Mother, cancer-stricken son on the run

[Beaver-Cleaver]

And, I've explained that none of these things are even remotely comparable to the question at hand.

Does that mean that you believe the question at hand is an acceptable exercise of the first amendment rights? Since we're not talking about the child wanting to blow up a pizza parlor, but rather to simply determine whether or not to undergo a medical procedure, and has the parents' blessing (at the time the decision was made), is it fair to conclude from your pointless answer that you agree this is an acceptable form of religious freedom?

No, he's a 13 year old who does not have the mental capacity to understand that he is making a decision that will probably kill him.

 

[Beaver-Cleaver]

In the case at hand, the parents made the final decision. Whether it was based on the child's wishes or not, the parents made the final decision.

One of them has changed their minds and wants the kid to undergo chemo. This is why it's exploded. And instead of going to court and hiring This_Person as her attorney, she decides to run from the law.

Although it's amazing how all you pro-lifers have all of a sudden become pro-choice.

 

[This_person]

No, he's a 13 year old who does not have the mental capacity to understand that he is making a decision that will probably kill him.

Then it's a good thing he's not legally allowed to make that determination alone - his parents are.

 

[This_person]

One of them has changed their minds and wants the kid to undergo chemo. This is why it's exploded. And instead of going to court and hiring This_Person as her attorney, she decides to run from the law.

No, they were in court, as you pointed out, because the state thought it knew how to be better parents to the child than the parents. It was only after the mom took the kid away that the dad agreed with the court (probably thought it would keep him out of trouble).

Although it's amazing how all you pro-lifers have all of a sudden become pro-choice.

You're right, I'm now pro-choice. Wait until the kid is 18 years old, then give him/her the choice as to whether or not to be aborted.

Or, are you suggesting the parent has the right to choose death for the child? If you're suggesting that, why are you against this mother potentially choosing a less statistically safe option than the chemo?

 

[Beaver-Cleaver]

No, they were in court, as you pointed out, because the state thought it knew how to be better parents to the child than the parents. It was only after the mom took the kid away that the dad agreed with the court (probably thought it would keep him out of trouble).You're right, I'm now pro-choice. Wait until the kid is 18 years old, then give him/her the choice as to whether or not to be aborted.

Or, are you suggesting the parent has the right to choose death for the child? If you're suggesting that, why are you against this mother potentially choosing a less statistically safe option than the chemo?

Although parents and guardians have the right and duty to make decisions for their minor children, the state's interests in protecting the health and well-being of the minor can supersede those of the parents if the parents refuse life-saving or therapeutic treatment for the minor.

Minors’ Rights in Medical Decision Making

Mature Minor Doctrine

 

[Beaver-Cleaver]

You stupid ass moron.

 

[SugarBear47]

The only choice I can see here on this subject is "SURVIVAL". That mother is absolutely completely responsible to save her 13 year old CHILD. Bottom line, end of story.

 

[This_person]

Although parents and guardians have the right and duty to make decisions for their minor children, the state's interests in protecting the health and well-being of the minor can supersede those of the parents if the parents refuse life-saving or therapeutic treatment for the minor.

Now, you are approaching the question.

Does this state's interest supercede the first amendment?

 

[Beaver-Cleaver]

If you're suggesting that, why are you against this mother potentially choosing a less statistically safe option than the chemo?

Less statistically safe option.

You mean, the option where the kid dies on a hospital bed because his stupid ass mother refused chemo because it goes against their religion?

 

[This_person]

You stupid ass moron.

Questions too hard for ya?

 

[This_person]

The only choice I can see here on this subject is "SURVIVAL". That mother is absolutely completely responsible to save her 13 year old CHILD. Bottom line, end of story.

So, you agree it's her (and the father's) choice on how to handle the issue?

 

[Beaver-Cleaver]

Now, you are approaching the question.

Does this state's interest supercede the first amendment?

Minors’ Rights in Medical Decision Making

Mature Minor Doctrine

 

[Nonno]

So, a blind person who has no braile literature on the subject cannot be capable of making an informed decision?

I suspect the ignorance of who it is is bliss to those ignorant.

Some of your responses are somewhat less than edifying!

 

[pixiegirl]

I can't believe that nobody has brought up the fact that the family (both parents and child) obviously are not opposed to chemo because the child had a round of it. If they felt that strongly about it then the child would not have had it, period. They were ok with it, for whatever reason they changed their mind. Their religious oposition argument doesn't hold ANY water.

 

[This_person]

Less statistically safe option.

You mean, the option where the kid dies on a hospital bed because his stupid ass mother refused chemo because it goes against their religion?

Well, you're comparing it to abortion.

Let's see, die due to cancer by choice, or be sucked out and ground up with no choice... hmmmmmmm

 

[This_person]

Minors’ Rights in Medical Decision Making

Mature Minor Doctrine

Does this state's interest supercede the first amendment?

 

[Beaver-Cleaver]

I can't believe that nobody has brought up the fact that the family (both parents and child) obviously are not opposed to chemo because the child had a round of it. If they felt that strongly about it then the child would not have had it, period. They were ok with it, for whatever reason they changed their mind. Their religious oposition argument doesn't hold ANY water.

Now, the kid would rather die in agony than undergo life saving, albeit painful, treatment.

And Mama is in full support of this.

 

[This_person]

Some of your responses are somewhat less than edifying!

"some of [mine]" in your opinion.

All of yours in my opinion, including this non-answer (again).

 

[Toxick]

Although it's amazing how all you pro-choicers have all of a sudden become pro-life.

Interesting how that works both ways.



A glaring flaw with your comparison, however, rests with the fact that an abortion is the active termination of life. The "Mom on the Run" case is about the parent trying to use alternative medicine rather than have the socially accepted/approved medicine forced down her throat.

That's hardly the same thing.



At best, you could say that she's "passively terminating life", but IMO, even that is a pretty long stretch. She doesn't want her son to die.

 

[Beaver-Cleaver]

Does this state's interest supercede the first amendment?

Do you know how to read, you stupid ass moron?

From the links I've provided you now TWICE:

Although parents and guardians have the right and duty to make decisions for their minor children, the state's interests in protecting the health and well-being of the minor can supersede those of the parents if the parents refuse life-saving or therapeutic treatment for the minor.

Do you need me to spell it out for you?