EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Thu Oct 23, 2014 8:26 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 10:47 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 4:49 pm
Posts: 6178
Location: Dame Glooy'd Sneefrugs
This news story caught my eye.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060816/ap_on_re_us/sick_teen

The kid is 16 and his parents seem to support his choice, I don't see why the social worker needed to get involved or why it even made it to court. I wonder if the social worker and the others involved would put their child through the chemo treatment this kid doesn't want.

_________________
I know God will not give me anything I can't handle. I just wish he didn't trust me so much. - Mother Theresa Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 11:07 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 9:34 am
Posts: 6321
Location: Texas
That social worker ought to be locked up for sticking his nose where it doesn't belong. If the kid doesn't want chemo, he shouldn't have to have it.

_________________
"Yes like I said it all boils down to morals. What you think is right doesn't make a person wrong because they think different ;)" X-Black


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 11:57 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20562
Location: Southeastern US
Origam wrote:
This news story caught my eye.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060816/ap_on_re_us/sick_teen

The kid is 16 and his parents seem to support his choice, I don't see why the social worker needed to get involved or why it even made it to court. I wonder if the social worker and the others involved would put their child through the chemo treatment this kid doesn't want.


Given the situation is tantamount to suicide, which our society does not allow there is more than sufficient reason for this to have gone to court. The child is not an adult, therefore he cannot legally make such a decision. The parents can make such a decision, but if they make a 'bad' decision the state is obligated to intervene.

The choices made by the family seem to fit the definition of 'questionable' to me and from the actions the court as well.


Last summer, the teen was diagnosed with Hodgkin's disease, a cancer of the lymphatic system considered very treatable in its early stages. He was so debilitated by three months of chemotherapy that he declined a second, more intensive round that doctors recommended early this year.

He since has been using an alternative herbal treatment called the Hoxsey method, the sale of which was banned in the United States in 1960.

After Abraham chose to go on the sugar-free, organic diet and take liquid herbal supplements under the supervision of a Mexican clinic, a social worker asked a juvenile court judge to intervene to protect the teen's health. Last month, the judge found Abraham's parents neglectful and ordered Abraham to report to a hospital for treatment as doctors deem necessary.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 12:24 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 4:49 pm
Posts: 6178
Location: Dame Glooy'd Sneefrugs
Apparently they reached an agreement and he doesn't have to have the chemo.

Wayne, I'd think it were suicidal if he weren't trying ANYTHING. He chose to go a natural route that while questionable is still doing something rather than nothing. Having seen what chemo does to people I don't blame him for not wanting to go through another round of it.. it's pretty nasty stuff.

Personally I think assisted suicide should be legal.

_________________
I know God will not give me anything I can't handle. I just wish he didn't trust me so much. - Mother Theresa Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 12:47 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 9:34 am
Posts: 6321
Location: Texas
Wayne Stollings wrote:
The parents can make such a decision, but if they make a 'bad' decision the state is obligated to intervene.


Oh, so they get a choice, as long as they pick the "right" choice? Doesn't sound like much of a choice to me. And it doesn't sound like suicide, either. Even if he did nothing, it would be the cancer killing him, not himself. If he would rather that happen then go through chemo, who are we to force him through the treatment? Besides that, he was doing something about it. Who cares if it isn't what the state considers a "good" decision?

_________________
"Yes like I said it all boils down to morals. What you think is right doesn't make a person wrong because they think different ;)" X-Black


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 1:12 pm 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 2:53 pm
Posts: 105
let this boy commit a crime and more often than not he will be charged as an adult and deemed adult enough to have known right from wrong.

but he cant make his own decision to not take chemo because he isnt adult.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 6:05 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20562
Location: Southeastern US
Origam wrote:
Apparently they reached an agreement and he doesn't have to have the chemo.

Wayne, I'd think it were suicidal if he weren't trying ANYTHING. He chose to go a natural route that while questionable is still doing something rather than nothing.


Not really, since the treatment is nothing more than "snake oil" from what I have read on it. The outcome with this treatment will be the same as no treatment.

Quote:
Having seen what chemo does to people I don't blame him for not wanting to go through another round of it.. it's pretty nasty stuff.


