Jury convicts mom who withheld cancer meds:

[liblady]

good verdict imo. discuss.

Jury convicts mom who withheld cancer meds - Health - Kids and parenting - msnbc.com

Jeremy's oncologist, Dr. Alison Friedmann of Massachusetts General Hospital, had testified that she told LaBrie her son's cancer had a cure rate of 85 percent to 90 percent under a two-year, five-phase treatment plan that included some hospital stays, regular visits to the hospital clinic to receive chemotherapy treatments and at-home administration of several cancer medications.

 

[Ikari]

What does this mean for parents who refuse treatment of their kids on religious grounds?

 

[Your Star]

What does this mean for parents who refuse treatment of their kids on religious grounds?

To be honest, I think that's child abuse.

 

[liblady]

What does this mean for parents who refuse treatment of their kids on religious grounds?

i think that's been decided, they can't do it.

 

[Slartibartfast]

good verdict imo. discuss.

Jury convicts mom who withheld cancer meds - Health - Kids and parenting - msnbc.com

Jeremy's oncologist, Dr. Alison Friedmann of Massachusetts General Hospital, had testified that she told LaBrie her son's cancer had a cure rate of 85 percent to 90 percent under a two-year, five-phase treatment plan that included some hospital stays, regular visits to the hospital clinic to receive chemotherapy treatments and at-home administration of several cancer medications.

I wonder if we could get a similar ruling against the nuts who refuse to vaccinate their children.

 

[digsbe]

I agree with Your Star, it is child abuse to withhold life saving medicine on religious grounds.

 

[liblady]

I wonder if we could get a similar ruling against the nuts who refuse to vaccinate their children.

probably not.

 

[donsutherland1]

What does this mean for parents who refuse treatment of their kids on religious grounds?

I support the court's ruling. IMO, any adult who is competent to make reasonably informed decisions can and should be able to refuse treatment for his/her conditions. However, when one is dealing with minors who lack that capacity, the maximum protection should be given to those minors. Hence, parents should not have the legal ability to deny their children (who lack the capacity to make adult judgments) access to necessary treatment when their children's lives/health are at significant risk.

 

[Ikari]

Well these things are religious belief and maybe for a very small child since they can't really voice their own opinion I'd be more inclined to agree. But if the child is old enough and also expresses no desire to have treatment, I think maybe that should be honored.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

I wonder if we could get a similar ruling against the nuts who refuse to vaccinate their children.

People can go their whole lives not vaccinated and never cme down with any such diseases.

Big difference between that - and then denying your child the necessary elements to live - such as food, shelter, and cancer treatment.

 

[Slartibartfast]

People can go their whole lives not vaccinated and never cme down with any such diseases.

Big difference between that - and then denying your child the necessary elements to live - such as food, shelter, and cancer treatment.

Only because of herd immunity. The nonstupid are protecting the stupid. However, that doesn't excuse it.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Only because of herd immunity. The nonstupid are protecting the stupid. However, that doesn't excuse it.

I though herd immunity was a theory centering around people developing a natural immnity because others have done so?
Or is herd immunity just refering to people being surrounded by a populous that is immune and thus aren't exposed to it?

either way: I use to not worry too much about immunizations. Not because of religious beliefs or anyting like that - I just didn't *see* the urgent need for effort to immunize. I felt apathetic about it until I actually learned what various diseases were - like Smallpox and rubella, etc. And I heard that certain immunized-for diseases are becoming more prevalent in the country.

Every since that moment in which I learned what they were - and that contracting them in the US is becoming more likely for those who aren't immunized - I took all the kids to get them caught up on their shots. They weren't *wihout* shots at all - but they were all behind. Some more than others.

Iv'e been on top of it ever since.

 

[Hicup]

I though herd immunity was a theory centering around people developing a natural immnity because others have done so?
Or is herd immunity just refering to people being surrounded by a populous that is immune and thus aren't exposed to it?

either way: I use to not worry too much about immunizations. Not because of religious beliefs or anyting like that - I just didn't *see* the urgent need for effort to immunize. I felt apathetic about it until I actually learned what various diseases were - like Smallpox and rubella, etc. And I heard that certain immunized-for diseases are becoming more prevalent in the country.

Every since that moment in which I learned what they were - and that contracting them in the US is becoming more likely for those who aren't immunized - I took all the kids to get them caught up on their shots. They weren't *wihout* shots at all - but they were all behind. Some more than others.

Iv'e been on top of it ever since.

Pick your nose and eat it from childhood into adulthood and you'll be just fine. No need to take a da needle..


Tim-

 

[ksu_aviator]

Seems to me this is a failure on the doctor's part as well as the mother's. It is up to the doctor to explain how the treatment will give the child an outwardly sick look, but that appearance is a positive reaction to the medication. If the mother didn't understand that, it was a poor job on the doctor's part of making that information clear. I also find it hard to fault a parent for not wanting to put their child through agonizing pain. If the doctor had made the decision to stop the medication, it is unlikely this would have gone to trial. There may have been a law suit, but no criminal trial.

