Posted on 02/08/2014 2:47:33 PM PST by workerbee
**SNIP**
The Hershbergers say assigning a guardian to have the final say robbed them of their constitutional rights. They're appealing under the Ohio Health Care Freedom Amendment that voters approved in 2011. The amendment prohibits any law from forcing Ohioans to participate in "a health care system."
**SNIP**
"Allowing an uninterested third-party, one that has never even met the family or the child, to assert an interest in an exceedingly important parental decision will completely undermine the parent-child relationship," Thompson said in a filing with the Ohio Supreme Court.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
> The Hershbergers say assigning a guardian to have the final say robbed them of their constitutional rights. They’re appealing under the Ohio Health Care Freedom Amendment that voters approved in 2011. The amendment prohibits any law from forcing Ohioans to participate in “a health care system.”
Ahh, so some of the liberals are finally figuring out why the proggressive leftists wanted that mandated healthcare in place so bad; and be called law.
They’re Amish. I doubt too liberal. ;-)
Huh?
Ohio Ping
The Health Care Freedom Amendment passed with 66% approval.
Andy and Anna Hershberger (Amish couple) are appealing a court decision that allowed the guardian to step in.
The Hershbergers say assigning a guardian to have the final say robbed them of their constitutional rights. They’re appealing under the Ohio Health Care Freedom Amendment that voters approved in 2011. The amendment prohibits any law from forcing Ohioans to participate in “a health care system.”
Their appeal marks the first time a court has been asked to determine the scope of the amendment,.....snip
Ohio voters in 2011 overwhelmingly approved the amendment prohibiting government from requiring Ohioans to buy health insurance. The measure, though, did not stop the implementation of Obama’s new federal health care law because a state amendment can’t nullify federal law.
I’ll admit these types of cases always tear me up. I can’t imagine denying my child medical treatment that could save her life. OTOH, I can see how easily my rights as a parent could be trampled by beaurocrats. Forced chemo today, forced euthenasia tomorrow?
Gee, maybe they could just get a free late-term abortion. She’s only 11.
I don’t understand your comment.
If that child dies I would prosecute the parents for murder. They are substituting their non medical judgement for the judgement of people who are more probably correct than they are. I had a little girl die of cancer thirty five years ago and we moved heaven and earth and gave her the finest treatment we could give. We miss her to this day. Even religion is no excuse as it is written “thou shalt not tempt God.”(At least they are not raising that issue.)
Government knows best. I believe in Government, the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth...
This child will die without treatment. The law has never allowed parents to decide to let their child die without treatment. A person can make that decision for himself or herself, but not for a minor.
These cases pop up every once in a while. Often, because the parents stupidly decide to use some “alternative” therapy and refuse evidence-based medicine, by the time the case is resolved, the disease has already progressed too far to be treatable.
Just a tax, Roberts? See what you’ve done?!
The treatment is almost as bad as the disease and any doctor worth his salt will tell a parent that fact before starting their child on chemo. They are poisoning a child’s cells with the chemicals, that is why there is vomiting and misery for the cancer victim. Of course the medications make the child sick. I have seen it. However, since cancer cells grow faster the chemicals will kill them first. With many cancers it is certain death to fail to treat and the treatment, as bad as it is, at least gives the child a “shot.” You are damn right I would support any state official who interfered to see the cancer stricken child has a “shot” if the stupid parents believed God or vitamins would save their little one. Such parents like the ones in the article are guilty of murder if the child dies through their neglect. A parent has a DUTY to see that their child gets the best treatment available, failure to perform that duty is criminal.
See #7. Are you in favor of ceding authority to the hospital, “guardian” or government to make decisions on behalf of all minors diagnosed with potentially terminal illnesses? Do you have any concerns about the same logic being used to end life? Who’s to say in the future what will be deemed “alternative”? What if the “evidence-based” conclusion is to euthenize?
I don’t know... I can see both sides. I can’t help but feel torn here.
Someday your beloved government is coming for you.
| Free Republic 1st Quarter Fundraising Target: $85,000 | Receipts & Pledges to-date: $38,012 | |||
|
||||
| Woo hoo!! And the first 44% is in!! Thank you all very much!! | ||||
“This child will die without treatment. The law has never allowed parents to decide to let their child die without treatment. A person can make that decision for himself or herself, but not for a minor.”
The law allows it all the time if the parents don’t have the money for the treatment. Not only that, the law specifically allows, yes even encourages, the killing of un-born offspring if the woman feels she may be inconvenienced in the least.
As to whether this kid will die without “treatment” we don’t know IMHO. People are cured through faith sometimes. Probably more often than we will ever know... To that there is no doubt in my mind.
If it were my kid, I wouldn’t trust my faith enough, but that’s just me. Sorry to have to say it, but I would want a plan “B”.
At any rate, not trusting the parents to make these decisions and turning it over to the state is a slippery slope that perhaps we should not go down...
Chemo treatments are brutal. My father was an MD and he said that if he ever got cancer he wouldn’t take it. He did get cancer and he didn’t do any chemo. He had watched his cousin and good friend since childhood go through it (and then die) and that made up his mind about it.
Parents have to be trusted to make the best decision, unless what they decide was done to deliberately harm that child. Looking at the total picture, I feel confident that less children will be harmed by a good parent making a bad decision than by an out of control government deciding what's best for a child.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.