|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
posted May 19, 2009 05:37 AM |
|
|
Nice post, bin. 
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 19, 2009 06:09 AM |
|
|
Quote:
"Above all, do no harm." Letting nature take it's course is humane. While forcing someone to live when they have no quality of life is not.
If you ever have to make that decision, if you ever have to answer the question, "Will this person that I love live, or will this person that I love die?", and the answer to that question WILL become reality, I can tell you from experience that it'll be the hardest damn thing you'll do in your entire life.
Very good post.
My parents are old and frail and I will face theses things soon too. My mother most likely has a year or less of having the mental capacity to recognize us according to the doctors. She has alzheimer's. When a patient reaches this point their body begins to fail rapidly ordinarily.
She has made it clear to us all that she does not want any heroic measures to keep her alive as a vegetable. It will be hard to let her go when that time comes but we must respect her wishes. In a real way the greiving has already started as we have watched her go down hill. With alzheimer's the brain basicly dies a little at a time and there is no way to reverse it.
And I agree that at a certain point letting nature take its course is the best thing to do though maybe not an easy thing to do. Having the chance to talk about the decision with one's loved one rather than facing the decision in an unexpected situation perhaps maks the situation a little less difficult and the family can be in unity when the moment comes.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted May 19, 2009 06:21 AM |
|
|
Agree with Corribus, one dang good post Bin.
Now for one of the most contriversial posts I may have ever written, which will directly address this case, but also include much more.
IF whatever the boy has is potentially contagious, then yes, the tests should be done. Regardless of consent. IF it is not, then the tests should not be done if the family is opposed. Yes the boy should be given the FACTS before being released, but that is the extent of it IF it is not contagious.
IF the boy is contagious, then yes I think the government has a reason to quarantine him. Depending on how it is possibly spread. The only exception would be if it was only spread through sexual interaction (I will explain something later about this). Then no quarantine would be needed. Simply because it will interfear with other peoples right to live.
Now..the Sexual transmission asterik. IF somebody has a deadly disease that can be sexually transmitted, does not inform their partner, and takes no precaution to prevent the transmission..then I believe that person should be guilty of premeditated murder. Even though the person has not yet died.
Now back to the boy. IF there is no contagious factor, that should be the end of it (after information is given). Under no circumstance should a person be compailed to undergo medical treatment if they do not wish to. It doesn't matter WHY they decided against it.
If you have ever had the displeasure of watching somebody fading away, dying a little each day, you know it can be hard. When they choose to no longer suffer it can strike at your very core. You may not like their choice, and it may cause you great pain. It is not your temporary pain that matters, however. Only the strong can support their decision, and not be selfish.
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 19, 2009 08:36 AM |
|
|
But let's not forget that the euthanasy question is not relevant here in case of the boy.
I think that it's outrageous how some people here seem to believe that the institutions founded for the protection of children (they are vulnerable, remember) should stand by and watch how a child is left to his fate because his parents follow some obscure faith. Let's alter the situation a bit:
1) If the boy was diagnosed an infection of the appendix, they would made a date for the OP next day, but then the boy would say, no I'm not going to and the parents would support that, how would be your reaction?
Let's alter the the situation in another direction:
2) If the boy was 7 instead 13, got diagnosed with a disease and the treatment would involve something that would make the boy feel pretty sick (depending on the chemo, if you didn't feel sick before, you WILL feel sick after, for a couple of days, and radiation is no fun either): if the boy said he doesn't want to continue treatment and the parents would say they support that, what would be your reaction?
Note, that at this stage the question of what religion said family follows is completely irrelevant.
If we'd talk about the same situation, but the boy was 7 and the parents would TAKE the responsibility they have instead of hiding behind the alleged decision of their son, what would be your reaction: they would be followers of a faith founded by a man who has done time due to fraud in connection with selling medicines, and they would stop treatment, allegedly believing in the healing powers of the medicine their spiritual leader SELLS them.
Is the age of the boy relevant at all? Answer: NOPE. Not with 13. (And by the way, what age are children allowed in the US to change their religion AGAINST the will of their parents - when are they considered to have full religious freedom?) The reason is, that the boy has no responsibities allowing him full control of his life because he is not considered as having full maturity - which means you cannot trust a 13-year-old to make reponsible uninfluenced decisions. The parents are just HIDING behind that - in fact THEY are responsible, and THEY stand behind their own decision.
