PDA

View Full Version : Teen Must Undergo Chemotherapy


Jae Onasi
05-18-2009, 08:49 PM
Articles:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,520318,00.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30763438/

This is the key point of the ruling:
In this case, Rodenberg said, the stateís interest in protecting the child overrides the constitutional right to freedom of religious expression and a parentís right to direct a childís upbringing.

This is a challenging case for me. On the one hand, the type of cancer this child has is extremely treatable. While I think the court is doing what I think is best for the child, it does butt up against freedom of religion and parental choice. Chemotherapy and radiation are, frankly, brutal treatments, if effective, and I can understand people's decisions not to undergo either of those treatments.

Where should the line be drawn?

Miltiades
05-18-2009, 09:47 PM
It's the parents' responsibility, and it's their right to refuse treatment. It'll be their loss when the child dies, of course, but again, that's their responsibility. You can't enforce treatment on anyone (as long as a sickness doesn't threaten anyone else). I find this interfering by the state in a parental choice to be ridiculous and unacceptable.

jrrtoken
05-18-2009, 10:25 PM
It most certainly is the parents', and ultimately, the child's right to decide on using chemotherapy. Although the state's policy is in good intentions, it does fall upon the patient's right to accept or not accept said treatment, espeically with the difficult and painful process that is chemotherapy. The government should not dictate its policy when it violates one's free will in personal matters, good or bad.

EnderWiggin
05-18-2009, 10:43 PM
The parents are idiots.

_EW_

True_Avery
05-18-2009, 11:40 PM
If a Parent is too incompetent and ignorant to take care of the child, then responsibility falls upon the state. The state, legally, owns more of your child than you do anyway.

The parents, obviously, have no idea what they are talking about, and are expressing their religious beliefs in a way that is dangerous to their child. They have, or at least should be deemed incapable of caring for a child and he should be removed from their legal custody as soon as possible.

But, as far as the kid goes, he should have the right to deny treatment except for the fact he is not 18 and, if I recall correctly, does not have the right to deny treatment due to his age. The parents are too stupid to realize their child is dying and have convinced him that he is fine, while BSing herb treatments off the internet.

Kid is underage, parents deemed to be unfit parents... so that leaves the state. State has made a ruling to save his life, and perhaps with a competent human being explaining to him what his sickness is and how it can be treated he can be brought back to good health without parents stuck 2,000 years in the past poisoning his judgment.

It's the parents' responsibility, and it's their right to refuse treatment. It'll be their loss when the child dies, of course, but again, that's their responsibility. You can't enforce treatment on anyone (as long as a sickness doesn't threaten anyone else). I find this interfering by the state in a parental choice to be ridiculous and unacceptable.
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."

It most certainly is the parents', and ultimately, the child's right to decide on using chemotherapy. Although the state's policy is in good intentions, it does fall upon the patient's right to accept or not accept said treatment, especially with the difficult and painful process that is chemotherapy. The government should not dictate its policy when it violates one's free will in personal matters, good or bad.
Again, I believe a child under 18 does not actually have personal rights over their medical treatments. We leave that to the guardians. I would agree with you if the child was over 18, but he is 13 years old with parents treating him life threatening illness with plants they found in their back yard.

This is a challenging case for me. On the one hand, the type of cancer this child has is extremely treatable. While I think the court is doing what I think is best for the child, it does butt up against freedom of religion and parental choice. Chemotherapy and radiation are, frankly, brutal treatments, if effective, and I can understand people's decisions not to undergo either of those treatments.
Freedom of religion? Just like freedom of speech, I think half of the people who say it need to re-read exactly what it means.

Your freedom of religion gives you permission to believe what you want. It does not, however, give you the right to harm others with your beliefs. As the court seemed to have ruled, using your religious beliefs to feed your 13 year old plants to cure his illness when there is a readily available treatment is child abuse and the parents should be put in jail for it. Religion is not a good enough excuse to let your kid die.

The kid's parents are making a choice. His parent right now, however, is the state and, apparently, the only entity right now that cares about his life. Maybe if the parents cared about their kid more than their god this wouldn't of happened.

