Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
bioengine

Should the State Enforce Medical Treatment for Babies?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

The state confiscated the HIV positive baby of Lindsey Nagel in order to treat him medically how they saw fit.  The appropriateness of a medical treatment is a question of science and many times individual preference.  Is it proper for the state to decide this for someone's infant and then confiscate the infant? 

 

 

http://saverico.com/latest/county-will-continue-to-monitor-brownsdale-infant-in-chips-case/

 

http://saverico.com/latest/baby-rico-rushed-to-er-taken-off-medication/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should the State Enforce Medical Treatment for Babies?

Yes. Parents have a right to choose how they care for their children (which doctors and hospitals they use), but they don't have the right to deny them medical care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. Parents have a right to choose how they care for their children (which doctors and hospitals they use), but they don't have the right to deny them medical care.

 

Who decides what qualifies as medical care?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. Parents have a right to choose how they care for their children (which doctors and hospitals they use), but they don't have the right to deny them medical care.

 

I get where you are coming from.  I think most people think about the example of a religious father who refuses to allow a doctor to treat his child’s illness due to the teachings of scripture.  It is natural that this should upset people and they would want the state to step in for the child’s sake.  However, what kind of precedent would this set?  You would never advise someone to take a medication simply because the FDA told them it was ok.  In this case someone who has a fundamental scientific disagreement with the state has had their child taken so that the state can apply its version of medical science to the child.  The state has not proven its case in her eyes.  After all, this woman was put on the same drugs her child is being put on when she was very young and her health deteriorated rapidly.  Fearing death, she was taken off of it and never had serious subsequent health problems.  The drugs are DNA chain terminators. 

 

Incidentally, this quote was just at the bottom of the web page: “No statement should be believed because it is made by an authority. --Robert A. Heinlein”

 

 

Who decides what qualifies as medical care?

 

These are my thoughts too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In this case someone who has a fundamental scientific disagreement with the state has had their child taken so that the state can apply its version of medical science to the child.

First off, it's not a scientific disagreement. Scientific disagreements take place between scientists.

Second, it's a disagreement between doctors and the mother, not the state and the mother. The state didn't prescribe those drugs, the child's doctors did.

The state has not proven its case in her eyes.

The state has proven its case where it's supposed to: in the eyes of a judge.

After all, this woman was put on the same drugs her child is being put on when she was very young and her health deteriorated rapidly. Fearing death, she was taken off of it and never had serious subsequent health problems. The drugs are DNA chain terminators.

That's the "scientific" argument the mother's making? That settles it, this definitely isn't a scientific disagreement. It's a disagreement between medical science and ignorance.

By the way, babies don't necessarily get HIV just because the mother is infected. The risk of infection is 25%. But, with antiretroviral therapy of the mother for a few weeks before treatment, and then treatment of a baby after birth and avoidance of breast feeding, the risk can be reduced to just 1 to 2%: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe048128

So, if this idiot and her even dumber family didn't believe that she was miraculously cured of HIV, her baby would almost certainly be healthy right now.

Incidentally, this quote was just at the bottom of the web page: “No statement should be believed because it is made by an authority. --Robert A. Heinlein”

You think that the only thing supporting antiretroviral treatment in HIV positive patients is authority?

Do you know anything about this subject? Have you at least bothered to google it before posting this?

Edited by Nicky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever is best for the child is what should be done (I think is implied everywhere, here; might help to make explicit).

Now define "best for the child".  That's the whole issue, isn't it?

 

The case could be made for the parent to decide what's best; I think there really must be a contingency for doctors to do it, in certain cases.  Some parents really shouldn't be parents.

 

But whichever one should decide any given case, government beaurocrats should never be allowed to do so.  That's just asking for trouble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First off, it's not a scientific disagreement. Scientific disagreements take place between scientists.

Second, it's a disagreement between doctors and the mother, not the state and the mother. The state didn't prescribe those drugs, the child's doctors did.The state has proven its case where it's supposed to: in the eyes of a judge.

