Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Kitagrl

Forcing boy to get chemo

Recommended Posts

Ah' date=' the special people who are gifted with knowledge and leadership are going to force those who are less learned and like little lambs to receive treatment against their will! Brilliant![/quote']

No body is forcing a competant adult to do anything. And although you make it sound petty, it is in fact the basis behind all forms of government and society. If people could be left to their own devices, we wouldn't need a congress or a judiciary. Face it, the fast majority of people on this planet have no idea what is good for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


I don't believe that a 13 year old is able to discern what his "own free will" is. The reason we don't let people under the age of 18 vote is because they are too suscceptible to doing what their parents tell them, rather than voting in their own best interest. A 13 year old that has lived at home his entire life, all the while being indoctrinated by his parents, is not going to make a decision independent of his past. He has probably never even been allowed to question his parents on this, and therefore has had no access to the information needed to make a rational decision on his own.


You could say that about any situation, any child, any family. Where do personal rights end? Every child is "indoctrinated" by something, whether creation/evolution...abortion/prolife.....regular meds/alternative meds. Who has the right to decide what "indoctrination" is okay and what is not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


This story is incredibly sad........the child WAS treated once, but it takes many more treatments to be effective, plus the chemo & radiation has a good track record for his type of cancer. Although, there is no guarantee, my guess would be that if the treatments were succesful, as he gets older he would be thankful to his parents for insisting he go through the treatments. IF it were my child, I know I'd want to do everything possible to treat the cancer and this would include alternative treatments IN ADDITION to the more aggressive treatments. I too have heard of cases where alternative treatments cured a person, I suppose it depends on the type of cancer (as to whether it will respond). But I think you have to look at the track record for any given treatment. I personally know chemo is the reason my own dad is still here after having treatments many yrs ago. He has had no reoccurrence. That said, the side effects are horrific!

Someone here had also written about an elderly person who didn't want to go to the nursing home......here again, IF that person has no one to adequately care for him at home, I think the nursing home would have to be considered. Things start to border on neglect when we don't act in the best interest of our children and parents. My only thought is that as parents of children and caretakers of the elderly, you want what is best for them, even though it may be a really tough decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


You could say that about any situation, any child, any family. Where do personal rights end? Every child is "indoctrinated" by something, whether creation/evolution...abortion/prolife.....regular meds/alternative meds. Who has the right to decide what "indoctrination" is okay and what is not?


This reminds me of a guest speaker I had in college that defined critical thinking as "the ability to completely disregard everything your parents taught you."

Now he wasn't saying people should be disobedient to their parents. He was saying that if you are unable to put aside your preexisting indoctrinations, you will be incapable of critical thought analysis, which I completely agree with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SouthernGal, sometimes its not an easy decision.

Right now I have the choice of putting my 4yo son on a heavy drug for his hives. The dr has left it in my lap because its such a big decision that she will not be responsible for it. I have to weigh the risk vs. the need. So far we have chosen to keep waiting (he is already on 8 pills a day for his chronic urticaria). (The dr is fine either way, says most parents do try to wait it out as long as the child is sleeping through the night and not suffering extremely).

My point is I want what is best for my child, and sometimes its not always a fast or easy decision to make. Yes if my child had cancer, I would feel my best decision was to take the chemo....on the other hand, I have a good friend who made the decision to have a bone marrow transplant in her toddler and the toddler died from the complications. (She would not have survived the cancer anyway, but yet the transplant hastened her death....actually the transplant worked, the extreme radiation hastened her death. They had no way of knowing what would happen..they had to make the choice blindly, like many things in life.)

We have no right to sit here and tell someone else what is best for their child or their family, whether we agree or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


This reminds me of a guest speaker I had in college that defined critical thinking as "the ability to completely disregard everything your parents taught you."

Now he wasn't saying people should be disobedient to their parents. He was saying that if you are unable to put aside your preexisting indoctrinations, you will be incapable of critical thought analysis, which I completely agree with.


I think most educated people eventually do this to some extent...some agree with their parents more than others. But yet nobody has the right to actually say "This is right indoctrination....this is wrong."

The only One who has the right to say that is GOD but unfortunately His Word doesn't count anymore in this country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SouthernGal, sometimes its not an easy decision.

Right now I have the choice of putting my 4yo son on a heavy drug for his hives. The dr has left it in my lap because its such a big decision that she will not be responsible for it. I have to weigh the risk vs. the need. So far we have chosen to keep waiting (he is already on 8 pills a day for his chronic urticaria). (The dr is fine either way, says most parents do try to wait it out as long as the child is sleeping through the night and not suffering extremely).

My point is I want what is best for my child, and sometimes its not always a fast or easy decision to make. Yes if my child had cancer, I would feel my best decision was to take the chemo....on the other hand, I have a good friend who made the decision to have a bone marrow transplant in her toddler and the toddler died from the complications. (She would not have survived the cancer anyway, but yet the transplant hastened her death....actually the transplant worked, the extreme radiation hastened her death. They had no way of knowing what would happen..they had to make the choice blindly, like many things in life.)

We have no right to sit here and tell someone else what is best for their child or their family, whether we agree or not.


What if someone believes it is ok for their child to look at pornography, or to not brush their teeth, or to go around infested with lice, or to have dangerous animals around their children . . . Parents don't know what's best in most cases and need to be told what to do. This is why we have laws, doctors and lawyers. I don't know who came up with the thought that just because they fathered or birthed a person, they know what is best for that person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


What if someone believes it is ok for their child to look at pornography, or to not brush their teeth, or to go around infested with lice, or to have dangerous animals around their children . . . Parents don't know what's best in most cases and need to be told what to do. This is why we have laws, doctors and lawyers. I don't know who came up with the thought that just because they fathered or birthed a person, they know what is best for that person.


I'm not saying every person does.

The Bible is the first authority. That would solve most of the problems above. All laws should be based on the Bible, because God is the ultimate authority on right and wrong.

And to say "parents don't know what's best in MOST CASES" is quite offensive to me as a mom of four kids. Do you have kids?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if someone believes it is ok for their child to look at pornography, or to not brush their teeth, or to go around infested with lice, or to have dangerous animals around their children . . . Parents don't know what's best in most cases and need to be told what to do. This is why we have laws, doctors and lawyers. I don't know who came up with the thought that just because they fathered or birthed a person, they know what is best for that person.


Excuse me??? A better statement would be, "Parents don't know what's best in some cases and need to be told what to do."

Most people have something called "common sense". It is knowledge that is common to most people. Common sense tells parents that it is not ok for their child to look at pornography, it is not ok to not brush teeth, it is not ok to go around infested with lice, it is not ok to have dangerous animals around their children.

Some parents do need help but not most. I/we, do not need more laws from people who do not know me/us or my/our life situation but feel they know what is best. God gave my children to my husband and me, not the state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Check this out: http://www.angelfire.com/az/sthurston/a ... errix.html

Abraham Cherrix was where this young man is in 2006. He was 15 and didn't want to do a second round of chemo. As of a year ago, his blood showed no Hodgkins. And he pursued alternative meds...sounds to me like it worked for him......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Excuse me??? A better statement would be, "Parents don't know what's best in some cases and need to be told what to do."

Most people have something called "common sense". It is knowledge that is common to most people. Common sense tells parents that it is not ok for their child to look at pornography, it is not ok to not brush teeth, it is not ok to go around infested with lice, it is not ok to have dangerous animals around their children.

Some parents do need help but not most. I/we, do not need more laws from people who do not know me/us or my/our life situation but feel they know what is best. God gave my children to my husband and me, not the state.


....and btw, I don't know where they came up with the thought that because someone has a degree in law and has a position in government it suddenly makes them a professional doctor/psychologist/child rear-er. :uuhm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, they think we are all ignorant. I am having a hard time with my little 1yr. old. I wrote in another thread about her having a UTI last month. Well, I had to take her in for these two tests to "make sure" that there wasn't anything "wrong" with her that caused the infection. After they put her through a super traumatic experience (so much so, that my pediatrician's office told me to contact the hospital and tell them about it--which I did so, as politely as possible) the doctor had his nurse call and tell me they scheduled Liddy an appt. to see a "specialist" over a condition the radiologist told me was "slight", that she would "grow out of" and it was "not a big deal". Apparently, they want to have the specialist give their opinion of whether or not she should be on antibiotics prophylactically until she "outgrows" it (which could be a year or two). So......if I refuse to put my baby on antibiotics for a couple of years, do I, like the OP article parents, have to worry about DSS coming in and trying to take my baby away? That is ridiculous, and yet it is the same thing, isn't it? Now, my reasons for not wanting my baby on extended antibiotics, are not "religious", and I am prepared to show her doctor scientific data from the official Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics that demonstrate its negative consequences, but I am also preparing myself for him to throw a fit about it. It should not be like that! I am not unreasonable, I am going to suggest that if he want to culture for UTI every so often out of "precaution", so be it, but I think the method that we choose to manage my daughter's medical needs ought to be her father's and my decision, not a mandate of a 3rd party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SouthernGal, sometimes its not an easy decision.

