wtf????? he can live...

According to whom? You? Because I certainly have very little faith in your ability to judge the intelligence of others.

In child custody cases, sometimes children are consulted when they reach about the age of 13 which parent they would rather spend more time with.

I have no problem with the child being consulted. But if he decides he doesn't want chemo, that's it.
 
According to whom? You? Because I certainly have very little faith in your ability to judge the intelligence of others.

In child custody cases, sometimes children are consulted when they reach about the age of 13 which parent they would rather spend more time with.

I have no problem with the child being consulted. But if he decides he doesn't want chemo, that's it.
Nevermind, I didn't think you could answer the question. :eek:
 
Copping out so soon? How unlike you.

Your next post will be that if he decides he doesn't want chemo, he should be removed from his parents' custody and forced to undergo the therapy you think he should have.

What a wonderful Nazi world you would have us live in.
 
Why then, he should be able to vote, drink, and join the Army, too.

90 percent is not 100 percent. Just because your friend's kid lived doesn't mean this one would.

BTW, KK...doctors actually don't give much of a shit if people live or die. See if you can find a doctor who is an organ donor. They are few and far between because they don't trust their colleagues to decide whether they should live or die.

Granted, but they get paid more for keeping you alive as long as possible, especially on machines.
 
Copping out so soon? How unlike you.

Your next post will be that if he decides he doesn't want chemo, he should be removed from his parents' custody and forced to undergo the therapy you think he should have.

What a wonderful Nazi world you would have us live in.
I thought it was a pretty simple question.
 
I think it's a very difficult question and the deciding factor in this case was the science of conventional medical treatment giving the boy such a HUGE advantage over non treatment. 90% to 5% is not exactly a toss up. The adults have an obligation to protect the child.
 
Why then, he should be able to vote, drink, and join the Army, too.

90 percent is not 100 percent. Just because your friend's kid lived doesn't mean this one would.

BTW, KK...doctors actually don't give much of a shit if people live or die. See if you can find a doctor who is an organ donor. They are few and far between because they don't trust their colleagues to decide whether they should live or die.

Granted, but they get paid more for keeping you alive as long as possible, especially on machines.


Get paid more? Actually, the amount of time spent on a brain dead patient is very little, so those patients are taking up beds that could be used for more acute cases which require a lot more interaction with the drs.
 
Why then, he should be able to vote, drink, and join the Army, too.

90 percent is not 100 percent. Just because your friend's kid lived doesn't mean this one would.

BTW, KK...doctors actually don't give much of a shit if people live or die. See if you can find a doctor who is an organ donor. They are few and far between because they don't trust their colleagues to decide whether they should live or die.

Granted, but they get paid more for keeping you alive as long as possible, especially on machines.


Get paid more? Actually, the amount of time spent on a brain dead patient is very little, so those patients are taking up beds that could be used for more acute cases which require a lot more interaction with the drs.

But there's the thing, they still get paid if they don't have to do anything. When hooked up to machines the 24 hour care still goes to all those in the hospital and "on call" as well. So, it's a patient they get paid for without having to do as much work.
 
That depends on whether they get a salary or are paid by the hour.

Point is, believe me, most drs. don't like to let vegetables live. They're all for harvesting, letting them die, etc. Particularly if they're poor.
 
That depends on whether they get a salary or are paid by the hour.

Point is, believe me, most drs. don't like to let vegetables live. They're all for harvesting, letting them die, etc. Particularly if they're poor.

It also depends on the state and city you live in. For instance here in Seattle they get paid even if they are poor, from the taxes, in most hospitals.
 
But many, many doctors have a visceral and negative reaction to patients they are forced to treat if they know the state is footing the bill.
 
But many, many doctors have a visceral and negative reaction to patients they are forced to treat if they know the state is footing the bill.

For those who get Medicaid, yes, because Medicaid limits them on how much they can collect, talking about uninsured poor mostly.
 
My niece is a 3rd year medical student; my sister's an attorney; my mom's a nurse.

None of them are donors because they know what the medical community is like.

I do, too, as I imagine you do, if you've been homeless. I took my baby to the ER because she broke out in a weird rash..and I knew one of the symptoms of meningitis was a rash, and her cousin was recovering SLOWLY from a very severe case of meningitis.

The doctor sneered at me and said "Oh, she has an emergency rash. I get it."

What a pig.
 
If the kid is thirteen he should be allowed to decide for himself, imo.

I could go along with that. But of course it raises the question about the cut-off age. What if the kid was ten? seven? five?

The kid is 13 and he can't read. Great job those parents are doing, don't you think? And he's going to make an informed decision? Yea, right.

One other thing; his parents decided to stop chemo after the first treatment even though the tumor growth was reduced. If they had wanted to go another way with treatment due to religious reasons, they never would have permitted him to have the first chemo treatment.

Either way, it is now decided. The judge overseeing the case ruled that the boy must undergo the chemo and radiation treatments.
 
Wow. I thought Ravi would be the one who came forward and would insist that the state step in if the kid didn't decide the "right" way. Whatever that is.
 
And he might not be able to read for reasons you apparently haven't considered.
 
Copping out so soon? How unlike you.

Your next post will be that if he decides he doesn't want chemo, he should be removed from his parents' custody and forced to undergo the therapy you think he should have.

What a wonderful Nazi world you would have us live in.

The kid is 13 and can't read. He is obviously not capable of making an informed decision.
 
Wow. I thought Ravi would be the one who came forward and would insist that the state step in if the kid didn't decide the "right" way. Whatever that is.


"Right way"? Don't you mean life or death? Because that's what it boils down to. Treatment means life; no treatment means death. I'm all for parent's rights and religious beliefs and all that. What I am against is blatant stupidity.
 
Lots of people who can live, die because of a lack of healthcare...why is it any worse when its a direct refusal by the parents as opposed to a direct refusal by the system?

Because abuse and neglect laws require that parents protect their children. Their children do not have the power to make decisions for themselves. In the face of parents who neglect their basic needs, the child has the right to have his or her voice heard and have a judge intervene TO SAVE HIS LIFE.

If it was HIM making the decision to die, that would be one thing. But these people are making that decision for him.
 

Forum List

Back
Top