Judge rules family can't refuse chemo for boy

[StorminNorman]

The bottom line is that I NEVER want the Government nor the Courts having more power over a Child's Life than a loving parent.

 

[Addendum]

I don't consider parents "loving" if they refuse to use treatment that has proven to work on their child

 

[StorminNorman]

Can you provide any link indicating the treatment was working? Every where I have read this story has indicated that after one treatment (not series of treatments, one day of treatment) the family pulled him from it.

 

[Addendum]

The article from the first post said that the tumor was shrinking after the first treatment.

How ****ing clearer can it get?

 

[Majic Walrus]

some would argue that it coud possibly be negligent homicide. i don't want to argue at all because there are many valid points for each side.

this topic was discussed recently on an episode of Law & Order. Granted a tv show is hardly the basis for a good argument, but the topic relates somewhat. A mother was charged with homicide because she had chosen not to have her child vaccinated for a disease. As a result, another child contracted this disease and died as a result.

Cancer is not a disease you can "catch" so it's not an exact comparison, but how would people think if the child had a communicabe disease and the parents were resisting treatment? In this case, it is only their child at risk, and with him being learning disabled, i really don't think he truly understands exactly.

whatever the outcome, this case will set precedence for many others in the future

People keep bringing up is learning disability... Does anyone know what it actually is?

The bottom line is that I NEVER want the Government nor the Courts having more power over a Child's Life than a loving parent.

^This.

I don't consider parents "loving" if they refuse to use treatment that has proven to work on their child

Your opinion of their childcare is irrelavent. Irrespective of what you believe it's about what the parent's believe. Wouldn't you like the have the ability to make decisions about your child's health care based on what you think is best? Why not afford them the same right?

The article from the first post said that the tumor was shrinking after the first treatment.

How ****ing clearer can it get?

Actually a lot clearer... He had ONE chemo session and the tumor shrank which doesn't always necessarily indicate partial remission because it's too early to tell how the chemo is going to work for the rest of the normal chemo cycles.

 

[ComicChick]

it said in the article that he had a learning disability but didn't really explain what. it's also noted that he cannot read, and while that does not count as a disability i would imagine it really hurts his ability to fully understand the ramnifications. i wonder what the disability is

 

[Majic Walrus]

it said in the article that he had a learning disability but didn't really explain what. it's also noted that he cannot read, and while that does not count as a disability i would imagine it really hurts his ability to fully understand the ramnifications. i wonder what the disability is

He could have ADD or Dyslexia and still fall under the category of "Learning Disabled" and while it's unfortunate that he cannot read... Does that affect his ability to understand spoken language? No.

 

[StorminNorman]

No 13 year old kid is ever going to fully understand a major medical procedure like this. So his having a learning disability is completely irrelevant to me.

 

[Addendum]

Wouldn't you like the have the ability to make decisions about your child's health care based on what you think is best?

My decision for my hypothetical child's health care would include input from my doctor. While I could handle dealing with it touching a hot stove, or falling off their bike, or getting stung by a bee, if it broke a limb I'd take them to the doctor. If they got sick, I'd take them to the doctor. If they developed cancer, I'd take them to the doctor.

And in those cases and others where I would have to take the child to the doctor, I'd follow the doctor's orders. Not because they know how to raise a child better, but because they've had more experience with dealing with sick kids and know what works best to get them better.

 

[StorminNorman]

And that is your choice. It should not be the only choice.

 

[BestGirl]

And that is your choice. It should not be the only choice.

But is refusing to medicate your sick kid a legitimate choice? If I'm a parent, can I choose not to feed my children?

 

[Majic Walrus]

My decision for my hypothetical child's health care would include input from my doctor. While I could handle dealing with it touching a hot stove, or falling off their bike, or getting stung by a bee, if it broke a limb I'd take them to the doctor. If they got sick, I'd take them to the doctor. If they developed cancer, I'd take them to the doctor.

And in those cases and others where I would have to take the child to the doctor, I'd follow the doctor's orders. Not because they know how to raise a child better, but because they've had more experience with dealing with sick kids and know what works best to get them better.

Good for YOU. Bearing in mind that these parents did take their kid to a doctor they simply didn't accept his diagnosis or treatment.

But is refusing to medicate your sick kid a legitimate choice? If I'm a parent, can I choose not to feed my children?

That is entirely different. Refusing a medical procedure that can cause painful and horrible side effects is different than not feeding your kid.

We're not talking about neglect here we're talking about giving the parents the right to make medical decisions for their child.

Imagine this scenario. You have a child who has had an accident and lost the ability to use their legs. The doctor's say that you should amputate the legs because they will be useless and they will just get in the way as he learns to work around them. You think that he should keep the legs even though there is no logical or medically relevant reason why. Maybe you just want him to have some legs.

In your world you don't get to decide. Medical science and doctor's opinions go to court and trump your choice. Kid grows up without legs despite what you wanted. Does that seem fair?

 

[amazingfantasy15]

Good for YOU. Bearing in mind that these parents did take their kid to a doctor they simply didn't accept his diagnosis or treatment.



