13 year old cancer kid & mother "missing" - Page 5 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

cmbdiesel · #61 05-20-2009, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SwampYankee

At what point do we abandon all hope? He's 6.5 and anyone can have a conversation with him that they would have with a 6yo., with the exception of reading he's on par with his classmates. Should we just institutionalize him now? Or do we continue busting our @$$es at home, to keep him as close to his classmates as possible? Sure that gap will widen as he gets older but that doesn't mean we're going to throw in the towel. He will easily be able to do the work many of our employees do but I'll be damned if I'm going to pigeon hole him without testing his limits and abilities. If you want to get into specific cases or disabilities then there are instances where they will always be a ward of the state, as a blanket statement that isn't the case at all.

Shouldn't we try to educate the ones that are able so that they might not be as dependent, or maybe independent, on the state? Many of these kids are written off without even being given the chance. If they aren't taught, they won't learn.

I don't think it is that far off. It seems to be a dollar and cents issue for some, a value of life issue for others.

Keep up the good work Swamp. Your son is privileged to have the parents he does.

aklim · #62 05-20-2009, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fitz

This has absolutely no relevance to what I posted, unless you are arguing that the state has the right to euthanize handicapped children if it is picking up the tab.

You were talking about "power of the government to inject a child with toxic chemicals against the parents wishes". Like I said, what if they decided to go with conventional therapy at a later date and it ends up costing more money? Money, which the state might have to pick up the tab on.

DieselAddict · #63 05-20-2009, 06:04 PM

You know what, I change my mind. The judge in this case probably made the right decision, since there is this law that requires parents to provide proper medical care to their dependents. The boy did chemo once, the tumor shrank a bit, then he quit and started some alternative treatment and the tumor grew back, so the state seems to have a good case here. I just hope this is not some slippery slope where parents won't even be able to try alternatives and will be ordered to do chemo right away.

panZZer · #64 05-20-2009, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ForcedInduction

"Humanity" used to be like the rest of nature, survival of the fittest. Medical technology has allowed us to fulfill the instinct to "live" and "protect the family" at all costs, even if the cost hurts themselves and others.

If he had stayed in Germany and the Nazis had their way, no doubt they would have. Einstein had minor problems with speech and reading, he was still brilliant from a very young age.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cmbdiesel

If you are willing to sacrifice your humanity for a 'perfect' child.....

Yea, Carl had Rudolf knocked off

Fitz · #65 05-20-2009, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

You were talking about "power of the government to inject a child with toxic chemicals against the parents wishes". Like I said, what if they decided to go with conventional therapy at a later date and it ends up costing more money? Money, which the state might have to pick up the tab on.

You're changing the facts. Anyway, if you want to discuss how perfectly rational people could ever end up euthanizing the handicapped in state-run institutions, you would be on point with my original post.

Skippy · #66 05-20-2009, 08:42 PM

While I said what I did in a way that has been considered insensitive or inflammatory by most, I stand by my belief that it does not make sense to spend large amounts of taxpayer money to prolong the life of a person who is unable to become a productive member of society.

If the 13 yo in question is not sufficiently disabled as to preclude his becoming a functioning member of society (read "taxpayer") then state intervention to prolong his life makes more economic sense. It is entirely possible that he is simply the victim of criminally bad parents and capable of being brought back up to speed, provided he doesn't die in hiding from his cancer.

Fitz · #67 05-20-2009, 09:46 PM

Quote:

I stand by my belief that it does not make sense to spend large amounts of taxpayer money to prolong the life of a person who is unable to become a productive member of society.

But that's not what you said Skippy. You said "his death would be no great loss".