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

"Children" is an arbitrary designation based on a meaningless number, and your ignorance of developmental psychology is evident.

Any child development psychologist will tell you that after 12, your logical capabilities are essentially developed. Your brain continues to develop into your twenties, but your logical capabilities are formed by 12. I don't know whether this kid was INFORMED enough to make the decision, but he was certainly logically capable of it.
 
blackascoal said:
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.
Click to expand...

I completely disagree. While yes, a 13 year old is still a minor, 13 is certainly old enough to make an informed decision. (in most cases) That does not mean they are expected to interpret anything as an adult.

That said, the court stated that this kid had a learning disability and could not read. If that is true, then this kid should not have been a part of the decision process.
 
Even if he can't fully understand the implications of his decision, the idea of the state forcibly administering unwanted treatment to an unwilling child is barbaric and reminiscent of the early 20th century efforts to lobotomize and sterilize the poor against their will for the "good of society".
 
Epicurus said:
"Children" is an arbitrary designation based on a meaningless number, and your ignorance of developmental psychology is evident.

Any child development psychologist will tell you that after 12, your logical capabilities are essentially developed. Your brain continues to develop into your twenties, but your logical capabilities are formed by 12. I don't know whether this kid was INFORMED enough to make the decision, but he was certainly logically capable of it.
Click to expand...

It's not rocket science and one doesn't need advanced study in developmental psychology to understand that "children" is a designation we apply to non-adults who are not generally expected to make adult decisions.

YOU may not know if this CHILD was capabale of making an informed adult decision on this but the court .. who interviewed this CHILD quite extensively .. HAS determined that he is not capable of such a decision.

If the CHILD dies, one or both of his parents should be porosecuted for his murder.
 
Epicurus said:
Even if he can't fully understand the implications of his decision, the idea of the state forcibly administering unwanted treatment to an unwilling child is barbaric and reminiscent of the early 20th century efforts to lobotomize and sterilize the poor against their will for the "good of society".
Click to expand...

How do you classify a 90% success rate "unwarranted?"
 
So bac please explain what it is that you think happens overnight on the 18th birthday that magically transforms a "child" into an "adult".
 
blackascoal said:
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.
Click to expand...

how do you come up with that idiotic notion? SOME 13 years olds are quite capable of adult rationality. I know I was, working a part time job, going to school, dealing with my own issues, my own material needs, and all without the help of an adult.
 
Superfreak said:
I completely disagree. While yes, a 13 year old is still a minor, 13 is certainly old enough to make an informed decision. (in most cases) That does not mean they are expected to interpret anything as an adult.

That said, the court stated that this kid had a learning disability and could not read. If that is true, then this kid should not have been a part of the decision process.
Click to expand...

13 year-old children are not expected to interpret as an adult .. which is why we have a whole set of laws, regulations, rules, and restrictions that apply only to minors.

In extreme cases it is up to the descretion of the court or jurisdiction to determine if individual minors can be held responsible for adult actions .. and in this case, as you've said, the boy has a learning disability.

This argument is just another case of ideology USING the crisis of others to make a point .. no differently than Terry Schiavo.
 
Epicurus said:
Even if he can't fully understand the implications of his decision, the idea of the state forcibly administering unwanted treatment to an unwilling child is barbaric and reminiscent of the early 20th century efforts to lobotomize and sterilize the poor against their will for the "good of society".
Click to expand...

Easy. Lets not go off the deep end on this one.

I hear what you are saying. But then again, children are not necessarily property whereby their parent's decision regarding what is best for the child should rule the day. I understand that the child in this case decided that he didn't want treatment, but the courts should be able to question him to determine if that is an act of his informed free will or just him doing what his parents have drilled into him.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
how do you come up with that idiotic notion? SOME 13 years olds are quite capable of adult rationality. I know I was, working a part time job, going to school, dealing with my own issues, my own material needs, and all without the help of an adult.
Click to expand...

Explained in my preceeding post.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
you just completely disavowed ANY negative PR towards the government because of that total fucked up fiasco, didn't you?
Click to expand...

Nope.

I just illustrated a truth you have no answer for.

Meet the government with guns if you don't like them. .. Mindless.

Surely you've found plenty of reasons to oppose the government.

When can I be expecting to read your obituary about how you bravely met the government with your six-shooter .. or is that just what you think other people should do?
 
blackascoal said:
Nope.

I just illustrated a truth you have no answer for.

Meet the government with guns if you don't like them. .. Mindless.

Surely you've found plenty of reasons to oppose the government.

When can I be expecting to read your obituary about how you bravely met the government with your six-shooter .. or is that just what you think other people should do?
Click to expand...
If the government should ever come after me for something unconstitutional, you'll know it. It'll be on the news.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
If the government should ever come after me for something unconstitutional, you'll know it. It'll be on the news.
Click to expand...

But you'll also be dead.

Could there not be a more intelligent way of expressing your rejection of what you think unconstitutional that wouldn't result in you in a box and you humiliated?
 
Dungheap said:
Easy. Lets not go off the deep end on this one.

I hear what you are saying. But then again, children are not necessarily property whereby their parent's decision regarding what is best for the child should rule the day. I understand that the child in this case decided that he didn't want treatment, but the courts should be able to question him to determine if that is an act of his informed free will or just him doing what his parents have drilled into him.
Click to expand...

To me, this is reflective of a larger problem in minors' rights. Children under 18 are not "free" in any true sense of the word. They are denied the right to sign contracts, to vote, to hold most jobs, and the right to make decisions like this that affect their well-being. Children in America are essentially the joint property of the parents and the state. They have no legal right to make decisions for themselves, even if they more capable than the state and parents understanding how those decisions will affect them.

This particular case aside, there are undoubtedly many minors under 18 who are perfectly capable of exercising these rights responsibly; indeed moreso than many people OVER 18. Yet under our current system they are denied the right to do so based on an arbitrarily chosen number.

I don't think children should be the property of the state, subject to whatever fleeting notion of childcare the public currently subscribes to. Nor should the parents be able to treat their children essentially as slaves until 18.

Not all children are capable of exercising their rights at a young age, but a great many are and I consider it unfair that they are forbidden from doing so. You may disagree with my political opinions, but any reasonable person would conclude that I was much more competent to vote at 13 than people like desh and Dixie are in their 40s.
 
blackascoal said:
13 year-old children are not expected to interpret as an adult .. which is why we have a whole set of laws, regulations, rules, and restrictions that apply only to minors.

In extreme cases it is up to the descretion of the court or jurisdiction to determine if individual minors can be held responsible for adult actions .. and in this case, as you've said, the boy has a learning disability.

This argument is just another case of ideology USING the crisis of others to make a point .. no differently than Terry Schiavo.
Click to expand...

Again, you are correct, they are not expected to interpret AS an adult. But it is silly to suggest that at 13 the kids ability to make an informed decision is non-existant. This is NOT a case of ideology, no matter how many times you say it. As Epi pointed out, there is no magical change at 18 that allows for informed decisions. The majority of 13 year olds are capable of comprehending what it means to have cancer, what the treatment options are and can be expected to contribute to the decision.

That said, ultimately the parents still have the final say in the decision per our laws. For the courts to over ride that decision, they would have to have evidence that the parents are deliberately acting against the childs best interests AND determine that the kid is incapable of making an informed decision.

In this particular case, it appears both are present (at least according to the article). But that doesn't mean 13 year olds cannot make informed decisions as you are suggesting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top