Featured Court forced chemo

Gina is correct. Parents have a right to be stupid with their kids. Governments would make themselves extinct trying to stop it.

This is a parental decision, and the precedent is scary.

 

The bolded portion calls to mind my daughter who, at about 17-18, declared she would never marry a guy unless he had the following qualifications:
He had to:
1 like country music
2 like to dance
3 be a Baptist
4 have an unusual last name
Well, just to prove that God has a sense of humor, the following defined the lucky guy:
1 hated country music
2 hated dancing
3 was a Methodist (actually became an ordained pastor, but upon getting past the local congregation and seeing the heirachy, he became ordained as a baptist) and most amusing of all,
4 his last name was Smith!! :smilewinkgrin:
She says that she has now learned to NEVER say NEVER.

 

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

 

And then some

 

Yeah, whatever, Mountain Dew …err… Sapper Woody, ...but being faced with the possibility is far different from facing the facts along with being presented your options by professionals. But, hey, if you’ve made up your mind then I won’t bother to confuse you with the facts.

 

It would have been interesting to see what the alternative treatments that the mom had in mind were. The forcing of treatment is concerning. Makes me think that the alternative treatment wasn't really much of a treatment.

I'm curious if the mom was allowed to do nothing and the child died if there wouldn't be an outcry "why didn't somebody step in and do something" would have popped up.

All life is precious and should be protected. The irony of the same government legalizing abortion and now forcing a potentially life saving treatment should not be lost in the discussion.

 

I don't get the reference, sorry. I am going to assume it was something funny.

The same professionals that prescribe a medication that causes depression and suicide to combat depression?

No confusion here.

 

Last time I talked to you, some time ago, you said something about living off of Mountain Dew or maybe Dr. Pepper or something instead of water I think it was and I was ribbing you about that. Guess I didn't remember the details good enough to take the swipe.

I criticize the ethics of Medical doctors prescribing drugs for everything as much as anyone, the side effects, the easy fix that society wants, the lack of attention to necessary healthy lifestyle changes but instead take a pill, etc. is my soap box, but with cancer the options are limited. Simple math would prove the odds of survival are much better with the best our medical doctors have to offer rather than with these wacko alternatives out there, like cannabis oil etc. BUT, your argument fails to show the alternatives are better or even in the same league which you would need to prove and your reasoning, well, is a worthless rhetorical question leading to fallacy.

You're basing your judgment of the benefits of chemo off what, 4 cases? Where I doubt you know what stage these people were diagnosed with or anything else about the varying types of cancer they had or the chance of survival to begin with. ...And that doctors prescribe medication that has adverse affects for combat depression as your logic that chemo should be avoided when treating cancer?

Again, it is important to understand that the nature of every cancer case is different but we have certain weapons to combat it. You tossing out chemo without consideration of all the circumstances and its documented effectiveness is ill-informed and like saying you'll go to gun fight with a knife.

That seems pretty confused to me.

 

I agree and I find that its the chemo that's the real killer.

 

That was my uncles resolve too and mine and my three cousins resolve as well. Needless to say, we buried him this Monday ....from 225 lbs (full head of hair and full beard) to 70 lbs, bald with no beard.

 

I fear your argument could be used to support abortion and euthanasia. Isn't the same argument "It's not the governments business what I do with my body" that justifies these?

 

Okay Gina, I'll try to take this thread back to where you want to go.

To you that's (government control of our children) the main issue, the top priority, or maybe what you value most, but to me, in this instance, it's about saving this girl's life who has made a very stupid decision.

To me there is a time to stand up for individual freedoms but this isn't the time to pull out that card and take a stance with the mother's agenda - whose priorities in this matter IMO lack a common sense of loving parental guardianship having took the position of the right of freedom OVER her own daughter's welfare.

This girl's life is at stake! and I value that more than taking my typical stance against those who would take away our freedom of liberty. In this instance I say let the enemy (big brother government) save this girl's life.

I'm looking at this as an INDIVIDUAL CASE which will save this child's life NOT as a threat which will open the door to a government takeover of our parenting rights. One could make such an argument but IMO they'd be cowering to that the "sky is falling" on our rights rhetorical argument which just isn't true in this case. Do you really think that's what's this is about? Or do you think this is opportunity to make that the issue while you, like the parent, neglect to put this child's life as the priority?

Some look at this as an opportunity to wave their political flag of the right of freedom. I look at this as a opportunity to save the life of a child whose parent has shown that she is willing to place her of letting her little darling do whatever she wishes whenever she wants OVER the VALUE of doing what is best for child which is giving her a VERY GOOD chance at living her life OVER certain DEATH.

That may be good parental love to you but to me it it is a parent putting the welfare and love of her child secondary to her love of the freedom of rights. It is a time to put your foot down on a parent who does not have her child best interests at heart and is attempting to stand behind a cloud of political posturing to achieve victory over an irresponsible decision to let her little princess put her childish, "I'm invulnerable and want to do what feels good NOW" over the common sense responsible decision that will most likely save her life - and that my friend is being treated with CHEMO. To say chemo isn't the issue is to throw out a major premise to this argument and to try to create a half-truth.


Or as a friend of mine recently said which summed it up pretty well in one sentence, "Does she want to die or is she looking for attention?"

 

IOW's "The sky is falling! The sky is falling! " "To hell with this child's life!"


No Gina, it is not reasonable to assume that because of this individual case that the government will start mandating abortion and euthanasia. That is called a fallacious scare tactic and unfortunately it is one given to support a political agenda RATHER than take into consideration what should be the precedence that in this individual case a child's life is at stake. But, I suppose you have your priorities...

Go ahead and use this opportunity to jump on the side of a mother who also values the attention of making this an argument for freedom of rights over her own daughter's life. But, for me, as much as I will stand up and fight for "reasonable" freedom of one's rights I DO NOT consider this a reasonable or ethical opportunity to twist the issue into a battle about government takeover of our rights, no less, by means of means of fallacious scare tactic rhetoric. RATHER I consider this the opportunity to stop the unconscionable action of parent who is putting her child's life secondary to these issues and to take this opportunity to stand by an ethical decision of a judge to save a child's life.

I guess you've answered my question.

 

Do I understand you to say that state ran medical care is to invasive and controlling? If this is true, do you oppose Obamacare, too?