Say Anything: Judicial Tyranny In The United States
robert108
· 3 years ago
Only a highly socialized healthcare system would enforce its dictates on a private citizen. In a true free enterprise system, the consumer has choices, including the option of no medical treatment at all. When we lose the right to say "no", we lose a good part of our freedom.
caseydk
· 3 years ago
Why is it that a woman - as young as 12 in some cases - can make decisions about her body without involvement from anyone else but this boy can't do the same?
Sherard
· 3 years ago
Funniest thing is that if this kid out and out wished to die (which he is effectively doing), you guys would be against THAT, too.
Plucky
· 3 years ago
What your post goes through great pains to hide is the "alternative treatment" is marijuana. Unlike California, it's illegal to use it for medical usage. What do you expect the judge to do, authorize the kid to toke up? That would be judicial activism. By the same token, if the kid decided to take the natural cure of... say... sex with wild animals... are we going to condone that too?
The social worker's comments show that she's a bit of a hardcase, but let's see this for what it is, the judge telling the kid's parents that they can't let the kid do illegal things. If you don't like this being illegal, change the law. It is what it is right now, and the judge has to apply it.
richard
· 3 years ago
It is just another example of the courts looking at "OUR" children as property of the state.
Plucky it isn't the method of his treatment that I find offensive be it smoking some hooter, screwing a sheep or praying to the moon. It is that the court is forcing their form of acceptable treatment upon him.
Forgive me but I missed the part about life, liberty and the pusuit of our pre-determined health care for your child.
caseydk
· 3 years ago
Funniest thing is that if this kid out and out wished to die (which he is effectively doing), you guys would be against THAT, too.
Uh, not quite. If a person has a stated desire to die, they should be able to do so themselves however they want.
The government should not be able to: a) make medical for someone based on heresay or b) compel someone to get a procedure against their will *unless* they've surrendered their rights to the state.
The Whistler
· 3 years ago
"It's for the Kiiiids"
They can't force adults to do it, yet. They create the precedents by using extreme action (kid with an infection that the parents won't allow treated with 100% safe antibiotics).
After that it becomes the social workers authority to order you around.
Pilgrim
· 3 years ago
Marijuana? Diet? So what? Just what difference does it make to ANYONE outside of that family what course of treatment they decide on for that boy's illness?
If they decide that to try a treatment that involves swinging a dead cat around their heads three times under the light of a full moon the ONLY one who should object to that should be the cat.
Note to the government and any other busy bodies who take it upon themselves to force their medical morals and self righteous intrusions on others: Shutup, back off, and read the Constitution of the United States. Sheesh.
Democritus
· 3 years ago
caseydk,
What do you think of Oregon's "right to die" law?
Mrs. R.
· 3 years ago
Funniest thing is that if this kid out and out wished to die (which he is effectively doing), you guys would be against THAT, too.
You're wrong. If someone with a terminal condition chooses to die, that's their business. The only problem I have with such cases is if a two-timing husband says his severly disabled wife would want to die under the circumstances and the state kills her without any documentation or evidence to substantiate that. While she may, indeed, wish to die, there needs to be some proof of that.
If signed paperwork is required to sell a car, signed paperwork (a living will) should also be required when withholding food and water from a disabled person.
As for chemo, do you know anybody who survived chemo, and who didn't take an immediate turn for the worse once they did? I don't. I've know about a dozen people over the years (family members, friends, and acquaintences), and none survived more than a few short months once they started chemo. Another family member, however, refused it, opting only for surgery, and survived another ten years.
So to state this 16-year-old is "effectively" opting to die because he is refusing the chemo is also a gross misstatement.
Marty
· 3 years ago
Liberals are so predictable. Where are the "death with dignity" advocates right now?
Is it just me, or did anyone else notice the absurdity of the State forcing a minor child to endure painful and uncertain chemotherapy against both his and his parents wishes, while on the other hand they support the right of minor children to cross state lines against the will of their parents, when they seek an abortion?
The only thing liberals like more than undermining the authority of parents is killing a child outright.
All Comments
The social worker's comments show that she's a bit of a hardcase, but let's see this for what it is, the judge telling the kid's parents that they can't let the kid do illegal things. If you don't like this being illegal, change the law. It is what it is right now, and the judge has to apply it.
Plucky it isn't the method of his treatment that I find offensive be it smoking some hooter, screwing a sheep or praying to the moon. It is that the court is forcing their form of acceptable treatment upon him.
Forgive me but I missed the part about life, liberty and the pusuit of our pre-determined health care for your child.
Uh, not quite. If a person has a stated desire to die, they should be able to do so themselves however they want.
The government should not be able to:
a) make medical for someone based on heresay or
b) compel someone to get a procedure against their will *unless* they've surrendered their rights to the state.
They can't force adults to do it, yet. They create the precedents by using extreme action (kid with an infection that the parents won't allow treated with 100% safe antibiotics).
After that it becomes the social workers authority to order you around.
If they decide that to try a treatment that involves swinging a dead cat around their heads three times under the light of a full moon the ONLY one who should object to that should be the cat.
Note to the government and any other busy bodies who take it upon themselves to force their medical morals and self righteous intrusions on others: Shutup, back off, and read the Constitution of the United States. Sheesh.
What do you think of Oregon's "right to die" law?
You're wrong. If someone with a terminal condition chooses to die, that's their business. The only problem I have with such cases is if a two-timing husband says his severly disabled wife would want to die under the circumstances and the state kills her without any documentation or evidence to substantiate that. While she may, indeed, wish to die, there needs to be some proof of that.
If signed paperwork is required to sell a car, signed paperwork (a living will) should also be required when withholding food and water from a disabled person.
As for chemo, do you know anybody who survived chemo, and who didn't take an immediate turn for the worse once they did? I don't. I've know about a dozen people over the years (family members, friends, and acquaintences), and none survived more than a few short months once they started chemo. Another family member, however, refused it, opting only for surgery, and survived another ten years.
So to state this 16-year-old is "effectively" opting to die because he is refusing the chemo is also a gross misstatement.
Is it just me, or did anyone else notice the absurdity of the State forcing a minor child to endure painful and uncertain chemotherapy against both his and his parents wishes, while on the other hand they support the right of minor children to cross state lines against the will of their parents, when they seek an abortion?
The only thing liberals like more than undermining the authority of parents is killing a child outright.
if so I don't get what you are trying to say because Virginia is a very much conservative state.