[Kosh]

If you've known anyone who's had cancer and gone through chemo, you know its an incredibly ****ty experience, often worse than cancer itself.

Cancer == death if untreated. Hard to get worse than that.

But if there were a chance that you could save him some other way, you might think twice.

There isn't. Chemo and radiation therapy are pretty much the only thing that can treat it completely. The doctors did testify that the kid has only a 5% chance of survival without chemo, but with chemo the survival of 90% with chemo. Gee, I wonder which one I would choose, no matter how ****ty the experience might be. Maybe you would roll the dice with life threatening illness, but not all of us.


 

For a state judge to say that the family isn't allowed to pursue their own people's version of a cure for him again, sets a weird precedent that the state's legal authority supersedes that of parent's (of varying peoples, religions and creeds) in day-to-day life.

This isn't day to day life, this is a life threatening condition in which the parents are demonstrating blatant negligence. The parents stated they would seek "alternatives", well what alternatives are there? Everything I've read is still in development.

Should Gov. be allowed to tell parents how to treat parents?  THINGS TO CONSIDER: First cancer, then any disease. First disease, then parenting - slippery slope.

Libertarian scare tactics. Children are not capable of independent thinking, and when the parents make choices that endanger them they should be called out for it. No one has problems if the kid was 23 instead of 13 and refused treatment.

Should you be allowed to not take your children to chemo if they have cancer? THINGS TO CONSIDER: Chemo might not save them. Chemo sucks. You want to avoid prolonged suffering. You're sure that there are other medical treatments with less ill impact.

things to consider, has whole life ahead of him, would have no chance at all without treatment. Even a 50-50 chance is better than nothing.

[NGTM-1R]

THINGS TO CONSIDER: Chemo might not save them. Chemo sucks. You want to avoid prolonged suffering. You're sure that there are other medical treatments with less ill impact.

Put bluntly, cancer is a ****ty way to die. You'll suffer greatly both with and without chemo/radiation/both. However, you might live through it if you're treated. This argument is moot.

Should Gov. be allowed to tell parents how to treat parents? THINGS TO CONSIDER: First cancer, then any disease. First disease, then parenting - slippery slope. Who is Gov to tell you how to help your family if it goes against your personal beliefs?

The slippery slope is usually considered an informal logical fallacy, as it argues on possible future consequences of dubious relevance and dubious likelyhood. This is an excellent demonstration why; from ordering a potentionally lifesaving treatment to ordering any treatment regardless of what's at stake to just ordering.

It doesn't sound reasonable. It isn't. To use an appropriate metaphor, stop blowing smoke.

But I'm sure we can all mostly agree that medical treatment against him (or his parents') will is probably not the best way to save him.

We can't, because it is the best way that we know of at this moment. You have a better medical alternative? Spit it out.

[karajorma]

I should point out that I agree with KT on what the question is. I completely disagree with him on the way he is arguing about it.

Should Gov. be allowed to tell parents how to treat parents? THINGS TO CONSIDER: First cancer, then any disease. First disease, then parenting - slippery slope. Who is Gov to tell you how to help your family if it goes against your personal beliefs?

The slippery slope is usually considered an informal logical fallacy, as it argues on possible future consequences of dubious relevance and dubious likelyhood. This is an excellent demonstration why; from ordering a potentionally lifesaving treatment to ordering any treatment regardless of what's at stake to just ordering.

Exactly. You can prove the slippery slope argument wrong simply by taking a step back to something the government does intervene in and trying to make the argument there.

Should Gov. be allowed to tell parents how to treat children? THINGS TO CONSIDER: First they intervene to prevent you beating your children with a bat, then intervene if you refuse to feed them, then cancer, then any disease. - slippery slope.

See? Nonsense. The slippery slope is argument is just as nonsensical as the religious one. This is an argument about where to draw the dividing line between a parent's right to decide what is best for their children and the state's responsibility to their children. Both sides in this argument agree that there already is a line, the question is on which side of it this falls.

