Political Crossfire Forums

micfranklin · Posted: Sat Aug 19, 2006 1:15 pm Post subject: Cancer teen to be taken by force

Just what the doctor ordered, more government intervention :roll:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51219

Quote: The father of a Virginia teen seeking an alternative treatment for his cancer says a social worker has threatened to use force to take the boy away from the family for court-ordered chemotherapy.

Jay Cherrix of Chincoteague, Va., is concerned there could be an Elian Gonzalez-style showdown over his 16-year-old son, Abraham, who has already undergone chemotherapy for his Hodgkin's disease to no avail.

The rest of the article is for you to determine, even if it is a bit old. Personally, I think this kid is a dumbass for not wanting help, even though he really needs it. But then, I don't make the rules and if he wants to not get help and die, then that's his choice alone. Of course, the government nows seems to dictate what is and isn't a good choice in life.

Bastards! :roll: :1evil:

Ek0nomik · Joined: 17 Jul 2005 Posts: 2065 Location: La Fleur

Government shouldn't intervene with this case, just like they shouldn't have with Terri Schiavo. Seperation of powers.

levin893 · Joined: 18 Aug 2006 Posts: 177 Location: L.A.

Regardless of whether he was doing the right thing, he has a choice. And that's something the government needs to respect. This all goes back to the concept of the "right to die".

Green · Posted: Sat Aug 19, 2006 6:58 pm Post subject:

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

The 10th says that it is my right to do whatever I want to do other than the obvious like murder and theft. If I want to kill myself, then I have every right to commit suicide.

Even if he does do his alternate treatment succesfully, I am sure that he will kill himself and our healthcare money will be wasted on keeping somebody alive that does not want to be kept alive.

00timh · Joined: 08 Nov 2004 Posts: 13037 Location: upstate NY

I remember this story. There was a Judge who "ordered treatment" I think that the reason that this was remanded is because a judge cannot order a person to undergo treatment. Even a minor.

This kid does not want to die. He has tried the Chemotherapy and has said that if that is what it takes to live longer than he would rather die. He is still seeking therapy, just not chemotherapy.

Ek0nomik · Joined: 17 Jul 2005 Posts: 2065 Location: La Fleur

Green wrote: Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

The 10th says that it is my right to do whatever I want to do other than the obvious like murder and theft. If I want to kill myself, then I have every right to commit suicide.

Even if he does do his alternate treatment succesfully, I am sure that he will kill himself and our healthcare money will be wasted on keeping somebody alive that does not want to be kept alive.

I'd love it if he turned this into a 10th Amendment issue.

micfranklin · Posted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 12:23 pm Post subject:

Simple thing. Your body = your choice. No one elses, just yours.

John Galt · Joined: 04 May 2004 Posts: 21585 Location: Minnesota

Ek0nomik wrote: Government shouldn't intervene with this case, just like they shouldn't have with Terri Schiavo. Seperation of powers.

Seperation of powers? What are you talking about?

Ek0nomik · Joined: 17 Jul 2005 Posts: 2065 Location: La Fleur

John Galt wrote: Ek0nomik wrote: Government shouldn't intervene with this case, just like they shouldn't have with Terri Schiavo. Seperation of powers.

Seperation of powers? What are you talking about?

Terri’s Law.

Babylon_Horuv · Joined: 15 Jun 2006 Posts: 2087

Dying with dignity is what this is about at the base. It becomes rather tricky when the person who wishes that dignity is a minor because they are not legally responsible for themselves. In my opinion it is more abusive for the government to deny him the option of death rather than the torture of chemo than it is for the parents to respect his wishes. However this is a democratic country and the majority of people in this country chose to elect officials who are against non-economic freedoms for the most part.

Demonic Spoon · Joined: 20 Sep 2004 Posts: 6939 Location: Ohio

We are not (or at least, are not supposed to be) a democratic country. Democracy is tyranny of the majority. We are supposed to be a Constitutional Republic.

