Government involvement in personal health care

[Queen Rachel]

So decidedly not a health hint or tip, but I thought this post would be appropriate for the infirmary. While wandering the internet, I found this article. I was just curious to see what people's thoughts were on the matter, and people's general opinions on what role the government should have in health care.

www.care2.com/causes/womens-rights/blog/state-cant-force-medical-treatment-on-pregnant-women/

[Rook]

In the same way that, even if I don't agree with Suicide, I don't believe it to be a crime, I disagree that someone should be forced to receive medical care that they do not want. That's what DNR cards are for, we have control over how healthy or not we are, and whether we choose to receive any health care available to us.

Blaming their actions on saving the baby is a stretch, because until it's born I'm not sure it really has any rights to its own. Not to marginalize children or infants or fetuses, but no one can force you into dentistry for the health of your teeth, but the moment a tooth is pulled it is considered bio hazardous waste and you can't touch it. When it was in your mouth, it was part of you, when it leaves your body, it acquires a new set of rules. Same with the baby.

[Mira O'Halloran]

I think that what happened was a gross violation of her rights, not to mention forced imprisonment! As the article said - even if the baby had born at 25 weeks, it only stood a fifty-fifty chance of surviving, so her rights were pushed aside for a case of maybe.

I sort of agree with King Ari here - the baby has no rights till it's it's own independant entity, but at the same time, it's the responsibility of the mother to make sure as many hazards to the development of the baby are removed - such as stress, smoke, alcohol, drugs, pharmaceutical drugs, pesticides, herbicides, etc.

[Rook]

Agreed, a baby is not exactly like a tooth, and the Mother should take care of herself to, by extension, take care of the baby. Regardless no one should be forced to be healthy and until the child is born it's her decision how she lives her life. If there was a complication and I had to choose between Her Majesty or the unborn child I would choose Her Majesty without hesitation every time. It's a matter of statistics as you said, at 25 weeks survival is a toss of the coin.

I wish I could agree with making people healthier and safer for their own good, but in my heart I know it's wrong to force someone into an action to save themselves. People have the inherent right to enrich or destroy themselves as they see fit. Only when they begin to endanger the liberty of others that government intervention is required. In this scenario there was absolutely no reason for her right to screw up her own life to be infringed.

[Nesslandria Haneh]

As the article said, too, the mother had not decided for or against the bed rest. She simply wanted to get a 2nd opinion. We can't allow hospitals or the government to start forcing care on us b/c we can't always trust their motives. I think the mother should have had the choice to do what was best for her unborn child, and considering she already has two children, she probably would have. Bed rest, to me, is a small price to pay for the health of an unborn child, but as the article also said: who would have taken care of her other children and how would she support herself and her kids if she couldn't work for all that time? Not the hospital's call to make, and certainly not the government's. Strange that a government that upholds a woman's right to abortion would forcefully confine a pregnant woman to bed rest for the sake of her unborn child. I don't support abortion, but I also don't support our government trying to become a parent state.