Minn. Judge Rules Teen Must See Cancer Doctor

deafskeptic said:
I can disagree with the parents's refusing treatment but I'm afraid I can't do anything as it's his parents who have a right to chose or refuse treatment of their child on religious grounds. Personally, I think it borders on neglect for the child's welfare.
Click to expand...

Yes I second that. I can´t image for reject to have treatment to save my child´s life.
 
I see this situation somewhat similar as no different to CI audists who want to force CI on deaf children.

Although it's not on the same level, since this child's life on the line, the mentality exists and the haggling of "The Doctor's Choice is Recommended" is there.


colbert.gif
 
naisho said:
I see this situation somewhat similar as no different to CI audists who want to force CI on deaf children.

Although it's not on the same level, since this child's life on the line, the mentality exists and the haggling of "The Doctor's Choice is Recommended" is there.


colbert.gif
Click to expand...

CI is elective surgery since cancer isn't.
 
Jiro said:
then I'm sad for this country. I'm especially saddened by your bold statement. I guess you're fine with the government putting an obese on healthy diet.

BTW - I cannot answer your question because I'm not Daniel Hauser. You'll have to ask him.
Click to expand...

They have already asked him, and determined that he is not competent to make those decisions.

And if the child is obese to the point that their life is in danger, and it is the result of neglect on behalf of the parent, then yes, I am in favor of it. Why should parents be given a free ride to abuse and neglect their children?
 
naisho said:
I see this situation somewhat similar as no different to CI audists who want to force CI on deaf children.

Although it's not on the same level, since this child's life on the line, the mentality exists and the haggling of "The Doctor's Choice is Recommended" is there.


colbert.gif
Click to expand...

It is quite different. Deafness isn't fatal.
 
jillio said:
You are an adult. If you want to endanger your life, you are free to do so.
Click to expand...

I had seen alot of children are overweight and some are obese, none of our government are taking advantage or little advantage of children, it does same with other countries when obesity rate is increase.

I can take care of my life, even government is supposed not interfere with my life.
 
jillio said:
You are an adult. If you want to endanger your life, you are free to do so.
Click to expand...

no..... you missed the point. What about parents of obese children? Is that medical neglect? Should the government step in and place the obese children in foster home?
 
Foxrac said:
I had seen alot of children are overweight and some are obese, none of our government are taking advantage or little advantage of children, it does same with other countries when obesity rate is increase.

I can take care of my life, even government is supposed not interfere with my life.
Click to expand...

Like I said...you are free to endanger your life if you choose. You are an adult. However, a parent does not have the right to neglect or abuse their children. If they are engaging in practices that endanger the life of their child, then they are guilty of breaking the law.
 
There's good example about in Mississippi, the government is trying to pass the bill to ban on obesity people to take service at fast food or restaurant but I don't know about status if law has been passed or not.
 
Foxrac said:
There's good example about in Mississippi, the government is trying to pass the bill to ban on obesity people to take service at fast food or restaurant but I don't know about status if law has been passed or not.
Click to expand...

if it did pass, it would most likely be repealed as unconstitutional by higher court. just a guess.
 
Jiro said:
no..... you missed the point. What about parents of obese children? Is that medical neglect? Should the government step in and place the obese children in foster home?
Click to expand...

If it has been determined that the parent is engaging in practices that have directly endangered the life of their child, then yes, it is neglect. If it has been determined that the child is grossly obese (as in the case of the 550lb 14 year old) due to a medical condition that needs to be treated in order to control the obesity, then yes, that parent is guilty of medical neglect. If the child is grossly obese simply because the parent refuses to provide an adequate diet and discipline regarding eating habits, then that parent is guilty of simple neglect. Obese is not the issue. Life threatening obesity is the issue. Life threatening cancer is the issue.
 
jillio said:
Like I said...you are free to endanger your life if you choose. You are an adult. However, a parent does not have the right to neglect or abuse their children. If they are engaging in practices that endanger the life of their child, then they are guilty of breaking the law.
Click to expand...

Your post does nothing to represent me because you just expressed your opinion that what we know about it.

I'm expressing my opinion about government shouldn't interfere with everybody.
 
naisho said:
I have a feeling that the oralists who push to do so see that kind of from a different perspective...
Click to expand...

I don't doubt that you are correct....however, deafness is still not a fatal disease.
 
jillio said:
If it has been determined that the parent is engaging in practices that have directly endangered the life of their child, then yes, it is neglect. If it has been determined that the child is grossly obese (as in the case of the 550lb 14 year old) due to a medical condition that needs to be treated in order to control the obesity, then yes, that parent is guilty of medical neglect. If the child is grossly obese simply because the parent refuses to provide an adequate diet and discipline regarding eating habits, then that parent is guilty of simple neglect. Obese is not the issue. Life threatening obesity is the issue. Life threatening cancer is the issue.
Click to expand...

then I guess thousands of parents are now charged with child endangerment and the kids will be placed in government care. I guess the government knows the best what's good for us. :roll:
 
jillio said:
I don't doubt that you are correct....however, deafness is still not a fatal disease.
Click to expand...

death or not - the end result is not an issue. it's the legal process that's an issue in here.

What would happen if he died from chemotherapy as ordered by court?
 
Jiro said:
then I guess thousands of parents are now charged with child endangerment and the kids will be placed in government care. I guess the government knows the best what's good for us. :roll:
Click to expand...

Well, I suppose you can come to that conclusion using the logic that you are employing here, but in order for it to stand up, you will have to substantiate the fact that there are thousands of children whose lives are in danger from medical neglect.

This is not a case of child endangerment. It is a case of medical neglect. Two different charges, two different sets of criteria.
 
Foxrac said:
CI is elective surgery since cancer isn't.
Click to expand...

The doctor's perspective, I mean, Foxrac. Not the patient/kid/his mom's side.
The doctors and oralists will likely be saying to potential patients "But CI will do your child good, statistics will show 90% of CI users are happy and we recommend this for everyone! Your child will be brand new!"

The only difference here is, the kid's life is endangered, and the parents chose what they wanted over the doctor's recommendation, it's kind of similar the way I see it to parents who refuse the CI except like jillio's viewpoint is, the difference is that this isn't a fatal disease.
 
Back
Top