Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Polonius wrote:

mcfly wrote:I agree, he should have chemo, but the judge is in the wrong. The government should not have the right to take a child away from his parents and force him to have treatment.

Well, if the judge doesn't do that, how will he get his treatment? It's a pretty simple line of reasoning: Minors can't make their own medical decisions because they're too young (and this kid sounds not too bright). If a child's parent's aren't acting in his best interests, its' the job of a family judge to do so.

And yet Minors have sufficient capacity to have an abortion...

Frazzled wrote:
And yet Minors have sufficient capacity to have an abortion...

Bloody hell Frazz you've opened the gates to hell with that one.

I have pretty mixed emotions on this. What I haven't heard discussed at all - are there any other signs of neglectful and/or abusive parents? I hate to trump religious beliefs for the 'science is better' reason. If the parents are good parents, and there's no other issues, I have more of a problem over-turning the parents' choice to stop treatment. But, I agree, the patient isn't able to make an informed decision at this time, and likely doesn't understand the consequences of his decisions.

Just to fan the flames, if this was another religious sect (Orthodox Hebrew, Muslim, Bhuddist), would the government have ruled this way? That it's a combo of Catholic and native American, does that make it easier to over-rule 'religious beliefs'?

This really reminds me of "The Last Church" story in the new "Tales of Heresy" book. The Emperor was very anti-religion and pro-science; which is ironic considering how the 41st millenium turned out (worship of the Emperor and the Tech-priests treating science as a religion).

And yet Minors have sufficient capacity to have an abortion...

Not here at least. If they are under 16 they have to get permission from their parents/ legal guardian.

Frazzled wrote:

Polonius wrote:

mcfly wrote:I agree, he should have chemo, but the judge is in the wrong. The government should not have the right to take a child away from his parents and force him to have treatment.

Well, if the judge doesn't do that, how will he get his treatment? It's a pretty simple line of reasoning: Minors can't make their own medical decisions because they're too young (and this kid sounds not too bright). If a child's parent's aren't acting in his best interests, its' the job of a family judge to do so.

And yet Minors have sufficient capacity to have an abortion...

As opposed to "sufficient capacity to raise a child". Come on fraz, try harder than that. That was pathetic.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Polonius wrote:

mcfly wrote:I agree, he should have chemo, but the judge is in the wrong. The government should not have the right to take a child away from his parents and force him to have treatment.

Well, if the judge doesn't do that, how will he get his treatment? It's a pretty simple line of reasoning: Minors can't make their own medical decisions because they're too young (and this kid sounds not too bright). If a child's parent's aren't acting in his best interests, its' the job of a family judge to do so.

And yet Minors have sufficient capacity to have an abortion...

As opposed to "sufficient capacity to raise a child". Come on fraz, try harder than that. That was pathetic.

Hey thats the flip side. You're arguing children don't have the mental capacity, yet the courts have determined they DO have themental capacity for abortion.
This kid doesn't want it. This kid says he will fight any doctor that tries. Either kids do or do not have capacity.

Personally, the kid is convinced. Cancer kills, why go through the pain?

Edit: I do believe that was an unwarranted personal attack. What to do, what to do...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Update
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090520/ap_on_re_us/us_forced_chemo_19

Update: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_forced_chemo

I hope that the boy is doing well and that the chemo works.

Frazzled wrote:

Polonius wrote:

mcfly wrote:I agree, he should have chemo, but the judge is in the wrong. The government should not have the right to take a child away from his parents and force him to have treatment.

Well, if the judge doesn't do that, how will he get his treatment? It's a pretty simple line of reasoning: Minors can't make their own medical decisions because they're too young (and this kid sounds not too bright). If a child's parent's aren't acting in his best interests, its' the job of a family judge to do so.

And yet Minors have sufficient capacity to have an abortion...

Well, there are a couple of big factors here. First is that family judges aren't idiots. They're far more likely to listen to a 16 year olds reasons for wanting or not wanting treatment over, say, a 10 year olds.

Secondly, we always treat parents as adults. I remember back in the mid 90's, a girl who was 16 got her baby's ears pierced, but she couldn't pierce her own ears without parental permission. There are certain times when kids are treated as adults, and it's usually when they screw up really badly.

In addition, parental consent laws for abortions are really only vaguely about protecting children. They're really about making it harder to get an abortion, which is fine, I guess, but there is a strong argument to be made that many grandparents would force their daughter to have the child. Sure, most had judicial loopholes, but how comfy is a household going to be after the daughter gets a court order to allow her abortion?

It's the greyest of grey areas for me and abortion rights, but it's simply a pretty physically safe procedure that affects a child's entire future. I mean, after birth the minor becomes a legal guardian that can make all decisions for the baby, why does that magically happen between the first trimester and birth?

Because human life is messy.