Teen Must Undergo Chemotherapy

[Miltiades]

It is their right to refuse treatment, but it is not, as you claim, their right to let their child die. The child is underage, technically belongs to the state, and the state is exercising their powers over the child after, I'm assuming, deeming the parents incompetent. The same argument could be used when a parent shoots their kid and they claim "Well, I'm their parent. I get to decide if they live or die."

I'm of the opinion that ultimate responsibility lies with the parents, but I'm aware that the law says different. Just for the record, I don't agree with the parent's decision, and I don't believe a plant from the backyard will cure his cancer.

[SW01]

You know, the most striking thing of all this for me is this: the parents should be absolutely overjoyed at the fact that their child's potentially mortal (if untreated) illness is so treatable and survivable.

 

I find myself actually becoming quite angry reading about this. There are innumerable parents and families who have lost children, who would have given anything for their illnesses to be treatable, and to have such a promising outlook.

 

In short: I entirely support such a decision, which may as well be a ruling on a case of abuse and neglect.

[Jae Onasi]

Most foster homes in my area, on the contrary, were people who were attempting to abuse the system and get as much money as the state would give them for as many kids as they could get. And of course, providing nothing for those kids.

That kind of abuse needs to be reported to the state. There are regulations on how the money is allowed to be used or not used, and if they are violating those rules and not caring for the children, they need to be removed as foster parents immediately.

 

I'm not saying family size is a defining element of parenting, just that I personally think that people need to set some limits for themselves. Unless people start taking opinions like this woman, and just letting them die as kids often did a hundred plus years ago, kids don't die readily. And because of this, the need for large families doesn't exist anymore, unless you own a farm.

 

There are 9 billion people on the planet, and much as I would be glad to be rid of stupid people like this woman, it's much easier to not have kids, then to eliminate living people. As for the Catholic thing, in this day and age, that's no excuse. Religion dictated those things to raise it's membership quickly, and because kids died more often, it does not apply today.

When you get appointed as Pope and hear from God on what He wants on that, then you can go ahead and impose your will on billions of people to change that doctrine.

[Samnmax221]

We'll see how smug they are, after watching their kid die.

[EnderWiggin]

When you get appointed as Pope and hear from God

 

^^i.e. Why I'm a protestant.

 

 

_EW_

[Q]

We'll see how smug they are, after watching their kid die.

Hopefully it won't come to that.

 

Mom's going to prison, though, regardless.

[Samnmax221]

Hopefully it won't come to that.

 

Mom's going to prison, though, regardless.

It all comes down to how incompetent she is, I'm guessing very. He'll probably live.

[Jae Onasi]

Let's for hypothetical purposes say the cure rate was 50 percent rather than 90 percent. Would that change your position, and why or why not?

[vanir]

This topic is a no-brainer. Children aren't property. If they have suspended independent rights as a youth status, then these must necessarily be safeguarded by government and not individual parents. The very fact of child abuse strenuates this.

Religious freedom does not pertain to domineering the rights of other human beings, and children are other human beings.

 

It seems to me the entire purpose of religious freedom was to ensure that atheists and agnostics for example enjoy the same rights as the religious, which was not the case in Europe at the time. Much of the US Constitution was designed to disallow some of the totalitarianism and dictatorship which had marred European history.

In fact the right of freedom in religious expression should more correctly be determined as the right to not be religious.

 

Now unless individual parents can show testable data contridicting current medical practise (in which case they should publish it in a scientific journal instead of a courtroom), refusing non-elective medical treatment for children upon any philosophical basis is quite simply put, child abuse.

 

 

I might add, in our last couple of national census the most popular answers in the religion section were atheism followed by jedi knight

I dare say feeling accustomed to Austrlian culture this kind of behaviour would not be popularly tolerated by any prevalent local community whatsoever I can think of (even our regional Catholic movement is apolegist and contemporary, standing only on abortion/contraception issues and most definitely not in any majority on these).

I do quite like the idealism in the American Constitution as well personally, and if these boards might be considered in part a segment of American culture then a fairly healthy attitude towards these kind of issues seems present. I think the trick would be in making sure minority assertions don't get governing rights over majority contentions.

[Jae Onasi]

So where do you draw the line between the effectiveness of natural remedies and cure rates via 'more conventional treatments'? Does it need to be 80 percent effective? 35 percent?

