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

The issue IS one of degree, and how we as a society with laws and people not able to look out for their own care draw lines.
Parents can make any decision they want until they appear to be threatening the life or safety of a child.

You can claim all the 'slippery slope' you want, but are you advocating that a parent has a right to kill their child if they see fit?
It is a parent's decision after all.

If they cannot kill them, are they free to allow them to die by inaction?
How much action are they required to take? Who decides?

Is religion a defense to inaction? Can a Christian Scientist allow a child to forego surgery for appendicitis? It is darn bear 100% curable with surgery, and fantastically lethal if allowed to rupture.

Jehovah’s Witnesses routinely run into trouble refusing transfusions for minor children in life threatening cases. They are the parents. Are they allowed to make all decisions for a child even if it results in death? They do loose in court on the issue, but should we just let the children die? Can we then charge the parents with neglect causing death?

Adults are free to make even stupid decisions and refuse treatment. They only have themselves to blame for the outcome, and are not likely to harm anyone else directly.

I am pretty darn conservative and generally want the government to but out.
In Virginia they seem to do a pretty good job of only dealing with cases that involve health and safety in as light a manor as possible.
Not all parents are good. Many do not have the best interest of the child in mind, through ignorance or design.
We have empowered the state to take steps in these cases to provide at least a limited ability to protect more vulnerable people.
If they get out of control we can take steps to rein them in.
But denying any power for the government to take steps to preserve life is a pretty big stretch.
 
"How much action are they required to take? Who decides?"


NOT you.

NOT a social services worker with a G.E.D..

NOT an idiot liberal judge.




If you have some more ideas, we'll be sure to entertain them.

I keep suggesting a jury. Nobody seems to like that idea.
 
"Jehovah’s Witnesses routinely run into trouble refusing transfusions for minor children in life threatening cases. They are the parents. Are they allowed to make all decisions for a child even if it results in death? They do loose in court on the issue, but should we just let the children die? Can we then charge the parents with neglect causing death?"


1. Blood transfusions don't do what people always thought they did. Once blood is stored in a freezer, it loses a vital chemical compound. There is also the possibility that the blood could be contaminated with AIDS or some other disease. It wasn't that long ago that the Red Cross had to throw away bags of tainted blood because the machine they used to test the blood was broke.

2. JW's usually don't lose in court on the issue because many doctors that have done research on blood transfusions, testify for them. If you PM me your address, I'll send you some video's on the subject of blood transfusions for free.
 
"I keep suggesting a jury. Nobody seems to like that idea."

If you want to move a case from Juvenile & Domestic relations into circuit coart you can have your wish.
Most folks do not want the publicity.

You really need to find out how the system operates before spouting off.
Any removal of a child must come before a judge very quickly for review.
He decides how the case will proceed.
Usually they offer J&DR court to preserve privacy.
Not everything needs to be done in open court.
Most of these cases are disposed of without criminal charges. It is a lot easier on the parents and the child.

I take it you think that every accusation of child abuse or endangerment should result in the filing of criminal charges and a trial in circuit court?

Sure glad you did not get to write the rules.
 
"Any removal of a child must come before a judge very quickly for review. He decides how the case will proceed."

Yes. I have a problem with one man playing God with respect to the destiny of a child. You place too much trust in judges.

"Most of these cases are disposed of without criminal charges."

Right, then you have nothing to fight, and you have no legal recourse when snatch-and-grab occurs.

"I take it you think that every accusation of child abuse or endangerment should result in the filing of criminal charges and a trial in circuit court?"

YES. How else can you possibly justify the taking of a child? How can you take a child away from his parents when they have DONE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG IN THE EYES OF THE LAW? If you can't convict someone of a C-R-I-M-E........then stop meddling in their lives.

You can truly tell me that you would rather one man decided the fate of your child rather than 12? What if he gets it wrong? What if he has a bad day? What if he doesn't like your haircut???

You probably don't understand the concept of original sin, but you quite obviously don't believe in it. You think that men are inherently pure, predisposed to do good, that men of position are infallible, and that the world is perfectible through government. None of the above are true.




And "court" is spelled with a U, not an A.
 
oh... wow...

