Court overrides teen-&-parent's decision to seek alternative cancer treatement.

I watched the interview Hannity & Colmes had with the son, father, and lawyer.

Abraham tried chemo.

Abraham said in his interview on Hannity & Colmes (I'm paraphrasing), "I was so ill and miserable due to the treatment, I'd rather die than feel that way again."

This does not appear to be some harebrained family that does not believe in modern medicine, and in turn have brainwashed their poor little child. The boy has decided to repudiate chemo treatment, although they went the chemo route to begin with.

So other than an ostensible poor taste in names, can we lay off calling the parents "lowlifes" and questioning their right to be parents… unless you can qualify the statement? Otherwise it's just hot air.

Abraham is 16 yrs old. After watching his interview, I can say he seems very mature for his age, though that is probably a byproduct of going through such an awful ordeal at a young age. Abraham and family are ready to take on the judicial system to preserve what they feels is their right to choose Abraham's cancer treatment.

The question is should he even have to battle the court? As Abraham described, he was in the Judges chambers prior to the final ruling, describing his experience with chemo, and why he does not want the treatment ever again. Maybe he was not convincing enough. Maybe physical agony as a side effect is not enough of a reason to refuse treatment.

Twist the situation, as you must, so that irrelevant factors - such as hippy names - will not embezzle your attention from the real issue.
 
spacemanspiff said:
When you get a chance, research some of the court battles involving Jehovah's Witnesses and their refusal of blood transfusions. You'll see a lot more evidence of the government trying to step in and take control.
Click to expand...

It's funny you should mention this. While looking for decent articles prior to my original post, I came across numerous threads regarding Amish and Menonite (sp) stories of similar substance.
 
"Call whatever you like. It was on NBC news about 10 days ago."

A really reliable source of actual information dealing with legal proceedings.

Where in the hell do you think NBC got thoer information? The physician? He is not allowed to talk to anydbody.


"The rest of your post is truly idiotic. You think that since one person's rights are being violated, that it's just one case and doesn't affect the rest of us. So we shouldn't talk about it."

You are truly idiotic to assume that a single case will directly affect how everyone is treated. Virginia is very conservative in these types of things.
There is almost surely a hell of a lot more going on than NBC or the parents are discussing openly, let alone what the hell is reliably reported in the press.
Remember that state is bound to obey the confidentiality rules and not disclose details.
Chemo makes you sick. In some cases it also produces anything from a cure to long term remission.
Getting an injection hurts. Should you never get any cause it hurts?
Juveniles are not empowered to make life or death decisions.
Parents who do not provide adequate care are subject to loosing control over their minor children.
Maybe you think Virginia should stand back and watch parents beat children within an inch of their lives under the guise of 'parental rights' or 'religious beliefs'.
Damn straight the Jehovah’s Witness' routinely loose in court, along with the Christian Scientists.
There is a line that tries to define the care parents must provide for their children.
Maybe you think it should be abolished?
Them you can beat the kids whenever you want and abuse them in the name of 'character building'. What’s a few broken arms, they do heal eventually.
Shaken baby deaths? The parents had the right to discipline an unruly child.

The bar to override parental control in Virginia is very high.
Step over the line and the state acts.
If you do not like it there are numerous other states you can live in.
Try Washington, DC. Until the child is dead they rarely seem to take any action until a body is found.
 
brickeyee, it is quite clear that you believe neither in natural rights nor even a semblance of a free society. you would much rather live under the state's thumb, with some central planner or social services worker deciding the outcome of your life.

it makes me sick. you should run for president.
 
OK i personaly think that the goverment shouldnt have the right to intervine in to private citivens lives, until they are infringing on soem one elses rights.

And
"Anybody who'd name a child "Starchild" doesn't deserve the right to parent, in my humble opinion."
What if they named their child "blanket" should they have that right? :p

Sorry I could resist a MJ joke.
 
This morning's Richmond Times-Dispatch, top of page B1:

"Judge lifts orders in teen's case"

I hate the Times-Disgrace's site because it's slow and poorly laid out.

"...does not have to report to hospital; trial set next month to settle dispute"
 
Good grief, guys, the "Starchild" reference was largely tongue-in-cheek. I was feebly trying to make the point that there are unfit parents out there...you know, parents who would let a child make decisions for which the child isn't equipped to make. I'd actually prefer "Blanket" to "Starchild", btw.

