Father battles goverment for right to deny his child chemo

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Like Duchess said, parents can make these kinds of impositions, upon their kids at least, because that's their bleedin job. Maybe I do just need this in crayon or something, or maybe I'm just not being clear on what exactly I'm trying to say. Help me out.

I don't think they SHOULD be able to, however. I WISH I had been vaccinated, badly, instead of having to deal with getting the vaccinations as an adult.

[Darth Ruinus]

Doesn't the relationship between father and son allow the father to make these kinds of choices for his son, however? Like Duchess said, parents can make these kinds of impositions, upon their kids at least, because that's their bleedin job. Maybe I do just need this in crayon or something, or maybe I'm just not being clear on what exactly I'm trying to say. Help me out.

Im pretty sure its because in this case, the father's actions would certainly cause the child to die. Criminal negligence.

[General Zod]

I'm obviously failing to adequately express my points, so I'll concede this discussion. I also don't know enough about the rights of Canadian citizens to comment on whether this guy is entitled make his own decisions or not. I was under the impression that, as a parent, the father makes choices for his son because he is legally entitled to do so. Educate me, please: Is there really some kind of legal reason that this guy can't choose what "medical" options to pursue, apart from "the dad is an idiot?" I didn't see this situation as being a case of "it's totally fine for anyone to deny someone medical treatment based on their preferred religious nuttery with no risk of repercussion," as you put it Zod.

New aged quackery is not a valid medical treatment, yet for some asinine reason you seem to think it is. If you cannot understand why I suggest educating yourself on modern medicine and double-blind studies.

Hint: real medicine produces results and has repeatable studies to back this up. Quackery does not. "Belief" will not change this fact no matter how much you want it to.

I assume what you mean here is one random joe walking up to and imposing their moral code upon another random schmoe. I agree, that's totally ludicrous. Doesn't the relationship between father and son allow the father to make these kinds of choices for his son, however? Like Duchess said, parents can make these kinds of impositions, upon their kids at least, because that's their bleedin job. Maybe I do just need this in crayon or something, or maybe I'm just not being clear on what exactly I'm trying to say. Help me out.

The father has more authority than some random schmuck, but why should it be any less ridiculous? Denying someone proper medical care for religious purposes is still abusive, regardless of what you want to define it as.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

Educate me, please: Is there really some kind of legal reason that this guy can't choose what "medical" options to pursue, apart from "the dad is an idiot?"

Try, "Because New Age pseudo-religious quackery has been proven by numerous studies to not only provide no tangible medical benefit to cancer patients, but can also be quite harmful if used at the expense of proven treatments". Or hell, to put it more bluntly, are you in favour of allowing parents to pray to Thoth to grant them the wisdom to heal their sick children, rather than taking them to the hospital?

Code: Select all

<snip> ... Doesn't the relationship between father and son allow the father to make these kinds of choices for his son, however?

So it's bad when some random guy uses religious bullshit quackery to deny proper treatment to some other guy... but it's okay when they're family? I'd ask to have a sip from the cup of Stupid you're drinking from so I could pretend to understand your 'logic', but I'm afraid the effects might be permanent.

Like Duchess said, parents can make these kinds of impositions, upon their kids at least, because that's their bleedin job.

Umm... Duchess wasn't defending them, you twit. She was saying that it's a BAD thing that they're allowed to do this.

Maybe I do just need this in crayon or something, or maybe I'm just not being clear on what exactly I'm trying to say. Help me out.

How many different ways do you want us to say "Parents should not be allowed to risk their children's lives with batshit non-treatments" before the point is pounded through your thick skull?

[Oni Koneko Damien]

I also love how you 'conceded' the discussion without conceding anything.

[FA Xerrik]

New aged quackery is not a valid medical treatment, yet for some asinine reason you seem to think it is. If you cannot understand why I suggest educating yourself on modern medicine and double-blind studies.

I never claimed that whatever the "alternative medicine" options he was pursuing were valid medical treatments. I fully understand the difference between new aged quackery and actual legitimate medicine. I had intended to convey my skepticism of them with the quote marks around "medical" options in my previous post, as I did above with "alternative medicine." The limitations of BBS posting make it difficult to convey sarcasm, but that was my intent.

