I was a foster parent to teenagers for several years. Had more than one of them tell us that they would be dead if not for us. We treated them as if they were our own. Trips to Disney World, driving lessons, the whole nine yards.
Hodgkin's lymphoma is a bad way to go. Not that any cancer isn't. His parents should be educated about the dangers of treatment versus non-treatment (aka alternative treatments). Legally, if they decide they prefer alternative treatment or no treatment at all, or comfort measures only, that should be their right if they are adults. However, some parents simply go into a state of denial; this can't happen to MY kid, meaning this can't happen to ME. They dither and blather and in the meantime the child gets sicker and sicker. And dies.
it is easy to go into denial when you faced with the choice of watching your kid get sicker and sicker or not. and when your 16 nothing is permanent really certainly not death.
that is why the state is trying to give this kid the time to live.
i get it.
foster care has pros and cons but at this point the state has no choice other than life or death
yes he may die but it is a chance. who wouldnt take it? any chance to live.
I think to say the parents have the right to decide life or death on this kid is legally declaring the child is nothing more than chattel property. And a 16-year-old doesn't know beans from barium about what to do.
In fact, if it's a boy (sorry guys), he probably won't know beans from barium for another 10-20 years.
i can see both sides of this issue but in the jw case mentioned above imo if a parent will not allow medical treatment {like blood tranvusions} that the meds say would save the child then the parents should be held responsible for meditaded murder
and i don't care want anyone may say about religious freedom
that is not what our forefathers meant by that again imo
Sorry. That's just insane. I don't think a parent who loves a child more thanhim/herself would ever think like that. It's not the law, it's the stupid parents that need changed. Some parents love themselves much more than they love their own kids. Those people don't deserve to be parents.
If I sound harsh, it's because pediatric oncologists deal with this kind of fuzzy thinking on occasion and it just is not right. I'm happy to call CPS for their county if they don't want to cooperate for whatever reason. The life of a child is more important and more valuable than sleeping until noon. I really don't give a rat's nose about the rights of the individual if that individual is hurting a child. If that child was being beaten to a pulp every day, or raped by daddy every day, would you feel the same way? Withholding of medical treatmetnt for a treatable condition is no different.
Welcome, all, to the Peoples Democratic Republic of Amerika.
Geez.
Would you oppose state intervention if a 16-year-old, with parental consent, wanted to use heroin? If not, then your "Amerika" is essentially the same as the one you're so dramatically opposing.
Sorry. That's just insane. I don't think a parent loves a child more than themself would ever think like that. It's not the law, it's the stupid parents that need changed. Some parents love themselves much more than they love their own kids. Those people don't deserve to be parents.
If I sound harsh, it's because pediatric oncologists deal with this kind of fuzzy thinking on occasion and it just is not right. I'm happy to call CPS for their county if they don't want to cooperate for whatever reason. The life of a child is more important and more valuable than sleeping until noon. I really don't give a rat's nose about the rights of the individual if that individual is hurting a child. If that child was being beaten to a pulp every day, or raped by daddy every day, would you feel the same way? Withholding of medical treatmetnt for a treatable condition is no different.
WG
The 16 year old and his parents made a reasoned decision. I, personally, don't agree with that decision...but it is the decision they made. If we didn't live in this nanny state of governmental control, it would be a perfectly legal one, as well. Unfortunately for this young man, he was born two years later than he wishes he would have been...
Please keep in mind that the young man has been through the course of standard treatment already. That means he had all the chemo...and his cancer was declared to be in remission. When the cancer came back, rather than face yet another course of chemo, this young man did his research at alternatives (again, let me state that I don't agree with the conclusion) and his parents, who are ultimately responsible, support his decision.
I'm sorry, but I have a major problem with the government stepping in and interfering in this case. There is a major problem in this country where a 13 year old girl can go out and get an abortion without her parents' knowledge (in six states, without even having to get a court order affirming the decision and in four others, where the court ordered requirement is winked at) but where a 16 year old young man can't have a voice in his treatment.
Sorry, folks, that's too much government for my taste.
Think about it a second. Many, many people are emancipated at age 16. In many, if not most, states, a person can be married at age 16 (at which point, the person is automatically emancipated). We're not talking about a six year old or an eleven year old, we're talking about a person who is mere months away from being old enough to join the military (a person can join at age 17). If he had neglectful or abusive parents, he could likely sue for emancipation and be granted full rights. Instead, this afternoon he will likely be handcuffed and taken to the hospital by force. If he doesn't cooperate at the hospital, it's likely that he'll be strapped to a gurney and have the treatment forced on him. Why? Because some stupid social worker decided that he/she knew best. Hopefully there will be video...
Once again, let me re-emphasize that I DO NOT agree with the decision. The only way where I would agree is if, statistically, he had only a marginal chance of survival after this second course of chemo (chemo done merely to prolong life, rather than to cure the disease). I've seen no indication that this is the case, so I think he made the wrong decision. But...it's neither my decision nor the State's decision. It's his decision...with the consent of his parents (until he is 18 or is emancipated).
Sorry...I really don't want to live in a totalitarian state. Maybe later.
As regards to this particular case (using the case-by-case basis so beautifully illustrated by Abigail; you know, use your *brains* to decide the merits of each case, instead of mindlessly parrotting some political party line, either side), I happen to think the state overreached themselves on this one. They didn't show where the kid's life was in clear cut danger if he went the alternative medicine route, and I think, in this case, that taking him from his parents is unnecessary strong arm tactics. They should let the kid back with his parents, and monitor his progress.
But damn! Views expressed here that say otherwise constitute the Peoples Democratic Republic of Amerika? ... Or forced abortions? Like because they do that in China means that its ready to be done here?
Would you oppose state intervention if a 16-year-old, with parental consent, wanted to use heroin? If not, then your "Amerika" is essentially the same as the one you're so dramatically opposing.
False analogy.
His decision, were he between one and two years older, would be completely legal.
A hypothetical decision to use, with parental consent, heroin, would be completely illegal (regardless of his date of birth).
ACCOMAC, Va. (AP) -- An Accomack County Circuit Court judge granted a temporary stay for a 16-year-old Eastern Shore cancer patient who doesn't want to be forced by the state to undergo chemotherapy.
A juvenile court judge had ordered Starchild Abraham Cherrix and his parents to report to CHKD by 1:00 p.m. and denied a stay of that order.
But the Circuit Court judge Tuesday said Cherrix won't have to submit to treatment and also granted his parents full custody instead of having that custody shared with Social Services,
If the state is going to be in the business of making medical decisions for people, then they ought to at least implement universal health coverage to millions who presently have none.
As regards to this particular case (using the case-by-case basis so beautifully illustrated by Abigail; you know, use your *brains* to decide the merits of each case, instead of mindlessly parrotting some political party line, either side), I happen to think the state overreached themselves on this one. They didn't show where the kid's life was in clear cut danger if he went the alternative medicine route, and I think, in this case, that taking him from his parents is unnecessary strong arm tactics. They should let the kid back with his parents, and monitor his progress.
But damn! Views expressed here that say otherwise constitute the Peoples Democratic Republic of Amerika? ... Or forced abortions? Like because they do that in China means that its ready to be done here?
:unsure:
Yeah, Peoples Democratic Republic of Amerika...
We have more and more of our individual liberties taken away as part and parcel of us being able to suck at the teat of the momma pig socialist State.
First, smoking nazis....then saturated fat nazis. A number of states are now weighing children in and putting the results on the kids' report cards. I wonder when the first parents will be charged with child abuse for having a fat kid.
Sorry, Garth, I see a generalized trend nowadays that we are sacrificing our personal liberties in the cause of security, safety, and what the "experts say...."
Forced abortions? I wonder when. Seriously....
At the heart of the controversy over a mentally handicapped person's right to engage in or refrain from activities or decisions related to sexual matters, e.g., sexual intercourse, sterilization, abortion, birth control, is the person's comprehension of such matters and the concomitant ability to make a knowing choice to accept the inherent risks. Although some might think that it is paradoxical to believe that a mentally incompetent person could have the capacity to make a reasoned and informed decision on these issues, as the New York Court of Appeals pointed out in Rivers v. Katz, 67 N.Y. 2nd 485 (Ct. App., 1986), a finding of mental incompetence does not necessarily apply to every aspect of a person's life. Under our law, individuals may be incompetent in some areas but still retain the capacity to make decisions concerning one's own body.
To decide whether a mentally disabled person can make his or her own sexual decisions,
an inquiry must first be made into whether this individual has the capacity to make a personal decision on matters relating to his or her own body. If not, it might be appropriate in some cases to have a court or another person legally designated as the appropriate decision-maker
, such as a parent, spouse or adult child, for the mentally handicapped person to pursue basic personal privacy rights. In some circumstances, a refusal "to provide a technique for vindication of a basic constitutional right is itself an unconstitutional deprivation." Matter of Grady, 405 A.2nd 851 (NJ. Super. Ct. Ch. Div. 1979), and, on appeal, “Our Court should accept the responsibility of providing her with a choice to compensate for her inability to exercise personally an important constitutional right.” Matter of Grady, 426 A.2d 467, 481 (N.J., 1981); “We conclude that the present legislative scheme, which absolutely precludes the sterilization option, impermissibly deprives developmentally disabled persons of privacy and liberty interests protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution…” Conservatorship of Valerie N. 707 P.2d 760, 771-772 (Cal., 1985).
Yes, I know we're talking about mentally disabled people here. But note the bolded verbiage: a minor, according to many who have posted here, does not have the capacity to make his own decisions. Not a very big leap...
Involuntary euthanasia was something that we thought went out with the nazis, but the Groningen Protocol is the procedure currently allowed in the Netherlands where involuntary euthanasia can be legally allowed. There are a lot of issues that were unthinkable not all that many years ago that are now commonplace.
Yeah MarkO, bad diet police was what came to mind for me, but you beat me to it. The kid getting the chemo remarked how he was ready to die when they were giving him the treatments. Forced torture while holding the parents hostage (with threat of jail) seems a little extreme to maybe save the kid's life.
Howzabout eliminating those extreme sports ... skate boarding for example. those kids are knocking themselves senseless and they don't know better. But really, shouldn't there be a test BEFORE someone has a kid? (I think someone does a comedy routine on this) And how bout forcing parents to help their kids with school work at times ... forced breast feeding (we know the long term psychological problems from missing that ... )
Of course since we now put ritalin in the school water fountains, the kids are a little easier to control, but still, some parents really need to be brought in line. And those homeschoolers ... sheesh, whoever allowed that ... most public school teachers roll their eyes at that rebellious notion.
I really don't know about this kid, but the concept of state control of kids (and adults) is a big problem. Or state control of everything for that matter. But I don't have kids, so I'm really just shootin' my mouth off.
Of course since we now put ritalin in the school water fountains, the kids are a little easier to control, but still, some parents really need to be brought in line. And those homeschoolers ... sheesh, whoever allowed that ... most public school teachers roll their eyes at that rebellious notion.
Funny you mention ritalin:
The kids conundrum
The drug culture seduces children as well as adults. The number of school-age children on stimulants — drugs like Ritalin, Adderall, Stratera and Concerta — doubled between 1995 and 2002, according to CDC figures. Physicians prescribe them for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder in children. Some worry that they are prescribing them too often — mistaking performance or behavior problems in school for ADHD, for which there is no simple lab test, Schatzberg, the psychiatry chief, says.
“Just because kids don’t do well in school doesn’t mean they have attention-deficit disorder,” he notes.
David Magnus, PhD, director of the Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics, says he believes use of stimulants is part of the trend toward medicalization of conditions once considered a normal part of life.
“Before Ritalin, almost no one had ADHD. Then suddenly everybody’s got it. We used to call this childhood — kids being distracted and having too much energy,” says Magnus, associate professor (teaching) of pediatrics. “Now we have a drug that makes them act more like adults. I’m sure for a percentage of children this drug is useful. But I’m also sure that the marketing of drugs is heavily influencing the creation of these disease categories and decisions about who belongs in them.”
Nowhere is the issue of drug use more controversial than in psychotropic medications for children. Between 1995 and 2002, the number of youngsters on antidepressants skyrocketed from 1.1 million to 3.1 million, with some arguing that doctors prescribed them cavalierly to children who weren’t properly diagnosed or carefully monitored. After studies linked the medicines to a slight increase in suicidal behavior, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in October 2004 issued a stringent safety warning on antidepressant use in children. Primary care providers and psychiatrists since have become more cautious in prescribing the drugs, balancing their risks to young patients with the potential benefits. Schatzberg says he’s concerned now that some children might go untreated, leading to an increased risk of suicides.
I dunno why I'm posting. Everyone should already know how I'll come down on this.
The state should stay out of the childrearing business altogether. The courts should limit themselves to disputes between individual parties involving $20 or more.
