Mother Refuses Chemotherapy For Son: "On The Lam"

[Ducky]

Here we go again with religious liberties.

But what parent wouldn't want the best for their child?

What if one's 'best interests' are doing more harm than good?

[offsite:1wem9qll]By Amy Forliti, The Associated Press

NEW ULM, Minn. (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/090520/world/forced_chemo) - Authorities in the United States are on the lookout for a mother and her 13-year-old cancer-stricken son who fled after refusing the chemotherapy that doctors say could save the boy's life.

Colleen Hauser and her son, Daniel, who has Hodgkin's lymphoma, apparently left their southern Minnesota home sometime after a Monday doctor's appointment and X-ray showed his tumour had grown.

Brown County District Judge John Rodenberg issued an arrest warrant Tuesday for Colleen Hauser and ruled her in contempt of court. Rodenberg also ordered that Daniel be placed in foster care and immediately evaluated by a cancer specialist for treatment.

The boy's father, Anthony Hauser, testified he didn't know where his wife and son were but has made no attempt to find them. He testified he last saw his son Monday morning, and he saw his wife only briefly that evening when she said she was leaving "for a time."

Officials distributed the arrest warrant countrywide and issued a crime alert to businesses around the country, Brown County Sheriff Rich Hoffman said. He said investigators were following some leads locally, but declined to elaborate.

"It's absolutely crazy. It's very disappointing," James Olson, the lawyer representing Brown County Family Services. "We're trying to do what's right for this young man."

Daniel's Hodgkin's lymphoma is considered highly curable with chemotherapy and radiation, but the boy quit chemo after a single treatment. With his parents, he opted instead for "alternative medicines," citing religious beliefs. That led authorities to seek custody. Rodenberg last week ruled that Daniel's parents were medically neglecting their son.

The Hausers are Roman Catholic and also believe in the "do no harm" philosophy of the Nemenhah Band, a Missouri-based religious group that believes in natural healing methods advocated by some American Indians.

Colleen Hauser testified earlier that she had been treating his cancer with herbal supplements, vitamins, ionized water and other natural alternatives.

The founder of Nemenhah, Philip Landis, said it was a bad idea for Colleen Hauser to flee with her son.

"She should have gone to court," Landis said. "It's how we work these things out. You don't solve anything by disregarding the order of the judge."

And Anthony Hauser now agrees that Daniel needs to be taken back to a doctor for re-evaluation for the best treatment, said Calvin Johnson, a lawyer for the parents.

The family was due in court Tuesday to report the results of a chest X-ray and their arrangements for an oncologist. But only Daniel's father appeared. He told Rodenberg he last saw his wife Monday evening.

"She said she was going to leave," Hauser testified. "She said, 'That's all you need to know.' And that's all I know."

He said Colleen Hauser left her cellphone at their home in Sleepy Eye.

The family's doctor, James Joyce, testified by telephone that he examined Daniel on Monday, and an X-ray showed his tumour had grown to the size it was when he was first diagnosed.

"He had basically gotten back all the trouble he had in January," the doctor said.

He said Daniel was at risk of substantial physical harm and needed immediate action.[/offsite:1wem9qll]

If the mother is eventually found.

[pack3tg0st]

I'm 50/50 on this one...

In many cancer patients, its not the cancer that kills them... its the treatment...

but, it could help the kiddo live for a few more years...

either way, the government shouldn't be telling people what treatments they are required to get...

I dunno... I can't decide how I feel about this one...

Edit: I do think the mother is doing the right thing... even if I don't agree with it, which I'm not sure if I do or don't lol... The mother is telling the gov't to fuck off... she's acting on what she believes instead of rolling over for the gov't...

[Ducky]

I'm 50/50 on this one...

In many cancer patients, its not the cancer that kills them... its the treatment...

but, it could help the kiddo live for a few more years...

either way, the government shouldn't be telling people what treatments they are required to get...

I dunno... I can't decide how I feel about this one...

Edit: I do think the mother is doing the right thing... even if I don't agree with it, which I'm not sure if I do or don't lol... The mother is telling the gov't to fuck off... she's acting on what she believes instead of rolling over for the gov't...

However, it was shown that the herbal remedies and such were NOT working, and the tumor had grown in size to when it was first diagnosed.

I can understand everyone's adversion to giving anyone chemo. When you look at it, it`s basically `poison` that you`re putting in someone`s body.

The way I look at it...it`s like fighting fire with fire. They`res already poison in the body to start with.

[pack3tg0st]

Yah, I can see that point... but I'm not torn so much on the chemo issue...

The reason I'm undecided is I'm trying to balance the rights of the family vs. the ability of the state to force treatment...

I really don't like the idea that the state is trying to force the family to comply with medical treatment... thats opening a can of worms ya know...

BUT, I can't decide if its appropriate for the state to step in when the family member is a kid or not...

For me, its more an issue if the government should interfere than a treatment issue... but I'm fuct in the head like that :P

[apeci]

What does the kid want? He's 13. He can decide for himself.

[offsite:379jf3i8]The Hausers are Roman Catholic and also believe in the "do no harm" philosophy of the Nemenhah Band, a Missouri-based religious group that believes in natural healing methods advocated by some American Indians.[/offsite:379jf3i8]
She should come to Missouri then. The courts have repeatedly ruled in favor of religious individual's right to control their own lives.

[Ducky]

Yah, I can see that point... but I'm not torn so much on the chemo issue...

The reason I'm undecided is I'm trying to balance the rights of the family vs. the ability of the state to force treatment...

I really don't like the idea that the state is trying to force the family to comply with medical treatment... thats opening a can of worms ya know...

BUT, I can't decide if its appropriate for the state to step in when the family member is a kid or not...

For me, its more an issue if the government should interfere than a treatment issue... but I'm fuct in the head like that :P

If it came down to a court of law, the rights of the child supercede everything. Regardless of anything else...

What is in the best interest of the child.

[pack3tg0st]

What if the child doesn't want treatment?

In the court of law the child basically has no rights...

Now, if the treatments are in the best interest of the child, well, both sides could line up expert witnesses till the cows came home... there is kind of a divide in the medical field about chemo...

Either way, it comes down to a middle aged person making a decision that he never has to live with... the family does...

Judges have no right to make decisions like this...

Like I said... could go either way with me... I want the kid to be happy, but hell, if someone came into my house and told me to give my kids some sorta fucked up treatment, I'd fuckin' shoot them..

[Ducky]

What if the child doesn't want treatment?

In the court of law the child basically has no rights...

Now, if the treatments are in the best interest of the child, well, both sides could line up expert witnesses till the cows came home... there is kind of a divide in the medical field about chemo...

Either way, it comes down to a middle aged person making a decision that he never has to live with... the family does...

Judges have no right to make decisions like this...

Like I said... could go either way with me... I want the kid to be happy, but hell, if someone came into my house and told me to give my kids some sorta fucked up treatment, I'd fuckin' shoot them..


If the child is under the age of consent, the court might take actions into its own hands, for the betterment of that child. In this case, the child is under the age of consent.

[pack3tg0st]

I know what the laws are... I'm just saying I don't necessarily agree with them...

[apeci]

Ages of consent are bullshit. It's garbage to prolong childhood leading to the pussification of society we have today. Most people remain children clear into their 30s because idiot parents refuse to allow them to grow up. They want the world to have padded edges. Fuck that. I say once the age of reason is reached, 7-9, the kid is fully capable of deciding what to do with their life and body.

[pack3tg0st]

I would say a year or two after their reproductive system kicks in... Puberty is nature's way of going "you're fuckin' ready!".

A year or two after that simply because the hormones defeat rational thought...

I'd say when nature says you're ready, you're fuckin' ready to make your mind up about shit.

[apeci]

I'm not talking just about sex. I'm talking about everything. Puberty does not denote the ability to make life-impacting decisions. That ability comes years before. When exactly this point is reached is entirely subjective however and instead of arbitrarily pulling some age out of a hat there should be no state interference at all.

[Ducky]

Ages of consent are bullshit. It's garbage to prolong childhood leading to the pussification of society we have today. Most people remain children clear into their 30s because idiot parents refuse to allow them to grow up. They want the world to have padded edges. Fuck that. I say once the age of reason is reached, 7-9, the kid is fully capable of deciding what to do with their life and body.

I understand. Maturity levels DO vary from one individual to the next.

The one thing I didn't glean from this, was the fact that the boy didn't get to choose for himself, as his mother took that option away from him and ran with her tail between her legs.

The question is Why run in the first place. Being simply scared is not enough. Was the mother scared that their religious beliefs were going to be trounced on? Who knows?

I'm sure you guys have heard of similiar cases where a blood transfusion takes place, and the family has decided that it was against their religion - because they were Jehovah's Witnesses, and the child eventually died in the process from having not received one.

Religious rights vs. Fundamental rights of a child.

Tricky tricky.

[pack3tg0st]

The one thing I didn`t glean from this, was the fact that the boy didn`t get to choose for himself, as his mother took that option away from him and ran with her tail between her legs.

I can't see how you extrapolated this out of the news story... It doesn't seem to say anything about what the boy wants...


Religious rights vs. Fundamental rights of a child.

But we're treating the child as if they have no rights... The kid has all the decisions made for him... the Family isn't even allowed to defend the kid's decisions... instead, the courts butt in and try and force the family to do something against their will, and potentially against what the kid wants...

would this be different if he was diagnosed with a mental disorder? and the courts ordered medication that turns him into a zombie?

Would this be different if YOU were the one ordered into "zombie-dom?".

[Ducky]

Religious rights vs. Fundamental rights of a child.

But we're treating the child as if they have no rights... The kid has all the decisions made for him... the Family isn't even allowed to defend the kid's decisions... instead, the courts butt in and try and force the family to do something against their will, and potentially against what the kid wants...

would this be different if he was diagnosed with a mental disorder? and the courts ordered medication that turns him into a zombie?

Would this be different if YOU were the one ordered into "zombie-dom?".

I can speak from experience here. Having weighed all options and exhausting many avenues, I decided to elect chemo for my son back in the early 90's. He had Osteo Genic Sarcoma (cancer in the bone marrow of his knee). Religion had nothing to do with my decision whatsoever. I made the choice for my son, and knew that it was a good one. I can't speak for everyone; let alone the woman who ran away from her circumstances.

We're looking at the 'best quality of life' we can provide for our children.

Between a complete above knee amputation and a Van Ness Rotational Plasty (http://www.pffd.org/node/93), I chose this:

9]WXTTx9TRCzg9]

But this thread isn't about me or my son.

I guess it boils down to the many agonizing decisions that we ALL have to make in our lives where are children are concerned.

[pack3tg0st]

you also have to remember that the media is only going to cover the angle that they want covered... and there WILL be information missing... its a given...

The media story is engineered to envoke a desired response in the audience..

with that being said, maybe its more understandable on why I'm only 50/50 on this one... still undecided...

we don't know all the information...

[JiveTurkey]

It's the rights of the parent to decide, though the parent should definitely be asking the child what he/she wants. The government already has far too many rights over us and our kids.....especially when it comes to how we raise them.

If they can force you to give your kid medical treatment which is far more likely to kill him/her quickly and painfully than cure them, they can force you do do just about anything.....which, they already do.

Chemotherapy and radiation amount to little more than poisoning one's body to the point that EVERTHING dies (good and bad) in the hope that the poison only keeps them at the verge of death without actually killing them so they can potentially go into remission.

However, if they child wants treatment and the parents refuse, THEN the child should have the right to overrule the parent w/ the help of the local court system if necessary.

Otherwise, fuck the government. They won't be happy until each of us is born and stamped "property of the state"

[JiveTurkey]

by the way, treating cancer with chemo is like treating a surface staph infection by setting yourself on fire.

[Foxtrot Oscar]

NO.

But the parental motives are questionable to say the least... The father must be some kind of a cunt to sit there and say he dosen't know where his potentially dying child is.

I'd ring the fuckers neck for not being with his son at a time like this.

Fox

[JiveTurkey]

NO.

But the parental motives are questionable to say the least... The father must be some kind of a cunt to sit there and say he dosen't know where his potentially dying child is.

I'd ring the fuckers neck for not being with his son at a time like this.

Fox

You speak truth.

[apeci]

The one thing I didn't glean from this, was the fact that the boy didn't get to choose for himself, as his mother took that option away from him and ran with her tail between her legs.

Incorrect.

[offsite=http://www.wndu.com/watercooler/headlines/45171587.html:1h0o93qw]If so, the judge could order that the boy be given chemotherapy, even though the child has said he would fight it. According to Daniel Hauser's court testimony, he believes the chemo would kill him. He said he would punch and kick anyone who tried to administer the treatment.[/offsite:1h0o93qw]



The question is Why run in the first place. Being simply scared is not enough. Was the mother scared that their religious beliefs were going to be trounced on? Who knows?

She believes she's saving her son's life. Reason enough for me.

[Heike]

Cancer isn't poison, it's just part of the body rebelling. Kind of like kids who refuse to obey the rules and go off and do their own thing and get out of control. So fighting cancer is like trying to get the body to fight itself .. you can do that, but the consequences are as bad or worse than the cancer.

My tinfoil hat is firmly on when it comes to medical issues. We have at least two (maybe more) ways of stopping cancer in its tracks, but you can't get them anywhere because they aren't profitable. Blame the bastards who won't pay for FDA trials for unpatentable drugs or treatments, and don't really want cancer CURED anyway because it's much more profitable to TREAT it (and keep doing research to find a CURE that someone can actually make money off of).

First they pumped the kid full of vaccines, soy products, and toxic crap in his food and drink, now he's got cancer and they want to pump his body full of more toxic chemicals. Mom's got the right idea she's just a little too late ... herbals and naturopathics are better at prevention than cure. Now they'll arrest Mom, get the kid, top him off with toxic waste soup until the cancer sends up the white flag and his body is damaged enough that he'll have to be on medications for the rest of his life, and then they'll leave him to get screwed up in foster homes and DHS care while Mom sits in jail for having tried to spare him the torture of modern Western medicine.

Nobody wins here except the doctors, lawyers, and medical facilities, who get more money to buy shiny cars and play golf with while Mom rots in jail and the kid ends up damaged mind and body - if he lives. Great country, ain't it?

[JiveTurkey]

Cancer isn't poison, it's just part of the body rebelling. Kind of like kids who refuse to obey the rules and go off and do their own thing and get out of control. So fighting cancer is like trying to get the body to fight itself .. you can do that, but the consequences are as bad or worse than the cancer.

My tinfoil hat is firmly on when it comes to medical issues. We have at least two (maybe more) ways of stopping cancer in its tracks, but you can't get them anywhere because they aren't profitable. Blame the bastards who won't pay for FDA trials for unpatentable drugs or treatments, and don't really want cancer CURED anyway because it's much more profitable to TREAT it (and keep doing research to find a CURE that someone can actually make money off of).

First they pumped the kid full of vaccines, soy products, and toxic crap in his food and drink, now he's got cancer and they want to pump his body full of more toxic chemicals. Mom's got the right idea she's just a little too late ... herbals and naturopathics are better at prevention than cure. Now they'll arrest Mom, get the kid, top him off with toxic waste soup until the cancer sends up the white flag and his body is damaged enough that he'll have to be on medications for the rest of his life, and then they'll leave him to get screwed up in foster homes and DHS care while Mom sits in jail for having tried to spare him the torture of modern Western medicine.

Nobody wins here except the doctors, lawyers, and medical facilities, who get more money to buy shiny cars and play golf with while Mom rots in jail and the kid ends up damaged mind and body - if he lives. Great country, ain't it?


I suppose the optimistic way of looking at it is IF they pump him full of chemo, he won't have to live in those foster homes long. Unfortunately, that brief time that he has left will be spent suffering with a body that is totally failing.

[skunk]

If the family is really interested in a natural cure, why don't they give Rick Simpson (http://www.phoenixtears.ca/) a call and actually cure the child of cancer?

Oh wait, its illegal in the US. Carry on, no cancer cures for this country.

[GeneralStriker]

Mom's got the right idea she's just a little too late how kind of you

[GeneralStriker]

She believes she's saving her son's life. Reason enough for me.and for me. let them be.

