Page 21 of 43 FirstFirst ... 11192021222331 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 210 of 430

Thread: APNewsBreak: Girl says she knows she'll die without chemo

  1. #201
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,024

    Re: APNewsBreak: Girl says she knows she'll die without chemo

    Quote Originally Posted by tres borrachos View Post
    It had to do with what I was saying. I've been asking what happened to "her body, her choice". Abortion is a medical procedure she is granted the choice to make. She should be granted the same right in this case. Just like nobody can force her to carry a pregnancy to term, nobody should be able to force her to inject chemo into her body.
    This thread has nothing to do with abortion though. This thread has to do with consent. As it stands, Connecticut abortion laws and consent in regards to those, has nothing to do with whether the minor can deny/consent to other medical treatments. As a matter of fact, Connecticut makes it clear that it's pretty much case by case issue when it comes to medical procedures. In some, consent from the minor is required. In others, the state doesn't even need that.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  2. #202
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: APNewsBreak: Girl says she knows she'll die without chemo

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Depriving them of food. No specific food groups in question, just food in general. Go.
    Yes I would consider that neglect, depending on the child and their health, it may or may not be required to remove them from the home.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    I think you're actually ignoring the fact that these acts must be taken towards the child and a history of abuse must be demonstrated, not just the fact that the parent drops the F bomb around the child every now and then.
    Not in my state. My buddy's little girl broke her arm after falling backwards over the dog. DYFS interviewed him and his wife and required two months of no notice check ins. This was their first child and neither of them have a criminal record nor a history of child abuse / sexual abuse.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    So then when the parent fails to ensure the welfare of that child through their actions, should there be no penalty? I mean, after all, they had "a right" to do so.
    Last I checked chemo wasn't part of the new food pyramid, nor constitutes as shelter or clothing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    So for example: a parent who takes 5 years to starve their child to death, should the state not step in because there is "immediate death" involved?
    Presumably, during the last months of that year, there would be an opportunity for immediate death given your scenario.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Why is "immediacy" an issue when reality is that refusing the treatment guarantees she will die?
    Because the state is not the parent/guardian of the child. If the child is 17 and will be 18 in a few months which makes them a legal adult and the parent agrees with no treatment and the child agrees to no treatment - yes if she dies then it's their choice.
    I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on whats being proposed here, hed agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute. - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  3. #203
    Kinky
    tres borrachos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    39,100

    Re: APNewsBreak: Girl says she knows she'll die without chemo

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    This thread has nothing to do with abortion though. This thread has to do with consent. As it stands, Connecticut abortion laws and consent in regards to those, has nothing to do with whether the minor can deny/consent to other medical treatments. As a matter of fact, Connecticut makes it clear that it's pretty much case by case issue when it comes to medical procedures. In some, consent from the minor is required. In others, the state doesn't even need that.
    The thread has to do with her body. The state doesn't get to pick and choose when it's her body to make decisions on, and when it isn't.

    If you don't see the hypocrisy, I can't help you. I see it, and I know I'm not alone.
    Horse sense is the thing a horse has which keeps it from betting on people. ~W.C. Fields

  4. #204
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,024

    Re: APNewsBreak: Girl says she knows she'll die without chemo

    Quote Originally Posted by tres borrachos View Post
    The thread has to do with her body. The state doesn't get to pick and choose when it's her body to make decisions on, and when it isn't.
    Considering Connecticut state law, it actually does. Why do you have a problem with Connecticut state law? Do you live there or something?
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  5. #205
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,751

    Re: APNewsBreak: Girl says she knows she'll die without chemo

    Quote Originally Posted by tres borrachos View Post
    And your post was in response to my post to Minnie about abortion. What is it you didn't understand? I wasn't talking about her legal right to sign a contract or buy a house. I was taking about abortion. So what are you confused about that you need me to clarify for you?
    It's not worth the effort. I've made my points elsewhere.

  6. #206
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: APNewsBreak: Girl says she knows she'll die without chemo

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Considering Connecticut state law, it actually does. Why do you have a problem with Connecticut state law? Do you live there or something?
    So it seems "my body my choice" only applies when it can be a political football issue. Otherwise, women don't get a choice.
    I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on whats being proposed here, hed agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute. - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  7. #207
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: APNewsBreak: Girl says she knows she'll die without chemo

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    This thread is very much about treatments for fatal illnesses.

    You are saying parents should be allowed to let their child die.
    If they both agree they don't want the treatments - yes.
    I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on whats being proposed here, hed agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute. - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  8. #208
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,024

    Re: APNewsBreak: Girl says she knows she'll die without chemo

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    Yes I would consider that neglect, depending on the child and their health, it may or may not be required to remove them from the home.
    So depriving the child food, can be interpreted as being in that child's best interest?

    Not in my state. My buddy's little girl broke her arm after falling backwards over the dog. DYFS interviewed him and his wife and required two months of no notice check ins. This was their first child and neither of them have a criminal record nor a history of child abuse / sexual abuse.
    So what you're saying is that if someone at DYFS heard the parent drop the F bomb, that'd be enough to remove the child from the parent's custody? I think you're being far too hyperbolic.

    Last I checked chemo wasn't part of the new food pyramid, nor constitutes as shelter or clothing.
    Eh, who says it was? I simply asked if given the facts, you believe that what the parent is doing will lead to the child's best interest. Do you believe that by denying this kid chemotherapy which would save her life, the parent wants to extend the child's life? I mean it's obvious that it won't and that the parent really has no clue what she's sanctioning here. But I'm letting you dig this hole all on your own.

    Presumably, during the last months of that year, there would be an opportunity for immediate death given your scenario.
    So... the state will step in... when it doesn't know whether death is immediate or not? I mean, what is to say that the child couldn't last another 4-5 years in such conditions? Personal opinion? The parent's beliefs?

    Because the state is not the parent/guardian of the child. If the child is 17 and will be 18 in a few months which makes them a legal adult and the parent agrees with no treatment and the child agrees to no treatment - yes if she dies then it's their choice.
    You really aren't fond of how these laws work, are you? The child is not a legal adult. That she will be in a "few months" doesn't change the fact that their "decision" can still be called into questioned.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  9. #209
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,024

    Re: APNewsBreak: Girl says she knows she'll die without chemo

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    So it seems "my body my choice" only applies when it can be a political football issue. Otherwise, women don't get a choice.
    "My choice, my body" applies to abortion and abortion alone. Do you deny that? Or do you feel parents get to decide whether a child dies? I mean, what's next? If the parent religiously indoctrinates their child and makes them believe that pedophilia is fine, the state shouldn't step in either because it's their body, their choice?
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  10. #210
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: APNewsBreak: Girl says she knows she'll die without chemo

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    So depriving the child food, can be interpreted as being in that child's best interest?
    If the child is morbidly obese - sure.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    So what you're saying is that if someone at DYFS heard the parent drop the F bomb, that'd be enough to remove the child from the parent's custody? I think you're being far too hyperbolic.
    That's what the law says. Who interprets the law.... DYFS initially interprets and in order to get the child back, the parents need to go in front of a judge which may take days, weeks or months depending on the case loads.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Eh, who says it was? I simply asked if given the facts, you believe that what the parent is doing will lead to the child's best interest. Do you believe that by denying this kid chemotherapy which would save her life, the parent wants to extend the child's life?
    Correction - MAY save her life.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    I mean it's obvious that it won't and that the parent really has no clue what she's sanctioning here. But I'm letting you dig this hole all on your own.
    It's not obvious to me. Let me repeat it again... if the parent and the child do not want the chemo - the child shouldn't be forced to get the chemo. Period. The child doesn't belong to the state - the treatment isn't guaranteed 100% to work - the child isn't 100% going to die without it. There no hole because you're talking in absolutes - I'm talking about the state extending it's power over children when it has no right to do so.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    So... the state will step in... when it doesn't know whether death is immediate or not?
    When it checks on the child.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    I mean, what is to say that the child couldn't last another 4-5 years in such conditions? Personal opinion? The parent's beliefs?
    Sure, maybe the parent will starve the child over an 80 year period, maybe longer. Perhaps you should have used that example.


    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    You really aren't fond of how these laws work, are you?
    I'm not fond of intrusive laws.


    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    The child is not a legal adult. That she will be in a "few months" doesn't change the fact that their "decision" can still be called into questioned.
    And the state is still not the parent/guardian of that child.
    I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on whats being proposed here, hed agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute. - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


Page 21 of 43 FirstFirst ... 11192021222331 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •