Forums: Community: The Soap Box:
Government apprehends children, provides medical care...
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for The Soap Box

Premier Sponsor:

 


scrapedape


Jan 31, 2007, 5:49 PM
Post #1 of 20 (757 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 23, 2004
Posts: 2392

Government apprehends children, provides medical care...
Report this Post
Can't Post

... against the wishes of the parents.

It seems to me that the government has a duty to protect these children, if their parents are going to prevent them from receiving necessary care.

Discuss...

In reply to:
The B.C. government got court orders to seize three of the surviving sextuplets born in Vancouver earlier in January and ensure they got blood transfusions if necessary. Two of the sextuplets have already died.

The babies were part of the group of of six born at B.C. Women's Hospital into a family of Jehovah's Witnesses, a religious group that prohibits blood transfusions.

B.C.'s director of child protection sought an order under provincial child-care legislation on Jan. 26 to seize one child for a transfusion....

Two of the babies, who were born prematurely, have already died, says an affidavit filed in court on Tuesday by the babies' father as part of the family's appeal of the transfusion orders.

"[The mother] and I could not bear to be at the hospital when they were violating our little girl," he said in the affidavit....

Tom Christensen, the minister of children and family services, said he would not comment directly on the case, but he explained that the government sometimes has to act.

"So in the event that there is a child that is need of a medical treatment, and it appears that the child is not going to receive that medical treatment because a parent doesn't want the child to, then medical practitioners have an obligation to report that to the ministry.

http://www.cbc.ca/...1/bc-sextuplets.html


reno


Jan 31, 2007, 7:04 PM
Post #2 of 20 (746 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283

Re: [scrapedape] Government apprehends children, provides medical care... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

scrapedape wrote:
... against the wishes of the parents.

It seems to me that the government has a duty to protect these children, if their parents are going to prevent them from receiving necessary care.

Nice sentiment, but when did the government get the right to tell people how they should live?

Slippery slope, that.


Partner philbox
Moderator

Jan 31, 2007, 9:12 PM
Post #3 of 20 (740 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 26, 2002
Posts: 13104

Re: [reno] Government apprehends children, provides medical care... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

reno wrote:
scrapedape wrote:
... against the wishes of the parents.

It seems to me that the government has a duty to protect these children, if their parents are going to prevent them from receiving necessary care.

Nice sentiment, but when did the government get the right to tell people how they should live?

Slippery slope, that.

Ya think, I reckon you got the cart on the wrong end of the horse. This is not about the government telling the parents what to do but rather they are stepping in when the parents neglect to do what is right for the child/ren who in fact cannot speak for it/themself. Now why do they not do this for the unborn one must ask.


snoopy138


Jan 31, 2007, 10:40 PM
Post #4 of 20 (735 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 7, 2004
Posts: 28647

Re: [reno] Government apprehends children, provides medical care... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

reno wrote:
Nice sentiment, but when did the government get the right to tell people how they should live?

The entirety of the criminal law is the government telling the people how they should live.

The government steps in and regulates the parent-child relationship when there is significant abuse by the parents; this seems to be an extension of that idea.

Of course, it can also be framed as the government telling this family that they can't practice their religion. So which takes priority, an absolute freedom of religion or a generally applicable law? If my religion involves sacrificing someone on the first of every month (and even assuming I can prove in court that I absolutely believe I must engage in this behavior or I will suffer eternal damnation), I can look forward to a murder trial in my future.


alexander11


Feb 1, 2007, 3:02 AM
Post #5 of 20 (724 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 5, 2006
Posts: 12

Re: [reno] Government apprehends children, provides medical care... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

reno wrote:
scrapedape wrote:
... against the wishes of the parents.

It seems to me that the government has a duty to protect these children, if their parents are going to prevent them from receiving necessary care.

Nice sentiment, but when did the government get the right to tell people how they should live?

Slippery slope, that.

I did not know you knew about the Canadian Goverment and its Laws.


justroberto


Feb 1, 2007, 6:51 AM
Post #6 of 20 (715 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 21, 2006
Posts: 1876

Re: [snoopy138] Government apprehends children, provides medical care... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

snoopy138 wrote:
Of course, it can also be framed as the government telling this family that they can't practice their religion. So which takes priority, an absolute freedom of religion or a generally applicable law?
don't know about canada, but this was already dealt with in the 1800's with the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act and the Edmunds Act.


