Judge rules teen must get cancer treatments.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by tinytim, May 15, 2009.

  1. tinytim

    tinytim
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,520318,00.html

    OK.. what are your thoughts...

    Where do we draw the line?

    If the Gov. can do this in this case, what will prevent them from denying Jehovah Witnesses the right to NOT have their children get blood transfusions?...

    THEN...

    What will stop big Gov. from enforcing more provisions that will keep stripping away religious rights from any religion?

    Where is the line.

    Could it come down to one day, CPS coming in because we make our children go to church?
     
  2. BigBossman

    BigBossman
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2009
    Messages:
    1,008
    Likes Received:
    0
    Normally, I don't like the idea of the government telling people what they should & shouldn't do. However, I think this is a case where it needs to be done. From what I gather, I was listening to the Schnitt Show (a conservative radio talkshow) when I heard about this, his parents were into "alternative medicienes". They were also planning to buy vitamins hoping that would cure his tumor. The 13 year old kid was saying he didn't want any chemo treatments, but a 13 year old kid is hardly in any position to tell people what they want. The parents should take the initiative & make him take the treatements until the tumor is cured. Which, in his case, has a 90% success rate of curing with the treatments.

    This could lead to the government allowing doctor assisted suicide. I have to agree with the judge on this one.
     
  3. rbell

    rbell
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    on most cases, I'm pretty opinionated (duh).

    This is one of those cases that makes me glad I'm not a judge.

    Sheesh, this one's tough.

    I'd love, however, to yank a knot in the parents and say, "Quit being stupid. Let your kid be treated."
     
  4. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    IMO, this is one of those types of cases that will serve to once again 'prove' the legal adage that "Bad cases make for bad laws.". unfortunately.

    First we get bad 'case law' and rulings.

    Then, in reaction, we too often wind up with even worse 'statute law'. :tear:

    Ed
     
  5. Robert Snow

    Robert Snow
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2009
    Messages:
    4,466
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree completely, this one would be tough to rule on. However, off the top of my head, I would agree in forcing the treatment, since it is a minor.
     
  6. Gold Dragon

    Gold Dragon
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    3,837
    Likes Received:
    3
    Wow. This is definitely a difficult case for any medical ethicist. It will probably be in medical ethics texts for years to come.

    On the one hand you have the issues of consent and religious persecution.

    On the other hand you have a questionable leader of a cult-like group who has been charged with fraud for peddling alternative medications and a known high rate of survival with chemotherapy.

    Hodgkins's lymphoma is one of the few cancers that is highly successful with chemo. One of my childhood friends is in his 30s leading a successful business with no recurrance after having it in his late teens. Not having chemo is pretty much a death sentence.

    While their "religion" may encourge them to take alternative medication, is it actually against their religion to take chemotherapy? If not, then this is not a case of religious persecution but one of medical consent.

    The parents are clearly not acting in the child's best interest but is what they are doing the same as child abuse or neglect requiring child services to step in? Very tough choice. I think the case is definitely worthy of calling child services to report an incident. Whether that incident should have been acted upon is a different story.

    This case will likely go to a higher court.
     
    #6 Gold Dragon, May 18, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: May 18, 2009
  7. hillclimber1

    hillclimber1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2006
    Messages:
    2,447
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree with this... This is a natural stepping stone to further governmental interference in the family... We must allow the stupid to be stupid, for freedoms sake..
     
  8. historyb

    historyb
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2009
    Messages:
    407
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't like this at all.

    Good question

    Nothing

    Yep
     
  9. Marcia

    Marcia
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    0
    Many, many children have died as a result of religious groups and cults such as the JWs, Christian Scientists, and hundreds of others that have bizarre teachings about health and/or medical treatment.

    I think when a child is involved and his/her life is at stake, it is okay for a court to step in and order treatment. I sure would not want to explain to God why I let a child due so I could protect the religious freedom of a cult.
     
  10. Marcia

    Marcia
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    0
    There is a book that came out in '07 that addresses the topic of parents who deny their children medical treatment for religious reasons and the legal issues surrounding this. I haven't read it but it looks good.

