Mother, cancer-stricken son on the run

[Beaver-Cleaver]

She doesn't want her son to die.

But she knows it's more than probable that he will die.

 

[This_person]

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.

A good point.

Maybe they changed their minds, though?

I hear people do that sometimes. Maybe they thought they could do what they consider to be the wrong thing, but for the right reasons. Then, their conscience got to them?

Either way, they made the decision and claim it's based on their religion.

 

[This_person]

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?

It wasn't in block letters

Seriously, though, I can read what it says. I'm asking if YOU think that this means the state has the right to supercede the first amendment rights of the parents.

If so, why?

 

[Toxick]

But she knows it's more than probable that he will die.

That's beside the point.

You're poignant pro-choice/pro-life observation was invalid.

 

[This_person]

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

And Mama is in full support of this.

As was Dad until the press got involved.

 

[This_person]

But she knows it's more than probable that he will die.

I'll give you a money back promise that we'll ALL die.

The parents were choosing whether to let the kid undergo a treatment which they heard from their child was unwanted.

 

[This_person]

That's beside the point.

You're poignant pro-choice/pro-life observation was invalid.

He'ss pro choice only if the choice is made to force a baby to die, not a 13 year old to influence his parents on medical procedure decisions.

 

[SugarBear47]

childs cancer/immoral mother

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

Absolutely! Survival is a natural instinct even in infancy. It is ridiculous to even think a child would chose death over life. The law, the courts all aside....it is morally wrong for any parent to chose a death sentence for your own child.

 

[Beaver-Cleaver]

It wasn't in block letters

Seriously, though, I can read what it says. I'm asking if YOU think that this means the state has the right to supercede the first amendment rights of the parents.

If so, why?

It doesn't matter what I think.

But, I'll bite. Since none of our constitutional rights are absolute and without limitations, I do think so. I absolutely think, when it is in the best interest of protecting a child, the State should have the right to supersede the rights of the parents. When a parent puts their kid at risk -- it doesn't matter if it's religious or not -- they are endangering the health of their child.

A parent decides to starve their kid because it's against their religion to eat meats of any kind or take vitamins that the kids need. Since it's religious, does that make it alright? -- There is a legal term for this: Child Neglect.

 

[pixiegirl]

A good point.

Maybe they changed their minds, though?

I hear people do that sometimes. Maybe they thought they could do what they consider to be the wrong thing, but for the right reasons. Then, their conscience got to them?

Either way, they made the decision and claim it's based on their religion.

In my opinion in a situation like this "Opps, I changed my mind!" isn't acceptable. If you were ok enough to start you should finish. No one is willing to hold this mother personally responsible for what she's doing. It's not a religious oposition; she's using that as as excuse. If she was that deeply opposed to the treatment the boy wouldn't have had the first one. It's the easiest card to play now that her mind has changed.

 

[Beaver-Cleaver]

That's beside the point.

You're poignant pro-choice/pro-life observation was invalid.

I only believe in abortion in cases of rape and incest. The reason I talk about it here is because St. Sarah is against any form of birth control/abortion/morning after pill... for religious reasons. Imagine that!

 

[Beaver-Cleaver]

Ah, I see now.

Force a child to be born, and then kill it.

Perfect solution.

 

[This_person]

Absolutely! Survival is a natural instinct even in infancy. It is ridiculous to even think a child would chose death over life. The law, the courts all aside....it is morally wrong for any parent to chose a death sentence for your own child.

But, the parent's right to choose what they think is best, right?

 

[This_person]

It doesn't matter what I think.

But, I'll bite. Since none of our constitutional rights are absolute and without limitations, I do think so. I absolutely think, when it is in the best interest of protecting a child, the State should have the right to supersede the rights of the parents. When a parent puts their kid at risk -- it doesn't matter if it's religious or not -- they are endangering the health of their child.

A parent decides to starve their kid because it's against their religion to eat meats of any kind or take vitamins that the kids need. Since it's religious, does that make it alright? -- There is a legal term for this: Child Neglect.

While I hate to admit this, it DOES matter what you think. You are a voting age American citizen - that makes your opinion matter

But, since you bit, where would you stop that line of thinking? Your phrase "when a parent puts their kid at risk they are endangering the health of their child", and that wouldn't be acceptable. So, overeating/bad diet? Smoking in the same house the child lives in? Speeding? Are all of these things worthy of state removal of the child from the home? After all, they all put the child at known, verifiable, significant risk!

 

[This_person]

In my opinion in a situation like this "Opps, I changed my mind!" isn't acceptable. If you were ok enough to start you should finish. No one is willing to hold this mother personally responsible for what she's doing. It's not a religious oposition; she's using that as as excuse. If she was that deeply opposed to the treatment the boy wouldn't have had the first one. It's the easiest card to play now that her mind has changed.

So, what do you think her motivation is, to accept the child not wanting to go through with it if not religion?

 

[This_person]

I only believe in abortion in cases of rape and incest. The reason I talk about it here is because St. Sarah is against any form of birth control/abortion/morning after pill... for religious reasons. Imagine that!

And, she's done what regarding that issue as governor of Alaska?

That's right, she believes in something, but has a different view of law. She's demonstrated that by being one of the few governors to order same-gendered relationships receive identical health care as married folk in her state government. (kind of an inconvinient truth for your opinion of her, don't you think? )

Besides, you were comparing the idea of pro-life and pro-choice, not Palin. Why don't you accept the mother's right to choose in THIS case?

 

[Christy]

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.

It doesn't matter if it is for religious purposes or not. The State has no business making medical decisions for the family.

 

[Beaver-Cleaver]

While I hate to admit this, it DOES matter what you think. You are a voting age American citizen - that makes your opinion matter

But, since you bit, where would you stop that line of thinking? Your phrase "when a parent puts their kid at risk they are endangering the health of their child", and that wouldn't be acceptable. So, overeating/bad diet? Smoking in the same house the child lives in? Speeding? Are all of these things worthy of state removal of the child from the home? After all, they all put the child at known, verifiable, significant risk!

Speeding is already illegal. And there are plenty of cases where they've charged parents with something more than just speeding when they have a child in the car.

Smoking -- I don't get it, I think they should just ban smoking since they ban things that are far less harmful. :shrug:

 

[SugarBear47]

But, the parent's right to choose what they think is best, right?

Well yeah, I know if I was in the same situation I would want to be allowed to make the wisest and most sensible decision for my own family. But still, come on, this is life or death. I know a lot of elderly people who have chose not to go thru chemo and they died in a very short time, which was their choice. But a child? I don't believe it is his decision to die, rather just his decision to NOT take treatment.

 

[This_person]

Speeding is already illegal. And there are plenty of cases where they've charged parents with something more than just speeding when they have a child in the car.

Smoking -- I don't get it, I think they should just ban smoking since they ban things that are far less harmful. :shrug:

So, you think the state should have the right to remove children from the homes of people who make these decisions, just like they were in the process of doing with the parents in question in this case?