It is but given the alternative in most cases is a just as nasty death the former gives more of a chance especially given the treatment history.

Quote:
Personally I think assisted suicide should be legal.


Even if the person is a minor? Emotionally unstable? I cannot agree to suicide but euthanasia for terminal illnesses I can agree.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 6:11 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20562
Location: Southeastern US
Archer wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
The parents can make such a decision, but if they make a 'bad' decision the state is obligated to intervene.


Oh, so they get a choice, as long as they pick the "right" choice?


Not exactly, but they do have to pick a viable treatment according to a board certified doctor.

Quote:
Doesn't sound like much of a choice to me. And it doesn't sound like suicide, either.

So, does this mean that you now believe the vegan diet will cure diseases?

Quote:
Even if he did nothing, it would be the cancer killing him, not himself.


Using this logic if he choose not to eat it would not be suicide because it would not be something he did that caused his death but something he did not do ... eat.

Quote:
If he would rather that happen then go through chemo, who are we to force him through the treatment?


Since he is not of legal age he cannot make that decision, which is the legal basis for the intervention since the parents are being treated the same as any parents who endangered the life of a child through action or inaction ... just like the parents who were charged with endangerment for giving infants a vegan diet.

Quote:
Besides that, he was doing something about it. Who cares if it isn't what the state considers a "good" decision?


The decision is not his to make at this time, and the parents are tasked with making the best decision for the child, which is the reason for the state to care.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 6:13 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20562
Location: Southeastern US
Thrillbilly wrote:
let this boy commit a crime and more often than not he will be charged as an adult and deemed adult enough to have known right from wrong.

but he cant make his own decision to not take chemo because he isnt adult.


Correct, because he is not an adult and will not always be treated as such even if there are cases in which he could be treated as an adult. At what age can a child make such a decision concerning their life and death otherwise?

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 12:37 am 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 2:53 pm
Posts: 105
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Thrillbilly wrote:
let this boy commit a crime and more often than not he will be charged as an adult and deemed adult enough to have known right from wrong.

but he cant make his own decision to not take chemo because he isnt adult.


Correct, because he is not an adult and will not always be treated as such even if there are cases in which he could be treated as an adult. At what age can a child make such a decision concerning their life and death otherwise?


my son is fixing to be 16. he has been a juvenile diabetic since he was 4. he has been on an insulin pump for five years. He has made life and death choices every day since sept 23 1994.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 7:48 am 
I agree with Wayne on this.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 8:46 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20562
Location: Southeastern US
Thrillbilly wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Thrillbilly wrote:
let this boy commit a crime and more often than not he will be charged as an adult and deemed adult enough to have known right from wrong.

but he cant make his own decision to not take chemo because he isnt adult.


Correct, because he is not an adult and will not always be treated as such even if there are cases in which he could be treated as an adult. At what age can a child make such a decision concerning their life and death otherwise?


my son is fixing to be 16. he has been a juvenile diabetic since he was 4. he has been on an insulin pump for five years. He has made life and death choices every day since sept 23 1994.


So HE decided if he was going to be treated or not based on his wishes? I do not see him making those decisions by himself at 4 but I do not know him and cannot say. If that is the case he was a very impressive 4 year old since most would have to be told what they can and cannot eat by their parents.

What would you have done if he had wanted to disregard the medical advice at any time in this period?

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 9:07 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 9:34 am
Posts: 6321
Location: Texas
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Not exactly, but they do have to pick a viable treatment according to a board certified doctor.
So they don't have a choice. Well, I'm glad we have the nosy government to make decisions for us. Sure saves us all a lot of time and worry.

Quote:
So, does this mean that you now believe the vegan diet will cure diseases?
Come on Wayne, stick to what's relevant. First off, I didn't say that his alternative was a cure. Chemo isn't always a cure either. So I don't see what it matters. Second off, what does a vegan diet have to do with anything?

Quote:
Using this logic if he choose not to eat it would not be suicide because it would not be something he did that caused his death but something he did not do ... eat.
So tell me, what did this boy do to bring the cancer on himself?

