Judge rules family can't refuse chemo for boy

[Straw Man]

His intellectual capacity is relevant.  The fact he can't read at age 13 shows how severe his learning disability is.  A 13-year-old is not old enough to make a life or death decision like this.  That's particularly true of a 13-year old with a severe learning disability, who doesn't even understand that he's sick.   

As I said a couple times earlier in the thread, I know people who have gone through chemo and radiation, and still died.  It's a very unpleasant treatment.  I don't blame anyone who decides to forego that treatment and rely on natural methods.

No idea if he has reached puberty.   

what if they don't want to rely on natural methods but just decide that they don't want to put the kid through chemo and want to depend on God?

still OK?

should the state step in and over-ride the parents?

I say no

how about you?

[24KT]

His intellectual capacity is relevant.  The fact he can't read at age 13 shows how severe his learning disability is.  A 13-year-old is not old enough to make a life or death decision like this.  That's particularly true of a 13-year old with a severe learning disability, who doesn't even understand that he's sick.    

As I said a couple times earlier in the thread, I know people who have gone through chemo and radiation, and still died.  It's a very unpleasant treatment.  I don't blame anyone who decides to forego that treatment and rely on natural methods.

No idea if he has reached puberty.   

I betcha he knew he was sick after that bout of chemo. 

I'd talk to my friend, and he'd be happy, energetic, full of life, etc.,
...then he'd go in for chemo, ...and I swear within 24hrs it was like he was on his death bed. F-ing horrendous!

[Deicide]

what if they don't want to rely on natural methods but just decide that they don't want to put the kid through chemo and want to depend on God?

still OK?

should the state step in and over-ride the parents?

I say no

how about you?

When the state steps in on this it can step in on anything. I might not agree with the religious nuttiness but the state should get out of it.

[Straw Man]

When the state steps in on this it can step in on anything. I might not agree with the religious nuttiness but the state should get out of it.

god gave the unfortunate kid cancer and also gave him religious nutbags for parents. 

tough luck for the kid but at least he'll soon get to party for eternity with god in heaven...assuming he's not gay and also "saved".   If not, then he really got dealt a bad hand.

[Deicide]

god gave the unfortunate kid cancer and also gave him religious nutbags for parents. 

tough luck for the kid but at least he'll soon get to party for eternity with god in heaven...assuming he's not gay and also "saved".   If not, then he really got dealt a bad hand.

Seriously, I am strongly opposed to this sort of state intervention.

[The Master]

Seriously, I am strongly opposed to this sort of state intervention.

Just like the state intervenes when parents abuse their children or threaten their lives, the state has to intervene when the parents endangers the lives of their kids due to shit like this.

[Straw Man]

All jokes aside I actually agree with the judge on this one but it brings up some other problems.

The judge is saying the kid needs to be evauluated by a doctor.  Who's supposed to pay for that?  Who's supposed to pay for the Chemo?

Where are the rabid right to Lifer's on this board.  Shouldn't they be here wailing and moaning about the sanctity of life?  How is this any different from the Terry Shiavo debacle.  If the Repubs were in control would they convene an emergency session of Congress to address the issue?

[Deicide]

Just like the state intervenes when parents abuse their children or threaten their lives, the state has to intervene when the parents endangers the lives of their kids due to shit like this.

Not necessarily equatable IMO. This is an issue of medicine not one of direct and deadly violence.

[The Master]

Not necessarily equatable IMO. This is an issue of medicine not one of direct and deadly violence.

At this point in time, refusing the threatment for some crackpot nature medicine puts this kids life in great danger, which = equatable.

[The ChemistV2]

what if they don't want to rely on natural methods but just decide that they don't want to put the kid through chemo and want to depend on God?

still OK?

should the state step in and over-ride the parents?

I say no

how about you?

I'm not sure I like the idea of the state being able to force people to have treatment that they decide upon. When does it end? I wouldn't want to be forced to have chemo and radiation if I didn't want it. I don't think the way Cancer is treated is so great in this country anyways. There are numerous people that have healed themselves with specialized diets, alkalinity protocols, supplements..German stem cell treatments. People should be free to decide on their own treatment. The kid may be well informed and wants to get treated without being poisoned and burned.

