NationStates Jolt Archive

A Minnesota judge ruled Friday that a 13-year-old cancer patient must be evaluated by a doctor to determine if the boy would benefit from restarting chemotherapy over his parents' objections.So, the judge has ordered that the kid has to undergo treatment if it's found that chemo can help him live.

One of he parents-
Daniel was diagnosed with Hodgkin's lymphoma and stopped chemotherapy in February after a single treatment. He and his parents opted instead for "alternative medicines" based on their religious beliefs.

Child protection workers accused Daniel's parents of medical neglect; but in court, his mother insisted the boy wouldn't submit to chemotherapy for religious reasons and she said she wouldn't comply if the court orders it.-has threatened to refuse to comply with the court order citing "religious beliefs" as their defense against the possibility that their child could continue to live using technology readily available to them.


"My son is not in any medical danger at this point," Colleen Hauser testified at a court hearing last week. She also testified that Daniel is a medicine man and elder in the Nemenhah Band.

The family's attorney, Calvin Johnson, said Daniel made the decision himself to refuse chemotherapy, but Brown County said he did not have an understanding of what it meant to be a medicine man or an elder.

Court filings also indicated Daniel has a learning disability and can't read.

(Nemenhah was founded in the 1990s by Philip Cloudpiler Landis, who said Thursday he once served four months in prison in Idaho for fraud related to advocating natural remedies.) The current choicee of treatment.


Doctors have said Daniel's cancer had up to a 90 percent chance of being cured with chemotherapy and radiation. Without those treatments, doctors said his chances of survival are 5 percent.If the child goes untreated, he has a 5% chance of survival, but (With proper and prompt treatment) he has an 85% increase in survivability.

( Here is (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ap_on_he_me/us_med_forced_chemo) the article.)

What does NSG think about the court order?

If this was a simpler case: person doesn't want the treatment, would rather die than go through lifesaving treatment,just can't be bothered with the whole life thing, and they were distinctly shown to be of the mental capacity to make that decision, then I wouldn't think a court order could possibly be ethical.

However, this isn't these things. He's thirteen and has had an apparent lifetime of his parents bringing him up with beliefs that aren't just questionable. They're based in evidence incorrect. He's making his choice based on the belief that he will get better by following these 'alternative' cures, which just won't occur. He's apparently taking this choice in the belief that he will live through it, which is unlikely. Given the case that he's not well informed enough to make this decision, and given he certainly doesn't seem to want to die, I think a court order making sure that he gets the best treatment is sound. You can't hold someone so young fully responsible for spouting the BS they've heard their whole lives after all.

If he was an adult, I'd say let him make his own choice.

As he's only 13 and his parents are obviously mentally deficient, the court has made the correct decision in ordering chemo therapy.

The child dying would eliminate the evident stupid in the parents from the human gene pool.

What's the downside, again?

What's the downside, again?
Ineffective trolls?

A 13 year old is a medicine man and an elder to these people? Forgive me if I take anything they say with a grain (http://www.dlund.20m.com/images_new/Arail0512e.JPG) of salt.

Personally I think a 13 year is capable of choosing whether they wish to undergo chemo or not. Though I think he is a fool as Hodgkin's is one of the most successfully treated forms of cancer. Still one less wacky religious person is no great loss to the world.

What does NSG think about the court order?

Make it a combo deal. The kid's parents can refuse treatment for their child, but their lifespan is now tied to his if they refuse. He dies, they die shortly after. See how hard they cling to their beliefs then.

Less controversially, it can be argued to be willful neglect, maybe even manslaughter, much in the vein of that idiot pair of vegan parents who deliberately malnourished their child on a diet that let it die of starvation.

Personally I think a 13 year is capable of choosing whether they wish to undergo chemo or not. Though I think he is a fool as Hodgkin's is one of the most successfully treated forms of cancer. Still one less wacky religious person is no great loss to the world.

So if you're a religious and possibly brainwashed kid you deserve to die? Nice.

The child dying would eliminate the evident stupid in the parents from the human gene pool.

What's the downside, again?

Because their stupidity is inherited rather than indoctrinated, right? Oh wait...

And I like the implication that if you're stupid we should let you die. Pity we live in one of those nice societies with a little thing called "human rights."

So if you're a religious and possibly brainwashed kid you deserve to die? Nice.

Why do you hate freedom so? I am pro-choice, pro-euthenasia and consistent. Are you proposing that people shouldn't have freedom of religion? Or should children be removed from religious parents to stop them being brainwashed?

its a good decision. the parents are willing to let their son die and he isnt capable of making the decision himself.

its a good decision. the parents are willing to let their son die and he isnt capable of making the decision himself.

But didn't you hear? He's a medicine man! He probably knows more about curing cancer than the quacks that spent years in 'med school'

I've been reading about this Nemenhah Band. It's not so much a religion as it is a scam taking advantage of religion. On the upside, they distribute peyote and I really want to see a 13 year old cancer patient tripping on peyote. Does that make me a bad person?

But didn't you hear? He's a medicine man! He probably knows more about curing cancer than the quacks that spent years in 'med school'
and he can continue with that once he is cured of cancer.

there are situations where i would agree with the family. if the situation were that he had a 5% chance of survival with treatment instead of a 90% i would say that there is no sense forcing the child into a losing treatment.

I've been reading about this Nemenhah Band. It's not so much a religion as it is a scam taking advantage of religion. On the upside, they distribute peyote and I really want to see a 13 year old cancer patient tripping on peyote. Does that make me a bad person?

If it does then we can be bad people together. I'll get some beers and you start on the tacos.

If it does then we can be bad people together. I'll get some beers and you start on the tacos.

SOunds like a plan. :)

Here's a thought: Maybe they can compromise and give the kid radioactive peyote.

SOunds like a plan. :)

Here's a thought: Maybe they can compromise and give the kid radioactive peyote.

If peyote-chemo worked it would be a huge step forward in cancer treatment.

Because their stupidity is inherited rather than indoctrinated, right? Oh wait...

And I like the implication that if you're stupid we should let you die. Pity we live in one of those nice societies with a little thing called "human rights."

And what has the fiction called "Human rights" achieved? Protecting people from their own stupidity has resulted in an incredible surplus of stupid people in our gene pool.

As for the OP: The boy should get the medical treatment he needs, and his parents should be prevented from ever breeding again.

SOunds like a plan. :)

Here's a thought: Maybe they can compromise and give the kid radioactive peyote.

I would be worried about creating some kind of crazy hippy superhero.

If peyote-chemo worked it would be a huge step forward in cancer treatment.

I would be worried about creating some kind of crazy hippy superhero.

AN army of crazy hippy superhero cancer survivors. What could go wrong? :D

The child dying would eliminate the evident stupid in the parents from the human gene pool.

What's the downside, again?

The downside is the bolded part.

At some level I just gotta say....let him die. It shouldn't be the business of the US government to save people from their own choices.

If this was a simpler case: person doesn't want the treatment, would rather die than go through lifesaving treatment,just can't be bothered with the whole life thing, and they were distinctly shown to be of the mental capacity to make that decision, then I wouldn't think a court order could possibly be ethical.

However, this isn't these things. He's thirteen and has had an apparent lifetime of his parents bringing him up with beliefs that aren't just questionable. They're based in evidence incorrect. He's making his choice based on the belief that he will get better by following these 'alternative' cures, which just won't occur. He's apparently taking this choice in the belief that he will live through it, which is unlikely. Given the case that he's not well informed enough to make this decision, and given he certainly doesn't seem to want to die, I think a court order making sure that he gets the best treatment is sound. You can't hold someone so young fully responsible for spouting the BS they've heard their whole lives after all.
^^^This

Why do you hate freedom so? I am pro-choice, pro-euthenasia and consistent. Are you proposing that people shouldn't have freedom of religion? Or should children be removed from religious parents to stop them being brainwashed?

Ok, this looks like a black/white fallacy with a dash of straw man thrown in. And a bit of fear-mongering about religious parents losing their children, as well.

I do not object to freedom of religion. Nowhere did I say that I objected to freedom of religion. But if freedom of religion imposes on the rights of others, it has to be stopped, at times. Would you cry "freedom of religion" if that religion involved killing all heathens? Or human sacrifices? Just how stupid are you? If you're wondering who's rights this imposes on, I could argue that the parents are imposing on the rights of the child, who is too young to make the decision for himself.

However, all the misses the point that I was never actually talking about weather they should be allowed to do it. I was primarily attacking you for the following statement: "Still one less wacky religious person is no great loss to the world." Hence, my question about weather you felt that being a religious and possibly brainwashed child meant deserving to die.

Ineffective trolls?

I agree with him. Idiocy should be its own punishment. Especially applies here because it isn't the parents' idiocy and refusal, it is the kid's. All we need is more dumbasses reproducing.

And what has the fiction called "Human rights" achieved? Protecting people from their own stupidity has resulted in an incredible surplus of stupid people in our gene pool.

You will of course provide evidence that killing stupid people or letting them die (who determines what is "stupid" enough to remove someone's rights for it?) would result in less stupidity. You will prove that stupidity of this sort is genetic and not a result of social conditioning?

Also, I would like to know what exactly you mean by human rights being fiction.

As for the OP: The boy should get the medical treatment he needs, and his parents should be prevented from ever breeding again.

I'd have no problem with them having future children if they changed their beliefs enough to take care of them properly. But as that is not currently the case, they should lose custody of whatever children they have. If, however, you are talking about forced sterilization, I would object both on the grounds that an irreversable medical procedure denies them the chance to be parents in the future should their beliefs change in a manner that allows them to be responsible parents (and some people do change), as well as on the grounds that having the state determine the criteria for being physically capable of breeding probably opens up a great many opportunities for corruption and abuse.

I agree with him. Idiocy should be its own punishment. Especially applies here because it isn't the parents' idiocy and refusal, it is the kid's. All we need is more dumbasses reproducing.

Explain how being "stupid" in these circumstances (that is, probably brainwashed), makes one deserving of death.

You know, people like you do a grave disservice to science as well, as your advocacy of eugenics based on evolutionary theory will probably help Christian conservatives in their efforts to link the scientific theory of evolution to the social policy of eugenics. In short, you bullshit is not only inhumane, but likely helps bolster a particularily dangerous Ad hominem attack.

I agree with him. Idiocy should be its own punishment. Especially applies here because it isn't the parents' idiocy and refusal, it is the kid's. All we need is more dumbasses reproducing.

All kids are stupid.

All kids are stupid.

Better to say that all people are capable of great stupidity, and everyone disagrees on what is stupid. Really, if stupidity makes one deserving to die, the trick is determining who we keep alive.

Miracles are possible. I know Canadians that have survived Hodgkins, despite their National Health System.

Miracles are possible. I know Canadians that have survived Hodgkins, despite their National Health System.

Must... resist... urge... to start... health care debate.;)

Explain how being "stupid" in these circumstances (that is, probably brainwashed), makes one deserving of death.
The parents are brainwashed and, not to mention, stupid, the kid is a crackpot.

You know, people like you do a grave disservice to science as well, as your advocacy of eugenics based on evolutionary theory will probably help Christian conservatives in their efforts to link the scientific theory of evolution to the social policy of eugenics.
Eugenics, like the Swastika, was demonized by the Nazis. You think of Stalin used eugenics anyone would piss and moan? No.

Miracles are possible. I know Canadians that have survived Hodgkins, despite their National Health System.

And I imagine they didn't go completely broke doing it! Now if that happened in America, it would be a true miracle.

All kids are stupid.

"I am an elder and shaman in a religion designed to defraud people!" is a particular kind of stupid.

I do not object to freedom of religion. Nowhere did I say that I objected to freedom of religion. But if freedom of religion imposes on the rights of others, it has to be stopped, at times.

So you don't object to freedom of religion you just think it should be stopped? Or is it just certain religions whose beliefs you don't agree with? Or is it just the rights of parents you wish to trample on?

Would you cry "freedom of religion" if that religion involved killing all heathens? Or human sacrifices?

Strawman

Just how stupid are you?

Flaming

If you're wondering who's rights this imposes on, I could argue that the parents are imposing on the rights of the child, who is too young to make the decision for himself.

However, all the misses the point that I was never actually talking about weather they should be allowed to do it. I was primarily attacking you for the following statement: "Still one less wacky religious person is no great loss to the world." Hence, my question about weather you felt that being a religious and possibly brainwashed child meant deserving to die.

'Whether' is the word you are looking for. Could you point out where I said he deserved to die - I just said he wouldn't be particularly missed.

The parents are brainwashed and, not to mention, stupid, the kid is a crackpot.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but presuming the parents indoctrinated the child in their beliefs and not the other way around, how is this accurate?

Eugenics, like the Swastika, was demonized by the Nazis. You think of Stalin used eugenics anyone would piss and moan? No.

I don't think Stalin is exactly popular in the western world. Certainly not in America.

So you don't object to freedom of religion you just think it should be stopped? Or is it just certain religions whose beliefs you don't agree with? Or is it just the rights of parents you wish to trample on?

I disagree with any religious beliefs that advocate allowing someone to needlessly die. If that makes me a bigot in your eyes, I can assure you I don't give a damn.

As for the rights of the parents, they do not extend to negligence or manslaughter.

Strawman

How so? You are treating religious freedom as something that can be limited under no circumstances, and implying that I must be against freedom of religion if I believe it should be limited in certain cases. My examples serve to point out the stupidity of such a position if taken to its extreme, and are entirely relevant.

I'm aware that you probably realize the impracticality of placing freedom of religion above all other rights and freedoms, especially since one person's freedom of religion may impose on another's under certain circumstances (in general, not this specific case). I'm also aware that this is probably a reason why you attempted to dodge my point by accusing me of a fallacy.

Flaming

If a mod, not you, feels it was a violation of rules, I shall apologise.

'Whether' is the word you are looking for.

You would not be the first poster to try to gain ground in a debate by attacking my spelling. I don't know if that was your intent, but I consider such a tactic to be both a form of ad hominem (attacking the person instead of the argument) and potentially a sign of a poor debater.

I disagree with any religious beliefs that advocate allowing someone to needlessly die. If that makes me a bigot in your eyes, I can assure you I don't give a damn.

As for the rights of the parents, they do not extend to negligence or manslaughter.



How so? You are treating religious freedom as something that can be limited under no circumstances, and implying that I must be against freedom of religion if I believe it should be limited in certain cases. My examples serve to point out the stupidity of such a position if taken to its extreme, and are entirely relevant.

I'm aware that you probably realize the impracticality of placing freedom of religion above all other rights and freedoms, especially since one person's freedom of religion may impose on another's under certain circumstances (in general, not this specific case). I'm also aware that this is probably a reason why you attempted to dodge my point by accusing me of a fallacy.



If a mod, not you, feels it was a violation of rules, I shall apologise.



You would not be the first poster to try to gain ground in a debate by attacking my spelling. I don't know if that was your intent, but I consider such a tactic to be both a form of ad hominem (attacking the person instead of the argument) and potentially a sign of a poor debater.

Can't show me where I said he deserved to die? Thought not. I tend to think the sign of a poor debater is going round calling people stupid - that would be an ad hominem attack now wouldn't it.

Also, I would like to know what exactly you mean by human rights being fiction.Was't my post, but hey... Easy: There is no such thing as 'Human Rights', 'Inalienable Rights', etc. etc. blah blah blah. There's of course 'Laws' concerning them. There's philosophy, there's popular belief. But all these things can change. In act, them changing is the reason the concept of 'Human Rights' exists.

But ultimately, there's only two kinds of rights. Rights you're willing to fight for, and rights you're not willing to fight for.

You've the former. You don't have the latter.

Everything else is delusional.Explain how being "stupid" in these circumstances (that is, probably brainwashed), makes one deserving of death.He's not three. He's thirteen. He does, in fact, have a mind on his own. He's clearly full enough of himself to believe that his magic powers will help him. I'm afraid I've little pity for him.

Is he a fully grown and developed adult? No. Is he, well, smart? No. But he's not a child entirely dependent on what his parents tell him, either.

He's a borderline case. Yes, I can see why the courts would think it proper to force treatment on him.

I can also see why courts could decide not to do this, though.

Oh lord. Aboriginal wannabes. I want to kick their asses for that alone. They are making a fucking ridiculous mockery of what it means to be a medicine man and an elder. 'Gifted' children are not elders.

That being said, I don't immediately assume this child is incapable of making this choice, even recognising that legally he may lack capacity. I hate the idea of forcing western medical treatment on people, especially when it comes to cancer. I know of a number of people using alternative methods to treat terminal cancers that have managed to live far beyond what they would have had they left their care in the hands of western medicine. The fact that they could possibly be sanctioned for this is very disturbing.

I understand that the argument is not that Daniel doesn't have the right to choose treatment or not, but rather that he is incapable of making an informed decision. Yet one has to wonder how blurred that distinction becomes in practice.

Miracles are possible. I know Canadians that have survived Hodgkins, despite their National Health System.

Nice spin. I'd ask you to back it up, but we both know that'd be pointless.

At some level I just gotta say....let him die. It shouldn't be the business of the US government to save people from their own choices.

This was my initial reaction, but then I thought, what if this was my rebellious 13 year old? My smart-ass-thinks-he-knows-it-all 13 year old? I think I'd probably want to be able to force the little fucker to live so I could continue to ruin his life.

Miracles are possible. I know Canadians that have survived Hodgkins, despite their National Health System.

One of my friends was diagnosed with Hodgkin's, she began receiving treatment within a month of diagnosis and is almost done her chemo. This is in Canada. Also, the treatment doesn't cost anything extra unlike the same treatment in the country to the south of me. The anti-nausea pills are another matter.

Oh lord. Aboriginal wannabes. I want to kick their asses for that alone. They are making a fucking ridiculous mockery of what it means to be a medicine man and an elder.I don't know. Getting high, and dancing around a campfire while wearing more facepaint than a thirty-year old disco chick wanting to appear 'Hip' does a good job of that all on its own.

I hate the idea of forcing western medical treatment on people,So do I. The US government was the devil when it offered to vaccinate injuns against smallpox in the second half of the 19th century. I mean, seriously now... Western Medicine!

I know of a number of people using alternative methods to treat terminal cancers that have managed to live far beyond what they would have had they left their care in the hands of western medicine.I know a bunch of people who lived far beyond what they should've managed, judging by their tobacco consumption. Thus, I agree. Western medicine, especially with regards to cancer, is primitive and just plain wrong. Cigarettes and cancer, pft. Chemotherapy. Pft. All lies, deception, and scams.

We should all pray to our pantheon of choice, and hope the great manitou protects us from cancer.

And brings back the buffalo.

Can't show me where I said he deserved to die? Thought not.

Not technically, or explicitly. However, it seemed implied by the statement I quoted perviously, that his death would be "no great loss."

If I misinterpreted or misrepresented your position I apologise, but it was I believe unintentional, and provoked by what I still consider to be a false and reprehensible statement. How again do you quantify the worth of a human life?

I tend to think the sign of a poor debater is going round calling people stupid - that would be an ad hominem attack now wouldn't it.

I suppose it might be, and it was probably a hasty and ill-considered statement. So I'll retract it. Of course, we all say things in anger and frusteration that were not intended as serious arguments or as factual statements.

And its not like my position is based on that. It would be nice to see you try taking on some of my other arguments. Specifically, you have yet to explain how I used a strawman, or how my position opposes either freedom of religion, or the rights of parents.

I don't know. Getting high, and dancing around a campfire while wearing more facepaint than a thirty-year old disco chick wanting to appear 'Hip' does a good job of that that all on its own.

Excuse me?

Can you please explain to whom you are referring in this statement? Because if you are saying that aboriginal people do this, your ignorance is staggering.

So do I. The US government was the devil when it offered to vaccinate injuns against smallpox in the second half of the 19th century. I mean, seriously now... Western Medicine!

Western medicine is not the end all be all of medical knowledge. Until very recently, chinese medicine, for example, was not a legitimate practice in countries that ascribed to Western medicine. Practicioners, western and otherwise, have since found that medicine from a holistic perspective, including various disciplines, works better than these systems on their own. Western medicine is no longer 'it' and the law needs to continue to recognise this.



I know a bunch of people who lived far beyond what they should've managed, judging by their tobacco consumption. Thus, I agree. Western medicine, especially with regards to cancer, is primitive and just plain wrong. Cigarettes and cancer, pft. Chemotherapy. Pft. All lies, deception, and scams. Yes, all quite amusing. Not sure why you're quoting me here, since I've never dismissed western medicine.

The persons I am referring to had exhausted their treatment options under the legal western regime, and were sent home to die with their loved ones. They accessed a chemical mixture (note, not traditional aboriginal medicine, just in case you want to make some more idiotic assumptions) that is unapproved (in fact illegal) and yet has been shown to be effective in various studies. Were they to rely entirely on what options were open to them under the health care system, they would be dead. They are not.

We should all pray to our pantheon of choice, and hope the great manitou protects us from cancer.

And brings back the buffalo. You've diverged so far from anything that I've said, that I really see no reason to address your non-point.

Was't my post, but hey... Easy: There is no such thing as 'Human Rights', 'Inalienable Rights', etc. etc. blah blah blah. There's of course 'Laws' concerning them. There's philosophy, there's popular belief. But all these things can change. In act, them changing is the reason the concept of 'Human Rights' exists.

The fact that these rights are the result of human laws would not make them any less real. A legal right is still a right. And the fact that laws can be changed doesn't mean they should be.

I'm an agnostic, so I won't say weather their are Inalienable Rights from some divine source. I will say, however, that certain things are universally right or wrong, weather or not it is only as a result of their practical consequences, and that our laws should reflect that.

But ultimately, there's only two kinds of rights. Rights you're willing to fight for, and rights you're not willing to fight for.

You've the former. You don't have the latter.

Of course. No one said you don't have to fight for rights. That they are not handed out on a silver platter does not mean they don't exist.

Everything else is delusional.He's not three. He's thirteen. He does, in fact, have a mind on his own. He's clearly full enough of himself to believe that his magic powers will help him. I'm afraid I've little pity for him.

Is he entirely responsible if he's been raised to believe from a younger and more impressionable age that he has those powers? Unless I missed something, he didn't start this religion.

Is he a fully grown and developed adult? No. Is he, well, smart? No. But he's not a child entirely dependent on what his parents tell him, either.

No, but if they've been telling it to him since he was... You know, there is such a thing as indoctrination.

To what extent does that apply here? I'm not sure. Their are a great many important specifics of the case about which I'm likely unaware. But if he's been indoctrinated since early childhood, that should be factored in to your view of his intelligence and ability to determine these things for himself.

Also, I would point out that the law does not consider 13 year olds in general mature enough to vote or consent to sex. What then makes them mature enough to consent to die, a choice which has far more drastic and permanent implications than the choice to have sex or vote nessissarily does?

He's a borderline case. Yes, I can see why the courts would think it proper to force treatment on him.

I can also see why courts could decide not to do this, though.

I'm not a law student, and I don't know much about the law on this subject. So I'll admit I'm approaching this more from a moral than a practical legal standpoint.

It would be nice to see you try taking on some of my other arguments. Specifically, you have yet to explain how I used a strawman, or how my position opposes either freedom of religion, or the rights of parents.

The reason I thought it was a strawman was that you were assuming that I believed that there were no limits to religious freedom, even to the extent of it trumping laws against murder. This would be extending religious freedom to a ridiculous extent that few people would ever claim to be right. That I do not hold that position does not invalidate my view that these people are entitled to their own beliefs. It is my opinion that a 13 year old is mature enough to make their own decisions about medical treatment. While I agree that the parents have a lot of influence on someone of that age I don't think you can actually characterise it as 'brainwashing'. I would suggest that he should be removed from their influence and then given a chance to reconsider his decision.

Western medicine is not the end all be all of medical knowledge. Until very recently, chinese medicine, for example, was not a legitimate practice in countries that ascribed to Western medicine. Practicioners, western and otherwise, have since found that medicine from a holistic perspective, including various disciplines, works better than these systems on their own. Western medicine is no longer 'it' and the law needs to continue to recognise this.I've told you this once before:

There is no such thing as western medicine. There are exactly three kinds of medicine.
Medicine that works.
Medicine that doesn't work.
Medicine that has not yet undergone the thoroughly rigorous process of scientific testing. To be moved to one of the above categories as soon as it has
Where a given treatment originated from, which ethnic group or culture developed it, is completely irrelevant. What matters is whether it works. Everything else is bullshit, plain and simple, and trying to categorise it in 'Traditional Native', 'Chinese', 'Western' or whatever is moronic.

If traditional, alternative, western, martian or alpha centaurian treatments work, if they go through the testing and show they're worth it (As a number of them have), there's no problem. If they don't, there is a problem.

None of this has anything to do with where or who developed it. Consequently, I strongly suggest you cease thinking in these mildly retarded categories.

Yes, all quite amusing. Not sure why you're quoting me here, since I've never dismissed western medicine.Only implied it. I'm sorry.

The persons I am referring to had exhausted their treatment options under the legal western regime, and were sent home to die with their loved ones. They accessed a chemical mixture (note, not traditional aboriginal medicine, just in case you want to make some more idiotic assumptions) that is unapproved (in fact illegal) and yet has been shown to be effective in various studies. Were they to rely entirely on what options were open to them under the health care system, they would be dead. They are not.Sauce? I'm not doubting that it happened. I'd, however, like to know what the side effects of this chemical mixture are. See, I strongly suspect that it's a matter not dissimilar to, for example, thalidomide - which, although it can keep cancer in check, carries other risks that, in most countries, result (Or resulted) in its ban.

Nice spin. I'd ask you to back it up, but we both know that'd be pointless.
What? Is it that hard to believe the NHS let someone survive?

What? Is it that hard to believe the NHS let someone survive?

Thread derailment complete in three... two... one...

Seriously, that's so silly I'm not even sure how I'd respond to it.

Eugenics, like the Swastika, was demonized by the Nazis. You think of Stalin used eugenics anyone would piss and moan? No.

Have you noticed that the "Nazis did it, so it's bad" fallacy has been almost completely replaced by the "you only think it's bad because Nazis did it" fallacy? How about we just leave the Nazis out of it entirely? The U.S. has its own rich history with eugenics ("Three generations of idiots is enough", anyone?) and there are plenty of ethical and legal issues to explore without invoking any names of famous dictators.

I've told you this once before: Have you now? I doubt I saw it, or really cared, since you are not exactly the authority on the matter.