Denying someone proper medical care for religious purposes is still abusive, regardless of what you want to define it as.

That's probably where I got mixed up. I didn't know there was a justifiable legal basis for calling the parent abusive and removing the son from his custody because he chose to pursue natural remedies, as the article called them, instead of chemotherapy. He's doing what he thinks is best for the child; the article cited intense discomfort on the part of the child as a result of the chemo. He apparently wanted to go the "traditional and natural" route "for as long as it would take him." Hardly sounds abusive or neglectful, although it means that he dies when chemo probably could have saved him. I understand your point now. Thanks for the crayon.

[Mayabird]

If the kid really, really wants to die that much and genuinely understands what it means, couldn't he just throw himself off a building and be done with it? Or wait until he's 18 and say that he wants to die and then people can't really do anything about it since he's legally an adult?

It's hard to tell with the limited information the media gives out, but for all we know, we have a half-retarded kid who's just whining, "I don't feel good," and when he goes to the hospital he moans, "I don't wanna go. I don't wanna do this anymore. They make me feel bad," and his idiot father who means well somewhere in the depths of his stupidity says, "Well then, you won't have to go to the doctor anymore." The guy would probably let the kid eat nothing but junk food or let him drink beer every night if it had come to that instead of cancer.

I strongly suspect that a lot of these sorts of "ethical issues" and "rights battles" (and I mean them with the quotation marks) really boil down to stupid crap like that which get really blown up.

[General Zod]

I never claimed that whatever the "alternative medicine" options he was pursuing were valid medical treatments. I fully understand the difference between new aged quackery and actual legitimate medicine. I had intended to convey my skepticism of them with the quote marks around "medical" options in my previous post, as I did above with "alternative medicine." The limitations of BBS posting make it difficult to convey sarcasm, but that was my intent

Liar.

Since when is new-age quackery a valid form of medicine?

Since when is it invalid? Rather, what's illegal about choosing it over chemo? The father obviously thinks it will work, and there's no crime in belief.

How the fuck else is this supposed to be interpreted except as defending it as a valid treatment?

That's probably where I got mixed up. I didn't know there was a justifiable legal basis for calling the parent abusive and removing the son from his custody because he chose to pursue natural remedies, as the article called them, instead of chemotherapy. He's doing what he thinks is best for the child; the article cited intense discomfort on the part of the child as a result of the chemo. He apparently wanted to go the "traditional and natural" route "for as long as it would take him." Hardly sounds abusive or neglectful, although it means that he dies when chemo probably could have saved him. I understand your point now. Thanks for the crayon.

Don't be fucking retarded. Just because someone thinks they're doing what is best does not mean that it is not abusive. Children find getting vaccinations uncomfortable due to needles. That doesn't mean it's not in their own best interests to get it done regardless of any religious horseshit against them.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

I never claimed that whatever the "alternative medicine" options he was pursuing were valid medical treatments.

You're right, I'm sorry for assuming you... oh wait, what's this?

Since when is it invalid? Rather, what's illegal about choosing it over chemo?

I fully understand the difference between new aged quackery and actual legitimate medicine.

Every post you've made so far suggests otherwise.

That's probably where I got mixed up. I didn't know there was a justifiable legal basis for calling the parent abusive and removing the son from his custody because he chose to pursue natural remedies, as the article called them, instead of chemotherapy. He's doing what he thinks is best for the child; the article cited intense discomfort on the part of the child as a result of the chemo. He apparently wanted to go the "traditional and natural" route "for as long as it would take him." Hardly sounds abusive or neglectful, although it means that he dies when chemo probably could have saved him. I understand your point now. Thanks for the crayon.

I used to have a growing lump of cartilage on my chest. It didn't hurt in any way, but if left untreated, it would have eventually wrapped around my lungs and suffocated me. The surgery required me spending a week and a half in the hospital, and several months of incapacitation and more or less constant pain. I was about thirteen at the time.

