boy with cancer must have treatment despite mum saying no!!

heartsandminds wrote:

is that from personal knowledge or just an assumption.

Hugh Jardon wrote:

As one who studies such afflictions ( I'm a lay expert on ASDs) I get the impression that she is making a stand for her own gratification- morbid or otherwise!
Let's wait for the big press interview.

heartsandminds wrote:

perhaps she has weighed the pro's and cons, perhaps he would survive as a vegetable, or the treatment would steal the quality of life he has left....

but what ever way a decision has been made that over rules a persons choice and that is serious...

Hugh Jardon wrote:


Nope.

heartsandminds wrote:

nope to what...

Hugh Jardon wrote:

Decisions are made which overrule someone's choice each and every day.

Hugh Jardon wrote:

Decisions are made which overrule someone's choice each and every day.

Durham wrote:Do u think god would cure the boy w"stain?

Durham wrote:Do u think god would cure the boy w"stain?

heartsandminds wrote:

whether the child is cured by God or not is irrelevant, the mother chose not to allow the treatment and the law overruled her, I think that is dangerous, what do you think micro dick?

Hugh Jardon wrote:

No... as this god thing is a myth.
Besides why would a god give a child that awful condition and then later cure him?

"Suffer the little children.......

Then I'll give them a jim'll fück it badge!"

J.Savile. 66.66.66

Didge wrote:



A parent has a responsibility for the care and saftey of hat child, if she neglets this then those who do have the best interest of the child need to take those decisions away from an irresponsible woman or man if the case maybe. She is not an expert on health and thus is placing the childs life in danger through ignorance and would even argue if she should have custody with such negligence!

heartsandminds wrote:

all that is assumption, who is to say she has not added up all the possible pro's and cons and come to the best decision.

heartsandminds wrote:

all that is assumption, who is to say she has not added up all the possible pro's and cons and come to the best decision.

Durham wrote:

The doctors and the courts......

heartsandminds wrote:

in their opinions, the doctors and courts won't have to live with the possible after effects of this child, if his quality of life falls through the floor or he ends up a vegetable, the doctors will do what they can, the courts will wash their hands of it and the mother gets to watch the horrible painful decline of her child...

in the long run, the court has forced a patient to take treatment, that could have long lasting repercussions.

Didge wrote:



So if the childs life is saved would you claim it was the wrong decision?

heartsandminds wrote:

of course not but I think as I have said many times, personal rights are easily taken away but very seldom given back, it is a slippery slope. in my opinion, this decision has set a precedent.

Didge wrote:



Has the child been denied its rights?

heartsandminds wrote:

the mother has and that is dangerous...

Didge wrote:



That goes out of the window when she lacks responsibility for the child, so what if the child decides he wants to be treated then?

heartsandminds wrote:

she has responsibility until that child is 16 year old and no court should over rule that, i can see real danger in it.

gelico wrote:the mother has not been denied her rights

it is not her brain tumour and it is not her life on the line,,,,it is someone else's. just because that someone else is her child makes no different. if the experts say that without the treatment he will die then why is she refusing it?? because she thinks she knows best. she is emotionally involved and not in the best place to make such decisions, nor does she have medical knowledge

i think the courts did the right thing

if she is prepared to let her child die through lack of treatment then rightly so that someone else take that decision from her.