Father battles goverment for right to deny his child chemo

[ANGELUS]

[quote="FA XerrikThis just reminds me of the dilemma posed in the movie Whose Life Is It Anyway?, namely that care is being imposed into a situation where it isn't asked for. I'm not going to claim the father isn't wacky for turning down such a high success rate procedure. It simply grates me that the choice is being made for the parties involved instead of by them.[/quote]

So, you would just let that moron make the decission based on his stupidity and ignorance and let the kid die?

[Alerik the Fortunate]

One of the parties involved, namely the child who needs the treatment, is already having the decision made for him. The question is merely, will it be made by someone competent or not? Though how the decision will affect the child's attitude and quality of life is important, insofar as the parents will have a stronger emotional bond with the child.

[General Zod]

This just reminds me of the dilemma posed in the movie Whose Life Is It Anyway?, namely that care is being imposed into a situation where it isn't asked for. I'm not going to claim the father isn't wacky for turning down such a high success rate procedure. It simply grates me that the choice is being made for the parties involved instead of by them.

If the person who was being treated in the article was an adult, and if the medical complications were even remotely comparable (50/50 curable vs incurable paralysis), you'd have a valid comparison. But it isn't and they aren't, so you don't.

[FA Xerrik]

So, you would just let that moron make the decission based on his stupidity and ignorance and let the kid die?

Yes. If you were to actually read what I posted, you'd note I didn't say I agree with the guy, or what he wants for his kid. I'm not responsible for taking care of this kid however, the father is.

One of the parties involved, namely the child who needs the treatment, is already having the decision made for him. The question is merely, will it be made by someone competent or not?

That's an interesting way to think of it. Like I've said several times, I'm not claiming that withholding care is the choice I'd make. I don't agree with what the father is doing. I disagree with lots of choices that people around me make every day too. That doesn't mean I think the State or Big Brother or God or whoever should swoop down from on high and take the choice away from them. Back to this particular case, is it the role of the state or the role of the parent to care for a child until they reach 18? It rubs me the wrong way for the state to intervene in a personal matter to this degree. It seems akin to a rape victim being denied an abortion because of the unborn childs "right to life." Granted, this kid is already alive, so the analogy only goes so far. However, the right to life doesn't equate to a duty to life. If the father and child are rejecting treatment, whatever their reasons or motivations, isn't that choice up to them?

[General Zod]

That's an interesting way to think of it. Like I've said several times, I'm not claiming that withholding care is the choice I'd make. I don't agree with what the father is doing. I disagree with lots of choices that people around me make every day too. That doesn't mean I think the State or Big Brother or God or whoever should swoop down from on high and take the choice away from them.

Would you disagree with the state taking away children from sexually or physically abusive parents? Why should taking them away from parents who actively deny them life-saving medical care be any different? In all examples the child is being harmed by a negligent or intentionally malicious parent who cannot be trusted with their care. The form of harm is different but entirely preventable all the same.

[FA Xerrik]

This just reminds me of the dilemma posed in the movie Whose Life Is It Anyway?, namely that care is being imposed into a situation where it isn't asked for. I'm not going to claim the father isn't wacky for turning down such a high success rate procedure. It simply grates me that the choice is being made for the parties involved instead of by them.

If the person who was being treated in the article was an adult, and if the medical complications were even remotely comparable (50/50 curable vs incurable paralysis), you'd have a valid comparison. But it isn't and they aren't, so you don't.

I didn't say the two were comparable. I said the article reminded me of the film, then elaborated that in both cases patients wishes are being overruled. Both cases boil down to the patients right to refuse treatment, but beyond that you're absolutely right the comparison fails. The situations are very different, and anything more than the superficial resemblance I noted between the two would be invalid.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

So, you would just let that moron make the decission based on his stupidity and ignorance and let the kid die?

Yes. If you were to actually read what I posted, you'd note I didn't say I agree with the guy, or what he wants for his kid. I'm not responsible for taking care of this kid however, the father is.

And by denying that kid treatment, he is shirking his responsibility, thus someone else has to take of the reigns, ignorance is no excuse.

That doesn't mean I think the State or Big Brother or God or whoever should swoop down from on high and take the choice away from them. Back to this particular case, is it the role of the state or the role of the parent to care for a child until they reach 18?