>Any removal of a child must come before a judge very quickly for review.<

Nice theory. One of our BACA families has run into this: kids were taken because the house they were moving out of (they've been living at the mother's fiance's) didn't have electricity. Went to court the following week, where they found out that the guardian ad litem (sic) had been assigned the case at 10 o'clock that morning: case postponed (and kids still in foster care)...

>I take it you think that every accusation of child abuse or endangerment should result in the filing of criminal charges and a trial in circuit court?<

If there's evidence enough to warrant taking a child out of the home (suspending the parent's right to make decisions that affect the child), then my answer would be yes. I've seen WAY too many cases of "I know better than you how to raise your child"...
 
V4Vendetta said:
1. Blood transfusions don't do what people always thought they did. Once blood is stored in a freezer, it loses a vital chemical compound.
Click to expand...
What is it that blood transfusions don't do, and what is this "vital" chemical compound?

Most blood transfusions are done to replace lost blood volume and (some) oxygen carrying ability. They accomplish both of those things. There are a whole bunch of risks and complications that must be dealt with, but they're usually not as bad as the risk of dying due to blood loss.

The ideal would be some completely artificial liquid that's easy to keep sterile, carries oxygen, and doesn't cause undesirable effects in blood vessels. Apparently, that's not as easy and/or cheap to make as it sounds.
 
Jeez, the understanding of the legal and court system is pretty bad here.
Even in criminal cases you can be arrested on the word of a single person. Either a LEO or a formal complaint filed with a DA.
The DA will decide if action is warranted and seek an arrest warrant from a judge.
The police will then come looking for you.
You will be brought to a police station and face arraignment within X hours (controlled by law).
You may be granted bail, or held.
Notice a jury is not involved yet?
At arraignment a trial will be scheduled.
Only at this point will you be offered the option of a bench trial or a jury trial.

Do you realize that if your neoghbor gopes down and files a complaint and can persuade the DA it should be prosecuted you could end up in jail?
He accuss you of theft, swears a complaint, the DA takes it to a judge, and the next thing that happens is an arrest warrent is issued. Thepolice wil come to have a talk. If it is a minor offense you may be allowed to simply sign on the spot, otherwise down for booking, and maybe a stay courtesy of the state or county.
“YES. How else can you possibly justify the taking of a child? How can you take a child away from his parents when they have DONE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG IN THE EYES OF THE LAW? If you can't convict someone of a C-R-I-M-E........then stop meddling in their lives.”

So we need to wait for all of the above before removing the child?
Give us a break. You are assuming the state never has a case (a matter to be decided by a court). A child being neglected or abused could easily be dead under your model.

The J&DR court is very cognizant of what the repercussions are and tries to make sure they have a valid case before proceeding. The state has a defined burden of proof they must meet.

The most typical occurrence is that the state will attempt to negotiate some type of settlement before bringing criminal charges.
Counseling is common, supervision can be required by a third party (often a relative), or temporary custody to another family member.
If negotiations cannot reach an agreement with the parents then full criminal proceedings will move forward.

As for the level of workers in the state agency, many have a masters degree, all have college degrees. Virginia recognizes the serious impacts of disrupting a family over allegations that have not yet been proved in court.


“Nice theory. One of our BACA families has run into this: kids were taken because the house they were moving out of (they've been living at the mother's fiance's) didn't have electricity. Went to court the following week, where they found out that the guardian ad litem (sic) had been assigned the case at 10 o'clock that morning: case postponed (and kids still in foster care)...”

What is the rest of the story?
How did the matter even come to the attention of the state agency?
Someone has to make a call. The state is not running around watching anyone (despite what the tinfoil beanie crowd thinks).

And “guardian ad litem” is the correct phrase and spelling. Why the “sic”?
 
>The J&DR court is very cognizant of what the repercussions are and tries to make sure they have a valid case before proceeding. The state has a defined burden of proof they must meet<

Right... which is why there's a bit of a push in some states to enact penalties for social workers who overstep their bounds...

Don't misunderstand me here: social workers DO do good work, and are very necessary. However, in a fair number of circumstances, you have case workers that seem to operate under a god complex...

