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

Aswad -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/24/2012 8:25:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML A parent does not OWN her child. Neither does the State, vincentML. quote: It is in the state's interest to guard against abuse of the vulnerable. The state emanates from its people. It is not itself an entity with an inherent right to pursue its self interest. IWYW, — Aswad.

Aswad -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/24/2012 8:32:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead Passively killing the child isn't bad enough? No. It's a causal chain thing. Having the opportunity to save a life and not doing so does not put you in the causal chain. It makes you despicable scum, of course, but it doesn't amount to killing. quote: Would you have the same outrage at the court baypassing the mother's fuckwitted disinterest in her son's best chance for survival if she was (say) refusing him a blood transfusion or insulin treatment for religious reasons, rather than having gained her knowledge of the risks and side effects of radiotherapy from daft made for television movie? Yup. The courts, in my opinion, have no business parenting, beyond intervening against active killing or extensive abuse. IWYW, — Aswad.

vincentML -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/24/2012 8:37:51 AM)
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?

Aswad -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/24/2012 8:45:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer Granted, such things and many more would have me (at the very least) sticking up two fingers to the state. But insert the word 'community' rather than 'state', and say that the community has a responsibility towards one of its children as well as the parents of that child . . . and my view changes somewhat. We only have the courts as final arbiter here in the case of a clash of interests between parent(s) and community. If it were her fellow citizens breaking into her home, grabbing the kid and bringing it to the hospital, I would laud that. When it's the State making that move, I object. Same thing I said about executions. If the State of Norway were to kill Breivik for what he did, I would be up in arms about that. If one of my fellow citizens were to kill him, and then took their lawful punishment for that, I would have no objection. Running away from the lawful punishment, that I would have a problem with (hard to justify a killing one isn't willing to suffer the consequences for), but even that falls far short of the State killing one of its citizens. IWYW, — Aswad.

defiantbadgirl -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/24/2012 8:48:31 AM)
Since whole brain radiation causes permanent brain damage in children and makes children mentally retarded, I think it should be illegal and considered extreme abuse, not treatment.

JstAnotherSub -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/24/2012 8:52:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: defiantbadgirl Since whole brain radiation causes permanent brain damage in children and makes children mentally retarded, I think it should be illegal and considered extreme abuse, not treatment. On this computer you have, that you use to type on these forums, is there a thing called Google? If there is, please use it. It could save you from typing ignorant nonsense.

Aswad -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/24/2012 8:54:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML 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. Or between master and slave. Can we see a bit of a problem there? quote: In such cases it is the duty of the state to protect, I think. I haven't needed a parent to protect me for a long time, vincentML, and I never agreed to have a new one. Any State that sees itself as my parent is my enemy, by definition. quote: I wonder if you are not being a bit overly paranoid in so broad and sweeping a concern. He's being moderate. We have a few thousand years of history of the governing forces in our world putting themselves ahead of the governed. There have been brief periods where that wasn't so in this place or that, but overall nothing lasting. If a hubby were this controlling and protective and keeping this close track of his wife or his kids, he would be flagged as a possible abuser and psycho. Supraindividual entities are more prone to psychopathy and abuse. Explain to me again how it can be anything but healthy to have a modest skepticism about such things? quote: Would you not favor police protection for a battered wife? That's up to the wife, isn't it? If this protection took the form of locking the hubby up without evidence, I wouldn't favor it at all. And, incidentally, why is the example always the battered wife, when it turns out there's just as much of a problem with abusive wives out there? (Purely a sidebar.) quote: Or laws against child abuse? Those laws are about something a person actively does to someone else. Don't you see a distinction there? IWYW, — Aswad.

Aswad -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/24/2012 9:00:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: defiantbadgirl Since whole brain radiation causes permanent brain damage in children and makes children mentally retarded, I think it should be illegal and considered extreme abuse, not treatment. Don't be silly. Whole brain irradiation causes a small amount of brain damage, which rarely amounts to frank retardation, even if the child lives long enough for the damage to mature fully. Slight to moderate cognitive dysfunction is the usual outcome. To make it illegal would be entirely nonsensical, since the treatment is given for conditions that themselves cause massive retardation toward the end, then death. The tradeoff between some good time then death, versus more time of lower quality then death, is a difficult and personal one. Posting this sort of rubbish just harms your case, as JstAnotherSub alludes to. IWYW, — Aswad.

Moonhead -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/24/2012 9:09:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead Passively killing the child isn't bad enough? No. It's a causal chain thing. Having the opportunity to save a life and not doing so does not put you in the causal chain. Horseshit. The only reason the courts were involved in the first place is because she was blocking the kid's father from authorising radiotherapy. If that doesn't put her in the casual chain, neither would caving her son's head in with a lead pipe.

defiantbadgirl -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/24/2012 9:11:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JstAnotherSub On this computer you have, that you use to type on these forums, is there a thing called Google? If there is, please use it. It could save you from typing ignorant nonsense. I have. I wish now I had saved the articles so I could post links. Last night I read about a study on the effects of radiation treatment on children. One group of children went through radiation for leukemia and all of their IQ's were under 90 as a result. It specifically mentioned that children with brain tumors fared worse. Another medical site that provides information about childhood Medulloblastoma said that children who are cured, suffer from lifelong permanent disabilities as a result of the treatment.

JstAnotherSub -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/24/2012 9:17:05 AM)
[sm=banghead.gif][sm=banghead.gif][sm=banghead.gif][sm=banghead.gif][sm=banghead.gif]

Aswad -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/24/2012 9:23:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead Horseshit. The only reason the courts were involved in the first place is because she was blocking the kid's father from authorising radiotherapy. If that doesn't put her in the casual chain, neither would caving her son's head in with a lead pipe. As I recall, she has custody and the hospital needs her to authorize it. She refuses to. The courts get involved. Bashing someone's head in with a pipe... if you can't see the difference, I think you need to go have a look at some head bashing; it's not very comparable. IWYW, — Aswad.