You can simply reduce the problem to the following question: will you allow people to sacrifice their children for their personal beliefs? Since as long as a CHILD has no religious freedom itself (the freedom to have the religious belief they want, AGAINST parents' will), it's not the religion of the child the child follows, it's de facto the religion of the parents.
I'm going to expand that to blood transfusions. Can you let a child not old enoughto pick his or her religion die, because the parents picked his or her religion for him sentencing the child to death?
Answer: no.
Some more special additions, first for Elodin:
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act does what I said: Quote:
In this, the court must first determine whether the person has a claim involving a sincere religious belief, and whether the government action is a substantial burden on the person’s ability to act on that belief;
You can't just claim anything you want and mask it as religious belief, obviously and undisputably.
And Death:
Quote:
You assume that everyone has the same outlook on life. Not only that, but some people would rather die than commit certain acts (not applicable in this case mind you, just giving examples). Not everyone puts life at the cost of anything else. There are even those who commit suicide, and no, not all of them are "mentally handicapped".
; we are talking about a 13-year-old with a serious sickness, nothing else, so don't start with irrelevant examples.
The most logical explanation is this:
a) the boy hasn't been told the truth about his condition
b) the boy really had two or 3 bad days after his first chemo and complained bitterly: after all, his condition hadn't been serious, why is he feeling so bad now, AFTER the treatment.
And I happen to know a bit or two about these things - depending on the stuff you get (and a 13-year-old boy's body can stand something), you WILL feel like snow.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted May 19, 2009 08:45 AM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 08:46, 19 May 2009.
|
I find it crazy that some people think they should be able to make people undergo medical treatment also. *shrug*. It doesn't matter what the age is except in the following ways. The older he/she gets, the more freedom they should have to make their own decisions.
Give the facts .. sure. Beyond that, unless it is a danger to the community (ie contagious) the court should have NO authority to force somebody to undergo treatment. As for chemo..I've seen first hand what it can do..and sometimes it is worse then the actual disease. It is not pretty, not pretty at all.
Edit : Last warning, if the comments about religion continue from either side I will lock this thread and you can take it to a thread about religion.
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 19, 2009 09:19 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I find it crazy that some people think they should be able to make people undergo medical treatment also. *shrug*. It doesn't matter what the age is except in the following ways. The older he/she gets, the more freedom they should have to make their own decisions.
Give the facts .. sure. Beyond that, unless it is a danger to the community (ie contagious) the court should have NO authority to force somebody to undergo treatment. As for chemo..I've seen first hand what it can do..and sometimes it is worse then the actual disease. It is not pretty, not pretty at all.
Mytical, you are tap-dancing the problem, and you are burdening the courts: the older he/she gets, the more freedom they should have, means that EVERYTHING may be a question of courts. Children suing their parents (I should be allowed that!), and so on.
Let's not forget what the issue here is. The issue is, in practise the boy has no freedom of decision whatsoever with 13 years. His parents have FULL control, no matter what they claim. About his religious belief; about the information he gets (Wolfsburg is a doctor, he will agree that it is commonn practice for children - even for adults - to tell PARENTS the whole truth only; optimism is important if you want to regain your health, and it doesn't help optimism when you tell a child something about chances, death probabilities and treatment effects); about his decision forming.
Generally, how fit someone is to really understand all ramifications of a certain decision is clearly not only a question of age, but of mental capabilities as well.
I can only repeat that the boy and what he says isn't the first issue here. The responsibility is - legally - with the parents; they cannot wash it off of them. Can they? Think about other examples: 13-year-old quits school; parents claim it's his decision, we back that. 13-year-olds marrying and founding a family; parents claim it's their decision, we back that. 13-year-old is unhappy with this life and announces to jump from a tower tomorrow; parents claim it's his decision and back that. And lastly: 13-year-old runs amok in school, killing 3 teachers and 5 students; parents claim it's his decision and back that, denying any responsibility.
Please.
The law says it is NOT his decision; the judge is in service of the law. It's the decision of the parents from the point of the law, and the first relevant question is, are the parents acting in the child's interest or is this a case where they don't (and since we know that there are lots of cases where parents are neglecting or abusing their children the question is not inappropriate either).
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted May 19, 2009 09:30 AM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 09:41, 19 May 2009.
|
Well I can claim a monkey flew to the moon on its own power and it wouldn't be true either. The parents may claim whatever they wish, but yes it is their responsibility. But that changes nothing IN THIS CASE. Since nothing illegal is taking place, the parents can claim that banana cream pie is responsible for all I care. The courts still have no authority to force somebody to take medical treatment. Period.