[Totenkopf]

^^Really, how enlightening. Not sure I've ever seen anyone suggest otherwise. Yeah, the Pope is only human......as are we ALL. Doesn't stop people from imposing rules on one another or creating positions for people to do so. I suspect you're likely Lutheran for the same reason other people belong to their faiths....you were brought up in it or changed it to satisfy a boyfriend/girlfriend/future spouse. Your dislike of the papacy no doubt partly explains why you're not Catholic, but not why you're protestant or any other religion for that matter.

 

So where do you draw the line between the effectiveness of natural remedies and cure rates via 'more conventional treatments'? Does it need to be 80 percent effective? 35 percent?

 

Not sure where that line should be drawn either, though no doubt the higher the rate of recovery for natural rememdies the less controversial they'd be. I'd guess if they were neck-n-neck (from 45-55%), that it would be much harder to write them off. If they were 80%+, it's likely chemo would largely disappear as an option b/c of many of its side effects.

[Darth Avlectus]

@ thread and general

 

I think the issue here is not whether we disagree upon whether or not the child should be cured, I think our disagreement is on the idea that government can come in and decide things--the ultimate extent of its power.

 

Jae, you were asking "where the line was drawn": is this what you meant by that? The exact extent of the government's power? B/C I don't think you will find anyone here that does not believe the child should be cured.

I think we all do basically agree the child ought to be able to live.

 

Why can any idiot have a child, but you have to get a license to drive a car, get married or own a dog?

 

The states job is protect those that cannot protect themselves and since the parents are obliviously felling in that regards, then the state had to step in. No different than if the child was being neglecting in some other way.

I wonder kind of the same thing as you do about idiots.

 

In fact any idiot can buy dangerous components of sorts but in order to operate a whole device (to which said components are a part of) in public, you need a license. There is quite a lot that just does not make sense.

 

And yes, I know all about the side effects of chemo and radiation.

 

I'm almost afraid to ask what don't you have experience with.

 

And I reluctantly agree that the state has an obligation to step in and protect children from their parent's stupidity, but only when absolutely necessary like in this case.

 

TYVM. So you believe that the line should be drawn more at where parent's stupidity and incompetence is proven beyond reasonable doubt--and not just absolutely in charge "all willy-nilly-like"? I agree with that.

(credit to Ender for the "quoted" )

 

It's not, they're part of a quasi-native american cult thing that believes in natural remedies. The kid is also apparently a "medicine man" in this cult.

 

Is it just me, or it there something wrong with the fact that all these cults based of "native" beliefs are started by white people?

 

As one with real Native American roots, I have to attest that this whole jargon, while well intended, is largely misplaced in its logic and rationale. Not to mention rather insulting to me that they claim a status of "Native American" when for all intents and purposes appear not to have red man in their veins. It's like "Excuse me? I'm not Native American?" when I have blood relation. (Yes, I'm quite the mutt, aren't I? -'Cuz I've also got jew blood too)

 

Generally I believe most people would prefer a more natural remedy to putting some solution in their body. A solution filled with all sorts of chemicals called words most people can't even pronounce. I think that is a given.

 

Then there are people who are all up into it and quite neurotic about it.

 

I'm of the opinion that ultimate responsibility lies with the parents, but I'm aware that the law says different. Just for the record, I don't agree with the parent's decision, and I don't believe a plant from the backyard will cure his cancer.

QFE. As for the rest: Fair enough.

 

You know, the most striking thing of all this for me is this: the parents should be absolutely overjoyed at the fact that their child's potentially mortal (if untreated) illness is so treatable and survivable.

 

I find myself actually becoming quite angry reading about this. There are innumerable parents and families who have lost children, who would have given anything for their illnesses to be treatable, and to have such a promising outlook.

 

In short: I entirely support such a decision, which may as well be a ruling on a case of abuse and neglect.

 

In general, I do agree upon anger towards stupidity of other parents. For example: it is their belief of 'cause no harm', yet they take it to such a severe level and...say, they don't teach the child to defend itself b/c it's "violent" where self defense with no malicious intent would be quite acceptable.

 

This topic is a no-brainer. Children aren't property. If they have suspended independent rights as a youth status, then these must necessarily be safeguarded by government and not individual parents. The very fact of child abuse strenuates this.

Religious freedom does not pertain to domineering the rights of other human beings, and children are other human beings.

 

While I do agree with you that children are not chattel and do need defense at some definite point, I'll differ somewhat in that it is ultimately the parent's responsibility. Should they fail to meet that as I stated way above, then and only then, do I support gov't intervention.

 

It seems to me the entire purpose of religious freedom was to ensure that atheists and agnostics for example enjoy the same rights as the religious, which was not the case in Europe at the time. Much of the US Constitution was designed to disallow some of the totalitarianism and dictatorship which had marred European history.

