Mother On the Lam For Right to Let Son Die

[Zoom-boing]

Use of a parachute when sky diving is potentially useless if it malfunctions.

And some people have been known to survive the fall without one.

Why don't the parents have the right to choose a different course of treatment? Why don't they have the right to try an alternative, holistic approach?

Because it will result in the death of the child.

How do you know this?

So if the government thinks treatment A is better than treatment B, they get to tell you what to do in regards to which medical treatment you or your family must use? Ooo, I can't wait for government run healthcare.

 

[xotoxi]

Why don't the parents have the right to choose a different course of treatment? Why don't they have the right to try an alternative, holistic approach?

Because it will result in the death of the child.

you have medical proof of that?
holistic medicine hasnt cured anyone of cancer before?

The only proof I have to have is that untreated Hodgkin's disease is universally fatal.

Now the burden of proof falls on you...to prove that there is a holistic or herbal treatment that treats Hodgkin's disease.

If you find it...great! I'll believe it.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Conservatives:

If I choose to give my child only 2 glasses of orange juice and 5 saltines each day, because that's what I think he should eat...do you think the government should intervene?

Apples and oranges.

The parents aren't doing nothing, they are simply choosing a different course of treatment. What gives the government the right to come in and say 'no, that alternative treatment is not best, chemo is best, you must use chemo'?

 

[Care4all]

So you think everyone who chooses holistic medicine for their children in cases of cancer should have medical treatment forced upon their children?

If they have a terminal cancer, if there is no proof what so ever that the holistic measures, have ever cured the cancer....and if there is proof that the medical procedure has a 95% survival rate and cure, then i do believe the child should receive the treatment, regardless of parent's will....as i believe the kid with the arm cut off should be taken in immediately to the emergency room for medical help and the parents should not sit back and wait for the Medicine man/Shaman to come and heal him.

This is not about whether you want a doctor to remove a toenail of your sons because it bothers him or he just doesn't like it or because the parent doesn't like the looks of it.

There are exceptions to the rule, where in a life or death situation, a judge may need to be involved...I have no problems with such, as long as all facts are presented....for the judge to determine what to do.

 

[AllieBaba]

holistic treatment for hodgkins:
treatments for lymphoma cancer, lymphoma cancer treatment, lymphoma cancer information, about lymphoma cancer

 

[AllieBaba]

So you think everyone who chooses holistic medicine for their children in cases of cancer should have medical treatment forced upon their children?

If they have a terminal cancer, if there is no proof what so ever that the holistic measures, have ever cured the cancer....and if there is proof that the medical procedure has a 95% survival rate and cure, then i do believe the child should receive the treatment, regardless of parent's will....as i believe the kid with the arm cut off should be taken in immediately to the emergency room for medical help and the parents should not sit back and wait for the Medicine man/Shaman to come and heal him.

This is not about whether you want a doctor to remove a toenail of your sons because it bothers him or he just doesn't like it or because the parent doesn't like the looks of it.

There are exceptions to the rule, where in a life or death situation, a judge may need to be involved...I have no problems with such, as long as all facts are presented....for the judge to determine what to do.

You place way too much faith in judges.

 

[xotoxi]

Conservatives:

If I choose to give my child only 2 glasses of orange juice and 5 saltines each day, because that's what I think he should eat...do you think the government should intervene?

Apples and oranges.

The parents aren't doing nothing, they are simply choosing a different course of treatment. What gives the government the right to come in and say 'no, that alternative treatment is not best, chemo is best, you must use chemo'?

I wouldn't be doing nothing either. I would be feeding my child.

And there is a chance (albeit very very slim) that he will survive to adulthood.

 

[Care4all]

So you think everyone who chooses holistic medicine for their children in cases of cancer should have medical treatment forced upon their children?

If they have a terminal cancer, if there is no proof what so ever that the holistic measures, have ever cured the cancer....and if there is proof that the medical procedure has a 95% survival rate and cure, then i do believe the child should receive the treatment, regardless of parent's will....as i believe the kid with the arm cut off should be taken in immediately to the emergency room for medical help and the parents should not sit back and wait for the Medicine man/Shaman to come and heal him.

This is not about whether you want a doctor to remove a toenail of your sons because it bothers him or he just doesn't like it or because the parent doesn't like the looks of it.

There are exceptions to the rule, where in a life or death situation, a judge may need to be involved...I have no problems with such, as long as all facts are presented....for the judge to determine what to do.

You place way too much faith in judges.

I get this from the Bible....it teaches to trust the judges...people are told to go before the judges all the time in the Bible...?

