Mother/Son Fugitives

[chocularok]

I haven't been following this too closely, but the gist of it is the son has cancer & the mother is refusing to take him for chemo treatment because of religious beliefs (I think the son doesn't want the treatments, either). The courts have ruled that she has to take him. I don't like the idea of a mother refusing her son potentially life-saving medical care, but I don't like the idea of the government sticking their fat nose in people's private lives like this even more. Why does this not fall under freedom of religion? The idea that the government can tell a parent how to best care for their own child is a scarey precedent.

[Metal T]

This is a family matter...what is the gov't gonna do strap the kid down and force an IV into his arm ?

[Blue Charvel]

Agreed. Stupid, misguided, backwards... yeah they're probably all of those things, but it should be their decision. From the video I saw the kid definitely didn't want it either... now if he did, and the parents were keeping him from it, that might be a different story. But as it stands how I've seen it, should be their call. Doesn't the government have enough to fix?

[heaven&hell]

I agree the Government should have no say in this.

 

It's the kids decision and if the kid don't want and the parents don't want it then that's it.

Sure it can argued that they should take the chemo but some people say it just prolongs the process but who knows for sure. It's a sad thing all the way around but the Government shouldn't be making all of our decisions for us since this is a "free country" the last time I checked, at least it was supposed be back in 1776.

[Dead Planet]

I'll start off by saying that I have no idea why anyone would refuse medical attention for religious reasons.....seems to go against the whole pro-life thing that most religions preach......anyway odds are this kid has been brainwashed by his mother into thinking that he will go to hell if he has chemo, hardly a good reason to let him die IMO....

[heavyharmonies]

I don't know the details of this case, but my first question is: How old is the son?

 

If he is under the age of 18, he is a minor and cannot make decisions about his own medical care. It devolves back to the parent or guardian. If the mother is refusing to get the child medical attention, then the state can (and SHOULD) step in. It's tantamount to child abuse.

 

Sorry, but I have zero problems with the state stepping in. It's not the child's fault he was born into a cult of religious wingnuts.

 

Now if the son is of the legal age of majority, then it's the son's decision and the state should butt out.

 

-Dan

[Jimbo]

I don't know the details of this case, but my first question is: How old is the son?

 

If he is under the age of 18, he is a minor and cannot make decisions about his own medical care. It devolves back to the parent or guardian. If the mother is refusing to get the child medical attention, then the state can (and SHOULD) step in. It's tantamount to child abuse.

 

Sorry, but I have zero problems with the state stepping in. It's not the child's fault he was born into a cult of religious wingnuts.

 

Now if the son is of the legal age of majority, then it's the son's decision and the state should butt out.

 

-Dan

 

I would have to respectfully disagree with Dan. The essence of the argument is that a parent should have the right to refuse medical attention for their child even if doing so is deemed "life threatening" by the government. Should a minor be forced to have an abortion if giving birth is deemed "life threatening" by the government, even if it is against the parents' wishes? Should an obese child be forced to go on a diet if the child's weight is deemed "life threatening" by the government, even if it is against the parents' wishes?

You may argue for child abuse, but if nothing else in the family's history points to purposeful cruelty to the child, than there is no case. You may strongly disagree with the family's wishes, but the power of persuasion is the proper tool to use, not the hammer (and sickle) of government.