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

a reply to: Xtrozero

I have just read online that liver resection can have serious complications such as a heart attack....... apparently 1 in 30 die during or shortly after the operation.

a reply to: ScepticScot

The title of the thread says different.

Excuse me, but this is not Twitter. If you only debate the title of a thread, you are often seriously misinformed. There is a whole linked news article as well as several other sources of information that have been given, and the gist of the OP is about parental rights in this case.

That said, I did go back and look at the linked news article; it does not say the mother was arrested, only that her child was taken and is in foster care. That was my mistake.

You can't back up either of your claims of what I said

I already did. Are you now claiming that the mother is a good parent? Pick a side, man!

You oppose any intervention in the prescribed medical care, while declaring that the mother is endangering the child's life by choosing an alternate treatment. Then you say that you never claimed the mother was a bad parent. Now, which is it? Do you support removing a child from its mother's custody because the mother is not a bad parent? Or are you trying to say that endangering one's child's life is the sign of a good parent?

You are arguing in circles with yourself.

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.

Ah, so she is a good parent as long as she agrees with medical advice, but a bad parent when she doesn't! So we'll just take her child when she is a bad parent and give it back when she is a good parent, right?

You really should understand the dangers in your arguments. Are you OK with someone deciding to take your child away from you because you don't agree with them? What you deem proper for others to endure you may be required to endure as well.

You don't have the right to let your child die.

I never said one did. I said one has the right to determine the best procedure for themselves or their charges. Hopefully, that decision is based on sound medical advise, but whether it is or not is no reason to relieve one of basic human rights.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: ScepticScot

The title of the thread says different.

Excuse me, but this is not Twitter. If you only debate the title of a thread, you are often seriously misinformed. There is a whole linked news article as well as several other sources of information that have been given, and the gist of the OP is about parental rights in this case.

That said, I did go back and look at the linked news article; it does not say the mother was arrested, only that her child was taken and is in foster care. That was my mistake.

You can't back up either of your claims of what I said

I already did. Are you now claiming that the mother is a good parent? Pick a side, man!

You oppose any intervention in the prescribed medical care, while declaring that the mother is endangering the child's life by choosing an alternate treatment. Then you say that you never claimed the mother was a bad parent. Now, which is it? Do you support removing a child from its mother's custody because the mother is not a bad parent? Or are you trying to say that endangering one's child's life is the sign of a good parent?

You are arguing in circles with yourself.

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.

Ah, so she is a good parent as long as she agrees with medical advice, but a bad parent when she doesn't! So we'll just take her child when she is a bad parent and give it back when she is a good parent, right?

You really should understand the dangers in your arguments. Are you OK with someone deciding to take your child away from you because you don't agree with them? What you deem proper for others to endure you may be required to endure as well.

You don't have the right to let your child die.

I never said one did. I said one has the right to determine the best procedure for themselves or their charges. Hopefully, that decision is based on sound medical advise, but whether it is or not is no reason to relieve one of basic human rights.

TheRedneck

Your ability to continually make stuff is actually quite impressive.

Your defence of your claim that I an ok with the mother being arrested is that the OP is about parental rights(not about her arrest) and it doesn't say she was arrested?

I didn't stay the mother was a good or a bad parent. Again something you have made up.

I have never met the women and no nothing of her parental skills other than what has been discussed in this thread .

The mother is an a terrible situation and no doubt under incredible stress. It might be entirely understandable why believes what she does. That doesn't make her decision correct and whether is,a process for the courts to intervene.

I am entirely ok with there being a procedure for children to be taken away from parents in certain circumstances. If you are not I suggest you go look up the figures for child neglect and abuse.

If you are mentally consistent and of age to make decision then you can make whatever decisions you want about your own care.

For your children those rights are rightly not absolute. My eldest daughter suffers from relatively bad asthma, I at no point had the right to deny her treatment that on more than occasion saved her life. I can and should be involved in making decisions about her treatment but I don't get decide that she doesn't need treatment based on what I may have read on some crank web page.

Again you do not have the right to let your child die. If your decision is not based on any evidence or the evidence shows it won't work then that is the same thing.

You really need to understand the far greater dangers of your arguments.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Your defence of your claim that I an ok with the mother being arrested is that the OP is about parental rights(not about her arrest) and it doesn't say she was arrested?

You know something? Human nature is absolutely fascinating!