 

[xotoxi]

holistic treatment for hodgkins:
treatments for lymphoma cancer, lymphoma cancer treatment, lymphoma cancer information, about lymphoma cancer

Thanks for the information on Adult Hodgkin's lymphoma.

I'm interested in seeing the same information on pediatric Hodgkin's lymphoma.

 

[DiveCon]

Because it will result in the death of the child.

you have medical proof of that?
holistic medicine hasnt cured anyone of cancer before?

The only proof I have to have is that untreated Hodgkin's disease is universally fatal.

Now the burden of proof falls on you...to prove that there is a holistic or herbal treatment that treats Hodgkin's disease.

If you find it...great! I'll believe it.

thats just it, it isnt going "untreated"
it is being treated, just not the way YOU want it to be

 

[Sarah G]

Conservatives:

If I choose to give my child only 2 glasses of orange juice and 5 saltines each day, because that's what I think he should eat...do you think the government should intervene?

Apples and oranges.

The parents aren't doing nothing, they are simply choosing a different course of treatment. What gives the government the right to come in and say 'no, that alternative treatment is not best, chemo is best, you must use chemo'?

Because it isn't a decision they are making for themselves. It could be considered neglect. Child endangerment.

He is 13 and needs to have someone on his side while he weighs the options. Although she could have him convinced that chemo will not help.

 

[DiveCon]

Conservatives:

If I choose to give my child only 2 glasses of orange juice and 5 saltines each day, because that's what I think he should eat...do you think the government should intervene?

Apples and oranges.

The parents aren't doing nothing, they are simply choosing a different course of treatment. What gives the government the right to come in and say 'no, that alternative treatment is not best, chemo is best, you must use chemo'?

Because it isn't a decision they are making for themselves. It could be considered neglect. Child endangerment.

He is 13 and needs to have someone on his side while he weighs the options. Although she could have him convinced that chemo will not help.

yes, that is the role of the PARENTS
not the government

 

[Zoom-boing]

Conservatives:

If I choose to give my child only 2 glasses of orange juice and 5 saltines each day, because that's what I think he should eat...do you think the government should intervene?

Apples and oranges.

The parents aren't doing nothing, they are simply choosing a different course of treatment. What gives the government the right to come in and say 'no, that alternative treatment is not best, chemo is best, you must use chemo'?

I wouldn't be doing nothing either. I would be feeding my child.

And there is a chance (albeit very very slim) that he will survive to adulthood.

No, you'd be malnourishing your child, which to me is abuse. Your example and the child suffering from cancer (and his treatment) seem to be apples and oranges to me.

These parents don't appear to be abusing their child or neglecting him; they are simply opting for an alternative, holistic treatment. You don't believe they have the right to choose this alternate treatment; I do.

 

[Seraega]

Why don't the parents have the right to choose a different course of treatment? Why don't they have the right to try an alternative, holistic approach?

Because it will result in the death of the child.

How do you know this?

So if the government thinks treatment A is better than treatment B, they get to tell you what to do in regards to which medical treatment you or your family must use? Ooo, I can't wait for government run healthcare.

The government currently is NOT allowed to compare treatments. That's why we have thousands of prescription drugs with fancy marketing campaigns to lure in patients. If the FDA were allowed to say which drug is the best there would be no waste on marketing ineffective drugs, and patient outcomes would be better because people would start with the most effective drug and if that didn't work for them they could work their way down the list instead of just randomly going with whatever drug had a flashier commercial, or which drug company did the best to buy off their doctor.....

 

[Zoom-boing]

Conservatives:

If I choose to give my child only 2 glasses of orange juice and 5 saltines each day, because that's what I think he should eat...do you think the government should intervene?

Apples and oranges.

The parents aren't doing nothing, they are simply choosing a different course of treatment. What gives the government the right to come in and say 'no, that alternative treatment is not best, chemo is best, you must use chemo'?

Because it isn't a decision they are making for themselves. It could be considered neglect. Child endangerment.

He is 13 and needs to have someone on his side while he weighs the options. Although she could have him convinced that chemo will not help.

Then is seems to me that if the parents choose an alternative treatment for their son's cancer and the government disagrees that it is the best course of treatment, then the government gets to come in and decide what is the best course of treatment. Government decides treatment, not parents. Nope, can't say I agree with that.

 

[xotoxi]

Apples and oranges.

The parents aren't doing nothing, they are simply choosing a different course of treatment. What gives the government the right to come in and say 'no, that alternative treatment is not best, chemo is best, you must use chemo'?

Because it isn't a decision they are making for themselves. It could be considered neglect. Child endangerment.

He is 13 and needs to have someone on his side while he weighs the options. Although she could have him convinced that chemo will not help.

