Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

Parents refuse to let son get Chemotherapy, he never showed up for court

adamyesme1111

By adamyesme1111
in The Tailgate

What do you think of the new site?  

63 members have voted

  1. 1. What do you think of the new site?

    • Amazing
      30
    • Cool
      24
    • Could be better
      5
    • A letdown
      5

This poll is closed to new votes


Recommended Posts

adamyesme1111

adamyesme1111

Posted
  • Author
Posted
He MIGHT die.

That's the difference.

I dont disagree that the parents are crazy. But we dont want the courts mandating treatments.

The proper thing to do is for the parents to lose their rights as parents and have a court appointed guardian make the decisions.

I agree with that, letting a court appointed guardian make the decision. I just hope they find the child and the mother before it is too late.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSchmeff

JeffSchmeff

Posted
Posted
90% is not 100%

5% is not 0%

Where am I arguing 0 and 100%? Only an idiot would argue that non treatment or some hocus pocus religion treatments are more effective than chemotherapy.

There's not a 100% chance you're going to die if someone shoots you in the head with a gun, but that doesn't mean you want them doing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kilmer17

Kilmer17

Posted
Posted
I saw a piece on the news where they stated the Hodgkins Lymphoma he is diagnosed with has an above 90% success rate when treated, and a 5% survival rate when untreated. I think that's a little more sure than might die.

Fine. It's still not absolute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kilmer17

Kilmer17

Posted
Posted
Where am I arguing 0 and 100%? Only an idiot would argue that non treatment or some hocus pocus religion treatments are more effective than chemotherapy.

There's not a 100% chance you're going to die if someone shoots you in the head with a gun, but that doesn't mean you want them doing it.

Which is why motive is used in cases involving murder/assualt etc.

And I dont want the Govt deciding which religious beliefs are valid and which are "hocus pocus".

Link to comment
Share on other sites
December90

December90

Posted
Posted
Where am I arguing 0 and 100%? Only an idiot would argue that non treatment or some hocus pocus religion treatments are more effective than chemotherapy.

There's not a 100% chance you're going to die if someone shoots you in the head with a gun, but that doesn't mean you want them doing it.

You missed the point completely:doh:

The argument for violating the families religious freedom is about the absolutes that if they do what their religion says then he will die while if they get the Chemo then he will live.

(Note: if this was my kid he would be getting the best treatment I could find, if that was Chemo, then that is what he would get. But, this is NOT my kid so it is NOT my choice as to the treatment options to pursue or reject)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
adamyesme1111

adamyesme1111

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Fine. It's still not absolute.

In one of the articles I posted it actually says a 95 percent chance of survival if treated, and a 5 percent chance of survival if not treated. He isn't for SURE going to die, and I am going to hope that if the parents dont get caught...that he DOES survive..

I don't care if that makes his parents look like GENIUSES...I just don't think the kid deserves to die because of his parents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kilmer17

Kilmer17

Posted
Posted
In one of the articles I posted it actually says a 95 percent chance of survival if treated, and a 5 percent chance of survival if not treated. He isn't for SURE going to die, and I am going to hope that if the parents dont get caught...that he DOES survive..

I don't care if that makes his parents look like GENIUSES...I just don't think the kid deserves to die because of his parents.

Do you also favor the Govt requiring kids to get vaccinated? IE, not just to attend school, but if a parent homeschools, should the govt be allowed to require vaccines?

What if my child gets a cold. I personally think that we overmedicate our kids and that leads to a less healthy immune system. So we do not give our kids any antibiotics for viruses. Would you allow the Govt to force me to give them to my child?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
adamyesme1111

adamyesme1111

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Do you also favor the Govt requiring kids to get vaccinated? IE, not just to attend school, but if a parent homeschools, should the govt be allowed to require vaccines?

What if my child gets a cold. I personally think that we overmedicate our kids and that leads to a less healthy immune system. So we do not give our kids any antibiotics for viruses. Would you allow the Govt to force me to give them to my child?

