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.
I say, even in such cases, the parent SHOULD still have the right. Their parental sovereignty, to me, should be that absolute. Anything else means we're nothing less than North Korea or the former USSR. Any judge who would rule as this one did deserves to be thrown out of office and not even allowed to vote, because we don't need a bunch of communists taking over this country (if they haven't already).
Understand--I get it that you have parents who make silly decisions that are, in fact, reckless, and we want to prevent that. However, in making it to where we can intervene in those cases, we now can also intervene in other cases like this one where parental sovereignty should be respected. If it comes down to being able to intervene in "nutcase" situations, versus not being able to intervene in any, I would rather #2 be the one that is the case. As wrong as it is for nutcase parents to be able to not treat children who need it, I think it is WORSE to force someone to do something against their will and override the parents sovereignty in it.
I say this as someone who has a HUGE amount of respect for personal sovereignty in other areas as well. I don't think anyone should be able to be involuntarily institutionalized for being a danger to themselves only. I don't think an elderly person should be forced into a nursing home if they would rather die at home instead. A person should be able to make decisions about their situation no matter how foolish that decision is. Period. In this case, the 17 year old is a minor so that's the mother's prerogative, period. To butt into that is to say that all parental authority is invalid and can be stripped away for any reason at any time, and last time I checked, this isn't the former USSR or North Korea.
The state has never elevated parental rights to a point where they override every other concept. You can't beat or whip your child to the point of leaving cuts, bruises, and scars without that child being removed from your home. You can't leave the child outside in the winter to freeze to death without having the child taken away from you. The point is that under our system parental rights or "sovereignty" were not absolute in the past and are not now.
From a moral or ethical standpoint, I could not stand idly by and allow a minor to die of abuse, neglect, or disease because a parent refused to get them treatment that is medically accepted and effective. Most people in the community feel as I do and that is why laws exist that allow the state to intervene in families when they fail to meet minimum prerequisites.
There is a huge misconception that people sometimes make about the Constitution and rights. The Constitution and Bill of Rights were never intended to grant citizens total autonomy and freedom. What was intended was to strike a balance between liberty and the appropriate use of government power. The Founding Fathers sought to (1) give government the power to function in the interest of the community and nation; and (2) do so in a manner that preserves most individual rights. When people talk, as you do, about having total autonomy, power, or freedom what they are expressing is not the law or the way our system works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty
IMO, her Constitutional rights are being violated by an over intrusive nanny state. I hope her lawyers take it to federal court.
Better yet, she should try to get out of Connecticut.
If this case is taken to federal court, the seventeen year old will lose. Because she is not 18 and of legal majority this decision can be made for her and that is established law. If the parent won't make it, the court will appoint a guardian who can make that decision in place of the parent.
You can argue whether that "ought" to be the law or not. However, like it or not currently that is the law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nepenthe
Oh that's right. We treat 17 year olds as proto-humans. Probationary people who might someday become fully-fledged people but for now whose feelings, reasoning, and decisions, even about themselves, are all invalid and of no consequence. Got it.
Sarcasm doesn't make a non-adult into an adult. The law has a bright line for voting, drinking, smoking, working a job, and acquiring full legal rights. You either are old enough or you aren't. If you don't believe me, tell your seventeen year old son or daughter to go down and register to vote. They will be turned away and not allowed to do it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2bpurrfect
hopefully this 17 year old girl will survive til age 18, when she can get her own forms of medicine. hopefully she or someone who cares will research better treatment methods, more merciful and with much better rates of healing and remission than chemo and radiation. The conventional methods such as chemo and radiation are all too often what kills the patient, not the cancer itself, did you all know that? Naturopathic, special dietary, and other methods have demonstrated better rates of recovery from cancer, so I hope she finds out about them soon. She actually might need a different set of doctors, such as those in natural medicines, or those who specialize in wholistic cancer treatment with a really good recovery rate, that might be her first step. And get a good attorney who can argue that type of case successfully.
Please cite the recovery rates for treatment of cancer in a holistic manner. Your speculation that the rates are better means nothing until you can support this statement with statistics from a reputable medical journal or other source. Conventional treatment in this case has an 85% cure rate. That is supported by reputable data. Don't claim something is "treatment" unless you can document that it actually works. Opinions and testimonials don't count.
I have some experience observing chemotherapy. My father was diagnosed with colon cancer when he was 80 and died from it four years later. There are many generalizations about it that are not true. Some chemotherapy is actually quite mild. In the beginning, the worst side effect my father had from his treatment was that some of the skin hardened around his fingers. That's it. No stomach pain or nausea at all.
As the cancer progressed, the doctors prescribed more aggressive courses of chemotherapy. These did occasionally produce nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. Nevertheless, even being in his eighties, my father felt he could handle it and elected to continue treatment. He was never bedridden with this treatment. He was perfectly able to conduct his affairs which included driving to the store, paying his bills, and even hauling his own garbage to the curb.
The last stages of treatment were not pleasant. However, it was definitely the disease that killed him and not the treatment.
