[Flipside]

This is what I mean by Micro/Macro comparisons, however. I'm not saying that what the parent decided was 'right' by a very long shot, but then, you are on really shaky ground when the Courts say it is 'wrong', or, rather, force a child to take that treatment despite the fact he himself does not want it, because it sets up an uneasy precedent. Much like that girl who was, originally, denied the chance to have an abortion in Romania.

It's quite a hotbed of debate, and not just in the US, there is the case of the Jehovahs Witness sextuplets in Canada, which is very similar, the children were taken from the Mother because she refused to let them have Blood Transfusions that would save their lives:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article1426576.ece

The fact is, however, every single one of these cases is individual, there are times when the parents wishes are to be considered, and times when the needs of the child come first, the hard part is not setting precedent, I'm not 100% certain where such a thing would stand in the US which is supposed to make no laws to go against a person's religion, so things could get legally sticky. Stauch, Wheat and Tingle do a very good job of tackling this in the Sourcebook of Medical Law, in the chapter entitled 'The Incompetent Patient', but if ever there were an area that needs to be watched incredibly carefully to ensure that the courts are not merely acting out the law, but imposing their morals upon parents, this is it.

[Ghostavo]

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"

I'm sorry, I assume you've just misunderstood but I can help but laugh at the whole thing.

 

[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"

I'm sorry, I assume you've just misunderstood but I can help but laugh at the whole thing.

 

No I get it completely.

[Ghostavo]

Then what is the difference between parents deciding to do an abortion and this? Isn't it also their decision?

[Blue Lion]

Then what is the difference between parents deciding to do an abortion and this? Isn't it also their decision?

Yes, yes it is.

[karajorma]

Irony blinkers in full effect I see.

Oh well, I'll be satisfied with pretty much everyone else getting it.

[Blue Lion]

Irony blinkers in full effect I see.

Oh well, I'll be satisfied with pretty much everyone else getting it.

I didn't say I didn't get the irony, I just said it made sense.

[Mongoose]

Then what is the difference between parents deciding to do an abortion and this? Isn't it also their decision?

Isn't this debate sticky enough without throwing a mostly-unrelated, even more hot-button issue into the mix?

This is one case that really splits me.  On one hand, I'm generally in complete agreement with what KT said earlier; the idea of the government being able to intervene in parents' decision-making and personal beliefs does set a dangerous precedent.  But on the other...this is a kid's life we're talking about here, a life that, according to the percentages, could most likely be completely saved with the application of a tried-and-true medical treatment.  Yes, a physically-unpleasant treatment, but an effective one nonetheless.  As others have said, the slippery-slope argument doesn't hold up in many (even most) cases, and considering the unique circumstances of this case, it would be difficult to argue that the child's life would benefit from said treatment being withheld from him.  There's also the question as to how far a legal adult's personal religious beliefs can be allowed to impinge upon a child under their care, particularly when said beliefs pose a clear hazard to that child's life.

In the end...I'd have to fall on the side of preserving life.  If chemo would be as effective in the boy's case as is claimed, withholding it from him constitutes neglect of his well-being.  Part of me finds it a tough pill to swallow, but I have to grant at, in certain situations, people sometimes need protection from themselves.

(And from a personal standpoint, the parents' claims that whatever weird New-Age stuff led to this medical decision is "compatible" with their Catholic faith completely baffles me.  What they're doing with their son borders on the antithesis to Catholicism, in my humble opinion.)

[Liberator]

That's where I fall as well.

I am pro-LIFE.  And as a result, Anti-anything that interferes with that.

Abortion = out, except in EXTREME cases
Euthanasia = out, except in EXTREME cases

and, as in this case, denying someone medical care when they are incapable of making a rational decision concerning that care.

What happened here is the kid went for his first treatment and spent the rest of the day puking his guts out.  This distressed his mom, probably some milk-drinker who's parents spent the 60s blasted outta they're skulls.  So she tells him that he doesnt' have to do another treatment.  She would also be the moronic bimbo who begs the doctor to administer the chemo when the kid is in the final stages a year or so from now.

[Flipside]

Would that the answers were so simple.