 

I’m not sure I agree that you have to have a PhD in order to have a scientific disagreement with someone else.  I think any average person is capable of understanding scientific literature and I’m sure there are many “non-scientists” who understand science a lot better than many of the scientists out there.  Obtaining a degree in a science related field is no longer that difficult.  I know many people with advanced degrees who aren’t familiar with the history of their own fields…

 

Yes, it started out as a disagreement between parents and a doctor.  It ended with the state becoming involved… the state is enforcing a doctor’s prescription, hence they are endorsing one doctor over another who might disagree… hence the state is prescribing the drugs.

 

That's the "scientific" argument the mother's making? That settles it, this definitely isn't a scientific disagreement. It's a disagreement between medical science and ignorance.

By the way, babies don't necessarily get HIV just because the mother is infected. The risk of infection is 25%. But, with antiretroviral therapy of the mother for a few weeks before treatment, and then treatment of a baby after birth and avoidance of breast feeding, the risk can be reduced to just 1 to 2%: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe048128

So, if this idiot and her even dumber family didn't believe that she was miraculously cured of HIV, her baby would almost certainly be healthy right now.You think that the only thing

 

I don’t think there is necessity to call this unfortunate woman an idiot even if you disagree with her course of action.  No, they don’t believe she was miraculously cured; she still has HIV obviously since her baby has it.  Did you know there are people who have lived with HIV for decades with no symptoms and not gotten AIDS?  Did you know the latent period itself has been extended to something like ten years or more when it started out as only a few months to a year?  The reasons that people do or don’t get immune deficiency are not entirely clear.  These are still active questions.  Furthermore, it seems as though you believed being pregnant subordinates the right of the mother to do what she wants with her body.  You seem to be implying she did wrong by not taking a dangerous drug, which she had taken in the past and experienced the side effects of for herself.  There are even those who believe that a developing embryo should not be exposed to carcinogens of any kind (see thalidomide incident) and that this is a clear trade off against the possibility of the child being HIV infected.

 

You think that the only thing supporting antiretroviral treatment in HIV positive patients is authority?

Do you know anything about this subject? Have you at least bothered to google it before posting this?

 

 

If you don’t think DNA chain terminators are dangerous drugs that is one point you can argue but I think you will be easily refuted.  I don’t know what my having “googled” this has to do with anything.  All i can tell you is I have read a decent amount, though I'm no "expert" in the field of HIV my training is biology related.  HIV is an extremely vast field which is still controversial in nature and controversy isn't a bad thing but helps get to the truth.  You speak as if whatever a group of scientists in a court room say must be true, yet, you could select another group who would say the opposite, this is why each individual should think for themselves and why I am skeptical of the state making these decisions for us.  If it were me I would want to comb through the evidence consult different people and ultimately make the decision myself, just as I would decide what the nutrition of the child should be.  Or should the state make the decision of what the child eats too?--obviously many people have the result of supremely unhealthy children, should they be taken from the parents?  With all the conflicting information out there on diet are the parents idiots?

 

 

Here is a famous study on AZT, the drug taken by the mother in question as a child, still to my knowledge included in the “cocktails”.  The study showed literally no benefit in terms of survival, yet, the side effects of this drug (a failed chemotherapy drug due to toxicity) are something to ponder before calling the mother an idiot. 

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7908356

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m not sure I agree that you have to have a PhD in order to have a scientific disagreement with someone else.

Straw man.

Yes, it started out as a disagreement between parents and a doctor. It ended with the state becoming involved… the state is enforcing a doctor’s prescription, hence they are endorsing one doctor over another who might disagree…

Oh yeah? Who is this doctor who disagrees? In fact, it doesn't even have to be a doctor. Name a single person with even the most basic knowledge of what HIV is who disagrees?

Or should the state make the decision of what the child eats too?

No. And stop with the slippery slope arguments, please.

Here is a famous study on AZT, the drug taken by the mother as a child

Brilliant. HIV didn't have a treatment in the 80s, therefor this baby shouldn't be treated in 2013. Just leave it alone, and he'll be fine. Just brilliant. Your arguments are getting more and more scientific with every passing reply. Edited by Nicky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever is best for the child is what should be done (I think is implied everywhere, here; might help to make explicit).

