2

7/25/2006 3:57:58 PM

Can cancer boy's parents take a life insurance policy out on him?

7/25/2006 4:02:17 PM

you can't just pick and choose when someone is an adult when someone isn't.

7/25/2006 4:06:48 PM

Ok fine, but we stop wasting money trying to prevent teen suicide. They know their choices perfectly and can choose what's best for their health better than any of us.

7/25/2006 4:30:43 PM

Quote :

"Can cancer boy's parents take a life insurance policy out on him? "

Probably costs a shit-ton if anyone is willing to allow it. But, if they already had one on him, its still in force.

7/25/2006 4:31:20 PM

Cypher, where did you read that his odds are less than 50%?

Everything I have seen suggests that even a diagnosis of the worst stage of hodgkins still has an 80% with the chemo. It also states that a reoccurance followed by chemo has the same rates of survival.

7/25/2006 5:11:44 PM

hahahah that dumbass kid probably read this book




This type of judicial exertion of power is a waste of my fucking tax dollars. If the kid doesn't want chemo, let him fucking die. Don't fucking waste court time on it.

7/25/2006 6:12:54 PM

^Agreed. +1

7/25/2006 6:15:23 PM

"THEY"!!!

7/25/2006 6:32:17 PM

Quote :

"Do a cost benefit analysis, absolute hell for three months and a VERY good chance of a long and healthy life or a slow and painful certain death at 16."

So, remind me again who you are to tell this kid what he can and can't do with his body? Would you be so quick to defend the government denying a pregnant 16 year old girl the "right" to an abortion? In short, you think the government should be able to tell anyone what the hell to do, and I don't think that's right. There's no "cost benefit analysis" to this bullshit, because the "cost benefit analysis" isn't allowed in other scenarios. Why pull it out here?

Were you also quick to jump on the bandwagon saying "Pull the plug!" on Terri Schaivo? When we had a vegetable here who certainly couldn't make any decisions for herself. Why could we then pull the plug on her? Why was that not neglect?

Quote :

"I agree that he's old enough really, but legally, he's not. If you want a law change, I might support that, but what age magically makes you old enough to deal with it? If its not 18, is it 16? What's the big difference between 16 and 15...etc. until we have infants choosing their own medical procedures. Unfortunately, we have to pick an age. If you think its too high at 18, lobby for change, but have a good idea of what we should change it to first."

So that's what the parents are for. But wait. The gov't doesn't like how the parent wants to choose to face this illness. Oh, OK, let's jump in and stop it right away! Who the fuck gave the government the right to interfere? If a woman's body is sacred and deserves some kind of "right to privacy," whether she is 16 or 18 or 90 and she wants to murder an unborn child, then I'll be fucking DAMNED if anyone else's body also isn't subject to the same "right to privacy." These parents aren't beating the kid. They aren't starving him. They aren't doing nothing. They are chosing a form of treatment. It's just not the one the government wants, and that's too fucking bad for the government.

Quote :

"Knowing the difference between right and wrong...what you need to be tried criminally as an adult is not equal to knowing what's best for your own health - the criterion that should more aptly be used here."

bull fucking shit. There are PLENTY of people who don't know what the fuck is good for them, but you don't see the government running in and telling them how to run their lives. There are plenty of parents who don't know how the fuck to raise their children, and that's part of the problem in America's education systems, but you DON'T see the gov't running in and telling the parents how to raise their kids. If ever there were a case where the gov't needed to run in and tell someone what choices to make, this kid's case aint it.

7/25/2006 11:26:10 PM

There is legal precedent for ordering medical treatment for children, where there is no legal precedent for the Shiavo case (Parents verses Husband). The cost benefit analysis was more opinion, not legal theory. It was more to point out that the kid has a REALLY good chance of surviving the chemo treatment and living a healthy life verses not having the treatment. Honestly, the extremely high odds of the kid surviving and having a normal life are a very big factor of my opinion.

I also feel that the parents are influencing their son's medical decisions.

In Juvenile Court/Department of Social Services Court, the laws are totally different and IMO most of the legal rights disolve. Its how they can order a kid retained in Juvenile Detention simply because he is cutting school and misbehaving/committing petty crimes. Kids are ordered to receive medical treatment all the time by the courts and most situations are not controversal (such as dental work and the parent is too lazy/unconcerned to take the child). There does seem to be a distinction in the case law of ordering chemo when the parents deny the kid has cancer verses alternative treatments.

In other news, Starwood got his case overturned and will have be allowed to continue his diet and herbal supplements from Mexico.

