Court Orders Parents to Get Medical Treatment for Their Child

Remove all ads!

Clearly you are oblivious to Drew's posts, but whatever. From now on I'll refrain from pointing out when posters make claims which are fallacious and factually incorrect, because obviously they tend to be thin skinned and beat their fists, crying for moderation like little children when they can't take what they dish out.

Debate points? Oh my goodness, I don't give two shits about this debate, or winning it. I just enjoy pointing out the inconsistencies, empty rhetoric and outright BS laden in the posts of others. It makes a great passtime!

---------- Added 0 hours, 42 minutes and 1 seconds later... ----------

By the way, I just received a reputation point from Drew, with the following comment:
"Thanks for expediting the ban-hammer that is now most assuredly headed your way. - Drew"

This is ridiculous, Taluntain. You're essentially condemning me for fighting while I'm still being punched in the face.

 

It was positive rep...

 

To tell the truth, Drew doesn't make claims that are fallacious and factually incorrect. Instead, he uses definitions as muddled and vague as possible, making himself completely incomprehensible and meaningless on purpose.

 

When did the topic in this thread change to "let's bash Drew"? I thought we were talking about whether a court should be able to order parents to follow a Doctor's prescribed treatment for their children.

That said, Daniel Hauser is back home again, but his custody is now uncertain for what I would assume are obvious reasons. Fortunately for Colleen, the Brown County Attorney doesn't expect to charge her, adding that arrest warrants have been quashed because she voluntarily returned. The judge will again want to know where they stand on chemotherapy treatment, which could influence his own course of legal action. Here's the link.

It appears Hauser was at least wise enough to contact a defense attorney in Southern California, who facilitated her return home -- complete with a Hollywood film crew to accompany them and record the whole thing.

 

The kid is now going to have the chemotherapy. His tumor (everytime I see or hear the word tumor it always has the Ah-nold pwo-nun-si-a-shun) has grown and is pressing on his trachia, causing pain.

Pain is an incredible motivator at times.

 

I wasn't bickering with you, Taluntain! I agreed whole-heartedly that I wouldn't say 'Wrong' to a poster, ever, ever again, just as you wished.

You're always right, Drew is a living god, and I'm very very sorry that I broke the rules.

Edit: By the way, I got an anonymous positive rep for this post titled "Happy Banning Time!". Yuk yuk yuk! Oh, you guys are too much!

 

That's the thing though - he isn't prepared to die rather than receive treatment that he doesn't want. At least there is nothing in the news, or in any of the several articles posted on this subject that would lead anyone to that conclusion. This goes back to what LKD was saying about being misinformed. The kid is under the mistaken belief system that chemotherapy will kill him, and these alternative treatment will save his life because that's what his parents told him. That say to me he's not willing to die because of this decision, but rather that he thinks he is making the decision with the best odds to save his life.

If he had his facts straight and he still made the decision to forego chemotherapy in favor of these alternative treatments, I would still disagree with his decision, I would not understand his decision, but I would ultimately respect the decision he made. However, the kid thinks that the decision he is making has the best chance of saving his life. Furthermore, if he shares his mother's belief, then he doesn't really think he's all that sick in the first place. His mother has stated that her son's current state of health is not poor.

EDIT: Just saw T2Bruno's post and apparently he is getting the chemotherapy treatments. I wonder if we contact this person again 10 years from now (assuming he is among the 90% that survive) if he will be happy or upset that he got the chemo.

 

This is something that far too few adults (parents or not) understand, and need to. When children are very young (up to about age 7-10), they have very little sense of individuality. They think of themselves in terms of others, especially parents, authority figures, and the like. After that, as the process of maturation takes it's next step, the brain begins to change and they think more and more of themselves as individuals. In the first stage, it is perfectly correct, and important, for a parent to basically decide everything for their child. As the child matures, though, he or she begins to seek out ways to express their individuality, to seperate and distance themselves from their parents a little. It is equally important that the parents allow this, while guiding the areas and methods of that individiation. Too restrictive and the child rebels in a desperate attempt to express individuality, while too permissive and the child will stretch the bounds as far as possible, often into distructive areas. A careful balance must be maintained, and the parent should watch what decisions the child is making at the same time they allow the child to make them.

