Jul 26 2006
No Freedom Without Responsibility
I first heard about this on the Glenn Beck show (radio). Misha has a pretty good rant about it here. Yes, go read it. I’ll be here.
Okay.
Now, I’m going to piss a lot of people off. Please explain, in detail, how parents are somehow exempt from taking responsibility for their freedom? Remember, there is no freedom without responsibility. Why is it, then, that conservatives conveniently forget this basic precept when it comes to parents?
Certainly, it is the parents’ decision. However, if their child dies as a result of that decision, they should be imprisoned for manslaughter. Period. The end. It’s the same with religious freedom and doctors. Certainly, you have the right not to take your baby to the doctor, but if your baby dies as a result, you go to prison where you belong.
There is no freedom without responsibility, and parents are not exempt from responsibility.
10 responses so far
10 Responses to “No Freedom Without Responsibility”
Good point, and I agree.
However, in this particular case, the parents aren’t the ones making the decision on their own, their son is 16 years old and he doesn’t want chemo either, so the responsibility is, at the very least, shared.
Okay, but you can’t have it both ways. Either he’s a minor, and it’s his parents’ and not his decision, or he’s not, and his parents have no say.
your last sentence could not be more clear
We should have the right to die in this country. It’s his decision, or his parents’ decision.
However, “freedom with responsibility” is doublethink. By responsibility you mean consequences. You suggested a manslaughter charge for the parents. Look up the definition of freedom. Freedom is not freedom if there are strings attached. Pinocchio was not free as a puppet. That manslaughter charge is a string, pinocchio.
That is simply the logic of the definition of the word freedom. Maybe you ought to choose a more accurate word than freedom. How about government-controlled behavior? I know it doesn’t quite have the same ring to it, but it’s a hell of a lot more accurate than ‘freedom’.
I’m not “pissed off”, but I’ll have to disagree with you on this issue, Professor. The family tried chemo once, I believe they have a right to try something else this time if that’s what the kid wants.
I have a nearly-16yo and I give her a little more independence every year. Yes, even with medical decisions. I may have the final “say” for another 2 years, but I definately let her share in the decision making. Thank God we haven’t had anything this serious so far.
Good discussion.
parents are not free to raise their children if they are forced to seek medical care that they do not believe to be beneficial, safe or appropriate. i say this carefully.
a few weeks ago i watched my best friend die of cancer. it was horrible. it was also horrible going through the weeks and weeks and weeks and weeks of chemo, then radiation, then chemo again, then invasive procedures to deal with symptoms, then more procedures to deal the symptoms brought on by idiots botching the first procedures. we’re talking extremely serious quality of life issues here.
why do we not have the freedom to refuse such ‘care’ for our children?
quite honestly, i don’t know what i would do were i in that family’s situation, but i sure as hell know that the government has no business in it at all.
the government can intervene if i am causing harm or if i am compliant in someone else causing harm. the government has no place when a disease is doing the harm.
I agree completely with you that it has to be either or.
Either the parents make the call or the son makes the call.
The CPS and judges, on the other hand, should stick to bloviating and pretending to be useful by scratching their crotches.
Here’s a clue, professor:
These people are not “responsible” to you.
The kid’s parents aren’t putting a gun to his head. They aren’t killing him. CANCER is killing him. Chemo didn’t work the first time. They aren’t withholding a sure fire cure. It’s not as simple as, say, withholding air. Manslaughter? I think not.
I think part of the problem we as a society have with medicine, is that we have come to see some treatments as cures, when in fact they aren’t cures. Most doctors would recommend chemo. Most people would take chemo. And if the chemo doesn’t work? Sue the doctor. And if the recommendation for chemo is recommended? Imprison the parents. But chemo isn’t infallible. People take it and die anyway. Some even die from the complications caused by the treatment itself. It’s a treatment, not necessarily a cure, and not chosing it is not the same manslaughter.
In this case, I think it’s a mute point whether the kid or his parents have the right/responsibility to act as “the decider.” The whole family seems to agree on their course of action.
I guess I don’t have this trackback thing quite down.
But see http://blog.case.edu/jeffrey.quick/2006/07/28/freedom_responsibility_cancer_and_rightwingprof