Page 7 of 15 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 142

Thread: Arrest ordered for mom of boy, 13, resisting chemo

  1. #61
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,513

    Re: Arrest ordered for mom of boy, 13, resisting chemo

    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 by Black Dog; 05-20-09 at 10:43 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Benjii likes the protests...he'd be largely irrelevant without them. So he needs to speak where he knows there will be protests against him and that makes him responsible for the protests.
    Quote Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
    You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

  2. #62
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    10-06-09 @ 03:03 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    11,946

    Re: Arrest ordered for mom of boy, 13, resisting chemo

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat
    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.

  3. #63
    Pragmatist
    SouthernDemocrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    KC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,400

    Re: Arrest ordered for mom of boy, 13, resisting chemo

    Quote Originally Posted by Felicity View Post
    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.
    "You're the only person that decides how far you'll go and what you're capable of." - Ben Saunders (Explorer and Endurance Athlete)

  4. #64
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    10-06-09 @ 03:03 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    11,946

    Re: Arrest ordered for mom of boy, 13, resisting chemo

    BTW--for the non-religious types--why don't you view it as Darwin's theory in action?

  5. #65
    Pragmatist
    SouthernDemocrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    KC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,400

    Re: Arrest ordered for mom of boy, 13, resisting chemo

    Quote Originally Posted by Felicity View Post
    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.
    "You're the only person that decides how far you'll go and what you're capable of." - Ben Saunders (Explorer and Endurance Athlete)

  6. #66
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:03 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,290
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Arrest ordered for mom of boy, 13, resisting chemo

    Quote Originally Posted by Felicity View Post
    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.

  7. #67
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:03 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,290
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Arrest ordered for mom of boy, 13, resisting chemo

    Quote Originally Posted by Felicity View Post
    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.

  8. #68
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Arrest ordered for mom of boy, 13, resisting chemo

    Quote Originally Posted by Felicity View Post
    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?
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  9. #69
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    10-06-09 @ 03:03 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    11,946

    Re: Arrest ordered for mom of boy, 13, resisting chemo

    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat View Post
    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.

  10. #70
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    10-06-09 @ 03:03 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    11,946

    Re: Arrest ordered for mom of boy, 13, resisting chemo

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post

    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

Page 7 of 15 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... 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
  •