At some point the welfare of the child is more important then parental choice. These people have made a choice that endangers the welfare of the child. The child has a disease that if left untreated will eventually cause the child's death. Conventional scientific studies have proven that the course of action laid out by the court is the best chance of survival for the child.
As for 7th day Adventists, to me it is a simple case of the child's welfare. If the child dies without the transfusion, then life trumps beliefs. Duane -----Original Message----- From: Zaphod Beeblebrox [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 11:40 AM To: CF-Community Subject: Re: Schiavo II? that is stepping way over the bounds of parental choice. Are we going to require that the 7th day adventists receive blood transfusions from now on? This is one of those situations where you and I can look at the scenario and say yes, chemo would be the right choice, but that doesn't mean that we can force it on someone else. On 7/13/06, Duane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I disagree that is not the courts decision. This is a decision for child > services. If the parents are unwilling to do what is in the best interest of > the child then child services has a responsibility to step in and take > action. The parents here are making a choice that is going to impact their > child's life, not their own. > > If this was a case where the child had minimal to no chance of survival by > going thru the chemo then I would say fine, but Hodgkin's is a very > survivable disease but if the parents let the disease progress then it > becomes very serious. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: G Money [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 10:44 AM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: Schiavo II? > > Be careful what you are agreeing with. I think the kid should do chemo > too.....but that aint my decision, and it sure as hell aint a courts > decision. > > Today they are deciding what this kid should do, tomorrow it might be you. > > On 7/13/06, Duane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Chemo can be pretty nasty, but isn't always. It depends on the individual. > > I > > had 4 months of Chemo (RCHOP) treatments for Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma a > > couple > > of years ago and I can honestly say that it wasn't that bad. Up until the > > last treatment the side effects were pretty mild. It was only during the > > last cycle did I even take a day off work not counting the day I took off > > for treatments (6 hours strapped to an IV). > > > > I would have to agree with the courts in this case, there is too much at > > stake to try an organic only treatment. If the parents want to try it > > fine, > > but only "as well as" not "instead of" chemotherapy. > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting, up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four times a year. http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/message.cfm/forumid:5/messageid:211066 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
