Sunday, December 28, 2008

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 :

Wednesday, December 24, 2008

How do you feel about Bush's promise to Veto Low/No cost health for children

How do you feel about Bush's promise to Veto Low/No cost health for children?
At issue is 6.6 million children who will no longer have any health coverage after Sept 30th if nothing is done... But Bush has promised a veto, saying the measure is too costly, unacceptably raises taxes Democrat's claim the money would come from adding $35 billion over five years to the program, adding 4 million people to the 6.6 million already participating. It would be financed by raising the federal cigarette tax by 61 cents to $1 per pack. and not raising income taxes as bush claims... so what do you think? is adding a higher cigarette to pay for kids health care out of line and deserving of a Veto? or should we be doing anything it takes to get a handle on this countries health care problem? you can read the story in full here http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070922/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush;_ylt=AtcN86BTfsxJOaxT_U0pmzys0NUE
Parenting - 10 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Idk but i dont like bush so maybe
2 :
Here in California children from low income families receive free medi-cal. If they don't meet the income requirements but are still low income then there is healthy families, and they pay less than $10 a month. Pregnant women can receive free prenatal care too. I am not low income and have to pay privately for my health insurance and my child's. It's expensive but I knew that before I chose to get pregnant, so I would never complain.
3 :
This is the same idiot who is pro life?
4 :
I think that it yet another decision made in error by a president whose legacy is defined by a long series of errors.
5 :
I feel bloody glad that I don't live in America. I think the health care system you have over there is an absolute debacle, and I cannot for the life of me understand why Bush thinks it's fine to throw billions away on a war that they're never going to win, while he lets his own people starve from poverty, and die from lack of access to proper health care. It just astounds me.
6 :
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS NO COST ANYTHING! especially insurance. If the users (patients) do not pay for it, THE REST OF US (those who work for a living that is) PAY and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay........ It will NOT be financed by a cigarette tax hike, it will come out of YOUR pocket. Higher taxes to pay for 'human services' is only socialism under another name.
7 :
well, I really don't like Bush or his politics...but in this case I don't think renewing the children's' low cost/no cost health care program is really going to solve the big problem. There are SO many uninsured Americans (adults as well as children) I think money, and time could be better spent passing a universal health care program in this country. Insurance premiums are ridiculous and the cost of medical treatment (without insurance) is appalling! My husband makes too much money to qualify for any assistance programs and we are shelling out $600 a month for medical insurance for ourselves and our son, which works out to 27% of my husband's net pay! To top it all off, we still have a 20% coinsurance any time we actually need medical care!! In my opinion, it's time to do away with private insurance all together!! I would much rather each working American contribute (through taxes) to a medical program we ALL benefit from as opposed to our current situation where working Americans contribute to a medical program the unemployed and low income benefit from while those who are paying into the program (through taxes) are STILL having to pay out for their own premiums as well!!
8 :
I think we should raise cig. prices to pay for kids health insurance.
9 :
I think Bush is an idoit and as a country we were foolish to reelect him.Thank god he doesn't have that much longer in office. Its tragic that people but children especially arn't able to go to teh doctor when they are sick b/c they lack insurance. Of course though bush is only looking out for the wealthy and big business company and what bigger businesses is there than tobbaco.
10 :
I think it's time that people get responsible and pay for their own health care. How do you think people that do pay insurance feel that others are getting a free ride. I think they need to leave the cigarette prices where they are. if they think people are going to continue paying ridiculous prices for cigs. then they are mistaken. They will lose out on more money in the long run, and they will regret doing it. Who do you think is paying for the health care for 6.6 million people. Everyone who is already paying for their own.

Read more discussions :

Saturday, December 20, 2008

My wife's doctor wants to hospitalize her for mental health but we have 3 kids and I cant afford child care

My wife's doctor wants to hospitalize her for mental health but we have 3 kids and I cant afford child care?

Parenting - 7 Answers

Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
find a way, neighbors to help , or a local church. I hate to say this BUT if she doesnt get help, your kids could be in danger, remember andrea yates ?
2 :
You need to find a way to do this. Call in support from all family and all friends. If you go to church, ask them for help too. The health and well being of your wife is in jeopardy here and maybe your children. Following your doctors advise is what is best for everyone in your family. You do not say how old your children are but do they have friends whose families would help out? If one of my children's friends families asked if they could come and stay for something so important I would be more than willing to do so.
3 :
You need to take care of your wife's mental health if you want to ensure that your kids grow up in a healthy environment. Talk to your children's teachers, neighbors, church, everyone you can think of to get help during this. Good luck.
4 :
Im sorry my first thought was also Andrea Yates. They wouldnt want to hospitalize her unless she was a danger to herself or others. Call in sick for a day or two until you have a better idea what is going on. You really have to get your wife the help she needs!
5 :
There is a family leave law that applies to some larger employers, that say a person can have a certain amount of time off to care for their family. Check that out with your employer first. If that doesn't apply to your employer, do you have parents or parents-in-law or other relatives who could help? Perhaps you could move closer to family who could help you. Also, there are some social services that will help with child care. Maybe you could contact the social services in your county or state or city. They could at least point you in the right direction. If you can get your wife help, it would be best to do so.
6 :
Maybe your wife would be free from mental health problems if she had had a break before! Seems like she was always on duty for lack of childcare or other help. You may have to stop working to look after your children, they are your responsibility too.
7 :
Well if your wife is ill how will she be taking care of the kids?? Your question doesn't really make sense. It sounds as if you are saying you would rather let your wife continue to be sick and have to take care of kids when she's not up to it than to have to ask for help. I hope that's not what you mean.

Read more discussions :

Tuesday, December 16, 2008

is step parent held liable for health coverage on step child

is step parent held liable for health coverage on step child?

Insurance - 2 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
no. unless they are covered under the step parents plan.
2 :
Well, I don't know what you're really asking. Health COVERAGE means, INSURANCE. If you mean, is a step parent required to provide health insurance for a step child, the answer is no. If you mean, the step child was added to the policy, and then taken off, and the health insurer wants to be reimbursed, if the step parent was the SUBSCRIBER, then yes, they can be held liable to the insurer for any of the costs of their claimed DEPENDENTS. You could mean maybe a half dozen other things . . . but those are the two most likely.

Read more discussions :

Friday, December 12, 2008

Can a 3rd party sue for medical malpractice on behalf of someone else without power of attorney or health prox

Can a 3rd party sue for medical malpractice on behalf of someone else without power of attorney or health prox?
Parent A is in the hospital. Child A has health care proxy & power of attorney (in addition to being the executor of the will). Child B wants to sue the hospital for malpractice (possible case, though not airtight). Child A doesn't want to sue at all. Does Child B have any right to sue on behalf of Parent A (still living at this point)?
Law & Ethics - 1 Answers

Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
A child cannot sue, so no. And even if they were adults, they couldn't sue either.

Read more discussions :

Monday, December 8, 2008

As od 9/23/10 can I know put my child uder 26 on my employer provided health insurance

As od 9/23/10 can I know put my child uder 26 on my employer provided health insurance?
I was told awhile back she had to be a full time collge student but she is part time. I have read that as of the 23rd parents can keep there kids under 26 on there plans can you add them if they are not already on the plan???
Insurance - 4 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
You are correct that dependents can be on their parent's policy until they reach age 26 or until they get a job that offers health insurance benefits. Now as to your issue of when you can add her back on to your policy, if she was already removed from the policy it is going to depend on how your insurer chooses to implement the new requirement which takes effect 9/23/10. They may make you wait until the anniversary of your policy to add her. You will need to call the customer service number on the back of your ID card.
2 :
~~Yes this reform takes place tomorrow so you may add her back on your policy. To have access to all the changes and when they take place here is the link. Many good changes start tomorrow, many very important ones can't take place until 2014.
3 :
You have to wait until the next open enrollment period, if they've already been dropped off.
4 :
Check with your insurer. That option is required effective with the first annual policy renewal AFTER 9/23/10 but some insurers have already implemented it. Student status is not required - however, they must be unmarried and not have their own employer coverage.

Read more discussions :

Thursday, December 4, 2008

Should people who don't have health insurance be allowed to have children

Should people who don't have health insurance be allowed to have children?
Wouldn't a couple who can't afford health insurance be committing child abuse by not being able to take that child to a doctor?
Law & Ethics - 14 Answers

Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Why would you think that is child abuse? There is state aide for people who can't afford health insurance. Granted, there are some people who should not have kids, but not being able to afford insurance is not a reason.
2 :
If you do not have health insurance for your child and cannot afford it, the states will provide medical coverage for children under the age of 18, so really there is no excuse to not take a child to a doctor.
3 :
Sounds more like China or North Korea.
4 :
no because they will be violating our right of freedom this is not JAPAN OR CHINA
5 :
H3ll yes, they should be able to have children. They can get medical care once they have a child, its called Medicaid. Which I am quite sure it is available in every state. It may not be the best but it sure proves your theory wrong. You must be rich to ask such a question. If the people cannot afford health care what makes you think that they can afford birth control?
6 :
And what could you do about it? Think it through...
7 :
There are a lot of people who should not be allowed to have children.
8 :
There are a lot of worse things in life than not having health insurance that can be counted as child abuse.
9 :
So you don't think poor people should be allowed to have children? There is more to parenting than going to the doctor -- good parents will find a way to help their kids. There are plenty of neglectful wealthy parents with great health insurance.
10 :
Sounds like you mean welfare....make it harder for those of us who do work hard and have to pay taxes. Seems like nothing will ever change anyway. No matter whos president. Good question.
11 :
It is criminal for the government and people against health care for everyone..if that's the case then why not just shoot the ones having children or not ..then those that have high incomes can live in a paradise
12 :
do the elderly people have the right to live if they dont have health insurance??of course they should have the right to have children. bring a child into the world is not a form of abuse. you sound like a real nut case.
13 :
Good grief! There are people who are super rich with great health insurance who should not have children....
14 :
That has got to be one of the most ridiculous things I have heard in a long time. The question that should be asked is Why doesn't the government do something about the high cost of health insurance so that all can afford to have coverage. People with low paying jobs can't afford the high price of premiums for coverage. That does not make them bad parents. There is help for them to get coverage for their children. Maybe you should investigate the cost of health insurance before you get on a high horse and say they would be abusing the child. Evidently you don't know what child abuse is.

Read more discussions :

Monday, December 1, 2008

Can a 3rd party sue for medical malpractice on behalf of someone else without power of attorney or health prox