State doesn't let mom make medical decision for daughter with cancer

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: ScepticScot

It just shows how poor your position is that you have to resort to personal attacks and out right lies about what someone said. In fact it shows how poor your character is.

I have made no attacks on you that you have not first made on the woman we are talking about.

TheRedneck

Link to where I called her a bad parent.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Firstly I don't believe I did say she was a bad parent.

If you believe that it is appropriate to jail a parent and force one's will on them without them being a bad parent... well, I don't know what to say. That is actually scary. Were you trying to say she was a good parent, but needed to go to jail for being a good parent?

I would hope that her being a bad parent was at least implied in your position.

It also seems very much like post fact rationalisation

Of course it does. no one likes to be forced to realize they are their own enemy.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

There are limits, yes. But the question then becomes, who sets those limits?

It seems like you and I are talking about one thing and others just want to harp on alternative treatment.
That is not what this is about.

It is only about once thing and one thing only Choice and parental rights. What happens when that mother (or any parent) says she doesn't want to do Chemo but wants to do another treatment provided by another conventional doctor (not alternative), what then?You best be sure we are going to see those days. I gave that chickenpox example and it flew over some posters head (pun intended)

a reply to: JAGStorm

That usually happens when people try and force their views onto circumstances that do not meet with those views.

Life is not simple, not is it black-and-white. That's why I always go back to my tenets of belief when confronted with an issue. One of those is the bond between a parent and child, and another is ownership of oneself. Yeah, this may be one of those cases where a tragic mistake is being made, but if we abandon our tenets for it, those tenets become blurred and useless when they really do matter.

That's what happened to ScepticScot. He went against his tenets and found himself in direct opposition to himself. At times like that, the only two reasonable options are to admit defeat or try and argue something else. It is hard for some people to admit they might have been wrong.

With OtherSideOfTheCoin, I would say it's just a superiority complex... that's nigh impossible to change, unfortunately.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: ScepticScot

Firstly I don't believe I did say she was a bad parent.

If you believe that it is appropriate to jail a parent and force one's will on them without them being a bad parent... well, I don't know what to say. That is actually scary. Were you trying to say she was a good parent, but needed to go to jail for being a good parent?

I would hope that her being a bad parent was at least implied in your position.

It also seems very much like post fact rationalisation

Of course it does. no one likes to be forced to realize they are their own enemy.

TheRedneck

Since you clearly can't show where I said she was a bad parent perhaps you can show where I said it was appropriate for her to go to jail?

Or perhaps you prefer to just keep making stuff up in the hope it sticks?

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: JAGStorm

That usually happens when people try and force their views onto circumstances that do not meet with those views.

Life is not simple, not is it black-and-white. That's why I always go back to my tenets of belief when confronted with an issue. One of those is the bond between a parent and child, and another is ownership of oneself. Yeah, this may be one of those cases where a tragic mistake is being made, but if we abandon our tenets for it, those tenets become blurred and useless when they really do matter.

That's what happened to ScepticScot. He went against his tenets and found himself in direct opposition to himself. At times like that, the only two reasonable options are to admit defeat or try and argue something else. It is hard for some people to admit they might have been wrong.

With OtherSideOfTheCoin, I would say it's just a superiority complex... that's nigh impossible to change, unfortunately.

TheRedneck

Again with the personal attacks because you can't actually argue the points raised.

My position is pretty simple to understand. Your (delibrate?) failure to do so says more about you than your repeated personal and inaccurate attacks on other posters do about them.

originally posted by: JAGStorm
a reply to: TheRedneck

There are limits, yes. But the question then becomes, who sets those limits?

It seems like you and I are talking about one thing and others just want to harp on alternative treatment.
That is not what this is about.

It is only about once thing and one thing only Choice and parental rights. What happens when that mother (or any parent) says she doesn't want to do Chemo but wants to do another treatment provided by another conventional doctor (not alternative), what then?You best be sure we are going to see those days. I gave that chickenpox example and it flew over some posters head (pun intended)

Parental choice has it limits. If a parent is making a choice that clearly will result in harm to their child then the courts have an obligation to intervene.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: JAGStorm
a reply to: TheRedneck

There are limits, yes. But the question then becomes, who sets those limits?