The responsibility of the court is to do what the court thinks is in the best interest of the child. The "Court", of course, is just a human being, susceptible to mistakes. However, the societal presumption is that there are cases where that particular human being is in a better position to make decisions in a child's best interest than are SOME parents.

It's really easy to jump on the "screw the government" theme of threads like this. However, thinking just a tad deeper might lead to more rational conclusions...sometimes.
 
I watched the interview Hannity & Colmes had with the son, father, and lawyer.

Abraham tried chemo.

Abraham said in his interview on Hannity & Colmes (I'm paraphrasing), "I was so ill and miserable due to the treatment, I'd rather die than feel that way again."
Click to expand...

I have an aunt who went through a long bout with cancer and plenty of chemo. She survived but will never do it again. When just a year after having been "cured" they saw what they believed was new cancer growth she stated flat out she would NOT go through chemo again. She was in agony for almost a year thanks to the chemo and has actually stated she would not have done it the first time if she knew how bad it would be. Luckily the new growth turned out to be benign but she has not changed her attitude to chemo for her. She is a well educated, albiet liberal, person and I see nothing irrational about her decision.
 
"The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact." Justice Robert H. Jackson in dissenting from Terminiello v. Chicago.


These types of cases make for nasty court battles since they do involve the very basic freedoms we have.
The press routinely cannot obtain details from both sides to allow any rational judgment to be made based on their reports. The information they do obtain is often erroneous and has been muddied by the multiple layers of poorly informed people it passes through in coming to their attention.

So far we have not seen any explanation of how the case even came to the child welfare agencies attention. What caused them to become involved in the first place? Oh, that’s right… they are not allowed to discuss anything with the public to preserve whatever shreds of privacy remain in this case.

The Virginia attorney general stepped up and supported conducting a full circuit court hearing. This is actually the most likely way to ensure a fair airing of both the parent’s, child’s, and states argument as to the facts of the case.
It is very well established the state does have limited protective rights over minor children. Denying medical care has been repeatedly found to be a violation of the child’s rights. The law further recognizes that minors do not have the same legal standing as adults. They generally cannot make contract or convey real property. Limiting their ability to make decisions that can result in death is not a large a very large step.
Not all parents have the child’s best interests clearly in view.
A decision will be made based on balancing the competing interests of the parents and the state to ensure that a minor is indeed making clearly informed decisions and that they are not being driven by parents taking a shortsighted view.

I am sure at the hearing both sides will bring out experts offering a variety of opinions.
The odds of survival in similar cases will be discussed, and at least one expert will point out that group statistics do not indicate how any single person will respond to treatment of any particular type.
I am far more likely to value the decision of an independent judge of fact than half baked screaming based on incomplete information conveyed by the press.
 
"It is very well established the state does have limited protective rights over minor children."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but did you just say that the state owns children?
 
Ausserordeutlich said:
The responsibility of the court is to do what the court thinks is in the best interest of the child. The "Court", of course, is just a human being, susceptible to mistakes. However, the societal presumption is that there are cases where that particular human being is in a better position to make decisions in a child's best interest than are SOME parents.
Click to expand...

And this is the issue. Thank you for helping get this back on topic.

Where do you (all of you) believe the line may respectfully be drawn between freedom of the individual/family, and the "responsibility of the court" or responsibility of society.

Ausserordeutlich said:
It's really easy to jump on the "screw the government" theme of threads like this.
Click to expand...

This is true, and I hope that's not what happens here. I think all rational persons can agree there are instances where society must intervene.

I'm interested in finding out how you all might define the criteria which identifies those instances where society (by way of courts/government) can step in with out it being a violation of the individual/family.

Does anyone know if a definition similar in nature? Possibily found in current law?
 
v8fbird -- that's not at all what he's saying.

He's stating that there is substantial case law that shows the state -- acting in what is the apparent best interest of the minor child -- has the right to intervene on the childs behalf.

At least that's how I take the comment.
 
brickeyee said:
So far we have not seen any explanation of how the case even came to the child welfare agencies attention. What caused them to become involved in the first place? Oh, that’s right… they are not allowed to discuss anything with the public to preserve whatever shreds of privacy remain in this case.
Click to expand...

