List of Shows

All My Children As the World Turns The Bold and the Beautiful Days of Our Lives General Hospital Guiding Light One Life To Live Passions The Young and the Restless

Interesting Links

AOL Television - ATWT Billy Warlock Josh Taylor Official Site General Hospital Soaps Blogger Blog Maurice Benard Soaps.com is on Myspace! Soaps on Youtube BethAnn Bonner...  List of all links >>

Tell your friends

TELL YOUR FRIENDS

POPULAR SEARCHES

Soaps.com - MESSAGE BOARDS

Soaps Boards :: Forced Treatment

Please register and login to be able to post in this message board.

Forced Treatment

Started by lovesit at 2009/05/20 08:20AM
Latest post: 2009/06/01 03:27PM, Views: 722, Replies: 74
|« « 1 2 3 4 5 page:
#41   2009/05/27 05:44PM
Re: Forced Treatment
Phuquaad
image

Quote lovesit:
Quote Phuquaad:
Quote lovesit:
Quote sarahconnor:
Quote Phuquaad: I can't believe that any logical or sane person would view the courts ordering a parent to seek medical treatment for a terminally ill child as an infringment on parental rights!!



LMAO...i know right? i think it's ludicrous myself. did you read my postings? i know they are long winded lol. whatever religion this is ..it's more like a cult. and that is not really the point anyway....our justice system worked right in this case - they saved a child!! yay!!!! that's what it's there for ..to protect those that can't make decisions like this. but now the mother and the boy are on the run. if he dies, it's their own fault. (the parents) - i am not sure why this is being so heavily debated either. it's pretty cut & dry to me.


I went out of town for the holidays, so I did not get to see this until now, and am not bringing it up to debate anymore.
But I do not want anyone to think I was arguging this boy should have made his own decision. If you actually read my posts, you would have seen where I made several disclaimers that I was pretending he was not mentally disabled. My debate turned into that direction once cats informed me of his disability. We also agreed that a child psychologist had to have been brought in for this boy and determined he was mentally disabled.

So before you "LMAO" at me and call me illogical or insane, fully read what people post. Then post your fully informed response.


I refer you to your own words:
Page 2 post#18:
"I just think this ruling infringed on the parents' rights (pretending the boy has no disability)"

Page 3 post#22:

"...I do believe a 13 year old is old enough to be complely educated about the matter, and then make a decision."

This is what I responding to of what YOU POSTED.


Well thank you for proving my point. You have my disclaimer about no disability, and then we simply disagree about a 13 year old being able to be fully informed. You call me insane and illogical for disagreeing about a memtally ill child not wanting medical help. when that is not what I was claiming. SO if you call me insane and illogical for my belief a 13 tear old can make their own decisions, then I shall no longer post with you, for you are simply a very rude person.
But before you make that claim, think about all the 13 year olds parents leave in charge of babysitting their own smaller children (the ultimate responsibility). Or my original claim when 10-and-ups get charged as adults. The law does see where these children can make fully informed decisions - if not mentally unfit. If you disagree about that, that is fine. I won't be calling you insane, because I happen to respect your opinion even though you have not reciprocated the courtesy.

So I am done with this now. I have proved my own point, and you have validated it. We disagree about 13 year olds, which I admitted earlier I knew most people would probably disagree with me on. So have fun calling other people names, and I hope you do not have a 13 year old who you leave in charge of being by themselves taking care of your house, or your other children, because that is the most common example I can throw out there of how mentally competent 13 year olds have more responsibility than we give them credit for. Peace out.


NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You stated that a judge ordering a parent to get their sick child medical treatment as an infringment on parental rights! THAT is what I am calling illogical and insane!! How in the world is that an infringment on parental rights??
You also claim that 10 years old is the age of consent...WRONG again!! The lowest any state has for the age of consent is 16, and in most states it is 18 and others 17!!!
Any parent who would leave their 13 year old in charge of their home and other children deserve to be under investigation for neglect! Did you know that if you left your 13 year old child home alone you could be charged with neglect? But I am sure that you would find that to be an infringment on parental rights!

#42   2009/05/27 06:25PM
Re: Forced Treatment
wannazach
image

So since people think that 13 is old enough to make life altering decisions then why hold back on anything else? I say let those responsible 13 year olds be considered old enough to drink, drive, marry, have babies, vote, quit school, work in dangerous jobs and smoke all the cigarettes they can hold. You can't be old enough for one and not the others imo.