That is entirely different. Refusing a medical procedure that can cause painful and horrible side effects is different than not feeding your kid.

We're not talking about neglect here we're talking about giving the parents the right to make medical decisions for their child.

Imagine this scenario. You have a child who has had an accident and lost the ability to use their legs. The doctor's say that you should amputate the legs because they will be useless and they will just get in the way as he learns to work around them. You think that he should keep the legs even though there is no logical or medically relevant reason why. Maybe you just want him to have some legs.

In your world you don't get to decide. Medical science and doctor's opinions go to court and trump your choice. Kid grows up without legs despite what you wanted. Does that seem fair?

Will keeping the legs kill the kid? That's the big thing here, keeping the cancer will kill the kid.

 

[StorminNorman]

Will keeping the legs kill the kid? That's the big thing here, keeping the cancer will kill the kid.

Keeping the cancer COULD kill the kid.

You know what else could kill the kid? Chemotherapy.

 

[Addendum]

I'd rather take the chance in trying to save the kid's life, rather than some "natural remedy" ******** that some cult thinks is the way to go

 

[Wiseman]

This reminds me of an episode of Babylon 5 when the Dr. performed a medical procedure to save a boy's life against the wishes of his parents who's religious beliefs were against it. Needless to say the boy ended up killing himself after his family was shamed. The moral of this story is that I love Babylon 5.

 

[Addendum]

I love B5 as well. I never got the notion that the kid offed himself. Rather, I got the notion that the parents did the deed. One of them said something to effect that "they put the shell out of it's misery" because according to their beliefs, their son was soul-dead.

 

[Wiseman]

I love B5 as well. I never got the notion that the kid offed himself. Rather, I got the notion that the parents did the deed. One of them said something to effect that "they put the shell out of it's misery" because according to their beliefs, their son was soul-dead.

I thought he did it to himself in a ritual after they freaked out when they saw him healthy. The way he was walking off with his parents after when he said goodbye to the doctor made me think that he was going to do it himself while they prayed for his damned soul. You are correct that they thought his soul was gone though because he was opened up and they thought his soul would escape if he was cut open at all

 

[Addendum]

And that was the episode that got me hooked on B5.

 

[Wiseman]

And that was the episode that got me hooked on B5.

I wish I could experience it all over again from the beginning without knowing what I know now. Nice avatar by the way

 

[Addendum]

Thanks. I got the DVDs (all 5 seasons, TV movies, Crusade and Lost Tales) and have watched them several times over. And I still enjoy it.

But man, that first time was the best.

 

[Wiseman]

Thanks. I got the DVDs (all 5 seasons, TV movies, Crusade and Lost Tales) and have watched them several times over. And I still enjoy it.

But man, that first time was the best.

I have all 5 seasons too, and the tv movies. I don't know why but I still haven't bought Crusade yet and I honestly don't even know what Lost Tales is.

 

[Addendum]

Lost Tales was essentially supposed to be an anthology series set in the B5 universe as a direct-to-DVD series. Each DVD would focus on a specific character (minus G'Kar and Dr. Franklin, since Andreas Katsulas and Richard Biggs died and he had no intention of recasting their roles). He directed the first DVD to set the tone for the subsequent installments, and would then have others direct.

The next installment was to focus on Garibaldi on Mars, which was left out of the first DVD due to budget issues. There was going to be a DVD focusing on Londo and Centauri Prime, as well as a DVD focused on The Telepath War. However, no deal for future installments was able to be made before the WGA strike in '07. JMS did want WB to speed things up and come to a deal to beat the strike, but WB felt that there wasn't going to be a writers strike. Post-strike, no deal was reached since WB was still "discussing" whether to do more Lost Tales DVDs or a feature film.

Last July, JMS said that there was going to be no more Lost Tales DVDs. WB was only willing to grant a budget similar to the first DVD (a budget of $2 million), which was a gripe that JMS had during production of the first DVD. Since he doesn't want to tarnish B5's legacy with sub-par storytelling as a result of a tight budget, JMS has said that the only way he will revisit the B5 universe is with a big-budget feature film.

A few months later, Changeling was released and received great reviews from critics, several nominations for various awards, and was 2 votes shy of receiving the Palme d'Or in Cannes. On top of that, he wrote the script for Ninja Assassin which is directed by the Wachowskis, is writing the script for a Forbidden Planet remake, is writing a script for World War Z, wrote a script for a Silver Surfer movie that Marvel has since put on hold, has written a script for a movie adaptation of "They Marched into Sunlight", among others.

Speaking as a fan, WB may have laughed off JMS' ultimatum. I don't think they're laughing so hard now.

 

[Wiseman]

I'll have to pick that up. I've been waiting for a Babylon 5 movie for theaters for so long, every couple years it seems to pick up steam and then nothing. I hope it happens

 

[Majic Walrus]

Will keeping the legs kill the kid? That's the big thing here, keeping the cancer will kill the kid.

Not to get the thread back on topic or anything...

Keeping the legs is against medical advice which was the point of my argument.