Minn. Judge Rules Teen Must See Cancer Doctor

What do you suppose?

Is a 13-year-old boy old enough to refuse medical care? Are well meaning, but possibly ill-informed, parents entitled to support and encourage him in that refusal? And what is a court to do if Daniel — who believes chemotherapy itself will kill him — physically refuses treatment? Tie him to a bed? Anesthetize him?

“I understand it would be difficult, but would you do it?” Daniel’s lawyer asked.
Click to expand...

what would you do as a doctor?
 
Jiro said:
that is PRECISELY what I'm talking about. The abuse and neglect of the children were mostly limited to non-medical related. The hospital reported medical neglect on parents just because the parents did not want to go thru 2nd stage of chemotherapy.

I am well aware of why the hospital reported them Jiro. Not going through the second round of chemo was denying medical treatment for a life threatening illness. Medical neglect is an accepted subheading under the category of neglect. There are all types of neglect. Medical neglect is one of them.

This precedent will give the doctors even more authority than parents - more like a defacto legal guardian. Can you even imagine the doctor would exercise this same authority by using this precedent to implant the CI in child? They would argue that it's for the sake of child's life in the future because by not implanting CI, the child will face abuse and neglect in the coming future.

Again, stop playing on emotions. We are talking about a fatal illness, not a CI. This is a life and death situation. A decision in this case does not set precedent for anything like CI surgery. And whether you know it or not, children are removed from the custody of their parents for medical neglect quite a bit. Even more often, they remain in parental custody, but ordered to provide treatment for the child's illness. Failure to do so means the child is removed, and the parent violating the order is jailed. The authority is not given to the doctor. The authority is the court.
this precedent will enable the doctors to do same way for obese children. and special needs children. and many more.
Click to expand...

No, it won't. That argument is absurd. Again, an attempt to appeal to the emotions and a complete abandonment of logic.
 
Jiro said:
so......... how are you gonna treat him to chemotherapy?
Click to expand...

I hadn't planned to treat him to chemotherapy. I might treat him to ice cream, or to a movie. But I would treat him with chemotherapy. And I answered that question. In accordance with the law and the ethical guidelines as set forth by the profession.
 
:roll:

They aren't raising him. They are ending his life. Big difference.
 
KarissaMann05 said:
That's why I NEVER believe in freedom of religions! :roll:
Click to expand...

Ditto

I’m total surprise to see some comments here and other threads over “freedom of speech”, "freedom of choice" or "freedom of religions".

Okay if I started a cult or whatever which mean is allow to abuse/neglecht my children then I would not get punishment because of freedom of speech, freedom of religions and freedom of choice? :roll: Unfortunlately some religion beliefs consider it as discriminate if Government want to restrict the freedom of religions to aviod any sex violence, abuse, neglect, etc.

Yes we have the right to practice any religion if we like to since we have both freedom of speech and religion.

I support the freedom of religion should be restriction because I beleive in is good and safe for the children’s welfare and interest etc., it should not abuse the people, also violence etc due their "belief".

I´ve read a lot about sex violence, etc due their "belief". It brainwash the people and could be end to kill them... ... I find good that the government do something to restrict the religions to protect the people´s safetly.
 
KarissaMann05 said:
Well, then there is no such freedom of religions.

Vegan is not a religion.

Yes, I know. You forget vegan people do not want animal testing medical supplies nor I do. Mostly doctors never understand why non-testing medical stuff is important to vegans, they tend to give them some animal testings when they refused. Same with people never understand why religious beliefs are important to religious people, gov'ment forced to take kids to hospital, which is against their beliefs.
Click to expand...

I only want you aware about the Vegan parents over death of their baby...

http://www.alldeaf.com/current-even...eir-baby-death-diet-soy-milk-apple-juice.html

What about this?




 
Edwin said:
It was a reference to the government in raising kids since certain parents don't know how to raise their own kids. :)
Click to expand...

Uh, yeah...it was obvious what it was a reference to. My reply is still the same.
 
Jiro said:
Correct me if I'm wrong but doctors CANNOT perform the medical procedure against the patient's wish as it's against their medical ethics.
Click to expand...


Its about save life. The doctors CAN force to save children´s life when they know that they have very good chance to be cure. 90%? wow, very good chance.
 
Edwin said:
Wouldn't their parents be charged with medical neglect as well?
Click to expand...

Probably. But since some religions do have a recognized objection to conventional medical treatment, they would have a valid claim to religious exemption. This family is Catholic. There is nothing in Catholic Doctrine to support their claim of religious objection.

Religion simply isn't a valid excuse for allowing your child to die when it can be prevented.
 
Jiro said:
um.... child sex is a crime. child abuse is a crime. choosing the medicine for their child is not a crime.
Click to expand...

I´ve read your posts...

This is a pointless argument.

Remember, the children are not parent´s property but takecarers, responsible for the welfare of their children. If they didn´t take care property which mean is they are not doing their job. The state can take abused/neglecht children away from their parents. Its about protect the children´s welfare an safety.

I as parent decide for my child, listen the doctor´s advice because I want to help my child. The child is my responsible.
 
Liebling:-))) said:
I´ve read your posts...

This is a pointless argument.

Remember, the children are not parent´s property but takecarers, responsible for the welfare of their children. If they didn´t take care property which mean is they are not doing their job. The state can take abused/neglecht children away from their parents. Its about protect the children´s welfare an safety.

I as parent decide for my child, listen the doctor´s advice because I want to help my child. The child is my responsible.
Click to expand...

even if you do not want the certain procedure?
 
Back
Top