Judge rules family can't use religious objections to refuse chemo for 13-year-old son

[probinson]

yes i do, b/c one is an ideology that applies TO EVERYONE ELSE cept faith healers own members of their family, or themselves, whereas this is life and death. is that so hard to understand?

Not at all. You're willing to forgo your idea that the government should not interfere because apparently, your desire to quash an "ideology" is greater. It's double-mindedness to the core.

one doesn't have to "hypothesize" the results of NOT doing anything now does one? we know what the result will be.

I see you completely ignored my question about the judge and the doctor. What if they're wrong? What if the child dies? Do the judge and the doctor bear any kind of responsibility for usurping the authority of the parents if the child dies because of the treatment?

You're blathering on and on, spewing nonsense about an "ideology", and completely ignoring the actual issue, which has nothing to do with what the parents believe, and everything to do with freedoms being removed.

FTR, It might interest you to know that I have absolutely no problem with doctors, and if I were in the same situation, I would probably take my child to the doctor.

That said, the Bible is chock full of things that defy "common sense", and I respect the parents right to choose how to take care of this situation in conjunction with their child. If their child dies, they would then have to live with their choice. But in this instance if their child dies, they will have to live with knowing that the judge (and the doctors) made that decision for them, against their will, and against the will of the child.

No, the only one here that is confused is you. You're supporting the court in this instance, while at the same time saying people shouldn't surrender their freedoms. And then, when I support the parents' and child's rights and freedoms here, you accuse me of "ideology" and flip sides, saying the parents should be forced to give up this freedom.

 

[probinson]

furthermore, just how powerful IS your Jesus anyway prob? is God "in control" or isn't He? is He able to "do all things" EXCEPT when it conflicts with your ideology, or not? personally, i believe He is able, tyvm.

Just how powerful IS your Jesus anyway, Zug? Is He able to "do all things" EXCEPT when you refuse a doctor's treatment? Personally, I believe He is able, tyvm.

 

[Catherineanne]

I don't think you even begin to understand the ramifications of this statement.

Heaven help us when the judges of the land get to override how we raise our own children.

This is not the first time you have questioned my intelligence.

Nice attitude.

I stand by what I said.

 

[Catherineanne]

A judge reviewed this in a courtroom setting where all parties were represented, even Daniel having his own counsel. As the parents say they are following Daniel's wishes, not choosing for him, his capacity to decide an issue of this nature is relevant. The judge decided, seemingly on the basis of competent evidence, that he did not have that capacity.
Frankly, this decision of the parents to simply follow the wishes of a learning disabled 13 year old leads me to wonder if they understand what the responsibilities of parenthood are. They would actually have had a stronger case, in my mind, if the decision to refuse treatment had been theirs. The mother states that her son is "not in any medical danger at this point." Her qualifications to judge whether or not someone is in medical danger? None are mentioned. The judge had every right - indeed, to my mind, no real choice - but to accept the testimony of trained medical personnel to the contrary.
Negligence by its very nature does not require intent. It can be defined as a failiure to take due care, or as the breach - intentional or unintentional - of a duty owed another. The right of the state to step in when a person lacks the capacity to make a decision affecting his life or safety, and when others cannot or will not act for him, has been established for centuries. The court's decision was proper both in fact and in law; and there is ample precedent for it.

Quite right.

 

[Catherineanne]

So if a judge decides that an atheist is not qualified to raise children you would agree with his opinion and laud the action?

If the decision were made according to the law, then yes. But, as in this case, it is unlikely to be a matter of religious faith, but of competence as a parent.

If anyone doesn't like the law, they are free to campaign to change it.

Nobody is above the law; not atheists, not Christians, nobody. And calling a decision religiously motivated does not mean that it is so.

 

[Catherineanne]

Apparently, "common sense" trumps anything the Bible might have to say about this... at least in this instance.

Always.

