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

[dirtfarmerz]

Cathy is not correct.

"They are not going to just allow the child to die."

I have read less than .01% survival rates for 'natural treatments for childhood ALL, Yet over 95% using modern drugs.

They have chose an option where there child will die because they did not like the side effects of the drugs.

Some parents do not like hearing a child cry, so can they leave them out in the cold?

They may have a chance of surviving hypothermia?

That information is probably from the AMA or a government report.

It is estimated that 200,000 people a year die every year as a result of taking prescription medication. Ralph Nader's watch dog group estimated the deaths at almost 300,000 people per year. The link has some interesting information.

Powerful Natural Cures And Natural Remedies Revealed

I don't understand how people can be so hypocritical by fighting for a woman's right to choose, resulting in 56 million + deaths, and then arguing that parents don't have the right to choose what type of treatment their child receives for a disease.

 

[jon5212]

I think a lot of people are missing that while everyone has an opinion... the fact is the state has no business putting their 2 words in and ultimately what happens with the child... the parents will have to live with their decision...

 

[RockofStrength]

More death worshippers. Feh. Got no use for that type, if that's what they're doing, (which you don't know). With the use of modern medical science this girl could have had a long, fruitful life. Her parents have chosen to kill her, instead. I don't give a rats ass what they do it in the name of. It's the wrong decision. Sad thing is these cretins, and many others, probably say they're "pro-life". That's laughable.

There is a marked difference between worshipping death and not clinging to the earth with every scrap of energy, medication and technology available. I would be intrigued to hear a universal reason why this is wrong as well.

 

[Hotdoger]

' the fact is the state has no business putting their 2 words in and ultimately what happens with the child'

So "the state' should not interject in abuse and neglect cases?

How far do you really want to go?

You really believe in absolutely no interference?

 

[Hotdoger]

dirtfarmzer .

ALL is one of the most curable childhood blood cancers. If your child would get leukemia you would pray it to be ALL.

 

[CathyInBlue]

When we talk about an (in)action which (fails to end/causes) harm, we're talking about four different things:

A) An action which causes harm.
B) An inaction which causes harm.
C) An action which fails to end harm.
D) An inaction which fails to end harm.

When we're talking about a parent abusing a child, physicly, emotionally, sexually, we're talking about A, and I don't think anyone credibly believes or is espousing a lack of role for law enforcement here.

When we're talking about a child who has a fatal disease which is imminently treatable/curable, but the family simply refuses to seek the treatment when such is easily within their means, we're talking about D. The disease is not going to just go away because the parents don't feel like dealing with it. In such a case, the hospital/government may have a role to play, but that is not this case. The parents are not inactive. They are merely choosing a course of action the hospital/government disfavours, and not an illegal one at that.

When we're talking about a child who has a propensity for dangerous behaviour, whether running with the wrong crowd or skateboarding without protection, and the family does nothing to end the child's threat to themselves, and as a direct result, harm occurs, whether the child is killed in a gang fight or skateboards into the path of a cross town bus, we're talking about B. These cases are what child neglect charges are all about. When the parents have a duty to act, do not, and as a direct result harm occurs, they are negligent. This it not that case. These parents are not inactive. They are active. The harm has occurred. The child has the cancer. The issue is not causing harm, the issue is how best to end the harm and/or reverse it.

At worst, this case falls into category C. These parents are actively engaged in a course of action with the stated purpose of curing their daughter's cancer. Everything about science and medicine tells us rational technological English types that this course of action is doomed to failure, that their action will fail to end the harm suffered by their daughter. Fine. So what? As long as they are engaged in a struggle which they are reasonably convinced will offer their daughter the best possible life (note: I did not say the longest possible life), then that is their right, and damn the government and the hospital for daring to attempt to intercede there in.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

So if I make the claim that as creator, protector, and parent of my child that I am the sole and absolute arbiter of my child's health and will do as I see fit with their best interest in mind, not only would the usual suspects rush in and call me a 'death worshipper,' but some would actually intervene to try to have the State intervene and countermand my directive issued under my rightful, legitimate authority simply because they might disagree with my decision. This is another one of those telling threads: who's a snitch and those who respect individualism are clearly differentiated. Take note, INGO. As a final thought, some of the most powerful, useful anti-cancer drugs are derived from plants. Paclitaxel was derived from the Pacific yew tree. So the notion that there exist certain other plants which contain similarly effective compounds as well is not so far-fetched. But no matter, Statists gonna State.

