Minn. Judge Rules Teen Must See Cancer Doctor

[jillio]

To say that he does not have a Constitutional rights.... that applies to all minors. You should know that the Constitutional Rights are not selective. It applies to all.

But it was asked what I was referring to, and I was referring to this child in this particular situation.

And this issue doesn't begin and end with constitutional rights. Fundamental to this issue is the concept of competence.

 

[Jiro]

But it was asked what I was referring to, and I was referring to this child in this particular situation.

And this issue doesn't begin and end with constitutional rights. Fundamental to this issue is the concept of competence.

I'm talking about your reply to pek1's post.

I stand behind the boy. However, I do have concerns about his inability to read.

With that said, I believe that the judge has pissed on the Constitution by violating the boy's First Amendment rights.

The boy is a minor. He doesn't have any constitutional rights.

But this is an interesting stance you are taking, given your right to life stance in other areas.

That's what I'm talking about.

 

[jillio]

I'm talking about your reply to pek1's post.





That's what I'm talking about.

Your point is exactly what? That the child should be permitted to decide his medical treatment or that he shouldn't?

 

[Dixie]

If the boy is 13 years old and cannot read - there is something seriously wrong with the home situation.

I think given that information, the state should take ALL children into State Custody because more times than not, if one child is being neglected then the other children are also being neglected.

But I just thought about something. Could it be that the family knows it cannot afford the medical treatments so they are backing out of it citing 'religious reasons' to hide their financial situation? They could be ashamed that they cannot afford medical care.

In any case - the mother and son should be brought back to Minnesota, the boy placed in state care and the mother arrested and thrown in jail. The judge tried to be nice about it, but obviously the mother does not want to listen, so she's burned her bridge with the judge this time around. I can fully expect the judge to come down hard on her when she returns - if she returns. Once they cross that border, there's very little the US can do.

 

[Jiro]

Your point is exactly what? That the child should be permitted to decide his medical treatment or that he shouldn't?

read pek1's post again. Let me help you out -

pek1 said - ".....violating the boy's First Amendment rights."
You said - "The boy is a minor. He doesn't have any constitutional rights."

 

[Jiro]

If the boy is 13 years old and cannot read - there is something seriously wrong with the home situation.

I think given that information, the state should take ALL children into State Custody because more times than not, if one child is being neglected then the other children are also being neglected.

But I just thought about something. Could it be that the family knows it cannot afford the medical treatments so they are backing out of it citing 'religious reasons' to hide their financial situation? They could be ashamed that they cannot afford medical care.

In any case - the mother and son should be brought back to Minnesota, the boy placed in state care and the mother arrested and thrown in jail. The judge tried to be nice about it, but obviously the mother does not want to listen, so she's burned her bridge with the judge this time around. I can fully expect the judge to come down hard on her when she returns - if she returns. Once they cross that border, there's very little the US can do.

but the Hauser parents said they do not want chemotherapy for their son as it is against their religious belief.

Whatever the reason they have.... I thought this country is about free choice without government interference.

 

[jillio]

read pek1's post again. Let me help you out -

pek1 said - ".....violating the boy's First Amendment rights."
You said - "The boy is a minor. He doesn't have any constitutional rights."

What is your point Jiro? The boy does not have the constitutional right to make decisions regarding his medical care. That is why the arrest warrant has been issued for his mother.

 

[jillio]

but the Hauser parents said they do not want chemotherapy for their son as it is against their religious belief.

Whatever the reason they have.... I thought this country is about free choice without government interference.

They are also identified as Catholic, and there is nothing in Catholic Doctrine that would support their claim.

There is nothing in the laws of this land that support your right to kill your child through neglect.

 

[Jiro]

They are also identified as Catholic, and there is nothing in Catholic Doctrine that would support their claim.

again my last sentence in my previous post - Whatever the reason they have.... I thought this country is about free choice without government interference.

 

[jillio]

again my last sentence in my previous post - Whatever the reason they have.... I thought this country is about free choice without government interference.

And again, there is nothing in the laws of this land that support your right to kill your child through neglect. In fact, the laws are all in place to prevent such from happening.

So, by your logic, if a parent decides to starve their child to death, that is perfectly acceptable in the name of freedom of choice. If a parent decides to beat their child to death in the name of freedom of choice, then that is perfectly acceptable. If a parent decides to sexually abuse their child under some misquided "religious" doctrine, then that is perfectly acceptable, because, after all, they are only exercising their "freedom of choice."

 

[Jiro]

They are also identified as Catholic, and there is nothing in Catholic Doctrine that would support their claim.

There is nothing in the laws of this land that support your right to kill your child through neglect.

My bad - it wasn't because of their religious belief. It's because they wanted to use the Native American healing practices. There is nothing in the laws of this land either that allows government to tell parents what to do with their child. it is not government's business to tell what medical procedure that the parents can do or cannot do.

