quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

This is the sort of thing where parents should get to choose, in my opinion. Yes, the kid may die without conventional treatment, but it may die anyway, and there's side effects that may be as serious as the disease itself. Besides, there's something profoundly messed up about the idea of the state claiming a child whose parents are guilty of no crime.

IWYW,
— Aswad.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Louve00

Dr Stanislaw Burzynski.

The first 3.5 minutes of this link is the story of one man's daughter (one of a twin) who died, not of cancer, but of a result of her cancer treatment. The entire video is the full version movie and a laymen's explanation of the type of treatment Dr Burzynski discovered and implements.

Today, in Dec. 2012 one of Dr Burzynski's many charges against the treatment of his discovery was dismissed.

If only the FDA was more interested in the health of the human lives instead of money they'd do their job honorably. JMHO

Edited to add this link is to no one in particular. Just sharing what I have heard about and read about.

quote:


Does Burzynski have a miracle cancer cure being suppressed by the FDA?
up vote 18 down vote favorite
1


I received this Mercola announcement for the movie, Burzynski about Stanislaw Burzynski's (allegedly) amazing cure for cancer, which uses antineoplastons.

The Mercola article claims some fairly hefty things, such as:

Burzynski, the Movie is the story of a medical doctor and Ph.D biochemist named Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski who won the largest, and possibly the most convoluted and intriguing legal battle against the Food and Drug Administration in American history.

and

You will learn that not only did the US Federal government spend 14 years actively suppressing a cancer treatment that had a FAR greater success rate than any other treatment available, they also spent well over $60 million of US taxpayer dollars trying to put the inventor of the treatment in jail in order to steal his patents and either suppress or cash in on his discovery.

But Wikipedia says:

Burzynski had appealed the limitations on his advertising [due to a cease and desist order from the FDA] on the grounds of free speech, but the appeal court upheld the decision, stating that "Burzynski's commercial speech does not concern a lawful activity."

...The 2010 film Burzynski directed by Eric Merola, documents Burzynski's efforts to gain FDA approval for the therapy. [emphasis mine]

My resultant questions are:

Is there any evidence for his "cure"? In order for the FDA to suppress a cure that had a "FAR greater success rate than any other treatment available," well, it has to be shown to be successful at all.
Is Mercola correct in reporting that Burzynski won the most important battle against the FDA in American history? Wikipedia seems to indicate that the FDA ruling still stands.

I suspect that the new, shiny developments in this industry that one doesn't hear about until Mercola advertises it were probably never much to begin with. Also, they unsurprisingly tend to involve aspects of a "big government conspiracy," and the bundled accusation that the only thing the US government cares about is keeping its citizens diseased and broke.

http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/4611/does-burzynski-have-a-miracle-cancer-cure-being-suppressed-by-the-fda

quote:

ORIGINAL: thursdays

The court [...] will have decided [...] what is best for the child.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
So if your parents are lazy, stupid, gullible or, in the US, cheap the chid should die a slow agonizing death? Is that really what you're saying?

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic



Please don't presume to speculate on my beliefs about the Divine, and the relationship of humanity to that energy. It is offensive.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
If they assume the mom is nuts, her parental rights are walked over.

If we assume she is correct, then dad's rights are walked on.

quote:

ORIGINAL: metamorfosis

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
So if your parents are lazy, stupid, gullible or, in the US, cheap the chid should die a slow agonizing death? Is that really what you're saying?

The alternative is allowing the government to decide which parents are too lazy, stupid, gullible, or cheap to make decisions regarding their own children. Is that really better?

Pam

quote:

And lost in all these rights is the child himself. Would this case have been handled differently in the US? Did the child have his own lawyer in the proceedings? Here, the child would have.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

quote:

ORIGINAL: thursdays
The court [...] will have decided [...] what is best for the child.

That's the part I object to.
Note that I also think the mother is a right cunt for passing up the resection, which makes a huge difference, and that I don't think she made the decision about radiotherapy on the right grounds, so she isn't getting a free pass here. I am simply stating that there are some things I oppose giving the state a right to do, such as kill its own citizens, deny its own citizens free speech, claim the children of citizens when their parents aren't actively killing or extensively abusing them, or employ citizens as slave labor, for instance.
In this case, the mother was an idiot, most likely, but she wasn't actively killing or extensively abusing the child.
IWYW,
— Aswad.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

quote:

ORIGINAL: thursdays

The court [...] will have decided [...] what is best for the child.

That's the part I object to.

Note that I also think the mother is a right cunt for passing up the resection, which makes a huge difference, and that I don't think she made the decision about radiotherapy on the right grounds, so she isn't getting a free pass here. I am simply stating that there are some things I oppose giving the state a right to do, such as kill its own citizens, deny its own citizens free speech, claim the children of citizens when their parents aren't actively killing or extensively abusing them, or employ citizens as slave labor, for instance.

In this case, the mother was an idiot, most likely, but she wasn't actively killing or extensively abusing the child.

IWYW,
— Aswad.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

A parent does not OWN her child. Children are not property. Children, like the old and infirm are vulnerable. It is in the state's interest to guard against abuse of the vulnerable. So, there is a line to be drawn between parents' rights (which I see nowhere in the US Constitution) and the protection of the vulnerable. It is the role of the Courts to identify that line.
IMO, it is a proper function carried out everyday in divorce cases for example. Parents are AWARDED custody of the child, not OWNERSHIP.

quote:

ORIGINAL: metamorfosis

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
If they assume the mom is nuts, her parental rights are walked over.

If we assume she is correct, then dad's rights are walked on.

Suppose the parents were both against radiation? Should the court overrule them?

Pam

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

And lost in all these rights is the child himself. Would this case have been handled differently in the US? Did the child have his own lawyer in the proceedings? Here, the child would have.

The same does not hold true in the case of children. Children are vulnerable, and the law supports the view that the child, when it comes to health, is part of an overall concern that the state has for the protection and welfare of those who are unable to protect or defend themselves. Therefore, if a parent refuses medical care and the child dies, the parent may face legal consequences as a result.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

quote:

ORIGINAL: thursdays
The court [...] will have decided [...] what is best for the child.

That's the part I object to.
Note that I also think the mother is a right cunt for passing up the resection, which makes a huge difference, and that I don't think she made the decision about radiotherapy on the right grounds, so she isn't getting a free pass here. I am simply stating that there are some things I oppose giving the state a right to do, such as kill its own citizens, deny its own citizens free speech, claim the children of citizens when their parents aren't actively killing or extensively abusing them, or employ citizens as slave labor, for instance.
In this case, the mother was an idiot, most likely, but she wasn't actively killing or extensively abusing the child.
IWYW,
— Aswad.

This is precisely how I see this, too.

And, now that I agree with you, we'll both be condemned as supporting killing of children by allowing care to not be given (forget that the actual cause of death will be the cancer). Or, it will just be me. [:D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

quote:

ORIGINAL: thursdays
The court [...] will have decided [...] what is best for the child.

That's the part I object to.
Note that I also think the mother is a right cunt for passing up the resection, which makes a huge difference, and that I don't think she made the decision about radiotherapy on the right grounds, so she isn't getting a free pass here. I am simply stating that there are some things I oppose giving the state a right to do, such as kill its own citizens, deny its own citizens free speech, claim the children of citizens when their parents aren't actively killing or extensively abusing them, or employ citizens as slave labor, for instance.
In this case, the mother was an idiot, most likely, but she wasn't actively killing or extensively abusing the child.
IWYW,
— Aswad.

This is precisely how I see this, too.
And, now that I agree with you, we'll both be condemned as supporting killing of children by allowing care to not be given (forget that the actual cause of death will be the cancer). Or, it will just be me. [:D]

I struggled over his post last night. Actively killing, I can see.
Passively killing? In the medical community, it means withholding a potentially life saving treatment, switching off life support, turn off a feeding tube.
When all else fails and there is no hope, I can see the passive approach. When a patient is so tired of the pain and can make a clear decision, I can see the passive approach.
I really have problems with that approach in this case.

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

And lost in all these rights is the child himself. Would this case have been handled differently in the US? Did the child have his own lawyer in the proceedings? Here, the child would have.

The same does not hold true in the case of children. Children are vulnerable, and the law supports the view that the child, when it comes to health, is part of an overall concern that the state has for the protection and welfare of those who are unable to protect or defend themselves. Therefore, if a parent refuses medical care and the child dies, the parent may face legal consequences as a result.

I meant how it would be handled in our Courts. I dont know how the Courts run there.

quote:

Abstract

Parental responsibility (PR) was a concept introduced by the Children Act (CA) 1989 which aimed to replace the outdated notion of parental rights and duties which regarded children as parental possessions. Section 3(1) CA 1989 defines PR as ‘all the rights, duties, powers, responsibilities and authority which by law a parent of a child has in relation to the child’. In exercising PR, individuals may make medical treatment decisions on children's behalf. Medical decision-making is one area of law where both children and the state can intercede and limit parental decision-making. Competent children can consent to treatment and the state can interfere if parental decisions are not seemingly in the child's ‘best interests’. This article examines the concept, and limitations, of PR in relation to medical treatment decision-making.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad
I am simply stating that there are some things I oppose giving the state a right to do, such as kill its own citizens, deny its own citizens free speech, claim the children of citizens when their parents aren't actively killing or extensively abusing them, or employ citizens as slave labor, for instance.