 

[IndyDave1776]

So if I make the claim that as creator, protector, and parent of my child that I am the sole and absolute arbiter of my child's health and will do as I see fit with their best interest in mind, not only would the usual suspects rush in and call me a 'death worshipper,' but some would actually intervene to try to have the State intervene and countermand my directive issued under my rightful, legitimate authority simply because they might disagree with my decision. This is another one of those telling threads: who's a snitch and those who respect individualism are clearly differentiated. Take note, INGO. As a final thought, some of the most powerful, useful anti-cancer drugs are derived from plants. Paclitaxel was derived from the Pacific yew tree. So the notion that there exist certain other plants which contain similarly effective compounds as well is not so far-fetched. But no matter, Statists gonna State.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to HeadlessRoland again.

 

[88GT]

There is a marked difference between worshipping death and not clinging to the earth with every scrap of energy, medication and technology and penny available. I would be intrigued to hear a universal reason why this is wrong as well.

(Forgot one)
He hasn't answered that yet? Quick to disparage, but slow to justify.

So if I make the claim that as creator, protector, and parent of my child that I am the sole and absolute arbiter of my child's health and will do as I see fit with their best interest in mind, not only would the usual suspects rush in and call me a 'death worshipper,' but some would actually intervene to try to have the State intervene and countermand my directive issued under my rightful, legitimate authority simply because they might disagree with my decision. This is another one of those telling threads: who's a snitch and those who respect individualism are clearly differentiated. Take note, INGO. As a final thought, some of the most powerful, useful anti-cancer drugs are derived from plants. Paclitaxel was derived from the Pacific yew tree. So the notion that there exist certain other plants which contain similarly effective compounds as well is not so far-fetched. But no matter, Statists gonna State.

I completely agree. With every word. The trouble is that the snitch's think they have a legitimate claim to your children and their well-being, that you don't have sole and absolute authority over your children.

I think I am less surprised at the fact that there are those who push the statist/collectivist/society sovereignty than I am at who is actually doing it.

 

[eatsnopaste]

I've thought about this for a bit and 88gt has tipped me to her side of this argument. However I also believe that when this child dies, the parents should be tried by a jury and we should allow our local citizens to decide if their decisions have any criminal repercussions. Inaction (and drinking herbal tea isn't going to save the little girl, let's get real) can be construed as neglect and I am willing to leave it up to 12 neighbors to make the decision whether the parents hastened the girls death.

 

[jon5212]

^^^ I'd prefer a hastened death over a long drown out one... just my .02.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I've thought about this for a bit and 88gt has tipped me to her side of this argument. However I also believe that when this child dies, the parents should be tried by a jury and we should allow our local citizens to decide if their decisions have any criminal repercussions. Inaction (and drinking herbal tea isn't going to save the little girl, let's get real) can be construed as neglect and I am willing to leave it up to 12 neighbors to make the decision whether the parents hastened the girls death.

What do you tell people who have seen this work? How is it justice to round up 12 people who believe they have never seen it therefore it is false? How does it become the .gov's business? Where do you draw the line on what is the .gov's business? Aren't INGO members with children 'endangering' them by having 'dangerous' objects in the house with them?

 

[mrjarrell]

What do you tell people who have seen this work? How is it justice to round up 12 people who believe they have never seen it therefore it is false? How does it become the .gov's business? Where do you draw the line on what is the .gov's business? Aren't INGO members with children 'endangering' them by having 'dangerous' objects in the house with them?

If you have the Right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness and the governments job, (insofar as it has a legitimate job) is to protect the Rights of the citizenry then how do they not become involved when someone takes the decision to violate the Rights of someone else, as we see in this case? The parents have taken a decision that will inevitably result in this girls death, as we've seen in other similar cases. This particular disease is curable using modern medical science, (somewhere approaching a 95% cure rate). Sticks and leaves will do nothing. The case could be made that the government was protecting this girls Right to life. Instead we have the parents using magical thinking rather than base her medical treatment on sound and proven science. When she dies, no doubt, they'll revert to the usual mantra that it was some fictional deities will and they're all good with that. Eatsnopaste may well have a point. Let their neighbours decide, in a trail at law whether they violated this girls Right to life. Set a precedent that will have an impact on future decisions related to such matters.