    When Prayer Fails: Faith Healing, Children, and the Law by Shawn Francis Peters
    Remarks taken from publishers review on Amazon.
     
  11. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,240
    Likes Received:
    2
    Yup. I agree very much. Too bad we didn't have King Solomon, we could cut the kid in two, send one half to treatment, and the other half home with the folks.
     
  12. tinytim

    tinytim
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, it's a nationwide manhunt for the mom and teen.. and if caught, the teen will be forcibly made to undergo treatments...

    This really strikes home with me...
    My son, who some of you know, has been struggling with epilepsy.

    He is on medication that somewhat controls his seizures.. but he still has 1-2 a week.
    The last time we were in Cleveland Clinic, they suggested going to Detroit for a more intensive test, and possible surgery..

    Mind you, he had surgery in 2003.. and it didn't work... and he has said he will not have surgery again.. He has made this decision.. and he is 13. The risks are too high. NOW.. I can logically see the day, especially under Nationalized Healthcare, where he would be "forced" to undergo the prescribed treatment. But the way we have seen it, it is our son's body... why force him to do something he doesn't want to? Isn't this the same argument the Abortionists make (although it is different because it is NOT their body they are killing, but the baby's)

    Anyway, this worries me.
     
  13. Marcia

    Marcia
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    0
    The case of your son and this teen are different, Tim. In the case of the missing boy, it's a matter of life and death. No parent, imo, has the right to deny treatment that could save a child's life, unless the child is already dying or in the end stages of an illness, which is not the case here.
     
  14. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,273
    Likes Received:
    777
    They are not denying the boy treatment. They are denying Chemotherapy. But they were open to other treatments.
     
  15. historyb

    historyb
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2009
    Messages:
    407
    Likes Received:
    0
    Exactly, but they will make it seem that the parents are denying treatment. We can see from this that it will be a small step before we are hunted down for our faith
     
  16. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
    yes....it is a slippery slope.
     
  17. Marcia

    Marcia
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dubious alternative treatments, I believe.
    "The Hausers are Roman Catholic and also believe in the "do no harm" philosophy of the Nemenhah Band, a Missouri-based religious group that believes in natural healing methods advocated by some American Indians. Colleen Hauser testified earlier that she had been treating his cancer with herbal supplements, vitamins, ionized water and other natural alternatives."

    With this disease, chemotherapy is apparently effective. It's not that chemotherapy in this case is a last resort or that chances are low that it will work. The facts are that the boy's life could likely be saved with this treatment.

    So if the child will likely die without chemotherapy, and likely live if treatd this way, is it right to refuse it?

    What is more important? Protecting the choices of the parents or saving the child's life? I choose the latter. I'm pro-life.
     
  18. BigBossman

    BigBossman
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2009
    Messages:
    1,008
    Likes Received:
    0
    #18 BigBossman, May 20, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: May 20, 2009
  19. abcgrad94

    abcgrad94
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2007
    Messages:
    5,533
    Likes Received:
    0
    Since when should we give up our parenting rights and let a court decide how we rear our children? As a parent, I mess up daily. Shoot, I could drive while talking on my cell phone and endanger my child's life. I could forget to change the batteries in the smoke detector and my kids could die in a fire.

    These parents might be kooks, but it's their right to rear their child the way they see fit. This is NOT a case of abuse in my opinion. They are open to other forms of treatment, just not the chemo.

    Sorry, I don't plan to sacrifice my freedoms just because someone else makes a controversial decision in their parenting.
     
  20. Marcia

    Marcia
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    0
    They are not open to treatment that could save his life - that's the point. The treatments are New Age treatments that have no validity.

    These people are killing their child by not giving him the treatment that could save his life.

    This is not about raising a child but about saving his life. I repeat, chemotherapy and radiation are highly successful for what this boy has.



    The bottom line is: Do parents have the right todeny life-saving treatment to a child with a treatable disease? I say no, they do not. No one has that right.
     
    #20 Marcia, May 20, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: May 20, 2009

Share This Page

Loading...