Chicago Mayor Richard Daley on the story I linked to yesterday, in which a Chicago alderman ordered the city’s “Graffiti Busters” team to destroy a mural painted on private property: “It’s a mistake. I’m sorry.” Good start! But alas, Daley followed with, “This is not the end of the world.” On whether the alderman will be disciplined, Daley added: “It’s not that serious. Let’s slow down. No one was killed.” Good to know the mayor doesn’t see anything serious about censorship, government trespassing, and illegal government destruction of private property.
Heartbreaking and infuriating story in the New York Times about the struggle terminally ill patients and their families face to obtain potentially lifesaving drugs from an obstinate FDA. I’m not a violent person, and I don’t now and wouldn’t ever advocate violence. But if I had to watch someone I love die knowing that the drug that could possibly save them was being held up by bureaucratic red tape, I can’t say I wouldn’t go into V for Vendetta mode. The Supreme Court, incidentally, has ruled that even if the company that makes the drug that may save your life wants to give you access to it, the FDA still has the power to let you die.
Here’s a tough one for you: Do parental rights extend to denying potentially lifesaving chemo for your kid? What probability of success does the treatment have to carry for a parent to be allowed to decline it on behalf of his kid? I don’t have an answer. I don’t think Christian Science parents should be permitted to let their kid die of an ear infection. But if chemo is going to make your kid’s last 3 years unlivable, and only has a 25 percent chance of success, I think parents should be able to say no. I just don’t know where or how you draw the line.
Since 2006, the U.K. has apparently had a program called “Too Much Bling? Give Us a Ring”, which asks citizens to anonymously turn in neighbors who seem to have possessions beyond their means.
Speaking of asset forfeiture, it looks like an Indiana prosecutor who kept thousands of dollars from forfeiture cases for himself won’t be criminally prosecuted. He still may face professional sanctions.
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, May 20th, 2009 at 1:14 pm by Radley Balko
and is filed under General Criminal Justice, General Drug War.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
TheAgitator.com
V for Vandetta
A vEndetta might work better. :-)
Wasn’t Vandetta a Van Halen cover band? :-D
Oh, and is there a reward for the bling program? I can see getting together with neighbors (Oops, sorry, Brits, I meant neighbours) to game that system. That’s really the way to fight stuff like this- overload them with nonsense until they break. I’d be organizing street dance and performance troupes to play for every public spy camera I could find.
Asset forfeiture laws are being abused by greedy officials for personal and/or institutional gain? Who could possibly have predicted that?
I will grudgingly concede that lawmakers may have been stupidly naive about human nature when passing these statutes. That these laws remain on the books after the official corruption and violations of people’s rights are revealed to be unavoidable consequences of said legislation is something that I am unable to even grudgingly give lawmakers a pass on.
When good men and women silently stand by, evil (and tyranny) flourshes.
I’m trying to imagine Daley telling a constituent complaining that some kid has painted grafiiti on his storefroint “This is not the end of the world.” And then, being asked if the kid with the spray paint will be disciplined, Daley adding: “It’s not that serious. Let’s slow down. No one was killed.” Somehow, I just don’t see that happening.
I have been following the case of the chemo-kid a little bit.
Frankly, I side entirely with the parents and the kid here. I think they are stupid beyond belief, but I don’t believe the government should have any say in this at all.
To me this falls under the same category as the elderly people Jack Kavorkian helped through assisted suicide. The government has no business deciding you cannot check out any time you like, for any reason you like. It is not the government’s job to protect us from ourselves, right? So why do we freely use that mantra when the government is trying to keep us from gambling or drinking but get wishy-washy on it here?
It should be up to the individual to decide whether they receive any treatment at all. If that individual is not of legal age, then their parents should decide. Period! The government should never have a say.
These parents love their kid. They will have to live with the decision they made. That is how it works. Would it be sad if this kid died when he could have lived? Yes. Would it be a tragedy? NO! There are lots of people on this planet and none of them are that special. The tragedy would be a government that takes this kid at gunpoint and forces treatment on him that is not wanted.
Having said that, the only thing that would put me on the fence on this one is if the kid wanted the treatment. If the parents were saying no and the kid was crying saying “I don’t want to die! Somebody help me!!!” I would have to say that our responsibility then is to him, not them. This is an interesting case in that we are not talking about a kid in a coma or on life support.
The kid says he does not want the treatment. the court said that at 13 he is not old enough to actually understand what it means to die and cannot be considered mature enough to make this decision.
Interesting, because if he killed someone, I bet they would say he understood everything well enough to be tried as an adult.
Daniel Houser has Hodgkin’s lymphoma, which has around a 90% cure rate with chemotherapy. Also, he’s 13 and can’t even read; he can’t give informed consent of any sort. I have to side with the judge in this case; Daniel needs to be protected from his parents, as sad a sentence as that is.
