Connecticut Force Chemotherapy On Teen

Cubo de Sangre said:
That's not correct. I was poo-pooing that the AMA's opinion is more important than one's faith while pointing out that they've got a great chance of killing you in the process of making you better.
Click to expand...

They do not have a "great chance" of killing you. This girl's survival rate with treatment is estimated at 85%.
 
ripskater said:
It's pretty scary what this country is coming to.
Click to expand...

It really is. Here in this day and age you have people who are so anti-basic medical science/anti-reality that they are refusing basic, life saving treatment based on superstitious beliefs as if they were raised in the third world and thought their diseases were caused by malevolent spirits.
 
kpt018 said:
Ok. So what is your position? If they are a minor they have to get parental consent?
Click to expand...

No one can give consent to the murder of an innocent baby. /ripskater

Except Yahweh that one time with Abraham. Probably a bunch of other times too.
 
kpt018 said:
Ok. So what is your position? If they are a minor they have to get parental consent?
Click to expand...

"A child can choose whether or not they want to get pregnant, so they are clearly developed enough to make life or death decisions."


pre-emptive response:

"She's already choosing life or death by aborting a LIVING BABY!!!!"


Here we find that we're not having the same conversation. One is talking about medical issues, the other is appealing to emotion with non-facts based in a religious background.

And so goes the circle.
 
TheBox said:
They do not have a "great chance" of killing you. This girl's survival rate with treatment is estimated at 85%.
Click to expand...

Jesus dude, are you in the health care profession? :)

I'm talking about the estimated 100k-200k preventable deaths that take place each year due to seeking treatment. "Great" was used in regards to that. Dying from the actual cancer would not be what I consider being killed by the medical profession.
 
mesomorph said:
No one can give consent to the murder of an innocent baby. /ripskater

Except Yahweh that one time with Abraham. Probably a bunch of other times too.
Click to expand...

Ayin said:
"A child can choose whether or not they want to get pregnant, so they are clearly developed enough to make life or death decisions."


pre-emptive response:

"She's already choosing life or death by aborting a LIVING BABY!!!!"


Here we find that we're not having the same conversation. One is talking about medical issues, the other is appealing to emotion with non-facts based in a religious background.

And so goes the circle.
Click to expand...

Ha! I know he's a religious wingnut, but I wanted to give him a chance to respond. I really don't see how the two are related, unless he wants to talk about how we legally define a consenting adult. I already know he opposes abortion.
 
Well, despite my dismissive response, I'm certainly supportive of everyone contributing to this thread. It's just SO obvious why that argument was inserted, what the response is going to be, where it's going to go, ect. Just thought I'd save time.
 
Cubo de Sangre said:
What logic was I using in that post? Show me what definition of abuse you are using.
Click to expand...

1.- The logic that since the state is mandating that you care for your child, the state must provide for your child.

2.- Denying medically indicated treatment that seriously jeopardizes the well-being of the child.

Considering this particular cancer has an 85% chance of full recovery vs 100% chance of horrible death of untreated lymphoma.
 
Cubo de Sangre said:
Jesus dude, are you in the health care profession? :)

I'm talking about the estimated 100k-200k preventable deaths that take place each year due to seeking treatment. "Great" was used in regards to that. Dying from the actual cancer would not be what I consider being killed by the medical profession.
Click to expand...

Those deaths are practically unavoidable risks statistically speaking, whats your point that we simply stop using things that carry a risk?

How many people die from food allergies? solution? ban food.
 
Rod1 said:
1.- The logic that since the state is mandating that you care for your child, the state must provide for your child.

2.- Denying medically indicated treatment that seriously jeopardizes the well-being of the child.

Considering this particular cancer has an 85% chance of full recovery vs 100% chance of horrible death of untreated lymphoma.
Click to expand...

The state isn't demanding "care". They are demanding unnatural medical services be performed at the cost of the individual/family.

I don't know what medically indicated means, and I asked for a definition of abuse (not an example of something that you think is).

Rod1 said:
Those deaths are practically unavoidable risks statistically speaking, whats your point that we simply stop using things that carry a risk?

How many people die from food allergies? solution? ban food.
Click to expand...

I made a specific claim and you seem to want to generalize it so that you can bait me into saying something you can argue with. Why don't you address what I actually said instead of reaching for wild extrapolations? The medical profession is there to help when asked, not to force you to utilize its services even when it conflicts with your religious/personal views. Me bringing up the deaths they cause is to demonstrate that they are nowhere near infallible. You can agree or disagree that it factors into the argument for you, but please stop wasting my time with more assumptions resulting in asinine parallels.

The perfectly reasonable parallel I brought up seems to have driven the other poster out of the thread. Maybe you'll address it. Do you believe in making parents pay for their child's education as much as you do their (unwanted) health care? So far all of the same reasoning put forth seems to apply yet everywhere you go the state is paying to educate (take care of) people's children.
 
Cubo de Sangre said:
The state isn't demanding "care". They are demanding unnatural medical services be performed at the cost of the individual/family.
Click to expand...

No medical treatment is 'natural'. No education is either. Nothing we do is 'natural' by the definition that no other animal does it. Probably just a poor word choice, but if not, a terrible argument.
 
Ayin said:
No medical treatment is 'natural'. No education is either. Nothing we do is 'natural' by the definition that no other animal does it. Probably just a poor word choice, but if not, a terrible argument.
Click to expand...

Would you have something of value to add if I just left that word out and not confused you with that subtle interjection?

You for or against public education?
 
That's why i gave you the option of 'poor word choice'. Good decision to go with that and not the 'it's not natural' argument.
 
Cancer treatments are often terrible, and drain the life from people as much as if not more so in some cases than the disease. It's really unfortunate that that is often the best treatment people can receive.
 
Cubo de Sangre said:
Jesus dude, are you in the health care profession? :)
Click to expand...

No, though my fiance is.

Cubo de Sangre said:
I'm talking about the estimated 100k-200k preventable deaths that take place each year due to seeking treatment. "Great" was used in regards to that. Dying from the actual cancer would not be what I consider being killed by the medical profession.
Click to expand...

I was aware that you were talking generally about iatrogenic deaths. Not all are preventable, by the way. The fact that some people die due to medical mistakes or risky treatments doesn't mean that the medical opinion of doctors on this girl's case shouldn't be given a million times more weight than her mother's quackery.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,907
Messages
55,454,416
Members
174,786
Latest member
ljae89

Share this page

Back
Top