Pseudoscience/sham cancer treatments

[Jassman]

So, according to your reasoning, the state should protect teens from getting bad credit but not from making a bad (provably bad) medical decision?  Is this what you mean?

No, I just don't think that credit is a real urgent and extremely life affecting issue for anyone. I don't think it really matters if someone has to wait 18 years to be approved for a credit card nearly as much as it matters to be allowed to make your own decisions.

So the credit thing and other minor age related issues are open to debate, but I'm much more focussed on the human right to decide on your own course of action. The way you live and the way you die. That is something that has much larger consequences for the individual.

[Amor Fati]

You are right about that. Perhaps people should have to take an aptitude test to obtain adult rights? Then if you are a particularly mature 15 year old, you could be considered an adult upon passing the exam?

I agree, but we have problems with aptitude tests in the US.  They were once used to prevent african americans from voting, so since 1965 we have had laws preventing them.

And most recently there have been renewed movements to print official government documents only in english, and other shit like that.

[Amor Fati]

[I'm much more focussed on the human right to decide on your own course of action. The way you live and the way you die. That is something that has much larger consequences for the individual.

Right, the consequences are the largest concern here.  My thought is that the larger the possible and likely (and in this particular case, highly likely) consequences to a person who may not be fully rational, the more interest the state should have in protectiong that person from themselves.  This case is especially troublesome because the guy is 16, and not, say, 13 or 11.  

I hate state babysitters, but moving back to my earlier hypothetical.  Imagine if a 16 year old girl is being raped by her father since she was 12 and has come to enjoy it.  As disturbing as that thought is, it's possible.  Sex and death are two incredibly personal rights that western governments have been loath to intrude upon (recently), but what to do?  Has her father somehow brainwashed her in this case, and if so, does this warrant government action against her will?  

Compare this to the chemo case and what we know about it.  The parents and the 16 year old have the knowledge that alternative treatments do not work, so have they proven their irrationality by seeking those treatments?

[Court]

I'm not sure who has the right, however, to protect them from themselves, Amor. Of course, with this case, your mind may reel at the irrationality of the parents and the teenager, but who has the right to decide who's rational and who's not? And as long as the irrational behavior of the teenager is not harming anyone else, on what grounds does the government, or anyone who is not the parents, have the right to force his hand?

[Jassman]

Imagine if a 16 year old girl is being raped by her father since she was 12 and has come to enjoy it.  As disturbing as that thought is, it's possible.

Interesting. I'm going to have to think about this for awhile.

Court, that's an interesting point as well. Setting aside the issue of "separation of church and state" for a second, what if in the future the government concluded that atheists raising their kids as atheists was abuse because they are (supposedly) damning their kids to an eternity of hellfire?

I don't think it's up to the government to tell us what is right in situations like this.

Also, maybe this 16 year old places quality of life far above quantity of life. Who are we to step in and force him to take the "right" course of action? After all, the choice in how to live his life is ultimately up to him (or at least should be).

[McQ]

I'm not sure who has the right, however, to protect them from themselves, Amor. Of course, with this case, your mind may reel at the irrationality of the parents and the teenager, but who has the right to decide who's rational and who's not? And as long as the irrational behavior of the teenager is not harming anyone else, on what grounds does the government, or anyone who is not the parents, have the right to force his hand?

Kinda knew this would be a can of worms. LOL! Court, I don't claim to have many of the answers here, but one of the reasons we have government (and I'm a Libertarian, so I hate anything but small government) is to protect people, even from themselves.

First of all, I didn't say these people were being irrational. I'm not sure anyone did, although you may think it was implied. (EDIT: Ok, I see where Amor fati asked that! LOL!)They are definitely uninformed on this whole topic though, and are being given not only bad advice, but bogus advice from the clinic in Mexico. That's my main issue. As to who can say who is rational and irrational, you have to look at societies as whole populations first, and go with what the society says. Besides, what would we do without all those psychologists and psychiatrists? (heh-heh!) That prevents anarchy, which, although it may sound fashionable and cool to some people, really isn't such a good idea.

I don't have an argument with people choosing their own destinies either, although I will argue with Jassman that 16 is old enough in most cases. There are plenty of good reasons to set some kind of age for being a legal adult. I agree that not everyone is mentally or emotionally competent at their legal adult age. Amor Fati has already made excellent points in this regard.

As a personal example, my 20 year old son is not as mentally mature as my 17 year old son. I'm not knocking him, but that's the way it is. There's nothing wrong with that, other than it leads me back to one of the reasons that this has so many gray areas. Just because maybe you personally (I mean people in general) are a mature 18 or 19, doesn't mean someone else is. That argues both for AND against a set legal adault age limit. But experience and time shows that a legal adult age limit is necessary for a stable society. It's just different in different societies.

Like I said, this is a tough issue. It's also a highly emotional issue, as we can see from the posts already. But it isn't so simple that we here can answer it with blanket statements based on our limited knowledge and experience. I sure won't try!  

[Amor Fati]

I'm not sure who has the right, however, to protect them from themselves, Amor. Of course, with this case, your mind may reel at the irrationality of the parents and the teenager, but who has the right to decide who's rational and who's not? And as long as the irrational behavior of the teenager is not harming anyone else, on what grounds does the government, or anyone who is not the parents, have the right to force his hand?

We do, all the time, decide what's rational and what's not.  And if there is a significant agreement in a democracy that the government should have some paternalistic power, then we give it that power.  

I general, there are two principles that are used to justify government coercion (though there are more)

Principle of paternalism:  this principle states that the government is justified in outlawing action X if X is harmful to the actor (individual acting).  

Principle of harm:  the government is justified in outlawing action X if X is harmful to others (the non-actors).

The harm principle is usually seen as self-evident, but John Stewart Mill gives it the best defense.  



The Principle of Paternalism has a variety of defenses, the chief of which is as follows.  I, as a rational being, know that there are going to be times in my life when my rationality will fail me and i will act against my own best self-interest.  Knowing this, it would be rational for me to give some other person or organization of people control over my decisions when I am not capable of action in my own best self-interest (and assuming they are capable of rationality and knowing what's in my best interest, etc).  Presumably, we would give the government this right, since it is the only organization that is, collectively, ours.  

What counts as rational?  Well, actions against your own best self-interest
are usually considered irrational.

[McQ]

I'm not sure who has the right, however, to protect them from themselves, Amor. Of course, with this case, your mind may reel at the irrationality of the parents and the teenager, but who has the right to decide who's rational and who's not? And as long as the irrational behavior of the teenager is not harming anyone else, on what grounds does the government, or anyone who is not the parents, have the right to force his hand?

We do, all the time, decide what's rational and what's not.  And if there is a significant agreement in a democracy that the government should have some paternalistic power, then we give it that power.  

I general, there are two principles that are used to justify government coercion (though there are more)

Principle of paternalism:  this principle statest that the government is justified in outlawing action X if X is harmful to the actor (individual acting).  

Principle of harm:  the government is justified in outlawing action X if X is harmful to others (the non-actors).

The harm principle is usually seen as self-evident, but John Stewart Mill gives it the best defense.  



The Principle of Paternalism has a variety of defenses, the chief of which is as follows.  I, as a rational being, know that there are going to be times in my life when my rationality will fail me and i will act against my own best self-interest.  Knowing this, it would be rational for me to give some other person or organization of people control over my decisions when I am not capable of action in my own best self-interest (and assuming they are capable of rationality and knowing what's in my best interest, etc).  Presumably, we would give the government this right, since it is the only organization that is, collectively, ours.  

What counts as rational?  Well, actions against your own best self-interest
are usually considered irrational.

Yeah, what he said.  

[Amor Fati]

I'm not sure who has the right, however, to protect them from themselves, Amor. Of course, with this case, your mind may reel at the irrationality of the parents and the teenager, but who has the right to decide who's rational and who's not? And as long as the irrational behavior of the teenager is not harming anyone else, on what grounds does the government, or anyone who is not the parents, have the right to force his hand?

We do, all the time, decide what's rational and what's not.  And if there is a significant agreement in a democracy that the government should have some paternalistic power, then we give it that power.  

I general, there are two principles that are used to justify government coercion (though there are more)

Principle of paternalism:  this principle statest that the government is justified in outlawing action X if X is harmful to the actor (individual acting).  

Principle of harm:  the government is justified in outlawing action X if X is harmful to others (the non-actors).

The harm principle is usually seen as self-evident, but John Stewart Mill gives it the best defense.  



The Principle of Paternalism has a variety of defenses, the chief of which is as follows.  I, as a rational being, know that there are going to be times in my life when my rationality will fail me and i will act against my own best self-interest.  Knowing this, it would be rational for me to give some other person or organization of people control over my decisions when I am not capable of action in my own best self-interest (and assuming they are capable of rationality and knowing what's in my best interest, etc).  Presumably, we would give the government this right, since it is the only organization that is, collectively, ours.  

What counts as rational?  Well, actions against your own best self-interest
are usually considered irrational.

Yeah, what he said.  lol, this is one of my hobby horses, so i get carried away sometimes (not that support state babysitters, it's nice to have one now and then).

[Court]

Court, that's an interesting point as well. Setting aside the issue of "separation of church and state" for a second, what if in the future the government concluded that atheists raising their kids as atheists was abuse because they are (supposedly) damning their kids to an eternity of hellfire?

This is exactly what I meant. Thank you, Jassman.

[Jassman]

Kinda knew this would be a can of worms. LOL! Court, I don't claim to have many of the answers here, but one of the reasons we have government (and I'm a Libertarian, so I hate anything but small government) is to protect people

McQ, you had me nodding right up until:

even from themselves.

Whoa. I consider myself a libertarian and yet strongly disagree with that statement. I know there are a lot of points of contention between libertarians on a multitude of issues but I didn't believe this to be one of them. In fact the first sentence in the Wikipedia article on libertarianism states

"Libertarianism is a political philosophy advocating that individuals should be free to do whatever they wish with their person or property, as long as they do not infringe on the same liberty of others."

I think it's fairly safe to say that "protecting someone from themself" violates their freedom to act and make choices. Maybe I just interpreted what you said wrong. Hopefully. Please set me straight if that is the case.

