Mother On the Lam For Right to Let Son Die

[cunclusion]

This issue can be swinged both ways, if it is about having a choice then it should cover everything the main issue is people are picking and chosing the pro choice and the pro life. But it looks like no one is taking the fact that this child has learning/mental disabilities and cannot read. Even then I will give the benefit of the doubt and let them chose what they want to do because its their private life. Oh and I am enjoying the morality that comes up with this seems like alot on the right accusing the left of this when the right is also a culprit of this type of thinking only when it bothers you do you have a problem with it.

 

[Care4all]

Jimminy Christmas, the Chemo therapy is the CURE for what he has.....MOST people survive the Chemo treatments with Hodgkins and go on to live healthy lives...

so what if it hurts or makes one temporarily sick?

The success rate of treating Hodgkins disease in this manner IS EXCELLENT,

WITHOUT IT he dies, period.

 

[Valerie]

Let's see...you think it's okay to butcher babies who are inconvenient (or the offspring of the poor and underprivileged)

Where did I say any of those things?

and you want to force a 13 year old to have "treatment" which may or may not help him, and most certainly will be painful.

Allie, there's no doubt the boy will benefit from the treatment, it's medical science not a crap shoot, they said 90% to 5% variance.

 

[Care4all]

I DO NOT understand why these Christian religious freaks do not read their Bibles more....

When Lazerus was dying, they sent a messenger to Jesus to tell him to please come home and help him...Christ sent a message back, asking if they did all that they humanly could to save him by asking'' if they anointed him with oil'', Anointing one with oil was a MEDICAL procedure of their day....Lazerus died anyway....as the story goes, then Christ brought him back to life.

As a believer, to me this tells us to do what is necessary medically to try to heal ourselves or others...if that doesn't work, then that doesn't work...but at least try.

care

 

[AllieBaba]

People have the right to choose their own medical treatment.

So you're arguing that this boy's mother has a right to choose???

You bet. Because she's not choosing to put an end to his life.

 

[xotoxi]

Well, Xotox if this family's misery is your fun, "you are one sick puppy."

Hey, I'm all for preventing this family's misery.

Give the kid chemo and the family's misery surrounding his death will be postponed for another 50 years.

 

[Zoom-boing]

This issue can be swinged both ways, if it is about having a choice then it should cover everything the main issue is people are picking and chosing the pro choice and the pro life. But it looks like no one is taking the fact that this child has learning/mental disabilities and cannot read. Even then I will give the benefit of the doubt and let them chose what they want to do because its their private life. Oh and I am enjoying the morality that comes up with this seems like alot on the right accusing the left of this when the right is also a culprit of this type of thinking only when it bothers you do you have a problem with it.

I didn't see that in the article; perhaps I missed it. Where did you read this?

 

[Ravi]

Not to you. To you, they are both your chattel to do with as you will.

I find it amusing that there's another thread where the "right" of an 8-year old boy to live as a girl is being touted...but here a 13 year old who decides to opt out of chemo is considered "retarded" and should be removed from his harmful parents.

Babble, why are you constantly lying about what I think?

I think we can both agree that a thirteen year old is a living, breathing human being, no?

How is this different than an adult removing a feeding tube from another adult that has a 90% chance of recovery? In that case more than likely there would be murder charges. In this case it is even worse because the child is not a full citizen and therefore deserves extra protection from parents that are for all intents and purposes committing murder.

It's NOT different from removing the feeding tube from an adult. I wouldn't go for that, either. You would.

THanks for proving your mind works exactly as I portray it.

Right, it isn't different. So you agree that the government has a duty to make sure this child gets treated.

 

[xotoxi]

I do think that there are situations where withholding treatment is appropriate, such as in the case of certain cancers were the likelihood of survival is very low or only experimental treatments are available.

In this case, the cure rate is 90%.

