Court overrides teen-&-parent's decision to seek alternative cancer treatement.
- Thread starter Trip20
- Start date
guntotin_fool
New member
I have been around Kids cancer wards way way too much. I will say this. It has been my experience that the Doctors and Nurses involved in childrens cancer treatment are the unsung heros of the world.
They see diseases that are diabolical and evil and resilient and they fight and fight and win far more than they ever lose. When they lose, they lock them selves in closets and cry their hearts out. Every one I have met takes the battle with the disease very personal and not one I have met in many years has ever had the ego to say this is my Idea, I am going to win the Nobel for this, so i must keep this to myself. As soon as anything shows promise, it is talked about and spread about.
Yes, kids who fight cancer grow old way to fast, having to tell your sixth grade teacher sorry, "I will not be in class today as I have another funeral to go to" will do that to you. When your son or daughter has a memorial picture board in their bedroom with pictures of horribly sick kids they will never play with again on the wall it is easy for some to just say, "that's it. I am done."
As for the kid in this situation. I am not sure of all the details, the MSM loves to push the heroic kid angle, but it has been my experience too that the Medical Staff's rarely take such positions without serious reasons why.
If the kid is not into the treatment, it rarely works. Cancer is one of the diseases that seems to be able to beaten by willpower, maybe it is just to kill it you must nearly kill the child, and hope the cancer dies before the kid does. But in my experiences I have seen kids give up, or to some accept the inevitable and they just seem to slide away. I have seen some kids nearly ground down to nothing who just spit in the face of the disease and come back to win, Lance Armstrong is one, although not a kid, his will power seemed to simply drive himself to outlast the cancer.
His name has nothing to do with it. His parents could have named him Pixie Twinkle Dust and he deserves all the support he can get and his parents will love him more than you can imagine, but there comes times when A) the doctors know best, and B) the patient and the parents know best. The hard part is telling when it is Situation A or when it is Situation B
They see diseases that are diabolical and evil and resilient and they fight and fight and win far more than they ever lose. When they lose, they lock them selves in closets and cry their hearts out. Every one I have met takes the battle with the disease very personal and not one I have met in many years has ever had the ego to say this is my Idea, I am going to win the Nobel for this, so i must keep this to myself. As soon as anything shows promise, it is talked about and spread about.
Yes, kids who fight cancer grow old way to fast, having to tell your sixth grade teacher sorry, "I will not be in class today as I have another funeral to go to" will do that to you. When your son or daughter has a memorial picture board in their bedroom with pictures of horribly sick kids they will never play with again on the wall it is easy for some to just say, "that's it. I am done."
As for the kid in this situation. I am not sure of all the details, the MSM loves to push the heroic kid angle, but it has been my experience too that the Medical Staff's rarely take such positions without serious reasons why.
If the kid is not into the treatment, it rarely works. Cancer is one of the diseases that seems to be able to beaten by willpower, maybe it is just to kill it you must nearly kill the child, and hope the cancer dies before the kid does. But in my experiences I have seen kids give up, or to some accept the inevitable and they just seem to slide away. I have seen some kids nearly ground down to nothing who just spit in the face of the disease and come back to win, Lance Armstrong is one, although not a kid, his will power seemed to simply drive himself to outlast the cancer.
His name has nothing to do with it. His parents could have named him Pixie Twinkle Dust and he deserves all the support he can get and his parents will love him more than you can imagine, but there comes times when A) the doctors know best, and B) the patient and the parents know best. The hard part is telling when it is Situation A or when it is Situation B
MeekAndMild
New member
Probably not. Robin Warren and Barry Marshall were Australian.
Welcome to TFL.
Just curious, where did you come up with that?
"Do parents have the right to be so wrong that the kid dies? 'Cause that's what's gonna happen."
Different people have different experiences than you have had. The million dollar question is, do you want to put faith into your experiences that you want to make the choice for other people?
Different people have different experiences than you have had. The million dollar question is, do you want to put faith into your experiences that you want to make the choice for other people?
In 1982, two Australians found the bacterium helicobacter pylori in the stomach linings of ulcer victims. Because helicobacter pylori is a bacterium, some physicians—a minority to be sure—began prescribing antibiotics to treat stomach ulcers as an infectious disease. The National Institutes of Health did not recognize antibiotic therapy until 1994; the FDA approved the first antibiotic for use in treating stomach ulcers in 1996; and the Centers for Disease Control began publicizing the treatment in 1997. Today’s physicians accept as fact that most stomach ulcers are primarily caused by helicobacter pylori bacteria infection and not by stress. But, by the chronology of this discovery, if a physician in the late 1980s or early 1990s had treated ulcers with antibiotics, that treatment would have been ‘‘negligent’’ as the board in this case interprets that term because inappropriate use of antibiotics can be dangerous.
It seems I was a bit confused. I knew about the Australian doctors but I remembered reading about an American doctor being threatened for treating the ulcers with bismuth and antibiotics, I can't seem to find the reference now.
