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

Durham wrote:Thank god the courts over rules the mum (who has no medical training and the knowledge or a basic forumite)

heartsandminds wrote:

I take it you are against freedom of choice.

heartsandminds wrote:

Durham wrote:Thank god the courts over rules the mum (who has no medical training and the knowledge or a basic forumite)

I take it you are against freedom of choice.

Flap Meister wrote:what about the childs freedoms.
he is probably too young to make a choice but his mother should know better.

heartsandminds wrote:

parents make decisions for their children every day, that is what parenting is all about..

on a broader canvas, how long before adults cannot refuse "treatment"..

Durham wrote:

Parents don't choose to kill their kids every day

heartsandminds wrote:this could have serious repercussions on a patients rights.

http://news.sky.com/story/1027101/cancer-boy-surgery-ruling-defies-mums-wishes

I'm the king wrote:

The other title you could have used (but which would have been less interesting to you) is:

"Court supports fathers attempts to get the treatment his son needs"

heartsandminds wrote:

I was trying to focus on the possible repercussions than this particular event to be honest, I wasn't deliberately trying to mislead just using it to make people think how easily seemingly "small" decisions can have major repercussions, that the loss of one persons rights can quickly spiral downhill.

heartsandminds wrote:

they make decisions based on their best knowledge to help their children, do you think this mother just decided she wants her child dead, I doubt it..

Durham wrote:

The mother doesn't have the necessary knowledge to decide what is best for the child's future - like you don't either

Shame on you both

heartsandminds wrote:

Again a parent makes decisions for their child, unless the nanny state wishes to be included in every decision of course.

the implications are much further reaching, will anyone be ordered to take treatment?

Durham wrote:

Parent should make the BEST decision for their child - not a piss poor one

heartsandminds wrote:

I'm sure in her opinion this is the best decision as I am sure she wouldn't make a decision that would kill her child..

Durham wrote:

[img][/img]

heartsandminds wrote:

really, it took you nearly two hours to come up with that reply...genius at work eh...

heartsandminds wrote:

really, it took you nearly two hours to come up with that reply...genius at work eh...

Durham wrote:

No - ive been working wankstain.

Cheated on your missus lately, wankstain?

heartsandminds wrote:

..most articulate have you been listening in on the kids in the first school playground or perhaps you like being round kids for more than their quaint language....

heartsandminds wrote:

Again a parent makes decisions for their child, unless the nanny state wishes to be included in every decision of course.

the implications are much further reaching, will anyone be ordered to take treatment?

I'm the king wrote:

It's nothing of the sort, it is the courts deciding on an argument between 2 parents regarding their child, something that happens every single day

heartsandminds wrote:

personal liberties are soon lost and seldom recovered.

Hugh Jardon wrote:

Liberties go out the window when the protection of the young, vulnerable or docile is concerned.

I suspect that the mummy in question is deluded at best, Or perhaps has MSBP.