Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by Joseph_Botwinick, Jun 8, 2004.
COURT GIVES PERMISSION FOR TRANSFUSION WHEN MOM WON'T
I agree with the ruling.
I agree with it too. It does, however, bring up the question of how much say the government should have in the administration of our children's health. I probably put this in the wrong forum now that I think about it. I guess I put it here because it involved the JW cult. Anyway, what are your thoughts about the role of government when it comes to the health care of our kids?
That's easy. Our parental rights cease when our childrens' lives are endangered. Refusing a blood transfusion, in this case, endangers a child's life.
Now, before anyone waves the first amendment's freedom of religion clause, if your religious beliefs forbid blood transfusions, then you can refuse one for yourself.
I know that there are some on this board that don't believe in vaccinating their children. Would this ruling have any effect on them you think? (BTW, I am not one of those parents).
It depends. Since most vaccinations are not to stop an immediate danger, but are preventative, I don't think this would constitute as danger. OTOH, if there's, say, a smallpox epidemic making its way through schools, and a parent refuses to vaccinate their kids, I would consider that parent irresponsible.
I think parents have the right to refuse to have their children vaccinated. If other children are vaccinated, then these other children cannot be harmed by those for whom it has been refused. But, if a child actually has a serious disease, as is the case with the JW child, and the parent refused necessary medical help, that is endangering the child's life and the courts have a right to intervene.
I agree with the ruling also, but I'm undecided when it comes to vaccinations. No, other children cannot be harmed by refusal to have your child vaccinated, but that child certainly can.
It's true that they can be harmed by not being vaccinated. But notice how selective the state is as to what measures parents/guardians must be forced by law to enact preventative measures. It's illegal to allow small children to ride in a car other than in an 'approved' car seat, for example. But there is no limit to how many McDonald's 'Happy Meals' per month you can give a child, even though allowing them to grow up with their bodies being accustomed to intaking much more fat than is advisable for good health does lead to obesity and heart, liver, and kidney problems.
There are laws about child endangerment, of course, but it appears the courts in different states are not at all uniform in how such laws are interprested. A parent may be convicted for leaving a child in a hot car for a half hour, but to my knowledge it's not actually illegal to leave matches where a child can get them, or to not safety-cover unused electrical outlets; but these are definitely things which have resulted in fires, injuries, and death. I don't know what the probabilities are for a child to get smallpox or polio if they do not take the preventative medicines, but I suspect they are not greater than of causing a fire with matches or electricity.
Speaking of which, our liberal Republican Baptist minister governor in Arkansas is forcing all kids to have BMI (body mass index) test done on them in several schools in Arkansas and is looking to have it done statewide and have the results posted on their report cards. I am wondering if you think that is the government's role. Where does it end? I know that many government officials are studying the idea of a fat tax on fast food in order to discourage me from super sizing it when I go to Mcdonalds. Is that the government's role? Where should we draw the line when it comes to our and our children's health as far as the government is concerned?
On the government's side, they will argue that they have the right to regulate our health habits and that of our children because it is the government who pays the price to treat the diseases such as diabetes that can result from being overweight. Governor Huckabee made this argument just last week. What do you think about this?
If they want to regulate the food we eat - they best regulate tobacco - and - booze - to name just a couple of items.
By the way - there is one sponsored terroristic activity that the government allows - and often encourages - that is fatal - 100% of the time - ABORTION!
The already regulate tobacco (cigarettes) by putting a tax on them and using the money in a propganda campaign to get people not to smoke. Interesting thing about that, is that a lot of that money is also being used for funding stuff that the original lawsuit was never intended to fund, such as public schools, highways, and other government pet projects. If the government truly thought smoking was so bad, they would not tax it and then use the money to fund state programs. They would simply ban it outright. Don't you think?
Now here is the "odd thing". In acts 15 the NT church UPHOLDS the OT injuction against eating meat with blood in it - YET JW's WILL do that very thing (eat Rare meat or meat that is not Kosher) -- YET they refuse something that the OT never addressed at all - blood transfusions.
Why did this make the news? It's routine.
This is routine? I'll be honest with you. I have neveer heard of a court ruling against the family in a case like this. How do you know this is routine?
If the government can put taxes over and above sales taxes on tobacco and alcohol products, why can't they enact a "fat tax" on certain kinds of foods? It's the same logic-- these particular products increase the probability of health problems (and sometimes other problems) that the government will pay a substantial portion in battling. Maybe some day salt will go from 50 or 60 cents a box to 5 or 6 dollars because it is related to high blood pressure and the diseases related thereto.
Politics are "mood issues" more than we frequently realize. Most of us probably agree that prohibiting the sale of alcohol and tobacco to minors is reasonable to make it more difficult for young people to do harm, maybe permanent harm, to themselves. But a pregnant woman who smokes or drinks is not acting illegally, even though some of the greatest harm from these products can occur to a child if done while the child is in the uterus. That is an inconsistency based on a mood issue-- the mood issue being "a woman has a right to control her own body," regardless of what it does to her child, including the child's deliberate death.
To put a special tax on an item or an action is, IMO, a 'second tier' method of making it illegal. It is not in fact illegal, but a fine must be paid in advance in order to own the item or perform the act 'legally.' This is true of tobacco, alcohol, gasoline, hunting and fishing. It works like insurance-- pay the premium and avoid a much greater cost in case of "disaster" [being caught and asked to show you paid the tax or license fee]. One of the most extreme examples I know of would be owning a machine gun. There is a federal tax of $600 per year to own one [I heard this years ago; it might not be the same now]. Such a tax is obviously meant to make owning a machine gun legally impossible for many, but without making the act itself illegal, and maybe having a consitutional problem from doing so.
With separation of church and state, government theoretically cannot encourage or discourage any type of religious/spiritual beliefs or practices. There is, however, no 'separation of health and state,' 'separation of safety and state,' or 'separation of stupidity and state'. So the government's role can be what legislators vote for it to be... whether that be safe or healthy or stupid, it ultimately falls to the people who vote them into office.
Its the cokes and pepsis that are doing us in, you know. Ban them . . .
When I was in Europe I asked people how much they spent for food and it was the same amount we spend. But food was about 80 percent more.
Higher food prices would certainly encourage a healthier body.
And the state is also discouraging teachers from exhibiting snacks in the classroom which "foster obesity".
BTW, Joseph, do you really think Huckabee is "liberal". I'd personally rather have him as governor than Bill Clinton.
We honestly haven't had a decent governor in Arkansas since Frank White in the early 80's. Yes Huckabee (I never met a murderer or rapists I won't pardon) is a liberal and I am sorry I ever voted for him.