What the parents are attempting to do here seems to me to be equivalent to murder by deception. If there's a glass of water and a glass of poison sitting on a table, and some guy walks up and asks me "Hey, which one of these is safe to drink?" and I lie to him and trick him into drinking the poison, have I not murdered the person? That seems directly equivalent to what these parents are doing when they tell their kid that the chemo will kill him rather than save him.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Convincing your child to want to die
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
My life partner, Gloria, suffers from Asthma.
4-5 years ago there was a child who died due to a fierce asthma attack. The parents belonged to some religious group who did not believe in medical care. I do not remember the religion, but it was not Christian Science.
Gloria said:
It is hard to believe that parents could watch a child die that way.
The young cancer patient is a some what different situation because the seriousness of the tumor is not as obvious as an asthma attack. I do not blame those parents the way I blame the parents of the asthma patient. These parents might very well have refused treatment if they had the tumor. It would be a shame for a person to die due to ignorance of a medical condition. It is a tragedy for a person (child) to die due to the ignorance of the parents. If possible, a child should be protected from such parents.
I do not view this as a government interference issue. Doctors initiated the legal action, not some bureaucrat.
Except for some behavior oriented religions (Society of Friends or Quakers, for example), religious training for children is brain washing. In many instances, it is not harmful.
It would be interesting to run a study of suicide in teenage & younger children. I wonder how many are from the more religious families. I wonder if any young atheists commit suicide.
4-5 years ago there was a child who died due to a fierce asthma attack. The parents belonged to some religious group who did not believe in medical care. I do not remember the religion, but it was not Christian Science.
Gloria said:
She should know. I had to rush her to the ER about 3AM when she had an attack. It was ghastly until the hospital staff could help her. She was in physical agony & fierce mental anguish.Those ba***rds !! If one of them could not breathe, I know damn well they would call 911 or go directly to the ER. Nobody can tolerate not being able to breathe.
It is hard to believe that parents could watch a child die that way.
The young cancer patient is a some what different situation because the seriousness of the tumor is not as obvious as an asthma attack. I do not blame those parents the way I blame the parents of the asthma patient. These parents might very well have refused treatment if they had the tumor. It would be a shame for a person to die due to ignorance of a medical condition. It is a tragedy for a person (child) to die due to the ignorance of the parents. If possible, a child should be protected from such parents.
I do not view this as a government interference issue. Doctors initiated the legal action, not some bureaucrat.
Except for some behavior oriented religions (Society of Friends or Quakers, for example), religious training for children is brain washing. In many instances, it is not harmful.
It would be interesting to run a study of suicide in teenage & younger children. I wonder how many are from the more religious families. I wonder if any young atheists commit suicide.
Pandaemoni
Valued Senior Member
My life partner, Gloria, suffers from Asthma.
4-5 years ago there was a child who died due to a fierce asthma attack. The parents belonged to some religious group who did not believe in medical care. I do not remember the religion, but it was not Christian Science.
Gloria said:She should know. I had to rush her to the ER about 3AM when she had an attack. It was ghastly until the hospital staff could help her. She was in physical agony & fierce mental anguish.
It is hard to believe that parents could watch a child die that way.
The young cancer patient is a some what different situation because the seriousness of the tumor is not as obvious as an asthma attack. I do not blame those parents the way I blame the parents of the asthma patient. These parents might very well have refused treatment if they had the tumor. It would be a shame for a person to die due to ignorance of a medical condition. It is a tragedy for a person (child) to die due to the ignorance of the parents. If possible, a child should be protected from such parents.
I do not view this as a government interference issue. Doctors initiated the legal action, not some bureaucrat.
Except for some behavior oriented religions (Society of Friends or Quakers, for example), religious training for children is brain washing. In many instances, it is not harmful.
It would be interesting to run a study of suicide in teenage & younger children. I wonder how many are from the more religious families. I wonder if any young atheists commit suicide.
So would you or your girlfriend propose that medical decisions for your own children be made by the State? Or would all parents simply have to meet the "Gloria Test"—if your beliefs are such that Gloria thinks you are fit to raise kids, then you can make your own children's medical decisions, otherwise the State takes your children's medical decisions into its own hands (though the bills, presumably, still go to the parents).
You do see that you are basically having the government interfere in particular religions when you do that, right? The government is sending the strong signal that all religions may be equal, but some are a lot less equal than others. Some are so downright "wrong" that parents who believe in it have fewer rights than Gloria. (Though beware, Gloria may not pass the Pandaemoni Test—or some other person's test—so she may find that I want the state to take her kids from her under certain circumstances.)
Then again, are only religious parents to suffer this kind of oppression, or is it any "crazy" beliefs (using the Gloria Test to define what is "crazy"). Suppose a parent genuinely was afraid of the risks of vaccination, for example, even though those risks (which are real) tend to be less than the others we find acceptable (like driving your child around in a car, versus the odds that a measles vaccine will accidentally kill your child, or leave them permanently deaf)? Surely the State should snatch chilren away from such parents.
What about other beliefs that are harmful to children? Should we not stop racist parents from sharing those beliefs with their children?
Suppose parents spoil their children, or overfeed them so they become obese? Surely, again, we should limit the rights of such parents for the sake of those children. Obesity is definitely a health issue and they are killing those children.
I am not the worlds biggest libertarian, but it seems to me that if you and Gloria get to intervene in cases where you think it is important, then I get to stop parents from producing fat and racist kids, because I think that is even more important. You are denying people freedom of religion, I am denying them freedom of speech (in some cases). We are both denying them the freedom to parent as they deem fit. So what's the difference other than you care more about your issues that you do about mine?
I do not advocate making mine "policy" but only because I thought we had a social compact not to do such things. It seems like some people want to call that off and turn us into a nation of overweening busybodies. If your peccadillos become, by law a test parents must pass, then mine should too, and so too should those of people two towns over or three states away. Everyone should get their chance to put their personal subjective beliefs about how others out to raise kids into the law.
“From the equality of rights springs identity of our highest interests; you cannot subvert your neighbor's rights without striking a dangerous blow at your own.”
--Carl Schurz
Last edited:
The following is a strawman argument.
There is a vast difference between the following two situations.
Of course, nobody wants the government to routinely overrule decisions made by parents.So would you or your girlfriend propose that medical decisions for your own children be made by the State?
There is a vast difference between the following two situations.
- Legislation which establishes a bureacracy to make medical decisions on behalf of children, regularly overruling the the parents.
- Allowing doctors to appeal to a court when their medical opinion indicates that parents are making decisions detrimental to a child. Note that a complex culture needs courts & should trust them to make impartial decisions based on law & scientific facts.
Mickmeister
Registered Senior Member
So now that he is back and the judge has ordered treatment to take effect immediately, what if he fights them physically when they try to treat him? Should he be sedated?
...Should he be sedated?
yes. If he was capable of forming an informed opinion, I would say no. But he's not.
Oleander hit the nail on the head relating to sedating the 13-year old.
In most instances doctors & judges take the correct view in these situations.
A 13-year old is seldom capable of making good decisions. They tend to have an instant gratification personality & little sense of their own mortality.yes. If he was capable of forming an informed opinion, I would say no. But he's not.
In most instances doctors & judges take the correct view in these situations.
Ah, so a woman has the right to KILL a perfectly healthy child at any point in a pregnancy but once born loses the authority to try and SAVE the child in the best way she knows how.
Stunning.
If they didn't feel she could pay for the court fines and medical procedures/insurance, would we be discussing this at all?
Stunning.
If they didn't feel she could pay for the court fines and medical procedures/insurance, would we be discussing this at all?
Ah, so a woman has the right to KILL a perfectly healthy child at any point in a pregnancy ...
??? :bugeye: That's not true
personally i know that i was wrong about this in my previous responses. the issue here is that WITH treatment the odds for the kid recovering and at least getting rid of the cancer for awhile is so overwhelmingly better than not treating it traditionally that it is similar to a person comitting suicide if they chose this route for themselves. at least that is what i have read and since there are millions of cases to look at to support this then it is hard to imagine that in this case it is not somewhat abusive for the parent to force the kid into treatment, which parents can do, if it is in the best interet of the child.
I think the when there are mandates or others involved in such cases everyone gets screwed. Where will they draw the line when it comes to other invasions of family and privacy? And who is to decide what is best for YOUR child or your home?
If a child is not of legal age then the parents are responsible for their children and how they are raised, period end of discussion.
If a child is very sick and medical treatment is shown to save the child but the particular medical treatment is against the parents’ wishes or beliefs, then the child should not be subjected to it regardless of what anyone else thinks, it is their child and their responsibility.
My sister died of Leukemia when she was 11 years old and the chemotherapy was horrible and painful, not to mention her hair loss was something that bothered her just as bad if not worse than knowing she was dying. She asked my mother if she would be bald in her casket; now try that on for size. I remember how painful the chemotherapy was on the entire family, especially on my parents who watched her throw up all the time and was too sick to even play. My parents finally decided that chemo was almost worse than the cancer itself and in the end she still died.
My aunt recently died of stomach cancer and she refused chemo and although she was in pain at the end she died fast and was happy she had not undergone chemo.
Sure it might save the boys life but it’s not a guarantee that it would but once you step over a parents rights to how they raise their child you lose all control, which as a country the USA lost long ago.
If a child is not of legal age then the parents are responsible for their children and how they are raised, period end of discussion.