It's a simple matter to divide the world up into 'good' and 'bad', 'right' and 'wrong', but I think there is really very little in this world that really falls into those categories.

If Life is merely determined by the existence of a heartbeat, then why try to help the oppressed, they are alive, after all? Maybe it's because choice, because Freedom has a role to play in not simply being alive, but in being Human. And what if the choices they choose to make are not in agreement with what you believe are the 'Right' choices to make. Well, that's what choices are for.

That's why you cannot take a brush and paint a broad canvas of opinions across the lives of every man, woman and child, and why situations such as these are far more complex than a simple 'Right' or 'Wrong' answer.

[Blue Lion]

So does the kid get the chemo or no?

[Knight Templar]

First of all, I was drunk when I posted that **** last night. I threw out "slippery slope" and y'all jumped on it and ignored the question. It's a buzzword, get over it.

The real question is, is there a legal right for government to step in? If so, and they do choose to (as they have) then how far does that right extend? How far should it?

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.

This is what is really being discussed. The parents are obviously dumb, and the kid is apparently retarded (learning disability, can't read, thinks he's a medicine man but doesn't know what that means) yet they both agree that they don't want chemo. Chemo doesn't always save a patient (90% is great. it's also not 100%) and its extremely "unpleasant." If you don't want it, and your parents as your legal guardians don't want you to have it, why does a state judge get to decide you have to have it?

To save your life. Obviously. And this has been done with tons of other things: first thing that comes to my mind are seat belts.

Again, I'm not really arguing my personal opinion here (I think he should get treatment, he's a member of a sham-health group, retarded, and he'll probably die otherwise) and I'm certainly not using "libertarian scare tactics." I most definitely realize that these kinds of rulings go by case-by-case scenarios (so far.) I simply think its an interesting constitutional question. Conversely, I'm also a big fan of Gov. not telling me what to do in my personal life, even if its good for me. Because the key word is me, and part of everyone's fundamental natural-born, God-given right should be to have the power to decide their own fate, particularly if it only affects them.

It was probably as difficult a decision for the judge as it was for the parents to decide not to continue with chemo (if they're decent parents; beliefs aside.)

[Liberator]

...then why try to help the oppressed...

Well, usually, you are protecting life when you stop oppression cause there's usually a fair amt of mass murder going on.

Of course, it's not that simple, but for simple stuff like birth and death and illness, it is that simple.

[Knight Templar]

That's where I fall as well.

I am pro-LIFE.  And as a result, Anti-anything that interferes with that.

Abortion = out, except in EXTREME cases
Euthanasia = out, except in EXTREME cases

and, as in this case, denying someone medical care when they are incapable of making a rational decision concerning that care.

What happened here is the kid went for his first treatment and spent the rest of the day puking his guts out.  This distressed his mom, probably some milk-drinker who's parents spent the 60s blasted outta they're skulls.  So she tells him that he doesnt' have to do another treatment.  She would also be the moronic bimbo who begs the doctor to administer the chemo when the kid is in the final stages a year or so from now.

To me, this is a paradoxical, alien philosophy.

I find it interesting that your social preferences are so firmly entrenched in "pro-life" yet status quo for you is to denounce big Gov. Saving a willing patient / victim's life is rarely ever a bad thing. But if you're preserving someone's life against their will... does that not violate the right to self-determination? Abortion is one thing, it includes two people's lives, one of which can speak for itself, the other which can't. But Euthanasia?

[Flipside]

So does the kid get the chemo or no?

According to the courts, he does, and, from a legal standpoint, it appears there is nothing to be done about it.

My own opinion is that I am glad he is getting the treatment, as I said earlier, I think it is disgusting that his parents would behave in this way, but sometimes you need to detach yourself from emotion and look at the picture from a larger angle, it's difficult, particularly in the case of children, not to get your feelings all tangled up with the incident, anyone can be guilty of that.

Whilst the purpose of law is to be a voice for those who have none, care needs to be taken to make sure that voice is truly speaking for the 'victim' and not for itself, and that can only be done on a case by case basis.

There is a famous quote about eternal vigilance, I always felt it didn't just mean standing on the shores looking outwards.

