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

[The Evil Genius]

It's akin to letting you kid play with a half loaded revolver (or in this case, one that has 5 of the 6 chambers loaded).

[MEANDWARF]

I have a hypothetical question. What if the 13 year old child did not want to have chemo anymore? Instead he prefer either to receive alternative therapy or he prefer to die in peace but the parents force him to receive chemo, should the courts take the kid away because of possible chid abuse?

[BKSkinsFan]

I'd like to see a poll of the percentage of people who believe the courts SHOULD intervene that are pro choice.

These subjects are always rather touchy, but I always find it interesting as to how many turn out to be hypocritical when comparing different scenarios.

[Dan T.]

I'd like to see a poll of the percentage of people who believe the courts SHOULD intervene that are pro choice.

These subjects are always rather touchy, but I always find it interesting as to how many turn out to be hypocritical when comparing different scenarios.

And a companion poll of those who say "let him die" who are pro-life. If you want to play that useless game.

[LaxBuddy21]

See I agree that the parents have the right to choose what is best for their children...until those decisions negatively impact the health and well being of those children. Then it becomes abuse and that is where the state steps in. We dont let parents spank their children but we will let them withhold life saving treatment?

[BKSkinsFan]

And a companion poll of those who say "let him die" who are pro-life. If you want to play that useless game.

It's useless to compare this to abortion? Are the principles involved not somewhat similar? In fact, with this case, the child is also involved in this choice.

[Predicto]

I'd like to see a poll of the percentage of people who believe the courts SHOULD intervene that are pro choice.

These subjects are always rather touchy, but I always find it interesting as to how many turn out to be hypocritical when comparing different scenarios.

Don't go there. It's not hypocritical unless you engage in some very simplistic thinking.

Some people do not view zygotes the same as 13 year olds with regard to their humanity. Some people do not view organisms inside a woman's own body the same as a 13 year old child with regard to "choice."

So don't go there unless you want the thread to degenerate into anothe back and forth finger pointing session.

[Dan T.]

It's useless to compare this to abortion?

Pretty much, yeah.

[LaxBuddy21]

It's useless to compare this to abortion? Are the principles involved not somewhat similar? In fact, with this case, the child is also involved in this choice.

I dont think anyone can argue that life has begun when the child is 13. When you start talking fetus, thats a whole different can of worms.

[Popeman38]

See I agree that the parents have the right to choose what is best for their children...until those decisions negatively impact the health and well being of those children. Then it becomes abuse and that is where the state steps in. We dont let parents spank their children but we will let them withhold life saving treatment?

And who gets to make that decision? In the past, the parents were the legal guardian of their children. Now, you want the parents to be the sub-contracted legal guardian? And the contractor can step in and overrule the sub in cases "they deem to be vitally important"?

[LaxBuddy21]

And who gets to make that decision? In the past, the parents were the legal guardian of their children. Now, you want the parents to be the sub-contracted legal guardian? And the contractor can step in and overrule the sub in cases "they deem to be vitally important"?

Can parents beat their children till they are black and blue? Can they kill them whenever they want? There has to be a line and I think when it has serious implications on the childs health and well being then someone needs to step in. A 90% difference in survival is what I call serious implications.

[SkinInsite]

What if the parents aren't motivated by religion.

What if they just refuse to take him to the hospital because they are lazy or negligent or just dicks. They decide that just give their son some vitamins and vapor rub and he'll be all right.

[BKSkinsFan]

I will never argue that these parents are morons. I'm a parent, I'd do whatever necessary to give my child the best chance possible if something horrible happened.

I just think it's a very fuzzy line we draw when we use government to enforce what we do to our own bodies. How do you force someone into a procedure they are refusing?

I dunno, I could be totally wrong on this, obviously it would be much easier if everyone had the same beliefs, but that isn't and has never been the case.

[Dan T.]

What if the parents aren't motivated by religion.

What if they just refuse to take him to the hospital because they are lazy or negligent or just dicks. They decide that just give their son some vitamins and vapor rub and he'll be all right.

Hey! NEVER underestimate the power of

[Dan T.]

I will never argue that these parents are morons. I'm a parent, I'd do whatever necessary to give my child the best chance possible if something horrible happened.

I just think it's a very fuzzy line we draw when we use government to enforce what we do to our own bodies. How do you force someone into a procedure they are refusing?

