Still not being convinced, PZ Myers none@example.com replies:
I also jump on the bandwagon of asking you to inform yourself on universal healthcare. You seem to know precious little about what every single halfway rich country except the USA and South Africa has... note that even South Africa counts as "halfway rich".
PZ Myers none@example.com is absolutely sure that:
That said, many atheists are atheists because they are also rational and skeptical, and those rational and skeptical atheists would accept "natural" remedies if and when there is adequate scientific evidence--controlled, peer-reviewed studies--which would show the efficacy and safety of the natural remedies.
Thinking that's not all, PZ Myers none@example.com adds:
#89 Posted by: Scrabcake | May 25, 2009 10:07 PM Farewell smoggy. I only read a few of your posts but the last one made me laugh out loud and just kept on giving with the people who were taking it out of context. It was truly some of the most entertaining trolling to not be read by Sven.
For this reason, PZ Myers none@example.com says:
#58 Posted by: Skipbidder | May 25, 2009 7:58 PM @22 New England Bob-- Do you happen to have something a little more recent or a little more germane than Prince v. Mass? This was a child labor case. I was sure that I could find something myself, but my con law book has nothing and my google-fu is weak. All the recent stuff that I can find all comes from state courts rather than SCOTUS.
For this purpose, PZ Myers none@example.com suggests:
#123 Posted by: AJS | May 26, 2009 6:37 AM tmaxPA @ #5: Refusing lifesaving medical treatment for yourself = suicide. Refusing lifesaving medical treatment for somebody else on their behalf = murder. Get it now?
Sources:
PZ Myers none@example.com
Disclaimer:
This text is automatically generated from different sources on the internet. It must be considered an experiment
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Nemenhah From: PZ Myers None@example.com /26162379
PZ Myers none@example.com gives a bit of an idea about it:
The "by extension" that you suggest is pretty iffy, though. Children are not considered property of their parents to be disposed of however the parents choose. An adult can legally carve their name into their forearm, or put out cigarettes on their face. But they cannot legally do that to their children. This is because the relationship between children and parents is custodial - the parents have to act in the best interests of their children. Now, in most cases parents are given a large amount of lee-way in how this works since 'best interests' is a vague term and values differ. But in cases where the parents are choosing near certain death for their child over near certain not-death then the state can step in - just as in cases of abuse - and prevent the parents from acting that way.
PZ Myers none@example.com says it all comes down to this:
I want to defend the 'let nature take its course' crowd, regardless of whether they think praying is going to make any difference. Think of them as uber-Darwinians, ...
PZ Myers none@example.com remembers that:
#42 Posted by: ConstantNeophyte | May 25, 2009 7:25 PM "strangely enough, accidents appear to be the one thing I'm covered for here with just a "visitor permit"." Yay for ACC! It may be a bloated money-sink, but it's got your back. If I got the swine flu though, then I'd be screwed. :) I thought the advice was to limit contact upon confirmation of infection?
PZ Myers none@example.com comes with the facts:
I also jump on the bandwagon of asking you to inform yourself on universal healthcare. You seem to know precious little about what every single halfway rich country except the USA and South Africa has... note that even South Africa counts as "halfway rich".
Before going any further, PZ Myers none@example.com wants to get this straight:
#13 Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | May 25, 2009 6:40 PM tamPAX @ 5 There is no point in such a discussion O tamPAX My Brother. God proposes and God disposes and it matters not one whit what decisions we worthless human vessels make. Live or die, medical care or a lonely expiration, it is all part of God's divine and wonderful plan for our lives, deaths, and (in the case of everyone posting on this blog except me, God's prophet) eternal damnation. Praise His Holy and terrifying name.
Sources:
PZ Myers none@example.com
Disclaimer:
This text is automatically generated from different sources on the internet. It must be considered an experiment
The "by extension" that you suggest is pretty iffy, though. Children are not considered property of their parents to be disposed of however the parents choose. An adult can legally carve their name into their forearm, or put out cigarettes on their face. But they cannot legally do that to their children. This is because the relationship between children and parents is custodial - the parents have to act in the best interests of their children. Now, in most cases parents are given a large amount of lee-way in how this works since 'best interests' is a vague term and values differ. But in cases where the parents are choosing near certain death for their child over near certain not-death then the state can step in - just as in cases of abuse - and prevent the parents from acting that way.
