Denying medical treatment

#28
#28
allvol123 said:
So it looks like most disagree with the court order.
Click to expand...

I generally disagree with the gov't telling us how to raise our children, but when we are talking about physical safety that is a different matter. for instance what if their religious beliefs were that the kid had to be beaten every day?
 
#29
#29
droski said:
I generally disagree with the gov't telling us how to raise our children, but when we are talking about physical safety that is a different matter. for instance what if their religious beliefs were that the kid had to be beaten every day?
Click to expand...

thats a direct child endanerment,
 
#30
#30
droski said:
I generally disagree with the gov't telling us how to raise our children, but when we are talking about physical safety that is a different matter. for instance what if their religious beliefs were that the kid had to be beaten every day?
Click to expand...

I've struggled with this one, and frankly it is hard to have it both ways. There has to be some reason applied to individual situations.

The fact is that the government tells us what to do with our kids every day...from immunizations to the strict policies on primary education. The lack of parental freedom is really astonishing when you think about it.
 
#31
#31
droski said:
I generally disagree with the gov't telling us how to raise our children, but when we are talking about physical safety that is a different matter. for instance what if their religious beliefs were that the kid had to be beaten every day?
Click to expand...

So, we going to accept the government taking over parenting of obese kids?
 
#32
#32
I believe that the dad is not part of this. He was trying to plead with the mom to let the son have the chemo.
 
#41
#41
GASOUTHERNVOL said:
that treatment is not a gurantee, if it does not cure the cancer it will make the child completely miserable, worse then any beating a parent can give a kid
Click to expand...

Actually, at this stage it is about a 95% gurantee in this kid's case.

Survival

Hodgkin lymphoma is now considered to be one of the most curable forms of cancer. Many patients with Hodgkin lymphoma are cured after initial treatment. For the smaller number of patients who may have a recurrence of the disease or a relapse, re-treatment with chemotherapy is often successful.

The five-year relative survival rate for patients with Hodgkin lymphoma has increased dramatically from 40 percent in whites from 1960-1963 to more than 86 percent for all races in 1996-2004.* Five-year relative survival rates are 91.6 percent for all patients who were less than 45 years old at diagnosis.
In the United States in 2008, there are 143,814 people living with Hodgkin lymphoma (active disease or in remission) and 430,711 people living with NHL, for a total of 574,525 people in the U.S. population who are living with lymphoma.


Survival for Children

Five-year relative survival is 95.3 percent for Hodgkin lymphoma in people under 20. Five-year relative survival is 95.9 percent for Hodgkin lymphoma in children 0 to 14.
 
#42
#42
We are clearly standing in the way of Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest ("Smartest" in this case).
 
#43
#43
droski said:
how many obese kids are in immediate physical danger because of their weight?
Click to expand...

You honestly believe all courts exercise constraint and reason?

Also, obesity is a huge problem for a child. It will most likely lead to a life of physical problems and lead to an earlier death. Get the drift?

What is "immediate" and why does it matter?
 
#44
#44
wbailey7 said:
Actually, at this stage it is about a 95% gurantee in this kid's case.

Survival

Hodgkin lymphoma is now considered to be one of the most curable forms of cancer. Many patients with Hodgkin lymphoma are cured after initial treatment. For the smaller number of patients who may have a recurrence of the disease or a relapse, re-treatment with chemotherapy is often successful.

The five-year relative survival rate for patients with Hodgkin lymphoma has increased dramatically from 40 percent in whites from 1960-1963 to more than 86 percent for all races in 1996-2004.* Five-year relative survival rates are 91.6 percent for all patients who were less than 45 years old at diagnosis.
In the United States in 2008, there are 143,814 people living with Hodgkin lymphoma (active disease or in remission) and 430,711 people living with NHL, for a total of 574,525 people in the U.S. population who are living with lymphoma.


Survival for Children

Five-year relative survival is 95.3 percent for Hodgkin lymphoma in people under 20. Five-year relative survival is 95.9 percent for Hodgkin lymphoma in children 0 to 14.
Click to expand...


ill admit im playing devil's advocate a bit. Theres no doubt that the parents are idiots, and from the way it sounds the kid doesnt fall too far from the tree, however at what point does the government need to step in is the real question at hand, i think this may turn into another terry shivo case
 
#47
#47
GASOUTHERNVOL said:
ill admit im playing devil's advocate a bit. Theres no doubt that the parents are idiots, and from the way it sounds the kid doesnt fall too far from the tree, however at what point does the government need to step in is the real question at hand, i think this may turn into another terry shivo case
Click to expand...

Well the kid does have a learning disability and he can't read, so that's why I'm leaning towards agreement with the court. He cannot make an informed decision (in the court's mind). I'm still conflicted, though. This is one of those things that just plain sucks.
 
#48
#48
I understand that children have to be protected in many situations because they are to inexperienced or naive to understand cause and effect and consequences in general. It is a fine line but lets be honest here, what kid at his age doesn't understand the concept of death?
 
#49
#49
allvol123 said:
You honestly believe all courts exercise constraint and reason?

Also, obesity is a huge problem for a child. It will most likely lead to a life of physical problems and lead to an earlier death. Get the drift?

What is "immediate" and why does it matter?
Click to expand...

no i don't believe all courts exercise constraint and reason. i also don't think the slippery slope argument should basically allow parents to do whatever dumbass things they want with their kids.

there is a HUGE diference between "most likely" and will definetly. i very much doubt we'd be having this debate if this cancer may or may not kill the kid 20 years from now.

an immediate threat is what our laws are based on. you can't arrest someone who is thinking, one day, about killing someone. you can arrest someone who has put the plans into motion.
 
#50
#50
wbailey7 said:
Well the kid does have a learning disability and he can't read, so that's why I'm leaning towards agreement with the court. He cannot make an informed decision (in the court's mind). I'm still conflicted, though. This is one of those things that just plain sucks.
Click to expand...

I did not know this. I would certainly have had the kid evaluated by a specialist in mental disorders and deficiencies. If they came to the conclusion that he was easily manipulated due to a disorder or could not make this decision for himself it would totally change my mind and the idea of a court deciding the course of treatment would sound much better to me.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top