You Can Murder Your Child, But You Can’t Make Medical Decisions For Her

Spread the love

Loading

Matt Walsh:

Consistency. Consistency is key. So many of our problems could be solved, so much heartache avoided, so many tensions cooled, if only we all tried to be consistent in our beliefs. If only the Powers That Be governed with a consistent philosophy. If only every individual, no matter who they are, reached their conclusions based on a very simple calculation:

“I believe ‘A,’ therefore I believe ‘B,’ therefore I believe ‘C,’ therefore ‘D,’ therefore ‘E,’ therefore… etc.”

The problem is that, more often than not these days, that equation looks more like:

“I believe ‘A,’ and then ‘X,’ but not ‘B,’ maybe ‘C,’ definitely not ‘D,’ but sometimes ‘Y,’ as long as ‘W’… etc.”

There isn’t any coherence from one position to the next. The principles informing one are suddenly abandoned in order to support a conflicting stance. The rhetorical groundwork for this idea but be dismantled and demolished so that I can also advance that idea. This is the effect that progressivism has had on our society.

Progressivism is confusion. Progressives are inherently confused. They know they want what’s easy and what feels good, and they know they hate anything that has the stench of Christianity or traditional morality, but beyond that it’s all a crapshoot. Their doctrines are not comprehensible because they make no effort to be logical. And, because our government, our media, and our academic institutions are largely run by progressives, the bewilderment of their ideology seeps into the American conscience, driving everyone insane.

Nothing really makes sense anymore.

Here’s Exhibit #934,395,329,032:

Back in September, a 17-year-old in Connecticut was diagnosed with Hodgkins Lymphoma and told to begin chemotherapy immediately. The girl, Cassandra, underwent two rounds of chemo but decided that she didn’t want to continue with a third. She was so emphatic about it that she ran away from home to escape the treatments. Eventually, Cassandra returned home, presumably she and her parents had a long talk about the situation, and the family ultimately decided to respect Cassandra’s wishes to forgo any further chemotherapy.

That’s when the Department of Children and Families decided to step in.

They asked the court for full custody of Cassandra, and just like that, the girl’s parents were stripped of their rights and Cassandra became property of the state. The teenager was removed from her mother and forcibly admitted into a hospital, where she is, according to court documents, guarded 24 hours a day. She isn’t allowed to leave, to use her cell phone, or to reject any medical procedure the doctors decide to conduct. Just before Christmas, against her will, surgeons operated on her, installing a port in her chest that allows the chemo chemicals to enter her body. I would say that she is being held “like a prisoner,” but even prisoners are allowed to use the phone on occasion.

Again, in case you weren’t paying attention, she is being locked away in a hospital and cut open without the consent of her or her parents.

Her mom filed an appeal and the Connecticut Supreme Court took up the case. She lost. The forced medical procedures will continue on schedule.

Now, step back and look at this entire picture in focus. Consider this quote from the Connecticut DCF, explaining their actions:

“When experts — such as the several physicians involved in this case — tell us with certainty that a child will die as a result of leaving a decision up to a parent, then the Department has a responsibility to take action. Even if the decision might result in criticism, we have an obligation to protect the life of the child…”

It seems dubious that any “expert” could declare with absolute certainty that the girl will die if she doesn’t do exactly as her doctors say. But go ahead and assume that these prophets do possess those powers. Go back and read that quote again. Anything seem odd to you?

If a child will die as a result of a parent’s decision, the government must take action. They have an obligation to protect the lives of children.

They have an obligation to protect the lives of children. What a statement. I wish they meant it. But something tells me you aren’t going to see social services raiding abortion clinics anytime soon. Children dying as a result of a parent’s decision? That happens about a million times a year in this country.

Just pause and think about this: a parent is allowed to directly murder their own infant, yet they do not have the authority to decide on a treatment plan for their teenage children. How can the out-and-out execution of babies be justified under the auspices of “bodily autonomy” and “personal choice,” but declining chemotherapy should be prohibited under the auspices of protecting children from their parents, even if it infringes on personal choice and absolutely obliterates the girl’s so called bodily autonomy?