Each and every individual is perfectly equipped and perfectly able to live his/her own life well without involvement or coersion from the state, society at large, courts, bureaucrats, neighbors, do gooders, nosey aunts, oversexed preachers or anyone else.
I'm armed and a clear and present danger to ANYONE who should presume to interefere with my kids ABSOLUTE right to self determination with my considered parental guidance until he's old enough to weigh his own choices properly...and then I'll defend his choices to any and all outsiders whether I necessarily agree with those choices or not.
The state needs to get out of peoples lives altogether and just tend to the common defence and the arbitration of disputes.
But everyone already knows how I feel, so I won't bother to post in this thread.
my town has a law that says all minors must be off the street and in their own yard by 10 pm.
I want him to be out till 12 but if I allow him to do so he risks punishment. and i risk a heavy fine and a chance to go to jail as his parent.
why?
because of all those pesky people complaining about kids running around town till wee hours in the morning.
what about their concerns just dismiss them as a community?
Well this kid is also part of my nation and I would like him to be able to live till he is a legal adult.
the parents that allow their five year to run around the streets till 2 am is unfit (, but he wants to and he said and we agree. ) most would agree is out rageous. few would agree with the risk .
yet this kid could DIE. without medical help .
and no one doubts the parents decision making process ? What parent in their right mind would not want all the care available for their child?
a hurting parent ,one who is not able to make good choices.
plenty of them out there.
We as a nation need to help the innocent and protect one another.
the state is NOT telling them they can NOT do the other treatments.. just that they need to all they can to help their child live to be an age where he can make his own choices legaly.
Ron
what would you do with a parent who was abusing their child?
As an adult I also do not want the "state" making chices for me.. but i just had surgery and i was out of it and the professionals had to chose alot for me.. what to cut what not to cut.. how i should breath etc... because i waas unable to do so. unfit to make the decision .
im glad they did. this kid cant decide now either in two years he can.
his parents should do the right thing and give him a chance to live. but they for whatever reason refuse to help him be 16 much less 18 so someone has to help him.
You're baiting me with typical "liberal" nonsense, but I'll entertain you one time.
Such an ordinance as you describe is reasonable since your kid is free do be in his own yard...your/his private property. The streets are common ground and such decisions must be made according to the will of the local community at large. If you need your kid to be out until 12 on the common ground, then accompany him. That should alleviate any problems. Be sure to teach your kid that the private property of others is as sacred as your own.
As for child abuse, I tend to mind my own business...but if it should appear the child is in danger, then that's what duly elected local law enforcement is for. There is, constitutionally, no higher authority in any given county than the county sheriff and that should be his job to deal with.
SPEAKING of ritilin.....there was a family here in Tenn a few years back that lost custody of one of their children because they were opposed to making their son take it at the schools demand :(
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
Watered Garden
I was a foster parent to teenagers for several years. Had more than one of them tell us that they would be dead if not for us. We treated them as if they were our own. Trips to Disney World, driving lessons, the whole nine yards.
Hodgkin's lymphoma is a bad way to go. Not that any cancer isn't. His parents should be educated about the dangers of treatment versus non-treatment (aka alternative treatments). Legally, if they decide they prefer alternative treatment or no treatment at all, or comfort measures only, that should be their right if they are adults. However, some parents simply go into a state of denial; this can't happen to MY kid, meaning this can't happen to ME. They dither and blather and in the meantime the child gets sicker and sicker. And dies.
Edited by Watered GardenLink to comment
Share on other sites
pond
right WG
it is easy to go into denial when you faced with the choice of watching your kid get sicker and sicker or not. and when your 16 nothing is permanent really certainly not death.
that is why the state is trying to give this kid the time to live.
i get it.
foster care has pros and cons but at this point the state has no choice other than life or death
yes he may die but it is a chance. who wouldnt take it? any chance to live.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Watered Garden
I think to say the parents have the right to decide life or death on this kid is legally declaring the child is nothing more than chattel property. And a 16-year-old doesn't know beans from barium about what to do.
In fact, if it's a boy (sorry guys), he probably won't know beans from barium for another 10-20 years.
WG
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Welcome, all, to the Peoples Democratic Republic of Amerika.
