Mother On the Lam For Right to Let Son Die

[DiveCon]

you are wrong on this Dive....not that you are wrong in questioning what I said, because many are unaware....the meaning of annointing with oil has come down to a Catholic Sacrament for spiritual reason upon death now, but during the time of Christ, olive oil was a healing ointment...

that is taking every one of those scripture OUT OF CONTEXT

i am NOT wrong
not a single faith will tell you oil was used as a medicine, but as a means of improving ones faith

it was a point of contact, not a medicine

you are wrong....ask your own pastor if oil was not the medicine of the day...please do so.

i dont need to ask anyone, i already KNOW

 

[Agnapostate]

I'm of the opinion that this should ideally be his decision to make, but there are a number of other factors in play here, including his religious indoctrination and apparent ignorance of the nature of the treatment. I believe that public policy should reflect a youth right to self-determination, including medical consent.

In terms of the empirical literature's relation to such matters, I'd refer to Weithorn and Campbell's The Competency of Children and Adolescents to Make Informed Treatment Decisions. Consider the abstract:

This study was a test for developmental differences in competency to make informed treatment decisions. 96 subjects, 24 (12 males and 12 females) at each of 4 age levels (9, 14, 18, and 21), were administered a measure developed to assess competency according to 4 legal standards. The measure included 4 hypothetical treatment dilemmas and a structured interview protocol. Overall, 14-year-olds did not differ from adults. 9-year-olds appeared less competent than adults with respect to their ability to reason about and understand the treatment information provided in the dilemmas. However, they did not differ from older subjects in their expression of reasonable preferences regarding treatment. It is concluded that the findings do not support the denial of the right of self-determination to adolescents in health-care situations on the basis of a presumption of incapacity. Further, children as young as 9 appear able to participate meaningfully in personal health-care decision making.

I'm inclined to believe that such empirical literature is suitable for general policy analysis, but not for evaluating specific cases such as this, obviously. It's true that he's been brainwashed, but IMO, all variety of religious fanatics are brainwashed to some extent. The most preferable course of action to prevent situations like this is to permit individuals of all ages to freely access the information that they wish to access, regardless of parental consent.

 

[AllieBaba]

Please don't be on my side ever again.

 

[Care4all]

I'm of the opinion that this should ideally be his decision to make, but there are a number of other factors in play here, including his religious indoctrination and apparent ignorance of the nature of the treatment. I believe that public policy should reflect a youth right to self-determination, including medical consent.

In terms of the empirical literature's relation to such matters, I'd refer to Weithorn and Campbell's The Competency of Children and Adolescents to Make Informed Treatment Decisions. Consider the abstract:

This study was a test for developmental differences in competency to make informed treatment decisions. 96 subjects, 24 (12 males and 12 females) at each of 4 age levels (9, 14, 18, and 21), were administered a measure developed to assess competency according to 4 legal standards. The measure included 4 hypothetical treatment dilemmas and a structured interview protocol. Overall, 14-year-olds did not differ from adults. 9-year-olds appeared less competent than adults with respect to their ability to reason about and understand the treatment information provided in the dilemmas. However, they did not differ from older subjects in their expression of reasonable preferences regarding treatment. It is concluded that the findings do not support the denial of the right of self-determination to adolescents in health-care situations on the basis of a presumption of incapacity. Further, children as young as 9 appear able to participate meaningfully in personal health-care decision making.

I'm inclined to believe that such empirical literature is suitable for general policy analysis, but not for evaluating specific cases such as this, obviously. It's true that he's been brainwashed, but IMO, all variety of religious fanatics are brainwashed to some extent. The most preferable course of action to prevent situations like this is to permit individuals of all ages to freely access the information that they wish to access, regardless of parental consent.

he's 13 yrs old and can't read or write agna, so what then?

 

[Care4all]

that is taking every one of those scripture OUT OF CONTEXT

i am NOT wrong
not a single faith will tell you oil was used as a medicine, but as a means of improving ones faith

it was a point of contact, not a medicine

you are wrong....ask your own pastor if oil was not the medicine of the day...please do so.

i dont need to ask anyone, i already KNOW

no, you don't....

i am not denying that the church of TODAY uses anointing with oil in a spiritual fashion, but in the time of Christ in the middle east, anointing oil was used for medicinal purposes in conjunction with prayer to heal people....if prayer was all that was needed then prayer is all that would have been done.

