Should The Government Have The Power To Force Parents

[Steely Dan]

Mother, son missing in forced chemotherapy case.

 

(CNN) -- A Minnesota judge issued an arrest warrant Tuesday for the mother of Daniel Hauser, a 13-year-old boy who is refusing treatment for his cancer, after neither she nor the boy showed up for a court appearance.

Doctors say Daniel Hauser's lymphoma responded well to a first round of chemotherapy in February.

 

"It is imperative that Daniel receive the attention of an oncologist as soon as possible," wrote Brown County District Judge John R. Rodenberg in an order to "apprehend and detain."

 

"His best interests require it," Rodenberg wrote.

 

Linky

 

 

I say no.

 

As stupid as some decisions regarding their kid may be it's a personal family choice. Should parents be forced to give their kids three healthy meals a day? Should the government be able to force McDonald's to stop selling "Happy Meals"?

 

I find this disturbing.

[RkFast]

You have just realized and embraced one of the fundamental pillars of being against government-run Universal Health Care.

 

Welcome

[olivier in france]

You have just realized and embraced one of the fundamental pillars of being against government-run Universal Health Care.

 

Welcome

 

well we have universal health care here and if i don't want to give my son some treatment nobody's gonna force me to!

[DC Tom]

I just want to take a moment to point out the irony of fundamentalist Christians* who want the government to ban abortions to save lives not wanting the government to force medical treatment on children...to save lives.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Note: I'm not talking about fundamentalist Christians in general, I'm talking specifically about the bozos in the story.

[Kelly the Dog]

I just want to take a moment to point out the irony of fundamentalist Christians* who want the government to ban abortions to save lives not wanting the government to force medical treatment on children...to save lives.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Note: I'm not talking about fundamentalist Christians in general, I'm talking specifically about the bozos in the story.

It's simple. When you are not a person yet, you have to be born. As soon as you are born, it's okay to kill you.

[Steely Dan]

You have just realized and embraced one of the fundamental pillars of being against government-run Universal Health Care.

 

Welcome

 

Explain that statement please. How does universal health care force anyone to seek treatments? I think you get a PUNCH!! from the cat for that one.

[RkFast]

Explain that statement please. How does universal health care force anyone to seek treatments? I think you get a PUNCH!! from the cat for that one.

 

First of all, one of the LAST people on this God-forsaken pit of a site to be the arbiter of that is stupid and what is not is YOU. So get youre stupid !@#$ing cat out of my face before I shave it, pull out its whiskers, bury it up to its neck and run it over with my John Deere.

 

NOW.......

 

On to your question...Ill just say this. The US Gubmint is going to take over the health care system and eventually....not at first....but eventually start mandating not just which treatments youre entitled to and eligible for, but which ones youre REQUIRED to get. I can EASILY see a mandate that all participants with cholesterol "bad" over a level of 245 be required to be perscribed a statin drug/ This is unlike the current system, where this choice of treatment is simply opional and others freely choose things like diet and excersise changes to get their bad cholesterol down. But in the US' UHC model, I strongly feel the concept of "optional" treatments will be severely curtailed. Your cholesterol a big higer than "we" would like it....you must take this drug. Your blood pressure a bit too high, you must take this one. Suffer from migranes, take this treatment. And if you dont do any of these things.....your coverage is cancelled and/or cut back.

 

Also, Olivier is saying "that doesnt happen in France." Well...duh...this isnt France nor Europe. This isnt just the last of the "free", but the land of the "regulated" and Id bet quite a lot that for every "rule" in the European model of UHC, there will be four in the U.S.' version of it.

[Steely Dan]

First of all, one of the LAST people on this God-forsaken pit of a site to be the arbiter of that is stupid and what is not is YOU. So get youre stupid !@#$ing cat out of my face before I shave it, pull out its whiskers, bury it up to its neck and run it over with my John Deere.

 

NOW.......

 

On to your question...Ill just say this. The US Gubmint is going to take over the health care system and eventually....not at first....but eventually start mandating not just which treatments youre entitled to and eligible for, but which ones youre REQUIRED to get. I can EASILY see a mandate that all participants with cholesterol "bad" over a level of 245 be required to be perscribed a statin drug/ This is unlike the current system, where this choice of treatment is simply opional and others freely choose things like diet and excersise changes to get their bad cholesterol down. But in the US' UHC model, I strongly feel the concept of "optional" treatments will be severely curtailed. Your cholesterol a big higer than "we" would like it....you must take this drug. Your blood pressure a bit too high, you must take this one. Suffer from migranes, take this treatment. And if you dont do any of these things.....your coverage is cancelled and/or cut back.

 

Also, Olivier is saying "that doesnt happen in France." Well...duh...this isnt France nor Europe. This isnt just the last of the "free", but the land of the "regulated" and Id bet quite a lot that for every "rule" in the European model of UHC, there will be four in the U.S.' version of it.