As pointed out, the kid’s cancer is highly treatable. I generally side with the parents on medical issues, but when a child has a disease where there is a high probability of survival with treatment and fatal without treatment, and the parents refuse to treat their kid, I say fuck the parents. They are not acting in his best interest, and even freedom of religion has its limits.
Of course, it’s still incredibly unpleasant, especially the specter of forcing a kid to undergo a treatment he doesn’t want, which is gone into a little here.
If the difference wasn’t so dramatic – 90% chance of survival vs 0% – I’m not sure I’d take the position I do.
The child does not exist to teach a lesson to his parents; especially not with his death. The parents won’t even learn anyway; they’ll just blame the one round of chemo he did undergo, or the evil doctors, or the evil government.
Parent’s power is not unlimited.
Mayor Daley’s message is interesting: until and unless the government kills someone, nothing serious has happened. In fact, we know that the government does not treat killing someone a serious event either (“it’s not that serious. No police officer was killed”)
Re the British “Too Much Bling, Give us a Ring” campaign.
When are the snitches going to get their “Hero of Socialist Service” awards?
King Chicago has also reportedly admitted that privatizing the parking meters was a mistake. I’m so sick of him. I keep voting against him and it never seems to work! Argh!
Daley: “It’s not that serious. Let’s slow down. No one was killed.”
Oh yeah? Well no one gets killed when someone smokes a joint either, but you assholes destroy his life anyway, don’t you? You bunch of smug-ass, self-important, morally bankrupt, prima-fuckin’-donas.
I think what Daley meant to say is “It’s not like anyone politically connected was inconvenienced.”
Regarding the Religion vs access to Modern medicine: I think it is just as difficult to make up that 25% number. If the government were even to attempt a rationalization based on percentages it seems like it would be doomed to fail. If I were a Pediatatrican and had to come up with a percentage that would either force the child to have treatment or watch as his parents let him die, I bet it would be tough to remain objective.
Strech
Like I said, I disagree with their decision. My son would get the treatment. What is at stake here is their right to make these decisions. Freedom has its drawbacks, but we can’t throw it out the window every time one of those unfortunate side effects pops up.
Since I am a very firm believer in the ‘snowball effect’ or the ‘slippery slope’ I think that regardless of how sad it is, the government should not intervene. If you say the government should be allowed to override the parent’s wishes in this case, then you are approving their meddling in numerous other cases where you would otherwise have disagreed.
The government has already decided that it is up to them, not us, whether or not it is in our best interests to commit suicide in the face of excruciating terminal illness. Now they can force chemo on a kid because they say there is a 90% chance he will live.
Well then, there should just be a national donor database. If someone needs a bone marrow transplant, and you are a match, the government should be able to force you to submit to the procedure. Sure it is painful, and you don’t even know the person you are saving, but it is in their best interests and if you weren’t such an A-hole you would agree right?
Oh, and isn’t there a 90% chance of survival if you don’t have an abortion? So it is in the kids best interests to ban abortions. I mean, as long as we allowing the government to override our decisions based on best interests.
Better that this one family be left the hell alone, even with sad consequences, than to sit back and support the government in this. They will take that as a ‘mandate from the people’ that they should ‘be the deciders’ about our best interests in lots of other places we didn’t know we were agreeing to.
The Hauser case really does trouble me, precisely because it is such a hard call. If the kid were an adult, I’d support his decision not to take the chemo, even if I thought that the choice came about primarily because of religious beliefs that I don’t think are particularly sound. Not the choice I would make, not the choice I’d advocate to anyone else. But the refusal of medical care, for whatever reason, is a basic human right.
And yet… this kid is 13. Is that old enough? Legally, no, and with some decent justification. But that doesn’t mean that it’s just easy to tell a thinking, feeling teenager that we’re going to inject him with something that’s going to make him feel ghastly whether he likes it or not, all based on a chance, rather than a certainty, that it will keep him alive.
On the other hand, his attitudes and feelings towards treatment seem HEAVILY influenced by his parents’ ideology. Is that really fair either? If he had had different parents, he might well be perfectly willing to do the chemo as so many children are (saving their lives). And that makes it seem as if the random luck of who your parents are can end up determining whether you live or die, and whether the state should allow you to.
I don’t see a happy ending to this. He could be tracked down, taken away from his family, forced to take chemo, and then die anyway with the people he loves in jail.
if I lived in the UK I’d be “snitching” on the MPs constantly
(http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE54E6F820090516)
“Do parental rights extend to denying potentially lifesaving chemo for your kid?”
In a nation dominated by people who worship an imaginary super-hero, I find it supremely hypocritical that they feel they have the right to take control over someone’s kids because the parents simply want to entrust the the Lord with the life of their child. People trust the Lord to see them through hard times and the threat of death everyday and think nothing of it. When they die anyway, it’s God’s will.
