Another Violation of Human Liberty

[45-70.gov]

My main complaint with this case is that while Chemo may be effective it is not the only treatment for cancer.  There are many more proven methods.  Why subject a child to a painful hellish process if it isn't neccessary?  How is it legal for a judge to demand it.  Keep in mind that the person raising the complaint was his doctor.  The doctor that stands to loose a bit of money if the child doens't comply with his reccomendations.  This is simply another case of the government testing the powers they have over the people. 

Heather

you  say  that  ''we'' have to acknolege   other  treatments
that is an  acknowlegement  that  ''we''/ government have a say so

but  you thinking is getting better

[DalesCarpentry]

TN, Dale is a socialist democrat and thinks that the government knows best in all cases... he just pretends that he believes in civil liberties until anything that shows he don’t is posted.

I say if the kid is 13 and says he does not want chemo... then leave them the hell alone. If the kid dies then he played the hand he was dealt and the way he wanted to and THAT is everyone’s GOD GIVEN RIGHT who the hell are all of you to tell this kid he has to live or can’t choose to live and or die the way he wants. I have seen many people go through chemo and not a single one has ever said to me “Ah that wasn’t so bad" No they ALL said it was hell... and it has major long term effects. There are alternative treatments that will and do work and don’t have the long term effects... It should be the FAMILIES CHOICE not mine, yours or the governments... geez... it kills me that so many of you people cannot get it through your thick heads that you either believe in Civil Rights and Liberties or you Don’t... there is no in between... That is the brainwashing tactics that have been used on you... If you are Pro Second Amendment then you have to be Pro “Constitution” or the whole damn thing is null and moot and should just be thrown in the trash…

Matt

Matt. You go a head and lable me any way you like. I am not as you say but if it strokes your ego a little and makes you feel good then go for it. You are part owner of this site and I will respect that. I am not even going to fight back bacause I like it around here and don't want to leave. Hey take care. Dale

[billy_56081]

One thing I will tell you about the New Ulm, Sleepy Eye, Brown county MN area is, if they don't get this kids treatment and he dies, they may as well move. Those ol;d crocety Germans in New Ulm will make those peoples lives a living hell. Heck 30 years ago they wouldn't have sold you or rented you a house in New Ulm if you didn't have a German surname. In the court of public opinion, if this kids dies his family will be crucified. Trust me on this one, I lived here all my life.

[powderman]

If this is the case I'm thinking of it doesn't matter, the boy died. A 13 year old is not mature enough to make life or death decisions, especially his own. POWDERMAN. 

[Heather]

If this is the case I'm thinking of it doesn't matter, the boy died. A 13 year old is not mature enough to make life or death decisions, especially his own. POWDERMAN. 

I would like to read the particulars of this if that is the case.  I can't find anything about his death.  Will you please point me in the right direction?  Which channel, station, newspaper etc.  I can search their sites for it if you remember which one.  Thanks in advance.

Heather

[teamnelson]

Mom and son last seen in so cal last night, presumed to be heading to Mexico. Violated order to appear, now a federal fugitive. Just a mom doing what she believes is best for her son.

[Heather]

Mom and son last seen in so cal last night, presumed to be heading to Mexico. Violated order to appear, now a federal fugitive. Just a mom doing what she believes is best for her son.

 That was the last I had heard, but I've been at fun day with Evan all day and hadn't heard anything else.

Heather

[WylieKy]

Just a mom doing what she believes is best for her son.

So was Andrea Yates....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Yates

She had come to believe that she was a "bad mother" who was spiritually and behaviorally damaging her children, and that it was better to kill herself and her offspring rather than to allow them to continue "stumbling" and go to hell

I think that this woman is sick. She probably doesn't think that what she is doing is wrong and probably wants the best for her children.  Most cults and zealots DO think that they are in the right.  I fully understand the horrors of chemo and radiation theropy and the desire to look for and find natural remedies.  If they were working, I would be fully backing her decision.  Maybe they are but the Dr. is covering it up (which I doubt.)  However, we don't have any information to back that up, the only info presented is the history of that disease (which has a HUGE mortality rate when not treated with the standard treatment) and the results of the last Dr. vist which showed that the tumor is growing again.

