shiftyandquick said:

---

I know a pediatric oncologist who in Texas reported a family to CPS after they refused to do cancer treatment for their child and decided that they wanted to do alternative medicine. He was sued by the family for having reported the family to CPS. He was embroiled in a lawsuit for several years. All because he tried to save the child's life. This was a cancer that with traditional medical treatment would most likely be curable. As I recall, CPS in the government did disallow the family from preventing the child from getting normal medical treatment.

The doctor had the stress of dealing with the lawsuit for those many years.

So the question is, does a family have the right to make a medical decision for their child that will lead to their death??

---

At what point do we wake up and realize that Cancer only exists to enrich the medical field. They've buried the cure for decades. And now, they demand to treat patients that don't want treatment.

America "Home of the free" is gone as we know it.

You may call it "trying to save the child's life", but others may see it more like a rape case. Sure, she likes it when she consents to it...but without consent, it's a barbaric crime.

Many docs pimped & on the forced vax team. Kinda the same doc that would report parents to CPS about medical care options.

Quote:

---

Cancer only exists to enrich the medical field

---

Discuss this at your latest meeting?

It will be an interesting when later they do a study that shows COVID/medical skepticism led to a significantly decreased lifespan among MAGA types.

Because denying yourself of modern medical care is a risk.

shiftyandquick said:

---

It will be an interesting when later they do a study that shows COVID/medical skepticism led to a significantly decreased lifespan among MAGA types.

---

I like how you try to equate people actually paying attention and realizing their doctors were full of **** by pushing vaccines on people who didn't need them with being MAGA and dying early.

Is this a real post?

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

It will be an interesting when later they do a study that shows COVID/medical skepticism led to a significantly decreased lifespan among MAGA types.

---

I like how you try to equate people actually paying attention and realizing their doctors were full of **** by pushing vaccines on people who didn't need them with being MAGA and dying early.

Is this a real post?

---

No doubt general medical skepticism will kill some of you. I know you can't see it. That's why you might end up as one of them.

Some people should not have children.

AgNav93 said:

---

Some people should not have children.

---

This article is from Feb 2023. Shows that the parents are dumb as rocks. If left to his parents, he will most likely be dead.

But definitely some kids are dying of parents like this. They fall through the cracks.

Not everyone has a doctor who is willing to risk his livelihood to save the life of a child.

Yet here on F16, such a doctor is a criminal.

https://www.fox9.com/news/fight-over-child-leukemia-treatment-heads-to-court-as-parents-oppose-chemo

shiftyandquick said:

---

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

It will be an interesting when later they do a study that shows COVID/medical skepticism led to a significantly decreased lifespan among MAGA types.

---

I like how you try to equate people actually paying attention and realizing their doctors were full of **** by pushing vaccines on people who didn't need them with being MAGA and dying early.

Is this a real post?

---

No doubt general medical skepticism will kill some of you. I know you can't see it. That's why you might end up as one of them.

---

I might end up as one? lol. Based on what? Seeing the obvious fallacy in your "argument"?

shiftyandquick said:

---

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

It will be an interesting when later they do a study that shows COVID/medical skepticism led to a significantly decreased lifespan among MAGA types.

---

I like how you try to equate people actually paying attention and realizing their doctors were full of **** by pushing vaccines on people who didn't need them with being MAGA and dying early.

Is this a real post?

---

No doubt general medical skepticism will kill some of you. I know you can't see it. That's why you might end up as one of them.

---

That is exactly what the multi booster'd person would say.

Maybe it's different and maybe it's no, but:

If a doctor (somewhere/anywhere) insisted and came up with enough experts to argue that a 10 year old boy would likely commit suicide if he didn't have surgery to change his gender, could the CPS hold the child and force the surgery against the parent's wishes?? After all, the gov't would be looking out for the child right?

Amazingly, if this scenario hasn't already happened, we're really close.

TexasAggie73 said:

---

If it's the parents right to make medical decisions for their child wouldn't it also be their right to abort the child and not the government?

---

Consistency in when the government should, or shouldn't, have a say into the bodies of parents and their children would be a good thing.

TRADUCTOR said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

It will be an interesting when later they do a study that shows COVID/medical skepticism led to a significantly decreased lifespan among MAGA types.

---

I like how you try to equate people actually paying attention and realizing their doctors were full of **** by pushing vaccines on people who didn't need them with being MAGA and dying early.

Is this a real post?

---

No doubt general medical skepticism will kill some of you. I know you can't see it. That's why you might end up as one of them.

---

That is exactly what the multi booster'd person would say.

