Big win for new age medicine fans and faith healers!

originally posted by: Grimpachi
I am looking at this a bit different than some others here. Some are debating the right to die and I don't see that as the issue in this case at all.

Based on the article the 11-year-old wasn't expecting to die nor was she asking for the right to die.

She had a dream. A dream that Jesus told her she was cured.

Some think an 11-year-old is mature enough to make life-critical decisions but how many think it is mature to make life decisions based on their dreams?

Now the parents went along with it for whatever reasons the article's don't really say. They do say during the course of Chemo the leukemia went into remission and later the family pursued some type of holistic medicine. A doctor is on record saying the leukemia came back and there are no known cases of people surviving that illness without the full course of chemo.

We also know she died of a stroke and that patients with leukemia are at a major risk of stroke from the illness. The parents claim the chemo is responsible for the stroke so I am wondering if they believe that enough to sue or if that is just something they are telling themselves because they don't want to imagine they made a bad choice and lost their daughter.

So I am thinking she probably didn't see Jesus in her dream because I don't think Jesus would lie which means it probably wasn't a good idea to base medical life-critical medical decisions off of a little 11-year old girls dreams.

Remember nothing in the article's say she chose to die.

I think the question is whether a child can be forced to undergo medical treatments known to cause suffering with no guarantee of a cure. Do parents have the right to put a child through that against the child's wishes? In other words, do children or should children have legal autonomy?

It is really simple.

The child did not want further Chemo.

The parents did not want further chemo.

Together, the family made a choice.

Who are we to look in, without the intense suffering, to say otherwise.

It was the right choice for them.

Why is it right for society, represented by the State, to make other choices that involve intense suffering for a child?

P

a reply to: Grimpachi

Let say that afterlife is a fact even if many people here have no real proof of it.

The question for me really becomes. Was there any need for her to stay that is good enough for her to endure the suffering?

originally posted by: LittleByLittle
a reply to: Grimpachi

Let say that afterlife is a fact even if many people here have no real proof of it.

The question for me really becomes. Was there any need for her to stay that is good enough for her to endure the suffering?

"...if many people have no real proof of it (ie. afterlife)"? Who are the people who do have proof of it? What is the proof?

I think this comes down to whether the child has a right to make decisions about her life, without regard to anyone else's opinion.

a reply to: Tangerine

In other words, do children or should children have legal autonomy?

No, honestly I don't think they should. A child may have a high IQ however they does not mean they possess the knowledge/education or faculties to make wise decisions. They have not lived long enough to acquire the experiences to be wise.

Society has determined an age appropriate for children to be responsible for themselves generally that age is after they have had adequate time to finish a minimum amount of education. This is the reason why there are age restrictions on so many items and activities such as driving, alcohol, tobacco, firearms, employment in some regions even buying a lighter as well as many other things. Most adults do not understand medical procedures very well so it is highly unlikely a child at the age of 11 could.

That is my answer to children having legal autonomy, but that doesn't even play into this instance.

The child had a dream...a dream that Jesus said she was cured. Her parents for whatever reasons went along with it.

She didn't decide to forgo chemo and die she thought she was cured because of a dream. A dream.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Tangerine

In other words, do children or should children have legal autonomy?

No, honestly I don't think they should. A child may have a high IQ however they does not possess the knowledge/education or faculties to make wise decisions. They have not lived long enough to acquire the experiences to be wise.

Society has determined an age appropriate for children to be responsible for themselves generally that age is after they have had adequate time to finish a minimum amount of education. This is the reason why there are age restrictions on so many items and activities such as driving, alcohol, tobacco, firearms, employment in some regions even buying a lighter as well as many other things. Most adults do not understand medical procedures very well so it is highly unlikely a child at the age of 11 could.

That is my answer to children having legal autonomy, but that doesn't even play into this instance.

The child had a dream...a dream that Jesus said she was cured. Her parents for whatever reasons went along with it.

She didn't decide to forgo chemo and die she thought she was cured because of a dream. A dream.

I understand your position, however adults, even highly intelligent adults, often make decisions for less than rational reasons. Besides, who is to say whether your degree of suffering is worth a possible positive outcome if not you? This case isn't about driving a car or joining the military or smoking; it's about whether or not this child would undergo intense suffering. Plenty of adults have decided to forgo chemo because they thought Jesus would heal them. Should this child not have the same right? Certainly, the doctors informed her that she was not healed yet she chose to believe otherwise. This is a very complex ethical argument. I'm not sure there is a right answer but I do think the law needs to more clearly establish the rights of children.

a reply to: Tangerine
As it is now, children are not considered people, they are considered property.

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Tangerine

In other words, do children or should children have legal autonomy?

No, honestly I don't think they should. A child may have a high IQ however they does not possess the knowledge/education or faculties to make wise decisions. They have not lived long enough to acquire the experiences to be wise.

Society has determined an age appropriate for children to be responsible for themselves generally that age is after they have had adequate time to finish a minimum amount of education. This is the reason why there are age restrictions on so many items and activities such as driving, alcohol, tobacco, firearms, employment in some regions even buying a lighter as well as many other things. Most adults do not understand medical procedures very well so it is highly unlikely a child at the age of 11 could.

That is my answer to children having legal autonomy, but that doesn't even play into this instance.

The child had a dream...a dream that Jesus said she was cured. Her parents for whatever reasons went along with it.

She didn't decide to forgo chemo and die she thought she was cured because of a dream. A dream.

I understand your position, however adults, even highly intelligent adults, often make decisions for less than rational reasons. Besides, who is to say whether your degree of suffering is worth a possible positive outcome if not you? This case isn't about driving a car or joining the military or smoking; it's about whether or not this child would undergo intense suffering. Plenty of adults have decided to forgo chemo because they thought Jesus would heal them. Should this child not have the same right? Certainly, the doctors informed her that she was not healed yet she chose to believe otherwise. This is a very complex ethical argument. I'm not sure there is a right answer, but I do think the law needs to more clearly establish the rights of children.

There is no doubt that adults have made decisions for less rational reasons, but that in no way means children should be making adult decisions. If anything I think that is even more reason why children should not have autonomy. If someone thinks children are wise enough to make life and death medical decisions why not give them a gun, alcohol, the car keys and let them skip out on school to go work for a living. That it pretty absurd.

She did get her way based off of a dream that she was cured and now she is dead at 11-years old. End of story, there will be no more dreams for her.

I haven't voiced an opinion of the parents or the child anywhere in the thread. What is done is done I just think the whole thing is sad.

a reply to: Grimpachi

I certainly agree that it is sad, although I'm not at all sure the end-result wouldn't have been sad either way. I don't think making a decision based on a dream is any less foolish than basing it on a 2,000 year-old book. I still say the time to prevent this sort of thing is before people breed.