[The Master]

I'm not sure I like the idea of the state being able to force people to have treatment that they decide upon. When does it end? I wouldn't want to be forced to have chemo and radiation if I didn't want it. I don't think the way Cancer is treated is so great in this country anyways. There are numerous people that have healed themselves with specialized diets, alkalinity protocols, supplements..German stem cell treatments. People should be free to decide on their own treatment. The kid may be well informed and wants to get treated without being poisoned and burned.

The kid is 13, and not capable of making his own decisions. He = a minor according to the law.

His parents are crackpots.

The judge made the right choice.

[Hedgehog]

what if they don't want to rely on natural methods but just decide that they don't want to put the kid through chemo and want to depend on God?

still OK?

should the state step in and over-ride the parents?

I say no

how about you?

I say yes.

I am a big believer in human rights.

It would be absurd, IMO, to not include children in those rights.

And many kids, unfortunately, needs to be saved from their parents.

In some cases there could be a parent who is molesting his son, in another instance it could be a kid who's being tortured, or some other time it could be something like this.

A case where a kid becomes the victim of another persons beliefs.

That's when the society has to step in and put an end.

The molester gets sentenced to prison for destroying the life of his child.

Here these parents are on a path to end the life of their child.

[The ChemistV2]

The kid is 13, and not capable of making his own decisions. He = a minor according to the law.

His parents are crackpots.
The judge made the right choice.

So you're saying that everyone who doesn't want a primitive 40 year old chemo and radiation protocol is a Crackpot? I would think , you being a European and an intelligent guy, knows that there are countries like Germany that have had some success with new treatment options. Not saying that it's right in this particular instance...just think that it sets a precedent where the state/government can impose treatment options on people.

[Straw Man]

I say yes.

I am a big believer in human rights.

It would be absurd, IMO, to not include children in those rights.

And many kids, unfortunately, needs to be saved from their parents.

In some cases there could be a parent who is molesting his son, in another instance it could be a kid who's being tortured, or some other time it could be something like this.

A case where a kid becomes the victim of another persons beliefs.

That's when the society has to step in and put an end.

The molester gets sentenced to prison for destroying the life of his child.

Here these parents are on a path to end the life of their child.

I wrote a few posts up that, "all jokes aside I agreed with the judge".

[Straw Man]

I'm not sure I like the idea of the state being able to force people to have treatment that they decide upon. When does it end? I wouldn't want to be forced to have chemo and radiation if I didn't want it. I don't think the way Cancer is treated is so great in this country anyways. There are numerous people that have healed themselves with specialized diets, alkalinity protocols, supplements..German stem cell treatments. People should be free to decide on their own treatment. The kid may be well informed and wants to get treated without being poisoned and burned.

I've posted on both sides of this issue as I don't think it's clear cut.  I think the parents should be forced to have a doctor evaluate the kid but then doctors are human and make mistakes too.  If the kid were an adult he could make his own choice (assuming he's not a ward of the state) but in this situation it's the parent role to make that decision but then what if their decision is reckless.  What if they decided their kid was possessed by the devil and that's why he had cancer and tried some weird approach to exorcise the demon cancer.   

[The Master]

So you're saying that everyone who doesn't want a primitive 40 year old chemo and radiation protocol is a Crackpot? I would think , you being a European and an intelligent guy, knows that there are countries like Germany that have had some success with new treatment options. Not saying that it's right in this particular instance...just think that it sets a precedent where the state/government can impose treatment options on people.

Debussey did not say that anybody not using chemo = a crackpot.

Debussey = saying that in this case, not doing chemo = multiplying the chance for a fatal outcome by leaps and bounds. The effect is that the parents beliefs jeopardizes the kids life, and this should not be allowed. When it comes to minors the state should have the right to interfere, just like it does in child abuse and other such parental acts influenced by idiotic beliefs.