Read more

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of

15 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Boy have I gone rounds with the morons who have commented about this on a local blog- all in support of allowing the girl to make her own decision and agreeing that chemo is poison that will cause more harm than good.

@DrJohn:

Dr. J – I certainly do not condone what the People’s Republic of Connectinuts has done here. I am astounded that there are physicians who would force a 17 year old cancer patient – who has already undergone 2 rounds of chemotherapy without cure of her illness – to undergo more chemo against her will. I thought the whole paternalistic physician model was passe now, wasn’t it?

@DrJohn:

And I am so tired of having the type of discussions as you mention. Yeah, chemo isn’t pleasant. The science behind chemo works, and is getting better as POG keeps up their excellent research efforts on pediatric cancer therapies.

I wonder if you agree – has the horrific decay of our public education system led to the worsening understanding of the scientific method and what it says, versus the “true-true-and-unrelated” cultural zeitgeist that appears to grow ever greater over time?

Until a fetus has developed to the point where the levels of brain activity supporting consciousness commence, there is no child to argue about. There is only the potential for a child to come into being. Whether or not that potential proceed and culminate in the birth of a child—who will automatically have the rights of any other living, breathing, conscious human being—is a matter for the woman who is carrying the fetus to decide. She should have sovereign control over her own body. Having sovereign control over one’s own body is the most basic of all human rights. Society commonly deprives people of that most basic right to varying degrees and for varying periods of time as a punishment for crimes.

@Greg:

Using your “logic”, since the brainwave pattern of a newborn, term or premature, is not the same as an adult, that newborn has no human rights.

She should have sovereign control over her own body. Having sovereign control over one’s own body is the most basic of all human rights. Society commonly deprives people of that most basic right to varying degrees and for varying periods of time as a punishment for crimes.

So, what crime did the 17 year old commit?

Putting aside for the moment a basic disagreement about whether or not an unborn child qualifies for personhood, if the young lady in question has the sovereign right to make that decision, why does she not possess the sovereign right to make a more passive decision (IE, to not pursue possible cancer fighting strategies) about her *OWN* life? Many over 18 have made that same decision. My dad did after a few courses of chemo.

At 15 (may depend on your state of residence) a child can petition to be emancipated from their parents and be considered an adult, why isn’t there a right to be emancipated from self-appointed nanny state ‘parents’?

@Jay, #6:

I didn’t suggest the young woman in Connecticut shouldn’t have the right to make her own decision. I was addressing the assertion that is being by slipped under the radar in the thread title:

You Can Murder Your Child, But You Can’t Make Medical Decisions For Her

Abortion is being falsely equated with murder. People who support the right of a pregnant woman to choose do not believe that murder is involved. They don’t believe that a fetus is yet a person.

As to Cassandra, I would support the right of she and her parents to decide about her chemotherapy without governmental interference. They should be made fully aware of the pros and cons, of the odds of survival with and without, and then allowed to decide for themselves.

It isn’t as if a parent is depriving a minor child of access to lifesaving medical treatment. In such cases, I do generally approve of the state protecting minor children from their parents’ behavior.

I have close friends who moved to Connecticut because of a job change in ’13. They lasted eleven months. The taxes, the bureaucracy, the arrogant government workers were too much. To get permission to have their septic system fixed on their own property required numerous permits after meeting with various city committees. In fact, one committee had to come out and inspect the pit to be dug to be sure such digging did not harm “wetlands” (a puddle) on the land my friend owned. After less than a year his wife quit her job and they moved back to the South. Enough.

welcome to the new world order…………

Odd, because this paternalistic view flies in the face of Obama’s view.

“…… maybe she should have just taken a pain pill (and died)…..”
And Jonathon Gruber said ObamaCare would parcel out care in such a way as to winnow out the sick.
Then there is Richard Smith:

“Death from cancer is the best, the closest to the death that Luis Buñuel wanted and had. You can say goodbye, reflect on your life, leave last messages, perhaps visit special places for a last time, listen to favourite pieces of music, read loved poems, and prepare, according to your beliefs, to meet your maker or enjoy eternal oblivion.
This is, I recognise, a romantic view of dying, but it is achievable with love, morphine, and whisky….”

So, this girl’s doctor is just acting like a demigod, taking a paternalistic view and forcing her to do what he’d want his own daughter to do.
She’s NOT his daughter.
If she lasts to age 18, then she will be free to make her own decisions with regards her treatment.
Children belong to the state.

@Greg: While I think it dramatic for anti-abortion supporters to use the word “murder” given the context and place of the argument in our society, I also think your view is too processed, too provided, and not based on logic.

Unless raped, a woman has control over her body in deciding whether or not she has sex. The point of sex is to conceive. Once conceived, it’s a human, and your argument of “brain activity” is a complete distortion of the situation via semantics. It has the “potential”? By that standard, the 17-year-old might have the potential to become an adult . . . if she doesn’t die from cancer. If we as a society decide it’s not human, then fine. We also decide what an “adult” is and what it appropriate. You have no argument that a fetus isn’t “human” yet beyond your own opinion and preference.

Quid est veritas?

The whole issue of assigning “person-hood” is a sociopolitical chess piece, manufactured by those who might take advantage of it. I get the point though: women bear this burden more than any other. But I think it’s uncivilized to abort people rather than have more orphanages. That’s just me.

And I hope you see the utter ridiculousness and relativistic slant of saying a fertilized egg merely has the “potential” of being human. By you’re logic, there’s a lot of Down’s Syndrome victims and the like that we need to abort: their not technically “human”, are they? And children: if they’re not an adult, are they really “Human”?

So if you’ve decided a biological reaction based on fertilization — a process designed to produce a human being that will grow for 19 to 20 years until hitting adulthood — isn’t human until a set of perimeters you’re comfortable with because it supports a tandem cause of women’s rights (as you see them), then by all means: have this view. But don’t speak as if it’s authoritative, because it’s not.

Some of us think the moment of conception yields a person, one who should have rights. Our view is just as legitimate as yours, and though your view has been law for 40-ish years, it’s ok for society to “progress” to laws and actions based on better ways of doing things, better understandings of the issue.

The “brain activity” move is used to exploit the poor and save the careers of the rich (because they erroneously believe a kid will ruin their lives).

The direction you’ve taken has weakened our society, not strengthened it. Abortion is a moral failure on the part of the mother, father, and society. One worth forgiveness, and absolute love, but still something that we need to reexamine.

Millions of women and men regret past abortions, my friend. You need to understand that. Even if the pregnancy might not have yielded a child, these parents can’t know that for sure, and calling it mere “potential” will do nothing to ease that pain.

@Nathan Blue, #11:

Unless raped, a woman has control over her body in deciding whether or not she has sex. The point of sex is to conceive.

Those on the right have no legal or moral authority to appoint themselves as sexual behavior police. Who says the point of sex is to conceive? Are men and women who lack the ability to impregnate or to conceive engaging in totally pointless behavior?

Some of us think the moment of conception yields a person, one who should have rights. Our view is just as legitimate as yours, and though your view has been law for 40-ish years, it’s ok for society to “progress” to laws and actions based on better ways of doing things, better understandings of the issue.

Indeed, your belief on this point is just as important. You have every right to conduct your life in accordance with those views and beliefs. You do not, however, have a right to impose them on others who happen to believe differently.

The “brain activity” move is used to exploit the poor and save the careers of the rich (because they erroneously believe a kid will ruin their lives).

Considering the absence, presence, or level of brain activity is an effort to introduce an element of objective scientific reality into a discussion that is otherwise based on none whatsoever. If a non-responsive person on life support shows clear signs of intermittent higher brain activity, this is a very relevant point in any discussion regarding their status.

