Arrest ordered for mom of boy, 13, resisting chemo

talloulou · May 20, 2009

Felicity said:
The parents are not endangering the kid--the disease is. The parents are NOT DOING anything!

So if there's a house fire and a child is trapped inside and the parents could easily rescue said child if they wanted to but instead stood around insisting that God would save the kid would that be the fire endangering the child and not the parents. :roll: I don't buy that. There is most definitely a point where even ones inaction in a situation makes one complicit.

The dr.s cannot ensure that the kid WON'T die.

Perhaps not. But in looking at his case they have given him a very favorable prognosis with treatment, 90+% vs an almost certain death within 5 years sans treatment.

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

No adult should be tolerant of child abuse. Abusers don't get to abuse in the name of the spirit world. And witnesses shouldn't get to ignore the abuse in the name of protecting their own personal freedoms.

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.

There is no parental right to abuse. If a diabetic child needed insulin shots and the mother went crazy with the fever of religion and up and decided that the child no longer needed the insulin because the spirits and some magic water would keep the kids sugar levels straight the state would absolutely have to step in to protect that child the same way they would have to step in to protect a child who is beaten at the hands of a guardian or molested at the hands of a guardian.

Your right to do what you want with raising your child ENDS the minute you start abusing that kid, putting that kid in danger, and acting like a lunatic.

Imagine a child who went into shock if stung by a bee. The mother gets religion and convinces the child the bee sting kit is b.s. Kid gets stung. Drs. claim kid needs shot or he will likely go into anaphylactic shot and die. What do you do? Claim that's a parent's choice to make? No way. What about a kid who has asthma and needs an inhaler? Mom meets a freak on a reservation who says inhalers are b.s. and what they ought to do is eat ginko berries. Kid has asthma attack, can't breath, mom stands by refusing to give kiddo inhaler and instead rubs ginko berry stain all over kids forehead and waits for the gods to do their thing. How is this any less abusive then beating a child or raping a child?

I think it's incredibly wrongheaded to support this lunatic under the guise of protecting your own parental rights. You have no right to knowingly place your child in jeopardy. You have no right to wait on god in lieu of life saving measures while still keeping your guardianship intact. Your child should be taken from you as surely as the child who gets diddled by the daddy.

Felicity · May 20, 2009

ADK_Forever said:
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!

When does a patient have the right to refuse lifesaving medical treatment?

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

How would I feel? Like that matters?

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.

Freedom is a good thing. Even if some people make dumb choices.

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.

Huh? They are not even comparable except that human individuals are respected as autonomous beings.

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

Can you guarantee he undergoes the treatment he'll live? Or can you guarantee he'll die without treatment? you can't--no one can. No one's condemning him to death. :roll: If he dies, he does so as he chose to live. He's not killing himself, and his parents aren't killing him. They are choosing not to act. one can refuse life saving medical treatment. See the article I linked to above.

talloulou · May 20, 2009

Felicity said:
Can you guarantee he undergoes the treatment he'll live? Or can you guarantee he'll die without treatment? you can't--no one can. No one's condemning him to death. :roll: If he dies, he does so as he chose to live. He's not killing himself, and his parents aren't killing him. They are choosing not to act. one can refuse life saving medical treatment. See the article I linked to above.

So if a child needs daily diabetic insulin shots and is given a 90+% chance of leading a normal life with these shots but little chance in surviving long without the shots it's absolutely fine for some mother to convince said child the drs. are wrong, the shots are unnecessary, and instead the best treatment is to dance naked around the trees while singing to Medusa????

In such a scenario it's not the parent who is complicit right? It is the diabetes?

What a load of crap.

Felicity · May 20, 2009

talloulou said:
So if there's a house fire and a child is trapped inside and the parents could easily rescue said child if they wanted to but instead stood around insisting that God would save the kid would that be the fire endangering the child and not the parents. :roll: I don't buy that. There is most definitely a point where even ones inaction in a situation makes one complicit.

Houses on fire is irrelevant.

Perhaps not. But in looking at his case they have given him a very favorable prognosis with treatment, 90+% vs an almost certain death within 5 years sans treatment.

I agree the parents are making a stupid choice, but they are free to do so. It sure isn't a choice I would make.

No adult should be tolerant of child abuse. Abusers don't get to abuse in the name of the spirit world. And witnesses shouldn't get to ignore the abuse in the name of protecting their own personal freedoms.

There is no abuse. The kid is refusing treatment. He's free to do that. The parents don't HAVE TO make him receive treatment. I'll say repeatedly and argue right along side you to convince them to make a different choice, but I stop short of FORCING them to treat since that is tyrannical.