PZ Myers none@example.com says it all comes down to this:
I want to defend the 'let nature take its course' crowd, regardless of whether they think praying is going to make any difference. Think of them as uber-Darwinians, ...
PZ Myers none@example.com remembers that:
#42 Posted by: ConstantNeophyte | May 25, 2009 7:25 PM "strangely enough, accidents appear to be the one thing I'm covered for here with just a "visitor permit"." Yay for ACC! It may be a bloated money-sink, but it's got your back. If I got the swine flu though, then I'd be screwed. :) I thought the advice was to limit contact upon confirmation of infection?
PZ Myers none@example.com comes with the facts:
I also jump on the bandwagon of asking you to inform yourself on universal healthcare. You seem to know precious little about what every single halfway rich country except the USA and South Africa has... note that even South Africa counts as "halfway rich".
Before going any further, PZ Myers none@example.com wants to get this straight:
#13 Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | May 25, 2009 6:40 PM tamPAX @ 5 There is no point in such a discussion O tamPAX My Brother. God proposes and God disposes and it matters not one whit what decisions we worthless human vessels make. Live or die, medical care or a lonely expiration, it is all part of God's divine and wonderful plan for our lives, deaths, and (in the case of everyone posting on this blog except me, God's prophet) eternal damnation. Praise His Holy and terrifying name.
Sources:
PZ Myers none@example.com
Disclaimer:
This text is automatically generated from different sources on the internet. It must be considered an experiment
Nemenhah From: PZ Myers None@example.com /26162370
For example, PZ Myers none@example.com considers:
Most of the responses centered on the issue of parental rights. I like to be contrarian, so I'll point out that if your assumption that society can demand transcendent power over parental rights only applies when you happen to agree with society's dictates, there's a hole in your philosophy that you're in denial about. Several people, for instance, wrote variations of "...but in this case..." that left no reason to believe they had any rational basis for what metric they might allow to mitigate their opinion.
PZ Myers none@example.com does a quick recap:
#2 Posted by: Kobra | May 25, 2009 6:20 PM This won't change the damage his parents have dealt to his intellectual development, unfortunately.
PZ Myers none@example.com might have an idea about it:
I agree that nowhere has it been shown what his IQ has been measured to be, but if Colleen wouldn't submit Daniel to x-rays to determine the status of his Hodgkins, I would suspect that it is at least possible that she never submitted him for intellectual testing as well.
PZ Myers none@example.com points out another thing aside from that:
Development of sex organs in males. Fertility (ability to have children). Thyroid, heart, or lungs. An increased risk of developing a second primary cancer. Bone growth and development.
PZ Myers none@example.com sees it this way:
As someone who is consistently opposed to coercion, I'm not keen on state intervention in any form. But we need to recognise that - and this is something which orthodox libertarians often overlook, regrettably - state coercion is not the only type of coercion. Social and economic coercion also exist, and, for a child, the primary coercive institution is the family.
Sources:
PZ Myers none@example.com
Disclaimer:
This text is automatically generated from different sources on the internet. It must be considered an experiment
Most of the responses centered on the issue of parental rights. I like to be contrarian, so I'll point out that if your assumption that society can demand transcendent power over parental rights only applies when you happen to agree with society's dictates, there's a hole in your philosophy that you're in denial about. Several people, for instance, wrote variations of "...but in this case..." that left no reason to believe they had any rational basis for what metric they might allow to mitigate their opinion.
PZ Myers none@example.com does a quick recap:
#2 Posted by: Kobra | May 25, 2009 6:20 PM This won't change the damage his parents have dealt to his intellectual development, unfortunately.
PZ Myers none@example.com might have an idea about it:
I agree that nowhere has it been shown what his IQ has been measured to be, but if Colleen wouldn't submit Daniel to x-rays to determine the status of his Hodgkins, I would suspect that it is at least possible that she never submitted him for intellectual testing as well.
PZ Myers none@example.com points out another thing aside from that:
Development of sex organs in males. Fertility (ability to have children). Thyroid, heart, or lungs. An increased risk of developing a second primary cancer. Bone growth and development.