Now define "best for the child".  That's the whole issue, isn't it?

 

The case could be made for the parent to decide what's best; I think there really must be a contingency for doctors to do it, in certain cases.  Some parents really shouldn't be parents.

 

But whichever one should decide any given case, government beaurocrats should never be allowed to do so.  That's just asking for trouble.

 

Yes, I guess that's true.  There would have to be some system of making sure the parents were capable of making the decision too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think any average person is capable of understanding scientific literature. . .

Alright; let's take that.

 

If you accept that then the decision should be left up to individuals.  If not then it should be up to scientists.

 

But if you reject that premise, aren't you by default endorsing a form of arcane revelation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I guess that's true.  There would have to be some system of making sure the parents were capable of making the decision too.

Exactly.

It really shouldn't have anything whatsoever to do with health and medicine unless it threatens the child's life, et cetera (like AIDS) at which point it can be treated just like any other abusive or dangerous parent; you take their children away for their own good.

Until and unless that's necessary the government needs to butt out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you don’t think DNA chain terminators are dangerous drugs that is one point you can argue but I think you will be easily refuted.  I don’t know what my having “googled” this has to do with anything.  All i can tell you is I have read a decent amount, though I'm no "expert" in the field of HIV my training is biology related.

And yet, strangely, you're reciting conspiracy theorist nonsense, not biology. What exactly does this biology related training consist of?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet, strangely, you're reciting conspiracy theorist nonsense, not biology. What exactly does this biology related training consist of?

 

Honestly, you are trying to insult me and I'm not sure why.  Why would I reveal personal details to you?  Even if you disagree with what I say, why not stick to the facts rather than commenting on how "brilliant" I am.  As far as doctors disagreeing with one another it happens on a daily basis, probably at the nearest hospital to you.  If you want look up Joseph Sonnabend, he was one of the early critics of AZT and how it was initially approved.  He started out not using it at all and since then he's always prescribed lower dose AZT than what was recommended.  I would ask what is so conspiracy theorist about the fact that DNA chain terminators are dangerous--people have know that since the existence of chemotherapy more than a half century ago--but you will probably just try to insult me more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet, strangely, you're reciting conspiracy theorist nonsense, not biology. What exactly does this biology related training consist of?

What is the distinction between a conspiracy theory and any other theory?

 

If it's that most people don't believe it then the heliocentric model was a conspiracy theory, once; if it's that scientific consensus opposes it then supposedly any doubts about manmade global warming are such.

 

I would say that the commonality behind all conspiracy theories is, rather than an appeal to popularity, an appeal to UNpolularity; an unwillingness to believe that most people actually know what's going on.

If so then how are his assertions such?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would it be possible for the state to declare a zone of "acceptable scientific disagreement" on an issue like this?

 

If parents starve their child, I think we would all agree that it would qualify as abuse and the child should be taken away. But on an issue like this, we aren't dealing without outright neglect or abuse, but a difference of opinion on scientific matters. On the extreme end, the government should stop parents from administering obviously harmful medical treatment (bleeding, ingesting toxins, etc). But should the state determine what should qualify as proper treatment with all ailments? Probably not. It makes more sense for the state to make a broad range of acceptable medicines and then allow (not the best word) parents to choose medicine from within those perameters. Meanwhile, scientific inquiry and debate could shift the perameters over time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would it be possible for the state to declare a zone of "acceptable scientific disagreement" on an issue like this?

 

If parents starve their child, I think we would all agree that it would qualify as abuse and the child should be taken away. But on an issue like this, we aren't dealing without outright neglect or abuse, but a difference of opinion on scientific matters. On the extreme end, the government should stop parents from administering obviously harmful medical treatment (bleeding, ingesting toxins, etc). But should the state determine what should qualify as proper treatment with all ailments? Probably not. It makes more sense for the state to make a broad range of acceptable medicines and then allow (not the best word) parents to choose medicine from within those perameters. Meanwhile, scientific inquiry and debate could shift the perameters over time.

