in the news in MN.WTF???

Anonymous-0 · May 21, 2009

Just seeing something about the law looking for a family that refuse to make their son go through chemotherapy.... Are these people for real (courts)??? Why would any parent in their right mind want to prolong the suffering of their kid and how could the courts order it? Stuff like this that keeps me from getting homesick...

Dave

rustyfarmall · May 21, 2009

Apparently the courts can do anything they want. They can even make the decision to declare a written law un-constitutional if it doesn't fit their agenda. Just take a good look at what is happening in Iowa.

Dalex · May 21, 2009

I've seen him on the news , looks ok now , but needs continued chemo.It's not like he is terminal now. He has lymphoma , a real curable type. 95%cure with chemo , 40% survival without . It has caused a tumor in his shoulder that is growing, that is what will prolly kill him without treatment.

Anonymous-0 · May 21, 2009

If you have a sick child, and you withhold medical treatment from them, that constitutes CHILD ABUSE in nearly every state in the nation. It's not the courts rewriting the laws; it's the courts enforcing the laws the way they are written.

Don't like the way the laws are written?? Then QUIT VOTING FOR THE SAME IDIOTS over and over again, and make electing someone with an EDUCATION a priority. And that goes for candidates from ALL parties. Throw out the bums and the career politicians; our forefathers came to this land to escape a society [England] who had a class that claimed a "divine right" to rule. Our current Congress is nothing more than another House of Lords, who have little in common with working Americans anymore. VOTE THEM OUT, and let's start over.

big fred · May 21, 2009

The court should not be able to force a family to disregard their religious convictions. That would seem to be at the very core of the first amendment. I realize very few courts care about the Constitution, but many of the citizens still do.

tjdub · May 21, 2009

What if the family's religious convictions include robbing banks (for the Lord)?

big fred · May 21, 2009

That would be imposing their beliefs on others. I don't think the founders intended that.

rustyfarmall · May 21, 2009

(quoted from post at 10:33:59 05/21/09) If you have a sick child, and you withhold medical treatment from them, that constitutes CHILD ABUSE in nearly every state in the nation. It's not the courts rewriting the laws; it's the courts enforcing the laws the way they are written.

Don't like the way the laws are written?? Then QUIT VOTING FOR THE SAME IDIOTS over and over again, and make electing someone with an EDUCATION a priority. And that goes for candidates from ALL parties. Throw out the bums and the career politicians; our forefathers came to this land to escape a society [England] who had a class that claimed a "divine right" to rule. Our current Congress is nothing more than another House of Lords, who have little in common with working Americans anymore. VOTE THEM OUT, and let's start over.

I voted AGAINST every single one of the idiots in the last election, but they got placed into power anyhow. Now what?

newfarmer9 · May 21, 2009

He's not terminally ill or on his death bed. YET. It is a highly treatable form of cancer, but only with regular treatments and chemo. The parents refuse chemo because it "violates" their religion, and instead have chosen "natural" methods. Which will probably result in his death. Sounds like child abuse to me.

Ron Anderson · May 21, 2009

Electing somebody with a education?? It seems most of the people in public office are lawyers or movie stars. You can see where that got us.
Give me somebody that started a business from scratch. More then likely they will have common sense and know you can't spend money that you don't have. Usually they will be honest. I would also see like to see someone with military experience who has walked the walk.
The longer the politician has been in office the more crooked he is so there should be term limits to avoid favors being done back and forth. Also expose the pork for what it is and who voted for it.
We have all seen the wrong decisions made concerning illness and how it effects people. Some religions object to modern ways and when you see a young fellow as he is now you think chemo is killing him. I have a friend that went through the chemo route this winter and yeah it was very hard for him to stay on track until the treatment was over but it was certain death unless he did something. He is on the road to recovery now but it was hard going through the cure. Sometimes there is no cure but it sounds like there was a good chance for the young fellow. Health is kind of a gamble no matter what you do but I wouldn't want to be in the parents shoes. I really don't think the court system should be involved.

Nancy Howell · May 21, 2009

Problem is, even if we voted them all out, would the ones we voted in be any better?