You just won't quit, there are few situations like this...And I am giving my opinion that this kid does not deserve to die because of his parents brainwashing him.

Comparing a cold to Cancer is ridiculous

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kilmer17

Kilmer17

Posted
Posted
If I start a religion that says that I don't have to pay taxes..or register for the selective service ...can I hide behind that religion too?

Isnt that the problem. We use a selective enforcement for this kind of problem all the time. Muslim inmates are given special priviledges in jails due to religion. Jehovahs witnesses are given special priviledges in schools.

Who gets to decide which are legit and which are bull****?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kilmer17

Kilmer17

Posted
Posted
You just won't quit, there are few situations like this...And I am giving my opinion that this kid does not deserve to die because of his parents brainwashing him.

Comparing a cold to Cancer is ridiculous

You are again assuming he will die. And you again equate their religios beliefs to brainwashing. Why do you get to make that decision?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kilmer17

Kilmer17

Posted
Posted
The parents are cowards.

Why do you think that?

If anything, I think it's pretty gutsy to defy a court order and do what they truly believfe is the right thing for their son.

They might very well be fools, but I dont think they're cowards.

And even if they are. Isnt that their right to be cowards?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Popeman38

Popeman38

Posted
Posted

I guess the govt should decide end of life situations too? Like a terminally ill child living on machines. Does the govt decide when to pull the plug? Is a 95% mortality rate enough to simply refuse treatment? I mean, even if we treat the child, there is a 95% chance they dia anyway, so why bother? And what of the 5% that actually survive these tremendous odds?

The govt has NO place in treatment decisions. The parents have the legal right to choose. Just as Mr. Schaivo had the legal right to choose.

There can be no bleeding of black into white. That makes grey, and the govy is horrible at setting precedent in grey areas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Evil Genius

The Evil Genius

Posted
Posted

They are cowards because they either refuse to act like adults (an adult would make the decision that gives their kid a chance to live) or they refuse to be parents and allow their kid to govern them.

Boo hoo. Your kid is dieing. Do the right thing and let medicine...you know...the thing that your GOD created through man, do its best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Predicto

Predicto

Posted
Posted

I hate stuff like this.

Not only are the stories tragic, but they force me to choose between several of my strongly held moral/political views that, in this case, pretty much directly conflict.

It would be so easy if these parents were refusing treatment for themselves. That's their right. But a mentally challenged 13 year old? Oh man, that is hard....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kilmer17

Kilmer17

Posted
Posted
They are cowards because they either refuse to act like adults (an adult would make the decision that gives their kid a chance to live) or they refuse to be parents and allow their kid to govern them.

Boo hoo. Your kid is dieing. Do the right thing and let medicine...you know...the thing that your GOD created through man, do its best.

They are making the decision that THEY think gives their kid the best chance to live.

A coward would bow to the pressure to go against that belief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Predicto

Predicto

Posted
Posted
I

The govt has NO place in treatment decisions. The parents have the legal right to choose. Just as Mr. Schaivo had the legal right to choose.

Well, Mr. Schiavo only had the right to choose after he proved to a court that there was no chance Terry Schiavo would recover.

This situation is quite different, on many levels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kilmer17

Kilmer17

Posted
Posted
Well, Mr. Schiavo only had the right to choose after he proved to a court that there was no chance Terry Schiavo would recover.

This situation is quite different, on many levels.

Yep. There is no opposing party like there was in that case. I think that DEpt of Children and Famillies (or whatever agency is similar)) should have been in on this long ago to determine whether or not to remove the child. But since they didnt, the parents have the right to make this decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dan T.

Dan T.

Posted
Posted

Shouldn't government intervene when parents endanger the life of their child? At some point, the welfare of the child supersedes parental rights.

This seems to be such a case. The stark odds of survival with treatment vs. non-treatment make it a compelling case for government intervention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...