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:kjm0PAGjokEJ:west.thomson.com/store/relatedpdfdownload.aspx%3Ffile%3D127709_2005166_174751.pdf+H.+pylori+doctor+license+ulcers+cure+%22ama+%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=18
It seems I was a bit confused. I knew about the Australian doctors but I remembered reading about an American doctor being threatened for treating the ulcers with bismuth and antibiotics, I can't seem to find the reference now.
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:kjm0PAGjokEJ:west.thomson.com/store/relatedpdfdownload.aspx%3Ffile%3D127709_2005166_174751.pdf+H.+pylori+doctor+license+ulcers+cure+%22ama+%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=18
Who knows best has got nothing to do with it. Who has the right to decide is all that's important. And here's who has the right to decide:
1. The individual
2. (if the individual is a minor) The individual's parents and the individual
Remember: governments do not have rights. You do. Use them, and protect them from those who would claim to "know better" than you do how you and your family should live and die.
Marko Kloos
Inactive
Ding, ding...we have a winner.
Hunter Rose
New member
>Disciplining one's child--physically or otherwise--is not a crime, regardless of what some socialist state says.<
Not exactly. There comes a point where you cross the line from "discipline" to "abuse". Unfortunately, the social scientists have arbitrarily placed that line WAY over (which makes sense given the pendulum model: it used to be ANYTHING was ok as "discipline")...
Not exactly. There comes a point where you cross the line from "discipline" to "abuse". Unfortunately, the social scientists have arbitrarily placed that line WAY over (which makes sense given the pendulum model: it used to be ANYTHING was ok as "discipline")...
Phetro said:
I don't recall anyone stating disciplining is a crime. I must have missed it.
But, I'll ask you a question based on your statement: At what point does 'discipline' become battery and when is it OK for others to step in (be it a relative, friend, neighbor, the government...etc)?
That is the crux of the issue whether we're discussing healthcare, or discipline, or any other situation where parental rights should supercede the governments will to interfere.
But, there is a line, and when that line is crossed, someone must step in to protect the child's basic human rights. So far I've really only seen that line defined by people saying things such as "the government should never interfere".
At first I was going to disagree by asking if parents had the right to harm their children, but a careful reading of your statement would show that the second point addresses that.
There are numerous cases where the parents and child have disagreed on a course of treatment and the courts have intervened on the side of the child if they were mature enough to make an informed decision.
I have spent the last 15 or so years working in some capacity with children and families that are involved in the "system." While I certainly can't speak for all children everywhere, I have not worked with one that was removed for a small infraction. Almost all of them involved one of the parents having sex with the child or allowing one of their friends to have sex with them. I worked with a child who was "pimped" by her mother from age 5-9.
Sure, they can extend your miserable life for quite a while! As for actually curing ailments, however...
That's true too. But modern medicine is about the most corrupt thing on the planet. Now insurance companies and hospital administrators are running the show, along with "scientists" who give the public the results that support their agenda.
I'd rather die young and happy! A life spent on the desperate attempt to squeeze every last moment out of this existence is the life of a simpleton. meaning is what matters, not longevity.
At the point when the line of reason is crossed. Use common sense. Smacking your kid or giving him "the belt" (whew, some memories of the bad times I've had as a result of the bad things I've done...) might teach him a lesson--beating him with a frying pan is battery (actually aggravated battery, to be technical) and can cause serious and/or permanent damage, and should be stopped.
Sadly, I believe this point is lost on the many people who would gladly bicker about degree, trying to postpone the inevitable...when they have already conceded the principle. But so indoctrinated have they become as to be unable to even conceive of changing the principle back to its correct state.
This is the same sort of thing that started in 1934 when a bunch of idiots--American citizens, no less--let their government tell them, "It's only a tax stamp on machine guns...that's the government's job and authority, right? Sure...Second Amendment...yeah...but these are just machine guns! No one wants your hunting rifle!" And then they let their government trample the one right they had that would ensure the ability to defend the others from tyranny. And now...they accept the tyranny, and argue that it's necessary. And when the government offers them the ludicrously inadequate token of concealed carry--as if they should need permission for it--they are thankful.
"At the point when the line of reason is crossed. Use common sense. Smacking your kid or giving him "the belt" (whew, some memories of the bad times I've had as a result of the bad things I've done...) might teach him a lesson--beating him with a frying pan is battery (actually aggravated battery, to be technical) and can cause serious and/or permanent damage, and should be stopped."
Again, the problem is that no one has common sense. Common sense to today's social workers is smacking your kid on the butt.
You mentioned battery, a CRIME. As I have posted several times, instead of letting a judge use nonexistent "common sense," instead let a jury determine innocence or guilt with regard to charges of a crime.
Again, the problem is that no one has common sense. Common sense to today's social workers is smacking your kid on the butt.
You mentioned battery, a CRIME. As I have posted several times, instead of letting a judge use nonexistent "common sense," instead let a jury determine innocence or guilt with regard to charges of a crime.