 

Oh well then, since your opinion is based on psychic abilities and strong feelings then I guess I was foolish to question you.

 

Man o' man you like a good PUNCH!!!

 

What makes you think the gubmint deciding what treatments are necessary vs. a health care provider will be that much different. If anything I'd give the nod to the gubmint being fairer. JMO

 

Anyhoo, Obama's plan, IIRC, is to mandate coverage and give tax breaks for people to help pay the premiums. So your precious health care conglomerates will still be in charge.

 

Relax, I mandate you take a chill pill.

[blzrul]

IF these parents refused to feed the child, let it play in traffic on I90, send it out in subzero temperatures and snow without clothing..they'd be in jail.

 

This is not a case representative of anything but a lunatic fringe.

 

To use this to make a general point is stupid - it's an isolated case. Yeah, they're out there but only enough collectively to prove out Tom's point that extremists are goofballs.

[BillsNYC]

My sister in law has cancer and decided recently to stop the treatment instead of prolonging the inevitable and living the rest of her short time here in pain.

 

A kid should have the same choice if the family agrees.

[Steely Dan]

IF these parents refused to feed the child, let it play in traffic on I90, send it out in subzero temperatures and snow without clothing..they'd be in jail.

 

This is not a case representative of anything but a lunatic fringe.

 

To use this to make a general point is stupid - it's an isolated case. Yeah, they're out there but only enough collectively to prove out Tom's point that extremists are goofballs.

 

I wonder if this was dragged to the Supreme Court if they would rule in the states favor? Just a question.

 

The problems you cite are child neglect cases. This, IMO, doesn't fall completely under child neglect. They are trying to cure him. They just aren't using typical medical practices. I think they're idiots but I also believe they have the right to decide what is the best treatment for their child. If they were refusing any treatments at all that would be much different, IMO.

[Steely Dan]

My sister in law has cancer and decided recently to stop the treatment instead of prolonging the inevitable and living the rest of her short time here in pain.

 

A kid should have the same choice if the family agrees.

 

Here's the problem with that in this case. This is from the article;

 

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.

 

What to do when a child doesn't truly understand the peril is another layer of this case.

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

If you are an Adult and choose not to have treatment for an "incurable disease" that's a whole different subject.

 

I think that the point here is that there is a very high degree of success to cure his cancer.

 

If proven he can be cured and his mother keeps him hidden and then he dies, should she be tried for murder?

[pBills]

Not necessarily a black and white answer to this. If a child can be helped or cured by some sort of treatment and the parents withhold for non-religious reasons... be it ignorance, parents hiding information, etc. That is disgusting.

 

However, when religion is involved it comepletely opens up a whole new can of worms.

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

Not necessarily a black and white answer to this. If a child can be helped or cured by some sort of treatment and the parents withhold for non-religious reasons... be it ignorance, parents hiding information, etc. That is disgusting.

 

However, when religion is involved it comepletely opens up a whole new can of worms.

 

Religious reasons.... The parents could be responsible for his death. Some could or would constitute that as murder.

 

The Pro Life people chastize abortion every chance they get, YET they are willing to allow this woman to cause her sons death.

 

Another angle .

 

Alternative medicine/holistic medicine ... some call that VooDoo, Whitchcraft, down right lunacy.

[BillsNYC]

Jehova's Witness members refuse blood transplants, even if it will save a child's life.

[KD in CA]

Hell no. Government has already done enough to hinder Darwinism.

[StupidNation]

I just want to take a moment to point out the irony of fundamentalist Christians* who want the government to ban abortions to save lives not wanting the government to force medical treatment on children...to save lives.

 

 

*Note: I'm not talking about fundamentalist Christians in general, I'm talking specifically about the bozos in the story.

 

Actually genius if you read it this has nothing to do with fundamentalist Christians, but the following of a Indian rituals and believes her son to be a medicine man and elder.

 

But nice swipe at Christianity. And if you think your *disclaimer* means anything why carry on about abortion when abortion is never mentioned in regards to the "bozos in the story", and those mentioned in the story are doing it on tribal grounds, not Christian grounds.

 

Not to let you slither from this debate, as you do with others, here is what is said: "Nemenhah Band, a Missouri-based religious group that believes in natural healing methods advocated by some American Indians."

 

Let me guess, you are going to rant on Indian naturalists? Of course not... freaking moron.

[Gene Frenkle]

YES, YES, YES

 

All of you Pro-Lifers should be all over this! What a bunch of hypocrites!

 

The child is a minor and is not able to make an informed decision. He should not suffer or die because his ignorant parents are preventing him from the best possible treatment because of their own ideology. If you are an adult and want to die from refusing medical treatment then fine. Given the choice, I'm sure this child would prefer to live over upholding the idiocy of his parents.

 

What the parents are doing is tantamount to murder. This kid will almost certainly die without proper care.

 

Backward asssholes!

[Steely Dan]

Hell no. Government has already done enough to hinder Darwinism.

 

:lol: