lizzie
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2009
- Messages
- 28,580
- Reaction score
- 31,554
- Location
- between two worlds
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
I would agree completely if the person in question wasn't a minor. Normally the decision would fall to the parents. As the guardians of this child, I cant imagine why the parents aren't insisting that she undergo the treatment. That a guardian would allow their child to die when treatment is available might be why the court stepped in in the first place.
:shrug: you responded satirically. I pointed out only that your satire did contain faults - Obama did push to give government this power.
She is going to die without the treatment. And I just dont see rational parents supporting a decision that is essentially suicide. As long as I am my childs guardian, those sorts of decisions will be mine. Once she is 18, that decision is hers.Did the girl herself not state that she (herself) doesn't want chemo? That was how I understood the article. It sounds to me as if the parents are supporting her own wish. Minor or not, she seems to be capable of self-directing, and if her parents are simply supporting her decision, I have no problem with that at all.
Did the girl herself not state that she (herself) doesn't want chemo? That was how I understood the article. It sounds to me as if the parents are supporting her own wish. Minor or not, she seems to be capable of self-directing, and if her parents are simply supporting her decision, I have no problem with that at all.
Did the girl herself not state that she (herself) doesn't want chemo? That was how I understood the article. It sounds to me as if the parents are supporting her own wish. Minor or not, she seems to be capable of self-directing, and if her parents are simply supporting her decision, I have no problem with that at all.
OK, let me play devil's advocate here. Assuming that the girl wanted to commit suicide by putting a bullet in her head, and the mother was such a sicko that she supported it, would it be the government's right to step in and stop it? If the answer is yes, then what is different about this case that the government has no right to step in.?
She will attain her majority in under a year. This isn't about a little child; it's about a 17-year old. That's troubling.
There is no point of relevance to discuss when you make up facts that don't exist in this case.
With suicide, it's not something that a parent is going to support. If this girl is sick enough to need chemo, then that's an entirely different scenario than a teenager who is suicidal. With suicide, though, no, it is NOT the government's business to step in and force someone not to kill themselves.
She is going to die without the treatment. And I just dont see rational parents supporting a decision that is essentially suicide. As long as I am my childs guardian, those sorts of decisions will be mine. Once she is 18, that decision is hers.
You still havent pointed this out.... What does the ACA have to do with this, especially when the decision was made by the Supreme Court of Connecticut?
At what age should a child be considered an adult?
when did I make up anything about this case?
The ACA does give power over these decisions to an unelected, unaccountable board.
doctors said would give her an 85 percent chance of survival. Without it, they said, there was a near certainty of death within two years.
You began with this....
And then began talking about government panels, as if it applied here.
Why does the mother have more of a right than the government--both of them are telling the girl what she has to do whether she agrees or not?
No the decision should not be in the hands of the girl. Eating grass juice isn't going to slow or cure her cancer and she is foolish to think it will. When she is 18 she can legally decide for herself, but by then, perhaps she will be on the home stretch. I really do not know what stage she is in, but it sounds like she is very early on and is highly treatable.
Chemo doesn't cure cancer. It basically a treatment that works by causing massive amounts of harm to the body. In fact, I imagine it actually causes more harm than it acts to fix.
:roll: and why did you bring up Obama?
Chemo doesn't cure cancer. It basically a treatment that works by causing massive amounts of harm to the body. In fact, I imagine it actually causes more harm than it acts to fix.
No. The Independent Payment Advisory Board, which was created under the Affordable Care Act, has absolutely nothing to do with this topic. Her treatment has absolutely nothing to do with "Nationalization" of health care, as you put it. This case was decided entirely by courts in the State of Connecticut, after doctors filed a complaint with the state's Child Welfare Agency.No, I didn't. I explicitly and exclusively pointed to the IPAB as it pertained to the notion of whether or not government belonged in these kinds of decisions.
In case you need to reference.
You want to get your panties in a wad because someone nationalized it? :shrug: Go talk to DemSocialist.
You imagine wrong.
Hodgkins is commonly completely curable.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?