There is no such thing as western medicine. There are exactly three kinds of medicine.
'Western medicine (http://books.google.ca/books?id=dJEWZq0bq8kC&dq=western+medicine&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=TU-nQGxbgD&sig=M2kLoC2xNzmYIPGB5rwwD0GxXHg&hl=en&ei=EgEPSt2mOOKGmQeDjt2DCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5#PPR10,M1)', regardless of how you'd like to now define it, refers to the specific philosophical and scientific developments within specific geographical regions that has resulted in the kind of medicine that is practiced most in North American and Western Europe.



Medicine that works.
Medicine that doesn't work.
Medicine that has not yet undergone the thoroughly rigorous process of scientific testing. To be moved to one of the above categories as soon as it has
Where a given treatment originated from, which ethnic group or culture developed it, is completely irrelevant. What matters is whether it works. Everything else is bullshit, plain and simple, and trying to categorise it in 'Traditional Native', 'Chinese', 'Western' or whatever is moronic.
Your categories hardly find backing in usage. Western medicine developed in a certain way, Chinese medicine developed in an entirely different way, and so on. To ignore that is pointless. This is how real people speak about medicine.

If traditional, alternative, western, martian or alpha centaurian treatments work, if they go through the testing and show they're worth it (As a number of them have), there's no problem. If they don't, there is a problem. This is done at the level of the whole, not on the level of the individual. Individuals do not have the resources, or the time, to do this, or wait for it to be done. If individuals wish to access treatments that have not yet been absolutely proven to work, that should be their choice. It may be a terrible gamble, but we make these kinds of decisions all the time. Should I invest in that stock? Should I study this or that? Should I marry this one or that one?

The idea, the Western medical idea, supported by western legal traditions, that you should not access medicines that have as yet to be proven effective according to western medical standards...is not one I support if it is being used to take away the right of people to make choices about their own treatment.

The issue here is one of capacity because of this boy's age...nonetheless, many people do think about it as an issue of choice as well. Where do you sit on each of those issues? Your babbling above enlightens me not at all on the subject. It simply reminds me that you began this exchange with cultural slurs and ridiculous assumptions about my position, and that you have continued in that vein for no discernable purpose. Care to get back on track?

None of this has anything to do with where or who developed it. Consequently, I strongly suggest you cease thinking in these mildly retarded categories.

Your desire to pretend that historical developments have no in any way shaped the way medicine is regulated and delivered is laughable, but not really the point of this thread.

Only implied it. I'm sorry. The implication is entirely yours. I suggest that if you wish to continue telling me my opinions, that you research my posts in order to back yourself up. Pulling these statements out of your ass is a smelly, smelly business.

Sauce? I'm not doubting that it happened. I'd, however, like to know what the side effects of this chemical mixture are. See, I strongly suspect that it's a matter not dissimilar to, for example, thalidomide - which, although it can keep cancer in check, carries other risks that, in most countries, result (Or resulted) in its ban.
Sauce? Are we making pasta?

I'm referring to DHA (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=468623) (docosahexaenoic acid) which is not an approved treatment in Canada. Right now it is an illegal, 'alternative' medicine. Considering that the people using it have exhausted all other legal treatments, and the alternative to not trying DHC is death regardless, those side effects that you refer to really aren't going to be worse.

The people using it are not campaigning or saying, let everyone use this, it's working for us! They are exercising their choice to use an illegal substance to treat their terminal disease. If they were actively prevented from doing so, they would die.

The issue is one of choice. A friend of mine, watching her sister die, sustained by the DHA for now a year past her expected death, has made a very different choice. Were she to discover she had cancer, she said she would refuse the chemo, the radiation, all the treatment that has turned her sister into a paranoid shadow of herself...she'd use whatever alternative treatment she could find, even if it meant she died. At least, she believes, she'd die with her mind intact, and her personality undestroyed.

I support the right of individuals to refuse approved treatments and seek others, regardless of whether those other treatments have been proven to work or not. The issue is blurred when we are discussing those who may not have the capacity to understand the choice they are making.

You with us again? Or will you simply continue to rant and make up other people's positions for them?

The idea, the Western medical idea, supported by western legal traditions, that you should not access medicines that have as yet to be proven effective according to western medical standards...is not one I support if it is being used to take away the right of people to make choices about their own treatment.

I agree with what I think you're saying, and some of what I think LN is saying but without the snark. Medicine SHOULD be about what works and what doesn't, but the fact is, it's not. It's about what the FDA approves, what pharmaceutical companies stand to gain, and whose pockets money goes into. Too much is lumped under the term "alternative" medicine, and many of us in the Western world are led to believe that all alternative medicine involves homeopathy or mumbling to crystals, when there are a lot of unresearched and unapproved treatments out there that could have real medical value.

I support the right of individuals to refuse approved treatments and seek others, regardless of whether those other treatments have been proven to work or not. The issue is blurred when we are discussing those who may not have the capacity to understand the choice they are making.

Again, agreed. Even if people want to use treatments that I personally believe and studies have shown to be worthless--like homeopathy--they should be allowed to use them. The really tough issue for me in this case is whether the boy is not only old enough to make this decision, but whether he has been allowed access to enough information to make it.

Many people could argue that 13 is old enough to make this choice, and in some cases, I might agree. The restrictive nature of this child's upbringing, however, calls that into question. There are plenty of jokes to be made about education in the U.S., but there just aren't that many 13 year olds that can't read. They say this is due to a learning disability. It seems to me that this boy has either not been given a proper education that accommodates his special needs, or his mental development is so impaired that he is unable to learn to read at this point. Either way, there's an argument to be made that he's unprepared to make life-or-death decisions.

Many people could argue that 13 is old enough to make this choice, and in some cases, I might agree. The restrictive nature of this child's upbringing, however, calls that into question. There are plenty of jokes to be made about education in the U.S., but there just aren't that many 13 year olds that can't read. They say this is due to a learning disability. It seems to me that this boy has either not been given a proper education that accommodates his special needs, or his mental development is so impaired that he is unable to learn to read at this point. Either way, there's an argument to be made that he's unprepared to make life-or-death decisions.

Yup. Which is why I'm glad that at least in the cases of minors, these situations are looked at contextually. There is no bright line rule in regards to capacity of minors in these situations. Hopefully they will look at the totality of circumstances and determine whether this child actually understands the decision before him.

Yup. Which is why I'm glad that at least in the cases of minors, these situations are looked at contextually. There is no bright line rule in regards to capacity of minors in these situations. Hopefully they will look at the totality of circumstances and determine whether this child actually understands the decision before him.

If only they would occasionally take this approach outside of the medical world.

If only they would occasionally take this approach outside of the medical world.

I'm sure they will, someday. The day my parents buy me that pony I've been asking for since I was six.

Have you now? I doubt I saw it, or really cared, since you are not exactly the authority on the matter.This account has a total of 500 posts. I reckon it's not hard for you to check.

'Western medicine (http://books.google.ca/books?id=dJEWZq0bq8kC&dq=western+medicine&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=TU-nQGxbgD&sig=M2kLoC2xNzmYIPGB5rwwD0GxXHg&hl=en&ei=EgEPSt2mOOKGmQeDjt2DCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5#PPR10,M1)', regardless of how you'd like to now define it, refers to the specific philosophical and scientific developments within specific geographical regions that has resulted in the kind of medicine that is practiced most in North American and Western Europe.You're missing the point (Not that I'm surprised by this). If you want to research, as you say, 'Specific philosophical and scientific developments within specific geographical regions', sure, apply the term. The context will be a historical one.

Unsurprisingly, a historical context is utterly irrelevant when it comes to the effectiveness of a given treatment. Unless you're saying that scientific rigor is something limited to the west...

In which case I'd say that yes, western medicine is the only way to go. But since scientific rigor is an essentially philosophical - not a medical - concept, and historically not limited to the west, I'd rather not.

Your categories hardly find backing in usage. Western medicine developed in a certain way, Chinese medicine developed in an entirely different way, and so on. To ignore that is pointless. This is how real people speak about medicine.No. This is how people speak about its history, and quacks speak about medicine.

This is done at the level of the whole, not on the level of the individual. Individuals do not have the resources, or the time, to do this, or wait for it to be done. If individuals wish to access treatments that have not yet been absolutely proven to work, that should be their choice. It may be a terrible gamble, but we make these kinds of decisions all the time. Should I invest in that stock? Should I study this or that? Should I marry this one or that one?Interestingly, this has been tried in the past. Allowing people to make up their own minds, no controls involved. Turned out that it didn't work out, since for every legitimate alternative, there's about ten quacks that'll, for all practical intends and purposes, kill you.

It's the reason we invented universities and degrees, apprenticeships and such. Yes, there are people who, despite receiving no formal education, can do awesome things, make inventions, gain fascinating insights, using their dilettante efforts to do all kinds of great things, be it astronomy or pottery.

But for every one worthwhile case, there's ten, or a hundred quacks and ignorant failures. And it was found that it's probably a good idea to go with a, well, 'Bureaucratic' process. It may be slower, and it may waste the occasional talent, but overall, it tends to kill less people than the alternative.

The idea, the Western medical idea, supported by western legal traditions, that you should not access medicines that have as yet to be proven effective according to western medical standards...is not one I support if it is being used to take away the right of people to make choices about their own treatment.Because, of course, drinking from a flask of holy water the pope bathed in should be a viable alternative, and wont hurt people at all.

Not even an extreme example. It may not be something you've come across yet, but it is the inevitable result of what you're suggesting. Whether you like it or not.

To me at least, this is not a good idea.

Your desire to pretend that historical developments have no in any way shaped the way medicine is regulated and delivered is laughable, but not really the point of this thread.Funny, I haven't said such a thing. I suppose you think I may have implied such...?

Well, either way. No, I'm not denying varying historical developments. I'm denying the idea that somehow, the unproven - or, frequently, disproven - is 'Medicine'.

The fact is that modern medicine accepts the occasional 'Traditional' method. Isolates active agents from herbs. Actively seeks them out, even. Discusses accupuncture. Do all these turn into 'Western' medicine because they end up being accepted as effective treatments?

In turn, do aspects of 'Western Medicine' - say, the load of shit Galen produced - suddenly cease being 'Western' because they were found to be wrong centuries ago?

Both of this has to be the case if 'It's Proven!' is to be the essence of 'Western Medicine'.

You'lll excuse me for thinking that this is a very, very stupid idea.

The implication is entirely yours. I suggest that if you wish to continue telling me my opinions, that you research my posts in order to back yourself up. Pulling these statements out of your ass is a smelly, smelly business."I hate the idea of forcing western medical treatment on people"

Sauce? Are we making pasta?Welcome to the internets. I heared you're new here?

I'm referring to DHA (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=468623) (docosahexaenoic acid) which is not an approved treatment in Canada. Right now it is an illegal, 'alternative' medicine. Considering that the people using it have exhausted all other legal treatments, and the alternative to not trying DHC is death regardless, those side effects that you refer to really aren't going to be worse.A brief check shows nothing illegal, given that it tends to occur naturally in assorted foodstuffs, among other things... Looks to me like it hasn't yet finished testing - but there's nothing stopping you from taking it as a supplement. Or, hell, in your daily diet.

This account has a total of 500 posts. I reckon it's not hard for you to check.

Sorry...who are you? I haven't noticed you, and no, I'm not going to go through your posts to get to know you better. I don't really care.

You're missing the point (Not that I'm surprised by this). If you want to research, as you say, 'Specific philosophical and scientific developments within specific geographical regions', sure, apply the term. The context will be a historical one.

No. You are the one insisting that I use your taxonomy, when we are speaking in layman's terms, since none of us here has professed to be a medical professional. Your insistance that your taxonmy is correct, and that anything else is...what was the term..."moronic", ignores the context of this conversation. You have stated that the origins of a certain medical practice is irrelevant...and yet that is entirely false within the context of this dicussion. Wester medical practices are the ones that the court in this case would insist upon, and that is based on the historical development of said medicine alongside the legal development of its regulation within the western legal system. I'm sorry that you're getting confused by this topic, but really now, it's your own fault.



Unsurprisingly, a historical context is utterly irrelevant when it comes to the effectiveness of a given treatment. Unless you're saying that scientific rigor is something limited to the west... Historical context is entirely relevant when it comes to understanding which medical treatments are researched, approved, and at times, legally enforced.

You see, once again, we're not just talking about the effectiveness of medicine, we're talking about choice. When choice is removed, the issue of effectiveness is not the only consideration, rather, what 'fits' into the western medical paradigm is paramount. Every age believes their medical advances are solid, sound, and comprehensive. History shows us that mixing law and medicine in regards to personal choice can create great injustice.

In which case I'd say that yes, western medicine is the only way to go. But since scientific rigor is an essentially philosophical - not a medical - concept, and historically not limited to the west, I'd rather not.

No. This is how people speak about its history, and quacks speak about medicine. This is how people in general speak about medicine. I'm sorry you're so removed that you lack an understanding of common parlance.

Interestingly, this has been tried in the past. Allowing people to make up their own minds, no controls involved. Turned out that it didn't work out, since for every legitimate alternative, there's about ten quacks that'll, for all practical intends and purposes, kill you.

It's the reason we invented universities and degrees, apprenticeships and such. Yes, there are people who, despite receiving no formal education, can do awesome things, make inventions, gain fascinating insights, using their dilettante efforts to do all kinds of great things, be it astronomy or pottery.

But for every one worthwhile case, there's ten, or a hundred quacks and ignorant failures. And it was found that it's probably a good idea to go with a, well, 'Bureaucratic' process. It may be slower, and it may waste the occasional talent, but overall, it tends to kill less people than the alternative.

Very nice. Not sure what your point is. The issue is not about deregulating medicine. It's about not forcing individuals to access 'approved' medical procedures they want nothing to do with.

Because, of course, drinking from a flask of holy water the pope bathed in should be a viable alternative, and wont hurt people at all. If it's what someone wants to do, instead of filling a prescription at a pharmacy, it's entirely within your right to mock them for it...but once again this is about whether the court should FORCE someone to accept a certain treatment. You get sidetracked so easily it appears.

Not even an extreme example. It may not be something you've come across yet, but it is the inevitable result of what you're suggesting. Whether you like it or not. Since you apparently don't understand what I'm suggesting, even though I've restated it a number of times, I'll just point out that once again, you've let assumptions get the better of you.

Funny, I haven't said such a thing. I suppose you think I may have implied such...?

And I quote, "None of this has anything to do with where or who developed it. Consequently, I strongly suggest you cease thinking in these mildly retarded categories." Related to your earlier statement: "Where a given treatment originated from, which ethnic group or culture developed it, is completely irrelevant. What matters is whether it works. Everything else is bullshit, plain and simple, and trying to categorise it in 'Traditional Native', 'Chinese', 'Western' or whatever is moronic."

To which I replied:

"Your desire to pretend that historical developments have no in any way shaped the way medicine is regulated and delivered is laughable, but not really the point of this thread."

You have flat out stated that historical developments are outside of the scope of this conversation, and I have stated that those developments are precisely the context within which this conversation is taking place, as historical understandings of 'western' medicine is what informs the courts...courts that have developed alongside these 'western' medical developments. It's nice that you have decided you misspoke, however. :


Well, either way. No, I'm not denying varying historical developments. I'm denying the idea that somehow, the unproven - or, frequently, disproven - is 'Medicine'.
Wow, could it be that referring to things as 'western medicine' versus 'traditional medicine' etc might actually serve a purpose!? You see, when we say 'western medicine', you, the listener, immediately understand the system being discussed. You are no doubt no likely to get that system mixed up with aboriginal healing techniques, because we don't call those techniques 'western medicine'. No, you don't get to reserve the term 'medicine', just like you don't get to reserve the term 'law' for the western commonlaw system alone. Medicine, as with law, is a concept, a practice with certain goals. We differentiate between systems with things called adjectives.

Glad you agree.

The fact is that modern medicine accepts the occasional 'Traditional' method. Isolates active agents from herbs. Actively seeks them out, even. Discusses accupuncture. Do all these turn into 'Western' medicine because they end up being accepted as effective treatments?

Of course they become western medicine. They are stripped, isolated, and taken out of the medicinal practice they originated in. Medicine is as much a cultural practice as a 'medical' one. Just because acupuncture originated in the chinese medical system, it does not mean you are experiencing chinese medicine when you go to James Greer, MD for your weekly acupuncture treatment.

In turn, do aspects of 'Western Medicine' - say, the load of shit Galen produced - suddenly cease being 'Western' because they were found to be wrong centuries ago?Both of this has to be the case if 'It's Proven!' is to be the essence of 'Western Medicine'.

You'lll excuse me for thinking that this is a very, very stupid idea. Well, you've introduced another adjective, haven't you, to help you out if this confuses you. Modern western medicine, versus western medicine, within the context of historical discussion of the evolution of Western Medicine.


"I hate the idea of forcing western medical treatment on people"

Yes. This statement stands. You'll note I haven't dismissed western medicine. The assumptions you made in your first post that I was responding to involved your idiotic statements about praying to spirits, something about buffalo, and wearing facepaint. You should really keep track of the things you say if you want to avoid further confusion.

Welcome to the internets. I heared you're new here? The internets are the reason you can't spell source? Interesting.

A brief check shows nothing illegal, given that it tends to occur naturally in assorted foodstuffs, among other things... Looks to me like it hasn't yet finished testing - but there's nothing stopping you from taking it as a supplement. Or, hell, in your daily diet.

Getting it in large enough doses to be useful for cancer treatment, however, is restricted. It is a controlled substance.

Oh lord. Aboriginal wannabes. I want to kick their asses for that alone. They are making a fucking ridiculous mockery of what it means to be a medicine man and an elder. 'Gifted' children are not elders.

That being said, I don't immediately assume this child is incapable of making this choice, even recognising that legally he may lack capacity. I hate the idea of forcing western medical treatment on people, especially when it comes to cancer. I know of a number of people using alternative methods to treat terminal cancers that have managed to live far beyond what they would have had they left their care in the hands of western medicine. The fact that they could possibly be sanctioned for this is very disturbing.

I understand that the argument is not that Daniel doesn't have the right to choose treatment or not, but rather that he is incapable of making an informed decision. Yet one has to wonder how blurred that distinction becomes in practice.

So where do you stand on radioactive peyote?

I don't think Stalin is exactly popular in the western world. Certainly not in America.

Which is actually part of my point. Everything the Nazis did is more evil because the Nazis did it. Even if the soviets did it, no one cares as much as if the Nazis did it.

Which is actually part of my point. Everything the Nazis did is more evil because the Nazis did it. Even if the soviets did it, no one cares as much as if the Nazis did it.

To which I again refer you to the oft-made argument that "you only think it's bad because the Nazis did it!"

I am not a fan of invoking Godwin's name, because often times Nazi Germany IS a good historical, extreme situation to use in comparison and the hypothetical. However, the use of it in this argument is the kind of lazy application that brought about Godwin's law in the first place.

At some level I just gotta say....let him die. It shouldn't be the business of the US government to save people from their own choices.

I would agree if he were an adult. As he is a 13-year-old who can't even read to look information up for himself, and the court did not seem to believe he was capable of making an informed decision, I think it is the function of the state to step in and protect him, in the same way that it would be the function of the state to stop his parents from throwing him off a cliff even if the child happily consented and really believed he was going to fly.

This was my initial reaction, but then I thought, what if this was my rebellious 13 year old? My smart-ass-thinks-he-knows-it-all 13 year old? I think I'd probably want to be able to force the little fucker to live so I could continue to ruin his life.

Well that's a slightly different situation. I agree that parents should have some degree of control, even ability to force their minor children to undergo life saving procedures.

But in this instance, the parents don't want him to, and the child, despite not being a legal adult, is still old enough to be conceptually aware of the consequences of his decision. And he doesn't want to either.

Neither the child, nor his legal guardians, desire him to undergo this procedure. There's no indication that any of them are mentally disabled or incompetent. It's their choice.

I mean sure, we could argue that it's the obligation of the parents to ensure the health and safety of the child, and they're failing that, but I'm not sure that's too great an argument here. It's a long and dangerous road we take when we start taking children away from parents because we disagree with them.

If the child were younger and incapable of making his own decision, perhaps I'd agree. But he's old enough that we should at least consider his wishes. He doesn't want it. His parents don't want it. Yes, as a consequence, he will probably die.

But that's his choice.

To which I again refer you to the oft-made argument that "you only think it's bad because the Nazis did it!"

I am not a fan of invoking Godwin's name, because often times Nazi Germany IS a good historical, extreme situation to use in comparison and the hypothetical. However, the use of it in this argument is the kind of lazy application that brought about Godwin's law in the first place.

It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued, that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact

Godwin itself has become a fallacy to stop any and all Nazi comparisons, even valid ones. And in fact, calling Godwin in this case only provides fuel to my complaint that eugenics are supposedly uber evil because the Nazis did it where that belief would not be as prevalent if the Nazis hadn't.

I would agree if he were an adult. As he is a 13-year-old who can't even read to look information up for himself, and the court did not seem to believe he was capable of making an informed decision, I think it is the function of the state to step in and protect him, in the same way that it would be the function of the state to stop his parents from throwing him off a cliff even if the child happily consented and really believed he was going to fly.

active versus passive distinction. Throwing him off a cliff would directly be causing harm to him where no harm was coming. This is different, it's letting the cancer take its course, and battling it in a way they choose to battle it, based on their religious convictions.

At some level, the state has to step aside and allow them to live their life according to those convictions. He may not be old enough to legally make all decisions for himself, but he's old enough that we should at least consider his wishes into the equation.

I feel the best choice is to order the parents, and him, into a room with a few doctors and allow them a few hours to explain exactly what his odds are, and exactly what's going to happen to him. He can't access the information by himself? Fine, the court should make damned sure he has that information. And after he's become thoroughly and utterly aware of the fact that he almost certainly will die a slow, excruciatingly agonizing death, if he still wants to not do it, and his parents still want to not do it....at some point, who are we to interfere with the consequences of their decisions?

active versus passive distinction. Throwing him off a cliff would directly be causing harm to him where no harm was coming. This is different, it's letting the cancer take its course, and battling it in a way they choose to battle it, based on their religious convictions.

At some level, the state has to step aside and allow them to live their life according to those convictions. He may not be old enough to legally make all decisions for himself, but he's old enough that we should at least consider his wishes into the equation.

I feel the best choice is to order the parents, and him, into a room with a few doctors and allow them a few hours to explain exactly what his odds are, and exactly what's going to happen to him. He can't access the information by himself? Fine, the court should make damned sure he has that information. And after he's become thoroughly and utterly aware of the fact that he almost certainly will die a slow, excruciatingly agonizing death, if he still wants to not do it, and his parents still want to not do it....at some point, who are we to interfere with the consequences of their decisions?

Oh, no question that we should consider his wishes. I just think situations like this should be taken on a case-by-case basis. If the court is persuaded that a particular child really does understand what the decision they're making entails, then I wouldn't support mandating treatment against his will. But if - as seems to be true in this case - the court feels that the child simply is not competent to make such a decision for themselves, then I do support it. I mean, look at it this way - I don't think anyone in their right mind would support letting a toddler decide on their own medical treatment, right? No matter how much a particular two-year-old wants to treat his cancer by eating cookies, I would not be particularly okay with that toddler's parents figuring, hey, we don't need medical treatment for our sick child, we'll just give him cookies, because that's what he wants. I would, on the other hand, absolutely support a mentally competent adult deciding to refuse all treatment. Since there has to be a line somewhere between those two extremes, I'd rather see that line be case-specific rather than just deciding that if you're over a certain age, you're good to go.

Oh, no question that we should consider his wishes. I just think situations like this should be taken on a case-by-case basis. If the court is persuaded that a particular child really does understand what the decision they're making entails, then I wouldn't support mandating treatment against his will. But if - as seems to be true in this case - the court feels that the child simply is not competent to make such a decision for themselves, then I do support it. I mean, look at it this way - I don't think anyone in their right mind would support letting a toddler decide on their own medical treatment, right? No matter how much a particular two-year-old wants to treat his cancer by eating cookies, I would not be particularly okay with that toddler's parents figuring, hey, we don't need medical treatment for our sick child, we'll just give him cookies, because that's what he wants. I would, on the other hand, absolutely support a mentally competent adult deciding to refuse all treatment. Since there has to be a line somewhere between those two extremes, I'd rather see that line be case-specific rather than just deciding that if you're over a certain age, you're good to go.

well in fairness, we do say that once over a certain age, you're good to go. it's just that this age is 18, and he's still on the one side of it. But I will say I agree insofar as the court heard more evidence than I have. I'm willing to concede that their decision was based on the individual basis and not a larger generalization.

But that being said, I'm still vaguely uncomfortable about this case. Let's accept as a premise that even if the child is not old enough yet to make his decisions, those decisions should default to the parents. In essence the parents are tasked for making the decision for him. But the parents, if they chose to deny their own treatment, wouldn't be stopped from doing so. If the child, once 18, had chosen to not get treatment, we wouldn't stop him.

So if the parents are in essence acting as proxy, making the decision for him as if he were old enough to do so himself, why are they not able to make a decision that he'd be perfectly and legally entitled to make, if he were old enough to do so himself?

If we are saying that the parents can not willingly refuse treatment for him, then isn't the whole idea of parental rights to make those decisions...kind of moot? We empower you to make decisions for your children, as if they themselves were adults...unless you make decisions that we don't agree with, in which case you can't. Why even allow them the illusion of choice at all?

Either parents have the right to act as medical proxy, or they don't. If they do, then they can make a choice that the minor would be entitled to make for himself, which includes refusing treatment.

I mean, look at it this way - I don't think anyone in their right mind would support letting a toddler decide on their own medical treatment, right? No matter how much a particular two-year-old wants to treat his cancer by eating cookies,

Strawman.

Strawman.

no, it's called reductio ad absurdum, which is a perfectly valid methodology. It only yields a strawman when the arguer attempts to claim that the absurd proposition is the opponents actual argument. Which Poli did not. She merely laid out a framework we can, theoretically, agree upon, and then argued within that framework. She never actually tried to claim that was my argument, merely laid out the clear tautology that binds it.

Of course, to realize that, you'd have to have actually read the whole thing. It's understandable that you got distracted after two lines. I know you want to sound all smart and intelligent and stuff, using all these big debate terms. But to give you a little trick, you actually have to know when to use them correctly. Just randomly shouting them out earns you no points.

well in fairness, we do say that once over a certain age, you're good to go. it's just that this age is 18, and he's still on the one side of it. But I will say I agree insofar as the court heard more evidence than I have. I'm willing to concede that their decision was based on the individual basis and not a larger generalization.

But that being said, I'm still vaguely uncomfortable about this case. Let's accept as a premise that even if the child is not old enough yet to make his decisions, those decisions should default to the parents. In essence the parents are tasked for making the decision for him. But the parents, if they chose to deny their own treatment, wouldn't be stopped from doing so. If the child, once 18, had chosen to not get treatment, we wouldn't stop him.

So if the parents are in essence acting as proxy, making the decision for him as if he were old enough to do so himself, why are they not able to make a decision that he'd be perfectly and legally entitled to make, if he were old enough to do so himself?

If we are saying that the parents can not willingly refuse treatment for him, then isn't the whole idea of parental rights to make those decisions...kind of moot? We empower you to make decisions for your children, as if they themselves were adults...unless you make decisions that we don't agree with, in which case you can't. Why even allow them the illusion of choice at all?

Either parents have the right to act as medical proxy, or they don't. If they do, then they can make a choice that the minor would be entitled to make for himself, which includes refusing treatment.

I think it gets thorny quickly from a legal perspective, and I'm not really qualified to address that. However, from just a layman's perspective, I would say that parental rights are fundamentally conditional on parental responsibilities, and the first and foremost among those is "keep your kids as safe as you reasonably can." I mean, there are quite a lot of things one is legally permitted to do to oneself as an adult that we do not allow parents to do to their kids. That's nothing new. If I, as an adult, choose to have sex with fifteen guys, that's 100% legal. If my parents decided when I was 8 years old to have me get fucked by the same guys, no sane person would be okay with that, obviously. In my personal view, you only have rights over your children to the extent that you fulfill your responsibility to protect those children to the best of your ability.

Now, of course, that gets us into active and passive harm, as you've already brought up, which complicates the heck out of the issue. When it comes to "passive harm" cases like this, as I said before, I think it makes the most sense to address things on a case-by-case basis. If the parents are choosing between a treatment with a 47% chance of success and a 52% chance of success, and on the basis of research and recommendations from doctors, end up going for the former, I don't think one can reasonably argue that they are neglecting their responsibilities toward their child. But when, as in this case, it's so large a difference as to be essentially "your child will almost certainly live" and "your child will almost certainly die," and they opt for the latter, I think that SHOULD come under scrutiny of some sort. Like I said before, I'm no lawyer, and I'm not qualified to speak to precisely how best that should be done, save to say that, in general, the current system seems to work pretty well.

Godwin itself has become a fallacy to stop any and all Nazi comparisons, even valid ones. And in fact, calling Godwin in this case only provides fuel to my complaint that eugenics are supposedly uber evil because the Nazis did it where that belief would not be as prevalent if the Nazis hadn't.

...which is why I said I'm not a fan of invoking Godwin. Which you would realize if you had actually read the words I typed. And no, I do not believe it provides fuel to your argument, because your argument is based on the ridiculous idea, as I said before, that the reason people think eugenics is bad is that the Nazis used it. I disagree with the fundamental tenet of your argument. I believe there are many, many other reasons to disagree with the practice of eugenics, and I believe you are the only person in this thread linking it to the Nazi party. Your only proof otherwise seems to be based on the assumption that, in a hypothetical world where Nazis never existed, the belief that eugenics is bad would not be as prevalent as it is. Since that proof only exists in your imagination, it's not compelling.

Either parents have the right to act as medical proxy, or they don't. If they do, then they can make a choice that the minor would be entitled to make for himself, which includes refusing treatment.

I think this is where we disagree. Because they have a right to act as a medical proxy does not mean that right is absolute. Parents have responsibilities mandated by the law as well as rights. Parents cannot make a medical decision to stop feeding their child because they are Breatharians. They can choose to stop eating. The child, upon reaching the age of majority, can choose to stop eating. However, as parents, they are required to provide their children with appropriate nutrition. Hell, to be in public school in California, they're required to take their kids to a dentist. I don't think that necessarily means that parental rights are totally invalidated.

If the parents are choosing between a treatment with a 47% chance of success and a 52% chance of success, and on the basis of research and recommendations from doctors, end up going for the former, I don't think one can reasonably argue that they are neglecting their responsibilities toward their child. But when, as in this case, it's so large a difference as to be essentially "your child will almost certainly live" and "your child will almost certainly die," and they opt for the latter, I think that SHOULD come under scrutiny of some sort. Like I said before, I'm no lawyer, and I'm not qualified to speak to precisely how best that should be done, save to say that, in general, the current system seems to work pretty well.

Agreed, and I think the mental state and maturity of the child must also be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The child has refused medical treatment, but we don't know under what circumstances and with what information. If the parents said, "The decision is completely up to you, but remember, if you choose to do the chemo it means you don't have faith in God, you won't be healed, and you won't see us in Heaven," that's not an informed choice.

He's 13, he doesn't get much of a say. And there's a good reason for that - he's just saying what he knows his parents want him to say, what he knows they want him to believe, and what they themselves believe.

Would he be refusing treatment that will save his life if his parents didn't believe as they do?

Would he have made the decision to condemn himself to nearly certain death of his own accord, of his own thinking, come to that conclusion?

Of course not. The real issue is that these parents seem to want their child to die rather than compromise their impressively moronic belief system.

Unless these people are living in the woods without so much as a chipped piece of stone or a hunting spear, they are dependent on technology. Period. But they want to keep up their delusion, and kill their son to do so.

...which is why I said I'm not a fan of invoking Godwin. Which you would realize if you had actually read the words I typed. And no, I do not believe it provides fuel to your argument, because your argument is based on the ridiculous idea, as I said before, that the reason people think eugenics is bad is that the Nazis used it.
Which is wholly a valid argument considering very few people actually know what eugenics even is.

Which is wholly a valid argument considering very few people actually know what eugenics even is.

Oh right, I forgot, this is the internet after all, and on the scale of "truths to live by" falling in level of popularity right between "I'm far more macho than you" and "I have self-diagnosed Asperger's" is "everybody's stupid but me".

Because remember kids, when you're on the Internet, everybody's stupid. Except you.

Of course they become western medicine. They are stripped, isolated, and taken out of the medicinal practice they originated in. Medicine is as much a cultural practice as a 'medical' one. Just because acupuncture originated in the chinese medical system, it does not mean you are experiencing chinese medicine when you go to James Greer, MD for your weekly acupuncture treatment.I was thinking of a longer reply, until I got to this point.

Seems kinda pointless now, though. Because, quite frankly, that's the silliest thing I've seen in a long time on this forum, and implies that you're, well...

Quite mad.

I'll admit, I'm not even disagreeing when you say that it's no longer traditional-anything when it's taken out of its cultural context ('Trial and error; Experience says it works') and analysed in a technological one ('Why and how does it work?'), though it does, of course, still originate from the former.

Calling it western, however, is ridiculous.

And I'll be honest. When you say something like that... I fail to care about the rest. I'm pretty sure there was actually a point I could vaguely relate to in what you wrote, but...

It's pointless.

The gist of what you're saying appears to be Western Medicine isn't everything (That's okay)
Traditional Medicine that undergoes the scientific process and is found effective is no longer traditional, but western (That's silly)
This implies that traditional medicine found wanting - I.e. found to be ineffective - is the only valid traditional medicine (That's beyond words)

I'm reasonably certain that this isn't what you actually mean - mostly because you appear to be otherwise literate -, but it is what you said. And it's broken.

Oh, and the whole choice-thing? Well... Difficult, innit? On one hand, I don't particularly mind people dying to their own stupidity (I do, however, find it hypocritical to allow adults such choices, yet to deny them to parents making them for their children. If the state does allegedly NOT know better for adults... Why would it know better for the kids? You as a canadian indian ought to be kinda sensible to that kind of thing, anyway, I believe).

On the other hand, I'm kinda offended when the state - read, the taxpayers - have to pay the bill for such stupidity. The problem tends to be that they don't usually die, they just cost more...

Hum. And it just occurs to me. The link you provided, concerning the unauthorised cancer-treatment... Is that a scientific analysis I see there? WESTERN MEDICINE!

Your issue is with bureaucracy, not with medicine, modern medicine, or western medicine. That 'Alternative' treatment? WESTERN MEDICINE!

Go bitch at the canadian healthcare system. Not at medicine.

Shit. Got longer than I wanted it to be. Oh well.

Nice spin. I'd ask you to back it up, but we both know that'd be pointless.
I don't know. Hodgkin's is a remarkably curable form of cancer, so I expect the real survival rates are fairly high. I also expect the rate is better in the U.S. but it's hard to find sites that compare equivalent data. I don't think the WHO produces data on survival rates -- maybe I just can't find it.

We do lead the world in prostate cancer survival rates... For what that's worth to you.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080716184419.htm

I don't know. Hodgkin's is a remarkably curable form of cancer, so I expect the real survival rates are fairly high. I also expect the rate is better in the U.S. but it's hard to find sites that compare equivalent data. I don't think the WHO produces data on survival rates -- maybe I just can't find it.

We do lead the world in prostate cancer survival rates... For what that's worth to you.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080716184419.htm

I'd make a comment about it being because y'all have your heads up your asses butt...

:p

The kid should get Chemo, a good deprogramming session, and the parents should be locked up in prison.

*snip blah blah*

Calling it western, however, is ridiculous.
When western medicine integrates a practice that originated outside of western medicine, it delivers that practice according to the procedures and beliefs inherent in the philosophy of western medicine, modern medicine, whatever you want to call it. It bears almost no resemblence to the practice as carried out in the originating culture. If not 'western', then what? Everything that made it non-western is stripped from it completely.


*snip blah blah*


The gist of what you're saying appears to be Western Medicine isn't everything (That's okay)
Traditional Medicine that undergoes the scientific process and is found effective is no longer traditional, but western (That's silly)
This implies that traditional medicine found wanting - I.e. found to be ineffective - is the only valid traditional medicine (That's beyond words)


False. Traditional medicine that has been completely stripped and integrated into western medicine, is not traditional any more. That is what I am saying. Traditional medicine 'found to be effective' within the western model continues to exist as practiced traditionally, and is no less effective for being in that cultural setting. When practiced traditionally, it is traditional medicine. When practiced within the western system, stripped down and devoid of its original culture, it is western medicine.

Your interjection of the word 'valid' highlights your prodound inability to understand the practice of medicine within a cultural context. You can use slippery elm for your sore throat, but would you honestly say you're engaging in traditional aboriginal medicine by doing so? Traditional aboriginal medicine is more than ingredients.

If at this point, you still fail to understand the distinction being made, I really can't help you.

*snip blah blah*

Oh, and the whole choice-thing? Well... Difficult, innit? On one hand, I don't particularly mind people dying to their own stupidity (I do, however, find it hypocritical to allow adults such choices, yet to deny them to parents making them for their children. If the state does allegedly NOT know better for adults... Why would it know better for the kids? You as a canadian indian ought to be kinda sensible to that kind of thing, anyway, I believe).

On the other hand, I'm kinda offended when the state - read, the taxpayers - have to pay the bill for such stupidity. The problem tends to be that they don't usually die, they just cost more... So your argument is that because it may cost more in the long run to allow people to make bad choices, they should be prevented from doing so?

I can just imagine, were I to make the above statement, the kind of ridiculous hypotheticals you'd pull out if it, up to and including the banning of fast foods. Good thing I don't engage in such asshattery as often as you seem to.

Hum. And it just occurs to me. The link you provided, concerning the unauthorised cancer-treatment... Is that a scientific analysis I see there? WESTERN MEDICINE! Omg! Wow! Glad you realised it! Now perhaps you can completely bury the assinine original assumption you made about me somehow claiming that western medicine is bad, and only traditional medicine should be used!

You probably won't though.

My original statement about not liking the courts to force people to use western medicine makes absolute sense when you understand that in no situation, would our courts force someone to undertake 'alternative' or 'non-western' medical treatment. My statement could be read as redundant were it not for the fact that I explicity wanted to recognise that there is more than one medical system out there. Your ridiculous overreaction at that point has provided me with great entertainment ever since...but I'd like to believe you aren't actually as dense as you are acting.

Your issue is with bureaucracy, not with medicine, modern medicine, or western medicine. That 'Alternative' treatment? WESTERN MEDICINE!
My issue was, and continues to be, that people should not be forced to undergo any medical procedures against their will, unless the issue of consent is compelling enough. Obviously the court would only validate certain kinds of authorised western medical practices if such an order was made.

I never claimed the alternative treatment I mentioned wasn't western medicine. Once again, you assume, you rant, you rave. It is, however an alternative treatment, one not sanctioned for use for treating cancer, and not one you can have your physician oversee. You're right that my beef wasn't with western medicine, I'm glad you're finally catching up. So slowly though.

Go bitch at the canadian healthcare system. Not at medicine.

Shit. Got longer than I wanted it to be. Oh well.

Yes, well that tends to happen when you fundamentally misunderstand someone's position, go out of your way to make up viewpoints not espoused by that person and never ever admit you were wrong from the get go. You should go back to your first post and see just how you went so terribly wrong, while I sit here and pray for the manitowak to bring back the buffalo:rolleyes:

I'd make a comment about it being because y'all have your heads up your asses butt...

:p
Heh. We'll be there with you soon enough. Don't you need to say two 'eh's' and a 'ooout and abooout' to make up for that 'y'all'?