Personally, I don’t think it’s the state’s responsibility to oversee how parents raise their children. That’s just a bottomless pit wherein more children will suffer for it than are helped. Kids are going to die because of bad parenting with or without government becoming the head parent in every household.
When you put the government in charge of that kid’s medical treatment, you’re also putting them in charge of my kid’s medical treatment.
As support for my statement that government shouldn’t be in charge of life-and-death medical matters, I refer you to the “heartbreaking and infuriating” link about the FDA.
I’ve been kicking this one around in my head since I read about it. What galls me the most here is that this involves government functionaries making decisions, when they lack the incentives to appreciate the values of those involved. I would be far more comfortable with a grandparent, uncle, or sibling who took a child away from a parents who were neglecting to get their child medical treatment, in order to have the child treated. I don’t buy the rule of thumb that an outside party is a better judge, when those closest to the conflict have the most to lose or gain and thus have intimate reasons to make their choices.
As an atheist, I don’t care for making irrational choices based upon faith. Nor do I care for inculcating children with anti-reason. But I completely part ways with Richard Dawkins, for example, when he argues that outsiders should take away children from religious parents, on the grounds that brainwashing them with fundamentalist religion is abuse. The outsiders to which he would defer are likely to be completely irrational when it comes to politics, economics, and diet–to name some obvious examples. They would be government functionaries, who are not motivated to do their best, who often have incentives which run contrary to the interests of the children. If our culture hadn’t been corrupted with dependence on government to solve social problems, to the point of near helplessness, perhaps private individuals close to the scene would be more inclined to do the right thing.
Obviously, if a parent is burning a child with a cigarette, sexually molesting the child, or doing other similarly monstrous things, I think outsiders have a right to step in. I agree that choosing not to go through with chemo isn’t child abuse–especially when the teenager at issue doesn’t want it, since he or she is old enough that his or her opinion should hold some weight, even if it isn’t the final word.
If it was a slight chance of survival vs. lots of pain, I might side with the parents. But we’re talking 90% survival with treatment, 0% without.
If they withheld food from their child, that’s 100% survival with, 0% without.
One is considered abuse. The other should as well.
Yes, that’s hyperbole. I understand. I also don’t care. Your religion doesn’t give you carte blanche to mistreat somebody who, as I understand it, doesn’t have the mental capacity (both as a child, and also, as developmentally disabled) to decide for themselves.
We may ask, where do we draw the line? I don’t know. But that’s what courts, and judges, are for. The judge drew a line. 90% survival rate with, and 0% without, is abuse. I agree.
If the kid were a bit older, or the chances of chemo helping him less, I’d almost certainly side with the parents on this one. But, he’s only 13, so I don’t think he is likely able to make an informed choice here. And the chemo does have a good possibility of helping him. I have to side with the judge with this one (I know, big surprise from the avowed collectivist).
On the FDA issue: I agree people should have access to these drugs, as long as there is an explicit understanding that these drugs may not help, may actually make you worse off or kill you. I do worry about how this could affect clinical trials, since it could make studies more difficult, but that wasn’t list as a concern in the article so maybe it isn’t a big deal.
If you ever get a chance to be on a jury for a situation like that, then you have a moral duty to lie, cheat and steal your way into staying on that jury to ensure that the guilty party receives a fair trial. Too many Americans would lay down and cry “but what could we do” even if the government passed itself a law allowing it to forcefully euthanize the elderly when they become too expensive for medicare.
In the chemo case, what the parents want is irrelevant. The guy who would actually be getting it has stated quite clearly that he doesn’t want it, so that’s the end of the matter.
Now, I happen to think he’s being incredibly foolish, and is clearly motivated by religious fanaticism, but he’s young enough that he probably hasn’t reproduced yet, so this is just a case of evolution in action.
Faith-based healing is a modern Protestant low church heresy. It’s damn near right up there with snake handling in how it ignores the stern warning “do not put the Lord to the test.” That’s exactly what they’re doing when they eschew modern medicine and try to put the onus on God to intervene for them. That’s why no one in the church with an above room temperature IQ and more than child-like intellectual understanding of scripture practices those habits.
If he had had different parents, he might well be perfectly willing to do the chemo as so many children are (saving their lives). And that makes it seem as if the random luck of who your parents are can end up determining whether you live or die, and whether the state should allow you to.
Perfectly stated.
Except that the Darwin Award that he’d receive would be for knowingly removing his diseased self from the gene pool to make it stronger.
The state sure doesn’t seem to have a hard time sending other 13 year olds to prison for having sex with their girlfriends or killing their classmates. At least here, they’d be respecting his right to control his life.
Daniel Hauser didn’t actually write any part of his argument. If you read the judge’s decision, he states quite plainly that his affidavit was far, far beyond his established mental capacity. His mother’s affidavit was also far beyond her education and language skills as well.