Poon · Joined: 03 Mar 2005 Posts: 3825 Location: US

Demonic Spoon wrote: We are not (or at least, are not supposed to be) a democratic country. Democracy is tyranny of the majority. We are supposed to be a Constitutional Republic. Does that mean we are a nation that adheres to a set of rules written on an old piece of paper? So, we're not a Democracy, because not every law or resolution is voted by the people. But they are voted upon by Elected representatives.

Izzibeth · Joined: 12 May 2006 Posts: 423

yes, from what i understood of the case, the boy had already gone through chemotherapy once and he said that he absolutely could not stand to go through it again. he asked his parents if he could seek an alternative instead and they agreed. would you force someone to go through chemotherapy again if they were adamant about not doing it? he's not 9 years old.. he's 16. and he is fully aware of the consequences.

i could not imagine being forced to go through such a horrible therapy. if anyone has ever seen what patients of chemotherapy have to deal with, i'm sure you would agree that you would not force your child to do it if they did not want to. the government should not get involved.. it will be the child they are ultimately hurting. his parents are just trying to honor his wishes and allow him to do as he would like (especially if these end up being his last days). i'm sure it would be horrible to watch him die from the effects of chemo (as many people do) when he did not want to go through it again.

micfranklin · Posted: Mon Aug 28, 2006 2:19 pm Post subject:

Izzibeth wrote: yes, from what i understood of the case, the boy had already gone through chemotherapy once and he said that he absolutely could not stand to go through it again. he asked his parents if he could seek an alternative instead and they agreed. would you force someone to go through chemotherapy again if they were adamant about not doing it? he's not 9 years old.. he's 16. and he is fully aware of the consequences.

i could not imagine being forced to go through such a horrible therapy. if anyone has ever seen what patients of chemotherapy have to deal with, i'm sure you would agree that you would not force your child to do it if they did not want to. the government should not get involved.. it will be the child they are ultimately hurting. his parents are just trying to honor his wishes and allow him to do as he would like (especially if these end up being his last days). i'm sure it would be horrible to watch him die from the effects of chemo (as many people do) when he did not want to go through it again.

But the government seemed to think it was okay to make him do something, because they thought it was a bad decision :roll:

sparsely · Joined: 20 May 2006 Posts: 2295 Location: Passamaquoddy

Cancer Teen Chemo Force!

Demonic Spoon · Joined: 20 Sep 2004 Posts: 6939 Location: Ohio

Quote:
Does that mean we are a nation that adheres to a set of rules written on an old piece of paper? So, we're not a Democracy, because not every law or resolution is voted by the people. But they are voted upon by Elected representatives.

what's your point? We still (or at least, are SUPPOSED to) be limited by the Constitution.

Babylon_Horuv · Joined: 15 Jun 2006 Posts: 2087

Demonic Spoon wrote: We are not (or at least, are not supposed to be) a democratic country. Democracy is tyranny of the majority. We are supposed to be a Constitutional Republic.

Unfortunately the right to die with dignity is not enshrined in our constitution.

Graph · Joined: 05 Aug 2006 Posts: 33

levin893 wrote: Regardless of whether he was doing the right thing, he has a choice. And that's something the government needs to respect. This all goes back to the concept of the "right to die".

According to the law we don't have a right to die. Only a right to life. :lol:

Pareve · Joined: 30 Aug 2006 Posts: 895

Ek0nomik wrote: John Galt wrote: Ek0nomik wrote: Government shouldn't intervene with this case, just like they shouldn't have with Terri Schiavo. Seperation of powers.

Seperation of powers? What are you talking about?

Terri’s Law.

Galt is right... Separation of Powers doesn't really have anything to do with this case. That phrase usually only refers to the legislative-judicial-executive split.

thebreadloaf2003 · Joined: 23 Oct 2005 Posts: 213 Location: Texas

micfranklin wrote: Simple thing. Your body = your choice. No one elses, just yours.

only if that was completely true, damn government trying to wear bigger pants than it can fit its narrow butt into