In fact the right of freedom in religious expression should more correctly be determined as the right to not be religious.

 

I beg to differ. Freedom of religion is inclusive of the right to not be religious.

 

It's worded freedom of religion, and not from religion for good reason: A theocracy could be considered a form of freedom from religion: while it absolutely requires one (which could be any religion including the lack thereof) it is freedom from religion in that it forgoes and restricts all others.

 

It is to have freedom of religion, while avoiding persecution for having it.

 

 

 

 

 

I might add, in our last couple of national census the most popular answers in the religion section were atheism followed by jedi knight

Aw what?! Where in the blue moon did you find this census?

Source please.

 

I might actually have an idea what you are referring to, as I do believe I saw this exact same thing on an educational resource forum! So I want to see if you and I both have laid eyes upon the same thing.

 

I dare say feeling accustomed to Austrlian culture this kind of behaviour would not be popularly tolerated by any prevalent local community whatsoever I can think of (even our regional Catholic movement is apolegist and contemporary, standing only on abortion/contraception issues and most definitely not in any majority on these).

I do quite like the idealism in the American Constitution as well personally, and if these boards might be considered in part a segment of American culture then a fairly healthy attitude towards these kind of issues seems present. I think the trick would be in making sure minority assertions don't get governing rights over majority contentions.

 

Given that America is not a majoritarian nation (for better or worse), I would say that America is already mindful of minorities in this respect. ...Not that I'm necessarily discrediting you, my friend. With a tad of jest: Where have you been all this time?

 

Anyway, the general populace basically already feels like you do, but the issue here is where the line is drawn of government and the full extent of its power over personal rights.

 

For example: the suicide prescription. I disagree with it intensely: it already comes across the minds of the terminally ill and suffering I would think...what I really do not like about this is that it will necessarily become a normative "solution" because of "economical background" where other options can and are viable which do not involve taking one's own life. (Didn't you talk to me before on eugenics?) Anyway, how that ties in here is government authority over personal choice or even doctor's recommendation. The opposition in this argument, I think, is largely misunderstood in this specific case: talk to anybody and I suspect they want the child cured--that isn't the issue.

[vanir]

So where do you draw the line between the effectiveness of natural remedies and cure rates via 'more conventional treatments'? Does it need to be 80 percent effective? 35 percent?

 

I do find your every line of reasoning excellent and reasonable Jae (and always well expressed, not that I'm any authority or sucking up to the mods).

 

I was thinking this was one for within the medical industry. I think it is inherently dangerous to rule upon medical ethic from outside the realm of celebrated scientific procedure, though certainly support that medical ethic can and should be ruled in a courtroom. ie. the Jury should be peers.

 

I fail to see how this even was relevant to my point?

My apolegies. Whenever detracted by the body of a statement always head straight to the first sentence. The parting is typically there.

[mimartin]

I'm almost afraid to ask what don't you have experience with.

Seeing how I buried my stepfather last Monday after a two year battle with cancer and experienced the same results with my father (9 years battle), stepmother (3 year battle), grandmother (2 year battle) and neighbor/best friend’s mother (10 year battle), I guess I do believe I’ve seen the effect both radiation and chemo has on people I love up close and personally.

[Darth Avlectus]

Seeing how I buried my stepfather last Monday after a two year battle with cancer and experienced the same results with my father (9 years battle), stepmother (3 year battle), grandmother (2 year battle) and neighbor/best friend’s mother (10 year battle), I guess I do believe I’ve seen the effect both radiation and chemo has on people I love up close and personally.

 

Oh... I'm so sorry to hear that..... I meant no disrespect. MY bad, had no idea. Well, now *that's* dedication to the family...

[Salzella]

The parents are idiots.

 

_EW_

 

what he said.

[EnderWiggin]

At least if the kid dies it will teach those stupid people a lesson.

 

_EW_

[Q]

Hopefully that innocent kid won't have to die just to give his idiot parents a dose of reality.

[Web Rider]

 

@Thread: At least if the kid dies it will teach those stupid people a lesson.

 

_EW_

 

Unfortunately that's rarely the case these days.

[Jae Onasi]

The Catholicism/Protestantism debate was causing a derailment and there wasn't a good way to split it off into a new thread. I deleted the off-topic material/posts. If you'd like to continue that topic, please start a new thread on it.

[Jae Onasi]

Update--the mother and Danny returned home. I'm hoping he gets help very soon.

[JediAthos]

^^ Last I heard he was in the care of Child Protective Services