 

Yes, that's true.  There could be a rule that the state can only make the decision if the treatments themselves are benign such as proper food for the starving or those with malnutrition, or, relatively simple low-risk surgeries.  However if the treatments themselves could be debilitating or cause death such as risky brain surgery or the adminstration of toxic carcinogenic compounds I don't think the state should force this on anyone. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the distinction between a conspiracy theory and any other theory?

We have threads on it, and Ayn Rand wrote about it too, so I'm not gonna go into it again.

Honestly, you are trying to insult me and I'm not sure why.  Why would I reveal personal details to you?

You already did. You just kept the information vague, which suggests an attempt at deception. Why else say that you have "biology related training", but suddenly make it a personal secret what kind of training you have?

If you want look up Joseph Sonnabend, he was one of the early critics of AZT and how it was initially approved.

Joseph Sonnabend is 1. retired 2. lives in South Africa.

Pretty sure he's not someone involved with this baby's treatment.

You claimed that there is a doctor who agrees with the family on this baby's treatment. I asked you for that doctor's name, and instead you gave me the name of a retired South African physician who has never even heard of this case. If Sonnabend traveled to the US and offered to treat this child, he would be allowed to. Incidentally, he would prescribe the same or similar treatment, as he has throughout his career in South Africa. But he isn't in the US, he's retired on another continent.

This conversation will continue whenever you're ready to back up your claims. That goes both for your claim that you have training in a relevant field, and your claim that there's a medical professional (licensed or not, I don't care) who supports the decision to deny treatment to an HIV positive baby.

If parents starve their child, I think we would all agree that it would qualify as abuse and the child should be taken away. But on an issue like this, we aren't dealing without outright neglect or abuse, but a difference of opinion on scientific matters.

If a baby has HIV, and the parents refuse to allow treatment, that's not neglect? What do you think happens to a baby who has HIV that isn't treated?

On the extreme end, the government should stop parents from administering obviously harmful medical treatment (bleeding, ingesting toxins, etc). But should the state determine what should qualify as proper treatment with all ailments?

No, the state shouldn't determine what's proper treatment to any ailment. This isn't about the state determining what's proper medical treatment.

The state should determine what constitutes abuse of parental rights. Any action that severely (or to the point of certain death) threatens the life or physical well being of a baby should qualify, irrespective of how and involving what field of human activity.

The evidence in this case is overwhelming:

1. transmission of HIV from mother to child is preventable, so the mother is guilty of infecting him to begin with;

2. untreated HIV in newborns is deadly, and fast;

Any Court faced with these facts has a fairly easy decision: protect the child, by removing him from the custody of the people responsible for his condition, who are about to kill him.

Edited by Nicky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have threads on it, and Ayn Rand wrote about it too, so I'm not gonna go into it again.You already did. You just kept the information vague, which suggests an attempt at deception. Why else say that you have "biology related training", but suddenly make it a personal secret what kind of training you have?

 

I told you what my training was in because you were obviously interested in what my knowledge base was when you inquired if I had even “googled” the subject before posting.  I answered before you became sarcastic and clearly hostile for reasons unknown to me.  My question was, why would I reveal personal information to you when you are trying to insult me?  I have nothing to say about you personally, your intelligence, or scientific acumen because I don’t know anything about you.  The only reason I’m continuing to respond to you after that is I think cases like these are important and more people should discuss/know about them.

 

 

Joseph Sonnabend is 1. retired 2. lives in South Africa.

Pretty sure he's not someone involved with this baby's treatment.

You claimed that there is a doctor who agrees with the family on this baby's treatment. I asked you for that doctor's name, and instead you gave me the name of a retired South African physician who has never even heard of this case. If Sonnabend traveled to the US and offered to treat this child, he would be allowed to. Incidentally, he would prescribe the same or similar treatment, as he has throughout his career in South Africa. But he isn't in the US, he's retired on another continent.

