We live in a society full of various worries, and interests. Full of corruption and good. Full of creativity and restriction. With all this whirling around us constantly how can we truly understand anything and make sure we are getting what we want and what we can. Well in this series we’ll be taking a deeper look into that, and tackle it one issue at a time.
Human Rights, we constantly hear the violation of human articles in what one would consider”usual cases” corrupt government,war, etc. But it’s never come to mind if it would come to a local level. Take the Cassandra Callendar case. A 17 year old girl diagnosed with cancer. Her chance of survival was very high if she underwent chemotherapy, but she was almost definitely gonna die if she didn’t. Astonishly Cassandra and her mother decided against the chemo. They had no clear reason for this, no religion ,no health conditions affected by chemotherapy. Simply we don’t know her exact reason.
Despite this the government forced Cassandra to take Chemo, and she did survive. But here’s a question is this a violation of human rights?
The government likely saved her life, but in the process violated her rights?Should the government have intervened?
I believe that the government should not have intervened and here’s why. Yes the government may have saved her life but this decision is unethical, and can be proven illogical. You are violating the amendments, denying Cassandra of her rights and free choice. And what if this led to a slippery slope of rights! Slowly this could lead to deterioration rights, our freedom and voice being shut out from existence.The government controlling our every move. Of course take this with a side of salt, as this impression may be overly cynical and dramatic, but it still begs the same question. Would more decisions like this, lead to even worse decisions made by the government, limiting our freedom even more?
Yes. It is very likely that more decisions like the ones made in the Cassandra Case, leading to a slippery slope of rights.
Which brings me to my point that the government should never have intervened in the Cassandra C case. The risks he took, as setting up a bad standard for future cases, and violating Cassandra’s rights. Breaking the fundamental parts of human rights. Yes Cassandra was likely gonna die if she didn’t chemotherapy. But it was her decision backed up by her mother, and their personal decision. What legal backup did the government have? Little to none, their only support was that Casandra would die if not given Chemo, but they violated her choice a thing the government should not have done.
This just wraps up issue #1 of Fickle Ethics. What are your thoughts on this issue? Leave them in the replies! Tell me if the government should have or have not intervened. Criticism is greatly appreciated as well!
See ya next time and I hope you have a great week!
The Swerve 