Mother On the Lam For Right to Let Son Die

[Pyrite]

You do not own your children, they own themselves.

As they are incapable of caring for themselves, the state takes measures to ensure they will be cared for.

Parenthood is a position of responsibility, not privilege.

When a parent is negligent in regards to this responsibility, the state must step in to protect the child.

There are many things that a parent does not have a right to do. If a parent honestly believed that a diet of a single slice of bread and single glass of water each day was the best diet for their child, they are still neglecting their child, and the state would still have a duty to step in.

The idea that parents have absolute, perfect authority over their children is legally, and I believe morally, wrong.

 

[AllieBaba]

That the state has medical authority in such cases is wrong by every standard our nation is built upon. These people are treating the child, and there are no guarantees that the kid will live with chemo. The kid doesn't want the chemo. We don't know what stage he was diagnosed at. All the arguments here have been that 1st stage Hodgkins is essentially curable.

Well it's not, it's only 90 percent curable. 10 percent die anyway. And those stats are compiled using 1st stage only. Advanced Hodgkins is NOT that curable. What stage was he when he was diagnosed? If the tumor now, 6 months after diagnosis and treatment, is the size it was at treatment and fatal then it sounds to me like he was fairly advanced when he was diagnosed.

And everyone is still pretending there's no possibility that there are other factors which could weigh against chemotherapy.

 

[Luissa]

This woman needs to be put away....



Arrest warrant issued for mother of Daniel Hauser, 13; boy is resisting chemo for treatable cancer

if a hospital can refuse to give certain treatments due to religious reasons, any patients should be able to refuse any treatment due to religous reasons.

there is no religious reason, it was bogus and made up....

She and her son due to the mother putting the fear in to him, are just afraid of the chemo....maybe that is good enough, I don't think so.

either way, I don't agree with it but it is up to the parents and the child. If hospitals can refuse to give out Plan B and refuse to allow someone to have doctor assisted suicide than these people can refuse to seek medical care. If they want to take away her parental rights, I see that as the only way they can proceed otherwise it is up to her and the child.
You can't hospitals refusing certain treatments and not allow patients to do the same.

 

[Zoom-boing]

You do not own your children, they own themselves.

As they are incapable of caring for themselves, the state takes measures to ensure they will be cared for.

Parenthood is a position of responsibility, not privilege.

When a parent is negligent in regards to this responsibility, the state must step in to protect the child.

There are many things that a parent does not have a right to do. If a parent honestly believed that a diet of a single slice of bread and single glass of water each day was the best diet for their child, they are still neglecting their child, and the state would still have a duty to step in.

The idea that parents have absolute, perfect authority over their children is legally, and I believe morally, wrong.

Speak for yourself, they're mine till they're 18! (ok, then they're still mine. )

 

[Agnapostate]

Speak for yourself, they're mine till they're 18!

You need to make an is/ought distinction. It's indeed a reality that the age of majority is currently 18, but that alone does not establish that as a desirable state of affairs. I'm inclined to believe that age restrictions should be abolished and replaced with competency tests, if even that.

 

[Zoom-boing]

I posted this earlier as it was airing on Fox this afternoon. Apparently religious reasons are what the parents are saying about refusing the chemo. The family spokesperson talked about what the religion does and does not allow and talked a bit about the natural alternatives they (the religion) uses/allows.

From Fox news on tv:

"Mom and son thought to be heading to Mexico. A felony arrest warrant has been issued even though no felony has been committed. Husband is pleading for wife and son to come home. Chemo not wanted by parents citing that their religion only permits herbal remedies. With chemo, 90% survival; without 5% survival. Doctors believe that without chemo treatment he will die.

Sounds as if the chemo is given now it will still save his life. Parents say their religion does not allow this treatment, only herbs.

Kid and family do not want him to have the chemo. Family is afraid and fearful of chemo treatment. Authorities trying to force the chemo treatment. Peter Johnson Jr., a Fox news legal analyst, knew an 18 yr old who suffered from this same cancer and was successfully treated with chemo. He is offering to help the family; child will be sick from chemo but will survive the cancer and be cured.

Family spokesperson is on: Daniel stopped chemo after one treatment. Spokesperson is advocating natural remedies and he knows of success stories using natural remedies.

Kid's aunt had cancer and died; family is fearful. Kid does not want chemo. He says "I would rather live a virtuous life than a long life." He knows he could die. Side effects of chemo are bad, burning out of thyroid. Daniel does not want chemo."

 

[Zoom-boing]

Speak for yourself, they're mine till they're 18!

You need to make an is/ought distinction. It's indeed a reality that the age of majority is currently 18, but that alone does not establish that as a desirable state of affairs. I'm inclined to believe that age restrictions should be abolished and replaced with competency tests, if even that.