#43   2009/05/29 02:33PM
Re: Forced Treatment
sarahconnor
image

Quote Phuquaad:
Quote lovesit:
Quote Phuquaad:
Quote lovesit:
Quote sarahconnor:
Quote Phuquaad: I can't believe that any logical or sane person would view the courts ordering a parent to seek medical treatment for a terminally ill child as an infringment on parental rights!!



LMAO...i know right? i think it's ludicrous myself. did you read my postings? i know they are long winded lol. whatever religion this is ..it's more like a cult. and that is not really the point anyway....our justice system worked right in this case - they saved a child!! yay!!!! that's what it's there for ..to protect those that can't make decisions like this. but now the mother and the boy are on the run. if he dies, it's their own fault. (the parents) - i am not sure why this is being so heavily debated either. it's pretty cut & dry to me.


I went out of town for the holidays, so I did not get to see this until now, and am not bringing it up to debate anymore.
But I do not want anyone to think I was arguging this boy should have made his own decision. If you actually read my posts, you would have seen where I made several disclaimers that I was pretending he was not mentally disabled. My debate turned into that direction once cats informed me of his disability. We also agreed that a child psychologist had to have been brought in for this boy and determined he was mentally disabled.

So before you "LMAO" at me and call me illogical or insane, fully read what people post. Then post your fully informed response.


I refer you to your own words:
Page 2 post#18:
"I just think this ruling infringed on the parents' rights (pretending the boy has no disability)"

Page 3 post#22:

"...I do believe a 13 year old is old enough to be complely educated about the matter, and then make a decision."

This is what I responding to of what YOU POSTED.


Well thank you for proving my point. You have my disclaimer about no disability, and then we simply disagree about a 13 year old being able to be fully informed. You call me insane and illogical for disagreeing about a memtally ill child not wanting medical help. when that is not what I was claiming. SO if you call me insane and illogical for my belief a 13 tear old can make their own decisions, then I shall no longer post with you, for you are simply a very rude person.
But before you make that claim, think about all the 13 year olds parents leave in charge of babysitting their own smaller children (the ultimate responsibility). Or my original claim when 10-and-ups get charged as adults. The law does see where these children can make fully informed decisions - if not mentally unfit. If you disagree about that, that is fine. I won't be calling you insane, because I happen to respect your opinion even though you have not reciprocated the courtesy.

So I am done with this now. I have proved my own point, and you have validated it. We disagree about 13 year olds, which I admitted earlier I knew most people would probably disagree with me on. So have fun calling other people names, and I hope you do not have a 13 year old who you leave in charge of being by themselves taking care of your house, or your other children, because that is the most common example I can throw out there of how mentally competent 13 year olds have more responsibility than we give them credit for. Peace out.


NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You stated that a judge ordering a parent to get their sick child medical treatment as an infringment on parental rights! THAT is what I am calling illogical and insane!! How in the world is that an infringment on parental rights??
You also claim that 10 years old is the age of consent...WRONG again!! The lowest any state has for the age of consent is 16, and in most states it is 18 and others 17!!!
Any parent who would leave their 13 year old in charge of their home and other children deserve to be under investigation for neglect! Did you know that if you left your 13 year old child home alone you could be charged with neglect? But I am sure that you would find that to be an infringment on parental rights!



i was off the board for a bit so didn't get to see the turn out of this..i agree with you!

#44   2009/05/29 02:37PM
Re: Forced Treatment
sarahconnor
image

Quote lovesit:
Quote sarahconnor:
Quote Phuquaad: I can't believe that any logical or sane person would view the courts ordering a parent to seek medical treatment for a terminally ill child as an infringment on parental rights!!



LMAO...i know right? i think it's ludicrous myself. did you read my postings? i know they are long winded lol. whatever religion this is ..it's more like a cult. and that is not really the point anyway....our justice system worked right in this case - they saved a child!! yay!!!! that's what it's there for ..to protect those that can't make decisions like this. but now the mother and the boy are on the run. if he dies, it's their own fault. (the parents) - i am not sure why this is being so heavily debated either. it's pretty cut & dry to me.


I went out of town for the holidays, so I did not get to see this until now, and am not bringing it up to debate anymore.
But I do not want anyone to think I was arguging this boy should have made his own decision. If you actually read my posts, you would have seen where I made several disclaimers that I was pretending he was not mentally disabled. My debate turned into that direction once cats informed me of his disability. We also agreed that a child psychologist had to have been brought in for this boy and determined he was mentally disabled.