[Flipside]

That's always the risk, a foot in the door of parental authority.

I think these parents are being incredibly stupid, I think they are, most likely killing their child and it is disgusting. But what is even more terrifying is the possibility of government stepping into the role of parent.

In some ways it reminds me of court cases here regarding people's right to end their own life in a dignified way, rather than wasting away, only in this case there is the massive added complication that something could be done.

It a very difficult thing to stand by and watch parents more or less condemn their child to death, but it is equally difficult seeing the authorities telling parents how to raise their children, also the report doesn't strongly allude to what the child himself wanted. I'm assuming he went to chemo and hated it so much he would rather take his chances, of course, even there, a child of 13 has very little concept of death.

It's one of those Micro/Macro considerations if you ask me, on a Micro-scale, it seems like the right thing to do to protect the child, but on a Macro-scale it sets a precedent that is just a bit scary.

[karajorma]

In some ways it reminds me of court cases here regarding people's right to end their own life in a dignified way, rather than wasting away, only in this case there is the massive added complication that something could be done.

And the real irony is the sides are reversed. Most of the people who will argue for saving the child would also argue to allow someone to end their life with dignity while the reverse is also true and many people who will argue in favour of the parents right to choose to not treat the child would argue against euthanasia.

[WeatherOp]

I'm sitting here wondering why the government isn't stepping in letting all these kids who the parents beat and used drugs go right back to the environment they got them out of. 

[Flipside]

Because assault and drug abuse are illegal, and in the case of drug abuse, there is a addiction factor to take into account.

If this is both what the child and the parents believe they want, then the government shall make no law to restrict that choice.

Don't know if you have Jehovah witnesses in the US, but it's like them and Blood Transfusions, does the government have the right to force a Jehovah's witness to take a Blood Transfusion, even to save their life, if they believe it is the wrong thing to do?

Does the Government have the right to force someone to have or not have an abortion, even to save their or the childs life, if they do not wish to?

It's not just the subject that needs to be considered, it's the repercussions of it.

Edit: To take an extreme version of such a case, assume a mother is pregnant, and the child is healthy, but carrying the baby to full term will kill the mother, does the court have the right to 'protect' the child by forcing the mother to die? It's a different scenario from the one posted, but it does highlight the dangers inherent in the court feeling it has the right to make such a decision.

[Blue Lion]

In some ways it reminds me of court cases here regarding people's right to end their own life in a dignified way, rather than wasting away, only in this case there is the massive added complication that something could be done.

And the real irony is the sides are reversed. Most of the people who will argue for saving the child would also argue to allow someone to end their life with dignity while the reverse is also true and many people who will argue in favour of the parents right to choose to not treat the child would argue against euthanasia.

The big difference is "consenting adult"

There is quite a list of things you can't do with kids but can with adults. Reason? They're kids.

The doctor said somewhere that if it shows the chemo won't work, they won't keep doing it.

If parents could decide what was best all the time, we wouldn't have child services.

[Blue Lion]

Edit: To take an extreme version of such a case, assume a mother is pregnant, and the child is healthy, but carrying the baby to full term will kill the mother, does the court have the right to 'protect' the child by forcing the mother to die? It's a different scenario from the one posted, but it does highlight the dangers inherent in the court feeling it has the right to make such a decision.

There is a train coming and a baby and the government's mother are on the tracks, they only have time to save one, which one do they get?

Why does your example have to include the death of someone? You've made it a value choice on who gets to live and who gets to die. Now both people in this have their lives at the whim of the government.

[Flipside]

Because it is a deliberately extreme example.

The example you give is not about choice on the part of the parent though, is it? If someone was deliberately on the train tracks, then they are probably suicidal, which is a whole different ball-game, if they have their child with them, then it is even more obvious that there are mental factors involved.