PZ Myers none@example.com sees it this way:
As someone who is consistently opposed to coercion, I'm not keen on state intervention in any form. But we need to recognise that - and this is something which orthodox libertarians often overlook, regrettably - state coercion is not the only type of coercion. Social and economic coercion also exist, and, for a child, the primary coercive institution is the family.
Sources:
PZ Myers none@example.com
Disclaimer:
This text is automatically generated from different sources on the internet. It must be considered an experiment
Nemenhah From: PZ Myers None@example.com /26162376
PZ Myers none@example.com brings more details:
#36 Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | May 25, 2009 7:16 PM Just to rub it in:Since I got in early on this thread, I'd like to try to open the discussion up to the counter-claim. Is there nobody here that believes that we have the right to refuse medical treatment, and by extension have the right to do so for our children?
PZ Myers none@example.com brings some great news:
I agree that nowhere has it been shown what his IQ has been measured to be, but if Colleen wouldn't submit Daniel to x-rays to determine the status of his Hodgkins, I would suspect that it is at least possible that she never submitted him for intellectual testing as well.
In addition to this, PZ Myers none@example.com states:
Also cons ider the story PZ Myers linked to earlier this month- http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/45850182.html
While it may be true, PZ Myers none@example.com thinks:
#63 Posted by: Samantha Vimes | May 25, 2009 8:05 PM I have a right to fast. I have the right to go on a hunger strike. But I can't not feed my children; that is criminal child neglect. Why should health care be different?
However, PZ Myers none@example.com thinks differently:
#72 Posted by: Nominal Egg | May 25, 2009 8:33 PM I was wondering if anyone (er...else?) was planning to watch "The Link" on THC at 9*. Thanks for the reminder, SC! I had forgotten that was on tonight.
Sources:
PZ Myers none@example.com
Disclaimer:
This text is automatically generated from different sources on the internet. It must be considered an experiment
#36 Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | May 25, 2009 7:16 PM Just to rub it in:Since I got in early on this thread, I'd like to try to open the discussion up to the counter-claim. Is there nobody here that believes that we have the right to refuse medical treatment, and by extension have the right to do so for our children?
PZ Myers none@example.com brings some great news:
I agree that nowhere has it been shown what his IQ has been measured to be, but if Colleen wouldn't submit Daniel to x-rays to determine the status of his Hodgkins, I would suspect that it is at least possible that she never submitted him for intellectual testing as well.
In addition to this, PZ Myers none@example.com states:
Also cons ider the story PZ Myers linked to earlier this month- http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/45850182.html
While it may be true, PZ Myers none@example.com thinks:
#63 Posted by: Samantha Vimes | May 25, 2009 8:05 PM I have a right to fast. I have the right to go on a hunger strike. But I can't not feed my children; that is criminal child neglect. Why should health care be different?
However, PZ Myers none@example.com thinks differently:
#72 Posted by: Nominal Egg | May 25, 2009 8:33 PM I was wondering if anyone (er...else?) was planning to watch "The Link" on THC at 9*. Thanks for the reminder, SC! I had forgotten that was on tonight.
Sources:
PZ Myers none@example.com
Disclaimer:
This text is automatically generated from different sources on the internet. It must be considered an experiment
Nemenhah From: PZ Myers None@example.com /26162375
PZ Myers none@example.com thinks about it:
#63 Posted by: Samantha Vimes | May 25, 2009 8:05 PM I have a right to fast. I have the right to go on a hunger strike. But I can't not feed my children; that is criminal child neglect. Why should health care be different?
PZ Myers none@example.com comes with a new idea:
Even if the child agrees with the parent this state of affairs takes effect, because we have already established that the child is incompetent to make that decision.
PZ Myers none@example.com explains:
#55 Posted by: Walton | May 25, 2009 7:56 PM Regarding this nonsense about parents having a "right" to refuse medical care for their children, I'll offer my own perspective:
But PZ Myers none@example.com has a different opinion:
As someone who is consistently opposed to coercion, I'm not keen on state intervention in any form. But we need to recognise that - and this is something which orthodox libertarians often overlook, regrettably - state coercion is not the only type of coercion. Social and economic coercion also exist, and, for a child, the primary coercive institution is the family.
