When should the state step in to protect children from parents denying them medical care?

[Teaser Rate]

After reading stories of children dying at the hands of ill-informed or fundamentalist parents denying them life-saving medical care, I consider it challenging for a libertarian-minded person to find a line where government intervention in the matter is justified. Below are a few questions I’ve often asked myself;

Should the government ever have the right to overrule parental decisions? If so, in which cases? What about preventative measures like vaccines and proper nutrition? At what age can a child make up his own mind about treatment options? To the anarcho-capitalists: how would this issue be handled in a stateless society? As doctors, have either Ron or Rand ever addressed the topic?

For the record I’m not starting this threat as an excuse to promote government intervention or bash libertarianism, it’s an issue I’ve never been able to make up my mind on and I’m curious if anyone has a logically consistent position which is compatible with libertarianism.

[DamianTV]

I think a great deal has to do with the reason that the parents themselves are choosing to deny the child medical care. For example, cancer. Your son has cancer, and we will need to amputate both his arms and legs. If the same situation occurs when the child is an adult, they would most likely tell the doctor to stick thier medical opinion where the sun doesnt shine and go seek a second opinion or possibly research alternative treatments. As an adult, they might even elect to do absolutely nothing about the cancer at all.

The real problem with the entire situation will deal with forcing any individual to receive an exchange of services for their own (or someone else's) money. Where do we draw the line? An individual was injured in a car crash and was able to make their own decisions prior to the accident, however, the accident caused some serious brain damage. Should that person NOT have the right to refuse medical treatment? Would we say that drug addicts are not thinking as a rational person would think due to their dependancy on drugs? Those drugs may not even be illegal, but more likely prescribed. Would we force that individual to receive medical treatment to go to rehab because of their addiction to Oxycotin or another doctor prescribed narcotic?

The question isnt always in regards to the person that is to receive the treatment, but rather who is making the decision that the treatment will be denied. Again, for example, an infant has some sort of an illness, but one or both of the parents can be found "Not Competent" on pretty much any ground. The parents are declining the medical treatment and could be declared "Not Competent" for their Religious Beliefs, or because they Declared Bankruptcy, are Poor, Missed One Car Payment, or even better Scored a D- on a Math Test in the Fourth Grade.

Where do we draw the line? Should we even try to force an opinion of how to handle any individuals medical treatment without their concent? I jest at the idea of forcing anyone to receive a service that they do not want, period.

To oppose the question with a question, how would a truly Free Man approach this entire situation?

[Grubb556]

Ultimately, it should be up to the kid.

[roho76]

When should the state step in to protect children from their parents when they take them to the doctor and the doctor kills them through medical malpractice or makes them retarded and useless via psych drugs? When should the state step in when the state got involved and made a mess over nothing mean while your kids are split up and living under the roof of some convicted pedophile that slipped through the states fingers and is now in charge of kids because of some failed jobs for prisoners law? Who's going to protect us from the state, period?

We should never expect the "State" to do anything. Ever. No matter how bad the problem may be, the State only makes it worse and should never be looked to to solve anything, especially social issues.

[pcosmar]

Leeches
We need more leeches.

Perhaps bloodletting.

The State Certified and Sanctioned Professionals will decide what is best.
Parents have no business making decisions for their children.

[Anti Federalist]

We should never expect the "State" to do anything. Ever. No matter how bad the problem may be, the State only makes it worse and should never be looked to to solve anything, especially social issues.

That ^

Leeches
We need more leeches.

Perhaps bloodletting.

The State Certified and Sanctioned Professionals will decide what is best.
Parents have no business making decisions for their children.

And that ^

[libertybrewcity]

I think there are extreme circumstances where local communities can step in. I think ultimately these are the kinds of people that will hopefully die off.

[QueenB4Liberty]

I would hope everyone in this thread is also pro-choice, seeing that everyone has answered the state should not be able to force a treatment on a child against the parent's wishes.

But I agree with everyone in here.

[pcosmar]

I would hope everyone in this thread is also pro-choice, seeing that everyone has answered the state should not be able to force a treatment on a child against the parent's wishes.