A grown up person that can properly evaluate the pros and cons of not doing chemo is another thing. If a 30 year old wants to use chakras or meditate themselves out of cancer, by all means

[24KT]

At this point in time, refusing the threatment for some crackpot nature medicine puts this kids life in great danger, which = equatable.

You consider "nature medicine" to be crackpot?  

You do realize that every phramaceutical drug we have is Big Pharma's inadequate attempt to synthesize nature?
the reason drugs are so prevalent is not because they are effective, ...but because they are patentable, ...and therefore profitable to the pharmaceutical industry. Efficacy has nothing to do with it. their desire is not to cure the illness. There is no profit in that. They instead prefer to treat the illness for as long as possible. To extract as many duccats from the dying before they finally die. that is why big pharma exists. Don't get it twisted.

What we lack is not a shortage of effective natural medicines, ...what we lack is a sufficient knowledge of these healing compounds found only in nature. With the decimation of most indigenous peoples with a strong relationship to nature, and the land, ...we lose more & more of that knowledge as time passes.

[The Master]

You consider "nature medicine" to be crackpot?  

You do realize that every phramaceutical drug we have is Big Pharma's inadequate attempt to synthesize nature?
the reason drugs are so prevalent is not because they are effective, ...but because they are patentable, ...and therefore profitable to the pharmaceutical industry. Efficacy has nothing to do with it. their desire is not to cure the illness. There is no profit in that. They instead prefer to treat the illness for as long as possible. To extract as many duccats from the dying before they finally die. that is why big pharma exists. Don't get it twisted.

What we lack is not a shortage of effective natural medicines, ...what we lack is a sufficient knowledge of these healing compounds found only in nature. With the decimation of most indigenous peoples with a strong relationship to nature, and the land, ...we lose more & more of that knowledge as time passes.

In most cases: Yes. In this case: Absolutely.

If you are gonna make such accusations as you do here, please back up your claims by scientific studies ect. Refering to "indigneous peoples strong relationship to nature" in the context ain't cutting it. You are almost as bad as Sevastase

[Hereford]

Jag will take the side of the brain-dead, every single time.

Now we hate modern medicine too? 

[Dos Equis]

I'm not sure I like the idea of the state being able to force people to have treatment that they decide upon. When does it end? I wouldn't want to be forced to have chemo and radiation if I didn't want it. I don't think the way Cancer is treated is so great in this country anyways. There are numerous people that have healed themselves with specialized diets, alkalinity protocols, supplements..German stem cell treatments. People should be free to decide on their own treatment. The kid may be well informed and wants to get treated without being poisoned and burned.

Yep.  It's dangerous ground.  We all have the right to refuse medical treatment.  Parents have the right to make healthcare decisions for their children.  But it's still tough to draw the line when a kid is involved. 

[Straw Man]

Here's a story of a couple who were strict vegans and managed to starve their poor child to death just six weeks after he was born:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/09/national/main2778653.shtml

Another well known case from the 80's involved a couple who were Christian Scientist and let their kid die of what was called an "easily correctable".  They were convicted and eventually their conviction was overturned Mass. Supreme Court.

from Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitchell_case

Commonwealth v. Twitchell

In 1988, Massachusetts prosecutors charged David and Ginger Twitchell with manslaughter in the 1986 death of their two-year-old son Robyn.

Robyn Twitchell died of a peritonitis caused by a bowel obstruction that medical professionals declared would have been easily correctable.

The Twitchells' defense contended that the couple were within their First Amendment rights to treat their son's illness with prayer and that Massachusetts had recognized this right in an exemption to the statute outlawing child neglect.

The Vegan couple was sentenced to life in prison and Christian Scientists parents first got ten years probation and then their conviction was overturned.