 

 

I never claimed Joseph Sonnabend was familiar with the case.  You asked me to name a single person who would disagree and I did.  The family was in the midst of getting a second opinion when the baby was taken by the state.  Your implicit assertion that there is agreement across the board in any issue when it comes to medicine is downright false and I can say nothing further than that it amounts to naivety about how the field works or just an arbitrary assertion.  I have been in a hospital where among five different seasoned M.D.s none could agree on the exact treatment or prognosis of the patient.  In the end it is up to the patient to decide what they think best and in this case the patients parents.  There is no substitute for using your own mind and making your own decisions in these matters.  There are numerous commentators on how “paternalism” in medicine is a thing of the past; the doctors are knowledgeable consultants not arbiters of our fate.

 

 

This conversation will continue whenever you're ready to back up your claims. That goes both for your claim that you have training in a relevant field, and your claim that there's a medical professional (licensed or not, I don't care) who supports the decision to deny treatment to an HIV positive baby.

 

 

 

 

Honestly I don’t care about a continuing conversation with you, your question seems to be seeking authority on this as if knowing my credentials would change whether or not what I say is factual.  Anyone over the internet can claim any credentials.  You are making some pretty hefty claims about how the mother is “guilty” of infecting the child and going to be killing the child so I could ask for your credentials, but I believe it has nothing to do with the argument at hand.  As far as “guilty” of infecting the child, for my part, as I already stated, I believe the mother has every right to do with her own body as she wishes (including taking a drug or not).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would it be possible for the state to declare a zone of "acceptable scientific disagreement" on an issue like this?

 

If parents starve their child, I think we would all agree that it would qualify as abuse and the child should be taken away. But on an issue like this, we aren't dealing without outright neglect or abuse, but a difference of opinion on scientific matters. On the extreme end, the government should stop parents from administering obviously harmful medical treatment (bleeding, ingesting toxins, etc). But should the state determine what should qualify as proper treatment with all ailments? Probably not. It makes more sense for the state to make a broad range of acceptable medicines and then allow (not the best word) parents to choose medicine from within those perameters. Meanwhile, scientific inquiry and debate could shift the perameters over time.

Actually, that sounds like a sane and logical solution to the whole issue.

I would make it negative-obligations.  Instead of having the government say 'when your baby is sick you will give it A, B, C or D' I'd have it 'when your baby is sick you will not allow its condition to deteriorate'.  Then, if it were ever discovered that AZT were truly harmful, then there's no need to change the laws; only the information available to the general public, for both parents and their potential juries to adjust their decisions accordingly.

But other than that, yeah; that's the thing to do.

 

 

We have threads on it, and Ayn Rand wrote about it too, so I'm not gonna go into it again.

That's alright; it was mainly rhetorical.

 

This conversation will continue whenever you're ready to back up your claims. That goes both for your claim that you have training in a relevant field, and your claim that there's a medical professional (licensed or not, I don't care) who supports the decision to deny treatment to an HIV positive baby.

1. only scientists know the mysteries of science

2. a normal person goes to college in order to become a scientist

 

C:  a PHD is a form of arcane revelation

 

Really, if Bioengine's relative training is a valid line of inquiry, then what's your own?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The state confiscated the HIV positive baby of Lindsey Nagel in order to treat him medically how they saw fit.  The appropriateness of a medical treatment is a question of science and many times individual preference.  Is it proper for the state to decide this for someone's infant and then confiscate the infant? 

 

 

http://saverico.com/latest/county-will-continue-to-monitor-brownsdale-infant-in-chips-case/

 

http://saverico.com/latest/baby-rico-rushed-to-er-taken-off-medication/

This is a good question bioengine. 

