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 think the parents should decide... chemo may have a 90% chance of survival... but it can come back right after that. Besides, no one should tell you how to raise your children. My father was on chemo and it actually made him SICKER. He was allergic to something in the chemo and it almost killed him. The first round did shrink his tumor, but every session after that almost killed him and destroyed his ability to fight off basic infections. Thus he quite chemo, and now is happily cancer free for a year now.
This boy's family has his best interest at heart. Why is it that a Jehovah's Witness can refuse a blood transfusion, and scientologists can refuse all medical treatments, but this family, believing in Native American practices can't have the same say and right?
Why is it that a Jehovah's Witness can refuse a blood transfusion, and scientologists can refuse all medical treatments, but this family, believing in Native American practices can't have the same say and right?
I don't blame her for running.
I have to ask this question too, she makes a good point, one I never even thought to ask.
I have to ask this question too, she makes a good point, one I never even thought to ask.
If the welfare of a CHILD is in question & is KNOWN about (they were using a public hospital), the medical staff does indeed have the right to contact CPS if they feel neglect, abuse or the welfare of the child is in danger.
If you read the article, you will see that the states mandate allows freedom of religion to be overriden if the welfare of the child is at stake. "Rodenberg said the state's interest in protecting the child override the constitutional right to freedom of religious expression and a parent's right to direct a child's upbringing."
The doctors determined, after the hearing, that the tumor had indeed grown & the cancer had spread.
Thus, treatment was needed for his welfare. Religion was overriden by the state law regarding these sort of cases.
As much as some dislike it, there are laws in the country & yes, indeed, if the judge (who was voted in by the people) feels that there is enough evidence to override a constitutional right, there is enough evidence. Laws are laws.
People in this country want it to run it all according to their own will. Well, unless you pack up & move to the boonies & drop out of society, things cannot run that way for it would create pure chaos.
The parents had their chance in front of a judge. The judge ruled accordingly.
So, they ran.
As much as it is sad to know this boy is suffering, it's even sadder to see what the parents are teaching him & how they are raising him.
The Constitution gives us many, many amazing freedoms.
But, there are also rules in force to avoid ABUSING those freedoms.
This case is the perfect example of where the line is being drawn.
It cannot be one size fits all with cancer.
These parents are being ridiculous & stupid. Their son's chance of dying is over 90%.
That is why we have a judical system in this country...for everyone is given the fair chance to defend their cause & belief. Ending may not work out in your favor, but you had a chance. That's a lot more than almost anywhere else in the world.
And that is why the line was drawn...their blantant negligence of the well being of their child.
If the welfare of a CHILD is in question & is KNOWN about (they were using a public hospital), the medical staff does indeed have the right to contact CPS if they feel neglect, abuse or the welfare of the child is in danger.
If you read the article, you will see that the states mandate allows freedom of religion to be overriden if the welfare of the child is at stake. "Rodenberg said the state's interest in protecting the child override the constitutional right to freedom of religious expression and a parent's right to direct a child's upbringing."
The doctors determined, after the hearing, that the tumor had indeed grown & the cancer had spread.
Thus, treatment was needed for his welfare. Religion was overriden by the state law regarding these sort of cases.
As much as some dislike it, there are laws in the country & yes, indeed, if the judge (who was voted in by the people) feels that there is enough evidence to override a constitutional right, there is enough evidence. Laws are laws.
People in this country want it to run it all according to their own will. Well, unless you pack up & move to the boonies & drop out of society, things cannot run that way for it would create pure chaos.
The parents had their chance in front of a judge. The judge ruled accordingly.
So, they ran.
As much as it is sad to know this boy is suffering, it's even sadder to see what the parents are teaching him & how they are raising him.
The Constitution gives us many, many amazing freedoms.
But, there are also rules in force to avoid ABUSING those freedoms.
Perhaps you need to reread the question "Why is it that a Jehovah's Witness can refuse a blood transfusion, and scientologists can refuse all medical treatments, but this family, believing in Native American practices can't have the same say and right?"
I do not know about you but in my country a lot of times these beliefs got what they wanted, regardless of what the "state" or "Doctors" felt.
Perhaps you need to reread the question "Why is it that a Jehovah's Witness can refuse a blood transfusion, and scientologists can refuse all medical treatments, but this family, believing in Native American practices can't have the same say and right?"
I do not know about you but in my country a lot of times these beliefs got what they wanted, regardless of what the "state" or "Doctors" felt.
Again, what THEY "wanted" according to their "beliefs" was not considered due to the severity of the health problem. Plain & simple.
If a 10yr old was a practicing Scientioligists, it would be the same thing. The religion DOES NOT matter in this case. That is why it was nixed.
They did have a say & right. It was just overriden due to his medical condition.
Parents had no problems getting medical help up until the first chemo treatment, so they agreed initially. Then, they didn't.
I really could care less about anyones religious belief if they put them before the health and the safety of their child. Religious beliefs can go to the extreme and fanatical.
We are talking about a 13 year old who is not capable of making this type of decision. This is his life. He is going to die without chemo. How can his parents deny him his life? I don't care what they think is best for him because they clearly aren't mentally balanced.
I don't think it would have mattered what faith they were practicing, that was the point. Whether they were scientologists or Jehovah's witness the outcome would have been the same. The only way it wouldn't be the same is if they never took him to the Dr. or hospital to begin with. Then no one would have known he was sick until he died. If that were the case I would still think they should be prosecuted for neglect causing death.
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.
