the cost of free-will

jn56uytrx

jn56uytrx

Well-known member
MBTI
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5- 469
http://www.newser.com/article/d989j78o0/minnesota-judge-issues-arrest-warrant-for-mother-of-13-year-old-boy-refusing-chemotherapy.html

I don't value what is happening in these people's lives. I don't know what choices I'd make if I were in any of their positions, but I don't believe it's in the best interest of the boy to be removed from his family, placed in foster care, and forced by the state to undergo a treatment he does not value.

It seems to me to be good intentions gone awry.

Some people in this state apparently value a particular course of action and believe in it so strongly that they feel justified in taking a position of total authority over another life and removing their power to choose for themselves. Given a chance to vote on this topic, I would certainly vote to allow families like this to make their own choices.

The other thing that screams at me from underneath all the drama of this story is the smell of fear. It seems to me that perhaps the people who are willing to impose all these things on this boy's life hold to a mindset that at some level denies the fact that physical lives cannot be saved. They can only be prolonged. This boy may die in the next year or he may die in the next 90, but he will die--as we all will. In the grander perspective of the turning of time there isn't all that much space between 13 and 90. Is the benefit of that potential brief prolongation of a life worth the cost of depriving this boy of the right to decide how invasive a method of prolongation he wants to engage with?

I think perhaps this family may value life to a healthier degree than the authorities who are pursuing them. By that, I mean perhaps they are not overvaluing illusions of immortality and instead are engaging gently with life as it presents and accepting without violent fight where that life closes itself.
 
Last edited:
Bullshit, complete and utter bullshit. The courts should have NO say in this. No one but the family should have say.
 
Another reason I do not value making a law out of everything that is questionable: always exceptions to rules in laws.
I wonder if they decide to immediately live in another state what their law would or could do.....maybe just fine them for the no-show? Don't know the state's laws.
I see two problems. One is the state claims the child incompetent to make such a decision while also stating a law making the parents provide proper medical care. Moving to another state would have been a good move if the family actually felt so strongly about this. Doing so after not showing up in court made it bad. The Father's taking the state's stance regarding the medical care does not help matters, either.
I do agree removing the child from his Mother during such a testing time both physically and mentally to be a bad decision and one to reconsider. The child needs his Mother now more than ever. Sounds like a tragedy in the making that will get my prayers tonight.
Forcing treatment is something I must ponder overnite, though it appears the Father wants it. Very tough situation and call. I have made much easier calls in my times.
The fear I hear calling is from the laws and their not wanting this to set a precedent against them.
 
Last edited:
Tovlo - I fully agree with everything you said. Every single one of us has free will. This boy is 13 and old enough to know what he wants. These people aren't hurting anyone and if their religious beliefs are so that chemotherapy would make them compromise those beliefs, then that's a major infringement on their human rights. There are many religions and religious sects that are against invasive medical treatments and should never be forced to do something that would cause them to compromise their beliefs, especially since it is their belief that if they do such a thing they could ruin their chances in eternity. And without regards to religious reasons, anyone that doesn't want to undergo a certain medical procedure should never be forced to. This whole thing is ridiculous.
 
Yeah, that's really a shame. Especially because the court's ruling is that the parents are "medically neglecting their son," which they clearly are not doing. Making a conscious choice for an alternative solution does not mean one is neglecting the problem. They are obviously acknowledging the problem, since they are choosing a solution. Just 'cause their choice flies in the face of convention shouldn't give anyone the right to force them to conform to convention. This is America, Jack!

I wonder why the father changed his mind, though... Pressure from the lawyer?
 
Yup, that sounds exactly like the thinking of a free country. </sarcasm>
:(
 
This just infurates me. It is the family, and child's choice!!!
 
I think it's child abuse and neglect. What's the difference between this and starving your child because you believe that with enough faith, the holy spirit is going to put food on the plate or some nonsense?

Denying legitimate researched and proven medical treatment to a child based on religious convictions is lunacy. When guardians act like crazy people, they shouldn't be in any position to make life and death choices for their children.

And the "do no harm" thing? What about the harm they are doing to their son. Just because they won't face the facts doesn't mean the facts don't exist..
 
Last edited:
alt ctrl del said:
I think it's child abuse and neglect. What's the difference between this and starving your child because you believe that with enough faith, the holy spirit is going to put food on the plate or some nonsense?

Denying legitimate researched and proven medical treatment to a child based on religious convictions is lunacy. When guardians act like crazy people, they shouldn't be in any position to make life and death choices for their children.