Web Rider
05-19-2009, 12:07 AM
I fully support the government's decision in this. Other cases of allowing people to choose "prayer" over a successful medical treatment have resulted in the child dying. And no amount of religion is enough of an excuse to allow your child to die. The parents and the child have clearly demonstrated that they don't know anything about this treatment, and its success rates, and refuse to become more informed. Therefore, I have no sympathy for them, and I think it's good for society that the government deny people the right to be stupid.

Because they will inevitably come running back to the government BAWWWWWWWing over the government not doing more. And then it will be on our dime to clean up their stupidity.

Totenkopf
05-19-2009, 12:11 AM
Maybe if the parents cared about their kid more than their god this wouldn't of happened.

Forcing the state to act, you mean? If the child can demonstrate that he understands the repercussions and refuses treatment anyway, should the state be allowed to force the child against its wishes? My guess is that most people would opt to live if it meant they'd be cured. But in cases where treatment only = living in a degraded physical state full of pain, should the state be allowed to torture anyone, especially a child (more of a general, though related, question)?

Jae Onasi
05-19-2009, 12:22 AM
But, as far as the kid goes, he should have the right to deny treatment except for the fact he is not 18 and, if I recall correctly, does not have the right to deny treatment due to his age. The parents are too stupid to realize their child is dying and have convinced him that he is fine, while BSing herb treatments off the internet.Kids have to either be emancipated minors or legal adults to sign for their own medical treatment. We run into this all the time in our office fitting contact lenses, which are FDA Class 3 medical devices. We have to have parental consent to fit a child with them.


Your freedom of religion gives you permission to believe what you want. It does not, however, give you the right to harm others with your beliefs. As the court seemed to have ruled, using your religious beliefs to feed your 13 year old plants to cure his illness when there is a readily available treatment is child abuse and the parents should be put in jail for it. Religion is not a good enough excuse to let your kid die.

I understand what you're saying, but a small percent of the time non-traditional methods work. The parents are playing Russian roulette with bullets loaded in 19 of 20 chambers, however. As perspective, though, we used to think mercury was a great medicine--people who knew better and refused to take it would have been deemed 'backwards' at that time by the medical community. Chemotherapy is not an innocuous or risk-free treatment. It's very hard on the body, has short-term effects of making one extremely susceptible to life-threatening infections and long-term side effects including heart, liver, and kidney failure, sterility, brain damage, among other things, and can kill you if the cancer doesn't. This isn't something like an antibiotic for pneumonia that will clear up in a few days of hospital treatment. This is a months, if not years-long process of treatment that will affect Danny's quality of life dramatically. The only thing going for him was that he had such a good response to the one and only chemo treatment he did have and the fact that the cure rate is so good for this particular cancer.

You say the state owns our kid already. I agree to an extent. We as parents are told how many school days our children must go (even if they absorb the information in half the time), what immunizations they should get (although I agree with that one), and so forth. I don't want the state taking away all my rights as a parent, however. The state does not know best how to meet the individual unique needs of my kids. It does not know the gifts and quirks of my kids like Point Man and I do, because the state does not live with my kids. It does not play with my kids, it does not sit at the dinner table and talk to them to understand the ups and downs of their days, it does not make them do their homework or music practice, it does not read to them or play a variety of genres of music in the car so they're exposed to all different kinds, it does not identify species of birds because my son is fascinated with them or species of reptiles because my daughter loves frogs, it does not give them a solid foundation of ethics and morals. My kids need their parents, not a nanny-state that can never know them. That's part of the reason why I'm leery about the gov't getting over-involved in this kind of case.

True_Avery
05-19-2009, 12:36 AM
Forcing the state to act, you mean? If the child can demonstrate that he understands the repercussions and refuses treatment anyway, should the state be allowed to force the child against its wishes? My guess is that most people would opt to live if it meant they'd be cured. But in cases where treatment only = living in a degraded physical state full of pain, should the state be allowed to torture anyone, especially a child (more of a general, though related, question)?
I actually agree with you that the kid, with the proper education on the treatment and so on, should be allowed to make that decision. That is really the only minor problem I have with this, but at the same time I think that the law should stay as, while his situation is this, another kids may be another.