His entire argument for refusal of treatment was written for him and what’s even worse, he cannot recognize a single word of what was written.
That is not informed consent nor dissent. It’s using this kid as a tool to further some agenda of a wonky bunch of white-folks playing whindian.
Parents should control the treatment rights to their children. Sometimes it will work out, sometimes not. At all times better than the state making the decision and usurping that right.
If you’re a defender of liberty and personal responsibility, shouldn’t this be straight forward?
#24, Mike T:
You mean “modern Protestant low church” people like Jesus and the First Century, first-generation Christians?
I seem to recall divine healing was an important part of their faith and evangelism.
This issue with the kid is certainly complex, but certainly it’s not my (or the state’s) place to judge religious beliefs, I may not agree with them, but really it’s none of my business.
However, I can imagine this nightmare scenario: Kid is forced to have chemo, cancer goes away, and then when the kid is 17 it comes back. Instead of dealing with the courts he and his parents decided to do the chemo again, but now the kid remembers how awful the chemo made him feel and he goes out to get some pot and gets arrested.
Only in America would the state force you stay alive just so it could put you in jail.
The FDA saves a few lives by demanding rigorous testing of new drugs before allowing them to be used on people. The trade off is the much greater numbers that die waiting for these new drugs to be approved. Many of those silent victims are well aware of the experimental status of the drugs and willing to take the chance.
If we have to have an FDA, their role should be reduced to an advisory panel, something like Underwriters Laboratories (FDA vice UL approved). But that would be treating the people like intelligent adults who can weigh the risks and benefits of a different courses of action themselves.
We couldn’t have that now, could we?
@ Ginger Dan:
This issue with the kid is certainly complex, but certainly it’s not my (or the state’s) place to judge religious beliefs, I may not agree with them, but really it’s none of my business.
Would you have the same opinion if it were not a matter of chemo, but a matter of his parents claiming the bible gives them the right to sexually assault their child?
#8
If the parents power concerning their children is not unlimited, then you’re okay with the state having more?
Make no mistake, these parents are flat out evil. But are we really better off in the long run by handing over the final say in disputes between parents and the state to the state? (A purely academic problem, of course, since the state has already settled that one for us)
Thorn,
I think that’s a bit dishonest to compare sexual assualt to an optional medical treatment. Again, this issue is about drawing a line as to where religious beliefs end and civil law begins. I think it’s safe to assume that any sort of child abuse crosses that line. A voluntary medical procedure is a little different.
Hmmm…. it looks a link landed my comment in Moderation Limbo. Hopefully, it will show up eventually. In the meantime, I agree with what Elliot said:
As an atheist, this is why I’m glad atheists are a political minority.
The debate as to whether or not atheism is a rational/reasonable choice is for another thread at another blog, but assuming it is a correct choice, far too many atheists make the egregious mistake of thinking their atheism somehow makes all their choices correct, and a person who believes in a deity is somehow incapable of making a correct choice about anything, ever.
If atheism ever becomes some sort of viable political force, be prepared for a nanny state that makes Utah’s liquor laws look like a weekend in Vegas.
The FDA story should be getting the most attention here in my opinion. What the FDA does is just awful. They tell terminally ill people they are better off dead rather than let them experiment with new drugs with hope that they might save their life. They deny people options they have no right to deny. This isn’t any different than religious people allowing their infant child to die because they don’t believe in transfusions or chemo or whatever.
Except with the 13 old kid, he is old enough to comprehend what the results of his actions will be. I’m sure the doctors explained everything to him. If he is too dumb to get chemo despite all the expert opinion given to him, he is too dumb to live. That might have been the meanest thing I have ever said here, but the truth hurts.
I think perhaps, in the case of “chemo kid”, we are approaching the problem wrong. There is no solution to this sort of problem that doesn’t give one party the ability to abuse their power. Libertarians of all colors generally believe that it is to the individual that the power to abuse should be given(in the freedom of speech, which can be used to emotional harm individuals, or freedom of religion, which can be used to believe religions that are untrue, or the right to bear arms, when those arms can be used to hurt others). In this case, we can give too much power to the parents, the doctors or various medical experts, or perhaps government bureaucrats. For that I will always, always side with the parents. A tragedy it is that some Christians believe that the sciences that took root in the medieval scholastic movement have nothing to do with Christian thought, but still it would be a greater tragedy for the government to be in charge of such things. I believe you must draw a line, a definite line that cannot be misinterpreted, and that line can only be drawn with the parents.
I don’t think the comparison is that far out of bounds. I think there are some religions that allow marriage at a very young age and, furthermore, allow multiple wives. Compared to traditional U.S. standards that could easily be construed to be sexual assault.