But I agree with everyone in here.

[BamaAla]

I would hope everyone in this thread is also pro-choice, seeing that everyone has answered the state should not be able to force a treatment on a child against the parent's wishes.

But I agree with everyone in here.

This is an interesting topic, so please...please don't derail it to yet another abortion thread.

I've thought about this topic at some length and haven't really made any hard and fast decisions; I look forward to reading the opinions.

[IDefendThePlatform]

In the absence of a large, central state to make decisions, the impetus for action against negligent parents would fall to neighbors, family members, churches, neighborhood groups etc.. This kind of decentralized decision-making is always superior to one central plan of action that is forced upon a larger group of people.

[Soca Taliban]

To me its rather simple when asked the question who pays. Instead of asking should the government, the question should be phased in the correct manner. Should force or the threat of force be used against individuals to extract from them money to take care of another individual's child?

[QueenB4Liberty]

This is an interesting topic, so please...please don't derail it to yet another abortion thread.

I've thought about this topic at some length and haven't really made any hard and fast decisions; I look forward to reading the opinions.

I honestly didn't mean to do that, my apologies. But I guess people are saying the parents have a right to deny medical care, but would they agree to let parents deny medical care even if the child will die without the treatment they are being told to accept?

[jmdrake]

Ultimately, it should be up to the kid.

I would hope everyone in this thread is also pro-choice, seeing that everyone has answered the state should not be able to force a treatment on a child against the parent's wishes.

But I agree with everyone in here.

Have you ever know a child to choose to be aborted? Further do you honestly equate forced medical treatment with abortion? So if a parent has the right to refuse medical treatment that parent has a right to shoot his toddler in the head?

I honestly didn't mean to do that, my apologies. But I guess people are saying the parents have a right to deny medical care, but would they agree to let parents deny medical care even if the child will die without the treatment they are being told to accept?

I don't think you will find anyone who will say that a pregnant woman must be forced to accept pre-natal care even for an at risk pregnancy. Compare apples to apples. Or at least compare fruit to fruit.

[BamaAla]

I honestly didn't mean to do that, my apologies. But I guess people are saying the parents have a right to deny medical care, but would they agree to let parents deny medical care even if the child will die without the treatment they are being told to accept?

That's the problem. I don't like parents doing elective things without informed consent from the kid (tattoos, piercings, cosmetic surgeries, even circumcision however, what if the parent wishes to deny medication that could save the child's life? I think those occasions are rare, but they may exist; what to do?

Edit: I didn't mean to put a wink face in there; it was supposed to be a semicolon. Forum hates grammar!

[Grubb556]

Have you ever know a child to choose to be aborted? Further do you honestly equate forced medical treatment with abortion? So if a parent has the right to refuse medical treatment that parent has a right to shoot his toddler in the head?

I don't think you will find anyone who will say that a pregnant woman must be forced to accept pre-natal care even for an at risk pregnancy. Compare apples to apples. Or at least compare fruit to fruit.

So the child doesn't want to be aborted, and the abortion does not happen. What exactly are we in disagreement about ?

[pcosmar]

I honestly didn't mean to do that, my apologies. But I guess people are saying the parents have a right to deny medical care, but would they agree to let parents deny medical care even if the child will die without the treatment they are being told to accept?

Who is forcing Medical care in the first place?
Who has decided that there is a need for the medical care that the parents are opposed to?

At what point does the State, or State Sanctioned "professionals" have any business interfering in a family or family decision?

[Flash]

I don't need see it as un-Libertarian to support an amount of governance over child abuse or negligence. That's perfectly Libertarian in my book.

[jmdrake]

That's the problem. I don't like parents doing elective things without informed consent from the kid (tattoos, piercings, cosmetic surgeries, even circumcision however, what if the parent wishes to deny medication that could save the child's life? I think those occasions are rare, but they may exist; what to do?

Edit: I didn't mean to put a wink face in there; it was supposed to be a semicolon. Forum hates grammar!

I think the latest story with the mom in Detroit shows the risk of the state assuming this kind of power. The state mandated vaccine cause the problem. The doctor prescribed psychotropic drugs made the problem worse, and CPS came to take the girl because the mother decided to do the right thing.