How legally do you decide just how competent a 13 year old is to make decisions? Laws tend to be built around specific ages, I am 16 I can smoke and have sex, I'm 18 I can drink - but clearly you don't suddenly change over night. A 13 year old is more mature than a 10 year old but is that enough for them to make a decision to refuse treatment?

Which is wholly a valid argument considering very few people actually know what eugenics even is.

I'm going to have to bullet-point this to keep it all straight. Your argument is:


People other than you do not know what the practice of eugenics is.
People only think eugenics is bad because the Nazis engaged in its practice.
Therefore, eugenics is not bad.


I am utterly astounded by the intellectual laziness achieved in that argument. I'm surprised that anyone who cares so little about researching a topic and developing his own ideas about it could even find the energy to post.

How legally do you decide just how competent a 13 year old is to make decisions?

Generally, you talk to the 13-year-old in question. You give him a psych evaluation, you discuss his decision, and you judge, as best you can, how well he understands the choice he is making.

When western medicine integrates a practice that originated outside of western medicine, it delivers that practice according to the procedures and beliefs inherent in the philosophy of western medicine, modern medicine, whatever you want to call it. It bears almost no resemblence to the practice as carried out in the originating culture. If not 'western', then what? Everything that made it non-western is stripped from it completely.So, turning that around... When the chinese go and introduce chemotherapy, I presume it becomes traditional chinese medicine...? Stripped of its western phisolophical context, blah, blah, blah, the whole 'Healing' deal is only a side efect of medicine, anyway, blah, blah blah, wholly incorporated in chinese culture?

False. Traditional medicine that has been completely stripped and integrated into western medicine, is not traditional any more. That is what I am saying. Traditional medicine 'found to be effective' within the western model continues to exist as practiced traditionally, and is no less effective for being in that cultural setting. When practiced traditionally, it is traditional medicine. When practiced within the western system, stripped down and devoid of its original culture, it is western medicine.In short, medicine is all about rituals, religion, etc., and the whole 'Healing' and 'This substance does that' aspects are mere, well... Secondary things? Decoration? Barely 'Real' medicine at all?

So your argument is that because it may cost more in the long run to allow people to make bad choices, they should be prevented from doing so?

I can just imagine, were I to make the above statement, the kind of ridiculous hypotheticals you'd pull out if it, up to and including the banning of fast foods. Good thing I don't engage in such asshattery as often as you seem to.This is a testable hypothesis. Lets test it. Make the argument.

My original statement about not liking the courts to force people to use western medicine makes absolute sense when you understand that in no situation, would our courts force someone to undertake 'alternative' or 'non-western' medical treatment.This is an illusion you create to suit yourself. You're simply setting arbitrary definitions based on the, for a lack of better word, 'Feel' of a given cure/ therapy/ treatment, not on what actually makes it work. If it involves the exact same substance, used to treat the exact same disease, it's 'Traditional' if done in a 'Traditional' context. It's western if not. A court, ordering the use of a substance derived from 'Traditional' medicine, except that it's not provided in its context (Though, actually, I'm sure it could be. It's not usually practical to do so, but...), would therefore... Discriminate?

Yeah... No.

Your comparison would be valid if, say, courts could force people to undergo treatment in the context of a convent. $Active_Agent provided solely in the context of two Ave Marias.

Do they?

Otherwise, the courts simply require a treatment, regardless of cultural context, be it western, chinese, indian, australian, or martian. They're all stripped of their context, including the western one, whether you like it or not. What you're trying is to place... Well, not western medicine, but the courts in a no-win situation. No matter what they do, no matter what treatment they order, it'll always be western, no matter what, and the poor, poor traditional medicine is neglected, maybe oppressed, but definitely discriminated against! No, you didn't say this, of course, but it oozes from every sentence.

Of course, if you replace 'Western' with 'Technological', I'll be happy to agree with you.

I'd ask you what's wrong with it, though. Any decoration of no relevance to the actual treatment, be they prayers to Jesus' mum or whatever fancy stuff is done in a wigwam, is, well... Of no relevance. And getting butthurt over it is quite, quite silly.

I never claimed the alternative treatment I mentioned wasn't western medicine. Once again, you assume, you rant, you rave. It is, however an alternative treatment, one not sanctioned for use for treating cancer, and not one you can have your physician oversee. You're right that my beef wasn't with western medicine, I'm glad you're finally catching up. So slowly though.You lie:I hate the idea of forcing western medical treatment on people, especially when it comes to cancer. I know of a number of people using alternative methods to treat terminal cancers that have managed to live far beyond what they would have had they left their care in the hands of western medicine.There is absolutely no way whatsoever to interpret what you said there in any way other than that their alterative method (Western Medicine, as you've just said yourself) is not, in fact, western medicine.

Yes, well that tends to happen when you fundamentally misunderstand someone's position, go out of your way to make up viewpoints not espoused by that person and never ever admit you were wrong from the get go. You should go back to your first post and see just how you went so terribly wrong, while I sit here and pray for the manitowak to bring back the buffaloHey, what about the 'I never claimed it not to be a west-'?

Generally, you talk to the 13-year-old in question. You give him a psych evaluation, you discuss his decision, and you judge, as best you can, how well he understands the choice he is making.

In short: treat him/her like a person.

So, turning that around... When the chinese go and introduce chemotherapy, I presume it becomes traditional chinese medicine...? Stripped of its western phisolophical context, blah, blah, blah, the whole 'Healing' deal is only a side efect of medicine, anyway, blah, blah blah, wholly incorporated in chinese culture?

Traditional chinese medicine is holistic, as is aboriginal medicine. There is no division between the physical, the emotional, the spiritual. If there could be some way to take the bare, physical treatment of chemotherapy and make it holistic, then it would not longer be simply western medicine, no. Translated into a different medical cultural context, it would become something else, a hybrid.

What's nice about the evolution of western medicine, is that the long discounted 'holistic method' seen as unecessary or alien, is finally being recognised as important. However, approved western treatments do not include the 'touchy feely' aspects of holistic medicine...so there is a tacit denial of their effectiveness despite all the talk to the contrary. Eventually a more 'hybrid' system is likely, but it's not quite here yet.

Then again, discussion for another time.

In short, medicine is all about rituals, religion, etc., and the whole 'Healing' and 'This substance does that' aspects are mere, well... Secondary things? Decoration? Barely 'Real' medicine at all? Not even remotely my argument. Once again, you jump to foolish conclusions. You must not get motion sickness easily.

This is a testable hypothesis. Lets test it. Make the argument. You've already proven yourself incapable of sticking with what is actually said, and inserting outrageous hyperbole in place of actual points made. That hypothesis has been proven since your first post in response to me.

This is an illusion you create to suit yourself. You're simply setting arbitrary definitions based on the, for a lack of better word, 'Feel' of a given cure/ therapy/ treatment, not on what actually makes it work. Actually it's so much more simple than that. To repeat myself for you again in the vain hope you'll exercise a little bit of intellect, western medicine is the only medicine the courts can force on a person, because it is the only officially sanctioned and legitimised form of medicine. Alternative medicines will not be forced upon anyone for the simple fact that they are NOT officially sanctioned and legitimised.


*snip blah blah*

Otherwise, the courts simply require a treatment, regardless of cultural context, be it western, chinese, indian, australian, or martian. False. Only western medical practicioners are authorised by the courts to provide treatments that the court can order a person to undergo. An aboriginal medicine man, applying the effective treatment in the traditional way will not be a court ordered option.


They're all stripped of their context, including the western one, whether you like it or not. What you're trying is to place... Well, not western medicine, but the courts in a no-win situation. No matter what they do, no matter what treatment they order, it'll always be western, no matter what, and the poor, poor traditional medicine is neglected, maybe oppressed, but definitely discriminated against! No, you didn't say this, of course, but it oozes from every sentence.

Of course the courts can only order someone to undergo western medicine, which is exactly what I said. If someone chooses to use an alternative method, effective or not, they should have that right. The courts do not always know best. I do not suggest the courts order people to undergo ANY medical treatment, western or otherwise. The fact that they inherently legitimise only one system of medicine is a facet of the historical growth of western philosophy both medical and legal. So glad you get it.

See what happens when you read so, so much into a single statement? It's almost always much simpler than you imagine it to be.

Of course, if you replace 'Western' with 'Technological', I'll be happy to agree with you. Na, I think my adjective is just fine. If you were really quibbling about semantics instead of actively pulling conjectures about my position out of your ass, I'd see some value in changing the term. As it is, it's clear that isn't your focus.

I'd ask you what's wrong with it, though. Any decoration of no relevance to the actual treatment, be they prayers to Jesus' mum or whatever fancy stuff is done in a wigwam, is, well... Of no relevance. And getting butthurt over it is quite, quite silly. That's your opinion, based on your belief in a 'stripped down', non-holistic western paradigm...but again, that's not really the point of this thread. Getting as butthurt as you have over a single post indicates a startling lack of restraint that could be unhealthy if allowed to progress.

You lie:There is absolutely no way whatsoever to interpret what you said there in any way other than that their alterative method (Western Medicine, as you've just said yourself) is not, in fact, western medicine. Actually, it's quite easy to do just that when you note, as I've stated a number of times, that western medicine is the regulated, legitimised system in place in our countries, and that 'alternatives' obviously have not reached that level of legitimisation. You'll note I've often used the term 'traditional medicine' to refer to other systems, Chinese, aboriginal, or what have you. My use of 'alternative' and 'traditional' are not interchangeable, sorry. You do get so confused, don't you?

Hey, what about the 'I never claimed it not to be a west-'?
Precisely, and I'm glad you've quoted my post to prove my point.


I'm sure it amuses you greatly to behave like a complete dullard. If you had any actual confusions about the words I was using in my first post, you would have sought clarification. Instead, you have expended a great deal of effort to construct the argument that I reject western medicine. I have made it clear ever since then that your assumptions are false, yet you continue. I can only conclude from this that you aren't actually interested in the discussion at hand, but rather, you get your jollies out of pretending that your extremely fucked up interpretation of someone else's points is somehow legitimate.

It isn't. Nor does it successfully deflect attention away from the idiocy and racism in your first reply. Since you have gone out of your way to ignore the actual topic, and instead made up an argument that never existed, I will leave to to fellate the strawman you've created, rather than wasting more time NOT defending points I never made.

I just said he wouldn't be particularly missed.

Except maybe by his parents, but that will be alright I believe. The rest of us can mock them in their grief, which will either make them cling harder to their beliefs and end up killing themselves by idiocy or commit suicide, ending their ability to commit more stupidity.

How legally do you decide just how competent a 13 year old is to make decisions? Laws tend to be built around specific ages, I am 16 I can smoke and have sex, I'm 18 I can drink - but clearly you don't suddenly change over night. A 13 year old is more mature than a 10 year old but is that enough for them to make a decision to refuse treatment?

How? Search his room for porn. The better the hiding place, the more competent he is. :)

How? Search his room for porn. The better the hiding place, the more competent he is. :)

Of all the people in the world LG, you should be the last to make the competency = maturity argument.

Of all the people in the world LG, you should be the last to make the competency = maturity argument.

Did I? Wasn't my intention. I intended to equate competence with an ability to assess the consequences of one's actions before engaging in them.

A girl in California, age 17, petitioned the court to be allowed to refuse blood transfusions.

They offended her personal beliefs.

She had an independent trustee and attorney, so she was shielded from the affect of her parents beliefs.

The judge refused. Doctors has sworn she would have a much better chance of survival with the help of their "science".

Within a few days of the transfusion, she died.

The doctors and judge, of course, got paid.

A girl in California, age 17, petitioned the court to be allowed to refuse blood transfusions.

They offended her personal beliefs.

She had an independent trustee and attorney, so she was shielded from the affect of her parents beliefs.

The judge refused. Doctors has sworn she would have a much better chance of survival with the help of their "science".

Within a few days of the transfusion, she died.

The doctors and judge, of course, got paid.

Source?

And I bet there's a definite chance she would have died without it anyway.

Source?

And I bet there's a definite chance she would have died without it anyway.

I always thought it a terrible thing to do to a person who was likely to die in either event...force them to spend the last of their days fighting it out in the courts. Talk about lack of mercy.

At some level I just gotta say....let him die. It shouldn't be the business of the US government to save people from their own choices.

Oh sure, now you don't want to protect the idiots. Only this time, under United States Law, the kid is a minor, and the idiots are his parents. The kid shouldn't have to die just because his parents are idiots.

Making the kid a ward of the state won't do any good either, our orphanage system is well, embarrassing. The best course of action is to appoint someone who is outside of this religious circle temporary custody of the kid until he get his treatments.

This was my initial reaction, but then I thought, what if this was my rebellious 13 year old? My smart-ass-thinks-he-knows-it-all 13 year old? I think I'd probably want to be able to force the little fucker to live so I could continue to ruin his life.

I just don't see why the kid should die just because his parents are idiots.

I don't doubt that some Holistic medicine works, but if it was my life, I'd choose medicines that has research and data backing it up.

A girl

First, we start with the individual. A girl, practically a woman. It tugs on our heartstrings. Not a boy you see. Boys are smelly and brutal and mean. But this was a delicate flower. A beautiful young lady.

in California,

In California. Of course it is. Liberal, evil, crazy, queer loving, god hating california. Not Nebraska or South Carolina or Oklahoma. California. Simultaneously validating the belief of those who would buy this crap that this horrible thing could only happen in California while at the same time reinforcing their belief that this sort of horror couldn't happen in their heartland. It's always California

age 17

Of course she was 17. If she were younger, say...10, or 11, or 12, that might cause your readers to think "gee, you know, it's probably best she not be allowed to make her own decisions. But no, she's 17. On the cusp of womanhood. How tragic, we are meant to think. If this had happened...just a few months later, this never would have gone down this way. Indeed, how arrogant of those fools, those California fools to presume that just a handful of months would have made any difference.


petitioned the court to be allowed to refuse blood transfusions.They offended her personal beliefs.

Ahh of course, religion. It's always religion isn't it? That's why it goes hand in hand with California. It's not just evil lefties. It's not just evil lefties in California. It's evil lefties in California attacking her religion

She had an independent trustee and attorney, so she was shielded from the affect of her parents beliefs.

Of course, remember, if she were 18 this wouldn't be an issue. This line is just to reinforce the arrogance of it all.

The judge refused.

Keep in mind, it's not "the judge" at this point. It's the evil, liberal, god hating California Judge

Doctors has sworn she would have a much better chance of survival with the help of their "science".

Ahh, and note the quotes. "Science". Like "medicine" or "antibiotics" or "xray machines". These things don't ACTUALLY work. Have YOU ever seen bacteria? Have you ever seen xrays? No, no you haven't!

You just take the word of these "doctors" with their "science" that you're "sick" and need "curing" Those bastards are playing god! And you know what's worse? They're educated. They call themselves doctor. Like they're BETTER than us!

Within a few days of the transfusion, she died.

Of course she did See, if she had lived...that might actually have validated the story. Maybe made it seem like the right decision. But, of course, this is a bullshit story used to stir up moral outrage and righteous indignation. So sorry pious little california chick. You're gonna have to bite it this time.

The doctors and judge, of course, got paid.

Of course they did. To make it worse, they're not "doctors and judge" at this point. They're evil, atheist, religion hating, elitist, ivory tower Californian doctors and lawyers. They don't care about this little girl, who just wanted to follow her God, and live out the last moments in faith, not against her will.

Of course, we forget, or conveniently ignore for this story, that it's not the job of judges to make everyone warm and happy and that sometimes people are just going to die.

See, if the story was that judge has minor child undergo medical procedure that has the best chance of saving her life, yet procedure, unfortunately, just still comes up short, it wouldn't fulfill it's purpose. It wouldn't function as an attack on atheists, lawyers, doctors, the courts, Californians, and leftists in general.

What it is, is an almost textbook example of overly emotive bullshit. I mean, it's perfect. So brilliantly sculpted to contain every single hot button. Every single tug at our hearstrings.

In fact, it's so perfect it can't possibly be true.

In fact, it's so perfect it can't possibly be true.

Yeah, his/her post in the Forgiveness thread was equally as false sounding.

A girl in California, age 17, petitioned the court to be allowed to refuse blood transfusions.

They offended her personal beliefs.

She had an independent trustee and attorney, so she was shielded from the affect of her parents beliefs.

The judge refused. Doctors has sworn she would have a much better chance of survival with the help of their "science".

Within a few days of the transfusion, she died.

The doctors and judge, of course, got paid.

I won't even play into this argument by asking for a source.

If your intent is to condemn science as false, then you need to show more than one example. If you wish to show that she was more likely to survive by denying medical treatment and relying only on faith, then you must show that this is statistically more likely. That requires a fuck lot more than one example, even if you bothered to give a source.

This is not to say I'm anti-religion. I am, however, anti-weak arguments. And this is weak as hell.

I think the court made the right choice. Sometimes the courts have to protect minors from stupid parents.

I think the court made the right choice. Sometimes the courts have to protect minors from stupid parents.

Agreed.

Traditional chinese medicine is holistic, as is aboriginal medicine. There is no division between the physical, the emotional, the spiritual. If there could be some way to take the bare, physical treatment of chemotherapy and make it holistic, then it would not longer be simply western medicine, no. Translated into a different medical cultural context, it would become something else, a hybrid.

What's nice about the evolution of western medicine, is that the long discounted 'holistic method' seen as unecessary or alien, is finally being recognised as important. However, approved western treatments do not include the 'touchy feely' aspects of holistic medicine...so there is a tacit denial of their effectiveness despite all the talk to the contrary. Eventually a more 'hybrid' system is likely, but it's not quite here yet.Well, that's acceptable... Though I'd argue that what you consider 'Western' is not, in fact, that, but 'Modernity'. Technology.

I fact, I suppose one could argue that 'Traditional' western medicine died with the advent of modernity.

Not even remotely my argument. Once again, you jump to foolish conclusions. You must not get motion sickness easily.You're aware what a question mark indicates, yes? I ask you whether you mean that. To me at least, you give the impression. But rather than considering it fact, I ask you to elaborate.

Doesn't appear to be your thing, though, so lets just forget about it.

You've already proven yourself incapable of sticking with what is actually said, and inserting outrageous hyperbole in place of actual points made. That hypothesis has been proven since your first post in response to me.Just because you imagine it doesn't make it true, I'm afraid.

Then again, we've already covered that western concepts like 'Evidence' aren't a necessity to you, so meh.

Actually it's so much more simple than that. To repeat myself for you again in the vain hope you'll exercise a little bit of intellect, western medicine is the only medicine the courts can force on a person, because it is the only officially sanctioned and legitimised form of medicine. Alternative medicines will not be forced upon anyone for the simple fact that they are NOT officially sanctioned and legitimised.I'll admit, I'm rather amused that someone hellbent on considering the look of the package more important than its content finds my intellect lacking.

I know, you'll deny it. But that's exactly what you do. Same treatment, different context, BAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWW.

False. Only western medical practicioners are authorised by the courts to provide treatments that the court can order a person to undergo. An aboriginal medicine man, applying the effective treatment in the traditional way will not be a court ordered option.Does the traditional medicine man have an M.D.?

Oh, wait. I forgot. Western context. So... Would a westerner without an M.D. be court-orderable?

If yes, I take everything back, and acknowledge that you're right.

If not, you continue being hilarious.

Of course the courts can only order someone to undergo western medicine, which is exactly what I said. If someone chooses to use an alternative method, effective or not, they should have that right. The courts do not always know best. I do not suggest the courts order people to undergo ANY medical treatment, western or otherwise. The fact that they inherently legitimise only one system of medicine is a facet of the historical growth of western philosophy both medical and legal. So glad you get it.Well... We've already covered that you're declaring everything not-western acknowledged by 'Western Medicine' as you call it as 'Western' to keep up your construct. A pity it still doesn't match reality, though.

I mean, sure. I recognise that you're not hypocritical, insofar as you'll happily extend the issues to all forms of medical treatments. It's just that you're quite mad since you appear to essentially consider all medical treatments, proven, disproven, or awaiting judgement, equally valid choices.

They're not.

Actually, it's quite easy to do just that when you note, as I've stated a number of times, that western medicine is the regulated, legitimised system in place in our countries, and that 'alternatives' obviously have not reached that level of legitimisation. You'll note I've often used the term 'traditional medicine' to refer to other systems, Chinese, aboriginal, or what have you. My use of 'alternative' and 'traditional' are not interchangeable, sorry. You do get so confused, don't you?rofl

These people would've died if going with western medicine as opposed to an alternative treatment!
But the alterative treatment was western...
Yes, it was!
In that case, what you just said was wrong.
No, it was not!

Hilarity. Ever considered doing a stand-up comedy?

If him and his parents would rather let him die than he should be allowed to die.

If him and his parents would rather let him die than he should be allowed to die.

What part of "minor" and "parental responsibility" don't you understand?

If him and his parents would rather let him die than he should be allowed to die.

Well, B-tan, the problem here is that the parents are being negligent and a 13 year old (granted, there are smart 13 year olds out there), doesn't have the sufficient capacity to determine whether he will continue on with chemotherapy or not.

Not only do the parents posses the responsibility to provide care and treatment, but also the doctors feel compelled to tell the authorities when negligence like this is going on. The child's life's on the line here.

What part of "minor" and "parental responsibility" don't you understand?

I am alittle surprised by some of the response in this thread.

I am alittle surprised by some of the response in this thread.

Could you please be a little more clear? Are you agreeing with me, or him?

Well, B-tan, the problem here is that the parents are being negligent and a 13 year old (granted, there are smart 13 year olds out there), doesn't have the sufficient capacity to determine whether he will continue on with chemotherapy or not.

Not only do the parents posses the responsibility to provide care and treatment, but also the doctors feel compelled to tell the authorities when negligence like this is going on. The child's life's on the line here.

See, it worries me though when the courts decide what treatments you should or shouldn't have, even as a minor. In this case, for certain, with a 90% margin on survival rate, it seems like the court has made a good decision.

I worry though when we have a 55% survival vs a 45% survival, if the court will make the same decision, or 65 vs 45, or 65 vs 35... at what point do we cut it off and say "Ok, the margin of survival is too high to go with Y treatment vs X treatment."? There are many things to consider when choosing a treatment, and while these parents appear to be quacks, there are real religious considerations to make in cases like this.

Thus, while this one seems to be ok, where do we draw that line?

There are many things to consider when choosing a treatment, and while these parents appear to be quacks, there are real religious considerations to make in cases like this.

Religious considerations? Religion shouldn't interfere with the well being or the health of people, let alone kids. I grant that one must weigh the options, that one can find alternatives in naturopathy and the like, but in this case, the parents are endangering the life of their kid.

Thus, while this one seems to be ok, where do we draw that line?

That will need to be seen later on, I guess.

See, it worries me though when the courts decide what treatments you should or shouldn't have, even as a minor. In this case, for certain, with a 90% margin on survival rate, it seems like the court has made a good decision.

I worry though when we have a 55% survival vs a 45% survival, if the court will make the same decision, or 65 vs 45, or 65 vs 35... at what point do we cut it off and say "Ok, the margin of survival is too high to go with Y treatment vs X treatment."? There are many things to consider when choosing a treatment, and while these parents appear to be quacks, there are real religious considerations to make in cases like this.

Thus, while this one seems to be ok, where do we draw that line?

I think if we're going to set precedent, then I'd rather set it in the direction of the professionals opinion being enforced over the ignorant parents than the other way round. There are, after all, other examples of parents denying their child medical treatment when the child is too young to even voice an opinion, and the child dying as a result. When it comes to life and death, your religion is your own. Not your childs. And thus it is completely irrelevant in deciding the medical treatment of another human being. Sure in the middle it might get muddy, but I'd rather that at least most of the time it comes out in favour of the childs survival.

Religious considerations? Religion shouldn't interfere with the well being or the health of people, let alone kids. I grant that one must weigh the options, that one can find alternatives in naturopathy and the like, but in this case, the parents are endangering the life of their kid.

Religious considerations are huge. A slightly riskier option should be allowed to be used in order to satisfy the religious desires of the individual in question. Doctors should, as part of their care practice, do as much as physically possible to meet the patients' religious obligations.

That will need to be seen later on, I guess.

Indeed. I just worry because there are still doctors, at least in this country, screaming "it can't be done!" while other doctors are out there doing it. Ergo, it really is up to the parent to do the research on what actually can and can't be done, but dragging it into court makes it all the more difficult.

I think if we're going to set precedent, then I'd rather set it in the direction of the professionals opinion being enforced over the ignorant parents than the other way round. There are, after all, other examples of parents denying their child medical treatment when the child is too young to even voice an opinion, and the child dying as a result. When it comes to life and death, your religion is your own. Not your childs. And thus it is completely irrelevant in deciding the medical treatment of another human being. Sure in the middle it might get muddy, but I'd rather that at least most of the time it comes out in favour of the childs survival.

See, I would rather it be drawn more in the other direction, especially in the case of the child already being grown enough to recognize and be part of that religion. There have been many such cases in the United States, and they seem to go in random directions. It really is a coin toss every time a parent is dragged into court along these lines.

However, that being said, just in my own family I've seen where the surgeon said "X can't be done." After a couple days research, they found a surgeon that does X every few weeks. Doctors aren't always up to date with the current techniques and processes, or perhaps they don't have all the necessary equipment. It therefore falls to the parent to do research on it.

However, that being said, just in my own family I've seen where the surgeon said "X can't be done." After a couple days research, they found a surgeon that does X every few weeks. Doctors aren't always up to date with the current techniques and processes, or perhaps they don't have all the necessary equipment. It therefore falls to the parent to do research on it.

Although I do agree with you that some doctors are not up to date on the newest techniques and the like, and that the parents need to do the research, in this case, these parents haven't done so, Gallo-dono.

Although I do agree with you that some doctors are not up to date on the newest techniques and the like, and that the parents need to do the research, in this case, these parents haven't done so, Gallo-dono.

Oh I quite agree, but saying that the court should listen to a single expert and then make a ruling is, quite surely, a bad idea. At least a couple doctors should be consulted, from different hospitals, in different areas if possible.

See, I would rather it be drawn more in the other direction, especially in the case of the child already being grown enough to recognize and be part of that religion. There have been many such cases in the United States, and they seem to go in random directions. It really is a coin toss every time a parent is dragged into court along these lines.


