Today, I clicked the News section on Google and came across an interesting article at the bottom of the page. The article was titled “Book raises alarms about alternative medicine,” but what really caught my eye was the first line that they teased…
“The 12-year-old girl arrived at the hospital wracked with abdominal pain.”
I read the article, expecting it to be about how some parents choose not to treat their children with traditional medical methods and end up hurting them or maybe even killing them. Every once in awhile there’s a story about a child that dies because his parents refused to give him the proper treatment, usually because of religious or alternative medicine reasons.
Either way, these are sad stories. There’s no denying that, and it’s easy to let our emotions get in the way of our decision-making abilities. How simple is it to push to have a law that says “The government will take your children when they are sick and treat them correctly if you as the parents decide that you’re going to deny them what they need to get better.”
That’s pretty cut and dry. Who wouldn’t want to save the lives of children?
When it comes to children and liberty, things seem to get a little bit dicey. Children are humans, obviously, and have rights. However, since their minds aren’t quite fully developed, they’re not always capable of making every decision about their lives.
If an adult chooses to use alternative methods to treat himself, even though the average Joe Schmoe could tell him that it’s not going to work, that’s on him. I don’t believe that there would too many people who would try to put a gun to his head to make him see a traditional doctor. With a child, that’s different, but I don’t think that putting a gun to the parent’s head is the right thing to do.
The question many would ask me now is whether or not I think that it’s okay to allow parents to make decisions about their children that could potentially harm them?
My answer is yes. And that’s because the alternative is worse.
I intentionally phrased the question a certain way. Different people have different opinions on, well, everything. This includes what sort of medical treatment a child should get. So when you’re writing your law to decide what method of torture you should impose upon parents who treat their kids with an internet connection instead of Dr. Professional, ask yourself where you should draw the line. Once you set the precedent that the state has the authority to dictate to parents how they should raise and treat their children in some way, it opens the door for more and more control by the state.
It sounds great on the surface that the government would protect children from poor decisions by parents, but can we trust government to make all of the right decisions? They’ve never made poor decisions about health (or a myriad of other things), right?
Once the state starts to make decisions for anyone about anything, the first question you have to ask is “Who is going to get to make the choices, and who are you going to leave ticked off?”
I’m not too into alternative or holistic medicine, so don’t think I’m carrying their water on this. For example, if I have kids, I’m going to get them vaccinated. I do not, however, think it to be any sort of “crime” to decide against having your children vaccinated. That decision is made by the parents with the child’s wellbeing in mind. That same parent might think I’m insane for thinking that circumcision is okay. Again, who gets to decide what is legal?
Is the libertarian system perfect in terms of keeping every child healthy? No, it’s not. But who is best suited to deal with their children: the parents or nameless bureaucrats? A broad collection of ideas is more likely to get you to the correct answer than having one or two people pick a path and power ahead with blinders. For the most part, parents are going to do their best to raise their kids well. What happens when some power-hungry rulers get to make decisions about your children? It has happened before with the state. And don’t think the ball hasn’t already started rolling here yet.
Does this give parents carte blanche to do whatever they want to their kids? It doesn’t, but you really have to be careful with getting involved. There are some crazy, evil people out there who will do intentional harm to children. We can deal with those people in a different article at another time.
The website, https://www.whale.to/a/null9.html, has many facts and a perspective that many people tend to either not be aware of or they forget because it’s not talked about on in the mainstream of TV, radio, the internet etc. when it comes to causes of death. It’s deliberately kept out of the mainstream.
There are some religions that refuse all types of medicine, conventional as well as alternative, so I’m not including them here. So then, how many deaths have been caused due to alternative medicine or not vaccinating a child? And…how many children have died due to having been vaccinated?
Most people trust doctors, scientists and our gov’t to tell us that conventional medicine practices are the only acceptable way/treatment. In fact, the FDA goes as far as saying that “only a drug can cure, treat, prevent and diagnose a disease.”
With regards to medical treatment, it’s the same thing. The gov’t has imposed a false sense that only conventional medicine is acceptable thereby making alternative medicine look like it’s dangerous and those who believe it to be the better alternative as though they are quacks with no sound judgment or basis for their belief.
In addition, the gov’t pretends to mandate vaccines and force them on people, giving them the impression that it’s unlawful not to vaccinate (the majority do not know there is a waiver). This causes the people to believe this and accept vaccinations without question. It also causes people to look down on and even ostracize those who do not vaccinate their children.
If someone believes in free market then wouldn’t that include taking a very close and critical look at what you’ve been taught and conditioned to accept and believe? The gov’t plays a huge role in mandating the way someone should care for themselves and others. If you ever want to get to the root of something, just follow the money trail.
I, and I think any supporter of the free market, want everything on the table. If the “alternative” methods prove to be better, then more people will use them. You brought up the FDA. They are a huge problem. That should all be done competitively.
I don’t blindly follow modern medicine and I think critically about what my doctor tells me to do. The more information out there, the better.
First, let me apologize for the length of this comment…
Yes, the FDA is a huge problem and even if people realize that, they still believe them and accept what they say. They don’t realize what they’re capable of. Please watch this trailer of the movie, “Doctored” at https://www.doctoredthemovie.com/
How good it would be if the information about alternative medicine was out there in the open. The problem is, It’s not, though with the internet it’s much easier to find it although you have to dig for it and know what you’re looking for. And even though there are more and more people becoming natural doctors it’s still such a small percentage compared with medical doctors.