Shoshino, as far as parenting goes, I think your example was an exception, and a lucky one at that. Many children in the same situation would have (and have) made much worse decisions.

This much is quite true, and the parents are to blame for misinforming their child.

Unfortunately, exactly what age is "mature" is very uncertain. In the modern western world, that shift from a primarily emotionally driven mind to one controlled more by logic typically happens in late teens, but brain development overall is vastly dependant on environment and use (and no studies have been done on this topic in other cultures, as the technology necessary is pretty high-end). Even here, though, that age may range wildly from 12 up into the early 20s depending on the individual.

 

Since we don't brain scan every child, we have to go by other measures. On measure is that of experience -- ask any teacher and you'll be told that the vast majority of kids in grade 9 are not ready to make life-altering decisions. they are, of course, able to make more and more important decisions as they slowly mature. Decades of experience has taught Western societies that most kids are not really ready for the responsibilities of adulthood until they are 18.

I do not feel the number is arbitrary, as it is the result of long observation. Now we have 18 as the cutoff for a lot of things, and I can understand how some would point out that as a legal cutoff that's difficult, because there's exceptional kids who are highly mature at 16, and other people who are still immature dorks at 25. But legally I see the need for a cutoff, and 18 has been decided upon by society as the best fit for society. Of course, for some things, you just plain can't get regardless of your age if you don't pass a test -- cars come to mind -- the legendary drivers licence test! Still get nightmares from that one nearly 20 years later.

 

NOG, I respect that you see me for what Ive turned out to be, and LKD, no, Im 28, but I deal every day with the rubble which is todays teenaged society.

I want to make one thing straight, I dont disagree with this boy recieving treatment, I disagree with him being forced to recieve treatment- here in is the problem created.

No teenager will make it easy for someone to force them to do something they dont want to do. Teenagers do the opposit of what someone wants/forces them to do.
It is much more positive to make them believe that it is something they want to do, and in this situation, I dont think the medical association did enough to convince the kid that he 'wants' this treatment.

 

Actually, no. Decades of bias and propaganda have taught us this. The actual psychological studies paint a far different picture, where there is a wide range of maturation rates even within a singular culture, typically ranging in the US from 14 to 24, though extremes exist even beyond those ages on both sides.

For legal issues, I agree with you. There needs to be a recognized cutoff, a binary switch, for each issue, and grouping them together not only makes a lot of sense, but simplifies things dramatically, too. All I ask is that you remember this is a legal abstraction, not the actual way people work. Outside of the law, we should be very careful applying the same standards, and even the law should look carefully at things.

Actually, my point in my previous post went very much against this. Rebellion and being difficult are not a neccessary part of being a teen. Individiation is, and that may involve rebellion, but typically only when there are no other means to individualize*.

*Note here that I do not consider those teens that mess up because of a lack of controls to be rebelling, per se, as they do not recognize the authority of the law as one they are subject to, thus they aren't trying to break from it. Their problem is of a different type altogether.

 

very few teenagers are individuals these days, they are often part of a group and very much reliant on that group, If one member of that group thinks its cool to smoke, odds are other members will adopt taht, If a member thinks its great to stay out past 2am, likewise he will have company.
Parents can often be to blame, but its bigger then this.

I discussed it recently with one of my bosses, he's having trouble with his teenaged son. We blamed the breakdown in family and the increase in access to their friends - mobile phones and the internet allow them to constantly be in contact with their friends and allow them to zone out from the family.

He likes to think that he's fair with mike (15 year old son), but he has problems relating from what I mentioned above, if he's in at 10, his mates will text and say that theyre out so he finds a way to escape from the house to meet them, family attempts to stop him or no he will get out, because thats what his mates are doing.