|
| awthrawthr@yahoo.com wrote:
> cathyb wrote:
>
> The child won't be growing up to reflect on anything if he were to take
> a second bite of the poison apple.
Your claim goes to whether or not the poison is fatal. Even the Hoxsey
method is "poisonous." It, like the "chemo" is a controlled amount of
the "poison." If you don't think so try one of the ingredients at higher
dosage than recommended.
>
> Ah, but you want to make the comparison between child abuse and a
> medical choice.
I notice you cherry picked. She also said, "negligent."
You assign her the argument YOU pick for her instead of the full one she
is making.
> Of course you're assuming that the Hoxey method is the
> 'abuse.'
I wouldn't. I'd call it negligent. There is insufficient research to
support the method as being efficacious.
> Meanwhile, the parents, the child and many others consider the
> poison chemo to be the abuse...
It does come down to "consider" (opinion) then, doesn't it.
And it's the opinion of some that chemo is more proven and the
alternative not.
> in other words your comparison
In other words you PICKED her "comparison" from a phrase that included
"neglect," ejected it, and chose only the OTHER term, "abuse" to make
our opposition. Use her entire argument and start over, or understand
that you are misleading.
> doesn't
> work because whereas true child abuse is clearcut...as when a child is
> beaten with kitchen utensils, beltbuckles, etc... the choice of medical
> care is something entirely different.
Rejecting your replacement of her actual argument with your own
re-framing of it, no, it is neglect that is the issue here. And medical
neglect is considered abusive.
Thus HER choice of words are correct, and YOUR pruning of her
descriptive phrase misleading.
The parents in this case are indulging in medical neglect, and that was
the issue for the courts.
Which brings, I hope, this argument back to where it belongs; is this
act actually medical neglect, or is it not.
The court cases cited earlier make clear the rights of the child are
supported by constitutional test. The state DOES have the responsibility
to intervene in cases where the subject cannot legally make their own
decision ... thus are "dependent," and those charged with responsibility
fail to make decisions or make the best decisions.
So, we have, what is best for the child. Which now takes us to the
question of which therapies are supported by facts.
Alternative therapies simply aren't...and I'm an advocate of good diet
and healthful living as a first line of defense against disease.
However, when that fails, and we turn to Tx for the diagnosed disease
the alternatives have NOT proven to be effective by scientific test.
Not THIS alternative at any rate.
I posted the commentary on the research of this method and it does NOT
measure up.
>
> There is no evidence that the parents are not acting in the child's
> best interest. NONE.
In the absence of his life or his body, a future event, there is no
evidence the ARE.
Evidence is a very tricky subject at this point. The only real evidence
one can point to in decision making is either scientific or anecdotal.
The court chooses to go with scientific.
> All we have here is your disgreement about what is
> best. The parents disagree with your opinion. They have that right.
No, that is most decidedly NOT "all we have."
They have the right to disagree, but according to law, not to decide.
And they decided ... oddly enough, NOT to decide but to leave it up to a
minor child, not legally able to make high risk decisions to decide.
That is neglectful.
Kane
--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)
|
|