Now if something illegal (like the kid killing somebody) then the court has every right to hold the parents and/or the child responsible. Two totally different things.
Let me see if I can answer all your points, however..give me a minute or two.
Quote:
Mytical, you are tap-dancing the problem, and you are burdening the courts: the older he/she gets, the more freedom they should have, means that EVERYTHING may be a question of courts. Children suing their parents (I should be allowed that!), and so on.
In fact I am doing the opposit. Letting people (or their parents/legal guardians) decide what medical treatments they will recieve. And people should be held more responsible for their own actions as they mature. How is that hard to understand? How does a person having to take more responsibility for their own actions more burden the courts?
Quote:
Let's not forget what the issue here is. The issue is, in practise the boy has no freedom of decision whatsoever with 13 years. His parents have FULL control, no matter what they claim. About his religious belief; about the information he gets (Wolfsburg is a doctor, he will agree that it is commonn practice for children - even for adults - to tell PARENTS the whole truth only; optimism is important if you want to regain your health, and it doesn't help optimism when you tell a child something about chances, death probabilities and treatment effects); about his decision forming.
Generally, how fit someone is to really understand all ramifications of a certain decision is clearly not only a question of age, but of mental capabilities as well.
Absolutely it is on the parents, regardless of what the parents claim. However, doesn't negate the fact that nobody should be made to undergo a medical treatment against their wishes (or the wishes of their guardians) the fact that the parents want to foist it off on their child is BESIDE the point. Just another case of people not wanting to take responsibility for their own actions. The parents are responsible, but that changes NOTHING. It doesn't matter what the parents CLAIM, only that a court should have NO power to compail somebody to undergo medical treatment.
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 19, 2009 09:55 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Absolutely it is on the parents, regardless of what the parents claim. However, doesn't negate the fact that nobody should be made to undergo a medical treatment against their wishes (or the wishes of their guardians) the fact that the parents want to foist it off on their child is BESIDE the point. Just another case of people not wanting to take responsibility for their own actions. The parents are responsible, but that changes NOTHING. It doesn't matter what the parents CLAIM, only that a court should have NO power to compail somebody to undergo medical treatment.
You are dead wrong in this case: it happens, for example, that parents hurt their children, break an arm or something, and are not taking them into medical treatment for fear of the questions that will arise. So OF COURSE a court has and should have the right to order examination and treatment.
The parents have responsibility, we agree. Basically the child has no say in it. (If parents would order treatment the case was closed anyway.) The question is, whether they neglect their responsibility in this case. If the case was clear-cut, 100% probability to become healthy again, 0 % probability to survive without treatment the case would be clear as well. The parents had the DUTY to do what is best for their child. Even if the court did NOT have the right to order treatment in this case, IF the child would die, the parents could be sued because of unintentional murder or something like that, because the result was to be expected.
Which means that the insecurity is only the result of the fact that the docs cannot guarantee NEITHER curing NOR failure of the alternative treatment.
Which is why the judge ordered an update of the examination - everything might be moot already anyway.
Probabilities of 5% and 90% look close enough to warrant DOUBTS. If they WOULD have the right to proceed against the advice of everyone they could indeed face a charge afterwards.
Edit: about burdening the courts. The more fluid a law is, the more exceptions, prerequisites and regulations there are, the more work will the courts have.
a) imagine a strict law: no autonomy whatsoever under 18; full autonomy with 18. You have no leeway whatsoever here. There won't be many cases for the courts, if any, but the question is, whether this regulation is too uniform.
b) autonomy is given for every single thing depending on the individual. This is the opposite, and here EVERYTHING is debatable. Consequently the courts will not be able to handle all the cases brought to them, when children sue their parents and vice versa. Every case against a young person would have to establich first whether that person was responsible for his or her doings or not. While that might be wished for, it's simply impractical.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted May 19, 2009 10:07 AM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 10:12, 19 May 2009.
|
You are dead wrong on this. While a court has every right to order an examination, treatment is another matter entirely. IF an examination determines abuse, then the parents become unfit to make a decision, and then things can proceed. However, that is when the parents have abused the child. When nature messes up (ie like cancer) the parents are not unfit to make the decisions. So the courts should not have any say in what treatment is given if any.
Just because somebody does not follow the mainstream does not make them unfit parents. My beliefs are about as far off mainstream you can get, but that does not mean I am insane. While I would really rather have every kid be given all the facts on everything, I realise that is not always possible. So we have to rely on the parents. I am sure the parents do not want to hurt their child, but are going on what they were taught. It is unfortunate, but it is their choice. They will have to live with it the rest of their lives.
