- Joined
- Feb 12, 2006
- Messages
- 15,998
- Reaction score
- 3,962
- Location
- Tiamat's better half
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
I think the parent's and the child's choice is wrong, but NOT acting on something is not the same as ACTING to bring something about.
Don't we value personal freedom to determine the course of our lives? If one doesn't want to receive extraordinary medical treatment--what right does any legal body have in butting in and compelling a person to receive extraordinary care? The same people who will scream at the top of their lungs that a terminally ill person should be able to determine how and when he dies seem to be the ones raising holy hell that these people can't decide NOT to live. What IS that if not hypocrisy?
Comparisons have been made to not feeding a kid--nourishment is not extraordinary medical treatment. Being hooked up to poisonous chemicals in order kill off mutant cells--that is extraordinary.
Mind you--I totally disagree with the parents and the boy, but I side with their freedom to be wrong.
You can put your dog down, too. Look--a human being is not a dog. You do not HAVE to give your dog chemo if he's sick. It is not a valid comparison. If the kid wanted the treatment and his parents said no, it would be different, but that isn't the circumstances here. Leave them alone. As yet, it is still a free country, though with the messed up thinking of people, I fear it won't be for long. We'll run into tyranny with our arms wide begging for it it seems, for all the lazy thinkers.Hell you can go to jail if you have a dog chained up in your yard that obviously needs medical treatment.
Human beings--free-will--self-determinism. Not an animal....:dohIf 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.
I don't think wanting to be in charge of one's own medical decisions is proof of incompetence.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.
It would be hypocrisy if the kid was 18 and compitent rather than 13. See above..
I don't think wanting to be in charge of one's own medical decisions is proof of incompetence.
So you're FOR parental notification laws?
No. But refusing to believe your tumor is growing when all drs. involved say it is - is. Thinking you have magic water - is. Living in denial about what the many drs. are telling you - is. Hell, choosing a prognosis that makes it almost inevitable your kid won't live 5 years when there's an alternative that gives a 90+% survival rate -is. Refusing to acknowledge that this is what you're doing, when you are in fact doing it - is.
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...
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.
SouthernDemocrat said: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.
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...
BTW--for the non-religious types--why don't you view it as Darwin's theory in action?
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.
BTW--for the non-religious types--why don't you view it as Darwin's theory in action?
BTW--for the non-religious types--why don't you view it as Darwin's theory in action?
If he were a girl, he could get an abortion without any one's consent.The kid is 13!
He is not old enough and thus not legally competent to get a loan or line of credit.
Parents can home-school--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 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 or consume alcohol or tobacco.
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 purchase a firearm or ammunition.
His parents are his guardian!He is not old enough and thus not legally competent to fill a prescription drug from a pharmacy without a guardian present.
So--some people are too blind to drive.He is not old enough to drive.
With his parents guidance, yes. Do I agree that his parents are doing the right thing? NO--but they are free to be wrong.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?
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.Think about that. Surely I am not the only one on here that ever changes their mind on an issue.
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.
Because Darwin's theory does not work quite like that as I understand it.
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.
Parents can home-school--his parents support choosing not to treat.
Parents can choose to let the kid have alcohol in their own home,--his parents support choosing not to treat.
Parents can buy a gun and supervise firearm instruction--his parents support choosing not to treat.
His parents are his guardian!
So--some people are too blind to drive.
With his parents guidance, yes. Do I agree that his parents are doing the right thing? NO--but they are free to be wrong.
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.
I was joking around:2razz:
Do I get to call a Godwin on you? :roflOh ok, since Stalin got away with murdering 20 Million people, then Hitler should have gotten away with it to then.
I agree. Is it not unjust to take away individual's free will choice to NOT act?Injustices do not excuse other injustices.
Your analogy is terribly strained. You should give up on it. Parents are legally responsible for their children. They legally make medical decisions all the time. The kid and the parents don't want treatment. It is legal to refuse medical treatment. They are free to refuse medical treatment.His parents could not secure a line of credit and then make their child liable for it. If they did so, they would be breaking the law.
Unnhuh...:roll: Some home schooled kids are fabulous, others....not so much. It depends on the parents doing the homeschooling.You still have to reach the same assessment levels that public and private schooled kids have to reach.
Yes. They can.The parents could choose their child's hospital too, but they cannot deny them life saving treatment.
Again--you're straining the analogy to make it work for you. I can give my kid a glass of wine with dinner if I want to. I believe it's even legal for me to buy my kid a drink at a restaurant if I wanted to. I don't, and wouldn't, but I think legally, I could.Thats an even more absurd example than the others. However, if your kid was getting drunk regularly, and you were leaving alcohol around easily accessible to them, then the authorities could get involved as well.
Not wanting to pump poison into your kid isn't neglect.Yes, exactly, as in he is a ward of his parents. He is not their property though. They do not own him. They are entrusted with his care. That is why you can lose your custody due to abuse or neglect.
:mrgreen: Stupid is as stupid does.Thats a stupid example.
The parents are not endangering the kid--the disease is. The parents are NOT DOING anything!Yes, you are free to make bad decisions as a parent so long as your bad decisions do not grossly endanger the life of your child.
The dr.s cannot ensure that the kid WON'T die.Freedom applies to you as the individual. You are not free to condemn your kids to an agonizing death just because you are an ignorant lunatic.
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.Frankly, I don't get this. I can't imagine how anyone, especially a parent (I dont know if you are or are not), could hold the opinion you have on this. Usually I can see the merits of the arguments of those I disagree with, but in this case, to be honest, I don't see any merit to your argument at all. I just think its dangerous and absurd. I am just glad that the vast majority of Americans would disagree with you on this.
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.
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?