Quote:
Since he is not of legal age he cannot make that decision, which is the legal basis for the intervention since the parents are being treated the same as any parents who endangered the life of a child through action or inaction ... just like the parents who were charged with endangerment for giving infants a vegan diet.
They aren't endangering his life any more than the chemo treatment. A balanced diet doesn't do that.

Quote:
The decision is not his to make at this time, and the parents are tasked with making the best decision for the child, which is the reason for the state to care.
Apparently it is the state's task to make the best decision according to you.

_________________
"Yes like I said it all boils down to morals. What you think is right doesn't make a person wrong because they think different ;)" X-Black


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 9:39 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20562
Location: Southeastern US
Archer wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Not exactly, but they do have to pick a viable treatment according to a board certified doctor.
So they don't have a choice. Well, I'm glad we have the nosy government to make decisions for us. Sure saves us all a lot of time and worry.


I suppose you could take that view, it might result in children being abused without such interventions but that is not important to anyone.

Quote:
Quote:
So, does this mean that you now believe the vegan diet will cure diseases?
Come on Wayne, stick to what's relevant. First off, I didn't say that his alternative was a cure. Chemo isn't always a cure either. So I don't see what it matters. Second off, what does a vegan diet have to do with anything?


His diet IS a major part of the "treatment" just as is the supposed vegan diet for other ailments.

After Abraham chose to go on the sugar-free, organic diet and take liquid herbal supplements under the supervision of a Mexican clinic,

Quote:
Quote:
Using this logic if he choose not to eat it would not be suicide because it would not be something he did that caused his death but something he did not do ... eat.
So tell me, what did this boy do to bring the cancer on himself?


He did nothing of which I am aware, what did he do to bring on the need to eat every day or so?

Quote:
Quote:
Since he is not of legal age he cannot make that decision, which is the legal basis for the intervention since the parents are being treated the same as any parents who endangered the life of a child through action or inaction ... just like the parents who were charged with endangerment for giving infants a vegan diet.
They aren't endangering his life any more than the chemo treatment. A balanced diet doesn't do that.


Yes, they are. The chemo will not kill him directly although it is rough. The cancer will most likely kill him without a treatment. There is little chance a vegan diet will kill a child but it will endanger their health.

Quote:
Quote:
The decision is not his to make at this time, and the parents are tasked with making the best decision for the child, which is the reason for the state to care.
Apparently it is the state's task to make the best decision according to you.


No, the best decision according to those who are knowledgeable on the subject.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 11:12 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 9:34 am
Posts: 6321
Location: Texas
Wayne Stollings wrote:
I suppose you could take that view, it might result in children being abused without such interventions but that is not important to anyone.
If we were talking about abuse, I could understand that. I just don't see how they are abusing this boy.

Quote:
His diet IS a major part of the "treatment" just as is the supposed vegan diet for other ailments.

After Abraham chose to go on the sugar-free, organic diet and take liquid herbal supplements under the supervision of a Mexican clinic,
I understand that. We know the vegan diet to be very unbalanced. From what I understand of this boy's diet, they are adding some things and taking out some things, but it's still somewhat balanced. What I've read doesn't say anything about a vegan diet.

Quote:
He did nothing of which I am aware, what did he do to bring on the need to eat every day or so?
Last I checked, eating was a pleasant experience. I've yet to hear the same about chemo. Eating is 100% necessary for life. Chemo is not. Not to mention, he is on alternative treatments. Chemo is not always the answer.

Quote:
Yes, they are. The chemo will not kill him directly although it is rough. The cancer will most likely kill him without a treatment. There is little chance a vegan diet will kill a child but it will endanger their health.
The way you put that makes a vegan diet sound just like chemo. Neither will kill you, but they are bad for your health. I know what you mean, though. The cancer, I'm sure, would most likely kill him without treatment. But they are treating it. Do you know much about their alternative treatment? I haven't researched it too much myself, but it didn't sound that bad. If I were in his shoes, I'd probably be willing to give it a shot.

Quote:
No, the best decision according to those who are knowledgeable on the subject.
Are they not dealing with a doctor that is just that? Seriously, I hadn't thought about that before. Do you know?

_________________
"Yes like I said it all boils down to morals. What you think is right doesn't make a person wrong because they think different ;)" X-Black


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 15 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group