I caught you in an inconsistency in your arguments with a bit of bait. Instead of admitting that your arguments held that inconsistency, you immediately went defensive demanding that you did not say something which you have obviously been arguing the whole thread. You demanded exact wording from you, as if paraphrasing is not something that exists.

And then you managed to catch me in an error. An error to which I admitted and called it my own mistake. But rather than accept that, you now want me to admit to things which were not in error, as though I were somehow wounded and vulnerable.

Trust me, good sir, I am neither wounded nor vulnerable. I, like every other human, including doctors incidentally, make mistakes. When I do, unlike many others, I admit them and move on. It's really no skin off my back. You, on the other hand, are showing signs of extreme insecurity in your position. Human nature says that when one is vulnerable one should attack quickly and relentlessly, showing no mercy. Classic textbook example of that, right here.

How about this: we are all supposedly adults here. How about you simply admit that I corrected my error like I admitted that I was in error, and we can move along to continued debate of whether or not parents have a inherent basic human right to care for and raise their children as they see fit? You know, like I did and like you are doing now.

The mother is an a terrible situation and no doubt under incredible stress. It might be entirely understandable why believes what she does. That doesn't make her decision correct and whether is,a process for the courts to intervene.

Define correct.

You do realize that a decision to have the surgery would be incorrect if the patient does not recover? Another patient who experiences complete recovery and remission would have made the correct decision. It's a gamble. Toss the dice. Are the chances better if one has the surgery? In general, yes. But the general does not always translate to the individual. I would not suggest anyone pack up at age 18 and head out to Hollywood seeking fame and stardom without a plan either. That is a serious long shot with massive chances for failure. But guess what? Some have done it! Some beat those odds and went on to greatness. They made the right decision for them.

Your position is that the ability to make individual decisions is a problem. You seem to claim that as long as the decisions are correct, then it is OK to allow individuals to make them, but that is smoke and mirrors. If the ability to make one's own decisions is controlled by an authority that will override decisions deemed incorrect, then the very ability to make such decisions is only an illusion. The reality is that we are only allowed freedom as long as we comply within the bounds of our own slavery, and that, good sir, is not freedom.

My eldest daughter suffers from relatively bad asthma, I at no point had the right to deny her treatment that on more than occasion saved her life. I can and should be involved in making decisions about her treatment but I don't get decide that she doesn't need treatment based on what I may have read on some crank web page.

Firstly, my sympathies to your daughter. I wish her well.

You did not make those decisions. The state made them for you; you simply made the decisions the state wanted you to make. When my daughter broke her wrist in karate class, I made the decision to take her to the hospital. That was not a state decision I simply parroted; I had the choice right then and there to say no, I didn't think her wrist was broken and we will take her home. Had anyone tried to force me to do different with force of law, there would have either been an arrest or a funeral, and I have no qualms telling anyone that to their face. It was my (and my wife's, of course) decision, and our decision alone.

That is the difference. We both made the correct decision for our children, but I did it primarily out of love and concern for the child, while you did it primarily out of an obligation to adhere to the state demands. I chose; you acquiesced. There is a difference, although I doubt you will be able to see it. That difference is not something the state wants you to see.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Itisnowagain


I have just read online that liver resection can have serious complications such as a heart attack....... apparently 1 in 30 die during or shortly after the operation.

It would be interesting how a heart attack is related in any way...

Lol I think I found it... really? Read it again. This was decades ago and they had heart problems to begin with...geez

Abstract
During a period of 94 months between 1985 and 1993, 474 hepatic resections were performed in 451 patients, of whom 23 (5 per cent) had cardiac problems: ischaemic heart disease in 16 (previous myocardial infarction in five and angina pectoris in 11), arrhythmic disorders in three, valvular disease in three (previous mitral valve replacement in two) and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy in one. The cardiac patients had a higher incidence of cardiac complications (24 versus 0 per cent, P < 0.0001) including two myocardial infarctions, and of non-cardiac complications consisting of postoperative liver failure (16 versus 4 per cent, P < 0.01) and bile leak (16 versus 5 per cent, P = 0.02), as well as hospital death (16 versus 3 per cent, P < 0.001). However, long-term survival was similar in the two groups. Patients with preoperative cardiac conditions appear to be at increased risk for early postoperative morbidity and mortality after hepatic resection.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: ScepticScot

Your defence of your claim that I an ok with the mother being arrested is that the OP is about parental rights(not about her arrest) and it doesn't say she was arrested?