---

I honestly don't care if any of you get any medical treatment ever for anything. You are legally competent adults (I assume) and you are welcome to never set foot in a doctor's office or hospital or an ambulance ever in your life as far as I'm concerned.

shiftyandquick said:

---

This article is from Feb 2023. Shows that the parents are dumb as rocks. If left to his parents, he will most likely be dead.

---

As of late July, the judge had entered a final order continuing the treatments and CPS supervision. I have not been able to determine whether the parents chose to appeal that ruling.

Antoninus said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

This article is from Feb 2023. Shows that the parents are dumb as rocks. If left to his parents, he will most likely be dead.

---

As of late July, the judge had entered a final order continuing the treatments and CPS supervision. I have not been able to determine whether the parents chose to appeal that ruling.

---

There probably isn't a good mechanism for handing the kid off to care in Texas, as there probably isn't a mechanism to transfer him from being a court-ordered medical ward of MN to being the same in Texas.

I suppose theoretically the parents could have hidden their desire to withdraw treatment, and asked for continuance of treatment in TX. But either they didn't say that, or they were deemed so unreliable and untrustworthy that the court decided it could not conscionably go forward.

It would really suck to be stuck in a far away state for this long, no doubt.

SociallyConditionedAg said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

I know a pediatric oncologist who in Texas reported a family to CPS after they refused to do cancer treatment for their child and decided that they wanted to do alternative medicine. He was sued by the family for having reported the family to CPS. He was embroiled in a lawsuit for several years. All because he tried to save the child's life. This was a cancer that with traditional medical treatment would most likely be curable. As I recall, CPS in the government did disallow the family from preventing the child from getting normal medical treatment.

The doctor had the stress of dealing with the lawsuit for those many years.

So the question is, does a family have the right to make a medical decision for their child that will lead to their death??

---

It's the parents' right to make medical decisions for their children, not the doctor or the state.

---

Exactly right.

Antoninus said:

---

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

I strongly err toward parental rights, and think the govt should need to prove their case, but if a bunch of docs independently review the case and generally arrive at "historical precedent gives a 75% chance of cancerous return and death if you don't continue, and a 5% chance of death from chemo" …I'd have to say it'd be hard to stand by and let the parents discontinue care.

---

I agree. Very hard. Gut-wrenching, in fact.

Sometimes it is VERY hard to be an advocate for limited-government..

---

It is definitely an extremely difficult controversy. In a perfect world conceding control to the government for the greater good would be a no brainer.
The question then becomes what are the chances for abuse of this power and the affect on society. Recent history suggests that conceding authority to government, especially a centralized government, invites abuses of that authority.
I believe every law results in a loss of freedom. The freedom to kill someone seems obvious, however, even in our society today some people protecting themselves end up indicted for murder.
This tragic medical situation is a particularly difficult and I would hope the child receives the best medical attention. I would also hope any laws regarding the seizure of a child for medical reasons are very narrow and specific because it seems a very short distance to the abuse of such laws. And any laws in this case the penalties for abuse of the law should be significant and enforced.

In the medical ethics world, they've had to grapple with sincerely held religious beliefs like Jehovah's Witnesses who won't allow blood transfusions. Also Christian Scientists who eschew most/all modern medicine. It's one thing for adults to make this choice, but it's another thing for adults to make this choice for their children where it leads to their death.

https://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/unbound/flashbks/xsci/suffer.htm

abram97 said:

---

SociallyConditionedAg said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

I know a pediatric oncologist who in Texas reported a family to CPS after they refused to do cancer treatment for their child and decided that they wanted to do alternative medicine. He was sued by the family for having reported the family to CPS. He was embroiled in a lawsuit for several years. All because he tried to save the child's life. This was a cancer that with traditional medical treatment would most likely be curable. As I recall, CPS in the government did disallow the family from preventing the child from getting normal medical treatment.

The doctor had the stress of dealing with the lawsuit for those many years.

So the question is, does a family have the right to make a medical decision for their child that will lead to their death??

---

It's the parents' right to make medical decisions for their children, not the doctor or the state.

---

Exactly right.

---

Even if severely harming the child?

I think we all agree in principle that "it's the parents decision" but clearly there are exceptions, no?

shiftyandquick said:

---

In the medical ethics world, they've had to grapple with sincerely held religious beliefs like Jehovah's Witnesses who won't allow blood transfusions. Also Christian Scientists who eschew most/all modern medicine. It's one thing for adults to make this choice, but it's another thing for adults to make this choice for their children where it leads to their death.

https://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/unbound/flashbks/xsci/suffer.htm

---

Aren't you a liberal who is all for women deciding to kill their unborn?
How is this any different?

