Our Religious Freedom is at stake ( Childrens rights referendum )

J C

Yamanoto wrote: »

Only from a graphic design perspective :pac:

DoctorEmma did say that the courts should force parents to run with every treatment that the Medical Profession devises for sick children ... even where the parent thinks that the risks outweigh the benefits!!!
This isn't happening yet ... but maybe DoctorEmma knows something that I don't!!!

doctoremma wrote: »

Parents should not have the right to refuse beneficial treatment to a sick child. The courts see to that, and rightly so.

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

DoctorEmma did say that the courts should force parents to run with every treatment that the Medical Profession devises for sick children ... even where the parent thinks that the risks outweigh the benefits!!!
This isn't happening yet ... but maybe DoctorEmma knows something that I don't!!!

So parents should have the right to refuse some treatments but not others?

Who decides what treatments the parents can decide to refuse? The courts ... ?

Or are you saying that parents should have the right to refuse all treatments, and just let their child die?

J C

Zombrex wrote: »

So parents should have the right to refuse some treatments but not others?

Parents have the right to refuse certain treatments for themselves ... up to now ... without the courts having to be involved ... the same principles should apply to parental decisions in relation to their children.

Zombrex wrote: »

Who decides what treatments the parents can decide to refuse? The courts ... ?

... only where there is a life or death situation ... and the benefits of the treatment objectively outweigh the risks. Most parents will go with what the doctor is advising ... and where a parent has reservations, these should be given serious consideration ... and not dismissed.

Zombrex wrote: »

Or are you saying that parents should have the right to refuse all treatments, and just let their child die?

I'm not saying that ... I'm saying that the same principles as currently apply to decisions taken by parents in relation to their own medical care should apply to decisions in relation to their children's care.
... otherwise the courts will be our children's new parents!!!

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

Parents have the right to refuse certain treatments for themselves ... up to now ... without the courts having to be involved ... the same principles should apply to parental decisions in relation to their children.

And who decides what "certain treatments" they can refuse and what treatments they can't refuse?

J C wrote: »

... only where there is a life or death situation ... and the benefits of the treatement objectively outweigh the risks.

Who decides it is a life or death situation? And who decides what the benefits of the treatment are and what the risks are?

J C wrote: »

I'm not saying that ... I'm saying that the same principles as currently apply to decisions taken by parents in relation to their own medical care should apply to decsions in relation to their children's care.
... otherwise the courts will be our children's new parents!!!

Currently you can refuse any medical treatment you want. You can refuse anything, on any grounds, even if you die.

So you are saying that parents should have the same rights when it comes to their children's health can, to be able to refuse any medical treatment for their children, even if they are harmed or die?

doctoremma

JC, you're confusing me. And I think it's because you're confusing the medical profession and its practices.

You keep talking about children being unable to refuse treatment, even when the costs outweigh the benefits. Or being able to refuse open surgery where there is a viable keyhole alternative. And so on.

But doctors, surgeons and their ilk are not going to recommend a treatment with significant cost for little benefit. And despite their reputations, surgeons don't butcher people unnecessarily.

I'm not suggesting you don't question medical advice in order to understand, I'm saying that perhaps you need to remember that a doctor is ethically bound to act in the best interests of the patient. They aren't trying to harm them unnecessarily. They're not experimenting on children.

lmaopml

Zombrex wrote: »

So parents should have the right to refuse some treatments but not others?

Who decides what treatments the parents can decide to refuse? The courts ... ?

Or are you saying that parents should have the right to refuse all treatments, and just let their child die?

Wow you're adept at twisting and winding...

Our very function is to protect life, to love it in all it's sorrowful forms, to support it, and those who support it who are burdened - as Christians, whether you like that or not!

Does that mean that medical science can't intervene to do so? Why, that's it's very function to save life...that's the oath! No - this is the promotion of 'life' after all...not the promotion of seeing the 'parts' like a car mechanic, but the full running motor, the rolls royce, the heart of humanity.

It's a different matter when medical science through state edict decides to end life and sees this as a 'mercy' or sees the State as it's sole praxis. It's a downward spiral - even for those who think it bought them freedom. Reduce a child and you are reduced. That's demonstrable.

Zombrex

lmaopml wrote: »

Wow you're adept at twisting and winding...

Our very function is to protect life, to love it in all it's sorrowful forms, to support it, and those who support it who are burdened - as Christians, whether you like that or not!

Does that mean that medical science can't intervene to do so? Why, that's it's very function to save life...that's the oath! No - this is the promotion of 'life' after all...not the promotion of seeing the 'parts' like a car mechanic, but the full running motor, the rolls royce, the heart of humanity.

It's a different matter when medical science through state edict decides to end life and sees this as a 'mercy' or sees the State as it's sole praxis. It's a downward spiral - even for those who think it bought them freedom. Reduce a child and you are reduced. That's demonstrable.

What?

This is a question of who ultimately decides if a treatment goes ahead, the parents or the State. JC is arguing it is the parents (though he seems to be arguing only for certain treatments, but won't say who decides what treatments), which in effect gives the parents the right to refuse any treatment and allow their child to die.

If you don't agree then it is required that the State over rule the parents when the State decides that the parents are not acting in the interests of the child's health.

J C

Zombrex wrote: »

And who decides what "certain treatments" they can refuse and what treatments they can't refuse?

I have refused many proposed treatments ranging from 'Flu shots' to proposed surgery ... and lived to tell the tale!!!

Zombrex wrote: »

Who decides it is a life or death situation? And who decides what the benefits of the treatment are and what the risks are?

Who decides now ... with an adult patient?

Zombrex wrote: »

Currently you can refuse any medical treatment you want. You can refuse anything, on any grounds, even if you die.

... you can't actually ... adults have had court orders taken against them mandating treatment in 'life or death' situations.

Zombrex wrote: »

So you are saying that parents should have the same rights when it comes to their children's health can, to be able to refuse any medical treatment for their children, even if they are harmed or die?

I not saying that ... but I do think that serious weight be given to parents views on proposed medical treatments for their children ... by both doctors and the courts.
... and parents should be involved in all decisions in relation to the medical treatment of their children.

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

I have refused many proposed treatments ranging from 'Flu shots' to proposed surgery ... and lived to tell the tale!!!

Good for you. Did anyone decide what treatments you could or couldn't refuse?

J C wrote: »

Who decides now ... with an adult patient?

No one, you can refuse any and all treatment even if it puts your life at risk.

J C wrote: »

... you can't actually ... adults have had court orders taken against them mandating treatment in 'life or death' situations.

No they haven't. You can refuse any medical treatment and in most cases you have to consent to medical treatment before it is performed on you.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/health/legal_matters_and_health/consent_to_medical_and_surgical_procedures.html

You still haven't answered any of my questions. Who decides what treatments the parents can and cannot refuse, if not the State?

J C wrote: »

I not saying that ... but I do think that serious weight be given to parents views on proposed medical treatments for their children ... by both doctors and the courts.
... and parents should be involved in all decisions in relation to the medical treatment of their children.

Sure, involve the parents, listen to their positions. And then the doctors and court has the final say. Agreed?

J C

Zombrex wrote: »

What?

This is a question of who ultimately decides if a treatment goes ahead, the parents or the State. JC is arguing it is the parents (though he seems to be arguing only for certain treatments, but won't say who decides what treatments), which in effect gives the parents the right to refuse any treatment and allow their child to die.

I have said no such thing!!!
... the proposed treatment may actually be hastening the child's death ... that the parent is refusing.

Zombrex wrote: »

If you don't agree then it is required that the State over rule the parents when the State decides that the parents are not acting in the interests of the child's health.

... if it's a case of neglect ... of course the state should ... and does intervene.

... but if the courts are going to be used to determine whether every proposed treatment is to be done ... or not done, they will be very busy indeed.

Practically all doctors and parents are reasonable people ... and they both want what is best for the child ... so there should be no issue about objectively beneficial medical treatments.
What I'm saying is that reasonable parents have the right to be involved in decisions in relation to their children ... and their opinion should be given serious weight.
Obviously, if either the parent or the doctor starts behaving unreasonably ... then the courts may beckon.

lmaopml

Zombrex wrote: »

What?

This is a question of who ultimately decides if a treatment goes ahead, the parents or the State. JC is arguing it is the parents (though he seems to be arguing only for certain treatments, but won't say who decides what treatments), which in effect gives the parents the right to refuse any treatment and allow their child to die.

If you don't agree then it is required that the State over rule the parents when the State decides that the parents are not acting in the interests of the child's health.

Zombrex, what happens when the state decides that killing the child is in the best interest, despite the parents? This IS happening today! On this planet.

There is a fundamental notion in Christianity, that neither me or you or anybody else belongs to anybody at all other than God and that there is an inalienable right to life. That no matter whom you are, that your life is worth while, that every single person is 'important' - no one above the other...

Despite there being a 'State' that is made up throughout time of various differing persons with their own inherent worth.

A physician is trained to protect life as primary - yes, of course there are grey areas, where a decision to give blood to save a life is required and so we go to the courts and fight 'for life' -

That's the point. They're fighting 'for life' - big huge difference!

not 'for death' as a choice and an answer to life.

J C

doctoremma wrote: »

But doctors, surgeons and their ilk are not going to recommend a treatment with significant cost for little benefit. And despite their reputations, surgeons don't butcher people unnecessarily.

I'm not suggesting you don't question medical advice in order to understand, I'm saying that perhaps you need to remember that a doctor is ethically bound to act in the best interests of the patient. They aren't trying to harm them unnecessarily. They're not experimenting on children.

I have found what you say to be true ... and doctors, in general are quite conservative in the treatments that they propose.

... what I'm objecting to is laws that prevent parents giving informed consent to medical treatments for their children

... and laws that allow minor children to consent to medical treatments ... but not to refuse medical treatments, have an unhealthy assumption ... that doctors always know what is best for their patients.

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

I have said no such thing!!!
... the proposed treatment may actually be hastening the child's death ... that the parent is refusing.

It might. So who decides whether to ahead or not, the courts of the parents?

Can a parent refuse treatment because they think that the treatment won't work or might harm their child, even if the doctors wish to procede?

If so, then a parent can refuse any and all treatment, can they not? They simply decide to, and their decision is final.

J C wrote: »

... if it's a case of neglect ... of course the state should ... and does intervene.

Who decides it is neglect? If the parents refuse treatment who decides they don't have valid grounds for refusing treatment if not the doctors and the courts?

J C wrote: »

... but if the courts are going to be used to determine whether every proposed treatment is to be done ... or not done, they will be very busy indeed.

So who should decide? The parents? The parents should decide whether they are acting reasonably or not? Which means the parents have the final say in all medical treatment and can refuse treatment.

J C wrote: »

Obviously, if either the parent or the doctor starts behaving unreasonably ... then the courts may beckon.

Lol, you really don't have a clue do you. :rolleyes:

Who decides that parents are not acting reasonably if not the doctors and the courts?

endacl

So the only objections to this referendum are those coming from a religious perspective?

Cool. This one'll be easier to decide than the divorce one...

Zombrex

lmaopml wrote: »

Zombrex, what happens when the state decides that killing the child is in the best interest, despite the parents? This IS happening today! On this planet.

What happens when the parents decide that killing the child is in the best interests, despite the State. That IS happening today! On this planet.

I'll trust the State over the parents. The State at least has to abide by rule of law and the constitution and justify the decision to the people at large, where as if the decision is left to the parents they can decide to let their child die for any old wacky reason that only they have to care about (the alien over lord told us it was best for our child :rolleyes:)

lmaopml wrote: »

There is a fundamental notion in Christianity, that neither me or you or anybody else belongs to anybody at all other than God and that there is an inalienable right to life. That no matter whom you are, that your life is worth while, that every single person is 'important' - no one above the other...

Such a "fundamental notion" is routinely used to justify refusing medical treatment and leaving the health of the child in God's hands on the whim of the parents.

Needly to say that isn't a reassuring prospect. Again I'll take the State, who refers to the current scientific knowledge of medical treatment, over the parent's notions of supernatural intervention and divine providence any day.

