• 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

talloulou said:
Show me one post where I commented on the dad.
Click to expand...

You jumped into an exchange where the side of the conversation you chose to defend was railing against the "parents" :doh

Not the mother only, but the "parents".

You quoted a response against someone opposed to "parents", not the mother only, and then defended the position against "parents", so I don't care what you posted before because you since changed your argument.
 
Felicity said:
I don't believe that the mother is doing this based on deeply held religious conviction. I think she's using it as an excuse. Apparently there is a state law on the matter. That I was not aware of. If it's vague--like it's quoted above--I think there's wiggle room, but not much. I don't like the idea that people can be compelled to have extraordinary medical procedures done--I'm very libertarian in that regard--My health, and my family's health is MY business. However--I very much support state's rights to decide matters. I guess I must concede that the state has the right to do this, but I disagree with the fundamental issue of saving people from their own stupidity. Freedom is more important to me than one family making a choice most people would not make--and to compromise liberty for that exception is not worth it, IMO.

Where's the "body soverignty" crowd.:roll:
Click to expand...



The body of soverignty crowd is right here :2wave:

Freedom !

I spent 14 long years in hospital ER`s , Intesive care units, Chemo, OR..., as a practicioner. I want my freedom to choose.

"Freedom", takes on a whole new meaning, as a refuge from those who wish to decide for me.

Scientologist John Travolta was not faulted by the general populace,( or most people in DP), nor charged by the law, for decideing that Scientology, and not siezure meds, would be his sons cure/treatment. That was a siezure, that caused the fall, that caused.... many of you folks are selective in choosing the facts on which you base your opinions.
 
Last edited:
I find it a bit odd that the parents' faith did not stop them from allowing one chemo session. My hunch is that after they saw the effects of the chemo on their son, they decided to stop it and rely on faith.

IMO, any parent, no matter how well intentioned, who does not give his/her child the best chance for survival (in this case, that would be the chemo), is guilty of child abuse. My opinion of what is child abuse is probably not the same as the legal definition, so my opinion is worth about a plug nickel.

Chemotherapy is an ugly matter. You lose your hair and you puke your guts out. It must have been hard for this kid's parents to see him go through that. I know it was hard for my parents to agree to some unpleasant (but not as unpleasant as chemo) medical treatments to treat some of the illnesses I had while growing up.
 
Jerry said:
You jumped into an exchange where the side of the conversation you chose to defend was railing against the "parents" :doh

Not the mother only, but the "parents".

You quoted a response against someone opposed to "parents", not the mother only, and then defended the position against "parents", so I don't care what you posted before because you since changed your argument.
Click to expand...
That's cool. I'll stand by that. There's no way dad's a winner either.
 
Agnapostate said:
There's no hardwired element in him that would resist informed awareness of these circumstances, I'd imagine. Hence, the solution is to thoroughly inform him of every conceivable circumstance and implication of any specific course of action, and then take him to a room out of earshot of his parents and ask him what his choice would be.
Click to expand...

This child has been taught not to trust the doctors, the courts, the state by his parents. You can't un-teach that by merely putting him in a different room for an hour or so.

If he believes his tumor hasn't grown because his mother swears up and down it hasn't and he further believes the drs. and the courts are outright lying when they claim it has then separating him from his mother and trying to talk sense into him isn't going to work.

The court said this boy believes that the chemo will kill him. He also dose not believe he is dangerously ill or that his cancer is going to kill him.

Asking him his choice when he's brain washed and deluded is pointless. Explaining how things are, laying out the facts so to speak, is positively pointless if the child you're talking to was convinced by his nutty mother and her guru magic man that you're a liar.
 
talloulou said:
This child has been taught not to trust the doctors, the courts, the state by his parents. You can't un-teach that by merely putting him in a different room for an hour or so.

If he believes his tumor hasn't grown because his mother swears up and down it hasn't and he further believes the drs. and the courts are outright lying when they claim it has then separating him from his mother and trying to talk sense into him isn't going to work.

The court said this boy believes that the chemo will kill him. He also dose not believe he is dangerously ill or that his cancer is going to kill him.

Asking him his choice when he's brain washed and deluded is pointless. Explaining how things are, laying out the facts so to speak, is positively pointless if the child you're talking to was convinced by his nutty mother and her guru magic man that you're a liar.
Click to expand...

He's not brainwashed silly! I mean believing that ionized water and a bit of herbs can cure cancer is NOT brainwashing.
 
