• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Arrest ordered for mom of boy, 13, resisting chemo

I think the parent's and the child's choice is wrong, but NOT acting on something is not the same as ACTING to bring something about.

Don't we value personal freedom to determine the course of our lives? If one doesn't want to receive extraordinary medical treatment--what right does any legal body have in butting in and compelling a person to receive extraordinary care? The same people who will scream at the top of their lungs that a terminally ill person should be able to determine how and when he dies seem to be the ones raising holy hell that these people can't decide NOT to live. What IS that if not hypocrisy?

Comparisons have been made to not feeding a kid--nourishment is not extraordinary medical treatment. Being hooked up to poisonous chemicals in order kill off mutant cells--that is extraordinary.

Mind you--I totally disagree with the parents and the boy, but I side with their freedom to be wrong.

Hell you can go to jail if you have a dog chained up in your yard that obviously needs medical treatment. If your neighbors report that you've got a neglected horse on your property in dire need of a vet's treatment you can be fined and/or jailed for abusing the animal.

This is a child. A deluded child. His mother is also deluded. Due to their combined delusions the child is being neglected and abused. It is a life and death situation the courts should most definitely intervene even if it means throwing mom in jail for a bit and strapping the boy down for treatment. Just like the courts would lock you up for surveillance and treatment if you were deluded into believing you could fly and you were caught flapping your arms while perched on a building ledge. In life and death situations we have an obligation to aid the incompetent and see them through a time of crisis.
 
Last edited:
Hell you can go to jail if you have a dog chained up in your yard that obviously needs medical treatment.
You can put your dog down, too. Look--a human being is not a dog. You do not HAVE to give your dog chemo if he's sick. It is not a valid comparison. If the kid wanted the treatment and his parents said no, it would be different, but that isn't the circumstances here. Leave them alone. As yet, it is still a free country, though with the messed up thinking of people, I fear it won't be for long. We'll run into tyranny with our arms wide begging for it it seems, for all the lazy thinkers.

If your neighbors report that you've got a neglected horse on your property in dire need of a vet's treatment you can be fined and/or jailed for abusing the animal.
Human beings--free-will--self-determinism. Not an animal....:doh

This is a child. A deluded child. His mother is also deluded. Due to their combined delusions the child is being neglected and abused. It is a life and death situation the courts should most definitely intervene even if it means throwing mom in jail for a bit and strapping the boy down for treatment. Just like the courts would lock you up for surveillance and treatment if you were deluded into believing you could fly and you were caught flapping your arms while perched on a building ledge. In life and death situations we have an obligation to aid the incompetent and see them through a time of crisis.
I don't think wanting to be in charge of one's own medical decisions is proof of incompetence.
 
I don't think wanting to be in charge of one's own medical decisions is proof of incompetence.

No. But refusing to believe your tumor is growing when all drs. involved say it is - is. Thinking you have magic water - is. Living in denial about what the many drs. are telling you - is. Hell, choosing a prognosis that makes it almost inevitable your kid won't live 5 years when there's an alternative that gives a 90+% survival rate -is. Refusing to acknowledge that this is what you're doing, when you are in fact doing it - is.
 
I think this is proving to be an issue much like abortion. We are having so much difficulty in reaching each other on the opposite side since we frame the debate so much differently in our thinking. I do somehow find it interesting that Felicity and I ended up on the same side in this debate, whereas we are on the opposite side in the abortion debate. Why that is interesting to me is that I frame the debate in my head in almost exactly the same way.
 
Last edited:
So you're FOR parental notification laws?

I have no opinion on them. I would be inclined to say yes though.

I find it just astounding that a rabid pro-lifer would be against a woman being able to choose to abort a 4 week old embryo, but believe that parents should be able to choose to deny their child life saving medical treatments for a highly treatable form of cancer and thus ensure their child enduring a long and agonizing death.
 
The issue for me is that the kid does not believe his tumor is growing. Does not believe he faces death as a consequence.

It's not as if he's grasped the scope of the situation and made an informed choice.

He's operating in a deluded state - which is quite different.