Cedrus

Onesimus wrote: »

scary stuff

Never trust a fool who quotes UKIP pseudo news porn, especially if they're proposing a nationalist line, the clue is in the first two letters but the eejits can't read.

lmaopml

endacl wrote: »

So the only objections to this referendum are those coming from a religious perspective?

Cool. This one'll be easier to decide than the divorce one...

No it isn't! Most people ( I would hope ) are not so wrapped up in their worldview to think of this merely in terms of their Atheism or their Christianity or their Spirituality or their particular lens on the world that they see fit to view it through.

I would imagine most people worth their salt are thinking on this, and don't just merely 'react' to anybody at all - Yay, me, I do the opposit to those baddies!!!

Atheists are 'Parents' so too are other 'human beings' who want to protect children, and it just so happens that this changing in the wording of the Constitution is not merely tied up in some absolutely stupid battle of endless words - but it's time to actually 'think' about it, and not score points.

If one does that, than they are, either way casting their 'decided' vote - if it's merely a 'hip hurrah' to some notion that there is a difference between ANY parents or child than that's a little sad. :P

J C

Zombrex wrote: »

Good for you. Did anyone decide what treatments you could or couldn't refuse?

No ... but it looks like they could start if some of the contributors to this thread had their way!!!

Zombrex wrote: »

No one, you can refuse any and all treatment even if it puts your life at risk.


No they haven't. You can refuse any medical treatment and in most cases you have to consent to medical treatment before it is performed on you.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/health/legal_matters_and_health/consent_to_medical_and_surgical_procedures.html

The courts are reluctant to interfere with an informed refusal of medical treatment ... but where it is a matter of life and death they will interfere.
What reasonaable person wouldn't avail of medical treatment for themselves or their children, if the treatment was objectively to their benefit?
All I am saying is that there is often a choice of the type of treatment available ... and parents should have an input into deciding on which treatment to be availed of.

Zombrex wrote: »

You still haven't answered any of my questions. Who decides what treatments the parents can and cannot refuse, if not the State?

Any time I visit my doctor I decide what treatment, proposed by the Doctor, that I will accept without any need to involve the courts.
I accept most of what she has to say ... and reject some of her admonitions!!!!
I don't understand why you say that the courts have to be involved in such an elevated way in the medical treatment decision process ... when they patently haven't been involved in such a way about routine medical treatment, up to now.

Is there something planned that will require a much more agressive use of legal coersion than heretofore was the case in medical practice?

Zombrex wrote: »

Sure, involve the parents, listen to their positions. And then the doctors and court has the final say. Agreed?

Here you go again talking about involving the courts in routine doctor-patient situations.
... and stating that the courts should give the doctor the final say on somebodies medical treatment.

... I don't know where all of this is heading ... but I don't like the sound of it!!!

endacl

lmaopml wrote: »

No it isn't! Most people ( I would hope ) are not so wrapped up in their worldview to think of this merely in terms of their Atheism or their Christianity or their Spirituality or their particular lens on the world that they see fit to view it through.

I would imagine most people worth their salt are thinking on this, and don't just merely 'react' to anybody at all - Yay, me, I do the opposit to those baddies!!!

Atheists are 'Parents' so too are other 'human beings' who want to protect children, and it just so happens that this changing in the wording of the Constitution is not merely tied up in some absolutely stupid battle of endless words - but it's time to actually 'think' about it, and not score points.

If one does that, than they are, either way casting their 'decided' vote - if it's merely a 'hip hurrah' to some notion that there is a difference between ANY parents or child than that's a little sad. :P

Tend to agree with you lmaopml. Yet I've still to come across a no-vote argument that doesn't sound like a distant toxic echo of John Charles McQuaid.

Scoring points is a welcome fringe benefit to my lens.

lmaopml

Zombrex wrote: »

What happens when the parents decide that killing the child is in the best interests, despite the State. That IS happening today! On this planet.

I know it is - and I'll remind you of the simple fact that this IS the Christianity forum and right here we don't see anybody as owning you, me, them, or anybody other than God above - and 'charity', that is the love of life and people is what we are called to do - we don't always live up to that, but many have and many do.

I'll trust the State over the parents. The State at least has to abide by rule of law and the constitution and justify the decision to the people at large, where as if the decision is left to the parents they can decide to let their child die for any old wacky reason that only they have to care about (the alien over lord told us it was best for our child :rolleyes:)

Well, you can 'roll eyes' all you like - I hope you always get the beloved State you hope for and place your trust and faith in. I mean that.

Such a "fundamental notion" is routinely used to justify refusing medical treatment and leaving the health of the child in God's hands on the whim of the parents.

Needly to say that isn't a reassuring prospect. Again I'll take the State, who refers to the current scientific knowledge of medical treatment, over the parent's notions of supernatural intervention and divine providence any day.

This is not the JW forum, so maybe you could take it up with them? We actually 'do' become medics ourselves, and in very many cases Christians are at the forefront of delivering medical services to those in need of them - we've also been known to plea to 'legislating' for life against those who would not see medical science as the 'gift' that it is - Cheers!

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

No ... but it looks like they could start if some of the contributors to this thread had their way!!!

So we agree, you were wrong when you stated that the courts or doctors decide which treatments you can refuse and which you can't?

J C wrote: »

The courts are reluctant to interfere with an informed refusal of medical treatment ... but where it is a matter of life and death they will interfere.

Who decides it is a matter of life and death?

J C wrote: »

What sane person wouldn't avail of medical treatment for themselves or their children, if the treatment was objectively to their benefit?

Religious people.

J C wrote: »

All I am saying is that there is often a choice of the type of treatment available ... and parents should have an input into deciding on which treatment to be availed of.

No, what you were saying is that the courts should not over rule the parents.

You seem to be backing away from that position with the speed of a freight train, probably because you realise now (after it has been pointed out to you) all the problems that would come if the decision of treatment was left ultimately up to the parents.

J C wrote: »

Any time I visit my doctor I decide what treatment, proposed by the Doctor, that I will accept without any need to involve the courts.

