-
Website
http://www.americablog.com/ -
Original page
http://www.americablog.com/2009/05/who-do-you-side-with-parents-or-state.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
*********************************************
With all due respect, John...have you ever been face-to-face with someone in the final throes of cancer? I have...and let me tell you, in many cases, that's hardly a day at the beach either. Many cancer patients die relatively peacefully...but this is usually only because they're being heavily sedated around the clock towards the end, because otherwise they would be in agony. My grandmother was one of the strongest and toughest women I ever knew, something of a battleaxe to tell the truth -- and yet, a few days before she died from lung cancer, something suddenly went wrong with the delivery of her sedation and it was clear to everyone in the room within a very short period of time that she was in great pain. There's no question that radiation and chemotherapy are no joke -- but I think one of the reasons why some physicians might be inclined to deliver more than seems necessary is the fact that some types of cancer recur if they're not eradicated completely the first time around. That's why oncologists don't consider someone cured or cancer-free until five years have passed following treatment -- because they might not be.
Personally, I think that parents should have some right to decline medical treatment for a seriously ill child when it become clear that heroic measures would be necessary and/or that the chances of recovery are low -- however, this is not the case here. By refusing their child scientifically-proven medical treatment with such a high probability of success when the possibility of survival without treatment is reportedly almost nonexistent, these parents are in my own opinion staking their child's life on what amounts to a throw of the dice. What is more, the fact that these parents refused the cancer treatment in favor of faith healing leaves room for doubt that they will permit the child to be sedated if the child should become terminal and be in pain -- and if they would refuse, I would consider that to be child abuse since they would be knowingly permitting their child to suffer.
Prisons are full of people who claim God told them to kill people. They don't get a pass because of the voices in their heads. These parents shouldn't either.
This kid would have been treated. There would have been no reason to go to the judge otherwise. I'm saying I value a living child more than arbitrary pieces of paper and that this kid had that treatment available to him (meaning it owuld have been paid for) and his parents said no. I don't think parents should have the last word in that situation. I see you are turning personal so I'll end it with, we agree to disagree, friend.
Chemo drugs can do awful things to the body as they kill the cancer cells, BUT right now they provide the best chance of curing the cancer. If this kid has a chance to live, he needs to have the treatment, regardless of the parent's wishes. Isn't that what being pro life is all about?
If it were a case where chemo would just postpone the inevitable by a few months, then I'd say it's up to the parents to help him have the best possible quality of life for the short time he'd have left. In the case, they may be right to refuse chemo.
It sounds as if this kid has a chance to live. The state was right to intervene. Let's just pray that it's not too late for him.
Even though I think the kid should have a say, although as one other commentor says, he's been brainwashed by his parents/religious teachings, and his choice would be skewed. I think that the parents could be brought up on charges of abuse for not allowing the treatment.
Yes it is.
We the People, thru our governments both Fed & State, have a duty and responsibility to help those who cannot help themselves. This kid is one of those people.
He cannot make this choice, as he is torn between his crazy-assed parents and reality.
Treat his parents as what they are - retarded (in the medical sense) adults unable to make proper life/death choices for their children.
We can't save these adults from themselves, but as a society we have an obligation to help those who are unable to protect themselves.
As another commenter said, if their was little chance of survival, then let the family decide -- but if this child's life can be saved, the State MUST intervene.
It's what seperates humans from animals.
How about if they were beating him regularly because of their religious beliefs?
As a parent, I would not want my decisions, or my children, politicized. AND, this is a no-brainer. Treat the child. he is THIRTEEN. My god.
Please pardon my not so humble pronouncement, but in my opinion it is framing this and similar issues in terms of "rights of the parents or family versus coercive power of the state in serving a societal interest" rather than framing it as making a choice between science and superstition that leads to this sort of sad ridiculousness.
(I would say the child, but in our society, a minor isn't allowed to own anything, not even his/her own life.)
That's just stupid, and there's no other way to say it. Any of life that we get to experience is better than death, at which point we cease to experience anything.
That's also why I started to post in this discussion, based on John's sentence, "And cancer treatments can be awfully vicious." More vicious than everlasting death? Doubt it. A year or two of chemo and a long life vs. dead by 15. No choice.
A friend of mine is thought to be the first person ever cured of non-Hodgkins Lymphoma, which cropped up at about this boy's age. He had a relapse in college and to this day has periodic problems with adhesions in his intestines (from the radiation), but he's healthy, in great shape, and having a blast. And he's had 35 years that he wouldn't have had without the nasty treatments.
This kid needs to be saved from his parents.
And it's boring as hell....
It's been shown that areas of the brain necessary for truly critical thinking don't develop until late teens. Can we really expect a 13 year old boy to understand the benefits and risks of both scenarios and then weigh them properly?
Sure, we want to encourage children to make decisions because that's how they learn, but this isn't a decision between saving their allowance and buying that new cool game. If he makes a bad decision, there's no going back from this one.
I side with the state.
This is a slam dunk. The parents are religious and therefore, ipso facto, are crazy, as they believe in silliness, fairy tales, invisibility, infallibility, the value of cosmic begging and fear science and choose not to understand the wonders of the 21st century.
Why does believing in a set of superstitions give you special rights? I know that the Constitution says that the government can't curtail a person's rights based on their religion, but a kid has had religion imposed on them, right?
What if their religion said it's OK to beat the kid with a rod so as not to spoil him? Oh, right. . .
I realize how unpleasant chemo is. I've been there myself. But, it totally eradicated my tumors when I was sick with Hodgkin's Disease.
It just seems foolhardy at this point to choose "alternative medicines."
There is room certainly for alternative therapies and I am not saying that they are all ineffective, but certain diseases require agressive therapies to stop the progression of the disease. I do not know of any present phycopharmaceuticals that have these types of properties.
The parents are idiots. I'm glad the state is stepping in.
But HE decided. Not us.
That's easy for an adult to do, but when it comes to a child, the adult needs to make the decision. In this case, the parent is the one who has the right to make that decision. Right or wrong, it's their decision to make. Not the state's.
But then again, a potential 90% success rate? I guess I'd have to hear more details, such as 'did the family get a second or third opinion?'. It makes me wonder what I'll choose to do for myself when my time comes... I've watched more than one person die of cancer (colon cancer, lung cancer, etc....), and they all fight a valiant fight - but eventually they all die. Maybe I'd rather just bow out gracefully.
Let the kid decide. He'll probably get it wrong -- his parents will have had a huge warping effect on him -- but why is this a dispute between the state and the parents? Lay the options, odds, likely pain out for the kid ("Look. It's going to be really painful. It might not work. But if you don't do this -- no matter what your parents say -- you will certainly die.") and let him make the call.
If the values set forth in the Bill of Rights (and particularly the First Amendment) stand for anything they stand for the proposition that everyone has the right to decide their own conscience. I don't know why, when it comes to life and death decisions, we think that this doesn't apply to minors as well.
I would have no problem with the child having a say over the parents, but the government cannot speak for the child or make medical decisions requiring an affirmative act that are contrary to the parents' decisions.
Freedom has consequences. However unfavorable one may view the consequences of freedom in letting the parents decise in this case, the outcome is nowhere the absolute horror of an intrusive government beholden to big pharma dicating your medical decisions. Be a slave if you wish, but I want no part of it.
The state definitely has a right to step in when one persons actions endangers a child. I completely agree with you about adults all the way down to assisted suicide. You know how many crazy people are raising kids?
Think of that photo of the woman holding the gun to the back of her childs head in the shooting range that john posted a while back. There are tons of people who are bipolar, depressed, manic, etc and you do not give them carte blanche when it comes to a childs welfare.
Think about what you are saying a little more, because it just seems like you're focused on ron paul sytled freedom. Its evident that you are intelligent. This isn't about liberty though. It is about the lives of innocent children.
Like I said before liberty has consequences, which in this case include a child that has parents making a poor life impacting decision. These types of decisions are made by parents, some crazy and some not, every day without state intervention. Letting parents do their work, however poor, is natural. This is darwinism in a way. The alternative is allowing the state to intervene in these matters and that is a poor alternative and requires freedom to be tossed away.
Your example of locking a child in a closet is easy to distinguish. Locking a child in a closet for weeks is an affirmative act that amounts to abuse and the state an step in there. Here, the parents are refraining from acting and that is their choice.
Maybe you need to think about the ramifications and consequences of the world where the state can make a child's medical decisions that are contrary toby Pfizer. Imagine a corrupt bureaucrat telling parents that their child should take drug A made by drug company B or even drug test to detect that the correct drugs are being given at home.e dictate what an anithema slavery. This almost hapended in Texas when the Governor was going to require children to take the HPV innoculation by executive while at the same time receiving big $$$ from the vaccine's makers. Will parents be imprisoned for taking their children to other countries for alternative treatment against the wishes of government? The list of horribles could go on forever.
