Mother On the Lam For Right to Let Son Die

[Newby]

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?

Yet you can't answer my question. Do you believe in government interference in private medical decisions or not?

You're saying that if you are a minor, then they do have a right to interfere? So, you're all for forcing girls under the age of 18 to have parental consent to have an abortion then, right?

 

[AllieBaba]

There's no guarantee he'll die if she doesn't treat him, or he'll live if he gets treatment.

It's their call.

Unlike abortion. There's no question there. It's not about "withholding" treatment. It's seek and destroy.

 

[xotoxi]

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.

Do you believe that the government should have intervened in the Terri Schiavo case?

If you did, then you have done a complete 180 yourself.

 

[jillian]

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.

says the idiot who thinks government should interfere in personal relationships; force people to follow her religious beliefs and interfere in a woman's control over her own body.

talk about disingenuous....

 

[AllieBaba]

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?

Yet you can't answer my question. Do you believe in government interference in private medical decisions or not?

Nope. Not for medical decisions.

But abortion isn't a "medical" treatment. It poses a risk to the mother, and results in the death of the child, for no purpose other than to kill the child.

It's not like it's the unfortunate result of cancer treatment.

 

[Newby]

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.

Answer the same question that I just asked Valerie then? Should a girl under the age of 18 be allowed to have an abortion w/o parental consent? It's a life and death decsion.

 

[DiveCon]

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.

WOW, how ironic for a moron like you to call anyone an idiot

 

[Newby]

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.

Do you believe that the government should have intervened in the Terri Schiavo case?

If you did, then you have done a complete 180 yourself.

Terri's 'husband' was intervening before the government did. Did he have a right to make that decision for her? He was doing it for convenience, I personally believe that he put her where she was at, but that's a moot point anyway.

 

[Xenophon]

It seems the dark ages is still with us.

 

[DiveCon]

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.

which is exactly why the parents have that option
she is not wanting the treatment, that is her and her husbands option

 

[AllieBaba]

And they will get darker yet, as is evidenced here. When people start thinking they have the "right" to force unwanted treatment on people, and think babies = pollution, you've got a problem.

 

[Valerie]

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.

You're thinking of it too simplistically. The law has no jurisdiction in the womb of a woman, whereas it has jurisdiction in protecting living breathing children. There is no 180 degree contradiction. It's the same old argument of where life begins.

Certainly there is no question that this boy's life began 13 years ago.

 

[AllieBaba]

The law has jurisdiction anywhere there is life.

 

[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.

You're thinking of it too simplistically. The law has no jurisdiction in the womb of a woman, whereas it has it has jurisdiction in protecting living breathing children. There is no 180 degree contradiction. It's the same old argument of where life begins.

Certainly there is no question that this boy's life began 13 years ago.

So, it's okay for them to step in and take control whenever YOU feel that it is morally okay to do so. At least you admit that you want it both ways depending on your personal views on the situation. I call that hypocrisy.

 

[DiveCon]

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.

You're thinking of it too simplistically. The law has no jurisdiction in the womb of a woman, whereas it has it has jurisdiction in protecting living breathing children. There is no 180 degree contradiction. It's the same old argument of where life begins.

Certainly there is no question that this boy's life began 13 years ago.

so, where do parental rights come in?
should they not be able to choose what treatment their child gets?


or do you want all childrens medical care to be determined by the government?

 

[DiveCon]

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.

You're thinking of it too simplistically. The law has no jurisdiction in the womb of a woman, whereas it has it has jurisdiction in protecting living breathing children. There is no 180 degree contradiction. It's the same old argument of where life begins.

Certainly there is no question that this boy's life began 13 years ago.

So, it's okay for them to step in and take control whenever YOU feel that it is morally okay to do so. At least you admit that you want it both ways depending on your personal views on the situation. I call that hypocrisy.

they dont get it
this mother is not choosing to let her son die, she is just not choosing THAT medical procedure

 

[xotoxi]

There's no guarantee he'll die if she doesn't treat him...

"Early descriptions of the natural history of untreated or pallatively treated patient's with Hodgkin's disease showed a highly variable clinical course, although the disease eventually proved fatal in virutally all cases." (Hodgkin lymphoma - Google Book Search)

...or he'll live if he gets treatment

Five-year relative survival is 95.9 percent for Hodgkin lymphoma in children 0 to 14. (Leukemia & Lymphoma Society - Hodgkin Lymphoma Facts & Statistics)

 

[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

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.

you see, i respectfully differ newby....abortion was determined on the right to privacy, giving consideration to the fetus at a point when they are more developed or viable... the SC only gave the A OK up to 12 weeks of gestation....and left the rest up to the individual States....many, if not most states, only have abortion permitable up to 12 weeks gestation and not beyond such i believe.

THE gvt is involved in medical decisions on the whole, of all different kinds and does not have one flat rule the same, for all occasions.... for example, you can't decide to kill yourself via your doctor's medical injection.... also the gvt decided one can't practice medicine without a degree and being certified...the gvt decides on what medicines become legal to use, the gvt said we could not buy our drugs from other countries etc etc etc....

so, the gvt does make medical decisions we are suppose to abide by....

care

 

[Newby]

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.

You're thinking of it too simplistically. The law has no jurisdiction in the womb of a woman, whereas it has it has jurisdiction in protecting living breathing children. There is no 180 degree contradiction. It's the same old argument of where life begins.

Certainly there is no question that this boy's life began 13 years ago.

so, where do parental rights come in?
should they not be able to choose what treatment their child gets?


or do you want all childrens medical care to be determined by the government?

I think they pretty much think the government should be able to go anywhere it wants, except for the female womb of course. And then if they should choose to abort, the government should pay for it, if they choose to have it, the government should pay for it. They don't believe in personal responsibility, that's pretty much the bottom line.

 

[hjmick]

Answer the same question that I just asked Valerie then? Should a girl under the age of 18 be allowed to have an abortion w/o parental consent? It's a life and death decsion.

No. And I have no problem with abortion, one way or the other. But I am a parent with three daughters, one of whom is still under the age of 18.

The issue with this boy is interesting, I think it is more of an issue of parental rights rather than patients rights. The kid is thirteen, he should not be allowed to make any decision about his treatment, especially if said decision is religion based. I say this because, at his age, his only religious influence has come from his parents. When I was thirteen, I was a Catholic. Why? Because that's what my parents were. Today I am a happy and healthy Agnostic.

So, if we remove the decision making from the minor child, we're left with two choices: the parents or the state. While I respect the parents right to make decisions regarding treatment and I am loathe to encourage state interference with those rights, I question the judgement of a parent or parents who would rather see their child die than be cured of a cancer that, by all accounts, has a very high survival rate if treated correctly. With state interference, we also run into the whole "freedom of religion" concern, which should not be taken lightly.

Ultimately, I believe the issue should be left to the parents. To allow the state to step in tramples, in my opinion, too many rights. Their decision is not the one I would make, but their life is not one I am living.