Re: [SLUG] The 'nanny state' and freedom of choice

elliott-brennan wrote:
> There are multiple examples of these instances.
> 
> As Nick said, the State has an obligation to all it's citizens. If 
> parents are not acting responsibly and in the child's best interests 
> then they are negating their responsibilities and thus the State needs 
> to intervene.
> 
> Unless, of course, the State is Theocratic or otherwise beholden to 
> something other than it's citizens.
> 
> In one instance a family refused to allow their child to have a tumour 
> removed from this leg. The hospital called in child protection. It took 
> two days for the parents to change their minds and accept that maybe God 
> was suggesting they make a decision in their child's best interests and 
> that THIS was the test, rather than seeing whether the tumour would:
> 
> a. shorten the growth of his leg (he wanted to play soccer 
> professionally, so that wouldn't help)
> b. make the removal of his leg necessary (see a.)
> c. kill him (see a.)
> 
> I was one of the persons who helped convince them that there was the 
> possibility of a test 'other' than the initial one they perceived, thus 
> obviating the need for a court order.
> 
> Nice people. Nice boy. Good outcome...but it was driven by a focus on 
> his needs and potential.


Good for whom?

In the above case, you are applying your own set of nanny tests (ie: the 
good of the child etc....). If the poor little blighter goes to hell 
after he dies because you meddled, how will you feel then?

When the terrorist goes to paradise by blowing up 20 infidels, with or 
without the virgins, who are we to gain-say him? He just has more 
sincere beliefs than the average muslim/christian/jew/hindu blah blah blah.

The theocrats are often extreme nannies, but they aren't doing anything 
fundamentally different in principle than our government denying us the 
use of marijuana or the right to see porn or the right to drive at 
200kph. They just have different ideas of what they want to nannify. 
None of it is very logical.

You probably think that's a stupid argument... but nearly all of our 
beloved leaders invoke the here-after constantly, and Tony Abbott is 
heavily into the wine turning into blood miracle thingie. Which is more 
stupid? If someone like him *really* believed, then he would have no 
problem at all placing the eternal before the temporal.

If you move away from religion - a very sound move in my opinion - you 
get the same sort of nonsense going on anyway. In the USA, Obama's 
medical plans are pinky socialism and if the poor people can't afford 
medicine then they should just die. Fred Nile prays every year that it 
will rain on the gay Mardi Gras parade. The Shooters party are desperate 
that we all have the right to pop each other off. The mob that gets into 
power will nannify their own prejudices. I'm sure I would too, if I could.

If you say that those parents are "killing" their child, while correct, 
you are really missing the point by applying your own set of nanny 
filters, in this case regarding the importance of religious belief. It's 
part of the human condition. It's got little to do with law.

In case you think I'm some sort of callous monster, there is no way that 
I would let a child die for religious belief. If I thought it would work 
I would be far more likely to forbid religion :)

David

> Patrick
> 
> 
>> Nick Andrew <[email protected]>
>> Wed, 29 Jun 2011 11:50:57 +1000
>>
>> This is an easy one. There is absolutely no evidence that the JW's
>> notions about blood transfusions are in any way true, however there is
>> well established evidence that death will occur in certain situations
>> when a blood transfusion is refused. Children are not the property of
>> their parents, and it is not a parent's prerogative to put a child's life
>> at risk for their illogical and unevidenced beliefs. Young children are
>> not competent to make their own decision on such matters; therefore it
>> is the responsibility of the state in its role to protect the general
>> well-being of its citizens, to step in and protect the child from its
>> own parents.
>>
>> This is established law. NSW baby Gloria Thomas died in agony from an 
>> easily
>> treated eczema condition as her parents treated her using homeopathy
>> against doctors' advice. Parents Thomas Sam and Manju Sam have been
>> jailed for manslaughter by gross criminal negligence.
>>
>> In USA baby Alayna Wyland suffered an abnormal growth around her left
>> eye which the parents tried to treat with prayer - and nothing else.
>> The parents have now been convicted of felony criminal mistreatment.
>>
>> There may be many ways in which AU is a nanny state; you chose a
>> particularly poor example to rest your case.
>>
>> Nick.
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html