Speaking for myself, I’m inclined to allow parents to determine what’s best for their children when it comes to sex. Putting the state in charge of parenting will not eliminate sexual assault of children by their parents. It only gives the state the power to rule over parents who don’t abuse their children.
There are still people out there who aren’t terrified by the prospect of their children seeing other humans shamelessly naked or having actual advanced knowledge of responsible sex before they actually engage in it as a recreational activity (most likely before the age of consent).
Having said that, I’m sick to death of the specter of child sexual abuse being constantly used as irrefutable justification to hand control of our children’s minds and bodies over to the state.
Since I’ve long ago reverse engineered my decoder ring and no longer care if it’s taken away, I’ll weigh in on the parents witholding of medical treatment that would greatly improve a child’s chance for life.
He is a child. Society deems that children are not responsible enough to make informed decisions. Denying the boy uncontroversial medical treatment due to some superstitious belief is child neglect. It is every bit as neglectful as letting a five year old roam the streets all night unoccompanied. I’m that if you neglect your children, society, via the unholy and often incompetent heavy hand of the state, has an obligation to the child to ensure that he receives accepted medical treatment. If the kid has an growing oozing infected sore and the parents wish to pray it away, I’ll live with the state overriding the parent’s idiotic wishes and giving the kid antibiotics.
It’s obviously not an ideal solution. There is no ideal solution to crazy, ignorant or incompetent parents. Life is like that sometimes.
Having said that, I’m sick to death of the specter of child sexual abuse being constantly used as irrefutable justification to hand control of our children’s minds and bodies over to the state.
100% agree
@ 37 Mattocracy
I don’t think that was mean, just honest. I told the clowns on Fark that were whining about these evil parents and that the government should make him take chemo that if this kid had died trying to jump his bike off his roof, they would all be yelling “Woohoo! Darwin Award! Screw that dumbass kid!” Because nobody really gives a damn about that one kid.
I don’t want the kid to die. But I want the government to stay the hell out of it even more. So that all the other people that come after this kid, who we do agree are doing the right thing, can do so without government intervention. Is it better that this one kid die than all those future people be saddled with the Government knows what in your best interest crap? Of course it is better! Much better!
We have to get over this idea that children’s lives are so much more valuable than adults lives. They aren’t. It is unbelievable how many tens of thousands of 18 year olds we have been willing to forcibly make give their lives for freedom (WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam) that we will then throw away for one freaking ‘child’. They are all somebody’s child, no matter how old. We have been conditioned to sacrifice our freedoms any time anyone says “its for the children”. It should be the other way around.
@J Sub D (#40) “Society deems that children are not responsible enough to make informed decisions.”
Society is not an individual which can make decisions. To claim that all of the individuals, each with an independent mind, who make up “society” have decided something is a flat-out lie.
A person doesn’t suddenly have the sufficient skills necessary to make grownup choices once the Earth completes the eighteenth revolution around the sun since he or she exited the mother’s uterus. Maturity comes gradually, over time, at different rates for different people.
“I’m that if you neglect your children, society, via the unholy and often incompetent heavy hand of the state, has an obligation to the child to ensure that he receives accepted medical treatment.”
Again, “society” isn’t an individual, and each person who makes up “society” has different responsibilities, based upon his or her choices (not the choices of others). If you weren’t around to raise this kid for the first twelve years, not only would I contest your right to interfere with the decisions of the parents and the boy, I completely reject your assertion that you or I have any responsibility to do anything about this.
[quote]So that all the other people that come after this kid, who we do agree are doing the right thing, can do so without government intervention.[/quote]
That’s the sticky point though… it’s really hard to say the kid has any idea what’s happening to him, the treatment or the magical cures his mother and this ‘healing circle of white folks’ is making him take.
If he had anywhere near the mental capacity of Hannah Jones, who made a reasoned and well-thought out argument for her right to die, then I would be in support of this. However, this kid either has severe developmental problems, or his parents have been so absolutely horrific in educating their child, he can’t read at the age of thirteen.
In place of educating him, the parents have bought into some new-age bullshit… they’re not Christian btw, but belong to a ‘Native American band’ which doesn’t actually contain anyone of Native American descent. If they were making an argument based on longstanding traditions and spiritual beliefs, I’d be supportive… but his ‘alternative treatment’ is something his mother read on the internet a couple of weeks ago.
If they had the courage and intellectual honesty to sit this boy down and say ‘You know what, we don’t believe in chemotherapy and barring spontaneous remission, this belief of ours is going to kill you.’ I’d be supportive. I would not like it, but at the very least they would have given their child the ability to make informed consent or dissent to the procedure.
Stringing your kid along with the false hope that green peppers and prayer are going to save his life… and that is what they are telling this kid… while allowing a tumor to grow to the size of a football in his chest, really does make a case of both physical and emotional abuse. Makes a pretty good case for depraved indifference causing death as well.