In this situation, the treatment is indeed just a terrible ordeal to get through. I think it probably should be his decision, but as we have a guardian system in effect I think that he is actually in better hands with the state than his uncaring parents.

That, as well as refusing could be seen as a form of suicide. I, personally, am for allowing people with terminal illness to pull their own plug but the states see it differently and the refusal of treatments by a minor has a number of roadblocks that he can't really get around.

So, I basically agree with you morally, but agree with the state and its use of the laws for this. But, at the same time don't. Can't really make a solid decision not knowing more information.

But, treatment aside, the kid is still a kid and the state still owns kids under 18. For better or for worse, that is how it works right now.

Kids have to either be emancipated minors or legal adults to sign for their own medical treatment. We run into this all the time in our office fitting contact lenses, which are FDA Class 3 medical devices. We have to have parental consent to fit a child with them.
Thanks for clarification. Wasn't entirely sure, but made an educated guess.

I understand what you're saying, but a small percent of the time non-traditional methods work. The parents are playing Russian roulette with bullets loaded in 19 of 20 chambers, however. As perspective, though, we used to think mercury was a great medicine--people who knew better and refused to take it would have been deemed 'backwards' at that time by the medical community. Chemotherapy is not an innocuous or risk-free treatment. It's very hard on the body, has short-term effects of making one extremely susceptible to life-threatening infections and long-term side effects including heart, liver, and kidney failure, sterility, brain damage, among other things, and can kill you if the cancer doesn't. This isn't something like an antibiotic for pneumonia that will clear up in a few days of hospital treatment. This is a months, if not years-long process of treatment that will affect Danny's quality of life dramatically. The only thing going for him was that he had such a good response to the one and only chemo treatment he did have and the fact that the cure rate is so good for this particular cancer.
I'd agree with you if the herbs were actually curing him. I really would. But, from the articles, his situation is just getting worse by the minutes, and his parents are not helping him by convincing him that prayer will work, and that herbs will work as well. He doesn't full understand the very painful ordeal he is going through, and from his quotes it sounds like he has been convinced that the medicine will not work and is there just to torture him.

As the article says, he does not believe he is ill at all. If that is by his own ignorance, then I blame the doctors. If it is from the whisperings of his parents, then I'd claim they are abusing him by making a bad situation worse, and are essentially helping the illness themselves.

I agree that it is not risk free. It is, after all, poison. Doctors give it a 90% chance for his situation, which is better than the 100% certainty that he'll die if left untreated and fed internet herbs.

Again, for this particular situation I'm going to side with the state on the decision. If the kid was 18, I'd side with the kid. If the parents were legitimately well informed and so on, I'd be more inclined to be on their side. Its just unfortunate that the state is the one that has to be the final hope for this kid, who has been convinced he is perfectly healthy.

You say the state owns our kid already. I agree to an extent. We as parents are told how many school days our children must go (even if they absorb the information in half the time), what immunizations they should get (although I agree with that one), and so forth. I don't want the state taking away all my rights as a parent, however. The state does not know best how to meet the individual unique needs of my kids. It does not know the gifts and quirks of my kids like Point Man and I do, because the state does not live with my kids. It does not play with my kids, it does not sit at the dinner table and talk to them to understand the ups and downs of their days, it does not make them do their homework or music practice, it does not read to them or play a variety of genres of music in the car so they're exposed to all different kinds, it does not identify species of birds because my son is fascinated with them or species of reptiles because my daughter loves frogs, it does not give them a solid foundation of ethics and morals. My kids need their parents, not a nanny-state that can never know them. That's part of the reason why I'm leery about the gov't getting over-involved in this kind of case.
The state legally owns your child. It gives them permission to take them when you abuse them and so on. We are allowed to take care of our kids.

I agree they do not know the kid on a personal level, and most of the time cannot treat the kid with the same attention. Hell, state owned orphanages used to care for kids so little that they would breed wild children or the kids would die of lack of social interaction (yes, that is actually a cause of death in young children).