Yes, I know. You argued differently a few minutes ago, but it is good to see you can admit your mistakes.

No one decides what treatment you can and cannot refuse, so your suggestion that the same person decides this in the cases of children is non-sensical, since this person doesn't exist in the first place.

Adult medical care and child medical care have always been different. The courts involve themselves in child medical care because the child needs representation. You, as an adult, don't you represent yourself.

J C wrote: »

Here you go again talking about involving the courts in routine doctor-patient situations.

The courts only need to be involved when the parents act against the child's best interests, as defined by the doctors and the State, not the parents as you originally suggested.

Thankfully most of the time the parents don't do this, they go along with what the doctors decide is best. But some times they do. Then the courts need to step in.

J C wrote: »

I don't know where all of this is heading ... but I don't like the sound of it!!!

That would probably because you seem to not have clue about any of this. You have flip flopped some many times so far I'm surprised you haven't fallen over.

Zombrex

lmaopml wrote: »

I know it is - and I'll remind you of the simple fact that this IS the Christianity forum and right here we don't see anybody as owning you, me, them, or anybody other than God above - and 'charity', that is the love of life and people is what we are called to do - we don't always live up to that, but many have and many do.

And we have laws for when you don't. Or are we supposed to just trust that all individual Christians will always act in a good manner. Cause, well you know, history and all that.

lmaopml wrote: »

This is not the JW forum, so maybe you could take it up with them?

Er, no. We don't make laws just for JW, we make laws for everyone. And in this forum we have a poster saying that the courts should not over rule the decisions of parents.

lmaopml wrote: »

We actually 'do' become medics ourselves, and in very many cases Christians are at the forefront of delivering medical services to those in need of them - we've also been known to plea to 'legislating' for life against those who would not see medical science as the 'gift' that it is - Cheers!

And some of you even go so far as to recognise that the State should have final decision on the treatment of children, not the parents. Perhaps you should listen to your fellow Christians ...

lmaopml

Zombrex wrote: »

And we have laws for when you don't. Or are we supposed to just trust that all individual Christians will always act in a good manner. Cause, well you know, history and all that.

Ok, I'm going to bed after this - because it's kind of daft I think arguing over nothing except that you in particular have decided that Christians don't go by the State laws or that they are somehow opposed to the formation of a good 'State' and good 'legislation' by merit of their Christianity - like we're living outside and not partakers at all in the formation.

Er, no. We don't make laws just for JW, we make laws for everyone. And in this forum we have a poster saying that the courts should not over rule the decisions of parents.

Well the JW's fought their case in the courts! If a person decides to fight their case for not doing something the State directs them to do, ( merely because it's the State ) in a court of law, than so be it - or should they just 'shut up' Zombrex?

And some of you even go so far as to recognise that the State should have final decision on the treatment of children, not the parents. Perhaps you should listen to your fellow Christians ...

Nobody thinks that the 'State' has any final say, except apparently you Zombrex - you trust the State over parents..lol...I'm sorry, I find that perhaps the most hardline Marxism ever. That's scary!

The courts have the final say as regards the parameters that the people set out, their 'values' in the Constitution. The State comes and goes and it's full of a mixed bag of people at any given time...and our laws are derived 'from' the Constitution in the Courts of Law - that's democracy.

I wonder would you be so willing to be yay for State above all if they were all Christians?
You should think about that, because THAT is what you seem to value. Even I wouldn't like that....and I'm a Christian

nagirrac

I'm genuinly curious why people in Ireland would think bestowing more power to the state is in the interest of children given the history of the state in looking after its most vulnerable?

Decades of horrendous abuse in industrial schools in Ireland was funded and supervised by the state. While the religious orders that ran these "schools" have quite rightly been villified and at least to some degree held to account, nobody else to my knowledge was held to account due to the decision of the government at the time of the Ryan Commission to not identify or prosecute the perpetrators. The state, which was mandated by the constutution to protect all its citizens, failed miserably. Where it failed most obviously over a period of many decades was in allowing child abusers continued access to state schools even when the state's own institutions were made aware of abuses and abusers.

In the Ryan report witnesses reported physical and sexual abuse by religious, lay staff of the school, professionals, and members of the general public allowed access to the schools. The sad reality is that industrial schools in Ireland appeared to have been the playground for every paedophile and child abuser in the country. This is what is missed by most people who blame just the RCC for the abuse, paedophiles will join any organization to gain access to children, the RCC was an obvious choice for them in Ireland given the complete lack of oversight by the state.

Before giving more power to the state, what specific steps have been taken to ensure that the abuses of the past are never repeated? The existing constitution and laws did not protect those who suffered abuse at the hands of the state, how is a rewrite of the constitution going to help? I don't see how it can help at all, what would help is actually implementing existing laws and holding those guilty of abuse to account.

I would argue that religious freedom is a side issue and the real issue is this is another back slapping exercise rather than doing anything meaningful.

Zombrex

lmaopml wrote: »

Ok, I'm going to bed after this - because it's kind of daft I think arguing over nothing except that you in particular have decided that Christians don't go by the State laws or that they are somehow opposed to the formation of a good 'State' and good 'legislation' by merit of their Christianity - like we're living outside and not partakers at all in the formation.

I decide that ... lol. Imaopml look at what others are arguing for.

lmaopml wrote: »

Well the JW's fought their case in the courts! If a person decides to fight their case for not doing something the State directs them to do, ( merely because it's the State ) in a court of law, than so be it - or should they just 'shut up' Zombrex?

What? You seem to be having a completely different conversation than everyone else.

Imaopml do you believe that the courts should decide if it is the best interests of a child to have a procedure, not the parents? If so we agree and you seem to be just arguing for the sake of it.

If you don't agree do you accept that giving this power to the parents means that they can decide, if they wish to, to allow their child to die without medical treatment.

lmaopml wrote: »

Nobody thinks that the 'State' has any final say, except apparently you Zombrex - you trust the State over parents..lol...I'm sorry, I find that perhaps the most hardline Marxism ever. That's scary!

Well that seems to be based on your utterly naive belief that all parents work in the best interests of their children all the time.