[rockbilly]

Emotions can run wild while tiring to debate this subject. I am sure we all make decision based on what we think we know, but without all the facts we are just making words.

I am a volunteer at a local elementary school and am in close contact with a second grade class two-three times a week.  I work with kids that are clearly abused by their parents or guardian quite frequently, I have one boy whose mother is a registered nurse, divorced, chases the bottle and every man she can, she totally ignores her son.  The boy was without clean clothes, rarely had a bath, didn’t brushed his teeth for months (guess) and acts like he has never had a meal.  The child was clearly in need of help.  Is this child abuse, should CPS be notified to help with his quality of life, or should one just turn their head and say “so be it?”  I called CPS and reported her, now the child is in the care of his father and his new wife and doing much better.  We have another child whose mother is a “stone nut case,’ she belongs in a facility.  Her husband is not much better, a functional illiterate, but he tries.  This kid lives in a dump, is never fed at home and has hand-me-down rags to wear.  She catches a lot of harassment from other kids because of her dress. Does someone need to look in and check on this kid, I would think so?  We had another kid in the school last year whose stepfather had sexually assaulted her and gave her a sexually transmitted disease, the mother was aware of the situation but refused to report it.  Should we have notified the authorities and CPS?  I think so.

My point is there are a lot of kids in the hands of people not capable of raising them, should we ignore the situation or get help for the kid?  Keep in mind we are talking about children, does their life not matter?   We paying attention and doing what is morally right may be Jesus’ way of looking out for the little children.  There is a time when society must take command to ensure the safety and survival of the kid.

[mirage1988]

Notifying CPS about a dangerous or hazardous condition for a child isn't the same as a judge ordering chemo on child. The debate here isn't about whether or not the kid can be saved with chemo, 95% cure rate, bla, bla, blahhh.... It's about gov't intrusion into our lives. Heather brought it up in another topic about the school pushing her to have her boy medicated for ADD. They are now finding links between autism and the excessive vaccinations that kids are getting. Shouldn't a parent have the choice what they feel is best for the child?
 How is it alright for an old person to refuse chemo, but not a minor?

[powderman]

HEATHER. Don't remember where I saw it but from the posts here I must be wrong. Sorry. POWDERMAN. 

[ncsurveyor]

I think that this woman is sick. She probably doesn't think that what she is doing is wrong and probably wants the best for her children.  Most cults and zealots DO think that they are in the right. 

I can't get passed who gets to determine what is "right"

She thinks she is right. By thinking the woman is sick, you believe you are right.  Perhaps she would think that you, and the judge, are being zealots?

The kid, may also be really fed up with chemo - is he right?  Simply because he hasn't had a chance to fall in love, have kids, go skydiving or what not, doesn't make the decision to fore go any additional chemo any less important.

We don't have all the facts, that's for sure.  But we do know for a fact that a judge is forcing the kid to receive medical treatment. 

But can we compare her to Andrea Yates right now?  Maybe its semantics to you, but she is not killing the boy.  Cancer is.  Simply because its treatable doesn't make it no less an act of God, a propagation of the original sin, or perhaps just a disease that the cure is not palatable to a young man.

Isn't it odd where the courts say that police don't have the obligation to save an individual in lieu of the greater good, but they are willing to force a kid to undergo chemo, in lieu of demonstrating that parental rights don't exist (or separation of church and state if that's the call)?  If you (collectively) think its OK, than please get out your list of basic human rights and start cherry picking and prioritizing which ones you can live without. 

Now, let me add that if it were my daughter, there would be nothing in the world I wouldn't try to save her life, probably starting with the chemo.  God save me from having to make a decision to stop that treatment if she told me "no more".  I would hope that some judge - that hasn't raised, hasn't prayed with, hasn't played softball with, wasn't there at her dog's funeral, didn't hold her during a thunderstorm, and all the stuff that her Mom and I have done to earn the right to make decisions for her - does not think he knows better than me.

[WylieKy]

But can we compare her to Andrea Yates right now?  Maybe its semantics to you, but she is not killing the boy.  Cancer is.  Simply because its treatable doesn't make it no less an act of God, a propagation of the original sin, or perhaps just a disease that the cure is not palatable to a young man.