A lack of intervention by child protective services would be just as horrific an outcome.
Given it’s the Chicago PD, nothing would be done even if someone HAD been killed.
Steve, I never said or even inferred that society was an individual. Society is a real thing that we are all members of, contribute to, and influence. Society is the result of all of our opinions and behaviors. While an individual may disagree with what a society has determined, that only marginally affects what determination a society reaches.
The concept isn’t that difficult to grasp.
Experimental drugs are just that. The FDA is there to protect us. Do you know how many wrong drugs kill people each year? It is difficult to watch a loved one die. There is no cure for ALS, there is no drug that slows the symptioms. There is a process within the FDA for a reason. I understand your sentiment. The ALS association has a great lobby and money for research, if they thought a drug was helpful, they would be all over it.
@ J sub D (#46) “Steve, I never said or even inferred that society was an individual.”
You implied it when you said, “Society deems…,” and, “society…has an obligation….” A group of 300,000,000 distinct, individual brains don’t “deem” something, nor have an obligation.
If you want to be accurate, say, “Lawmakers have passed laws and judges have made rulings….” These politicians and judges are not “society” nor are the subset of the population who voted for them “society.” Those groups are subsets of the population, so any word which describes the whole population is right out.
“Society is a real thing that we are all members of, contribute to, and influence. Society is the result of all of our opinions and behaviors.”
I think you’d do better to use words like “culture,” “politicians,” and “voters” than to use the functionally meaningless “society.”
“While an individual may disagree with what a society has determined….”
If an individual dissents, then there is no consensus, and it is a lie to imply that there is by saying that “society has determined.” No, no, no. Politicians, judges, et al. have made decisions (and even they are not in consensus–many judges would have sided with the parents on this one).
“…that only marginally affects what determination a society reaches.”
Again, with feeling, “society” hasn’t determined jack squat. There is dissent, not consensus. There is no unanimous determination.
Just quit referring to disparate groups of people collectively. That’s the collective fallacy, and it is not logically consistent.
There’s another reason that I hesitate to get involved in efforts by the state to intervene against someone’s will to keep them alive (or otherwise healthy). Believe it or not, people don’t all value their own life the same.
Most Christians are counting on a life after death in eternal bliss. It’s not just the fringe group fundamentalists who believe that. It’s the Christianity club’s key membership incentive. So I find it hypocritical when most of the population throws a fit because this kid is foolishly and tragically risking that possible fate prematurely.
If, in every other respect, this kid is simply a devout Christian, the down-side, if he’s wrong, is that he goes to heaven a little earlier than originally planned. Maybe it’s not just the goofy belief in faith healing that’s leading him to this decision. Maybe his goofy belief in an after-life.
Incidentally, if anyone in the church with an “IQ above room temperature” understands that modern medicine has displaced faith-based healing as the officially sanctioned remedy for ill health, then why don’t those same people accept that modern science has displaced myth when it comes to understanding the causes of things? And how long before they understand that, when you’re dead, you’re dead?
Chris in AL,
You are often better at expressing how I feel than I am. If you live up in Huntsville, maybe we can get together for lunch sometime.
” I think parents should be able to say no. I just don’t know where or how you draw the line. ”
You shouldn’t draw the line. The parents should draw the line. If they make a mistake they will have significantly less chance of procreating successfully.
It is not the purpose of the government and the rule of law to overcome the laws of nature.
The exception should be is if a child wishes a doctor’s prescribed treatment they should be allowed to overrule their parents.
@ Pris “The FDA is there to protect us…”
Poppycock.
As we speak, I and my company are staring down the gauntlet of flaming hoops laid down by the FDA just to get a tool into physicians’ hands that will allow them to use the very information FDA has told them they ought to use.
They didn’t tell them *how* to use the information, just that they ought to get it before prescribing this drug.
Here we are, ready to help those physicians understand what the hell they should do, facilitate their ability to manage patients and save lives.
But we can’t make a move until the FDA says so. It’s going to be several more years, and that means billions of dollars lost and tens of thousands of lives endangered for no good reason.
The FDA isn’t there to protect us. The FDA is there to make sure we don’t get the best care as soon as improvements are available.
Hell, they pulled vioxx, right? Why? Because a few people had an adverse reaction. Well guess what? Those people were genotypically at risk. Had they been tested, they’d never have been given the drug and the vast majority of people who are now suffering with lesser alternatives would have received effective therapy.
I’m ok with the notion of FDA setting standards for manufacturing practices, barring its replacement with something like CLIA, which certifies laboratories. But this ridiculous foot-dragging they do is killing people.
As for the child… I don’t feel right judging, but I also can’t help but feel that something is very, very wrong going on in his family.
“Do parental rights extend to denying potentially lifesaving chemo for your kid? I just don’t know where or how you draw the line.”
As in most things, it’s quite simple.
