In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
parent rights?
ontherocks
Member Posts: 58 ✭✭
from tv,
say your kid is dying of cancer, doctors say they may be able to cure it, parents refuse because their kid cried and pleaded not to be put through that again.
parents criminals yes or no?
I say they are some of the finest parents a child could ask for.
say your kid is dying of cancer, doctors say they may be able to cure it, parents refuse because their kid cried and pleaded not to be put through that again.
parents criminals yes or no?
I say they are some of the finest parents a child could ask for.
Comments
Should the child's age and maturity be taken into account though? If they are not looking at the whole picture with a good perspective it could conceivably be like a child arguing why they don't want a flu shot or why they don't want to go to the dentist.
What you have said makes sense to me.
Should the child's age and maturity be taken into account though? If they are not looking at the whole picture with a good perspective it could conceivably be like a child arguing why they don't want a flu shot or why they don't want to go to the dentist.
I have never been through chemo but I have heard stories of people who have and I think it is on a different plane than a shot or the dentist. Good point though and one that must be taken in to consideration, and I think any good parent would do just that.
What you have said makes sense to me.
Should the child's age and maturity be taken into account though? If they are not looking at the whole picture with a good perspective it could conceivably be like a child arguing why they don't want a flu shot or why they don't want to go to the dentist.
In this case the child and parents do not want the chemo treatments. They are from Sleepy Eye, Minnesota....
unless they plan to put a loaded handgun in the kid's hands and let him blow his brains out, they are NOT doing him a favor!!!
cancer treatment may be nasty...but dying from cancer is much more painful...
unless they plan to put a loaded handgun in the kid's hands and let him blow his brains out, they are NOT doing him a favor!!!
If that's the case, once the pain from cancer becomes worse than the chemo, he could always change his mind.
It may be too late by then, but this is an imperfect world we live in.
Here is a question for you.
You have a family next door that does not believe in Vaccinating their kids and have never informed you of such.
Your child is to young to be vaccinated contracts, say for example measles and dies from the un-vaccinated 10 year old neighbor kid.
Could the neighbors be charged with murder due to their un-vaccinated kid carrying a potential deadly disease without informing you or anyone?
quote:Originally posted by KSUmarksman
cancer treatment may be nasty...but dying from cancer is much more painful...
unless they plan to put a loaded handgun in the kid's hands and let him blow his brains out, they are NOT doing him a favor!!!
If that's the case, once the pain from cancer becomes worse than the chemo, he could always change his mind.
It may be too late by then, but this is an imperfect world we live in.
patients tend to do just that, they're idiots...
wait too long and expect medicine to take you back from St. Peter's gate [xx(][:(]
cancer treatment may be nasty...but dying from cancer is much more painful...
unless they plan to put a loaded handgun in the kid's hands and let him blow his brains out, they are NOT doing him a favor!!!
Yep. Anyone who thinks the parents are doing the right thing haven't seen someone die of cancer. [V]
cancer treatment may be nasty...but dying from cancer is much more painful...unless they plan to put a loaded handgun in the kid's hands and let him blow his brains out, they are NOT doing him a favor!!!
Dying from cancer is painful. Suffering through chemotherapy and radiation treatments does not make dying from cancer any less painful.
quote:Originally posted by KSUmarksman
cancer treatment may be nasty...but dying from cancer is much more painful...unless they plan to put a loaded handgun in the kid's hands and let him blow his brains out, they are NOT doing him a favor!!!
Dying from cancer is painful. Suffering through chemotherapy and radiation treatments does not make dying from cancer any less painful.
depends on the cancer...there are a few I studied (like pancreatic and types of lung) that if I was diagnosed with it I would just take the .45cal pill...but I believe the lymphoma that the kid has is treated with 90% success rate...that's pretty damn decent for cancer!
As for the rest of it...when that type of cancer has a 90% success rate and the parents refuse to properly treat it then I would have to wonder about what they are thinking...or if they are thinking.
