Mother On the Lam For Right to Let Son Die

[RetiredGySgt]

For Ravi critical thought is not necessary if you FEEL you know it.

 

[YWN666]

Ho hum.

Your own ineptitude bores you?

No, your trolling does, however.

Now there is a classic case of projection

 

[Newby]

He also wrote that Daniel, who cannot read, did not understand the risks and benefits of chemotherapy and didn't believe he was ill.

Daniel testified that he believed the chemo would kill him and told the judge in private testimony unsealed later that if anyone tried to force him to take it, "I'd fight it. I'd punch them and I'd kick them."

wtf?


Now that this thread has had time to fester.. I'm kind of split on this one. First off, I have no respect for dogma junkie cults that let kids die in an act of faith. It's reprehensible. And, I think Jillian is correct when she states that if this were a kid getting "treatment" from voodoo chicken guts and poultices more of you would be taking a whole different position. I do believe that this is overt neglect of the health of the kid. But I have to observe the religious protection in the first amendment. I disagree that it's a blank check for religious nuttery but, it seems, if the KID is making his personal decision then perhaps I would allow him the same dignity as those who have also chosen a right to die.

I have to wonder if those of you gnashing your teeth at Jillian would be quick to do so if this kid were near death from pentecostal snakebite rituals. Also, the kid can't read. THIS says a lot about the ignorance involved. Illiteracy is not a crime but it certainly suggests that the kid is not getting the FULL medical picture. If he were an adult this would be a whole other issue but, because he is at an influential age...

like I said.. i'm kind of split on this one.

I have to agree with you. The conservative in me agrees with all of those that say the government does not have the right to intercede into the private medical decisions of its citizens. As I stated earlier, when it's life and death, and death can be avoidable, then I might be agreeable to making exceptions in those cases. As a Mom, I couldn't imagine not seeking out what would give my child the greatest chances of survival, it's just simple common sense, so I completely disagree with what the Mother is doing in this case. The bottom line is as a society is it right to intercede in a case like this. It's a very tough call.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

For all those that are torn on this issue. Let me ask you this.

Would you want the govt. forcing you to go against your beliefs?

 

[Care4all]

For all those that are torn on this issue. Let me ask you this.

Would you want the govt. forcing you to go against your beliefs?

This is an EXCEPTION to the rule, leave it at that....

neglect is neglect, that's the law.....

and so help me goodness, If I did not get my child treatment for terminal cancer that has a 95% chance of curing him, PLEASE HAVE THE GVT come in and make him get the medical treatment....instead of letting me kill him, through doing nothing but giving him some pure water and a new diet. I will thank you later, when my head's on straight again.

care

 

[Newby]

For all those that are torn on this issue. Let me ask you this.

Would you want the govt. forcing you to go against your beliefs?

I understand what you are saying, but what if your beliefs tell you that your children should only be fed bread and water once a day and chained to their beds for the rest of it? There's a line there, a very delicate one. You are not allowed to do whatever you want to your child. With parents on one side and the government (law) on the other, what you hope is that neither abuses the power that they have. As a parent, I couldn't imagine not wanting the best for my children, that's why so many cannot relate to these parents at all or others who neglect and abuse their children for whatever reason. As a society I think we have to protect children as well, which is why I am anti-abortion.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

For all those that are torn on this issue. Let me ask you this.

Would you want the govt. forcing you to go against your beliefs?

This is an EXCEPTION to the rule, leave it at that....

neglect is neglect, that's the law.....

and so help me goodness, If I did not get my child treatment for terminal cancer that has a 95% chance of curing him, PLEASE HAVE THE GVT come in and make him get the medical treatment....instead of letting me kill him, through doing nothing but giving him some pure water and a new diet. I will thank you later, when my head's on straight again.

care

Can you show me in the constituion where it states the govt. has the right to force a person to go against their religious beliefs?

If the child was 17 would it make a difference?

 

[Ravi]

For all those that are torn on this issue. Let me ask you this.

Would you want the govt. forcing you to go against your beliefs?

This is an EXCEPTION to the rule, leave it at that....

neglect is neglect, that's the law.....

and so help me goodness, If I did not get my child treatment for terminal cancer that has a 95% chance of curing him, PLEASE HAVE THE GVT come in and make him get the medical treatment....instead of letting me kill him, through doing nothing but giving him some pure water and a new diet. I will thank you later, when my head's on straight again.

care

Can you show me in the constituion where it states the govt. has the right to force a person to go against their religious beliefs?