>What is the rest of the story?
How did the matter even come to the attention of the state agency?
Someone has to make a call. The state is not running around watching anyone (despite what the tinfoil beanie crowd thinks).<

The kids had gone back to the "old neighborhood" to play with some friends, bringing their dogs with 'em. Someone got their nose out of joint about the dogs, and called the police...

>And “guardian ad litem” is the correct phrase and spelling. Why the “sic”?<

Because i wasn't positive i was spelling it right...
 
"What is it that blood transfusions don't do, and what is this "vital" chemical compound? Most blood transfusions are done to replace lost blood volume and (some) oxygen carrying ability. They accomplish both of those things. There are a whole bunch of risks and complications that must be dealt with, but they're usually not as bad as the risk of dying due to blood loss. The ideal would be some completely artificial liquid that's easy to keep sterile, carries oxygen, and doesn't cause undesirable effects in blood vessels. Apparently, that's not as easy and/or cheap to make as it sounds."


It's been a while since I saw the tapes so I don't recall the exact compound. If you want me to send you the videos, I'll do it for free. I'll even pay for shipping. Most of the time the video is on interviewing doctors who are NOT JW's so don't think it's just a piece of religous propoganda. One of the video's has graphic scenes of surgery on it so I would reccomend caution on watching it with your kids however.
 
At the point when the line of reason is crossed. Use common sense.
Click to expand...
Your line of reason may not be the same as the next man's.

"Common sense" is typically neither.

It's been a while since I saw the tapes so I don't recall the exact compound. If you want me to send you the videos, I'll do it for free. I'll even pay for shipping. Most of the time the video is on interviewing doctors who are NOT JW's so don't think it's just a piece of religous propoganda. One of the video's has graphic scenes of surgery on it so I would reccomend caution on watching it with your kids however.
Click to expand...
If there's any basis to the ideas presented in this video then there will no doubt be some kind of information available online.

Can you give us the names of the videos? I'd be really interested to learn more.
 
Is that the same Watchtower from the Watchtower v. Stratton case where SCOTUS ruled that the state does not have the right to force JW's, et. al. to be licensed before they can knock on someone's door?
 
It is not blood used during surgery that typically becomes the issue.
There is as yet no substitute for the oxygen carrying component of blood.
While other fluids can be used to restore circulating volume, without platelets the patient can die anyway from lack of available oxygen to the brain, heart, and other organs.

Recovery of blood lost in surgery works fine if the patient has enough to get there.
Bring in a gunshot wound that has nearly bled out and there is no practical substitute for giving blood products to restore the oxygen carrying needs.

As an adult you are free to make any decision you want.
You are not free to make a decision that can compromise someone else’s life.
 
What is it that blood transfusions don't do, and what is this "vital" chemical compound?
Click to expand...
That sounds like somebody has been reading old info. There was a problem with preservation of clotting factors 'way back in the past but it was fixed years ago when they found you just have to separate and quick freeze the plasma. Fresh frozen plasma can then be transfused separately from packed cells.
 
Seems to me that V4 and V8 got their respective post-graduate degrees at the same university. I'll trust my own medical and legal advisors. :) And, yeah, I'd damn sure rather have a well-educated, trained judge decide important matters like a child's welfare than 12 laymen. The assertion that all judges are liberal is infantile.
 
Seems to me that V4 and V8 got their respective post-graduate degrees at the same university. I'll trust my own medical and legal advisors. And, yeah, I'd damn sure rather have a well-educated, trained judge decide important matters like a child's welfare than 12 laymen. The assertion that all judges are liberal is infantile.
Click to expand...

Education gained in the institutions of today does not equal knowledge. In fact, it most commonly equals indoctrination and a distinct lack of knowledge.

A judge is a lawyer with some popularity. How is he not a layman in medical or psychological matters...?

Most judges are socialists. Remember, many "conservatives" of today are farther left than communists were in the 1930s--particularly those who prefer that the government handle everything--like, for example...say, child welfare disputes...

Oh, and Redworm: it's called the reasonable person test, and is used to determine guilt or innocence in nearly every criminal case. Research it. It is based on...common sense, which was once common, is always sensible, and is still largely present in law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top