XnForums

No helmet law? You're just a little behind the learning curve in Iowa.

You do see the difference between adults and children, don't you?

Had this been an injured child and the parents were refusing the ambulance......what would you have done?

Well, considering this guy had the mind of a 12 year old...

I remember two cases where children were involved. On one occasion the mother drove her child to the hospital. (The girl had fractured her C1 on a trampoline.)
The other was a child I drove to the hospital (at midnight) while her dad held onto her. She had a transverse head fracture from a fall, and had some pretty nasty reactions to it. Neither parent refused to take the kids in...

However, if another child had similar problems, and the parents refused to take the child to the hospital, then I am legally obligated to inform social services...

Oh, and the man I saw today had no fractures or subdural hematomas, (he finally went to the hospital) but he did tear up some of the supporting ligaments and muscles in his cervical spine. He'll be in a hard collar for a week or two...before I can start any rehab on him.

And they don't have a helmet law in my old home state of NH either... It's called the "Granite State" for obvious reasons...

Helmet laws are coming. All it takes is for people to realize that the people without helmets are taking a lot of money out of the taxpayers' pockets.

You conveniently noted that you are "required" to report stupid parents to government authorities.

If you were not "required," would you look the other way?

No. You, like most of us, would report the parents to protect the child.

That's the real truth of this thread and shows the government to be correct in this case.

Protecting children is the Godly thing to do.

Pax!

Your last line bears repeating, so... Protecting children is the Godly thing to do.

You are also correct in saying I would report the parents to protect the child, whether or not such a law was in place.

Trouble is, it shouldn't have to be in place, being a common sense attribute that everyone should willingly express.

Having to turn common sense into an enforcable laws seems to reveal how stupid we really are as a collective.

Still, as it pertains to the topic of this thread, parents should have the right to determine what kind/type of care their child should receive, and that determination should be based upon informed knowledge and evidence-based procedures, rather than through forceful government action which seems to be based more upon the influence of special interest groups than upon other and all alternatives which are often just as effectual as the care proposed by the special interest group in question.

In this particular case the parents were not allowed to go that route.

If we ran things that stupidly we'd be killing a lot of kids.......but you don't get it.

You kept up on "Protecting children is the Godly thing to do," but then you lost track intellectually.

Pax!

This case is not about refusing to provide care, it's about refusing Chemotherapy.

The first course of chemo scared the hell out of him and his family...and they took off like scared jackrabbits, saying "We're not gonna do that again!"

Of course any other care probably wouldn't work as well as chemo would, yet - at this stage in his disease - chemo may not be very helpful at all.

Time will tell if they stick to it or not, and if it works in this case....

So?

That doesn't change anything.

Pax!

Maybe not, but on the flip side of all this is the fact that kids also die when the government intervenes, but the media doesn't pick up on this for some reason...

Seems there's more media coverage when folks don't want care and die, than when they die because of the care they receive, and this latter number is somewhere in the hundreds of thousands per year, while there's probably only a few dozen or so per year who catch media attention for refusing care.

So rather than spouting blanket statements of 'idiocy', we need to realize and consider each and every situation on a case by case basis.

So when the government forces responsible medical treatment of children......the children all die and the evil media covers it up?

Oh, of course.

Doc, with your "evil gubmint" and "evil media" attitude.......you're getting as bad as the local Redneck Fascists hereabouts.

You're wrong.

(And you're talking nonsense.)

Pax!

I didn't say 'all' the children die. I said children die when they are exposed to Government intervention (aka mandated treatment protocols), meaning some kids die as a result of mandated medical care. This is an established fact which resulted in policy changes during the Clinton Administration, policies which were designed to reduce iatrogenic deaths. ('Iatrogenic' means "caused by medical treatment".)

If it didn't happen there wouldn't be a term for it, nor would policies be put in place to help prevent it from occurring. Plus there are additional policies in place to provide restitution for the families of those who have been killed or injured as a result of [forced] medical intervention.

Look it up...just google "iatrogenic death rates in the U.S" and choose your own parameters pertaining to what you consider to be a credible source.

Needless to say, well children still die each and every year as a direct result of mandated treatment protocols, and these deaths rarely, if ever, make it into the media.

Oh.........SOME kids die.

Some.

That's so much less misleading than your first statement.

Thank you.

In a perfect world. If every case involved informed parents making informed decisions then there would be no need for the government to step in. But that is not how it is. If the parents want an alternative treatment there are roads they can go down to pursue such treatment.

You also said that if the parents want to pray then that should be there right. And to this I say I am glad the government steps in. Praying is not an informed decision. It is a dogmatic one, contrary to what you said above.

I'll try to remember to use the 'some' qualifier when I make such statements again.

And although I prefer using more solid figures like "50,000 per year", I still think it's fair to say that "Children die as a direct result of mandated medical care."

And Manya, when you consider health is often dependant upon our mental, physical, and spiritual well being - and not merely the absence of disease - then it is appropriate for believers to pray in order to address their health issues.

Such action may not result in physical healing, but the mental and spiritual aspects will most definitely be affected in some way, meaning a measure of ease, peace, and calm in a difficult situation is often gained.

As to the physical aspects of disease, then knowledge and evidence-based determinations can play a more substantive role, while the application of prayer, evidence-based care, exercise, and proper nutrition has a more holistic result.

Still, if an individual wishes to utilize prayer only, then it should be their choice to do so as this can result in physical healing as well, although at this point in our evolutionary path it seems that prayer helps more to become spiritually and emotionally stronger during the course of our disease eventhough it does not yet have the total across-the-board effect we might desire.

But who knows? Someday, as we (humankind) continue in our prayerful efforts, it may be that the power of prayer will rise to the forefront of all the healing modalities.

doc