Minn. Judge Rules Teen Must See Cancer Doctor

Steel X said:
Okay let me ask you this.

Is it REALLY wrong to save a child's life? Even if it includes forcing or violating their religion rights?

Even though it sounds harsh, I say no. The children DESERVE to live no matter the cost. They may not like it at first but they will thank us later on.

God works in many mysterious ways, and everything happens for a reason but we cant depend on God for everything such as a person's in serious illness or whatever.

Think about it...we are smart people. We know what's best for us to get something to take care of us and such.

If we've taken education into studying science and medication, we would easily know these things that would help us live longer.

Miracles only happen VERY rarely but like I said, God works in mysterious ways and we would probably never even be able to understand God, but of course he put us here for a reason. consider this part of the human experience, where you gotta know whats right and wrong and everything.
Click to expand...


:gpost:

A boy´s chance to be survive is 90% which is very good... It´s sad to say that the parents didn´t seem to have the common sense.
 
KarissaMann05 said:
I understand prefectly and I agreed what you said. But you CANNOT tell parents what to do and what to do not. It's their personal choices to make.

Sorry to say this...

You should to remember some people who do not believe in hospitals, and it is NOT fair to take their parental choices.
Click to expand...

The fact is the children are not the parent´s property. The parent´s job task as the caretakers, responsible for the welfare/interest of their children.

I would agree with the parents´s decision if their child´s chance is under 50%.
 
deafskeptic said:
Well said. Though I'm uncomfortable at the thought of infringing on people's religious beliefs, I draw the line at endangering other people's rights.
Click to expand...

Yes, me too.

They should not use their belief against medicial to save child´s life.
 
Originally Posted by Edwin
That's scary! People actually believe everything they read on the internet?!
Click to expand...

Steel X said:
Sadly...yes. They aren't very smart eh?
Click to expand...

Well, we searched websites to find out cons/pros over implant plastic on my son´s fracture skull and discussed with/listen the professor of head specialist clinic over cons/pros before we sign the agreement contract to allow my son to have head surgery. (I am sure that my thread about him somewhere).

We convinced our son in positive way why we want him to have head surgery. He beleive us because he trust us and go ahead to have head surgery.
 
Liebling:-))) said:
Well, we searched websites to find out cons/pros over implant plastic on my son´s fracture skull and discussed with the professor of head specialist clinic over cons/pros before we sign the agreement contract to allow my son to have head surgery. (I am sure that my thread about him somewhere).

We convinced our son in positive way why we want him to have head surgery. He beleive us because he trust us and go ahead to have head surgery.
Click to expand...

:-o what happened???? how did your son fractured his skull??
 
KarissaMann05 said:
I think you forget one thing.

Some people do not believe in hospitals. Their kids are going to either live or die that is base on their personal gods/Gods' choices 'to take' children for various religious reasons. Should gov'ment force the parents to take their kids to hospitals because it's best choice for the parents?

To me, it's too power to control parents' choices. =/
Click to expand...

No,not because it is the best choice for the parent, but because it is the best choice for the child in the case of a life threatening illness.
 
Reba said:
Please explain to me what determines whether or not a child has constitutional rights when it comes to medical decisions. Why do some children have rights, and some don't?
Click to expand...

Whether or not a child is permitted input is decided on a case by case basis when it goes to the courts. But they are not guaranteed a constitutional right to refuse or consent to medical care, paticularly not when they are incapable of determining the consequences of either treatment or their decision. The same can be said of anyone that has a diminished capacity.
 
Reba said:
I don't believe they have to be Indians to join.


Nemenhah Band : Spiritual Adoption


According to the application form:
Click to expand...

They are Catholics. They only found the information on Nemenhah when they started browsing the internet. You cannot adopt a religion out of convenience to support your desire to allow your child to die. If they had been practicing such a religion for some length of time, and lived by all of its principles, then the court would have taken that into consideration. But the fact of the matter is that this family is identified as Catholic.
 
KarissaMann05 said:
I understand prefectly and I agreed what you said. But you CANNOT tell parents what to do and what to do not. It's their personal choices to make.

Sorry to say this...

You should to remember some people who do not believe in hospitals, and it is NOT fair to take their parental choices.
Click to expand...

The Children of God in Montanna practice pedophilia, and claim it as a religious belief. Should they be protected from prosecution for having sex with children just because they say their God tells them to?
 
Reba said:
The Constitution sets down the age limits only for voting and serving in elected offices. It doesn't set an age limit for constitutional protections, such as those included in the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the Constitution.
Click to expand...

And the laws of this land also are set forth to protect those that do not have the means nor the capacity to protect themselves. That is why they are called minors. And if the parents prove to be unable to protect and care for these minors, the state steps in to do so.

