Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 15:23:03 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2015 11:25:06 GMT -5
This is not suicide. She would not be taking her own life, cancer would. Chemo is an intrusive and painful procedure. The state has no business telling anyone they have to do it. what if she was 5. Then it's the parent's decision unless the parent has been proven incompetent. And the fact that they won't get their 5 year old chemo is not proof of incompetence. Part of being free is being free to make really bad decisions. |
|
ArchietheDragon
Junior Associate
Joined: Jul 7, 2014 14:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 6,353
|
Post by ArchietheDragon on Jan 9, 2015 11:26:59 GMT -5
Then it's the parent's decision unless the parent has been proven incompetent. And the fact that they won't get their 5 year old chemo is not proof of incompetence. Part of being free is being free to make really bad decisions. This is what the supreme court did. |
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jan 9, 2015 12:00:36 GMT -5
Why is this even an issue? If mom, who is her legal guardian, refuses on her behalf, then why does it go any further? Really? If a mom, who is a legal guardian, insists on feeding her infant a raw food, vegan diet and the chid is clearly malnourished, does the state have the right to intervene?
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770 
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jan 9, 2015 12:18:44 GMT -5
This is not suicide. She would not be taking her own life, cancer would. Chemo is an intrusive and painful procedure. The state has no business telling anyone they have to do it. While chemotherapy is, indeed, invasive, it's not necessarily painful. Much depends on the drugs used and the patient. Some patients suffer more side-effects than others. This girl might have no side-effects, one or two side-effects, or a bundle of side-effects. For Hodgkin's lymphoma, the most common side-effects are treatable. It can't be known what this girl's reaction might be, however. |
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 15:23:03 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2015 12:28:44 GMT -5
But why should the court have to decide this. A person of this age has already been given rights to their own healthcare decisions. Why is chemo any different from abortion and birth control. Which by the way would be allowed for this girl to do without any consent. Kind of reminds me of when I was a kid. I was old enough to be drafted and die for my country in the military service, but not old enough to buy and drink a shot of whiskey. With this girl it just seems to be one of those law overlaps that was unforeseen until the situation presented. Life is full of little injustices. How is the chemo a bad thing if the success rate is 85% at her stage? I would call it suicide to refuse, or coercion by the mother. |
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 15:23:03 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2015 12:37:06 GMT -5
This is not suicide. She would not be taking her own life, cancer would. Chemo is an intrusive and painful procedure. The state has no business telling anyone they have to do it. If that was the case, a deliberate drug overdose isn't suicide either. The drug killed her. Or using a gun to commit suicide isn't suicide either. The high speed projectile does the killing. |
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 15:23:03 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2015 12:38:41 GMT -5
Why is this even an issue? If mom, who is her legal guardian, refuses on her behalf, then why does it go any further? Really? If a mom, who is a legal guardian, insists on feeding her infant a raw food, vegan diet and the chid is clearly malnourished, does the state have the right to intervene?
Totally different, in that case the mom is causing the problem. Mom didn't cause the cancer. |
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 15:23:03 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2015 12:40:27 GMT -5
This is not suicide. She would not be taking her own life, cancer would. Chemo is an intrusive and painful procedure. The state has no business telling anyone they have to do it. If that was the case, a deliberate drug overdose isn't suicide either. The drug killed her. Or using a gun to commit suicide isn't suicide either. The high speed projectile does the killing. No, they had to take a specific action to cause the death. In the case of cancer you have to take extreme measures to attempt to prevent it. |
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 15:23:03 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2015 12:41:36 GMT -5
This is not suicide. She would not be taking her own life, cancer would. Chemo is an intrusive and painful procedure. The state has no business telling anyone they have to do it. While chemotherapy is, indeed, invasive, it's not necessarily painful. Much depends on the drugs used and the patient. Some patients suffer more side-effects than others. This girl might have no side-effects, one or two side-effects, or a bundle of side-effects. For Hodgkin's lymphoma, the most common side-effects are treatable. It can't be known what this girl's reaction might be, however. That is splitting hairs. If it makes you feel better it is potentially painful. |
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jan 9, 2015 12:44:48 GMT -5
While chemotherapy is, indeed, invasive, it's not necessarily painful. Much depends on the drugs used and the patient. Some patients suffer more side-effects than others. This girl might have no side-effects, one or two side-effects, or a bundle of side-effects. For Hodgkin's lymphoma, the most common side-effects are treatable. It can't be known what this girl's reaction might be, however. That is splitting hairs. If it makes you feel better it is potentially painful. No, it's not splitting hairs. It's presenting the known factors associated with treatment for Hodgkin's lymphoma. The most common side-effects with the particular treatment/combinations of drugs used for this condition do not involve pain. |
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jan 9, 2015 12:52:28 GMT -5
Really? If a mom, who is a legal guardian, insists on feeding her infant a raw food, vegan diet and the chid is clearly malnourished, does the state have the right to intervene?
