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.
Right...I forgot...they would be considered collateral damage...and not count
No, they would count in the statistics that would refute the "in general" if it were true. Without putting the numbers to the assertion, all you have is reports of isolated incidents. That does NOT address the question.
No, they are guaranteeing that if nothing is done the child will die. The numbers are on their side in this and that's all they need to have in such cases.
For starters they can't guarantee that, just as they can't guarantee that the child won't die from the "treatment"...you've made it clear that if the gov says it's so, it's so, no doubts about it and to hell with the parents..right?..I'm not religious and I still wouldn't have my child go in for chemo..so it's not just about religion, it's about what you feel is right for you and your own, and you don't need no Gov for that.
The parents should have the right to do what they feel is best for their child...they should be able to say no to this if they want....coming soon
This is not an unlimited right. The limits are when what they feel is best is not in accord with reality. When there are known dangers and known solutions to them the parents have the responsibility to know about them and use them. To refuse . . . is to be negligent and culpable in child endangerment and abuse.
For starters they can't guarantee that, just as they can't guarantee that the child won't die from the "treatment"...you've made it clear that if the gov says it's so, it's so, no doubts about it and to hell with the parents..right?..I'm not religious and I still wouldn't have my child go in for chemo..so it's not just about religion, it's about what you feel is right for you and your own, and you don't need no Gov for that.
It is not the government saying that without treatment the chances of living through the diagnosed illness are negligeable, it is the medical profession and they have the statistics to back it up. If it is merely a case of what you deem to be right why should we not allow you to torture them to exorcise demons?
But it IS the Gov that TOOK the child from her parents and handed her over to the medical profession..You'd think by your posts that they never make mistakes, and that people don't die because of them...that's not true, people die in the care of doctors all the time....Making a choice to not have chemotherapy is a choice that MANY, many adults make, and they still live...how come they're not forced....Torturing children is not even comparable..we all know it's definitely not good for the child, no ifs ands or buts about it...It's not what I deem is right...it's what IS right, the right to control your own health, and take action that YOU feel is best, not the Gov...this case is all about the money to be made on the chemo far as I'm concerned, and has nothing to do with any real concern for the child...the child already tried chemo, and suffered mercilessly...should the docs be given another chance?..maybe this time they'll kill the child and then blame it on the cancer?
This is not an unlimited right. The limits are when what they feel is best is not in accord with reality. When there are known dangers and known solutions to them the parents have the responsibility to know about them and use them. To refuse . . . is to be negligent and culpable in child endangerment and abuse.
And whose reality would that be? the pushers of chemo?.I'm sure the parents know ALL the known dangers, and solutions..that's probably why they,ve chosen to say no to chemo. Your idea of responsibility seems to be...Do as you're told..who said the parents in this case aren't being responsible. Chemo shouldn't be the only choice, that if they refuse they're deemed irresponsible...why have any choices at all? why not just hand over all our health care to the great and glorious Gov?..they love you, they'll take care of you...NOT!
Untreated cancer is definitely not good for the child.
I do not believe you can make that blanket statement.
Cancer is not good for a child.
Sometimes cancer is discovered at a point at which treatment is useless and will only result in a quicker and more agonizing death. That is not good for a child.
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.