There is no parental right to abuse. If a diabetic child needed insulin shots and the mother went crazy with the fever of religion and up and decided that the child no longer needed the insulin because the spirits and some magic water would keep the kids sugar levels straight the state would absolutely have to step in to protect that child the same way they would have to step in to protect a child who is beaten at the hands of a guardian or molested at the hands of a guardian.

Your issue is obviously the religion slant which I have ignored entirely and will continue to do so.

the parents are not beating or molesting--they are not seeking medical treatment which is entirely legal, though stupid.

Your right to do what you want with raising your child ENDS the minute you start abusing that kid, putting that kid in danger, and acting like a lunatic.

It's not abuse. The disease put the kid in danger--the parents didn't give him lymphoma.

Imagine a child who went into shock if stung by a bee. The mother gets religion and convinces the child the bee sting kit is b.s. Kid gets stung. Drs. claim kid needs shot or he will likely go into anaphylactic shot and die. What do you do? Claim that's a parent's choice to make? No way.

I'd poke him with the steroids and probably go to jail for assault because I saved him. Mom says no--there is no medical treatment given...legally.

What about a kid who has asthma and needs an inhaler? Mom meets a freak on a reservation who says inhalers are b.s. and what they ought to do is eat ginko berries. Kid has asthma attack, can't breath, mom stands by refusing to give kiddo inhaler and instead rubs ginko berry stain all over kids forehead and waits for the gods to do their thing. How is this any less abusive then beating a child or raping a child?

You're hysterical.:roll:

I think it's incredibly wrongheaded to support this lunatic under the guise of protecting your own parental rights. You have no right to knowingly place your child in jeopardy. You have no right to wait on god in lieu of life saving measures while still keeping your guardianship intact. Your child should be taken from you as surely as the child who gets diddled by the daddy.

So when the state decides your kid is being abused because you took a stupid Christmas picture with funny hats on...don't come crying to me.

Felicity · May 20, 2009

talloulou said:
What a load of crap.

I'm sorry you think freedom is crap.

talloulou · May 20, 2009

Felicity said:
I'm sorry you think freedom is crap.

I think if you're saying you'll let a mom withhold life saving measures from her own child in order that you feel more free to do as you please with yours that is crap.

Felicity · May 20, 2009

talloulou said:
I think if you're saying you'll let a mom withhold life saving measures from her own child in order that you feel more free to do as you please with yours that is crap.

It's not so I "feel free"--it is a consequence of freedom. Some people will (in the eyes of many or most) misuse it. It is part of the risk of freedom, but freedom is worth the risk.

talloulou · May 20, 2009

Felicity said:
I'm sorry you think freedom is crap.

Your freedom isn't at stake. If that mom is proven by the courts to be incompetent in this decision making process and the kid is also this does not mean you would be proven to be incompetent. They were not willy nilly in deciding this family is incompetent to make decisions here. There were court proceedings, lawyers, psychiatrists. It was deemed that their decision would place the child in unnecessary jeopardy and it was further deemed that the child does not adequately grasp his situation so much as he is in denial due to the delusions his mother sells him.

Would you let a parent withhold insulin diabetic needles from a child when the child would die without them but live quite normally with them???

If the parents are acting irrationally, incompetently, and this endangers the child's welfare it is fine for the courts to step in.

Any hysteria you have over this affecting your rights is hogwash unless you plan to go off the deep end and act like a lunatic jeopardizing your child's welfare.

Some children DO need to be saved from their parents and this is a child we're talking about. A sick child.

talloulou · May 20, 2009

Felicity said:
It's not so I "feel free"--it is a consequence of freedom. Some people will (in the eyes of many or most) misuse it. It is part of the risk of freedom, but freedom is worth the risk.

If you feed your child religious delusions for breakfast and put their life in jeopardy by doing nothing when action is required you deserve to have your parental freedoms taken away.

How do you defend allowing another child to be abused in order to feel your freedom is protected?

ADK_Forever · May 20, 2009

Felicity said:
Even if some people make dumb choices.

Huh? They are not even comparable except that human individuals are respected as autonomous beings.

Why not? Because abortion is your favorite baby here? Abortion trumps a 13 year old child's right to life?

Can you guarantee he undergoes the treatment he'll live? Or can you guarantee he'll die without treatment? you can't--no one can.

The examples I gave (that you conveniently ignored!) all had serious and obvious life threatening scenarios if not treated in ways that even YOU know will save a life. This cancer is well known and the medical community is very confident in their treatment for it. You're being intentionally obtuse here.

It's almost a certainty he will die without it. That should be good enough for any parent to make the right decision. If they don't, then that's why we have laws protecting defenseless children.

No one's condemning him to death. :roll:

And an abortion is setting a soul free to play among the clouds of heaven, right? I mean, if I could explain the situation to that little fetus, I'm sure it would chose to take the path that is in the best interest of mom. Right? So, what's your big deal about abortion? A fetus knows as much about cancer as a 13 year old. Right?

