| awthrawthr@yahoo.com 2006-08-02, 8:26 am |
|
cathyb wrote:
> awthrawthr@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> Yes; since there isn't a skerrick of evidence that it works, I would
> say so.
There is a mountain of evidence that a second 'try' with chemo is
deadly. So on the one hand there is a treatment that you don't think
has evidence and on the other is a treatment that has evidence, only
it's negative. In other words, it's not as if there is a clear choice
where your preference is a clear cut better choice. Again I refer you
to the NY appelate court decision in Schneider v. Revici. That court
found it is acceptable to choose treatments "outside currently approved
medical methods in search of unconventional treatment."
So your assertion of abuse or neglect just doesn't hold water for it is
neither.
>
>
> Actually, I said abuse or negligence. And indeed the state can, should
> and does intervene when parents are stupid or negligent concerning the
> health of their child, or any other dependent.
The NY federal appelate court disagrees with you. There is no neglect
or abuse.
>
>
> You're missing the point. There are plenty of instances of parents
> disagreeing with the state as to the best interest of their child.
> There are plenty of parents who think that child abuse is loving
> discipline. They have the right to disagree with me (and the state) on
> that issue, surely, but they do not have the right to inflict their
> views on their child, and the state will intervene. As it would if, for
> instance, a parent neglected to have their child educated to a certain
> level, no matter the views of that parent on education.
Choosing a medical treatment isn't one of those instances.
>
> Children are not possessions, and they have a right to expect that if
> their parents are making decisions that are clearly not in their best
> interests, the state will protect them.
Choosing a medical treatment "outside currently approved medical
methods in search of unconventional treatment" does not rise to the
level of either abuse or neglect, so says the NY federal appelate
court.
|