Denying medical treatment

#51
#51
KB5252 said:
I understand that children have to be protected in many situations because they are to inexperienced or naive to understand cause and effect and consequences in general. It is a fine line but lets be honest here, what kid at his age doesn't understand the concept of death?
Click to expand...

how many kids at his age have the balls to tell mom that she is a wackjob?
 
#53
#53
droski said:
how many kids at his age have the balls to tell mom that she is a wackjob?
Click to expand...

In my neighborhood growing up I would say many if not most. Although I will concede those I grew up around do not represent American kids as a whole very well.
 
#54
#54
droski said:
no i don't believe all courts exercise constraint and reason. i also don't think the slippery slope argument should basically allow parents to do whatever dumbass things they want with their kids.

there is a HUGE diference between "most likely" and will definetly. i very much doubt we'd be having this debate if this cancer may or may not kill the kid 20 years from now.

an immediate threat is what our laws are based on. you can't arrest someone who is thinking, one day, about killing someone. you can arrest someone who has put the plans into motion.
Click to expand...

So you going to have the courts in LA take charge of all kids that join gangs too? Gangs seem dangerous.

Also, you focus on death here with the belief that everyone views death the same as you. You are for imposing your view of death and the after life, or lack thereof, on everyone?
 
#55
#55
GASOUTHERNVOL said:
If i knew i had cancer, and she was keeping me from treatment, i would in a heartbeat
Click to expand...

you are assuming you grew up in a normal environment. personally i don't think a kid that age has the maturity to make a decision of this magnitude.
 
#56
#56
droski said:
no i don't believe all courts exercise constraint and reason. i also don't think the slippery slope argument should basically allow parents to do whatever dumbass things they want with their kids.

there is a HUGE diference between "most likely" and will definetly. i very much doubt we'd be having this debate if this cancer may or may not kill the kid 20 years from now.

an immediate threat is what our laws are based on. you can't arrest someone who is thinking, one day, about killing someone. you can arrest someone who has put the plans into motion.
Click to expand...

unless you are OJ Simpson
 
#57
#57
droski said:
you are assuming you grew up in a normal environment. personally i don't think a kid that age has the maturity to make a decision of this magnitude.
Click to expand...

i beg to differ, i work with kids in this age range, and the one thing you can say across the board is that they are always lookin out for themeselves plain and simple
 
#58
#58
allvol123 said:
So you going to have the courts in LA take charge of all kids that join gangs too? Gangs seem dangerous.

Also, you focus on death here with the belief that everyone views death the same as you. You are for imposing your view of death and the after life, or lack thereof, on everyone?
Click to expand...

there are plenty of gang members who are not in immediate danger.

I have no idea if there is an afterlife and neither do you. by that theory you should be doing everything you can to die early since the afterlife is so great. why give your kids vacinations? why feed them?
 
#59
#59
droski said:
there are plenty of gang members who are not in immediate danger.

I have no idea if there is an afterlife and neither do you. by that theory you should be doing everything you can to die early since the afterlife is so great. why give your kids vacinations? why feed them?
Click to expand...

:lolabove:

and that second paragraph is silly over simplistic flawed logic
 
#60
#60
GASOUTHERNVOL said:
i beg to differ, i work with kids in this age range, and the one thing you can say across the board is that they are always lookin out for themeselves plain and simple
Click to expand...

thinking you know everything is a big difference between actually knowing something. i didn't know crap when i was that age.
 
#61
#61
GASOUTHERNVOL said:
:lolabove:

and that second paragraph is silly over simplistic flawed logic
Click to expand...

if we had direct knowledge of a gang member in immiedate danger we would do something about that. even in LA.


and how is it overly simplistic? most christians believe that god wants us to live as long as possible right? if suicide is wrong, isn't refusing medical treatment wrong too?
 
#62
#62
droski said:
thinking you know everything is a big difference between actually knowing something. i didn't know crap when i was that age.
Click to expand...

i see what you are saying, if the kid and the parents dont want treatment, and the kid is no under durest, then let them be
 
#63
#63
droski said:
if we had direct knowledge of a gang member in immiedate danger we would do something about that. even in LA.

and how is it overly simplistic? most christians believe that god wants us to live as long as possible right? if suicide is wrong, isn't refusing medical treatment wrong too?
Click to expand...

if that was the case then there would be no gangs in LA or anywhere, personally if i knew a gangbanger was an immediate danger i would show up on scene a few hours late :whistling:
 
#64
#64
droski said:
there are plenty of gang members who are not in immediate danger.

I have no idea if there is an afterlife and neither do you. by that theory you should be doing everything you can to die early since the afterlife is so great. why give your kids vacinations? why feed them?
Click to expand...

There are plenty that are and courts release them back into the public everyday.

Never said I did. But your theory is wrong, it is conceivable that some people just prefer to let nature take its course. That is different than making an all out attempt to die. It is natural for a parent to want to eat, otherwise they would have not been able to give birth.
 
#66
#66
GASOUTHERNVOL said:
if that was the case then there would be no gangs in LA or anywhere, personally if i knew a gangbanger was an immediate danger i would show up on scene a few hours late :whistling:
Click to expand...

i very much doubt the majority of time gangs spent is spent killign eachother. we wouldnt' have many gangs if that was the case (they'd all be dead). :)

allvol123 said:
There are plenty that are and courts release them back into the public everyday.

Never said I did. But your theory is wrong, it is conceivable that some people just prefer to let nature take its course. That is different than making an all out attempt to die. It is natural for a parent to want to eat, otherwise they would have not been able to give birth.
Click to expand...

we are not talking about a incurable disease here. letting nature take it's course in this instance is the same as making an attempt to die IMO. i see your point of view, but i can't agree with it.
 
#67
#67
droski said:
i very much doubt the majority of time gangs spent is spent killign eachother. we wouldnt' have many gangs if that was the case (they'd all be dead). :)


we are not talking about a incurable disease here. letting nature take it's course in this instance is the same as making an attempt to die IMO. i see your point of view, but i can't agree with it.
Click to expand...

no, they are extorting and dealing drugs as well, all in all a complete drain on society, someone should just introduce some toxin to the water for the gangs that causes chemical casteration
 
#68
#68
droski said:
i


we are not talking about a incurable disease here. letting nature take it's course in this instance is the same as making an attempt to die IMO. i see your point of view, but i can't agree with it.
Click to expand...


I'm not necessarily saying I strongly disagree with your opinion. This is a tough one. But I think I just come down on the side of keeping the court out of this decision. Mainly because it just opens up the idea of others running someone else's life. Take away the emotional part of it, and it is an intrusion into their life and belief system.
 
#70
#70
allvol123 said:
I'm not necessarily saying I strongly disagree with your opinion. This is a tough one. But I think I just come down on the side of keeping the court out of this decision. Mainly because it just opens up the idea of others running someone else's life. Take away the emotional part of it, and it is an intrusion into their life and belief system.
Click to expand...

I understand and agree with you. But I don't think the slippery slope argument carries weight when we are talking about a human life.

as far as we know this women is mentally ill. i guess the question is how wacky can her beliefs be before someone has to step in? drawing that line isn't easy obviously.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top