas, they are often "practicing." With doctor error being one of the top three (or thereabouts) causes of death in the USA, the medical practitioners are hardly the bastion of science some may claim them to be. Furthermore, "what is best for the child" is a culturally subjective platitude, which can be and is distorted to support arguments that serve the interests of fashionable group thinkers or power grabbers. I support the parents and their
decisions for their child over the state, which will use anything, especially so-called science, as a club to mandate and to enforce its will.
The last thing I would wish on anyone is to fall under the spell of the government, which is all too willing to require citizens to give up their free will and their rights as parents to the nanny state. As I recall, the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany invoked the name of science to carry out some of their ghastly programs. In our time we have seen that doing something "for the children" is all too often a sentimental argument masking a sinister intent to garner power over citizens. For better or worse, the parents' authority and their freedom of religion should trump the mandates of the government and the wishes of the highly mythologized medical establishment. I know parents in the USA have sometimes lost this philosophical battle in the activist courts, but this is wrong; it leads to cultural decline; and should be opposed by those who hold freedom to be precious.
--- On Thu, 5/21/09, Jack Tomsky <jtomsky at IX.NETCOM.COM> wrote:
From: Jack Tomsky <jtomsky at IX.NETCOM.COM>
Subject: Re: Parental rights versus the State
To: RUSHTALK at CSDCO.COM
Date: Thursday, May 21, 2009, 11:38 AM
This is a case of life or death. While medical miracles sometimes happen and nature heals itself - in the majority of cases this is not true. This child has a chance for life with professional medical help vs homeopathic treatment - which can be hit or miss. It is not so much the parental rights but what is best for the child. The more scientific treatment has the better percentage chance of succeeding.
Meanwhile the parents are wasting time in getting him that treatment and risking his life, because of their religious beliefs. The cancer is is growing and may be spreading to the point where it is too late to really save him. Saving a life is sometimes more important than religion. You want to save your child not risk his life with an unproven treatment. This is not facing reality. What rights does the child have to understand the difference and make some kind of choice? It is the child's life at risk and he seems old enough to have a voice. He needs to learn not merely from his parents with religious bias and emotional hysteria, but from the scientific community, as to the truth of the problem. He needs to know what is happening to him and the odds of success of each treatment - established science and homeopathic.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Rushtalk