stormcris
Do parents have any rights?
May 24, 2009 at 1:58 AM

With the several cases that have come up as of late as to where a parent can refuse medical treatment of a child, do you feel we have reached a slippery slope that could lead to the state enforcing all medical treatment irregardless of a parents wishes up to and including vaccinations and behavioral medications?

It seems I recall the reason people can refuse vaccinations and/or any medications is because a person cannot be forced to undergo medical treatment of any kind against their religion or their personal spiritual beliefs. Yet, here we are now with that very thing being done.

Are parents right to refuse treatment for thier child in jepardy?

After all Maryland forced vaccinations in November 2007.

Replies

  • 3timesoccermom
    May 24, 2009 at 2:16 AM

    The governor of Texas tried to make it law to have our girls vaccinated with Gardasil but faced a huge outcry over it and had to back off. 

  • stormcris
    May 24, 2009 at 2:34 AM

    Perhaps public outcry is the way to keep it in check.

    Quoting 3timesoccermom:

    The governor of Texas tried to make it law to have our girls vaccinated with Gardasil but faced a huge outcry over it and had to back off. 


  • Kaelaasmom
    May 24, 2009 at 8:32 AM

    While I may not agree with a parent not vaccinating their child, it should be up to them, not the government.

    As parents, we should be able to decide what is best for our child. Unless there is abuse or neglect, the government needs to keep its nose out of the affairs of the family. 

  • lilyrose73
    May 24, 2009 at 8:43 AM

     I believe in the parent's right not to vaccinate.  I also believe in a parent's right to choose their child's treatment if they are ill whether it be natural remedies or modern medicine. 

    However, there was a case in WI recently where the mother was charged and convicted because her daughter died of untreated diabetes (the girl was 11 and hadn't been to a Dr since she was 4, so they didn't even know she had diabetes).  Instead of taking her to a doctor the parent's chose to pray for her recovery and she died.  That to me is neglect and a lot different than the case of the boy with cancer because his parents are at least trying to treat him... they are just wanting to do it with natural remedies. 

     This is a fine line though, you just can't go around neglecting your child's health...but you should be able to chose how they are treated.

  • ain-gell72
    May 24, 2009 at 8:44 AM

    if the government doesn't have the right to help oversee the child as far as medical reasons go, then why does the government oversee a woman being able to chose abortion?

    the medical care of any woman should be her choice, the medical care of a child should be the parents choice until the child is 16, neither should be the governments.

  • alohamalu
    May 24, 2009 at 11:39 AM

    Here's my take:

    If your child is lying in the middle of the street bleeding, and you allow the ambulance to get to your child and you jump in the ambulance to advocate...that's a good thing. 

    If your kid is lying in the middle of the street bleeding, and you don't let the ambulance get to your child....that is neglect, and if your kid dies, it's murder.

  • stormcris
    May 24, 2009 at 1:31 PM

    Suppose you took your child to the ER for a fever (just a fever) and they wanted to preform a spinal tap. pump antibiotics and steriods, due to a 5% chance it is meningitis. You know your family just had a nasty virus and refuse treatment, and take your child home. Next thing you know cops are at your door taking your child from you under charges of medical neglect. They then take the child back to the hospital where all the medical suggestions are preformed only to find the child had a cold. Then the child was then returned to the mother.

    This actually happened in Utah.


  • ain-gell72
    May 24, 2009 at 2:15 PM

    if you knew you all just had a virus, then why take the child in the first place? to be reaffairmed of the virus? then it seems to me, the parent thought the child may have something else, which could have been meningitis. the hospital was only doing their job and when the parents got all huffy about the treatment, the hospital then got concerned for the welfare of the child.

    I say, go hospital for being on the lookout!

    Quoting stormcris:

    Suppose you took your child to the ER for a fever (just a fever) and they wanted to preform a spinal tap. pump antibiotics and steriods, due to a 5% chance it is meningitis. You know your family just had a nasty virus and refuse treatment, and take your child home. Next thing you know cops are at your door taking your child from you under charges of medical neglect. They then take the child back to the hospital where all the medical suggestions are preformed only to find the child had a cold. Then the child was then returned to the mother.

    This actually happened in Utah.



  • stormcris
    May 24, 2009 at 2:21 PM

    Sorry perhaps I should clarify infant with fever of 101.

    Quoting ain-gell72:

    if you knew you all just had a virus, then why take the child in the first place? to be reaffairmed of the virus? then it seems to me, the parent thought the child may have something else, which could have been meningitis. the hospital was only doing their job and when the parents got all huffy about the treatment, the hospital then got concerned for the welfare of the child.

    I say, go hospital for being on the lookout!

    Quoting stormcris:

    Suppose you took your child to the ER for a fever (just a fever) and they wanted to preform a spinal tap. pump antibiotics and steriods, due to a 5% chance it is meningitis. You know your family just had a nasty virus and refuse treatment, and take your child home. Next thing you know cops are at your door taking your child from you under charges of medical neglect. They then take the child back to the hospital where all the medical suggestions are preformed only to find the child had a cold. Then the child was then returned to the mother.

    This actually happened in Utah.


     


  • ain-gell72
    May 24, 2009 at 2:28 PM

    even a more probable cause to take the child to be seen, and then the parents refuse to let the hospital test to see what may be wrong?

    yes- I blame the parents in this one.

    not to mention what the hospital thought the baby could have, is very contagious to all in contact with the baby.

    Quoting stormcris:

    Sorry perhaps I should clarify infant with fever of 101.

    Quoting ain-gell72:

    if you knew you all just had a virus, then why take the child in the first place? to be reaffairmed of the virus? then it seems to me, the parent thought the child may have something else, which could have been meningitis. the hospital was only doing their job and when the parents got all huffy about the treatment, the hospital then got concerned for the welfare of the child.

    I say, go hospital for being on the lookout!

    Quoting stormcris:

    Suppose you took your child to the ER for a fever (just a fever) and they wanted to preform a spinal tap. pump antibiotics and steriods, due to a 5% chance it is meningitis. You know your family just had a nasty virus and refuse treatment, and take your child home. Next thing you know cops are at your door taking your child from you under charges of medical neglect. They then take the child back to the hospital where all the medical suggestions are preformed only to find the child had a cold. Then the child was then returned to the mother.

    This actually happened in Utah.