Then is seems to me that if the parents choose an alternative treatment for their son's cancer and the government disagrees that it is the best course of treatment, then the government gets to come in and decide what is the best course of treatment. Government decides treatment, not parents. Nope, can't say I agree with that.

I think we are going a little far to say that the government is deciding treatment. The doctors are recommending treatment and are presenting this treatment plan to the judge.

If the goal is the welfare of the child, the vast majority of sane people would chose to save the child's life with proven and successful treatments. It is as simple as that.

 

[AllieBaba]

If they have a terminal cancer, if there is no proof what so ever that the holistic measures, have ever cured the cancer....and if there is proof that the medical procedure has a 95% survival rate and cure, then i do believe the child should receive the treatment, regardless of parent's will....as i believe the kid with the arm cut off should be taken in immediately to the emergency room for medical help and the parents should not sit back and wait for the Medicine man/Shaman to come and heal him.

This is not about whether you want a doctor to remove a toenail of your sons because it bothers him or he just doesn't like it or because the parent doesn't like the looks of it.

There are exceptions to the rule, where in a life or death situation, a judge may need to be involved...I have no problems with such, as long as all facts are presented....for the judge to determine what to do.

You place way too much faith in judges.

I get this from the Bible....it teaches to trust the judges...people are told to go before the judges all the time in the Bible...?

Well then by all means, take that to mean we should acquiesce to every word they utter.

The bible also teaches us not to compromise our faith, even if it means dying. So while we surrender up to the judges, we very definitely don't have to agree with them.

 

[AllieBaba]

Here we go again with the assumption that someone who doesn't fall in for conventional treatment is "insane" "retarded" or otherwise incapacitated.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

What on earth are you talking about? Medical neglect is one of the standard things prevented by family courts all across the country. The parents have the right to decide for THEMSELVES to forego medical treatment... not for a child.

And if this were some person practicing Santaria and cutting marks into their child's body to "protect" him or her from illness, you'd be calling for the heathen's head

The wingnuts care more about two cells than they do about lilving children.

It's disgusting.

Unlike you I don't want the govt. telling me how to live or how to raise my children nor do I need them to tell me when, where or how to medicate myself or my family. If I choose NOT to seek medical attention for whatever reason then that should be MY right. The 13 year old in question knows what the consequences are if he decides not to undergo chemo. He is fully aware of his chances to survive and it's obvious he chooses NOT to go through with the treatment. Why can't he and his parents make that decision? Just for the record there is a church in Oregon that doesn't believe in medicine, they prefer their methods of faith healing. The name of the church is Followers of Christ and the govt. tried several times to intervene when their children were sick, but to no avail. If I were these peoples lawyer I would cite the Oregon courts ruling as a precedent and I'd take it all the way to the Supreme court. And I would win.

 

[Valerie]

I'm a conservative, so I think the government should stay our of our lives as much as possible. When it comes to others having control over life or death decisions of another person's life, then I think they should be able to reasonably intercede. That includes abortion at any stage of pregnancy and in this boy's situation as well.

I see this as hypocrisy from your point of view because in the case of abortion, you are allowing the mother that life or death choice over her child. In this boy's case, the mother is indeed in that situation as well, altho I really don't believe she means the boy harm obviously. She is being unreasonable, and I of course would never make such a decision regarding my children. We agree on this issue. I don't see how you can give the mother of the unborn baby a life or death decision over her child's life if you're not willing too in this case. And in this case, the boy is able to voice his choice as well, and it is supposedly based on religious belief, it's much more of a grey area than abortion is. With abortion, the baby has no voice whatsoever.

Well, thank you for finally answering! Sorry I referred to you as "he" and "him".

We agree on this boy and we disagree on abortion. It comes down to equating aborting a pregnancy with child neglect and I do not.

As I said, it just goes back to the old argument of where life begins and who should have jurisdiction over personal medical decisions. Interesting you think the "government should stay out of our lives as far as possible" yet you're okay with them stepping into both situations? Where else do expect government to be more intrusive than in your own womb???

I'm NOT okay with government intervention into our personal medical decisions except in extreme cases. I've posted in the abortion threads that I do not support abortion after the first trimester except in extreme cases and the fact is they rarely happen and the hypothetical is often used in a debate such as this as if it were the standard. The facts show that when women have legal access to all reproductive options it's happening less and less and I feel strongly that being pro-choice is truly the more humane stance, when all things are considered.

This boy's situation is also an extreme one. The medical facts were presented by oncology doctors and the judge ruled that not treating a child with THIS condition by standard medical protocol amounts to child neglect. The parents have a responsibility to act in the best interest of the child and if they refuse we have an obligation to step-in on their behalf.