So before you "LMAO" at me and call me illogical or insane, fully read what people post. Then post your fully informed response.


if you check post #31, it has my fully "informed" response b/c i most certainly read all of your posts...i'll restate it to ensure it was not lost in the shuffle :

Also, I never intended to suggest that i was against homeopathic therapy or any holistic approaches given they are in the right circumstances. however I do think they are best utilized in conjunction with treatments of a more scientific method such as FDA approved therapies given the exigency of the issue. I only used that article for the facts of this case - I didn't care who was biased against what nor did I even pay attention to that. I just wanted the facts to be clear.

our laws have had many revisions or exceptions to them b/c things needed to be elucidated at times to ensure they fit a situation. it simply can not be a one size fits all sadly. our trials and tribulations through the years have taught us this. there are too many exceptions to the rule. so yes, it is discretionary. personally i would not use the word arbitrary b/c that suggests the decisions made are not rational while many times the judgments are very rational and in accordance to the laws. i do think there have been cases where a *particular judge* was overly subjective but i don't find our judicial system overall to be this way. can it be this way at times? yes it can but i think it works good MOST of the time. there are just so many gray areas. nothing is black and white.

as for the child kicked out of school for braids, that is a gray area...there are laws protecting religious beliefs by allowing adornment or expression of it anywhere in our society. he was in violation of a rule more than likely but b/c of the law, it was overruled. if the religion is violating a law, that is a bit more complicated depending on the case. then there is a trial to determine the severity and go over the details. as for the 10 year old male tried as an adult, i really don't know the details of that case so i can not elaborate on an opinion. 10 years old sounds pretty young to be tried as an adult - the american bar association states if a juvenile is charged with a serious offense such as murder and violent extremes of a crime, they can request for the offender to be tried as an adult. typically the age range is 14 to 18 but this may be a state by state thing. I can't form an opinion unless I have the details on that case. however i do know that our laws see a violent crime committed by a juvenile as a different situation than when they are trying to protect a juvenile. and typically it must be a very violent crime and the reasoning for a more severe punishment may be to protect society. we all know juvenile's can be released a lot earlier.

I think this family broke the law by neglecting their child's medical needs. It is obvious what is in his best interest medically speaking. It is my opinion our system worked in this child's favor and protected this child as it is intended to do. this is basically a life or death situation in which a 13 year old is just not competent or mature enough to make a decision about. he has clearly been influenced by his parents on their religious beliefs rendering him too immature to know what is best for his own welfare.

*
let's also be clear..did i say i was LMAO at YOU? it was the idea of anyone thinking a 13 year old could make that choice. so i'll feel free to "LMAO" at whatever idea i think is insane no matter who said what.

#45   2009/05/29 02:45PM
Re: Forced Treatment
sarahconnor
image

Quote wannazach: So since people think that 13 is old enough to make life altering decisions then why hold back on anything else? I say let those responsible 13 year olds be considered old enough to drink, drive, marry, have babies, vote, quit school, work in dangerous jobs and smoke all the cigarettes they can hold. You can't be old enough for one and not the others imo.


LOL great point wanna! i'm not sure why my mother even gave me a curfew at 14 b/c i told her i would be fine to stay out until 3am. i don't understand why she told me at 15 i could not decide a nice 22 year old guy could not be my friend. i felt i was old enough to know he was just a nice guy and not preying on a young naive girl. gosh darn...why did she always interfere with my decisions when it was clear i was doing just fine? LOL

Modified 1 times(s), last time at: 2009/05/29 03:05PM
#46   2009/05/29 03:26PM
Re: Forced Treatment
wannazach
image

Quote sarahconnor:
Quote wannazach: So since people think that 13 is old enough to make life altering decisions then why hold back on anything else? I say let those responsible 13 year olds be considered old enough to drink, drive, marry, have babies, vote, quit school, work in dangerous jobs and smoke all the cigarettes they can hold. You can't be old enough for one and not the others imo.


LOL great point wanna! i'm not sure why my mother even gave me a curfew at 14 b/c i told her i would be fine to stay out until 3am. i don't understand why she told me at 15 i could not decide a nice 22 year old guy could not be my friend. i felt i was old enough to know he was just a nice guy and not preying on a young naive girl. gosh darn...why did she always interfere with my decisions when it was clear i was doing just fine? LOL



Geeez...I can't imagine what you mom must have been thinking.