If the child was 17 would it make a difference?

Why religious beliefs? As far as I can tell, the mother is getting random advice off the internet...and it actually has nothing to do with her religious beliefs.

I'm curious, if someone's religious beliefs condoned abortion would you take your nose out of that decision?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

For all those that are torn on this issue. Let me ask you this.

Would you want the govt. forcing you to go against your beliefs?

I understand what you are saying, but what if your beliefs tell you that your children should only be fed bread and water once a day and chained to their beds for the rest of it? There's a line there, a very delicate one. You are not allowed to do whatever you want to your child. With parents on one side and the government (law) on the other, what you hope is that neither abuses the power that they have. As a parent, I couldn't imagine not wanting the best for my children, that's why so many cannot relate to these parents at all or others who neglect and abuse their children for whatever reason. As a society I think we have to protect children as well, which is why I am anti-abortion.

Freedom of religion is protected under our constitution. Now you can make up all kind of scenarios to fit your argument but lets stick with the facts at hand. The parents and the child in this case have decided to choose another course of action in accordance with their religious belief. The govt. cannot tell them to go against their belief because that my friend would be unconstitutional. I wish I was the families lawyer, no matter how much I disagree with their decision, it's still their decision to make. Not yours, mine or the states.

Google Neil Beagley who died from an easily treatable condition.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

This is an EXCEPTION to the rule, leave it at that....

neglect is neglect, that's the law.....

and so help me goodness, If I did not get my child treatment for terminal cancer that has a 95% chance of curing him, PLEASE HAVE THE GVT come in and make him get the medical treatment....instead of letting me kill him, through doing nothing but giving him some pure water and a new diet. I will thank you later, when my head's on straight again.

care

Can you show me in the constituion where it states the govt. has the right to force a person to go against their religious beliefs?

If the child was 17 would it make a difference?

Why religious beliefs? As far as I can tell, the mother is getting random advice off the internet...and it actually has nothing to do with her religious beliefs.

I'm curious, if someone's religious beliefs condoned abortion would you take your nose out of that decision?

Show me a religion that condones abortion then you may have a point. Show me a religion that doesn't believe in healing and you will score another point.

 

[Care4all]

For all those that are torn on this issue. Let me ask you this.

Would you want the govt. forcing you to go against your beliefs?

I understand what you are saying, but what if your beliefs tell you that your children should only be fed bread and water once a day and chained to their beds for the rest of it? There's a line there, a very delicate one. You are not allowed to do whatever you want to your child. With parents on one side and the government (law) on the other, what you hope is that neither abuses the power that they have. As a parent, I couldn't imagine not wanting the best for my children, that's why so many cannot relate to these parents at all or others who neglect and abuse their children for whatever reason. As a society I think we have to protect children as well, which is why I am anti-abortion.

Freedom of religion is protected under our constitution. Now you can make up all kind of scenarios to fit your argument but lets stick with the facts at hand. The parents and the child in this case have decided to choose another course of action in accordance with their religious belief. The govt. cannot tell them to go against their belief because that my friend would be unconstitutional. I wish I was the families lawyer, no matter how much I disagree with their decision, it's still their decision to make. Not yours, mine or the states.

Google Neil Beagley who died from an easily treatable condition.

they are CATHOLIC, this DOES NOT differ with their religion and
NEGLECT is against the law, regardless of religious beliefs...why can't you comprehend this Lone Star?

you can't sit back and let your child DIE in this country if there is medical treatment that can save them.

 

[Care4all]

For all those that are torn on this issue. Let me ask you this.

Would you want the govt. forcing you to go against your beliefs?

This is an EXCEPTION to the rule, leave it at that....

neglect is neglect, that's the law.....

and so help me goodness, If I did not get my child treatment for terminal cancer that has a 95% chance of curing him, PLEASE HAVE THE GVT come in and make him get the medical treatment....instead of letting me kill him, through doing nothing but giving him some pure water and a new diet. I will thank you later, when my head's on straight again.

care

Can you show me in the constituion where it states the govt. has the right to force a person to go against their religious beliefs?

If the child was 17 would it make a difference?

Can you show me where in the constitution it says murder is against the law?

Can you show me where in the constitution that Robbing someone is against the law?

Can you show me where in the constitution that going over the speed limit driving is against the law.