I can tell you two things about this.

#1- This is what CNN reported:


#2- Abraham, his father, and lawyer basically stated the same in their interview on Hannity & Colmes.

Apparently, Abraham et al believe the doctor reported to the social worker, who then took it to the courts.

Of course no one knows exactly how it reached social services. But it's irrelevant. Could have been a doctor. Could have been a relative. Could have been someone sitting near them at McDonalds while the family discussed the issue over lunch.
 
"He's stating that there is substantial case law that shows the state -- acting in what is the apparent best interest of the minor child -- has the right to intervene on the childs behalf."

I've said it like 4 times. If no CRIMINAL charges are filed against a parent, and some state employee just DECIDES that he doesn't like the parents, child, or decisions they made and thinks the state can simply "step in," then there are no such thing as parental rights. You only have parental rights so long as the state grants them to you. And something granted by the state is not a right, it is a privilege. How does that not make sense? "I give you the right to life until I decide to shoot you. Do you feel free now?"

I don't see any talk of a jury trial here, even in these people's upcoming court battle. All I've heard about is some nitwit judge getting to "make a decision" while playing with himself under his robe.

The family is the most basic institution in American society. If the authority of a judge (appointed and not elected), without a trial, can superceed the family, then that institution has been destroyed.
 
v8fbird said:
I've said it like 4 times. If no CRIMINAL charges are filed against a parent, and some state employee just DECIDES that he doesn't like the parents, child, or decisions they made and thinks the state can simply "step in," then there are no such thing as parental rights.
Click to expand...

v8fbird, you should to take a deep breath. I was only attempting to disuade you from twisting brickeyee's comment into another strawman.

First of all, unless "some state employee" decides to "step in", how can an investigation ensue to discover the reason (or lack thereof) to file criminal charges?

There are plenty of parents who do not deserve the ability to make babies. Society has set up a system to deal with this problem.

The system can be abused by those in a position to report negligent or otherwise inappropriate parental activity. It can also be abused by those in a position to make final decisions on the issue. The system is not perfect as it involves human interference.

Essentially all of us are in a position to, and have a moral obligation to report inappropriate activity. This includes you. It also includes doctors, social workers, your neighbors, nosey people at the supermarket...etc.

If you don't agree with the system in place, put forth your way of doing things while still protecting those children who actually need the state's actions to improve their lives, or even save their lives.

Keep in mind the same system protects that little girl who's father molests her after bath time each night, as well as Starchild who refuses chemo treatment.

You can trumpet about parental rights all you like. You can even say it "like 4 times". But the fact remains that the state does do a lot of good in keeping children safe, even if it's not a perfect system.

I will say that we need to keep the system in check so it is not abused.

Ideas on improving the system? I welcome the discussion.

Ideas on a completely new & improved system? I welcome the discussion.
 
I agree that unless a CRIMINAL court finds a parent acting in a criminal manner with respect to the child the State should have no part in the decisions made regarding that child.

If the parent is so wrong and dangerous let a jury of their peers decide it.
 
"the state does do a lot of good in keeping children safe, even if it's not a perfect system."

The Nazi state did a lot of good in bringing Germany out of a depression. The Communist state did a lot of good for Russia. I might point out that those states also killed over 50 million people and nearly destroyed their respective countries in the end. But to that you would reply "but states do alot of good, too!" Only when you begin to question the state as everything good in the world can you have a reasonable discussion about why it always ends up doing more harm than it does good.




"There are plenty of parents who do not deserve the ability to make babies."

Who are these people? The ugly ones? The stupid ones? The poor ones? The ones that YOU think MIGHT beat their children if allowed to have them? Should we have a panel of government officials decide in each case before a couple is allowed to have children? Should people be "fixed" if they don't pass your test?

You think I'm being outrageous? It's the quite logical conclusion to your statement. There is no other way to PREVENT "unworthy" parents from having children.






You "welcome discussion" ONLY within your ideals of the tyrannical state as the ultimate bringer of good. Orwell is spinning in his grave. I am cringing.

I refuse to participate any longer in a discussion that is limited to "love Leviathan, or get lost." If you want to talk about ways to create a just society WITHOUT jackbooted thugs watching us grocery shop with our kids, let me know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top