Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

When the courts become "Big Brother"

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • tandfman
    replied
    Originally posted by Pego
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090520/ap_on_re_us/us_forced_chemo

    Minnesota mother and her son "disappeared". The boy has been told (probably by her), the chemo will kill him.
    They've now been returned to Minnesota and the boy has been removed from his parents' custody.

    http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/05/25/minnes ... ced.chemo/

    Leave a comment:


  • Pego
    replied
    The jury's verdict is in.

    http://www.wausaudailyherald.com/articl ... /305220063

    Leave a comment:


  • paulthefan
    replied
    Originally posted by SQUACKEE
    Originally posted by Marlow
    Squack is correct. The kid is a minor, therefore, by definition, he is not in a position to make an informed decision, so no, it's not his choice. The parents are sacrificing his life on their religious position? I simply don't get it. I'd rather give up everything I am than see my child die.
    I dont want to live in a country where parents can "kill" their kids because of a religion belief.
    actually you are in such a country. But Squak and the judge are absolutely correct. A country that does not protect the helpless is a lawless country. I would go further and say that the child should be removed from the parents custody, they have shown themselves unfit to parent.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pego
    replied
    Originally posted by tandfman
    Originally posted by Pego
    I am not aware of a religion that demands total withholding of medical services from an adult, let alone a child.
    I knew a Christian Scientist who I believe had a treatable condition but who died because she would not seek medical help.
    I know, some of them do that. As far as I know, their religion prefers not to resort to "standard medicine", but does not expressly prohibit it either.

    Leave a comment:


  • Daisy
    replied
    Originally posted by bad hammy
    Originally posted by trackjudge
    (bh was right)
    Darn near my favorite phrase!
    We don't hear that one too often.

    Leave a comment:


  • bad hammy
    replied
    Originally posted by trackjudge
    (bh was right)
    Darn near my favorite phrase!

    Leave a comment:


  • bambam
    replied
    Originally posted by Marlow
    Originally posted by bambam
    if I (or any MD) give a blood transfusion to a Jehovah's Witness or render medical care without informed consent from the patient, or the patient's parents, we can be charged with felonious assault and battery (and of course malpractice).
    And if you don't. won't the family sue for neglect (at the very least you won't be able to live with yourself)? Isn't there a Good Samaritan Law or something in the Hippocratic Oath that compels you to save lives?
    Good Samaritan Laws are something different altogether. Only apply in emergency situations outside of a medical setting like if you come across a car accident on the side of the road.

    It's not that we can't live with ourselves. We're not allowed to do things without informed consent from the patient or family. If we don't get that we can't do invasive procedures - that is simple. Now when its pretty obvious we can lead the family to do the right thing. But when they won't, as in this case, we're in a very tough situation, which is when the lawyers step in, as they always do.

    Leave a comment:


  • trackjudge
    replied
    In California, since 1988, this would be child endangerment (bh was right) and ultimately manslaughter. See Walker v. Superior Court, 47 Cal.3d 112; Cal.Penal Code ยงยง 192(b), 270, 273a(1).

    Leave a comment:


  • Marlow
    replied
    Originally posted by bambam
    if I (or any MD) give a blood transfusion to a Jehovah's Witness or render medical care without informed consent from the patient, or the patient's parents, we can be charged with felonious assault and battery (and of course malpractice).
    And if you don't. won't the family sue for neglect (at the very least you won't be able to live with yourself)? Isn't there a Good Samaritan Law or something in the Hippocratic Oath that compels you to save lives?

    Leave a comment:


  • tandfman
    replied
    Originally posted by Pego
    I am not aware of a religion that demands total withholding of medical services from an adult, let alone a child.
    I knew a Christian Scientist who I believe had a treatable condition but who died because she would not seek medical help.

    Leave a comment:


  • bambam
    replied
    Originally posted by Marlow
    Originally posted by Jack Slocombe
    My ideology always wins out for me.
    My ideology says to preserve human life first; dogma comes later.
    I agree. And it sounds great. But if I (or any MD) give a blood transfusion to a Jehovah's Witness or render medical care without informed consent from the patient, or the patient's parents, we can be charged with felonious assault and battery (and of course malpractice). The only exceptions in most states are where we cannot get that permission in a timely fashion and must interact to save the patient's life. The lawyers rule on this one - as they always do.

    Leave a comment:


  • TrackDaddy
    replied
    Originally posted by Marlow
    Originally posted by TrackDaddy
    If they had it back then, getting chemo treatments would've been right in there with those. Maybe that's what God provided to answer your prayer.
    Zackly. Would it not be religiously fundamentally sound to see that God gave man a mind to use it to glorify Him and that medicine is literally a god-send?!
    Absolutely.

    We use that ideology all the time in regard to relgion.

    Leave a comment:


  • SQUACKEE
    replied
    You dont own your children, they have rights which a parent can not take away, like their right to life for instance.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pego
    replied
    Originally posted by Grasshopper
    Originally posted by Marlow
    Originally posted by Jack Slocombe
    My ideology always wins out for me.
    My ideology says to preserve human life first; dogma comes later.
    Just for the sake of arguement I'll point out that some people believe that their spiritual life has the potential to endure far beyond the length of their physical life. Should they be required to preserve their physical life if in doing so they may be jeopardizing the preservation of their spiritual life? Is it our government's job to decide that the physical life should take precidence over the spiritual life?
    I am not aware of a religion that demands total withholding of medical services from an adult, let alone a child. An exeption is Jehovah's Witnesses proscription of blood products. Even they use medical services for everything else. Of course, you can cherry pick the Bible to find support for just about any notion, as those people we are talking about here do.

    Leave a comment:


  • SQUACKEE
    replied
    Originally posted by Grasshopper
    Originally posted by Marlow
    Originally posted by Jack Slocombe
    My ideology always wins out for me.
    My ideology says to preserve human life first; dogma comes later.
    Just for the sake of arguement I'll point out that some people believe that their spiritual life has the potential to endure far beyond the length of their physical life. Should they be required to preserve their physical life if in doing so they may be jeopardizing the preservation of their spiritual life? Is it our government's job to decide that the physical life should take precidence over the spiritual life?
    I think everyone here wants adults to enjoy all their religious rights, including choosing a long and horrible death over medical treatment.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X