As for "honoring the wishes" of a 13 year old about a lethal health issue...that isn't part of being a good parent... Good parenting means doing everything humanly possible to get your child the best medical care available...Holding them close and comforting them during the bad times....IMHO
2008 Minnesota Statute
Resources
Topics
* Harm
Child Abuse
Children
Contributing to Neglect
Controlled Substances
Crimes
Criminal Sexual Conduct
Defenses
Endangerment
Health Care
Incest
Neglect
Personal Injuries
Property Damage
Religion and Religious Beliefs
609.378 NEGLECT OR ENDANGERMENT OF CHILD.
Subdivision 1.Persons guilty of neglect or endangerment.(a)(1) A parent, legal guardian, or caretaker who willfully deprives a child of necessary food, clothing, shelter, health care, or supervision appropriate to the child's age, when the parent, guardian, or caretaker is reasonably able to make the necessary provisions and the deprivation harms or is likely to substantially harm the child's physical, mental, or emotional health is guilty of neglect of a child and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than one year or to payment of a fine of not more than $3,000, or both. If the deprivation results in substantial harm to the child's physical, mental, or emotional health, the person may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than five years or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both. If a parent, guardian, or caretaker responsible for the child's care in good faith selects and depends upon spiritual means or prayer for treatment or care of disease or remedial care of the child, this treatment or care is "health care," for purposes of this clause.
(2) A parent, legal guardian, or caretaker who knowingly permits the continuing physical or sexual abuse of a child is guilty of neglect of a child and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than one year or to payment of a fine of not more than $3,000, or both.
(b) A parent, legal guardian, or caretaker who endangers the child's person or health by:
(1) intentionally or recklessly causing or permitting a child to be placed in a situation likely to substantially harm the child's physical, mental, or emotional health or cause the child's death; or
(2) knowingly causing or permitting the child to be present where any person is selling, manufacturing, possessing immediate precursors or chemical substances with intent to manufacture, or possessing a controlled substance, as defined in section 152.01, subdivision 4, in violation of section 152.021, 152.022, 152.023, 152.024, or 152.0262; is guilty of child endangerment and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than one year or to payment of a fine of not more than $3,000, or both.
If the endangerment results in substantial harm to the child's physical, mental, or emotional health, the person may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than five years or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both.
This paragraph does not prevent a parent, legal guardian, or caretaker from causing or permitting a child to engage in activities that are appropriate to the child's age, stage of development, and experience, or from selecting health care as defined in subdivision 1, paragraph (a).
(c) A person who intentionally or recklessly causes a child under 14 years of age to be placed in a situation likely to substantially harm the child's physical health or cause the child's death as a result of the child's access to a loaded firearm is guilty of child endangerment and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than one year or to payment of a fine of not more than $3,000, or both.
If the endangerment results in substantial harm to the child's physical health, the person may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than five years or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both.
Subd. 2.Defenses.It is a defense to a prosecution under subdivision 1, paragraph (a), clause (2), or paragraph (b), that at the time of the neglect or endangerment there was a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the defendant that acting to stop or prevent the neglect or endangerment would result in substantial * harm to the defendant or the child in retaliation.
History: 1983 c 217 s 5; 1984 c 628 art 3 s 11; 1989 c 282 art 2 s 199; 1992 c 571 art 4 s 11; 1993 c 326 art 4 s 22; 2002 c 314 s 6; 2005 c 136 art 7 s 21
www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us look under statutes and go to
section starting with 609
quote:Overall cure rates for HL including all stages and all patients are around 75% to 80%. For young patients with early stage disease the likelihood of cure approaches 100%.
With these odds and it were your child what whould you do???
http://www.lrf.org.uk/en/1/infdispathod.html
Ask someone who has had Chemo and see if they think it is worth it..The age of this kid gives him a better chance for cure, and with Stastictic like below , makes one wonder what is wrong with the parent.. Also the techniques used today dont have the effects that there were 10 years ago,
quote:Overall cure rates for HL including all stages and all patients are around 75% to 80%. For young patients with early stage disease the likelihood of cure approaches 100%.
With these odds and it were your child what whould you do???
http://www.lrf.org.uk/en/1/infdispathod.html
it is not what we think, it is the reglious values of the parent and the child beleifs, so now i started a arguement between church and state! i do not agree with the parents because i am a parent my self i have 3 kids and 1 grandchild i want only the best for all of them! but with this issue at hand a court battle has just begun between the seperation of church and state, and the admendments of the US constitution!
Lets take it to another perspective,, should a judge have a say in what two retarded people that have a child , about their health care?
Should a judge have a say in two drug addicts that have a child , health care??
There has to be a line somewhere as to who needs the actions of the court and who dont.. Where is that line?? All cases cannot fit into one basket..
If the court says that he is too young to make a decision, then the responsibility falls to the parents. However, the court won't recognize their decision because it doesn't follow their agenda. If they find him and force him to get chemo, I think that all involved should be tried for manslaughter and the judge for conspiracy to commit homicide. Not sure that the case falls under those laws, but something has to be done. He still has rights, just like owning a gun. They shouldn't infringe on his right to be treated the way he wants.
There are laws on the age of accountability , I believe in most states it is 18.....
I do know in a couple religions it is 12 years of age....
That is all fine and dandy. Treat him as he wants?? Do we know this kid at 13 can make a rational decision?, and not based on the religious indoctrination he has had?? Or is it out of fear? which again hinders the rational thoughts of many people
There are laws on the age of accountability , I believe in most states it is 18.....
I do know in a couple religions it is 12 years of age....
As far as I know though, people still have the right to be stupid and are allowed to make decisions that we feel are not the best.
Never said they were bad people, It is their decision, not what I would do though. Therein lies the dilema, should society dictate what is right or wrong or just let people do whatever the hell they think is right, legally or morally??
I know that YOU didn't say that they are bad people but the media is making them out to be. The judges have turned the mom into a criminal now. To me, it is kind of like the military oath that I have seen on here. The part about as long as it is not unconstitutional. The judge doesn't seem to care about that. He thinks that the doctors' and his opinion are right so he ordered it to be done, despite the fact that the law allows us the right to refuse medical treatment. Until breaking the court order, the boy and his parents were not DOING anything wrong, they were simply NOT doing what most people thought was best. My thinking is that it is still his body and as long as he is not doing anything that breaks the law, the court should not intervene.
Tells you just how widespread this problem is..
It's estimated that every month between 1 and 5 children die in the US alone due to the religious superstition of their parents or guardians. The World Union of Deists is trying to change the laws that allow this assault on our children and our reason. We are currently circulating petitions that call for an end to the religious exemptions that promote this type of deadly superstition. Please help us by taking part in this important effort. Send an email to me at: childprotect@deism.com indicating your desire to help us in this matter and I'll help you draft a petition for your state. Don't let Harrison's death, and the deaths of the other innocent children, be for nothing. Together we will make a difference!
Diests believe in God, and that god gave them reasoning..sometimes in religion that reasoning is blocked..Read the article..
I guess it should be alright when people say GOD told me to kill my child..Not much difference in letting one just die because of religious belief or killing one for religious belief..
Here's a different scenario...
Child of 14 doesn't want to go to school. Not based on any religious conviction, parent just wants to let the kid "choose" for themself, and, at the age of 16, and is still working with nothing better than a third grade education, is legally able to make the decision to drop out of school. Reasons are immaterial, be it lack of parental responsibility, religious reasons, or defiance of government.
Should the parent be charged with educational neglect?
Not quite the same thing, but we are talking about a parent allowing their child to make decisions that will effect the rest of their life, or lack thereof, as the case may be.
Only when it is expedient for the government to get envolved , then they want government entervention,, Like the "Choice" issue.. UH HUH, now its different..[;)]But its OK to let parents let their children die, hell thats their choice..But, Dont give a person the right to "Choice"....seems a little hypocritical to me..