In SC there is something kinda the same just happened. There is a boy who is 14 years old and weighs 555 lbs. His mother will not work with the doctors to put him on a diet to save his life. He is gaining as much as 2-3 lbs per day. He has to use a wheelchair to get around at school. Finally Social Services stepped in and got a court order for custody for the boy since he was literally killing hiself the way it was going. His heart was already working to hard and a heart attack is feared. The mom took off with the son to keep them from taking him and giving him the life saving treatment he needed. They were found way up north somewhere and forced to return to SC. The mother was charged with contempt of a court order and the son is now getting the help he needs. This is another case of having to step in to save a life when the parent refuses to do so. The school was obligated to call Social Services just as they would have been if the child had been beaten. If a childs life is at stake someone has to help the child live. Watching a 14 year old die of obeisity should make a parent reach out for all the help they can recieve imo. Not run away and hide out.


Here is a link if anyone wants to read about this boy.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,521042,00.html?test=latestnews

Modified 1 times(s), last time at: 2009/05/29 03:29PM
#47   2009/05/29 03:38PM
Re: Forced Treatment
sarahconnor
image

Quote wannazach:
Quote sarahconnor:
Quote wannazach: So since people think that 13 is old enough to make life altering decisions then why hold back on anything else? I say let those responsible 13 year olds be considered old enough to drink, drive, marry, have babies, vote, quit school, work in dangerous jobs and smoke all the cigarettes they can hold. You can't be old enough for one and not the others imo.


LOL great point wanna! i'm not sure why my mother even gave me a curfew at 14 b/c i told her i would be fine to stay out until 3am. i don't understand why she told me at 15 i could not decide a nice 22 year old guy could not be my friend. i felt i was old enough to know he was just a nice guy and not preying on a young naive girl. gosh darn...why did she always interfere with my decisions when it was clear i was doing just fine? LOL



Geeez...I can't imagine what you mom must have been thinking.

In SC there is something kinda the same just happened. There is a boy who is 14 years old and weighs 555 lbs. His mother will not work with the doctors to put him on a diet to save his life. He is gaining as much as 2-3 lbs per day. He has to use a wheelchair to get around at school. Finally Social Services stepped in and got a court order for custody for the boy since he was literally killing hiself the way it was going. His heart was already working to hard and a heart attack is feared. The mom took off with the son to keep them from taking him and giving him the life saving treatment he needed. They were found way up north somewhere and forced to return to SC. The mother was charged with contempt of a court order and the son is now getting the help he needs. This is another case of having to step in to save a life when the parent refuses to do so. The school was obligated to call Social Services just as they would have been if the child had been beaten. If a childs life is at stake someone has to help the child live. Watching a 14 year old die of obeisity should make a parent reach out for all the help they can recieve imo. Not run away and hide out.


Here is a link if anyone wants to read about this boy.
www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,521042,00.html?test=latestnews



i heard about this story! that is just crazy. ok first and foremost, i want to know how she ran with him. 555 lbs? whew. i know it's not seriously funny but i have to wonder how she managed to pull that off.

you know, when it comes down to it, i don't understand parents who do things like this. at 14 he is addicted to food..she is the enabler and keeps enabling. it's clear he will die if it continues. it is obviously out of control. i'm so glad our government intervenes in these cases. there are so many adults that are not fit to raise kids or do not fully understand what is in the best interest of their children.

#48   2009/05/29 03:58PM
Re: Forced Treatment
sarahconnor
image

Quote lovesit:
Quote Phuquaad:
Quote lovesit:
Quote sarahconnor:
Quote Phuquaad: I can't believe that any logical or sane person would view the courts ordering a parent to seek medical treatment for a terminally ill child as an infringment on parental rights!!



LMAO...i know right? i think it's ludicrous myself. did you read my postings? i know they are long winded lol. whatever religion this is ..it's more like a cult. and that is not really the point anyway....our justice system worked right in this case - they saved a child!! yay!!!! that's what it's there for ..to protect those that can't make decisions like this. but now the mother and the boy are on the run. if he dies, it's their own fault. (the parents) - i am not sure why this is being so heavily debated either. it's pretty cut & dry to me.


I went out of town for the holidays, so I did not get to see this until now, and am not bringing it up to debate anymore.
But I do not want anyone to think I was arguging this boy should have made his own decision. If you actually read my posts, you would have seen where I made several disclaimers that I was pretending he was not mentally disabled. My debate turned into that direction once cats informed me of his disability. We also agreed that a child psychologist had to have been brought in for this boy and determined he was mentally disabled.

So before you "LMAO" at me and call me illogical or insane, fully read what people post. Then post your fully informed response.