Im Gipper said:

---

abram97 said:

---

SociallyConditionedAg said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

I know a pediatric oncologist who in Texas reported a family to CPS after they refused to do cancer treatment for their child and decided that they wanted to do alternative medicine. He was sued by the family for having reported the family to CPS. He was embroiled in a lawsuit for several years. All because he tried to save the child's life. This was a cancer that with traditional medical treatment would most likely be curable. As I recall, CPS in the government did disallow the family from preventing the child from getting normal medical treatment.

The doctor had the stress of dealing with the lawsuit for those many years.

So the question is, does a family have the right to make a medical decision for their child that will lead to their death??

---

It's the parents' right to make medical decisions for their children, not the doctor or the state.

---

Exactly right.

---

Even if severely harming the child?

I think we all agree in principle that "it's the parents decision" but clearly there are exceptions, no?

---

It is not the state's life to decide. People make decisions for non-treatment of MANY things all the time. If the parents don't have a clear mental deficit/psychiatric problem, then it is the parent's choice to not receive therapy for the child. Not treating the child does not impact other's lives. It is only that one person who is being affected. The govt is not protecting other lives in this situation. I see patients all the time who would rather have coffee enemas instead of regular treatment for their cancer. Nobody thinks twice about that.

There is a spectrum to this whole thing of course - it is not black or white, but there are not that many shades in between in this scenario.

So you agree there are exceptions. Good.

One for me is gender reassignment surgery. The state MUST step in and stop that, right?

aggiez03 said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

In the medical ethics world, they've had to grapple with sincerely held religious beliefs like Jehovah's Witnesses who won't allow blood transfusions. Also Christian Scientists who eschew most/all modern medicine. It's one thing for adults to make this choice, but it's another thing for adults to make this choice for their children where it leads to their death.

https://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/unbound/flashbks/xsci/suffer.htm

---

Aren't you a liberal who is all for women deciding to kill their unborn?
How is this any different?

---

No I'm a Reagan Republican against abortion.

Now my turn. Please explain your hypocrisy related to being against abortion but letting parents kill their children via their medical decisions.

shiftyandquick said:

---

aggiez03 said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

In the medical ethics world, they've had to grapple with sincerely held religious beliefs like Jehovah's Witnesses who won't allow blood transfusions. Also Christian Scientists who eschew most/all modern medicine. It's one thing for adults to make this choice, but it's another thing for adults to make this choice for their children where it leads to their death.

https://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/unbound/flashbks/xsci/suffer.htm

---

Aren't you a liberal who is all for women deciding to kill their unborn?
How is this any different?

---

No I'm a Reagan Republican against abortion.

Now my turn. Please explain your hypocrisy related to being against abortion but letting parents kill their children via their medical decisions.

---

At the risk of doxing… John Weaver, is that you?

Quote:

---

McKena Peck, who is currently pregnant with her third child that is due any day, describes herself as a spiritualist, who believes the creator gave humans the tools to heal their own bodies.

---

I'm not sure who she defines as the "creator", but if she is Christian, she should be reminded of Jesus' words, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick" which is an acknowledgment that even as a performer of miracles, Jesus supported seeking the guidance of doctors. I'm with the state on this one.

abram97 said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

abram97 said:

---

SociallyConditionedAg said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

I know a pediatric oncologist who in Texas reported a family to CPS after they refused to do cancer treatment for their child and decided that they wanted to do alternative medicine. He was sued by the family for having reported the family to CPS. He was embroiled in a lawsuit for several years. All because he tried to save the child's life. This was a cancer that with traditional medical treatment would most likely be curable. As I recall, CPS in the government did disallow the family from preventing the child from getting normal medical treatment.

The doctor had the stress of dealing with the lawsuit for those many years.

So the question is, does a family have the right to make a medical decision for their child that will lead to their death??

---

It's the parents' right to make medical decisions for their children, not the doctor or the state.

---

Exactly right.

---

Even if severely harming the child?

I think we all agree in principle that "it's the parents decision" but clearly there are exceptions, no?

---

It is not the state's life to decide. People make decisions for non-treatment of MANY things all the time. If the parents don't have a clear mental deficit/psychiatric problem, then it is the parent's choice to not receive therapy for the child. Not treating the child does not impact other's lives. It is only that one person who is being affected. The govt is not protecting other lives in this situation. I see patients all the time who would rather have coffee enemas instead of regular treatment for their cancer. Nobody thinks twice about that.

There is a spectrum to this whole thing of course - it is not black or white, but there are not that many shades in between in this scenario.