Totally different, in that case the mom is causing the problem. Mom didn't cause the cancer. Mom is exacerbating the problem. Mom is making health decisions for her child. |
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 15:23:03 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2015 12:53:48 GMT -5
If that was the case, a deliberate drug overdose isn't suicide either. The drug killed her. Or using a gun to commit suicide isn't suicide either. The high speed projectile does the killing. No, they had to take a specific action to cause the death. In the case of cancer you have to take extreme measures to attempt to prevent it. You are still making my point. People take actions to prevent their own death every day. It doesn't seem extraordinary. If not, let go of the steering wheel while driving on the expressway today, the car will kill you through your inaction. |
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680 
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Jan 9, 2015 12:56:23 GMT -5
This is not suicide. She would not be taking her own life, cancer would. Chemo is an intrusive and painful procedure. The state has no business telling anyone they have to do it. Does Canada with socialized medicine just let them die in this situation, or put them on an ice flow in Hudson Bay? |
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 15:23:03 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2015 13:03:00 GMT -5
This is not suicide. She would not be taking her own life, cancer would. Chemo is an intrusive and painful procedure. The state has no business telling anyone they have to do it. Does Canada with socialized medicine just let them die in this situation, or put them on an ice flow in Hudson Bay? Some people choose not to have treatment for diseases. It's not a large percentage but some do make that choice. |
|
ArchietheDragon
Junior Associate
Joined: Jul 7, 2014 14:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 6,353
|
Post by ArchietheDragon on Jan 9, 2015 13:04:27 GMT -5
Does Canada with socialized medicine just let them die in this situation, or put them on an ice flow in Hudson Bay? Some people choose not to have treatment for diseases. It's not a large percentage but some do make that choice. At what age do they have that choice. That is the question. |
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Jan 9, 2015 13:06:20 GMT -5
Does Canada with socialized medicine just let them die in this situation, or put them on an ice flow in Hudson Bay? Some people choose not to have treatment for diseases. It's not a large percentage but some do make that choice. Yes, those are the ones that come south of the border for proper treatment....  |
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 15:23:03 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2015 13:11:45 GMT -5
Some people choose not to have treatment for diseases. It's not a large percentage but some do make that choice. At what age do they have that choice. That is the question. Whatever the legal age is and until then it is up to their parents. Look, it isn't the decision I would make in those circumstances but it is my choice to make. There are a significant number of people that would rather die than go through toxic treatments like chemo, just usually they are on the other end of the life timeline. They should be allowed to make that choice. |
|
ArchietheDragon
Junior Associate
Joined: Jul 7, 2014 14:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 6,353
|
Post by ArchietheDragon on Jan 9, 2015 13:13:16 GMT -5
At what age do they have that choice. That is the question. Whatever the legal age is and until then it is up to their parents. Look, it isn't the decision I would make in those circumstances but it is my choice to make. There are a significant number of people that would rather die than go through toxic treatments like chemo, just usually they are on the other end of the life timeline. They should be allowed to make that choice. and if the parents are not making the decision in the best interest of the child. then what? And not just decisions whether they should take ibuprofen or asprin, but decisions that will determine whether they live or die? |
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 15:23:03 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2015 13:15:58 GMT -5
Whatever the legal age is and until then it is up to their parents. Look, it isn't the decision I would make in those circumstances but it is my choice to make. There are a significant number of people that would rather die than go through toxic treatments like chemo, just usually they are on the other end of the life timeline. They should be allowed to make that choice. and if the parents are not making the decision in the best interest of the child. then what? And not just decisions whether they should take ibuprofen or asprin, but decisions that will determine whether they live or die? I need a context Arch. I've already stated how I feel about the medical treatment thing. What other circumstances are you talking about? |
|
ArchietheDragon
Junior Associate
Joined: Jul 7, 2014 14:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 6,353
|
Post by ArchietheDragon on Jan 9, 2015 13:17:39 GMT -5
and if the parents are not making the decision in the best interest of the child. then what? And not just decisions whether they should take ibuprofen or asprin, but decisions that will determine whether they live or die? I need a context Arch. I've already stated how I feel about the medical treatment thing. What other circumstances are you talking about? a 5 year old with cancer. the parents say eating healthy will cure them and they do not get recommended medical treatment. |
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 15:23:03 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2015 13:18:22 GMT -5
Okay I think only a few of you will get me here but here goes...
