The parents stopped his chemo treatment?!

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30763438


does anyone know anything about their religion and why it would not allow them to give their boy chemotherapy? i do not =\ and this saddens me deeply

Do you really need to know? It is just one more case where the parents religion stands in the way of reason.

What about the boys right to live a life? -"Uh, we are his parents and decide that his legally established human rights are worth nothing because our precious god said so".

Religious freedom is no excuse for people to cause the death of another human being, even if it is their own flesh and blood, as defined by the UN Universal Human Rights:

What is said about religion:



It says nothing in the text about any religious person having the right to force their beliefs on other people, even their own kids. Freedom of religion allows people to believe in what they want, no matter how insane it is. And that is all it says - nothing more.


Religion is not set above any of these rules. Period.

My friend had the same type of cancer. The treatment success rate is pretty good as cancers go, so it is rather silly to refuse. Catching it early is pretty key. In the case of my friend the side of his neck had a protrusion swollen to the size of an apple so it was obvious. Others may be more subtle.

If the boy is also refusing, then what the court needs to do is provide the boy with information about cancer, what it can do if left alone, and the probability of success with chemotherapy. Unless the boy is intellectually deficient, then it is his decision to make. If the court orders the parents to take the boy to the doctor, then the court should be responsible for paying the costs of ordered treatments. I have had family members with this cancer who received chemotherapy, and yes, it prolonged their life. However much of that extension was spent sick in bed.

Ordering treatment without the consent of the treated would be like a court ordering Applied Behavior Analysis for autistic children. There are many here who happen to disagree with the tactics used by A.B.A. even though it is a "scientifically" accepted for "treating autism." I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the decision. I'm only saying think about it.

The US has a constitution that is held in higher regard than the UN, so their declarations and resolutions are not used here and religion is held in high regard.

Hmmmm...I'm religious, but I don't think I could ever refuse treatment to my child if I took him to the doctor and got him one treatment already. Also, if the kid was refusing treatment, he's a kid, he has no legal say in what happens to him medically. Just like pulling a rotten tooth on a kid that doesn't want the tooth pulled out because it will hurt. I suppose what I'm not understanding is why they started him on one treatment, or even took him to the doctor in the first place if their particular religion doesn't practice "western" medicine. I feel the same with the constitution though...but why didn't the doctors say anything sooner? They seriously cannot legally take it to court and say the parents are making the wrong decision for their child?

This is about the same line of what I was thinking. It seems that any reason that is used to deny treatment or use alternative is acceptable unless that reason has to do with religious (Jewish, Christian, or Muslim) beliefs. But you are right in the fact that the Constitution is the governing law of the land even if the government and courts refuse to recognize the limits placed on them.

Or ratify the childrens rights convention... or the kyoto agreement... (and on and on).

Classic isolationalism.

Better to remain isolated than become a slave. However, under the current system, we already are

All the US Constitution says is that Congress shall not make a law stating an official national religion, nor compel people to adhere to such. In the early days, this was interpreted rather narrowly, and many states had quasi-official state religions, and most said that political officeholders had to believe in God and/or Jesus. By the 1820s the Supreme Court had interpreted the First Amendment as applying to states as well, and by 1840 most if not all states had dropped state funding for religion and jettisoned litmus tests.

Usually people were allowed to believe as they wished, and only rarely did belief contradict what medicine could do. It's only been in the last 60 years that medicine has made such incredible leaps and bounds that it frequently clashes with belief. Jehovah's Witnesses refuse blood transfusions on the basis of the Biblical command to not "eat blood", but accept all other medicines. Christian Scientists are sometimes in the news over praying for kids rather than medicating them. Christian Science believes that prayer is a cure all. The religion was founded in 1883, but only in the last 40 years has it come up against the doctors.

Also, indigenous Americans in the Southwest who use a hallucinogen called peyote in rituals have come up against harsh antidrug laws, but that's mostly been resolved in the Indians' favor, since their use of peyote predates white settlement by many centuries. Other, more recent faiths that have sought to use LSD and shrooms under color of faith have generally been slapped down.

The rest of these cases involve fly by night pseudo-faiths that have been founded to promote illegal or questionable folk-type beliefs. I had never heard of this particular "religion" before now. Apparently it was founded about 15 years ago to promote the use of quack "natural remedies", and the founder has served prison time for making false medical claims about his preferred woowoo pills.

In a similar vein, this cropped up in the news today:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,520393,00.html

The news tires my heart sometimes

Hey Cyber you forgot the treaties about reducing the use of deadly weapons, such as low ammunition bombs (it's like a general bomb, except it contains itself LOTS of smaller bombs which scatter upon impact). Guess who else hasn't signed this treaty? ^^ Israel, Russia and the happy band of warmongers (who conveniently use them of course!) =D . Oh what a nice world we live in ~.~ <.< .

Breaking news: the mom fled with her son to Mexico to escape the court order that the boy be given chemo. Their current whereabouts are unknown. The founder of their so-called religion has joined with the boy's father, who did not flee, in urging mother and son to return.

http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_12419467

This woman is going WAY overboard here, even when the founder of her religion urges her to submit to the court, she still flees.

who-ly sh*t are you serious? Sometimes I wish something terminal would happen to her so she sees how it feels, but i could never wish that on anyone =\

I don't know if he's intellectually deficient, but the article says that the boy can't read. Also, he's only 13 years old and therefore his brain isn't developed enough to effectively make his own medical decisions. There's a reason why you have to be 18 to vote.

The difference between this situation and court ordered A.B.A. is that autism won't kill you if left untreated, but cancer certainly will.