This child CAN NOT READ OR WRITE at 13 years old, I seriously doubt he will be able to do such at 17 either....so no, it would not make a difference lone star.....not with him, thus this is an exception....he is learning disabled.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I understand what you are saying, but what if your beliefs tell you that your children should only be fed bread and water once a day and chained to their beds for the rest of it? There's a line there, a very delicate one. You are not allowed to do whatever you want to your child. With parents on one side and the government (law) on the other, what you hope is that neither abuses the power that they have. As a parent, I couldn't imagine not wanting the best for my children, that's why so many cannot relate to these parents at all or others who neglect and abuse their children for whatever reason. As a society I think we have to protect children as well, which is why I am anti-abortion.

Freedom of religion is protected under our constitution. Now you can make up all kind of scenarios to fit your argument but lets stick with the facts at hand. The parents and the child in this case have decided to choose another course of action in accordance with their religious belief. The govt. cannot tell them to go against their belief because that my friend would be unconstitutional. I wish I was the families lawyer, no matter how much I disagree with their decision, it's still their decision to make. Not yours, mine or the states.

Google Neil Beagley who died from an easily treatable condition.

they are CATHOLIC, this DOES NOT differ with their religion and
NEGLECT is against the law, regardless of religious beliefs...why can't you comprehend this Lone Star?

you can't sit back and let your child DIE in this country if there is medical treatment that can save them.

"Brown County District Judge John Rodenberg ruled that Daniel Hauser, a 13 year-old boy suffering from nodular sclerosing Hodgkin's Lymphoma, a derivation of cancer common among young adults and adolescents, must go to trial to determine the necessity of chemotherapy. Daniel and his parents are currently refusing treatment due to religious beliefs, but being a minor, Brown County Family Services are charging his parents with medical negligence due to the alternative methods of treatment they have selected.

Despite the advice of four doctors, Tony and Colleen Hausen refused to take their son to chemotherapy, saying that its drastic effects killed their aunt, taking her from a cancer patient to a shadow of a being. In so, they religiously believe that this treatment should not be forced upon anyone, "because it is self-destructive and poisonous" and medical care should be left as a personal decision. At the pre-trial hearing held on Friday morning, their attorney, Calvin Johnson of Mankato, told the court that the state's actions violated spiritual law and Danny had chosen to refuse chemo by his "religious beliefs and his freedom of conscience." Through his own attorney, Phil Elbert of New Ulm, Daniel also submitted an affidavit to court Friday, painting himself as a religious man, standing alongside his parents wishes in the banishment of chemotherapy."

Prove neglect.

The fact that they decided to choose an alternative route does not equate to neglect. Now if you can prove that nothing at all is being done then you will have a case for neglect.

Once you establish neglect, prove that the boy will die without the treatment and prove that he will live with it. Now I've read what the medical professionals have stated, but their word is not absolute fact, it's an opinion, nothing more.

"This child protection pre-trial was held in open court due to the massive public interest, instead of Rodenberg's chambers like most pre-trial hearings. Rodenberg denied the motion to dismiss charges against Daniel's parents, ruling that there were multiple issues left to resolve within the case, including whether or not Brown County can demonstrate a "compelling state interest in intervening in the decisions regarding medical care." Pointing at the current treatment Daniel receives, Rodenberg states that it is not enough, his ruling setting the family up for a trial later in the year.

In his case, Elbert explains that Daniel agrees with his parents' religious beliefs to deny chemotherapy, and he argues that while most child protection petitions stop the harm being caused to or by a child, little will be accomplished here if treatment is forced upon Daniel. He pled for the judge to understand that Daniel's religious beliefs should not be tainted in his last days just because he didn't agree or identify with his ways. He vividly said that if the judge chose to enforce chemotherapy, Daniel would be dead long before he left the Earth, kept alive by a treatment which drained his energy and mocked his beliefs."

 

[Newby]

Can you show me in the constituion where it states the govt. has the right to force a person to go against their religious beliefs?

If the child was 17 would it make a difference?

Why religious beliefs? As far as I can tell, the mother is getting random advice off the internet...and it actually has nothing to do with her religious beliefs.

I'm curious, if someone's religious beliefs condoned abortion would you take your nose out of that decision?

Show me a religion that condones abortion then you may have a point. Show me a religion that doesn't believe in healing and you will score another point.

I actually personally know some people whose religion forbids them from getting treatment using what technology we have today. They believe in faith healing. I don't agree with it, but obviously I believe that is their right to believe what they do. The difference here is that it is a minor child involved. I'd completely be with you if this were an adult. The fact that this boy would most likely not have to die if given the chemo treatment, and that I don't believe he truly understands the decision that he has made makes a big difference in my stance on the subject. I don't think he fully understands the picture or is capable of understanding at his age what consequences he is facing. I don't think the parents are adequately telling him, they and their beliefs obviously have a huge impact on him that may be keeping him from making good decisions. There is nothing cut and dried about this all, it's a very difficult scenario.

 

[Ravi]

Can you show me in the constituion where it states the govt. has the right to force a person to go against their religious beliefs?

If the child was 17 would it make a difference?

Why religious beliefs? As far as I can tell, the mother is getting random advice off the internet...and it actually has nothing to do with her religious beliefs.

I'm curious, if someone's religious beliefs condoned abortion would you take your nose out of that decision?

Show me a religion that condones abortion then you may have a point. Show me a religion that doesn't believe in healing and you will score another point.

Way to wuss out of answering.

The Quakers are at least one religious group that leaves the decision up to the woman. Your second comment is a non-sequitur.

 

[Care4all]

Freedom of religion is protected under our constitution. Now you can make up all kind of scenarios to fit your argument but lets stick with the facts at hand. The parents and the child in this case have decided to choose another course of action in accordance with their religious belief. The govt. cannot tell them to go against their belief because that my friend would be unconstitutional. I wish I was the families lawyer, no matter how much I disagree with their decision, it's still their decision to make. Not yours, mine or the states.

Google Neil Beagley who died from an easily treatable condition.

they are CATHOLIC, this DOES NOT differ with their religion and
NEGLECT is against the law, regardless of religious beliefs...why can't you comprehend this Lone Star?

you can't sit back and let your child DIE in this country if there is medical treatment that can save them.

"Brown County District Judge John Rodenberg ruled that Daniel Hauser, a 13 year-old boy suffering from nodular sclerosing Hodgkin's Lymphoma, a derivation of cancer common among young adults and adolescents, must go to trial to determine the necessity of chemotherapy. Daniel and his parents are currently refusing treatment due to religious beliefs, but being a minor, Brown County Family Services are charging his parents with medical negligence due to the alternative methods of treatment they have selected.

Despite the advice of four doctors, Tony and Colleen Hausen refused to take their son to chemotherapy, saying that its drastic effects killed their aunt, taking her from a cancer patient to a shadow of a being. In so, they religiously believe that this treatment should not be forced upon anyone, "because it is self-destructive and poisonous" and medical care should be left as a personal decision. At the pre-trial hearing held on Friday morning, their attorney, Calvin Johnson of Mankato, told the court that the state's actions violated spiritual law and Danny had chosen to refuse chemo by his "religious beliefs and his freedom of conscience." Through his own attorney, Phil Elbert of New Ulm, Daniel also submitted an affidavit to court Friday, painting himself as a religious man, standing alongside his parents wishes in the banishment of chemotherapy."

Prove neglect.

The fact that they decided to choose an alternative route does not equate to neglect. Now if you can prove that nothing at all is being done then you will have a case for neglect.

Once you establish neglect, prove that the boy will die without the treatment and prove that he will live with it. Now I've read what the medical professionals have stated, but their word is not absolute fact, it's an opinion, nothing more.

"This child protection pre-trial was held in open court due to the massive public interest, instead of Rodenberg's chambers like most pre-trial hearings. Rodenberg denied the motion to dismiss charges against Daniel's parents, ruling that there were multiple issues left to resolve within the case, including whether or not Brown County can demonstrate a "compelling state interest in intervening in the decisions regarding medical care." Pointing at the current treatment Daniel receives, Rodenberg states that it is not enough, his ruling setting the family up for a trial later in the year.

In his case, Elbert explains that Daniel agrees with his parents' religious beliefs to deny chemotherapy, and he argues that while most child protection petitions stop the harm being caused to or by a child, little will be accomplished here if treatment is forced upon Daniel. He pled for the judge to understand that Daniel's religious beliefs should not be tainted in his last days just because he didn't agree or identify with his ways. He vividly said that if the judge chose to enforce chemotherapy, Daniel would be dead long before he left the Earth, kept alive by a treatment which drained his energy and mocked his beliefs."

Giving the child mineral water and modifying his diet IS NOT an alternative treatment, and this is what the mother said she was doing....for her alternative treatment.

This couple is Catholic, the mother's claim to religious reasons IS BOGUS.

The boys father is CALLING for him to get the Chemo treatment now...but the mom is on the run.

Every single case, that our Law has gotten similar to this, the child has been forced to get treatment that would save their life...

There is absolutely nothing new about what has happened here, there is precedence in the Law for it....we don't let 13 year old boys die because of parent's religious beliefs in this country, and THANK GOD we do not....

It doesn't matter anymore though, the kid is as good as dead now, barring a miracle...his tumors have spread and are growing because the parents did not continue with the treatment back in January when he was diagnosed with it.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

This is an EXCEPTION to the rule, leave it at that....

neglect is neglect, that's the law.....

and so help me goodness, If I did not get my child treatment for terminal cancer that has a 95% chance of curing him, PLEASE HAVE THE GVT come in and make him get the medical treatment....instead of letting me kill him, through doing nothing but giving him some pure water and a new diet. I will thank you later, when my head's on straight again.

care

Can you show me in the constituion where it states the govt. has the right to force a person to go against their religious beliefs?

If the child was 17 would it make a difference?

Can you show me where in the constitution it says murder is against the law?

Can you show me where in the constitution that Robbing someone is against the law?

Can you show me where in the constitution that going over the speed limit driving is against the law.

This child CAN NOT READ OR WRITE at 13 years old, I seriously doubt he will be able to do such at 17 either....so no, it would not make a difference lone star.....not with him, thus this is an exception....he is learning disabled.

The constitution guarantees life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, that addresses your first two questions. The speeding ticket nonsense is a stretch, even for you.

Illiteracy does not mean stupid, I know several people that have gone on to be very productive members of society without knowing how to read. Can you prove the alleged disability and to what extent? Is the child mentally retarded? Does he suffer from autism? Or perhaps he just wasn't taught how to read or write.

I've given you a name to google so you could see what is happening in cases very simliar to this one and one in which the child did die. But you obviously are stuck with your one-sided opinion. As I've stated, the choice these parents are making would not be my choice, but I do believe it's their choice to make, not yours, mine or the states.

Once you give away a freedom, it's almost impossible to get it back. Religious freedom should not be infringed upon.... period.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

they are CATHOLIC, this DOES NOT differ with their religion and
NEGLECT is against the law, regardless of religious beliefs...why can't you comprehend this Lone Star?

you can't sit back and let your child DIE in this country if there is medical treatment that can save them.

"Brown County District Judge John Rodenberg ruled that Daniel Hauser, a 13 year-old boy suffering from nodular sclerosing Hodgkin's Lymphoma, a derivation of cancer common among young adults and adolescents, must go to trial to determine the necessity of chemotherapy. Daniel and his parents are currently refusing treatment due to religious beliefs, but being a minor, Brown County Family Services are charging his parents with medical negligence due to the alternative methods of treatment they have selected.

Despite the advice of four doctors, Tony and Colleen Hausen refused to take their son to chemotherapy, saying that its drastic effects killed their aunt, taking her from a cancer patient to a shadow of a being. In so, they religiously believe that this treatment should not be forced upon anyone, "because it is self-destructive and poisonous" and medical care should be left as a personal decision. At the pre-trial hearing held on Friday morning, their attorney, Calvin Johnson of Mankato, told the court that the state's actions violated spiritual law and Danny had chosen to refuse chemo by his "religious beliefs and his freedom of conscience." Through his own attorney, Phil Elbert of New Ulm, Daniel also submitted an affidavit to court Friday, painting himself as a religious man, standing alongside his parents wishes in the banishment of chemotherapy."

Prove neglect.

The fact that they decided to choose an alternative route does not equate to neglect. Now if you can prove that nothing at all is being done then you will have a case for neglect.

Once you establish neglect, prove that the boy will die without the treatment and prove that he will live with it. Now I've read what the medical professionals have stated, but their word is not absolute fact, it's an opinion, nothing more.

"This child protection pre-trial was held in open court due to the massive public interest, instead of Rodenberg's chambers like most pre-trial hearings. Rodenberg denied the motion to dismiss charges against Daniel's parents, ruling that there were multiple issues left to resolve within the case, including whether or not Brown County can demonstrate a "compelling state interest in intervening in the decisions regarding medical care." Pointing at the current treatment Daniel receives, Rodenberg states that it is not enough, his ruling setting the family up for a trial later in the year.

In his case, Elbert explains that Daniel agrees with his parents' religious beliefs to deny chemotherapy, and he argues that while most child protection petitions stop the harm being caused to or by a child, little will be accomplished here if treatment is forced upon Daniel. He pled for the judge to understand that Daniel's religious beliefs should not be tainted in his last days just because he didn't agree or identify with his ways. He vividly said that if the judge chose to enforce chemotherapy, Daniel would be dead long before he left the Earth, kept alive by a treatment which drained his energy and mocked his beliefs."