Anonymous-0 · May 21, 2009

I just got a piece of it. Didn't know it was a religious thing. I'd say take him and his siblings away, fix him, sterilize both parents and let the church pay the bills. Guess I better get the whole story from now on.

Dave

dhermesc · May 21, 2009

Remember external_link's first choice for Secretary of Health and Human Services advocated the denial of life saving treatments to all people (even those willing to pay for it) because advanced medical practices could drive up the cost the government spends on health care.

I guess when its for religon its crazy, but when its for socialized health care costs it makes good sense.

jack harmon · May 21, 2009

MY take on it,there's not a doctor in the world,now,or ever that could CURE you of anything!.and if there was he wouldn't have time for anyone who wasn't a multi-millionaire.The best a doctor can hope to do is,relive pain,administer drugs that allows your body to cure itself,and maybe increase quality of life.If there's a chance this can happen with chemo,religious beliefs aside,I'd say go for it,if there's little or no hope it would work let God decide his fate.I have a terminally ill wife,all five of her(full time) doctors agree on this,however,NO TWO! can agree on a treatment to prolong,help,or control her disease(s) in any way.Even had one tell her yesterday to stop taking every one of her fifteen meds for a month so he could run some test.THREE TIMES her pharmacist has refused to fill a prescription because mixing that drug with one she is already taking would have been immediately fatal!.When you jump the doctors about it they just say "oh ,i didn't know she was taking that"even though she carries her drug list with her and gives it to them every visit.I don't trust doctors anymore than I trust politicians.I might have to look at each case differently in these cases,if the child was old enough to truly know both sides of the deal I would say let them decide, not the parents or the courts.if they were too small to understand ,and disease was not immediately life threatening,I would have to side with parents as they should be the ones ultimately responsible.If the disease was life threatening,requiring immediate operation or something that would be a different story .I don't think the courts,laws,etc should get involved until such time as life is in immediate danger.

dangerdoc · May 21, 2009

The boy has a form of childhood leukemia with a 90%+ cure rate with treatment and about a 2% chance of survival without treatment, probably less. This form of cancer is cured every day across the country.

His folks want to treat him with tea and a heat lodge.

The judge has a right to assign custodial care if the parents decissions are not in the best interest of the child's health. In this case, I agree with the judge. Not treating the boy is a death sentence.

Dennis (VA) · May 21, 2009

Sorry, couldn't resist. George W. fits your description of what we need in office, and look where that got us.

Dennis (VA) · May 21, 2009

Sorry, couldn't resist. George W. fits your description of what we need in office, and look where that got us.

jack harmon · May 21, 2009

But, and I want to say first of all if he were my child there would be no question about his treatment if I had to sell my soul for it, what about that 2% survival without it?what was different there?I truly, honestly,and with all my heart believe,that if God wants you, your dead. anytime, anywhere, anyhow.that if its not your time,you could not be killed by a nuclear blast.Ive seen folks 100 yrs old and folks 10 minutes old die.The only thing 100% fatal everytime without fail is living.I believe everyone has a lifetime.sometimes that is 100 yrs,sometimes its 10 min,and sometimes its only a few minutes in the womb.but a lifetime none the less.God only allows us the time between the beginning and end to decide our quality of life,and how we choose to use it.We cant say what will happen to this boy,I sincerly would hope and pray he would wake up tommorrow completly healthy,but until his life is without a doubt in jepordy without immediate attention,I believe this something between him and his parents. these decisions are made every day, to pull the plug etc, i cant help but wonder when these cases become so public exactly who's behind the media attention that makes this case so different.I truly wonder how many children in this country has the same condition and are not getting treatment simply because of a money not religious issue, that you never hear of?

just another old geezer · May 21, 2009

While I am a strong proponent of personel rights and have no great love of cancer doctors, I have to side with the courts with this one. refusing treatment for this child is a death sentence. Currently, in Rothschild Wi, a mother is on trial for 2nd manslaughter for not taking her child to the doctor, choosing to pray for her instead. the child died of diabitis. Her defence: she beleves in a church and a Minister that is a faith healer, and if she praied hard enough and she was deserving enough, God would heal her child.
I am sorry, but if your child is sick, you take them to the Doctor. If your child is sick, and you are devoutly religous, you take your child to a doctor, THEN you pray you got a good doctor.

just another old geezer · May 21, 2009

By the time this childs life is in imediate danger, it will be too late for a cure to be effective. This child may not be in imediate danger, but he is in imminent danger.