Looking at all the information before you and making a stupid choice is willful ignorance.

Being completely incapable of seeing the information in front of you and instead seeing something outside of reality is incompetence caused by delusions.

For me, it makes all the difference in the world.
 
No. But refusing to believe your tumor is growing when all drs. involved say it is - is. Thinking you have magic water - is. Living in denial about what the many drs. are telling you - is. Hell, choosing a prognosis that makes it almost inevitable your kid won't live 5 years when there's an alternative that gives a 90+% survival rate -is. Refusing to acknowledge that this is what you're doing, when you are in fact doing it - is.

Is there evidence that they don't know the risks? Is there evidence that they are denying he's sick? They are CHOOSING a course of inaction--they are not choosing a prognosis. They are free to do so--and if they are not free, then this isn't the United States. Patrick Henry comes to mind...
 
I'm as tenacious as anyone for the necessity of strong family autonomy and authority but even I can recognise this is a time for the state to intervene because the child's life seems endanger for little reason and it isn't as if it need do anything but enforce chemo.

Personally I believe a child is a ward; of the family and occasionally the state. It is not for the child to decide what is right for it in these circumstances and if it is completely against their welfare and not too destructive of familial autonomy and authority then there is the occasional need for the state to intervene; of course exercising the greatest cautious, restraint and accountability.

I do object to some of the more gung-ho interventionist attitudes I perceive here though, the state's intervention must only be as a last resort, it must be as little as is possible to accomplish what is necessary and must be accountable.
 
Last edited:
Is there evidence that they don't know the risks? Is there evidence that they are denying he's sick? They are CHOOSING a course of inaction--they are not choosing a prognosis. They are free to do so--and if they are not free, then this isn't the United States. Patrick Henry comes to mind...

Yes there is evidence. Since stopping treatment the child's tumor has grown. Despite having had this proven to the mother - she denies it.

When the kid was interviewed separate from the mother the court decided the kid did not understand he was in a life or death situation. The child does not believe he is as sick as his drs. say he is. The family is in absolute deluded denial.

Parents are absolutely not free to abuse their children. Allowing a child to die when said child has an excellent opportunity to be healed with an excellent outcome and high quality of life is abuse.

This child is not their own personal Jesus. They don't get to sacrifice him to the Gods.
 
I don't think the mother is crazy, a zealot yes, crazy not at all. She believes in her religion and that is not grounds for being crazy according to any psychologist.

As for the rejecting chemo...

My father died of cancer and he did reject the chemo. My friend Andy did take the chemo and died anyway. My Aunt took the chemo and after long suffering because of it she also died. Any doctor who claims "With chemo he has like a 90% chance of recovery." in my opinion is a quack.

"According to the National Cancer Institute, the immediate side effects experienced during chemotherapy include fatigue, nausea, vomiting, mouth sores, and pain. The government organization acknowledges that long term effects of chemotherapy can range from kidney and lung damage, infertility, and shockingly even a secondary cancer years after the initial treatment.

Chemotherapy and You: Support for People With Cancer - National Cancer Institute

A research article published March 20, 2007 in the medical journal Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention entitled "Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma Secondary to Cancer Chemotherapy" states that the aggressive chemotherapy credited with prolonging the lives of non-hodgkin lymphoma patients is directly linked to a number of those patients later developing acute myeloid leukemia. Therefore, a powerful cycle of chemotherapy eradicates the original cancer, only to lead directly to the onset of a different kind of cancer several years later.

Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma Secondary to Cancer Chemotherapy -- Krishnan and Morgan 16 (3): 377 -- Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention

Sometimes the state is a bigger zealot than the people they are trying to protect.

As the parents they made a choice, and it was not necessarily a bad one. The state needs to let the parent be a parent and raise the child according to there beliefs. As long as the rights of the child are not infringed, the state needs to keep out of it.
 
Last edited:
I think this is proving to be an issue much like abortion. We are having so much difficulty in reaching each other on the opposite side since we frame the debate so much differently in our thinking. I do somehow find it interesting that Felicity and I ended up on the same side in this debate, whereas we are on the opposite side in the abortion debate. Why that is interesting to me is that I frame the debate in my head in almost exactly the same way.

