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

PeonForHer -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/24/2012 3:30:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 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. Instant recollections of Fred and Rose West, there. Shudder

Politesub53 -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/24/2012 4:13:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 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. Instant recollections of Fred and Rose West, there. Shudder Sad that Fred was able to commit suicide and not serve his time in jail. If ever there was a case supporting state intervention, that was it.

DesideriScuri -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/24/2012 8:45:10 PM)
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?

DomKen -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/24/2012 9:12:08 PM)
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? I am. Your theory is predicated upon the parent having property rights to the child. Which makes the child a chattel of the parent, i.e. a slave. To increase liberty, i.e. give the child liberty, the decision should either rest in the hands of the child or in a neutral third party.

tazzygirl -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/24/2012 11:17:51 PM)
quote: To increase liberty, i.e. give the child liberty, the decision should either rest in the hands of the child or in a neutral third party. At which point you can no longer hold the parents responsible for anything, including support.

Aswad -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/24/2012 11:53:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead 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. In other words, the father tries to interfere with the baseline causal chain. The baseline causal chain is okay. The father has no role in that one, because he surrendered primary custody. She fights him on the interference. If unsuccessful, we would have gotten to a derived causal chain that she has been bumped out of. If successful, we're back to the baseline, which was okay in the first place. Either way, it's iffy to pin that on her, IMO. IWYW, — Aswad.

Aswad -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/25/2012 12:22:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 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 ? Close. This decision is left up to the parents. That, we have established. The fact that they're even asking establishes that this is a decision for the parents. As far as I'm concerned, a State that is empowered- or empowers itself- to intervene in parenting decisions has crossed a line no state should cross. Killing your kid isn't a parenting decision. Radiotherapy is. Hence, wrong side of the line for me. Sucks when people die by inches; I've seen that up close. Sucks more when liberty dies by inches. IWYW, — Aswad.

Aswad -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/25/2012 12:26:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl At which point you can no longer hold the parents responsible for anything, including support. Yeah, if the State wishes to parent, the State can be there to tuck the kid in at night. Doesn't sound very workable in practice; ever look into the kibbutzim, btw? IWYW, — Aswad.

epiphiny43 -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/25/2012 12:42:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead 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. In other words, the father tries to interfere with the baseline causal chain. The baseline causal chain is okay. The father has no role in that one, because he surrendered primary custody. She fights him on the interference. If unsuccessful, we would have gotten to a derived causal chain that she has been bumped out of. If successful, we're back to the baseline, which was okay in the first place. Either way, it's iffy to pin that on her, IMO. IWYW, — Aswad. I don't think so. Few fathers 'surrender' custody, and certainly not parental rights. The 'causal chain' in a predictably fatal disease with any chance of treatment is for the advice of the attending health care professionals to be followed. Parents who chose death against medical advice for whatever reason have to answer to the other parent and the state. Their arguments carry weight, 'custody' doesn't remove all other interested parties, particularly when the choice is for a quick and very predictable death. US case law is pretty clear on parents right to choose death. The various religions that abhor blood transfusions are frequently screaming about parental and religions freedoms, while a nurse with a court order saves their child from death with a few minute procedure. As the prognosis becomes less clear, the difficulty of making the right distinction on rights and life itself becomes more difficult. This case is exactly the sort that tests the wisdom and compassion of all. When the parents flatly disagree (and even if they agree against treatment) and the medical people are clear that their ethics require treatment, the state becomes the arbiter? The arguments in the thread about 5 year survival are specious. 5 year survival is a key medical metric for cancer treatments and considered a major success to achieve. Total remission is much better!