Spook · May 21, 2009

I had a great uncle who died of apendicitis. He was a right wing religious nut. Refused to go to the hospital, maybe because they didn't specifically mention hospitals in the bible. Basically "goofy" as my dad would say. Pretty sad when adults visit their idiocy on the kids.

Anonymous-0 · May 21, 2009

Parents do NOT own the kids. The kids have ordinary civil rights- to life and liberty. Parents may NOT force their own religion on kids.
USA Civil rights trumps any religion.

just another old geezer · May 21, 2009

Correction to my earlier post. the woman is from Weston wi, Not Rothschild. Still both Wausau suburbs.

teddy52food · May 21, 2009

Yes, When your time is up, you are going to go. If that kid had a disease that would be catching to other kids and they may die from it, then I would say the court should step in.

Mark - IN. · May 21, 2009

Well, I'm no authority on this but read and heard a bit about it a few days ago. It's my understanding that the 13 year-old boy, as I recall, said that he wants to continue the alternative medicines as his choice and will fight physically if need to in an effort to stop anyone that tries to make him go through chemotheapy in leiu of whatever alternative medicines have been practiced. Whether misguided or not, that's what I read in my paper and then heard discussed a few days ago.

As far as the courts go that decided that he needs to undergo chemo, as much as I agree that chemo may be better for him and not being an expert on the matter or subject, I must point out that courts have allowed minors, children at the same age to sue to divorce their parents (I disagree with) and other such stuff, so how can courts then say that this 13 year-old, misguided or not, not be aware enough to make such decisions for himself that others are allowed to make? I guess that I would tell the courts, "Your chickennnnnnnns have come hoooooooooome...to roooooooooooosT", or however what's that preacher's name said it, and use them guys against themselves.

Personally, I think that this world is upside down, but those that have helped turn it upside down can't have it both ways in my book. If they're going to turn it upside down for you, me, and everyone else, then I have every intent of taking them with us and holding them to it with extreme prejudice.

Mark

just another old geezer · May 21, 2009

To Mark: I had not heard that it was the childs decision, only the mothers. The question looms, Is he old and mature enough to make his oun decisions about his life and death. Has he gotten the full story, or is he just mimicking his parents wishes. does he understand the full seriousness of this. These questions have to be answered in front of a judge. as I understand it, the the judge has not ordered treatment, just an examination and recomendation by a specalist. with his decision to follow based on those results. I think that going AWOL with her son at this point was a little premature to argue that it was the childs wishes

Mark - IN. · May 21, 2009

Another...I agree that such a decision not to do chemo is probably not in the child's best interest. I absolutely agree.

However, the story as I read it and then heard it repeated on radio very specifically pointed out that the child said very clearly that he would physically fight not to undergo chemo if it came to that.

Now as a staunch conservative that hates for one, judges that legislate from the bench, and have legislated from the bench in such idiotic ways as allowing children the same age to make stupid decisions that children at that age should not be allowed to make...how can courts then tell this child that he is too young to make such misguided mistakes? Again, as that nitwit preacher from Chicago's south side said, and I'd have to repeat it to the courts, "Your chickennnnnnnnnnnnnnns...".

If this world (country) is going to turn upside down where idiots are to be revered and intelligent hard working practical folks are to be looked down upon, then by all means let's do it full speed ahead and strap those that caused it to the front bumper...with extreme prejudice so that they have to be the first to see and experience what's coming our way thanks to them. This world (country) is no longer about right versus wrong, good versus bad, or common sense, but instead about being stupid is the cool and in thing to do, so long as someone else pays for it...so give them what they demand, but make sure they swallow every bite as they're forcing us to swallow.