This is more like a mother and her baby trapped on the line, and the mother has a choice to save herself or the child, does the government have the right to dictate her decision for her? And even then, that isn't a complete analogy, because in this case, both the parents and the child had made their decision, only to have it reversed by the courts.

[karajorma]

In some ways it reminds me of court cases here regarding people's right to end their own life in a dignified way, rather than wasting away, only in this case there is the massive added complication that something could be done.

And the real irony is the sides are reversed. Most of the people who will argue for saving the child would also argue to allow someone to end their life with dignity while the reverse is also true and many people who will argue in favour of the parents right to choose to not treat the child would argue against euthanasia.

The big difference is "consenting adult"

There is quite a list of things you can't do with kids but can with adults. Reason? They're kids.

The doctor said somewhere that if it shows the chemo won't work, they won't keep doing it.

If parents could decide what was best all the time, we wouldn't have child services.

I didn't comment on the right or wrong of it. I just find it ironic that many of the people who want the government to step in are pro-choice while many of the people quite happy to let the parents kill this child in order to avoid the danger of government intervention are pro-life and anti-euthanasia.

[redsniper]

What if I'm pro-parents and pro-dignified suicide?

[Flipside]

Then you're strange and different and we reject you!!!

[redsniper]

[Blue Lion]

The example you give is not about choice on the part of the parent though, is it? If someone was deliberately on the train tracks, then they are probably suicidal, which is a whole different ball-game, if they have their child with them, then it is even more obvious that there are mental factors involved.

It's a hypothetical situation. Imagine a car broke down on the tracks and you only have time to save one. The point is there is no wrong answer.

This is more like a mother and her baby trapped on the line, and the mother has a choice to save herself or the child, does the government have the right to dictate her decision for her? And even then, that isn't a complete analogy, because in this case, both the parents and the child had made their decision, only to have it reversed by the courts.

Except the mother won't die if the kid gets chemo.

But to your example, what is the governments position here? What is the goal?

The answer to the example is the government gets to determine. The parents aren't in total control of their child's life. Any rights the parents have over their children are given to them by the government. Even if the parent gets to choose, that option is given by the government.

This is amazing to me. The government tells you what you can and can't do with and to your kids all the time. This is not new stuff.

[Blue Lion]

In some ways it reminds me of court cases here regarding people's right to end their own life in a dignified way, rather than wasting away, only in this case there is the massive added complication that something could be done.

And the real irony is the sides are reversed. Most of the people who will argue for saving the child would also argue to allow someone to end their life with dignity while the reverse is also true and many people who will argue in favour of the parents right to choose to not treat the child would argue against euthanasia.

The big difference is "consenting adult"

There is quite a list of things you can't do with kids but can with adults. Reason? They're kids.

The doctor said somewhere that if it shows the chemo won't work, they won't keep doing it.

If parents could decide what was best all the time, we wouldn't have child services.

I didn't comment on the right or wrong of it. I just find it ironic that many of the people who want the government to step in are pro-choice while many of the people quite happy to let the parents kill this child in order to avoid the danger of government intervention are pro-life and anti-euthanasia.

It makes perfect sense 

[iamzack]

We already have a term for this. It's called "medical neglect."

Nobody gives a **** what the child wants, pretty much ever. That's how our legal system works.

90% versus 5% is a HUGE difference. The parents just don't have the right to reject medical attention for their child in such cases.

Blue Lion: uh, huh, derr? Compulsory school attendance, no extreme corporal punishment, etc?

[karajorma]

It makes perfect sense 

You don't find pro-lifers wanting to prevent government interference so that parents can make a decision that will kill their child ironic?

[Grizzly]

If God did not want us to use chemotherapy, then why did he let us come up with the idea?

[Blue Lion]

It makes perfect sense 

You don't find pro-lifers wanting to prevent government interference so that parents can make a decision that will kill their child ironic?

No, it's power. They don't want the government to decide, THEY want to decide and the answer is "no"