[FUBAR-BDHR]

Didn't the ruling only state he would have to be seen by an Oncologist?  There is no forcing Chemo or radiation only that he needs to be seen and the doctor come up with a treatment.  I believe the family even gets to pick the doctor.  They could pick one that uses alternative treatments and with the doctors support go with that.  

Really though I don't like the government forcing anything but then again I do think the child should be required to get medical treatment.  Your required to have your children immunized.  Your required to take them to the ER if they break an arm.  How is this any different?  And before you say a broken arm isn't life threatening it can be.  Only takes a blood clot from a compound fracture getting to the heart.  

[Flipside]

But then, on the opposite side of the coin, someone has the right to check themselves out of Hospital, even against a Doctor's better judgement.

The first, and possibly the most important Freedom is the freedom to take responsibility for your own life, and Courts need to be very very careful when inhibiting that particular Freedom, no matter how emotionally charged the situation may be.

@Fubar, as I understand the discussion, the whole purpose of the case was because parents wanted to use 'New Age' techniques and didn't want the Chemo, whereas the judge has ordered for the Chemo to take place because it is the most likely method of saving the childs' life.

[Blue Lion]

The real question is, is there a legal right for government to step in? If so, and they do choose to (as they have) then how far does that right extend? How far should it?

Yes, and as far as they choose to extend it.

I'm confused as to why someone thinks the government doesn't have the ability to set up laws regarding its citizens as they see fit. They take it as far as we allow them.

This is what is really being discussed. The parents are obviously dumb, and the kid is apparently retarded (learning disability, can't read, thinks he's a medicine man but doesn't know what that means) yet they both agree that they don't want chemo. Chemo doesn't always save a patient (90% is great. it's also not 100%) and its extremely "unpleasant." If you don't want it, and your parents as your legal guardians don't want you to have it, why does a state judge get to decide you have to have it?

Because the state represents the kid too.

The state intervenes on a child's behalf all the time. Abuse and neglect cases are rampant. Why is it suddenly a shock that the state makes decisions for a child against the parent's wishes?

Again, I'm not really arguing my personal opinion here (I think he should get treatment, he's a member of a sham-health group, retarded, and he'll probably die otherwise) and I'm certainly not using "libertarian scare tactics." I most definitely realize that these kinds of rulings go by case-by-case scenarios (so far.) I simply think its an interesting constitutional question.

What exactly is the Constitutional question?

[Blue Lion]

But then, on the opposite side of the coin, someone has the right to check themselves out of Hospital, even against a Doctor's better judgement.

Kids aren't adults. They can't make that decision.

I know what's next. "If the kids can't decide, why can't their parents?"

Parents can be A. stupid, B. neglectful or C. indifferent. Every one of these can lead to a decision being made by the parent that is not in the child's best interest. Some parents are just plain assholes in regards to their kids.

[Flipside]

Well, the people voicing their concerns right now are people too. No-one was shocked at the decision as far as I can tell, but a lot of people are recommending caution in cases such as these, not because of this singular case, but because of the possibility of dangerously inhibiting precedent.

We have similar laws in the UK, cultures that indulge in such practices as genitalia mutilation are strictly forbidden from practising that particular 'Freedom' here, but it's not a line to cross, it's an 'area' and a particularly grey one.

I certainly hope that we never, ever simply accept that the Government has the right to make these kinds of decisions, regardless of whether we feel they are the correct decisions or not, that is the real danger.

But then, on the opposite side of the coin, someone has the right to check themselves out of Hospital, even against a Doctor's better judgement.

Kids aren't adults. They can't make that decision.

I know what's next. "If the kids can't decide, why can't their parents?"

Parents can be A. stupid, B. neglectful or C. indifferent. Every one of these can lead to a decision being made by the parent that is not in the child's best interest. Some parents are just plain assholes in regards to their kids.

Agreed, they can be, but Parents are far from the only assholes in the world who's decisions affect those around them, that's why questions must always be asked, and the situation must constantly be examined and re-examined, there is no law against being an asshole, because everyone has a different definition of who is an asshole.