OH and about this edit :
Quote:
about burdening the courts. The more fluid a law is, the more exceptions, prerequisites and regulations there are, the more work will the courts have.
a) imagine a strict law: no autonomy whatsoever under 18; full autonomy with 18. You have no leeway whatsoever here. There won't be many cases for the courts, if any, but the question is, whether this regulation is too uniform.
Except what if the parents are dead? Or other circumstances? Like an 18 year old who is too mentally handicapped to understand?
So a 17 year old isn't responsible, regardless of conditions, if they say .. kill 70 nuns for fun?...
____________
Message received.
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted May 19, 2009 10:28 AM |
|
Edited by angelito at 10:31, 19 May 2009.
|
Quote:
It doesn't matter what the parents CLAIM, only that a court should have NO power to compail somebody to undergo medical treatment.
I have a different opinion on that. The highest goal for any court/government should always be to save life. And for the matter of fact no "modern western" country is a religious theocratical state like Iran for example, religious beliefs should never have MORE weight than basic laws.
Especially if the victims isn't capable about that issue due to his age.
No one thinks it is wrong a 7 year old boy can't sign contracts because he is just too young, but refering to decisions with religous background, there is no "too young"?
I don't think parents have more rights refering to their children than the government or the court has. Kids are no "things", no "property". They are PART of the society like the parents themselves. The parents may be responsible, but have the damn duty to do everything in their power do give the kid a good and healthy life. And if it is more than likely my kid would convalesce again by getting the right treatment, no religion should be taking into consideration. I repat myself. Especially when talking about a kid, who probably didn't have the chance to find out if the parents' belief is the right way to go.
Example: Parents are member of a religious group which has different doctrines. One of those internal lawas says: You must not eat anything else but oat flakes. It has learned (due to mentioning EVERY SINGLE DAY by the parents), that every person who eats else but oat flakes will go to hell. At the age of 9, the kid starts to become an allergy sufferer. Allergy against oat. Eating oat will cause dyspnea and cause his death.
He knows (by his parents and their belief), he will come to hell when he eats else. Of course he doesn't want to go to hell. And then of course he denies every other kind of food offered by the hospital. He knows he has to die if he won't eat. But he says: "I will die anyway. But if I don't eat anything else but oat, I will come to heaven instead of hell. Wouldn't you chose heaven instead of hell aswell?"
Your answer?
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 19, 2009 10:34 AM |
|
|
I said that regulation is too uniform - I was just giving the 2 extreme sides of the coin to illustrate the problem.
What you are saying is, if parents really "believe" the things they are doing to their children, then who are we to stop them. Which can't be right.
So the first thing necessary would obviously be this:
Let the parents swear on everything they hold dear that they truly believe that what they do is the right thing, to establish at least their good will.
However, that's not enough. In this case, they may be completely slave to what their spiritual leader tells them (and makes a profit of), doing actually what another is telling them.
Also, if you truly believe that long fasting is the best method for your child to become a good person it doesn't excuse the fact that you let your child starve. Or suffer.
So NO MATTER what the parents believe, children have a RIGHT to be protected from errors of their parents. They have. They are not helpless victims of every whim their parents may have.
And it simply has to be established whether this is a case of where a child has to be protected or not.
The bottom line in this case is, as I said, that death isn't running away from the boy, but life may very well, and in the interest of the boy it's better to ask a question too many than a question too few.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted May 19, 2009 10:35 AM |
|
|
Well Angelito I would think it a dang tragedy, but let me put a flip side to this.
A new medical treatment comes out, one which will cause the person recieving it to behave in a specific manner deemed 'good' by the goverment. If the governement has the right to order people to take medical treatment, would you want to be forced to take this treatment? Yes I know that this has about a .000000000001% chance of ever happening..hypothetically of course.
____________
Message received.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted May 19, 2009 10:44 AM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 10:51, 19 May 2009.
|
I am afraid JJ that we have to agree to disagree on this point. Which is ok. If everybody thought the same, and acted the same, the world would be awful dull. So..what is the next big topic to conquer?
Edit : I tend to not believe in beating a dead horse. When it is obvious both sides are not budging, no need to keep hitting your head on a wall, there are other things to debate 
____________
Message received.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 19, 2009 11:06 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this, the court must first determine whether the person has a claim involving a sincere religious belief, and whether the government action is a substantial burden on the person’s ability to act on that belief;
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can't just claim anything you want and mask it as religious belief, obviously and undisputably.
