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

Guest Tue Dec 18, 2012 11:32 pm

First topic message reminder :

this could have serious repercussions on a patients rights.

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

Durham Thu Dec 20, 2012 7:18 am

heartsandminds wrote:

I disagree as I said if it all goes wrong will the child be looked after by everyone else, nope course not.

perhaps she wants a normal active child for as long as he has left.

Your misguided and irrelevant views have a long history of idiocy on boards such as these wankstain.

Thankfully nobody cares or respects them. I am better placed than most to agree with the courts ruling.

Your views on not even allowing kids to have chemo due to dubious and ill respected information is not only misplaced and misfounded - it is the very height of ignorance

Guest Thu Dec 20, 2012 8:47 am

Durham wrote:

Your misguided and irrelevant views have a long history of idiocy on boards such as these wankstain.

Thankfully nobody cares or respects them. I am better placed than most to agree with the courts ruling.

Your views on not even allowing kids to have chemo due to dubious and ill respected information is not only misplaced and misfounded - it is the very height of ignorance

, let's face it you just have to look at your words of wisdom and mastery of the English language to know where you are in terms of intelligence, now do you mind shutting up the chimpanzee was in front of you and i trust his opinion... lol!

I'm the king Thu Dec 20, 2012 8:57 am

heartsandminds wrote:

personal liberties are soon lost and seldom recovered.

There is no liberty lost here, an argument between 2 parents that affected the life of a child was decided in court. You are just against it because you believe in quackery and are against chaemo. You would be all for the decision if it went the other way and the title could have been.

"court allows mother let her son die against the wishes of his father"

The fact is, the court looked at all the facts and made a decision in the best interests of the child, there is no loss of liberty.

If the case was over custody and it went with the father, would that have been a loss of liberty for the child?

I'm the king Thu Dec 20, 2012 8:57 am

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...

What about the fathers choice?

I'm the king Thu Dec 20, 2012 8:59 am

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?

No, the law supported the right of her estranged husband who wanted his son to be treated. The law had to make a decision and it did. simple; no loss of liberty.

I'm the king Thu Dec 20, 2012 9:00 am

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.

Maybe she added all the pros and cons and came up with the wrong decision? the father will have done the same thing and got a different decision, which is why the courts got involved.

I'm the king Thu Dec 20, 2012 9:02 am

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.

As opposed to the father watching the horrible painful death of his son, knowing that he could have done something that would have had a chance to save his life, but was prevented by his ex wife?

I'm the king Thu Dec 20, 2012 9:02 am

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.

No it hasn't this decision is no different to the millions decided every year in family courts up and down the country

I'm the king Thu Dec 20, 2012 9:04 am

heartsandminds wrote:

the mother has and that is dangerous...

Would you be making the same posts regarding the fathers rights if the decision had went the other way?

I'm the king Thu Dec 20, 2012 9:05 am

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.

So if she had decided to operate herself and do it with pliers and a pair of rubber gloves, would you respect her decision as she has a right over the child until it is 16?

Guest Thu Dec 20, 2012 9:15 am

heartsandminds wrote:

, let's face it you just have to look at your words of wisdom and mastery of the English language to know where you are in terms of intelligence, now do you mind shutting up the chimpanzee was in front of you and i trust his opinion...

see what I mean the chimp was called i'm the king... lol!

I'm the king Thu Dec 20, 2012 9:28 am

heartsandminds wrote:

see what I mean the chimp was called i'm the king...

No response to any of my points then?

I guess I am correct that this post actually has nothing to do with the rights of the mother, but your views on cancer therapy?

Guest Thu Dec 20, 2012 9:32 am

King just chill a bit I was joking...

No actually I do not like to see civil liberties taken away this seems to happen all the time and as I have said they are never restored.
Cases of law have a habit of setting a precedent for future decisions, when another case comes up the decision this judge has made will affect future decisions..

It may be one nail at a time but eventually the lid will be closed.

I'm the king Thu Dec 20, 2012 9:41 am

heartsandminds wrote:King just chill a bit I was joking...

No actually I do not like to see civil liberties taken away this seems to happen all the time and as I have said they are never restored.
Cases of law have a habit of setting a precedent for future decisions, when another case comes up the decision this judge has made will affect future decisions..

