More Truth about Chemo Mom

[awatarius]

Hello,

We had a discussion going about the mom that withheld medication from her son a while back. Several of us said there seemed to be missing information. There was. It turns out that the mom stopped treatment on her child while he was in remission, and the cancer had a cure ratio around 85%-90% with this type of treatment. With it in remission and the mom then stopping medication.. she does in fact deserve to go to jail.

Jury convicts mom who withheld cancer meds - Health - Kids and parenting - msnbc.com

Thanks,
Matthew

 

[rambone]

What percentage of survival is the threshold for nullifying a parent's right to be a parent? A certain percentage of people die from drugs too. What is the scientific community's decision about when our choice ends and when fascist forced medicine begins?

 

[awatarius]

What percentage of survival is the threshold for nullifying a parent's right to be a parent? A certain percentage of people die from drugs too. What is the scientific community's decision about when our choice ends and when fascist forced medicine begins?

I agree that you shouldn't be forced to take medicine, unless you are not mentally fit to make that determination for yourself. In this case the child could not. The Mother was not qualified, and as much as that sucks it is a call I would make everyday. That mother was neglectful. Sure medicine can kill but it is a percentages game, and the kid was in remission. In my mind case closed.


Thanks,
Matthew

 

[dross]

Philosophical Question for Rambone:

What if the mother admitted she took him off the medication because she was tired of dealing with him and wanted him to die?

Please don't dance, I'm trying to pin down your parameters.

 

[HDSilvrStreak]

The other stories I was reading pretty much said she was convicted not just for withholding the meds. But her reasons were her bitterness at having to deal with the issue alone and to get back at the boys father (her ex) for making her deal with it alone.

Either way, none of us was on the jury and don't have enough information to render judgment. (Well, except for Rambone who routinely renders judgment based on a headline alone). But the rest of us just don't have enough info here.

 

[INGunGuy]

Hello,

We had a discussion going about the mom that withheld medication from her son a while back. Several of us said there seemed to be missing information. There was. It turns out that the mom stopped treatment on her child while he was in remission, and the cancer had a cure ratio around 85%-90% with this type of treatment. With it in remission and the mom then stopping medication.. she does in fact deserve to go to jail.

Jury convicts mom who withheld cancer meds - Health - Kids and parenting - msnbc.com

Thanks,
Matthew

That's right take away a parents right to treat their own child's illnesses they way they see fit. I am sorry, but the government has no business telling a parent how to treat their childs illnesses. How would everyone think about how my parents were told by my pediatrician when I was a baby to treat colic, a teaspoon of bourbon in a bottle of water. Today people would want that doctor brought up on charges, but guess what it worked, and I am still here...

INGunGuy

 

[rambone]

I agree that you shouldn't be forced to take medicine, unless you are not mentally fit to make that determination for yourself. In this case the child could not.

You contradict yourself with this statement. If every child must follow the medical direction of the state, then you can't claim to be against forced medicine.

Sure medicine can kill but it is a percentages game, and the kid was in remission. In my mind case closed.

ONLY a small percentage of people are harmed from vaccines. The ones that do have brain damage, seizures, neurological problems, death, as well as a number of "minor" problems too numerous to count.

Is this how our rights work; on number games? Should we force personal decisions on people for the "greater good" of society?

What if the mother admitted she took him off the medication because she was tired of dealing with him and wanted him to die?

I'd vote Not Guilty of attempted murder.

Please don't dance, I'm trying to pin down your parameters.

 

[BigMatt]

Would the doctors be brought up on charges if the chemo had killed him?

 

[revsaxon]

How would everyone think about how my parents were told by my pediatrician when I was a baby to treat colic, a teaspoon of bourbon in a bottle of water. Today people would want that doctor brought up on charges, but guess what it worked, and I am still here...

INGunGuy

In the same time period people thought asbestos was the bees-knees, and put it in everything. Now we are spending billions pulling it out of half the places we put it into. Just because something was a common treatment (10, 20, more, don't know your age and not trying to insult you) years ago doesn't mean that its the right thing to keep doing to this day.

Personally I don't see the harm in giving a baby a teaspoon of bourbon in a bottle of water for colic, but as someone who knows NOTHING about pediatric medicine, I know I don't get a vote (and thats the way it should be). This mom was attempting to murder her child, plane and simple. Pulling someone off chemo when they are in remission... too bad we can't cause cancer in her as punishment.

 

[dross]

I'd vote Not Guilty of attempted murder.

Say more about this.

If you're gonna' dance all sexy like that, go ahead then.

 

[INGunGuy]

^^^^^^^^ That's right please just step into this "room" for a moment....

INGunGuy

 

[rambone]

Now let's play my numbers game. On which statistic should our rights be based?


Scenario 1: Frightening amounts of liberty
The State has NO power to dictate medicine in any way, shape, or form. Parents are free to murder their children with impunity, by not giving their children life-giving pharmaceutical drugs.

X number of malicious and evil parents walk the streets after their children die of purposely unmedicated disease.



Scenario 2: Utopia
The State has the current (and growing) power to dictate medicine, overriding the objections of concerned parents. Rights of the parents who are religiously pure, alternative health seekers, naturally living, pharmaceutical objectors, and unindoctrinated libertarians are slowly annihilated up to achieve maximum medical safety and bliss.

Y number of innocent and well-meaning parents lose their freedom or their children (to the state).

Z number of saveable children are actually saved by the the government from truly malicious and murderous parents.

 

[Hotdoger]

I read the thread.
Kept my mouth shut. It hit very close to my heart.

The only chance the kid had was with the chemo drugs. ie 80% or dead!

When my son was 8 , he was diagnosed with Leukemia. He survives today after a 3 year , near death at times , battle Because of the chemo and other assorted drugs and excellent care he LIVES.

Thanks to Riley, his doctors and nurses and especially the donors to Riley and the taxpayers of Indiana!

Withholding the drugs the mother gave her child a death sentence.

Attempted murder charges are not good enougn for the b*****!

A mill stone on her neck would be my first choice.

And Rambone....... well I don't want to get banned!

 

[rambone]

Personally I don't see the harm in giving a baby a teaspoon of bourbon in a bottle of water for colic, but as someone who knows NOTHING about pediatric medicine, I know I don't get a vote (and thats the way it should be).

When did parenting hinge on a panel of pediatricians voting on your decision-making?

This mom was attempting to murder her child, plane and simple. Pulling someone off chemo when they are in remission... too bad we can't cause cancer in her as punishment.

Come on, murder? I don't think "murder" should ever be assigned to an incident that involved the defendant is accused of "doing nothing." Argue for neglect or some lesser crime, but I just can't buy the murder charge.

What if the mother admitted she took him off the medication because she was tired of dealing with him and wanted him to die?

I'd vote Not Guilty of attempted murder.

Say more about this.

The defendant would have to give me a confession like this one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCG10zox51c

 

[dross]

When did parenting hinge on a panel of pediatricians voting on your decision-making?



Come on, murder? I don't think "murder" should ever be assigned to an incident that involved the defendant is accused of "doing nothing." Argue for neglect or some lesser crime, but I just can't buy the murder charge.

I agree with you that it's something different than murder. I also agree with you that in general, the state has no business dictating medical treatments.

That said, I don't see it as black and white as you do. I think there are circumstances that can rise to a criminal level.

It's a tough issue.

 

[rambone]

IWithholding the drugs the mother gave her child a death sentence.

Attempted murder charges are not good enougn for the b*****!

A mill stone on her neck would be my first choice.

And Rambone....... well I don't want to get banned!

Do other people's medical decisions bother you that much?

You probably wouldn't want to hear what I would do to the people who come to my door and force things down my loved one's throats.

 

[Benny]

I read the thread.
Kept my mouth shut. It hit very close to my heart.

The only chance the kid had was with the chemo drugs. ie 80% or dead!

When my son was 8 , he was diagnosed with Leukemia. He survives today after a 3 year , near death at times , battle Because of the chemo and other assorted drugs and excellent care he LIVES.

Thanks to Riley, his doctors and nurses and especially the donors to Riley and the taxpayers of Indiana!

Withholding the drugs the mother gave her child a death sentence.

Attempted murder charges are not good enougn for the b*****!

A mill stone on her neck would be my first choice.

And Rambone....... well I don't want to get banned!

Good to hear your son is doing well.

 

[awatarius]

When did parenting hinge on a panel of pediatricians voting on your decision-making?



Come on, murder? I don't think "murder" should ever be assigned to an incident that involved the defendant is accused of "doing nothing." Argue for neglect or some lesser crime, but I just can't buy the murder charge.






The defendant would have to give me a confession like this one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCG10zox51c

Hello,

It's murder or very darn close. Withholding something is just the same. Let's say he has some eating issue where he needs more lipids but you decide the Dr's are crazy and you don't feed him enough lipids he gets sick and dies. You withheld something he needed, but you are the parent! NO NO NO children are innocent, they need to be treated to the best of our abilities. That mom KILLED her child, or helped in it's death. She needs prison time.. maybe she needs to be made an example. It's not ok for a parent to choose death for a child...

Unbelievable.

Thanks,
Matthew

 

[rambone]

I agree with you that it's something different than murder. I also agree with you that in general, the state has no business dictating medical treatments.

That said, I don't see it as black and white as you do. I think there are circumstances that can rise to a criminal level.

It's a tough issue.

It is extremely tough. The state comes in with good intentions but the leaves us with the scariest of consequences. Its one of the most complicated topics I've ever thought about.

I'm glad we agree about the murder charge. Its a shocking yet predictable result of the state's current outlook on medicine. Funny how medical malpractice is not labeled as murder, but a child dying of natural causes is pursued as such.

I take the hard-lined stance because -- as I alluded to in my competing scenarios post -- I think Scenario #2 yields worse results than Scenario #1. More innocent people will be harmed than the state is capable of saving.

I don't think the state can properly save "savable" children, while also respecting rights. I don't think it can be done in real life. Rights of well-meaning people will be destroyed, its a guaranteed fact. Its like saying you only believe in gun control for people who are in the process of planning a murder. It sounds like a grand plan, but what you end up with is some degree of a control-freak Nanny State laws, not unlike the ones we observe today. The statists will get their way and your good-intentioned plans will turn in a nightmare.



Realistically, the State either shows up too early or too late to save most "savable" children anyways. Real-world scenarios usually will play out in one of two ways:

(A) Convicting a grief-stricken parent of a crime after the child already is dead. The parents aren't going to learn any deeper lesson than they already have. The world is no safer.

(B) SWAT Teams confiscating a sick child, and throwing its family into prison. Judgments of the parents' actions are based on subjective statistical evidence out of some medical journal. It remains unseen if the parents' methods would have ended up being the correct ones. Consideration for alternative treatments and for the child's quality of life are forgotten, as the state administers its assembly-line medical solution to the child's illness. Some children will die in the care of the state, from the very drugs the parents were trying to avoid.


I choose to err on the side of liberty with this. I think the worst that a reasonable person can say about my position is that I am refusing to label non-mainstream medical choices as "neglectful." My reason for that is to preserve the rights of other parents who practice non-mainstream lifestyles with perfectly innocent and well-meaning intentions.

 

[rambone]

Another thought for anyone to answer. Should parents be charged with murder/neglect if they willingly subject their child to a treatment/drug that ends up killing them? Is it a parental right to make life-and-death decisions like this? Does a panel of drug-representative get to vote on that decision for you? Would the world be safer by locking up those grieving parents?