It amazes me that a few who are so vocal against the idea of abortion will support a parents right to hasten the death of a 13 year old that is a live and viable human being. Talk about total hypocrisy.
 
Liebling:-))) said:
The fact is the children are not the parent´s property. The parent´s job task as the caretakers, responsible for the welfare/interest of their children.

I would agree with the parents´s decision if their child´s chance is under 50%.
Click to expand...

Uh, I'm aware that children is not their parents' property. I'm not sure why you said to me. =/
 
jillio said:
The Children of God in Montanna practice pedophilia, and claim it as a religious belief. Should they be protected from prosecution for having sex with children just because they say their God tells them to?
Click to expand...

That's different story. I don't think you know what I mean.
 
jillio said:
No,not because it is the best choice for the parent, but because it is the best choice for the child in the case of a life threatening illness.
Click to expand...

If you said so, then it is okay for gov'ment to control or take parents' choices and kids' choices.
 
jillio said:
It amazes me that a few who are so vocal against the idea of abortion will support a parents right to hasten the death of a 13 year old that is a live and viable human being. Talk about total hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

Faith versus logic. Yes, total hypocrisy. That makes it difficult to see her point. Save an aspirin-sized growth in a womb, but support parents with an unusual religion to allow their 13 year old child to die. It ain't logical! In the minds of the hard core religious, we may as well remove hospitals and install more churches. Wonder how many of them send money to the 700 Club and their ilk? How many watched, with some sadness, the end of the PTL empire? An air conditioned dog house, while Jim and Tammy would weep for more money. Oops, am starting to show my cards here....
 
saywhatkid said:
Faith versus logic. Yes, total hypocrisy. That makes it difficult to see her point. Save an aspirin-sized growth in a womb, but support parents with an unusual religion to allow their 13 year old child to die. It ain't logical! In the minds of the hard core religious, we may as well remove hospitals and install more churches. Wonder how many of them send money to the 700 Club and their ilk? How many watched, with some sadness, the end of the PTL empire? An air conditioned dog house, while Jim and Tammy would weep for more money. Oops, am starting to show my cards here....
Click to expand...

One problem with this is that it leaves it wide open to interpretation once this goes on a macro-scale effect. What it comes down to here is basically the fact of a human's individual opinion versus what the law has set for them.

The way some cannot realize this is because they only see that "Everyone must not die in our world." or "The majority chooses this, you should also.", people's choices differ from another.

Maybe this will open the eyes more for others to see why this is such a debacle. There is no yes or no answer.

When the Mayans strictly followed the ritual of sacrifices, say a "Hauser" family in them decided not to follow the ancient rite of passage, and bounced the village, leaving to join some conquistador folks and then began following Catholicism.
Are they to be punished, because they made their own personal choice not to follow the law, although they know what's in store for them?

This is why I drew that CI example earlier, if it makes any sense.

The mother will realize her mistakes if her child does pass away in the form of alternative medicinal neglect.
Let her face her own consequences, what's to say that we must dictate why she must live the way we think she or her son has to?
When it boils down to this.. who is right, an individuals personal decision, or the law, no matter which one is the best, logical, or reasonable choice?
If she or he both had a mental illness, I could see an argument to dispute this, but I don't think that is the case here.
 
naisho said:
When it boils down to this.. who is right, an individuals personal decision, or the law, no matter which one is the best, logical, or reasonable choice?
If she or he both had a mental illness, I could see an argument to dispute this, but I don't think that is the case here.
Click to expand...
Yes, but also consider this....what if someone like Jim Jones was the forefront of the religion she chooses to follow. Or Koresh? I still am not seeing this as a good thing for the child. He has been raised to believe in his mother and her religion. Why is the father calling for her to return? So what happens if/when the child dies? Will she insist it is "God's Plan?" The other question I have here; what about the insurance, if there is a policy on this child. Should they be required to pay for his treatment in Mexico? Should the life insurance be paid if this child dies? The thing is, if they (family) rebuff the court system in this instance, what rights do they have if the insurance company refuses to pay; are they going to use the court system to sue for payment? Why would that be right, yet in this case, the courts are wrong? :noway:
 
jillio said:
And the laws of this land also are set forth to protect those that do not have the means nor the capacity to protect themselves. That is why they are called minors. And if the parents prove to be unable to protect and care for these minors, the state steps in to do so.

It amazes me that a few who are so vocal against the idea of abortion will support a parents right to hasten the death of a 13 year old that is a live and viable human being. Talk about total hypocrisy.
Click to expand...
:confused:

I hope you aren't referring to me. I guess you didn't read all my posts. :dunno:

I support the boy getting chemotherapy.
 
Back
Top