Mother On the Lam For Right to Let Son Die

[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.

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.

Actually, I wasn't referring to the court. I was referring to the morons who are posting here.

 

[Ravi]

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.

No, I did not. I claimed his learning disability didn't mean he couldn't make a rational choice. You are the one that went off the deep end and pretended he was retarded.

At this point I believe the parents should be stripped of their rights to parent as they have proven themselves incompetent and perhaps they are the ones that are retarded.

 

[AllieBaba]

"Unless the kid is retarded a learning disability more than likely would not prevent him from learning to read."
This is what you said. And he can't read, so it follows you assume he's retarded. Because LEARNING DISABILITIES result in the inability to read all the fucking time, genius. That's what a LEARNING disability is. It's when a person is UNABLE or finds it DIFFICULT to learn something...usually READING.

 

[Korimyr the Rat]

If he were a man, he'd have the right to die. Since he is not, his parents have the right to make that decision for him; I have not heard any argument that suggests that he is requesting chemotherapy against his parents' wishes.

 

[Valerie]

Philip Elbert, Daniel's court-appointed attorney, said he considers his client to have a "diminished capacity" for reasons of his age and the illness and that he believes Daniel should be treated by a cancer specialist.

Elbert added that he does not believe Daniel -- who, according to court papers, cannot read -- has enough information to make an informed decision regarding his treatment.

>

Medical ethicists say parents generally have a legal right to make decisions for their children, but there is a limit.

"You have a right, but not an open-ended right," Arthur Caplan, director of the center for bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, said last week. "You can't compromise the life of your child."

But the family opted for a holistic medical treatment based upon Native American healing practices called Nemenhah and rejected further treatment.

Mother, son missing in forced chemotherapy case - CNN.com

 

[Ravi]

"Unless the kid is retarded a learning disability more than likely would not prevent him from learning to read."
This is what you said. And he can't read, so it follows you assume he's retarded. Because LEARNING DISABILITIES result in the inability to read all the fucking time, genius. That's what a LEARNING disability is. It's when a person is UNABLE or finds it DIFFICULT to learn something...usually READING.

Nope. Almost everyone with a learning disability learns to read.

 

[Newby]

Spell it out, wise guy. Are you pro-life? What argument do you imagine you're using? That a fetus equals a 13 year old child?

Yes, that is the argument and it is a valid one if you believe life begins at conception. The entire abortion debate is based on when life begins. However you view this is what determines how you feel about abortion. And this is why the abortion issue will never be resolved.

I'd like to see Newby answer if he's pro-life, which would point out his own hypocrisy. How can you be pro-life and still argue that it's okay to just allow this boy to die?

It's 'she', thank you. And if you don't understand how or why I'm arguing what I am, then I give up, you're beyond understanding anyway.

 

[AllieBaba]

"Unless the kid is retarded a learning disability more than likely would not prevent him from learning to read."
This is what you said. And he can't read, so it follows you assume he's retarded. Because LEARNING DISABILITIES result in the inability to read all the fucking time, genius. That's what a LEARNING disability is. It's when a person is UNABLE or finds it DIFFICULT to learn something...usually READING.

Nope. Almost everyone with a learning disability learns to read.

By age 13?
Prove it.

 

[Newby]

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???

No, YOU believe in the philosophy of keeping the government out of personal medical decisions, that's exactly what you argued in the abortion thread. You've now come in here and argued the EXACT opposite. How is that not a contradiction of your beliefs???

So, which do you believe in?? Government out of private medical decisions or not? You apparently want it BOTH ways depending on whether you personally agree with the situation at hand or not.

 

[Ravi]

"Unless the kid is retarded a learning disability more than likely would not prevent him from learning to read."
This is what you said. And he can't read, so it follows you assume he's retarded. Because LEARNING DISABILITIES result in the inability to read all the fucking time, genius. That's what a LEARNING disability is. It's when a person is UNABLE or finds it DIFFICULT to learn something...usually READING.

Nope. Almost everyone with a learning disability learns to read.

By age 13?
Prove it.

Learning Problems

 

[xotoxi]

Wait a minute...

The kid has a learning disability?

Oh...that changes things.

With this fact in mind, I would recommend that he not have treatment.

 

[AllieBaba]

That doesn't prove your point, Ravi, that most learn to read. You can't provide the proof. That's just a frou-frou site.