[Cogburn]

If the family is really interested in a natural cure, why don't they give Rick Simpson (http://www.phoenixtears.ca/) a call and actually cure the child of cancer?

Oh wait, its illegal in the US. Carry on, no cancer cures for this country.
Uh... cure cancer w/ hemp oil?

That's a bit much. It alleviates pain and discomfort from cancer and chemo, but there's not a shred of evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, that suggests hemp oil cures cancer.

As to this thread...

Hodgkins lymphoma may be cured with a 90% efficacy rate with standard treatments.

This lady is fucking nutter. There's a difference between upholding the tenants of your religious beliefs and forcing your children to be as backward and ignorant as you are.

[offsite=http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/05/modern_day_isaacs.php:3oravw7n]Colleen Hauser has flown the coop. She has defied a court order to bring her sick son, Daniel Hauser, to a qualified doctor for essential medical care. The boy has Hodgkins lymphoma, a disease with a very good prognosis if treated soon, but is a painful death sentence within a few years if neglected. His mother, though, is fervently religious, and no doubt smug in her righteousness, has bundled her son into a car and is devoutly driving to Mt. Moriah. I hope she's not expecting an angel of the lord to appear and spare her son.

What she has done has gone even deeper. Daniel is 13 years old; he has been tested for his competency, and has been found to be completely illiterate. He was homeschooled. Colleen Hauser has been wielding the sacrificial dagger of her faith on her son for years, crippling his brain and rendering him unable to evaluate the real-world consequences of their decisions. I wonder how many Daniel Hausers there are in this country, living lives of quiet ignorance, unexposed by the trauma of a physical disease?

And here's the real tragedy: Colleen Hauser almost certainly loves her son and believes she is doing what is best for him, every step of the way. I can identify with her in that regard — I can understand that deep, gut-wrenching love a parent can have for her children, the kind that can put you to your knees with agony at every little hurt they suffer…and Daniel Hauser faces deeper pain and an imminent threat of death that my kids have never had. But Colleen Hauser is so afflicted with the poison of religion that she has lost sight of reality, and is going to kill her son with her ignorance.[/offsite:3oravw7n]

It's my kid and he's got cancer, why can't I beat him to death with a baseball bat? God told me to do it...

[Lexion]

Hmm...let him decide ?

Yeah.....

He's home schooled (Deaman ? )

He's 13 and can't read or write.

Yeah.....

Darwinism works for me.

Regards,
Lex

[Cogburn]

Easy now... I homeschool...

Although I'd put my 13 y/o's intellect up against deaman's any day. :)

[apeci]

These problems were foreseen...

"The Constitution of the Republic should make provision for medical freedom as well as religious freedom. To restrict the art of healing to one class of men and deny equal privileges to others will constitute the Bastille of medical science."
Dr. Benjamin Rush, signer Declaration of Independence, Pennsylvania.

[Cogburn]

"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them (the people) not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power."
- Thomas Jefferson to William Charles Jarvis, September 28, 1820

Keeping your children stupid is an anathema to the republic.

The medical debate is fruit of the poisonous tree.

[apeci]

Perhaps, but it is a parent's right to educate their children however they please. You exercise this right, and so has she.

[Cogburn]

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.

One may choose to be illiterate as one may choose to be a drug addict: after a certain point in life, it's all your doing and no one else.

Something can be wrong without being illegal.

The problem as I see it is this wasn't a federal judge... this wasn't even a state judge... it was a county judge. It was this woman's community, her peers, friends and neighbors, that requested her rights be infringed. This is the very foundation of the social contract in this country.

Is it wrong to say "You are so stupid that you pose a threat to yourself and you children and we, as compassionate neighbors, do not want to see you harm yourself"?

Being free does not mean being free from consequences...

[apeci]

Nothing wrong with saying it. Everything wrong with acting on it through force.

[Cogburn]

Nothing wrong with saying it. Everything wrong with acting on it through force.
May I post guro now?

Ever social structure, including AmKon, has a set of rules by which all participants abide for the continuation of the social structure itself.

The question then becomes how much of an infraction is your structure willing to tolerate.

Honestly I have more of a problem with keeping her child stupid than the denial of effective medical care.

At least if the child were educated by 13 he may be able to make his own well-thought opinion...

[Ducky]

Was reading everyones responses in the long last while and was reflecting on the type of medical and legal system we currently have, and wondering what will be instilled down the road.

As much as we complain about our 'rights' at the present, I cringe to think what kind of system is in the works right now (about to happen?). Militant mabey? If that comes to pass, EVERYTHING is overrided, and people will end up doing what the state tells them regardless.

The crazy part of it all, is that the religious fundies are staving off a possible military state in a way. Religious freedom is part of the constitution right? So there'll always be someone knocking/lobbying at the congress door and sticking it to someone who'll lend an ear.

[apeci]

Ever social structure, including AmKon, has a set of rules by which all participants abide for the continuation of the social structure itself.

Who decides the rules of this abstract social structure?

Your comparison to AmKon is invalid. AmKon is a privately owned and operated service. Rules are set forth by the owner and agreed to by the patrons of the service prior to use. Failure to abide by these rules can effectively result in digital execution. AmKon is not a community defined by a certain geographic area within which sovereign individuals appear through no fault or act of their own (they're born). In the real world one group of individuals projects their will onto another group of individuals and calls it a social contract, the foundation for this social structure you speak of. It's nothing more than a fantasy to conceal the violence of man. The social contract does not exist. The only possible infraction is the violation of the individual.

[Cogburn]

Ever social structure, including AmKon, has a set of rules by which all participants abide for the continuation of the social structure itself.

Who decides the rules of this abstract social structure?

Your comparison to AmKon is invalid. AmKon is a privately owned and operated service. Rules are set forth by the owner and agreed to by the patrons of the service prior to use. Failure to abide by these rules can effectively result in digital execution. AmKon is not a community defined by a certain geographic area within which sovereign individuals appear through no fault or act of their own (they're born). In the real world one group of individuals projects their will onto another group of individuals and calls it a social contract, the foundation for this social structure you speak of. It's nothing more than a fantasy to conceal the violence of man. The social contract does not exist. The only possible infraction is the violation of the individual.

She could have moved to the next county over. Oh wait.. she tried that... she had already lost another dispute in another county in another state.

That's two communities that have determined that her actions were unacceptable to the functioning of those communities.

Why not leave the country for somewhere more accepting? Something tells me that Mexican authorities would certainly give less of a shit. I mean... she did move from Massechusettes to Minnesota for her religious beliefs already.

It's a free country and if you feel persecuted you are not required to remain. If you don't like it... leave.

The ultimate freedom is the freedom to quit. It doesn't mean you have a right to demand to remain in the building and still be treated like an employee.

[lala]

Can the mother read and write?. . . . And at the end of the day what treatment did he have in the first place to reduce the size of the lump. . . . for it to grow back in so many months to orginal size . . . . .And at the end of the day whats there to debate . . . do you what to live or die . . . I'll go with live ok she had since jan to find some other method. . . . has that happened?. . . did it help at all? . . . .Use chemo as your last option, carn't be worse than death can it. . . . :shock: . . . .as no coming back from death!. . . .I do not beleive people should put there beleive in favor of life apart from there own. . . . and if he cannot even read he has got the knowledge to make decisions for his self.

[Ducky]

If there had been other truly viable options besides putting 'poison' (chemo) in my son, I would have taken them in a heartbeat.

Though nothing is really that safe on the market; even herbal remmodies can be harmful in certain doses, there are really not that many alternative 'treatments' out there. If the guv is hiding these cures away from the public, then what's left for a parent to do?

Speaking of poison...

I remember back a few years when hubby doubled over in extreme pain (literally couldn't walk) and I got my fam to help me take him up to see my GP. Hubby didn't want anything to do with the Emergency clinic at the hospital. We would probably end up waiting for an eternity for someone to come look at him.

Well, my doc was able to see him right away and checked him over. I can't remember the exact diagnosis, but it was along the lines of (food poisoning?) and something else.

Here's the kicker: What my doc gave him was a minute dose of beladona. Within one hour or so, the pain was gone.

Another example of 'fighting fire with fire'.