 

[zaksmummy]

It is not about the parents religious beliefs, or the childs religious beliefs. The issue in this care is about capacity ie can the child weigh up the risks and benefits of the treatment offered, have they understood the alternatives etc. The judge decided IN THIS CASE that the child DID NOT have the capacity to understand the risks and benefits of chemo and therefore, by law, has make a decision as to what is in the BEST INTERESTS of the child.

British law states that a competent adult can refuse treatment on any grounds ie religious, even if the health care professionals deem it to be detremental to their health AS LONG as they have capacity. Even teenagers are deemed to have capacity unless it can be shown otherwise. And the rules regarding capacity are strict and must be abided by.

So this case isnt as simple as "they are taking away my rights"

 

[SavedByGrace3]

If the decision were made according to the law, then yes. But, as in this case, it is unlikely to be a matter of religious faith, but of competence as a parent.

If anyone doesn't like the law, they are free to campaign to change it.

Nobody is above the law; not atheists, not Christians, nobody. And calling a decision religiously motivated does not mean that it is so.

So... the legal murder of millions of babies is ok. The legal slaughter of 6 million jews was ok. The tens of millions that died in legal soviet death camps... fine with you?
If they legally drag your children away screaming because you are teaching them faith in God.... you will salute the flag and bid them fairwell?
I do not believe you would agree with all this.
How about if the law says to deny Christ.
Will you stay legal then?

 

[probinson]

I stand by what I said.

I am sure that you do, and that is what is frightening.

 

[probinson]

Always.

Common sense always trumps what the Bible has to say?

Wow.

 

[probinson]

Who brought this lawsuit in the first place? Who is going to pay for the chemo? Is the insurance company going to cover these costs out of the "best interest" of the child also? And if they don't, will the judge be willing to pay for it, or the doctors willing to offer their services for free, since it's in the "best interest" of the child?

 

[SavedByGrace3]

Who brought this lawsuit in the first place? Who is going to pay for the chemo? Is the insurance company going to cover these costs out of the "best interest" of the child also? And if they don't, will the judge be willing to pay for it, or the doctors willing to offer their services for free, since it's in the "best interest" of the child?

LOL..
We used to joke and say that if you did not have the money to pay for your child's operation, all you would have to do is tell some liberal jackass that you were withholding the treatment due to religious reasons.
They would then force the child to have the treatment on their dime.

 

[SpiritPsalmist]

From what I read in the article the parents were not faith healers. They were using unconventional methods of care such as plants, herbs, etc.. They were not ignoring care they just were not using the hospitals methods of care.

Price could be the issue too. Who's going to pay for it. My dad has cancer and his doctor prescribed medicine that was over $100. per pill. They expected him to just run to the pharmacy and fill a perscription for 30 days. His medicaid won't cover it. So he opts to not take it at all.

 

[SpiritPsalmist]

LOL..
We used to joke and say that if you did not have the money to pay for your child's operation, all you would have to do is tell some liberal jackass that you were withholding the treatment due to religious reasons.
They would then force the child to have the treatment on their dime.

That could work but the sad thing is, maybe not in this case but in many the parent would also lose their child to the system with the claim that they are unfit parents. I guess if you gotta choose, the child living is the better choice, but then you don't get to raise them any more. Then the child gets exposed to "other" dangers while in the system that they would not have been exposed to if they remained with their parents.

Yes, I think children should be protected against truly abusive parents. However, the "system" is not always a better place.

 

[Deba]

My dad has cancer and his doctor prescribed medicine that was over $100. per pill.

This type of greed will be judged.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

That could work but the sad thing is, maybe not in this case but in many the parent would also lose their child to the system with the claim that they are unfit parents. I guess if you gotta choose, the child living is the better choice, but then you don't get to raise them any more. Then the child gets exposed to "other" dangers while in the system that they would not have been exposed to if they remained with their parents.

Yes, I think children should be protected against truly abusive parents. However, the "system" is not always a better place.