The parents get to decide.
Period.
#32 | J sub Dm
I, for one, trust the UL (and Consumers Union and Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval) a whole fuck of a lot more than I trust the FDA.
#47 | pris
Yes the FDA has allowed as many dangerous drugs on the market (which have had to be removed from the marketplace) as they have prevented effective drugs and treatments to be marketed and used, which is why I do not trust the FDA at all. The FDA is far too cozy with the Big Pharma companies to the detriment of their “job” as “watchdog” over drugs and food (and they haven’t been all that effective or honest about our foods either).
Chris in 42 said “We have to get over this idea that children’s lives are so much more valuable than adults lives. They aren’t.”
Maybe not to you or to me. They are, however, to the state. Children still have several decades of work to do in order to feed the collective in the form of taxes. The state sees that child as potential revenue. Nothing more.
The way I see it, children are merely the excuse the state uses to grab more power. I don’t think they see far enough into the future to even think about the potential tax revenue that children will bring in. In fact, I don’t think politicians are capable of seeing past the next election (except when it comes to constructing monuments to themselves).
Having said that, I know I’ve made the argument in the past that government sees all citizens as nothing more than a massive wealth generator from which it is their sole mission to extract as much as possible.
They’re like organized crime but without the honesty to admit it.
It’s sad that so many in this thread are missing the point on the kid refusing medical treatment. Remove the religious aspect from it, it really doesn’t matter WHY the parents don’t want the kid treated. If they said it was because they watched a parent suffer and die in misery from chemo, would that make their claim more “reasonable”? It doesn’t matter, or at least it shouldn’t.
The parents should have the right to determine things for their children. Their reasons are immaterial. The only way the government should be able to get involved is to prove the parents INTENT is malice or indifference, and this should be a high bar. Only in that circumstance should they be able to override parental decisions. Those who have thrown out example of abuse or neglect would be clearly covered by this standard. If the state can show that the intent of the parents in this case is to abuse or neglect their child, fine, otherwise its the parents decision.
So let me see if I’ve got this line of reasoning down. A few of you think that the government should never step in on the benefit of a child no matter what the circumstances, because how the parents bring up their children is their business.
Beat a kid, give him bruises everyday. Possibly break a few bones. Don’t worry it’s the parents right to bring them up this way. It’ll make them tougher.
Starve a kid. Refuse to feed them anything. Don’t worry it’s the parents right to bring them up this way. Don’t worry, that 3 year old needed to die at 18 pounds because he didn’t say “amen“.
Tell the parents that they’re out of their minds and judge that a 90% chance of survival is better than none. Hell no, cant have that! Cant have someone telling you from the government how to bring up your child. After all we’ve got the internets and can use faith based healing! Who needs government intervention when you’ve got that!
As much as I want as little interaction to do with government officials, sometimes they are actually needed. This is why crazy people aren’t allowed to deem that a child cannot have a blood transfusion, or insulin on the premise that God will fix it.
To any atheists (obviously not all of you) who advocate the state stepping in to save the child from his “idiotic” parents, I raise this question: should a state that believes faith healing to be legitimate force the children of atheists to receive it?
The obvious answer is no. You’ve allowed the parents’ faith to become the antagonist, when the true villain, as always, is the state. An individual’s right to self determination and self ownership is absolute. If that individual is a minor, convention states his or her parents act in his/her stead. How can any liberty minded individual maintain the state has the moral authority to supersede the parents’ decision?
“Except that the Darwin Award that he’d receive would be for knowingly removing his diseased self from the gene pool to make it stronger.”
The Darwin Awards specifically exclude children.
http://www.darwinawards.com/rules/rules4.html
Here’s a question (or really hypothetical scenario). What happens when one parent wants to give chemo, and the other parent (and child) doesn’t? What’s the libertarian/anarchist position on that?
Chance,
That happens now. So they fight it out in court. I’m fine with that as long as the state doesn’t choose a third alternative.
Concur with Hannah.
“So they fight it out in court. I’m fine with that as long as the state doesn’t choose a third alternative.”
You’ve sidestepped the question. In the end, the decision will still be made by the the state, and either way the parents will be discounted. How is that more or less just than this situation? Just because both parents agree? Hey, what if the Grandparents disagree? They have as big a genetic stake in this as the parents do.
In the end, the kid dies, the moron parents probably go on to have more, but THANK GOD the state didn’t get involved. That’s really the important thing.
Chance,
That’s the reality of the system. If parents wish to turn to the state to make decisions about their kids, that’s up to the parents. It’s not a sidestep, it’s another aspect of parental choice and the defined role of the government to arbitrate disputes.
If the parents want to entrust the raising and training of the children entirely to the state, I’m OK with that as long as it’s the choice of the parent.
If you have kids, I’m sure you want to raise them according to HEW standards since the state knows all.