Nanny-state doesn't look particular good now, but from what I know of your experiences with abused kids you at least agree there should be some control as a safety net. For better or for worse, this kid got the state safety net after his parents pulled theirs out from under him.

Rake
05-19-2009, 01:02 AM
I completely agree with the state's decision, it should not stand by while parents essentially murder their own child from their own ignorance.

This makes me wonder at what pro-life supporters are saying (instead of hanging out at Notre Dame).

Darth Avlectus
05-19-2009, 03:41 AM
While this is one case in which the state acting turned out positively, this is one outcome of so many other interventions; interventions which may not necessarily have turned out as well. I wonder: for how many good cases, how many bad ones happen? Just supposition, I suppose.

The state can act regardless of whether or not parents are competent, totally arbitrarily? ...great. :dozey: My thoughts the line ought to be drawn here: "Democracy stops at the doorstep". So says the old saying. Should the parents prove beyond reasonable doubt their incompetence...then the state should step in. Prior to that the state should be absolutely powerless. Case by case sort of thing, not an absolute.

Just my opinion I guess. One of millions. Totenkopf, I'm with you on this one.

Tommycat
05-19-2009, 05:45 AM
I think it's far worse that the state HAD to step in. The only reason I kinda side with the parents is that Chemo is not an easy thing. When I shaved my head for a Locks for Love charity event(it was an over 3 foot long braid of hair), I got to meet a few kids who were on Chemo. On the good days they were only feeling bad. On the bad they were downright wishing for death. Chemo is not risk free by any means. And while the cancer is a greater risk, there is still around 2% possibility of death by the therapy as well. I know chemo sounds like a good idea, but until you see a kid on chemo, it's hard to imagine just how rough it is. They can become very susceptible to other illnesses. They can become anemic. They spend hours dry heaving. And of course.. losing their hair. It doesn't sound like much to you, but I've seen how the kids react when they are presented with the wigs. It's like they get a little piece of their life back.

Note: That is not to say that he shouldn't get the treatment. With treatment he has a 90% chance of survival Without it Lets just say survival is wishful thinking.

CommanderQ
05-20-2009, 11:56 AM
Well, I think the State decided what to do about the 13-year-old's mother....

Recent Development... (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,520690,00.html)

Jae Onasi
05-20-2009, 12:03 PM
I hope they find him soon and get him the appropriate help he needs.

JediAthos
05-21-2009, 03:48 PM
I agree with Jae...I hope they find them soon otherwise the boy will likely die. I also agree that it is unfortunate that the state had to intervene in this situation but it's clear the parents were alright allowing their child to suffer while they pursued alternative treatment.

I'm not saying that alternative treatments for illnesses do or don't work but in this case whatever they were doing clearly wasn't helping him.

mimartin
05-21-2009, 04:08 PM
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.

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

Totenkopf
05-21-2009, 04:56 PM
Why can any idiot have a child...

Didn't they explain that one to you in sex ed? :xp:

Web Rider
05-21-2009, 05:31 PM
I agree with Jae...I hope they find them soon otherwise the boy will likely die.

Then his mom will be arrested for kidnapping and murder. And then our taxes, instead of paying to save a life, will go to incarcerating another person.

Jae Onasi
05-21-2009, 11:05 PM
Then his mom will be arrested for kidnapping and murder. And then our taxes, instead of paying to save a life, will go to incarcerating another person.
Well, he hasn't died at this point, and he's unlikely to die within a day or two if he doesn't get treatment, though time is still of the essence. The warrant that the judge issued is for a felony, so I would not be surprised if she does time after this.

Web Rider
05-21-2009, 11:29 PM
Well, he hasn't died at this point, and he's unlikely to die within a day or two if he doesn't get treatment, though time is still of the essence. The warrant that the judge issued is for a felony, so I would not be surprised if she does time after this.

Gotta say, at least with her doing time, she won't be able to make more babies. I mean, 4 is quite a few, but eight? It's one thing if you have twins and triplets x2, but if you have eight separate pregnancies, and they're all for just you, you need to be prevented from having more.

