BAIPA - sleeper issue?

[Rose Anna]

I'm just trying to be consistent with current law to the best of my knowledge. The fact is that people do indeed under some cases have the ability to make life or death decisions involving relatives who are dying and near death. They can be legally authorized to issue do not resuscitate or do not feed orders if the patient has provided authorization.

Actually, the parents do have the authority to decide the fate of their child throughout life. Parental authorization is required for things such as life-saving surgery. Is this a violation of the childs constitutional rights if the parent denies such authorization? What about Christian Scientists who deny medication for their child or Jehovah's witnesses who refuse blood transfusions. Does the state step in?

Yes, but very rarely. Most of the time they never make it to the hospital where that might happen. Home, left to their own devises and religion, no, the state does not step in. I doubt that real statistics are available or would be accurate.

 

[30A Skunkape]

I was just wondering. Could you elaborate on the legalities involved in these situations? I would like to know more about this. I was under the impression that parents had to give authorization for certain medical prcedures. Don't get me wrong, I find that very disturbing that parents have tried to withhold medical treatment.

I can't cite case law or anything like that, but in Florida (and I assume most if not all states) a physician can depend on a court order to deliver generally accepted treatment to save a minor whose life is in danger or who risks long term injury from not receiving treatment regardless of the parent's wishes. Basically, life sustaining treatment trumps the parent's first amendment rights. I do think there have been instances where adolescent minors have been deemed sound enough of mind to refuse treatment based on first amendment rights-I think there was a case of an older teen who refused leukemia treatment.

 

[30ashopper]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 30ashopper
Repunzel, in the case where the mother's life is in danger (I mention this above) terminating the pregnancy is completely acceptable in my book.

Since there are no late term abortions that are not to save the mother's life then you must be fine with any that happen in the third term, since all are medically necessary.

I'm not sure your are correct in the assumption that all late term abortions are for the good of the mother's health. According to wikipedia in some cases they are not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 30ashopper
The point I was trying to make is that many pro-choice supporters use the slippery sloap argument to advocate the idea that women should have the right to have elective abortions during this period. I do not support that.

I understand what you are saying, but you actually have the argument in reverse. Pro-choice by definition is neither for or against abortions, but is in fact just in favor of governments and groups backing off and letting the woman, her doctors and whatever her support group is make the decisions concerning her body.

Well, I've had a few discussions with pro choice advocates who use the slippery sloap argument. I don't think one side or the other is innocent of taking things to the extreme.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 30ashopper
If the mother has the right to make a decision like this and the state should not represent the child (which, um is a violation of the childs constitutional rights, but hey, who cares about that) why stop at late term abortions? Lets give the mother the right to decide the fate of her child throughout the childs life? Is there really any difference?

If you want to argue that point, then it stands that the fetus' legal guardian is the mother, just as you are the legal guardian of any children that you have. Do you want the government usurping your rights over your children, or do you think that you can look out for their best interest and your own?

The state has limited responsibilities - one is to protect people's rights. The fact that we've ballooned our government up into something it shouldn't be doesn't really play into this. IMHO, the original intent of governmental role in our lives is still very valid and worthy.

I get the legal guardian argument, it's a good one. But note that in medical "Schiavo" cases, it is often that the subject involved is suffering. A child in the womb is not suffering, he or she wants to live given the chance. There is a dividing line here, a mother has the right to make life and death decisions if the mother's goal in making those decisions is to do what is best for the child. e.g. save a life, alleviate suffering, etc.. Abortion is the opposite, she is terminating a life because that life is an inconvenience to her. (medical cases where the mother's life is in danger not included.) In some cases that could easily be considered murder, and our laws are quite clear on whether or not that is legal.

Again, my concern here is about one side or the other taking things to the extreme. Both sides are guilty of this IMHO. On one side you are letting government invade into someone's life far too much, on the other you are giving an individual the right kill someone due to inconvenience. Striking a balance, basing our decisions on medical science (rather than symbolism), and maintaining constitutionality in our decision making process are what is most important to me. IMHO both sides are equally guilty of the current mess we have because both are breaking one rule or another in order to get their way.

I should point out (if it's not already obvious) that I feel Roe v Wade and the cases that followed it are based on rights that don't actually exist in the Constitution. I do however appreciate the balance these rulings have set.

 

[6thGen]

I don't think the state should speak for the child any more than they should for a dying relative with a living will. I think by default, the mother, who has carried the fetus in her own body should be the one to make these decisions by default. What would the state use as a criterion as to whether or not to let the child live or die, and why should anyone trust the state's judgment any more than the mother's? We've already seen how politically fueled the state's decision making capability can be with the Terry Schiavo case.

Nice argument, but Primum non nocere separates this from Schiavo.

 

[6thGen]

One last thing, the dargs (who shouldn't be allowed to handle sharp objects) and scooterbug's position is differentiated from the old Chinese method of sex selection only by its convenience for the mother.

 

[jollyroger]

I just want to be clear before I say that dairy cattle could make better arguments.

One last thing, the dargs (who shouldn't be allowed to handle sharp objects)

your father was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries.

I think that I know who 6th Gen is:

YouTube - monty python and the holy grail

 

[JeanLafitte]

6TH Gen certainly seems like a frustrated fellow. Could this poor gent be displaying the burden of too many years of wedgies, stolen lunch money and general unpleasantness at the hands of viscous tormentors in the formative years? An upbringing like that, along with too much time spent in Bill Buckley's fart cloud does tend to foster chat room tyrants.

 

[6thGen]

Alanis Morrisette (sp?) wrote a song about this. When I say something unfriendly after being attacked, I get threatening PMs, responses like the above, and so forth. When someone insults me while getting it wrong and completely missing point, they get every form of internet high five there is.

 

[Mango]

If someone gets a threatening PM, please report it to a moderator.

Also, once again, personal attacks are not allowed on Sowal by anyone.

This applies to body functions, smelly berries, kitchen appliances, and well, anything else insulting.

 

[John R]

another winner thread propagated by 6thgen.

This whole thread became moot when he posted a reference written by some loon who stated that she witnessed an infant being left on a shelf to expire. Seriously? Does she have evidence? I personally believe she is a liar, making things up for someone's political agenda. Perfect fuel for the weak minded to throw themselves upon.

btw, I do not support a ban on third trimester abortion. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a ban means it could never happen. That would put many women at risk, no?