I refer you to your own words:
Page 2 post#18:
"I just think this ruling infringed on the parents' rights (pretending the boy has no disability)"

Page 3 post#22:

"...I do believe a 13 year old is old enough to be complely educated about the matter, and then make a decision."

This is what I responding to of what YOU POSTED.


Well thank you for proving my point. You have my disclaimer about no disability, and then we simply disagree about a 13 year old being able to be fully informed. You call me insane and illogical for disagreeing about a memtally ill child not wanting medical help. when that is not what I was claiming. SO if you call me insane and illogical for my belief a 13 tear old can make their own decisions, then I shall no longer post with you, for you are simply a very rude person.
But before you make that claim, think about all the 13 year olds parents leave in charge of babysitting their own smaller children (the ultimate responsibility). Or my original claim when 10-and-ups get charged as adults. The law does see where these children can make fully informed decisions - if not mentally unfit. If you disagree about that, that is fine. I won't be calling you insane, because I happen to respect your opinion even though you have not reciprocated the courtesy.

So I am done with this now. I have proved my own point, and you have validated it. We disagree about 13 year olds, which I admitted earlier I knew most people would probably disagree with me on. So have fun calling other people names, and I hope you do not have a 13 year old who you leave in charge of being by themselves taking care of your house, or your other children, because that is the most common example I can throw out there of how mentally competent 13 year olds have more responsibility than we give them credit for. Peace out.



proving your point? what? if your point is that someone called you insane and illogical for disagreeing about a mentally ill child not wanting medical help that is incorrect and you have mistaken.

Phuquaad says :

I can't believe that any logical or sane person would view the courts ordering a parent to seek medical treatment for a terminally ill child as an infringment on parental rights!!

*

this post does not point you out, it states it across the board for any person who would think that is rational and the post also does not mention anything about anyone being mentally ill. that part was taken out and set aside. it's about whether a 13 year old boy can decide what is in his best interests medically speaking in this case. i don't see any name calling taking place b/c no one is called out. i also believe that anyone who deems a 13 year old mature enough for such a decision is not thinking clearly at all. let's be careful to not twist things into what they are not and maybe read over them again to gain more clarity if we have to.

#49   2009/05/29 04:10PM
Re: Forced Treatment
wannazach
image

Quote sarahconnor:
Quote lovesit:
Quote Phuquaad:
Quote lovesit:
Quote sarahconnor:
Quote Phuquaad: I can't believe that any logical or sane person would view the courts ordering a parent to seek medical treatment for a terminally ill child as an infringment on parental rights!!



LMAO...i know right? i think it's ludicrous myself. did you read my postings? i know they are long winded lol. whatever religion this is ..it's more like a cult. and that is not really the point anyway....our justice system worked right in this case - they saved a child!! yay!!!! that's what it's there for ..to protect those that can't make decisions like this. but now the mother and the boy are on the run. if he dies, it's their own fault. (the parents) - i am not sure why this is being so heavily debated either. it's pretty cut & dry to me.


I went out of town for the holidays, so I did not get to see this until now, and am not bringing it up to debate anymore.
But I do not want anyone to think I was arguging this boy should have made his own decision. If you actually read my posts, you would have seen where I made several disclaimers that I was pretending he was not mentally disabled. My debate turned into that direction once cats informed me of his disability. We also agreed that a child psychologist had to have been brought in for this boy and determined he was mentally disabled.

So before you "LMAO" at me and call me illogical or insane, fully read what people post. Then post your fully informed response.


I refer you to your own words:
Page 2 post#18:
"I just think this ruling infringed on the parents' rights (pretending the boy has no disability)"

Page 3 post#22:

"...I do believe a 13 year old is old enough to be complely educated about the matter, and then make a decision."

This is what I responding to of what YOU POSTED.


Well thank you for proving my point. You have my disclaimer about no disability, and then we simply disagree about a 13 year old being able to be fully informed. You call me insane and illogical for disagreeing about a memtally ill child not wanting medical help. when that is not what I was claiming. SO if you call me insane and illogical for my belief a 13 tear old can make their own decisions, then I shall no longer post with you, for you are simply a very rude person.
But before you make that claim, think about all the 13 year olds parents leave in charge of babysitting their own smaller children (the ultimate responsibility). Or my original claim when 10-and-ups get charged as adults. The law does see where these children can make fully informed decisions - if not mentally unfit. If you disagree about that, that is fine. I won't be calling you insane, because I happen to respect your opinion even though you have not reciprocated the courtesy.