You know something? Human nature is absolutely fascinating!

I caught you in an inconsistency in your arguments with a bit of bait. Instead of admitting that your arguments held that inconsistency, you immediately went defensive demanding that you did not say something which you have obviously been arguing the whole thread. You demanded exact wording from you, as if paraphrasing is not something that exists.

And then you managed to catch me in an error. An error to which I admitted and called it my own mistake. But rather than accept that, you now want me to admit to things which were not in error, as though I were somehow wounded and vulnerable.

Trust me, good sir, I am neither wounded nor vulnerable. I, like every other human, including doctors incidentally, make mistakes. When I do, unlike many others, I admit them and move on. It's really no skin off my back. You, on the other hand, are showing signs of extreme insecurity in your position. Human nature says that when one is vulnerable one should attack quickly and relentlessly, showing no mercy. Classic textbook example of that, right here.

How about this: we are all supposedly adults here. How about you simply admit that I corrected my error like I admitted that I was in error, and we can move along to continued debate of whether or not parents have a inherent basic human right to care for and raise their children as they see fit? You know, like I did and like you are doing now.

The mother is an a terrible situation and no doubt under incredible stress. It might be entirely understandable why believes what she does. That doesn't make her decision correct and whether is,a process for the courts to intervene.

Define correct.

You do realize that a decision to have the surgery would be incorrect if the patient does not recover? Another patient who experiences complete recovery and remission would have made the correct decision. It's a gamble. Toss the dice. Are the chances better if one has the surgery? In general, yes. But the general does not always translate to the individual. I would not suggest anyone pack up at age 18 and head out to Hollywood seeking fame and stardom without a plan either. That is a serious long shot with massive chances for failure. But guess what? Some have done it! Some beat those odds and went on to greatness. They made the right decision for them.

Your position is that the ability to make individual decisions is a problem. You seem to claim that as long as the decisions are correct, then it is OK to allow individuals to make them, but that is smoke and mirrors. If the ability to make one's own decisions is controlled by an authority that will override decisions deemed incorrect, then the very ability to make such decisions is only an illusion. The reality is that we are only allowed freedom as long as we comply within the bounds of our own slavery, and that, good sir, is not freedom.

My eldest daughter suffers from relatively bad asthma, I at no point had the right to deny her treatment that on more than occasion saved her life. I can and should be involved in making decisions about her treatment but I don't get decide that she doesn't need treatment based on what I may have read on some crank web page.

Firstly, my sympathies to your daughter. I wish her well.

You did not make those decisions. The state made them for you; you simply made the decisions the state wanted you to make. When my daughter broke her wrist in karate class, I made the decision to take her to the hospital. That was not a state decision I simply parroted; I had the choice right then and there to say no, I didn't think her wrist was broken and we will take her home. Had anyone tried to force me to do different with force of law, there would have either been an arrest or a funeral, and I have no qualms telling anyone that to their face. It was my (and my wife's, of course) decision, and our decision alone.

That is the difference. We both made the correct decision for our children, but I did it primarily out of love and concern for the child, while you did it primarily out of an obligation to adhere to the state demands. I chose; you acquiesced. There is a difference, although I doubt you will be able to see it. That difference is not something the state wants you to see.

TheRedneck

There is no inconsistencies in my argument, just your (and I now assume deliberate ) misunderstanding.

You have made repeated claims about what have I have supposedly said and the failed to show an post where I have said anything like you claimed. That goes beyond error into outright lying.

You have repeatedly resorted to insults including in this post I an replying to. You really
think people in the UK take their kids to hospital because the state tells them to? Or is that you specifically think I do?

Really both a spectacularly stupid and insulting thing to believe either way.

I have been involved every major medical decision involving my kids. However i have based those decisions on actual medical advice not wishful thinking or believed superiority of parental knowledge.

Your individual freedoms and parental rights are not absolute, your kids have rights as well. You don't have the right to abuse or neglect your child. Denying necessary medical treatment without justification is neglect.

Let's put this in really simple way.

Parents often make bad decision, they are human, it happens.

Sometimes those bad decisions can have serious consequences.

They make these bad decisions of lots of reasons, just like everyone makes decisions for lots of reasons.

It might be lack of information, it might be fear of something bad happening, it might be being too close to the situation. The decision will in far more cases than not be made out of love for the child.

In other cases it might be just really #ty parenting or worse.

In the most extreme of these cases, when the consequences are really high, then there needs to be someone to look out for the rights of the children.

