ADVERTISEMENT

You guys are really dropping the ball...

KingDavid

Bronze Knight
Gold Member
Jun 24, 2003
1,276
2,000
113
I can't believe this hasn't been discussed...

AAB8upt.img

Judge rules 3-year-old must receive chemotherapy against parents' wishes
https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/he...t-parents-wishes/ar-AAB8rk4?OCID=ansmsnnews11
 
A judge overruling a parent's decision about the healthcare of their child is news. Courts have stayed clear of the whole religious / psycho rights deal.
 
"His parents, Taylor Bland and Joshua McAdams, had asked the court to allow them to forgo chemotherapy, in favor of alternative treatments, including medicinal cannabis, vitamins and diet, according to CNN affiliate WFLA."

Parents of the year. Outstanding folks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFWayne
Parents should be in jail

Your "right to parent" doesn't supersede the child's right to live as a person.
 
  • Like
Reactions: btbones
"His parents, Taylor Bland and Joshua McAdams, had asked the court to allow them to forgo chemotherapy, in favor of alternative treatments, including medicinal cannabis, vitamins and diet, according to CNN affiliate WFLA."

Parents of the year. Outstanding folks.
I think we need to know which team they belong to before we can have a discussion. Are they religious or atheistic stoners?
 
How is it not somewhat reasonable for a parent to not want their child pumped full of poison? That's essentially what chemo is. I don't agree or disagree with what the parents are doing, so to me passing judgment is ridiculous.
 
How is it not somewhat reasonable for a parent to not want their child pumped full of poison? That's essentially what chemo is. I don't agree or disagree with what the parents are doing, so to me passing judgment is ridiculous.
In all seriousness, I don’t know where to stand on this. On one hand, I hate the government forcing the parents to do this. On the other hand, the 3 year-old is powerless to choose his own destiny with this. So maybe it might be reasonable for the court to step in and appoint an independent advocate for the child and then hear the case.

I can’t get my head around any parents not wanting to exhaust all options for their child. On the other hand, they were already undergoing chemo and stopped the treatments. We don’t know what the side effects were not what the chance of remission at the end is. I’m assuming the court took all of that into account though.

Bottom line, what a tough situation for little Noah.
 
Last edited:
How is it not somewhat reasonable for a parent to not want their child pumped full of poison? That's essentially what chemo is. I don't agree or disagree with what the parents are doing, so to me passing judgment is ridiculous.
Is chemo 100%, nope. Until you show me something is 100% I don’t blame anyone for trying everything.
 
How is it not somewhat reasonable for a parent to not want their child pumped full of poison? That's essentially what chemo is. I don't agree or disagree with what the parents are doing, so to me passing judgment is ridiculous.

Very disingenuous take, yes it's "poison" but its the only thing that gives you a chance. Without chemo most forms of childhood cancer are 99+% fatal.

Passing on known science to go with quack "more vitamins" is killing your child.
 
In all seriousness, I don’t know where to stand on this. On one hand, I hate the government forcing the parents to do this. On the other hand, the 3 year-old is powerless to choose his own destiny with this. So maybe it might be reasonable for the court to step in and appoint an independent advocate for the child and then hear the case.

I can’t get my head around any parents not wanting to exhaust all options for their child. On the other hand, they were already undergoing chemo and stopped the treatments. We don’t know what the side effects were not what the chance of remission at the end is. I’m assuming the court took all of that into account though.

Bottom line, what a tough situation for little Noah.


Fair take.

The article cited lost custody, social workers, the child being flown back, etc. Does anyone know what the law states? I don't, but it appears that the State can and will intervene through what they deem as neglect for lack of treatment. Which to a great degree, I understand. If you have a kid who is dying of something or afflicted with a disease that can be treated and the parents are effing nuts and deny their child treatment because they believe that Santa Claus will cure them, I guess I'm happy knowing that their are protections in place to help save the child from their insane parents.

On the other hand, what if you stopped treatment on your child because it wasn't doing any good, the side effects were too great, and you wanted your child to die with dignity (or something along those lines)? Do the same laws apply? Again, I can't speak to laws that apparently are in place but could see where that's a pretty slippery slope especially if the state mandated that you continue treatment regardless. And holy shit, could you imagine taking a child away from the parents in the former's final days just because you can.

I imagine there is a lot more to this that that short article didn't spell out and it's probably wayyyyy more complicated than what appears...
 
Fair take.

The article cited lost custody, social workers, the child being flown back, etc. Does anyone know what the law states? I don't, but it appears that the State can and will intervene through what they deem as neglect for lack of treatment. Which to a great degree, I understand. If you have a kid who is dying of something or afflicted with a disease that can be treated and the parents are effing nuts and deny their child treatment because they believe that Santa Claus will cure them, I guess I'm happy knowing that their are protections in place to help save the child from their insane parents.

On the other hand, what if you stopped treatment on your child because it wasn't doing any good, the side effects were too great, and you wanted your child to die with dignity (or something along those lines)? Do the same laws apply? Again, I can't speak to laws that apparently are in place but could see where that's a pretty slippery slope especially if the state mandated that you continue treatment regardless. And holy shit, could you imagine taking a child away from the parents in the former's final days just because you can.

I imagine there is a lot more to this that that short article didn't spell out and it's probably wayyyyy more complicated than what appears...

If the kid was going round after round with chemo and seeing no improvement, and they were going to attempt some experimental drug or just attempt to let the kid live a normal life with the little he has left, that’s one thing.

But if true they are forgoing modern medical science for vitamins and cannabinoids, then I have no problem with the state stepping in because the parents don’t have the child’s best interest in mind. We don’t know the financial aspect to all this, but if it really is as simple as some loons choosing quackery, then it’s basically neglect and the state steps in for others situations when neglect and abuse come into play.
 
If the kid was going round after round with chemo and seeing no improvement, and they were going to attempt some experimental drug or just attempt to let the kid live a normal life with the little he has left, that’s one thing.

But if true they are forgoing modern medical science for vitamins and cannabinoids, then I have no problem with the state stepping in because the parents don’t have the child’s best interest in mind. We don’t know the financial aspect to all this, but if it really is as simple as some loons choosing quackery, then it’s basically neglect and the state steps in for others situations when neglect and abuse come into play.


That's the thing though: this article is all over the place. They did say they wanted to explore other options/opinions. Who in the hell knows what that is, however. I agree with your point that if the secondary treatment is vitamins and holy water, that's bullshit.

Something interesting that you brought up: finances. What if a family did something that was financially based rather than "ethically," so to speak, and that was deemed negligence by the State? I mean, it's not out of the realm of possibilities that people make medical choices based on cost--regardless of the severity of the matter.
 
That's the thing though: this article is all over the place. They did say they wanted to explore other options/opinions. Who in the hell knows what that is, however. I agree with your point that if the secondary treatment is vitamins and holy water, that's bullshit.

Something interesting that you brought up: finances. What if a family did something that was financially based rather than "ethically," so to speak, and that was deemed negligence by the State? I mean, it's not out of the realm of possibilities that people make medical choices based on cost--regardless of the severity of the matter.

True but if they take him to the hospital, even off chemo, he’s going to be given treatment even if they can’t pay. But it doesn’t seem like that’s what’s happening here.
 
True but if they take him to the hospital, even off chemo, he’s going to be given treatment even if they can’t pay. But it doesn’t seem like that’s what’s happening here.

Yeah but one can't quite roll into county general and just get specified chemo applications to their liking. I get what you are saying but it's costly and for a reason.
 
In all seriousness, I don’t know where to stand on this. ... I hate the government forcing the parents to do this.
Yeah, this one is a real toughie, right sk8knight?

If only this case involved a woman seeking an abortion instead of psycho parents jeopardizing the life of their sick 3-year old boy THEN it would be crystal clear that the government should step in.
 
Yeah, this one is a real toughie, right sk8knight?

If only this case involved a woman seeking an abortion instead of psycho parents jeopardizing the life of their sick 3-year old boy THEN it would be crystal clear that the government should step in.

Not the same thing at all, and no need to bring politics into it.
 
Yeah, this one is a real toughie, right sk8knight?

If only this case involved a woman seeking an abortion instead of psycho parents jeopardizing the life of their sick 3-year old boy THEN it would be crystal clear that the government should step in.
I’m honestly conflicted on abortion as well. I do find it interesting that European countries appoint an advocate for the unborn baby and force the woman to go to court. At least they are acknowledging that they are ending a human life. I hate the obfuscation in trying to shape the debate as if it isn’t a human life or as if all abortions are women’s health issues. I don’t think we can form good policies, either way, if we can’t even have an honest discussion.

Not the response you were expecting, right?
 
The irony is the government is cool with late term abortions and now post birth abortions.

And yes, a medical advisor should make the call. Cancer isn't going away with vitamins and weed.
 
I’m honestly conflicted on abortion as well. ... I hate the obfuscation in trying to shape the debate as if it isn’t a human life or as if all abortions are women’s health issues. I don’t think we can form good policies, either way, if we can’t even have an honest discussion.
i just find it odd when the same posters who are ‘conflicted’ over whether the government should step in to save the life of a deathly ill 3-year old boy are adamant about our government stepping in to protect...a fetus? Apparently pro-life only pertains to developing fetuses and not real, living, breathing people. That’s always struck me as one of the more bizarre aspects of this movement.
 
Yeah, this one is a real toughie, right sk8knight?

If only this case involved a woman seeking an abortion instead of psycho parents jeopardizing the life of their sick 3-year old boy THEN it would be crystal clear that the government should step in.

Or maybe he's not a blowhard jackass like you, who took a nuanced approach to responding since absolutely on one here has the full context and history of what his family has gone through?

I have to laugh at you people given definitive answers either way on this. You read a few paragraphs from a story and decide that you have everything you need to know to render an opinion either way.
 
i just find it odd when the same posters who are ‘conflicted’ over whether the government should step in to save the life of a deathly ill 3-year old boy are adamant about our government stepping in to protect...a fetus? Apparently pro-life only pertains to developing fetuses and not real, living, breathing people. That’s always struck me as one of the more bizarre aspects of this movement.

This is the type of response someone writes when they know that they support something truly evil like abortion and try to paint some sort of bullshit false moral equivalency using a story that they know nothing about.
 
This is the type of response someone writes when they know that they support something truly evil like abortion and try to paint some sort of bullshit false moral equivalency using a story that they know nothing about.
I agree it’s a false moral equivalency. Protecting a real, living and breathing human child is infinitely more “pro-life” than the fake kind.
 
I agree it’s a false moral equivalency. Protecting a real, living and breathing human child is infinitely more “pro-life” than the fake kind.

Please stop pretending to care. You don't give a shit about this kid just like you don't give a shit about slaughtered unborn children. The fact that you have to dehumanize and degrade an unborn child to make your ignorant, false point just says it all. Disgusting.
 
Please stop pretending to care. You don't give a shit about this kid just like you don't give a shit about slaughtered unborn children.
Holy hypocrisy, Batman! Pot meet kettle.
The fact that you have to dehumanize and degrade an unborn child to make your ignorant, false point just says it all. Disgusting.
My false point? Yeah, isn't it disgusting how I "dehumanized" and "degraded" a fetus by observing that a deathly-ill 3-year old boy is getting less concern from some in the "pro-life" community?
 
  • Like
Reactions: NinjaKnight
How is it not somewhat reasonable for a parent to not want their child pumped full of poison? That's essentially what chemo is. I don't agree or disagree with what the parents are doing, so to me passing judgment is ridiculous.
That's gonna earn a yikes from me dog.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NinjaKnight
Holy hypocrisy, Batman! Pot meet kettle.My false point? Yeah, isn't it disgusting how I "dehumanized" and "degraded" a fetus by observing that a deathly-ill 3-year old boy is getting less concern from some in the "pro-life" community?
You say the boy is getting less concern, but it is more likely that the “pro-life” crowd would be the ones to step up and pay for this kid’s medical treatments if the family came out and said they simply couldn’t afford it.

I still would like to know who is paying for the now government-ordered treatments.
 
You say the boy is getting less concern, but it is more likely that the “pro-life” crowd would be the ones to step up and pay for this kid’s medical treatments
From everything I've read, this isn't a money issue, it's just another one of those wacko 'anti-vax'-type deals where the parents think chemotherapy is bad and they know more than the medical community.

Screw the notion that in 99% of cases, chemo can -- and will -- save their boy's life, these nutjobs would rather risk his life by using herbs and other 'natural' medications.
 
You say the boy is getting less concern, but it is more likely that the “pro-life” crowd would be the ones to step up and pay for this kid’s medical treatments if the family came out and said they simply couldn’t afford it.

I still would like to know who is paying for the now government-ordered treatments.

The pro-life also crowd isn't doing mental gymnastics like the anti-life crowd is. Yet again.
 
i just find it odd when the same posters who are ‘conflicted’ over whether the government should step in to save the life of a deathly ill 3-year old boy are adamant about our government stepping in to protect...a fetus? Apparently pro-life only pertains to developing fetuses and not real, living, breathing people. That’s always struck me as one of the more bizarre aspects of this movement.

