U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-12-2015, 11:26 AM
 
Location: East TX
2,085 posts, read 1,824,735 times
Reputation: 3175

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by JrzDefector View Post
I have no problem with her being forced to be treated until she turns 18. Her reasoning is pretty devoid of logic and strongly appears to be influenced by her mother's beliefs rather than her own critical analysis of the situation.

She is not yet legally mature (and btw, I have huge problems with the decision to try many minor-age offenders as adults), and she's also not demonstrating a great deal of maturity. She's rejecting a cure that is almost as close as you're going to get to a guarantee in the medical world (80-85 percent!) in favor of treatments that are largely ineffective according to most research to avoid an increased risk (not a certainty - an increased risk) of largely nonfatal health problems later.

I have known many cancer survivors, and not one of them has regretted chosing chemo. And frankly, the only people I know who have rejected chemo were people who were essentially guaranteed to be terminal.

I wonder if there's any way to get a psych eval of the mother - if you could prove that this kid is being raised by someone who's not all mentally there and she's been the primary influence, I think there would be less debate over how correct it is for the government to intervene.
Here is the point(s) of contention. The girl had opportunity to prove in a legal setting that she is mature enough to make the decision. The burden of proof was not met to overcome the statute limiting her decisions until she turns eighteen.

Her decision making is clearly being influenced by her mother, which is normal, if not desirable. Unfortunately for her, the legality of what the state is doing is confirmed by the hearing which indicated she is not mature enough to make an informed decision about her treatment and likely outcomes. It is very common for children to put parental goals and parental approval ahead of their own well being. I have seen this personally in many foster children and it can be heart breaking.

Legally and ethically, I think the state is correct in this decision, and I generally fall on the side of limiting intrusion by the government.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-12-2015, 11:46 AM
 
9,056 posts, read 6,732,898 times
Reputation: 11008
Quote:
Originally Posted by berdee View Post
I agree with what you'd been posting in here. After reading different media reports, and watching media videos, I have to wonder if the daughter is only parroting what the mom has been telling her.
The mom is in complete denial about the cancer - in saying "it's not a death sentence", and, "she's not going to die".
The mom is completely adamant in how 'she' feels that chemo is so harmful and devastating to a persons body.
The mom had refused to take the daughter in for oncology exams and had even tried, or succeeded in, stopping a biopsy from being done. I'm also wondering if even the court thinks the mom is the one that is influencing the daughter, since the court had decided that the mom is only allowed supervised visits a couple of times a week, and, that the phone from the daughters room be removed so that the daughter cannot call her mother.

Some media stories had mentioned that the mom and daughter had been researching alternative therapies, but in the videos with the mom, the mom stated that they had not done any research regarding alternative therapies, claiming they hadn't had time to do it because the state had taken the daughter in for 'forced treatment'. Hadn't had time? They'd known about the illness for months before the court ordered her to go into the hospital in Dec. - there was plenty of time to at least do some online research, and, probably to even consult alternative therapy doctors - but mom and daughter didn't do any of that during those months.

As for the side effects from the chemo, the daughter had recently written about the ordeal and stated "The side effects Ive had are mild to none so far, besides hair loss, acne, and tiredness,
Teen opens up about forced chemotherapy, death
Yes. The mother is not qualified in any way to make this decision, and it's obvious the daughter is just parroting her mother's beliefs, such as they are.

Mom's stated categorically that her daughter is not going to die. Based on nothing rooted in any kind of fact. She's completely incompetent, and needs to **** and stay out of it. She's going to likely kill her child. Her actions are going to be directly responsible, if so, just as much as if she walked up to her and shot her in the head.

We don't allow parents to push kids off roofs because they have a belief their child can fly. This is no different. The child believing they can flap their wings and live by default is no defense, either.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2015, 12:51 PM
 
3,279 posts, read 3,764,956 times
Reputation: 6149
Quote:
Originally Posted by JWG223 View Post
Yes. It's her body, and her right, so long as she is deemed mentally competent.
Yes, and her mother is just that--HER MOTHER. The child isn't the government's child, or the community's child. Who cares what the community thinks? It's not the community's child. It's the mother's child. If the community thinks they have the right to parent other people's children for them, then by George let them be that--in every sense. Let them assume guardianship of ALL the children, and that includes the hassle of shepherding them to school, paying for their clothing, spending bonding time with them, knowing what their favorite toys or favorite interests are, all of it.

