You caught me short of time but this one really caught my eye. Dang.
As y'all know my sister died of cancer way too young. Before they did the chemo and radiation on her she was in the care of my mother who had her on green tea and natural things that were to rebuild the body’s deficiencies. Not unlike the types of things Grace Bliss believed in (and worked). But the results were not quick enough and she was rapidly falling to the disease and so it was agreed by her and her husband that she undergo the treatments. But there was great pressure on her to do it, from friends and family. She underwent it all and still died.
The alternative might not have been able to do it had she been able to stay on that, but she never got the opportunity. Folks can make up their own minds on such things, if found to be sound people of course.
I probably have more to say but I have to go, I really shouldn't have posted so quickly perhaps. But this one got my stomach.
Two places as I see it. 1) He's legally a child and under protections from which adults are exempt. If adults refuse medical treatment that is their right, of course, as it should be. Children don't have that right because as a society we have determined that children aren't fully rational. Like, DUH! If you want to change the age of consent that's another issue, isn't it? But right now don't most states accept 18 as the age of consent? Hey! You want to change it to 16? 14? Six and a half years old?
And 2) This is analagous to Jehova's Witnesses refusing blood transfusions to their children who have been critically injured and dying from blood loss. It doesn't matter what the child wants .. laws have been passed to protect children from religious fanatical parents.
This might be an interesting time to look into the history of parens patriae as it applies historically. The study of government's interest in the affairs of children/parents/and families has a somewhat sensational and oft debated history.
When tests in February found the lymphatic cancer still active, doctors ordered more chemotherapy, plus radiation. Abraham decided the treatment was doing more harm than good and visited a clinic in Mexico to start the Hoxsey method instead. His parents, Jay and Rose Cherrix, supported him.
Sudo -- this is an entirely different scenario than Jehovah's Witnesses.
From what I understand from talking with some JW's about the blood transfusion thing,
they don't allow their child a choice, as Abraham here has, for his treatment.
So it's not a *no-brainer*. He's 16 and can make a rational decisiion.
Should he have to wait two more years,
until he is *legally* allowed to think for himself?
until he is *legally* allowed to think for himself?"
Maybe I didn't make myself clear, D.. Are you wanting to change the age of consent from 18 to 16? Or.. change it to 14? Or maybe change it to 10 for blood transfusions but 16 for chemotherapy? Or do you just want children to make ALL these decisions for themselves no matter what age?? Hmmm???
I think you are still missing my point. Sorry. HOW do you determine if he can "If he is able to make a conscious, deliberate, un-biased decision"??? Listen to me now.. I get kids in my dental office all the time that wouldn't be there if they were able to make the decision. OK?? What would you have me do, D? Tell them they didn't have to get the shot if they didn't want one? That they could go back home and let their tooth rot out because they had made a "conscious, deliberate, un-biased decision" that they didn't want to get dental fillings? Am I not being clear here or something?
As to a 16 year old being able to decide about such things, I agree with you both which is impossible. But ultimately I believe there has to be an age retained that protects the child of 16 who is not mature enough to make such calls. But if his parents support him as they do I assume they have weighed the costs themselves and being his legal guardians should be allowed some rights. Yet I didn't agree with Christian Scientists at times and even wondered about a woman I knew that allowed herself to die rather than get a blood transfusion because of her faith. We haven't perfected a cure for cancer, people die everyday. There should be some room allowed these parents. But I wouldn't allow a 16 year old to make it solely as the rule. That would be dangerous, how many of us have had 16 year olds? :blink:
I AM answering the original premise of this thread here ---
that the state has NO right to dictate in this particular case.
The young man has made his decision, his parents support him,
and the state should take a hike.
Mark O' is correct -- the state is not our *nanny*. :)
David,
I was going to enter into this argument by contrasting how a 16 year old can demand an abortion.
But, then, I realized it was the same principle. The court decides it is in the child's best interest for the child to have an abortion and orders the same (sealing the record so that the parents can't find out). The fact that the child is the petitioner in this case, rather than social services, is a minor, inconsequential difference.
The one question I'd have, though, is if the parents still would be financially responsible for the chemotherapy...since the State has taken that part of custody from them.
Mark, I don't see where you're wrong either. I think I would think the same way you do.
There IS a "however" though.
Since this type of cancer has been shown to be nearly cureable with modern chemotherapies etc, and very little supportive evidence for other therapies, I can understand why the courts ruled this was in this case.
But I don't like it. I also don't like it when Jehova's Witnesses with-hold certain treatments either, but that is their right to do so.
Would reactions be the same if the State determined that an abortion was medically advisable (let's say for psychological reasons) for a 16 year old female. The female and the female's parents didn't want her to have one. Should the State be able to take the child from the parents, duct tape her feet to the stirrups, and perform a D&C on her without her consent?
Mark, I don't see where you're wrong either. I think I would think the same way you do.
There IS a "however" though.
Since this type of cancer has been shown to be nearly cureable with modern chemotherapies etc, and very little supportive evidence for other therapies, I can understand why the courts ruled this was in this case.
But I don't like it. I also don't like it when Jehova's Witnesses with-hold certain treatments either, but that is their right to do so.
Krys,
I would be more sympathetic to the State (not very much more sympathetic, but at least I could comprehend the position) had the kid not already gone through a round of chemo.
I have mixed feelings on this one, and I think in these situations decisions have to be made on a case by case basis.
I agree that by and large, parents should have the final say. I also agree that there needs to be some form of protection in place to protect children, in the event that parents are making decisions based on the wrong information, false hopes, and yes to some extent even religion.
I think you also have to factor in the likelihood of survival with conventional medical treatment and the quality of life. IF you are dealing with a situation where the child is unlikely to be cured and survive, and if the treatment is going to dramatically hinder quality of life, then medical treatment should not be forced. On the other hand, if you are dealing with a situation where the odds of survival are high with conventional medical treatment and low without it, then I think the Courts have to step in.
I have seen television interviews with both the father and the son, they are in total agreement in this situation. The father is not forcing his belief system down the throat of his son. The son <who is very bright and internet savvy> has done endless research on this subject, and what the benefits and downsides are.
The son is the one that has weighed his options and made this decision. He deeply loves his family, and I heard him say that if it came down to his having the chemo or his dad being jailed, he might be forced to change his mind.......he couldn't live with himself, if his dad were jailed.
I have mixed emotions about this, I am not a parent, but I have had radiation therapy, in 1995. At that time, I didn't have a computer at home, and the information highway was not as sophisticated as it is now. Looking back, if I had read the info out there, the stuff about how sick chemo and radiation make you......I might not have undergone the treatment that I know saved my life.
It seems to me, if it were an issue of life or death, his decision vs his parents........he is old enough to become an emancipated minor in NOVA where he lives. This doesn't seem to be the crux of the issue. I am not sure this is big government vs personal liberty, or conservative vs liberal, democrat vs republican.... I think this is an issue that should have remained private.
I have seen television interviews with both the father and the son, they are in total agreement in this situation. The father is not forcing his belief system down the throat of his son. The son <who is very bright and internet savvy> has done endless research on this subject, and what the benefits and downsides are.
The son is the one that has weighed his options and made this decision. He deeply loves his family, and I heard him say that if it came down to his having the chemo or his dad being jailed, he might be forced to change his mind.......he couldn't live with himself, if his dad were jailed.
Would reactions be the same if the State determined that an abortion was medically advisable (let's say for psychological reasons) for a 16 year old female. The female and the female's parents didn't want her to have one. Should the State be able to take the child from the parents, duct tape her feet to the stirrups, and perform a D&C on her without her consent?
There is no alalogy here. In one case, abortion, it is permitted by government, in this case of chemo and radiation it is being mandated. They are not the same.
I wonder if the family has medical insurance, and if so, if all the young man's treatments are covered. I would hate to see them forced to change their minds and also incur insurmountable medical costs as the result.
There is no alalogy here. In one case, abortion, it is permitted by government, in this case of chemo and radiation it is being mandated. They are not the same.
I appreciate what you're saying, but disagree with you.
It is, in fact, a good analogy:
Chemotherapy
Dilation and Curetage
Medical Procedure
Medical Procedure
Legal in 50 states
Legal in 50 states
Prescribed by Physician
Prescribed by Physician
Under 18 requires parental consent
(or has court order)
Under 18 requires parental consent
(or has court order)
The only difference is the petitioner who obtained the court order. (Frankly, in the case of abortion law, the euphamism "juditical bypass" is used, but it's still a court order) (Note: according to the Center for Reproductive Rights, there are six states where parental consent or court order aren't required for minor females to obtain an abortion: Conneticut, Hawaii, New York, Oregon, Vermont, Washington)
Now, the question I asked (not just to you, Krys, but to the crowd in general) was:
Would reactions be the same if the State determined that an abortion was medically advisable (let's say for psychological reasons) for a 16 year old female. The female and the female's parents didn't want her to have one. Should the State be able to take the child from the parents, duct tape her feet to the stirrups, and perform a D&C on her without her consent?
I fully realize that the right to an abortion is the fundamental right afforded to females in this country. The argument about the morality of such a right being afforded is out of scope of this discussion. The question is not the legality of abortion, but what if a state's social services agency petitioned a court to order that a 16-year old female have an abortion, because the state social services agency believed that it was medically advisable for the female to have an abortion, rather than carry the baby to term.
Having changed my views on abortion this is a tough one. But seems both aim to save life, and I'm for that. Except in the case of the 16 year old he was seeking medical treatment so it wasn't like he was trying to kill himself. I really don't know quite what I think except it does bother me having man have such control over us.
I have a friend who has cancer and she went one round of chemo that made her so sick and, in her case, there's no guarantee that the chemo will even help and even if it prolongs her life a little, she'll still be so sick from the chemo that there really wouldn't be any quality of life for the remainder of her time anyway.
She decided to forego the rest of the chemo and just live "balls to the wall till I drop". She's loving life, enjoying every precious moment and not dwelling on how much time she "might" have left.
Granted, she's an adult and can decide these things for herself, but it's a reminder to me that modern medicine can do wonderful things, but it's not always the best thing for everyone. I totally agree that it should be decided on a case by case consideration and the son and father seem to have come to terms with and are peaceful with their decision. I really just think the government is getting way too involved in people's personal lives these days. They shouldn't be babysitters. This situation and things like the Terry Shiavo case really get my blood boiling. Some things should just be kept personal and on a personal level.
I've worked in a cancer hospital for several years now. What ususually happens is this: The patient or in the case of a child, the patient's parents, decide that alternative treatments with herbs and teas and such is the way to go. Chemotherapy is nasty, you get anemic, weak, your mouth hurts and your hair falls out. Radiation can give you a sunburn like effect. So they dick around with this crap until the patient is nearly dead, come back to the hospital for chemo and radiation or whatever, but it's too late, and the patient dies, and who gets blamed? Why those big bad doctors, that's who! If we'd stuck to the quincy tea and turquoise cohosh, he'd still be alive and healthy today!
What bull! That is exactly what's going to happen to this kid.
If anyone of you has had cancer and been cured and remained cancer free from this herbal crap, I'd like to hear about it. So would the NCI.
I had a boyfirend in high school who twin sister died after a car accident because of JW and the blood thing.
messed him up forever.
how many of you have the idea that a 16 knows how to think?
they do not they are still learning and the brain is still growing.. that is why the legal age is 18.
the parents are way to invested in this emotionaly.. i do not think they are thinking well either as many parents do not...teens can be confusing grown one day and back to the age of five the next.
the state needs to take this kid and wait till he is 18.. then he can decide for his self.
if he is cured then no issue if not then it is not on anyones head to do this to anyone for the rest of the parents life. or the drs or anyones.
big difference between 18 and 16 when your dying.. two years is a long time to think.
i didnt want a recent medical procedure fought it till i could no longer it is how we think no one want to be messed with .. sickness is hell.
But death is worse.
the magic thinking should end and rational thought needs to play out till he is at least 18.
if he is all better then.. hey now ! if not then he can understand DEATH a little more maybe.
and decide for himself.
maybe if his parents were not so supportive of this KID he wouldnt feel so strongly about this.. hello that is what a parents job really is.. to say um NO your wrong Im right.
sadly parents do not want to do the job of that part. they need a relationship more. sad could kill this boy.
the choice is let a 16 year old die or not. I can not imagine a parent thinking in how to procede they must be total idiots and really wrecked thinking in allowing their son to call the shots now.
it isnt about who is wrong or right.
it is about doing all you can do as adults for your kid, even when it hurts and they do not agree with you that is what a parent is for.
Oh yeah...let the state take im... then he can spend his remaining time away from those he loves and who love him with a foster family who may or may not give a damn personally about him....let him spend the energy that he ought to be utilizing to fight his disease in court battles....
The death of pond`s teen boy friends twin may have messed him up....but hear of a he ll of a lot more kids being *messed up* by foster care providers in the states care.