But hey, if I looked uncomfortable, the parents should have full right to deny me treatment, the fact that I'll die be damned!

[FSTargetDrone]

I doubt the child wants to die, and it's not at all surprising that he wants to go home. I don't think any child especially wants to go through chemotherapy, even if he or she understands that it's to his or her benefit to do so.

The father has no real argument, of course, especially because there is a reasonable chance of the boy being helped by continuing with the treatment.

If we were looking at a situation where the chance of survival with the medical treatment was quite low and the boy was looking at a poor quality of life for a few months because of the effects of the chemo vs. a similarly-low likelihood of survival with the bogus treatment (and without the chemo side-effects), it might be a little less cut and dried IF the child could make an informed choice.

But, he's quite young and is evidently not of even normal development for a child of his age. I don't see how the boy's wishes are even relevant until and unless he can make such a decision.

[ANGELUS]

The only thing I'm pointing out here is that the guy is absolutely free, per the Constitution of our country, to hold whatever religious views that he does.

Yes asshole, he can believe whatever the fuck he wants to believe, but he has no fucking right to kill his son because of what he believes.

You and I might find his choice to sacrifice his son for these views morally reprehensible, but it's clear he finds submitting his son for chemo equally objectionable.

Yes, and that is what makes him an unfit parent: allowing his son to die because of his religious views.

I feel the same way about the whole thing as anyone who's posted here, but I think that this fellow should be allowed to choose what he wants for his son.

So, if I want to beat up my son to death or I want to rape him, or I want to keep him locked in a basement for 24 years while I sexually abuse him I'm allowed to do it just because I choose to? don't be retarded.

I'm obviously failing to adequately express my points, so I'll concede this discussion.

you are making your points very clear, but that doesn't mean they are right.

I also don't know enough about the rights of Canadian citizens to comment on whether this guy is entitled make his own decisions or not.

Maybe you don't, but that doesn't mean you don't have enough brain cells to understand why this is wrong and must be stopped. The Taliban regime in Afganistan allowed men to legally mutilate women if they didn't cover their face at all times while in public. Are you going to tell me that is ok just because it was legal there?

I was under the impression that, as a parent, the father makes choices for his son because he is legally entitled to do so.

Except if it puts his son in danger. If he consciously does it then the state can take his son away for his own good, taking in consideration that he's in mortal danger if he stays with him.

Educate me, please: Is there really some kind of legal reason that this guy can't choose what "medical" options to pursue, apart from "the dad is an idiot?"

ok, one more time: negligence, moron. Putting his son in a situation where he will be killed.

Doesn't the relationship between father and son allow the father to make these kinds of choices for his son, however?

No if the kids are hurt or killed in the way. The are not the parents' property, they are a responsibility and must be taken care of in the best way.

Like Duchess said, parents can make these kinds of impositions, upon their kids at least, because that's their bleedin job.

The fact that it is their job doesn't mean they are good at it, which is clearly the case here. And when someone is not good at their job they get fired and someone else is hired to do it.

I fully understand the difference between new aged quackery and actual legitimate medicine. I had intended to convey my skepticism of them with the quote marks around "medical" options in my previous post, as I did above with "alternative medicine." The limitations of BBS posting make it difficult to convey sarcasm, but that was my intent.

Even if you did imply sarcasm there, still in the real world they are not valid options, they are superstition, and choosing them over legitimate medical treatment means no medical treatment at all because they are not any kind of medical treatment.

That's probably where I got mixed up. I didn't know there was a justifiable legal basis for calling the parent abusive and removing the son from his custody because he chose to pursue natural remedies, as the article called them, instead of chemotherapy.

Legal basis or not, it still can be questioned, specially if somebody will get hurt because of it.

He's doing what he thinks is best for the child; the article cited intense discomfort on the part of the child as a result of the chemo.

So he decided to go with a bullshit tradition that wouldn't make the kid feel sick but that would result on the kid dying.