"And now...they accept the tyranny, and argue that it's necessary. And when the government offers them the ludicrously inadequate token of concealed carry--as if they should need permission for it--they are thankful."
Two steps forward, one step back is always how Leviathan works. And the mindless who think they are fighting for their rights are content in their "VICTORY" when they "ACHIEVE" the one step back.
Bush says he can kidnap us off the streets and hold us indefinitely or simply murder us if he wants. So we complain, and eventually we get it so that Bush can kidnap us off the street but he EVENTUALLY has to charge us with a crime. Phew! We're safe. Our rights are protected. And nobody remembers just a couple years ago when nobody could kidnap you off the street.
Most people including me believe that the biggest threat to our rights. Maybe we're wrong. It would appear that OUR FICKLE MINDS are the biggest threat.
Two steps forward, one step back is always how Leviathan works. And the mindless who think they are fighting for their rights are content in their "VICTORY" when they "ACHIEVE" the one step back.
Bush says he can kidnap us off the streets and hold us indefinitely or simply murder us if he wants. So we complain, and eventually we get it so that Bush can kidnap us off the street but he EVENTUALLY has to charge us with a crime. Phew! We're safe. Our rights are protected. And nobody remembers just a couple years ago when nobody could kidnap you off the street.
Most people including me believe that the biggest threat to our rights. Maybe we're wrong. It would appear that OUR FICKLE MINDS are the biggest threat.
Just adding another aspect. My friend is a Jehovah's witness. (He doesn't do the door to door thing.) Under his religion, blood transfusions are verboten. He has a card in his wallet and one he taped to his drivers lisense making this perfectly clear. Now he is 22 and I have no problems with his religious beliefs. Now what if he was 16 and needed a bone marrow transplant. According to the Jehovah's witness teachings and rulings, such a thing is discouraged, but up the individual to determine.
What if he and his parents decided to refuse the transplant and lets gods will take it's course? The Jehovah's witness community has debated this continualy to determine what is OK and not OK according to their beliefs. It is not like they are rejecting all medical treatments. Would child services come and take that child and force the operation on him?
What if he and his parents decided to refuse the transplant and lets gods will take it's course? The Jehovah's witness community has debated this continualy to determine what is OK and not OK according to their beliefs. It is not like they are rejecting all medical treatments. Would child services come and take that child and force the operation on him?
You make an outstanding point I didn't think to make.
I want to see the cases where the government comes at someone and tells then they need to have the stem cells from aborted fetuses injected into them to save their lives.
It's very clear to ME that government has no right to tell anyone what to do with their own bodies when it results in a conflict with their religious beliefs. If government can do that, then you have no right to free exercise which, I have argued, is the most fundamental and important right as it deals with eternity.
Then, you ask, what about the people who just SAY they can't receive a treatment because of their religious beliefs when in reality they are athiests? Well, that's precisely the reason government shouldn't EVER get to make ANY decisions like this for ANYONE.
Here come some more posts from people about "society has the right" and "government should be able to."
I want to see the cases where the government comes at someone and tells then they need to have the stem cells from aborted fetuses injected into them to save their lives.
It's very clear to ME that government has no right to tell anyone what to do with their own bodies when it results in a conflict with their religious beliefs. If government can do that, then you have no right to free exercise which, I have argued, is the most fundamental and important right as it deals with eternity.
Then, you ask, what about the people who just SAY they can't receive a treatment because of their religious beliefs when in reality they are athiests? Well, that's precisely the reason government shouldn't EVER get to make ANY decisions like this for ANYONE.
Here come some more posts from people about "society has the right" and "government should be able to."
V4Vendetta
New member
Crosshair, that type of situation has happened before. Medical treatments are mostly left up to the individual. I'm not sure if a bone marrow transplant qualify's as a forbidden treatment so I'll do some research. Here's a link to the official Jehovah's witness site. www.jw-media.org . That link has info on that subject.
If he is a Witness though, he has to go in the door to door work at least some. It doesn't have to be every day or even every week but it is required at least some. It takes more than refusing blood transfusions to be a witness.
If he is a Witness though, he has to go in the door to door work at least some. It doesn't have to be every day or even every week but it is required at least some. It takes more than refusing blood transfusions to be a witness.
Phetro said:
I'm not trying to bicker -- I'm sorry if I gave you that impression. I'm bringing up different degrees for the specific purpose of addressing the "line of reason" and "common sense" point:
Phetro with bolding by Trip20 said:
That is the entire point of this thread: What is reasonable or common to one, is not to another.
It just doesn't work to argue any position from such a broad perspective based on ambiguous lines of reason and what you refer to as "common" sense. This topic isn't that simple.
You can throw out the trump card of it being our right -- and that's fine, well, and true. But there's plenty of discussion to have behind it.
You can call that bickering over degree and losing sight of the big picture, but that's not what it is at all.