I'm personally not conflicted if this is cancer and she has a good chance of survival after treatment. She is 3 and can't make up her own mind similar to an unborn living child. It is interesting where the line goes. What if the government demands treatment on some kid with a 15% survival rate after treatment? These are whacko hippies so I know it doesn't apply here, but I can see some extra government reach coming.
 
I'm personally not conflicted if this is cancer and she has a good chance of survival after treatment. She is 3 and can't make up her own mind similar to an unborn living child. It is interesting where the line goes. What if the government demands treatment on some kid with a 15% survival rate after treatment? These are whacko hippies so I know it doesn't apply here, but I can see some extra government reach coming.
That's the main reason why I'm conflicted on this one. Government overreach nearly always starts innocuously and often with vast public approval. Until the precedent leads down that slippery slope.

But there is that other factor that we don't know what kind of effect the treatments have on this kid. The story left that part out.
 
I'm personally not conflicted if this is cancer and she has a good chance of survival after treatment. She is 3 and can't make up her own mind similar to an unborn living child. It is interesting where the line goes. What if the government demands treatment on some kid with a 15% survival rate after treatment? These are whacko hippies so I know it doesn't apply here, but I can see some extra government reach coming.
I agree with your take. Frankly, given the stupidity of some of these anti-vaxer parents and their role in the return of measles and chicken pox, I see the government taking a stronger stance moving forward.

Maybe it's just that I'm hearing from a very skewed set of social conservatives, but it's a head-scratcher to me when right-leaning, religious conservatives worry about the government "stepping into" personal family decisions like this one while being staunchly anti-abortion supporters. How can anyone reconcile such radically opposing positions?
 
I agree with your take. Frankly, given the stupidity of some of these anti-vaxer parents and their role in the return of measles and chicken pox, I see the government taking a stronger stance moving forward.

Maybe it's just that I'm hearing from a very skewed set of social conservatives, but it's a head-scratcher to me when right-leaning, religious conservatives worry about the government "stepping into" personal family decisions like this one while being staunchly anti-abortion supporters. How can anyone reconcile such radically opposing positions?
I don't think you're portraying the positions correctly and they certainly are not radically opposing positions.

Conservatives, especially religious conservatives, value life as a gift from god. It's right there in the second sentence of the Declaration of Independence as one of the foremost founding values of the country, you know "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". This affirms a value for the American people, and it is reaffirmed in the 14th Amendment which prohibits Government from depriving someone of life without due process.

- Conservatives view a conceived child to be a life and so protecting the unalienable right to life for the conceived child is following the founding values. Abortion is depriving that conceived child of it's unalienable right to life, therefore many conservatives are in favor of the Government stepping in to preserve that life. Would this Government action violate the woman's liberty to choose what to do with her own body? If you view the conceived child as a living entity, then it isn't her own body at that point. You are making a definite and concerted effort to kill the child. The child dies. Without a legal justification and assuming that child is a legal entity, this would otherwise be murder. So no conflict.

- Some conservatives view these parents as being irresponsible or negligent and are depriving their son of his right to life. Therefore, they are in favor of the Government stepping in to protect that unalienable right to life of that son. Others see the Government stepping in as a violation of the family's right (including the son) to liberty in defining their own path. There's the conflict for Conservatives. Especially since it's not a cut-and-dried, chemo and he lives case. Remember, this is not an action to kill the son outright and that is a major difference.

Personally in the case of abortions, I would take the next step and say that the 14th Amendment requires due process before the life can be legally ended, and as such the conceived child should be represented and given due process before any legal abortion can be performed. (Noting, of course, that the 14th limits government and not private people) As for our laws regarding recognizing living humans and also enacting limitations on private people, do you not find it crazy that someone who kills a pregnant woman gets charged with 2 murders in many jurisdictions where abortion is perfectly legal? Or that parental permission is required for minors to see a rated-R movie and also for all other medical procedures but not for abortions, thus removing a natural advocate from the conceived child from the equation?
 
I don't think you're portraying the positions correctly and they certainly are not radically opposing positions.

Conservatives, especially religious conservatives, value life as a gift from god. It's right there in the second sentence of the Declaration of Independence as one of the foremost founding values of the country, you know "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". This affirms a value for the American people, and it is reaffirmed in the 14th Amendment which prohibits Government from depriving someone of life without due process.

- Conservatives view a conceived child to be a life and so protecting the unalienable right to life for the conceived child is following the founding values. Abortion is depriving that conceived child of it's unalienable right to life, therefore many conservatives are in favor of the Government stepping in to preserve that life. Would this Government action violate the woman's liberty to choose what to do with her own body? If you view the conceived child as a living entity, then it isn't her own body at that point. You are making a definite and concerted effort to kill the child. The child dies. Without a legal justification and assuming that child is a legal entity, this would otherwise be murder. So no conflict.

- Some conservatives view these parents as being irresponsible or negligent and are depriving their son of his right to life. Therefore, they are in favor of the Government stepping in to protect that unalienable right to life of that son. Others see the Government stepping in as a violation of the family's right (including the son) to liberty in defining their own path. There's the conflict for Conservatives. Especially since it's not a cut-and-dried, chemo and he lives case. Remember, this is not an action to kill the son outright and that is a major difference.

Personally in the case of abortions, I would take the next step and say that the 14th Amendment requires due process before the life can be legally ended, and as such the conceived child should be represented and given due process before any legal abortion can be performed. (Noting, of course, that the 14th limits government and not private people) As for our laws regarding recognizing living humans and also enacting limitations on private people, do you not find it crazy that someone who kills a pregnant woman gets charged with 2 murders in many jurisdictions where abortion is perfectly legal? Or that parental permission is required for minors to see a rated-R movie and also for all other medical procedures but not for abortions, thus removing a natural advocate from the conceived child from the equation?

Just as a reminder, you are debating with someone who honestly claimed that the Bible, and by extension God, approves of and endorses abortion via "approval by omission". Everything you said is exactly right but you need to understand what warped views this person is starting with here.
 
Parents should be in jail

Your "right to parent" doesn't supersede the child's right to live as a person.

Hmm, hypocrisy at it's finest. Somewhere between conception and birth that same kid had no rights because of Rights of the mother supersede the right of that kid to live, grow and develop inside her uterus.

Here is something novel, how about unless any of you walk a foot in the shoes of any parent whose kid is disabled, has a disease that is either terminal or life altering, how about stop judging others? You know not the pain, difficulty and the trials and tribulations of what these families go through.

I have 3 kids. My first son had meningitis at 24 days old. It killed half his brain. He is severely disabled. At the age of 3 we spent Christmas day in the hospital because he was having multiple seizures. The neurologist drugged him up with topomax and carbotrol at nearly 3,500 mg a day of seizure drugs. We either did that and risk his liver from drug issues or we don't drug him and he could die of seizures.

Then we stumbled onto the ketogenic diet for epileptic kids. Now my background is in biology and chemistry and I was skeptical of treating my kid's epilepsy with altering his diet,because after all only freaks and stupid parents try alternative medicine right? Turns out that Shands neurology department was starting a ketogenic program for epileptic kids. So, we tried it.

Guess what it worked very well for my son. He was on the ketogenic diet for 8 years. He to this day does not take epilepsy drugs. He is 20. There are cons of the keto diet like high cholesterol and kidney stress. We figured using smart balance would help mitigate that and it did.

My 18 year old son,Cole, developed epilepsy when he was 13. He will likely be going to UCF this fall. We did not go down the keto road with him and tried multiple drugs including depikote. It is a horrible drug. The side effects were huge in my son Cole.

It is agonizing to roll the dice on modern pharmaceutical drugs when your kids life is on the line. It's pick your poison to treat what ever chronic or life threatening thing there is. The side effects of drugs I forced my kids to take are serious and sometimes seem worse than the condition itself. With Kyle, my severely disabled 20 year old, it was do I kill him with liver killing seizure drugs or do I kill him cardiovascular nightmare of the ketogenic diet or do I kill him by not giving any drugs or treatment at all knowing a seizure could end in death?

I don't know anything about those parents , but I know this, some of you people on here are the most bat shit crazy judgemental people I read on the internet. You claim to be enlightened, tolerant and open minded but you sit on your high horse and look down on people with contempt without ever taking a second to know ones heart or the pain they face in making life and death decisions about their kids whom they dearly love.

It's is agonizing walking this road as a dad. It's a constant damned if I do or damned if I don't situation. Guess what, if and when things don't go well, guess who shoulders that burden? Do any of you with healthy kids or no kids at all shoulder it? Nope. You don't.

So, I would be pissed off if a judge forced me to do something that I know could be very harmful to my kid even if it seems like the best course of action in the judges mind. That right there is frankly judicial tyranny. Maybe the judge is right , maybe chemo is the best path, I don't know. I do know making life and death level choices though for my boys and it sucks. So, Im not going to judge these parents.

I don't post much here in the water cooler but I had to post on this one.
 
ADVERTISEMENT