 

[Taylor]

What does this mean for parents who refuse treatment of their kids on religious grounds?

I would argue that the right to life is more fundamental than the right to freedom of worship; when the two are clearly at odds, the right to life takes precedence.

I say "clearly" because the state of course has much less right to intervene in cases where medical outcomes are less reliable.

 

[Ikari]

I would argue that the right to life is more fundamental than the right to freedom of worship; when the two are clearly at odds, the right to life takes precedence.

I say "clearly" because the state of course has much less right to intervene in cases where medical outcomes are less reliable.

Yeah, but what if it's not a little child, but maybe a 13 or 14 year old who claims to have the same religious conviction and wishes to refuse treatment?

 

[Your Star]

Yeah, but what if it's not a little child, but maybe a 13 or 14 year old who claims to have the same religious conviction and wishes to refuse treatment?

They don't get to make that choice until they are 18.

 

[Ikari]

They don't get to make that choice until they are 18.

So what's the difference in that case other than 4-5 years? If they really believe that you'll doom their eternal soul and wish to adhere to that, do we really have authority to say "Naw, **** that. That ****'s crazy anyway.". I mean, I would agree that it is crazy and I can't begin to understand why people would choose that route. Yet people do. Is it their right to die on their own accord according to their own will? Or do we have proper right and authority to intercede and say "no, you can't make this choice"? I actually don't think I have the right to tell people what to believe and think and if they somehow got it in their head that medical treatment will damn their soul; then it's their right to think that and live that.

 

[Your Star]

So what's the difference in that case other than 4-5 years? If they really believe that you'll doom their eternal soul and wish to adhere to that, do we really have authority to say "Naw, **** that. That ****'s crazy anyway.". I mean, I would agree that it is crazy and I can't begin to understand why people would choose that route. Yet people do. Is it their right to die on their own accord according to their own will? Or do we have proper right and authority to intercede and say "no, you can't make this choice"? I actually don't think I have the right to tell people what to believe and think and if they somehow got it in their head that medical treatment will damn their soul; then it's their right to think that and live that.

You could say that about all of the age restriction laws, the fact is that until you are 18 you aren't legally an adult, and can't make such decisions.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I though herd immunity was a theory centering around people developing a natural immnity because others have done so?
Or is herd immunity just refering to people being surrounded by a populous that is immune and thus aren't exposed to it?

either way: I use to not worry too much about immunizations. Not because of religious beliefs or anyting like that - I just didn't *see* the urgent need for effort to immunize. I felt apathetic about it until I actually learned what various diseases were - like Smallpox and rubella, etc. And I heard that certain immunized-for diseases are becoming more prevalent in the country.

Every since that moment in which I learned what they were - and that contracting them in the US is becoming more likely for those who aren't immunized - I took all the kids to get them caught up on their shots. They weren't *wihout* shots at all - but they were all behind. Some more than others.

Iv'e been on top of it ever since.

Its the second one. And exactly, if enough people forego their shots, then they no longer benefit from being around people who are immune.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

I would argue that the right to life is more fundamental than the right to freedom of worship; when the two are clearly at odds, the right to life takes precedence.

So, in other words, the "right" to life is enforced whether someone wants it or not?

 

[apdst]

What does this mean for parents who refuse treatment of their kids on religious grounds?

It means more nanny-statism.

 

[Taylor]

So, in other words, the "right" to life is enforced whether someone wants it or not?

I believe it's quite clear that young children are mentally incapable of making these sorts of decisions, so yes, what a child wants or doesn't want is of little relevance -- so much so that we not only recognize the authority of a guardian over that child, we demand it.

 

[Taylor]

Yeah, but what if it's not a little child, but maybe a 13 or 14 year old who claims to have the same religious conviction and wishes to refuse treatment?

Age is a measure of convenience -- one that we hope is justified in light of all we've learned about human development -- but a measure of convienence nonetheless. That 13 or 14 year old should (and I believe can) argue in court to have his or her wishes recognized, and would need to convincingly demonstrate the mental capacity required for such a decision (or at least show equivalence with the typical 18 year old).

 

[danarhea]

Age is a measure of convenience -- one that we hope is justified in light of all we've learned about human development -- but a measure of convienence nonetheless. That 13 or 14 year old should (and I believe can) argue in court to have his or her wishes recognized, and would need to convincingly demonstrate the mental capacity required for such a decision (or at least show equivalence with the typical 18 year old).

I disagree. A 13 or 14 year old child can profess love for the teacher that molested him or her, but it is still against the law to molest kids that age. Legally, children do not have the capacity to make their own decisions until adulthood. This is a good law, and the parents are responsible for their actions.