If they can't handle ALL of that for ALL children, then unless the woman really is flat-out putting a gun to her child's head and pulling the trigger (and no, I don't think questionable medical choices qualify as that), they have no right to butt their Pinocchio-sized nose into the matter, REGARDLESS of their view on chemotherapy, and where I come from people who poke their nose into other people's business are sometimes "dealt with" if you know what I mean, and I can't say I disagree with that response.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2015, 01:01 PM
 
8,319 posts, read 8,599,004 times
Reputation: 25975
Quote:
Originally Posted by shyguylh View Post
Yes, and her mother is just that--HER MOTHER. The child isn't the government's child, or the community's child. Who cares what the community thinks? It's not the community's child. It's the mother's child. If the community thinks they have the right to parent other people's children for them, then by George let them be that--in every sense. Let them assume guardianship of ALL the children, and that includes the hassle of shepherding them to school, paying for their clothing, spending bonding time with them, knowing what their favorite toys or favorite interests are, all of it.

If they can't handle ALL of that for ALL children, then unless the woman really is flat-out putting a gun to her child's head and pulling the trigger (and no, I don't think questionable medical choices qualify as that), they have no right to butt their Pinocchio-sized nose into the matter, REGARDLESS of their view on chemotherapy, and where I come from people who poke their nose into other people's business are sometimes "dealt with" if you know what I mean, and I can't say I disagree with that response.
Tell me if you think the mother should be allowed to do any or all of these things without interference by the state:

1. Beat her child black and blue.

2. Allow her seventeen year old daughter to drink alcohol and drive a car.

3. Lock her daughter out of the house at night during the winter to teach her a lesson.

4. Refuse to feed her daughter even though she has no means of supporting herself.

5. Refuse to buy her daughter even basic and essential clothing.

I think most people here would describe all of these actions as abuse or neglect and would support intervention by the state in these cases.

Now, let's compare all these actions to what is occurring here. Mother is trying to prevent her daughter from taking treatment that will cure a disease which is almost certainly fatal without it. The actions I've listed from 1-5 are all bad, but are unlikely to result in the daughter actually dying. (I imagine here that someone else would feed the daughter before she starved and someone would take her in before she froze to death outdoors)

In short, the mother is committing the offense of medical neglect.

You can squawk until you are blue in the face. It doesn't change the fact that under the law, parental rights are not an absolute. If you don't meet minimal standards, the state has every right to step in just as it has in this case. This isn't something that's brand new. The authorities have had this power for decades.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2015, 01:02 PM
 
9,056 posts, read 6,732,898 times
Reputation: 11008
Quote:
Originally Posted by shyguylh View Post
Yes, and her mother is just that--HER MOTHER. The child isn't the government's child, or the community's child. Who cares what the community thinks? It's not the community's child. It's the mother's child. If the community thinks they have the right to parent other people's children for them, then by George let them be that--in every sense. Let them assume guardianship of ALL the children, and that includes the hassle of shepherding them to school, paying for their clothing, spending bonding time with them, knowing what their favorite toys or favorite interests are, all of it.

If they can't handle ALL of that for ALL children, then unless the woman really is flat-out putting a gun to her child's head and pulling the trigger (and no, I don't think questionable medical choices qualify as that), they have no right to butt their Pinocchio-sized nose into the matter, REGARDLESS of their view on chemotherapy, and where I come from people who poke their nose into other people's business are sometimes "dealt with" if you know what I mean, and I can't say I disagree with that response.
Do you look the other way if a parent sets their kid on fire? Is that okay with you, because "it's not the community's child"?

There are laws in place to protect children for a reason. The mother is lucky she isn't being charged with child endangerment in this case.

If she had reasonable alternatives to the chemo that would be one thing. But her whole master plan here is "she's not going to die". That's nothing short of criminal negligence.

