Originally Posted by Chukpike

If it was my child I would want him treated, but he is not. I don't like the parents decision in this case, but believe it is their decision to make.

I'm guessing from your comments, especially "it is their decision to make" means that you support the government staying out of all family/child based cases. For instance, family child molestation cases and child abuse cases because it's the "parent(s)" making the decision. And after all, who would raise a child better than their own parents?

I'm sorry, but that is just about the most backward thinking I think I've ever heard. It's their right to kill their 13 year old child?

There HAS to be a point where the government is involved in extreme cases if the parents aren't doing what is in the best interests of the child.



p.s. I don't think I would pull the child aside and ask him his opinion at this point. He's already been brainwashed by his parents to accept "natural" cures and I don't think he really knows he will be dying if he ops for the "natural" cures.



All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

We separate kids from parents when they go to the cops about getting disciplined, I rate this about a million times worse.
When it is a case where a minor is denied a medical treatment, I think this becomes a case where the government can intervene.

Government should become involved. If one will work, imagine what both will do.

Originally Posted by pixiedustboo

I'm guessing from your comments, especially "it is their decision to make" means that you support the government staying out of all family/child based cases. For instance, family child molestation cases and child abuse cases because it's the "parent(s)" making the decision. And after all, who would raise a child better than their own parents?

I guess you are comparing parents making decisions for the welfare of their children, to being able to abuse their children. That is so wrong, and I would think you are more intelligent than that.

I'll let you decide if it is the same.

I think this personal attack is just wrong at any level.

Originally Posted by pixiedustboo

I'm sorry, but that is just about the most backward thinking I think I've ever heard. It's their right to kill their 13 year old child?

As you are aware the child is going to get treatment, so unless the court is wrong he is not going to die. So we can discuss where the line between parents and the state should be drawn without making ridiculous statements. So quit with the drama queen off the wall statements.

As backward as your statement above? And I never said it was right.

Originally Posted by pixiedustboo

There HAS to be a point where the government is involved in extreme cases if the parents aren't doing what is in the best interests of the child.

So why did they not take the boy away from these "bad parents"?
No, instead they set the parents up to go to jail for defying the court. Suggest you read what the mother said in the article. She is not going to follow the court instructions.

The state probably didn't take the child because they didn't want to pay the medical bills. This way they can make the parents pay. I know this sounds wrong. Or maybe the court wants to prove a point, they are the boss.

Notice that this compassionate judge didn't say to take the boy directly for treatment. The child has cancer and the government set a date for the mother to comply, if she doesn't are they going to set another court date. If the court really wanted to help the child why didn't they send him for immediate treatment?
Sounds like the government is right on top of this and is doing one bang up job for the child.

Originally Posted by pixiedustboo

p.s. I don't think I would pull the child aside and ask him his opinion at this point. He's already been brainwashed by his parents to accept "natural" cures and I don't think he really knows he will be dying if he ops for the "natural" cures.

Happens all the time. Courts will ask a 13 year old which parent they wish to stay with after a divorce. And I would agree with you, that the child is not old enough to make that decision.

If he was 18 the court would not be able to do anything. So the arbitrary line proves that anyone under 18 can't make a decision.

Originally Posted by pixiedustboo

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

"And after all, who would raise a child better than their own parents?" Apparently you think it is the government.

As a parent,...single mother for that matter....I try and place myself in the position of the child's parents,...and I really dont know, what I would do if, I was faced with that kind of decision....It's very overwhelming, and heart-breaking...but the truth is that I dont know whether I would agree or disagree to chemo for my child...chemo is just as devastating and dreadful...sigh...I cannot say or judge until I am faced with that difficult decision..

I know, I stated otherwise previously,...but after analyzing and thinking more about this...well, I simply decided am not in the position to judge...

Originally Posted by Chukpike

I guess you are comparing parents making decisions for the welfare of their children, to being able to abuse their children. That is so wrong, and I would think you are more intelligent than that.

I'll let you decide if it is the same.

I think this personal attack is just wrong at any level.

It falls under the same category. How many times has a child been "disciplined" by his or her parents and the parents gotten away with it?

Originally Posted by Chukpike

As you are aware the child is going to get treatment, so unless the court is wrong he is not going to die. So we can discuss where the line between parents and the state should be drawn without making ridiculous statements. So quit with the drama queen off the wall statements.

As backward as your statement above? And I never said it was right.