That is an odd position to hold since you have already given examples where this isn't the case, you have just said they aren't Christians. Well as I already explained we don't make laws just for JW parents.

lmaopml wrote: »

The courts have the final say as regards the parameters that the people set out, their 'values' in the Constitution. The State comes and goes and it's full of a mixed bag of people at any given time...and our laws are derived 'from' the Constitution in the Courts of Law - that's democracy.

You don't seem to understand what the term "State" means. It is the agents of the state (the police, social workers, judges etc) working within the law of the State (which includes the constitution).

Like JC you seem to be both arguing that we should not trust the State with responsibility for protecting children but that we should put the responsibility to protect children from abusive parents into the hands of the State.

It should be blindingly obvious that that is a total contradiction. You can't both remove the power of the State to protect children while also expecting that the State perform this role (which is why JC's posts have become incoherent nonsense as he triest to argue both situations but ignores questions about how this would actually work and who would make decisions)

This is the nonsense of common Christian positions about this stuff. You want everything the State provides except when it gets in the way of what you want to do. Well sorry it doesn't work like that. If you want the state to protect abused children you have to accept that they have powers to remove your children if the state feels you are abusing them. If you want the state to provide proper medical care to children where the parents refuse you have to accept that they have powers to over rule your medical decisions about your own children.

Benny_Cake

It might be worth looking at what the proposed changes are in this referendum as there seems to be a deal of confusion - some posters seem to be worrying about powers which the state already has:

Text to be deleted

Section 5 of Article 42 of the Constitution is proposed to be repealed:

In exceptional cases, where the parents for physical or moral reasons fail in their duty towards their children, the State as guardian of the common good, by appropriate means shall endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child.

Text to be inserted

A new article is proposed to be inserted after Article 42. Section 2.1° of the proposed Article 42A replaces the above deleted section:

Article 42A

1 The State recognises and affirms the natural and imprescriptible rights of all children and shall, as far as practicable, by its laws protect and vindicate those rights.

2 1° In exceptional cases, where the parents, regardless of their marital status, to such an extent that the safety or welfare of any of their children is likely to be prejudicially affected, the State as guardian of the common good shall, by proportionate means as provided by law, endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child.

2° Provision shall be made by law for the adoption of any child where the parents have failed for such a period of time as may be prescribed by law in their duty towards the child and where the best interests of the child so require.

3 Provision shall be made by law for the voluntary placement for adoption and the adoption of any child.

4 1° Provision shall be made by law that in the resolution of all proceedings—

i brought by the State, as guardian of the common good, for the purpose of preventing the safety and welfare of any child from being prejudicially affected, or

ii concerning the adoption, guardianship or custody of, or access to, any child, the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration.

2° Provision shall be made by law for securing, as far as practicable, that in all proceedings referred to in subsection 1° of this section in respect of any child who is capable of forming his or her own views, the views of the child shall be ascertained and given due weight having regard to the age and maturity of the child.

nagirrac

Benny_Cake wrote: »

It might be worth looking at what the proposed changes are in this referendum as there seems to be a deal of confusion - some posters seem to be worrying about powers which the state already has:

The existing words did nothing to protect children from abuse at the hands of the state. When the state had the opportunity to hold accountable and prosecute monsters in their own institutions they failed miserably. How will adding more words to the constitution prevent such abuses in the future?

Looking at Ireland's history it is the state children should be fearful of and not their parents.

Benny_Cake

nagirrac wrote: »

The existing words did nothing to protect children from abuse at the hands of the state. When the state had the opportunity to hold accountable and prosecute monsters in their own institutions they failed miserably. How will adding more words to the constitution prevent such abuses in the future?

Looking at Ireland's history it is the state children should be fearful of and not their parents.

The constitution will never be effective at addressing issues purely on it's own, that requires legislation, and taking action through the courts at times. It's value is in allowing citizens to hold the state to account. I don't see how the admittedly appalling record of the state in fulfilling its obligation to protect children in the past is an argument against this amendment?

PDN

Zombrex wrote: »

What happens when the parents decide that killing the child is in the best interests, despite the State.

They go to England and get the abortion there.

nagirrac

Benny_Cake wrote: »

The constitution will never be effective at addressing issues purely on it's own, that requires legislation, and taking action through the courts at times. It's value is in allowing citizens to hold the state to account. I don't see how the admittedly appalling record of the state in fulfilling its obligation to protect children in the past is an argument against this amendment?

How does the proposed amendment increase the ability of the citizens of Ireland to hold the state to account compared to the wording in the existing constitution?

J C

nagirrac wrote: »

How does the proposed amendment increase the ability of the citizens of Ireland to hold the state to account compared to the wording in the existing constitution?

It doesn't ... it reduces their abilities ... and particularly the abilities of parents (who have the most acute interest) to do so.

... in fairness parental rights have been eroded significantly already via statuate law ... by removing their right to challenge (or even know about) medical treatments for their children, in some cases, for example.
Reasonable parents want what is best for their children ... but they cannot even make an assessment of proposed procedures if they aren't allowed to be involved in the decision making process.

I still haven't heard any answer to my question about how doctors can, in conscience, put under-age girls on the pill without informing their parents ... and knowing that sexual activity is illegal and potentially very damaging, for this age group.

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

I still haven't heard any answer to my question about how doctors can, in conscience, put under-age girls on the pill without informing their parents ... and knowing that sexual activity is illegal for this age group.

They can do that because giving someone the pill is not "sexual activity" :rolleyes:

doctoremma

J C wrote: »

I still haven't heard any answer to my question about how doctors can, in conscience, put under-age girls on the pill without informing their parents ... and knowing that sexual activity is illegal and potentially very damaging, for this age group.

Because the alternative (not offering contraception) could have a worse outcome for the patient. Simple.

What are you gonna do, JC? Have your daughter not bother with contraception? Have the doctor tell you she's planning on sexual activity so you can lock her in her bedroom? Have the doctor tell the police so she can gain a criminal record?

J C

Zombrex wrote: »

They can do that because giving someone the pill is not "sexual activity" :rolleyes:

... are you serious???