So you believe you have the right to say who is sincere in their belief and who is not? You can tell me, "No, you are not a Chrisitan. You don't really believe in Jesus." No, you can't tell me that and neither can some judge.
A 13 year old can certainly have religious beliefs of his own. In the Jewish faith a person is considered to be morally responsible for himself when he reaches 12 years old.
And of course in the US a 13 year old girl can get an abortion, which is certainly a serious decision that she certainly doesn't fully understand the implications of.
Quote:
The responsibility is - legally - with the parents; they cannot wash it off of them.
Do not play word games. The boy decided and the parents supported his decision. The 13 year old could have an abortion against the will of his parents if he was a girl. How does it make sense to say the boy can't make a medical decision if the girl can? That is gender bias.
Quote:
The law says it is NOT his decision; the judge is in service of the law.
That is not true. I hate to have to keep repeating myself, but the law allows a girl to make the decision to have an abortion. So the law does allows a 13 year old to make their own medical decisions.
What do you want to do, have the police tackle the boy and put him in restraints? And if he still strugles drag him off kicking and screaming? Oh yes, that is quite treating him like a human being isn't it?
It is his right to reject any medical treatment for any religious reason for for any other reason.
In a free society no one should be forced by the government to accept any medical treatment just becaus the government wants the person to undergo the procedure.
I hate totalitarian governments. Government does not know best. Government is not my God.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted May 19, 2009 11:11 AM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 11:31, 19 May 2009.
|
Take it to the new thread (the debate about religion). Locking this thread for a few days just to illistrate my point.
I am not against religion, and am fact a supporter of it, but again..beating a dead horse here.
____________
Message received.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted May 21, 2009 05:39 AM |
|
|
Let us hope that the other thread will be the designated area now to discuss religion. All sides have had some good posts, lets see if we can keep it civil and on topic.
____________
Message received.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 21, 2009 06:00 AM |
|
|
Boy and mother flee country
I think it is sad that the boy has had to flee the US in order to not to be forced to undergo chemo. The judge may have had a good motivation to try to save the boy's life but he has had a huge negative impact on the boy and on his family.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 21, 2009 09:37 AM |
|
|
Quote:
The boy's doctors have testified that he will likely die within five years without treatment. Chemotherapy and radiation would increase his chance of survival to 80 to 95 percent.
A court-ordered chest X-ray showed that while the first round of treatment helped destroy some of the cancer, it has now grown back to its original size. A medical report noted a "significant worsening" of Hauser's tumor in the past week.
Minnesota law requires parents to provide their children with medically necessary care.
The boy will die, obviously, since the medical data apparently show that the "alternative medicine" doesn't work.
Quote:
I think it is sad that the boy has had to flee the US in order to not to be forced to undergo chemo. The judge may have had a good motivation to try to save the boy's life but he has had a huge negative impact on the boy and on his family.
The only negative impact I see is that fraud-convicted "spiritual leader" who has obviously completely befuddled those probably not very clever people, resulting a useless fight in the face of a tragic situation. Saying that the JUDGE has a negative impact on the boy and his family, is twisting facts and blame into the outrageous.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 21, 2009 03:49 PM |
|
|
According to the ABC news article on this story (emphasis my own):
Quote:
the teen and his parents rejected chemo after a single treatment, with the boy's mother saying that putting toxic substances in the body violates the family's religious convictions.
Hauser said she had been treating the boy's cancer instead with herbal supplements, vitamins, ionized water and other natural alternatives — a regimen based mostly on information she found on the Internet.
This woman is an idiot. Putting toxic substances in your body violates your religious convictions? Well, lady, your religious convictions are completely illogical and reveal that you have about as much intelligence as a puddle of mud. What is the definition of "toxic"? Most vitamins are toxic in large doses. Water can be toxic. If you eat an orange - yup, toxic substances there. Everything you eat has substances in it that can be considered toxic.
But y'know, I don't see why the judge is ordering chemotherapy. If this moron wants to kill her child in a slow and painful way because she thinks parsley is going to cure his cancer, so be it. Evolution at work, I say.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 21, 2009 04:24 PM |
|
|
He can't. Quote:
Minnesota law requires parents to provide their children with medically necessary care.
So the judge is just enforcing Minnesota laws. Or trying to. Which is actually his job as a judge.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