It seems like you and I are talking about one thing and others just want to harp on alternative treatment.
That is not what this is about.

It is only about once thing and one thing only Choice and parental rights. What happens when that mother (or any parent) says she doesn't want to do Chemo but wants to do another treatment provided by another conventional doctor (not alternative), what then?You best be sure we are going to see those days. I gave that chickenpox example and it flew over some posters head (pun intended)

Parental choice has it limits. If a parent is making a choice that clearly will result in harm to their child then the courts have an obligation to intervene.

And what will happen if Kylee dies from the operation?

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: JAGStorm
a reply to: TheRedneck

There are limits, yes. But the question then becomes, who sets those limits?

It seems like you and I are talking about one thing and others just want to harp on alternative treatment.
That is not what this is about.

It is only about once thing and one thing only Choice and parental rights. What happens when that mother (or any parent) says she doesn't want to do Chemo but wants to do another treatment provided by another conventional doctor (not alternative), what then?You best be sure we are going to see those days. I gave that chickenpox example and it flew over some posters head (pun intended)

Parental choice has it limits. If a parent is making a choice that clearly will result in harm to their child then the courts have an obligation to intervene.

And what will happen if Kylee dies from the operation?

Then it would be tragic for all those involved especially her mother.

However if the best chance of her surviving is to the have the operation, and there are no reasonable alternatives, then that is what should be done.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: Xtrozero
Not enough is known about the miracle herb..... yet.

Teressa Mays husband is the largest investor for GW Pharmaceticals.... the worlds largest producer of cannibis.

Kylees mother said that the tumour had reduced by 90%.......however that has not been publicly verified by doctors.

If doctors had verified it then what do you think would happen to cancer industry?

Well if we can take this from conspiracy to reality that would be good. Saying "miracle herb" doesn't make it so and sounds more like a agenda driven narrative than anything else. We are not the only country on earth, it is hard to suggest your miracle herb is being held back by big pharm for profit when we have India and China that would easily run with it if it was true. Add in maybe another 100 countries not part of big pharm and how all of a sudden is it discovered in 2019?

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

And what will happen if Kylee dies from the operation?

What are her chances with CBD oil?

a reply to: ScepticScot

Since you clearly can't show where I said she was a bad parent perhaps you can show where I said it was appropriate for her to go to jail?

Her being arrested is the entire point of the thread.

Normally, I don't care to go back 2 pages and repost something someone has just said because it seems so redundant... but in this case, since you just stated it again, here you go:

originally posted by: ScepticScot

Parental choice has it limits. If a parent is making a choice that clearly will result in harm to their child then the courts have an obligation to intervene.

"Clearly will result in harm to the child" is called "bad parenting."

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: JAGStorm

I read it more like mom is a CBD fanatic that has bought into the CBD will cure anything nonsense.

Mom brainwashed the daughter to believe the same and she's scared of the surgery because mom is a nut.

The surgery is needed to save the kids life, but mom, being a fanatic, is risking her kids life on folk medicine and ignoring the doctors.

The State is trying to save the kids life despite the nutty mom.

CBD is becoming a religion for some. It's comparable to religions where people would let a child die, rather than have real medical help.

The 13-year-old maintains that she does not want the surgery. Instead, she wants to resume the course of treatment her mom insists would work: CBD oil.

Then the mom has stated her tumor has been reduced by 90% with zero medical verification. I'm thinking the mom is as you say a fanatic.

Looking at cancers it seems liver is the second worst with only prostate with a lower chance to survive and if you let it get to stage III you are dead no matter what.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

And what will happen if Kylee dies from the operation?

What are her chances with CBD oil?

How long does she have even if she has the op and more chemo?
And what will the quaility of the rest of her life be like?

a reply to: Xtrozero
It was also not denied by doctors.

originally posted by: TheRedneck

No cancer is 100% fatal unless in the final stages. Cancer can and has gone into spontaneous remission. That may be rare with certain types, and almost nonexistent after a certain stage, but it does happen. The treatment is also, as touted by a medical professional here, only 50-70% effective, not 90%.

