January 12, 2015—Hello everybody and thank you for tuning in. It wasn’t too long ago that I made some comments about the case in Connecticut where the 17 year-old girl did not want to take chemotherapy for a lymphoma. The doctors were persistent and they took it to court. She actually ran away and they went out and captured her and brought her back. Her mother wants her to do what she wants. Her mother supports her in the decision not to take the chemo.
Medically, it’s a controversial decision. But legally, it’s brought up some controversy. Does she have the right to do this? I certainly lean in that direction. I said if I was the judge, I would allow her to do what she wants. She’s 17 years old and capable of thinking this through.
Anyway, the Supreme Court in Connecticut ruled on this and said that she does not have the right to make this decision. One thing interesting about this case is if you’re 17—in a lot of states this is the case—and you commit a burglary, if you do shoplifting or something else, whatever crime you commit, you can be tried as an adult.
In one way, when it’s the state coming down on your, and they want to throw the book at you, they can say, “You’re 17 but you’re really an adult and we’ll treat you like that.” When it comes to this youngster wanting to make an adult decision, they come down and say that she can’t do this.
The big question is what kind of a precedent does this set? Does this mean the state is going to act as a parent? Well, that’s already a major problem and it’s going to make things worse. Ever since we talked about many decades ago about the pros and cons of putting stuff in our water to take care of us, like fluoride, that’s actually a treatment. That’s not to keep the water pure.
This has been around a long time and we have what essentially is forced immunization or a lot of pressure to have immunization. We have a problem in schools because of a lot of pressure from the teachers and supervisors to put kids that might be hyperactive on drugs. A lot of them are on drugs because of pressure. The ruling actually came down said a certain agency of government had the right to force her to do that and it was the Department of Children and Family. I didn’t even know they had one. I know about CPS, Child Protective Services. Every state probably has this and they can march in and be pretty ruthless at times too. But actually in Connecticut it’s the Department of Children and Family.
Well, there was a time in this country where the family was the family, and if the parents weren’t there, maybe it would be siblings or uncles or grandparents or somebody else, but it wasn’t this automatic option that the state can move in and make these decisions.
I think this is another example of the government taking over on medical decisions and educational decisions, and something that really threatens our civil liberties. The ideal would be the government would be out of both and all, but governments have been involved in education and medicine for a long time and they will be.
I think the case ought to be made that parents are the responsible parties and not the government, and they’re responsible for the material care of children too and not assume that children or anybody else are entitled to have the government take care of them.
We have lived in a society which is a welfare type of society where we believe in entitlement and once the entitlements come, then the government has this responsibility they assume in taking care of the children.
This is not a good ruling and will lead to more problems. But like I say, there’s been a lot of that going on, different rules in different states. This is in Connecticut, but it is a move that probably wouldn’t surprise a lot of others.
This is an interesting case to keep an eye on and see just exactly what the 17 year old will do. Possibly she’ll run away again, which is really rather sad—a 17 year-old trying to escape from big government because she wants to make her own decision.
I’m glad you tuned in today and come back to the Ron Paul Channel soon.