So I am done with this now. I have proved my own point, and you have validated it. We disagree about 13 year olds, which I admitted earlier I knew most people would probably disagree with me on. So have fun calling other people names, and I hope you do not have a 13 year old who you leave in charge of being by themselves taking care of your house, or your other children, because that is the most common example I can throw out there of how mentally competent 13 year olds have more responsibility than we give them credit for. Peace out.



proving your point? what? if your point is that someone called you insane and illogical for disagreeing about a mentally ill child not wanting medical help that is incorrect and you have mistaken.

Phuquaad says :

I can't believe that any logical or sane person would view the courts ordering a parent to seek medical treatment for a terminally ill child as an infringment on parental rights!!

*

this post does not point you out, it states it across the board for any person who would think that is rational and the post also does not mention anything about anyone being mentally ill. that part was taken out and set aside. it's about whether a 13 year old boy can decide what is in his best interests medically speaking in this case. i don't see any name calling taking place b/c no one is called out. i also believe that anyone who deems a 13 year old mature enough for such a decision is not thinking clearly at all. let's be careful to not twist things into what they are not and maybe read over them again to gain more clarity if we have to.


So if your 13 year old child decided to join the army I guess that would be fine too. I mean if they are old enough they are old enough. Then everyone needs to take them off of their tax returns as a dependants because you can't claim ADULT children on taxes. $hit, now I have to go buy a car for my 13 year old nephew. At least then he can drive his younger siblings to school. This could work out good. You can even kick them out of the house if you want to without getting in trouble. And, you are not obligated to provide anything for them. Kids grow up so fast these days.

#50   2009/05/29 04:22PM
Re: Forced Treatment
sarahconnor
image

Quote wannazach:
Quote sarahconnor:
Quote lovesit:
Quote Phuquaad:
Quote lovesit:
Quote sarahconnor:
Quote Phuquaad: I can't believe that any logical or sane person would view the courts ordering a parent to seek medical treatment for a terminally ill child as an infringment on parental rights!!



LMAO...i know right? i think it's ludicrous myself. did you read my postings? i know they are long winded lol. whatever religion this is ..it's more like a cult. and that is not really the point anyway....our justice system worked right in this case - they saved a child!! yay!!!! that's what it's there for ..to protect those that can't make decisions like this. but now the mother and the boy are on the run. if he dies, it's their own fault. (the parents) - i am not sure why this is being so heavily debated either. it's pretty cut & dry to me.


I went out of town for the holidays, so I did not get to see this until now, and am not bringing it up to debate anymore.
But I do not want anyone to think I was arguging this boy should have made his own decision. If you actually read my posts, you would have seen where I made several disclaimers that I was pretending he was not mentally disabled. My debate turned into that direction once cats informed me of his disability. We also agreed that a child psychologist had to have been brought in for this boy and determined he was mentally disabled.

So before you "LMAO" at me and call me illogical or insane, fully read what people post. Then post your fully informed response.


I refer you to your own words:
Page 2 post#18:
"I just think this ruling infringed on the parents' rights (pretending the boy has no disability)"

Page 3 post#22:

"...I do believe a 13 year old is old enough to be complely educated about the matter, and then make a decision."

This is what I responding to of what YOU POSTED.


Well thank you for proving my point. You have my disclaimer about no disability, and then we simply disagree about a 13 year old being able to be fully informed. You call me insane and illogical for disagreeing about a memtally ill child not wanting medical help. when that is not what I was claiming. SO if you call me insane and illogical for my belief a 13 tear old can make their own decisions, then I shall no longer post with you, for you are simply a very rude person.
But before you make that claim, think about all the 13 year olds parents leave in charge of babysitting their own smaller children (the ultimate responsibility). Or my original claim when 10-and-ups get charged as adults. The law does see where these children can make fully informed decisions - if not mentally unfit. If you disagree about that, that is fine. I won't be calling you insane, because I happen to respect your opinion even though you have not reciprocated the courtesy.

So I am done with this now. I have proved my own point, and you have validated it. We disagree about 13 year olds, which I admitted earlier I knew most people would probably disagree with me on. So have fun calling other people names, and I hope you do not have a 13 year old who you leave in charge of being by themselves taking care of your house, or your other children, because that is the most common example I can throw out there of how mentally competent 13 year olds have more responsibility than we give them credit for. Peace out.



proving your point? what? if your point is that someone called you insane and illogical for disagreeing about a mentally ill child not wanting medical help that is incorrect and you have mistaken.