 

[Care4all]

i don't think there is any argument, this child is a BORN, living and breathing person....

there is true difference in philosophy on whether an embryo has the same worth in its earliest stages as a child that has been born, given a birth certificate, or citizenship and rights.

just because some people believe there is not the same ''worth'' put on the two, does not mean they believe children that are BORN can be killed by their own mother....and to portray this issue in that manner is disingenuous imo....

the issue involving this child does NOT relate to the abortion issue what so ever imo, but more in line with parents rights to make decisions for their living children, and if there is a point, where the gvt gets involved.....

care

 

[DiveCon]

Ohh I get it, A mother has the right to murder a fetus cause well it aint born yet but not the right to CHOSE her son's medical treatment that HE also wants.

I agree he should be treated but YOU have no leg to stand on on this issue.

Well said

only if one can't discern the difference between a parent being required to CARE for their child and not neglecting said child... and my right to my body.

I guess medical treatment is only required if the brain has turned to liquid like Terry Schiavo, eh?

Skewed values... sorry.

THAT is a hypocritical stance you have taken
you want to protect this life, but not others

 

[Newby]

i don't think there is any argument, this child is a BORN, living and breathing person....

there is true difference in philosophy on whether an embryo has the same worth in its earliest stages as a child that has been born, given a birth certificate, or citizenship and rights.

just because some people believe there is not the same ''worth'' put on the two, does not mean they believe children that are BORN can be killed by their own mother....and to portray this issue in that manner is disingenuous imo....

the issue involving this child does NOT relate to the abortion issue what so ever imo, but more in line with parents rights to make decisions for their living children, and if there is a point, where the gvt gets involved.....

care

To me, the issue isn't even about whether or not an embryo has the same value as a 13 year old boy. You either believe that the government has a right to interfere in private medical decisions or you don't. That's the whole basis for the entire abortion movement. And those who have spoken with much conviction of that belief over in the abortion thread did a complete 180 in those beliefs on this thread.

 

[Care4all]

my sister teaches the LD (learning disabled) teens in her high school...she is a special ed teacher, and her LD students can most certainly read, maybe they don't understand all that they read, but they all read and many go on to get their HS diplomas...

 

[jillian]

just because some people believe there is not the same ''worth'' put on the two, does not mean they believe children that are BORN can be killed by their own mother....and to portray this issue in that manner is disingenuous imo...

it's not just disingenuous. it's dishonest and vile because they know it's a lie.

guvment is supposed to control a woman's uterus, but they'll fight for a corporation's right to price gouge with the argument that you don't want too much guvment.

 

[AllieBaba]

Oh please. What's disingenuous is the pro-abortion league pretending their "concern" for this kid is anything more than a ploy to extend their power over the lives of others, incidentally supplanting human rights in the meantime.

 

[Valerie]

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???

No, YOU believe in the philosophy of keeping the government out of personal medical decisions, that's exactly what you argued in the abortion thread. You've now come in here and argued the EXACT opposite. How is that not a contradiction of your beliefs???

So, which do you believe in?? Government out of private medical decisions or not? You apparently want it BOTH ways depending on whether you personally agree with the situation at hand or not.

>

I am for keeping the government out of our personal freedoms as far as possible, but a civil society needs to protect it's children.

So Newby, are you going to answer whether or not you're pro-life?

I don't remember what YOU said in the abortion thread, but I do know my own convictions do not contradict with each other at all except in the imagination of people trying to make assumptions based on politics. If the child was an adult I would have the opinion that it is his own medical decision to make, can you see the difference?

 

[jillian]

To me, the issue isn't even about whether or not an embryo has the same value as a 13 year old boy. You either believe that the government has a right to interfere in private medical decisions or you don't. That's the whole basis for the entire abortion movement. And those who have spoken with much conviction of that belief over in the abortion thread did a complete 180 in those beliefs on this thread.

A 13 year old doesn't have the capacity to make life and death choices... they can barely decide what music to download off of itunes.

And the law specifically prohibits medical neglect:

A type of maltreatment caused by failure by the caretaker to provide for the appropriate health care of the child although financially able to do so, or offered financial or other means to do so.
Glossary: National Child Abuse and Neglect Data Systems (NCANDS)

means withholding medical treatment or prescription of any type that may significantly harm the child. ...
OKDHS.org - OAC 340:75-3-2. Definitions

means any act or omission resulting in harm to a child or presenting a likelihood of harm if the the act is not due solely to the lack of financial means of a child's parent or other custodian. ...
0160 Glossary

define:medical neglect - Google Search

And you'll fight for this woman's right to kill her son or minimally let him die, but think government should protect two cells?

hellooooooooo

reality... find some.