---

It also isn't the parents' life. The life belongs to the child in question. Our legal and cultural practice deems parents the best custodians of that life provided they act within the bounds of responsible care. We draw that line at abuse and neglect. That's the easy part.

Could a parent's decision to decline care be abusive or neglectful? Maybe. Deciding when the a specific case meet that threshold - or the spectrum, as you put it - is the hard part.

yes, it can be.

BTW - covid vaccines are bad.

Just wanted to throw that out there.

Im Gipper said:

---

So you agree there are exceptions. Good.

One for me is gender reassignment surgery. The state MUST step in and stop that, right?

---

Gender dysphoria/transsexualism is a pathologic diagnosis. Schizophrenia is a pathologic diagnosis. You do not encourage delusions in the latter OR the former. Therefore, you do not have surgery for children. There are many normal children who question things before and during puberty but after puberty it regularly sorts itself out. I would not call those pathologic in nature.

abram97 said:

---

People make decisions for non-treatment of MANY things all the time. If the parents don't have a clear mental deficit/psychiatric problem, then it is the parent's choice to not receive therapy for the child. Not treating the child does not impact other's lives. It is only that one person who is being affected.

---

You are welcome to that opinion, but there are NO courts in ANY jurisdiction in the US that agree with you. A perfectly sane, mentally competent Jehovah's Witness who genuinely believes that receiving a blood transfusion will exclude their child from heaven for all eternity is not allowed to deny that child a lifesaving transfusion.

A believer in faith healing who allows their baby with pneumonia to die without seeking medical attention is subject to criminal prosecution.

A child is not a puppy; there is no "ownership" of own's progeny.

The only real controversy in this case is what court should have jurisdiction; the Minnesota court has, apparently based on reasonable suspicion, held that the parents may not seek appropriate care for the child if allowed to leave the state.

The reality is that childhood cancer treatment is one of the most rigorously evidence based areas of medicine; the overwhelming survival advantage of intensive chemotherapy treatment for ALL is such that it could not be disputed by any rational impartial observer.

The basic principle here is clear: your rights cease at the end of your fist and the beginning of another's nose, even if that nose belongs to your child.

Slackjaw62 said:

---

abram97 said:

---

People make decisions for non-treatment of MANY things all the time. If the parents don't have a clear mental deficit/psychiatric problem, then it is the parent's choice to not receive therapy for the child. Not treating the child does not impact other's lives. It is only that one person who is being affected.

---

You are welcome to that opinion, but there are NO courts in ANY jurisdiction in the US that agree with you. A perfectly sane, mentally competent Jehovah's Witness who genuinely believes that receiving a blood transfusion will exclude their child from heaven for all eternity is not allowed to deny that child a lifesaving transfusion.

A believer in faith healing who allows their baby with pneumonia to die without seeking medical attention is subject to criminal prosecution.

A child is not a puppy; there is no "ownership" of own's progeny.

The only real controversy in this case is what court should have jurisdiction; the Minnesota court has, apparently based on reasonable suspicion, held that the parents may not seek appropriate care for the child if allowed to leave the state.

The reality is that childhood cancer treatment is one of the most rigorously evidence based areas of medicine; the overwhelming survival advantage of intensive chemotherapy treatment for ALL is such that it could not be disputed by any rational impartial observer.

The basic principle here is clear: your rights cease at the end of your fist and the beginning of another's nose, even if that nose belongs to your child.

---

I am an oncologist. I am a researcher. I know a bit about this subject, specifically. Cancer research - It is not a flawless system. The more you know about it, the more you might agree with me on just this small part.

abram97 said:

---

Slackjaw62 said:

---

The reality is that childhood cancer treatment is one of the most rigorously evidence based areas of medicine; the overwhelming survival advantage of intensive chemotherapy treatment for ALL is such that it could not be disputed by any rational impartial observer.

---

I am an oncologist. I am a researcher. I know a bit about this subject, specifically. Cancer research - It is not a flawless system. The more you know about it, the more you might agree with me on just this small part.

---

Stating that something is "not flawless" is both self-evident and irrelevant.

The five-year survival rates for childhood ALL with appropriate therapy are approximately 90%. Consolidation and maintenance chemotherapy (what the parents are disputing here) has been the standard of care for ALL since the 1960s, when 5 year survival rates were ~10%.

What you appear to be asserting is that parents should have the "right" to elect a course that is highly likely to result in the death of their child over a course that is highly likely to result in long term survival.

I completely agree with the post above.

This unfortunate child has acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), which has well-established survival rates of 90%.