It's the role of the state to preserve the lives and livelyhoods of as many people under its jurisdiction as possible, and to make some effort to get people out of harmful situations that they didn't voluntarily enter into. This kid's parents AREN'T caring for him because they are insisting on the choice that puts him in much greater danger.

Hate to break it to you, but someone's life is more important than someone's 'right' to deny treatment to their offspring. The parent's aren't caring for this kid, so yes, the state should 'swoop in' and take control of the matter.

It rubs me the wrong way for the state to intervene in a personal matter to this degree. It seems akin to a rape victim being denied an abortion because of the unborn childs "right to life."

Wow, false analogy, anyone? Bringing a fetus to term is a huge investment, a load of pain, and quite a tangible health risk to the mother. Taking this kid away from his moron parents who are voluntarily placing him in much greater danger hurts no one and saves the kid's life in the process.

However, the right to life doesn't equate to a duty to life. If the father and child are rejecting treatment, whatever their reasons or motivations, isn't that choice up to them?

No. The father does *not* have the right to deny someone else's treatment, and the kid is *not* old enough to make a mature decision about it, thus the state can and should intervene.

[FA Xerrik]

Would you disagree with the state taking away children from sexually or physically abusive parents? Why should taking them away from parents who actively deny them life-saving medical care be any different? In all examples the child is being harmed by a negligent or intentionally malicious parent who cannot be trusted with their care. The form of harm is different but entirely preventable all the same.

That's not a very apt comparison to this situation. I wouldn't disagree with removing children from an abusive situation, because parents don't have a right to abuse their children. There are laws against it. They do have a right to determine what medical treatments their child will undergo, however. Is the father legally unfit to be a guardian? Stupidity alone is not a crime.

[Kitsune]

Stephen Jay Gould had peritoneal mesothelioma and was given an average of eight months to live. He took the various medical treatments and live almost another 20 years. It did come back and kill him in the end but he gave us much in the meantime.

[FSTargetDrone]

No. The father does *not* have the right to deny someone else's treatment, and the kid is *not* old enough to make a mature decision about it, thus the state can and should intervene.

Not only is he not old enough, he is apparently functioning at the level of someone several years younger. I wonder if he would even necessarily be able to make a competent decision on his own when he was legally an adult.

[General Zod]

That's not a very apt comparison to this situation. I wouldn't disagree with removing children from an abusive situation, because parents don't have a right to abuse their children. There are laws against it. They do have a right to determine what medical treatments their child will undergo, however. Is the father legally unfit to be a guardian? Stupidity alone is not a crime.

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

[FA Xerrik]

Wow, false analogy, anyone?

My very next sentence, if you'd bothered to quote it, admitted to the limited applicability of the analogy. I've been called out on these twice now, so I'll pick my words more deliberately from now on.

No. The father does *not* have the right to deny someone else's treatment, and the kid is *not* old enough to make a mature decision about it, thus the state can and should intervene.

I'll repeat the question from my previous post: Is the father legally unfit to be a guardian? You're absolutely right that the child is not old enough to make this choice, nor does it sound like he is mentally capable even if he were old enough. That's why he has a legal guardian, in this case the father.

[ANGELUS]

Yes. If you were to actually read what I posted, you'd note I didn't say I agree with the guy, or what he wants for his kid. I'm not responsible for taking care of this kid however, the father is.

I read what you posted and I didn't claim you agreed with this guy.

That's not a very apt comparison to this situation. I wouldn't disagree with removing children from an abusive situation, because parents don't have a right to abuse their children. There are laws against it. They do have a right to determine what medical treatments their child will undergo, however. Is the father legally unfit to be a guardian? Stupidity alone is not a crime.

What the heck do you think it is to deny your diying son of propper medical treatment just because you want to?? guess what? it is abuse!

Sorry to break your little bubble, but the fact is that he is an unfit parent that is endangering his son's life just because he wants to. And it is in no way different that putting him in any other situation that most likely would cost his life.

Can you even grasp the concept of child negligence??

[FA Xerrik]

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.

[Alerik the Fortunate]

There is no crime in belief, but there is in imperiling another's life by acting on a belief.

[ANGELUS]

Since when is it invalid?

Since it has no proven medical benefits.

Rather, what's illegal about choosing it over chemo?

Negligenge that will result in a child's death.

The father obviously thinks it will work,

Which makes him an ignorant asshole, what is your point?

and there's no crime in belief.

Belief is not a crime by itself, but it is a primitive, idiotic and baseless behaviour that has been shown to lead to criminal activities countless times in history.