You need to lighten up and laugh some more Agna!

 

[Agnapostate]

You need to lighten up and laugh some more Agna!

Will this do?

 

[Zoom-boing]

You need to lighten up and laugh some more Agna!

Will this do?

Quite punny.

 

[Care4all]

I posted this earlier as it was airing on Fox this afternoon. Apparently religious reasons are what the parents are saying about refusing the chemo. The family spokesperson talked about what the religion does and does not allow and talked a bit about the natural alternatives they (the religion) uses/allows.

From Fox news on tv:

"Mom and son thought to be heading to Mexico. A felony arrest warrant has been issued even though no felony has been committed. Husband is pleading for wife and son to come home. Chemo not wanted by parents citing that their religion only permits herbal remedies. With chemo, 90% survival; without 5% survival. Doctors believe that without chemo treatment he will die.

Sounds as if the chemo is given now it will still save his life. Parents say their religion does not allow this treatment, only herbs.

Kid and family do not want him to have the chemo. Family is afraid and fearful of chemo treatment. Authorities trying to force the chemo treatment. Peter Johnson Jr., a Fox news legal analyst, knew an 18 yr old who suffered from this same cancer and was successfully treated with chemo. He is offering to help the family; child will be sick from chemo but will survive the cancer and be cured.

Family spokesperson is on: Daniel stopped chemo after one treatment. Spokesperson is advocating natural remedies and he knows of success stories using natural remedies.

Kid's aunt had cancer and died; family is fearful. Kid does not want chemo. He says "I would rather live a virtuous life than a long life." He knows he could die. Side effects of chemo are bad, burning out of thyroid. Daniel does not want chemo."

NO HE DIDN'T ZOOM.

The spokesperson SPECIFICALLY made it CLEAR that this was NOT a religion but a group of people.

He made this clear, for a reason...either they can't legally be labeled a religion or they don't believe they are a religion...ya know?

I went to their site and they don't believe they are a religion nor claim to be....

Now THIS MEANS to me, with his statement, that this is not a "religion" that she belongs to, that this was not for religious purposes but is trying to be used as such by this woman.

Personally, after hearing her spokesperson, it sounds like the mother is just scared of the chemo because of a family member that had to receive chemo that eventually died, of another, different cancer. And watching my father in law die a 6'4'' and 90 lbs after receiving chemo for a lengthy period of time....back in the late 80's...it was horrible to watch him die....he did have terminal cancer, that had metasticised already...the chemo was to slow it down, HA!

But how can you and I watch the same thing and come to so totally different analysis from hearing the same guy speak?

In other cases similar to this they put the kids in foster homes till their treatment is done and then return the child to their family...I hope she didn't mess things up by running and the press getting ahold of this for the circus...got interupted and never heard the father speak...

And this guy saying he knows of 5 cases where people were saved by using diet only that were saved from death doesn't have that much meaning if you don't know how many people tried this diet that received no chemo, and died...duhhhh? so it really had no true meaning to me...

She has had him on this alternative treatment and the cancer is spreading, that's a sign that he may not be as lucky as the 5 other people saved by it and may not be receptive to it and who knows the same may be the case with the rest of his chemo treatments, though unlikely since he was receptive to the first treatment.

I just feel that all of this should not have been made in to a media frenzy and maybe this should have been just handled by them and the court/judge responsible...instead of pulling the whole public, me included, in to it.

care

 

[Zoom-boing]

No, they are citing religion. The family spokesperson on Fox yesterday afternoon said that it was religious; it was what the family is following. Whether it actually is a religion or not - Scientology isn't a religion either but is followed as one - don't know. But the family wishes to follow alternate treatments.

Breaking News | Latest News | Current News - FOXNews.com

 

[Care4all]

I know they are siting religion but I don't believe this is the case, but just something THEY THOUGHT they could use to better fight the State on this...that's just my opinion, because they are also supposedly Roman Catholics as far as religion goes....and the fact that this Indian group does NOT CLAIM to be a religious group....

 

[jillian]

No, they are citing religion. The family spokesperson on Fox yesterday afternoon said that it was religious; it was what the family is following. Whether it actually is a religion or not - Scientology isn't a religion either but is followed as one - don't know. But the family wishes to follow alternate treatments.

Breaking News | Latest News | Current News - FOXNews.com

so if they claim their religion requires they tie the kid down and sacrifice him, that's ok by you?

Relgion while to be respected, doesn't give you carte blanche to let your kids die.

I'm still having trouble understanding why the same people who demanded that Terry Schiavo, with her liquified brain, be kept alive by machine, are fighting for this woman to kill her son.

... which btw, she has probably already done since he has gone from a 95% chance of cure to on his way to a 5% chance.

And you defend this?

 

[Shogun]

I think the main difference with Shaivo is her age, and that of her guardian, versus the age of the kid who, it seems, believes the same as the mother.


Do you believe in the right to die, Jillian?

 

[Zoom-boing]

No, they are citing religion. The family spokesperson on Fox yesterday afternoon said that it was religious; it was what the family is following. Whether it actually is a religion or not - Scientology isn't a religion either but is followed as one - don't know. But the family wishes to follow alternate treatments.

Breaking News | Latest News | Current News - FOXNews.com

so if they claim their religion requires they tie the kid down and sacrifice him, that's ok by you?

Relgion while to be respected, doesn't give you carte blanche to let your kids die.

I'm still having trouble understanding why the same people who demanded that Terry Schiavo, with her liquified brain, be kept alive by machine, are fighting for this woman to kill her son.

... which btw, she has probably already done since he has gone from a 95% chance of cure to on his way to a 5% chance.

And you defend this?

I'm defending the parent's right to choose an alternative method of treatment. Were it me, I'd be doing both traditional and alternative. But it's not me and I don't believe the parent's are being negligent; they are opting for an alternative treatment. No I don't think they should be forced to go the chemo route if it goes against their beliefs.

 

[jillian]

No, they are citing religion. The family spokesperson on Fox yesterday afternoon said that it was religious; it was what the family is following. Whether it actually is a religion or not - Scientology isn't a religion either but is followed as one - don't know. But the family wishes to follow alternate treatments.

Breaking News | Latest News | Current News - FOXNews.com

so if they claim their religion requires they tie the kid down and sacrifice him, that's ok by you?

Relgion while to be respected, doesn't give you carte blanche to let your kids die.

I'm still having trouble understanding why the same people who demanded that Terry Schiavo, with her liquified brain, be kept alive by machine, are fighting for this woman to kill her son.

... which btw, she has probably already done since he has gone from a 95% chance of cure to on his way to a 5% chance.

And you defend this?

I'm defending the parent's right to choose an alternative method of treatment. Were it me, I'd be doing both traditional and alternative. But it's not me and I don't believe the parent's are being negligent; they are opting for an alternative treatment. No I don't think they should be forced to go the chemo route if it goes against their beliefs.

you're defending them killing the kid because they SAY its their religious belief. But I've never known a Catholic who would refuse medicine on religious grounds.

if this were a chicken bone shaking voodoo mama would you be saying the same thing?

Again, why are the people who are defending this the same people who wouldn't let liquified brain Terry Schiavo go to her rest?

I'm serious.... I really don't understand.

 

[AllieBaba]

No, they are citing religion. The family spokesperson on Fox yesterday afternoon said that it was religious; it was what the family is following. Whether it actually is a religion or not - Scientology isn't a religion either but is followed as one - don't know. But the family wishes to follow alternate treatments.

Breaking News | Latest News | Current News - FOXNews.com

so if they claim their religion requires they tie the kid down and sacrifice him, that's ok by you?

Relgion while to be respected, doesn't give you carte blanche to let your kids die.

I'm still having trouble understanding why the same people who demanded that Terry Schiavo, with her liquified brain, be kept alive by machine, are fighting for this woman to kill her son.

... which btw, she has probably already done since he has gone from a 95% chance of cure to on his way to a 5% chance.

And you defend this?

Bullshit. He started out with a 90 percent chance, first of all...PROVIDED he was Stage I and had no other physical issues, which hasn't been established.

Not only that, the difference between Terry Schiavo, a sacrifice, and this kid are that in both those incidents the PURPOSE is to kill the patient. The stated goal is the death of the person receiving the treatment. This family is treating their child. They are hoping to keep him alive. WITHOUT poisoning him.

Why is that so difficult to understand? I find it surprising that those who have no problem slaughtering babies and other vulnerable people (the old, the infirm, the comatose) don't like this. After all...he's defective. You guys should be popping champagne bottles.

Except that you can't stand it when someone is allowed to make their own decision.

 

[AllieBaba]

I think the main difference with Shaivo is her age, and that of her guardian, versus the age of the kid who, it seems, believes the same as the mother.


Do you believe in the right to die, Jillian?

No. The difference is the purpose. The purpose in pulling the plug on Schiavo was to kill her. That is unacceptable.

The purpose behind this kid is they don't want to mess with chemo, which comes with problems of its own and is no guarantee he'll live. And if he doesn't, he IS guaranteed pain, suffering, and misery for the last months of his life.

 

[jillian]

I think the main difference with Shaivo is her age, and that of her guardian, versus the age of the kid who, it seems, believes the same as the mother.


Do you believe in the right to die, Jillian?

If this were an adult making the decision to forego treatment, I might disagree, but they would have that right, IMO.

This kid hasn't a clue.

 

[AllieBaba]

Still ignoring the possibility of mitigating factors.