It may be one nail at a time but eventually the lid will be closed.

But there are no civil liberties being withdrawn, as I said would you still be angry if the treatment had been prevented and the child left to die and the wishes of the father ignored?

Why would a ruling which is similar to others that have gone before it set a precident when the previous ones hadn't?

I'm the king Thu Dec 20, 2012 9:42 am

It appears that, so far, there have been no problems with the surgery and the success will be confirmed (?) with an MRI later today.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9757261/I-can-still-talk-you-know-says-Neon-Roberts-as-he-recovers-from-surgery.html

The thing that worries me though is the mother is still preventing him from having some of the treatment he requires.

Why would she do that?

Guest Thu Dec 20, 2012 10:03 am

I'm the king wrote:It appears that, so far, there have been no problems with the surgery and the success will be confirmed (?) with an MRI later today.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9757261/I-can-still-talk-you-know-says-Neon-Roberts-as-he-recovers-from-surgery.html

The thing that worries me though is the mother is still preventing him from having some of the treatment he requires.

Why would she do that?

if she feels the treatment is dangerous or will destroy his remaining quality of life why shouldn't she?

Hugh Jardon Thu Dec 20, 2012 10:33 am

heartsandminds wrote:

if she feels the treatment is dangerous or will destroy his remaining quality of life why shouldn't she?

The mummy is a borderline mental.
Her concern is for her own grief if things go wrong and ignores the joy if all turns out well.
The more I read this, the more that I am convinced that a paper deal is around the corner... just like social services will be when he gets home!

Guest Thu Dec 20, 2012 10:36 am

Hugh Jardon wrote:

The mummy is a borderline mental.
Her concern is for her own grief if things go wrong and ignores the joy if all turns out well.
The more I read this, the more that I am convinced that a paper deal is around the corner... just like social services will be when he gets home!

What makes you think the woman is mental?

Hugh Jardon Thu Dec 20, 2012 10:53 am

heartsandminds wrote:

What makes you think the woman is mental?

Take a step back and look at her actions.
She's a fùckin mental and is relishing the limelight and her son's condition.
Rest assured, social services will be all over this one like a rash.

Guest Thu Dec 20, 2012 11:10 am

Hugh Jardon wrote:

Take a step back and look at her actions.
She's a fùckin mental and is relishing the limelight and her son's condition.
Rest assured, social services will be all over this one like a rash.

Again what makes you think all that, she might not have got the papers involved her estranged fella might have, it says he has misgivings about the treatment too, so it is not clear cut.
She may have got the papers involved to try and stop the courts bullying her..

I'm the king Thu Dec 20, 2012 11:41 am

heartsandminds wrote:

if she feels the treatment is dangerous or will destroy his remaining quality of life why shouldn't she?

anti sickness pills will ruin his quality of life?

I'm the king Thu Dec 20, 2012 11:42 am

heartsandminds wrote:

Again what makes you think all that, she might not have got the papers involved her estranged fella might have, it says he has misgivings about the treatment too, so it is not clear cut.
She may have got the papers involved to try and stop the courts bullying her..

erm, I might be wrong, I think the papers only got involved when she ran away with her son.

Hugh Jardon Thu Dec 20, 2012 12:28 pm

I'm the king wrote:

erm, I might be wrong, I think the papers only got involved when she ran away with her son.

Would this be the son who , with the correct intervention, has an excellent chance of making a great recovery and have an excellent quality of life.?

This woman makes me sick.... her son will be well rid of that selfish, self absorbed bitch.

Guest Thu Dec 20, 2012 12:41 pm

I'm the king wrote:

erm, I might be wrong, I think the papers only got involved when she ran away with her son.

I don't know I didn't read that bit, but if the child had an excellent chance of recover why does it say the dad was apprehensive.

Hugh Jardon Thu Dec 20, 2012 12:52 pm

heartsandminds wrote:

I don't know I didn't read that bit, but if the child had an excellent chance of recover why does it say the dad was apprehensive.

Even a trip to the dentist has an element of risk.

Like I said.... she's a fükin mental.

Sponsored content

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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