Forced Medical Care

[Esther]

What is your opinion of the courts forcing a young boy who does not want to take Chemo theraphy and his mother who is also against it being force to take it?

This is a drug that I personally would not want to take either. Why poison yourself to be sick for a period of time that does NOT guarantee success?

In fact, I don't personally know of one person that took Chemo and was forever cured from it. I know many that took it and got very sick and lived another year or so without quality of life. Why quanity without quality?

Do you think the courts are right in this?

Do you think the mother should be prosecuted?

My Mom was telling me this morning that they are on the run and when they are found they said they would take the boy and put him in a foster home and FORCE him to take the Chemo.

I say the government has gotten out of hand. Where is our freedom of choice?

A mother can choose to kill her baby, but a mother can't choose to not accept drugs to slowly kill her child?

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Esther

What is your opinion of the courts forcing a young boy who does not want to take Chemo theraphy and his mother who is also against it being force to take it?

This is a drug that I personally would not want to take either. Why poison yourself to be sick for a period of time that does NOT guarantee success?

In fact, I don't personally know of one person that took Chemo and was forever cured from it. I know many that took it and got very sick and lived another year or so without quality of life. Why quanity without quality?

Do you think the courts are right in this?

Do you think the mother should be prosecuted?

My Mom was telling me this morning that they are on the run and when they are found they said they would take the boy and put him in a foster home and FORCE him to take the Chemo.

I say the government has gotten out of hand. Where is our freedom of choice?

A mother can choose to kill her baby, but a mother can't choose to not accept drugs to slowly kill her child?

I know several people who had to go through chemo and have had no problems since then, I also know some that didn't make it or made it only a short time. This particular cancer has a high success rate of being taken care of by chemo.

I think you have to take several things into consideration. Are their any true alternatives? What happens if he doesn't have chemo? What happens if he does?

She would not be slowly killing her child the cancer is doing that. It is a tough call but in this case I take the child specially since the father said yesterday he has changed his mind and wants him to have chemo.

[Pragmatist]

I don't know what the "right" thing for the boy is in this situation, but I do not think the government should force medical care on anyone.

[Esther]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

I know several people who had to go through chemo and have had no problems since then, I also know some that didn't make it or made it only a short time. This particular cancer has a high success rate of being taken care of by chemo.

I think you have to take several things into consideration. Are their any true alternatives? What happens if he doesn't have chemo? What happens if he does?

She would not be slowly killing her child the cancer is doing that. It is a tough call but in this case I take the child specially since the father said yesterday he has changed his mind and wants him to have chemo.

Regardless, this is NOT something the government should have a right to make the decision on. I would NOT take chemo. I should have that right to make that choice. So should everyone else.

If the father and mother are separated and they now have difference of opinions and the child is old enough to understand the choices, then I think IF the child wants to take it then, and only then should he have to take it. But to force him to put poison in his system, should NOT be decided by government!

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Esther

Regardless, this is NOT something the government should have a right to make the decision on. I would NOT take chemo. I should have that right to make that choice. So should everyone else.

If the father and mother are separated and they now have difference of opinions and the child is old enough to understand the choices, then I think IF the child wants to take it then, and only then should he have to take it. But to force him to put poison in his system, should NOT be decided by government!

Can you offer an alternative where the child doesn't die from not having chemo?

If not then yes intervention is a good idea. You don't seem to have a problem with the government telling women they can't have an abortion (neither do I) but you think it is ok to let your kid die because you don't like what he has to go through to live.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Pragmatist

I don't know what the "right" thing for the boy is in this situation, but I do not think the government should force medical care on anyone.

When someone refuses to take a child for life saving medical care then someone needs to step in and help that child. She is killing him by withholding medical care.

[Esther]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

Can you offer an alternative where the child doesn't die from not having chemo?

If not then yes intervention is a good idea. You don't seem to have a problem with the government telling women they can't have an abortion (neither do I) but you think it is ok to let your kid die because you don't like what he has to go through to live.

NO I disagree with you. IF chemo was a guarantee help, then yes I would understand it better. However, it is NOT! Why make the child SICK, SICK, SICK for no reason? Hope, is all they can give you and not much of that. It is very, very expensive. Is the government going to pay the bill?

But I do have an alternative. I have God and I still believe in healing. Who knows maybe they do too?

But regardless it is NOT the governments right to step in and tell you how to treat your child. The only exception is if you are not feeding your child or physcially abusing your child. Otherwise, the government needs to get out of people's lives.

[Esther]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

When someone refuses to take a child for life saving medical care then someone needs to step in and help that child. She is killing him by withholding medical care.

I disagree.

You can give the child the chemo HOPING it will help, while making him very, very sick, but you are mislead if you think that is going to heal him. He would be a very fortunate and few if it does. MOST do not get healed, only an extended low quality life.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Esther

NO I disagree with you. IF chemo was a guarantee help, then yes I would understand it better. However, it is NOT! Why make the child SICK, SICK, SICK for no reason? Hope, is all they can give you and not much of that. It is very, very expensive. Is the government going to pay the bill?

But I do have an alternative. I have God and I still believe in healing. Who knows maybe they do too?

But regardless it is NOT the governments right to step in and tell you how to treat your child. The only exception is if you are not feeding your child or physcially abusing your child. Otherwise, the government needs to get out of people's lives.

Ok you have said several times that chemo won't help much but the facts don't say that at all.


"Court documents show that the doctors estimated the boy's chance of 5-year remission with more chemotherapy and possibly radiation at 80 percent to 95 percent.

"But the family opted for a holistic medical treatment based upon Native American healing practices called Nemenhah and rejected further treatment."

They reject science for a witch doctor.

"Elbert added that he does not believe Daniel -- who, according to court papers, cannot read -- has enough information to make an informed decision regarding his treatment."

He is 13 the parents take him to a witch doctor and he can't read, these parents are lacking big time and the life of the child should be saved.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/US/05/19....forced.chemo/

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Esther

What is your opinion of the courts forcing a young boy who does not want to take Chemo theraphy and his mother who is also against it being force to take it?

This is a drug that I personally would not want to take either. Why poison yourself to be sick for a period of time that does NOT guarantee success?

In fact, I don't personally know of one person that took Chemo and was forever cured from it. I know many that took it and got very sick and lived another year or so without quality of life. Why quanity without quality?

Do you think the courts are right in this?

Do you think the mother should be prosecuted?

My Mom was telling me this morning that they are on the run and when they are found they said they would take the boy and put him in a foster home and FORCE him to take the Chemo.

I say the government has gotten out of hand. Where is our freedom of choice?

A mother can choose to kill her baby, but a mother can't choose to not accept drugs to slowly kill her child?

I know people that have survived cancer and under gone Chemo. From what I heard this boy's particular cancer was considered VERY treatable with chemo.

Would the boy survive otherwise?

Also reported was they were trying alternative treatments and the cancer was just progressing.