[Lexion]

Good old Socialist Healthcare.

Mr. Obama, please veto this shit.

Regards,
Lex

[Cogburn]

Socialist medicine will never exist in the United States in any manner already evidenced anywhere in the world.

Do you really think the multi-billion dollar medical insurance industry is going to simply consign itself to a slow, eventual extinction without all out war?

You'll see government healthcare increases in Medicare and Medicaid and maybe a third program for... IMHO the best doublespeak of our current age time ... the "underemployed".

If you have a job where you get health benefits you're the gold standard, no doubt, but there's no legislation that has been discussed in this Congress that endangers that benefit or the incentive to employers to provide it.

[Lexion]

Do you really think the multi-billion dollar medical insurance industry is going to simply consign itself to a slow, eventual extinction without all out war?

Said about banks and auto
manufacturers, just last year.

Another good DenyStupid
topic.

Regards,
Lex

[Cogburn]

Do you really think the multi-billion dollar medical insurance industry is going to simply consign itself to a slow, eventual extinction without all out war?

Said about banks and auto
manufacturers, just last year.

Another good DenyStupid
topic.

Regards,
LexOuch. Nice point.

The only thing I can offer in exchange is the average number of PhD's per industry.

I'd wager that the medical insurance industry might be a tad higher on the IQ scale than bankers or auto manufacturers.

Not to mention there's great benefits from learning from the failures of others.

[Lexion]

D's get degrees.

Just because your name has
an alphabet tag doesn't make
you smart.

And, our med society is con-
trolled by far fewer than other
industries.

Big Pharma has the industry
by the balls.

I'm not hopeful they will succeed.

Regards,
Lex

[Cogburn]

Ummm... Medical insurance is run by PhD's in statistics.

Morbidity rates don't calculate themselves, you know.

[apeci]

She could have moved to the next county over. Oh wait.. she tried that... she had already lost another dispute in another county in another state.

That's two communities that have determined that her actions were unacceptable to the functioning of those communities.

Why not leave the country for somewhere more accepting? Something tells me that Mexican authorities would certainly give less of a shit. I mean... she did move from Massechusettes to Minnesota for her religious beliefs already.

It's a free country and if you feel persecuted you are not required to remain. If you don't like it... leave.
Flawed collectivist rhetoric. That was a couple sad old crossdressers dictating her actions were unacceptable.

By your logic Rosa Parks, MLK Jr, and all the founding fathers should have just packed up and left instead of fighting for what's right, the freedom to exist.

If one is born on this planet they have as much of a claim to the dirt under their feet as any other.

Free country is an oxymoron. The very existence of the State, the corporate monopoly on the initiation of "legitimate" violence, demands the realization that one is not free. If you think it's a free country, stop paying taxes. Walk down the street smoking a joint or drinking a beer. Hell, let your grass grow too tall or fail to water it regularly. See how long you stay "free."

[pack3tg0st]

Fuckin' rock on apeci!

Thats worth a smite!

[Cogburn]

She could have moved to the next county over. Oh wait.. she tried that... she had already lost another dispute in another county in another state.

That's two communities that have determined that her actions were unacceptable to the functioning of those communities.

Why not leave the country for somewhere more accepting? Something tells me that Mexican authorities would certainly give less of a shit. I mean... she did move from Massechusettes to Minnesota for her religious beliefs already.

It's a free country and if you feel persecuted you are not required to remain. If you don't like it... leave.
Flawed collectivist rhetoric. That was a couple sad old crossdressers dictating her actions were unacceptable.

By your logic Rosa Parks, MLK Jr, and all the founding fathers should have just packed up and left instead of fighting for what's right, the freedom to exist.

If one is born on this planet they have as much of a claim to the dirt under their feet as any other.

Free country is an oxymoron. The very existence of the State, the corporate monopoly on the initiation of "legitimate" violence, demands the realization that one is not free. If you think it's a free country, stop paying taxes. Walk down the street smoking a joint or drinking a beer. Hell, let your grass grow too tall or fail to water it regularly. See how long you stay "free."
Incorrect. You provide arguments to prove my point.

Rosa Parks and MLK Jr had the backing of their communities, and only with that were they able to achieve what they did. Two communities with opposing points of view were mobilized and enlightenment overcame ignorance on a national scale.

Rosa Parks not riding the bus for a whole year isn't what changed the system. It was the 15,000 other people that joined her.

But 15,000 isn't a whole nation. That's a nice sized town. That's enough people for all the things that small town life has to offer.

Are we to abandon our neighbors in times of distress, even if it is of their own desire? Do you save you neighbor if he attempts to drown himself in his own pool?

No one does anything great by themselves. Jesus would have died an unknown criminal were it not for the Apostles.

That's not collectivistic, that's a well balanced mixture of compassion and pragmatism.

I live in Santa Barbara. It's legal for me to walk down the street and smoke a joint. :smokin:

[hp]

This may be another case of some one else knows what is best for a given person. Big brother and big mother.

[pack3tg0st]

We must protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

To me, this whole "court order" thing wreaks of forcing someone else's morality on someone.

The courts can keep their morals... I have my own...

The courts should only get involved if they feel the mother has malicious intent... Instead, I see no problem with allowing nature to run its course...

Cancer is natural... its been happening for eons... the treatment, is unnatural.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with someone deciding they wish to let natural selection run its due course...

The kid has stated that he'll physically fight the treatment if they force treatment... and that is his decision to make... his mother is supporting his decision... which is all we can ask parents in our country to do...

Would I want treatment in that situation? yes... Would I fight tooth and nail if someone wanted to treat me against my will... damn straight.

[apeci]

Rosa Parks and MLK Jr had the backing of their communities, and only with that were they able to achieve what they did. Two communities with opposing points of view were mobilized and enlightenment overcame ignorance on a national scale.

Rosa Parks not riding the bus for a whole year isn't what changed the system. It was the 15,000 other people that joined her.

But 15,000 isn't a whole nation. That's a nice sized town. That's enough people for all the things that small town life has to offer.

Yet by your logic even those 15,000 should have just left instead of standing firm. Why did this woman leave? To seek a place that would accept her, or to flee those that would oppress her? That would kill her to take her son from her?



Are we to abandon our neighbors in times of distress, even if it is of their own desire? Do you save you neighbor if he attempts to drown himself in his own pool?

If you wish to take this woman's son from her and you believe you are entitled to take that action I encourage you to attempt it. If she kills you in self defense she is entirely within her right. Instead you hide behind gangs with badges and declare them just actors in your war on her family, in fact her entire way of life.

[Cogburn]

This whole argument is silly because we all basically agree.

The reason why we don't agree in the specifics is because we're all intelligent people trying to justify the actions of a self-proclaimed moron.

We're overthinking this simpleton.

"The world was created 6,000 years ago directly by God and science is the tool of the Devil sent to deceive."

Deny stupid.

[apeci]

I just prefer Darwinism over fascism.

[Cogburn]

See... we're not even arguing the same thing.

I prefer sustainable over transient.

[apeci]

Sustained overvoltages cause more damage than transient.

[Ducky]

It's like watching a tennis game between you guys...back and forth...back and forth. You lost me a few posts ago. Mesmorizing. Might have to smoke a dewb to figure out what the hell's going on. lololol

Then again, I'm getting a bit tired and will head to bed soon.

[Cogburn]

Sustained overvoltages cause more damage than transient.
If the overvoltage is sustained, the problem isn't the voltage... it's the wire.

[apeci]

Psh. Tell that to Zeus.

[lala]

Well were this poor boy going to end up, its only a matter of time before he becomes so ill anyway. . . .I've nursed someone that die of cancer that refused treatment, they did have pain management! . . . it a horrible thing they go through, I think it sad.

[lala]

Latest update on the boy. . . .so they've come back, and are going to start treatment . . . .


A Minnesota woman and her 13-year-old son, who were on the run from court-ordered cancer treatment for the boy, are reunited with their family, the Brown County Sheriff's Office said Monday.

Daniel Hauser was having his Hodgkin's lymphoma evaluated by a doctor at a hospital in the Twin Cities on Monday, according to Tom Hagen, an attorney at the law office representing Daniel's parents, Colleen and Anthony Hauser.

Brown County Sheriff Rich Hoffman said the warrant issued for Colleen Hauser was lifted, and a similar one from the FBI was also expected to be dismissed . . . full story at link
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,521732,00.html

[theeindiee]

HOW can a court ORDER a mother to force her boy to have Chemo?

Wow..... so if you're a child.... you must surrender to Chemotherapy, even if there are other options not being made aware to you?

Fucked up! And fucked up as well that the Demonic Overlord of Healthcare would CHARGE the family money to basically KILL her boy quicker and more painfully.... shit. It is beyond unreasonable. It is EVIL!

[apeci]

Well, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that parents cease being parents the moment a child enters a government educational facility. As if it weren't clear enough what with all the government kidnappings, this is just another indication that the Government truly believes they own everyone's children. Then again, it's pretty clear they believe they own everyone.

[Lexion]

HOW can a court ORDER a mother to force her boy to have Chemo?

Wow..... so if you're a child.... you must surrender to Chemotherapy, even if there are other options not being made aware to you?

Fucked up! And fucked up as well that the Demonic Overlord of Healthcare would CHARGE the family money to basically KILL her boy quicker and more painfully.... shit. It is beyond unreasonable. It is EVIL!

If the parents put the childs
health in jeopardy, sure it's
legal and morally correct.

I believe in Darwinism.

Let the inbred idiot die.

Then what ?

Family sues the Govt. for not
stepping in and saving their
son from their own beliefs.

Fuck 'em.

Let the kid die, puking and shitting
in his mothers arms, while she cries
about how noone helped her boy.

Fuck that whole family.

Regards,
Lex

[Lexion]

Well, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that parents cease being parents the moment a child enters a government educational facility. As if it weren't clear enough what with all the government kidnappings, this is just another indication that the Government truly believes they own everyone's children. Then again, it's pretty clear they believe they own everyone.


Are you really that fucking stupid ?

Oh...wait...you are.

Regards,
Lex

[apeci]

I just prefer Darwinism over fascism.

[Cogburn]

HOW can a court ORDER a mother to force her boy to have Chemo?

Wow..... so if you're a child.... you must surrender to Chemotherapy, even if there are other options not being made aware to you?

Fucked up! And fucked up as well that the Demonic Overlord of Healthcare would CHARGE the family money to basically KILL her boy quicker and more painfully.... shit. It is beyond unreasonable. It is EVIL!
Ignorance.

[offsite=http://www.curehodgkins.com/hodgkins_information/adult_intro.html:25pugpsq]The 1-year survival rate after treatment according to the American Cancer Society is 93%; the 5-year and 10-year rates are 82% and 72% respectively. At 15 years, the overall survival rate is 63%. During the first 15 years after treatment, the main cause of death in these patients is recurrent Hodgkin's disease. Death due to causes other than Hodgkin's Disease 15-20 years after therapy is most common.[/offsite:25pugpsq]

Two years of life, or two years of hellish treatment with 15-20 years of life afterwards.

The child is 13 years old. The child can't read. The child is a ball of wanton intentional ignorance. The child is incapable of making an educated decision. The mother is a religious whacko that believes science and medicine are tools of the Devil. I guess we won't cover the fact that God created the Devil, too. I digress.

None the less, this woman has seen fit to condemn her child to death. The child has remained too ignorant for too long to be able to be educated enough to make a proper, well thought decision prior to the disease claiming his life.

Cure him. If he still doesn't want to live when it's all said and done he can kill himself and call it even.

[theeindiee]

Lex, are you doing okay? Like really seriously...

Because you're calling a sick child with leukemia an inbred idiot. He's a fucking kid, dude. With a crippling disease.

Not too many people survive cancer, but an even more overwhelming amount of people with cancer don't survive Chemo. Chemo KILLS people faster, for the most part... in pretty much the most helpless and miserable way possible. He'll prolly die shitting and puking his guts out from the Chemo, actually.

And no... it's not ignorance. It's definitely not the State's choice, either.

Calling a child an incapable ball of ignorance.... is also kind of lame.

Hey I'd rather have two years of life, then have two years of Hell with no guarantee of life.

[Cogburn]

If you call a 93% efficacy rate "no guarantee" then I'm not sure what kind of odds you'd like. There are no guarantees in life.

The kid is, indeed, an incapable ball of wanton intentional ignorance. Research the story. He was home schooled from Day One and cannot read or write.

The woman should be put in jail for child abuse on that fact alone. To allow such behavior is to allow for generations of slaves.

[theeindiee]

Cog... as wise as you strut... you seem to respond as if you think everyone should fear death and grasp onto materialism and bodily health like it's God. I wonder what that says about your overall outlook.

Why can't the child die in peace? Or perhaps they could find an alternative to State Enforced Corporate Controlled "Healthcare"?

Not now. Now, the child dies in a Corporate death facility, being pumped full of poison. Compassion at it's finest, Cog? Hm?

Also, I wonder how much of that 93% efficiancty rate is skewed by the percentages that go into relapse and die anyway or need more Chemo? I wonder what exactly the definition of "efficicency" is? I wonder why, as you seem to imply, we should entrust our health and our education and our whole lives to your great Corporate God?

I mean... unless personally, you've gone around the country and directly checked the accuracy of such "statistics" yourself? We all know how much Corporations skew data and lie....
ALL THE TIME. No different from the medical establishment.

Nobody has the right to order poison to be pumped into a child, Cog. That shows me right there that you have a few obstructions in your field of compassion.

Reading and writing? Oh... you mean.... brainwashing? Do you know the mother personally? Did you record her quotes personally? Did you telepathically link to her brain?

Jesus, Cog.... I don't think you truly KNOW what you are talking about more than anyone else who can list facts and memorize figures. Not to offend.... just an observation.

[lala]

Its a big call . . . but if they were going to try something different I'd say its been left to late as treatment started in January and also with out all facts, of knowing what has been tried/done . . . but if he lives then maybe the family could get onto a more natural path for his future . . . .at the end of the day does the kid want to live!!! If a 13yr old was trying to kill himself would we stop him??? . . . . That is the thing with the papers story's they cherry pick information, so we never really know the whole truth. . . . 8) . . . and remember you don't know till its your own . . .

[Cogburn]

Cog... as wise as you strut... you seem to respond as if you think everyone should fear death and grasp onto materialism and bodily health like it's God. I wonder what that says about your overall outlook.

Why can't the child die in peace? Or perhaps they could find an alternative to State Enforced Corporate Controlled "Healthcare"?

Not now. Now, the child dies in a Corporate death facility, being pumped full of poison. Compassion at it's finest, Cog? Hm?

Also, I wonder how much of that 93% efficiancty rate is skewed by the percentages that go into relapse and die anyway or need more Chemo? I wonder what exactly the definition of "efficicency" is? I wonder why, as you seem to imply, we should entrust our health and our education and our whole lives to your great Corporate God?

I mean... unless personally, you've gone around the country and directly checked the accuracy of such "statistics" yourself? We all know how much Corporations skew data and lie....
ALL THE TIME. No different from the medical establishment.

Nobody has the right to order poison to be pumped into a child, Cog. That shows me right there that you have a few obstructions in your field of compassion.

Reading and writing? Oh... you mean.... brainwashing? Do you know the mother personally? Did you record her quotes personally? Did you telepathically link to her brain?

Jesus, Cog.... I don't think you truly KNOW what you are talking about more than anyone else who can list facts and memorize figures. Not to offend.... just an observation.
LOL indiee you're so cute.

Keeping people stupid is slavery, period. If you choose to be a slave, that's one thing... but this child had the choice made for him by his mother.

Do I need to know her personally to have this conversation? If so, you have as little ground for your argument as I do.

You tend to draw arbitrary lines and consider it an enlightened view when, in fact, it's simple solipsism borne from inexperience.

Confounded by a plethora of choice you are cast adrift... never realizing that if you just set down anywhere you'd find what you were looking for a lot faster.

You'll get there.

[boycotteverything]

I throw down with the mum. Allopathic medicine has given the US the same life expectancy as Albania. If she wants to use Native American treatment, more power to her.

