Child Health: Serious question about parents and the health of their child. All may answer

Serious question about parents and the health of their child. All may answer.?
Where do you think the line should be drawn for parents being allowed to make health choices for their children? At what age, and under what circumstances should the government be allowed to step in? At what age, and under what circumstances should the a doctor be allowed to step in? At what age should the child be able to decide for themselves? Should medical or government interventions be allowed if the person is legally an adult? This question is an R&S question because religion (or the lack of one) often plays a part in a parent's choice about whether to get and/or follow medical advice. Many parents choose to leave it in god/nature's hands and just pray/wait. Certain religions or even strong non-religious beliefs dissuade parents from allowing their children to get blood transfusions, inoculations, and/or certain medicines and procedures. Many medicines and especially inoculations come from animal sources requiring animal experimentation at the least, and often the death or use of an animal. Often there is a justifiable fear of risk from the treatment itself, and sometimes there is not. Personally, I think that life itself is a risk, and that choices and variations sometimes pay off, and often do not. Parents should be given the choice to receive AND refuse treatment for their children, and we will all learn from the outcome. Please read the question before answering. Yes, I have ALSO posted this in the parenting section. I am a non-Abrahamic Theist.
Religion & Spirituality - 9 Answers

Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
...Wrong section. Ask in the Parenting section please.
2 :
Where do you think the line should be drawn for parents being allowed to make health choices for their children? Until they reach the age of majority, parents should make general health choices for their children. At what age, and under what circumstances should the government be allowed to step in? At any age, the government has the responsibility to step in and override the parents' decision if that decision reasonably threatens the child's life. At what age, and under what circumstances should the a doctor be allowed to step in? Doctors should provide their opinions of the child's health status and prognosis given the treatment options to both the parents and the government. At what age should the child be able to decide for themselves? At the age of majority, the child should be able to decide for themselves. Should medical or government interventions be allowed if the person is legally an adult? No.
3 :
. I believe that the parent/guardian has the absolute right to enforce his/her will on every child living under his/her control, until that child reaches the age of majority. .
4 :
I personally think that all parents should be required by law to contact a medical professional or hospital in the event that their child falls gravely ill or receives serious injury. Because simply standing by and waiting for prayers to work is criminal negligence IMHO.
5 :
I think it's up to the parents until the parents show they are irresponsible. Such as sitting and just praying when they know there are treatments out there. They can't use their religion as an excuse because even Jesus stated you go to a dr when you're sick. I can understand the anxiety of parents, I'ma parent myself... But I also know that doing nothing will definitely kill your child.... especially for things like Diabetes, asthma, etc... If it were some strange disease that the meds were merely experimental, then I could see NOT doing treatments. But for most illness' out there, we have treatments that are safe enough to go thru. Some people, though, view going to a dr as a sign that their faith is weak.... and for some strange reason they would let everyone they love die, than to have an outsider think their faith is weak. To me, that is weak... it's pathetic.... and that lone shows they aren't responsible enough to have children.
6 :
1) At term. The well-being of the pregnant mother and the fetus is the responsibility of the government and health care workers, should the mother neglect to take care of herself and/or the baby. 2) " " 3) 18 4) No, unless the adult is mentally handicapped or diseased (dependent). Superstition and rumor should not pose a threat to the health of a minor. If this is the case, it is the responsibility of the government to intervene. We cannot allow another child to die the way that Madeline Neumann did.
7 :
The doctor should have the right to treat a child if the child's life is in danger despite what the parents want. Parents have the right to feed whatever they want to their children but since there is a childhood obesity epidemic in the US i think the government has the right to regulate what they are serving in school and what kind of foods are served at fast food establishments that target kids (the mcdonlads happy meal for example). Just because the parents have the right to feed what they want to their kids doesn't mean they are going to teach their kids how to eat right. Therefore its up to the public schools to teach about nutrition. And since public schools are run by the government, its the government who is making those choices about what to feed and teach the kids. Parents should also have a say but not if they just want to keep their kids ignorant and feed them fries and candy every day.
8 :
Apart from feeling that once a child has reached the age of majority and become an adult, it's totally their choice and not their parents', I'm not sure age comes into it. I think it's a massively difficult question but my starting point would be that the medics/government should be legally entitled to intervene ONLY if the child's life is in imminent danger, and a medical intervention that the parents are refusing would not merely prolong life by a few weeks or months but would be expected to result in long-term survival with a good quality of life. Every medical intervention carries some risks - immunisation, blood transfusion, pharmaceuticals, anaesthesia - and to pretend that there is a simple notion of what is 'right' or 'safe' is to be completely blind to reality. I am very unconvinced that some of the pharmaceutical interventions that are now routinely dealt out will be seen as sensible in 30 years time. The parent who refuses something now may simply be in the vanguard of a much bigger movement which is eventually proved right. So in general, I'd say that parents should be permitted to make those decision, in consultation with the child if they deem them able to offer an opinion, and intervention from outside should happen only as I've outlined above. I don't think it's simple to define that situation and we could take up many pages trying to define exactly when we think it would be OK, but I don't think I'm likely to go away from the basic principles I've suggested. But I reiterate that I think it's very difficult and complex and I'm open to having my mind changed by good argument.
9 :
I think that children should have the legal right to make their own medical decisions within reason by the time they reach 15. They should at the very least get to have shared responsibility with the parents. Until that time, it is the parent or guardian's responsibility to make responsible health choices for the child, unless they are shown to be negligent and put the child's health at risk, in which case the state will have to step in.

Read more discussions :

Sunday, December 28, 2008

Serious question about parents and the health of their child. All may answer