The simple point is parents are best equipped to make decisions for their kid not the state. I do not know where Ron Paul stands on this and I really do not give a shit. We have survived as a nation quite well with the government intruding into the home like this and I want to live in a country that respects its written guarantees of livberty enough to keep it that way. If you think the state can coddle and nurture society to nirvana go ahead. I just think freedom requires that the state must have a limited role, a very limited role, a role that does not invade into the home and trump parents raising their children and forcing drugs and treatments upon a child when the parents disagree.
"The simple point is parents are best equipped to make decisions for their kid not the state." My simple point is, there needs to be a big red button for someone to push for children like there is for adults (You can challenge power of attorney for adults in this situation) if something is going terribly wrong. We need failsafes and regulations. This same argument used towards capitalism is dangerous. There needs to be a right for someone to say hey, this needs to be reviewed because it is potentially dangerous. in my humble opinion at least.
i like that you are civil btw. thanks for that.
I have no illusions that parents always act in the best interests of their children, but I accept this fact knowing that the state is even worse in these matters on a whole. The state is hopelessly corrupt and misguided. You fool yourself if you think the state will always act in the child's best interests.
There is nothing experimental to his treatment, and it is very dangerous for people like you who don't know what the hell they are talking about to imply that there is. Maybe you should stick to opining about things you know a little about.
My beef with parents has nothing to do with their religious beliefs. They may be very sincere. I just believe that this kid deserves a chance to live. Since he is a minor, the state has no choice but to intervene.
You "believe" doctors don't know about cancer? Based on your super-special believiness powers? And let me guess, no actual study?
A 90% cure rate is a figure not pulled out of their arse but through research, yes, animal testing, and developing medicines. I choose that over the religious verson of just praying to an imaginary sky fairy to make things right.
You are also incorrect about doing research in alternative medicines. Phycopharmaceutials are constantly being tested for cancer curing properties as well as the treatment for certain diseases. I'm not sure where you are getting your disinformation or whether you just made it up, but this child needs the accepted appropriate therapy to cure his disease. A 90% success cure figure is much better odds than a 50/50 chance that the imaginary god will be listening at all. Sorry, but that is my reality and I trust that over "booga-booga" rantings, passing the decision of whether this child is to live or die off to an imaginary figure or just leaving it up to chance.
Your guessing is quite incorrect as well. I have a medical background (retired) and have first hand knowledge. Perhaps, if you actually did some reading you might locate the information you are sorely lacking on this subject.
The reason we test animals is so we make sure the drugs used on humans are the safest possible before dispensing them to humans. Every patient that tries an experimental therapy is given all the information needed about the drug, how it will be applied, and the expected results, side affects, etc. Generally, they will not know if they are receiving a placebo, or the actual medicine. These are never forced upon a patient and the patient can always stop a study when ever they want. After a period of time in a study and if the patient was receiving a placebo, they would be given the actual drug and check for changes in the patient, tumor size changes, and an host of other information gained from the study. Much is learned from these studies, but to call all human studies, dangerous and that they shouldn't be happening at all, is disengenuous. Why bring up vioxx to muddy the waters of this subject? It has nothing to do with this subject. I'm surprised you didn't bring up Thalidomite, the sedative that was found unfortunately too late for some, to bring harm to the fetus during the first trimester of its life? Do you condemn medicine in general because unintended circumstances can happen? Perhaps, if more testing upon animals was done with this drug, the deformities would not of occurred. I certainly do not know the answer to that but to suggest it is all "fake science" tells me more about your lack of knowledge in this area and that it is your opinion and not based on any sound knowledge.
Of coure nobody knows who can be saved in ANY life-threatening because unexpected situations arise, but what is important are chances of survival vs. risk of death. If you want to view that as being a guinea pig, that's your choice. I view it as a chance to LIVE.
Give the kid that chance. He may have the chance for a full, productive, happy life.
My only reservations have to do with how do you decide when our experts are right, and when it's a toss up? It's a case by case call, I guess. But this one doesn't even appear to be close.
If, for instance, you had a situation where the doctors gave the child a 40% chance of living past two years with no treatment at all, compared with just a 55% chance of doing so with a year of chemo, it would be understandable and reasonable for the parents to decline the chemo. A year of sickness and misery to raise the chance of two-year survival by only 15%? I'd let the parents decide in that situation, because they're honestly weighing the options given them by the doctors.
In this situation, though, you have a boy whose tumor responded positively to the chemo, the doctors give him a 90% chance of full recovery with chemo but 5% without, and the parents just say NO!! because of their "religious beliefs." They aren't being reasonable or weighing the options fairly, but wholly rejecting what the oncologists say because of the ancient wisdom handed down by a convicted fraudster in the 90s.
I don't care how miserable the chemo might be, if the difference according to the oncologist is from a 5% chance of surviving to a 90% chance, you go for it, and if you as the parent refuse, you're guilty of medical neglect.
Should a 50 year-old Jehovah's witness be forced to receive a transfusion against her wishes when it is clear she has a sincere belief that it would be a violation of religious beliefs that pre-dated the illness which the transfusion is intended to treat? No.
Should a 13 year-old kid get chemo for a highly-treatable cancer, against the wishes of his parents, who only upon their "religious convictions" while their child was ill and who are being advised by a 'spiritual leader' who advises for pay, and who has been convicted of fraud in two states?
Yes.
It needs to be taken out of their controlling hands and put into a competent oncologist physician's hands and issue the proper treatment. This is curable. Though, the parents are responsible for the boy's health and life, they are practicing their own religion upon him and limiting his options for life. If they want to deny medicine and treatment to their own lives, that's fine. This boy is not old enough to make an intelligent health decision and needs protection in his corner. If they want to trust their "own" health to imaginary sky gods, that's their own business. He needs to be able to make that same decision without their sentence of death, if he wants to live.
If an adult wishes to refuse treatment for a potential life threatening disease then fine. Go for it. But children need to be protected from idiots, even if those idiots are their parents.
The details of this case matter.
The child is home-schooled and at age 13 cannot read. He is incapable of making a sound decision about anything beyond his personal experience. Unless he has a cognitive issue, the fact that his parents allowed him to reach this age without learning to read demonstrates their incompetence as parents.
Can the judge issue a court order ordering the parents to take the child to treatment? And then if they violate the order, things can escalate from there? Has this already happened? I don't understand why CPS needs custody of this child in order for the child to get treatment.
"The judge allowed Daniel to stay with his parents, noting they love him and acted in good faith, but he gave them until Tuesday to get an updated chest X-ray and select an oncologist.
[...]
If chemotherapy is ordered and the family refuses, the judge said, Daniel will be placed in temporary custody."
In other words, the judge ordered exactly what you want.
I am not saying this to be a personal attack but you do appear to be phobic on the religious issue. I do not view this as a religeous issue at all. Just trying to do what is best for your child. Also, realize that the news report is biased towards conventional medicine.
Could you please point us to published, peer reviewed articles from respected medical journals that spell out these altenative treatments?
I am not interested in anecdotes or "oogum-boogum" doublespeak.
Name the treatment that has been successfully proven to cure this cancer at a higher rate than 90%.
You suggest that doctors play down the effects of chemo tx. which is incorrect. Patients are always told the risks of using certain medicines and what the effects of using them can be. Patients go into this treatment plan knowing what to expect and there are no surprises. The statistics are also given to them as to the prognosis and what to expect with that as well. Otherwise, there would be more law suits against physicians for not giving all the information available or misleading the patients. Yes, chemo tx is very hard on the body; it is killing the cancerous cells and the body doesn't get a pass on side effects that affect other cells and systems.
For this boy's therapy, and this certain type of cancer, it has a 90% success rate. What types of "much better" alternative therapy(s) would you suggest to treat this specific type of cancer? What are the success rates for the alternative therapies you would suggest? Are there any studies, e.g. blind, double-blind studies, that suggest that these therapies are better than the present conventional therapies used in allopathic treatments that you think are superior? I'm not mocking you, I am actually curious as to why these treatments are never mentioned. If there are any studies, kindly mention them so I may have a look at the data as well.
No one in their right mind could sit there and watch this situation unfold in real life, w/o trying to talk the parents into it, and then finally going to court. Not even this person you're arguing with.
I believe that someday in the not to distant future, the grasp that organized religions have on people will finally end. Then we can all be free to be spiritual or worship as we see fit in our own lives. The way it should be. Until then, let the loonies help loosen that grip in any wacky way they see fit. Its stories exactly like this one that will help bring about the end of "religioius" organizations dictating how they think we should live.
