quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
I am sure those alive due to the act, and lets not forget these cases are rare and only used as a last resort, would be happy the state acted as it did.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
I am sure those alive due to the act, and lets not forget these cases are rare and only used as a last resort, would be happy the state acted as it did.

Instant recollections of Fred and Rose West, there. *Shudder*

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

I can't imagine what I would do in those parents' situations. Until a child is 16 (or whatever age the State sets), he or she can't legally make the decision. Up to that age, the parent(s) make the decisions for the child. At some point in time, there will be a line crossed after which, the government will be able to tell you what to do, when to do it, where to do it, and you won't be able to legally say a fucking thing about it. It's all a slow creep, one nibble at a time.

DS, I agree that Liberty and state encrouchment are legitimate issues. However, personal liberty should take a back seat, imo, when a situation involves asymmetrical power between individuals, as it does between parent and child, or for example between husband and battered spouse. In such cases it is the duty of the state to protect, I think. I wonder if you are not being a bit overly paranoid in so broad and sweeping a concern. Would you not favor police protection for a battered wife? Or laws against child abuse?

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

I can't imagine what I would do in those parents' situations. Until a child is 16 (or whatever age the State sets), he or she can't legally make the decision. Up to that age, the parent(s) make the decisions for the child. At some point in time, there will be a line crossed after which, the government will be able to tell you what to do, when to do it, where to do it, and you won't be able to legally say a fucking thing about it. It's all a slow creep, one nibble at a time.

DS, I agree that Liberty and state encrouchment are legitimate issues. However, personal liberty should take a back seat, imo, when a situation involves asymmetrical power between individuals, as it does between parent and child, or for example between husband and battered spouse. In such cases it is the duty of the state to protect, I think. I wonder if you are not being a bit overly paranoid in so broad and sweeping a concern. Would you not favor police protection for a battered wife? Or laws against child abuse?

Let's see, battering a wife (assuming there was no consent) and abusing a child are both, correct me if I'm wrong, illegal. That is, there are laws against those actions, for good reason. However, in the case of not getting your child life-extending surgery? Not exactly abuse there. Unless you have all the facts, you are guessing at what the entire situation was.

I have no problem with the state removing a child from an abusive parent. But, actively killing someone isn't the same as allowing someone to die.

I'm not saying this would be the straw that breaks the camel's back and that we're all screwed from here on out. Nor, am I saying this action is the capstone that is keeping our society out of de facto slavery. But, I'm saying it's another step away from Liberty and self-determination.

Are you telling me that this isn't a loss of Liberty?

quote:

To increase liberty, i.e. give the child liberty, the decision should either rest in the hands of the child or in a neutral third party.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

The only reason the courts are involved is because she has custody so the father has had to go through them to try to get radiotherapy for the kid. Hence, she's actively blocking that happening, hence your comment about a lack of any casual connection is nonsense.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Are you suggesting if a child is in danger the State have no right to intervene on the childs behalf, as it overrules parental rights ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

At which point you can no longer hold the parents responsible for anything, including support.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

The only reason the courts are involved is because she has custody so the father has had to go through them to try to get radiotherapy for the kid. Hence, she's actively blocking that happening, hence your comment about a lack of any casual connection is nonsense.

In other words, the father tries to interfere with the baseline causal chain. The baseline causal chain is okay. The father has no role in that one, because he surrendered primary custody. She fights him on the interference. If unsuccessful, we would have gotten to a derived causal chain that she has been bumped out of. If successful, we're back to the baseline, which was okay in the first place. Either way, it's iffy to pin that on her, IMO.

IWYW,
— Aswad.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Are you suggesting if a child is in danger the State have no right to intervene on the childs behalf, as it overrules parental rights ?

Close.

This decision is left up to the parents. That, we have established. The fact that they're even asking establishes that this is a decision for the parents. As far as I'm concerned, a State that is empowered- or empowers itself- to intervene in parenting decisions has crossed a line no state should cross. Killing your kid isn't a parenting decision. Radiotherapy is. Hence, wrong side of the line for me.

Sucks when people die by inches; I've seen that up close.

Sucks more when liberty dies by inches.

IWYW,
— Aswad.

quote:

ORIGINAL: epiphiny43

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

The only reason the courts are involved is because she has custody so the father has had to go through them to try to get radiotherapy for the kid. Hence, she's actively blocking that happening, hence your comment about a lack of any casual connection is nonsense.

In other words, the father tries to interfere with the baseline causal chain. The baseline causal chain is okay. The father has no role in that one, because he surrendered primary custody. She fights him on the interference. If unsuccessful, we would have gotten to a derived causal chain that she has been bumped out of. If successful, we're back to the baseline, which was okay in the first place. Either way, it's iffy to pin that on her, IMO.

IWYW,
— Aswad.

I don't think so. Few fathers 'surrender' custody, and certainly not parental rights. The 'causal chain' in a predictably fatal disease with any chance of treatment is for the advice of the attending health care professionals to be followed. Parents who chose death against medical advice for whatever reason have to answer to the other parent and the state. Their arguments carry weight, 'custody' doesn't remove all other interested parties, particularly when the choice is for a quick and very predictable death.
US case law is pretty clear on parents right to choose death. The various religions that abhor blood transfusions are frequently screaming about parental and religions freedoms, while a nurse with a court order saves their child from death with a few minute procedure.
As the prognosis becomes less clear, the difficulty of making the right distinction on rights and life itself becomes more difficult. This case is exactly the sort that tests the wisdom and compassion of all. When the parents flatly disagree (and even if they agree against treatment) and the medical people are clear that their ethics require treatment, the state becomes the arbiter?