Millions of women and men regret past abortions, my friend.

Some probably do and some probably don’t. All past choices, actions, and inactions can be cause for regret. Personally, I would discourage abortion. It’s not my place to impose my will on someone else, however. I don’t have authority over another’s body. Women are no one’s property.

@ Greg #7 & #4

You know, since it was a rare enough occasion that we sort-of/kind-of agreed on at least part of a topic, I was going to let that slide for the time being. I could have been more clear that although I quoted your post, I wasn’t addressing you directly (for a change).

However,

#7: “I didn’t suggest the young woman in Connecticut shouldn’t have the right to make her own decision. I was addressing the assertion that is being by slipped under the radar in the thread title:

Abortion is being falsely equated with murder. People who support the right of a pregnant woman to choose do not believe that murder is involved. They don’t believe that a fetus is yet a person.”

#4: “Until a fetus has developed to the point where the levels of brain activity supporting consciousness commence, there is no child to argue about. There is only the potential for a child to come into being.”

According to this: http://miscarriage.about.com/od/pregnancyafterloss/a/prematurebirth.htm a ‘fetus’ that is just barely past the halfway point of a normal gestational period can survive (albeit with the neo-natal equivalent of the cancer procedures being forced on the young woman in CT), doesn’t that at least somewhat weaken the argument that it hasn’t yet developed the ‘potential’ to live?

Oh, and then #11:

”Those on the right have no legal or moral authority to appoint themselves as sexual behavior police”…

I can only assume you specified the *right* as you more than likely concur with the current ‘Affirmative Consent’ laws/regulations/restrictions specifically intended to police sexual behavior that are sprouting from the legal and moral authority of the left?

And from #11:

”You have every right to conduct your life in accordance with those views and beliefs. You do not, however, have a right to impose them on others who happen to believe differently.”

Try telling that to the folks who wished to act in accordance with their beliefs by not providing various services to gay couples. Not many on the left that supported the option of those folks to act as they chose. For that matter, recall the demand for firings or other punishments for those who happened to make political contributions to causes that the left didn’t support.

The conservatives I know may disagree with causes supported by the left, but have yet to advocate for restricting and/or punishing the lefties for pursuing those causes through normal political processes. Yet it seems like every day the left loses its collective mind over the fact that someone had the temerity to think differently than them.

Diversity – “you keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means!”

@Greg: Again, I just can’t understand your infatuation with juvenile, and just plain hackneyed, points of view.

What you fail to understand is the Roe v. Wade imposes a point of view on many who don’t share it.

You do not, however, have a right to impose them on others who happen to believe differently.

Well, Roe v. Wade is one group of people imposing it’s point of view on others, so I’m not sure what kind of ground you think you stand on.

You are imposing your will others, all the while acting as those with a different view are a “threat” to society, mainly because this is the line you’ve been fed. The raw hypocrisy of claiming to care about women while abandoning the life of child (yes, a fertilized egg becomes a kid — objectively, empirically, and scientifically. Seem the left has it’s own “flat Earth society” after all) is obscene.

You’re toeing a line, not thinking for yourself. You’re ignorance is being imposed on others, and it’s destroying the very communities you claim to care about. That’s the current problem with leftist thinking.

@Greg: Can’t pass this one up:

Those on the right have no legal or moral authority to appoint themselves as sexual behavior police.

Uh, do I really have to field this one, or will you recant?

I got a joke:
So a pregnant teen, a pedophile, and an inter-species couple walked into a bar . . .

The left is “policing” sex every bit as much as any other group, and it has about as much legal and moral authority as anyone else.

The left has been poisoned with hate, and they’ve swallowed the idea that society’s ills all boil down to one group being the cause . . . kind of like Hitler did.

I’ll keep my point of view, thank you very much. And I’ll apply it to the public sphere, even when the fascist leftists try to stripe me of my freedom of thought, expression, and speech.

You’re on the dark side of history hear, Greg.