Being the second worst survivable cancer with only pancreas being worst 50% to 70% is actually really good. BTW here is her chances of living through the surgery. Once again why not do both, I really see very little actual risk in the surgery and nothing says the mother can not continue CBD oil treatment. I think the real issue would be if the state refused her from trying CBD oil and no one is.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

It was also not denied by doctors.

I don't understand your point. Doctors have not seen her to say one way or another, only her mom is saying it is reduced by 90%.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

How long does she have even if she has the op and more chemo?
And what will the quaility of the rest of her life be like?

The surgery is extremely low risk... there is zero reason to not do it. As to chemo, she has the second worst cancer one can get, so you better prey CBD oil is the miracle of miracles to cure her...

I'm not going to debate this, I would not just rely on one thing when I can do them all. I'm not saying to not do CBD oil, I'm saying do all that you can.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: ScepticScot

Since you clearly can't show where I said she was a bad parent perhaps you can show where I said it was appropriate for her to go to jail?

Her being arrested is the entire point of the thread.

Normally, I don't care to go back 2 pages and repost something someone has just said because it seems so redundant... but in this case, since you just stated it again, here you go:

originally posted by: ScepticScot

Parental choice has it limits. If a parent is making a choice that clearly will result in harm to their child then the courts have an obligation to intervene.

"Clearly will result in harm to the child" is called "bad parenting."

TheRedneck

The title of the thread says different.

You can't back up either of your claims of what I said because I didn't say it. Are you mistaken or a liar?

Making a bad decision under an extremely stressful situation ( as already covered in a previous post) doesn't make automatically make someone a bad parent. It shows one of the reasons why parents do not have absolute say on what medical treatment a child should get.

You don't have the right to let your child die. That really shouldn't need explained but apparently to you it does.

a reply to: Xtrozero

I really don't have a problem with her having the surgery, or even the chemo for that matter. Your proposal of try both makes sense to me. That would likely be what I would be thinking in the mother's place.

But remember that is me sitting in my shop typing on an internet forum. I am not there. It is not my child (thankfully!). I, like the doctors, will suffer no direct injury if she lives or dies, save to my desire for all children to grow up happy, healthy, and strong.

If I had to guess, the operation is not the issue; it seems the chemo is, and perhaps that operation requires chemo afterward. An operation is not like replacing a bad fuel pump; there are no bolts to take out and put back in. They all have complications, just some complications, hopefully most of them, are minor annoyances (like my chest still feeling like it's perpetually asleep). Chemo itself has some pretty serious complications, like a weakened immune system and other physical ailments... one could look at chemo as an attempt to kill both the patient and the cancer, in the hopes that the patient out-survives the cancer.

I can easily, based on my own experiences with overly zealous doctors, see a situation where the doctors were gung-ho with chemo and refused to listen to the mother's concerns. Like I tried earlier to explain to TherOtherSideOfTheCoin, in that situation I would likely refuse treatment too, because I would not believe the doctors had my child's best interests at heart. I certainly would not believe so now; I would consider this court action a direct physical assault on my child!

That is the heart of why a person has the right to refuse medical care; anything more, regardless of the reasons why, is likely to be seen as a direct attack on one's person. If someone I did not trust came up to me and said "I am going to cut you open, mess around with your insides, sew you back up, and hope you live long enough for me to take every penny you ever thought about making to compensate me for it," I would be running for cover or firing a weapon! But that is what some doctors will say to a person, and expect that person to thank them for it. There is more to being a medical professional than learning names for various body parts and drugs; there is also something called a "bedside manner" that is becoming less and less common. The right approach, an approach that shows respect and compassion for the patient, can do wonders to avoid these types of situations.

I would personally like to see the court order an examination of the child before rendering any verdict, just so we can know what the tumor is doing. As you say, the mother's claims have apparently not been verified.

TheRedneck