RoR: Forum

Post 0

Sunday, May 10 - 6:04am

Link

Edit

The second news item is the most chilling:

The lawyer, Thomas Sinas, said he’ll no longer acknowledge “the genuineness of Danny Hauser’s religious beliefs” based on his closed-door testimony. ...

Later Saturday, Sinas called guardian ad litem Shiree Oliver to the stand. She has been appointed by the court to represent Danny’s best interests, and is represented by Sinas and other attorneys.

Oliver said Danny doesn’t have the “capacity or ability” to understand his religious beliefs. ...

Sinas made a motion asking the judge to bar experts from testifying about alternative healing techniques.

First, he cited a state law: “A parent who obtains complementary and alternative health care for the parent’s minor child is not relieved of the duty to seek necessary medical care ...,” the law reads.

Recap:

The State doesn't have to take your mind seriously. The State doesn't even have to appear to even take experts testifying on your behalf seriously (it can motion to bar them). The State knows what it is that is in an individual's "best interests", and is willing to harm you in order to achieve the goal of your "best interests". The State will make sure and give you what's in your best interest by taking away your autononmy, if necessary.

:-)

Post 1

Sunday, May 10 - 9:04am

Link

Edit

He’s a minor and deserves protection from his silly voodoo parents.

He can kill himself when he turns 18.

Post 2

Sunday, May 10 - 10:33am

Link

Edit

Ahh - the silly magic age - 18... when ye dumb before it but when reach it , "SHAZAM" ye got smarts...

[hear the Brooklyn Bridge is still for sale...]

Post 3

Sunday, May 10 - 10:41am

Link

Edit

I tend to agree with Jon's terse assessment. Ed, we are not talking simply about the right of an adult to make his own choices and to embrace alternative medicine if he chooses. We are talking about the welfare of a minor, whom the parents are responsible for. What right do the parents have to disregard the best interests of their child? You tell me.

- Bill

Post 4

Sunday, May 10 - 12:14pm

Link

Edit

I will support the protests of Jon and Bill here. Spectral evidence has been ruled out of court in America for centuries for good cause:

Over 300 years ago, on October 12, 1692, Governor William Phipps of the Colony of Massachusetts made a decision that brought to an end the horrendous Salem Witch trials.

A Christian, nevertheless he declared that spectral evidence (supernaturalism) would no longer be admissible in court, and so the trials, due to lack of appropriate evidence, came to an end. The governor’s decision was a distinct departure from the general community’s extant thinking and a giant step on the path toward the principle of legal neutrality that would, when the United States incorporated into its brand new Constitution a Bill of Rights, assure each U.S. citizen the freedom to follow his/her conscience regarding matters of ultimate belief.

So while the parents have the right to act according to conscience, the limits to those actions come when they attempt to appeal to spectral evidence to justify their actions.

This rule applies both ways so that neither accused nor accuser can employ spectral evidence to make a case.

At least, that is how I read it as a non-lawyer.

I know this argument is ultimately about the right thing to do and not the law, but I can hardly ignore the precedent when it has such a solid grounding in reason.

As an aside, my dad beat lymph cancer a few years ago with chemotherapy and remains clean, so I have confidence in "traditional" treatment methods.

Is there anything to stop the parents from feeding the child herbs, vitamins, etc. while he gets the treatment?

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 5/10, 12:17pm)

Post 5

Sunday, May 10 - 2:25pm

Link

Edit

“Ahh - the silly magic age - 18... when ye dumb before it but when reach it , "SHAZAM" ye got smarts...”

On the contrary. The parents are over 18 and I find them exceedingly dumb. In fact, I find many people over 18 dumb. You and they have a perfect right to jump off a cliff—just not with a minor in your arms.

Post 6

Sunday, May 10 - 4:00pm

Link

Edit

I agree with Ed's take on the dangers of court rulings that are autocratic, or occur behind closed doors, and particularly when they are deciding on the content of moral or philosophical belief.
---------

But, in this case, Jon has the key issue right. The parents would most likely end up killing the child, so the state has to assume guardianship to the degree needed to get the kid through this illness.
---------

In my experience, Family Court can be much more autocratic, and more informal (less ritual, less formal procedure) and as a result they are often more efficient, less subject to absurd partisan manipulations and usually well focused on the kids best interests, but they are also often skirting closer to being tyrannical.

The other trial courts tend to be more ritual-laden, chock full of formalized procedure, and highly adversarial. While protected from autocratic tyranny, they often end up misplacing justice in the mindlessness of some of the rules and technical details.

Post 7

Sunday, May 10 - 4:47pm

Link

Edit

As someone who was diagnosed four years ago with malignant melanoma and given maybe a 40% chance of surviving 5 years out, and then urged by my doctors to try all sorts of treatments with no proven efficacy for that type of cancer (radiation, etc.), and having undergone two hellish months of high-dose Interferon treatment: I can sympathize with the POV of the parents and child here.

Granted, here there appears to be some science on their side (50% versus 95% survival rate), but still, the state forcing an older minor child against their will to undergo the nastiness of chemo? I still remember my oncologist strenuously urging me to finish the full year of Interferon treatment, despite all the awful complications I endured. It would have been awful if the state had been able to force me to finish that course of treatment, and the radiation, and all that other rubbish ...

So, yes, the competence of the minor child to make an informed decision is certainly at issue here, but I don't think it is the slam-dunk others here make it out to be. I think a compelling case can be made for letting the child make the call, even if we think it is the wrong call, if they are mature enough.

P.S. Still symptom-free and in apparent remission as of this date ...

Post 8

Sunday, May 10 - 6:34pm

Link

Edit

How far should the state go?

Should physical force be used against the kid if he resists treatment? (Leather straps? Tazers, if he struggles with police?)

Should the parents be forced to pay for the treatment?

Post 9

Sunday, May 10 - 7:47pm

Link

Edit

Jim,

Personal experience always brings perspective to any issue. I hope you remain in remission!

As you stated, your situation was different. Your doctors were pushing what they could do even though what they could do apparently wasn’t proven to do much (“all sorts of treatments with no proven efficacy for that type of cancer”) So your case was quite different.

“I think a compelling case can be made for letting the child make the call, even if we think it is the wrong call, if they are mature enough.”

I sympathize with this viewpoint. It’s just that a sympathize more with a victim of twisted, f’ed-up parenting. Perhaps it is a coincidence that he believes in the same quaint bullshit they believe in, but personally I suspect brain washing. And brain washing is fine right up until, “Now jump off that cliff.”

Post 10

Sunday, May 10 - 7:53pm

Link

Edit

Steven,

“How far should the state go?

Should physical force be used against the kid if he resists treatment? (Leather straps? Tazers, if he struggles with police?)

Should the parents be forced to pay for the treatment?”

What if the treatment would leave him penisless?

What if, instead of what-ifing it into a different case, we instead focused on the actual case?

The article states that the reason for the objection is that the creator demands a pure life over a long one.

So, what if the treatment was free of charge and free of side effects yet the parents still withheld, based on their fear of what the fairies in their head would think about it?

Force. Yes, sure. I’ve held my daughters down while they got shots. If they had been larger or me smaller—then yes, Tazers, straps, etc.

Post 11

Sunday, May 10 - 8:00pm

Link

Edit

It's ironic that some of you have answered like you have considering the current article by Tibor Machan about how a truly free country "refuses to permit the imposition of plans on [its citizens] even by the most wise and smart among us." It doesn't make you all wrong, it's just ironic.

I see your points because they weren't lost on me in the first place. As I see it, the issue is two-fold:

1) how much risk should the state allow citizens to take?
2) what about those citizen's kids?

Do you dissenters agree with my characterization of this issue as having these two parts to it (and only these two parts)?

Ed

Post 12

Sunday, May 10 - 8:23pm

Link

Edit

Hi Ed,

“1) how much risk should the state allow citizens to take?”

Any amount when it is only their ass on the line. They may refuse treatment for themselves and die, so long as they let me know which charity to give to in their name.

“2) what about those citizen's kids?”

The kids have the right to life, which the parents are responsible for carrying out. When the parents are remiss, the government exists to protect the kids’ right to life.

(Edited by Jon Letendre on 5/10, 9:12pm)

Post 13

Sunday, May 10 - 9:18pm

Link

Edit

First, contrary to what the state's attorney said, there are no state's rights (whatever that is) to protect. The state does have a legitimate responsibility to protect its citizens rights, however, and this 13 year old child does have rights. The medical evidence is clear. Treatments for this illness are well known and prescribed.

It comes down, I think, to who is responsible to do what.

The child does not likely have the maturity, and is certainly not considered to be legally responsible for such decisions at his age. Therefore it is not his say.

Morally and legally, the parents are responsible for the welfare of the child. They have a legal say, but they also have a legal responsibility.

Refusing such medical treatment to the child is a breach of the parent's legal responsibility. This leaves only two reasonable choices to the state. Either prosecute the parents for manslaughter when the boy dies, or appoint a responsible legal custodian to protect the child's well-being.

Death by cancer, aside from being final, is a damned sight more painful than the indignities of chemo. I won the cancer lottery myself a couple of years ago, and got the same "some people have lasted five years" talk I imagine Jim had. At 13, this kid is just not equipped to evaluate the differences, or for that matter to recognize that treatments and his chances are constantly improving with time.

jt

PS: Five operations, radioactive iodine, six (long) months of chemo, and I'm at least officially cancer-free, and moving on, although now I'm watchful.

Post 14

Sunday, May 10 - 9:35pm

Link

Edit

Ed -- great point in post #11. Sanctioned it.

I do think that there is an argument to be made that the child in question might not be old enough to make an informed decision. That is something that can only be decided by talking to the actual child involved and making a (hopefully) informed decision. It is a judgment call.

Governments draw several different lines in the sand as to when people are competent to make decisions for themselves. For instance, in Hawaii where I live, a person is judged to be an adult for purposes of making decisions at:

1) 16 for purposes of giving sexual consent (used to be 14 a few years ago)

2) 16 to 18 for driving a vehicle, with various restrictions at 16 that go away at 18

3) 18 for most decisions

4) 21 for drinking alcohol (go figure)

5) Never, for purposes of deciding which government services one may choose to subscribe to and pay for

I do think it is presumptuous to say that if this particular child is mature enough to make such a big decision, that they should be prohibited from doing so because one disagrees with the particular brand of religious upbringing they have been subjected to. I strenuously object to that notion. To my mind, the only issue here is whether the child is mature enough to understand the consequences of refusing treatment, understands they can die, and yet chooses the riskier course of action, either out of a revulsion for what chemo does to your body (because it bloody well IS poison, as I can personally attest to), or out of a religious belief, however much one might disagree with that belief.

I'll go a little farther than Ed's very courteous and polite comments about irony, and say that there seems to me to be an authoritarian strain to some of the comments on this thread that may at odds with the individualist / Objectivist principles that most people here generally hold.

(Edited by Jim Henshaw on 5/10, 9:45pm)

Post 15

Sunday, May 10 - 9:59pm

Link

Edit

I'll go a little farther than Ed's very courteous and polite comments about irony, and say that there seems to me to be an authoritarian strain to some of the comments on this thread that may at odds with the individualist / Objectivist principles that most people here generally hold.
............

Really!!

Post 16

Sunday, May 10 - 10:44pm

Link

Edit

“seems to me”

“some of the comments”

“may [be] at odds”

“most people”

Wishy-washy Girl Scouts.

Jim, Robert, you’re both anarchists—so you wouldn’t acknowledge a role for government in protecting a child from anything, right?

Post 17

Monday, May 11 - 7:27am

Link

Edit

I'd still say at 13, no matter how bright the kid may be, or how clever or trained he may be in saying just the right things, he will not have the maturity to truly recognize all the options, or comprehend the finality his decision.

Yes, the age of 18 might be considered an arbitrary line, but there has to be some clear determining point, short of giving everyone a battery of tests each year to determine whether they are responsible enough. I know people in their 30's and much older who would fail that test.

jt

Post 18

Monday, May 11 - 8:02am

Link

Edit

And yer last sentence belies yer first...

Out of all the thousands of years humanity has been around, only in the past 100 have there arisen the notion that those in their teens are suddenly to be considered as 'extended children' - an idea I submit as amounting to 'child abuse'... certainly not one which pertains to individualism and the recognition of individual rights... to be blunt, you've been suckered into a vicious tribal notion basely as irrational as any...
(Edited by robert malcom on 5/11, 8:07am)

Post 19

Monday, May 11 - 8:33am

Link

Edit

Robert, would you support state interference on behalf of a nine year old in the same circumstance?