Family let's dying 5 yr old decide.

[IronCore]

HGH lets pay a little hypothetical scenario here... Imagine this Headlines say "Atheist Homosexual couple allow dying adopted 5 year old to chose to go to hospital or die... parents tell Child "Its ok... if you stay home and die you will no longer exist and your pain and suffering are over"... then a Christian pipes up and says something like.. "Wow, I wish they would have told that child the truth... that when she dies she will burn in an everlasting torment called HELL!"... how would that strike your fancy?

 

[1bigun11]

I suggest that the reason we are ok with the child deciding in this case is that we as parents have looked at the facts and decided that letting her die might be appropriate under these facts. In other words the parents first decide. I also suggest, however, for all those who say that it is the child's choice and not the parents that they might view the situation differently if she was going to die because she had been bitten by a rabid dog and had decided that she would rather ride unicorns in heaven with Jesus than go to the hospital.

 

[Rockshawn]

Of course the Dr.s want her to keep coming to the hospital and let them try stuff. That's how they make a living, but is that ethical in a situation where the patient is terminal and they have admitted it? Sounds more like milking them for all it's worth.

And why would courts award a Dr's temporary custody of minors so they can treat them? that makes no sense whatsoever, it is not the Dr's or the court's choice and I would have to believe it is greed motivated.

 

[Jenner]

Of course the Dr.s want her to keep coming to the hospital and let them try stuff. That's how they make a living, but is that ethical in a situation where the patient is terminal and they have admitted it? Sounds more like milking them for all it's worth.

And why would courts award a Dr's temporary custody of minors so they can treat them? that makes no sense whatsoever, it is not the Dr's or the court's choice and I would have to believe it is greed motivated.

This is off topic to a point but...last night in class we had a speaker from Child Protective Services..she was going over all the things they can/can not take action on or even make a report on. Someone asked what happens when a child who's parents are say "against" blood transfusions (for religious reasons) but the child needs a life saving operation and it requires that they have a blood transfusion, what happens? She stated that in that case if the parents are adamant about not allowing the blood transfusion but is ok with the operation (but the child can't have one without the other), the hospital will call the child abuse registry hotline and make a report. What happens next is the law steps in and pretty much forces their hand to allow the child to have the operation and blood transfusion. Said she hasn't had a case yet where the parents did not give in.

 

[1bigun11]

None of the potential decision makers will get it right all the time. But I think having the government (or insurance companies) decide it are the worst options if all!