And the "do no harm" thing? What about the harm they are doing to their son. Just because they won't face the facts doesn't mean the facts don't exist..
Click to expand...

An older, wiser friend close to me says there is always two sides to a coin.
I like to remember, on my own, there are also edges separating and joining those two sides. Sometimes we get close to the edge. A true attempt to see both sides when close to the edge can be difficult for some and impossible for many. The part taking the son away from the Mother I cannot fully understand for some reason. It may be the easiest thing for the state to do, but not what is best for the long haul.
 
Perhaps the child wants to die.

I find it interesting how the courts are going after this kid, and trying to say what people can and cannot do.

Benjamin Franklin once said something along the lines that everyone is stupid, and that he was pleasantly surprised when people said smart things. I don't believe that, but I thought it was a good tidbit to add to discussion.
 
alt ctrl del said:
I think it's child abuse and neglect. What's the difference between this and starving your child because you believe that with enough faith, the holy spirit is going to put food on the plate or some nonsense?

Denying legitimate researched and proven medical treatment to a child based on religious convictions is lunacy. When guardians act like crazy people, they shouldn't be in any position to make life and death choices for their children.

And the "do no harm" thing? What about the harm they are doing to their son. Just because they won't face the facts doesn't mean the facts don't exist..
Click to expand...

I fully agree, your judgement is so great ^^ I think it is a little freaky to think that the state goes after them, however making stupid choices when there is free will, are not the least bit better.
 
I agree with alt ctrl del. Also, the child is a child and is very clearly influenced by the parents. I would say brain washed, but that would probably spark a whole other debate.

Ben Franklin was right, people are stupid. The government is good in that it often protects people from themselves.
 
He needs to claim to be a Chrisitan Scientist. Then his choice is protected under the law.
 
I think it is neglect. I can see the right intentions here but in the end it's harming him more. It's a paradox though. Freedom is what's right but the freedom to make damaging stupid decisions. But where is the line? I don't agree with taking him away from his mother though. I've seen situations like this before though; I suspect that the child is really just afraid (with good cause I can't even imagine) the mother sees this and decides to protect him from it rather than protecting him by giving him strength to go through with it. In the end she serves as only an enabler to his fear thinking that she is saving him when she is really harming him. I may be wrong but that's what I get from this.
 
just me said:
An update with a poll in the news....
http://news.aol.com/article/boy-resists-chemo/488967

It appears the chemo was court-ordered before they skipped town.
Click to expand...

Ok, that makes it a little worse, but I still feel the way I do. If a family (including the child) so wishes to use alternative medicine to try to heal a disease, then let them. The gov't has NO PLACE what so ever to order someone to have treatment for an illness, particuarlly if it isn't contegious like in this case.

I'm sorry this just really makes me mad. The government has no right to tell us how to take care of ourselves (except when it could harm others).
 
Yeah, I agree with IS. It's not neglect because they're trying to do something. They're just trying to do what they want to do, not what other people tell them they should do.
 
Last edited:
IndigoSensor said:
Ok, that makes it a little worse, but I still feel the way I do. If a family (including the child) so wishes to use alternative medicine to try to heal a disease, then let them. The gov't has NO PLACE what so ever to order someone to have treatment for an illness, particuarlly if it isn't contegious like in this case.

I'm sorry this just really makes me mad. The government has no right to tell us how to take care of ourselves (except when it could harm others).
Click to expand...

To some extent you are right. I think that we should be able to decide for ourselves but I think that with mentally instable people and children, there should be someone to encourage and order how to proceed. Because sometimes a child does not speak up under the suppression of parents, especially with fear and cancer and death comming and the whole package. So parents make all the decisions and the child will merely 'nod' naively in consent.

Religion or not, the parent has to insure that their child gets the best help rather than have their child slowly dying due to their faith. Therefore there has to be a state reinforcing the best present solution! :)
 
Last edited:
It is neglect via ignorance. Happens all the time to varying degrees. The kid is not old enough or knowledgeable enough to make an informed decision (most adults aren't even) for himself and the parents are obviously unaware of statistical information - they have shut their minds to it I think.

It's like saying OK I believe that rubbing shit all over my kid is going to be beneficial for him. You have to allow me to do that. I have a pretty good feeling about this and I've heard others say it has really helped their children.

I'm not knocking alternative medicine here, in fact I strongly support a lot of it and there is good evidence to support some of the various practices, but when you have the best option out there and you choose an option less likely to succeed, that is neglect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top