Mark

Ultradog MN · May 21, 2009

I don't know.
I know it isn't the same thing but the MN courts can order Golden Plump - a big local chicken processer - to provide special rooms where the moslem employees can do their prayers and ritual washing. Probably not the same but there's something in it about religious freedom or rights. Isn't there?
And don't tell me I don't know the difference between a childs life and a chicken processor either.

Anonymous-0 · May 21, 2009

It appears that, like me, you aren't exactly "a man of considerable influence." I voted against all the incumbents, as well some re-running idiots, and it didn't work for me, either.

But we have to try. People who can't form a coherent sentence shouldn't be writing our laws...but neither should shyster lawyers.

MarkB_MI · May 22, 2009

This is a fine line, for sure. Certainly chemotherapy is pretty horrific, but we're not talking about extreme, experimental treatment. If treated now, the probability that the boy will survive is good. If not treated, the boy's chances are bad. The article I read said 80-90 percent success if treated, 5 percent chance of survival if not treated.

First of all, you can't give a great deal of weight to the boy's wishes. Thirteen is not old enough to be making life and death decisions. And you have to consider that his parents have probably assured him that he'll live if he does as they say.

At that point, you're really talking about the parents' rights, not the child's. And the courts take children away from their parents all the time, if it appears that the child is in an abusive or dangerous situation. The parents' decision is, statistically speaking, a death sentence for the child. I think I'm going to side with the courts on this one.

Now maybe the courts in Germany would not do this. But I would note that Germany has always given much more credence to non-traditional remedies than the US. Many treatments, such as homeopathy, that are legitimate in Germany are considered quackery in the US. So you're talking about quite different standards for acceptable medical care between the two countries.

greygoat · May 22, 2009

I've been following that also, though not native
American, the mom wants the boy to try some old
traditional herb healing, It would be nice if it
worked, but you'd think that places like Mayo
Clinic would already have investagated all of that
stuff, as old native healing methods are being
looked into more, lately.
Late news was that the mom may have take him
to Mexico to try a "Miracle cure", the miracle
being, if you get back home with any money.

just another old geezer · May 22, 2009

Do I understand you correctly? Are you saying that it's right to stand by and let this child die because you do not agree with decisions handed down by judges in the past. Are you talking about this judge in this case, or all judges??. Yes, there are some Judges who have their oun political agenda, but they do not get to choose the cases brought before them. they have to decide the cases dumped in their laps on each cases individual merit.In cases of minor children, they are supposed to be guided by what is in the best interest of the child. I remember one case of a child trying to, the media calls it, divorce her parents. she said it was to escape excessive drug use and prostitution going on in the house. Some of the cases of children "divorceing" parents is the result of the local child services agency being asleep at the wheel and the child is forced to take matters into their own hands. Consider this: If to were a case of a child wanting the chemo and the parents refusing, would that child be within his rights to "divorce " his parents to get the proper treatment??. In that light this case looks different to me.

Mark - IN. · May 22, 2009

No, you don't understand me correctly. My point is simple, can't have it both ways. And I only used "divorced" parents as an example of many. Can get into a Washington state case where the parents of an underaged girl caught her having relations with her boyfriend, banished them, grounded her, she complained that they were too strict, the court ruled on her behalf, removed her from the home. Another Washington case where the underaged son didn't like having to go to church with the family Sunday mornings, Sunday nights, and prayer on Wednesday night, judge ruled too much church and removed the kid from the home. Tennessee case where the parents wanted their underaged son tested for drugs, had him tested for drugs, but got no test results back because his records not their business. Stuff like that, with much more and far stupider than those.

I never said that I wanted this kid or anyone else to die, but if the kids are smart enough for courts to allow them to do stupid stuff, can't discriminate. Can't tell other 13 year-olds, yep, you're right and then tell this 13 year-old not wise enough. No discrimination in my book. Give them what they want, make them swallow every bite of what they cooked and we're expected to enjoy eating.

Mark

in the news in MN.WTF???

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Member

Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Member

Well-known Member

Similar threads