You realize AFW is a for-profit, pro-forfeiture, company that heavily markets itself to the government as a source for forfeiture training and materials?
Every time you link to their site, you increase their pageviews and their credibility.
Obviously, you don’t have “this line of reasoning down” if you think anyone is advocating that. You’re bashing away at a straw man.
Your glossing over the horrible side-effects of chemo, not to mention the fact that a 13-year-old boy doesn’t want to go through that. Maybe he hasn’t reached the age of majority, but his decision about what he wants done with his body and his life should carry a significant amount of weight with anyone judging this.
If I were the boy’s grandfather or uncle, you can bet I’d be raising hell. If the teenager actually wanted treatment, I’d take him away myself. But then, I’d be familiar with the details and be far more likely than some government functionary to have my loved ones’ best interests at heart.
As I said above, “If our culture hadn’t been corrupted with dependence on government to solve social problems, to the point of near helplessness, perhaps private individuals close to the scene would be more inclined to do the right thing.”
Here’s another tough one … http://www.wyff4.com/cnn-news/19526636/detail.html … this mother is on the run. Deputies are looking for a mother and son after the state was planning to take the 555-pound 14-year-old into protective custody, according to Greenville County deputies.
Where do you draw the line? When the parents put their child at risk. Next obvious question is who determines that risk. A 14 year old at 555 lbs, a 13 yr old with 0% if no treatment … I think maybe those have crossed the line.
[...] R. McKinney, an Indiana prosecutor, has been cleared of criminal charges for, if Balko has the right background on this, improperly diverting funds gathered by asset forfeiture. [...]
I concur with carpundit: Asset Forfeiture Watch appears to be on The Dark Side, big time. The article linked is mostly behind a “Premium Content” subscription wall, $300 to us mere subjects, $100 of tax or seized cash to “government”.
Here’s a regular news article, which is unfortunately not very clear on exactly on what exactly it was the McKinney did. I think (after a quick skim) he put seized assets into a city channel, rather than into the state channel required by state law. I can’t tell if any money went to his office or him personally.
Of course all this is associated with a “Drug Task Force”.
AFW deserves investigation and exposure, not links and traffic. A quick tour of their site left me feeling pretty damn slimy. This organization is not about transparency and accountability, it’s about law enforcement learning how to use the rules to get a free ride.
Here’s a self-serving op-ed piece in the New York Slimes:
“Fail to exercise this power fully.” I can’t wait to see how the dogs run once AFW shows them how to slip their chains, if not their collars.
Aargh, I screwed up the tags and lost the quote from the Slimes article:
The problem is not that the government lacks the authority to confiscate criminal assets. The very first Congress, in 1789, authorized the federal government to seize criminal assets — as a way of taking illegal goods away from smugglers. Today, some 200 federal criminal and drug control laws include provisions for asset forfeiture. And the 50 states and the District of Columbia all have forfeiture provisions of their own.
The problem is that governments — national, state and local — fail to exercise this power fully. Eric Holder, the attorney general, has already expressed his support for doing so. Back in 1999, when he was the deputy attorney general, he told the Senate Judiciary Committee, “From telemarketing to terrorism to counterfeiting to violation of the food and drug laws, the remedy of asset forfeiture should be applied.”
Okay, as a general rule I agree. I don’t want some busybody pushing his nose in where it doesn’t belong. But to play Devil’s Advocate…what about a parent having sex with his/her child? How do you justify State intervention in this case? Because of harm to the child? But that is the basis for intervening in the case with a treatable cancer. Something seems to be missing from the simple explanation above.
Re: bling, see my post from May 13
http://www.bakelblog.com/nobodys_business/2009/05/sultans-of-bling.html
“The kid says he does not want the treatment. the court said that at 13 he is not old enough to actually understand what it means to die and cannot be considered mature enough to make this decision.
Interesting, because if he killed someone, I bet they would say he understood everything well enough to be tried as an adult.”
ChrisinAlabama, I agree, on one hand the govt says at 13 he can’t understand what it means to die, but when he’s accused of a crime, he certainly does understand Miranda and the consequences of waiving it.. Okay, which is it?
I just thought of something. The state says a 13 year old can’t understand death, yet a 10 year old can be sentenced as an adult to die in a cage. If the child can’t understand what death means, how can it be a just punishment to give him a living death sentence? Aren’t punishments based on the ability to understand them?
There seems to be some contradiction here.
@Hannah: That’s pretty much what I got from it too.
“The big bad gubbermint is taking away parental rights! Woe is us!”
In a case about parents demanding their kid not get chemo. Of course the kid is going to agree with the parents, he’s homeschooled. He has no frame of reference for reality that doesn’t come from his nutty parents. Can’t have the evil gubment telling people what to do though!
I usually find myself arguing with people that toss out this stereotype of libertarians. At least now I know where it comes from.