Geez.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
coolchef
i can see both sides of this issue but in the jw case mentioned above imo if a parent will not allow medical treatment {like blood tranvusions} that the meds say would save the child then the parents should be held responsible for meditaded murder
and i don't care want anyone may say about religious freedom
that is not what our forefathers meant by that again imo
peace
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Watered Garden
Mark,
Do you really believe an underage child should die at his parents' discretion? Be it for socalled religious reasons or just a unique combination of ignorance and stupidity, that if mom and dad decide they don't want junior, who has been diagnosed with, say, acute lymphoblastic leukemia, which is curable in its early stages by using a combination of chemotherapy drugs, and mom and decide that (a) it's against their religion to use medicine, or (b) herbs and teas are cheaper than chemo treatments, or © they are too damn lazy to get up in the morning and take the kid to the hospital for treatment (yeah I've heard that one), they would rather take the huge risk, actually a certainty, for junior to suffer a long, slow, painful death, that that is their right and should be upheld?
Sorry. That's just insane. I don't think a parent who loves a child more thanhim/herself would ever think like that. It's not the law, it's the stupid parents that need changed. Some parents love themselves much more than they love their own kids. Those people don't deserve to be parents.
If I sound harsh, it's because pediatric oncologists deal with this kind of fuzzy thinking on occasion and it just is not right. I'm happy to call CPS for their county if they don't want to cooperate for whatever reason. The life of a child is more important and more valuable than sleeping until noon. I really don't give a rat's nose about the rights of the individual if that individual is hurting a child. If that child was being beaten to a pulp every day, or raped by daddy every day, would you feel the same way? Withholding of medical treatmetnt for a treatable condition is no different.
WG
Edited by Watered GardenLink to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Would you oppose state intervention if a 16-year-old, with parental consent, wanted to use heroin? If not, then your "Amerika" is essentially the same as the one you're so dramatically opposing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
The 16 year old and his parents made a reasoned decision. I, personally, don't agree with that decision...but it is the decision they made. If we didn't live in this nanny state of governmental control, it would be a perfectly legal one, as well. Unfortunately for this young man, he was born two years later than he wishes he would have been...
Please keep in mind that the young man has been through the course of standard treatment already. That means he had all the chemo...and his cancer was declared to be in remission. When the cancer came back, rather than face yet another course of chemo, this young man did his research at alternatives (again, let me state that I don't agree with the conclusion) and his parents, who are ultimately responsible, support his decision.
I'm sorry, but I have a major problem with the government stepping in and interfering in this case. There is a major problem in this country where a 13 year old girl can go out and get an abortion without her parents' knowledge (in six states, without even having to get a court order affirming the decision and in four others, where the court ordered requirement is winked at) but where a 16 year old young man can't have a voice in his treatment.
Sorry, folks, that's too much government for my taste.
Think about it a second. Many, many people are emancipated at age 16. In many, if not most, states, a person can be married at age 16 (at which point, the person is automatically emancipated). We're not talking about a six year old or an eleven year old, we're talking about a person who is mere months away from being old enough to join the military (a person can join at age 17). If he had neglectful or abusive parents, he could likely sue for emancipation and be granted full rights. Instead, this afternoon he will likely be handcuffed and taken to the hospital by force. If he doesn't cooperate at the hospital, it's likely that he'll be strapped to a gurney and have the treatment forced on him. Why? Because some stupid social worker decided that he/she knew best. Hopefully there will be video...
Once again, let me re-emphasize that I DO NOT agree with the decision. The only way where I would agree is if, statistically, he had only a marginal chance of survival after this second course of chemo (chemo done merely to prolong life, rather than to cure the disease). I've seen no indication that this is the case, so I think he made the wrong decision. But...it's neither my decision nor the State's decision. It's his decision...with the consent of his parents (until he is 18 or is emancipated).
Sorry...I really don't want to live in a totalitarian state. Maybe later.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Mark,
As regards to this particular case (using the case-by-case basis so beautifully illustrated by Abigail; you know, use your *brains* to decide the merits of each case, instead of mindlessly parrotting some political party line, either side), I happen to think the state overreached themselves on this one. They didn't show where the kid's life was in clear cut danger if he went the alternative medicine route, and I think, in this case, that taking him from his parents is unnecessary strong arm tactics. They should let the kid back with his parents, and monitor his progress.
But damn! Views expressed here that say otherwise constitute the Peoples Democratic Republic of Amerika? ... Or forced abortions? Like because they do that in China means that its ready to be done here?
:unsure:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
I may not agree with the decision, but I definitely disagree with the government getting involved - especially in this case.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
False analogy.
