I still think religion can produce ignorance

One question not answered is where is the Attorney ad Leiden for the child? I believe in some states its the law with any child in the court system....When I went to court for paternity my kid was appoint one even though her mom had her own...

Should this be mandatory for all minors in the court system regardless whether the parents have counsel? IMO yes

Nice to see you have the balls to actually answer a simple question with a simple answer. While I do have serious conflicted feelings on the issue I'm still of a mind that there are times when a religious belief is going to cause death it may be appropriate to step in. IMO there should atleast be some allowance for the wishes of the child in cases of life and death.

One question not answered is where is the Attorney ad Leiden for the child? I believe in some states its the law with any child in the court system....When I went to court for paternity my kid was appoint one even though her mom had her own...

Should this be mandatory for all minors in the court system regardless whether the parents have counsel? IMO yes

Daniel's court-appointed attorney, Philip Elbert, called the decision unfortunate.

i asked this same question way back in the beginning of this thread

but

after rereading the article more closely i did see this:



i guess i read it to fast or thought daniels was the last name of those involved


either way obviously the judge is going against the boys wishes

I still think religion can produce ignorance

We set age limits on alot of things because we feel kids are not mature enough to make the right choices..What would be the age you would say the child should have that say???? What if the child was say 6 years old?

Nice to see you have the balls to actually answer a simple question with a simple answer. While I do have serious conflicted feelings on the issue I'm still of a mind that there are times when a religious belief is going to cause death it may be appropriate to step in. IMO there should atleast be some allowance for the wishes of the child in cases of life and death.

"I'm still of a mind that there are times when a religious belief is going to cause death it may be appropriate to step in. IMO there should atleast be some allowance for the wishes of the child in cases of life and death."

I agree, we need only look around to see examples of it.

Not all Christians are the proverbial sheep stereo-type as some people may think. Most have brains and would have to agree here...



I am not a sheep! *Baa Baa* (I have no idea where that sound came from). Sorry.

I am also one of the most freedom loving people you'll ever meet.

I repeat...I have to agree there are instances where someone has to step in...all the facts to this can't really be presented in a few paragraphs either as in OP.

But first and foremost I ask myself is it my business how they choose to treat their son's illness? To read some posts you'd think the parents were refusing treatment for him altogether. Or they were torturing him or something horrible.

Too many facts missing to draw concrete conclusion or opinion really about this for me like...

How sane are the parents?
What stage is his cancer?
Is it an immediate threat to his life?
What is his understanding of his illness and treatment alternatives?
Is his alternative treatment helping?
What is cure rate VS side effects of each treatment?
ETC.

Hopefully his parents have sense and will make the appropriate desicions at the right time to help their own child, whom I am sure they probably want the best treatment for since he is theirs.

It would take an extreme situation for me... like abuse or neglect before anyones rights should be infringed upon.

Not enough information for me in the OP for me to have an opinion really, sorry...But that is why we have laws and such.

Is this a case of neglect or abuse?

I need more info.

ignorance can ot be produced only destroyed

ignorance is the lack of knowledge of something

ignorance can only be destroyed (by gaining knowledge)

stupidity on the other hand is the inability or refusal to gain knowledge

religion can create stupidity for sure as can love or hate

or anything one truly believes in

but religion is a constitutionally protected right

(even if it creates stupidity)

Saving the child over the parents rights is really what this is about. Forcing the boy to do conventional medecine over the other holistic treatment. With a judge setting a time frame. Hmmm! I guess it is a good demonstration of rights being revoked if conventional methods aren't inposed during a terminal illness.

It is a messed up situation at best. Reminds me of the woman's parents who fought over her feeding tube removal at the wishes of her remarried husband. Her parents desire for her to stay alive and to continue being kept alive on machines.

It is f@%ked up. I am just saying forced medical treatment seems wrong, while at the same time it seems crucial in this scenario. IWould it make a difference though if he had an infectious disease though instead of cancer?

What if he had AIDS or Tuberculosis? or Swine flu? Would that make a difference?



What if the kid was a disabled adult?

What if he was 8 instead of 13?

What if he cut his arm off and his parents wanted the God's to heal him?

Just where is the line drawn? Should the government just sit back and say" Oh we don't want to infringe on their rights?"



It is a f&$ked up situation at best.

using your argument can strip every right protected by the bill of rights

if a gun could lead to death ban them

if speaking on the street corner a a group of people concur gate a motor vehicle could hit them thus possibly causing death

if an article in the news paper is upsetting to some one that then kills a person spoken of in the article then ban news

shall i go on

the rights in the bill of rights are there for a reason

you start playing with them then soon there will be nothing to play with

i see the constitution as being the priority

Not hardly. I asked you questions repeatedly yesterday and every time you subverted the question. I finally made a very simple yes or no question conforming to all your little BS excuses for not answering and you simply ignored the question. In the other thread where you requested that I send you a link via email to prove my point (since I felt the link could be me booted from the site if I posted it publically). I met that request and you refused to even open the email. Arguing with you is like arguing with a brick wall only the brick wall often makes more sense.