Debate, and discuss, just dont Bore me.

Here in Virginia, we have had a real brouhaha of a case.  A 16 year old boy who has cancer, who has undergone Chemo already, does not want to do it again.  His parents support him.  He has tried alternative and experimental treatments in Mexico, and thinks they are helping him more.

But a lower court judge thought not!  And (this one is for the Gideon), ordered Joint custody with the Department of Social Services!  Why?  Because his parents did not force him to take more Chemo! Grrrrr!

Fortunately, Circuit Court Judge Glen A. Taylor had more sense than my fellow workers and the lower court judge put together.  And he ordered a new court date.

OK, as the father of 4, 3 of them over 16, I will state that for the record, in some respects (and chemo being one of them - especially when the parents concur!) 16 is an age of consent!  It is his life.  Having and actually facing death, he knows the score more than I do.  More than most of us do.

I remember the Patrick Swayze episode of MASH.  Where hawkeye is trying to get Patrick to go to Tokyo for tests and new treatments.  And Patrick's character said "Ologies?  What?  They are going to have a cure when I am dead?  I can help my friend now!".

Same thing with Starchild.  The doctors are doing voodoo.  It may be better than the treatment in Mexico.  It may not as it does not seem to work all the time. But at 16, as much as we love them, we should give them a say in how to spend the rest of their life.  Not complete, but if we agree with them, that should be enough.  Even for CPS and their leeches!

Finally, some sanity.  But note it was not in the JDC.  Don't ever expect it at that level.


Comments (Page 3)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Jul 27, 2006
You would charge dead people with murder?


lol...good catch of a typo, mason. Socrates must be making you sharper!
on Jul 27, 2006
?
You would charge dead people with murder?


So does that mean the case just dies with them?
on Jul 27, 2006

But I want to disagree to agree!

Ok, for you we will disagree to agree.

on Jul 27, 2006

You would charge dead people with murder?

He is tough on law and order!

on Jul 27, 2006

Socrates must be making you sharper!

His claws are keeping him awake.

on Jul 27, 2006
Doc,

Just wanna say thanks for having a sense of humor. I enjoy joking with ya.

AD
on Jul 27, 2006
Gid:
If the court demands the boy receive chemo, and the boy complies, and later dies from his illness, anyone who took part in ordering the treatment should be charged with murder. Because they demanded the treatment based on their assertion that they could cure him and other methods could not. Perhaps if we did that, we'd have fewer judges and social workers playing "doctor".


I agree. It is rediculous that we hold parents responsible for a child's death if they didn't bow down to every whim that passes a doctor's lips... yet if a person dies as a result of forced treatment, then the judge or government agent gets to shrug their shoulders and move on.

The double standard doesn't end their either. Doctors make wrong decisions that cost people their lives every day, yet criminal law ignores it completely. However, if a patient chooses some "alternative" health care program, no matter what they die of, the practitioner is often held responsible.

It's basically like this, if you die as a result of the "right" kind of treatment, well, "we did all we could".. however, if we die after the "wrong" kind of treatment, well, that is just criminal.

Apparently our choice doesn't matter, only that of those who matter.
on Jul 27, 2006
Ted,

It seems to me that you bring up an interesting point too. Doctors ONLY can give advice but somehow this has been elevated to law?
on Jul 27, 2006

Doc,

Just wanna say thanks for having a sense of humor. I enjoy joking with ya.

AD

Always!  Now get some more 10s and work on that time!  You will have a win yet!

on Jul 27, 2006

It's basically like this, if you die as a result of the "right" kind of treatment, well, "we did all we could".. however, if we die after the "wrong" kind of treatment, well, that is just criminal.

Apparently our choice doesn't matter, only that of those who matter.

I understand and agree with your point.  But I do not have an easy answer.  Some treatments are voodoo.  Others just not blessed by the US Govt.  How can a law differentiate?  SHould it?  Or should the parents be given complete control (Scientology comes to mind - which I actually respect).

Should the state be allowed to interfere with a parents religious belief?  Right now it does.  But I think we have gone too far in that respect.

on Jul 27, 2006

Doctors ONLY can give advice but somehow this has been elevated to law?

And the elevator only goes in one direction it seems.

on Jul 27, 2006
This is a travesty. The family decided and that should be that.

I just don't see where the law needed to interfere.
on Jul 27, 2006

This is a travesty. The family decided and that should be that.

I just don't see where the law needed to interfere.

They go to court in another month.  You should have heard Mealy mouth Ted matthews (err Tim Kaine) this morning!  Did he call off the attack dogs?

Hell no!  and he could not even sound half way intelligent in the defence of them! "Duh, Gee Tuxedo, Are we talking about a person?"

Sorry, I will leave this blog clean from my obvious opinion of the brainless wonder.

on Jul 27, 2006
Always! Now get some more 10s and work on that time! You will have a win yet!


I guess I read slow but just like Dory from Nemo. Just keep playing just keep playing.
3 Pages1 2 3