[pack3tg0st]

I don't really care if I agree/disagree with the mom or the son's decision...

Forcing someone to receive medical treatment is a tad bit totalitarian for my tastes...

A court should be evaluating if the mother has malicious intent.. which in this case, she doesn't. She believes she is doing the best for her kid... and is supporting the decision her son has made...

She was being a supportive parent IMHO.

[boycotteverything]

I don't really care if I agree/disagree with the mom or the son's decision...

Forcing someone to receive medical treatment is a tad bit totalitarian for my tastes... I agree. And that's the crux of the issue. The Cogburns of the world would have us believe that it's 'their way or the highway.' Fuck that. There are many roads.

[Cogburn]

Meh... my position is that the child is being asked to make a life or death decision from a position of ignorance. An uneducated decision isn't a decision... it's a blind guess. I think the cruelty of the situation is derived from forcing the child into such a position. The rest is the fruit of the poisonous tree.

If you're arguing for people to be able to make blind guesses in personal life-or-death matters, so be it... but I'll hold you to remain consistent with that philosophy in future conversations.

[pack3tg0st]

I'm not arguing for people to make blind guesses... I'm arguing that the state has no right to intervene...

I'm sure that the doctors have told them all the information they can...

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink... Nor does the court have any business ordering the horse to drink...

[Cogburn]

I'm not arguing for people to make blind guesses... I'm arguing that the state has no right to intervene...

I'm sure that the doctors have told them all the information they can...

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink... Nor does the court have any business ordering the horse to drink...
And here we are... to the part where which one makes a guess, and there in lies the rub.

Told him all the information they can? Hmmmm... Let's boil this down to a less emotionally charged example. Feel free to correct it as you see fit.

I have come across you in the desert. I am a green person, you are a purple person. All purple people believe that green people will kill them if given the opportunity. You are dying of thirst. I try to give you water and you refuse, claiming I have poisoned it. I drink from it myself but you still think it's a trick since that is what you have been told all your life.

Do I force past your ignorance and make you drink and save your life, or do I simply shrug and continue on my way?

[pack3tg0st]

If you were sure that I knew the potential consequences of my decision, I would expect you to walk away...

You might shake your head and think "What the Fuck!" But, as an individual, I alone am ultimately responsible for my survival.

[boycotteverything]

my position is that the child is being asked to make a life or death decision from a position of ignorance
I throw down with the mum. Allopathic medicine has given the US the same life expectancy as Albania. If she wants to use Native American treatment, more power to her.i said i feel the decision belongs to the mum. i stand by that.

[GhostOfCaptSpaulding]

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink... Nor does the court have any business ordering the horse to drink...

Or...

[offsite:knujx5tc]You can lead the hordes to knowledge, but you can't make them think.[/offsite:knujx5tc]


*shrugs and walks away*

[pack3tg0st]

The parents alone know the the maturity level of the kid... he's 13...

The parents seem to be supporting the decision the kid has made...

As long as all the information has been made available to them, I don't see a problem here...

I DO see a problem with the government making a decision for them. That is a road we don't even want to start to go down.

[Cogburn]

If you were sure that I knew the potential consequences of my decision, I would expect you to walk away...

You might shake your head and think "What the Fuck!" But, as an individual, I alone am ultimately responsible for my survival.
Ultimately, yes, and that would be the case had I not come upon you. It is at that point that you are not alone.

I'm not too sure that you'd like a world where we are only to be of aid to each other only when requested.

Think about all the kind, polite things you do in a day for no reason but to make someone else's life a little easier, a little more pleasant.

Now stop immediately and do not do so until someone asks you specifically. Could you do it for a week, much less as a way of life?

You're asking that an arbitrary line be drawn at the most extreme of cases. If you cannot draw the line well before it gets to that point then you have no business asking for it once it rises to such a level.

One shouldn't judge a position only at its application at the extremes.

[Cogburn]

I DO see a problem with the government making a decision for them. That is a road we don't even want to start to go down.

It has been a matter of law for 100 years that life is the best decision. If one is dead, one cannot learn from the decision. There are no do-over's.

[pack3tg0st]

You're changing the argument cog...

The original scenario assistance was offered... now you're saying it was asked for...

yes, by all means, offer to help...

If someone tells you to fuck off after you offer... well, thats a diff story...

[pack3tg0st]

It has been a matter of law for 100 years that life is the best decision. If one is dead, one cannot learn from the decision. There are no do-over's.

This can't be right...

Or else we'd never execute innocent people...

which we have...

No do-overs...

[GhostOfCaptSpaulding]

Think about all the kind, polite things you do in a day for no reason but to make someone else's life a little easier, a little more pleasant.


I may hold the door for you, but chances are, I'm still gonna cut you off in traffic.

And if I offer to help you and you tell me to fuck off, I'm gonna take your advice...no means no!

[Cogburn]

The value of the freedom of ignorance greater than the value of life itself?

We simply disagree.

[Ducky]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again.

If I knew that there was a safer alternative (other than chemo), and that the success rate was at least 80-85% (what I was quoted with the particular treatment that my son received), I WOULD HAVE TAKEN IT IN A HEARTBEAT.

Being a responsible parent entails many many many aspects. One of them is to provide/ensure the best that one can, to provide one's child(s) with the best quality of life.

There were NO ALTERNATIVES to chemo for my son. Believe me, I searched high and low. Be damned if I was going to wait around for something better, when all the while, the cancer was spreading quickly. I had to act fast. I knew what chemo was (poison) and what the reprecussions were possibly going to be. So I sought for 'additionals' to supplement his immune system; as that was the first thing to break down at the onset of chemo treatments, as well as anything else I could get my hands on.

There may well be a cure hidden away somewhere, but we've haven't seen it come to light have we? NO WE HAVEN'T. Until then, we do the best that we can for our kids.

If I was the women who elected for different treatment other than chemo, I would have made for damn sure that it was going to help my son.

She knew that the chemo had shrunk the tumor back in Jan/08 (before that?) and should have had him checked out (x-rays, C.A.T., M.R.I.) SOMETHING to make sure that from the time of his last treatment, to when she started him on alternative treatment, that the tumor WASN'T GETTING WORSE. But she didn't. In my mind, that's NOT being a responsible parent. She should have gotten on the horn with the Dr. that was giving her son chemo, never taken off with her son in the first place, and put her son BACK ON CHEMO...because it was proving to work. PERIOD.

[pack3tg0st]

can you call it a life if you're not allowed to make important decisions on your own?

[apeci]

Or else we'd never execute innocent people...

which we have...

I haven't and I doubt you have either. :)

[pack3tg0st]

Ducky... The question lies here though:

If you found a method that you believed would be effective... and the Doctors all called you crazy... would you be ok with the courts making a decision for you?

[pack3tg0st]

I haven't and I doubt you have either. :)

We're just as guilty in our complacency as the motherfucker's who threw the switch man...

We allowed it to happen...

Just because your finger wasn't on the trigger, doesn't mean you're absolved...

[Cogburn]

She knew that the chemo had shrunk the tumor back in Jan/08 (before that?) and should have had him checked out (x-rays, C.A.T., M.R.I.) SOMETHING to make sure that from the time of his last treatment, to when she started him on alternative treatment, that the tumor WASN'T GETTING WORSE. But she didn't. In my mind, that's NOT being a responsible parent. She should have gotten on the horn with the Dr. that was giving her son chemo, never taken off with her son in the first place, and put her son BACK ON CHEMO...because it was proving to work. PERIOD.
Ding. Facts change the discussion.

Assuming all of the above is true, there was no position of ignorance and the discussion we've been having is moot.

She chose a treatment where the level of discomfort was not analogous to the efficacy of the treatment. She was making decisions that prolonged her son's suffering by sentencing him to a slow, increasingly painful death.

[Cogburn]

I haven't and I doubt you have either. :)

We're just as guilty in our complacency as the motherfucker's who threw the switch man...

We allowed it to happen...

Just because your finger wasn't on the trigger, doesn't mean you're absolved...
Not to mention, before we stopped the execution we would have asked the prisoner if it was ok to do so. :)

[Ducky]

Ducky... The question lies here though:

If you found a method that you believed would be effective... and the Doctors all called you crazy... would you be ok with the courts making a decision for you?

If the alternative treatment was KNOWN to be HIGHLY combatant against cancer, and PROVEN as such, then I wouldn't give a shit who thought I was crazy.

But there AREN'T any out there.

[pack3tg0st]

If the alternative treatment was KNOWN to be HIGHLY combatant against cancer, and PROVEN as such, then I wouldn't give a shit who thought I was crazy.

But there AREN'T any out there.

But, they thought there was...

[apeci]

I haven't and I doubt you have either. :)

We're just as guilty in our complacency as the motherfucker's who threw the switch man...

We allowed it to happen...

Just because your finger wasn't on the trigger, doesn't mean you're absolved...
I dunno... I think there's a difference between complacency and simply not being suicidal. Criminals will do what criminals will do. I'll do my best to not fund their crimes and encourage others to do the same, but I am hardly responsible when I haven't exactly signed off on it.

[pack3tg0st]

If you see a man being beaten to death in the street... and turn a blind eye and walk away... You hold some degree of guilt for not rendering assistance.

Even if that assistance is calling 911... you're doing something...

If you do nothing... its just as much your fault as the people doing the beating...

[Cogburn]

If you see a man being beaten to death in the street... and turn a blind eye and walk away... You hold some degree of guilt for not rendering assistance.

Even if that assistance is calling 911... you're doing something...

If you do nothing... its just as much your fault as the people doing the beating...
What happens if you see a cancer patient refusing a treatment that could cure them?

You're attempting to have it both ways.

[pack3tg0st]

No i'm not... I'm not forcing anyone to do anything...

Cancer is a naturally occurring condition... its been around for thousands of years... Its not quite the same as notifying the authorities of a crime in progress...

[apeci]

If you see a man being beaten to death in the street... and turn a blind eye and walk away... You hold some degree of guilt for not rendering assistance.

What if the people doing the beating is a gang of thugs with body armor, automatic weapons, and air support? All anyone can do is refuse to fund it, lobby against it, or go out and execute and executioner. Failing to do the latter does not render one liable.

[Cogburn]

No i'm not... I'm not forcing anyone to do anything...

Cancer is a naturally occurring condition... its been around for thousands of years... Its not quite the same as notifying the authorities of a crime in progress...
Crime isn't a naturally occurring condition?

You draw lines for convenience.

[pack3tg0st]

Negative cog... but apparently you're out of argument if you're resorting to argumentum ad hominem et reductio ad absurdum...

You're drawing lines where I'm not even drawing any.

[theeindiee]

The incredible use of language, knowledge, intellect, and wit some have accrued seems to have blinded their wisdom.

[Cogburn]

Hey hey hey... just because it reads like something BE posted doesn't mean that it's equally as worthless. :)

You suggest that cancer predates crime. Cancer certainly predates legal systems, but it does not predate the violent nor the stupid, which are generally accepted to be the reasons for legal systems in the first place.

Now you suggest propensities for violence and stupidity are something other than a natural condition?

You are being held intellectually consistent within the context of this thread to illustrate how your position is simply arbitrary and conditional.

[pack3tg0st]

Crime and violence may be "natural" from an evolutionary perspective, but are counterproductive from the point of view of civilization as a whole...

Man evolved to be tribal... not metropolitan.

Forcing someone to accept treatment for any sort of natural physical ailment is not the same as trying to assist someone being killed by another person...

Like I said... argumentum reductio ad absurdum...

[lala]

Well I've been doing a big nosey on "danny" and have found someone thats been following the case, and also has some info on other simlar cases where the kids have said no to chemo too . . . so if your interested have a read . . A lot that I have read on alternative option say that as always it depends at what stage there cancer is at, as to weather the treatment is going to help. . . .And there lawer that helped them, lost a child through complication of chemo . . . .

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/05/good_news_for_daniel_hauser.php

[Cogburn]

Crime and violence may be "natural" from an evolutionary perspective, but are counterproductive from the point of view of civilization as a whole...

Man evolved to be tribal... not metropolitan.

Forcing someone to accept treatment for any sort of natural physical ailment is not the same as trying to assist someone being killed by another person...

Like I said... argumentum reductio ad absurdum...
You say argumentum reductio ad absurdum.

I say argumentum ex extremus ut imprimis.

You perceive my arguments to be moving in the opposite direction than which they are actually grounded because of the extreme context of the discussion itself.

A solution that would be applicable in this instance would be wholly unenforcible if applied to everyone.

We hold justice to be blind, but that means it also tends to bump into walls. Recognizing this, the systems of justice err on the side of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness when dispensing justice.

It also happens to be considered in that order because more often than not when you make a mistake, that is the way you want to make it.

[Ducky]

Well I've been doing a big nosey on "danny" and have found someone thats been following the case, and also has some info on other simlar cases where the kids have said no to chemo too . . . so if your interested have a read . . A lot that I have read on alternative option say that as always it depends at what stage there cancer is at, as to weather the treatment is going to help. . . .And there lawer that helped them, lost a child through complication of chemo . . . .

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/05/good_news_for_daniel_hauser.php

Thanks Lala for the links :D
Much appreciated!

[Cheezit]

update

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090615/ap_on_re_us/us_forced_chemo

Friend says boy responding to forced chemotherapy

18 mins ago
SLEEPY EYE, Minn. – A family friend says X-rays show the tumor in the chest of a 13-year-old Minnesota boy who resisted treatment has shrunk significantly after court-ordered chemotherapy.

However, family friend and spokesman Daniel Zwakman said the side effects of the treatment for Hodgkins lymphoma have made Daniel Hauser weak and miserable.

Danny stopped chemotherapy after a single treatment in February. The family has insisted on alternative treatment for the boy's cancer.

When Brown County authorities attempted to compel the Hausers to treat the cancer conventionally, Danny and his mother fled the state for about a week ahead of a court hearing in May.

Zwakman says Daniel is still firmly against chemotherapy.

[Cogburn]

From all accounts the boy can't even spell "chemotherapy" so I'm curious upon what intellectual foundation his opinions are based.

[Eyeforalie]

His opinions are his. It doesnt matter what he can or cannot spell.

There is no reason the courts should have ANY say in this. Medical treatment is not in any way a criminal matter. It has been made a situation to further the agenda of socialized heath care.

If my child had cancer I would look at all possible alternate treatments before bombarding his fragile body with radiation. If I were forced to put him through chemo without my consent I would raise hell.


Recognizing this, the systems of justice err on the side of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness when dispensing justice.

And what justice system are you talking about exactly???

[pack3tg0st]

It has been made a situation to further the agenda of socialized heath care.


Bingo.

Smited.

[Lexion]

Let the fucker die, and get
off my taxes.

Regards,
Lex

[Cogburn]

His opinions are his. It doesnt matter what he can or cannot spell.

There is no reason the courts should have ANY say in this. Medical treatment is not in any way a criminal matter. It has been made a situation to further the agenda of socialized heath care.

If my child had cancer I would look at all possible alternate treatments before bombarding his fragile body with radiation. If I were forced to put him through chemo without my consent I would raise hell.


Recognizing this, the systems of justice err on the side of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness when dispensing justice.

And what justice system are you talking about exactly???
The fundamental basis of our system of justice is that those parties involved are competent to understand the gravity of the situation before the courts.

The courts of multiple unrelated jurisdictions have reviewed the evidence of this case and decided that the child was incapable of making an educated decision on their own behalf.

It happens all the time and you and you're family are better off for it. You're simply up in arms this time because you disagree with the application in this particular instance.

Justice might be blind but that doesn't mean you have to be as well.

[Eyeforalie]

You have yourself lost in your big words again.

He is 13.

In the U.S. a ten year old can be tried for murder, based on the fact that they are capable of making decisions. Why is it when this boy decides to make a critical judgement regarding his own life the courts should step in? He can be tried as an adult, but cannot make adult decisions?

More hypocrisy from the ones who are intended to make fair and honest judgments based on laws already in place.


You're simply up in arms this time because you disagree with the application in this particular instance.

I disagree with any government involvement with personal decision making, especially medical.

If it will kill him...Its his life. If not...It will show in a high profile case that you can beat cancer w/o chemotherapy. Do you really think Pharma really wants that?



