Parental Rights v Parental Responsibilities
- Thread starter Asguard
- Start date
I would rather be dead than live with a colostomy bag. That's too much mutilation for my liking. My body is important to me. I know if I was in that situation I'd take my own life with dignity rather than go through that.
I find that incredibly sad. There are many worse things than a colostomy bag.
Orleander,
what if the kid had his prostate removed even before pubity?
plus there is a high liklyhood that his testicals would be non funtional because chemo and radiation damage reproductive organs
would you still say his life was worth living?
is what he is willing to go through your choice?
or even his parents?
shouldnt he be the one to make that decision?
what if the kid had his prostate removed even before pubity?
plus there is a high liklyhood that his testicals would be non funtional because chemo and radiation damage reproductive organs
would you still say his life was worth living?
is what he is willing to go through your choice?
or even his parents?
shouldnt he be the one to make that decision?
Parents have the final say, but they should take their child's opinion into account. My parents used to force me to take this disgusting medication for my throat problems, even though it made me vomit and light headed. But the doctor's said I had to take it or I would have have surgery, it was the worse year of my childhood that I can remember and I didn't get any better, all of that misery for absolutely nothing.
no cutsie, DOCTORS have the final say actually. The law is written in such a way that the only thing you can do is REFUSE treatment, you cant demand it.
As for where the childs argument fits in it actually depends on the doctors, if they were convinced enough that the child knew what the conquences of the corse of action was then there word stands. That is quite clearly stated in the act.
If there is a dispute between the desires of the child and those of the parents the guardianship board would step in if the doctors and medical staff were unable to mediate a course of action. Which BTW i dont mean compromise, i mean firstly the doctor has to establish the compatancy of the child to make the decision, then they have to convince the parents to accpet that decision.
There are actually 2 rules which will alow the doctor to go straight over the parents, the first is the doctrine of nessacity. if the doctor feels it is in the best interests of the child and the parents are unwilling to concent the doctor can just go ahead and do it anyway
The second is the fact that only refusal of treatment is a right, not the ability to DEMAND treatment. This can be used to refuse to treat a child against that childs wishes.
Lastly if compatancy is established the medical staff have an obligation to respect privacy just as they would any other pt. This maybe nessary if a 14 year old was asking for the pill for instance, there is no nessacity (infact the law clearly states the oposite) to inform the parents
As for where the childs argument fits in it actually depends on the doctors, if they were convinced enough that the child knew what the conquences of the corse of action was then there word stands. That is quite clearly stated in the act.
If there is a dispute between the desires of the child and those of the parents the guardianship board would step in if the doctors and medical staff were unable to mediate a course of action. Which BTW i dont mean compromise, i mean firstly the doctor has to establish the compatancy of the child to make the decision, then they have to convince the parents to accpet that decision.
There are actually 2 rules which will alow the doctor to go straight over the parents, the first is the doctrine of nessacity. if the doctor feels it is in the best interests of the child and the parents are unwilling to concent the doctor can just go ahead and do it anyway
The second is the fact that only refusal of treatment is a right, not the ability to DEMAND treatment. This can be used to refuse to treat a child against that childs wishes.
Lastly if compatancy is established the medical staff have an obligation to respect privacy just as they would any other pt. This maybe nessary if a 14 year old was asking for the pill for instance, there is no nessacity (infact the law clearly states the oposite) to inform the parents
Challenger78
Valued Senior Member
Thank god.
Because there really aren't enough supportive parents around.
Because there really aren't enough supportive parents around.
Purely mentally, I understand where you are coming from. Deep down in that part my username is named after, I don't care. I'd rather be dead. I'd have no quality of life. Like I said my body and how it looks is important to me. You open up my intestines and direct them out my abdomen, don't expect to see me again. That's more mutilation than I'm willing to live with. It would destroy me mentally.
Another factor parents should consider when making medical decisions for their children. Just like holding your kid back a grade. Is it worth it for the psychological damage they might suffer. That's why my mother didn't let my brother repeat the second grade.
Oh waaaahh. He'd be sterile because of chemo. WHO CARES!! If he'd dead, he's not gonna have that kid anyways.
hell yeah life would be worth living. Are you saying the millions of sterile people on the planet don't have a life worth living? :bugeye:
I would think struggling in the remaining years would be harder than just staying back. :shrug: But, I don't know.
My husband? How did this go from a child to a grown adult? How about if we stay on topic? How about if you ask a question that is relevant to the topic?
If my child had bone cancer and had to have his leg removed, it would happen. If they had a brain tumour that needed to be removed, but he would lose his sight, it would happen.
:wallbang:
I'm his mother. That gives me every right to keep him alive. Its my JOB as his mother to keep him alive.
Did you not get that kind of love from your parents? How can you not understand that?
Where do you get the nerve to say a disabled life is a life not worth living.
wait. so like let's say your kid is like 5, can you make decisions for him then? how about 10? 15? Shouldn't you be able to make decisions for them as long as you can be held legally responsible for their actions and welfare?
So, Asguard, do I have the right to take my own life, then?