Parental Rights v Parental Responsibilities

no mr ham, you only have the RESPONCABILITY (NOT the right) to make that decision for them UNTIL THEY ARE COPITANT TO MAKE IT THEMSELVES

the law uses 16 as a rough guide but also agnologes that its not an apsolute, that the day perfore you turn 16 you unable to make that choice and the day after you cant which is why it puts the responcability on medical proffessionals to determine if they are compitant in a paticular situation

this is in general determined as:

1) are they capable of understanding whats being proposed, the alternitives and the conquences of both?

2) are they capable of acting in there own best interests?

the second one isnt to say they SHOULD act in what someone determines is there best interests but are they capable of making that decision

If yes to both then it doesnt matter how old they are or what there parents want they have that right.

Orleander, what about if your child was 18 and the doctors wanted to remove his prostate? should he be alowed to say no or is his suffering less important than YOURS?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

you know what my answer is going to be for that Mr Ham

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

He can say no. He's 18 and copitant and I agnologe that. But I will forever have a responcability to my child. Til he is married, we as his parents are his next of kin. As such we would be making his medical decisions if he couldn't.
But that isn't what this thread was about was it? If compitant adults should be alowed to make medical decisions?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

no orleander, there are VERY strong limits on next of kin. Actually its just a formality which can be gone around at any time. The doctrin of nessacity rember?

 

When did you move to America? When did you become such an expert on American law and the American ethics review boards in hospitals?

And if the next of kin rule can be got around, who is going to go around it? His cat?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

dontrine of nessacity exists in US, Australian AND UK legislation i hate to tell you. I never knew you were studying medical law, you might want to go review your notes again

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

In cases of medical emergency, where a person is incapable (either legally because of age or mental infirmity, or because they are unconscious) of making decisions for themselves and they have no spouse or children, medical decisions can be made by the next of kin in preference to the wishes of medical personnel.

Do you really think a doctor is gonna say "sorry, we can't take your son's cancerous prostate out. Without an erection, he's better off dead" or "We can't cut off your daughter's cancerous leg. If she has to have a fake leg, she's better off dead"

 

you think if the pt says in the back of the ambulance "whatever you do dont let them take my leg" that your saying yes means more than that?

 

Ah Doctrine of Necessity. :bugeye: Ok then. If your spelling was better maybe I could understand what you were talking about.

Doctrine of necessity is a phrase commonly used to refer to a controversial judgment in 1954 by Justice Muhammad Munir to validate Ghulam Mohammad, the Governor General of Pakistan's, use of non-constitutional emergency powers. Earlier Mohammad had dissolved Pakistan's first constituent assembly, dismissing the president (speaker) of the assembly Maulvi Tamizuddin. Tamizuddin had challenged the decision, and although the High court had ruled in Maulvi Tamizuddin's favor, Justice Munir thought otherwise. In his verdict, Munir declared it was necessary to go beyond the constitution to what he claimed was the Common Law, to general legal maxims, and to English historical precedent. He relied on Bracton's maxim 'that which is otherwise not lawful is made lawful by necessity', and the Roman law maxim urged by Jennings, 'the well-being of the people is the supreme law.'

Please provide me with a link to this in relation to the medical field.

 

my kid, hell yeah. If his life depends on him losing his leg. HE'S LOSING THE FUCKING LEG!!!

 

It's a psychological thing. Class maybe easier and his grades slightly higher, than they were the previous year (maybe not). If your child would have emotional or self-esteem issues because they were held back a grade, then the emotional stress or feeling of stupidity isn't worth the better understanding.

 

I think I know your answer, asguard, but just to be sure, here's one for ya:child tells parent he wants to die-should parent kill child or force them into psychiatric counseling against their will?

 

the question isnt wether to let him or not but rather to determine WHY he wants to die.

if its a treatable mind altering illness (like depression) then yes i think treatment is the best solution. If its a terminal brain tumor then no treatment wont benift the pt at all

Now i know your going to say what if its a mental illness which cant be treated, should he be forced to go on and i honestly cant give you a definitive answer

 

It gives you the right to say what he can and can't do. Up to a point. It gives you the right to teach him right and wrong, to care for him and to ensure that that care occurs.

Sure, you can keep him alive, but :

Who are you keeping him alive for ?

 

I agree. Each child is different.
My youngest brother was almost held back. His esteem was very low because he felt he was the dumbest kid in class. I don't know if he would have felt dumber for being held back or better for now being one of the smarter kids in class.

 

I'll wait an eternity for this won't I Asguard?

 

I keep my children alive for them. Its why I feed them. Their quality of life is for them. If it was for me, I wouldn't spend near as much money on them.

 

sorry asguard, but if my son is sticking his hand in the fire and i keep telling him "no, it'll hurt" and he keeps doing it, should i then not be able to slap his hand, isnt a slap on the hand better than a scar left by the fire??
===========

and i dont think a smack from time to time hurts a child anyway, somtimes the things my son does, Like walk out in the middle of the raod, and spit at people, and hit people in the street, he needs a slap, i would rather slap him than have some random kid in the street punch him,

==================

also after reading this thread, if my son was terminally ill and he wanted to die then i would do what i could to help him reach that goal, it is not fair for anyone to live with a terminal illness, and being by heavens door every day, but when i say this, the illnes has to be TERMINAL, depression is treated most of the time with success with "anti depresants like, Prozac" but drugs like prozac is a short term solution and not a cure,

 

Notes on ... well, something

Generally speaking, the violence is simply the most convenient method. It's like putting down your grocery cart, hauling the kid up, leaving the store, going home, and dealing with it in some longer manner. It's inconvenient, I admit. Frankly, I can see how it would be a lot easier to just smack the kid.

What if it's not terminal? In Washington state, we have a ballot measure coming up, and people are, of course, distressed. Interestingly, though, the opposition to the right to die includes the religious.

I say interestingly because we had a case recently in which the court sided with a fourteen year-old indoctrinated into his aunt's religious beliefs who chose to decline treatment and die of leukemia before any outcome was certain. He was dead within a couple of days.

For others, though, it's not a matter of days, but months. In those cases, the outcome is already certain. In this boy's case, his action is what made it certain.

So what then? What if your son's reason for dying is that he believes the Bible tells him he shouldn't have a blood transfusion?

At present, the only thing you could do to legally help him reach his goal—at least, where I'm from—is sit by and hold his hand and give him the occasional, prescribed opiate dose while he suffered over a period of weeks or months.

 

if my son really truely didnt want a blood tranfusion and he is over the age of 18 there wouldnt be a lot i could do about it, i mean i wouldnt be happy, but what could i do? he is an adult, and he will know his own belives and his own mind

==========

and sometimes smacking child is the best way to tell the child somthing is wrong, granted its not ideal. but if your child is outting himself or ayone else at risk and a slap is what he/she respnds to then there is nothing wrong with it, its best to give the child a slap than having the child run over by a car