Phuquaad says :

I can't believe that any logical or sane person would view the courts ordering a parent to seek medical treatment for a terminally ill child as an infringment on parental rights!!

*

this post does not point you out, it states it across the board for any person who would think that is rational and the post also does not mention anything about anyone being mentally ill. that part was taken out and set aside. it's about whether a 13 year old boy can decide what is in his best interests medically speaking in this case. i don't see any name calling taking place b/c no one is called out. i also believe that anyone who deems a 13 year old mature enough for such a decision is not thinking clearly at all. let's be careful to not twist things into what they are not and maybe read over them again to gain more clarity if we have to.


So if your 13 year old child decided to join the army I guess that would be fine too. I mean if they are old enough they are old enough. Then everyone needs to take them off of their tax returns as a dependants because you can't claim ADULT children on taxes. $hit, now I have to go buy a car for my 13 year old nephew. At least then he can drive his younger siblings to school. This could work out good. You can even kick them out of the house if you want to without getting in trouble. And, you are not obligated to provide anything for them. Kids grow up so fast these days.



haha yep. now there is quite the snowball effect if we decide a 13 year old can make decisions..time to get a job and go out in the real world then! what? you need an education and food & a home? but no, you are grown up! imagine all the bad choices that would be made..drop out rates would soar, teens abusing drugs & alcohol even more b/c it's now legal and accessible to them. the right to own firearms??? omg. no no, this is not a mature age at all.

man i think back to when i was 13 and thank GOD someone intervened or i may have ran off with a circus or carnival at some point. there is truly no telling when i think back to my mindset at that age. i considered taking off to CHICAGO for a weekend at that age (i lived in NC mind you) -so how were me and my 13/14 year old peers going to get there? hop a train. you know, like you see in movies. LOL!!!! i'm serious. this was a real "idea" for a fun weekend. how mature and rational does that sound?

#51   2009/06/01 10:42AM
Re: Forced Treatment
lovesit
image

Been in the hospital, or would have seen this spectacular display of sarcastic rudeness earlier.
You can be politically correct all you want, I was the only one who posted I did not agree a mentally fit 13 yeard old could make his own decisions, and the court had no place, so you posting what you did WAS directed at me. And you took an example of mine and went crazy with it. But I am still not debating this anymore. I just thought some facts were needed so you could at least see where I was coming from about minors and consent, not that you will try and be open minded or even read it probably.

www.answers.com/topic/juvenile-court

The minimum age is 7. There is no minimum age where one can be transferred from juvey to prison. Despite all of our opinions, the law does make cases where 13 years olds are deemed mentally fit to be fully informed. That was my only point, and still is.

Out of pure curiosity, if he was deemed terminal and had only the routine double chance of survival (from 2 to 4% survival) with chemo, ever other factor the same except he was mentall fit and only 4%, would you still agree with the ruling?

#52   2009/06/01 10:55AM
Re: Forced Treatment
lovesit
image

I do want to say I was wrong about the age of the ten year old boy, He was 11 and is named Nathaniel Jamal, if you would like to look him up.

#53   2009/06/01 11:38AM
Re: Forced Treatment
sarahconnor
image

Quote lovesit: Been in the hospital, or would have seen this spectacular display of sarcastic rudeness earlier.
You can be politically correct all you want, I was the only one who posted I did not agree a mentally fit 13 yeard old could make his own decisions, and the court had no place, so you posting what you did WAS directed at me. And you took an example of mine and went crazy with it. But I am still not debating this anymore. I just thought some facts were needed so you could at least see where I was coming from about minors and consent, not that you will try and be open minded or even read it probably.

www.answers.com/topic/juvenile-court

The minimum age is 7. There is no minimum age where one can be transferred from juvey to prison. Despite all of our opinions, the law does make cases where 13 years olds are deemed mentally fit to be fully informed. That was my only point, and still is.