1) DON'T tell me what to post or not post, you do NOT have that right.
2) I was NOT speculating! there is ample evidence and articles online for starters, you could find it easily. YOU assumed i was speculating, that's not factual on your part. STOP accusing people, when you just don't know what people are basing their statements on. for all you know I could have been a PhD or an ND. I can actually put up any opinion I want on here, factual or not, FYI. Without answering to YOU for it of course! of all the nerve. this isn't a science forum!!!! but for the sake of those who are new to this idea, i have added links below.
3) NO i will not do your research for you! Do your own! THAT'S WHAT IT TAKES. I have been reading up on it for about 40 years, so I won't do your footwork for you, but i have plenty of personal learning that i am going on when i make a generalized statement.
Here are just a few pages i picked at random from a very quick google search. you could easily find plenty more including with references.
READ SOME BOOKS, there are plenty of them on the subject.
Those links are just to breach the subject to anyone who has had their head in an ostrich hole. Now they can take it out.
PS wholistic means THE WHOLE scenario and all aspects of the person's life and needs, especially relevant to the cancer,( and disease state in general vs healthy state of being). So it's not just zapping something for a quick result, it's about changing a great deal of the person's lifestyle, with specific tailored recommendations from the physician. And prevention is a big part of it too, that's how you keep it in remission as well as prevent it in the first place.
some people pounce on others who they feel aren't letting them off the hook. new info has a way of doing that. too dang bad! GET OFF MY BACK. and do your own freaking homework, man!
YOUR HEALTH IS NOT SOMETHING YOU CAN AFFORD TO LEAVE "TO THE DOCTORS"!!!! they only come into play when it's late in the game!
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
The state has never elevated parental rights to a point where they override every other concept. You can't beat or whip your child to the point of leaving cuts, bruises, and scars without that child being removed from your home. You can't leave the child outside in the winter to freeze to death without having the child taken away from you. The point is that under our system parental rights or "sovereignty" were not absolute in the past and are not now.
From a moral or ethical standpoint, I could not stand idly by and allow a minor to die of abuse, neglect, or disease because a parent refused to get them treatment that is medically accepted and effective. Most people in the community feel as I do and that is why laws exist that allow the state to intervene in families when they fail to meet minimum prerequisites.
There is a huge misconception that people sometimes make about the Constitution and rights. The Constitution and Bill of Rights were never intended to grant citizens total autonomy and freedom. What was intended was to strike a balance between liberty and the appropriate use of government power. The Founding Fathers sought to (1) give government the power to function in the interest of the community and nation; and (2) do so in a manner that preserves most individual rights. When people talk, as you do, about having total autonomy, power, or freedom what they are expressing is not the law or the way our system works.
If this case is taken to federal court, the seventeen year old will lose. Because she is not 18 and of legal majority this decision can be made for her and that is established law. If the parent won't make it, the court will appoint a guardian who can make that decision in place of the parent.
You can argue whether that "ought" to be the law or not. However, like it or not currently that is the law.
Sarcasm doesn't make a non-adult into an adult. The law has a bright line for voting, drinking, smoking, working a job, and acquiring full legal rights. You either are old enough or you aren't. If you don't believe me, tell your seventeen year old son or daughter to go down and register to vote. They will be turned away and not allowed to do it.
Please cite the recovery rates for treatment of cancer in a holistic manner. Your speculation that the rates are better means nothing until you can support this statement with statistics from a reputable medical journal or other source. Conventional treatment in this case has an 85% cure rate. That is supported by reputable data. Don't claim something is "treatment" unless you can document that it actually works. Opinions and testimonials don't count.
Last edited by 2bpurrfect; 01-10-2015 at 08:29 AM..
1) DON'T tell me what to post or not post, you do NOT have that right.
2) I was NOT speculating! there is ample evidence and articles online for starters, you could find it easily. YOU assumed i was speculating, that's not factual on your part. STOP accusing people, when you just don't know what people are basing their statements on. for all you know I could have been a PhD or an ND.
3) NO i will not do your research for you, lazybones! I have been reading up on it for about 40 years, so I won't do your footwork for you, but i have plenty of personal learning that i am going on when i make a generalized statement. who exactly do you think you are, and who is it you think you're talking to? Get OFF my case. An ignorant person has NO right to start accusing a person with different knowledge than they themselves have. (oh- maybe you're one of those conventional medical worshippers - right, i get it).
Here is just a couple pages i picked at random from a very quick google search. you could easily find plenty more including with references.
READ SOME BOOKS, there are plenty of them on the subject.
And precedence and good intent does not make it "right" that the state is abusing its power of coercion by forcing a debilitating process upon a person against her will.
The state has never elevated parental rights to a point where they override every other concept. You can't beat or whip your child to the point of leaving cuts, bruises, and scars without that child being removed from your home. You can't leave the child outside in the winter to freeze to death without having the child taken away from you. The point is that under our system parental rights or "sovereignty" were not absolute in the past and are not now.
Well, to me, they SHOULD be, short of VERY extreme exceptions. The problem is the "slippery slope" aspect of things. There are places and situations where the government gets involved simply over a parent letting their child play outside alone in their own yard vs being out there with them, even when the child is plenty old enough to play outside alone. People gripe about noisy children in restaurants and how "if that was my child I'd whip that butt." Then, when someone actually DOES so, the cavalry is called.
All of that is wrong, and if takes giving a parent almost total autonomy, then so be it. If we are, instead, able to NOT go the route of TOTAL parental autonomy but we are able to scale things back somewhat, then that's even better. Start with prosecuting nosy neighbors calling about such silly things who can't seem to mind their own business and charge them with harassment, for starters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
From a moral or ethical standpoint, I could not stand idly by and allow a minor to die of abuse, neglect, or disease because a parent refused to get them treatment that is medically accepted and effective. Most people in the community feel as I do and that is why laws exist that allow the state to intervene in families when they fail to meet minimum prerequisites.
Again, the problem is that it's taken too far. It's one thing to say "I can't sit by and do nothing" when a child is beaten very badly or the like, or if a parent, say, takes their child to a cult-like church that has snakes bite people who then "believe God will heal me" or the like. The problem is it's taken too far, and yes, this is one of those times I'd say it is. While I don't pretend to be an expert on chemotherapy, I hear of many people refusing chemotherapy on the grounds of how traumatic the experience is, and how there are apparently ways to survive it without the need for it, and if the 17 year-old wants to go that route and her parents support it--yes, that is not anyone else's business.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
There is a huge misconception that people sometimes make about the Constitution and rights. The Constitution and Bill of Rights were never intended to grant citizens total autonomy and freedom. What was intended was to strike a balance between liberty and the appropriate use of government power. The Founding Fathers sought to (1) give government the power to function in the interest of the community and nation; and (2) do so in a manner that preserves most individual rights. When people talk, as you do, about having total autonomy, power, or freedom what they are expressing is not the law or the way our system works.
If it's not the way it is, it SHOULD be. A crazy person who isn't harming anyone but themselves--you offer them help, but if they refuse it, leave them alone. The 80 year old who will die in a week if left to their own devices who could live a bit longer if admitted to a nursing home, but he wants to stay at home and die in peace in much more appealing surroundings--you leave him alone. To me that's a fundamental right, I don't care what the law says. In fact, I dare say if I were 80 years old and someone tried to come to my house and take me to a nursing home by force, I'm shooting at them. I mean it. To say that you think you have the right to come kidnap me from my own home and force the sell of my home to pay for a nursing home which I don't want to be in--are you kidding me? That's nothing less than kidnapping, and anyone who tries and kidnap me is not going to just tip-toe all gently and unresisted into my house with any sense of ease in trying to do so. You're a kidnapper, and you're going to be treated like one. I don't care what the laws says--on my property, I AM THE LAW.
So yes, you better believe that I support this girl and her mother's right to refuse chemo. If at any point there is a "crack" in the security to where the 17 year-old can run away and her and her mother can escape the USA and go live somewhere else to be left alone, I support it and I hope it happens. It probably won't, but I would love it if they did. They'd probably have to go to a country that hasn't signed the stupid Hague Convention treaty or the like, and situations like this is one reason why I don't like that treaty at all. That treaty fixed the problem of international marriages and the mothers who took the children away from their USA fathers to another country, but it's had this sort of thing as a bad side effect.
I think the point here is that her type of cancer is highly treatable and highly curable. 85-90% are incredibly good odds! (please give me those odds for not coming down with the flu, or a remunerative investment perhaps? )
Every cancer is different. And I'm sorry but both she and her mother's response to all this seems geared toward other types of cancers for which the treatment and survival rates are more grim. They just seem uneducated about the disease in general. What would her mother do if her daughter was diagnosed with something equally serious/life threatening that wasn't cancer? Would she refuse to see a doctor and refuse medications that would save her life? The treatments for cancer are nasty because it is a *nasty* disease.
Life has dealt her a crappy blow, no doubt. But plenty of kids have bad things happen to them, and they learn to deal with the consequences. She will have treatment, she has an 80 to 90% chance of surviving, and hopefully she'll go on to have a productive life. Will there be challenges, and sometimes bad, unfair consequences? Yes. Because that's what cancer - or any serious illness - does.
I don't understand how she is forced to undergo treatment if both she and her mother refuse it. Shouldn't that be the end of it? How can the courts intervene at all? They were educated RE: the risk vs. benefits, they said no to the treatment, that's it. The mother should make the ultimate decision, or, depending on the state because of her age or legal status, the patient herself.
I don't understand how she is forced to undergo treatment if both she and her mother refuse it. Shouldn't that be the end of it? How can the courts intervene at all? They were educated RE: the risk vs. benefits, they said no to the treatment, that's it. The mother should make the ultimate decision, or, depending on the state because of her age or legal status, the patient herself.
It's against the law for a parent to kill her kid.
Religious wacko parents who let their kids die because they have pneumonia end up going to jail.
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 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.
) 