If only that Vegan couple could have made up some religious reason for their homicidal neglect they would probably be walking the streets today (though I do think their sentence of life in prison was not fair either)

So it looks like we have so much religious freedom in this country that you can gain exemption from the laws that apply to secular society provided you can claim your actions were based on your religious beliefs

[24KT]

Here's a story of a couple who were strict vegans and managed to starve their poor child to death just six weeks after he was born:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/09/national/main2778653.shtml

Another well known case from the 80's involved a couple who were Christian Scientist and let their kid die of what was called an "easily correctable".  They were convicted and eventually their conviction was overturned Mass. Supreme Court.

from Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitchell_case

Commonwealth v. Twitchell

In 1988, Massachusetts prosecutors charged David and Ginger Twitchell with manslaughter in the 1986 death of their two-year-old son Robyn.

Robyn Twitchell died of a peritonitis caused by a bowel obstruction that medical professionals declared would have been easily correctable.

The Twitchells' defense contended that the couple were within their First Amendment rights to treat their son's illness with prayer and that Massachusetts had recognized this right in an exemption to the statute outlawing child neglect.

The Vegan couple was sentenced to life in prison and Christian Scientists parents first got ten years probation and then their conviction was overturned.

If only that Vegan couple could have made up some religious reason for their homicidal neglect they would probably be walking the streets today (though I do think their sentence of life in prison was not fair either)

So it looks like we have so much religious freedom in this country that you can gain exemption from the laws that apply to secular society provided you can claim your actions were based on your religious beliefs

The sentencing of the vegan couple was flat out BS.

This is a 6 week old baby. Prior to the development of Pablum by Canadian Paediatrian's Tisdale & Drake, at Toronto's renowned Hosptal for Sick Children (gotta work the Canadian plug in there) newborns routinely died of starvation and malnutrition. And no, not just in some 3^rd world country, but even right here in the West. Veganism was a stupid defence, as well as a scapegoat. I don't know too many 6 week olds that are chomping down on a T-bone steak. At 6 weeks, that kid should have been on the teet. If not, there was always mashed bananas, mushy peas and strained carrots.

[The Master]

The sentencing of the vegan couple was flat out BS.

This is a 6 week old baby. Prior to the development of Pablum by Canadian Paediatrian's Tisdale & Drake, at Toronto's renowned Hosptal for Sick Children (gotta work the Canadian plug in there) newborns routinely died of starvation and malnutrition. And no, not just in some 3^rd world country, but even right here in the West. Veganism was a stupid defence, as well as a scapegoat. I don't know too many 6 week olds that are chomping down on a T-bone steak. At 6 weeks, that kid should have been on the teet. If not, there was always mashed bananas, mushy peas and strained carrots.

Why dontcha answer Debussey's post and back up your claims about natural medicine with solid studies instead of folklore and gibberish?

[Dos Equis]

The sentencing of the vegan couple was flat out BS.

This is a 6 week old baby. Prior to the development of Pablum by Canadian Paediatrian's Tisdale & Drake, at Toronto's renowned Hosptal for Sick Children (gotta work the Canadian plug in there) newborns routinely died of starvation and malnutrition. And no, not just in some 3^rd world country, but even right here in the West. Veganism was a stupid defence, as well as a scapegoat. I don't know too many 6 week olds that are chomping down on a T-bone steak. At 6 weeks, that kid should have been on the teet. If not, there was always mashed bananas, mushy peas and strained carrots.

I agree the fact they were vegan was a dumb defense and likely had nothing to do with the kid's death, but a six-week old cannot eat food.  They're always on a liquid diet (either breast milk or formula).  I don't think the diet had anything to do with it.  It sounds like they didn't feed the kid at all.  Unless he was a premie, or suffered from an illness, no way he could have only weighed 3 1/2 pounds if they were feeding him. 

[24KT]

I agree the fact they were vegan was a dumb defense and likely had nothing to do with the kid's death, but a six-week old cannot eat food.  They're always on a liquid diet (either breast milk or formula).  I don't think the diet had anything to do with it.  It sounds like they didn't feed the kid at all.  Unless he was a premie, or suffered from an illness, no way he could have only weighed 3 1/2 pounds if they were feeding him. 

I can't see anyone gaining any weight on a diet of apple juice & soy milk.