A while back I read about an American couple ordered to get chemotherapy for their teenaged son after they chose to forego a second round of chemo and instead try alternative medicines.
Is it right for the State to be able to order invasive, intrusive health treatments? I can't say how I'd react to the idea of chemo if I found out I had cancer. I think I'd be more frightened of the treatment than of the illness - but then I have a lot of people I have to live for.
This issue is right up there with the vaccination issue and the family who skipped town to avoid their child being given vaccinations after welfare had already been called in (I'm assuming there's more to that story than it seems, as welfare seems very keen to leave neglected, beaten, underfed children at home in other cases).
I believe in vaccinations, I believe in taking the medicine if it'll help you stay alive to be with your family for as long as possible, but I'm not sure where to draw the line on the State making me make 'good' choices.
I remember having an out and out blue with a nurse lecturing me about HepC vaccinations for my newborn. I remember feeling very violated when I was given a vitamin injection after my daughter’s birth, but was too out of it to realise it was happening.
And if a doctor took a syringe near my kids without me knowing you better believe he better be carrying a metal bar in the other hand because I'd be flying over the counter faster than you could say 'Spanish influenza'.
We put a lot of faith in our governments knowing better than we do...and yet very few of the politicians I know can find their bums with both hands, let alone their moral centres.
No comments:
Post a Comment