Medical doctors are well respected and have a high status in society. Natural doctors aren’t and don’t. Medical doctors typcially make more money and can find a job much more easily whereas many natural doctors have to go into practice for themselves. The news media, print media, tv shows, movies etc. all promote conventional medicine. So the information is not readily available to the public and even when you find it you’re told it’s dangerous and are even sometimes threatened that if you don’t use conventional medical you could/will die. They use scare tactics.
The FDA and the AMA rule on what is acceptable and what isn’t. From there people accept and believe what they say because it’s the law and/or because they believe that they have their best interest in mind. How sad to think things have gotten so out of hand.
Here’s part of the problem…because most people accept conventional medicine as the “only” real choice, and this is due to being conditioned from birth, they are not taught to critically think. We are, generally speaking, expected and taught to accept the way things are from the time we’re born. We’re not taught to question anything. Just to clarify regarding my comment above about taking a close look and critical thinking, it wasn’t pointed at you but to anyone reading the comment.
For example, a lot of time, effort, money and mud slinging has gone into discrediting chiropractors, and that’s putting it very mildly. I can personally attest to this. From the time I was young I believed chiropractors were dangerous. I had never gone to one or talked with one and I never knew what they did but that’s what I believed.
Here’s an excerpt from an article from Mercola.com on this. To read the full article which I recommend: https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/11/10/conspiracy-against-chiropractic.aspx:
“In the 1980’s, chiropractors were still by and large viewed as quacks whose treatments were unscientific and potentially dangerous. Worse yet, chiropractors were also derided as ‘cultists’ at a time when Charles Manson and his cult followers wrought terror in California, and Jim Jones persuaded his followers to drink the Kool-Aid spiked with deadly poison.”
“Yes, chiropractors were tossed in with this charming lot!”
“However, this bizarre consensus reality in which chiropractors were deemed “unscientific cultists” on par with some of the most heinous criminals in US history was, as the evidence shows, doctored by the medical industry at the behest of Big Pharma.”
“There’s been a deliberate campaign to label anybody who doesn’t sell or distribute drugs, surgery or radiation as a quack.”
By the AMA doing this and the gov’t backing them, “we, the people” who believe hook, line and sinker that the gov’t and the AMA have our best interest in mind, they are able to create a loyalty issue, for lack of a better word.
What if the parent intentionally lets the child die? Let’s say “Casey” no longer wants her child and comes up with a plan to murder her. Jut before the plan goes into effect the child catches a (treatable) disease. This is convenient for Casey because all she has to do j
What if the parent intentionally lets the child die? Let’s say “Casey” no longer wants her child and comes up with a plan to murder her. Just before the plan goes into effect the child catches a (treatable) disease. This is convenient for Casey because all she has to do now is not treat the child and say it is due to religion. How would the parent who essentially murdered this child be held responsible?
I’ll answer this question with the assumption of a stateless society and an actual act of aggression against the child.
It all depends on the community and if they care. If you see this happening, but no one else really cares, then you’re likely on your own to fight for the child. The more likely case is that people will be genuinely upset that someone would murder their child, so the community would likely, well, essentially steal the child from the parent(s).
It’s like getting mugged. Would you fight back if your mugger was 6 inches smaller and 50 pounds lighter than you? Probably. What if there were 10 of them? You’d probably let them have your money.
You’re probably going to ask what happens when people just start going around stealing in gangs. There is plenty of information out there dealing with that subject, so I’m not going to get into it.
Essentially, the question is if people are left to their own devices, will they help the helpless. Better yet, would you help the helpless?
Are you saying it takes a village to raise a child?
I am not. I’m saying that if you act in a manner that ticks people off, you’re going to have a bad time.
I think what you said was good and that it’s a good case for “It takes a village to raise a child.” I just wasn’t sure if I was reading it right or not. That used to the mentality of our society but it’s no longer that way and our people are not better for it. What I remember from when I was young is that if someone saw someone acting in a bad way they were held accountable for it, child or adult. Many cultures are that way today and it should be that way for Christians too no matter what their culture or society because it goes beyond culture and society. We are accountable to God and to each other whether or not someone wants to believe it. And if you think about it, if children were taught to be accountable (besides being loved) and they were disciplined in a way that promoted accountability then a free market would be ideal. But what about today when we have people who don’t want to be accountable? Do you think a free market will still work or do you think it would it perpetuate chaos?
Ah, I misinterpreted what you asked a bit. I agree with you. That said, I do think that a free market would make people act with more accountability…we don’t need the accountability to happen before we allow a free market.
So if we have a society of people where many don’t wish to be accountable or be held accountable how would a free market survive?
How does any society whose people don’t want to be accountable survive? A free market puts incentives on accountability. Government programs put a disincentive on it.
If, in a free market, there are people who don’t want to be accountable, their lives will suffer as a result, but they will not directly drag down those who choose to be accountable since they are not tied to them through the made up “social contract.”
In a free market, she could sell her baby to the highest bidder. Not only would she be spared the guilt, she could make a couple bucks.
While the government only allows one option for the vaccines, there is no free market. We vaccinated our boy, but only the polio one and much later than their proscribed agenda. We definitely did pick and choose, and no one from the government gave us gears on any level for our decisions.
I’d love to have had an option on a cold stored version rather than the mercury containing standard issue, but government isn’t about competition, its about central planning and one shoe to fit all feet.
Hi Cornwall Hoggins, who are directing your comment/question to?
I’m just throwing it out there for anyone.
Ok then I’ll let the blog owner reply. 🙂