Some years ago our Christian newspaper did a story exposing the state and their unfair treatment of people accused of child abuse. We worked with a group called "VOCAL" Victims Of Child Abuse Laws.
There were many cases of the state acting on no more evidence than a anonymous report. Children would be removed on the word of an anonymous report and the parents would then have to prove to the state that they were innocent. It was all done under that phrase "err on the side of the child." Some neighbor or ex-spouse could call in an anonymous report against you, and the state officials would stomp into your house in the wee hours of the morning with cops guns drawn.... they would remove the children screaming for their parents. The state officials were not even required to tell you what was going on or why. IN more than one instance the children were placed in foster homes where they really were harmed. If it was discovered there was no sign of abuse, the state would protect itself by getting you to sign a no-fault document or they would draw out your case indefinitely. At that time the home schooling movement was just starting in the state. Parents were starting underground home schools. There was fear and trembling in SC I tell you. We escaped by first incorporating as a church, and then starting a church based school that by law was beyond state regulation. Hundreds of people marched on the capital that fall. After that some heads rolled and the laws changed things calmed down.
Do not trust beaurcrats... ever.

 

[zaksmummy]

LOL..
We used to joke and say that if you did not have the money to pay for your child's operation, all you would have to do is tell some liberal jackass that you were withholding the treatment due to religious reasons.
They would then force the child to have the treatment on their dime.

I think this is the difference between our countries - our healthcare is free at the point of need, so cost is not an issue for life saving care.

I really feel for the poor of your country who cant afford even to think about seeing a doctor when I can just walk down the road to my doctors surgery, wander in and see him.

 

[Tenebrae]

There was a case either in Australia or the UK recently where the young girl had a congenital heart condition, and further treatment was going to be really invasive and painful with only a small chance it would actually prolong her life with any quality.


She read about the outcomes and the possible treatements for her condition and their likelyhood of sucess and decided that she wanted to enjoy the rest of her life with her family rather than being so pumped up and full of treatment that she couldnt enjoy it and after a long court case her decision to to pursue further treatment was upheld

My concern is that if a child can understand the implication of their treatement and choose not to go that way, its really bad for that to be over ruled. Chemotherapy is a horrible treatment

this is a list of possible side effects

A I
Abdominal Pain Impotence
Acid Indigestion Incoordination
Acid Reflux Infection
Allergic Reactions Injection Site Reactions
Alopecia Injury
Anaphylasix Insomnia
Anemia Iron Deficiency Anemia
Anxiety Itching
Appetite (Lack Of)
Arthralgias J
Asthenia Joint Pain
Ataxia
Azotemia K

Kidney Problems
B
Balance & Mobility Changes L
Bilirubin Blood Level Leukopenia
Bone Pain Libido (Loss Of)
Bladder Problems Liver Dysfunction
Bleeding Problems Liver Problems
Blood Clots Loss of Libido
Blood Pressure Changes Low Blood Counts
Blood Test Abnormalities Low Blood Pressure (Hypotension)
Breathing Problems Low Platelet Count
Bronchitis Low Red Blood Cell Count
Bruising Low White Blood Cell Count

Lung Problems
C

Cardiotoxicity
M
Cardiovascular Events
Memory Loss
Cataracts
Menopause
Central Neurotoxicity
Metallic Taste
Chemo Brain
Mouth Sores
Chest Pain
Mucositis
Chills
Muscle Pain
Cognitive Problems
Myalgias
Cold Symptoms
Myelosuppression
Confusion
Myocarditis
Conjunctivitis (Pink Eye)

Constipation
N
Cough
Nail Changes
Cramping
Nausea
Cystitis
Nephrotoxicity

Nervousness
D
Neutropenia
Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT)
Neutropenic Fever
Dehydration
Nosebleeds
Depression
Numbness
Diarrhea

Dizziness
O
Drug Reactions
Ototoxicity
Dry Eye Syndrome

Dry Mouth
P
Dry Skin
Pain
Dyspepsia
Palmar-Plantar Erythrodysesthesia (PPE)
Dyspnea
Pancytopenia