PLEASE speak to your own pastor or google it yourself, what you THINK you know, is incomplete....

the whole middle east used oil to heal their wounds or the sick, it was not just followers of Christ...

care

 

[Agnapostate]

So Freedom of religion does not apply? Privacy does not apply? The rights of the Parents to DISAGRRE with the doctors and CHOSE AN ALTERNATE treatment does not apply?

Reread it, the Mother did not say he would not get treatement, she said they would use alternate means.

YOU are now claiming the Government has the sole say in treatment for anyone that the Doctors disagree with. In my opinion the Judge had no legal basis to make the Judgement he made.

I think the child should get the treatment, BUT LEGALLY under the Constitution that simply is not OUR place to demand it.

ANYONE that supports abortion has NO standing to oppose the Mother and the Boy's wishes. NONE.

This isn't an especially sound argument. A fetus would have no awareness of its own death or capacity to suffer as a result of its own death, and is therefore not equivalent to a person with both of those capacities.

Not to you. To you, they are both your chattel to do with as you will.

I find it amusing that there's another thread where the "right" of an 8-year old boy to live as a girl is being touted...but here a 13 year old who decides to opt out of chemo is considered "retarded" and should be removed from his harmful parents.

That's a poor comparison. There are obviously worse consequences that could occur as a result of refusing cancer treatment than could occur as a result of choosing to wear a dress and have a female name.

Please don't be on my side ever again.

I'm decidedly not on "your side," just as I wasn't on "your side" when I said that the fundamentalist Mormon ranch shouldn't have been raided. For that matter, you and RetardedGayInsurgent have committed numerous logical fallacies in this thread.

 

[DiveCon]

you are wrong....ask your own pastor if oil was not the medicine of the day...please do so.

i dont need to ask anyone, i already KNOW

no, you don't....

i am not denying that the church of TODAY uses anointing with oil in a spiritual fashion, but in the time of Christ in the middle east, anointing oil was used for medicinal purposes in conjunction with prayer to heal people....if prayer was all that was needed then prayer is all that would have been done.

PLEASE speak to your own pastor or google it yourself, what you THINK you know, is incomplete....

the whole middle east used oil to heal their wounds or the sick, it was not just followers of Christ...

care

no, i know what i know and i dont need to ask anyone

you can believe that crap if you want to, but not me

 

[Agnapostate]

he's 13 yrs old and can't read or write agna, so what then?

I'm more receptive to that than you think. As I said elsewhere, we should not hesitate to note that authoritarian governance can just as effectively be manifested through parental decisions, considering the limited legal rights of minors and the rather expansive legal rights of parents in regards to them. Political scientist Robert Dahl has defined a spectrum of "influence terms" that range from the relatively benevolent to the openly malevolent. They include rational persuasion, manipulative persuasion, inducement, power, coercion, and physical force.

In my opinion, judging by the hierarchical strictures of families deeply immersed in Roman Catholicism, young Hauser has probably been subjected to manipulative persuasion by his parents, and may also be subjected to inducement and power were he to refuse. So the authoritarianism is not only able to come from the government. As I said, my advocacy is for him to have the opportunity to make a rational decision (which I believe he is capable of doing), once he has been sufficiently informed of all the consequences and implications of the treatment. Such a situation may necessitate his capture or detainment.

 

[Care4all]

i dont need to ask anyone, i already KNOW

no, you don't....

i am not denying that the church of TODAY uses anointing with oil in a spiritual fashion, but in the time of Christ in the middle east, anointing oil was used for medicinal purposes in conjunction with prayer to heal people....if prayer was all that was needed then prayer is all that would have been done.

PLEASE speak to your own pastor or google it yourself, what you THINK you know, is incomplete....

the whole middle east used oil to heal their wounds or the sick, it was not just followers of Christ...

care

no, i know what i know and i dont need to ask anyone

you can believe that crap if you want to, but not me

ok, that's fine and dandy, don't speak to your pastor!

but HOW will you ever know more than you know now?

i for one, plan on expanding my knowledge, every day for the rest of my life and never plan to stop learning more every day that passes, than i know now....

