Minn. Judge Rules Teen Must See Cancer Doctor

jillio said:
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.
Click to expand...

Let's say the family is JW, would we be having this discussion then?
 
Edwin said:
Let's say the family is JW, would we be having this discussion then?
Click to expand...

The family is not JW. They are Catholic. Stick to the facts of the case.

But you might want to keep in mind that JW only reject blood transfusions. They have no legal objection to medical treatment other than blood transfusions. This case is about chemotherapy.
 
Originally Posted by Jiro
and that's what i'm talking about. Obesity is a medical neglect by your logic because thousands of parents are ill-informed about proper diet and/or are not very active participants in healthy program as recommended by government and health professionals.
Click to expand...

jillio said:
Please read my posts carefully Jiro. I said LIFE THREATENING OBESITY that can be determined to be MEDICALLY TREATABLE, thereby removing the threat of loosing one's life as a result.

And, yes, a parent that has allowed a 14 year old to reach the weight of 550 lbs, thus putting their life in immediate danger, is guilty of neglect. Especially when they have blatantly ignored all medical advise that would have prevented such.

But I see where you are going with this. Parents should be allowed to risk their child's life or engage in practices that maim, disfigure, and result in their deaths if they want to in the name of freedom.
Click to expand...

Yes, you both are correct.

I thought to myself that those link would be interesting

http://www.alldeaf.com/parenting/39345-fat-boy-may-put-care.html
 
jillio said:
The family is not JW. They are Catholic. Stick to the facts of the case.
Click to expand...

I am. It's just I don't see why the brouhaha over this particular case when there are other situations that are similar. They aren't being charged with medical neglect due to a variety of reasons including religion, like JW.
 
jillio said:
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.
Click to expand...

but...

The judge called the family's belief in holistic medicine, particularly Nemenah, a Native American healing practice, as "genuine and strong."
Click to expand...

Doctors have recommended six rounds of chemotherapy followed by radiation. But after the first round left him ill and weak, Daniel’s parents refused to consent to any more. The second round, scheduled for March, was not administered. That was when the hospital reported the family to the authorities, charging medical neglect.
Click to expand...

so tell me - do parents have rights to refuse the treatment and seek alternative medicine?
 
Edwin said:
I am. It's just I don't see why the brouhaha over this particular case when there are other situations that are similar. They aren't being charged with medical neglect due to a variety of reasons including religion, like JW.
Click to expand...

There have been any number of parents that have been charged with medical neglect for refusing to provide life saving treatment for their children. There have been any number of children removed from the parents' custody for refusal to provide necessary medical care for their children.

You really need to update your assumptions on the matter.
 
Jiro said:
excerpt from NY Times article






:hmm:
Click to expand...

Huh? Can you please tell me where Daniel get those information from when you know that he is an illiterate and can´t search the internet to read himself?

Your link tells itself a lot that Daniel is being brainwashed into beleive that cehmo will kill him but it´s sad that he can´t read... If he can read then he would say that Aspirin can kill, too. Sadly, I can tell that boy have very low self-esteem.

I feel that his parents are involved in child abuse and neglect when they KNEW their son have good chance to be cure. Why runaway for?
 
Jiro said:
but...





so tell me - do parents have rights to refuse the treatment and seek alternative medicine?
Click to expand...

That question is too broad to answer the way you have phrased it. Do parents have the right to hasten their child's death by refusing medical care known to increase their chance of survival from 0% to 90%? No, they don't. It is murder by ommission. Do they have the right to seek alternative medicine along with the care that will preserve their child's life? Yes, they do. But the fact still remains that these people are Catholic, and therefore, do not a have a leg to stand on regarding religious expemption. Just because they found something on a website about herbal healing doesn't make them practitioners of any given religion.

Parents do not have the right to neglect their children to the degree that it causes their death. Just as parents do not have the right to practice a vegan lifestyle to the degree that it causes malnourishment in their children, or to force their children to drink cyanide laced kool-aid because it conforms with their religious belief of the moment.
 
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...

I would be appalled if it´s really true.

Banned doesn´t solve anything but the public health information from Government need to be spread out to help the people to understand about health issues.
 
jillio said:
That question is too broad to answer the way you have phrased it. Do parents have the right to hasten their child's death by refusing medical care known to increase their chance of survival from 0% to 90%? No, they don't. It is murder by ommission. Do they have the right to seek alternative medicine along with the care that will preserve their child's life? Yes, they do. But the fact still remains that these people are Catholic, and therefore, do not a have a leg to stand on regarding religious expemption. Just because they found something on a website about herbal healing doesn't make them practitioners of any given religion.

Parents do not have the right to neglect their children to the degree that it causes their death. Just as parents do not have the right to practice a vegan lifestyle to the degree that it causes malnourishment in their children, or to force their children to drink cyanide laced kool-aid because it conforms with their religious belief of the moment.
Click to expand...

You know - you're hounding on Hausers about their religion. So if they do have a "valid" religious exemption to not receive chemotherapy... is that a medical neglect? and also - it said that they refused the treatment AFTER receiving 1st chemotherapy. That means they have rights to refuse it and seek something else.
 
jillio said:
The government is not dictating anything for anyone. They are preventing these parents from violating the law.
Click to expand...

Exactly


Jillio, I do not need to quote most of your posts because I am with you on everything what you say.



 
Liebling:-))) said:
Exactly


Jillio, I do not need to quote most of your posts because I am with you on everything what you say.
Click to expand...

really? isn't that a contradiction to your post in first page?

Liebling:-))) said:
I realize that force him to have cancer treatment by the court for the doctors, doesn´t solve anything but fulfilling his wish. It´s between him and his parents.
Click to expand...
 
Jiro said:
even if you do not want the certain procedure?
Click to expand...

I told my family doctor that I prefer to use herbal, not pill, tablets. It´s good thing is my family doctor is a herbal expert.

She advised me to take pill/tablets if there´re neccassary where herbal can´t cure. I told her that I would accept her advice because it´s about our life. Example cancer... I would do in heartbeat to save my child´s life or myself if they recommend me to take a chemotherapy and follow doctor´s order because it´s about SAVE LIFE.
 
Liebling:-))) said:
I told my family doctor that I prefer to use herbal, not pill, tablets. It´s good thing is my family doctor is a herbal expert.

She advised me to take pill/tablets if there´re neccassary where herbal can´t cure. I told her that I would accept her advice because it´s about our life. Example cancer... I would do in heartbeat to save my child´s life or myself if they recommend me to take a chemotherapy and follow doctor´s order because it´s about SAVE LIFE.
Click to expand...

I see! So you prefer to go down to alternative medicine FIRST.... and if it doesn't work, then you will try pill/tablets. That's PRECISELY what Hausers parents are doing! They did chemotherapy first and they didn't like it. So they want to try alternative medicine. If it doesn't work, I'm sure they will go back to chemotherapy again.
 
Jiro said:
You know - you're hounding on Hausers about their religion. So if they do have a "valid" religious exemption to not receive chemotherapy... is that a medical neglect? and also - it said that they refused the treatment AFTER receiving 1st chemotherapy. That means they have rights to refuse it and seek something else.
Click to expand...

I have already said Jiro, that religion is not an excuse to hasten your child's death. And whether or not he had 1 round of chemotherapy doesn't have anything to do with anything. They still do not have the right to hasten their own child's death by faliling to provide medical treatment for a fatal illness.

Suppose a parent fed a child one time, and then decided not to feed them again and they died. Did they have the right to decide not to feed the child, even though God told them the child was the spawn of the devil?

This just keeps getting more absurd. I never thought I would see so many people support a parents' right to abuse, neglect, mistreat, and or participate in their child's death.
 
Jiro said:
I see! So you prefer to go down to alternative medicine FIRST.... and if it doesn't work, then you will try pill/tablets. That's PRECISELY what Hausers parents are doing! They did chemotherapy first and they didn't like it. So they want to try alternative medicine. If it doesn't work, I'm sure they will go back to chemotherapy again.
Click to expand...

Well, the x-rays have already shown that the herbals aren't working and that the tumor is increasing dramatically. Did they go back to the chemo? Nope, mom took the poor kid and left the country.
 
Back
Top