health care and a persons right to choose or not choose

Where is the line drawn between where a person has the right to determine medical treatment for themselves and their family and the governments interests intervening for "the public good"?

For example, if someone has a religious belief that does not allow for surgery as that defiles the body, they are not obligated to follow a course of action that forces it upon them.

Even if not having that surgery means that person will certainly die sooner, it is their choice to do so or not do so.

If however, someone has decided for his underage child that treatment for a lethal illness or injury will not be treated, what then?

That man is the child's parent. He has the right to make decisions he believes are in the child's best interests, both physical and spiritual.

However, the government has and continues to intervene in these cases. It is the governments contention that they know what is best for a child's health interests than the parents do. Even if it conflicts with the religion of the family.

Even worse, the government has intervened in the decisions of adults making decisions for themselves, often based on the position and intentions of a physician or hospital against the adults wishes, because they value the doctors position over the individual.

As much as they like to believe that science is the end all, be all last word on the discussion, their "science" changes all the time. One day it is "proven" that drug X will be good to treat something, Three years later, more study "proves drug X not only doesn't treat it, it might even make it worse in some cases. In the meantime, doctors, hospitals, lawyers and government officials, in the name of pseudo "truth" of their science are forcing people to use the "proven" drugs.

As tools science relies on to investigate medical issues changes and adapts all the time, the science changes all the time with it. What they thought was iron clad fact one day, can be moot or entirely reversed a matter of days to years later.

Science is not exact and it is not always right.

However, The government consistently makes laws and enforces decisions based on incorrect and sometimes 'bad' science all the time.

Government also languishes under the idea that 'more is better'. Thus, relating to human medical terms, more years to live equals a better life. Anything that prolongs a persons life is considered good, no matter how painful or uncomfortable or even damaging that might be.

Sometimes the larger population is squeamish about letting people die. So many have a religion or other idea that death is a bad thing that anything is encouraged to avoid it. They will 'vote' to make sure no one has to 'endure' the terrible thing that death is, or they perceive death is. Even to the point of making someone sicker or debilitating them. They rationalize that even though you are perpetually ill or even disabled, at least your not dead and you should be thankful to them they set in place these rules to keep you alive.

Quality of life doesn't enter the discussion until the individual is faced with living a long life of pain, illness or debilitation. Suddenly, well, maybe quality of life is important, maybe in just their case. Why no, they don't want the treatment now that will cause great suffering but extend their life a few more years. They would rather be comfortable and try to enjoy the few years they have left.

However, it is still 'easier' for the government and voters to make decisions for individuals based on what the public decides they don't want to be uncomfortable with.

I contend the government needs to stay out of an individuals choice to seek out and receive treatment, or not to. It is none of their business.

If they want to regulate doctors and hospitals to make sure they are offering services that are performed in an approved and taxable manner, fine. If a doctor or hospital is going to charge money for these services and products, they should be held to high standards to ensure things are done in an ethical and appropriate manner.

To tell someone that simply because the service and products exist, that they are obligated to use them is something else entirely.

Waffle and Pancake houses exist and are quite popular. However you don't see the government telling people they must see their local IHOP waitress for breakfast if they feel hungry or face penalty of law for not doing so.

To the government and 'well intentioned politicians with their 'friends' in the medical lobbying industry I say, offer your products and services if you must, but leave the decision of whether to make use of them to me, thank you very much.