In modern society that is done by the courts. It's not a perfect system but it's the best one anyone has came up with so far.

That doesn't mean parents don't have rights or that your are giving up control of your kids to the state. It just means the kids have rights as well.

a reply to: ScepticScot

You have repeatedly resorted to insults including in this post I an replying to. You really
think people in the UK take their kids to hospital because the state tells them to? Or is that you specifically think I do?

Actually, given the consistent arguments from UK residents against parental rights and in favor of state-imposition on those rights, I believe it is almost everyone there. That's not a personal insult; if you continue to make claims which I find horrific, I will believe you. It would actually be an insult if I didn't believe such, because that would mean I consider you a liar. I don't. I consider you as beholden to the state and unaware of how badly that can turn out for people like us.

It gives me great pause as well when considering state-run healthcare. I would like to see some sort of universal health care system in place here, but I also fear what it can become, based on how it has apparently affected the attitudes of people in other countries which have it. But, that's for a different thread.

Maybe it is the difference in our two countries. Here, we tend to have to deal with people in all professions who are more interested in the payment than in doing their job, and that often includes doctors. I have posted several anecdotes from my life in this thread, but not all of them by any stretch of the imagination. Of course, you ignore those in favor of anecdotes from those with titles, which is of course your right. Maybe you don't have dishonest or greedy people in the UK; I don't really believe that, but I will admit it is possible.

We do have greedy people here, and I will continue to speak out against anything which puts greedy, fallible, self-centered humans in charge of the very lives of other humans. You keep speaking out for such things. I can promise you I have no desire whatsoever to visit the UK anyway, so it won't affect me. I just won't take the chance of being arrested for saying the wrong pronoun or disagreeing with the wrong person. You'll understand.

I have been involved every major medical decision involving my kids. However i have based those decisions on actual medical advice not wishful thinking or believed superiority of parental knowledge.

Exactly. You chose to follow the decision making process laid out for you by the state. That was my point. You don't have to defend that; I will openly state such is your right as a parent. I will defend that right even when we disagree. However, I will also defend the rights of others to make their decisions as well. Whether or not you agree with those decisions is irrelevant to that fact.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: ScepticScot

You have repeatedly resorted to insults including in this post I an replying to. You really
think people in the UK take their kids to hospital because the state tells them to? Or is that you specifically think I do?

Actually, given the consistent arguments from UK residents against parental rights and in favor of state-imposition on those rights, I believe it is almost everyone there. That's not a personal insult; if you continue to make claims which I find horrific, I will believe you. It would actually be an insult if I didn't believe such, because that would mean I consider you a liar. I don't. I consider you as beholden to the state and unaware of how badly that can turn out for people like us.

It gives me great pause as well when considering state-run healthcare. I would like to see some sort of universal health care system in place here, but I also fear what it can become, based on how it has apparently affected the attitudes of people in other countries which have it. But, that's for a different thread.

Maybe it is the difference in our two countries. Here, we tend to have to deal with people in all professions who are more interested in the payment than in doing their job, and that often includes doctors. I have posted several anecdotes from my life in this thread, but not all of them by any stretch of the imagination. Of course, you ignore those in favor of anecdotes from those with titles, which is of course your right. Maybe you don't have dishonest or greedy people in the UK; I don't really believe that, but I will admit it is possible.

We do have greedy people here, and I will continue to speak out against anything which puts greedy, fallible, self-centered humans in charge of the very lives of other humans. You keep speaking out for such things. I can promise you I have no desire whatsoever to visit the UK anyway, so it won't affect me. I just won't take the chance of being arrested for saying the wrong pronoun or disagreeing with the wrong person. You'll understand.

I have been involved every major medical decision involving my kids. However i have based those decisions on actual medical advice not wishful thinking or believed superiority of parental knowledge.

Exactly. You chose to follow the decision making process laid out for you by the state. That was my point. You don't have to defend that; I will openly state such is your right as a parent. I will defend that right even when we disagree. However, I will also defend the rights of others to make their decisions as well. Whether or not you agree with those decisions is irrelevant to that fact.

TheRedneck

The argument is that parental rights aren't absolute. That should be fairly obviously true. If you believe that is a horrific claim then your moral compass is way off.

There is nothing significantly different about attitudes towards child welfare between countries. The topic here is an American case. I would be frankly amazed if most Americans believed that parental rights are absolute.

We have greedy self entered humans humans here as well. Many of them are also parents.

Following medical advice isn't not following a process laid out by state. I didn't get a medical degree when I became parent, if I don't think what I am being told is correct I will get a second or third opinion . I am however not arrogant enough to believe that simply being a parent makes me a medical expert.

Straightforward question. Do you believe there are any circumstances in which a court should override the wishes of a parent?

originally posted by: JAGStorm
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Wouldn't it be great, for everyone, if this 13 year old girl beats her liver cancer?

Yes of course that would be the very best outcome, but it is not guaranteed. It isn't and no doctor in the world would say it is.

So that begs the question, who has the right to decide for a child, the state or a parent? That is truly the question here. This is a very VERY slippery slope.

I don't think a parent has any say in their childs right to life.

a reply to: ScepticScot

We have greedy self entered humans humans here as well. Many of them are also parents.

And yet, you are fine with following the advice of greedy, self-centered people blindly?

I am not. As I have stated before, I have a cardiologist and a GP whom I consider to be honest and forthright individuals. I trust their judgement, and I normally accept their judgement, because they do not try to force their judgement onto me. They both will explain the medical reasoning behind their recommendation and allow me to make my decision. They understand that if they lose my trust, they lose my cooperation and my business.

Well, the cardiologist didn't really respect my request to just take the damn ticker out, but that's neither here nor there.

Following medical advice isn't not following a process laid out by state. I didn't get a medical degree when I became parent, if I don't think what I am being told is correct I will get a second or third opinion . I am however not arrogant enough to believe that simply being a parent makes me a medical expert.

Neither do I have a medical degree. However, not having a medical degree does not mean one cannot understand the medical diagnosis and prognosis. I didn't have a BSEE for most of my life; I could still design and build circuits to do almost anything I wanted. The degree only filled in gaps in my knowledge and makes a right purdy wall decoration.

That's why I do depend on doctors whom I trust to give me the needed information. I take that information, research it, formulate more questions, get those answered, research the answers, and make a final decision. I don't need a medical degree to do that.

Neither do you.

Straightforward question. Do you believe there are any circumstances in which a court should override the wishes of a parent?

Straightforward answer: yes.

There are parents out there who do not have the best interests of the child at heart. It pains me to say that, but it is true. If it can be firmly established that a parent does not have their child's best interests at heart, then it becomes sadly incumbent on society to protect the child in the parents' stead. One could establish the parental lack of concern a number of ways: if a parent intentionally and repeatedly causes pain or injury to a child, if a parent neglects a child to the point where the child's life and health is in immediate jeopardy, or if a parent sexually abuses a child for example. Disagreeing with a medical diagnosis, especially after observing directly that the treatment is causing distress to the child and shows no benefit, is not included in those reasons.

The thing is that this requirement cannot be fluid. That is my issue. Yesterday, the parent would have to hit their child for it to be taken away; today a parent just needs to disagree with a medical opinion to have them taken away; tomorrow, will it be sufficient cause if a parent teaches their child something from history that they shouldn't know? Would not buying a child the latest video game be enough to take the child away? You probably laugh, but this is how basic rights disappear. Incrementalism.

If this mother is not a bad parent, as in, if she did not injure, sexually abuse, or neglect her child, under no other circumstances should the child be taken. None.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: ScepticScot

We have greedy self entered humans humans here as well. Many of them are also parents.

And yet, you are fine with following the advice of greedy, self-centered people blindly?

I am not. As I have stated before, I have a cardiologist and a GP whom I consider to be honest and forthright individuals. I trust their judgement, and I normally accept their judgement, because they do not try to force their judgement onto me. They both will explain the medical reasoning behind their recommendation and allow me to make my decision. They understand that if they lose my trust, they lose my cooperation and my business.

Well, the cardiologist didn't really respect my request to just take the damn ticker out, but that's neither here nor there.

Following medical advice isn't not following a process laid out by state. I didn't get a medical degree when I became parent, if I don't think what I am being told is correct I will get a second or third opinion . I am however not arrogant enough to believe that simply being a parent makes me a medical expert.

Neither do I have a medical degree. However, not having a medical degree does not mean one cannot understand the medical diagnosis and prognosis. I didn't have a BSEE for most of my life; I could still design and build circuits to do almost anything I wanted. The degree only filled in gaps in my knowledge and makes a right purdy wall decoration.