Damn it..THINK about the horrors this kid would be facing before so blythly committing him to state care......dying a premature death while fighting cancer surrounded and supported by those you love is NOT the worst thing that can happen to a person.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
4
11
5
7
Popular Days
Jul 25
32
Jul 24
17
Jul 27
5
Jul 26
3
Top Posters In This Topic
ChattyKathy 4 posts
markomalley 11 posts
dmiller 5 posts
pond 7 posts
Popular Days
Jul 25 2006
32 posts
Jul 24 2006
17 posts
Jul 27 2006
5 posts
Jul 26 2006
3 posts
ChattyKathy
You caught me short of time but this one really caught my eye. Dang.
As y'all know my sister died of cancer way too young. Before they did the chemo and radiation on her she was in the care of my mother who had her on green tea and natural things that were to rebuild the body’s deficiencies. Not unlike the types of things Grace Bliss believed in (and worked). But the results were not quick enough and she was rapidly falling to the disease and so it was agreed by her and her husband that she undergo the treatments. But there was great pressure on her to do it, from friends and family. She underwent it all and still died.
The alternative might not have been able to do it had she been able to stay on that, but she never got the opportunity. Folks can make up their own minds on such things, if found to be sound people of course.
I probably have more to say but I have to go, I really shouldn't have posted so quickly perhaps. But this one got my stomach.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sudo
Mark,
Re:"Where am I wrong here?"
Two places as I see it. 1) He's legally a child and under protections from which adults are exempt. If adults refuse medical treatment that is their right, of course, as it should be. Children don't have that right because as a society we have determined that children aren't fully rational. Like, DUH! If you want to change the age of consent that's another issue, isn't it? But right now don't most states accept 18 as the age of consent? Hey! You want to change it to 16? 14? Six and a half years old?
And 2) This is analagous to Jehova's Witnesses refusing blood transfusions to their children who have been critically injured and dying from blood loss. It doesn't matter what the child wants .. laws have been passed to protect children from religious fanatical parents.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
QuietThinker
This might be an interesting time to look into the history of parens patriae as it applies historically. The study of government's interest in the affairs of children/parents/and families has a somewhat sensational and oft debated history.
qt
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Sudo -- this is an entirely different scenario than Jehovah's Witnesses.
From what I understand from talking with some JW's about the blood transfusion thing,
they don't allow their child a choice, as Abraham here has, for his treatment.
So it's not a *no-brainer*. He's 16 and can make a rational decisiion.
Should he have to wait two more years,
until he is *legally* allowed to think for himself?
Edited by dmillerLink to comment
Share on other sites
Sudo
D,
Re:"Should he have to wait two more years,
until he is *legally* allowed to think for himself?"
Maybe I didn't make myself clear, D.. Are you wanting to change the age of consent from 18 to 16? Or.. change it to 14? Or maybe change it to 10 for blood transfusions but 16 for chemotherapy? Or do you just want children to make ALL these decisions for themselves no matter what age?? Hmmm???
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
If he is able to make a conscious, deliberate, un-biased decision about what HE wants,
then yea -- I think the state should take a hike, and not interfere..
Now if it was his folks saying this -- that's 'nother story entirely.
But it's not. And (according to the article) -- it's his decision.
And he is 16 -- which is a lot different than 6, or 8, or 10. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sudo
D,
I think you are still missing my point. Sorry. HOW do you determine if he can "If he is able to make a conscious, deliberate, un-biased decision"??? Listen to me now.. I get kids in my dental office all the time that wouldn't be there if they were able to make the decision. OK?? What would you have me do, D? Tell them they didn't have to get the shot if they didn't want one? That they could go back home and let their tooth rot out because they had made a "conscious, deliberate, un-biased decision" that they didn't want to get dental fillings? Am I not being clear here or something?
What age, David?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Sudo -- No I am not missing your point.
I'm not trying to mandate an *age* here.
I AM answering the original premise of this thread here ---
that the state has NO right to dictate in this particular case.
The young man has made his decision, his parents support him,
and the state should take a hike.
Mark O' is correct -- the state is not our *nanny*. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
I knew I posted too quickly. <_<
As to a 16 year old being able to decide about such things, I agree with you both which is impossible. But ultimately I believe there has to be an age retained that protects the child of 16 who is not mature enough to make such calls. But if his parents support him as they do I assume they have weighed the costs themselves and being his legal guardians should be allowed some rights. Yet I didn't agree with Christian Scientists at times and even wondered about a woman I knew that allowed herself to die rather than get a blood transfusion because of her faith. We haven't perfected a cure for cancer, people die everyday. There should be some room allowed these parents. But I wouldn't allow a 16 year old to make it solely as the rule. That would be dangerous, how many of us have had 16 year olds? :blink:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
David,
I was going to enter into this argument by contrasting how a 16 year old can demand an abortion.
But, then, I realized it was the same principle. The court decides it is in the child's best interest for the child to have an abortion and orders the same (sealing the record so that the parents can't find out). The fact that the child is the petitioner in this case, rather than social services, is a minor, inconsequential difference.
The one question I'd have, though, is if the parents still would be financially responsible for the chemotherapy...since the State has taken that part of custody from them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
krys
Mark, I don't see where you're wrong either. I think I would think the same way you do.
There IS a "however" though.
Since this type of cancer has been shown to be nearly cureable with modern chemotherapies etc, and very little supportive evidence for other therapies, I can understand why the courts ruled this was in this case.
But I don't like it. I also don't like it when Jehova's Witnesses with-hold certain treatments either, but that is their right to do so.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
And an analogous question:
Would reactions be the same if the State determined that an abortion was medically advisable (let's say for psychological reasons) for a 16 year old female. The female and the female's parents didn't want her to have one. Should the State be able to take the child from the parents, duct tape her feet to the stirrups, and perform a D&C on her without her consent?
Krys,
I would be more sympathetic to the State (not very much more sympathetic, but at least I could comprehend the position) had the kid not already gone through a round of chemo.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
I have mixed feelings on this one, and I think in these situations decisions have to be made on a case by case basis.
I agree that by and large, parents should have the final say. I also agree that there needs to be some form of protection in place to protect children, in the event that parents are making decisions based on the wrong information, false hopes, and yes to some extent even religion.
I think you also have to factor in the likelihood of survival with conventional medical treatment and the quality of life. IF you are dealing with a situation where the child is unlikely to be cured and survive, and if the treatment is going to dramatically hinder quality of life, then medical treatment should not be forced. On the other hand, if you are dealing with a situation where the odds of survival are high with conventional medical treatment and low without it, then I think the Courts have to step in.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Radar OReilly
I have seen television interviews with both the father and the son, they are in total agreement in this situation. The father is not forcing his belief system down the throat of his son. The son <who is very bright and internet savvy> has done endless research on this subject, and what the benefits and downsides are.
The son is the one that has weighed his options and made this decision. He deeply loves his family, and I heard him say that if it came down to his having the chemo or his dad being jailed, he might be forced to change his mind.......he couldn't live with himself, if his dad were jailed.
I have mixed emotions about this, I am not a parent, but I have had radiation therapy, in 1995. At that time, I didn't have a computer at home, and the information highway was not as sophisticated as it is now. Looking back, if I had read the info out there, the stuff about how sick chemo and radiation make you......I might not have undergone the treatment that I know saved my life.
It seems to me, if it were an issue of life or death, his decision vs his parents........he is old enough to become an emancipated minor in NOVA where he lives. This doesn't seem to be the crux of the issue. I am not sure this is big government vs personal liberty, or conservative vs liberal, democrat vs republican.... I think this is an issue that should have remained private.
radar
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Worth repeating.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
krys
There is no alalogy here. In one case, abortion, it is permitted by government, in this case of chemo and radiation it is being mandated. They are not the same.
I wonder if the family has medical insurance, and if so, if all the young man's treatments are covered. I would hate to see them forced to change their minds and also incur insurmountable medical costs as the result.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
I appreciate what you're saying, but disagree with you.
It is, in fact, a good analogy:
(or has court order)
(or has court order)
The only difference is the petitioner who obtained the court order. (Frankly, in the case of abortion law, the euphamism "juditical bypass" is used, but it's still a court order) (Note: according to the Center for Reproductive Rights, there are six states where parental consent or court order aren't required for minor females to obtain an abortion: Conneticut, Hawaii, New York, Oregon, Vermont, Washington)
Now, the question I asked (not just to you, Krys, but to the crowd in general) was:
I fully realize that the right to an abortion is the fundamental right afforded to females in this country. The argument about the morality of such a right being afforded is out of scope of this discussion. The question is not the legality of abortion, but what if a state's social services agency petitioned a court to order that a 16-year old female have an abortion, because the state social services agency believed that it was medically advisable for the female to have an abortion, rather than carry the baby to term.
