Mother, cancer-stricken son on the run

[Bann]

No, you're right.

And once again, the SOMD Righties are the whackjobs.

Once again - you're the idiot who doesn't have an original thought and wouldn't know one if it bit you on the butt.

Stories online are edited and updated all the time as events change, more facts are known OR to just correct bad initial info. After I read an article posted and respond to a thread about it, I don't always go back and re-read the story to post another reply.

That being said - it STILL DOES NOT change the fact that once you let "the government" into every and all aspects of your lives - it is a very slippery slope indeed. Who is to say those people are insane? They believe in a form of alternative medicine that is widely used in that area. I don't believe in it, and YOU don't believe in it - but it doesn't make the mother a whackjob.

If the parents are now not in agreement - that certainly changes that particlular situation. But should NOT be up to the government to take it upon themselves to initiate action on this family.

But hey - if Minnesotans think this is fine - then who am I to interfere in their state business? Afterall, Minnesota the home of Jessie Ventura, Al Franken, The Crazy Wellstone Funeral, etc. It's not like they don't have their share of weird & bizarre people.

 

[Bann]

As an adult you are free to choose whatever religion you wish and follow whatever ignorant views it has. However, this is a child. I think there are nuts in all religions. Nuts that put a book or a god before their own child.

What religion have you chosen for your child?

As a parent, are you allowed to choose that religion?

 

[This_person]

Does that cover marrying multiple wives?

State recognized and benefitted, or just living with more than one spouse? For state recognition, no. For how you choose to live your own life, yes.

Does that cover allowing sacrifice?

Killing yourself? If done successfully, who's going to punish your corpse? If done to others, no.

Does that cover canibalism?

Hadn't really ever considered this as a reasonable question, but I suppose if there is a signed document of the dead person suggesting they want it, I would think it is a religious concept and should be acceptable by the willing, of the willing.

Does that cover self imolation?

See the answer to "sacrifice".

Does that cover blowing up people in a pizza parlor?

Once again, if the people wish to be blown up, and the people who own the pizza parlor wish to have their parlor blown up, and the correct process is followed for building demonlition......

All of those above have religious justifications for the act

The basic concept, on a more realistic basis than your questions, is that people should be allowed to do as they wish so long as it does not harm or effect others.

 

[This_person]

The Supreme Court has already answered that. They ruled that Religious "rights" do not trump Legal ones

The Supreme Court held that the First Amendment's protection of the "free exercise" of religion does not allow a person to use a religious motivation as a reason not to obey such generally applicable laws. "To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself."

So, by law, one MUST perform every medical act any doctor suggests?

 

[This_person]

So I'm curious. Those of you who are against abortion for embryo and fetus rights, are you against this 13 year old child having the right to live?

Are you suggesting that not following a doctor's suggested treatment plan is the same thing as intentionally killing (ie, taking the action to cause the end of life) someone?

In the case of this mother, she's not running this little boy's body through a suction tube and then a blender. She's merely not providing the care that is likely to help him. If this care has a 100% success rate, and the medical issue has a 100% death rate (like cutting off oxygen has a 100% death rate), then I would suggest that she is wrong on a legal basis.

 

[vraiblonde]

First thought:

This is not a little boy - this is a 13 year old. If he was a toddler, I might have a different opinion. Or maybe not.

Second:

Chemo and radiation aren't some simple procedures where you get a little shot and everything is hunky dory. It gets worse - much worse - before it gets better. I personally would never do it, and if one of my kids decided they didn't want to do it, I'd support their decision. We bawl about waterboarding for terrorists, yet are all for this kid going through worse for months and months.

It's crazy.

And third:

Socki brought up abortion. Great, let's go there. Regardless of your personal feelings, are you pro-choice or not? Because you can be disgusted by abortion, but still support other people's right to choose for themselves. If I were this Mom, is this the choice I would make? Probably not. But I support her (and her son's) right to choose for themselves.

 

[Beaver-Cleaver]

First thought:

This is not a little boy - this is a 13 year old. If he was a toddler, I might have a different opinion. Or maybe not.

Second:

Chemo and radiation aren't some simple procedures where you get a little shot and everything is hunky dory. It gets worse - much worse - before it gets better. I personally would never do it, and if one of my kids decided they didn't want to do it, I'd support their decision. We bawl about waterboarding for terrorists, yet are all for this kid going through worse for months and months.

It's crazy.

And third:

Socki brought up abortion. Great, let's go there. Regardless of your personal feelings, are you pro-choice or not? Because you can be disgusted by abortion, but still support other people's right to choose for themselves. If I were this Mom, is this the choice I would make? Probably not. But I support her (and her son's) right to choose for themselves.

You're missing the point. Father wants Boy on chemo. They had court. Instead of fighting it in court, Mama decided to take Boy and run.

 

[This_person]

You're missing the point. Father wants Boy on chemo. They had court. Instead of fighting it in court, Mama decided to take Boy and run.

Why were they in court in the first place? I'm not asking what you think they were doing there, do we know?

If it was because the dad had one idea and the mom another, why does one parent's view automatically win in your mind over the other? For example, what if they both wanted something different than the doctor suggested? Should the dad automatically win then?

 

[Nonno]

A child who cannot read at 13 is not capable of making an informed decision concerning medical matters.

 

[This_person]

A child who cannot read at 13 is not capable of making an informed decision concerning medical matters.

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

 

[Beaver-Cleaver]

Why were they in court in the first place? I'm not asking what you think they were doing there, do we know?

It's in the first article.

If it was because the dad had one idea and the mom another, why does one parent's view automatically win in your mind over the other? For example, what if they both wanted something different than the doctor suggested? Should the dad automatically win then?

again.

One parent doesn't have the best interests in mind for her son.

And where did I say the dad should automatically win. I'm all for rights -- but mama gave up those "rights" when she decided to be irresponsible and run from the law instead of fighting this in court, legally.



Vrai -- a 13 year old is no mature enough to make the decision to end his life. You should know better.

 

[huntr1]

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

Don't be a dumbazz. You know that is NOT what they meant. Let me put it into "This Person Idiot" speak so you can understand it.

A seeing child who cannot read words written in block letters on a page at 13 is not capable of making an informed decision concerning medical matters.

 

[This_person]

It's in the first article.

You're right, I missed it. I thought it was mother against father. It was family against the state.

The boy decided, the parents agreed and accepted the boy's decision. The state thought it was better to parent the child with a for-pay babysitter full time than loving, involved parents.

Gotcha

again.

One parent doesn't have the best interests in mind for her son.

And where did I say the dad should automatically win. I'm all for rights -- but mama gave up those "rights" when she decided to be irresponsible and run from the law instead of fighting this in court, legally.

You're not a parent, you would not understand why a parent would rather hide the child from the state than relinquish their child to the state willingly. I would have thought any caring, feeling human would have understood this, but you prove to me that is either not true, or my assumptions about you are wrong.

I'll ask you the same question I asked and you left unanswered previously - at what point should the first amendment be considered invalid?

Vrai -- a 13 year old is no mature enough to make the decision to end his life. You should know better.

I don't think the child alone made the decision. The child made the decision, and the parents concurred. If the parents didn't agree, do you think this would be in the news, or do you think the kid would be undergoing chemo?

 

[This_person]

Don't be a dumbazz. You know that is NOT what they meant. Let me put it into "This Person Idiot" speak so you can understand it.

A seeing child who cannot read words written in block letters on a page at 13 is not capable of making an informed decision concerning medical matters.

So, how is that any significantly different than what she said?

Seriously, can a 13 year old not be "informed" without reading about it?

Does an infirmed 97 year old with less mental capacity than they had at 27 have less of a right over their own care than the 27 year old?

What is the issue with "reading block letters"?


I wasn't being a dumbass, BTW, I was pointing out the stupidity of Nonno. And, then you agreed with Nonno.....

 

[Beaver-Cleaver]

I'll ask you the same question I asked and you left unanswered previously - at what point should the first amendment be considered invalid?

You're question has been answered.

Is someone free to go bomb a pizza parlor because it was a religious act? Is it legal to marry 5 wives because of religious reasons? Is incest legal if it's a religiously-inspired act? Is it legal to threaten to blow up the Metro?

I know it's hard for you, but can you at least try not to be such an idiot?

 

[Beaver-Cleaver]

Does an infirmed 97 year old with less mental capacity than they had at 27 have less of a right over their own care than the 27 year old?

We're not talking about a 27 year old, we're talking about a 13 year old, dumb azz.

Minors’ Rights in Medical Decision Making

 

[This_person]

You're question has been answered.

Is someone free to go bomb a pizza parlor because it was a religious act? Is it legal to marry 5 wives because of religious reasons? Is incest legal if it's a religiously-inspired act? Is it legal to threaten to blow up the Metro?

I know it's hard for you, but can you at least try not to be such an idiot?

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?

 

[sockgirl77]

Socki brought up abortion. Great, let's go there. Regardless of your personal feelings, are you pro-choice or not? Because you can be disgusted by abortion, but still support other people's right to choose for themselves. If I were this Mom, is this the choice I would make? Probably not. But I support her (and her son's) right to choose for themselves.

When did Socki bring up abortion? She didn't.

 

[Beaver-Cleaver]

Socki brought up abortion. Great, let's go there.

She did?

 

[This_person]

We're not talking about a 27 year old, we're talking about a 13 year old, dumb azz.

Minors’ Rights in Medical Decision Making

But we are talking about blowing up pizza parlors? Or, are you just trying (failing) to be witty?


I realze that (unless we're talking about the right to kill a baby) a minor does not have the exclusive, individual right to determine all medical treatment for him/herself.

That was never my point. My point was that the emphasis was clearly on whether the child could read (and, apparently read block letters ).

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.