 

[Jiro]

And again, there is nothing in the laws of this land that support your right to kill your child through neglect. In fact, the laws are all in place to prevent such from happening.

So, by your logic, if a parent decides to starve their child to death, that is perfectly acceptable in the name of freedom of choice. If a parent decides to beat their child to death in the name of freedom of choice, then that is perfectly acceptable. If a parent decides to sexually abuse their child under some misquided "religious" doctrine, then that is perfectly acceptable, because, after all, they are only exercising their "freedom of choice."

actually that's a wrong example of logic.

Here's a proper example - the parents chose to home-school their child because of their religious belief. By your logic - not teaching them about evolution is a negligence. because of that - you want their child to be forced to go to public school.

 

[jillio]

My bad - it wasn't because of their religious belief. It's because they wanted to use the Native American healing practices. There is nothing in the laws of this land either that allows government to tell parents what to do with their child. it is not government's business to tell what medical procedure that the parents can do or cannot do.

You might want to go back and check the laws on that one, Jiro. There are numerous laws in place to prevent children being neglected and abused. Refusing to provide medical treatment for a seriously ill child is covered under those laws. That is why the mother has a warrant out for her arrest.

These parents are not Native American, nor do they practice Native American religion as their primary religion. The techniques the mother is using were found on the internet. It has absolutely nothing to do with a religious belief.

 

[jillio]

actually that's a wrong example of logic.

Here's a proper example - the parents chose to home-school their child because of their religious belief. By your logic - not teaching them about evolution is a negligence. because of that - you want their child to be forced to go to public school.

Not teaching them about evolution does not result in their death. Get real Jiro.

 

[Dixie]

I may have to google this one up but I saw on the news another day where a mother is standing trial in Florida for not seeking medical care for her diabetic daughter, her daughter died as a result of untreated diabetes. This is what the mother of the boy is going to face if she doesn't get medical care for her child.

Murder by neglect is what it comes down to.

 

[jillio]

I may have to google this one up but I saw on the news another day where a mother is standing trial in Florida for not seeking medical care for her diabetic daughter, her daughter died as a result of untreated diabetes. This is what the mother of the boy is going to face if she doesn't get medical care for her child.

Murder by neglect is what it comes down to.

Exactly.

And a mother was just arrested in MD yesterday, after she had fled NC to avoid providing necesary medical treatment for her 550 lb 14 year old.

 

[KarissaMann05]

That's why I NEVER believe in freedom of religions! :roll:

 

[Jiro]

You might want to go back and check the laws on that one, Jiro. There are numerous laws in place to prevent children being neglected and abused. Refusing to provide medical treatment for a seriously ill child is covered under those laws. That is why the mother has a warrant out for her arrest.

These parents are not Native American, nor do they practice Native American religion as their primary religion. The techniques the mother is using were found on the internet. It has absolutely nothing to do with a religious belief.

It's about their constitutional right to freedom of religious expression and their right to direct a child's upbringing. They have done chemotherapy but the tumor came back. Perhaps the parents think it does not work. That's why they're seeking for alternative way. I don't think I would want the government to tell me to use Tylenol for my child when I want to use Advil just because they say Tylenol is more effective.

 

[jillio]

It's about their constitutional right to freedom of religious expression and their right to direct a child's upbringing. They have done chemotherapy but the tumor came back. Perhaps the parents think it does not work. That's why they're seeking for alternative way. I don't think I would want the government to tell me to use Tylenol for my child when I want to use Advil just because they say Tylenol is more effective.

And their actions have been shown to cause harm to their child. No where in the laws of this land does anyone have the right to create a situation so harmful so as to lead to a child's death. They do not have the constitutional right to murder their child through neglect. Period. It doesn't have anything to do with their freedom to direct their child's upbringing. It has to do with not providing for their child's health and well being. Your logic is completely convoluted. Unless, that is, you truly believe that parents have the right to invoke religious belief as justification for the death of a child, or the abuse of a child.

If your child had an allergy to Advil, and you insisted on using it anyway despite having been told that it could result in the death of your child, then you have just murdered your child. You don't have the right to do that.

And a choice between Advil and Tylenol is still providing accepted medical treatment. It is not a comparable situation.

 

[KarissaMann05]

It's about their constitutional right to freedom of religious expression and their right to direct a child's upbringing. They have done chemotherapy but the tumor came back. Perhaps the parents think it does not work. That's why they're seeking for alternative way. I don't think I would want the government to tell me to use Tylenol for my child when I want to use Advil just because they say Tylenol is more effective.

Yeah... I just re-read the story and I am aware that parents' choice seemingly is pretty not a good choice and it's silly to do as I thought. But I don't realize that government can interfere them! I thought it's not suppose to do so??

Sighs! Oh, dear... I'm now more worried about my future children if it could happen to me.

*scoffs* Freedom of Religions? Nope, it's all joke. :roll: