3 ms·

> Why do you think murder is a special case that isn't included in "ultimate?" Because that's completely outside the context of what we're discussing here. Bec

> Why do you think murder is a special case that isn't included in "ultimate?" Because that's completely outside the context of what we're discussing here. Because we were talking about who gets final say on medical treatments, and because I clarified with OP [0]. Sure, there's evil people out there. Though usually "I brought you in...I can take you out" seems like hyperbole. But child abuse is wrong for the same reason the same abuse towards adults is wrong. I'm creating a distinction, because the principle involved matters: is the state exerting authority over the bad action done to the child, or over the child itself? > I am not trying to advocate for, nor justify anything. You are explicitly advocating for that, and explicitly justifying it. "The state gets final say." "It's better for the state to use their Ultimate Authority to intervene." "I would rather have the state disallow murdering children rather than each parent deciding for themselves if they should be able to murder their kid." "People don't get to murder their children and get away with it." [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34379462 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34379462

knaik94 4y ago
I suggest you look into laws surrounding medical neglect of children. The first part of my comment was general, and is specifically describing this very type of parent, but not taken to an extreme. As far as my state laws go "A parent who denies their child vital and necessary medical treatment faces the following consequences: • Loss of custody. The child is taken to state custody for protection if the parent is found of negligence. • Criminal charges. The parent may be charged with child abuse and neglect or even assault if it is proven that he or she has failed in providing the necessary medical attention for the child." The state take will authority of both situations. I am not sure what the laws are regarding this where you are. HN is a globally accessible website, but discussions are generally US-centric. It wasn't outside the context, I was just not focusing on the very extremes. After you've interacted with this type of parent once or twice, it becomes very easy to identy harmful behavior. I do mean interact with parents that ended up losing custody over neglect. I hope you empathize more with the children stuck in these situations after reading some of the cases. I am not 100% sure what you are attempting to argue. In my state becoming aware of such behavior and failing to report itself is a crime. I think the crime part only officially applied during when I was associated as an employee of a univeristy and teaching high schoolers. I know I had to do mandated reporter training. The law states every single state resident is a mandated reporter, but I am not sure about the consequences for residents. The reason vaccination is not covered under this law is because there is it's hard to prove the harm of denying vaccines, in a legal way. There are plenty of people, especially healthcare professionals, that wish vaccination was covered under this kind of law. It is true in some states but not all. "Results. Our search yielded 9 cases from 5 states. Most courts (7 of 9) considered vaccine refusal to constitute neglect. In the 4 cases decided in jurisdictions that permitted religious exemptions, courts either found that vaccine refusal did not constitute neglect or considered it neglect only in the absence of a sincere religious objection to vaccination. Conclusions. Some states have a legal precedent for considering parental vaccine refusal as medical neglect, but this is based on a small number of cases. Each state should clarify whether, under its laws, vaccine refusal constitutes medical neglect." https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/is-denying-medical-treatment-to-minors-legal-in-new-jersey-42173 https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/is-denying-medical-treatme... https://reportingchildabusenj.org/#:~:text=All%20residents%20of%20New%20Jersey,information%20to%20the%20proper%20authorities https://reportingchildabusenj.org/#:~:text=All%20residents%2.... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5308147/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5308147/
- generalizations 4y ago
  I'm familiar with those laws. The problem is that those laws can be invoked in ways that harm the child, just as easily as they can be invoked to prevent harm. You both are focusing on situations where the parent is abusive. I'm looking at situations where the parents are genuinely caring for the child, and the state invokes those laws to the detriment of the child. I mean, it's too bad that the Ninth Circuit had to specify that "a social worker and a police officer are not entitled to qualified immunity for investigating a report of a child crying by making a nonconsensual entry into a home without a search warrant or special exigency and coercing a parent to aid them in strip-searching her child." [0] As I pointed out earlier - what happens when the parent is well-educated, and knows better than to allow some treatment for the child, but the state decides otherwise and forces something that harms the child? This is the risk which we run when we allow the state to have final say. Edit: archive link instead of original dead link. [0] https://web.archive.org/web/20100706002834/http://www.familyrightsassociation.com/bin/caselaw/calabretta_v_floyd.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20100706002834/http://www.family...
  - croon 4y ago
    As an observer reading this exchange, this is my take: > You both are focusing on situations where the parent is abusive. I'm looking at situations where the parents are genuinely caring for the child A(n ignorant) parent can absolutely genuinely care for the child, and yet abuse them with medical neglect if they've been brainwashed into thinking that (some) medical care is bad, even when it's not. That's what is being discussed here. > As I pointed out earlier - what happens when the parent is well-educated, and knows better than to allow some treatment for the child, but the state decides otherwise and forces something that harms the child? This is the risk which we run when we allow the state to have final say. I think the bigger question is which risk is larger, that the parent is right or a state employing experts. I'm sure both risks exist, I'm not sure both are even remotely as likely and thus as dangerous. [0] [0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlieporterfield/2022/12/26/ohio-measles-outbreak-more-than-80-children-infected-as-fears-grow-of-growing-numbers-of-unvaccinated/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlieporterfield/2022/12/26/oh...