I dunno, I could be totally wrong on this, obviously it would be much easier if everyone had the same beliefs, but that isn't and has never been the case.

I agree that it's not a totally cut and dried issue in general, BK. But to me the facts of this case are so compelling because a child's life is clearly at stake, and he will needlessly die unless someone intervenes.

Because it is literally a matter of life and death, and the odds of survival using a common treatment vs. the great probability of death tip the scales in favor of intervention.

[Dan T.]

Double post. Sorry.

[Vicious]

90% is not 100%

5% is not 0%

Religion..... :hysterical:

[Henry]

I'd like to see a poll of the percentage of people who believe the courts SHOULD intervene that are pro choice.

These subjects are always rather touchy, but I always find it interesting as to how many turn out to be hypocritical when comparing different scenarios.

I'm pro-choice and I said this:

I think the parents are loons but I'm not sure they should be forced to get treatment for their son.

Do I get a cookie?

[BKSkinsFan]

I agree that it's not a totally cut and dried issue in general, BK. But to me the facts of this case are so compelling because a child's life is clearly at stake, and he will needlessly die unless someone intervenes.

Because it is literally a matter of life and death, and the odds of survival using a common treatment vs. the great probability of death tip the scales in favor of intervention.

The only thing that's really swaying my opinion at all is that the kid is the one refusing the treatment. If it were only the parents, I'd absolutely be on board of saying it's neglect and abuse to not give your child the best chance of survival and intervention is needed. It's as if we're saying that this kid's opinion doesn't matter, so he can't make his own decision.

[BKSkinsFan]

Do I get a cookie?

Eh, you said you're not sure, I think you only get a cookie crumb.

[Predicto]

The only thing that's really swaying my opinion at all is that the kid is the one refusing the treatment. If it were only the parents, I'd absolutely be on board of saying it's neglect and abuse to not give your child the best chance of survival and intervention is needed. It's as if we're saying that this kid's opinion doesn't matter, so he can't make his own decision.

We all assume that is what the kid wants, but the article only says that this is what "the family" wants. We also assume that this kid is of sound enough mind to make that decision.

I'm not sure about either of those "facts." At a minimum he should have to appear in court so a judge can make sure that this really is what he wants, and that his parents aren't lying about it.

Hell, maybe his parents never even told him the medical facts. Maybe they want to get rid of him because he is a burden. We just don't know. At least not from this article.

[JeffSchmeff]

The kid thinks he's a Native American medicine man.

The parents testified that their method of herbs and vitamins was 100% effective.

I wonder why they haven't marketed it and become gazillionaires.

[mbws]

The government should have nothing to do with religion at all, that is how this country was founded. I don't think you can place a death sentence on a your 13 year old kid for any reason...

What if these people are just sick? What if they just don't want their son anymore and they want to kill him? You are saying they should be allowed to?

(that is of course speculation, but this is ridiculous)

He was influeneced by his parents to believe that god will cure him...The child has no idea that really, he is --- going to die. He is going to believe his parents over anybody else. I don't think it is right that a 13 year old should have to die because of his parents' religion and him being so heavily influenced by it. You know what I mean?

Fixed that for you

[December90]

Religion..... :hysterical:

Ignorant post if you read the whole thread:doh:

If you don't want the first amendment to mean anything then get to work repealing it.

If you had the capacity to read you could see that I have already said that the parents are making a choice different than the one I would make, but they are the ones who have the right to choose the course of treatment for their child. It is not the role of the state to impose medical treatment on those who refuse it based on religious grounds.

Any other idiotic single word posts from you?

[BKSkinsFan]

http://www.startribune.com/local/45427417.html?elr=KArksi8D3PE7_8yc+D3aiUo8D3PE7_eyc+D3aiUeyc+D3aUUr

From reading the initial article it sounded like Daniel was heavily involved in making this decision, after reading this, I'm not so sure.

Had Daniel attended Tuesday's hearing, he would have heard his doctor testify that a chest X-ray taken Monday showed that his tumor has grown back to its original size before chemotherapy. A medical report filed with the court also noted a "significant worsening'' of the tumor since a March 13 X-ray.

He said he also tried to give Daniel more information about lymphoma, but that his mother and a woman accompanying them -- who identified herself to the doctor as California attorney Susan Daya -- left in a rush, saying they had "other places to go."

This sounds like they are keeping their child in the dark, and now fleeing the country to make certain he doesn't even receive a treatment program the father says they had agreed to. Wow.