Intellectually "slippery slope" arguments seem disingenuous. However, in "life" and medical decision areas, human nature has proven that any form of busy-body intervention is dangerous. There are cases of court forced C-sections, of court forced maternal medication, of court forced end of life issues.
Hypothetical - 2 year old with cancer diagnosed with a 20% survival rate (confirmed by independent 2nd opinion). Child hates and has poor tolerance for the treatments. Can the parents ethically stop torturing their child in the remote hope of a cure? Will the Government hold that screaming child and comfort him in the night?
For some sane discussion (recognizing the tensions and the issues involved in a true debate) see here
But I'm not the parent. Or the kid. Or the family.
As a society, we should routinely provide the tools for every child to make a life for itself (education, health care, basic subsistence). But to intervene in family life - broadly defined - there should be REALLY desperate circumstances. The deliberate, educated, decision to forgo medical care without evidence of it being in the nature of an intent to punish or harm or kill the child is not desperate enough for me.
I really don't want forced infant creches - but wouldn't that be better for so many children who would get the nutrition and education they lack at home?
I think that local education with all of its pitfalls is better than a national plan - but wouldn't a national curriculum teaching to the (sophisticated) test be better for so many of our failing school systems?
You get the idea.
I'm for freedom - even the freedom to make a mistake. The issue here is whether it's my opinion that it's mistake or whether it is objectively a deliberate attack against the child. Here the evidence seems to indicate that it's a matter of my opinion. So parents win.
How do you identify whether an ill child might not get the care YOU think is proper? Just like for the pediatric ER cases like broken bones, bruises etc... there would need to be a cancer protocol that evaluated parental decisions against a standard of care. Then, if the parents didn't agree with the standard of care, the child would be removed and forcibly medicated. Hmmm. When you look at the reality of what you're suggesting, not so easy.
Having been a CASA (court appointed special advocate) and having read the whole uncensored file of at least 6 foster care cases - probably closer to 15 - I see a real need for community intervention in desperate cases. But, I also see how lame, impersonal intervention results in so much extra pain for the kids.
The problem is that anecdotes and the current peer reviewed studies (which all agree need more research) seem to confirm that the worst part of foster care is the lack of continuous intimate personal interaction - i.e. family life. Material lack, desperate economic circumstances, neglect, even medium serious physical abuse seems to be better tolerated by kids than abandonment or serial attachments. Removing kids with deadly illnesses to forcibly medicate them is not a good answer.
The teacher changed the subject and went on with class. Why didn't she answer? Because the person who raised her hand had only half a face - the other half was blank, grafted skin and scar tissue. It was obvious that she was talking about herself. And while the teacher had some great theories, they didn't stand up to reality...
As a society, we should routinely provide the tools for every child to make a life for itself....
That's right - you called a child an "IT". Based on this simple revelation of yourself, you invalidate every "intelligent" argument that you think you made and reveal yourself to be a fucking moron.
And then you state as part of your "professional qualifications" the following:
Having been a CASA (court appointed special advocate)....
Even the worst CASA in the world would never call a child an "IT"...other than you, obviously.
So STFU.
The word "itself" is "[t]he neuter reciprocal pronoun of It" and the second (of 12 definitions of it is "(used to represent a person or animal understood, previously mentioned, or about to be mentioned whose gender is unknown or disregarded)."
I believe all children should be provided the tools to enable themselves to make their own lives. This is a wholly encompassing statement that covers all children regardless of gender or gender identity.
They used to burn witches for providing herbal remedies when the church ran things. It's just as wrong now to insist that medicine is the only appropriate treatment for illness, when medicine can no more produce a guaranteed result than prayer can.
Time to get government out of our lives for good. Enough already. Its members have proven their fealty to big industry (including, here, big pharma) and not to the people of this country.
Fuck them. Do as you like and be done with it.
The question really boils down to "do we have the right, as a country and a civilization, to keep parents from killing their children?"
What is the basis for your statement? I have spent the last year investigating alternative treatments for cancer and have found a number that have much better results than chemo and radiation without destroying the immune system as chemo does.
Chemo and radiation IS a death sentence but just delayed with a poor quality of life while waiting for death. Alternative methods can actually reverse and cure cancer.
You talk about results. What results? What studies? Have they been replicated? I swear, some of you on this board don't have a clue what it takes to tell whether something is an effective treatment. But you've been investigating for a whole year, so you must have it nailed.
And no, chemo is not a death sentence. Ask the people who have been cured by it. I don't think you need to go further than this board.
If you looked at the government statistics on the success of chemo, radiation and surgery you would find a 2% success rate with a successful cure defined as the patient living an additional 5 years, It does not address actual elimination of the cancer or a return of cancer after the treatments.
Yes, some are treated ok by conventional medicine, 2%, and some of them attest to that here but the 98% who were not helped cannot post their results from the afterlife.
Chemo does damage and often destroys the immune system causing multiple problems for the chemo patient often for the rest of their lives. If you really want to dabate this I suggest you learn something obout it first.
He is projecting his problems with the FDA onto this individual child for the sake of argument. If he was there in real life, he would likely take the parents to court as well.
http://www.nemenhah.org/internal/due_dill.html
Headaches, yes. Bee stinks and sore muscles, yes, cancer, no.
Usual religious double-talk...
http://jonathanturley.org/2008/03/26/11-year-ol...
Personally, churches need to assume the responsibility for what they preach. Isn't it illegal to have poisonous snakes in church services these days?
And, didn't a pastor from some little church go to jail for beating the children in his church - spare the rod, spoil the child?
Maybe god will come to these preachers in a dream and tell them there has been a modification to the dogma if they are held responsible for what they spew while at the alter.
The siding with the kids thing. That's likely because you were, like me, a child who at a relatively young age (certainly by 13) was intellectually and developmentally able to make sophisticated choices for yourself and resented being told you were too young to do so. I used to HATE being told that I was too young to do X or to participate in Y event/discussion/plan. They were wrong.
But not about every decision and not for every kid. If the child were advocating for or expressing a desire for different treatments - THEN I'd be for the kid. (So, I support programs that provide a secure environment to allow children past the age of reason (roughly 8 years old) to tell what they want for themselves - like in divorce custody or other cases).
Actually, 22state, based on all of your writings here.....they were RIGHT.
And you weren't a "child" --- you were an "IT", as you defined above.
Apparently, either common usage of the English language is beyond you or you believe that achieving person-hood is dependent on gender.
The word "itself" is "[t]he neuter reciprocal pronoun of It" and the second (of 12 definitions of it is "(used to represent a person or animal understood, previously mentioned, or about to be mentioned whose gender is unknown or disregarded)."
I believe all children should be provided the tools to enable themselves to make their own lives. This is a wholly encompassing statement that covers all children regardless of gender or gender identity.
That reminds me of what happened when I asked my son if he understood what I'd just told him. He rolled his eyes and moaned: "DAD - I am FOUR!"
We ALL think we know it all at every age - we're only limited by lack of vocabulary below age two...
'Evolution in Action' as we used to say; help it along.
These parents are abandoning a known treatment which has already partially shrunk a tumor in the boy. To avoid further oncological treatment in lieu of some form of religiously mandated treatment unknown to cure cancer (since it's not practiced by a licensed scientist) is to sentence their son to death.
I'll put my faith in scientific modern medicine to a large degree; in religion, no way. Remember, most modern religions were formed (they themselves say) from a guy who was willing to kill his own son because he heard voices.
Although, I firmly believe that one reason I survived Hodgkins was that I had so many people and groups of people praying for me. I always felt a strong, positive energy force around me the whole time I was going through treatment. However, I was an adult, more than old enough and cognizant enough to make that decision for myself. Religious beliefs should not be forced on anyone, especially when they interfere with a child's well being.
Why hasn't anyone sent Bill Frist a videotape of this poor little guy?
We'd sure know what to do then, right?
Take Nadia Sulemen for example. She is a lovely parenting role model.
Sometimes parents just make wrong decisions, especially when the inject religion into every facet of life.
You have to feed a child to keep him or her healthy. Why shouldn't you give the same child medical care that could save his life?
Let's look at the facts:
-- He is 13, but CAN'T READ
-- He doesn't think that he is sick
-- He's been led to believe that chemo will kill him.
He can't read! Either he is mentally retarded or his parents have severely neglected his education. If he is retarded, I would think the article would have mentioned it. If he wasn't, then I think right there that the parents are guilty of severe neglect. Either way, though, the kid certainly isn't able to make informed decisions.
He doesn't think that he is sick! Even his parents know that he is. Why have they kept the truth from their child?
So, either he is incapable of making an informed decision, or his parents have actively prevented him from doing so. Why should the parents be allowed to keep making decisions for him? And what is wrong with making sure that the best known medical advice is being followed until the kid is able to make his own choices?
