Mother On the Lam For Right to Let Son Die

[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.

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.

Yes he did. End of story.

 

[jillian]

From the article:

The cancer is considered highly curable with chemotherapy and radiation, but Daniel quit chemo after a single treatment and with his parents opted instead for "alternative medicines," citing religious beliefs. That led authorities to seek custody. Rodenberg last week ruled that Daniel's parents, Colleen and Anthony Hauser, were medically neglecting their son.

There are religions that do not believe in medical intervention. If that is what the parents (or at least the mother) is claiming, does the government have the right to push the parent's beliefs aside and take over? Do the parent's religious beliefs automatically apply to their child? At what point do the parent's right to choose for their child end and government needs to step in? What are the alternative treatments being used?

religion is the basis for an ADULT to make decisions for themselves. But they can't medically neglect their child.

This idiot is trying to let her 13 year old son die for no reason.

My religion doesn't believe in autopsies. But if someone dies outside of a hospital, they do an autopsy like they would for anyone else. That's life.

 

[xotoxi]

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.

Again, you are describing YOURSELF.

 

[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 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

I understand what you are saying Care, but I think to use that as a reason to legalize abortion and then to rail against it whenever there is a different set of circumstances doesn't sit well with me. As far as abortion goes, it doesn't really matter what the SC has made legal, abortion clinics are not regulated whatsoever, so who knows what is actually happening in them?

 

[Newby]

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.

Again, you are describing YOURSELF.

How do you figure that?

 

[AllieBaba]

No, she's opting out of a painful and potentially worthless treatment.

Do you know what other medical issues he has?

 

[Ravi]

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.

Since you were unwilling to answer my question I am going to have to make some assumptions.

Newby thinks the government should force women to give birth.

Newby thinks the government cannot intervene to save a living child's life.

You are the hypocrite in this conversation since you believe a fetus and a thirteen year old are equally living...and yet you have different standards for what the government can and cannot do.

 

[Newby]

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.

Since you were unwilling to answer my question I am going to have to make some assumptions.

Newby thinks the government should force women to give birth.

Newby thinks the government cannot intervene to save a living child's life.

You are the hypocrite in this conversation since you believe a fetus and a thirteen year old are equally living...and yet you have different standards for what the government can and cannot do.

Yeah, you go with that Ravi.

 

[Sarah G]

What on earth are you talking about? Medical neglect is one of the standard things prevented by family courts all across the country. The parents have the right to decide for THEMSELVES to forego medical treatment... not for a child.

And if this were some person practicing Santaria and cutting marks into their child's body to "protect" him or her from illness, you'd be calling for the heathen's head

The wingnuts care more about two cells than they do about lilving children.

It's disgusting.

It is disgusting. I hope they find her and get the rest of her family involved. They probably think she is a psycho as well.

 

[Ravi]

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.

Since you were unwilling to answer my question I am going to have to make some assumptions.

Newby thinks the government should force women to give birth.

Newby thinks the government cannot intervene to save a living child's life.

You are the hypocrite in this conversation since you believe a fetus and a thirteen year old are equally living...and yet you have different standards for what the government can and cannot do.

Yeah, you go with that Ravi.

Thank you for at least being honest enough to agree with my assessment.

 

[Zoom-boing]

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

If this is what the family is deciding is the best treatment for their son, shouldn't they have the right to follow through with this treatment? If the government decides it is not the best treatment but the parents believe it is, the government gets to force the parents to follow their (gov'ts) choice of treatment? Or, when faced with life or death decisions, parent's choice be damned and the life of the child takes precedent over all?

 

[AllieBaba]

A fetus and a 13 year old are equally living. Both have independent hearts and nervous systems.

 

[Zoom-boing]

From the article:

The cancer is considered highly curable with chemotherapy and radiation, but Daniel quit chemo after a single treatment and with his parents opted instead for "alternative medicines," citing religious beliefs. That led authorities to seek custody. Rodenberg last week ruled that Daniel's parents, Colleen and Anthony Hauser, were medically neglecting their son.

There are religions that do not believe in medical intervention. If that is what the parents (or at least the mother) is claiming, does the government have the right to push the parent's beliefs aside and take over? Do the parent's religious beliefs automatically apply to their child? At what point do the parent's right to choose for their child end and government needs to step in? What are the alternative treatments being used?

religion is the basis for an ADULT to make decisions for themselves. But they can't medically neglect their child.

This idiot is trying to let her 13 year old son die for no reason.

My religion doesn't believe in autopsies. But if someone dies outside of a hospital, they do an autopsy like they would for anyone else. That's life.

Oh I don't know that is what the parents are doing. From what I've read it sounds like the parents are choosing a different course of treatment - holistic - rather than traditional chemo treatment.

 

[Valerie]

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.

Since you were unwilling to answer my question I am going to have to make some assumptions.

Newby thinks the government should force women to give birth.

Newby thinks the government cannot intervene to save a living child's life.

You are the hypocrite in this conversation since you believe a fetus and a thirteen year old are equally living...and yet you have different standards for what the government can and cannot do.

Yeah, you go with that Ravi.

Why don't you just answer as to whether or not you're pro-life and whether or not you support this woman's right to allow her child to die of a treatable cancer so we know which kind of hypocrite YOU are?

 

[AllieBaba]

From the article:



There are religions that do not believe in medical intervention. If that is what the parents (or at least the mother) is claiming, does the government have the right to push the parent's beliefs aside and take over? Do the parent's religious beliefs automatically apply to their child? At what point do the parent's right to choose for their child end and government needs to step in? What are the alternative treatments being used?

religion is the basis for an ADULT to make decisions for themselves. But they can't medically neglect their child.

This idiot is trying to let her 13 year old son die for no reason.

My religion doesn't believe in autopsies. But if someone dies outside of a hospital, they do an autopsy like they would for anyone else. That's life.

Oh I don't know that is what the parents are doing. From what I've read it sounds like the parents are choosing a different course of treatment - holistic - rather than traditional chemo treatment.

Gosh, you don't mean like all those assholes in Britain who should have treatment forced upon their kids because they're holistic yahoos and think traditional medicine is for the birds?

Hurry, let's hop a boat and get over there and slap their kids into hospitals....

 

[Care4all]

No, she's opting out of a painful and potentially worthless treatment.

Do you know what other medical issues he has?

DO YOU?

I am CERTAIN in the hearing, with the doctors and judge, whatever his medical conditions were, were brought up.... do you think they were not considered?

potentionally worthless with a 95% chance survival rate?????

if the doctors testifying had said a 50/50 chance of survival then they may NOT have forced this in the manner they did...and i would be siding with the parent's right if this were the case, BUT IT IS NOT the case....

what in the world has gotten in to you allie?

 

[DiveCon]

From the article:



There are religions that do not believe in medical intervention. If that is what the parents (or at least the mother) is claiming, does the government have the right to push the parent's beliefs aside and take over? Do the parent's religious beliefs automatically apply to their child? At what point do the parent's right to choose for their child end and government needs to step in? What are the alternative treatments being used?

religion is the basis for an ADULT to make decisions for themselves. But they can't medically neglect their child.

This idiot is trying to let her 13 year old son die for no reason.

My religion doesn't believe in autopsies. But if someone dies outside of a hospital, they do an autopsy like they would for anyone else. That's life.

Oh I don't know that is what the parents are doing. From what I've read it sounds like the parents are choosing a different course of treatment - holistic - rather than traditional chemo treatment.

thats exactly what they are doing
and in MY opinion they have that right

 

[DiveCon]

No, she's opting out of a painful and potentially worthless treatment.

Do you know what other medical issues he has?

DO YOU?

I am CERTAIN in the hearing, with the doctors and judge, whatever his medical conditions were, were brought up.... do you think they were not considered?

potentionally worthless with a 95% chance survival rate?????

if the doctors testifying had said a 50/50 chance of survival then they may NOT have forced this in the manner they did...and i would be siding with the parent's right if this were the case, BUT IT IS NOT the case....

what in the world has gotten in to you allie?

so, if the goverment wanted to give a specific treatment to one of your children, you would be ok with it no matter what it was?

i seem to think you wouldnt

 

[YWN666]

And freedom is something the rabid baby killers will never understand, with their Nazi conceptions of what it means to be "civilized".

That's a demonstration of Godwin's Law - you lose.

 

[AllieBaba]

I don't have blind faith in the courts, sorry. I don't see how a judge is qualified to determine the best medical treatment for a child, and I don't see how a judge has that right in the first place.

The only reason this has gotten this far is because somebody brought the press in. People choose holistic medicine over radical and conventional medicine all the time and nobody raises an eyebrow.