Pericarditis
E
Peripheral Neuropathy
Early Satiety
Pharyngitis
Edema
Photophobia
Electrocardiogram (ECG/EKG) Changes
Photosensitivity
Electrolyte Imbalance
Pneumonia
Esophagitis
Pneumonitis
Eye Problems
Post-nasal Drip

Proteinuria
F
Pulmonary Embolus (PE)
Fatigue
Pulmonary Fibrosis
Feeling Faint
Pulmonary Toxicity
Fertility

Fever
R
Flatulence
Radiation Recall
Flu-like Syndrome
Rash
Flushing
Rapid Heart Beat

Rectal Bleeding
G
Restlessness
Gas
Rhinitis
Gastric Reflux
Ringing Ears
Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (GERD)
Runny Nose
Genital Pain

Granulocytopenia
S
Gynecomastia
Sadness
Glaucoma
Seizures

Sexuality
H
Shortness of Breath
Hair Loss
Sinusitis
Hand-Foot Syndrome
Skin Reactions
Headache
Sleep Problems
Hearing Loss
Sore Mouth
Hearing Problems
Stomach Sour
Heart Failure
Stomach Upset
Heart Palpitations
Stomatitis
Heart Problems
Swelling
Heart Rhythm Changes

Heartburn
T
Hematoma
Taste Changes
Hemorrhagic Cystitis
Thrombocytopenia Hepatotoxicity
Thyroid Hormone Levels
High Blood Pressure (Hypertension) Tingling
High Liver Enzymes
Tinnitus
Hyperamylasemia (High Amylase)
Trouble Sleeping
Hypercalcemia (High Calcium)

Hyperchloremia (High Chloride)
U
Hyperglycemia (High Blood Sugar)
Urinary Tract Infection
Hyperkalemia (High Potassium)

Hyperlipasemia (High Lipase)
V
Hypermagnesemia (High Magnesium)
Vaginal Bleeding Hypernatremia (High Sodium)
Vaginal Dryness
Hyperphosphatemia (High Phosphous)
Vaginal Infection
Hyperpigmentation
Vertigo
Hypersensitivity Skin Reactions
Vomiting
Hypertriglyceridemia (High Triglycerides)

Hyperuricemia (High Uric Acid)
W
Hypoalbuminemia (Low Albumin)
Water Retention
Hypocalcemia (Low Calcium)
Watery Eyes
Hypochloremia (Low Chloride)
Weakness
Hypoglycemia (Low Blood Sugar)
Weight Changes
Hypokalemia (Low Potassium)
Weight Gain Hypomagnesemia (Low Magnesium)
Weight Loss
Hyponatremia (Low Sodium)

Hypophosphatemia (Low Phosphous)
X

Xerostomia

We have a list of paitent/service user rights in New Zealand, one of them is the right to choose to accept or decline medical treatment.

This just sounds like a really dodgy precedent

 

[zaksmummy]

My MIL declined chemotherapy for all the reasons mentioned above. Because, as I said in an earlier post she had the capacity to consent or decline treatment, her wishes were respected and she didnt have it. Although her cancer was aggressive, they suggested chemo "just in case" they hadnt managed to cut it all out. Thankfully, five years later she is still cancer free and has been discharged from the hospital.

 

[Thomas The Atheist]

Do you think the religion haters will differentiate between theistic and non-theistic religion?

I do not. You will be just at risk as everyone else.

at risk for what exactly? I really don't mind giving up my non-theistic religion if this would support the "better-being of the world"

You support the removal of my children from our family because of our faith?

ehm, where did I ever say that? Me saying "this world would be a better place without religion" had nothing to do with the taking away of children..

I don't think they should take away people's children because of someone's religion, that's just inhumane...
I just feel that if everyone would give up their religion, this world would be a better place for all...

When they come to take away your children, bring them and yourself to my home, we will hide you the best we can.

okay, thanks i'll keep it mind

~Thomas.