 

[AllieBaba]

Let's see...you think it's okay to butcher babies who are inconvenient (or the offspring of the poor and underprivileged)

Where did I say any of those things?

and you want to force a 13 year old to have "treatment" which may or may not help him, and most certainly will be painful.

Allie, there's no doubt the boy will benefit from the treatment, it's medical science not a crap shoot, they said 90% to 5% variance.

So there's a 10-percent doubt. In other words, you're lying when you say "there's no doubt".

He may have other health issues which put him in even a lower potential-for-success bracket.

And I don't believe anyone established this kid was "retarded" as Ravi immediately assumed when she learned he had a learning disability. But as I said much earlier, that disability points to other issues, so you knee-jerk "FORCE THAT FUCKING TREATMENT ON HIM, BURN HIS MOTHER!" idiots may feel really stupid if he's forced to have the treatment and ends up a vegetable, or goes into status epileticus and dies.

 

[Care4all]

People have the right to choose their own medical treatment.

So you're arguing that this boy's mother has a right to choose???

You bet. Because she's not choosing to put an end to his life.

She's not? bull crap.

She most certainly is denying him the treatmen that will SAVE HIS LIFE....90% chance to save his life...

Without it, she kills him with certainty, no?.

 

[Valerie]

People have the right to choose their own medical treatment.

So you're arguing that this boy's mother has a right to choose???

You bet. Because she's not choosing to put an end to his life.

Except all of the medical experts say that is what she's choosing. And BTW, he will suffer terribly either way.

So you feel this way based on your philosophy of keeping the government out of personal medical decisions, yet you are pro-life and this is not a contradiction for you because you don't see abortion as a personal medical decision???

 

[AllieBaba]

I DO NOT understand why these Christian religious freaks do not read their Bibles more....

When Lazerus was dying, they sent a messenger to Jesus to tell him to please come home and help him...Christ sent a message back, asking if they did all that they humanly could to save him by asking'' if they anointed him with oil'', Anointing one with oil was a MEDICAL procedure of their day....Lazerus died anyway....as the story goes, then Christ brought him back to life.

As a believer, to me this tells us to do what is necessary medically to try to heal ourselves or others...if that doesn't work, then that doesn't work...but at least try.

care

Read my previous post, Care. There may be good reasons they don't want to go with chemo. Everyone is assuming that the woman wants to kill her kid and the kid is retarded. I suspect he has other medical issues as well, which make him a less likely candidate.

At any rate, nobody knows. But the immediate reaction is to trample everyone's rights and assume the worst...because the family happens to be citing Christian purpose to their choice.

 

[AllieBaba]

So you're arguing that this boy's mother has a right to choose???

You bet. Because she's not choosing to put an end to his life.

She's not? bull crap.

She most certainly is denying him the treatmen that will SAVE HIS LIFE....90% chance to save his life...

Without it, she kills him.

Bullcrap yourself. With it, the best scenario says he might die anyway.

 

[Ravi]

Let's see...you think it's okay to butcher babies who are inconvenient (or the offspring of the poor and underprivileged)

Where did I say any of those things?

and you want to force a 13 year old to have "treatment" which may or may not help him, and most certainly will be painful.

Allie, there's no doubt the boy will benefit from the treatment, it's medical science not a crap shoot, they said 90% to 5% variance.

So there's a 10-percent doubt. In other words, you're lying when you say "there's no doubt".

He may have other health issues which put him in even a lower potential-for-success bracket.

And I don't believe anyone established this kid was "retarded" as Ravi immediately assumed when she learned he had a learning disability. But as I said much earlier, that disability points to other issues, so you knee-jerk "FORCE THAT FUCKING TREATMENT ON HIM, BURN HIS MOTHER!" idiots may feel really stupid if he's forced to have the treatment and ends up a vegetable, or goes into status epileticus and dies.

Quit with the lies, you idiot.

 

[xotoxi]

Not to you. To you, they are both your chattel to do with as you will.

I find it amusing that there's another thread where the "right" of an 8-year old boy to live as a girl is being touted...but here a 13 year old who decides to opt out of chemo is considered "retarded" and should be removed from his harmful parents.

Babble, why are you constantly lying about what I think?

I think we can both agree that a thirteen year old is a living, breathing human being, no?

How is this different than an adult removing a feeding tube from another adult that has a 90% chance of recovery? In that case more than likely there would be murder charges. In this case it is even worse because the child is not a full citizen and therefore deserves extra protection from parents that are for all intents and purposes committing murder.

It's NOT different from removing the feeding tube from an adult. I wouldn't go for that, either. You would.

THanks for proving your mind works exactly as I portray it.

If you opt FOR treatment of the patient, rather than WITHHOLDING treatment of the patient...

Then you must agree that the child should undergo chemo treatment, rather that withholding it.

 

[xotoxi]

You bet. Because she's not choosing to put an end to his life.

She's not? bull crap.

She most certainly is denying him the treatmen that will SAVE HIS LIFE....90% chance to save his life...

Without it, she kills him.

Bullcrap yourself. With it, the best scenario says he might die anyway.

No. The best scenario is that with treatment, he LIVES.

 

[Care4all]

You bet. Because she's not choosing to put an end to his life.

She's not? bull crap.

She most certainly is denying him the treatmen that will SAVE HIS LIFE....90% chance to save his life...

Without it, she kills him.

Bullcrap yourself. With it, the best scenario says he might die anyway.

Does he have ANY CHANCE of living a longer, normal life with Hodgkins lymphoma without any treatment allie?

I don't think his mother believes she is killing him....it is just what will happen if she does not allow medicine, a chance...with this particular condition....and yes, a 1 in 10 chance he may still pass on, but a 9 out of 10 chance he will survive....or because of some of his other conditions as you imply, maybe he has an 8 in 10 chance of surviving or a 7 in 10 chance of surviving.

care

 

[Valerie]

I DO NOT understand why these Christian religious freaks do not read their Bibles more....

When Lazerus was dying, they sent a messenger to Jesus to tell him to please come home and help him...Christ sent a message back, asking if they did all that they humanly could to save him by asking'' if they anointed him with oil'', Anointing one with oil was a MEDICAL procedure of their day....Lazerus died anyway....as the story goes, then Christ brought him back to life.

As a believer, to me this tells us to do what is necessary medically to try to heal ourselves or others...if that doesn't work, then that doesn't work...but at least try.

care

Read my previous post, Care. There may be good reasons they don't want to go with chemo. Everyone is assuming that the woman wants to kill her kid and the kid is retarded. I suspect he has other medical issues as well, which make him a less likely candidate.

At any rate, nobody knows. But the immediate reaction is to trample everyone's rights and assume the worst...because the family happens to be citing Christian purpose to their choice.

There was a hearing where all of the medical evidence was heard which prompted the legal mandate to protect this child's life by requiring the treatment. It was not an immediate reaction to trample anyone's rights, read the story and stop talking in generalities and making assumptions.

 

[AllieBaba]

Where did I say any of those things?



Allie, there's no doubt the boy will benefit from the treatment, it's medical science not a crap shoot, they said 90% to 5% variance.

So there's a 10-percent doubt. In other words, you're lying when you say "there's no doubt".

He may have other health issues which put him in even a lower potential-for-success bracket.

And I don't believe anyone established this kid was "retarded" as Ravi immediately assumed when she learned he had a learning disability. But as I said much earlier, that disability points to other issues, so you knee-jerk "FORCE THAT FUCKING TREATMENT ON HIM, BURN HIS MOTHER!" idiots may feel really stupid if he's forced to have the treatment and ends up a vegetable, or goes into status epileticus and dies.

Quit with the lies, you idiot.

You didn't claim he was retarded because he couldn't read?
Give it up, Ravi.