RE: court forces brain radiation on child

RE: court forces brain radiation on child (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Hillwilliam -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/29/2012 7:08:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: defiantbadgirl I did NOT say if a pregnant woman had an x-ray, the baby would be born with a low IQ. I said high levels of radiation to a developing brain causes that. Where is your evidence? All we have is a claim by someone who has shown in the past that their biomedical knowledge is lacking.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/29/2012 7:32:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Who owns a child, if not the parents? Nobody "owns" a child. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Let's put it a different way, taking out the life/death angle. Let's go with an education angle. The State decides the curriculum. I am simply going to assume that's based on what would be best for the child to learn, know, and be able to do. Could the State remove a child from his/her parents if the parents chose to keep the child out of school completely to grow up one their farm? Over here, yes. Neglecting to educate your child according the government guidelines is classified as negligent behaviour and that can (and probably would) get your children taken away from you. Actually, failing to send your child to school for the required minimum hours, without medical evidence to excuse them, would result in fines and a possible jail sentence. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri What if it's a home-school situation where the parents create their own curricula that doesn't exactly align with the State's requirements? Would it matter if the parents were former teachers licensed by the State? Over here, if you elect for "home tuition" as opposed to sending your kids to school, you have to file various papers to show that you are intelligent enough, qualified enough and have the facilities to do home tuition. You are also given a basic curriculum that you have to follow too - you can't just do anything you like. If you fail to qualify for home tuition (for whatever reason), you must send your child to school otherwise you will suffer fines and a possible jail sentence. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri If a parent doesn't "own" a child and can't make decisions for that child based on the history and knowledge they have gleaned by living with said child, isn't there a loss of liberty when you force the parents to do something over which they don't have any real control? As the guardian or parent of a child in your care, you have a minimum legal duty to that child which includes safety and education. You don't have much say in that except that if you don't follow what society deems as the necessary 'minimum' in any category, you are liable to have those kids taken out of your care. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri It isn't Liberty, Freedom, or Self-Determination when you are presented with no personally acceptable choices. "You can do whatever you choose so long as I find it acceptable" is not the same as "you can do whatever you choose." Of your two quotes, only the first would be applicable. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri So, who owns the kids? Who has property rights over the kids? And, by "property rights," I mean who gets to make the decisions for the child until that child is "of age?" The current legal parent or guardian of that child. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Are you saying that a "custodial guardian" can be held liable for minor children's actions, but has no actual say in how a child grows up? Yes, absolutely! quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri How is it legal to force insurance companies to carry the children of policy holders until they are 26, if there is no "right" to determine for the children? It's 18 over here, not 26. And in most cases, any insurance for a minor is not mandatory for any insurance company here - it's optional.