--------------------------------------

The Principle of Paternalism has a variety of defenses, the chief of which is as follows.  I, as a rational being, know that there are going to be times in my life when my rationality will fail me and i will act against my own best self-interest.  Knowing this, it would be rational for me to give some other person or organization of people control over my decisions when I am not capable of action in my own best self-interest (and assuming they are capable of rationality and knowing what's in my best interest, etc).  Presumably, we would give the government this right, since it is the only organization that is, collectively, ours.

How is it possible for the government to know whether that person is not acting in their own best self-interest? Is this an argument against a person's right to suicide? This looks like a very slippery slope. It seems like a very easy thing for the government to abuse. In the end, every decision made by a person could potentially have to be approved by the government,  under the guise of "looking out for your best interest".

[Court]

Although, I completely see where everyone else is coming from. It is complicated and sticky, and impossible to sum up in one stance. I find myself nodding in agreement with everyone on this one, even though we're saying different things.

I think a legal adult age is necessary, if not perfect. But I don't really see a better solution...

EDIT: I agree with Jassman's stance above, though. I don't really think that anyone has the right to involve themselves in your personal decisions that don't harm others. I don't think anyone has the right to protect me from myself. The issue with this post, however, is that the person involved is a minor, which complicates things.

[McQ]

Kinda knew this would be a can of worms. LOL! Court, I don't claim to have many of the answers here, but one of the reasons we have government (and I'm a Libertarian, so I hate anything but small government) is to protect people

McQ, you had me nodding right up until:

even from themselves.

Whoa. I consider myself a libertarian and yet strongly disagree with that statement. I know there are a lot of points of contention between libertarians on a multitude of issues but I didn't believe this to be one of them. In fact the first sentence in the Wikipedia article on libertarianism states

"Libertarianism is a political philosophy advocating that individuals should be free to do whatever they wish with their person or property, as long as they do not infringe on the same liberty of others."

I think it's fairly safe to say that "protecting someone from themself" violates their freedom to act and make choices. Maybe I just interpreted what you said wrong. Hopefully. Please set me straight if that is the case.

--------------------------------------

The Principle of Paternalism has a variety of defenses, the chief of which is as follows.  I, as a rational being, know that there are going to be times in my life when my rationality will fail me and i will act against my own best self-interest.  Knowing this, it would be rational for me to give some other person or organization of people control over my decisions when I am not capable of action in my own best self-interest (and assuming they are capable of rationality and knowing what's in my best interest, etc).  Presumably, we would give the government this right, since it is the only organization that is, collectively, ours.

How is it possible for the government to know whether that person is not acting in their own best self-interest? Is this an argument against a person's right to suicide? This looks like a very slippery slope. It seems like a very easy thing for the government to abuse. In the end, every decision made by a person could potentially have to be approved by the government,  under the guise of "looking out for your best interest".

It's your right to disagree with anything I say, but I think you misunderstand my meaning. I won't reiterate what Amor Fati already stated so well. And I can certainly consider myself a Libertarian even if I disagreed with one aspect of the platform.

[MommaSquid]

"Libertarianism is a political philosophy advocating that individuals should be free to do whatever they wish with their person or property, as long as they do not infringe on the same liberty of others."

I think it's fairly safe to say that "protecting someone from themself" violates their freedom to act and make choices.

Absolutely.  

I've been trying to draft a post to discuss my position that doesn't make me sound totally paranoid over government intrusion.  I can't do it, so I'll just sit this one out.

[McQ]

Although, I completely see where everyone else is coming from. It is complicated and sticky, and impossible to sum up in one stance. I find myself nodding in agreement with everyone on this one, even though we're saying different things.

I think a legal adult age is necessary, if not perfect. But I don't really see a better solution...

EDIT: I agree with Jassman's stance above, though. I don't really think that anyone has the right to involve themselves in your personal decisions that don't harm others. I don't think anyone has the right to protect me from myself. The issue with this post, however, is that the person involved is a minor, which complicates things.

Another thought on this, because people get so outraged at the idea of someone else, especially the government, intruding on their rights to do whatever they wish with themselves.

Often times, as in the case of sucide (out of depression or some other circumstance OTHER than someone taking their life who is terminally ill), people will think that the sucidee (nice word, huh?) is only "hurting" himself. If you've ever had a loved one commit suicide (and I mean an immediate family member for instance) you'll realize that they are hurting and ruining the lives of the people around them. It's not so simple as you've made it out to be. This requires more though and less emotional outrage.

That said, I still disagree with the government's intrusion into the lives of people to the extent of making them go through chemo, or forcing a woman to go through an unwanted pregnancy, etc. And I want the right to die of my own accord if I am terminally ill, rather than become a drooling vegetable for the last portion of my life.

People forget that chronic depression is the cause of many sucides. If the person is prevented from committing sucide and is properly treated for the depression, it is possible (and does happen) for her to have a totally functional, valuable, productive life.

So do you just not bother trying to prevent someone who is depressed from killing himself? As I said, this is full of gray areas and requires a lot more thought than may be being given to it in this forum.