... please remember that the context is that parents aren't informed ... which wouldn't be an issue if the pill was medically required by the young person.

... a request from an under-age girl for the pill is prima face evidence of her intention to engage in age-inappropriate (and illegal) sexual activity ... perhaps even with an adult.

Benny_Cake

JC, I found this article from a few years back which has describes the dilemma faced by doctors who must decide whether to prescribe the pill to an underage girl. I have to say though, this has got nothing to do with the upcoming referendum though.

J C

doctoremma wrote: »

Because the alternative (not offering contraception) could have a worse outcome for the patient. Simple.

What are you gonna do, JC? Have your daughter not bother with contraception? Have the doctor tell you she's planning on sexual activity so you can lock her in her bedroom? Have the doctor tell the police so she can gain a criminal record?

She won't get any record ... because under-age sex is illegal for an under-age boy ... but not for an under-age girl ... and the Supreme Court has already ruled that this is constitutional!!
... and to answer your question ...
I'd certainly have a long chat with her ... and her potential partner and his parents. I would diplomatically point out that he could be heading for prison ... if he proceeded to have sex with her ... and if he was an adult ... I wouldn't even be warning him ... I'd be reporting him to the police for soliciting sex with a minor, if he was the instigator!!!

The activity is illegal ... the law provides an absolute zone of protection to under-age persons ... and by facilitating sex (and turning a blind eye to the consequences) this would undermine a major piece of child protection legislation.

Children are logical Human Beings ... and they're not animals acting on instinct.
The girl may be under pressure from the man to go on the pill, and to have sex, for all we know.

... you're presenting a false dichotomy ... your proposal is identical to allowing your daughter to drive when she is drunk ... because you say that the only alternative is to lock her in her bedroom ... because she will drink and drive anyway !!

Benny_Cake wrote: »

JC, I found this article from a few years back which has describes the dilemma faced by doctors who must decide whether to prescribe the pill to an underage girl. I have to say though, this has got nothing to do with the upcoming referendum though.

... and what happens if her 'partner' was Jimmy Saville ... and it was at his instigation that she was going on the pill???

Could I ask you what do you think that a doctor (or indeed any other responsible adult) should do if a child asked for something that was self-harming and illegal?
There is a logical and humane 'middle road' between running her out of the surgery ... and giving her an open-ended prescription for the pill ... and that is to talk to her and ask her to discuss what she wants to embark on with her parents (or any other morally responsible person that she would be comfortable talking to).
If every doctor did this, she would get the message that engaging in under-age sex wasn't a good idea.

... and it does very much impinge on the referendum ... as the law allowing doctors to put under-age girls on the pill while not informing their parents ... is potentially un-constitutional without the amendment.

lmaopml

nagirrac wrote: »

How does the proposed amendment increase the ability of the citizens of Ireland to hold the state to account compared to the wording in the existing constitution?

That's the thing; it doesn't.

The current constitution is perfect for forming any legislation that is currently being discussed i.e. Adoption, giving a child a 'voice' etc. and so on..... and always has been in the past, right now, and in the future. There is NO need to change it - no need for a referendum at all to do these things. They could have been pursued in the past and even now if there was a will to do so..

I can see where Benny is coming from however, when he says that it will 'make' them pass legislation and also to be held accountable.

Truly though - why do they need a referendum in order to do what could already be done?

My problem is in the shifting of the wording that is rather ambiguous - and THIS is the direction that any future legislation is derived from, not only in ten years, but in twenty, fifty and so on.....the shift is the balance between 'the family' and the 'state' - at the moment the 'family' is at the centre ( but of course only in so far as the normal organ of law protects them )

At the current moment there is no reason to go bawling around the place and say the State is going to pursue legislating 'against' the family - I mean look at them, they're lovely.... Everybody agrees I'm sure.

It's unnecessary, this referendum, it's like the shoe tax. What IS necessary is for them to not need the people to vote to make them accountable, but a willing attitude to be as such.....through the NORMAL organ of law, and not a change in the Constitution.

Benny_Cake

J C wrote: »

... and it does impinge on the referendum ... as the law allowing doctors put under-age girls on the pill while not informing their parents ... is potentially un-constitutional without the amendment.

There is no law allowing doctors to put under-age girls on the pill though. It is a legal grey area which hasn't been legislated for and which will possibly end up in the Supreme Court one day. Doctors are relying on the fact that precedent in other countries has sided with the doctor in such cases.

Ultimately, the middle way you describe is no middle way around all if a girl makes it clear that she is going to have sex with her boyfriend (let's leave Jimmy Saville out of it) one way or another. The doctor has to take the least worst option.

Benny_Cake

lmaopml wrote: »

That's the thing; it doesn't.

The current constitution is perfect for forming any legislation that is currently being discussed i.e. Adoption, giving a child a 'voice' etc. and so on..... and always has been in the past, right now, and in the future. There is NO need to change it - no need for a referendum at all to do these things. They could have been pursued in the past and even now if there was a will to do so..

I can see where Benny is coming from however, when he says that it will 'make' them pass legislation and also to be held accountable.

Truly though - why do they need a referendum in order to do what could already be done?

My problem is in the shifting of the wording that is rather ambiguous - and THIS is the direction that any future legislation is derived from, not only in ten years, but in twenty, fifty and so on.....the shift is the balance between 'the family' and the 'state' - at the moment the 'family' is at the centre ( but of course only in so far as the normal organ of law protects them )

At the current moment there is no reason to go bawling around the place and say the State is going to pursue legislating 'against' the family - I mean look at them, they're lovely.... Everybody agrees I'm sure.

It's unnecessary, this referendum, it's like the shoe tax. What IS necessary is for them to not need the people to vote to make them accountable, but a willing attitude to be as such.....through the NORMAL organ of law, and not a change in the Constitution.

I don't know if it will "make" the Oireachtas pass legislation or not. It will make it easier to hold the state to account so that the laws which are on the books and future legislation will be implemented. The crucial thing here is the best interests of the child will be taken into account, and appropriate weight (based on maturity) will be accorded to the child's wishes. It isn't parents who should be worried about this, it is the HSE and those who are charged with intervening in situations which are dangerous for kids. They'll find it a lot harder to hide bad decisions.