You may be blind but Im not.

[Cogburn]

Go sit in a probate court in a major city for just one day and then tell me that you are so firm in your convictions.

Yes, ignorance is a mental illness. One that is easily cured.

[boycotteverything]

Why should your views on medicine be forced upon this family?

[Eyeforalie]

Yes, ignorance is a mental illness. One that is easily cured.

"Ignorance is bliss"

[offsite:38fxcku6]Mental illness-A state of being in which an individual has difficulty in handling situations and feelings of an everyday nature. ...[/offsite:38fxcku6]


Go sit in a probate court in a major city for just one day and then tell me that you are so firm in your convictions.

So it all comes down to the beneficiary of a life-insurance policy? Im sure there is fine print regarding the abstinence of traditional American medical practice inducing death.

If that is her intent, she should be held accountable for her actions after the fact. She would receive no payout and be jailed for unintentional homicide of a minor dependent.

The government cannot attempt to control crimes and further, society by forcing personal decisions upon citizens. That is tyranny.

[boycotteverything]

forcing personal decisions upon citizens. That is tyranny.You're arguing with a guy who is a tyrant by disposition. He'll never hear ya.

[Cogburn]

So it all comes down to the beneficiary of a life-insurance policy? Im sure there is fine print regarding the abstinence of traditional American medical practice inducing death.

If that is her intent, she should be held accountable for her actions after the fact. She would receive no payout and be jailed for unintentional homicide of a minor dependent.

The government cannot attempt to control crimes and further, society by forcing personal decisions upon citizens. That is tyranny.
That's government.

You either want it, or want anarchy.

I'm a fan of chaos. So much so that arguing statist positions utterly confuses the intellectually limited amongst us which continues to remain a source of mild amusement.

[Eyeforalie]

Well then thanks for playing.


Edit to say: Faggot.

[Cogburn]

The internet is a lie.

Go outside and play with your kids.

Lesson learned.

[WarlordZeroOne]

This is not nice,I have lost 2 sisters and a brother to cancer my last sister was 18 months ago and she passed away while i was holding her hand,i really loved my sister,the other two of my family as well was all really loved,what i am coming to is this from first hand experience,the mother is probably wise that her son even with Chemotherapy is certain to DIE in the next few months,and the reall Heartache comes from knowing what Chemo doe's to your body the side effects are SHOCKING so bad, at my age i would not have CHEMO,my sister suffered in an un discribable manner Horrendous,and if the mother of this 13 year old boy is wise to what Chemo doe's she has made the CORRECT decision to refuse the treatment,i hope they never find her.

[boycotteverything]

I'm a fan of chaos.anarchy is not chaos.

[Cogburn]

Very good, BE.

Now that you have the definitions straightened out, reread my statements as they are written instead of how you have incorrectly interpreted them.

[pack3tg0st]

That's government.

You either want it, or want anarchy.

Anarchy is a government... not lack of government...

Anarchy focuses more on a local level than a centralized uber-powerful federal government.

[Cogburn]

<sigh> The word has more than one meaning, kids.

[offsite=http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=anarchy:3qoi43wm]Noun
S: (n) anarchy, lawlessness (a state of lawlessness and disorder (usually resulting from a failure of government))[/offsite:3qoi43wm]

[pack3tg0st]

Ah, I get it now lol

Used in a sentence talking about government... its easily to confuse your meanings...

Government still has no right to force the morality of the majority on the minority...

Talk about creating oppression through a tyranny of the majority...

[boycotteverything]

<sigh> The word has more than one meaning, kids.

[offsite=http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=anarchy:35cm2cek]Noun
S: (n) anarchy, lawlessness (a state of lawlessness and disorder (usually resulting from a failure of government))[/offsite:35cm2cek]
could you have found a more self serving definition? you musta searched high and low for that one! hahaha anarchism is a social philosophy. it transcends law but is not 'lawlessness.' rather than 'disorder' it is natural order. rather than opportunist it is revolutionary. study kropotkin or emma goldman for a better sense of its depth and breadth. and be a little more honest.

[skunk]

Anarchy lies in the choice of how one's government should be run (localized, decentralized, truly democratic).

[boycotteverything]

Anarchy lies in the choice of how one's government should be run (localized, decentralized, truly democratic).No. Anarchy says clearly: no government. no rulers. Sovereignty of the individual. Democracy is a half step- but still a step in the right direction.

[mojo]

even in an anarchistic society there will be a heirarchy, it's within the natural order of things for us (animals) to exist within a heirarchal community.
that doesn't lessen the fact that anarchy is imo an attainable goal and probably what our species should be aiming for.
the negative use of the "word" and the various definitions of the term really are annoying, but as with most ideals, "everyone has an opinion" on exactly what it means.

[WarlordZeroOne]

whether we like it or not we have elections to put in a government wev'e got choice,you might not like the choice but we have it,when the Ballot boxes are sealed and the votes counted, we have an elected body, there is always an UNHAPPY side the losers,so ANARCHY aside its being Democratic for the west,and we all know there is no other way.

[pack3tg0st]

Oh boy... Sorry Warlord lol

The illusion of making the people think they have a voice is an amazing achievement on its own... Your vote doesn't count...

The candidates are nominated by corporate america and endorsed by the wealthy elite. By the time it comes down to going to the polls, you can be sure that both candidates have been properly vetted by the rich fuckheads, and will both further the agenda of the ruling class.

The act of going to the ballots is merely a formality. Candidate A and Candidate B will always leave the ruling class better off than they were, and the Wage slavery of the middle and lower classes will continue.

The United States is not a Democracy. Its a republic. The reason its a republic is that this country was founded on the "ignorant masses" being too stupid to have any say in government... thus, we elect the ruling class as our babysitters to protect us from ourselves.

I'm not lying or making this up... Our founding fathers believed that the rule of the land should be conducted by the Intelligent individuals... which of course naturally always happen to be from the ruling class... If you weren't born into a rich family, or can't navigate the roadblocks put in place to become rich yourself, you will never have any say...

After a candidate is selected, the Mainstream Media (again, ran by the corporate wealthy elite) will chose which candidate is better suited toward their agenda, and will spew forth propaganda subtly to that effect.

You think you elected a president... when all you did was certify the guy that the rich wanted in power...

[boycotteverything]

hahahah That's as decent an analysis of our 'democracy' as I've ever heard. Good work, Packer.

[pack3tg0st]

hahahah That's as decent an analysis of our 'democracy' as I've ever heard. Good work, Packer.

LOL I try...

I'm not picking on you either warlord... You're just new at this whole thing...

There's some... "deprogramming" to be done... :P

[Cogburn]

<sigh> The word has more than one meaning, kids.

[offsite=http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=anarchy:1vhbbay3]Noun
S: (n) anarchy, lawlessness (a state of lawlessness and disorder (usually resulting from a failure of government))[/offsite:1vhbbay3]
could you have found a more self serving definition? you musta searched high and low for that one! hahaha anarchism is a social philosophy. it transcends law but is not 'lawlessness.' rather than 'disorder' it is natural order. rather than opportunist it is revolutionary. study kropotkin or emma goldman for a better sense of its depth and breadth. and be a little more honest.
It's hardly my fault that your command of the English language is so limited that the context in which a word finds itself has only the sparsest of applications to your meager intellect.

[boycotteverything]

hahahahah ok

[Eyeforalie]

hahahahah ok

Shit, I got it.

...Although you were being a dick bag Cog. But how could we expect any less?

[boycotteverything]

I'm a fan of chaos.that pretty well sums it up. nice to see that chaos has a fan.

[Cogburn]

...Although you were being a dick bag Cog. But how could we expect any less?
Smite for truth.

[Lexion]

Poll results at the top remind
me of someone flipping the
bird.

Which I do at this fucking
kid.

Regards,
Lex

[Eyeforalie]

Smite for truth.

Smite for not actually smiting me.

[WarlordZeroOne]

I agree Pack my vote doe's not count and if everyone did not vote, where doe's that put us (in the Shit as always)

[Cogburn]

Smite for truth.

Smite for not actually smiting me.
I posted that and then realized that you were the last person I smote.

There, done. =p