 

[xotoxi]

Well, I've never had cancer but if I did I would certainly hope that I would be able to decide for me - or my kids - what I thought was the best course of treatment. Doctors can and should recommend but they cannot force treatment, nor can the government. If they can force treatment in this scenario what's to stop them from forcing some other treatment on someone else, just because they think it's best?

Oh, and don't knock alternative and holistic and dismiss it as quackery or something. From my personal experience, conventional medicine and doctors do not always have the right answers nor are they always correct.

Exactly xotoxi. Zoom-boing, the difference is you're an adult.

Well, I've never had cancer but if I did I would certainly hope that I would be able to decide for me - or my kids - what I thought was the best course of treatment.

Now what makes you think that you know what the best course of treatment is for your kids. I don't mean that in a belittling way...please don't take it that way.

But are you a doctor? Are you an herbalist? Have you treated others with cancer successfully?

I don't care what you as an adult decide will be the best course of treatment for yourself. You have that right.

And you have the right to make important medical decisions for your children...TO A POINT.

But at a certain point, a parents decision to withhold lifesaving treatment for a child become neglect, plain and simple. It is legally mandated to be reported, plain and simple. The state takes over, plain and simple. And there is nothing that you can do about it.

While this is a fascinating discussion, the parent will ALWAYS lose in a case like this. And they should.

 

[Gunny]

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.

We've had this argument before. How about we just turn our children over to the government?

Parents have a RIGHT to decide what is in the best interest of their child.

And you would rather call an unborn human being anything BUT what it is; yet, want to stick your nose into someone else's business in a heartbeat.

 

[Gunny]

Ohh I get it, A mother has the right to murder a fetus cause well it aint born yet but not the right to CHOSE her son's medical treatment that HE also wants.

I agree he should be treated but YOU have no leg to stand on on this issue.

Well said

The boy has an excellent chance of survival if treated and an excellent chance of death if he is not. The fact is it is a very treatable form of cancer. Why would you fight an abortion but not the slow death of a living child? Makes no sense. It's child neglect.

Let's see ... the 13 years old boy is at least able to make a choice, whether you agree with it or not. The unborn child just gets squashed. No choice.

Ever been through chemo? Anyone who hasn't been through it or watched someone go through it needs to shut up. Death doesn't look so bad by comparison.

 

[DiveCon]

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.

We've had this argument before. How about we just turn our children over to the government?

Parents have a RIGHT to decide what is in the best interest of their child.

And you would rather call an unborn human being anything BUT what it is; yet, want to stick your nose into someone else's business in a heartbeat.

what she doesnt get, is those "2 cells" shes talking about, are a living child as well

 

[Gunny]

Ohh I get it

Obviously not.

Just like Gays marrying and Jillian being opposed to CONSENTING ADULTS having Incestuous Relationships, you turds are all for choice unless it bothers YOUR conscious. Either we have religious freedom and choice or we do not. IF the Majority does not get to decide on Gays and abortion, guess what , YOU don't get to decide on medical treatment for minors on this issue.

Now, now ... expecting consistency from the left?

They have NO problem with their hypocrisy. They just refuse to address it.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Thread title is wrong as well as most of the comments, the Mother is not trying to kill her son nor allow him to die, she is seeking DIFFERENT medical options available for the treatment of his illness.

The Judge had no business enforcing the Doctors wishes in this case. Should the boy get chemo? Sure, sounds like the best option, BUT it is NOT our right to dictate to him or his family what treatment he receive.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Exactly xotoxi. Zoom-boing, the difference is you're an adult.

Well, I've never had cancer but if I did I would certainly hope that I would be able to decide for me - or my kids - what I thought was the best course of treatment.

Now what makes you think that you know what the best course of treatment is for your kids. I don't mean that in a belittling way...please don't take it that way.

But are you a doctor? Are you an herbalist? Have you treated others with cancer successfully?

I don't care what you as an adult decide will be the best course of treatment for yourself. You have that right.

And you have the right to make important medical decisions for your children...TO A POINT.

But at a certain point, a parents decision to withhold lifesaving treatment for a child become neglect, plain and simple. It is legally mandated to be reported, plain and simple. The state takes over, plain and simple. And there is nothing that you can do about it.

While this is a fascinating discussion, the parent will ALWAYS lose in a case like this. And they should.

How would I determine what the best treatment would be? By getting several opinions and seeing several doctors and then making the decision based upon that information. My decision -for myself or my kids- would be based on that info. Were I to choose an alternative method vs. a traditional method it would and should be my choice.

My son is dx'd w/ASD (autistic spectrum disorder). He was 6 1/2 when he was dx'd, old for that diagnosis. We've been to no less than 15 doctors over the course of 8-10 years either seeking a diagnosis or treatment. What I discovered is that all 15 doctors had their own idea of what was the best treatment for him. There was no consensus, per say. I've had one 'best in the field' tell me no, do not get any type of therapy for your kid and the next doc, another 'best in the field' say no, that was 100% wrong, get as much therapy as possible. Every doctor we saw scoffed when we said we wanted to remove gluten from his diet. I had conventional docs tell me that was hogwash. Well traditional docs offered Ritalin and Risperidal as treatment; we tried their route with little success and crappy side effects. We took my son off gluten when he was 7 1/2 for four years. Started in the spring; when school rolled around in the fall the teachers wanted to know what had happened because his behavior had improved that much. When he was little his skin was like an alligators, rough, dry, gross. Behind his ears used to split and bleed. I tried everything soap-wise to ease it. Nothing worked. Pediatrician said it's eczema, here's some creme. Even after tests were run and one of his levels came back high, she dismissed it as a false positive. I took him off milk for two months, prior to taking him off gluten, to see if any behavior changes would take place. None did but low and behold, his skin cleared up. He was allergic to milk.

You can go on and on about doctors knowing best; I've had enough shitty expericences to know diferently. You can decide what is best for you and your family and I will decide what is best for mine. And doctors and government do not have the right to force treatment just because they disagree with it and think that they know best.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

YOU have set the standard NOT US. YOU argue for choice unless it happens to upset your conscious. Either it is a religious matter of choice, PROTECTED by privacy and the 1st Amendment JUST AS Abortion is or admit you are just making moral choices like you accuse us of.

You think parents have the right to choose to let their living children die, but not the right to choose to abort the fetus? See how twisted that logic can be? Most people can see the obvious differences here, but taking stabs at women is much easier to do than THINK about it.

False argument, the Mother is not LETTING her child die, she is seeking alternate treatment. But hey way to twist the argument to meet your MORALS.

 

[Gunny]

Thread title is wrong as well as most of the comments, the Mother is not trying to kill her son nor allow him to die, she is seeking DIFFERENT medical options available for the treatment of his illness.

The Judge had no business enforcing the Doctors wishes in this case. Should the boy get chemo? Sure, sounds like the best option, BUT it is NOT our right to dictate to him or his family what treatment he receive.

But did you miss the pity party in the Flame Zone for poor ol' Farrah who chose to have alternative treatment rather than wear a colostomy bag?

It just gets deeper.

 

[Valerie]

Well said

The boy has an excellent chance of survival if treated and an excellent chance of death if he is not. The fact is it is a very treatable form of cancer. Why would you fight an abortion but not the slow death of a living child? Makes no sense. It's child neglect.

Let's see ... the 13 years old boy is at least able to make a choice, whether you agree with it or not. The unborn child just gets squashed. No choice.

Ever been through chemo? Anyone who hasn't been through it or watched someone go through it needs to shut up. Death doesn't look so bad by comparison.

So you didn't bother to even read the thread?

Notice my not shutting up, BTW. I know exactly what I'm talking about.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The boy has an excellent chance of survival if treated and an excellent chance of death if he is not. The fact is it is a very treatable form of cancer. Why would you fight an abortion but not the slow death of a living child? Makes no sense. It's child neglect.

Let's see ... the 13 years old boy is at least able to make a choice, whether you agree with it or not. The unborn child just gets squashed. No choice.

Ever been through chemo? Anyone who hasn't been through it or watched someone go through it needs to shut up. Death doesn't look so bad by comparison.

So you didn't bother to even read the thread?

Notice my not shutting up, BTW. I know exactly what I'm talking about.

You and Jillian are simply LYING. Or ignorant. The mother is NOT refusing treatment, she is not trying to kill her son, nor let him die. She is seeking ALTERNATE TREATMENT. But hey keep twisting what is and is not the facts to justify YOUR bruised morals.