Edited by markomalleyLink to comment
Share on other sites
LG
The reason it's a bad analogy is that your "what if" is unrealistic. The circumstance won't arise.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
Having changed my views on abortion this is a tough one. But seems both aim to save life, and I'm for that. Except in the case of the 16 year old he was seeking medical treatment so it wasn't like he was trying to kill himself. I really don't know quite what I think except it does bother me having man have such control over us.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Ever hear of the Groningen Protocol?
What you say is the "what if" is unrealistic. It might be right now...(unless you're in China, of course)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
I have a friend who has cancer and she went one round of chemo that made her so sick and, in her case, there's no guarantee that the chemo will even help and even if it prolongs her life a little, she'll still be so sick from the chemo that there really wouldn't be any quality of life for the remainder of her time anyway.
She decided to forego the rest of the chemo and just live "balls to the wall till I drop". She's loving life, enjoying every precious moment and not dwelling on how much time she "might" have left.
Granted, she's an adult and can decide these things for herself, but it's a reminder to me that modern medicine can do wonderful things, but it's not always the best thing for everyone. I totally agree that it should be decided on a case by case consideration and the son and father seem to have come to terms with and are peaceful with their decision. I really just think the government is getting way too involved in people's personal lives these days. They shouldn't be babysitters. This situation and things like the Terry Shiavo case really get my blood boiling. Some things should just be kept personal and on a personal level.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Watered Garden
I've worked in a cancer hospital for several years now. What ususually happens is this: The patient or in the case of a child, the patient's parents, decide that alternative treatments with herbs and teas and such is the way to go. Chemotherapy is nasty, you get anemic, weak, your mouth hurts and your hair falls out. Radiation can give you a sunburn like effect. So they dick around with this crap until the patient is nearly dead, come back to the hospital for chemo and radiation or whatever, but it's too late, and the patient dies, and who gets blamed? Why those big bad doctors, that's who! If we'd stuck to the quincy tea and turquoise cohosh, he'd still be alive and healthy today!
What bull! That is exactly what's going to happen to this kid.
If anyone of you has had cancer and been cured and remained cancer free from this herbal crap, I'd like to hear about it. So would the NCI.
Edited by Watered GardenLink to comment
Share on other sites
pond
yeah wg
No one is trying to kill off this kid.
I had a boyfirend in high school who twin sister died after a car accident because of JW and the blood thing.
messed him up forever.
how many of you have the idea that a 16 knows how to think?
they do not they are still learning and the brain is still growing.. that is why the legal age is 18.
the parents are way to invested in this emotionaly.. i do not think they are thinking well either as many parents do not...teens can be confusing grown one day and back to the age of five the next.
the state needs to take this kid and wait till he is 18.. then he can decide for his self.
if he is cured then no issue if not then it is not on anyones head to do this to anyone for the rest of the parents life. or the drs or anyones.
big difference between 18 and 16 when your dying.. two years is a long time to think.
i didnt want a recent medical procedure fought it till i could no longer it is how we think no one want to be messed with .. sickness is hell.
But death is worse.
the magic thinking should end and rational thought needs to play out till he is at least 18.
if he is all better then.. hey now ! if not then he can understand DEATH a little more maybe.
and decide for himself.
maybe if his parents were not so supportive of this KID he wouldnt feel so strongly about this.. hello that is what a parents job really is.. to say um NO your wrong Im right.
sadly parents do not want to do the job of that part. they need a relationship more. sad could kill this boy.
the choice is let a 16 year old die or not. I can not imagine a parent thinking in how to procede they must be total idiots and really wrecked thinking in allowing their son to call the shots now.
it isnt about who is wrong or right.
it is about doing all you can do as adults for your kid, even when it hurts and they do not agree with you that is what a parent is for.
why cant they do both? treatments.
Edited by pondLink to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Oh yeah...let the state take im... then he can spend his remaining time away from those he loves and who love him with a foster family who may or may not give a damn personally about him....let him spend the energy that he ought to be utilizing to fight his disease in court battles....
The death of pond`s teen boy friends twin may have messed him up....but hear of a he ll of a lot more kids being *messed up* by foster care providers in the states care.
Damn it..THINK about the horrors this kid would be facing before so blythly committing him to state care......dying a premature death while fighting cancer surrounded and supported by those you love is NOT the worst thing that can happen to a person.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.