DesideriScuri -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/29/2012 10:21:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Who owns a child, if not the parents? Nobody "owns" a child. I don't care for the word "owns," but I couldn't find a more savory word to get my meaning across. Not that I'm saying that kids are nothing more than "property"," but property rights convey the authority to make the decisions as to how that property is used, and there aren't a gawdawful number of limitations outside of infringing on someone else's rights to self-determine. I'm not saying that a child is in a slavery position to the parent(s). quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Let's put it a different way, taking out the life/death angle. Let's go with an education angle. The State decides the curriculum. I am simply going to assume that's based on what would be best for the child to learn, know, and be able to do. Could the State remove a child from his/her parents if the parents chose to keep the child out of school completely to grow up one their farm? Over here, yes. Neglecting to educate your child according the government guidelines is classified as negligent behaviour and that can (and probably would) get your children taken away from you. Actually, failing to send your child to school for the required minimum hours, without medical evidence to excuse them, would result in fines and a possible jail sentence. What happens if you have valid objections to the government guidelines? quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri What if it's a home-school situation where the parents create their own curricula that doesn't exactly align with the State's requirements? Would it matter if the parents were former teachers licensed by the State? Over here, if you elect for "home tuition" as opposed to sending your kids to school, you have to file various papers to show that you are intelligent enough, qualified enough and have the facilities to do home tuition. You are also given a basic curriculum that you have to follow too - you can't just do anything you like. If you fail to qualify for home tuition (for whatever reason), you must send your child to school otherwise you will suffer fines and a possible jail sentence. Homeschooling isn't as rigorous to get into in the US. There is a basic curriculum, but I don't know exactly how that all works out. I'll have to chat with my sister as she's going to homeschool her little ones when it is time for them to go to school. Every homeschool child that I've had any contact with (via baseball, football, etc.) has been peculiar, but peculiar in the level of advancement. One of my boys' coaches has a son in 3rd grade, chronologically, but is learning at a 5th grade education level. His younger brother was able to read last Spring and wasn't yet 5 years old. I was surprised to find out how many kids I knew were homeschooled. None of them showed the lack of social skills I assumed came along with not being in a school with their peers. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri If a parent doesn't "own" a child and can't make decisions for that child based on the history and knowledge they have gleaned by living with said child, isn't there a loss of liberty when you force the parents to do something over which they don't have any real control? As the guardian or parent of a child in your care, you have a minimum legal duty to that child which includes safety and education. You don't have much say in that except that if you don't follow what society deems as the necessary 'minimum' in any category, you are liable to have those kids taken out of your care. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri It isn't Liberty, Freedom, or Self-Determination when you are presented with no personally acceptable choices. "You can do whatever you choose so long as I find it acceptable" is not the same as "you can do whatever you choose." Of your two quotes, only the first would be applicable. Both can't be applicable at the same time. They are vastly different. Can you see the difference? Which do you prefer, personally? quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri So, who owns the kids? Who has property rights over the kids? And, by "property rights," I mean who gets to make the decisions for the child until that child is "of age?" The current legal parent or guardian of that child. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Are you saying that a "custodial guardian" can be held liable for minor children's actions, but has no actual say in how a child grows up? Yes, absolutely! Is this a good thing, in your opinion? quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri How is it legal to force insurance companies to carry the children of policy holders until they are 26, if there is no "right" to determine for the children? It's 18 over here, not 26. And in most cases, any insurance for a minor is not mandatory for any insurance company here - it's optional. It's mandatory that it be available here. It used to be 23 (when I was in college), but Obamacare pushed it to 26 (it could have been later than 23, but that's what it was when I was in that age category; it also required that I be a full-time student, which may or may not be the case now).

