Mother, cancer-stricken son on the run

[pixiegirl]

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

In today's society... Baby boy probably didn't want it and mommy is doing whatever she can to accomodate.

 

[Beaver-Cleaver]

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?

You love comparing apples to oranges, don't you?

 

[pixiegirl]

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

Then she need not use that as an excuse, should she? The state has a long history of making medical decisions for families. Are your kids vaccinated? I know I sure had to show proof that mine were before I enrolled them in school. They also had to have a physical.

 

[SugarBear47]

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.

In which case a judge would order proper counselling for the child and put the mother in a nut house for not doing her job as a mother.

 

[Christy]

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!

Everyone likes to jump on the bandwagon of stripping away parental rights for the safety of the children, until it starts effecting their own parental choices. You can't have it both ways. You either want a Nanny State or you don't. Once you open up the doors to government intervention, there is no turning back.

 

[This_person]

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.

But, again, if the parents disagreed, do you think the child would be going through chemo or not? I mean, I think the parents made this choice with full knowledge of both the medical issues and their child's wishes.

 

[This_person]

In today's society... Baby boy probably didn't want it and mommy is doing whatever she can to accomodate.

Maybe, I won't dispute that.

Even if that is the case, isn't it the parent's choice?

 

[Christy]

Then she need not use that as an excuse, should she? The state has a long history of making medical decisions for families. Are your kids vaccinated? I know I sure had to show proof that mine were before I enrolled them in school. They also had to have a physical.

Vaccinations effect the public health of everyone. Cancer does not. I am also adamantly opposed to the government forcing young girls to have the HPV vaccine. It's not like HPV is an airborne virus, so it will be over my dead body that the government forces it upon my kid.

 

[This_person]

You love comparing apples to oranges, don't you?

Remember the joke I told you before.... Multimillionaire asks a woman if she'll sleep with him for $1,000,000. She says of course she will. He then asks her if she'll sleep with him for $10. She gets all indignant and asks what kind of a woman he thinks she is, of course she won't do that.

He answers, "we've already established what kind of woman you are, now we're just bickering over price".


This is what you're saying - you're willing as a potential parent some day to relinquish your parental role over to the state if the state perceives your decision regarding the child is somehow risky. Now, we're just bickering over the amount of risk you're willing to give that up for.

 

[pixiegirl]

Vaccinations effect the public health of everyone. Cancer does not. I am also adamantly opposed to the government forcing young girls to have the HPV vaccine. It's not like HPV is an airborne virus, so it will be over my dead body that the government forces it upon my kid.

Wrong. Parents who want to protect their children could still get them and their children would be protected. A vaccine is a forced protection from a disease. Not getting a vaccine is only a health risk for those that chose not to.

 

[This_person]

Then she need not use that as an excuse, should she? The state has a long history of making medical decisions for families. Are your kids vaccinated? I know I sure had to show proof that mine were before I enrolled them in school. They also had to have a physical.

But, I chose to do those things, because I believed in them. They don't have all the vaccinations currently recommended, because I don't believe in all of them.

My choice.

 

[This_person]

Everyone likes to jump on the bandwagon of stripping away parental rights for the safety of the children, until it starts effecting their own parental choices. You can't have it both ways. You either want a Nanny State or you don't. Once you open up the doors to government intervention, there is no turning back.

Exactly.

I want the parent to be in charge, not the state.

 

[Beaver-Cleaver]

Wrong. Parents who want to protect their children could still get them and their children would be protected. A vaccine is a forced protection from a disease. Not getting a vaccine is only a health risk for those that chose not to.

Why do you hate America?

 

[pixiegirl]

But, I chose to do those things, because I believed in them. They don't have all the vaccinations currently recommended, because I don't believe in all of them.

My choice.

Mine don't have chickenpox but they sure as $hit have the ones they are REQUIRED to have to enter school.

What if one of my children contracts a contagious disease and I chose not to treat them? Should I be allowed to do this even though it may pose a public health risk? Hell no. You can't allow a parent not to treat one illness and mandate that they have to treat another.

 

[Christy]

Wrong. Parents who want to protect their children could still get them and their children would be protected. A vaccine is a forced protection from a disease. Not getting a vaccine is only a health risk for those that chose not to.

Wrong. Vaccines in children throughout the years have been used to erradicate quickly spreading diseases that do indeed effect the health of the populace.

You are also not required (yet) to have your children fully vaccinated. You only have to do so if they are going to go to school. It's along the same lines as a company you sign on to work for giving you a "choice" in agreeing to their terms of employment. You don't have to sign on the dotted line and agree to anything, you just won't get the job. The same goes for vaccinations. You don't have to have your kid vaccinated, they just can't go to school.

Anyway, we're going off on a tangent...

I don't for one second agree with what this woman and her child's decision, but that doesn't make it okay to force her to do what I would do.

 

[This_person]

Mine don't have chickenpox but they sure as $hit have the ones they are REQUIRED to have to enter school.

What if one of my children contracts a contagious disease and I chose not to treat them? Should I be allowed to do this even though it may pose a public health risk? Hell no. You can't allow a parent not to treat one illness and mandate that they have to treat another.

Well, they can mandate you don't let them in the schools and risk others, but that's a lot different than mandating the specific care.

No one can catch cancer of this kind, can they?

 

[Christy]

Mine don't have chickenpox but they sure as $hit have the ones they are REQUIRED to have to enter school.

What if one of my children contracts a contagious disease and I chose not to treat them? Should I be allowed to do this even though it may pose a public health risk? Hell no. You can't allow a parent not to treat one illness and mandate that they have to treat another.

Because this kids illness can't be spread to other's.

It all goes with the philosophy of having individual freedoms and rights until those freedoms infringe upon other's. He can't give little Sara or Bobby cancer by drinking from the water fountain.

 

[pixiegirl]

Wrong. Vaccines in children throughout the years have been used to erradicate quickly spreading diseases that do indeed effect the health of the populace.

You are also not required (yet) to have your children fully vaccinated. You only have to do so if they are going to go to school. It's along the same lines as a company you sign on to work for giving you a "choice" in agreeing to their terms of employment. You don't have to sign on the dotted line and agree to anything, you just won't get the job. The same goes for vaccinations. You don't have to have your kid vaccinated, they just can't go to school.

Anyway, we're going off on a tangent...

I don't for one second agree with what this woman and her child's decision, but that doesn't make it okay to force her to do what I would do.

You are required to have your children vaccinated if you want the state benefit of a free education.

Wrong. Vaccines in children throughout the years have been used to erradicate quickly spreading diseases that do indeed effect the health of the populace. I don't understand why you said that as it has nothing to do with my argument. If you chose to have your child protected you'd have that choice just as I could chose to not have my child protected. The fact of the matter is if you want your kids to go to public school or even private state licensed daycare which is probably a better example because they state requires that all daycare facilities be licensed and that all children must be vaccinated; the state says they HAVE to be protected. You don't abide by state rules concerning the health of your children, you don't get state benefits and can't even get some private.

The state requires children to be in child seats in the car. The state is requiring you to do something to potentially preserve the life of your child.

The point is you can't say that the state can mandate somethings and not others.

 

[pixiegirl]

Because this kids illness can't be spread to other's.

It all goes with the philosophy of having individual freedoms and rights until those freedoms infringe upon other's. He can't give little Sara or Bobby cancer by drinking from the water fountain.

You're missing the point. If little Sara or Bobby's parents had them vaccinated they won't get it either.

 

[This_person]

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?

Andy?