SouthernDemocrat said:
I find it just astounding that a rabid pro-lifer would be against a woman being able to choose to abort a 4 week old embryo, but believe that parents should be able to choose to deny their child life saving medical treatments for a highly treatable form of cancer and thus ensure their child enduring a long and agonizing death.

My reasoning in both situations is a respect for the dignity of the human person-- self-determined entity onto himself.

Abortion is a ACTION taken to secure a particular outcome--namely the death of the human being in the womb. It is a purposeful act against the life of the unborn--it is ACTIVE. If one is PASSIVE, one does not take action. This is why there is no moral issue with miscarriage--it is not a purposeful action taken against the individual in the womb.

This boy is reacting passively to his illness. The parents are not ACTIVELY killing him--perhaps they are passively allowing him to die.

She is not actively threatening his life (like holding a gun to his head) so there is no cause to interfere. They are allowing the disease process to resolve itself. That is a passive choice and all people who are responsible to the choice are in agreement.

I am totally PRO-Choice! I just think every individual has the right to live as they deem fit as long as they are accountable to the consequences of their choices and it does not infringe upon the rights of others. In abortion, the pro-abortion rights side ignores the "other" in the womb.
 
Is there evidence that they don't know the risks? Is there evidence that they are denying he's sick? They are CHOOSING a course of inaction--they are not choosing a prognosis. They are free to do so--and if they are not free, then this isn't the United States. Patrick Henry comes to mind...

The kid is 13!

He is not old enough and thus not legally competent to get a loan or line of credit.

He is not old enough and thus not legally competent to drop out of school or hold a full time job.

He is not old enough and thus not legally competent to purchase or consume alcohol or tobacco.

He is not old enough and thus not legally competent to purchase a firearm or ammunition.

He is not old enough and thus not legally competent to fill a prescription drug from a pharmacy without a guardian present.

He is not old enough to drive.

Yet you think he is old enough and competent to decide to forgo life saving medical treatment and thus ensure a long and agonizing death?

Think about that. Surely I am not the only one on here that ever changes their mind on an issue. ;)
 
BTW--for the non-religious types--why don't you view it as Darwin's theory in action?
 
BTW--for the non-religious types--why don't you view it as Darwin's theory in action?

If it is, then its only on the part of the parents and their supporters.
 
My reasoning in both situations is a respect for the dignity of the human person-- self-determined entity onto himself.

Abortion is a ACTION taken to secure a particular outcome--namely the death of the human being in the womb. It is a purposeful act against the life of the unborn--it is ACTIVE. If one is PASSIVE, one does not take action. This is why there is no moral issue with miscarriage--it is not a purposeful action taken against the individual in the womb.

This boy is reacting passively to his illness. The parents are not ACTIVELY killing him--perhaps they are passively allowing him to die.

She is not actively threatening his life (like holding a gun to his head) so there is no cause to interfere. They are allowing the disease process to resolve itself. That is a passive choice and all people who are responsible to the choice are in agreement.

I am totally PRO-Choice! I just think every individual has the right to live as they deem fit as long as they are accountable to the consequences of their choices and it does not infringe upon the rights of others. In abortion, the pro-abortion rights side ignores the "other" in the womb.

I did not mean to attack your belief on either issue. I found interest in it because I frame both debates the same, and yet ended up on the same side(or a similar side anyway) of this issue with you, despite the fact we see abortion with diametrically different views.

I fully understand that you can arrive at your position by framing the debate to yourself the same way. In fact, it makes it that much more interesting to me, how we can frame both issues in similar ways, end up on the same side on one issue, and the opposite sides on the other.

Again, I want to be clear that I meant zero disrespect to your beliefs. I am terribly sorry if I gave the impression that I was being in any way critical of you or your beliefs.
 
BTW--for the non-religious types--why don't you view it as Darwin's theory in action?

Because Darwin's theory does not work quite like that as I understand it.
 
