For WM: Heroic 13 yr Old Boy and Parents Bravely Resist Court Ordered Chemotherapy

charver said:
If a parent wants to let their child die of a curable disease then who are we to tell them otherwise?

Parents make them and, until the age of 18, they should be allowed to do exactly what they like to them. Just like that bloke in the other thread who ran out of snacks and thought he'd try some delicious toddler eyes. He made the eyes, he can eat the eyes.

I'd probably just send mine out cleaning chimneys if i had any children, though. I had a sheep's eye once. Revolting it was.
Click to expand...
Revolting, eh? That's saying something coming from somebody who can eat a soggy train station sandwich...
 
Dungheap said:
This sort of thing straddles the line for me. Children shouldn't die because their parents have crazy ass belief systems but the state shouldn't require anyone to undergo any medical procedure that is not necessary to save the lives of others.

The problem is that, because it is a child, it is unclear whether the child is making an informed decision to forgo medical treatment or is just parroting the horseshit his parents have drilled into him.
Click to expand...

That's why I posted it. It's a complex issue with no easy answer.

What a lot of people in this thread are ignoring are that the child himself is very opposed to the treatment. 13 is below the age of majority, but at 13 I had been posting on political boards for over a year and had a fairly well developed personal belief system.

You're right that he could certainly just be parroting his parents beliefs, but I think it while it is one thing to save a willing child from parents denying him medical treatment, it is quite another for the state to force medical treatment upon an unwilling child who can be proven to understand the consequences of his decision.
 
Epicurus said:
That's why I posted it. It's a complex issue with no easy answer.

What a lot of people in this thread are ignoring are that the child himself is very opposed to the treatment. 13 is below the age of majority, but at 13 I had been posting on political boards for over a year and had a fairly well developed personal belief system.

You're right that he could certainly just be parroting his parents beliefs, but I think it while it is one thing to save a willing child from parents denying him medical treatment, it is quite another for the state to force medical treatment upon an unwilling child who can be proven to understand the consequences of his decision.
Click to expand...

Agreed that there isn't an easy answer to this... but the fact that the article states the kid had a learning disability on top of it... if that is accurate then I would lean towards siding with the court on this. If not, then I would lean towards siding with the kid.
 
Yeah the crucial point is whether he understands the consequences of his decisions.

This would make a great movie.
 
Epicurus said:
Yeah the crucial point is whether he understands the consequences of his decisions.

This would make a great movie.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure that it is whether he understands the consequences of his decisions, though that is certainly a part or it, as opposed to whether his decision is well-informed.

The article says that he believes chemo will kill him so I'm not sure he is all that well-informed about his options.
 
Dungheap said:
I'm not sure that it is whether he understands the consequences of his decisions, though that is certainly a part or it, as opposed to whether his decision is well-informed.

The article says that he believes chemo will kill him so I'm not sure he is all that well-informed about his options.
Click to expand...

Well according to the court he doesn't have any.

Since the article said that he had undergone chemo before, he had at least some experience with its effects. This isn't cut and dry in any sense and I'm not trying to pretend it is, but he at least knew how the treatment affected him in the past and that is some basis to make an informed decision.
 
Epicurus said:
Well according to the court he doesn't have any.

Since the article said that he had undergone chemo before, he had at least some experience with its effects. This isn't cut and dry in any sense and I'm not trying to pretend it is, but he at least knew how the treatment affected him in the past and that is some basis to make an informed decision.
Click to expand...

13 year-old kids aren't expected to make informed decisions .. because they don't know what informed is. In fact, I'm not sure his parents know what informed is.

If the boy dies the paents should, and probably will, be prosecuted.
 
Epicurus said:
Well according to the court he doesn't have any.

Since the article said that he had undergone chemo before, he had at least some experience with its effects. This isn't cut and dry in any sense and I'm not trying to pretend it is, but he at least knew how the treatment affected him in the past and that is some basis to make an informed decision.
Click to expand...


Probably because the court found that the boy wasn't well enough informed to make a rational decision.
 
blackascoal said:
13 year-old kids aren't expected to make informed decisions .. because they don't know what informed is. In fact, I'm not sure his parents know what informed is.

If the boy dies the paents should, and probably will, be prosecuted.
Click to expand...

Just because you were dumb at 13 doesn't mean everyone was.

I personally was capable of making that decision at 13, though I can't speak to whether or not the boy is.
 
Epicurus said:
Just because you were dumb at 13 doesn't mean everyone was.

I personally was capable of making that decision at 13, though I can't speak to whether or not the boy is.
Click to expand...

Your comment illustrates that you're still kinda dumb now, let alone when you were 13.

Your argument is ideological, not based on a reality of what 13 year-old CHILDREN are expected to understand and interpret as an adult.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top