If a child is very sick and medical treatment is shown to save the child but the particular medical treatment is against the parents’ wishes or beliefs, then the child should not be subjected to it regardless of what anyone else thinks, it is their child and their responsibility.
My sister died of Leukemia when she was 11 years old and the chemotherapy was horrible and painful, not to mention her hair loss was something that bothered her just as bad if not worse than knowing she was dying. She asked my mother if she would be bald in her casket; now try that on for size. I remember how painful the chemotherapy was on the entire family, especially on my parents who watched her throw up all the time and was too sick to even play. My parents finally decided that chemo was almost worse than the cancer itself and in the end she still died.
My aunt recently died of stomach cancer and she refused chemo and although she was in pain at the end she died fast and was happy she had not undergone chemo.
Sure it might save the boys life but it’s not a guarantee that it would but once you step over a parents rights to how they raise their child you lose all control, which as a country the USA lost long ago.
what a load of crap. subsitute food for health care, if kid needs food and parents dont want to feed it its the parents right and kid should stave? or if parent whants to fuck kid the child belongs to the parent and the state should keep out of it?
what are we, in fucking rome during the roman empire where women and children were effectivly the fathers slaves?
not to mention it breaches the international convention on the rights of the child
what are we, in fucking rome during the roman empire where women and children were effectivly the fathers slaves?
not to mention it breaches the international convention on the rights of the child
Asguard, your argument is weak.
Substitute food for health care and starve a child, hardly. But let’s take your argument further in a different direction with government control with all the fattening foods and preservatives today this is a great argument, yea lets all go to McDonalds kids and pack on a few more pounds. Next the government will charge you with child abuse for feeding your kids a diet that is not healthy or properly balanced but that leads to health problems, or even charge you for a crime for letting your kids watch those violent movies and playing those wonderful video games like GTA. They already charge you f you child isn’t in school.
How about this, you raise your kids the way you want and let others raise their kids the way they want. You speak only for your house and how its run and I will speak for my house and how it is run. If you don’t like this tough crap! Yes if my child had cancer I would probably op out of Chemo because I know enough about it but it’s my right as the parent so screw the courts!
International convention of children’s rights, yea what a bunch of crap! Tell that to the thousands of children that have died in Iraq at the hands of the USA for whatever the justification was that the war was waged, where are (were) their rights?
Substitute food for health care and starve a child, hardly. But let’s take your argument further in a different direction with government control with all the fattening foods and preservatives today this is a great argument, yea lets all go to McDonalds kids and pack on a few more pounds. Next the government will charge you with child abuse for feeding your kids a diet that is not healthy or properly balanced but that leads to health problems, or even charge you for a crime for letting your kids watch those violent movies and playing those wonderful video games like GTA. They already charge you f you child isn’t in school.
How about this, you raise your kids the way you want and let others raise their kids the way they want. You speak only for your house and how its run and I will speak for my house and how it is run. If you don’t like this tough crap! Yes if my child had cancer I would probably op out of Chemo because I know enough about it but it’s my right as the parent so screw the courts!
International convention of children’s rights, yea what a bunch of crap! Tell that to the thousands of children that have died in Iraq at the hands of the USA for whatever the justification was that the war was waged, where are (were) their rights?
Mickmeister
Registered Senior Member
you have to be a yank, ONLY in the US is heathcare a simple comodity rather than a human right.
Exactly. We are not a socialistic government yet.
Pandaemoni
Valued Senior Member
what a load of crap. subsitute food for health care, if kid needs food and parents dont want to feed it its the parents right and kid should stave? or if parent whants to fuck kid the child belongs to the parent and the state should keep out of it?
what are we, in fucking rome during the roman empire where women and children were effectivly the fathers slaves?
not to mention it breaches the international convention on the rights of the child
Okay, let's substitute food. What religion urges their members to never eat? None of them, and anyone who claimed such a religion would be obviously lying. Is this kid the parent's slave? No.
Is the kid THE STATE'S slave? The kid does not want the procedure. The parents do not want the procedure, the *court* has indicated that it wants the procedure. The question of "slavery" either (i) never enters into it or (ii) cuts as much if not more against your side of the argument. In one case the parents make a decision that binds the kid (and he happens to agree with it). In your preferred solution a bureaucrat makes the decision for the child (and the kid opposes it). I'd rather be the slave of a loving parent, than the government.
On the other hand, let's substitute circumcision. How dare the state allow Jews to foist this surgery on infants without their consentm and without solid medical benefits ever having been shown! The state should seize those children and punish the parents for making medical decision for their kids based on religious and not medical factors.
What about scientologists indoctrinating their children into that faith? It is a long run money sink that many believe is little more than an elaborate fraud machine, and yet we are at a point where there are second and third generation scientologists. Surely a court can order parents not to "harm" children by brainwashing them into that religion.
Leave it to a national health care supporter to place forced medical treatment above liberty as a goal. You may live in chains, but at least you'll live a long time in chains. Right? What other medical procedures can the state force me to inflict on my kids that I and they do not want? Under what circumstances do the parents have any right to refuse anything the state wants "for their own good"? Only when they agree with you about what should be done? Only when they agree with a judge? Only when they agree with a majority of the people in that nation? Perhaps phrase it in the negative: Only ehwn you/a judge/the majority does not disagree with the parents' decision? What is the principle?
It seems to me the role of the Court should be to determine if parents genuinely have the child's best interest at heart, if they do, then they are allowed to be potentially wrong. If they do not, then I have no problem with a judicial intervention. Here, the judge is clear that they do, and he is leaving the kid with them.
What makes anybody assume that the judge has the child's interests more in mind than the parents, absent some showing to that effect?
Pandaemoni
Valued Senior Member
[*]Allowing doctors to appeal to a court when their medical opinion indicates that parents are making decisions detrimental to a child. Note that a complex culture needs courts & should trust them to make impartial decisions based on law & scientific facts.[/list]Might doctors be wrong? of course this can happen. Might a judge make a bad decision? Of course this can happen (& does far too often).
It's worse than the doctors being "wrong." It's that the doctors' philosophy that empiricism is paramount and should trump spiritual concerns that is the problem. There is no provable "right" position in the clash between empirical science and theological issues of spiritual salvation when the theology sees a conflct.
If the debate were over "which is more likely to result in the child's survival", THEN the doctors would have a point. The goal of "life" is not just to live to a miserable, but ripe old, age. Worse sttill, in our law we have a clear mandate to respect religion, and we do not have any clear mandate to respect a technocratic ideal.
Freedom of religion is a right. Freedom of doctors to do what is in your best interests no matter what you or your legal guardians may say and no matter what the philsophical differences that led to your disagreement, that is not a right anywhere on Earth.
From a theological standpoint, it would be preferable for the child to die and go to heaven, than live and go to Hell. Sio unless the doctors have (i) a cure for spiritual transgression (in which case the kid can both have the medical care and not suffer any adverse religious consequences) or (ii) a cure for religious liberty (in which case the parents and child's right not to have their religion denigrated by State action is gone), I do not see why their wishes matter more than anyone else's. (Including random people on the street...the doctors do not love the kid more than his parents do...and the law no where makes them the de facto guardians of anyone as a result.)
They have an informed opinion, and no legal or long term emotional tie to that child, so why put them in charge. Again, if we all agreed that "longer life" was the one and only point of concern, they should be in charge, but there are competing factors outside the purview of the medical profession and as to which no right or wrong answer exists. You might as well have an investment adviser take his client to court to prevent the client from making charitable donation. The adviser can no doubt prove that the client can "earn more" by investing the money rather than giving it away. If "maximizing earnings" were the rubric by which we determined who should make the decision, then we'd likely have to always side with the investment adviser. That is not the end all/be all test, of course, and we all recognize that philosophical and spiritual concerns can make other goals served by charitable donation *more* important than the hard financial facts. In this case, though, the aura of empiricism trumps all other philosophical concerns. That is good for science...not so much for the notion of "freedom."
If a "psychic healer" said that exorcism would cure the kid, should the psychic have a right to take the kid's parents to court? Of course not. What's the difference? It's that the psychic is not promoting a scientific viewpoint, and so therefore we are all comfortable ignoring it. At least in the U.S., the Constitution mentions nothing about science trumping religion, and yet there are prohibitions against the State taking action that interferes with religious freedom.
I don't see that anyone has offered a coherent reason why the basic principles of religious liberty and parental autonomy cease to apply in this case, or why religious liberty isn't at issue when the obvious conclusion that can be drawn from the court's decision is either "this religion is wrong" or "we reserve the right to risk your child's spiritual health, because the body is more important...and your religion is wrong in that it disagrees."
If you can disregard these fundamental principles here, why can't the state interfere with parents who, say, raise obese children? There is no religious interest involved in that, just parental autonomy, so that must be an easier case.
Liberty is nothing more than the right to agree with the judge and the doctors, in this case.
Last edited:
Mickmeister
Registered Senior Member
yep your animals get treated better BY LAW than your vunerable groups, children, the elderly, the sick, the poor and the disenfranchosed. you are a race of egotistical self centered slavers equivlant to north koria or the roman empire
I would not say that. My cousin is cerebral palsy and has the dependencies of a 2 year old. He is now 60 and has tried to commit suicide by starvation twice and the fucking state has force fed him both times. He has no mental impairments, but because he cannot do anything for himself and cannot vocalize clearly, the state is going to make him continue living in hell...