Meanwhile, PZ Myers none@example.com came up with this idea:
If the parents are shown to be consistently working outside of the interests of the child - then can and will be taken away from the parents and put under guardians who hopefully, won't have the same issues.
Sources:
PZ Myers none@example.com
Disclaimer:
This text is automatically generated from different sources on the internet. It must be considered an experiment
#63 Posted by: Samantha Vimes | May 25, 2009 8:05 PM I have a right to fast. I have the right to go on a hunger strike. But I can't not feed my children; that is criminal child neglect. Why should health care be different?
PZ Myers none@example.com comes with a new idea:
Even if the child agrees with the parent this state of affairs takes effect, because we have already established that the child is incompetent to make that decision.
PZ Myers none@example.com explains:
#55 Posted by: Walton | May 25, 2009 7:56 PM Regarding this nonsense about parents having a "right" to refuse medical care for their children, I'll offer my own perspective:
But PZ Myers none@example.com has a different opinion:
As someone who is consistently opposed to coercion, I'm not keen on state intervention in any form. But we need to recognise that - and this is something which orthodox libertarians often overlook, regrettably - state coercion is not the only type of coercion. Social and economic coercion also exist, and, for a child, the primary coercive institution is the family.
Meanwhile, PZ Myers none@example.com came up with this idea:
If the parents are shown to be consistently working outside of the interests of the child - then can and will be taken away from the parents and put under guardians who hopefully, won't have the same issues.
Sources:
PZ Myers none@example.com
Disclaimer:
This text is automatically generated from different sources on the internet. It must be considered an experiment
Nemenhah From: PZ Myers None@example.com /26162368
PZ Myers none@example.com imagines that:
That said, many atheists are atheists because they are also rational and skeptical, and those rational and skeptical atheists would accept "natural" remedies if and when there is adequate scientific evidence--controlled, peer-reviewed studies--which would show the efficacy and safety of the natural remedies.
PZ Myers none@example.com explains:
#36 Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | May 25, 2009 7:16 PM Just to rub it in:Since I got in early on this thread, I'd like to try to open the discussion up to the counter-claim. Is there nobody here that believes that we have the right to refuse medical treatment, and by extension have the right to do so for our children?
Furthermore, PZ Myers none@example.com claims:
That, I think, is one of the things wrong with our society. My life is my own, not the State's, and the State has no right to prevent me from ending it should I so wish,.
Similarly, PZ Myers none@example.com adds:
#89 Posted by: Scrabcake | May 25, 2009 10:07 PM Farewell smoggy. I only read a few of your posts but the last one made me laugh out loud and just kept on giving with the people who were taking it out of context. It was truly some of the most entertaining trolling to not be read by Sven.
PZ Myers none@example.com shows how it is done:
Even if the child agrees with the parent this state of affairs takes effect, because we have already established that the child is incompetent to make that decision.
Sources:
PZ Myers none@example.com
Disclaimer:
This text is automatically generated from different sources on the internet. It must be considered an experiment
That said, many atheists are atheists because they are also rational and skeptical, and those rational and skeptical atheists would accept "natural" remedies if and when there is adequate scientific evidence--controlled, peer-reviewed studies--which would show the efficacy and safety of the natural remedies.
PZ Myers none@example.com explains:
#36 Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | May 25, 2009 7:16 PM Just to rub it in:Since I got in early on this thread, I'd like to try to open the discussion up to the counter-claim. Is there nobody here that believes that we have the right to refuse medical treatment, and by extension have the right to do so for our children?
Furthermore, PZ Myers none@example.com claims:
That, I think, is one of the things wrong with our society. My life is my own, not the State's, and the State has no right to prevent me from ending it should I so wish,.
Similarly, PZ Myers none@example.com adds:
#89 Posted by: Scrabcake | May 25, 2009 10:07 PM Farewell smoggy. I only read a few of your posts but the last one made me laugh out loud and just kept on giving with the people who were taking it out of context. It was truly some of the most entertaining trolling to not be read by Sven.
PZ Myers none@example.com shows how it is done:
Even if the child agrees with the parent this state of affairs takes effect, because we have already established that the child is incompetent to make that decision.