They home school -- you see, what they would learn in a govt. school is WICKED. (One of their favorite words.) Anyway, go and check them out. But take a barf bag with you.
http://www.fullquivermission.com/
I feel these freaks should be visited by Child Protective Services.
There's a discussion thread about a guy here in Ohio that's running for Senate as a Democrat on a platform based on killing gay people!!
http://www.fullquivermission.com/forum/viewtopi...
These people need to be stopped.
Bruce Murch, the founder of this freak show, still lives in his glory days, when he protested all the time, and finally received a judgment, ordering him to pay Planned Parenthood a large amount of money. As a result, he refuses to work, or his income would be garnished to pay PP.
But what really frosts me is that this freak has minor children! He can do whatever nutjob thing he wants, but his children shouldn't be dragged along (And, BTW, his wife got cancer, the family treated it with herbs and other methods used in Jesus's time, while refusing a needed operation. The wife finally had the operation, but Bruce will NOT admit the operation (and doctor) cured her. It was just the wife's fault the Jesus cure didn't work.)
And by the way, this affects all of us -- these weirdos do not believe in ANY vaccinations. (After all, Jesus didn't receive a polio shot.) At some point, they are going to bring back polio and other diseases to this country that were wiped out.
Man, are they ever "out there"...
(At least in our society, they do...)
The problem with the line you give "parents have the right to decide on the correct treatment" only applies if there are multiple correct treatments. What they have here is a treatment that works, and BS. The old line of "ignorance of the law is no excuse" can be restated here "ignorance of medicine and reality is not an excuse".
-----The judge wrote that Daniel has only a "rudimentary understanding at best of the risks and benefits of chemotherapy. ... he does not believe he is ill currently. The fact is that he is very ill currently."-----
He lacks the knowledge that he is even ill. No doubt about it, the state has to step in.
That said, they may be totally wonkers - but the evidence at hand doesn't support your statement. The question at hand wasn't "who wins - religion or the state?" The question was: "who wins - the parents or the state?"
In my view, in this case, the state.
But they cannot let said stories dictate whether a child lives or dies.
If it were, parents would have a right to kill their children -- after all, the kid is THEIRS, right? You might think this is hysteria, but denying the child life-saving medical treatment is just about the same.
Andrea Yates wasn't freed because she claimed God told her to kill her children. She was found guilty of criminal murder, later retried and found guilty by reason of insanity -- even in Texas.
These parents are no different. It is insane to kill someone because of the voices in your head, or in your minister's head. Maybe more so if it is your own child. This child is being condemned to death because his parents hear voices.
Take smoking, for example. Nobody's arguing to take a kid away if one of the parents smokes in the house, even though it is almost certainly detrimental to the kid's health. But if that parent was deliberately breathing smoke into the kid's face every day, then that is child abuse, and the parent must be told to stop or risk losing the kid.
The parent never has full rights over the life of the child, because the rights of the child must also be considered. If the parents are refusing a treatment for the kid that will almost certainly cure him, then the child's rights must be protected by the state period.
There will always be borderline cases, but the solution is never to take an absolutist position one way or another. We all have brains and reasoning abilities, and we need to be able to use them to decide such cases on their merits.
Simple. Because if a child lives with a parent that smokes, there is no evidence that the child has only a 5% chance of surviving the next few months, or years, versus a 90 to 95% chance of living.
The chemo might not be pleasant, but with it, Daniel has a 90 to 95% chance of living a full life. Without it, he will almost certainly die.
You might also look further into the scam that is the Nemenhah Band, of which this misguided child is a Medicine Man, and elder, (Forming his religious basis of denial of sound medicine).
You too can be a Nemenhah Medicine Man for the cost of $250 initially, and monthly donations as the Spirit guides you, (as taken from the Nemenhah Band website).
Well, duh, of COURSE they do -- it's their livlihood. Do you really expect them to say 'even tho this is what I do for a living, this is all bullshit'?????
The parents are taking this "suffer the children" too far and the state must step in and apply sanity to the parents insanity.
Then this same "religious" belief, which parents somehow have the right to impose on minor children, can be used to put a child's life at great risk of impending death - and the State has no business protecting that life.
Also if this child gets the treatment ordered by the court and dies is the state then charged with murder.
It is really a tough question and I don't envy the judge.
Failure to treat this child is tantamount to child abuse and grotesque negligence.
The western medicine I'm speaking of is a close-minded system dedicated to the chemical/pharmaceutical industry. It ignores the most powerful cure of all: the mind. From AIDS to cancer to sleep disorders, research is finally being conducted on methods of treatment that are alternatives to chemicals.
I don't agree that there is a "false dichotomy" here. A video of a cure in progress seems pretty objective to me.
My trust in western thought is not as strong as yours. I will continue to seek alternative modes of thought and approaches to problems such as cancer. Treatments are not either/or issues. The problem posed by the blog post is not a black and white issue either. As I said, I don't envy the judge.
Second, you define Western Medicine in the most negative terms. That's sort of stacking the deck, isn't it? Western medicine, to me is the one that developed protease inhibitors that saved countless of my friends, that developed the polio vaccine that probably saved my hide when I was a child, that developed penicillen which has saved millions and millions, and chemo therapy which has a 90% chance of saving this kid.
Third, it IS a false dichotomy. We should be open to all ideas, eastern, western, northern or southern. Trying to harness the mind is cool too. But ultimately nothing matters other than proof--real proof-- that any of it works.
The story would be different if the ratio between the chance of survival treated and untreated were a closer such that someone with reasonable judgement could choose either way. Then I would want the courts to choose to let the parents exercise their judgment.
I agree with your argument, but for a different reason; and I'd side with the state on this one. I think you have to look at the statistics and see that there's a 90% chance of surviving with the treatment and a 5% chance of surviving without it. The parents made their wrong decision and chose something where there child has less of a chance to survive.
The state is doing the right thing here.
People must assume the active-minded authority to know what is really going on, to make the best decisions for themselves and their dependent children.
Only they didn't, hence the question...
And not prosecutable...cause Jesus whispered in my ear!
Religion is truly out of control these days.
I have no earthly idea what the hell Jesus is thinking these days. Like - why does He always whisper into the ears of stupid people and why does He always tell stupid people to do stupid things???
Does Jesus have issues cause he was tortured and murdered?
Just askin.
It was just offered as an analogy for a similarly stupid situation that these parents are causing.
I gave my answer to the question early in this thread.
the state doesn't NEED dany justification - the government holds the absolute right of life and death over each person under its control - period.
Now, do I think that's right? No - but it is a fact. As for my opinion on forced medical treatment: it shouldn't happen unless not getting treatment puts others in danger. In this case, the parent's decision put the child in more danger than the state's decision. I'll have to go with the state on this one instance.
Freedom has consequences. However unfavorable one may view the consequences of freedom in letting the parents decide in this case, the outcome is nowhere the absolute horror of an intrusive government beholden to big pharma dicating your medical decisions. Be a slave if you wish, but I want no part of it.
"They were allegedly written upon plates of various metals, processed animal hides and paper velum. Allegedly, the records were archived in several locations in North and Central America anciently, with the only surviving copies of the histories of the Nemenhah being strictly guarded in the libraries at a non-disclosed location in Sanpete County, Utah. When the LDS church said they could not translate them another person eventually translated them into Spanish-related language. They were then translated into English and first published Nov. 11, 2004. (11/11)"
http://www.greaterthings.com/Records/Nemenhah/i...
These parents are deluded and should have done their homework on this thinly-veiled scam in which you can be "spiritually adopted" for $250 or whatever the "medicine man or woman" requests. Wonder how much they have lost on this? Wonder how much Philip R. Landis has made?
Isn't it special that "another person eventually translated them into Spanish-related language"? Sounds so much like the scammer Joseph Smith. The Mormons continue the scam.
Let the family make their own decisions.
BTW, Philp R. Landis, or "Chief Cloudpiler" of the "Nemenhah" is a MORMON and I believe that James Mooney is as well. Is it any wonder that they turned in all those "ancient" writings to the Mormon Church? Being a Mormon in the first place, I'm sure Landis was just "lying for the Native Americans." You can find all of this stuff online; Landis even wrote a piece on the My Obama site, claiming to be a Rethug who was thinking of switching parties. True Native Americans have dismissed these people as charlatans who co-opted real NA natural healing into their version of profit making.
There's also a piece from the StarTrib and at computernewbie.info/wheatdogg where Landis lamely tries to attack the allegations.
1. The parents should know best, in most cases, of how to properly care for their child.
2. If they don't know best, and the child dies, at least their tainted genes won't be perpetuated and this ridiculous little cult will die out.
And No. 1: Parents SHOULD know best? How about "Citizens SHOULD know not to rob banks? Should we just forget the law?