Sure there are the cases of the Jehovah's Witnesses who don't want to give their kids blood. While there is a general right to refuse treatment, courts often grant court orders for treatment in these cases. (Not to pick on the JWs, but those are the cases that come most immediately to mind). I'm still not sure what I think about this, but if there is state intervention it should only be such cases were death without treatment is certain and the prognosis with treatment is actually pretty good.

[QueenB4Liberty]

Have you ever know a child to choose to be aborted? Further do you honestly equate forced medical treatment with abortion? So if a parent has the right to refuse medical treatment that parent has a right to shoot his toddler in the head?




I don't think you will find anyone who will say that a pregnant woman must be forced to accept pre-natal care even for an at risk pregnancy. Compare apples to apples. Or at least compare fruit to fruit.

No, but if you deny medical treatment and a child dies, it's like having an abortion only because in the end the child is dead.

I think there should be an age the child should be able to determine whether or not he wants the treatment. Not wanting treatment because they are afraid of needles or something trivial meaning the kid dies when the parents could have prevented it, I'm not so sure that's a good idea. Until the child is a certain age, I think the parents should do their best to be educated on matters that deal with their children. I still don't feel the state should step in and help, like someone else said, it's tragic, but eventually hopefully these type of people will stop having children.

[QueenB4Liberty]

Who is forcing Medical care in the first place?
Who has decided that there is a need for the medical care that the parents are opposed to?

At what point does the State, or State Sanctioned "professionals" have any business interfering in a family or family decision?

The state is deciding to force the child into treatment, like that case a few years back, the boy with cancer ran away to avoid treatment by the state?

[tangent4ronpaul]

ummm- NEVER!????

If the kid has that much of a problem, they should run away.

Most CPS cases are state kidnapping over BS! - plain and simple!

There is a profit motive here "to protect the children" <VOMIT!> at play here... it is generally NOT used for that purpose.

[jmdrake]

So the child doesn't want to be aborted, and the abortion does not happen. What exactly are we in disagreement about ?

I was agreeing with you. I quoted you to make the point QueenB4Liberty about the difference between your point and his. Sorry for the confusion.

[jmdrake]

No, but if you deny medical treatment and a child dies, it's like having an abortion only because in the end the child is dead.

No its not. Not unless you think that an abortion and a possibly preventable miscarriage is the same thing. (And FYI they aren't).

[pcosmar]

ummm- NEVER!????

That would be my response.
But I have a huge distrust of the Medical profession in general and a total distrust of the State.

[BamaAla]

That would be my response.
But I have a huge distrust of the Medical profession in general and a total distrust of the State.

That's one of my sticking points. Generally, I see doctors like shady mechanics trying to get over on someone who doesn't know any better. "Sir, you've lost compression in a cylinder and need a whole new bottom end" could just as easily be "Sir, your son has ADHD and will need medication to be 'normal'."

[Lucille]

In the absence of a large, central state to make decisions, the impetus for action against negligent parents would fall to neighbors, family members, churches, neighborhood groups etc.. This kind of decentralized decision-making is always superior to one central plan of action that is forced upon a larger group of people.

This is my thinking.

[QueenB4Liberty]

No its not. Not unless you think that an abortion and a possibly preventable miscarriage is the same thing. (And FYI they aren't).

I don't. But I'm talking about if parents go against medical advice that their child will die (99% chance) without this treatment.

[Icymudpuppy]

What happened to concerned friends, family, parishioners? Who needs the state anyway?

[QueenB4Liberty]

That's one of my sticking points. Generally, I see doctors like shady mechanics trying to get over on someone who doesn't know any better. "Sir, you've lost compression in a cylinder and need a whole new bottom end" could just as easily be "Sir, your son has ADHD and will need medication to be 'normal'."

But there's a difference between diseases, don't you think?

Like Hydrocephalus. Requires a shunt to control and manage the disease. Without the shunt, CSF will destroy the brain of the individual who has it. There are several ways to manage it, but without treatment, child will die. Is that still ok?