Court Orders Parents to Get Medical Treatment for Their Child

Remove all ads!

Why then arent adults forced treatment in the same way? If a treatment is proven to work, why should they be allowed to die and a child not given that choice.
And dont give me the "children dont know what theyre doing, they cant make a choice because theyre too young" bullsh!t adults are often no better educated and actually I find in this day and age less educated about science then the kids, why are adults (the stupidest creatures on the planet) allowed to make the choice and a child not?

 

Are you serious? Children need guidance. It's a basic evolutionary trait that our young are incapable of fending for themselves and we're not alone in that. Children lack the maturity to deal with important issues and are easily swayed by the wishes of their role models. When this kid is living a healthy life in twenty years time I can't imagine he'll look back and regret that he didn't die when he was thirteen.

Adults aren't forced because, well, at some stage we just have to give up on people and force them to fend for themselves.

 

I think the issue is what you call "derivatie" in this case. Arguably, odds are every single atom used in organic chemistry on earth has been in some living creature at one point or another, so they've all gone through some process of "derivation" or another since then, even if we're just harvesting O2 straight out of the atmosphere.

St. John's Wart is known to behave similarly to mild anti-depressants, in terms of psychological impact, potential side-effects (from long-term use in this case), and the fact that the effect builds up in the body, but we have no idea what part of the plant does what.

As to the research methods, would a therapy for heavy metal poisoning that consisted of drinking 5 gallons of water a day require intensive and careful medical studies before it is allowed to be used by anyone? That's the difference between, say, a new pharmapseudical and these alternative methods. Nothing going into the alternative methods is known to be seriously toxic, and most of them are readily available in the common market today. The new drug is likely a combination, chemical relative, and/or derivitive of known chemicals that have known and serious side-effects.

As to why alternative therapies are not investigated, or shrugged away when they are, I don't know. The only thing I can think of is the elitist mentality. It's not like it'd cut into their profits to have a corner on a cheap-to-produce drug, and I really doubt that a more effective therapy with fewer side-effects would be detrimental to anyone, but really investigating this stuff would require admitting that those "medicine men" and "primitive witch doctors" may actually know what they're doing (something that anthropologists realized a LONG time ago).

This is true up until about 7-10 years of age, depending on the individual child. Past that, they are quite good at making their own decisions, and in past cultures were readily accepted as responsable adults not far past those ages. The modern idea that you aren't mature until 18 or 21 (or in some cases older) is ridiculous and without grounds.

 

Without grounds*? Come one now -- there isn't a single 10 year old I have ever met that I would entrust with a life or death decision. Heck, there's very few 14 year olds I would entrust with such a decision. Déise said it quite succintly -- Children need guidance. They need it up to 18 and in many cases people need it beyond.

And as for this:

You've been watching too many TV shows -- I've seen a lot of teenagers who do quite well in their science classes, but they are hardly better qualified to make major decisions based on science because they aced their Chem finals.

I'm not saying that kids aren't capable of making decisions, but I am saying that experience matters a heckuva lot more than many people would like to think, and that it amounts to negligence and abuse if responsible adults do not step in and take control in serious matters.

In this case, the kid has been fed a line of crap, plain and simple. If his parent's pulled their heads out of the dogmatic sand ("Modern Western Medicine is bad and doesn't work" -- that sure as hell doesn't stand up to any inspection, scientific or not) they'd do what's best for their son. But they're not, and it amounts to abuse in my book. This mother should be drawn and quartered for caring more about her stupid New Age crap than the life of her son.

*take car driving, as an example. Ask any actuary -- One of the most accident prone groups of people are young teens. Why? They lack maturity and judgement. Doesn't make them bad people, it's just a fact of life.

 

If the kid wants to have sex with an older man (say, 28?), what right does anyone have to tell him he can't?

 

What if the child WANTS an abortion? Should the state have the right to deny it? You are right: Whose body is it? So how many of you, who are arguing that the state can't order a "LIFE SAVING" treatment, are in favor of the state denying an abortion? I thought so....

 

Really? Name one chemical used in modern medications that doesn't occur naturally. Name one.

I backed up my argument and even cited examples, and you somehow felt that a single word was a significant enough rebuttal?

 

Metaprolol, propranolol, cimetidine, ranitidine. Oh look, I named four.

Wrong. Here, let me type this slowly so that you can understand. Giving *three* examples of drugs that are natural compounds, semi-synthetic derivatives of natural compounds, or rationally designed from natural compounds, is not evidence that *all* drugs are derivatives of natural products.

Or, to summarise... Three drugs does not = all drugs.

A difficult concept to wrestle with, admittedly, but one I'm sure you will be able to grasp when you enter a pharmacy and realise that there far more than three drugs stocked in it.

Given that you didn't offer any valid evidence to support your ridiculous claim, then yes, an unsupported rebuttal is all that is necessary. Especially when the claim made is common knowledge.

What's even more mind boggling is that I described one particular process by which drugs are discovered where you aren't making derivatives of natural sources, and you just ignore it. Brilliant. Willful ignorance makes for such a fascinating discussion.

---------- Added 0 hours, 10 minutes and 29 seconds later... ----------

It's not an issue if you adhere to the definition used in pharmaceutical chemistry, instead of trying to get all philosophical. If the drug comes from a living being (atropine), or has its template adapted from that of a living being (eg. morphine), it's natural. If it was synthesised in the lab from molecules without using a chemical from a living being as a template, then it's synthetic

 

It would help if you would spell metoprolol correctly, for starters. That said, I have trouble considering metoprolol an unnatural substance. Every substance used to produce it occurs naturally, so how is the resulting substance unnatural? Am I splitting hairs? Perhaps, but I was primarily addressing the common idea that anything put through a chemical process is somehow automatically unnatural in my initial post. Given that chemical processes are themselves natural, I find this commonly held conception more than a little silly. Perhaps I should have made more clear to what I was referring, but your initial one-word response didn't give me much to work with. Your poor manners, by the way, are not appreciated.

 

And I primarily blame their upbringing for this. I have met several children as young as 10 that know the risks of drugs (and not by rote, but by rationale), know first aid, are trusted with live firearms, and are quite capable of making very mature decisions. As you hinted, though, I've also met people 20, 30, and older that I wouldn't trust with a dull spoon, but less my life.

The importance of experience depends greatly on the individual's intelligence and wisdom. A smart and wise person can make the correct decision reliably even without experience, while a foolish and dumb person may have been in the exact same situation numerous times and still not know what to do.

I agree with you that the blame lies with the parents here, and that they have made a mistake.

Actually, no, it's the lack of experience. They've performed studies through different cultures that have different ages for driving, and the results were about the same number of accidents in the first 5 years whether those years started at 14 or at 21.

The fact is that we coddle children in western society. We believe them to be sacred, innocent, delicate creatures that must never be exposed to any of the harsh realities of life (to varying degrees for different groups, but all to some degree or another compared to earlier civilizations). In ancient Israel, men were considered mature at 13 years of age, were expected to be married or engaged, and be a fully functioning member of society with all the rights and responsabilities (including warfare) of any man. It worked quite well for them for a long time.

Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, meet pot.

 

and experience is one of the most important factors in the development of both maturity and judgment...

Don't confuse my PM's with the public forums....

 

My bad.

I don't care what you consider it to be. In the field of pharmaceutical chemistry, metoprolol, by definition, is not considered a natural drug, or even a derivation of a natural substance.

You're not only splitting hairs, you're also backpeddling. Either way, a substance that does not occur is nature and which was produced synthetically in the lab is not considered to be a natural drug in the realm of pharmaceutical science.

Yeah, I know you can make up any definition you so please (which is what you are doing), but that doesn't mean I have to swallow it.

I don't find the concept that non-natural substances can be generated by exploiting chemical reactions to produce synthetic materials not found in nature (ie. in the absence of human intervention) silly. Unless you'd like to argue that Teflon is a natural substance.

Indeed. You could have elaborated or asked 'Why am I wrong?', but instead responded by being a smart-ass.

My poor manners? I simply pointed out that a statement you made as a fact was incorrect by stating 'False', and you felt the need to be condescending. To put it bluntly, go whine to someone who cares, because acting like a drama queen and crying 'foul' isn't going to win you any 'debate points'.

 

Actually, yes, I would proffer that argument. In our planets infancy, we didn't even have the enzymes necessary to break down trees. We do now, and sooner or later, it is believed that even our plastics will be bio-degradable. But I digress...

Uh-huh.

Yeah. Real friendly.

That said, I do feel compelled to point out that, here at sorcerers place, messages are posted in their entirety at the time you press reply, not in real time.

Even if I am a hooked on phonics gibbering drool monkey unable to breathe without someone nearby to constantly remind me, I am more than able to take as much or as little time as needed to read and respond to a post. The speed at which you type has no effect whatsoever on my ability to comprehend what I've read.

 

Don't worry, I haven't.

 

As SP's leading expert and practitioner in the field (and art) of rhetorical condescension, I must point out that simply dismissing a detailed and sourced good-faith argument with a one-word statement of "false" without providing even a minimal corrective argument is, in fact, remarkably condescending (not to mention arrogant, lazy, unpalatable and, as it turns out, a leading cause of tooth decay).

Now we can all be bffs again. Pass the Pringles!

 

I think this thread is inadvertadly showing the problem in society, youre all answering the problem, people ask why teenagers rebel so much, youve answered it, because you dont give them choice in things they feel they should have choice over, for example their own bodies, I know girls, come into the club all the time to get laid, because they want to get pregnant to p!ss off their parents, kids drink on street corners because when they go home drunk their parents will go ballistic.
Kids rebel against authority, by being more forceful and believing that they cannot make choices for themselves, youre creating your own problem.
Im living proof;
My parents divorced when I was 10, my mother had to work for us to survive which left 3 teenaged boys to look after ourselves (oldest son was 15) - we became very independent, how many kids do you know can cook at the age of 11? I could, I had to teach myself. Did our own laundry decided our own times to come home in the evening, and do you know what? by 9:30 we'd be home, because we didnt want to be out that late, there was no fun in it, we werent annoying anyone - so whats the point? Underaged drinking? I drank when I was 15, rarely, in the house, why not go out and get p!ssed on street corners? because I didnt have to, I was allowed to drink - so there was no fun in it, when you think about it most alcohol tastes revolting, you dont drink it for flavour.

Back to my point, when you give them the choice, the right to make their own choices you may be surprised, they will make the right choice for them, If its because he has faith in for example, religion, thats his own choice - you force a choice on him, open pandora's box.

 

Shoshino, you tell a very powerful story -- one that I respect.

I do disagree with some of your conclusions, though. In order for anyone of any age to make a good decision, they have to be informed about what that decision entails. That means they have to be given clear and true facts about the consequences of each path along the decision tree that is set before them.

In this case, the child is not making a clear decision because his parents have fed him incorrect data regarding a decision tree with life or death consequences. His decisions are therefore hamstrung and he is not capable, because of his parents' stupidity, to make an informed choice about the treatments.

In addition, parents play a vital role in teaching their kids good decision making abilities. I infer from your post (correct me if I'm wrong or off base) that while your mother was not around much because she was working to support you children, she did, either by word or deed, teach you good things about how to make good, responsible decisions. I further postulate that you were lucky -- many people have parents who don't give a damn about them and don't teach them anything about decision making.

I've seen the results of when kids are given the responsibility for making serious decisions too soon. While I agree that it is possible for a youth to make the right decision, it is also quite likely that he will make the wrong one and end up facing horrid consequences for the rest of his life. I've seen good parents (who are not as repressive as you seem to think many are) whose kids make utterly idiotic choices despite having received good training.

The reason for this is that adolescents are at a highly emotional state of life, and even with training often make decisions based on emotion and impulse rather than thinking things through and considering the consequences*. Thus, until they mature sufficiently, it is necessary to have regulatory structures in place.

* As an example**, a boy in the school where I taught was once standing on a chair for a drama project. Another kid jumped up out of the blue and shoved the kid on the chair -- the kid smacked his head on the floor pretty hard. When asked by the administration why he had pushed the other boy, his answer was "I don't know." When asked if he had had a grievance against his victim, he said "no" -- further investigations proved that -- they barely even knew each other. When asked why he'd done it, he again said "I don't know." When asked if he didn't realize the other boy could have been seriously hurt, he said "I didn't really think about that, I just felt like doing it, so I did." Impulse -- 1 Logical, sound decision making -- 0

**I'm not saying all kids are that bad, but many do operate on such a "Ready, Shoot, Aim" sort of mindset.

 

you have just described any religion on this planet, feeding people misguided (Im not looking to get into a religious debate here) information and altering their view of anything.

Do you ever stop to think that maybe, and I mean just maybe, he doesnt care about that? Maybe he is making a decision based on what he wants? prepared to die rather then recieve a treatment that he doesnt want?

you have just described so many adults Ive met, its unbelievable.

"why did you push that person down the stairs?
I dunno,
can you think of any reason why you did that?
He looked at me funny,
You realise youve just committed a serious offence?
no."

 

I'm a little unclear, you think the response made by the principal was somehow inappropriate? Or lacking in understanding? You're constant use of the word "adult" as some sort of epithet does not bode well for you (I'm assuming here that you are a teen) because in a few years you will be one yourself! You think a switch flips at some point and people become morons who don't remember what it was like to be young? If so, you are wrong. Every educator I've ever met remembers crystal clear what it was like to be a teen.

As for the religion comment, there's millions of religious people out there who would not sacrifice their children to radical beliefs. This isn't about religion, at its base -- it's about a radical belief system that endangers lives -- such systems can also exist outside religions.

As for what he wants, it seems much more likely to me that what he wants is to please his parents. That's great if it's not a life or death thing. But if it's painfully obvious to any clear thinking, rational person, that the decision being made by both the parents and the kid is likely to end up with a fatality, then those clear thinkers must step in to counteract the muddy, emotional, irrational decisions of both the parents and the kid. When he gets older (hopefully he will) and he is exposed to some other ideas about life, he'll be in an informed position to make his decisions. As of now, he's choosing blindly, thanks to his parents, and so needs some outside assistance.