Ultimately it is up to everyone which way they want to vote. I've made my decision but I'm as fallible as anyone else. I would say to anyone though, read what the proposed changes are and make an informed decision, and no matter what you decide, get put and vote. We're lucky to live in a country where we get to make these decisions.

J C

Benny_Cake wrote: »

There is no law allowing doctors to put under-age girls on the pill though. It is a legal grey area which hasn't been legislated for and which will possibly end up in the Supreme Court one day. Doctors are relying on the fact that precedent in other countries has sided with the doctor in such cases.

The law certainly allows doctors to put under-age sixteen year olds on the pill without consulting their parents ... and putting even youger girls on the pill will no longer be a 'legal grey area' after the referendum is passed ... as it will be constitutionally mandated!!!

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Ultimately, the middle way you describe is no middle way around all if a girl makes it clear that she is going to have sex with her boyfriend (let's leave Jimmy Saville out of it) one way or another. The doctor has to take the least worst option.

Do not leave Jimmy Saville out of it ... it's a definite possibility that some under-age girls going on the pill, are doing so on the instigation of an adult sexual predator, like Saville.

... and if the girl makes it clear that she is going to slit her wrists ... will you give her the knife ??

Come on Benny ... the law is there to protect her ... and what you are advocating it the undermining of child protection legislation.

... ironically, by doctors who are the very people at the centre of the 'brave new world' of child protection that this legislation is supposed to usher in!!!!:eek:

Benny_Cake

J C wrote: »

The law certainly allows doctors to put under-age sixteen year olds on the pill without consulting their parents ... and putting even youger girls on the pill will no longer be a 'grey area' after the referendum is passed ... as it will be constitutionally mandated!!!

Do not leave Jimmy Saville out of it ... it's a definite possibility that some under-age girls going on the pill, are doing so on the instigation of an adult sexual predator, like Saville.
... and if the girl makes it clear that she is going to slit her wrists ... will you give her the knife ??

Come on Benny ... the law is there to protect her ... and what you are advocating it the total undermining of child protection legislation.

I'd be interested to see your reasoning as to how this amendment will mandate that doctors put young girls on the pill, because I certainly don't see it.

If a doctor has reason to believe that an adult is abusing a child, then as far as I'm concerned they are obliged to report it. Simple as. If a 15 year old girl is having sex with a 15 year old boy, it is a slightly different situation is it not? From the doctor's point of view, it would be a case of reducing the potential harm.

nagirrac

Benny_Cake wrote: »

If a doctor has reason to believe that an adult is abusing a child, then as far as I'm concerned they are obliged to report it. Simple as. If a 15 year old girl is having sex with a 15 year old boy, it is a slightly different situation is it not? From the doctor's point of view, it would be a case of reducing the potential harm.

How would the doctor know that the underage girl is telling the truth? Its not as if children / teenagers don't lie to try and get what they want.

J C

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I don't know if it will "make" the Oireachtas pass legislation or not. It will make it easier to hold the state to account so that the laws which are on the books and future legislation will be implemented. The crucial thing here is the best interests of the child will be taken into account, and appropriate weight (based on maturity) will be accorded to the child's wishes. It isn't parents who should be worried about this, it is the HSE and those who are charged with intervening in situations which are dangerous for kids. They'll find it a lot harder to hide bad decisions.

All it does is to eliminate parental rights in relation to the welfare of their children ... and hand them to the state, wherever and whenever the state decides.
... and all this talk about the child's views being taken into account ... allows the childs views to be used when they suit ... and to ignore them when they don't.
Look at the legislation that allows sixteen year olds to consent to medical treatments (that suits the doctor) but doesn't allow them to refuse the treatment (because that doesn't suit the doctor)!!

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Ultimately it is up to everyone which way they want to vote. I've made my decision but I'm as fallible as anyone else. I would say to anyone though, read what the proposed changes are and make an informed decision, and no matter what you decide, get put and vote. We're lucky to live in a country where we get to make these decisions.

Yes ... we can consent to ... or refuse this one.

J C

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I'd be interested to see your reasoning as to how this amendment will mandate that doctors put young girls on the pill, because I certainly don't see it.

They will simply have to say that the child expressed the desire to go on the pill ... and they took account of the child's informed view on the matter in accordance with the constitution.
... and with no (dissenting) parental input allowed!!!
Of course, if the child says that she wants to smoke ... or lie on a sunbed ... they will simply refuse to countenace her opinion on these matters ... because the Doctors opinion is always best!!!

Benny_Cake wrote: »

If a doctor has reason to believe that an adult is abusing a child, then as far as I'm concerned they are obliged to report it.

I agree - so shouldn't parents also be informed as of right of such situations???
They have a critical role to play (and a definite interest) in their child's protection.

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Simple as. If a 15 year old girl is having sex with a 15 year old boy, it is a slightly different situation is it not? From the doctor's point of view, it would be a case of reducing the potential harm.

... it's a criminal offense for the boy involved ... and under-age boys have gone to prison for it.
if I were the boy's parent ... I'd want to know ... so I could do all in my power to protect the girl ... and to avoid my son getting a criminal record !!!

Ronagig

All I know is that when my cousin (alchoholic) tried to drive herself and baby into the path of an oncoming truck we could get no services out to her, It was 7pm on a Friday - All gone home. One of many instances with her acting up in the hours after 6pm & weekend. The laws and services that are already there are not enforced or acted upon. They don't need new laws, just better resources and to be enforced. INMHO.

lmaopml

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I don't know if it will "make" the Oireachtas pass legislation or not. It will make it easier to hold the state to account so that the laws which are on the books and future legislation will be implemented. The crucial thing here is the best interests of the child will be taken into account, and appropriate weight (based on maturity) will be accorded to the child's wishes. It isn't parents who should be worried about this, it is the HSE and those who are charged with intervening in situations which are dangerous for kids. They'll find it a lot harder to hide bad decisions.

The way I read it Benny is that it is the difference between, 'appropriate' and 'proportionate' - one doesn't require the State to legislate ( and it hasn't ) as a requirement done so, but is not necessarily 'stopped' from doing so, and one does require them to do so right now...


...but that new legislation will always be based on this new wording....round we go!

Ultimately it is up to everyone which way they want to vote. I've made my decision but I'm as fallible as anyone else. I would say to anyone though, read what the proposed changes are and make an informed decision, and no matter what you decide, get put and vote. We're lucky to live in a country where we get to make these decisions.

I agree, I think it's important to make an educated vote one way or the other - none of us are fortune tellers that can say what legislation will come about through this change in the future.

It makes me probably slightly mad that it is unnecessary in the first place, and seems to be more a mew to the people, than a recognition of 'inaction' at all, and in the current climate it's bound to have very few critics. Cynical? ...well maybe.

J C

Ronagig wrote: »

All I know is that when my cousin (alchoholic) tried to drive herself and baby into the path of an oncoming truck we could get no services out to her, It was 7pm on a Friday - All gone home. One of many instances with her acting up in the hours after 6pm & weekend. The laws and services that are already there are not enforced or acted upon. They don't need new laws, just better resources and to be enforced. INMHO.

Parents are 'on duty' 24/7 ... when it comes to the safety and welfare of their children ... but we are now going to significantly reduce their legal rights and powers to intervene and be given information to protect their children ... and we are going to transfer these parental rights and powers to a system already unable to cope with it's caseload!!!
... and creaking at the seams under austerity!!!!

BTW there is nothing wrong with taking childrens views into account in relation to their health and welfare ... and this is done already ... the problem is that the amendment is removing parental rights to be consulted and to have their opinions given due weight and attention when it comes to deciding issues in relation to their children.
... and this potentially applies to decisons about everything ... from their education ... to their faith ... and their health.

JimiTime

I think the crux of all this has been expounded on pretty well. Laws exist at the moment that can be utilised, but aren't. The only amendment that I would agree with, and tbh, there may already be something in place, is the addition of a childs feelings been given due consideration.

JC, you raise a great point as to the dichotomy of the government. Speaking out of two sides of its mouth as usual. 'Yeah, childrens rights blah blah', then 'Lets cut childrens allowance, bring more austerity, push more families into poverty etc'.

Like you say JC, a parent is where its at, and in the rare occurrence that there is criminal neglect etc, there are laws already in place without giving the state parental powers over the children of the nation.

J C

JimiTime wrote: »

I think the crux of all this has been expounded on pretty well. Laws exist at the moment that can be utilised, but aren't. The only amendment that I would agree with, and tbh, there may already be something in place, is the addition of a childs feelings been given due consideration.

JC, you raise a great point as to the dichotomy of the government. Speaking out of two sides of its mouth as usual. 'Yeah, childrens rights blah blah', then 'Lets cut childrens allowance, bring more austerity, push more families into poverty etc'.

Like you say JC, a parent is where its at, and in the rare occurrence that there is criminal neglect etc, there are laws already in place without giving the state parental powers over the children of the nation.

Children's views are already taken account of in proceedings concerning them - and rightly so.

The amendment is critical point ... on the road to the handover of parental and family rights to the State and it's functionaries, whenever deemed necessary, in accordance with the UN Convention on the Child ... that has been underway over the past 20 years.

For example, I only heard about the law giving sixteen year olds the 'right' to consent to surgery (without reference to their parents) ... and without the right to refuse surgery ... when my son was being asked to sign a consent ... even though he had asked to consult us first.
The surgery wasn't controversial ... but if it was ... the law had created a neat Catch 22 ... whereby our son couldn't refuse it ... and we couldn't intervene on his behalf ... because parents have no rights in relation to medical treatment for 16 year olds.
... so potentially he could be forced to undergo surgery that he didn't want ... and we as parents, could be powerless to intervene on his behalf.

The right to consent, without the right to refuse isn't a full right at all.

pauldla

J C wrote: »

Children's views are already taken account of in proceedings concerning them - and rightly so.

The amendment is critical point ... on the road to the handover of parental and family rights to the State and it's functionaries, whenever deemed necessary, in accordance with the UN Convention on the Child ... that has been underway over the past 20 years.

For example, I only heard about the law giving sixteen year olds the 'right' to consent to surgery (without reference to their parents) ... and without the right to refuse surgery ... when my son was being asked to sign a consent ... even though he had asked to consult us first.
The surgery wasn't controversial ... but if it was ... the law had created a neat Catch 22 ... whereby our son couldn't refuse it ... and we couldn't intervene on his behalf ... because parents have no rights in relation to medical treatment for 16 year olds.
... so potentially he could be forced to undergo surgery that he didn't want ... and we as parents, could be powerless to intervene on his behalf.

The right to consent, without the right to refuse isn't a full right at all.

The following is an extract from http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/health/legal_matters_and_health/consent_to_medical_and_surgical_procedures.html

Children

It is the practice for doctors and other medical professionals to get the consent of parents or guardians for medical and surgical procedures to be carried out on minors. There is no clear law on the subject but it seems to be accepted that parental consent is necessary.



The Supreme Court has held that a health board (now relaced by the HSE) did not have the right to insist on having a test carried out on a child without the parents' permission. This case involved the PKU or heel pin-prick test, which is usually carried out on babies shortly after birth.


The Supreme Court held that only in exceptional circumstances would the court intervene and make an order contrary to the wishes of the parents.


It is not clear but the Supreme Court might intervene if the parents refused life saving treatment. It seems that the Court would take into account the best interests of the child and possibly give greater weight to the rights of the child than to the rights of the parents.



Section 23 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, 1997 provides that young people of 16 and over may give valid consent to medical, surgical and dental treatment.

Also, interestingly enough...

If there is no consent

If a person carries out medical or surgical procedures without consent, he/she could be charged with the crime of assault - the decision on charges is made by the Director of Public Prosecutions.



He/she could also be sued for the tort (civil wrong) of trespass to the person and possibly for breach of constitutional rights. If the person involved is a medical professional, he/she could also be sued for negligence. The patient may take these actions.

JC, have you considered talking to a solicitor...? Or perhaps contacting the Citizens Information Board?