[Edited on July 26, 2006 at 4:50 PM. Reason : k]

7/26/2006 4:49:43 PM

so you are comparing this kid to a criminal now... good logic

7/26/2006 9:24:21 PM

Quote :

"There is legal precedent for ordering medical treatment for children, where there is no legal precedent for the Shiavo case (Parents verses Husband). The cost benefit analysis was more opinion, not legal theory. It was more to point out that the kid has a REALLY good chance of surviving the chemo treatment and living a healthy life verses not having the treatment. Honestly, the extremely high odds of the kid surviving and having a normal life are a very big factor of my opinion. "

WHO GIVES A SHIT ABOUT HIS ODDS OR ANY BOGUS LEGAL PRECEDENT, NAY YOU, A JUDGE, OR ANYONE ELSE OUTSIDE OF THIS KIDS PARENTS AND HIMSELF SHOULD HAVE A SAY IN THIS DECISION.

7/26/2006 9:35:42 PM

Would you say that there is never a cause to charge a parent with neglect under any circumstances? If a parent chooses, say, to not feed or clothe his child, should the government not intervene?

7/26/2006 9:53:54 PM

Slippery slopes bore me. I like common sense law. It is cheaper, quicker, and usually works better.

7/26/2006 10:02:01 PM

Personal Opinion:

Anyone named Starchild should be allowed to die if they wish. No big loss.

Legal Opinion:

The kid isn't an adult by the rules and standards of the State. He is not considered capable of making good, informed decisions by the line that the government has already drawn in the sand. That particular task is left up to the parents. While we can't get an accurate measure of the quality of the parental institution above little Starchild, we can say this.. what kind of parents name their kid Starchild? If asked to make a judgement of the capabilities and decision-making skills of the parents, based of the name of their child, I'd tell you they are fucking whacko.

It is the States job to intercede when it is the opinion that a child is being neglected/harmed by the actions of a parent. Here I can clearly see why the state would feel that way, if it is the case that mom and dad are encouraging him to pursue alternative cures. Even more so if they're convincing him that these cures will work.

Do I blame the state and think their actions are morally wrong? No.

Do I think the judge should have just let the little fucker die? Hell yes.

7/27/2006 11:10:38 AM

Quote :

"While we can't get an accurate measure of the quality of the parental institution above little Starchild, we can say this.. what kind of parents name their kid Starchild? If asked to make a judgement of the capabilities and decision-making skills of the parents, based of the name of their child, I'd tell you they are fucking whacko. "

Thankfuly the government doesn't decide what type of parent you are by what you choose to name your child.

Quote :

"It is the States job to intercede when it is the opinion that a child is being neglected/harmed by the actions of a parent. Here I can clearly see why the state would feel that way, if it is the case that mom and dad are encouraging him to pursue alternative cures. Even more so if they're convincing him that these cures will work. "

And we would need evidence of that and further we would need evidence that the treatments being persued do not work. Remember, they've tried chemo once, and it didn't work.

7/27/2006 11:22:56 AM

Quote :

"but you DON'T see the gov't running in and telling the parents how to raise their kids."

Watch tv for 25 minutes and tell you me you don't see any government sponsored ads telling parents how to raise their kids.


Smoking, drinking, drugs, sex...you'll see one of these four topics discussed and at the end of the ad is a little disclaimer that it was paid for by some government foundation for whatever vice being discussed.

7/27/2006 11:43:34 AM

Quote :

"And we would need evidence of that and further we would need evidence that the treatments being persued do not work. Remember, they've tried chemo once, and it didn't work. "

Sounds like the first round of chemo worked, the cancer just reoccured. That happens. Going through a second round of chemo again brings very good odds for both survival and cure.

Taken from The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society:
http://www.leukemia-lymphoma.org/all_page?item_id=8312#_deaths

Quote :

"Survival Hodgkin lymphoma is now considered to be one of the most curable forms of cancer. Many patients with Hodgkin lymphoma are cured after initial treatment. For the smaller number of patients who may have a recurrence of the disease or a relapse, re-treatment with chemotherapy is often successful. The five-year relative survival rate for patients with Hodgkin lymphoma has increased from 73 percent in 1975-1977 to 86 percent in 1996-2002. "

One of the most curable froms of cancer? Yeah, clearly chemo doesn't work. Pass the herbs and the quack Mexican doctors.

7/27/2006 12:59:08 PM

If the kid wants to die, let him die. More resources for the rest of us.

7/27/2006 1:08:35 PM

*Nod* strangely enough I think i'd be fine with him dying for that reason too.

7/27/2006 1:20:50 PM

Yeah me too, he sounds like he was going to grow up as a douchebag anyway. His name is Starchild.

7/27/2006 1:51:19 PM

Quote :

"Watch tv for 25 minutes and tell you me you don't see any government sponsored ads telling parents how to raise their kids. "

There is a massive difference between a commercial and a court order. I'm sorry that you can't see that difference

7/31/2006 10:06:52 PM

i havent read the whole thread....but who is paying for the forced treatments?

parents insurance, out of pocket, etc?

im just curious where the $ comes into this

8/1/2006 10:13:30 PM

This seems stupid for us to debate.

8/2/2006 3:02:16 AM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14371567/

kid got what he wanted

8/16/2006 11:51:54 AM

What do you guys think? Six months to live?

8/16/2006 3:05:45 PM