The Glade 4.0
https://gladerebooted.net/

Hypotheticals (Spinoff of the Deaf Baby Thread)
https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=7155		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  FarSky [ Thu Sep 15, 2011 1:13 pm ]
Post subject:  Hypotheticals (Spinoff of the Deaf Baby Thread)
I've seen similar cases as mentioned in the thread, where deaf parents actively want their child to be born deaf. So out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on the following scenarios? When I say "what are your thoughts," I mean what do you think are the legal, medical, and personal ramifications of the decisions presented?

Scenario A) Two deaf parents want a deaf child. They find out that their baby began life in the womb fine, but is not developing properly and will be born deaf. There is a treatment that they can provide in utero to fix the problem and the baby will be born with no hearing difficulties. They decide not to do this.

Scenario B) Two deaf parents want a deaf child. They find out that their in-utero child will be born without hearing deficiency. They request and are granted a medical treatment that will effect hearing loss and thus the baby will be born deaf.

Scenario C) A hearing father and a deaf mother are having a baby. The father wants the child to be able to hear, and the mother wants the child to be deaf. The mother, without consent of the father, requests and is granted a medical treatment that will effect hearing loss and result in the baby being born deaf.
Author:  Elmarnieh [ Thu Sep 15, 2011 1:17 pm ]
Post subject: 
A. No issue
B. They caused harm - removal of custody and jail time for parents and doctor(s).
C. Same as above for mother and doctor(s) with custody given to the father.
Author:  Lenas [ Thu Sep 15, 2011 2:09 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:
Elmarnieh wrote:
A. No issue
B. They caused harm - removal of custody and jail time for parents and doctor(s).
C. Same as above for mother and doctor(s) with custody given to the father.
Author:  darksiege [ Thu Sep 15, 2011 2:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:
Elmarnieh wrote:
A. No issue
B. They caused harm - removal of custody and jail time for parents and doctor(s).


C.
Quote:
without consent of the father


At this point it should be completely acceptable for the father to take sole custody and be granted a divorce and punished legally.

And personally I think that depending on the situation, the offending parent should be publicly beaten.
Author:  Corolinth [ Thu Sep 15, 2011 3:03 pm ]
Post subject: 
I wish having Ron Jeremy bust a nut in your ear was a sentence a justice of the peace could impose.
Author:  Vindicarre [ Thu Sep 15, 2011 5:07 pm ]
Post subject: 
Makes me 4
Author:  Diamondeye [ Thu Sep 15, 2011 6:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Hypotheticals (Spinoff of the Deaf Baby Thread)
I second Elmo's opinion, with an endorsement for public beating of the mother in case C, and both parents in case B.
Author:  Rorinthas [ Thu Sep 15, 2011 9:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:
There's nothing wrong with denying in-utero intervention and letting God (nature) take His (its) course. Such treatments are not always successful and can cause miscarriage also.

Actively perusing a course to maim/harm a child in the womb should be criminal assault of a minor and be handled by the courts and CPS in proper fashsion. If the child dies of the process the felony/murder statue should apply. In scenario C the father should not be charged and should be allowed custody.
Author:  Müs [ Fri Sep 16, 2011 12:30 am ]
Post subject: 
I'd add that in situation A, it could be construed as negligence. If you have the ability to provide treatment to make your child whole, you should. In all cases (Except for the father in C) the parents are monsters.
Author:  Rafael [ Fri Sep 16, 2011 5:02 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Hypotheticals (Spinoff of the Deaf Baby Thread)
Being that I am actually affected in a way similar to this hypothetical, I will say for A it depends on the efficacy of the treatment and the possible adverse consequences. It also depends on if the mother's condition and if the fetus is maldeveloped or being exposed to something as a result of the mother.

In the case of vertical transmission of diseases, the parents have the right to choose what is in the best interest, but if you don't make the easy choice, the child has every right to hate you.
Author:  Stathol [ Fri Sep 16, 2011 10:33 am ]
Post subject:  Re:
Müs wrote:
I'd add that in situation A, it could be construed as negligence. If you have the ability to provide treatment to make your child whole, you should. In all cases (Except for the father in C) the parents are monsters.

It could be, I don't think it is. Are you obligated to risk your child's life on the possibility of saving their hearing? I don't believe so. I don't think there's a clearly right or wrong answer to that question -- it depends on the magnitude of the risk and your tolerance thereof. That's a matter that I believe should be left up to the parents, even if the choice seems questionable to some or even most of us.

Edit: Just noticed that in A the parents want a deaf child. That's definitely a shitty motive, but my answer still stands. Application of law shouldn't be based on the motives of its subjects, however distasteful they are.
Author:  FarSky [ Fri Sep 16, 2011 11:12 am ]
Post subject: 
For sake of argument, all treatments are 100% safe. Well, "safe" is a relative term here, as we're discussing a treatment that would deafen the child. We'll say all treatments perform only their intended function with no side effects.

One of my main questions is: particularly in cases B and C, does/should the child have legal recourse when it comes of age?
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/