State Mandated Medical Care

  • Using yahoo mail? Some of you have been flagging us as spam, hence mails sent to a yahoo email account will no longer be delivered for an undisclosed time. Please consider using a different email host if you really need those emails.
23 July 2019
168
16
18
34
Where my feet take me
Species
Indeterminable
Relationship status
Unspoken
Gender
Male
#1
So! The state of Oregon has apparently removed a thirteen year old from her mother's custody, on the grounds of neglect that will cause harm to a child. The neglect in question? The mother has ceased her child's cancer treatments to pursue alternative Medicine - vitamins and cbd oil. I'm not here to question if cbd oil works or not (Research shows it is remarkably effective on children suffering from Dravet Syndrome), just wanting to collect thoughts on if the state is out of line.

Of course considering the alternative treatments the mother is seeking the child will most likely die of her cancer, since vitamins and cbd oil don't actually treat/fight/cure cancer. So! Does the mother have final - most likely fatal say - in a child's health, or should we as a society put health and safety before parental/religious rights?

I wonder how Oregon, after making this decision will handle parents who refuse medical treatment on religious grounds in the future. But! More to the point - was the state out of line or should the child's health come first?

The news article can be found here.
 
28 November 2018
45
18
8
25
Species
Dragon
Relationship status
Single (seeking)
Gender
Male
#2
Quite the predicament. I say the state was right. It's a matter of percentages. A life is at stake, and one outcome is more likely to result in survival than the other. Do we not want lives to have the best chances of survival? Especially if the alternative chances are much lower?
 
23 July 2019
168
16
18
34
Where my feet take me
Species
Indeterminable
Relationship status
Unspoken
Gender
Male
#3
Quite the predicament. I say the state was right. It's a matter of percentages. A life is at stake, and one outcome is more likely to result in survival than the other. Do we not want lives to have the best chances of survival? Especially if the alternative chances are much lower?
But where does it stop? Should the state step in when a person proclaims their religion doesn't allow them to seek medical assistance for a child with a preventable/curable disease?
 
28 November 2018
45
18
8
25
Species
Dragon
Relationship status
Single (seeking)
Gender
Male
#4
As a non-believer in religion, I can't really say, one way or the other. Religion is especially a touchy subject, but if I were in charge, I would say yes give the child/person medical care, even if it is against religion. The family or person can complain later, but at least they are alive to make said complaints.
 
23 July 2019
168
16
18
34
Where my feet take me
Species
Indeterminable
Relationship status
Unspoken
Gender
Male
#5
"The family or person can complain later, but at least they are alive to make said complaints."

That sums it up nicely... but all this opens up the can of worms of when does the state stop interfering? Should it always prioritize the health of the individual over personal choice, or just in the case of children?

Hell! At what odds of survival should we force a person to undertake unwanted, potentially life saving, medical procedures?
 
28 November 2018
45
18
8
25
Species
Dragon
Relationship status
Single (seeking)
Gender
Male
#6
Again, as a non-believer, my answers to these issues are very different than someone who does believe, and I think that's fair. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But when a person is dead from an illness that could have been fixed, that obviously isn't the answer. I say when a person's life is at stake, child or adult, some morals go out the window. At least for us that do not believe. We operate outside the boundaries and morals that believers are bound to, and can do what needs to be done if and when tragedy can be avoided.
 
23 July 2019
168
16
18
34
Where my feet take me
Species
Indeterminable
Relationship status
Unspoken
Gender
Male
#7
Disregarding religion... I have known someone with a DNR (Do Not Resuscitate). Meaning that even if they could be saved, even if something was easily solved... they signed a legal document demanding they be allowed to die, even when they could have been saved.

Not for religious reasons mind you. So! If they had something curable... should the state still step in? They are for all intents and purposes still refusing life saving medical care.
 
28 November 2018
45
18
8
25
Species
Dragon
Relationship status
Single (seeking)
Gender
Male
#8
I say yes, it should. Even if the person doesn't want to be saved, it's neglect to just do nothing and let the person die.
 
23 July 2019
168
16
18
34
Where my feet take me
Species
Indeterminable
Relationship status
Unspoken
Gender
Male
#9
But as an adult, should you have any say in your own life? Or once you are born you should be made to live until no longer possible? As I said though, its a can of worms. But! There are a lot of reasons someone could theoretically sign a DNR.
 
28 November 2018
45
18
8
25
Species
Dragon
Relationship status
Single (seeking)
Gender
Male
#10
I mean...but what do you do if there's a person lying on the ground unconscious and you're not supposed to help them, give them CPR or let them die?
 
