Here's a case similar to the one we got so exercised about a few days ago over at bubba's.
There's a sick little girl in Michigan who's deathly ill with a brain tumor. Her parents have decided against surgery.
Now prosecutors have taken the Hoques to court to force them to go ahead with the surgery, in a case that revisits the question of who should decide what is best for the child when it comes to life-saving medical treatment.
But there's a difference in this case. The parents did not decline treatment based on religion.
Two pediatric neurosurgeons told the couple there was a 70 percent to 80 percent chance that their daughter would emerge either dead or with severe complications. If Noshin survived the initial surgery, she would then have to undergo chemotherapy and follow-up operations to have any chance at living, said the couple's lawyer, Charles Cooper.
So the parents decided to try a different path, homeopathic medicine. The state has disagreed, and is now seeking to force surgery on the child.
And that's where we go when we invade a parent's right to raise their child. First, the state overrules the parent's decision because their religious convictions are extreme, and we have to protect the child. Now, the state wants to overrule because the parents evaluated traditional therapies and rejected them since, based on medical advice, the most probable outcome was death or disability, and the best possible outcome involved multiple surgical procedures and chemotherapy, and survival was still a long shot. The parents made an informed decision in what they regarded as the best interest of their child. The state is now trying to trump that decision.
This is exactly where the logic of the Jessica Crank case leads us. If the state has the right to overrule the parent in the best interest of the child, then in so doing the state takes away from the parent the right to determine what is best for their child. And that means that the state is now able to do whatever it wants with your child, as long as they say it is in the child's best interest.
Is that a world you want to live in? And don't say it can't happen because it's happening right now to the Hoques.
Jalaz and Shaheda Hoque should be allowed to keep their baby at home, treat her in the manner they see as best, and keep her copmfortable for the time she has left.
I think one big difference in this case is that the parents evaluated the risk of death from surgery v. value of life remaining and the quality of life. Alternative medicine isn't really relavent from that perspective. It's just a last ditch effort that might help but certainly doesn't carry the risk associated with the surgery. So this was a medical decision, based on "modern", "traditional" medicine. And the state should butt out.
Posted by: SK Bubba on May 8, 2003 8:09 AMAnd what makes the difference to the state's right to intervene in the child's best interest? Other than you opinion, that is?
The whole point is that once you grant the state the right to act in the best interest of the child, you have ceded to the state the right to determine what that interest is. If the state decides that spanking a child is not in it's best interest, can the state intervene in that case? (Hint: some already have.) What if the state decides that children need better nutritional guidance while at home to cut down on obesity. Can the state require certain menus in your home?
The Hoques are a sad demonstration of this problem. Once you break a boundary, regardless of your intentions, that boundary is open for further erosion. A lot of people don't like the "slippery slope" argument, but it's hard to argue here when it's demonstrated first hand.
Posted by: rich on May 8, 2003 11:49 AMThere you go with the black and white. There are grays, and most people know where to color the line.
Posted by: SK Bubba on May 8, 2003 5:20 PMThat's just it, bubba, not everybody draws the line in the same place, as this case points out. You disagree with the state's actions in this case, but there are doctors and judges who don't. I draw the line in a different place than you do, and so do they; there is no concensus.
You can call it shades of gray, but that doesn't change the bottom line. The state has taken upon itself the decision of what's best for our children, and if we operate outside their rules, we lose our parental rights. Granted, the Crank case is an extreme one, but the Hoque case is not, yet the state is using the same argument in each case. What makes it valid in one and not the other? Find a hook to hang it on, one more substantial than, "most of us know where to draw the line."
Posted by: rich on May 8, 2003 11:14 PM