Amish family leaves U.S. to avoid forced chemo treatment for daughter

[88GT]

Amish Girl With Leukemia, Family Flees US to Avoid Chemotherapy - Yahoo

When will these people realize that they are not the parents? I'm not the parent. You aren't the parent. The state sure as hell isn't the parent. And no judge has the authority to grant guardianship over a little girl to a stranger simply because he doesn't like parents' parenting choices.

This is what you people are asking for. I hope it comes back to hurt like no hell on earth ever could.

 

[Alphamale]

If you saw a parent beating their own child, mercilessly in the street - I mean really just kicking the kids arse - would you try to help the child or would you let the parent handle it since they know best?

 

[CathyInBlue]

This is not a case of parental abuse, or even neglect. They are not turning a blind eye to their child's medical needs. They simply hold an opinion contrary to medical, and apparently legal, orthodoxy, and that is apparently a crime in modern America.

It's more akin to a parent seeing their child abusing themselves and rather than doing (A) to stop it, which the establishment approves of, they are attempting (B) to stop it, which the establishment disapproves of.

The court said the beliefs and convictions of her parents can't outweigh the rights of the state to protect the child.

Because, after all, the child is owned by the state, not the parents.

 

[Alphamale]

I know its a different scenario, but the point is people are trying to help. They think theyre helping, anyway. They see a hurt kid and they perceive the parents as the cause.

Live and let live, if you ask me, but thats apparently not everyones stance.

 

[88GT]

If you know it's a different scenario, why would you even bring iit up?

 

[Alphamale]

If you know it's a different scenario, why would you even bring iit up?

I suspect youre not really interested why, but its to try to get you to see a situation they see.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

The Amish have existed since before the Republic began, and they shall remain long after this type of busybodyness has destroyed it. God bless the Amish.

 

[88GT]

I suspect youre not really interested why,

Yes, I want to know. I want to know why someone would put forward such a ridiculous argument.

but its to try to get you to see a situation they see.

What arrogance! As if the only way I wouldn't agree with something is because I didn't understand it. Let me allay your concerns now: I am more than aware of the way they see it. Slavery is slavery no matter who is slapping on the chains.

 

[jon5212]

^^^ I agree with 88GT... it is not the duty of the state to "protect" us from ourselves... It is truly sad the child has to go through something like cancer... and to throw on top of it an over reaching government trying to take the child's family away... beyond ludicrous.

 

[jontheturboguy]

I know its a different scenario, but the point is people are trying to help. They think theyre helping, anyway. They see a hurt kid and they perceive the parents as the cause.

Live and let live, if you ask me, but thats apparently not everyones stance.

Riiiiggghhhtt... all in the name of helping the kids.

Uh huh.

Cause pumping radioactive garbage into ones blood stream is a great idea.

Not so long ago blood letting was a good ide.

Idiots still abound even though "technology" has progressed.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I know its a different scenario, but the point is people are trying to help. They think theyre helping, anyway. They see a hurt kid and they perceive the parents as the cause.

Live and let live, if you ask me, but thats apparently not everyones stance.

Tell me, friend, since when did "good intentions" count for anything? As far as I am concerned, chemo-therapy is state-sanctioned poisoning of cancer patients; shouldn't I attempt to protect cancer patients which are my responsibility from being poisoned in an effort to "cure" them? Nobody appointed doctors OR the state God. And neither is infallible nor omniscient - quite the contrary, at times.

 

[Alphamale]

Yes, I want to know. I want to know why someone would put forward such a ridiculous argument.

Analogies are common enough. If you really wanted to know why you would have deduced as much on your own. Im sure youre a sharp enough tac to get that they see the kid being abused. However, if you just wanted to argue, you would have foregone any actual thinking and aimed to undermine anything you could get ahold of.

 

[Alphamale]

Tell me, friend, since when did "good intentions" count for anything? As far as I am concerned, chemo-therapy is state-sanctioned poisoning of cancer patients; shouldn't I attempt to protect cancer patients which are my responsibility from being poisoned in an effort to "cure" them? Nobody appointed doctors OR the state God. And neither is infallible nor omniscient - quite the contrary, at times.

I agree. If you feel so strongly about it then, yes, you should try to protect them. My point was that criticizing others of the same mind set is folly. Others may choose different means, sure, but that doesnt make them bad people. Value is subjective.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I agree. If you feel so strongly about it then, yes, you should try to protect them. My point was that criticizing others of the same mind set is folly. Others may choose different means, sure, but that doesnt make them bad people. Value is subjective.

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear: the government has no business being involved in medical decisions involving minor children. In fact, government has no business being involved in medical decisions whatsoever. "Good intentions" count for nothing if they end up being harmful to individuals and/or our society - which is the case here. THE STATE HAS NO BUSINESS INTERFERING IN FAMILY MEDICAL DECISIONS. PERIOD.

 

[Alphamale]

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear: the government has no business being involved in medical decisions involving minor children. In fact, government has no business being involved in medical decisions whatsoever. "Good intentions" count for nothing if they end up being harmful to individuals and/or our society - which is the case here. THE STATE HAS NO BUSINESS INTERFERING IN FAMILY MEDICAL DECISIONS. PERIOD.

Ya, like I said, I agree.

 

[Hoosier8]

Some will survive but most recur. Everyone responds differently. I find it offensive that the State dictates what should be done.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I think a good deal of the trouble in the system which causes such actions is that "government," in the persons of the social welfare bureaucracy and the courts, has no sense of proportion. Once you start ruling against parents killing their children by physical abuse (beatings, starvation, and the like) it seems that "government" feels justified in extending their intervention to official disapproval of spankings for misbehavior, or in determining "what is best for the child" over a parent's beliefs. While bureaucracies may be somewhat justified in "erring on the side of the child," courts - in the persons of judges - should have enough sense to limit the government's scope appropriately. Mostly, they do not.

 

[rambone]

Good thing they got out of the USA before SWAT was sent after them.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

Riiiiggghhhtt... all in the name of helping the kids.

Uh huh.

Cause pumping radioactive garbage into ones blood stream is a great idea.

Not so long ago blood letting was a good ide.

Idiots still abound even though "technology" has progressed.

Most chemotherapeutic drugs are not radioactive, you're thinking of radiotherapy in which they treat tumors via irradiation.

The problem with chemotherapy is that most oncologic drugs are heavy-hitters: they're both super expensive and super potent. Yervoy (ipilimumab) is a relatively new monoclonal antibody which costs roughly a quarter of a million dollars ($240,000) for the course of treatment (4 doses) and its average lifespan extension is something like 4.6 months, with most patients experiencing even less stellar results. Vinca alkaloid drugs are fine in the appropriate dose if given intravenously: give those same drugs intrathecally and they're invariably fatal. The therapeutic range for most oncologic products is very narrow, meaning the difference between treatment and death can be expressed in micrograms per meter squared of body surface area. That said, with all of these various factors, the decision to get chemotherapy treatment is a very personal one, and it is a decision not to be made lightly. Cost, severe side effects, and utility all play a part, and I don't fault anyone their choice either to seek treatment or not to be treated with chemotherapy. It is perhaps the ultimate personal decision, and no one - especially the busybodies of the State - should have a say in that decision.

 

[warriorbob]

I know its a different scenario, but the point is people are trying to help. They think theyre helping, anyway. They see a hurt kid and they perceive the parents as the cause.

Live and let live, if you ask me, but thats apparently not everyones stance.

Some of the absolute worst things imaginable have been done in the name of helping others.