PeonForHer -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/29/2012 11:02:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl No one "owns" the kid. They are held in "trust" until their age of majority. That "trust" can be parents or the courts. You say to-may-to, I say to-mah-to. IWYW, — Aswad. Hell's bells, do you really see no distinction between a concept of 'trusteeship' ('guardianship', or similar) and one of ownership? Wow. If there's no distinction to be made in the context of a children, this bodes very ill for the flora and fauna in our environment. God knows how any whales at all have survived, so unclear is it who they're owned by.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/29/2012 11:31:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Who owns a child, if not the parents? Nobody "owns" a child. I don't care for the word "owns," but I couldn't find a more savory word to get my meaning across. Not that I'm saying that kids are nothing more than "property"," but property rights convey the authority to make the decisions as to how that property is used, and there aren't a gawdawful number of limitations outside of infringing on someone else's rights to self-determine. I'm not saying that a child is in a slavery position to the parent(s). That was answered :) A child, has no right of self-determination until they are of legal culpable age, which is 18 here. Children over 16 do get certain 'liberties' as allowed by certain laws. For instance, they can legally get married, with their parent's consent. They can apply for a provisional car license when they are 17. Theoretically, they are allowed to smoke at age 16, but they can't get the materials to smoke without them or someone else breaking another law to give them smokes. lol. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Let's put it a different way, taking out the life/death angle. Let's go with an education angle. The State decides the curriculum. I am simply going to assume that's based on what would be best for the child to learn, know, and be able to do. Could the State remove a child from his/her parents if the parents chose to keep the child out of school completely to grow up one their farm? quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 Over here, yes. Neglecting to educate your child according the government guidelines is classified as negligent behaviour and that can (and probably would) get your children taken away from you. Actually, failing to send your child to school for the required minimum hours, without medical evidence to excuse them, would result in fines and a possible jail sentence. What happens if you have valid objections to the government guidelines? There are none - at least none that would be considered as 'valid'. You follow the guidelines or your kids will be removed from your care. Simples. Your only other choice is for you emigrate to a different country. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri What if it's a home-school situation where the parents create their own curricula that doesn't exactly align with the State's requirements? Would it matter if the parents were former teachers licensed by the State? quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 Over here, if you elect for "home tuition" as opposed to sending your kids to school, you have to file various papers to show that you are intelligent enough, qualified enough and have the facilities to do home tuition. You are also given a basic curriculum that you have to follow too - you can't just do anything you like. If you fail to qualify for home tuition (for whatever reason), you must send your child to school otherwise you will suffer fines and a possible jail sentence. Homeschooling isn't as rigorous to get into in the US. There is a basic curriculum, but I don't know exactly how that all works out. I'll have to chat with my sister as she's going to homeschool her little ones when it is time for them to go to school. Every homeschool child that I've had any contact with (via baseball, football, etc.) has been peculiar, but peculiar in the level of advancement. One of my boys' coaches has a son in 3rd grade, chronologically, but is learning at a 5th grade education level. His younger brother was able to read last Spring and wasn't yet 5 years old. I was surprised to find out how many kids I knew were homeschooled. None of them showed the lack of social skills I assumed came along with not being in a school with their peers. I was able to read and write by the time I was 4 years old. I taught my kids to read and write by the time they reached their 4th birthday. My kids also had their own Pentium PC's by 1999 before they even started school and they were taught how to use them properly. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri If a parent doesn't "own" a child and can't make decisions for that child based on the history and knowledge they have gleaned by living with said child, isn't there a loss of liberty when you force the parents to do something over which they don't have any real control? quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 As the guardian or parent of a child in your care, you have a minimum legal duty to that child which includes safety and education. You don't have much say in that except that if you don't follow what society deems as the necessary 'minimum' in any category, you are liable to have those kids taken out of your care. It isn't Liberty, Freedom, or Self-Determination when you are presented with no personally acceptable choices. "You can do whatever you choose so long as I find it acceptable" is not the same as "you can do whatever you choose." quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 Of your two quotes, only the first would be applicable. Both can't be applicable at the same time. They are vastly different. Can you see the difference? Which do you prefer, personally? I can see the difference. I was pointing out that the ONLY one that would apply would be the first where you get to choose but within what is acceptable - you don't get a completely free reign. The point is, whether the choices are personally acceptable to you or not isn't the point. You choose within the given limits. Period. You can't completely go your own way. That would completely nullify your second quote. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri So, who owns the kids? Who has property rights over the kids? And, by "property rights," I mean who gets to make the decisions for the child until that child is "of age?" quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 The current legal parent or guardian of that child. Are you saying that a "custodial guardian" can be held liable for minor children's actions, but has no actual say in how a child grows up? quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 Yes, absolutely! Is this a good thing, in your opinion? What else would you suggest?? A minor, not being of legal culpable age, who else would be a sensible choice to take the rap for a child's actions? As you would ultimately have the legal care of the child, you also have the responsibility of it's actions. You certainly can't pin it on the child as they aren't of age to be legally responsible. Whether you decide to further chastize that child for what it has done would be a matter for you and the child. That is the general principal here and most of our laws reflect that. But, there have been some notable 'bending' of some laws for the most serious crimes deemed to have been committed by minors. For instance, first degree murder by a child can be prosecuted in their own right as a person if they are over the age of 10 and it can be proved that were fully aware of what they were doing. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri How is it legal to force insurance companies to carry the children of policy holders until they are 26, if there is no "right" to determine for the children? quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 It's 18 over here, not 26. And in most cases, any insurance for a minor is not mandatory for any insurance company here - it's optional. It's mandatory that it be available here. It used to be 23 (when I was in college), but Obamacare pushed it to 26 (it could have been later than 23, but that's what it was when I was in that age category; it also required that I be a full-time student, which may or may not be the case now). I'm guessing that you are refering to insurance for medical care on this point. That's free for everyone here - from cradle to grave.