Sources:
PZ Myers none@example.com
Disclaimer:
This text is automatically generated from different sources on the internet. It must be considered an experiment
Nemenhah From: PZ Myers None@example.com /26162367
PZ Myers none@example.com brings some great news:
#89 Posted by: Scrabcake | May 25, 2009 10:07 PM Farewell smoggy. I only read a few of your posts but the last one made me laugh out loud and just kept on giving with the people who were taking it out of context. It was truly some of the most entertaining trolling to not be read by Sven.
PZ Myers none@example.com thinks that the problem is:
#2 Posted by: Kobra | May 25, 2009 6:20 PM This won't change the damage his parents have dealt to his intellectual development, unfortunately.
PZ Myers none@example.com is rather skeptical:
That, I think, is one of the things wrong with our society. My life is my own, not the State's, and the State has no right to prevent me from ending it should I so wish,.
PZ Myers none@example.com thinks about it:
#89 Posted by: Scrabcake | May 25, 2009 10:07 PM Farewell smoggy. I only read a few of your posts but the last one made me laugh out loud and just kept on giving with the people who were taking it out of context. It was truly some of the most entertaining trolling to not be read by Sven.
Having that in mind, PZ Myers none@example.com wonders:
Parents have a right to make medical decisions for their children, including the right to refuse medical treatment, but again this right is not absolute. Parents are obligated to choose in the reasonable best interest of the child, so life saving treatment cannot be refused unless a case can be made that 1)the likelihood of success is low enough and/or 2)the potential for adverse side effects high enough that reasonable benefit (survival vs quality of life) cannot be guaranteed. So for example, if in a similar case to this one, the proposed chemotherapy has an expected success rate of only 55% (rather than 95%), and is known to have a number of terrible side effects, a parent could reasonably refuse treatment for their child, on the grounds that a reasonable adult in a similar situation might also choose to refuse treatment. Alternately, if the proposed treatment is not curative, but can only be expected to extend survival say 6 months to a year, and again there is the likelihood of a number of debilitating side effects that will significantly reduce the child's quality of life, this is also a situation where a parent can reasonably refuse offered medical treatment.
Sources:
PZ Myers none@example.com
Disclaimer:
This text is automatically generated from different sources on the internet. It must be considered an experiment
#89 Posted by: Scrabcake | May 25, 2009 10:07 PM Farewell smoggy. I only read a few of your posts but the last one made me laugh out loud and just kept on giving with the people who were taking it out of context. It was truly some of the most entertaining trolling to not be read by Sven.
PZ Myers none@example.com thinks that the problem is:
#2 Posted by: Kobra | May 25, 2009 6:20 PM This won't change the damage his parents have dealt to his intellectual development, unfortunately.
PZ Myers none@example.com is rather skeptical:
That, I think, is one of the things wrong with our society. My life is my own, not the State's, and the State has no right to prevent me from ending it should I so wish,.
PZ Myers none@example.com thinks about it:
#89 Posted by: Scrabcake | May 25, 2009 10:07 PM Farewell smoggy. I only read a few of your posts but the last one made me laugh out loud and just kept on giving with the people who were taking it out of context. It was truly some of the most entertaining trolling to not be read by Sven.
Having that in mind, PZ Myers none@example.com wonders:
Parents have a right to make medical decisions for their children, including the right to refuse medical treatment, but again this right is not absolute. Parents are obligated to choose in the reasonable best interest of the child, so life saving treatment cannot be refused unless a case can be made that 1)the likelihood of success is low enough and/or 2)the potential for adverse side effects high enough that reasonable benefit (survival vs quality of life) cannot be guaranteed. So for example, if in a similar case to this one, the proposed chemotherapy has an expected success rate of only 55% (rather than 95%), and is known to have a number of terrible side effects, a parent could reasonably refuse treatment for their child, on the grounds that a reasonable adult in a similar situation might also choose to refuse treatment. Alternately, if the proposed treatment is not curative, but can only be expected to extend survival say 6 months to a year, and again there is the likelihood of a number of debilitating side effects that will significantly reduce the child's quality of life, this is also a situation where a parent can reasonably refuse offered medical treatment.
Sources:
PZ Myers none@example.com
Disclaimer:
This text is automatically generated from different sources on the internet. It must be considered an experiment
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