 

"Politics" as applicable to a society who have collectively? agreed to a set of minimum government interferences is far more difficult for me to get my head around than "morality" the guide to action whose beneficiary is the individual who has adopted the morality. A society comprising people who have voluntarily decided to remain within it is relatively uncomplicated.  We have the trader principle... For those "in society" (or at least who find themselves within the geographical boundaries of a territory "occupied" by the society) who are NOT of an intellectual or mental capacity to participate voluntarily in that society are somewhat of a puzzler for me. Certainly the mentally incapable are not property, and should not be owned per se, but those who wish to take responsibility for them should be allowed to if there is clearly no other place for them (geographically) and if they consent (to the extent they can). 

 

Children are more problematic in particular because unlike mentally challenged persons who cannot and will never gain the requisite capacity to voluntarily choose for themselves, they have the potential to grow into one of the individuals of voluntary capacity of which society is made.  Additionally, (and problematically) children have parents.  Parents traditionally have had or felt they have had the unfettered right to "raise their" children as they see fit, including influencing what they think, what they value, what they believe, etc.  In some sense parents have been given rights over their children to a degree that approaches a kind of ownership and one which DOES NOT ignore the personal desires/wishes/feelings of the parent in contrast to that of the child.  At the time of a dispute between the state and parents while the individual is a child whose "rights" are really at play?  I would submit it is the "parent" versus the "child".  But what right does the child have... what is in the child's best interest... something which can develop into a full self-responsible individual adult with volition etc. but which is not at the time of the dispute? 

 

1. Who knows best the state or the parents? 2. What is the nature of the child's rights at stake?

 

I submits the answers are 1. Neither and 2. The right to be become a fully formed adult rational self-actualized adult ( or at least one with minimal psychosis, baggage, vices, irrationalities, etc.) which matures on entering adulthood.

 

How can the rights of an adult yet to be, be protected?

 

I think a state should respect an implied contractual obligation triggered by maintaining a child until adulthood, that parents owe to their adult child upon entering adulthood, to ensure that they care for the child to the best of their ability and in the yet to be formed adult's interest.  There may also be room for some sort of tort arising from negligence of the parents as well.  Thus the rights and obligations are only between the adult child and the parents, and the state's role is merely to protect those implied contractual rights, not the role of ab initio "taking care" of the "interests" of anyone including children as "wards" of the state.  This individual right of the child would imply a right to sue parents upon reaching adulthood for damages associated with harm caused by the parents or breaches of the implied contract.  Shocking?  On what principle should parents or anyone be immune from taking responsibility for harm (real harm) perpetrated on another? 

 

So when can the government step in and interfere?  I think the distinguishing factor is irreparable damage.  If the "damage" or harm is truly repairable then the state should not step in even if what is perpetrated by the adult is "harmful" (indoctrination into a cult of some form perhaps falls into this category?).  This of course does not excuse criminal conduct which is never to be condoned.  If the harm is potentially irreparable I think the state should be able to step in on behalf of the potential adult who, were he or she to come into being one day, would have had the right to ask for an injunction under the contract to prevent the damage being done by the parents, were it possible to prevent damage already done.  i.e. If I had the right to ask the courts to prevent my parents from doing something to me under contract but was unable to ask the courts because of my age or mental capacity, now that I have that capacity, I should have the right to ask for that remedy now.

 

 

With respect to your specific scenario, confiscation is not the proper course.  The child, whose eventual adult rights include life, should be made available for treatment without interference by the parents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AZT isn't the issue, nor was refusal to take AZT the cause to the legal case. From the article:

 

"The case began in January when a court order for Mower County Health and Human Services to take Rico was issued after a petition mentioned Rico’s parents missed two doctor’s appointments. John and Lindsey testified that they thought those appointments were optional, that they sought a second opinion and tried to reschedule those appointments. However, Wellmann’s decision indicated the Nagels never tried to reschedule the appointments and didn’t return doctors’ phone calls. Doctors also testified that Lindsey didn’t take prenatal medications that could have reduced her child’s risk of getting HIV to 2 percent; however, Lindsey said doctors never discussed such medications with her."