Out of pure curiosity, if he was deemed terminal and had only the routine double chance of survival (from 2 to 4% survival) with chemo, ever other factor the same except he was mentall fit and only 4%, would you still agree with the ruling?


sorry to hear you were in the hospital. i hope everything is ok. i was not specifically trying to be rude to you or anyone that feels as you do...sorry if we did poke fun at the idea of a 13 year old being able to make serious decisions but it is how some of us feel. no one is trying to target anyone. it's just a forum and some things i've said have been laughed at so i don't really care much nor do i take it personal. i just get on to discuss my viewpoint, back it up or maybe even see things another way - who knows. if i feel strongly about something, i'll back it up strongly.

i did read the link you sent, and there is a distinction when it comes to juveniles. as it states there are 2 types of cases...civil matters concerning the care of a juvenile and civil matters of those due to the behavior/actions (psyche) of the child. from what is stated, most states do process juveniles through a juvenile court first then it is deemed to whether the case should go to a regular court or not. there are just many gray areas as i stated in post #31...if you check back to that post, i expressed my thoughts on some of the different issues you mentioned.

to answer your question about if the case were terminal and chemo lowered the chances of survival...i feel in that case (depending on the case again) that it would be the parents choice. however if there was any proof that the parents made a choice NOT in the best interest of the child, intervention by the government should be investigated. so my overall viewpoint is the same, i just see many gray areas. in the case of this child it is life or death whether he is medically treated or not. although i do believe he "thinks" his choice is correct, he is too young to understand that he has been greatly influenced by the beliefs of his parents which are NOT in his best interest.

#54   2009/06/01 01:18PM
Re: Forced Treatment
cats meow
image

what is the age of consent for sex?? i would think if a child is too young to make that decision, same should hold for medical decisions

#55   2009/06/01 03:27PM
Re: Forced Treatment
lovesit
image

Quote sarahconnor:
Quote lovesit: Been in the hospital, or would have seen this spectacular display of sarcastic rudeness earlier.
You can be politically correct all you want, I was the only one who posted I did not agree a mentally fit 13 yeard old could make his own decisions, and the court had no place, so you posting what you did WAS directed at me. And you took an example of mine and went crazy with it. But I am still not debating this anymore. I just thought some facts were needed so you could at least see where I was coming from about minors and consent, not that you will try and be open minded or even read it probably.

www.answers.com/topic/juvenile-court

The minimum age is 7. There is no minimum age where one can be transferred from juvey to prison. Despite all of our opinions, the law does make cases where 13 years olds are deemed mentally fit to be fully informed. That was my only point, and still is.

Out of pure curiosity, if he was deemed terminal and had only the routine double chance of survival (from 2 to 4% survival) with chemo, ever other factor the same except he was mentall fit and only 4%, would you still agree with the ruling?


sorry to hear you were in the hospital. i hope everything is ok. i was not specifically trying to be rude to you or anyone that feels as you do...sorry if we did poke fun at the idea of a 13 year old being able to make serious decisions but it is how some of us feel. no one is trying to target anyone. it's just a forum and some things i've said have been laughed at so i don't really care much nor do i take it personal. i just get on to discuss my viewpoint, back it up or maybe even see things another way - who knows. if i feel strongly about something, i'll back it up strongly.

i did read the link you sent, and there is a distinction when it comes to juveniles. as it states there are 2 types of cases...civil matters concerning the care of a juvenile and civil matters of those due to the behavior/actions (psyche) of the child. from what is stated, most states do process juveniles through a juvenile court first then it is deemed to whether the case should go to a regular court or not. there are just many gray areas as i stated in post #31...if you check back to that post, i expressed my thoughts on some of the different issues you mentioned.

to answer your question about if the case were terminal and chemo lowered the chances of survival...i feel in that case (depending on the case again) that it would be the parents choice. however if there was any proof that the parents made a choice NOT in the best interest of the child, intervention by the government should be investigated. so my overall viewpoint is the same, i just see many gray areas. in the case of this child it is life or death whether he is medically treated or not. although i do believe he "thinks" his choice is correct, he is too young to understand that he has been greatly influenced by the beliefs of his parents which are NOT in his best interest.


Thank you for the apology. I apologize, too, for taking it personally. I know I shouldn't have, but you two had a lot of fun...anyways, yes. Massively, minors are treated as minors, unless thery are around 16.
I do want to point out, though, that in most cases we would feel the same about this. My thread turned into a hypothetical one, and it seems we agree it should be the parents' rights, not the gov's, if a life is terminal and he is still 13. Although I did not word it very well from the beginning, that was the only point I was ever trying to make.

cats, the age of sexual consent in most states, according to my article that uses references from many law books (and unfortunately wikipedia) you can consent to sex in most states at 14. Also interesting, the minimum age for the death penalty is 16.
So you are similar to me when you reference the law for age-related consent in minor legal issues (minor in age, not severity)? I take it as case by case, but I start with the what the law allots for.

|« « 1 2 3 4 5 page:

Please register and login to be able to post in this message board.

« Go back to topic list