Aswad -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/24/2012 9:26:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JstAnotherSub [sm=banghead.gif][sm=banghead.gif][sm=banghead.gif][sm=banghead.gif][sm=banghead.gif] Google gives adaptive answers. If she normally reads a lot of alternative medicine or antimedicine pages, for instance, she will get more hits dealing with that and fewer dealing with the solid research. It's how Google effectively makes a lot of money by amplifying confirmation bias to the point where it has already cost lives and will probably cost lots more in the long run. I suspect that's also been a factor in the decisionmaking process of the mother in question. It's why I suggest people actually use WP instead; on average, what you read there will be closer to the truth than what most can find on their own. Which is a scary thought in itself, but yeah. Better than Google confirming whatever harebrained prejudices people have. IWYW, — Aswad.

Moonhead -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/24/2012 9:27:25 AM)
The only reason the courts are involved is because she has custody so the father has had to go through them to try to get radiotherapy for the kid. Hence, she's actively blocking that happening, hence your comment about a lack of any casual connection is nonsense. (And given some of what you've come out with in this thread, you're the last person who's in any position to complain about hyperbole, I'm afraid.)

JstAnotherSub -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/24/2012 9:29:13 AM)
Aswad, I so wanna be you when I grow up.

vincentML -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/24/2012 9:32:08 AM)
quote: Or between master and slave. Can we see a bit of a problem there? We fought a War over that issue, Aswad. quote: I haven't needed a parent to protect me for a long time, vincentML, and I never agreed to have a new one. Any State that sees itself as my parent is my enemy, by definition. The doctrine of in loco parentis is well established in the school house here, as is compulsory education. The state assumes the parents' responsibilities in the public schools, and mandates education for children whether parents agree or not. quote: That's up to the wife, isn't it? This may vary from state to state. And hospitals may in some states be mandated to report suspected cases of spousal abuse. I am not sure. Then there is the problem of the psychological state of the abused spouse that inhibits him/her from going for help. A similar syndrome reported in sexually abused children. quote: Those laws are about something a person actively does to someone else. Don't you see a distinction there? Child neglect and child endangerment are often passive activities and punishable by the state. In the instant situation the mother's refusal to allow a proceedure recommended to and approved by the husband may be seen as child endangerment. It is a distinction without a difference.

tazzygirl -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/24/2012 9:38:07 AM)
quote: Tazzy, a child of this age wouldnt have its own lawyer. Lawyer probably wasnt the best word to use. A guardian appointed by the court to represent the interests of Infants, the unborn, or incompetent persons in legal actions. Guardians are adults who are legally responsible for protecting the well-being and interests of their ward, who is usually a minor. A guardian ad litem is a unique type of guardian in a relationship that has been created by a court order only for the duration of a legal action. Courts appoint these special representatives for infants, minors, and mentally incompetent persons, all of whom generally need help protecting their rights in court. Such court-appointed guardians figure in divorces, child neglect and abuse cases, paternity suits, contested inheritances, and so forth, and are usually attorneys. The concept of guardian ad litem grew out of developments in U.S. law in the late nineteenth century. Until then, the Common Law had severely restricted who could bring lawsuits in federal courts; it was easiest to sue in states through Equity courts. Changes in the 1870s relaxed these standards by bringing federal codes in line with state codes, and in 1938, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure removed the old barriers by establishing one system for civil actions. Rule 17(c) addresses the rights of children and incompetent persons in three ways. First, it permits legal guardians to sue or defend on the behalf of minors or incompetent individuals. Second, it allows persons who do not have such a representative to name a "next friend," or guardian ad litem, to sue for them. And third, it states that federal courts "shall appoint a guardian ad litem for an infant or incompetent person not otherwise represented in an action or shall make such other order as it deems proper for [his or her] protection." In practice, the courts have interpreted this last provision broadly: the term infants is taken to mean unborn children and all minors. In addition, courts can exercise discretion; they are not required to appoint a guardian ad litem. This is merely a person who has no other interest in the case except what is best for the child.... a rather invaluable voice, in my opinion.

Politesub53 -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/24/2012 9:44:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: defiantbadgirl Since whole brain radiation causes permanent brain damage in children and makes children mentally retarded, I think it should be illegal and considered extreme abuse, not treatment. Got a link showing this as a fact ?

defiantbadgirl -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/24/2012 9:47:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad To make it illegal would be entirely nonsensical, since the treatment is given for conditions that themselves cause massive retardation toward the end, then death. That's a good point. I think I'm biased. My grandmother who helped raise me was very active protesting against nuclear power and nuclear weapons in the 1980's. Anyone remember NO NUKES? She used to set up booths at the local fair every year to warn the public about the dangers of nuclear power and radiation poisoning. I grew up hearing about radiation sickness, babies born deformed and/or mentally retarded because of radiation exposure, etc. on a regular basis. Still, pregnant women aren't supposed to get x-rays and that's a much lower level of radiation than radiotherapy to the brain.

Politesub53 -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/24/2012 9:58:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad When it's the State making that move, I object. IWYW, — Aswad. Are you suggesting if a child is in danger the State have no right to intervene on the childs behalf, as it overrules parental rights ? We have had children die due to that very issue, hence the 1989 Act. I am sure those alive due to the act, and lets not forget these cases are rare and only used as a last resort, would be happy the state acted as it did. Lets also remember parents can use the act to protect child from state.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875