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

DomKen -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/22/2012 3:17:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: defiantbadgirl My comment about inability to communicate was referring to late stage brain cancer patients in general in their last weeks of life. I see your point, but wouldn't killing any remaining cells involve radiating a much larger area? Maybe even whole brain radiation? Even if they only concentrate on the cerebellum, the boy is likely to suffer significant damage. "The cerebellum is responsible for relaying messages about posture, equilibrium, movement and fine motor skills such as writing or catching a ball. It is a very important part of the brain that keeps us aware of our surroundings and therefore alive. Voluntary movement is monitored and initialized by the cerebellum through the manipulation of fine muscle movement. Cerebellum injuries can lead to forms of paralysis in many various ways such as paraplegic, quadriplegic or partial impairment of the motor neuron pathways." I keep thinking about his quality of life. What if he dies anyway and is unable to enjoy the time he has left because of permanent disabilities? What if his peers bully and laugh at him? That's what disabled children go through. It's horrible, but unfortunately, it's a fact of life for them. Many people would rather die than suffer from severe brain damage and disability. If it was a grown up I'd say let him make the decision. But for a child that has only been alive 6 years I say do everything possible to save his life.

TheHeretic -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/22/2012 3:22:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Ironically the mother hasnt made any comments as her "story" is tied up with a national newspaper. IE a cash sale. That in itself isnt rational or in the childs best interest. Maybe she wants to take the child to Disneyland? This is tough. I think the weight of the decision needs to be in the hands of the custodial parent. She is going to have a far better comprehension on the actual quality of life of her child, and the impact of further treatment, than anyone else.

meatcleaver -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/22/2012 3:37:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: defiantbadgirl http://news.yahoo.com/mother-loses-uk-legal-fight-stop-sons-cancer-170325898.html If there's a good chance of a cure with little to no permanent damage, I could understand. Unfortunately, that is never the case with brain cancer. Malignant brain tumors have tentacles that are impossible eliminate. Even if radiation could kill the tentacles, is side effect of permanent brain damage, permanent mental retardation worth it? The statisitics overwhelmingly suggest the recommended medical treatment is the child's best chance so the court has made the right decision. What other decision could the court make?

TheHeretic -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/22/2012 4:06:33 PM)
FR Just a thought, but has anyone looked into the possibility that the father is just some sort of sick fuck, who wants to inflict further pain on his ex-wife by deliberately prolonging the agony of his former family?

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/22/2012 4:18:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Ironically the mother hasnt made any comments as her "story" is tied up with a national newspaper. IE a cash sale. That in itself isnt rational or in the childs best interest. Maybe she wants to take the child to Disneyland? This is tough. I think the weight of the decision needs to be in the hands of the custodial parent. She is going to have a far better comprehension on the actual quality of life of her child, and the impact of further treatment, than anyone else. The mother, like you, does not know for certain that the child will suffer because of the treatment. Given the odds, I think the courts made the right decision in the end. Unfortunately, time was of the essence and a decision was needed quickly. The mother did not produce any 'alternatives' that were viable for her son's type of brain tumour. That argument came from other expert medical witnesses in the case. And, unfortunately, the custodial parent isn't always the best judge in these circumstances as often, their judgment is clouded. Was it fair to ask the non-custodial parent to condemn his child to death because 'the custodial parent knows best'?? I think that is extremely unfair on both him and the child. IMHO, a possibly slightly lower-IQ living child is better than a dead one any day of the week. Just because all possible side effects are listed (as is required by our laws here), doesn't mean the child will suffer any or all of them - it's just a possibility that he might. It's no different to any other treatment that has possible side effects - it doesn't mean you'll have them all just because the possibility is listed in the paperwork. Given an 80% survival rate compared to ZERO, that's a good call in my books. It's just a shame that cases like this had to be dragged through the courts to get a sensible decision.

meatcleaver -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/22/2012 4:19:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic FR Just a thought, but has anyone looked into the possibility that the father is just some sort of sick fuck, who wants to inflict further pain on his ex-wife by deliberately prolonging the agony of his former family? I suspect the court would have considered the character of the father and his motives before they gave him custody of the child for the length of the child's treatment.

tazzygirl -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/22/2012 4:22:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic FR Just a thought, but has anyone looked into the possibility that the father is just some sort of sick fuck, who wants to inflict further pain on his ex-wife by deliberately prolonging the agony of his former family? It could as easily be said that the mother simply doesnt want to deal with the possibilities of a brain damaged child after he procedures. It really could go both ways.

Hillwilliam -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/22/2012 4:23:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Ironically the mother hasnt made any comments as her "story" is tied up with a national newspaper. IE a cash sale. That in itself isnt rational or in the childs best interest. Maybe she wants to take the child to Disneyland? This is tough. I think the weight of the decision needs to be in the hands of the custodial parent. Im gonna go out on a limb here and admittedly stretch the logic. By this logic, when it comes to terminating a preganancy, only the mother would have a say and not the father.

TheHeretic -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/22/2012 4:26:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver I suspect the court would have considered the character of the father and his motives before they gave him custody of the child for the length of the child's treatment. Or, it could be the court decided to let him bear the burden of what he is demanding, and he can change the diapers, wipe the drool, and carry the awful emotional burden of what he has chosen to inflict on his child.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/22/2012 4:28:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam By this logic, when it comes to terminating a preganancy, only the mother would have a say and not the father. That is exactly the legal position here in the UK. Unlike the US where both parents are considered fairly equally, in custody or decisions affecting the child(ren), it isn't like that over here. In the UK, fathers don't actually count for much in anything to do with their offspring. The whole legal system is extremely biased in favour of the mother/female.

Politesub53 -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/22/2012 4:30:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic FR Just a thought, but has anyone looked into the possibility that the father is just some sort of sick fuck, who wants to inflict further pain on his ex-wife by deliberately prolonging the agony of his former family? It doesnt seem that way from reports here. The father wants the surgery done to save his sons life, even though he is apprehensive. The father hasnt suggested the hospital treatment, that call is down to the boys doctors alone. The mother didnt even want the son to be gven tablets to stop his sickness, and was looking into untried and tested alternative thrapies. The boy doesnt have time fo any such luxuries according to medical reports.

Hillwilliam -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/22/2012 4:31:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam By this logic, when it comes to terminating a preganancy, only the mother would have a say and not the father. The whole legal system is extremely biased in favour of the mother/female. It used to be worse and still is bad here in the states. There are still a lot of cases of blatant discrimination in custody cases because one parent has a penis. He has since gainned custody because of his ex wife's subsequent jail time but a friend had a court give custody of his daughter to the crack-addicted, unemployed mother.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/22/2012 4:31:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver I suspect the court would have considered the character of the father and his motives before they gave him custody of the child for the length of the child's treatment. Or, it could be the court decided to let him bear the burden of what he is demanding, and he can change the diapers, wipe the drool, and carry the awful emotional burden of what he has chosen to inflict on his child. Inflict??? I would rather a son of mine be alive than face certain death. I really don't consider "inflicting" a certain death an option. Sorry.

TheHeretic -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/22/2012 4:32:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam Im gonna go out on a limb here and admittedly stretch the logic. By this logic, when it comes to terminating a preganancy, only the mother would have a say and not the father. Yeah. I believe that's how it is, in general. Certainly when the sperm donor isn't even around to hold her hair through the morning sickness. If I get drunk, and get some chick knocked up, can I legally force her to have an abortion?

Hillwilliam -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/22/2012 4:32:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: defiantbadgirl My comment about inability to communicate was referring to late stage brain cancer patients in general in their last weeks of life. I see your point, but wouldn't killing any remaining cells involve radiating a much larger area? Maybe even whole brain radiation? Even if they only concentrate on the cerebellum, the boy is likely to suffer significant damage. "The cerebellum is responsible for relaying messages about posture, equilibrium, movement and fine motor skills such as writing or catching a ball. It is a very important part of the brain that keeps us aware of our surroundings and therefore alive. Voluntary movement is monitored and initialized by the cerebellum through the manipulation of fine muscle movement. Cerebellum injuries can lead to forms of paralysis in many various ways such as paraplegic, quadriplegic or partial impairment of the motor neuron pathways." I keep thinking about his quality of life. What if he dies anyway and is unable to enjoy the time he has left because of permanent disabilities? What if his peers bully and laugh at him? That's what disabled children go through. It's horrible, but unfortunately, it's a fact of life for them. Many people would rather die than suffer from severe brain damage and disability. Do you have a degree in biology or any medical science?

Hillwilliam -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/22/2012 4:33:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam Im gonna go out on a limb here and admittedly stretch the logic. By this logic, when it comes to terminating a preganancy, only the mother would have a say and not the father. Yeah. I believe that's how it is, in general. Certainly when the sperm donor isn't even around to hold her hair through the morning sickness. If I get drunk, and get some chick knocked up, can I legally force her to have an abortion? No you can't but if you were married and your soon to be estranged wife got pregnant, could you prevent one? that's where Im coming from. Just playing Devil's Advocate here.

meatcleaver -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/22/2012 4:47:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver I suspect the court would have considered the character of the father and his motives before they gave him custody of the child for the length of the child's treatment. Or, it could be the court decided to let him bear the burden of what he is demanding, and he can change the diapers, wipe the drool, and carry the awful emotional burden of what he has chosen to inflict on his child. If you believe in God, then one has to assume God inflicted this on the child. If you don't believe in god, then evolutionary and environmental chance inflicted this on the child. The father appears more than happy to take responsibilty of the child's care or else why would he have the court give him custody?

TheHeretic -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/22/2012 4:47:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 Inflict??? I would rather a son of mine be alive than face certain death. I really don't consider "inflicting" a certain death an option. Sorry. Then we difer on the importance of quality of life, as well as where we stopped on the other thread. It's, "you will die" vs "you will suffer horribly, you will be permanently damaged and robbed of your faculties, and most likely, you will still die just as soon as if you hadn't gone through any of that." Hmmm. I wonder if this is an atheist thing. Sometimes a little faith that there is something more can be comforting, when the right thing to do, is also very, very, hard to do.

TheHeretic -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/22/2012 4:50:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver If you believe in God, then one has to assume God inflicted this on the child. If you don't believe in god, then evolutionary and environmental chance inflicted this on the child. Please don't presume to speculate on my beliefs about the Divine, and the relationship of humanity to that energy. It is offensive.

Aswad -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/22/2012 4:56:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 I agree the parents have rights but wouldnt you say the childs are paramount. I never said the parents have rights, nor that the child does. I said it's not a matter in which I welcome state intervention. quote: You also overlook the fact that one parent wants the surgery, so it isnt as if they are united on the issue. I missed that part, which does change things, for me, though I suspect she's the one with custody. quote: That in itself isnt rational or in the childs best interest. Sounds rational, if they're paying her for it. Tasteless, perhaps, but rational. IWYW, — Aswad.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.125