By your line or reasoning, Andrea Yates did not kill her children, the water entering their lungs did.      The mother is choosing a path that is very likely going to lead to the death of her child.  It is a neglectful vs. a direct action.  No she is not beating her child to death.  She is causing harm by refusing to act.  Not feeding your child will cause their death too. 

I am not saying that she HAS to get him chemo...unless nothing else is working.  If Ionized water and vitamin suppliments worked, bully for them!  I hope for nothing but the best for the both of them.  However, since it is being shown that what ever her steps she has taken are insufficient, and she is refusing aditional steps, time for the locals to step in.  This is like a parent feeding their child 1 pack of Cheese on Wheat crackers a day (ummm....Cheese on Wheat) and saying, "But I feed my child!"

[bubba]

As a well trained medical person, I have a hard time siding either way on this one. If I were the person telling the family what the diagnosis/prognosis and possible treatments were and I feel they are well informed and making an informed decision not to to seek the treatment I recommend, then they have that right.  However, as a licensed professional, I am bound by law to report the decline of treatment when it involves a minor.  Kind of stuck in the middle.  I guess I would ask then  if it is ok for the parent to decide life and death situations for the treatment of such fatal diseases, then why  cant a parent decide it is ok for their child to drink and smoke and have sex at 13?  If a parent does that there is an outrage, and the children are taken away for abuse/negllect but it is ok for the parent to decide the child can die by not seeking treatment. 


And Matt you were dead on with your assessment of Dale.  he is well tucked in now and oves the assistance he gets to take care of him and hid family.  And of it were his child he would be on here crying how unfair it is and he cant afford treatment and want donations. 

[ncsurveyor]

But can we compare her to Andrea Yates right now?  Maybe its semantics to you, but she is not killing the boy.  Cancer is.  Simply because its treatable doesn't make it no less an act of God, a propagation of the original sin, or perhaps just a disease that the cure is not palatable to a young man.

By your line or reasoning, Andrea Yates did not kill her children, the water entering their lungs did.      

No.  That is not my reasoning.  In your very next sentence you address her action as being neglectful (passive) versus a direct action.  It's obvious that Yates actions were direct.  But it certainly sounds good if you want to discredit my belief rather than discuss the issue. 

The mother is choosing a path that is very likely going to lead to the death of her child.  It is a neglectful vs. a direct action.  No she is not beating her child to death.  She is causing harm by refusing to act.  Not feeding your child will cause their death too. 

I am not saying that she HAS to get him chemo...unless nothing else is working.  If Ionized water and vitamin suppliments worked, bully for them!  I hope for nothing but the best for the both of them.  However, since it is being shown that what ever her steps she has taken are insufficient, and she is refusing aditional steps, time for the locals to step in.  This is like a parent feeding their child 1 pack of Cheese on Wheat crackers a day (ummm....Cheese on Wheat) and saying, "But I feed my child!"

I suspect we will not find common ground in this.  The starving example is, well, stupid. You can vilify it by saying that she is not taking direct action to save her child's life. 

I am saying that if you believe that the child's life is more important, that life is more important, more important than to have independent control, or parental control of that life, than please, feel free to step in WHENEVER and WHEREVER any decision impinges on what you feel doesn't meet your expectation of how great life should be.

Yes, she is not taking all of the steps that conventional medical knowledge say are necessary to prolong the apparent quality of terrestrial life of her child.

I am simply addressing the fact that she does not agree with conventional medical knowledge, nor what you determine to be the quality of terrestrial life.  She and her son should be given that freedom.

Curious, if nothing worked, and chemo didn't work, if a judge ordered a prayer session would you support that?

I know that the sanctity of life seems to be paramount in your arguments, and use of silly examples, but maybe some folks just don't see life the same way you do?

It's a gift, certainly.  But's its not the end.  And if it is the end, than it seems wrong to spend our time trying to run someone else's.


EDIT:  Now, the fact that Mom and Dad are having some disagreements with regards to the treatment, that's another issue altogether - but still not the judges.......

[slim rem 7]

im going to opt for gov stayin out of family.. thats a hard thing ..but gov intervention into inner family life ,i see as worse.. this from a man who doesn t look at death with the same finality ,some do. slim

[Matt]

im going to opt for gov stayin out of family.. thats a hard thing ..but gov intervention into inner family life ,i see as worse.. this from a man who doesn t look at death with the same finality ,some do. slim

Well said slim... physical death is but the beginning of the next stage of life... He who is scared of death has no or little understanding of life... JMO

I find it funny (not really) that many on here think the government has the right to tell us what we can or cannot do when it comes to medical treatment but yet think that no one can tell them they can’t have a gun... You know there was a document written many years ago that laid out our God given rights... hmm what was that called... oh yeah the Bill of Rights... keep and defend them all or you will slowly lose each and every one of them...

Matt

[45-70.gov]

If this is the case I'm thinking of it doesn't matter, the boy died. A 13 year old is not mature enough to make life or death decisions, especially his own. POWDERMAN. 

judging by  the smokers and drunks and drug addicts speeders  and  motercycle riders

at no age are  ''WE''  capable  of  making life or death decisions

''WE''  need  cradle to grave  government suppervision

some times a bad  example  and  some one  dieing  saves  many other  lives

this  kidd  dies  takes his week genes with  him  and  the next  nut GETS THEIR KID TO A REAL  DOCTOR

I  LOST A GOOD FREIND......WAITTING  ON HIS  PREACHER TO GIVE   HIS CONSENT TO SEEK MEDICAL HELP




again  who  pays for  forced medicine???
is  that money better spent on  vaccines ..  reseach... or just treating some one that wants it?

[Explorer1]

"sometimes it is necessary for the courts to step in and protect the rights"

Well, as I understand it no one in this case in incapable of making an informed choice.  Yes you may not agree with that choice and it may not be a mainstream choice but it is a choice.
The Courts do NOT have the legal authority to make choices like this, if the do then what prevents them from telling us what cars to drive, what colors to wear, what candidates we can vote for....?
We are too far down this Big Brother path and this is a prime example of the related failures.
What works for Peter may NOT work for Paul.  Recently we have seen the US confiscate bond holders assets for pennies on the dollar (auto companies) while giving away the stolen assets to the Unions (who had NO legal right to any of the assets).
The only question remaining is will we regain control of this once free nation before we are all mindless sheeple?

[Explorer1]

"Most cults and zealots DO think that they are in the right. "

Just like those who have taken over the White House think they can fit us all into the same mould, use the same medical treatment, drive the same Goobermint proved cars.............while we let the Goobermint tell us how to set the thermostat in our houses.

This is NOT the United States our forefathers gave their lives for!

[WylieKy]

Should the government have the right to step in when there is probable cause to believe a parent is beating, raping, or neglecting their child? I think that they should, and to me this is neglect.  I am a Libertarian, and believe in minimal government, but I am not an Anarchist.  This is not a "moral" issue.  This is a life and death issue.  If a little boy stepped on a nail and got gangrene and the parent refused medical attention, I would feel the same way.  If they wanted him to take pills because he was hyper at school I would not.  If he had a car wreck and messed up his face and the parents decided against reconstructive surgery, I would not.  However, in a life or death situation I think that the government has the right to step in.  I'd much rather my tax dollar go to this than welfare.

For those of you comparing this to thermostats, cars, and cloths...well that is pretty simple.  The government (State) is stepping in to represent the rights of the minor who is unable to make decisions for himself.  As far as I know thermostats, cars, and clothes do not have rights.  I'm sure a four year old girl being raped by her daddy doen't want her daddy to go away, and would not press charges.  Therefore the State represents her and her rights.  In this case the State feels that the parent is infriging on the boys right of life, liberty, and persuit of happiness and I agree with the State.

Yes we are (more or less) free to make what decisions we see fit.  Parents have and should have a broad range of freedom to determine the best way to raise their child.  They should be able to decide what school, what friends, what religion, how to discipline, etc...  However, there are decisions that a parent does not have the right to make...Beat or rape their child, send them out overnight in snow with no clothes on, force them to starve, etc...