DesideriScuri -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/29/2012 5:33:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Let's put it a different way, taking out the life/death angle. Let's go with an education angle. The State decides the curriculum. I am simply going to assume that's based on what would be best for the child to learn, know, and be able to do. Could the State remove a child from his/her parents if the parents chose to keep the child out of school completely to grow up one their farm? quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 Over here, yes. Neglecting to educate your child according the government guidelines is classified as negligent behaviour and that can (and probably would) get your children taken away from you. Actually, failing to send your child to school for the required minimum hours, without medical evidence to excuse them, would result in fines and a possible jail sentence. What happens if you have valid objections to the government guidelines? There are none - at least none that would be considered as 'valid'. You follow the guidelines or your kids will be removed from your care. Simples. Your only other choice is for you emigrate to a different country. So, the "State" can do no wrong, eh? quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri If a parent doesn't "own" a child and can't make decisions for that child based on the history and knowledge they have gleaned by living with said child, isn't there a loss of liberty when you force the parents to do something over which they don't have any real control? quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 As the guardian or parent of a child in your care, you have a minimum legal duty to that child which includes safety and education. You don't have much say in that except that if you don't follow what society deems as the necessary 'minimum' in any category, you are liable to have those kids taken out of your care. It isn't Liberty, Freedom, or Self-Determination when you are presented with no personally acceptable choices. "You can do whatever you choose so long as I find it acceptable" is not the same as "you can do whatever you choose." quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 Of your two quotes, only the first would be applicable. Both can't be applicable at the same time. They are vastly different. Can you see the difference? Which do you prefer, personally? I can see the difference. I was pointing out that the ONLY one that would apply would be the first where you get to choose but within what is acceptable - you don't get a completely free reign. The point is, whether the choices are personally acceptable to you or not isn't the point. You choose within the given limits. Period. You can't completely go your own way. That would completely nullify your second quote. This is neither Freedom, nor Liberty. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri So, who owns the kids? Who has property rights over the kids? And, by "property rights," I mean who gets to make the decisions for the child until that child is "of age?" quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 The current legal parent or guardian of that child. Are you saying that a "custodial guardian" can be held liable for minor children's actions, but has no actual say in how a child grows up? quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 Yes, absolutely! Is this a good thing, in your opinion? What else would you suggest?? A minor, not being of legal culpable age, who else would be a sensible choice to take the rap for a child's actions? As you would ultimately have the legal care of the child, you also have the responsibility of it's actions. You certainly can't pin it on the child as they aren't of age to be legally responsible. Whether you decide to further chastize that child for what it has done would be a matter for you and the child. That is the general principal here and most of our laws reflect that. But, there have been some notable 'bending' of some laws for the most serious crimes deemed to have been committed by minors. For instance, first degree murder by a child can be prosecuted in their own right as a person if they are over the age of 10 and it can be proved that were fully aware of what they were doing. I take no issue with parents being responsible for their minor children, with some caveats, of course. But, the part I take issue with is in how a child is raised not really being up to the parents, but they can still be held responsible for the behaviors of the child. quote: I'm guessing that you are refering to insurance for medical care on this point. That's free for everyone here - from cradle to grave. Yes, I was, but I think 23 is the age here for auto insurance, too, provided the son/daughter is currently a full-time student. Many companies also allow for a discount if the covered student gets good grades, too.

defiantbadgirl -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/29/2012 8:24:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: defiantbadgirl I did NOT say if a pregnant woman had an x-ray, the baby would be born with a low IQ. I said high levels of radiation to a developing brain causes that. Where is your evidence? http://www.aboutcancer.com/brain_comps_abeloff.htm "Studies of patients treated for PNET/medulloblastoma have uniformly shown poor outcomes in terms of intelligence, memory, language, attention, academic skills, psychosocial function, and quality of life, even in patients treated as adults. Many of these patients received 36 Gy to the whole brain followed by a boost to a total dose of 54 to 55.8 Gy to the posterior fossa. Data suggest that these patients have a decline in their IQ values because of an inability to acquire new skills and information at a rate comparable to their healthy same-age peers, rather than to a loss of previously acquired information and skills. These neurocognitive deficits have been correlated with loss of white matter in the brain, and the younger the patient when given radiation, the more severe the deficits." Here's more: http://www.oncolink.org/experts/article.cfm?c=3&s=24&ss=60&id=1425 An international organization of physicians is concerned that WIFI in schools could cause learning disabilities. http://specialedpost.com/2012/10/06/wi-fi-in-schools-carries-risk-of-learning-disabilities/ What do you think the radiation level of WIFI is compared to what is used in brain radiation?

Aswad -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/30/2012 5:41:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer Hell's bells, do you really see no distinction between a concept of 'trusteeship' ('guardianship', or similar) and one of ownership? Of course there's a distinction, but the distinction is one of "what you do with it", more than one of "what it is". You might as well call it "benign/beneficial ownership". IWYW, — Aswad.

Real0ne -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/30/2012 8:11:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: I can't imagine what I would do in those parents' situations. Until a child is 16 (or whatever age the State sets), he or she can't legally make the decision. Up to that age, the parent(s) make the decisions for the child. At some point in time, there will be a line crossed after which, the government will be able to tell you what to do, when to do it, where to do it, and you won't be able to legally say a fucking thing about it. It's all a slow creep, one nibble at a time. DS, I agree that Liberty and state encrouchment are legitimate issues. However, personal liberty should take a back seat, imo, when a situation involves asymmetrical power between individuals, as it does between parent and child, or for example between husband and battered spouse. In such cases it is the duty of the state to protect, I think. I wonder if you are not being a bit overly paranoid in so broad and sweeping a concern. Would you not favor police protection for a battered wife? Or laws against child abuse? Let's see, battering a wife (assuming there was no consent) and abusing a child are both, correct me if I'm wrong, illegal. That is, there are laws against those actions, for good reason. However, in the case of not getting your child life-extending surgery? Not exactly abuse there. Unless you have all the facts, you are guessing at what the entire situation was. I have no problem with the state removing a child from an abusive parent. But, actively killing someone isn't the same as allowing someone to die. I'm not saying this would be the straw that breaks the camel's back and that we're all screwed from here on out. Nor, am I saying this action is the capstone that is keeping our society out of de facto slavery. But, I'm saying it's another step away from Liberty and self-determination. Are you telling me that this isn't a loss of Liberty? Loss of Liberty? If this were a US law case Liberty is protected in the 14th Amendment for any person by due process and equal protection of the law. Due process: the mother had a court hearing. Equal Protection: there is no hint of class discrimination against the mother. Is there something about the 14th that bothers you? Does it fall outside the realm of Conservative interpretation? quote: the State should not have entered. I can not say that this was the case, nor can I say it wasn't. I do believe, however, that the custodial parent has final say, usually. Court documents, Was the mother ruled incompetent and the child removed from her? If not explain how you concluded this woman got due process?

vincentML -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/30/2012 8:17:13 AM)
quote: Was the mother ruled incompetent and the child removed from her? If not explain how you concluded this woman got due process? I don't know whether the mother or father brought the action to court but obviously due process was afforded by the court hearing and ruling having taking place. Nor can I cite any case law that requires a ruling of incompetence in an award of child custody. Can you?

DesideriScuri -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/30/2012 8:41:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: Was the mother ruled incompetent and the child removed from her? If not explain how you concluded this woman got due process? I don't know whether the mother or father brought the action to court but obviously due process was afforded by the court hearing and ruling having taking place. Nor can I cite any case law that requires a ruling of incompetence in an award of child custody. Can you? Incompetence may not be required in a custody award, but it can be used to determine custody. quote: Parents' physical and psychiatric health. The evaluator should explore whether either parent suffers from a physical ailment that could directly affect the parent-child relationship or interfere with the parent's ability to care for the child. Does a parent abuse drugs or alcohol, and if so, what is the impact on the child? In child custody disputes it is common for a parent's psychiatric history to be used by the opposing side as an argument against granting custody to that parent. The issue, however, is not the diagnosis, but the effect of psychiatric impairment on the parent's ability to parent effectively, care for the child, and maintain an empathic relationship with the child. There is quite a list an evaluator has to take into account when determining his/her recommendation to the court.

Real0ne -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/30/2012 8:46:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer Hell's bells, do you really see no distinction between a concept of 'trusteeship' ('guardianship', or similar) and one of ownership? Of course there's a distinction, but the distinction is one of "what you do with it", more than one of "what it is". You might as well call it "benign/beneficial ownership". IWYW, — Aswad. ownership is a loose term for who has proper[ty] interest in [whatever]. Americans think they own their land, and in a sense they do but in reality they only have usufructory [rights] granted by the assigning authority. The State. I presume you recognize the difference between the State and the state? Gets a bit tricky reading law now days when they combine the 2 in the same paragraph. People, that is the average joe plumer do not get it generally. The constitution, in fact most constitutions in general create the "police State(s)/state(s)" in america and these things people refer to as "law" is technically incorrect usage of the term. They are "regulations" under the police state when we are talking about english common law countries. ANYTHING produced by a legislature or sitting governing body designed to create so called law is a regulation that comes under the "PRESUMED" police powers of the state. Liberty is the ability for you to conduct private actions in the public arena. Like fucking in your car on a public street with the public able to see into the windows. Another one people do not understand. Anything acknowledged by the government would be considered a sanctioned hence protected privilege only in that a police regulation has been created as proof of sanction which always bypasses due process in the name of due process. (in america) Often times to the extent of carrying a strict liability with it. (Judge Dredd enforcement) Adjudication for individual "private rights of man" has been literally abolished in the court system in america. (long story but you can try and find cases and if you do please hit me back because they do not exist in america, the high courts acknowledge their existence but provide no forum within or without the state for adjudication) People are stuck with taking everything through the state and of course anything taken through the state now becomes public and tada as time goes by the total encroachment and commingling of the public into the private. Freedom when used in the sense of government is the franchise entitlement, and the obvious proof is that the slave "titles" (their names), were "incorporated" (merger of the real body to the abstract entity), as a corporate "individual" re-titled and granted a franchise as a "citizen" of the corporate body known as the "united states" People erroneously think it means release from government, release from the king, or the state or whatever controlling power they picture in their minds eye......and its real meaning like much else in legoland is precisely the opposite which frankly cracks me up when I hear people laughing at dubya being so stoopid. Translated dubya said they attacked the or part of the US franchise, that being what government would consider a valid reason to go to war. Asking people how anyone can attack our "freedom", what that means, they look at you with the deer in the headlights look.

Real0ne -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/30/2012 9:03:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: Was the mother ruled incompetent and the child removed from her? If not explain how you concluded this woman got due process? I don't know whether the mother or father brought the action to court but obviously due process was afforded by the court hearing and ruling having taking place. Nor can I cite any case law that requires a ruling of incompetence in an award of child custody. Can you? has nothing to do with citing case law. due process is procedural and like everything else in lego land has more than one meaning. unfortunately for this woman to receive due process it would take a minimum of a petite jury to get it. This judge was operating under administrative law which carries the "presumption" of due process if and only if it is accepted by the parties as such. Like I said above we live in a country that like england is designed around the police state, thank you very much Mr Marshal God bless your rotting soul or in his case sole LOL. I shouldnt be so mean to him he did some good. I did not read the case, however if you do not demand a jury you are again "presumed" to have waived your due process rights. Its so bad in some places in the states that people have to have a hearing to even get a fucking jury trial! Always get a jury trial no matter how much they try to talk you out of it. People are misguided in their thinking that all the constitutional charters grant rights when the fact of the matter is they substantially reduce your rights. People create them to protect their rights and ultimately these constitutions wind up protecting themselves, that is their own institutions and of course the only way to do that is to decide cases by going extraconstitutional and ultimately "above the law". Administrative regulations are created to circumvent the need to take things to court and rubber stamp activities deemed inappropriate within the realm, well in republics like america the jurisdiction. Contracting with the state? You will get a better deal contracting with the devil. The devil does not need your money to survive. the irony here is that burzinsky has a superior track record with cancer to any monopolized government sanctioned methods with a phenomenol cure rate that has been proven. This judge put his weenie on the line, and opened himself up to a nice suit should that kid die as a result of his choice of treatment. presuming that is what this fight is about. http://www.burzynskimovie.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=92&Itemid=76 The fda stole this guys patents so with regard to ken the best treatment was not chosen due to the pharma monopoly in this country.

PeonForHer -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/30/2012 9:51:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer Hell's bells, do you really see no distinction between a concept of 'trusteeship' ('guardianship', or similar) and one of ownership? Of course there's a distinction, but the distinction is one of "what you do with it", more than one of "what it is". You might as well call it "benign/beneficial ownership". IWYW, — Aswad. No it isn't. That is seriously wrong. Jesus, Aswad - is this a problem of language - something not translating between Norwegian and English?

vincentML -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/30/2012 12:26:29 PM)
quote: This judge was operating under administrative law which carries the "presumption" of due process if and only if it is accepted by the parties as such. RO, you evade my question about the necessity of a showing of incompetence and there is nothing in the article that supports your contention that this was an administrative law case. This from the article: "The mother's relentless battle in court also cast a light on the dilemmas parents can face when dealing with the illness of a loved one, considering the short-term and long-term risks of a treatment and handling conflicting medical information available at the click of a mouse. Roberts said in court she had researched on the Internet her son's condition - a fast-growing, high-grade brain tumor called medulloblastoma - and sought advice from specialists around the world because she did not trust British experts." Procedural due process clear and simple.

Aswad -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/30/2012 3:00:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer No it isn't. That is seriously wrong. Jesus, Aswad - is this a problem of language - something not translating between Norwegian and English? More likely a disconnect. How about you explain to me the distinction as you see it, and I ponder if that makes sense or not? At least that should give us a better starting point for figuring out what the root of the disagreement is, and how to bridge that gap. IWYW, — Aswad.

Real0ne -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/30/2012 7:44:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: This judge was operating under administrative law which carries the "presumption" of due process if and only if it is accepted by the parties as such. RO, you evade my question about the necessity of a showing of incompetence and there is nothing in the article that supports your contention that this was an administrative law case. This from the article: "The mother's relentless battle in court also cast a light on the dilemmas parents can face when dealing with the illness of a loved one, considering the short-term and long-term risks of a treatment and handling conflicting medical information available at the click of a mouse. Roberts said in court she had researched on the Internet her son's condition - a fast-growing, high-grade brain tumor called medulloblastoma - and sought advice from specialists around the world because she did not trust British experts." Procedural due process clear and simple. was the child not placed in her custody? Brit chick huh? Nice lookin no less LOL There are several homeopathic cancer cures that are proven. Proven and agency sanctioned are 2 completely different things as you can see with burzynskis work. AHCCP comes immediately to mind as one of the better ones. I have not been able to get a hold of the actual transcript. This is england so its the states business because that child will bring in revenue for the crown. simply going to court and having a trial is not a gaurantee of due process that apparently neither one of us can prove right now until we get our hands on the actual filing. I would be shocked however if due process could not have been brought up, however as I said if she agreed to proceed without its too late if the kid was already cut and nuked. Dateline (Synderman): Yet, for over a decade the FDA and the Texas Medical Board doggedly but unsuccessfully pursued Dr. Burzynski an an attempt to shut his practice down. Response: The majority of this documentary covers this 14-year legal battle in great detail for the majority of the film's running time. However, Dateline failed to mention that Burzynski was fighting the FDA and Texas Medical board while simultaneously cooperating with the FDA in Phase II clinical trials. An anomaly never before seen in history [source: Read a 12/5/1996 Washington Times article on this event]. They also failed to mention the eleven Antineoplaston patents that were being filed by one of Burzynski's own scientists in cooperation with Elan pharmaceuticals and the Department of Health And Human Services—the very same federal agency trying to indict Burzynski in court. They also failed to mention that one of the reasons the Texas Medical Board failed to shut down Burzynski's practice is because the Founder of the Neuroradiology (brain tumor) Section of the National Cancer Institute, who is a board-certified radiologist, and professor of radiology at Georgetown University—Dr. Nicholas Patronas [source NCI]—testified as a brain cancer expert from our own National Cancer Institute in a Texas court in Burzynski's defense—stating "... it's amazing, the fact that they [Burzynski's brain tumor patients], the fact that they are living .... and they are not handicapped from the side effects of any treatment, and the side effects of the most aggressive previous treatment are worse than the tumor itself. So these particular individuals not only survived, but they didn't have major side effects. So I think it [Antineopalstons] is impressive and unbelievable." [source: Read the entire Texas Court testimony/transcript with Dr. Nicholas Patronas here]. very similar shit they did with nikola tesla Dateline (Synderman): "Dr. Burzynski says most of the patients he sees have the worst kinds of cancer, and many are children, diagnosed with aggressive and inoperable brain tumors—for whom traditional treatment has failed. And yet he says he has patients still living 10, 15, even 25 years after getting his Antineoplastons." Response: Dateline continues to state what appears to be anecdotal evidence, instead of pointing to the peer-reviewed medical literature verifying this statement. Some childhood cancers, such as brainstem glioma, simply do not have a single drug approved by the FDA to treat it because not a single substance has ever shown any objective response on any patient with this condition—ever. Yet Dr. Burzynski has a 27.5% cure rate with these types of cancer vs. 0% with traditional treatment. Therefore, it's not that traditional treatment has failed these patients—but instead, there simply isn't a single medicine approved by the FDA in existence to treat patients with this condition at all. Radiation isn't a medicine, it's a carcinogenic radioactive treatment, and it has never shown to ever cure an inoperable childhood brainstem glioma patient—ever. See sources of peer-reviewed FDA clinical trials comparing "traditional treatment" with Antineoplastons in childhood brainstem glioma patients: [Chemo/Rad - PubMed 2005] [ANP - PubMed 2003] [ANP - PubMed 2006] You can also visit childhood brainstem glioma survivor Jessica Ressel's page with full medical records and more clinical trial data here [source].

susie -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/31/2012 3:34:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne This is england so its the states business because that child will bring in revenue for the crown. What the hell are you talking about now. Please state, with evidence, how is the child going to bring in revenue for the crown.

Politesub53 -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/31/2012 4:02:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: susie quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne This is england so its the states business because that child will bring in revenue for the crown. What the hell are you talking about now. Please state, with evidence, how is the child going to bring in revenue for the crown. He is spouting bullshit as per usual, I have given up answering him.

Politesub53 -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/31/2012 4:04:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: Was the mother ruled incompetent and the child removed from her? If not explain how you concluded this woman got due process? I don't know whether the mother or father brought the action to court but obviously due process was afforded by the court hearing and ruling having taking place. Nor can I cite any case law that requires a ruling of incompetence in an award of child custody. Can you? Vincent, the mother brought the court action as she didnt want the child to have Chemo. You are correct in that she got full due process,

Page: << < prev 7 8 9 [10] 11 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625