I have mixed feelings about this case. I generally don't like to impose the state over parents' rights to raise their children. However, assuming the chemo is the best and only alternative, I have to side on the boy's right to life.
 
American said:
I have mixed feelings about this case. I generally don't like to impose the state over parents' rights to raise their children. However, assuming the chemo is the best and only alternative, I have to side on the boy's right to life.
Click to expand...

there's hope for you yet;)
 
talloulou said:
This child has been taught not to trust the doctors, the courts, the state by his parents. You can't un-teach that by merely putting him in a different room for an hour or so.

If he believes his tumor hasn't grown because his mother swears up and down it hasn't and he further believes the drs. and the courts are outright lying when they claim it has then separating him from his mother and trying to talk sense into him isn't going to work.

The court said this boy believes that the chemo will kill him. He also dose not believe he is dangerously ill or that his cancer is going to kill him.

Asking him his choice when he's brain washed and deluded is pointless. Explaining how things are, laying out the facts so to speak, is positively pointless if the child you're talking to was convinced by his nutty mother and her guru magic man that you're a liar.
Click to expand...

I can't regard this as any more than anecdotal speculation. It would ordinarily be the case that someone his age should have acquired the capacities to make rational decisions about medical treatment, but his lack of information obviously does pose a problem. To be honest, it's true that I can't determine or predict what his individual reaction would be without knowing him personally.
 
This case reminds me of a similar one back in Canada where a couple of jehova's witnesses would not allow their four newborns to receive a life saving blood transfusion. Children's aid came and took the kids away, and got them the treatment.

To me, when religion crosses the line of obstructing modern medical care/knowledge in a life or death case based on archaic, unsubstantiated beliefs, it's then that the state needs to step in.
 
Rodney said:
The body of soverignty crowd is right here :2wave:

Freedom !

I spent 14 long years in hospital ER`s , Intesive care units, Chemo, OR..., as a practicioner. I want my freedom to choose.

"Freedom", takes on a whole new meaning, as a refuge from those who wish to decide for me.

Scientologist John Travolta was not faulted by the general populace,( or most people in DP), nor charged by the law, for decideing that Scientology, and not siezure meds, would be his sons cure/treatment. That was a siezure, that caused the fall, that caused.... many of you folks are selective in choosing the facts on which you base your opinions.
Click to expand...

The person's body in this issue is too young to make an informed choice and clearly whatever was wrong with Travolta's kid was a different order of severity.
 
Agnapostate said:
That's not consistent with the empirical literature on the matter.
Click to expand...

Good thing the United States is a republic, not an empire.

Because we're a republic, the government is constituted to protect the citizens, not protect people pushing cockamamie religions, and thus the courts are required to protect the boy when the parents refuse to give him proven life-saving treatment.

If the people pushing this cockamamie alternative medicine crap want equal standing in the courts, they need to prove, via the same double-blind scientific process as real medicines must follow, the efficacy of their nostrums.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Good thing the United States is a republic, not an empire.

Because we're a republic, the government is constituted to protect the citizens, not protect people pushing cockamamie religions, and thus the courts are required to protect the boy when the parents refuse to give him proven life-saving treatment.

If the people pushing this cockamamie alternative medicine crap want equal standing in the courts, they need to prove, via the same double-blind scientific process as real medicines must follow, the efficacy of their nostrums.
Click to expand...

What relevance has this to my remark? I noted that the empirical literature did not support the assessment of persons his age being unable to make informed, rational decisions about medical treatment.
 
Agnapostate said:
What relevance has this to my remark? I noted that the empirical literature did not support the assessment of persons his age being unable to make informed, rational decisions about medical treatment.
Click to expand...

Fact of the matter is, given the empirical evidence presented in court, that boy doesn't believe the real medical treatment can cure him, and he believes that the mumbo jumbo herbalist nonsense can.

Therefore, the empirical evidence is that the boy can't make the correct decision, and since the boy is a minor child isn't necessary for someone to make the correct decision for him, and since his mother and father are fools, that means the court has to do it.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Fact of the matter is, given the empirical evidence presented in court, that boy doesn't believe the real medical treatment can cure him, and he believes that the mumbo jumbo herbalist nonsense can.

Therefore, the empirical evidence is that the boy can't make the correct decision, and since the boy is a minor child isn't necessary for someone to make the correct decision for him, and since his mother and father are fools, that means the court has to do it.
Click to expand...

No, you said "[t]he person's body in this issue is too young to make an informed choice." I merely addressed that, which is separate from the fact that this individual has been brainwashed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom