another judge who wanted to take all freedom away from a family -- at least temporarily. I'm actually very shocked and amazed -- but this in only a temporary granting of freedom -- there's a new trial date set for August 16th.
I hope that Virginia Attorney General Robert McDonnell's brief supporting the family and freedom IN OPPOSITION TO the state helped in this case. Good job, Mr. McDonnell.
But enemies of freedom (CPS and others), fear not! Those who want to force this unwanted medical treatment on a person who will violently resist until restrained and who want his parents jailed have not yet given up! Carl Bundick and his anti-freedom Nazis with "child protective services" are looking forward to a new "trial" to allow them to forcibly "cure the boy of cancer" -- no matter the cost, no matter what the person wants.
This one isn't over yet.
1
I hope that this is a permanent victory for this young man and his family. A precedent for freedom must be established!
When someone has a life-threatening illness, he should be able to choose his method of treatment without any government interference.
Posted by: Always On Watch at July 26, 2006 02:39 AM (wZLWV)
2
The government has already decided to fight to take this child from his family. They're scheduled to argue to a judge August 16th that they have supreme authority over all life in Virginia and they WILL attempt to force this treatment on him again.
Posted by: Ogre at July 26, 2006 11:15 AM (/k+l4)
3
I'm watching this case too. It really baffles me- why the interest in a 16 yr old who has rights?
Oh I get it. Nanny state is trying to remove his rights.
Posted by: Raven at July 27, 2006 01:46 AM (fDjqx)
4
Bingo. Forced medication under duress. Very scary stuff.
Posted by: Ogre at July 27, 2006 02:16 AM (o2crh)
5
He is a minor. If his parents beat the crap out of him could the state step in to stop them? If the boy is starving and his parents refuse to feed him, could the state intervene (if you answer is no, then we really have nothing to discuss, as we live on different planets)?
The boy has cancer. Without treatment, he will almost certainly die. He has chosen treatment that has no chance of helping, and that is not legal in America as a cancer treatment (as it is completely ineffectual). The judge ruled that the minor is not sufficiently mature to act as an adult in this matter. The judge also ruled that his parents are not acting in his best interests, as they are trying to treat him with quackery. It's analogous to trying to pray a starving man back to health instead of feeding him.
If the kid was 18, there would be no argument from me (or most other people). But he is a minor, his parents are not protecting his interests, and it is killing him. If the state can keep him alive until he is 18, then I have no problem with him killing himself. But until then, he's a minor and not competent to make his own bad decision.
Posted by: Shygetz at July 28, 2006 02:23 PM (VPFKi)
6
So let's see, in your mind, parents beating a 5-year old is exactly the same thing as a 16-year old choosing to avoid the state causing him great, excruciating pain.
I'm not sure we can discuss this, because you're making that comparison that I completely disagree with. Your example compares a physical, overt, action with an inaction of questionable impact.
Everyone is going to die. Forcing this treatment on him has absolutely NO guarantee that it will have ANY effect. In fact, in this case, the treatment is HIGHLY likely to FAIL. You see, he's already had this exact treatment once, and it did not help. In medical journals, it is reported that most people who are helped by this treatment are helped the first time, and NOT the second time.
Posted by: Ogre at July 28, 2006 02:34 PM (/k+l4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