This is not a debate about spanking or home schooling. This woman has put her child in mortal danger because she's an idiot. The child will have no recourse once she's a dead adult.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2015, 01:11 PM
 
Location: Round Rock, Texas
10,102 posts, read 9,337,589 times
Reputation: 13180
Quote:
Originally Posted by FallsAngel View Post
I agree. Maybe they, her and her mother, need to read the accounts of those 85% who do survive and go on to live a productive life. The mother is misguided and her obvious pressure can be deadly. The math doesn't add up. If she undergoes the rigorous chemo, she has a 85% chance of survival. If she doesn't, she has a 100% chance of death. If anything, we should be grateful that we have such care because in many developing countries, there is none. I, too, agree it's quality over quantity. But as a mother, I feel that 85% is a high enough percentage of overcoming a disease and would be there to support my child through such an ordeal.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2015, 01:12 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
21,549 posts, read 26,166,023 times
Reputation: 26559
Quote:
Originally Posted by shyguylh View Post
Yes, and her mother is just that--HER MOTHER. The child isn't the government's child, or the community's child. Who cares what the community thinks? It's not the community's child. It's the mother's child. If the community thinks they have the right to parent other people's children for them, then by George let them be that--in every sense. Let them assume guardianship of ALL the children, and that includes the hassle of shepherding them to school, paying for their clothing, spending bonding time with them, knowing what their favorite toys or favorite interests are, all of it.

If they can't handle ALL of that for ALL children, then unless the woman really is flat-out putting a gun to her child's head and pulling the trigger (and no, I don't think questionable medical choices qualify as that), they have no right to butt their Pinocchio-sized nose into the matter, REGARDLESS of their view on chemotherapy, and where I come from people who poke their nose into other people's business are sometimes "dealt with" if you know what I mean, and I can't say I disagree with that response.
In this case, the mom is essentially putting a gun to her daughter's head. It appears you have no better understanding of how serious the diagnosis is than she does.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2015, 01:30 PM
 
3,279 posts, read 3,764,956 times
Reputation: 6149
Don't be an idiot. No one is saying that a mother should be able to put a gun to her daughter's head. No one, not even me, is saying that.

What I AM saying, though, is that if it comes down to a mother having that right (which she shouldn't), or the state having such broad rights that they go butting their nose into everyone's business to the point that parenting has now become something of a "by proxy" activity where other's opinions overrule your own judgment as a parent, then I think the latter is even worse than the former. I would RATHER the mother have those rights than for the state to have those rights that broadly--but I would rather neither be the case.

I am also saying, too, that people do like getting involved in non-extreme cases just because they don't LIKE what a parent is doing. I know of cases of people getting the police involved simply because a child was playing alone in their own yard, and the neighbor considered that negligence. People think leaving a child in the car is negligence, not just in the cases of where a parent leaves an infant in a car for hours in 90'F heat while they shop, but even just leaving a child in a car for 50-60 seconds while they pay for the gas. I know of people who think doing that is better than waking up a sleeping child and dragging them into the cold just because of that 1 in a million chance the child MIGHT be kidnapped--yet they still do so not because it's what they think is right, but because society has deemed it wrong and they don't want to risk losing their child to kidnapping--e.r., Social Services. Society has become so "itchy trigger finger" that way, anymore, I am to the point of not believing ANY case where someone advocates for involvement if there isn't a flat-out gun in the hand, because I've seen this too often to believe it.

So yes, if the state has this power--it needs to be removed, because we're overreaching and making it to where people can't make their own decisions of their own sound judgment because others can't leave alone and butt in. It has NOTHING to do with saving a child's life, either, it's about people simply being a bunch of know-it-all holier-than-thou Pharisees who simply relish to opportunity to put someone in their place as they see fit. It has NOTHING to do with compassion for children.

And yes--I think someday someone, perhaps this mother, is going to decide they've had enough of people butting in their business, and they're going to respond to this form of legalized kidnapping the same way you'd expect them to if the ICIS was trying to kidnap them or if a burglar was trying to break into their house. When that day comes, I'm going to think it a natural by-product of all of this meddling. It's not the way it ought to be, I'm not advocating for it and I think working within the system tends to be the right way to go about making change for the better, not by doing things such as the rioting we saw in Ferguson recently. However, to the extent that some people would say they think this is just kidnapping and that it merits the same sort of response, I'd tend to agree with them. Certainly I think this much--if the mother & daughter manage to escape CT and even the entire US and go live in another country so they can be left alone without the harassment, they sure get my vote for that.