That's why I do depend on doctors whom I trust to give me the needed information. I take that information, research it, formulate more questions, get those answered, research the answers, and make a final decision. I don't need a medical degree to do that.

Neither do you.

Straightforward question. Do you believe there are any circumstances in which a court should override the wishes of a parent?

Straightforward answer: yes.

There are parents out there who do not have the best interests of the child at heart. It pains me to say that, but it is true. If it can be firmly established that a parent does not have their child's best interests at heart, then it becomes sadly incumbent on society to protect the child in the parents' stead. One could establish the parental lack of concern a number of ways: if a parent intentionally and repeatedly causes pain or injury to a child, if a parent neglects a child to the point where the child's life and health is in immediate jeopardy, or if a parent sexually abuses a child for example. Disagreeing with a medical diagnosis, especially after observing directly that the treatment is causing distress to the child and shows no benefit, is not included in those reasons.

The thing is that this requirement cannot be fluid. That is my issue. Yesterday, the parent would have to hit their child for it to be taken away; today a parent just needs to disagree with a medical opinion to have them taken away; tomorrow, will it be sufficient cause if a parent teaches their child something from history that they shouldn't know? Would not buying a child the latest video game be enough to take the child away? You probably laugh, but this is how basic rights disappear. Incrementalism.

If this mother is not a bad parent, as in, if she did not injure, sexually abuse, or neglect her child, under no other circumstances should the child be taken. None.

TheRedneck

Where did I say I would follow the advice of people blindly? Again with the lies. You are constructing weird fantasies of how you think others act or believe apparently to reassure yourself about some misplaced superiority.

I am glad that you at least acknowledge that parental rights are not absolute. Progress I suppose.

However basing it on the intent of the parent is clearly not enough. Good people can still make bad decisions.

If a child needs a blood transfusion to survive and the parent objects on religious grounds is it OK to let that child die?

ETA - Slippy slopes work both ways, if children due from lack to medical care why not lack of food?

a reply to: ScepticScot

Where did I say I would follow the advice of people blindly?

In those exact words, never. You implied such with your statements. You do understand what implication is, correct?

If you will follow the advice of a medical professional without question, which is what you have implied, and you admit that some people in the medical profession are greedy and self-centered, then by extension you would be subject to following the advice of greedy and self-centered people blindly.

That is simple logic. You know that. You're not Forrest Gump. You're just being intellectually dishonest, because you cannot stand to see your ideology torn asunder by logic. Of course, that means you keep digging deeper holes of illogic with every post.

I am glad that you at least acknowledge that parental rights are not absolute. Progress I suppose.

Not progress. Progress implies a movement in a desired direction. I have not changed one iota in my position on this issue. You simply asked a straightforward question that I answered.

However basing it on the intent of the parent is clearly not enough. Good people can still make bad decisions.

Then what would one base it on? Any decision is going to be made by a person. That was my point earlier: what makes your position absolute and perfect, while someone else's position is to be taken as improper? The mother in this case is a person, supposedly a "good person." You are a person, supposedly a "good person." The doctors are people, supposedly "good people." The judge in the case is a person, supposedly a "good person." Yet, there is disagreement. You state unequivocally that the mother's decision is a bad one; I state that we do not know this for certain. We know the statistics, but we do not know what the outcome will be for this specific child.

I do know part of the outcome... she has been ripped from her mother's arms and placed under the care of strangers. She will be traumatized and she will likely be distrustful of the legal system and doctors for the rest of her life. I would be. The choices she faces now could be that she either lives with that childhood trauma or dies happy in the arms of a loving mother.

You seem to think that not dying is all that matters. It's not. Not dying is not the same as living. Have you ever cared for someone who is in constant pain? have you ever watched someone you cared deeply for suffering in agony every single hour of every single day? I have. Asthma, from my understanding of it, can be painful during an attack. Imagine for one brief moment your daughter struggling to breathe and there is no medicine to help her. For one brief moment, imagine the agony and terror she would be enduring. Do you think that would be a good result, to keep her alive artificially so she can continue to experience that horror? Death can be a welcome relief, as painful as it is for those left behind.

I am not saying people should be condemned to die without medical care, so don't try to put those words in my mouth. I am simply saying that there is more to life than not dying. There is love, dignity, and pride in oneself... do not discount those.

If a child needs a blood transfusion to survive and the parent objects on religious grounds is it OK to let that child die?

That depends. Is there an afterlife where that child would spend eternity suffering? No? Prove it with your science. Let's see some evidence. Let's see some statistics.

I personally do not believe that transfusions are an issue; I have had one blood transfusion myself. However, I will not step on the beliefs of others. I am human; I can be wrong.

So can you, and so can a doctor.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: ScepticScot

Where did I say I would follow the advice of people blindly?

In those exact words, never. You implied such with your statements. You do understand what implication is, correct?

If you will follow the advice of a medical professional without question, which is what you have implied, and you admit that some people in the medical profession are greedy and self-centered, then by extension you would be subject to following the advice of greedy and self-centered people blindly.

That is simple logic. You know that. You're not Forrest Gump. You're just being intellectually dishonest, because you cannot stand to see your ideology torn asunder by logic. Of course, that means you keep digging deeper holes of illogic with every post.

I am glad that you at least acknowledge that parental rights are not absolute. Progress I suppose.

Not progress. Progress implies a movement in a desired direction. I have not changed one iota in my position on this issue. You simply asked a straightforward question that I answered.

However basing it on the intent of the parent is clearly not enough. Good people can still make bad decisions.

Then what would one base it on? Any decision is going to be made by a person. That was my point earlier: what makes your position absolute and perfect, while someone else's position is to be taken as improper? The mother in this case is a person, supposedly a "good person." You are a person, supposedly a "good person." The doctors are people, supposedly "good people." The judge in the case is a person, supposedly a "good person." Yet, there is disagreement. You state unequivocally that the mother's decision is a bad one; I state that we do not know this for certain. We know the statistics, but we do not know what the outcome will be for this specific child.

I do know part of the outcome... she has been ripped from her mother's arms and placed under the care of strangers. She will be traumatized and she will likely be distrustful of the legal system and doctors for the rest of her life. I would be. The choices she faces now could be that she either lives with that childhood trauma or dies happy in the arms of a loving mother.

You seem to think that not dying is all that matters. It's not. Not dying is not the same as living. Have you ever cared for someone who is in constant pain? have you ever watched someone you cared deeply for suffering in agony every single hour of every single day? I have. Asthma, from my understanding of it, can be painful during an attack. Imagine for one brief moment your daughter struggling to breathe and there is no medicine to help her. For one brief moment, imagine the agony and terror she would be enduring. Do you think that would be a good result, to keep her alive artificially so she can continue to experience that horror? Death can be a welcome relief, as painful as it is for those left behind.

I am not saying people should be condemned to die without medical care, so don't try to put those words in my mouth. I am simply saying that there is more to life than not dying. There is love, dignity, and pride in oneself... do not discount those.

If a child needs a blood transfusion to survive and the parent objects on religious grounds is it OK to let that child die?

That depends. Is there an afterlife where that child would spend eternity suffering? No? Prove it with your science. Let's see some evidence. Let's see some statistics.

I personally do not believe that transfusions are an issue; I have had one blood transfusion myself. However, I will not step on the beliefs of others. I am human; I can be wrong.

So can you, and so can a doctor.

TheRedneck

No I didn't imply that at all. You inferred it based on apparently extremely poor reading comprehension skills. Either that or you are just telling yet another lie.

We are not talking about an end of life decision for someone who is in pain. We are talking about a child being refused potentially life saving treatment.

So let's be clear you are saying that a parents personal beliefs are sufficient to let a child die.

a reply to: ScepticScot

No I didn't imply that at all.

You know, this was funny at first. It was sort of like watching a dog chase its own tail in circles. But after a while when the dog still doesn't get it, it stops being funny and becomes just sad. Poor dog. He'll just never figure it out.

This has become sad now.

We are not talking about an end of life decision for someone who is in pain.

Cancer is not painful? Chemotherapy is not painful? An operation is not painful (that one I will call pure BS on based on personal experience)? Being forced into foster care is not painful?

I have tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, but sir... you lie.

So let's be clear you are saying that a parents personal beliefs are sufficient to let a child die.

No, I am apparently trying to explain quantum entanglement to the dog who is chasing his tail.

Maybe someday you'll grow up enough to understand. I hope so. Godspeed.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: ScepticScot

No I didn't imply that at all.

You know, this was funny at first. It was sort of like watching a dog chase its own tail in circles. But after a while when the dog still doesn't get it, it stops being funny and becomes just sad. Poor dog. He'll just never figure it out.

This has become sad now.

We are not talking about an end of life decision for someone who is in pain.

Cancer is not painful? Chemotherapy is not painful? An operation is not painful (that one I will call pure BS on based on personal experience)? Being forced into foster care is not painful?

I have tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, but sir... you lie.

So let's be clear you are saying that a parents personal beliefs are sufficient to let a child die.

No, I am apparently trying to explain quantum entanglement to the dog who is chasing his tail.

Maybe someday you'll grow up enough to understand. I hope so. Godspeed.

TheRedneck

Yet again you are unable to back up your claims of what I supposedly said and resort to pointless personal insults and making stuff up.

My position has clear and consistent through out the whole thread, unlike yours. So much so that you are you are unable or unwilling to provide a straightforward answer.

I have you an incredibly simple scenarios. Should a child be allowed to die because the parents disagree with blood transfusions. And your answer was asking for evidence of an afterlife????

It seems pretty clear you put parental rights above the rights of the child to live. Generally I can respectfully disagree with someone rises opinions, but not when It comes to letting children die. Your position is indefensible.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Itisnowagain


I have just read online that liver resection can have serious complications such as a heart attack....... apparently 1 in 30 die during or shortly after the operation.

It would be interesting how a heart attack is related in any way...

Lol I think I found it... really? Read it again. This was decades ago and they had heart problems to begin with...geez

Abstract
During a period of 94 months between 1985 and 1993, 474 hepatic resections were performed in 451 patients, of whom 23 (5 per cent) had cardiac problems: ischaemic heart disease in 16 (previous myocardial infarction in five and angina pectoris in 11), arrhythmic disorders in three, valvular disease in three (previous mitral valve replacement in two) and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy in one. The cardiac patients had a higher incidence of cardiac complications (24 versus 0 per cent, P < 0.0001) including two myocardial infarctions, and of non-cardiac complications consisting of postoperative liver failure (16 versus 4 per cent, P < 0.01) and bile leak (16 versus 5 per cent, P = 0.02), as well as hospital death (16 versus 3 per cent, P < 0.001). However, long-term survival was similar in the two groups. Patients with preoperative cardiac conditions appear to be at increased risk for early postoperative morbidity and mortality after hepatic resection.

I went and checked on the 'liver cancer NHS' site........ if you check on there it says there are significant risks as liver resection is a complicated surgery.
And it says it is estimated that I in 30 die during or shortly after.

You are reading something else..... so enough of the 'geez' thank you.

Are you saying that the NHS site all about liver cancer and the bit about liver resection is incorrect?

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Itisnowagain


I have just read online that liver resection can have serious complications such as a heart attack....... apparently 1 in 30 die during or shortly after the operation.

It would be interesting how a heart attack is related in any way...

Lol I think I found it... really? Read it again. This was decades ago and they had heart problems to begin with...geez

Abstract
During a period of 94 months between 1985 and 1993, 474 hepatic resections were performed in 451 patients, of whom 23 (5 per cent) had cardiac problems: ischaemic heart disease in 16 (previous myocardial infarction in five and angina pectoris in 11), arrhythmic disorders in three, valvular disease in three (previous mitral valve replacement in two) and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy in one. The cardiac patients had a higher incidence of cardiac complications (24 versus 0 per cent, P < 0.0001) including two myocardial infarctions, and of non-cardiac complications consisting of postoperative liver failure (16 versus 4 per cent, P < 0.01) and bile leak (16 versus 5 per cent, P = 0.02), as well as hospital death (16 versus 3 per cent, P < 0.001). However, long-term survival was similar in the two groups. Patients with preoperative cardiac conditions appear to be at increased risk for early postoperative morbidity and mortality after hepatic resection.

I went and checked on the 'liver cancer NHS' site........ if you check on there it says there are significant risks as liver resection is a complicated surgery.
And it says it is estimated that I in 30 die during or shortly after.

You are reading something else..... so enough of the 'geez' thank you.

Are you saying that the NHS site all about liver cancer and the but abkut liver resection is incorrect?

All surgeries and medical treatment have risks.

Deciding to go ahead with any surgical treatment has to be balanced against the risks and benefits.

a reply to: ScepticScot

11.3% die within the six months following the op (according to www.ncbi.nlm.nih. gov) but Xtrozero reckons the operation is low risk...... I am not so sure after reading about liver resection.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

Deciding to go ahead with any surgical treatment has to be balanced against the risks and benefits.

Yes.... but who decides what is best?

That is what the topic of the thread is about.