knaik94 4y ago

I suggest you look into laws surrounding medical neglect of children. The first part of my comment was general, and is specifically describing this very type of parent, but not taken to an extreme. As far as my state laws go "A parent who denies their child vital and necessary medical treatment faces the following consequences: • Loss of custody. The child is taken to state custody for protection if the parent is found of negligence. • Criminal charges. The parent may be charged with child abuse and neglect or even assault if it is proven that he or she has failed in providing the necessary medical attention for the child." The state take will authority of both situations. I am not sure what the laws are regarding this where you are. HN is a globally accessible website, but discussions are generally US-centric. It wasn't outside the context, I was just not focusing on the very extremes. After you've interacted with this type of parent once or twice, it becomes very easy to identy harmful behavior. I do mean interact with parents that ended up losing custody over neglect. I hope you empathize more with the children stuck in these situations after reading some of the cases. I am not 100% sure what you are attempting to argue. In my state becoming aware of such behavior and failing to report itself is a crime. I think the crime part only officially applied during when I was associated as an employee of a univeristy and teaching high schoolers. I know I had to do mandated reporter training. The law states every single state resident is a mandated reporter, but I am not sure about the consequences for residents. The reason vaccination is not covered under this law is because there is it's hard to prove the harm of denying vaccines, in a legal way. There are plenty of people, especially healthcare professionals, that wish vaccination was covered under this kind of law. It is true in some states but not all. "Results. Our search yielded 9 cases from 5 states. Most courts (7 of 9) considered vaccine refusal to constitute neglect. In the 4 cases decided in jurisdictions that permitted religious exemptions, courts either found that vaccine refusal did not constitute neglect or considered it neglect only in the absence of a sincere religious objection to vaccination. Conclusions. Some states have a legal precedent for considering parental vaccine refusal as medical neglect, but this is based on a small number of cases. Each state should clarify whether, under its laws, vaccine refusal constitutes medical neglect." https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/is-denying-medical-treatment-to-minors-legal-in-new-jersey-42173 https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/is-denying-medical-treatme... https://reportingchildabusenj.org/#:~:text=All%20residents%20of%20New%20Jersey,information%20to%20the%20proper%20authorities https://reportingchildabusenj.org/#:~:text=All%20residents%2.... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5308147/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5308147/

generalizations 4y ago
I'm familiar with those laws. The problem is that those laws can be invoked in ways that harm the child, just as easily as they can be invoked to prevent harm. You both are focusing on situations where the parent is abusive. I'm looking at situations where the parents are genuinely caring for the child, and the state invokes those laws to the detriment of the child. I mean, it's too bad that the Ninth Circuit had to specify that "a social worker and a police officer are not entitled to qualified immunity for investigating a report of a child crying by making a nonconsensual entry into a home without a search warrant or special exigency and coercing a parent to aid them in strip-searching her child." [0] As I pointed out earlier - what happens when the parent is well-educated, and knows better than to allow some treatment for the child, but the state decides otherwise and forces something that harms the child? This is the risk which we run when we allow the state to have final say. Edit: archive link instead of original dead link. [0] https://web.archive.org/web/20100706002834/http://www.familyrightsassociation.com/bin/caselaw/calabretta_v_floyd.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20100706002834/http://www.family...
- croon 4y ago
  As an observer reading this exchange, this is my take: > You both are focusing on situations where the parent is abusive. I'm looking at situations where the parents are genuinely caring for the child A(n ignorant) parent can absolutely genuinely care for the child, and yet abuse them with medical neglect if they've been brainwashed into thinking that (some) medical care is bad, even when it's not. That's what is being discussed here. > As I pointed out earlier - what happens when the parent is well-educated, and knows better than to allow some treatment for the child, but the state decides otherwise and forces something that harms the child? This is the risk which we run when we allow the state to have final say. I think the bigger question is which risk is larger, that the parent is right or a state employing experts. I'm sure both risks exist, I'm not sure both are even remotely as likely and thus as dangerous. [0] [0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlieporterfield/2022/12/26/ohio-measles-outbreak-more-than-80-children-infected-as-fears-grow-of-growing-numbers-of-unvaccinated/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlieporterfield/2022/12/26/oh...