He apparently wanted to go the "traditional and natural" route "for as long as it would take him." Hardly sounds abusive or neglectful, although it means that he dies when chemo probably could have saved him.

do you even know what negligence means or you're just talking out of your ass??

neg·li·gence Audio Help [neg-li-juhns] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the quality, fact, or result of being negligent; neglect: negligence in discharging one's responsibilities.
2. an instance of being negligent: a downfall brought about by many negligences.
3. Law. the failure to exercise that degree of care that, in the circumstances, the law requires for the protection of other persons or those interests of other persons that may be injuriously affected by the want of such care.
–adjective
4. Law. pertaining to or involving a civil action for compensation for damages filed by a person who claims to have suffered an injury or loss in an accident caused by another's negligence: a negligence suit; a large negligence award.

[FA Xerrik]

I was wrong. You guys are right. I understand the issue much better. Thanks for clubbing it into me, I was definitely approaching this from the wrong angle. I didn't intend to come across as some sort of religious nut, my only concern was over the legal basis of the issue. I stand humbly corrected, and willingly admit that I was full of crap. However strained your patience got at having to deal with my ignorance is much appreciated, since ultimately it paid off.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

On a couple of other forums, I have had a similar discussion about these types of issues. It wasn't the same article, but there were a few people arguing that it's not society's (or your) responsibility, much less the state, to interfere with the parents as they saw fit to medicate their children.

I found it useful to frame it in terms of eating. What would happen if the parents' religious beliefs revolved around prayer nutrition? Would it be ok to starve your kids due to "religious values?"

That usually gets them to think of it a different way, given medicine seems to be a tough one to get them to see.

[Mayabird]

I found it useful to frame it in terms of eating. What would happen if the parents' religious beliefs revolved around prayer nutrition? Would it be ok to starve your kids due to "religious values?"

That usually gets them to think of it a different way, given medicine seems to be a tough one to get them to see.

This is an instructive point, as cases have come up before. The one that popped up in my mind was one where a couple of near-teen idiot parents somehow got convinced that their kid was Jesus reborn and that eating watermelon and lettuce only would keep him pure. They were slapped with child cruelty charges immediately.

Dad arrested in 'Christ Child' case
Date: October 6, 1998 Publication: The Atlanta Journal and The Atlanta Constitution Page Number: a09 Word Count: 463

A malnourished boy whose parents allegedly fed him only lettuce and watermelon in hopes of keeping him pure was back in a hospital today in Billings, Mont., more than two weeks after he was reported to have been kidnapped by his father in Salt Lake City. The 21-month-old boy, his parents and his newborn brother were discovered Monday afternoon in Montana. The father, Christopher Fink, was found in a remote, mountainous area of south-central Montana by authorities who had spotted his car and

Link

Why the difference between food and medicine? I wonder if it's because deep down most people view medicine like some sort of magic they don't understand instead of looking at it rationally, like eating.

[FSTargetDrone]

deep down most people view medicine like some sort of magic they don't understand instead of looking at it rationally, like eating.

It's funny, most of these people who seem to be anti-vaccination appear to be otherwise normal, typical folks: they use cars, have cell phones, use computers (with which they research the quackery), but somehow, for some reason, you're right, conventional proven medicine is somehow different and something to be mistrusted.

[ANGELUS]

deep down most people view medicine like some sort of magic they don't understand instead of looking at it rationally, like eating.

It's funny, most of these people who seem to be anti-vaccination appear to be otherwise normal, typical folks: they use cars, have cell phones, use computers (with which they research the quackery), but somehow, for some reason, you're right, conventional proven medicine is somehow different and something to be mistrusted.

It happens the same with any kind of science, a lot of this people simply discard it because they believe it is just another belief system instead of realizing averything that is backing it up such as experimentation and research.

We've seen creationists argue that science is not truth because they think is just a matter of believing or not believing and they ignore all that there is to back it up.

[Kanastrous]

Why the difference between food and medicine?

My father - a retired physician - likes to observe that medicines are generally poisons, that are beneficial in controlled doses when appropriately prescribed, and best avoided unless really, truly necessary.

Whereas food is, well, food.