My point is I want what is best for my child, and sometimes its not always a fast or easy decision to make. Yes if my child had cancer, I would feel my best decision was to take the chemo....on the other hand, I have a good friend who made the decision to have a bone marrow transplant in her toddler and the toddler died from the complications. (She would not have survived the cancer anyway, but yet the transplant hastened her death....actually the transplant worked, the extreme radiation hastened her death. They had no way of knowing what would happen..they had to make the choice blindly, like many things in life.)

We have no right to sit here and tell someone else what is best for their child or their family, whether we agree or not.


I could not agree with you more in that we don't have the right to tell someone else what's best for their child or family member. (I don't think the government should step in & tell us what to do, HOWEVER, there are cases where neglect is involved & I'm not sure how to most effectively deal with that).

Situations do get really complex sometimes and we can only make what we consider to be the best decision after researching all the facts which I understand was the case in your friend's situation. We don't know what the future holds for anyone (only God knows that). We have taken care of an elderly parent, there were tough choices to make......we simply wanted what was best (although sometimes there were no good options).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Neglect is just that...neglect. In the OP case' date=' it was decision making that others disagreed with. Not "neglect".[/quote']
Yep! One round of chemo, and then a decision to go natural. Doesn't sound like neglect to me. Sounds like government interference!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


....and btw, I don't know where they came up with the thought that because someone has a degree in law and has a position in government it suddenly makes them a professional doctor/psychologist/child rear-er. :uuhm:


I don't work for the government (my firm represents foreign governments). I also never claimed to be a professional doctor/psychologiest/childrearer. However, I do believe that I have enough awareness that I can say that the vast majority of people don't have common sense. People will eat red meat three times a weak all the while knowing that it causes heart disease. They will buy their kids the cereal with the cartoon character on the front which leads to a sugar addiction which in turn leads to a long life of poor health. I have studied the law and I know the reason why we have law and it is because people cannot be trusted to their own devices. We have to have laws that punish child abuse/neglect because it is a fact of life. The reason you elect congressmen is so you have someone to tell you what you need/should be doing because you yourself cannot be trusted to do those things.

I haven't given a scintilla of evidence which suggest the proper way to rear a child. I have merely stated that if a child's best interest are at objective odds with the parents beliefs/choices/wishes, then the state needs to be the one making decisions which affect the child. In my opinion, which is based on my personal experience, most people need help in this category.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most people eh. I feel sorry for you, then, to have had such a miserable experience with humanity.

The government is there to protect the general safety of the country, not to micromanage the citizens.

I'm truly sorry you feel that I, along with other moms here, do not know what is in the best interest of their children.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, no, no, no pt!!! We DO NOT elect congressmen so they can tell us what to do! We elect them to do what WE want! THEY are our servants, not the other way around!!! You really need to re-look at some of your ideas! They are totally wrong in light of the Constitution and a Republic.

And, no, the reason we have law is NOT because people can't be trusted to their own devices! Laws are there because we are all sinners. God instituted civil law to prosecute criminals - not the innocent because they eat more red meat than someone thinks they should!!! And our country was set up as a Republic, not a Democracy nor any other kind - so people could rule THEMSELVES. Read the founders and their intents with the Constitution.

The vast majority of people don't have common sense? You've been listening to the mass media too much!! That's what they think of the average person in America. pt - you've traveled, alot. And you're very intelligent. But you are still young enough for me to be able to say: you haven't met the vast majority of people, so you've broadbrushed in quite an unfair way. Just because you don't agree with someone doesn't mean they don't have common sense.

As far as the red meat goes - my grandma has eaten red meat all her life. She loves it. Has sausage (and eggs) just about every morning of her life. And she's gonna be 100 this fall - and her heart is in great shape. See, your opinion is that people that eat a lot of red meat have no common sense, based on what you've been told are heart risks. But maybe, just maybe, that isn't the real problem....after all, that's what a great majority of the people who founded this country (I'm talking the pioneers) ate mostly. But I reckon they didn't have common sense. 'Course, they didn't have the government telling them how bad it was for them. (please note - this was written tongue in cheek, not with any intention of being snotty!!)

BTW - my beliefs are at odds with the government right now. According to Janet Napolitano, I'm more of a danger to this country than terrorists...should I, if my child was a minor, lose him? That's the logical conclusion to your last paragraph, pt!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Government tends to exaggerate too. For instance they pulled pediatric meds from the shelves due to parents overdosing their kids.

If you really study it out, you will find the percentage of parents who overdosed their kids EXTREMELY minute compared to the general population. If you take away the kids that climbed up on a countertop and stole meds, the percentage is even smaller. So you have what, less than 1% of parents in America being stupid (for example) and suddenly the entire country is presumed to be stupid and thus meds are pulled from shelves.

Its okay, those of us who are NOT stupid just carefully do the dosage math, and give meds anyway. :thumb

So anyway we have one family that won't give their kid chemo (out of how many families that do????) and somebody assumes "most parents" need major help raising their kids. Wow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


I don't work for the government (my firm represents foreign governments). I also never claimed to be a professional doctor/psychologiest/childrearer. However, I do believe that I have enough awareness that I can say that the vast majority of people don't have common sense. People will eat red meat three times a weak all the while knowing that it causes heart disease. They will buy their kids the cereal with the cartoon character on the front which leads to a sugar addiction which in turn leads to a long life of poor health. I have studied the law and I know the reason why we have law and it is because people cannot be trusted to their own devices. We have to have laws that punish child abuse/neglect because it is a fact of life. The reason you elect congressmen is so you have someone to tell you what you need/should be doing because you yourself cannot be trusted to do those things.

I haven't given a scintilla of evidence which suggest the proper way to rear a child. I have merely stated that if a child's best interest are at objective odds with the parents beliefs/choices/wishes, then the state needs to be the one making decisions which affect the child. In my opinion, which is based on my personal experience, most people need help in this category.


Well, that's not our fault.....It's the gov't fault for allowing those cereal companies free enterprise to make the unhealthy stuff in the first place! (Yes...I'm J/K)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, no, no, no pt!!! We DO NOT elect congressmen so they can tell us what to do! We elect them to do what WE want! THEY are our servants, not the other way around!!! You really need to re-look at some of your ideas! They are totally wrong in light of the Constitution and a Republic.

And, no, the reason we have law is NOT because people can't be trusted to their own devices! Laws are there because we are all sinners. God instituted civil law to prosecute criminals - not the innocent because they eat more red meat than someone thinks they should!!! And our country was set up as a Republic, not a Democracy nor any other kind - so people could rule THEMSELVES. Read the founders and their intents with the Constitution.

The vast majority of people don't have common sense? You've been listening to the mass media too much!! That's what they think of the average person in America. pt - you've traveled, alot. And you're very intelligent. But you are still young enough for me to be able to say: you haven't met the vast majority of people, so you've broadbrushed in quite an unfair way. Just because you don't agree with someone doesn't mean they don't have common sense.

As far as the red meat goes - my grandma has eaten red meat all her life. She loves it. Has sausage (and eggs) just about every morning of her life. And she's gonna be 100 this fall - and her heart is in great shape. See, your opinion is that people that eat a lot of red meat have no common sense, based on what you've been told are heart risks. But maybe, just maybe, that isn't the real problem....after all, that's what a great majority of the people who founded this country (I'm talking the pioneers) ate mostly. But I reckon they didn't have common sense. 'Course, they didn't have the government telling them how bad it was for them. (please note - this was written tongue in cheek, not with any intention of being snotty!!)

BTW - my beliefs are at odds with the government right now. According to Janet Napolitano, I'm more of a danger to this country than terrorists...should I, if my child was a minor, lose him? That's the logical conclusion to your last paragraph, pt!!


I agree that at one time, when there were about 200,000 white english settlers (not counting slaves) on this continent, then we had public servants that did just that. However, things have undeniably changed. Now, the government serves us by protecting us. In many cases, this is done by protecting us from ourselves. The founders and their intentions are totally irrelevant and inapplicable to the real world of today and tomorrow. Go and read the constitution. It dosen't address public health or child welfare. It amazes me how often people think that simple document contains all the answers to our government. It's a framework, written vaguely, so as to preserve its integrity through the inevitably changing times.

I don't believe that a life filled with red meat dinners automatically equals bad health. However, I know for a fact that it, along with smoking, is one of the leading causes of heart disease, which is the leading cause of death in this country. If your grandmother were to go to the doctor with heart problems, I guarantee he would suggest she quit eating so much red meat. The FDA (the oh so scarey government) attempts (though miserably at times) to police what we eat because we ourselves cannot be trusted to do what is best for us. By the way, I wasn't suggesting that they make laws regarding the intake of red meat, merely using it as an example of how we cannot be trusted to take care of ourselves.

I don't think I'm that intelligent. I'm probably average at best and in my line of work I am definitely below average. I also don't watch what you refer to as "mass media." I get most of my news from whatever country I'm in or the local newspaper. I base my opinion that the vast majority of people don't have common sense on my observations and interactions with the people I meet. It is a burden *sigh* :smile

I guess the justification for my point of view is the fact that people who share my point of view run the world (not just the U.S.) and the people I am talking about elected them or were conquered by them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the FDA was truly concerned, they wouldn't have allowed the chemicals, preservatives and artificial substances into our foods. Those are the real culprits. I betcha LuAnne's Grandma grew up eating natural foods and hardly any commercially processed foods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 25 Guests (See full list)

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...