StrangeSox

The courts are ordering the parents to follow the doctor's advice, so, no. Give me a non-arbitrary explanation for the courts stepping in for nutritional neglect but not stepping in for medical neglect.

Now that's an interesting question that requires some thought.

Well, homeopathy (infinitely dilute solutions or "water has memory") is completely bunk, but its often used interchangeably with alternative medicine in general. But anything that's being given to patients has undergone rigorous non-human testing and has shown potential. Alternative medicine 'treatments' get made up on the fly and pushed on to susceptible people. There is never any testing or research. However, I highly doubt that the courts would ever mandate in-trial treatment options, especially if there are existing (medically approved) treatments. He ordered treatment only, not a specific type of treatment. It just so happens that the way to treat this is chemo. He also did not forbid doing any sort of alternative treatment in tandem with more traditional treatments; the doctors may or may not encourage it, but the government is indifferent.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ May 15, 2009 -> 01:06 PM) Huge difference for a child, I agree. I feel the same way about seatbelt laws. For adults, the argument for seatbelt laws is about reducing insurance, rescye and medical costs. Those are valid arguments to make, but I personally don't think they "weigh" enough to offset the fact that its a paternal law, which is a slippery slope as Kap said. Now kids, that is different. A parent throws their 5 year old in the car, no seat belt or kid seat or anything, and the kid is injured or killed in a car accident... that kid didn't make a choice. Can't make a choice, legally, he or she is a minor. Not only am I OK with seat belt laws for kids, but further, I've suggeted before that parents in that scenario should be prosecuted for reckless endangerment. In this case? You have to be careful. If they are just refusing treatment at all, preferring to hope for help on high, then the courts should step in on behalf of the child. If its an alternative treatment though, that's awfully fuzzy - when is the alternative a real, possibly viable alternative, and when is it something crazy that isn't really a treatment at all? Tough choice to make. When it passes clinical trials. "Alternative medicine" that works becomes medicine.

QUOTE (BearSox @ May 15, 2009 -> 01:04 PM) The thing is, this is a very serious and risky procedure to undergo chemotherapy. If it was a very safe medicine they were refusing to give the child, that'd be different. The child is 13, so it's not like he doesn't know what he's doing. From the article, it seemed both parents and the child all agreed to not undergo the procedures, and so I feel the government has no right to force him to go into chemo. Also, what about the first amendment? What's even more risky than chemo, with its 95% survivability for this cancer, is not-chemo, with its 5% survivability. At 13 you do not have the cognitive abilities to fully understand the situation. You're also very heavily influenced by whatever your parents tell you.

QUOTE (Soxy @ May 15, 2009 -> 01:01 PM) Yeah, I think this is a murky area only because it is a child. With Terri Schiavo, I was so disgusted with the court's intervention. But here, I'm uncomfortable--but I think it was the right judgment. Well, the court had to intervene in her case since it was a custody battle, more or less. Her husband wanted to pull the plug in accordance with her wishes*, her family wanted to keep 'her' going. I was more disgusted by Congress passing special legislation and one Senator making a "diagnosis" based on a 20 minute video. *supposedly. that's what the whole fight was over.

Parents are not dictators over their children. Children often need to be protected from their parents. This is no different. How can you draw a line between this medical neglect and food, shelter, clothing, hygiene, etc. neglect that isn't completely arbitrary? Should parents who are breathanarians be allowed to starve their child? Do you want your parents to have the ability to make that choice for you?

QUOTE (kapkomet @ May 15, 2009 -> 12:43 PM) Comparing Al Qaeda to Saberi is ridiculous - I'm sure she was there to kill thousands of Iranians and even has stated that cause to the entire world! Iran said she was a spy--her giving up state secrets could lead to the death of thousands of Iranians! If they tortured her into confessing that, they could easily show it to be 'true'! So, if we're not bound by some international rule, we should torture? edit: according to wikipedia, spies are considered unlawful combatants. So she's fair game. You can't be seriously saying that after your sarcastic "its always different" mantra the past few months.

QUOTE (Texsox @ May 15, 2009 -> 12:50 PM) No, it is a choice of two treatments. If the child still dies, can the parents sue the government for making the wrong decision? No, its a choice between treatment and woo. Medical treatment is far more likely to succeed than woo, so, no, the parents should not be able to sue.

It's medical neglect. If you allow medical neglect, why not nutritional? Who are you to say beating the child into submission isn't in the best interest of the family? While they aren't capable of forming their own legal contracts, medical treatments, etc., I don't view children as property or completely subject to the will of their parents, either. This issue is a philosophical mess inside my head, but I know where it comes out. I just can't explain it very well, and believe me, giving the government this sort of power makes me uncomfortable. I think this comment underneath the article illustrates my point a little more clearly:

Yes. Children need to be protected from their parents' absurd beliefs. This is frequently a problem with Jehovah's Witnesses.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ May 15, 2009 -> 12:00 PM) You of all people should know that isn't even in the same paralell universe. It's always different. Al Qaeda operatives have knowledge of plans to harm America or Iraq/AQ ties, therefore waterboarding is ok. Saberi has knowledge of plans to harm Iran/ conspired to harm Iran (according to Iran), so why isn't waterboarding ok?

nar⋅row-mind⋅ed [nar-oh-mahyn-did] –adjective 1. having or showing a prejudiced mind, as persons or opinions; biased. 2. not receptive to new ideas; having a closed mind. 3. extremely conservative and morally self-righteous.

Gee, Mr. Stroger, I didn't know taxes could be expensive! What a moron.

Anyone have any experience with this program?

Nice find.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ May 14, 2009 -> 01:37 PM) Why so quick to "not be sure" what Pelosi knew, but yet, anyone from tbe Bush administration has to be wrong? Track record?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 14, 2009 -> 01:22 PM) I really don't think that makes a difference. Might as well come out with an all white [insert sport] since historically they were all white. Historically, HBCUs were created because blacks weren't allowed to go to other universities. NCAA is HWCU Football. I really don't see the problem. It's just college football teams from a specific group of colleges. I doubt the game would exclude any white players on the teams (especially since a few of these colleges have had white valedictorians lately and do not discriminate in their student bodies).

Obfuscate, obfuscate, obfuscate.

I love how he resorts to questioning Missanelli's resume and asking him how old he is.

QUOTE (kyyle23 @ May 14, 2009 -> 12:28 PM) Is there going to be a Latino Soccer game, followed by a white hockey game? Thats completely ridiculous It's a game about Historically Black College(s) and University(ies), not about black people as a race.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ May 13, 2009 -> 08:34 AM) Its pretty cool. There is alot of new stuff besides the main missions. They now have Super mutant overlords, which are pretty tough. Longer than The Pitt? That took about an hour total.

Morally repugnant and ineffective. Gotta love it.

Lostpedia has a collection (or at least they used to, haven't been over there in a while) of all of the literary/ historic allusions in the show. edit: Here's the philosophers http://lostpedia.wikia.com/wiki/Philosophy

He was 2-2 with a 4.81 ERA in September. His ERA climbed every month last year except for July.