We are living in a society that will only send our healthiest and fittest youth off to fight in combat and be killed for us, while doing everything in our power to ensure that the weakest and unhealthiest continue to live. From a strictly evolutionary perspective that can't be a good thing. |
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Jan 9, 2015 13:19:13 GMT -5
Let's say your 17 year old child puts their hand through a window and cuts herself really bad. Does a parent have the right to just let her lay there and bleed to death?
This is a hard one for me. I don't know what is right.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 15:23:03 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2015 13:22:15 GMT -5
I need a context Arch. I've already stated how I feel about the medical treatment thing. What other circumstances are you talking about? a 5 year old with cancer. the parents say eating healthy will cure them and they do not get recommended medical treatment. As awful as it would be, the parents decision should prevail. |
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Jan 9, 2015 13:22:35 GMT -5
Okay I think only a few of you will get me here but here goes...
We are living in a society that will only send our healthiest and fittest youth off to fight in combat and be killed for us, while doing everything in our power to ensure that the weakest and unhealthiest continue to live. From a strictly evolutionary perspective that can't be a good thing. So....put the weak and infirm out on the ice flow..... |
|
ArchietheDragon
Junior Associate
Joined: Jul 7, 2014 14:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 6,353
|
Post by ArchietheDragon on Jan 9, 2015 13:22:59 GMT -5
a 5 year old with cancer. the parents say eating healthy will cure them and they do not get recommended medical treatment. As awful as it would be, the parents decision should prevail. that is where we will differ. You are even more hard core than Paul! |
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 15:23:03 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2015 13:23:30 GMT -5
Okay I think only a few of you will get me here but here goes...
We are living in a society that will only send our healthiest and fittest youth off to fight in combat and be killed for us, while doing everything in our power to ensure that the weakest and unhealthiest continue to live. From a strictly evolutionary perspective that can't be a good thing. So....put the weak and infirm out on the ice flow..... Ya, that's what I'm saying.  |
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 15:23:03 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2015 13:28:46 GMT -5
Okay I think only a few of you will get me here but here goes...
We are living in a society that will only send our healthiest and fittest youth off to fight in combat and be killed for us, while doing everything in our power to ensure that the weakest and unhealthiest continue to live. From a strictly evolutionary perspective that can't be a good thing. Stephen Hawking would differ with you. |
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 15:23:03 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2015 13:31:28 GMT -5
Okay I think only a few of you will get me here but here goes...
We are living in a society that will only send our healthiest and fittest youth off to fight in combat and be killed for us, while doing everything in our power to ensure that the weakest and unhealthiest continue to live. From a strictly evolutionary perspective that can't be a good thing. Stephen Hawking would differ with you. From a personal point of view maybe. But I would be interested in his answer if you actually asked him. |
|
ArchietheDragon
Junior Associate
Joined: Jul 7, 2014 14:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 6,353
|
Post by ArchietheDragon on Jan 9, 2015 13:33:05 GMT -5
Okay I think only a few of you will get me here but here goes...
We are living in a society that will only send our healthiest and fittest youth off to fight in combat and be killed for us, while doing everything in our power to ensure that the weakest and unhealthiest continue to live. From a strictly evolutionary perspective that can't be a good thing. on a macro level I agree. On a micro level I do not. |
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 15:23:03 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2015 13:34:04 GMT -5
Really?!! Parents make shitastic horrible decisions all the time. Beating their kids, starving them, child pornography, denying care. That's why we have a system to intervene on behalf of children who are vulnerable and need appropriate care. This is not that. If people are otherwise approved of by society they have the right to make decisions about their own and their offsprings medical treatment even if it isn't the view of the majority. |
|