His decision, were he between one and two years older, would be completely legal.
A hypothetical decision to use, with parental consent, heroin, would be completely illegal (regardless of his date of birth).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
breaking news:
ACCOMAC, Va. (AP) -- An Accomack County Circuit Court judge granted a temporary stay for a 16-year-old Eastern Shore cancer patient who doesn't want to be forced by the state to undergo chemotherapy.
A juvenile court judge had ordered Starchild Abraham Cherrix and his parents to report to CHKD by 1:00 p.m. and denied a stay of that order.
But the Circuit Court judge Tuesday said Cherrix won't have to submit to treatment and also granted his parents full custody instead of having that custody shared with Social Services,
From: WVEC News
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
If the state is going to be in the business of making medical decisions for people, then they ought to at least implement universal health coverage to millions who presently have none.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Yeah, Peoples Democratic Republic of Amerika...
We have more and more of our individual liberties taken away as part and parcel of us being able to suck at the teat of the momma pig socialist State.
First, smoking nazis....then saturated fat nazis. A number of states are now weighing children in and putting the results on the kids' report cards. I wonder when the first parents will be charged with child abuse for having a fat kid.
Sorry, Garth, I see a generalized trend nowadays that we are sacrificing our personal liberties in the cause of security, safety, and what the "experts say...."
Forced abortions? I wonder when. Seriously....
From: NY State Commission on Quality of Care and Advocacy for Persons with Disabilities
Yes, I know we're talking about mentally disabled people here. But note the bolded verbiage: a minor, according to many who have posted here, does not have the capacity to make his own decisions. Not a very big leap...
Involuntary euthanasia was something that we thought went out with the nazis, but the Groningen Protocol is the procedure currently allowed in the Netherlands where involuntary euthanasia can be legally allowed. There are a lot of issues that were unthinkable not all that many years ago that are now commonplace.
Edited by markomalleyLink to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
Yeah MarkO, bad diet police was what came to mind for me, but you beat me to it. The kid getting the chemo remarked how he was ready to die when they were giving him the treatments. Forced torture while holding the parents hostage (with threat of jail) seems a little extreme to maybe save the kid's life.
Howzabout eliminating those extreme sports ... skate boarding for example. those kids are knocking themselves senseless and they don't know better. But really, shouldn't there be a test BEFORE someone has a kid? (I think someone does a comedy routine on this) And how bout forcing parents to help their kids with school work at times ... forced breast feeding (we know the long term psychological problems from missing that ... )
Of course since we now put ritalin in the school water fountains, the kids are a little easier to control, but still, some parents really need to be brought in line. And those homeschoolers ... sheesh, whoever allowed that ... most public school teachers roll their eyes at that rebellious notion.
I really don't know about this kid, but the concept of state control of kids (and adults) is a big problem. Or state control of everything for that matter. But I don't have kids, so I'm really just shootin' my mouth off.
Edited by rhinoLink to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Funny you mention ritalin:
The kids conundrum
The drug culture seduces children as well as adults. The number of school-age children on stimulants — drugs like Ritalin, Adderall, Stratera and Concerta — doubled between 1995 and 2002, according to CDC figures. Physicians prescribe them for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder in children. Some worry that they are prescribing them too often — mistaking performance or behavior problems in school for ADHD, for which there is no simple lab test, Schatzberg, the psychiatry chief, says.
“Just because kids don’t do well in school doesn’t mean they have attention-deficit disorder,” he notes.
David Magnus, PhD, director of the Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics, says he believes use of stimulants is part of the trend toward medicalization of conditions once considered a normal part of life.
“Before Ritalin, almost no one had ADHD. Then suddenly everybody’s got it. We used to call this childhood — kids being distracted and having too much energy,” says Magnus, associate professor (teaching) of pediatrics. “Now we have a drug that makes them act more like adults. I’m sure for a percentage of children this drug is useful. But I’m also sure that the marketing of drugs is heavily influencing the creation of these disease categories and decisions about who belongs in them.”
Nowhere is the issue of drug use more controversial than in psychotropic medications for children. Between 1995 and 2002, the number of youngsters on antidepressants skyrocketed from 1.1 million to 3.1 million, with some arguing that doctors prescribed them cavalierly to children who weren’t properly diagnosed or carefully monitored. After studies linked the medicines to a slight increase in suicidal behavior, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in October 2004 issued a stringent safety warning on antidepressant use in children. Primary care providers and psychiatrists since have become more cautious in prescribing the drugs, balancing their risks to young patients with the potential benefits. Schatzberg says he’s concerned now that some children might go untreated, leading to an increased risk of suicides.