You're fine with the idea of allowing this kid to die by giving his mother the right to decide. So, why isn't it ok to give another mother the same "right to choose"? If she's wrong... she's wrong. No big deal, right?

If he dies, he does so as he chose to live.

That sounds as intelligent and caring as Rocky's
Ivan Drago, "If he dies... he dies."

He's not killing himself, and his parents aren't killing him. They are choosing not to act. one can refuse life saving medical treatment. See the article I linked to above.

A 13 year old child,
...WITH a learning disability,
......cannot chose ANYTHING!!!

Kandahar · May 20, 2009

ADK_Forever said:
And an abortion is setting a soul free to play among the clouds of heaven, right? I mean, if I could explain the situation to that little fetus, I'm sure it would chose to take the path that is in the best interest of mom. Right? So, what's your big deal about abortion? A fetus knows as much about cancer as a 13 year old. Right?

You're fine with the idea of allowing this kid to die by giving his mother the right to decide. So, why isn't it ok to give another mother the same "right to choose"? If she's wrong... she's wrong. No big deal, right?

Many "pro-life" people are only pro-fetus life. As soon as he's born, he's on his own.

Hatuey · May 20, 2009

I love this thread. A certain member proves she's perfectly fine with mothers letting their kids die because of their own religious beliefs but Jebus forbid those same mothers decided to have abortions thanks to their non-religious beliefs. This is on par with opposing a 9 year old girl who was raped getting an abortion.

Orion · May 21, 2009

The deciding factor for me was the kind of alternative medicine the parent was seeking. There are actually a lot of holistic alternatives for cancer treatments that reside outside of the realm of Western medicine. In Chinese medicine, for example, there are a variety of treatments. Because it's a different system, the Western scientific establishment hasn't done its own research on it, but for the Chinese, some of these methods work.

If the mother was choosing a system that wasn't ionized water and shamanism, I might be inclined to agree that the courts have no business telling her what to do. It sounds like choice wasn't based on research, but rather a stubborn religious belief. She didn't do any research on the validity of ionized water... she just assumed that it would work because that's what her church told her.

I'm always wary of the government forcing parents to give their kids treatment, but in this case I think it's valid. It should always be on a case by case basis, and not a general rule, otherwise the government will have too much power to act.

Jerry · May 21, 2009

Kandahar said:
That is different from this situation. We have a situation where one option is almost certain to save the boy's life, and the other option is almost certain to result in his death.

So?

The same is true with abortion but we allow parents to kill the child anyway.

This is no different.

There are to many people on the planet anyway.

Jerry · May 21, 2009

talloulou said:
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.

You can take a dog to the vet and have it put to sleep for any or no reason.

Jerry · May 21, 2009

Felicity said:
You can put your dog down, too......

Oh snap! Great minds think alike

Jerry · May 21, 2009

talloulou said:
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.

For you, absolutely, and I defend your right to make your own choice.

Kindly keep your religion to yourself instead of forcing it on others and allow others to make their own choices, please.

Kandahar · May 21, 2009

Jerry said:
So?

The same is true with abortion but we allow parents to kill the child anyway.

This is no different.

We do not agree that a fetus qualifies for personhood, and whether it's entitled to any rights at all.

Are you disputing that this 13-year-old boy is a person?

Jerry said:
There are to many people on the planet anyway.

That doesn't mean it's OK to murder them.

Jerry · May 21, 2009

Kandahar said:
We do not agree that a fetus qualifies for personhood, and whether it's entitled to any rights at all.

Are you disputing that this 13-year-old boy is a person?

No, you are.

Kandahar said:
That doesn't mean it's OK to murder them.

It's only "murder" if it's illegal.

Just leave them alone and if the boy ends up dying due to cancer then you can sue God.

jallman · May 21, 2009

Hatuey said:
Colleen Hauser: Authorities search for mother of 13-year-old with cancer -- baltimoresun.com

On a related note : This lady is clearly insane and authorities should do everything possible to find this kid before it's too late. Sucks to be born into a family of crazy religious folks.

On an unrelated note : I read this and I look back a few months ago when people got all upset because Obama dared to suggest that maybe there are people in not only Pennsylvania and maybe - gasp - the U.S. - who cling to their religious beliefs and guns. Every time I see one of these freaks I love it. I mean. Because they are seldom 'lone' members of their own church. It's never just one guy. It's one guy. Who is a member of a group of people who hold the same beliefs.

Except that the other guy we have an example of seems to be reasoned and respectful of the law. Your attempt to paint those who have religious beliefs with the same brush as this crazy bitch have been foiled.

That will be all.

Kandahar · May 21, 2009

Jerry said:
No, you are.

I am? If I was disputing that he was a person, why would I care if he dies?