Perhaps I'm being unclear. Where the individual concerned exhibits sufficient awareness of the techniques, risks, outcomes, etc, then it should be their choice. When the individual shows evidence of being misled to and of not being sufficiently aware of the situation, then it should not. If the parents come up with a superior technique that can be empirically verified, argue for it. Bring some experts to do so, if they're not experts themselves. But the parents should not have the right to over-ride doctors on the treatment. If they're not convinced the treatment will work, then I trust their informed opinion over their parents uninformed one. I believe this because it sickens me whenever someone elses religion condemns some poor innocent to death. An emotional belief, perhaps, but I don't believe that invalidates it or makes it wrong.

Oh I quite agree, but saying that the court should listen to a single expert and then make a ruling is, quite surely, a bad idea. At least a couple doctors should be consulted, from different hospitals, in different areas if possible.

That is true. More than one opinion should always be seeked. The court will perhaps need a panel of experts to rule in these cases. But I still would rather have the court rule in cases such as this and not some hocus-pocus religious belief the parents may have.

Perhaps I'm being unclear. Where the individual concerned exhibits sufficient awareness of the techniques, risks, outcomes, etc, then it should be their choice.

Let me stop you right there. So, let's say we have a 60% chance of survival with technique A, but a 30% chance of survival with technique B. The parents are aware of this, but technique A violates their religious beliefs. Since they are fully aware, should it be their choice?

When the individual shows evidence of being misled to and of not being sufficiently aware of the situation, then it should not.

Can agree with that, I suppose.

If the parents come up with a superior technique that can be empirically verified, argue for it. Bring some experts to do so, if they're not experts themselves.

How about a technique with a slightly less chance of survival but doesn't violate beliefs (as above)?

But the parents should not have the right to over-ride doctors on the treatment. If they're not convinced the treatment will work, then I trust their informed opinion over their parents uninformed one.

I don't. Especially if the parent does research on the subject. These parents have not, and are acting ludicrously, which is why I have no qualms.

I believe this because it sickens me whenever someone elses religion condemns some poor innocent to death. An emotional belief, perhaps, but I don't believe that invalidates it or makes it wrong.

Perhaps, but I recommend that when we talk about rule of law, we check our emotions at the door.

That is true. More than one opinion should always be seeked. The court will perhaps need a panel of experts to rule in these cases. But I still would rather have the court rule in cases such as this and not some hocus-pocus religious belief the parents may have.

I agree that each case should be treated indivitually. And promptly. Often time is a factor in medicine.

Let me stop you right there. So, let's say we have a 60% chance of survival with technique A, but a 30% chance of survival with technique B. The parents are aware of this, but technique A violates their religious beliefs. Since they are fully aware, should it be their choice?

Let me in turn stop you. The parents are not the owners of their child's life. If technique A will give the child a 60% chance of survival, to hell with religious beliefs. The kid's health is not a Russian Roulette.

Let me in turn stop you. The parents are not the owners of their child's life. If technique A will give the child a 60% chance of survival, to hell with religious beliefs.

I disagree, but to further clarify your position:

It brings us to an incremental.

60 vs 40
60 vs 50
60 vs 55
60 vs 58


Where is it no longer a discussion point and we just go with the other?

Let me stop you right there. So, let's say we have a 60% chance of survival with technique A, but a 30% chance of survival with technique B. The parents are aware of this, but technique A violates their religious beliefs. Since they are fully aware, should it be their choice?

No. Their religious beliefs meet the same rebuttal that my emotional beliefs do from you. Check them at the courtroom door. If the person in question however, not some other people who happen to be parents, chooses whilst fully aware of everything in question, to opt for technique B, then that is their choice. This thirteen year old doesn't appear to meet those criteria.


How about a technique with a slightly less chance of survival but doesn't violate beliefs (as above)?

Again, it should be the patients informed choice. Or the doctors. The parents not so much.



Perhaps, but I recommend that when we talk about rule of law, we check our emotions at the door.

By and large, I agree with you.

I disagree, but to further clarify your position:

It brings us to an incremental.

60 vs 40
60 vs 50
60 vs 55
60 vs 58


Where is it no longer a discussion point and we just go with the other?

It's still worth it if said technique gives the child a 50 to 58 chance of survival. Even 40% is better than 30% and with going with an unkown technique just because it doesn't violate religious beliefs.

If the person in question however, not some other people who happen to be parents, chooses whilst fully aware of everything in question, to opt for technique B, then that is their choice. This thirteen year old doesn't appear to meet those criteria.

Exactly, this kid is 13, at 13 you don't know what's best for you. And clearly his parents know no better either.

No. Their religious beliefs meet the same rebuttal that my emotional beliefs do from you. Check them at the courtroom door. If the person in question however, not some other people who happen to be parents, chooses whilst fully aware of everything in question, to opt for technique B, then that is their choice. This thirteen year old doesn't appear to meet those criteria.

No, he doesn't. I agree with you on that. I just get quite perturbed at certain people suggesting that religious convictions should play absolutely no role in choice of medical care, especially when the person (adult or child) is mentally capable of understanding the situation, and is capable of making informed decisions.

Mostly, it should be case-by-case, I guess. This particular boy it seems is not capable of making an informed decision.

Again, it should be the patients informed choice. Or the doctors. The parents not so much.

The patient is the child. If he makes an informed choice (even if it's the wrong choice by your standard, or the riskier choice), would you have the court overrule his choice?

No, he doesn't. I agree with you on that. I just get quite perturbed at certain people suggesting that religious convictions should play absolutely no role in choice of medical care, especially when the person (adult or child) is mentally capable of understanding the situation, and is capable of making informed decisions.

Mostly, it should be case-by-case, I guess. This particular boy it seems is not capable of making an informed decision.


I agree mostly with all that you say here. However should have, well that hardly matters what we must concern ourselves with is what does happen, or what is the rule.

As far as I am aware, no child can ever give consent for any medical procedure(at least not here in the UK) so, such consent must come via the parents. If the parents are making bad choices on behalf of thier children, then two things spring to mind.

First: Shame on you bad parents.
Second: Get a court order to show these bad parents how bad they are and take that choice from them.:D

Let me stop you right there. So, let's say we have a 60% chance of survival with technique A, but a 30% chance of survival with technique B. The parents are aware of this, but technique A violates their religious beliefs. Since they are fully aware, should it be their choice?

Yes

Yes

Ah ok. We stand in agreement.

Exactly, this kid is 13, at 13 you don't know what's best for you.

Actually, I have to say I don't believe this is something that you can really state accurately. I would allow a thirteen year old to make certain claims about what is best for them. I would be hypocritical if I didn't say this is the case. This is why I believe it has to be taken case by case. People develop at different rates. There are many thirteen year olds that are smart and well educated and I'd certainly trust them to make certain medical decisions by themselves. Similarly there are many 17 year olds that are not smart or well educated that I'd not trust to make their own medical decisions. (and so on.)

What part of "minor" and "parental responsibility" don't you understand?

I understand the whole thing, but I am very quickly becoming apathetic to other people's stupidity. Let them be stupid and deal with the consequences.

I understand the whole thing, but I am very quickly becoming apathetic to other people's stupidity. Let them be stupid and deal with the consequences.

Hooray for the Darwin awards?

Hooray for the Darwin awards?

No, more like I've taken a neutral position on people's idiocy if they want to do stupid things then I'll let them as long as it has no direct bearing on me.

No, more like I've taken a neutral position on people's idiocy if they want to do stupid things then I'll let them as long as it has no direct bearing on me.

In Pennsylvania they just passed allow requiring the educated to stop people form doing stupid self destructive things. Failure to do so is punishable by a maximum of 3 years in prison and a 15,000 dollar fine.

So, the judge has ordered that the kid has to undergo treatment if it's found that chemo can help him live.
One of he parents has threatened to refuse to comply with the court order citing "religious beliefs" as their defense against the possibility that their child could continue to live using technology readily available to them.
If the child goes untreated, he has a 5% chance of survival, but (With proper and prompt treatment) he has an 85% increase in survivability.


Uh... Do you mean: 85% increase in survivability based on the 5% chance (that is total survival chance becomes 5% + 85%*5%=9,25%) or plain 5%+85% totalling up to 90% survival chance?

Anyway:
by the Convention on Child's Rights, a child has some rights, included the rights to life, well-being, health and proper care. If the parents aren't able or willing to grant those rights to the child, the social services, the State, the judiciary etc are supposed to step in to defend and grant the child's rights.

The only countries in the world that aren't party to that Convention, though, are the USA and Somalia, iirc.

when the person (adult or child) is mentally capable of understanding the situation, and is capable of making informed decisions.
...
The patient is the child. If he makes an informed choice...

As a child, he's not of age and he's not entitled to make such choices. That's why a child is subject to the authority of adults - usually the parents' authority.

In short: treat him/her like a person.

Hell no.

13 year olds are sub-persons.

Even the law sez so.

edit:
Uh... Do you mean: 85% increase in survivability based on the 5% chance (that is total survival chance becomes 5% + 85%*5%=9,25%) or plain 5%+85% totalling up to 90% survival chance?
I thought of that as well..

Shouldn't it be 1700% increase in survivability?

edit 2:
Furthermore, on topic of religious freedoms: They're individual freedoms, when they infringe upon survivability of a minor - or otherwise not-fully-competent person - they should be discarded in favour of science (assuming the effective difference between available "treatments" is larger than few percents)

I think the order is ridiculous. The child should have been immediately removed from his parents' custody; leaving him with them is a direct threat to his life.

It brings us to an incremental.

60 vs 40
60 vs 50
60 vs 55
60 vs 58


Uh, are you aware that probabilities should always amount up to 1 (that is 100%), and not above?
So your cases would likely be:
60% vs 40%
55% vs 45%
52.5% vs 47.5%
51% vs 49%

Anyway, I think that there is a simple way to resolve this problem. Competence. A competent doctor with a degree in a relevant field of medicine says "this kid should undergo this treatment to have good chances to survive"? This is enough to make me say "this kid has to be treated, doesn't matter what his parents want".
Who are the parents, anyway? Competent doctors? I daresay they aren't.

Uh, are you aware that probabilities should always amount up to 1 (that is 100%), and not above?
So your cases would likely be:
60% vs 40%
55% vs 45%
52.5% vs 47.5%
51% vs 49%

Actually, those were theoretical chances of survival between two different procedures, so they don't have to add up to 100%.

Anyway, I think that there is a simple way to resolve this problem. Competence. A competent doctor with a degree in a relevant field of medicine says "this kid should undergo this treatment to have good chances to survive"? This is enough to make me say "this kid has to be treated, doesn't matter what his parents want".
Who are the parents, anyway? Competent doctors? I daresay they aren't.

I would say a panel of doctors rather than "a doctor" personally, but other than that your point is valid.

There are many other reasons parents (or patients in general) might choose a particular treatment type over another besides religious reasons, of course. There are fear of side effects, fear of complications of certain procedures that, while there is a greater chance of survival, there is also a downside to it that cannot be ignored.

That's why the patients' right to choose is important, and in leiu of that, the parents' right to choose for their children.

There is very little black & white on this sort of thing.

I think the order is ridiculous. The child should have been immediately removed from his parents' custody; leaving him with them is a direct threat to his life.

Because then something like THIS (http://news.aol.com/article/boy-resists-chemo/488967?icid=main|aimzones|dl1|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fnews.aol.com%2Farticle%2Fboy-resists-chemo%2F488967) might happen?

Because then something like THIS (http://news.aol.com/article/boy-resists-chemo/488967?icid=main|aimzones|dl1|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fnews.aol.com%2Farticle%2Fboy-resists-chemo%2F488967) might happen?

Sadly predictable.

Because then something like THIS (http://news.aol.com/article/boy-resists-chemo/488967?icid=main|aimzones|dl1|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fnews.aol.com%2Farticle%2Fboy-resists-chemo%2F488967) might happen?

Something just like that. I suppose that the parents could be prosecuted for criminally negligent homicide (I love "Law & Order") after the kid dies, but I imagine that won't happen.

Because then something like THIS (http://news.aol.com/article/boy-resists-chemo/488967?icid=main|aimzones|dl1|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fnews.aol.com%2Farticle%2Fboy-resists-chemo%2F488967) might happen?

Or this:
http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/45298142.html

Or this:
http://bazards.newsvine.com/_news/2008/06/25/1608470-boy-dies-from-urinary-tract-infection-while-parents-pray

Or this:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23882698/

I think there should be special prisons for parents who commit this kind of murder. They should spend 20 hours per day doing menial labor that helps children's hospitals, like doing all the hospital's laundry or sorting through the garbage and recycling, for no pay. And every day a child who has been helped by medical science should get to come punch them in the face.

Or this:
http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/45298142.html

Or this:
http://bazards.newsvine.com/_news/2008/06/25/1608470-boy-dies-from-urinary-tract-infection-while-parents-pray

Or this:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23882698/

I think there should be special prisons for parents who commit this kind of murder. They should spend 20 hours per day doing menial labor that helps children's hospitals, like doing all the hospital's laundry or sorting through the garbage and recycling, for no pay. And every day a child who has been helped by medical science should get to come punch them in the face.

I almost support the death penalty for people this stupid.

Actually, those were theoretical chances of survival between two different procedures, so they don't have to add up to 100%.



That's why the patients' right to choose is important, and in leiu of that, the parents' right to choose for their children.

The parents don't have "right to choose for their children". They have an "obligation to grant the child's rights and welfare", which doesn't include dying of a curable cancer at age 13.

In the specific case, the parents have proven to be a couple of criminals who are trying damn hard to have a kid killed by a stupid lymphoma.