Jae Onasi
05-22-2009, 12:13 AM
Gotta say, at least with her doing time, she won't be able to make more babies. I mean, 4 is quite a few, but eight? It's one thing if you have twins and triplets x2, but if you have eight separate pregnancies, and they're all for just you, you need to be prevented from having more.

I haven't read anything else about her family, so I can't comment on whether they were 'all for just her' or not.

You'd likely be impinging on her religious rights again if you tried to stop her from having any other children (barring jail time, but one can have conjugal visits). She's Catholic, and I suspect doesn't believe in any form of bc other than the rhythm method, though that's purely conjecture.

We have a large Catholic community in our town--big families are the norm here. We grew up 2 houses away from a family of 11, and they've grown into successful, wonderful adults. My sister-in-law has had up to 9 foster kids in her home at one time, and she and her husband parented them just fine--far better than their natural ones. Size of family is irrelevant to ability to parent well.

Now, what the state will do with her other children and any possible future ones is a different story.

Web Rider
05-22-2009, 01:44 AM
I haven't read anything else about her family, so I can't comment on whether they were 'all for just her' or not.
Well, when I stated that they were "just for her", I meant their family, as in, they weren't having kids for other people such as in a surrogate mother situation.

We have a large Catholic community in our town--big families are the norm here. We grew up 2 houses away from a family of 11, and they've grown into successful, wonderful adults. My sister-in-law has had up to 9 foster kids in her home at one time, and she and her husband parented them just fine--far better than their natural ones. Size of family is irrelevant to ability to parent well. [/QUOTE]

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.

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.

Q
05-22-2009, 02:11 AM
This just looks like a case of stupid parents. I'm still unclear as to whether their religious beliefs even apply here. Is it only because they said that they do? How is chemotherapy against Catholic beliefs? :confused:

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.

Web Rider
05-22-2009, 02:31 AM
This just looks like a case of stupid parents. I'm still unclear as to whether their religious beliefs even apply here. Is it only because they said that they do? How is chemotherapy against Catholic beliefs? :confused:

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?

Q
05-22-2009, 02:57 AM
Yeah, I've noticed that, too. Corny as hell, if you ask me.

So that's what the article was talking about when it mentioned the Nemenhah Band. I'd never heard of it.

Miltiades
05-22-2009, 06:48 AM
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
05-22-2009, 10:46 AM
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
05-22-2009, 12:11 PM
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
05-22-2009, 04:06 PM
We'll see how smug they are, after watching their kid die.

EnderWiggin
05-22-2009, 04:06 PM
When you get appointed as Pope and hear from God

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


_EW_

Q
05-22-2009, 04:18 PM
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
05-22-2009, 04:33 PM
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
05-22-2009, 06:44 PM
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
05-22-2009, 10:55 PM
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 :P
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
05-23-2009, 03:45 AM
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
05-23-2009, 02:45 PM
^^Really, how enlightening. :rolleyes: 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
05-23-2009, 05:32 PM
@ 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.

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


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. :swear: 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 :P
Aw what?! Where in the blue moon did you find this census? :lol:
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? :lol:

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
05-23-2009, 07:19 PM
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
05-24-2009, 12:47 AM
:rolleyes: I'm almost afraid to ask what don't you have experience with. :lol: 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
05-24-2009, 05:10 AM
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 friendís mother (10 year battle), I guess I do believe Iíve 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
05-24-2009, 10:07 AM
The parents are idiots.

_EW_

what he said.

EnderWiggin
05-24-2009, 11:07 AM
At least if the kid dies it will teach those stupid people a lesson.

_EW_

Q
05-24-2009, 04:38 PM
Hopefully that innocent kid won't have to die just to give his idiot parents a dose of reality.

Web Rider
05-24-2009, 05:13 PM
@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
05-24-2009, 11:44 PM
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
05-26-2009, 10:47 AM
Update--the mother and Danny returned home. I'm hoping he gets help very soon.

JediAthos
05-26-2009, 11:01 AM
^^ Last I heard he was in the care of Child Protective Services