The arguments in the thread about 5 year survival are specious. 5 year survival is a key medical metric for cancer treatments and considered a major success to achieve. Total remission is much better!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

The only reason the courts are involved is because she has custody so the father has had to go through them to try to get radiotherapy for the kid. Hence, she's actively blocking that happening, hence your comment about a lack of any casual connection is nonsense.

In other words, the father tries to interfere with the baseline causal chain. The baseline causal chain is okay. The father has no role in that one, because he surrendered primary custody. She fights him on the interference. If unsuccessful, we would have gotten to a derived causal chain that she has been bumped out of. If successful, we're back to the baseline, which was okay in the first place. Either way, it's iffy to pin that on her, IMO.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: defiantbadgirl

IMO the child should NOT be forced by the court to become mentally retarded for the rest of his short life. That's basically what they're doing, forcing the child to receive a treatment that will make him mentally retarded. He won't be able to spend time with other children his own age before he dies because they'll bully and make fun of him because of his mental retardation. Wouldn't it be better for the child to be able to enjoy the rest of his life with his intelligence intact?

With respect, This is nonsense...... There is no evidence to say the child will become mentally retarded, only that he might. The alternative in this case, according to the boys doctors, and an independent doctor the mother used, are that the boy will die within a few months.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

At which point you can no longer hold the parents responsible for anything, including support.

Yeah, if the State wishes to parent, the State can be there to tuck the kid in at night.

Doesn't sound very workable in practice; ever look into the kibbutzim, btw?

IWYW,
— Aswad.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

I can't imagine what I would do in those parents' situations. Until a child is 16 (or whatever age the State sets), he or she can't legally make the decision. Up to that age, the parent(s) make the decisions for the child. At some point in time, there will be a line crossed after which, the government will be able to tell you what to do, when to do it, where to do it, and you won't be able to legally say a fucking thing about it. It's all a slow creep, one nibble at a time.

DS, I agree that Liberty and state encrouchment are legitimate issues. However, personal liberty should take a back seat, imo, when a situation involves asymmetrical power between individuals, as it does between parent and child, or for example between husband and battered spouse. In such cases it is the duty of the state to protect, I think. I wonder if you are not being a bit overly paranoid in so broad and sweeping a concern. Would you not favor police protection for a battered wife? Or laws against child abuse?

Let's see, battering a wife (assuming there was no consent) and abusing a child are both, correct me if I'm wrong, illegal. That is, there are laws against those actions, for good reason. However, in the case of not getting your child life-extending surgery? Not exactly abuse there. Unless you have all the facts, you are guessing at what the entire situation was.

I have no problem with the state removing a child from an abusive parent. But, actively killing someone isn't the same as allowing someone to die.

I'm not saying this would be the straw that breaks the camel's back and that we're all screwed from here on out. Nor, am I saying this action is the capstone that is keeping our society out of de facto slavery. But, I'm saying it's another step away from Liberty and self-determination.

Are you telling me that this isn't a loss of Liberty?

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

I can't imagine what I would do in those parents' situations. Until a child is 16 (or whatever age the State sets), he or she can't legally make the decision. Up to that age, the parent(s) make the decisions for the child. At some point in time, there will be a line crossed after which, the government will be able to tell you what to do, when to do it, where to do it, and you won't be able to legally say a fucking thing about it. It's all a slow creep, one nibble at a time.

DS, I agree that Liberty and state encrouchment are legitimate issues. However, personal liberty should take a back seat, imo, when a situation involves asymmetrical power between individuals, as it does between parent and child, or for example between husband and battered spouse. In such cases it is the duty of the state to protect, I think. I wonder if you are not being a bit overly paranoid in so broad and sweeping a concern. Would you not favor police protection for a battered wife? Or laws against child abuse?

Let's see, battering a wife (assuming there was no consent) and abusing a child are both, correct me if I'm wrong, illegal. That is, there are laws against those actions, for good reason. However, in the case of not getting your child life-extending surgery? Not exactly abuse there. Unless you have all the facts, you are guessing at what the entire situation was.
I have no problem with the state removing a child from an abusive parent. But, actively killing someone isn't the same as allowing someone to die.
I'm not saying this would be the straw that breaks the camel's back and that we're all screwed from here on out. Nor, am I saying this action is the capstone that is keeping our society out of de facto slavery. But, I'm saying it's another step away from Liberty and self-determination.
Are you telling me that this isn't a loss of Liberty?

Loss of Liberty? If this were a US law case Liberty is protected in the 14th Amendment for any person by due process and equal protection of the law. Due process: the mother had a court hearing. Equal Protection: there is no hint of class discrimination against the mother. Is there something about the 14th that bothers you? Does it fall outside the realm of Conservative interpretation?

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Is the State going to take over care responsibilities of the child, too?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Is the State going to take over care responsibilities of the child, too?

If the parent isn't competent to do the job, what the fuck else do we have a state for in the first place?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Unsure how you see saving a child as loss of liberty but still.

quote:

As an aside, the womans own family, parents and siblings were initially on her side. They are all now of the opinion that the doctors are doing the correct thing.

quote:

It appears to me some of you are fixated more on any apparent loss of liberty than the rights of the child. I am firmly of the latter myself.