 

[IndyDave1776]

If you have the Right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness and the governments job, (insofar as it has a legitimate job) is to protect the Rights of the citizenry then how do they not become involved when someone takes the decision to violate the Rights of someone else, as we see in this case? The parents have taken a decision that will inevitably result in this girls death, as we've seen in other similar cases. This particular disease is curable using modern medical science, (somewhere approaching a 95% cure rate). Sticks and leaves will do nothing. The case could be made that the government was protecting this girls Right to life. Instead we have the parents using magical thinking rather than base her medical treatment on sound and proven science. When she dies, no doubt, they'll revert to the usual mantra that it was some fictional deities will and they're all good with that. Eatsnopaste may well have a point. Let their neighbours decide, in a trail at law whether they violated this girls Right to life. Set a precedent that will have an impact on future decisions related to such matters.

Answer me this: How the f**k do you expect me to accept this argument when I have seen cancer eliminated using 'sticks and leaves' with someone who was sent home to die by the highly-touted experts of medical science? Besides, what kind of libertarian pushes for more .gov intervention?

 

[mrjarrell]

Answer me this: How the f**k do you expect me to accept this argument when I have seen cancer eliminated using 'sticks and leaves' with someone who was sent home to die by the highly-touted experts of medical science? Besides, what kind of libertarian pushes for more .gov intervention?

Wasn't pushing for any interference, that's why I used the word "if". My position is that these people are are dead wrong in their decision to remove their daughter from the care of the doctors. The science is there to back up the cure rate of this disease, (hell, we've got at least one INGO member who had it and beat it as a youngster, thanks to chemotherapy). Can't speak to what you say you've seen, but science trumps voodoo 999 out of 1000 times. Sometimes diseases go into remission, but only fools believe it's common without aid from realistic science. I'll take St. Jude's therapies over twigs and leaves. They've got a record of success. The other is anecdotal, at the best of times.

 

[eatsnopaste]

What do you tell people who have seen this work? How is it justice to round up 12 people who believe they have never seen it therefore it is false? How does it become the .gov's business? Where do you draw the line on what is the .gov's business? Aren't INGO members with children 'endangering' them by having 'dangerous' objects in the house with them?

seen what work? Do you know what form of treatment or type of prayer they are using? When should the Gov. get involved? For me I guess it's when a child dies, if a child gets to your guns and shoots himself...yes, I want your neighbors whether they are gun people or not to pass judgement on you.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

IBTL.

Religious discussions are not allowed on INGO...I would presume that also includes discussions where disparaging/insulting remarks are made.

 

[rambone]

The case could be made that the government was protecting this girls Right to life.

If being sick without access to pharmaceutical drugs is a violation of "rights," what then does that say about government's role in health care? I really think you should rethink your position on this matter. I realize you have no time for anything natural or religious. But the use of government force we should be able to agree on being wrong. There is no right to health care, and there is no guarantee that parents will or should make the same decisions that you or any other expert advocates. The parents will follow their conscience and make a decision that they feel is best. It may or may not result in their child living to old age. That's just the way of the world. Its not pleasant, but natural death is not murder, nor is it a use of force on the part of the parents.

Let their neighbours decide, in a trail at law whether they violated this girls Right to life. Set a precedent that will have an impact on future decisions related to such matters.

Should parents be put on trial when their children are maimed or killed from the effects of the drugs they chose to administer? If death by disease is going to be treated as a criminal act, why not treat death by chemo poisoning the same way? I don't think persecuting grieving parents would solve anything.

 

[dirtfarmerz]

x

 

[88GT]

Wasn't pushing for any interference, that's why I used the word "if". My position is that these people are are dead wrong in their decision to remove their daughter from the care of the doctors. The science is there to back up the cure rate of this disease, (hell, we've got at least one INGO member who had it and beat it as a youngster, thanks to chemotherapy). Can't speak to what you say you've seen, but science trumps voodoo 999 out of 1000 times. Sometimes diseases go into remission, but only fools believe it's common without aid from realistic science. I'll take St. Jude's therapies over twigs and leaves. They've got a record of success. The other is anecdotal, at the best of times.

And yet you still haven't provided anything more than your opinion for this.

seen what work? Do you know what form of treatment or type of prayer they are using? When should the Gov. get involved? For me I guess it's when a child dies, if a child gets to your guns and shoots himself...yes, I want your neighbors whether they are gun people or not to pass judgement on you.

What happens when the parent does all the things you think are right and child still dies? Gonna put him in front of a jury anyway?