Jerry said:
It's only "murder" if it's illegal.

Just leave them alone and if the boy ends up dying due to cancer then you can sue God.

And if they want to deny him food, just leave them alone and if he ends up dying of starvation you can sue Ronald McDonald and Colonel Sanders. :roll:

Jerry · May 21, 2009

Kandahar said:
I am? If I was disputing that he was a person, why would I care if he dies?

You want to control over rather or not he dies, is the point.

You don't want his family to have any say at all.

Your position on this issue is only the one it is because you think it's the easiest way to get that control.

If you thought the opposite position were a shorter path to that control, you would take that instead.

Kandahar said:
And if they want to deny him food, just leave them alone and if he ends up dying of starvation you can sue Ronald McDonald and Colonel Sanders. :roll:

Terry Schiavo? She was so brain dead she was communicating with visitors.

During the Terry Schiavo epic you were a stanch supporter of the right to die, individual choice and legal sovereignty away from the courts in favor of the wishes of the legal guardians/medical proxy.

All that is gon now, and the only consistent thing between your position then and now is how much control you have over other people.

Kandahar · May 21, 2009

Jerry said:
You want to control over rather or not he dies, is the point.

You don't want his family to have any say at all.

You're god damn right I don't. His family are religious zealots who are unfit to be parents.

Jerry said:
Your position on this issue is only the one it is because you think it's the easiest way to get that control.

If you thought the opposite position were a shorter path to that control, you would take that instead.

You're right, I'm an Evil Liberal (TM). Do you have a website chronicling the beliefs of us Evil Liberals too?

Jerry said:
Terry Schiavo? She was so brain dead she was communicating with visitors.

No she wasn't. That was bullcrap, and the autopsy confirmed it.

Jerry said:
During the Terry Schiavo epic you were a stanch supporter of the right to die, individual choice and legal sovereignty away from the courts in favor of the wishes of the legal guardians/medical proxy.

Terry Schiavo had no hope of regaining consciousness, whereas this boy stands an excellent chance of survival with chemotherapy and little chance without it. Furthermore, Terry Schiavo granted her husband the right to make those decisions on her behalf when she married him. This boy had no control over whose vagina he popped out of.

What is often missed is that from a legal standpoint, the whole Terry Schiavo dispute was not over whether or not someone had a right to pull the plug (congressional grandstanding aside)...it was over WHO had the right to make those decisions on her behalf - her parents or her husband who had a new family. Common law grants the husband the next-of-kin rights, and the courts found in his favor. If he had been the one arguing for leaving the feeding tube in, and her parents wanted to pull the plug, she'd still be on life support.

Jerry said:
All that is gon now, and the only consistent thing between your position then and now is how much control you have over other people.

Uhh, YOU are the one who wanted control over Terri Schiavo by injecting yourself and Congress into a next-of-kin dispute which was none of your damn business. I want the government to take control over this boy's medical decisions because he has unfit parents...and child neglect actually IS the state's business, last I checked.

And since you decided to bring up consistency, let's take look at YOUR consistency: Suppose Terri Schiavo's husband had told the press that Jesus came down from heaven and told him to pull the feeding tube, and that Jesus would personally keep her alive. Would you respect his decision then?

Ethereal · May 21, 2009

ADK_Forever said:
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? 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.

What if they're NOT responsible?

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

Whoa, I just...agreed with ADK...I need to lay down.

Jerry · May 21, 2009

Kandahar said:
You're god damn right I don't. His family are religious zealots who are unfit to be parents.

See? There it is.

You will always side against religion regardless of the situation.

You just can't stand that religion = free thought.

Kandahar said:
Uhh, YOU are the one who wanted control over Terri Schiavo by injecting yourself and the government into a next-of-kin dispute which was none of your damn business. I want the government to take control over this boy's medical decisions because he has unfit parents...and child neglect actually IS the state's business, last I checked.

When it came to the next-of-kin issue, I sided with the law, just as I am doing here. You should take better notes.

My personal opinion was to have Terry's condition diagnosed using the latest diagnostic criteria; the very definition of her condition had been significantly changed since her original diagnosis years before.

Anyway, Terry's husband only wanted her dead so he could collect the insurance and live on with his new wife. Terry's parents were more than willing and capable of taking her in and caring for her; they even had the money to give her new treatments to improve her condition.

That seems to be what you want for the boy, but that's only your surrogate argument to once again stand against religion.

Arrest ordered for mom of boy, 13, resisting chemo

talloulou

Felicity

talloulou

Felicity

Felicity

talloulou

Felicity

talloulou

talloulou

ADK_Forever

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant

Hatuey

Rule of Two

Orion

Jerry

Jerry

Jerry

Jerry

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant

Jerry

jallman

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant

Jerry

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant

Ethereal

Jerry