23 July 2019
168
16
18
34
Where my feet take me
Species
Indeterminable
Relationship status
Unspoken
Gender
Male
#11
Well you as a bystander should act as you best can with what information you have. So probably not. But! My point being, does a person have a right to decide they are ready to die? Which is kind of what a DNR is - you have chosen to death over the possibility of life. So! Do people deserve or should have that right?
 
28 November 2018
45
18
8
25
Species
Dragon
Relationship status
Single (seeking)
Gender
Male
#12
We all die someday. Life is ironically called so, we're all slowly dying. Salvation will come for those who wish for death, as will those who wish to live. I cannot really comment, but I would like to point out, if one doesn't want to live...isn't that what suicide is for? Either way, if I came across someone who was going to die, and I can do something about it, I'm helping them, regardless. They can be mad at me later, but my conscience will be clear. And that is the issue, ultimately...conscience. Either decision one makes, there's a moral taboo. No matter if one lets the other live or die, there's still a matter of conscience. Which leaves yours more intact, them living even if they do not want to, or letting someone die.
 
23 July 2019
168
16
18
34
Where my feet take me
Species
Indeterminable
Relationship status
Unspoken
Gender
Male
#13
Honestly, what makes YOU feel better about yourself should have fuck-all to do with someone elses choice in how to live, or in this case when not to. To put it to thr extreme I literally know a guy who would have a clearer conscience if we could legally round up all the homosexuals and transgender individuals and shoot them.

That would make this person feel so much better about the world. Yeah, its an absurdly extreme example (and sadly I really do know this person. We are not friends.) but its the same concept. *** this part was somehow deleted***
See, ideally - without ending someones life - for this person, they would completely outlaw homosexuality and transgender surgery. Hell there are people working on that every damn day. Because their conscience would rest easier. Because at the end of the day its what they believe - what they can better live with. *** end lost section***

Because you don't want bad feelings on your conscience you are going to dictate what is a decision that has ultimately nothing to do with you. Have you ever considered the reason someone might actually sign a DNR? The reason someone might actually consider life not worth living?

And! Suicide is a major no in many religions. So even people who don't want to live might not find it as an option - not to mention it is usually very unpleasant and more often than not you survive it, but with severe physical/mental damage.

For suicide to be an option you'd have to allow medically assisted suicide. Also known as a right to die. A DNR isn't that. It just states that when it happens, let it happen.

Also! Remove yourself from this equation. Consider just society and the medical field - if a person wishes to refuse medical treatment at what point do we as a society accept that? Or do we force it upon them? I mean chemotherapy is a fucking nightmare, and I can understand why someone wouldn't want to go through that.

But that is the question; when is it crossing a line for society/government to enforce medical treatment on an individual - is it ok when a minor is involved or is it never crossing a line to make a person live?

Does an individual have a right to their life? A right to whatever medical treatment - or lack thereof - they deem appropriate/necessary?
 
Last edited:
28 November 2018
45
18
8
25
Species
Dragon
Relationship status
Single (seeking)
Gender
Male
#14
I like to think saving someone who does not want saved is an act of god, or whichever deity they may worship. Maybe they'll do something with their second chance, like start a church, something to further their religion. Or maybe they'd become very successful. Or both. Saving someone is about the opprotunity for them to do something more with their lives that they didn't before, or continue what they had before. I don't know. It's up to them at that point. But, I do think medically assisted suicide is different. Letting someone die out of mercy, like their guts are hanging out and there's no way to save them and one kills them in mercy. That I have minimal problem with. And if someone is going through Cancer, and the odds are looking overwhelmingly bad to the point there's no trying anymore, then I think they should be left to die if they wish. But if the odds are favorable, even a little iffy, I think that's more than enough reason to help them.
 
23 July 2019
168
16
18
34
Where my feet take me
Species
Indeterminable
Relationship status
Unspoken
Gender
Male
#15
Ever see what chemotherapy or radiation does to a person? But! More to the point - so say someone with cancer, with slim to no chance of survival, should be allowed to refuse treatment and be allowed to die if they don't wish to stretch out the inevitable?
 
28 November 2018
45
18
8
25
Species
Dragon
Relationship status
Single (seeking)
Gender
Male
#16
Yes and yes. I have a close relative with Stage 4 who's gone through a bunch of it in the past year, plus multiple other relatives have had, or have died, from it in my extended family. There's a very high rate within our bloodline. Anyway, if the odds are overwhelmingly bad, and only then, do I think they should be left alone, but only if they want. I would like to wish they would want to die fighting, either way. But if the odds are bad enough, to the point treatment does more harm than good and is very unlikely to work, and refusing would lead to an easier and less painful death, it should be choice. But otherwise, I think they should fight, even if they must be held up to do so. I feel anyone who cares about the person would want them to fight on and live, unless as I said, the odds of it are very bad and it's doing more harm than good.