BTW--for the non-religious types--why don't you view it as Darwin's theory in action?

Well, some retarded genes WILL be eliminated from the gene pool. But what does that have to do with the legality or ethics of it? :confused:
 
The kid is 13!

He is not old enough and thus not legally competent to get a loan or line of credit.
If he were a girl, he could get an abortion without any one's consent.

His parent's could secure a loan/line of credit--his parents support choosing not to treat.

He is not old enough and thus not legally competent to drop out of school or hold a full time job.
Parents can home-school--his parents support choosing not to treat.


He is not old enough and thus not legally competent to purchase or consume alcohol or tobacco.
Parents can choose to let the kid have alcohol in their own home,--his parents support choosing not to treat.

He is not old enough and thus not legally competent to purchase a firearm or ammunition.
Parents can buy a gun and supervise firearm instruction--his parents support choosing not to treat.

He is not old enough and thus not legally competent to fill a prescription drug from a pharmacy without a guardian present.
His parents are his guardian!

He is not old enough to drive.
So--some people are too blind to drive.

Yet you think he is old enough and competent to decide to forgo life saving medical treatment and thus ensure a long and agonizing death?
With his parents guidance, yes. Do I agree that his parents are doing the right thing? NO--but they are free to be wrong.

Think about that. Surely I am not the only one on here that ever changes their mind on an issue. ;)
My knee jerk reaction WAS get that fool kid to the doctors stupid parents! But I considered what my own freedom means to me and changed my mind.
 
Again, I want to be clear that I meant zero disrespect to your beliefs. I am terribly sorry if I gave the impression that I was being in any way critical of you or your beliefs.

Thank you. I didn't take it that way at all--I'm sorry if my response seemed to suggest I was offended in some way. I'm just adamant about stuff:2razz::3oops:
 
If he were a girl, he could get an abortion without any one's consent.

Oh ok, since Stalin got away with murdering 20 Million people, then Hitler should have gotten away with it to then.

Injustices do not excuse other injustices.

His parent's could secure a loan/line of credit--his parents support choosing not to treat.

His parents could not secure a line of credit and then make their child liable for it. If they did so, they would be breaking the law.

Parents can home-school--his parents support choosing not to treat.

You still have to reach the same assessment levels that public and private schooled kids have to reach.

The parents could choose their child's hospital too, but they cannot deny them life saving treatment.


Parents can choose to let the kid have alcohol in their own home,--his parents support choosing not to treat.

Thats an even more absurd example than the others. However, if your kid was getting drunk regularly, and you were leaving alcohol around easily accessible to them, then the authorities could get involved as well.

Parents can buy a gun and supervise firearm instruction--his parents support choosing not to treat.

Parents can choose their kids doctor too. What is your point there?

His parents are his guardian!

Yes, exactly, as in he is a ward of his parents. He is not their property though. They do not own him. They are entrusted with his care. That is why you can lose your custody due to abuse or neglect.

So--some people are too blind to drive.

Thats a stupid example.

With his parents guidance, yes. Do I agree that his parents are doing the right thing? NO--but they are free to be wrong.

Yes, you are free to make bad decisions as a parent so long as your bad decisions do not grossly endanger the life of your child.

My knee jerk reaction WAS get that fool kid to the doctors stupid parents! But I considered what my own freedom means to me and changed my mind.

Freedom applies to you as the individual. You are not free to condemn your kids to an agonizing death just because you are an ignorant lunatic.

Frankly, I don't get this. I can't imagine how anyone, especially a parent (I dont know if you are or are not), could hold the opinion you have on this. Usually I can see the merits of the arguments of those I disagree with, but in this case, to be honest, I don't see any merit to your argument at all. I just think its dangerous and absurd. I am just glad that the vast majority of Americans would disagree with you on this.
 
I was joking around:2razz:

In that case, I am generally all in favor of the "evolution in action" concept. I got in some trouble up here recently. A teenage kid was walking on some railroad tracks, listening to an MP3 player with headphones on, so did not hear the train that ended up hitting and killing him. People where talking about what a tragedy, I was talking about weeding out some one so stupid he should not breed.

I did at least keep my comments private so there was no chance of the family hearing. I am not totally heartless.
 
Oh ok, since Stalin got away with murdering 20 Million people, then Hitler should have gotten away with it to then.
Do I get to call a Godwin on you? :rofl

Injustices do not excuse other injustices.
I agree. Is it not unjust to take away individual's free will choice to NOT act?


His parents could not secure a line of credit and then make their child liable for it. If they did so, they would be breaking the law.
Your analogy is terribly strained. You should give up on it. Parents are legally responsible for their children. They legally make medical decisions all the time. The kid and the parents don't want treatment. It is legal to refuse medical treatment. They are free to refuse medical treatment.


You still have to reach the same assessment levels that public and private schooled kids have to reach.
Unnhuh...:roll: Some home schooled kids are fabulous, others....not so much. It depends on the parents doing the homeschooling.

The parents could choose their child's hospital too, but they cannot deny them life saving treatment.
Yes. They can.




Thats an even more absurd example than the others. However, if your kid was getting drunk regularly, and you were leaving alcohol around easily accessible to them, then the authorities could get involved as well.
Again--you're straining the analogy to make it work for you. I can give my kid a glass of wine with dinner if I want to. I believe it's even legal for me to buy my kid a drink at a restaurant if I wanted to. I don't, and wouldn't, but I think legally, I could.


Yes, exactly, as in he is a ward of his parents. He is not their property though. They do not own him. They are entrusted with his care. That is why you can lose your custody due to abuse or neglect.
Not wanting to pump poison into your kid isn't neglect.

Thats a stupid example.
:mrgreen: Stupid is as stupid does.


Yes, you are free to make bad decisions as a parent so long as your bad decisions do not grossly endanger the life of your child.
The parents are not endangering the kid--the disease is. The parents are NOT DOING anything!



Freedom applies to you as the individual. You are not free to condemn your kids to an agonizing death just because you are an ignorant lunatic.
The dr.s cannot ensure that the kid WON'T die.

And WOW--look at all the judgemental name calling.:shock: Really tolerant of you.:roll:

Frankly, I don't get this. I can't imagine how anyone, especially a parent (I dont know if you are or are not), could hold the opinion you have on this. Usually I can see the merits of the arguments of those I disagree with, but in this case, to be honest, I don't see any merit to your argument at all. I just think its dangerous and absurd. I am just glad that the vast majority of Americans would disagree with you on this.
I have 6 kids, and I am the best judge of what is in their best interest because I love them and care for them and I respect other parents enough to be responsible to that love and care also. Further, I respect our freedom to live in liberty. I will not allow my autonomy to be compromised because I disagree with a couple of parent's choice to not act. I will not assent to a usurpation of parental rights even if I think the parents are making the wrong choice since it is not an ACTIVE threat against the child.
 
I have 6 kids, and I am the best judge of what is in their best interest because I love them and care for them

Seriously... huh? How does loving a child give you the ability to know what is right for them in areas in which you are not an expert, or even qualified? If your kid had an absessed tooth, are you saying they would be ok if they inhaled cinnamon incense, if that is what you believed? :confused: Or heal a broken leg by laying rabbit poop on the leg, without setting it? Or lay pictures of icebergs on his forehead if he had a spiking 103 degree fever?

Damn woman, it's not even that these doctors are the only ones saying this is what this kid should undergo. It's the entire medical community!

How would you feel if they are allowed to let this kid simply eat their cherry pits, or whatever, and the poor kid dies?

You proposing we ignore all the medical knowledge we've accumulated on this very illness in favor of letting an obviously medically ignorant parent make a life and death decision is astounding. You, the biggest opponent of abortion, which you consider the murder of a human being. You're basically saying that a fetus, no matter how small, has more of a right to life, no matter what the mother's wishes are, than a 13 year old boy.

Wow.

and I respect other parents enough to be responsible to that love and care also.

What if they're NOT responsible?

Do you condemn the child to death simply to respect the parent's... parenthood?
 
Back
Top Bottom