Politesub53 -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/25/2012 2:02:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 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 ? Close. This decision is left up to the parents. That, we have established. The fact that they're even asking establishes that this is a decision for the parents. As far as I'm concerned, a State that is empowered- or empowers itself- to intervene in parenting decisions has crossed a line no state should cross. Killing your kid isn't a parenting decision. Radiotherapy is. Hence, wrong side of the line for me. Sucks when people die by inches; I've seen that up close. Sucks more when liberty dies by inches. IWYW, — Aswad. Unsure how you see saving a child as loss of liberty but still. As an aside, the womans own family, parents and siblings were initially on her side. They are all now of the opinion that the doctors are doing the correct thing. It appears to me some of you are fixated more on any apparent loss of liberty than the rights of the child. I am firmly of the latter myself.

MAINEiacMISTRESS -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/25/2012 2:35:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: epiphiny43 quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead 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. In other words, the father tries to interfere with the baseline causal chain. The baseline causal chain is okay. The father has no role in that one, because he surrendered primary custody. She fights him on the interference. If unsuccessful, we would have gotten to a derived causal chain that she has been bumped out of. If successful, we're back to the baseline, which was okay in the first place. Either way, it's iffy to pin that on her, IMO. IWYW, — Aswad. I don't think so. Few fathers 'surrender' custody, and certainly not parental rights. The 'causal chain' in a predictably fatal disease with any chance of treatment is for the advice of the attending health care professionals to be followed. Parents who chose death against medical advice for whatever reason have to answer to the other parent and the state. Their arguments carry weight, 'custody' doesn't remove all other interested parties, particularly when the choice is for a quick and very predictable death. US case law is pretty clear on parents right to choose death. The various religions that abhor blood transfusions are frequently screaming about parental and religions freedoms, while a nurse with a court order saves their child from death with a few minute procedure. As the prognosis becomes less clear, the difficulty of making the right distinction on rights and life itself becomes more difficult. This case is exactly the sort that tests the wisdom and compassion of all. When the parents flatly disagree (and even if they agree against treatment) and the medical people are clear that their ethics require treatment, the state becomes the arbiter? The arguments in the thread about 5 year survival are specious. 5 year survival is a key medical metric for cancer treatments and considered a major success to achieve. Total remission is much better! When it's for religious reasons that parents resist life-saving treatments for their children, then yes, the court SHOULD step in. Keep in mind that just because the PARENTS follow a religion doesn't guarantee the CHILD will when she/he is mature enough to have their own beliefs. Many people DON'T follow their parents' beliefs (I don't, many friends of Mine don't), so just being born into a religion doesn't mean its rules should apply to you...UNTIL YOU ARE OLD ENOUGHT TO GIVE THAT CONSENT.

Moonhead -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/25/2012 4:35:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead 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. In other words, the father tries to interfere with the baseline causal chain. The baseline causal chain is okay. The father has no role in that one, because he surrendered primary custody. She fights him on the interference. If unsuccessful, we would have gotten to a derived causal chain that she has been bumped out of. If successful, we're back to the baseline, which was okay in the first place. Either way, it's iffy to pin that on her, IMO. I think that looks a little too tenuous, to be honest. You're obviously chopping logic purely to support the mother's position as being morally correct, even if it ends up killing her son, which is a bit of a stretch as her behaviour isn't going to strike anybody else that way, however hardcore libertarian and rabidly opposed to government intervention their views happen to be. Just ask Uncle Lou...

Phoenixpower -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/25/2012 7:23:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: defiantbadgirl IMO the child should NOT be forced by the court to become mentally retarded for the rest of his short life. That's basically what they're doing, forcing the child to receive a treatment that will make him mentally retarded. He won't be able to spend time with other children his own age before he dies because they'll bully and make fun of him because of his mental retardation. Wouldn't it be better for the child to be able to enjoy the rest of his life with his intelligence intact? With respect, This is nonsense...... There is no evidence to say the child will become mentally retarded, only that he might. The alternative in this case, according to the boys doctors, and an independent doctor the mother used, are that the boy will die within a few months. Well said IMO...just like a kid "can" die on the side effects of any surgery which will take place...but thankfully often does not (just remembered a kid aged about 7 who died when her tonsils got removed about 20 years ago...)