From Standford Medicine Magazine, Summer 2005
Good point!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ron G.
I dunno why I'm posting. Everyone should already know how I'll come down on this.
The state should stay out of the childrearing business altogether. The courts should limit themselves to disputes between individual parties involving $20 or more.
Each and every individual is perfectly equipped and perfectly able to live his/her own life well without involvement or coersion from the state, society at large, courts, bureaucrats, neighbors, do gooders, nosey aunts, oversexed preachers or anyone else.
I'm armed and a clear and present danger to ANYONE who should presume to interefere with my kids ABSOLUTE right to self determination with my considered parental guidance until he's old enough to weigh his own choices properly...and then I'll defend his choices to any and all outsiders whether I necessarily agree with those choices or not.
The state needs to get out of peoples lives altogether and just tend to the common defence and the arbitration of disputes.
But everyone already knows how I feel, so I won't bother to post in this thread.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pond
my town has a law that says all minors must be off the street and in their own yard by 10 pm.
I want him to be out till 12 but if I allow him to do so he risks punishment. and i risk a heavy fine and a chance to go to jail as his parent.
why?
because of all those pesky people complaining about kids running around town till wee hours in the morning.
what about their concerns just dismiss them as a community?
Well this kid is also part of my nation and I would like him to be able to live till he is a legal adult.
the parents that allow their five year to run around the streets till 2 am is unfit (, but he wants to and he said and we agree. ) most would agree is out rageous. few would agree with the risk .
yet this kid could DIE. without medical help .
and no one doubts the parents decision making process ? What parent in their right mind would not want all the care available for their child?
a hurting parent ,one who is not able to make good choices.
plenty of them out there.
We as a nation need to help the innocent and protect one another.
the state is NOT telling them they can NOT do the other treatments.. just that they need to all they can to help their child live to be an age where he can make his own choices legaly.
Ron
what would you do with a parent who was abusing their child?
As an adult I also do not want the "state" making chices for me.. but i just had surgery and i was out of it and the professionals had to chose alot for me.. what to cut what not to cut.. how i should breath etc... because i waas unable to do so. unfit to make the decision .
im glad they did. this kid cant decide now either in two years he can.
his parents should do the right thing and give him a chance to live. but they for whatever reason refuse to help him be 16 much less 18 so someone has to help him.
who?
Edited by pondLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ron G.
Pond...
You're baiting me with typical "liberal" nonsense, but I'll entertain you one time.
Such an ordinance as you describe is reasonable since your kid is free do be in his own yard...your/his private property. The streets are common ground and such decisions must be made according to the will of the local community at large. If you need your kid to be out until 12 on the common ground, then accompany him. That should alleviate any problems. Be sure to teach your kid that the private property of others is as sacred as your own.
As for child abuse, I tend to mind my own business...but if it should appear the child is in danger, then that's what duly elected local law enforcement is for. There is, constitutionally, no higher authority in any given county than the county sheriff and that should be his job to deal with.
See how simple life can be?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
SPEAKING of ritilin.....there was a family here in Tenn a few years back that lost custody of one of their children because they were opposed to making their son take it at the schools demand :(
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pond
yeah the nosy aunt has to go.
Ron
so the cops decide ? with their hopefully high school degree the complex notion of why mom and dad have to be on crack and have sex with me?
better hope that cop has a big house to put all the kids in need of help with parents who really do not give a darn.
life isnt simple Ron. not when your responsible or accountable .
the problem is so many are not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex70sHouston
Parents have the right to say what treatment their own child should get.
Until you go through chemo / or watcha loved one go through chemo you dont realise how horable it is.
The first round failed and they were trying alternate care. They should have the choice.
I do believe that a higher court today gave the rights back to the parents.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pond
the parents Do have a right to say what treatment the kid is getting!!! ll always have.
the problem is they do not get to decide what he can NOT have to save his life.
as bad as any treatment may be, I do believe death would be worse.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
yup. He went through it once -- and chose not to do so again.
Who in (government) positions has the audacity to tell him to do otherwise??
I say -- put them through chemo for their cancerous thoughts.
(let's see what they think of it -- when they go through it).
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.