1. We have a First Amendment that guarantees We The People the right to freely practice our religion.
2. We have religious people who do not agree that Western medicine is the right course of action.
3. We have a child who is old enough to determine what his religious preferences are. He understands the concept of cancer, chemotherapy, and death. He chooses NOT to undergo said treatment, and as such, exercises his First Amendment rights.
4. The government steps in and imposes its will, violating the First Amendment of the Constitution.
The mother should not be in a flight situation with the child. The mother and father should file suit against the government for violation of their First Amendment rights.
I may not like their religion, I may not respect their religion, but by golly I will fight for their right to practice it so long as it does not trample on anyone else's rights.
Interesting thought...
Here's a different scenario...
Child of 14 doesn't want to go to school. Not based on any religious conviction, parent just wants to let the kid "choose" for themself, and, at the age of 16, and is still working with nothing better than a third grade education, is legally able to make the decision to drop out of school. Reasons are immaterial, be it lack of parental responsibility, religious reasons, or defiance of government.
Should the parent be charged with educational neglect?
Not quite the same thing, but we are talking about a parent allowing their child to make decisions that will effect the rest of their life, or lack thereof, as the case may be.
Not the same thing, but since you brought it up... if the parents are willing to home school the kid, let them. If the kid wants to screw up his/her life and the parents stand behind it, let them. If the parents want the kid in school and the kid doesn't want to be in school, the parents should force the kid to go to school.
And so if a parent decides to destroy the unborn because they feel that the child may not have a quality of life they prefer, that is good as well ?
Acts of omission, as well as commission, that result in the clearly probable destruction of life are nowhere protected in scripture.
If we look for guidance in hard cases, is that not a reasonable opinion to obtain ?
Is every religious act protected ?
Even human sacrifice ?
This is why I love the hypocrisy of the left.
Mother wants child to die with dignity, following his/her religion. State steps in and forces child to undergo treatment to save his/her life.
Mother doesn't want the child, claiming an inconvenience. State steps in and guarantees the death of the child against the laws of humanity and decency.
It is all about what the mother wants unless the mother wants something.
Thank you thank you thank you spanielsells! What you said made perfect sense. And rcrxs old lady, LOTS of folks out there claiming to "home school" their children, and the same scenario you describe is occuring instead. Parent doesn't care, kid doesn't care. Stupidity breeds stupidity. I hate that the government controls the school systems. Nothing in the constitution about it, but it sure has made the government LOTS of money in the past.
So the kid's future should suffer because the parent has the right to be a dumbazz?
Then why are we prosecuting child abusers at all, neglect, assault, etc? Do not physical wounds heal? What about intellectual and emotional abcesses? What about parents who claim to be "home schooling" their children but aren't? Nothing against home schooling, but don't tell me this doesn't happen, I could give you names and addresses. Should it be perfectly acceptable for a parent to decide that their child doesn't need anything more than a 3rd grade education, at best, because it is their "right" to do so? Is it the right fo the parent to decide their child's future, even if it is to the detrement of the child?
Why prosecute child abuse at all?
Simple question...
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
And so if a parent decides to destroy the unborn because they feel that the child may not have a quality of life they prefer, that is good as well ?
Acts of omission, as well as commission, that result in the clearly probable destruction of life are nowhere protected in scripture.
If we look for guidance in hard cases, is that not a reasonable opinion to obtain ?
Is every religious act protected ?
Even human sacrifice ?
This is why I love the hypocrisy of the left.
Mother wants child to die with dignity, following his/her religion. State steps in and forces child to undergo treatment to save his/her life.
Mother doesn't want the child, claiming an inconvenience. State steps in and guarantees the death of the child against the laws of humanity and decency.
It is all about what the mother wants unless the mother wants something.
This is irrelevant.
We should just make mothers have children they don't want, then protect their right to mess them up however they want to...
As others have said, chemo isn't pleasant, but NHL is one of the most cureable forms of cancer there is.
Does this kid actually realize "dead is dead"? One has to wonder, given the high rate of suicide in this age group.