An Oregon court is ordering that a 13 year-old girl with cancer must have surgery and other medical treatment for the disease despite objections from the girl's mother.
Hmmmm.....
That's messed up. I'm curious who will be left holding the back for all the medical expenses.
I don't think anyone should interfere with the mothers decision. I'm sure she has discussed it with her daughter, who at 13, is old enough to weigh in on the decision.That's an excellent point.
I'm not an enormous fan of cancer treatments because many times it just postpones the inevitable, and the person gets another few months to be sick and miserable while the doctor and Big Pharma get rich. If I got cancer, depending on the circumstances, I would likely refuse treatment and that should be my right.
But can a parent refuse treatment on behalf of their minor child? Part of me says of course they should have that right, but then I remember all the crazies out there whom I wouldn't trust to take care of a pet, let alone a child. I remember that some special interest group can buy media coverage and push their money-making scheme on an unsuspecting public with no oversight.
Another example of the government believing citizens are the government's property.
Christina previously told KGW she believes the alternative treatment of vitamins, herbs and pure CBD oil was effective in treating Kylee’s cancer.
“It started reversing her tumor for the first time,” said Christina. She claimed the tumor reduced in size by 90 percent during the past year.
Who else sees the irony of a state government that allows physician assisted suicide mandating (possibly) life prolonging for a person that dies not want said treatment?
And often it's not a delay, this lil doll recovered 100% and without her surgeries and kemo she would have been dead months ago.That's an excellent point.
I'm not an enormous fan of cancer treatments because many times it just postpones the inevitable, and the person gets another few months to be sick and miserable while the doctor and Big Pharma get rich. If I got cancer, depending on the circumstances, I would likely refuse treatment and that should be my right.
But can a parent refuse treatment on behalf of their minor child? Part of me says of course they should have that right, but then I remember all the crazies out there whom I wouldn't trust to take care of a pet, let alone a child. I remember that some special interest group can buy media coverage and push their money-making scheme on an unsuspecting public with no oversight.
We have these discussions when someone refuses medical treatment for their child over religious views or something. As a general rule, we agree that the parents have the right (but, most also think the parents should be beaten to death for letting their kid die). We have the same discussions when some parent wants to turn their son into a mutilated version that looks like a daughter. Then, we say no way does the parent have the right to make those medical decisions, because it is harmful.
The hard part is trying to decide, for someone else's child, in a free country, what is "harmful" and what is not. We routinely let mothers kill their kids, and many on here fight for their right to do so.
In my humble opinion, if you are taking action that intentionally causes death or mutilation, that is wrong and government has an obligation to protect the innocent child. If, through INaction you MAY cause death or harm, that is the parents' right.
So, parents have a right not to vaccinate, not to seek medical treatment, etc. Parents do not have a right to mutilate genitalia or provide a hormone treatment or kill an unborn baby. The court is wrong on this one, and I would love to know what the consequence would be of the mother simply saying, "No, you can't do that no matter what the court says." Would they jail the mother? Would they shoot her to take the child?
If this was a Truly a Free Country it would scare the crap out of most of the population.
We agree. But, it is supposed to be a free country. People ask for it not to be for some stupid reasons.If this was a Truly a Free Country it would scare the crap out of most of the population.
I've often wondered, if government cannot force an adult, absent consent, to, in this case, have a medical procedure done against their will, (excluding a true serious incapacitating mental condition), how is it possible to go against the consent of an adult parent concerning their child? Informed consent must be required in all things, or there is no true rule of law. Only anarchy, dictatorial governments, and a judiciary.
An Oregon court is ordering that a 13 year-old girl with cancer must have surgery and other medical treatment for the disease despite objections from the girl's mother.
Hmmmm.....