(January 26, 2015 at 2:55 pm)Lek Wrote: Why is God a failure here? Obviously he wanted her to be finished with the suffering and come home.

She believed that Jesus told her that she was healed. The fact that she died is proof either that Jesus failed or her vision was false.

Lek, what if she had a vision of Buddha or a Hindu goddess and was told to give up chemo when she had over seventy percent chance of being curedr? Would you still support her parents' decision to refuse the chemo?

(January 26, 2015 at 4:55 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Lek, nothing against you, but I hope you don't think anyone here wants you to become an atheist. I would be fairly pleased if you gained an intuitive understanding of why a child's life might be considered more valuable than a dog's, and thrilled if you started applying critical thinking consistently, but I wouldn't want you to become an atheist without clearing those hurdles first.

I do know why I value a child's life more than a dog's life. Like I said before, that child is a special creation and rates more consideration than other animals. The only reason I can see for an atheist to value her life more is that she is a body of matter that is more intelligent than other animals; and for that reason her life should be more highly protected. This is only because she differs from your pet only in degree of evolution. This mentality taken further would say that if we must kill either a dolphin or a rabbit, we should kill the rabbit because it is more intelligent.

My other point is that we have compassion on an adult who doesn't want to go through treatment and decides to let the disease run its course and die in peace. But we won't afford the same compassion to a 11 year-old or even a 17 year-old; or even an adult parent who has the best interests of their child at heart. In this case, you who haven't been through this situation claim to know better than the parents of this girl and are aware of maybe 5% of the facts of the situation, know better what course of action should have been taken.

---

(January 26, 2015 at 5:54 pm)Nope Wrote:

(January 26, 2015 at 2:55 pm)Lek Wrote: Why is God a failure here? Obviously he wanted her to be finished with the suffering and come home.

She believed that Jesus told her that she was healed. The fact that she died is proof either that Jesus failed or her vision was false.

Lek, what if she had a vision of Buddha or a Hindu goddess and was told to give up chemo when she had over seventy percent chance of being curedr? Would you still support her parents' decision to refuse the chemo?

Yes.

---

(January 26, 2015 at 5:41 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: Except for when they don't.

Who decides that?

Is it at all possible that the "vision" she had was because the Chemo or something else made her so sick that she was hallucinating?

(January 26, 2015 at 5:59 pm)Lek Wrote:

(January 26, 2015 at 5:41 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: Except for when they don't.

Who decides that?

A dedicated team of individuals that may include a combination of social workers, medical practitioners including consultants from oncology and pediatrics, other family members and so on.

When parents absolve themselves of caring for their children (children in the care system) then the state and/or foster parents become the de facto guardians until a child is found adoptive parents or is kicked out of the care system at 18 (or whatever age is relevant).

I think, Lek, you see the world in black and white terms where things are either 'good' or they're not. That's not reality, not anywhere, not even for you. You can make yourself think 'parents knows best', but the sheer number of children in the care system for example evidences this is to be a demonstrable delusion.

Where, then, does this leave us with the topic forwarded by the OP? It leaves us with the consideration that, when given a choice between embarking on a course of action that has a 75%~ chance of something happening and another course of action where the guaranteed result is death, a parent who chooses the later is in breach of the notion that 'a parent always knows best'.

Lek, if an 11 year old girl is pregnant would you support her right to an abortion? I am trying to gauge how far you think the young girl's rights should extend. It is unlikely that an abortion would kill her after all. If you believe she is old enough to decide to die then you must believe she can decide to rid herself of a mass of cells with no brain


Whoops. Edited for clarity and I messed up

(January 26, 2015 at 6:15 pm)Nope Wrote: Lek, if an 11 year old girl is pregnant would you support her right to an abortion? I am trying to gauge how far you think the young girl's rights should extend. It is unlikely that an abortion would kill her after all. If you believe she is old enough to decide to die then you must believe she can decide to rid herself of a mass of cells with no brain


Whoops. Edited for clarity and I messed up

I don't support abortion of a healthy fetus. I believe the law would leave that decision up to the parents, as was the case here.

---

(January 26, 2015 at 6:12 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: A dedicated team of individuals that may include a combination of social workers, medical practitioners including consultants from oncology and pediatrics, other family members and so on.

When parents absolve themselves of caring for their children (children in the care system) then the state and/or foster parents become the de facto guardians until a child is found adoptive parents or is kicked out of the care system at 18 (or whatever age is relevant).

I think, Lek, you see the world in black and white terms where things are either 'good' or they're not. That's not reality, not anywhere, not even for you. You can make yourself think 'parents knows best', but the sheer number of children in the care system for example evidences this is to be a demonstrable delusion.

Where, then, does this leave us with the topic forwarded by the OP? It leaves us with the consideration that, when given a choice between embarking on a course of action that has a 75%~ chance of something happening and another course of action where the guaranteed result is death, a parent who chooses the later is in breach of the notion that 'a parent always knows best'.

I understand how the system works. One reason that I don't understand the fuss in this case is that she died of a stroke, not leukemia. What does that have to do with her not continuing chemo? Was the stroke caused by the state of her weakened body or did this 11 year old happen to have another unrelated condition that caused the stroke? From what I understand, chemotherapy can definitely cause a stroke.

COMPLETELY MISSED THE POINT

(January 26, 2015 at 6:38 pm)Lek Wrote:

(January 26, 2015 at 6:15 pm)Nope Wrote: Lek, if an 11 year old girl is pregnant would you support her right to an abortion? I am trying to gauge how far you think the young girl's rights should extend. It is unlikely that an abortion would kill her after all. If you believe she is old enough to decide to die then you must believe she can decide to rid herself of a mass of cells with no brain


Whoops. Edited for clarity and I messed up

I don't support abortion of a healthy fetus. I believe the law would leave that decision up to the parents, as was the case here.

---

(January 26, 2015 at 6:12 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: A dedicated team of individuals that may include a combination of social workers, medical practitioners including consultants from oncology and pediatrics, other family members and so on.

When parents absolve themselves of caring for their children (children in the care system) then the state and/or foster parents become the de facto guardians until a child is found adoptive parents or is kicked out of the care system at 18 (or whatever age is relevant).

I think, Lek, you see the world in black and white terms where things are either 'good' or they're not. That's not reality, not anywhere, not even for you. You can make yourself think 'parents knows best', but the sheer number of children in the care system for example evidences this is to be a demonstrable delusion.

Where, then, does this leave us with the topic forwarded by the OP? It leaves us with the consideration that, when given a choice between embarking on a course of action that has a 75%~ chance of something happening and another course of action where the guaranteed result is death, a parent who chooses the later is in breach of the notion that 'a parent always knows best'.

I understand how the system works. One reason that I don't understand the fuss in this case is that she died of a stroke, not leukemia. What does that have to do with her not continuing chemo? Was the stroke caused by the state of her weakened body or did this 11 year old happen to have another unrelated condition that caused the stroke? From what I understand, chemotherapy can definitely cause a stroke.

Lek it still stands no matter how much you try to do damage control and sugar coat it they still followed through allowing their child to die without being responsible adults allowing the child to live by giving her medical care.

I won't get into a long winded debate that has the same chance of resolution as creating a perpetual motion machine from a toilet roll.

I'll just say this. As far as I'm concerned:

A child under the age of 16-16 (depending on your local laws) does not have the capacity to choose to deny medical intervention. Once they reach legal adulthood, it's their choice.
The parents of said child should not be allowed to deny a life saving medical procedure such as this. If the government/authorities need to step in, they should.
"Alternative medicine" may be alternative, but it's not medicine.

(January 26, 2015 at 5:59 pm)Lek Wrote: In this case, you who haven't been through this situation claim to know better than the parents of this girl and are aware of maybe 5% of the facts of the situation, know better what course of action should have been taken.

The fact that the child died speaks volumes about the quality of the decision those parents took.

The fact that you are defending a rejection of a proven course of treatment shown to send the cancer into remission in three-fourths of the cases in order to pursue an untried and ultimately fatal regimen with no medical basis is sad.

The fact is, if you had the option, you would send your own child to his or her death in order to glorify your faith; that is the only logical extrapolation here.