tazzygirl -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/25/2012 8:03:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl At which point you can no longer hold the parents responsible for anything, including support. Yeah, if the State wishes to parent, the State can be there to tuck the kid in at night. Doesn't sound very workable in practice; ever look into the kibbutzim, btw? IWYW, — Aswad. With parental rights does come a form of ownership, no matter how much people dont wish to admit that. Almost "in trust" kind that the child gains after a certain age. I think the only times a court should step in and disrupt that arangement is when the child is abused.. either through neglect (passive) or active abuse. Parents refusing treatments is a grey area. We arent talking about blood transfusions, diabetes, pneumonia or an appendectomy - all of which have treatments with a very low rate of harmful effects.

vincentML -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/25/2012 8:10:08 AM)
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?

DesideriScuri -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/25/2012 10:13:38 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? The child is not of legal age to self-determine. Therefore, the guardian(s) duty is to determine for that child as the guardian(s) see fit. If the mother was given final say (therefore weighing more than the father's opinion), this was a case where 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, I'm sure, have been filed showing that she was awarded custody, either through separate suit(s), divorce proceedings or dissolution hearings (where custodial circumstances would have been agreed upon and signed off on by both parents). Unless something changed regarding her parental ability, she would have final say, and taking that out of her hand is her loss of Liberty to self-determine for the child. Is the State going to take over care responsibilities of the child, too? Are we going to be okay with the State going into the inner city to confiscate all the children who aren't being provided the stable home environments that would give them the optimal conditions to learn, mature, and be productive Citizens? I don't know how long this child would live without the surgery (I'm sure not long). How long will the child's life be extended? If I'm coming off as cold and callous, well, that's how Government is supposed to work. It's not supposed to work on an emotional, or empathetic basis (which is the only real reason I was against Sotomayor's SCOTUS appointment). As Tazzy has put it, this isn't a relatively minor surgery with little or no possibility for long-term harmful effects. That would be a completely different topic.

Moonhead -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/25/2012 11:18:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Is the State going to take over care responsibilities of the child, too? If the parent isn't competent to do the job, what the fuck else do we have a state for in the first place?

Politesub53 -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/25/2012 11:36:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Is the State going to take over care responsibilities of the child, too? If the parent isn't competent to do the job, what the fuck else do we have a state for in the first place? I am guessing they think the State should have followed parents wishes and still let kids climb up chimneys.

Aswad -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/25/2012 4:29:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Unsure how you see saving a child as loss of liberty but still. You're right. Let's ban all cars. That'll save a bunch of kids, and there's no loss of liberty involved, right? No? Then don't try to pull the same crap with my position. I never said a loss of liberty is a material implication of saving a child. I said when there's a conflict between liberty and safety, the former should win out, and that States should not be all powerful with respect to their citizens (which is avoided by imposing strict limits on the State). quote: As an aside, the womans own family, parents and siblings were initially on her side. They are all now of the opinion that the doctors are doing the correct thing. Consensus is an observation, not an argument. I'm also of the opinion that the doctors are doing the correct thing; it's the means toward the ends I'm unhappy about. quote: It appears to me some of you are fixated more on any apparent loss of liberty than the rights of the child. I am firmly of the latter myself. I know you're firmly of the latter. We've discussed that in the past. [:D] I'm merely trying to point out that my position is about the power of the State and its curtailment of liberty, not about the treatment itself. As I've said, the mother seems to be a right cunt to my sensibilities, given that she refused resection. Right ends, wrong means. IWYW, — Aswad.

Politesub53 -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/25/2012 4:38:25 PM)
I maintain my stance my friend (You expected no less lol) The rights/liberty of the child, overrule the rights of the parents, in my opinion. This has worked in reverse in the UK, and rightly so, where a court over ruled a Hospital Trusts decision, again in favour of the child. In both instances, the child came first.

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625