Is it a right or is it right?

by likeabird 15 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  likeabird

  In light of the recent posts about the little boy taken out of hospital in Southampton by his parents and is now somewhere between France and Spain, I started reading up some of the newspaper article links posted. I was especially interested by the comments posted.

  Note my surprise, and yes horror, to see a large number of people supporting the parents decision. How the parents are fully in their rights to do such a thing, going as far as to imply they 'own' their child, so they can do what they want.

  I know this is a very sensitive subject and I'm probably opening a can of worms, but I think it needs saying. Even if parents do have the right to do things like this, is this really right?

  Over to you.
• 

  new hope and happiness

  I think it would be wise to wait untill the full facts are available before speculating.
• 

  OnTheWayOut

  I am not commenting on the specific case of the boy, but on what you ask.

  Government declares that you do not have the right to do what you want with another human being, even including your own child.

  In virtually every country on the planet, you cannot sell them, you cannot kill them nor mistreat them. They are not slaves and they are not property. You can often keep them from the government-supported schools only if you prove they are getting some alternatives.

  Granted, the laws are not always clear on what is considered mistreatment. That is probably where people are really arguing. Even those that think parents can decide to avoid medical treatment are hung up on whether that is mistreatment or not. I am confident that even those that think it is right to avoid medical treatment want humane treatment to children.

  There are those that disagree with immunization for their children. That doesn't mean they want them to die.

  Personally, I think government does need to step in if parents are whacko cult members or otherwise want to sell or hurt their children or prevent their children from getting their needs.
• 

  likeabird

  new hope & happiness - I understand what your saying. I'm not so much looking at the situation itself as people's reaction to it. That's what really surprised me. They seemed far more hung up on the legality of what a parent can or can't do and that the parent should always have the last word.
• 

  likeabird

  I agree with you OTWO. It's what I think too. But I have also known people (non-Dubs) who don't think the State should intervene.
• 

  new hope and happiness

  likeabird: I understand your reaction as i felt the same way myself having read comments in the daily mail. Having said that the parents must be under incredible emotional strain and that can effect rationally thinking.
• 

  BluesBrother

  I don't know how good the medical authorities are in other countries, but dealings with those in the U K made me realise that 1) medicine is not an exact science and different doctors have different opinions on what is best . 2) All patients and parents caring for thei children do have an inalienable right to chose the treatment and what happens to their body.

  Obviously, to refuse all treatment for a child would be abuse as would obvious life saving trauma treatment when death is imminent In this case thogh, the child is stable. The Hospital delivered misinformation about his feeding apperatus (that he would die after 24 hours - not true) This would appear to be a case of differing medical opinions and intransigence on the part of the hospital doctors .

  If you have not seen the fullvideo by the father, take a look here

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14ETQn9ZPwk
• 

  MissFit

  Likeabird: I think you raised an important issue.

  I do agree that children should not be treated like property and be at the sole whim of their parents.

  I feel most parents want the best possible care and outcome for their children.

  I agree with Bluesbrother: medical advise and expertise varies. Even experts can disagree about treatments. I think medical personnel should be willing to work with the parents and help them understand their options.

  I had an experience with having to butt heads with my child's doctor and being a strong advocate for my son. I had to do my own research. I too went on the internet so I could get more information.

  I searched for experts and was able to make an appointment. I had to drive over 3 hours from home for the consultation. Even after I got the information and the experts sent their recommendations to my son' s doctor, I still had to fight with her.

  The issue was how low my sons platelet count needed to be before he was hospitalised. His doctor had an arbitrary number without taking anything else into account. The experts gave me a range and other factors to take into consideration.

  The point was my son's doctor felt he was at risk even though Doctors with more experience disagreed.

  I had an ER doctor who thought I was risking my son' s life because I didnt immediately put my son in the hospital when his platelets went down. He looked at the numbers and not at the whole picture. I had backing from doctors who had experience in this field.

  So I am saying that sometimes a parent is forced to be an "expert" and be assertive because some doctors already have their mind made up.

  In my case I was not opposed to getting my son treatment. I disagreed with the implementation and degree of the treatment. In my son's doctor's mind my son was at risk.

  We changed doctors. I could not take fighting with her every times.
• 

  Mum

  Generally speaking, it's fine to believe anything, however bizarre. However, certain actions, even if based on strong belief, are wrong and need to be curbed and/or outlawed.
• 

  new hope and happiness

  I would like to characterize the attitude of " daily mail"reader comments towards these parents, and in general it seems very favourble of there actions.

  I raise the above point because our thinking is often dictated by the media, but in this case the origional " Daily Mail" headline suggested negativity to the parents and i was surprised both that my self and readers in general saw past the sensational headlines and applied more rational and independent thinking.

  Anyway i can understand how if told my child had a terminal illness my thinking could be irrational. Optimism is incurable and it seems the authorities did not have absolute legal power to prevent the parents actions? if so i dont understand why they have been arrested.

  Under similar circumstances i think i would have done what these parents did ( if i had the courage) Blood of my blood, bone of my bone, seeing that child suffer and holding that hand and looking in to those eyes...heartbreaking ...i could never judge the parents.