[General Zod]

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.

The next time you get in a life-threatening accident, I hope instead of calling an ambulance, someone prays for you. Cause there's no crime in belief *I'm a smarmy asshole*?

[FA Xerrik]

The next time you get in a life-threatening accident, I hope instead of calling an ambulance, someone prays for you. Cause there's no crime in belief *I'm a smarmy asshole*?

As I stated numerous times, I DON'T BELIEVE THE SAME THINGS AS THIS YOKEL. I'll take the ambulance thanks much, asshole. Try a reading comprehension course and quit sticking words in my mouth. I won't continue to belabor this point, since there's obviously an issue between my presentation and what people are reading. 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. 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. And he's allowed to feel that way. 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.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

First of all, this is happening in Canada, you dumbshit. Anyway, the freedom of religious expression is not the same as a right to murder, just like you can't shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, duh. This is splendid, and I wish it happened all the time.

For that matter I wish someone had forcibly made my parents vaccinate me, instead of forcing me to deal with it as an adult at no inconsiderable expense.

[Kanastrous]

For that matter I wish someone had forcibly made my parents vaccinate me, instead of forcing me to deal with it as an adult at no inconsiderable expense.

Wow. Did receiving any of your shots as an adult, involve risks specific to having had them so late?

[Alerik the Fortunate]

I'd like to know, since I've got to go get some shots for measles & related infections in order to register for next semester, since I grew up without any immunizations.


Xerrik: you are apparently extending the right of the man to believe to cover his right to act on that belief in a way that affects others

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. And he's allowed to feel that way. 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.

By this reasoning, Al Qaeda should be permitted to carry out their operations unhindered by government forces because it stems from their beliefs. The moral autonomy of the family is an absurd idea propagated by conservatives to favor the power of the church over civil society since the church cannot directly influence the government anymore (at least not officially), and only gets accepted because of custom, and out of a fear of totalitarian states who have a vested interest in controlling the youth. That is a slippery slope fallacy in assuming that the state's interest in protecting its youth inexorably leads to the state's assertion of the right to regulate religious belief.

[General Zod]

As I stated numerous times, I DON'T BELIEVE THE SAME THINGS AS THIS YOKEL. I'll take the ambulance thanks much, asshole. Try a reading comprehension course and quit sticking words in my mouth. I won't continue to belabor this point, since there's obviously an issue between my presentation and what people are reading. 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. 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. And he's allowed to feel that way. 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.

My point flew completely over your head, but considering you're a stupid twat that's not expected. There is no freedom to deny someone medical treatment based on your personal religious views. There are dozens of cases worth of precedent for this, so take your whining about religious freedom and shove it up your ass, please.

Since you weren't able to grasp what I was driving at earlier, my point had nothing to do with what you would choose, but what someone else would choose to do instead. By your backasswards logic, it's totally fine for anyone to deny someone medical treatment based on their preferred religious nuttery with no risk of repercussion. However, since people have been held legally responsible for such bullshit before, your point has no weight aside from demonstrating your own personal ignorance. Was that obvious enough or should I start using crayon?

[General Zod]

As I stated numerous times, I DON'T BELIEVE THE SAME THINGS AS THIS YOKEL. I'll take the ambulance thanks much, asshole. Try a reading comprehension course and quit sticking words in my mouth. I won't continue to belabor this point, since there's obviously an issue between my presentation and what people are reading. 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. 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. And he's allowed to feel that way. 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.

My point flew completely over your head, but considering you're a stupid twat that's not unexpected. There is no freedom to deny someone medical treatment based on your personal religious views. There are dozens of cases worth of precedent for this, so take your whining about religious freedom and shove it up your ass, please.

Since you weren't able to grasp what I was driving at earlier, my point had nothing to do with what you would choose, but what someone else would choose to do instead. By your backasswards logic, it's totally fine for anyone to deny someone medical treatment based on their preferred religious nuttery with no risk of repercussion. However, since people have been held legally responsible for such bullshit before, your point has no weight aside from demonstrating your own personal ignorance. Was that obvious enough or should I start using crayon?

Ghetto edit for clarity.

[Darth Ruinus]

It simply grates me that the choice is being made for the parties involved instead of by them.

The parties involved cant make the decision by themselves, the dad is an idiot and the child cant make any form of informed decision on the matter.

[FA Xerrik]

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. 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.