Last edited by shyguylh; 01-12-2015 at 01:41 PM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2015, 01:59 PM
 
8,319 posts, read 8,599,004 times
Reputation: 25975
Quote:
I am also saying, too, that people do like getting involved in non-extreme cases just because they don't LIKE what a parent is doing. I know of cases of people getting the police involved simply because a child was playing alone in their own yard, and the neighbor considered that negligence. People think leaving a child in the car is negligence, not just in the cases of where a parent leaves an infant in a car for hours in 90'F heat while they shop, but even just leaving a child in a car for 50-60 seconds while they pay for the gas. I know of people who think doing that is better than waking up a sleeping child and dragging them into the cold just because of that 1 in a million chance the child MIGHT be kidnapped--yet they still do so not because it's what they think is right, but because society has deemed it wrong and they don't want to risk losing their child to kidnapping--e.r., Social Services. Society has become so "itchy trigger finger" that way, anymore, I am to the point of not believing ANY case where someone advocates for involvement if there isn't a flat-out gun in the hand, because I've seen this too often to believe it.
The girl will die without the chemotherapy. What about this particular situation is "non-extreme" to you? What is your definition of "extreme"? I'm almost afraid to ask. Your observations about social services are not mine. I read constantly about cases where a child was abused to the point of death and not removed from a home because of all the rights that society gives to parents.

Quote:
So yes, if the state has this power--it needs to be removed, because we're overreaching and making it to where people can't make their own decisions of their own sound judgment because others can't leave alone and butt in. It has NOTHING to do with saving a child's life, either, it's about people simply being a bunch of know-it-all holier-than-thou Pharisees who simply relish to opportunity to put someone in their place as they see fit. It has NOTHING to do with compassion for children.
"Sound judgment"? What would lead you to believe this mother is exercising sound judgment here?

I know you probably imagine this is some sort of conspiracy by government to "grab more power". In reality, its simply the state stepping in because the mother refuses to fulfill her duties as a parent.

Pity you didn't respond to my prior post. You seem unable to acknowledge there could be any limit on what a parent could do to a child.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2015, 02:00 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
21,549 posts, read 26,166,023 times
Reputation: 26559
Quote:
Originally Posted by shyguylh View Post
Don't be an idiot. No one is saying that a mother should be able to put a gun to her daughter's head. No one, not even me, is saying that.

What I AM saying, though, is that if it comes down to a mother having that right (which she shouldn't), or the state having such broad rights that they go butting their nose into everyone's business to the point that parenting has now become something of a "by proxy" activity where other's opinions overrule your own judgment as a parent, then I think the latter is even worse than the former. I would RATHER the mother have those rights than for the state to have those rights that broadly--but I would rather neither be the case.

I am also saying, too, that people do like getting involved in non-extreme cases just because they don't LIKE what a parent is doing. I know of cases of people getting the police involved simply because a child was playing alone in their own yard, and the neighbor considered that negligence. People think leaving a child in the car is negligence, not just in the cases of where a parent leaves an infant in a car for hours in 90'F heat while they shop, but even just leaving a child in a car for 50-60 seconds while they pay for the gas. I know of people who think doing that is better than waking up a sleeping child and dragging them into the cold just because of that 1 in a million chance the child MIGHT be kidnapped--yet they still do so not because it's what they think is right, but because society has deemed it wrong and they don't want to risk losing their child to kidnapping--e.r., Social Services. Society has become so "itchy trigger finger" that way, anymore, I am to the point of not believing ANY case where someone advocates for involvement if there isn't a flat-out gun in the hand, because I've seen this too often to believe it.

So yes, if the state has this power--it needs to be removed, because we're overreaching and making it to where people can't make their own decisions of their own sound judgment because others can't leave alone and butt in. It has NOTHING to do with saving a child's life, either, it's about people simply being a bunch of know-it-all holier-than-thou Pharisees who simply relish to opportunity to put someone in their place as they see fit. It has NOTHING to do with compassion for children.

And yes--I think someday someone, perhaps this mother, is going to decide they've had enough of people butting in their business, and they're going to respond to this form of legalized kidnapping the same way you'd expect them to if the ICIS was trying to kidnap them or if a burglar was trying to break into their house. When that day comes, I'm going to think it a natural by-product of all of this meddling. It's not the way it ought to be, I'm not advocating for it and I think working within the system tends to be the right way to go about making change for the better, not by doing things such as the rioting we saw in Ferguson recently. However, to the extent that some people would say they think this is just kidnapping and that it merits the same sort of response, I'd tend to agree with them. Certainly I think this much--if the mother & daughter manage to escape CT and even the entire US and go live in another country so they can be left alone without the harassment, they sure get my vote for that.
It is an extreme case.
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top