The first month of leukemia treatment ("Induction") can kill 99.99% of the leukemia, but an additional 2 years of therapy ("Consolidation" and "Maintenance") are mandatory to eradicate the remaining 0.01% of the leukemia.

I can understand parents reluctance to continue therapy when 99.99% of the leukemia is gone and their child is feeling well, but it is not theoretical that the leukemia would return should therapy she discontinued. If and when the leukemia relapses, a bone marrow transplant is often the only effective treatment option (with more side effects and lower survival rates)

I have no problem with the family returning to Texas, but they should identify a physician/facility in Texas to assume responsibility for managing treatment.

Slackjaw62 said:

---

abram97 said:

---

Slackjaw62 said:

---

The reality is that childhood cancer treatment is one of the most rigorously evidence based areas of medicine; the overwhelming survival advantage of intensive chemotherapy treatment for ALL is such that it could not be disputed by any rational impartial observer.

---

I am an oncologist. I am a researcher. I know a bit about this subject, specifically. Cancer research - It is not a flawless system. The more you know about it, the more you might agree with me on just this small part.

---

Stating that something is "not flawless" is both self-evident and irrelevant.

The five-year survival rates for childhood ALL with appropriate therapy are approximately 90%. Consolidation and maintenance chemotherapy (what the parents are disputing here) has been the standard of care for ALL since the 1960s, when 5 year survival rates were ~10%.

What you appear to be asserting is that parents should have the "right" to elect a course that is highly likely to result in the death of their child over a course that is highly likely to result in long term survival.

---

I am trying to point out to you that the research that is done on many drugs might not be that accurate. I have some inside knowledge about this. I agree that the child should be treated. I am advocating for thoughts on the other side of the argument.

I wonder...an adult has the right to deny treatment that will end their life sooner (most likely). I deal with that all the time. But who has the final say over children? If not the parents then the "state" does? Elected officials? Appointed officials? These people are not necessarily the most ethical bunch around as they are human, too, and can be corrupted.

Remember the case of the child in the UK who had a genetic d/o (incurable) that the government said had a "right to die"? They denied the child therapy that the drug company would be giving for free. They denied the right of the parent to transport the child to another care facility. There was a big hubbub about it some years back. Now, I do not agree with that crap in the least. Horrible.

In the end, I am presenting another side to argue - adding some info to the argument. There are always pieces of info that some might not know.

dcbowers said:

---

I completely agree with the post above.

This unfortunate child has acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), which has well-established survival rates of 90%.

The first month of leukemia treatment ("Induction") can kill 99.99% of the leukemia, but an additional 2 years of therapy ("Consolidation" and "Maintenance") are mandatory to eradicate the remaining 0.01% of the leukemia.

I can understand parents reluctance to continue therapy when 99.99% of the leukemia is gone and their child is feeling well, but it is not theoretical that the leukemia would return should therapy she discontinued. If and when the leukemia relapses, a bone marrow transplant is often the only effective treatment option (with more side effects and lower survival rates)

I have no problem with the family returning to Texas, but they should identify a physician/facility in Texas to assume responsibility for managing treatment.

---

I agree that the child should get induction and maintenance for sure. I am all for it and try and persuade pts and families all the time. I have adults refuse therapy not infrequently.

Quote:

---

But who has the final say over children? If not the parents then the "state" does? Elected officials? Appointed officials? These people are not necessarily the most ethical bunch around as they are human, too, and can be corrupted.

---

The legal standard is the best interest of the child. The vast majority of parents act in the best interest of their children in circumstances (like this one) where the correct medical decision is entirely beyond dispute. Judges, doctors and medical science are none of them perfect, but this is not a difficult decision. And I have no idea what "corruption" has to do with any of this.

People may believe that religious woo, or turmeric and vitamin C, or whatever, are going to cure their highly fatal cancer when medical science can cure them, and as long as they are adults of sound mind they can make that decision. A civilized society does not, however, stand by idly when a deluded parent wants to make a decision that will kill their kid.

Quote:

---

I am trying to point out to you that the research that is done on many drugs might not be that accurate. I have some inside knowledge about this. I agree that the child should be treated. I am advocating for thoughts on the other side of the argument.

---

If not already evident, I am also a physician and am personally involved both in clinical research and oversight of it. I assure you that I am well aware of the limitations of the system.

None of these vague references, however, change the fact that these two particular morons, who have doubtlessly "done their research" (i.e., read nonsense from some quack on the internet who seems to be saying what they want to hear), are trying to take a course of action that will kill their child.

There is no "other side of the argument" unless you are asserting that they own their child, and should be able to let him die of a highly curable disease if they want to do so.