Giving the child mineral water and modifying his diet IS NOT an alternative treatment, and this is what the mother said she was doing....for her alternative treatment.

This couple is Catholic, the mother's claim to religious reasons IS BOGUS.

The boys father is CALLING for him to get the Chemo treatment now...but the mom is on the run.

Every single case, that our Law has gotten similar to this, the child has been forced to get treatment that would save their life...

There is absolutely nothing new about what has happened here, there is precedence in the Law for it....we don't let 13 year old boys die because of parent's religious beliefs in this country, and THANK GOD we do not....

It doesn't matter anymore though, the kid is as good as dead now, barring a miracle...his tumors have spread and are growing because the parents did not continue with the treatment back in January when he was diagnosed with it.

Sure it is, if they believe it to be. Why do you insist on forcing your beliefs onto others?

"There is absolutely nothing new about what has happened here, there is precedence in the Law for it....we don't let 13 year old boys die because of parent's religious beliefs in this country, and THANK GOD we do not...."

You're wrong. Google Followers of Christ or any faith healing church and see how many children died over the past decade and how many parents were prosecuted. You will be very surprised.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Why religious beliefs? As far as I can tell, the mother is getting random advice off the internet...and it actually has nothing to do with her religious beliefs.

I'm curious, if someone's religious beliefs condoned abortion would you take your nose out of that decision?

Show me a religion that condones abortion then you may have a point. Show me a religion that doesn't believe in healing and you will score another point.

I actually personally know some people whose religion forbids them from getting treatment using what technology we have today. They believe in faith healing. I don't agree with it, but obviously I believe that is their right to believe what they do. The difference here is that it is a minor child involved. I'd completely be with you if this were an adult. The fact that this boy would most likely not have to die if given the chemo treatment, and that I don't believe he truly understands the decision that he has made makes a big difference in my stance on the subject. I don't think he fully understands the picture or is capable of understanding at his age what consequences he is facing. I don't think the parents are adequately telling him, they and their beliefs obviously have a huge impact on him that may be keeping him from making good decisions. There is nothing cut and dried about this all, it's a very difficult scenario.

As you stated "they believe in faith healing" but it's not only the adults but the children as well. I've already told you people to google a church called followers of Christ, where many children have died and no adult has ever been prosecuted for neglect, abuse or any wrong-doing. I personnally know members of this church and I can attest to the fact that the children of this group are not taken to a doctors no matter what ailment they have. I've seen the elders of the church set broken bones, anoint(sp) sick children with oil and pray over them as the child lies dying.

 

[Care4all]

Can you show me in the constituion where it states the govt. has the right to force a person to go against their religious beliefs?

If the child was 17 would it make a difference?

Can you show me where in the constitution it says murder is against the law?

Can you show me where in the constitution that Robbing someone is against the law?

Can you show me where in the constitution that going over the speed limit driving is against the law.

This child CAN NOT READ OR WRITE at 13 years old, I seriously doubt he will be able to do such at 17 either....so no, it would not make a difference lone star.....not with him, thus this is an exception....he is learning disabled.

The constitution guarantees life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, that addresses your first two questions. The speeding ticket nonsense is a stretch, even for you.

Illiteracy does not mean stupid, I know several people that have gone on to be very productive members of society without knowing how to read. Can you prove the alleged disability and to what extent? Is the child mentally retarded? Does he suffer from autism? Or perhaps he just wasn't taught how to read or write.

I've given you a name to google so you could see what is happening in cases very simliar to this one and one in which the child did die. But you obviously are stuck with your one-sided opinion. As I've stated, the choice these parents are making would not be my choice, but I do believe it's their choice to make, not yours, mine or the states.

Once you give away a freedom, it's almost impossible to get it back. Religious freedom should not be infringed upon.... period.

We do NOT let children die from medical neglect lone star....

and life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness covers such....

Choosing an alternative method of treatment that has possibilities of curing ones child is DIFFERENT than this woman, on her own, with no direct advice, giving her son pure water and a diet change and is as good as giving the parents permission to kill their son.

Tell me, is it okay if your child got his arm cut off by a tractor o your farm, for you to just leave him there, bleeding to death, because your religion requires such?

Can you throw your child in to a snake pit, because your religion believes in such?

The answer is NO to both....this case is similar....though near pointless now, because they have probably already killed their son and the chemo would be useless now...when he had his 95% chance of surviving his cancer with this treatment, months ago, is when it should have been done.

Care