Partner j_ung


Feb 1, 2007, 8:38 AM
Post #7 of 20 (709 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18687

Re: [alexander11] Government apprehends children, provides medical care... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Huh? Where did reno mention anything at all about Canadian law? Without commenting on this case specifically, I agree with him. This is indeed a slippery slope.

And to comment specifically on this case, put in the position of the Minister of Children, I'm really not sure what I would decide, however, I think I lean toward doing what he did.


snoopy138


Feb 1, 2007, 8:58 AM
Post #8 of 20 (707 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 7, 2004
Posts: 28647

Re: [justroberto] Government apprehends children, provides medical care... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

justroberto wrote:
snoopy138 wrote:
Of course, it can also be framed as the government telling this family that they can't practice their religion. So which takes priority, an absolute freedom of religion or a generally applicable law?
don't know about canada, but this was already dealt with in the 1800's with the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act and the Edmunds Act.

Oh, I'm well aware of how US law deals with the problem, though to say it was resolved in the 1800s isn't completely accurate. Questions of this nature have come to the Supreme Court fairly recently.


justroberto


Feb 1, 2007, 9:16 AM
Post #9 of 20 (704 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 21, 2006
Posts: 1876

Re: [snoopy138] Government apprehends children, provides medical care... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

it really is a slippery slope. imagine how bad on your conscience it must be to be a supreme court judge in the us. restrict more rights, save a life/ uphold individaul rights, lose a life. tough/rough call. maybe the minister should just invite the parents over for a nice dinner and convo and then shake the hell out of them until they relent. it just makes me glad my mom isn't a JW. without a blood transfusion 3/5 of my immediate family wouldn't be alive right now...


reno


Feb 1, 2007, 9:50 AM
Post #10 of 20 (697 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283

Re: [alexander11] Government apprehends children, provides medical care... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

alexander11 wrote:
reno wrote:
scrapedape wrote:
... against the wishes of the parents.

It seems to me that the government has a duty to protect these children, if their parents are going to prevent them from receiving necessary care.

Nice sentiment, but when did the government get the right to tell people how they should live?

Slippery slope, that.

I did not know you knew about the Canadian Goverment and its Laws.

I don't profess to know all of the laws in Canada, true. There are only so many hours in the day to read, sadly, so I must draw lines somewhere.

In that spirit, please share with me the law that gives the Canadian Government the power to supersede a family's religious beliefs. I'd like to read that.


blondgecko
Moderator

Feb 1, 2007, 1:36 PM
Post #11 of 20 (682 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666

Re: [reno] Government apprehends children, provides medical care... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

In a similar vein,

Muslim urged to shun 'unholy' vaccines.

In reply to:
A MUSLIM doctors’ leader has provoked an outcry by urging British Muslims not to vaccinate their children against diseases such as measles, mumps and rubella because it is “un-Islamic”.

Dr Abdul Majid Katme, head of the Islamic Medical Association, is telling Muslims that almost all vaccines contain products derived from animal and human tissue, which make them “haram”, or unlawful for Muslims to take.

Mad


reno


Feb 1, 2007, 1:41 PM
Post #12 of 20 (681 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283

Re: [blondgecko] Government apprehends children, provides medical care... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

blondgecko wrote:
In a similar vein,

Muslim urged to shun 'unholy' vaccines.

In reply to:
A MUSLIM doctors’ leader has provoked an outcry by urging British Muslims not to vaccinate their children against diseases such as measles, mumps and rubella because it is “un-Islamic”.

Dr Abdul Majid Katme, head of the Islamic Medical Association, is telling Muslims that almost all vaccines contain products derived from animal and human tissue, which make them “haram”, or unlawful for Muslims to take.

Shouldn't the government then intervene and force the children of these Muslims to be vaccinated?

Vaccines prevent life-threatening disease.... doesn't the same principle apply as the original case in this thread?

What if the life threatening condition were, say, diabetes, and the only treatment possible was Novalin Insulin (derived from porcine cells.) What then?


blondgecko
Moderator

Feb 1, 2007, 1:53 PM
Post #13 of 20 (677 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666

Re: [reno] Government apprehends children, provides medical care... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

reno wrote:
blondgecko wrote:
In a similar vein,

Muslim urged to shun 'unholy' vaccines.

In reply to:
A MUSLIM doctors’ leader has provoked an outcry by urging British Muslims not to vaccinate their children against diseases such as measles, mumps and rubella because it is “un-Islamic”.

Dr Abdul Majid Katme, head of the Islamic Medical Association, is telling Muslims that almost all vaccines contain products derived from animal and human tissue, which make them “haram”, or unlawful for Muslims to take.

Shouldn't the government then intervene and force the children of these Muslims to be vaccinated?

Vaccines prevent life-threatening disease.... doesn't the same principle apply as the original case in this thread?

What if the life threatening condition were, say, diabetes, and the only treatment possible was Novalin Insulin (derived from porcine cells.) What then?

Personally, I think governments should definitely intervene and force vaccination against life-threatening diseases, since this is not just a question of the safety of the children, but of society as a whole. Vaccines don't "take" in some cases, and there are others who can't be vaccinated for medical reasons. These people are only protected by herd immunity - the fact that there are too few susceptible hosts for the viruses to be able to spread through the population. Drop the vaccination rate below around 90%, and that all changes.

As for diabetes, you'd first have to tell me why rhInsulin (produced in e. coli) wouldn't work. Tongue


reno


Feb 1, 2007, 3:37 PM
Post #14 of 20 (669 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283

Re: [blondgecko] Government apprehends children, provides medical care... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

blondgecko wrote:
As for diabetes, you'd first have to tell me why rhInsulin (produced in e. coli) wouldn't work.

Good point, and one I can't fully answer. From my limited understanding of endocrinology, some folks respond better to certain types of insulin, and not so well to others. Short acting, long acting... short onset, long onset.... Lots of variety. Diabetes is one of those tricky diseases where no single therapy works best for everyone. Some diabetics don't even need insulin, but rather can control it with a once-daily pill.

I think there's also a cost issue.... Humalin might cost more than NPH. Could be wrong on this... haven't checked prices for each, nor do I care to. But if so, it could be a factor.

All of which, of course, gets away from the primary point: Where do we draw the line in such medical and public health ethics issues?

Edit: Post above referenced Novolin. I was thinking of NPH. My mistake.


(This post was edited by reno on Feb 1, 2007, 3:43 PM)


slablizard


Feb 1, 2007, 4:10 PM
Post #15 of 20 (664 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 13, 2003
Posts: 5558

Re: [scrapedape] Government apprehends children, provides medical care... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

scrapedape wrote:
... against the wishes of the parents.

It seems to me that the government has a duty to protect these children, if their parents are going to prevent them from receiving necessary care.

Discuss...

In reply to:
The B.C. government got court orders to seize three of the surviving sextuplets born in Vancouver earlier in January and ensure they got blood transfusions if necessary. Two of the sextuplets have already died.

The babies were part of the group of of six born at B.C. Women's Hospital into a family of Jehovah's Witnesses, a religious group that prohibits blood transfusions.

B.C.'s director of child protection sought an order under provincial child-care legislation on Jan. 26 to seize one child for a transfusion....

Two of the babies, who were born prematurely, have already died, says an affidavit filed in court on Tuesday by the babies' father as part of the family's appeal of the transfusion orders.

"[The mother] and I could not bear to be at the hospital when they were violating our little girl," he said in the affidavit....

Tom Christensen, the minister of children and family services, said he would not comment directly on the case, but he explained that the government sometimes has to act.

"So in the event that there is a child that is need of a medical treatment, and it appears that the child is not going to receive that medical treatment because a parent doesn't want the child to, then medical practitioners have an obligation to report that to the ministry.

http://www.cbc.ca/...1/bc-sextuplets.html

Those parents are idiot and criminals if they put some UNFOUNDED religious belief before the life of their own childrens.
The hospital has all the rights to protect those babies.
I wonder what the anti-abortists are thinking about this...is it ok to let a baby die because of religious beliefs?
Is religion more important thean life itself?