 

Basically, negligent parent gets taken to court. This parent is negligent of giving a child some kind of treatment to prevent HIV, and also failure to get proper follow up after birth. Like in a case of child abuse, some intermediary must be used to oversee a case before a trial is over, so it is fair in this context for the state to say "do what doctor X says until this is worked out". Apparently, the doctors think AZT is best. Pretty simple. Keep in mind we don't know how the court proceedings went down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AZT isn't the issue, nor was refusal to take AZT the cause to the legal case. From the article:

 

"The case began in January when a court order for Mower County Health and Human Services to take Rico was issued after a petition mentioned Rico’s parents missed two doctor’s appointments. John and Lindsey testified that they thought those appointments were optional, that they sought a second opinion and tried to reschedule those appointments. However, Wellmann’s decision indicated the Nagels never tried to reschedule the appointments and didn’t return doctors’ phone calls. Doctors also testified that Lindsey didn’t take prenatal medications that could have reduced her child’s risk of getting HIV to 2 percent; however, Lindsey said doctors never discussed such medications with her."

 

Basically, negligent parent gets taken to court. This parent is negligent of giving a child some kind of treatment to prevent HIV, and also failure to get proper follow up after birth. Like in a case of child abuse, some intermediary must be used to oversee a case before a trial is over, so it is fair in this context for the state to say "do what doctor X says until this is worked out". Apparently, the doctors think AZT is best. Pretty simple. Keep in mind we don't know how the court proceedings went down.

 

 

I don’t think the issue is really that simple.  I think in your position there is a sense that what the current consensus says must be true and that an individual shouldn’t be allowed to challenge that.

 

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.--Galileo Galilei

 

What I am saying is that scientifically this is a complicated issue, just because doctors are currently recommending something does not make it right or factual.  There are numerous professionals in the field who admit to a co-factor hypothesis to explain the extremely complicated nature of who gets AIDS or who doesn’t; especially to explain the fact that AIDS largely never left its original risk groups of homosexuals and drug-addicts.  The co-discoverer of HIV, Luc Montagnier, has admitted to both a co-factor hypothesis and a mycobacteria hypothesis over an HIV alone hypothesis.  Gallo is the other discoverer who admits to a herpes virus cofactor hypothesis but I don’t know how he has followed up on it.  You have to realize that HIV does not equal AIDS in any simple fashion.  There are many people who refuse treatment and live twenty years like the mother Lindsey Nagel did.  There is a long latent period as HIV is a “slow virus”.  Other people go on the drugs and die in a year.  No one knows how long they would have lived without the drugs.  This is because taking the drugs is a tradeoff and people will respond uniquely to them.  In hopes of defeating the virus or even cancer, you take toxic drugs, drugs which may kill you themselves.  The hope is it kills the virus or cancer first and the organism survives the ordeal.  It is always a risk when taking toxic substances, a risk some people would rather not take due to the severe side effects.  The mother knows what it is like to be on these drugs and the pain they cause.  She didn’t respond well to them and she has avoided AIDS without them.  Remember the baby DOES NOT have AIDS yet which is the life threatening illness, only antibodies to HIV.  The state should be obligated to prove that the baby will get AIDS before it is old enough to decide for itself and that their drug will prolong life.  In this case they haven’t proven it, they jump the gun.

 

In this case, the baby had to be taken off the drugs due to a life-threatening rash.  What if he had died?  No one knows whether he might live to twenty, like his mother has if he doesn’t take the drugs.  That is why I believe it is up to the mother to make a reasoned decision on the matter.  People act as if the baby ingested poison and the mother refused the simple antidote—not the case here at all.  Anyone who says the drugs are not toxic or are not dangerous should try taking them for their self to prove your perspective.  Anything that causes a buffalo hump to appear on your back, I think you have the right to decide whether your developing child should take it or not.  Many adults who are prescribed these drugs stop taking them due to painful side effects, the baby and the parents don’t have that choice according to the state, do they?  Again, I’m not making any claims about whether these drugs can work or not, all I am reminding is that they are dangerous and taking them is a tradeoff (not a clear advantage like food to the starving).

 

And if after all that, you still think the child should be taken by the state, why shouldn't obese children with diabetes be taken by the state and fed how the state wants?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...