I'm curious as to how you can judge someone so instantly, Chukpike... Perhaps I'm finally getting to the bottom of your views on gay marriage and the like... Seeing as how you've never met anyone on here in your life, yet you make OUTRAGEOUS accusations against a person, then bitch and moan when someone makes an accusation against you. Very mature for someone your age...

The fact is if he didn't receive treatment, the child would probably die. But with treatment, he has a VERY good chance of surviving. If the parents understand this, and still refuse the child treatment, then they are essentially killing the child.

Originally Posted by Chukpike

So why did they not take the boy away from these "bad parents"?
No, instead they set the parents up to go to jail for defying the court. Suggest you read what the mother said in the article. She is not going to follow the court instructions.

The state probably didn't take the child because they didn't want to pay the medical bills. This way they can make the parents pay. I know this sounds wrong. Or maybe the court wants to prove a point, they are the boss.

Notice that this compassionate judge didn't say to take the boy directly for treatment. The child has cancer and the government set a date for the mother to comply, if she doesn't are they going to set another court date. If the court really wanted to help the child why didn't they send him for immediate treatment?
Sounds like the government is right on top of this and is doing one bang up job for the child.

It's a helluva lot better than the parents are doing! Or do you disagree? You think herbs and spices will cure cancer? *chuckle* Californians....

Originally Posted by Chukpike

"And after all, who would raise a child better than their own parents?" Apparently you think it is the government.

IN THIS CASE... YES.

Originally Posted by Rob Henderson

IN THIS CASE... YES.

I agree. In this case, you'd have to put in some effort to be any worse.

Originally Posted by Chukpike

This is really an all or nothing situation. Either parents have the right to decide how to raise or protect their children or it is the governments responsibility.

That is the choice.

I agree, parnts have the right to decide. As European, though, and having a lot of laws in place that do not only define *rights* but also *obligations* towards yur kids as a parent (and I have no prob whatsoever with 99% of them) I find it natural that if parents show obvious signs of abuse, abandonment or, lik in this case - negligence to have the kid taken away from them.

Government care is not great? Sure, but there might be othr familiy members or, if not, living growing up i government custody is still better than dying satisfying some quirked parent´s minds, IMHO.

Originally Posted by Chukpike

If you approve of the government in deciding in some cases, then when a situation comes up where you disagree with the government decision, guess who will decide.

The government (or, in Europe, the town social services where you live), and they are bound to follow laws (an not have to wait for a judges decision for general actions taken). I have no prob with that if parnents are not up to the task, be it for bein druggies, child molesters, religious fanatics or whatever.

Originally Posted by Chukpike

When it comes to raising children who do you think will do a better job?

Good parents, no question. "Good" for me means thexy put the kids interests before their own.

My 2c,

Rattler

Originally Posted by Chukpike

I guess you are comparing parents making decisions for the welfare of their children, to being able to abuse their children. That is so wrong, and I would think you are more intelligent than that.

I'll let you decide if it is the same.

I fail to see what is different from a parent physically abusing a child to a parent neglecting a child and letting them die.

Originally Posted by Chukpike

As you are aware the child is going to get treatment, so unless the court is wrong he is not going to die. So we can discuss where the line between parents and the state should be drawn without making ridiculous statements. So quit with the drama queen off the wall statements.

Originally Posted by pixiedustboo
I'm sorry, but that is just about the most backward thinking I think I've ever heard. It's their right to kill their 13 year old child?

My ridiculous comment would be fact if the parents had full power over the child verses the government intervening. I fail to see how that is a "ridiculous" statement.



If we let someone get away without getting chemo for a terminally ill child...what else will happen? Where will a line be drawn, or will there be a line at all? Maybe a mom has a baby with asthma, but she thought it would be better to do "natural" treatments - or better yet, in her backward thinking that the child is fine! Until she has a dead baby.

But after all, it's her child, and she needs to make the decision she thinks is best because if the government intervenes she is losing her freedoms to make her own choices.

Originally Posted by Rob Henderson

IN THIS CASE... YES.

I agree. I'm not saying I think the government should run everything. But in this case...yes.

A friend of mine worked in a major London hospital in London. A young child was brought in who required an emergency blood transfusion, the parents of the child were Jehovah's Witness's refused to give consent to the blood transfusion as it went against their religious beliefs. As it was a matter of life or death, a phone call was made to a judge by the hospital and the child was made a ward of the state within minutes and given the required medical treatment.


Do I consider it was right? Damn right I do