SHOULDN"T RELIGION PROTECT LIFE??


petsfed


Feb 1, 2007, 7:16 PM
Post #16 of 20 (657 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 24, 2002
Posts: 8585

Re: [reno] Government apprehends children, provides medical care... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

reno wrote:
scrapedape wrote:
... against the wishes of the parents.

It seems to me that the government has a duty to protect these children, if their parents are going to prevent them from receiving necessary care.

Nice sentiment, but when did the government get the right to tell people how they should live?

Slippery slope, that.

In Colorado, paramedics are required by law to treat children during calls, even if their parents refuse treatment for them.

The simple reason is that the kids can't legally decline medical care, and the parents clearly aren't acting in the best interest of their child.

No news here.


reno


Feb 1, 2007, 8:16 PM
Post #17 of 20 (649 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283

Re: [petsfed] Government apprehends children, provides medical care... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

petsfed wrote:
In Colorado, paramedics are required by law to treat children during calls, even if their parents refuse treatment for them.

The simple reason is that the kids can't legally decline medical care, and the parents clearly aren't acting in the best interest of their child.

No news here.

It wasn't that way when I worked Denver as a medic (03 and 04). A parent had the right to refuse for the child, assuming, of course, that there were no obvious serious injuries or extenuating circumstances. Naturally, if the kid's leg is broken, or he's spurting blood or something.... ditto if the parent is obviously impaired (drunk, high)... it's a different story.

Is this law new? Or old, and since changed? Or a local protocol, perhaps?

Just curious.


(This post was edited by reno on Feb 1, 2007, 8:17 PM)


petsfed


Feb 1, 2007, 10:04 PM
Post #18 of 20 (645 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 24, 2002
Posts: 8585

Re: [reno] Government apprehends children, provides medical care... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

reno wrote:
petsfed wrote:
In Colorado, paramedics are required by law to treat children during calls, even if their parents refuse treatment for them.

The simple reason is that the kids can't legally decline medical care, and the parents clearly aren't acting in the best interest of their child.

No news here.

It wasn't that way when I worked Denver as a medic (03 and 04). A parent had the right to refuse for the child, assuming, of course, that there were no obvious serious injuries or extenuating circumstances. Naturally, if the kid's leg is broken, or he's spurting blood or something.... ditto if the parent is obviously impaired (drunk, high)... it's a different story.

Is this law new? Or old, and since changed? Or a local protocol, perhaps?

Just curious.

It was that way on the western slope as early as 2004, at least.

Also, if you have to call for an ambulance, chances are its significant enough that the law would be in effect. Unless you know people who call 911 over a case of the sniffles.


(This post was edited by petsfed on Feb 1, 2007, 10:05 PM)


reno


Feb 2, 2007, 8:56 AM
Post #19 of 20 (632 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283

Re: [petsfed] Government apprehends children, provides medical care... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

petsfed wrote:
It was that way on the western slope as early as 2004, at least.

Interesting. I'll have to look deeper into this, see what the language of the law says. Thanks for the heads-up. Something I didn't know.

In reply to:
Also, if you have to call for an ambulance, chances are its significant enough that the law would be in effect. Unless you know people who call 911 over a case of the sniffles.

We get a LOT of those in the major urban areas.... people who have no car, and would rather use Medicaid than cough up $10 for a cab. Got called once to teach a new mom how to put a diaper on her kid.

That, and the well-meaning passers-by who have cell phones and call in every fender-bender they see. Get there, nobody has any injury, but someone called, so we go.

Sucks, but that's life.


reno


Feb 2, 2007, 1:26 PM
Post #20 of 20 (622 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283

Re: [blondgecko] Government apprehends children, provides medical care... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

blondgecko wrote:
In a similar vein,

Muslim urged to shun 'unholy' vaccines.

In a similar vein to your similar vein.... Wink

Texas requires cervical vaccine for girls

The AP wrote:
AUSTIN, Texas - Bypassing the Legislature, Republican Gov. Rick Perry signed an order Friday making Texas the first state to require that schoolgirls get vaccinated against the sexually transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer.


Forums : Community : The Soap Box

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?
$17.95 (10% off)
$76.46 (10% off)
$174.56 (10% off)
$17.95 (10% off)



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook