TOTALLY GEEKED!

Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: Should A 17-Year-Old Be Allowed To Choose Death?


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 10215
Date:
RE: Should A 17-Year-Old Be Allowed To Choose Death?
Permalink  
 


Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

It depends. Depends a lot on the actual prognosis. And what stage if life I am at.


Absolutely--but at 17 with a very HIGH chance of survival--this should not be a controversy.  It should be done.

 

 



__________________

I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.

 

Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 25897
Date:
Permalink  
 

I think we can all agree that a 17 yr old with a highly curable cancer is different from a 70 yr with advanced stage 4 cancer a low probability of survival .

__________________

https://politicsandstuff.proboards.com/



Hooker

Status: Offline
Posts: 12666
Date:
Permalink  
 

Would you think the same of a 20 year old with a high chance of survival? Really, what is a little over 2 years? Its obvious you are a supporter of the government forcing medical care against ones wishes...

__________________

America guarantees equal opportunity, not equal outcome...



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 2672
Date:
Permalink  
 

Ohfour wrote:

Would you think the same of a 20 year old with a high chance of survival? Really, what is a little over 2 years? Its obvious you are a supporter of the government forcing medical care against ones wishes...


I'm not arguing about what is the right course of action medically.

To me, this issue is about freedom to choose.

This case, and the Justina Pelletier case before it, set a very, very dangerous precedent.

That the state has the right, over a parent's wishes, to choose the medical care for a child.

Very dangerous ground.

And the precedents that these two cases set will frighten many parents away from using the traditional health care system for their sick children.

And that is very sad.



__________________

No matter how educated, talented, rich or cool you believe you are,

how you treat people ultimately tells all.

Integrity is everything.



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 10215
Date:
Permalink  
 

Ohfour wrote:

Would you think the same of a 20 year old with a high chance of survival? Really, what is a little over 2 years? Its obvious you are a supporter of the government forcing medical care against ones wishes...


But that's the difference.  Once you are an adult--you are legally allowed to make stupid decisions without the government being able to protect you from said stupid decisions.

 

When you are 17--the government is obligated to do so.

 

Such ages may be arbitrary--but they are NOT negotiable. 18 is 18--17 years and 364 days is NOT 18.

 

My son is 20 years and 11 months old--that doesn't mean he can go to the bar and legally drink because he's "close enough".   



__________________

I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.

 

Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 10215
Date:
Permalink  
 

Blankie wrote:
Ohfour wrote:

Would you think the same of a 20 year old with a high chance of survival? Really, what is a little over 2 years? Its obvious you are a supporter of the government forcing medical care against ones wishes...


I'm not arguing about what is the right course of action medically.

To me, this issue is about freedom to choose.

This case, and the Justina Pelletier case before it, set a very, very dangerous precedent.

That the state has the right, over a parent's wishes, to choose the medical care for a child.

Very dangerous ground.

And the precedents that these two cases set will frighten many parents away from using the traditional health care system for their sick children.

And that is very sad.


But we do it all the time. 

 

Many children whose parents have chosen not to get them treated for various ailments on religious grounds have had their children taken to be treated against their wishes.

 

The government absolutely has the right--and the DUTY--to step in when a parent's decisions are likely to cause the death of the child.  Again, we do it all the time.

 

We have car seat and seat belt laws.  Why?  Because we believe that not putting a child in a carseat is likely to result in harm to that child.  No, we don't take the child away, at least the first time they are caught, but there are consequences for making the decision to not follow that law.

 



__________________

I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.

 

Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 2672
Date:
Permalink  
 

huskerbb wrote:
Blankie wrote:
Ohfour wrote:

Would you think the same of a 20 year old with a high chance of survival? Really, what is a little over 2 years? Its obvious you are a supporter of the government forcing medical care against ones wishes...


I'm not arguing about what is the right course of action medically.

To me, this issue is about freedom to choose.

This case, and the Justina Pelletier case before it, set a very, very dangerous precedent.

That the state has the right, over a parent's wishes, to choose the medical care for a child.

Very dangerous ground.

And the precedents that these two cases set will frighten many parents away from using the traditional health care system for their sick children.

And that is very sad.


But we do it all the time. 

 

Many children whose parents have chosen not to get them treated for various ailments on religious grounds have had their children taken to be treated against their wishes.

 

The government absolutely has the right--and the DUTY--to step in when a parent's decisions are likely to cause the death of the child.  Again, we do it all the time.

 

We have car seat and seat belt laws.  Why?  Because we believe that not putting a child in a carseat is likely to result in harm to that child.  No, we don't take the child away, at least the first time they are caught, but there are consequences for making the decision to not follow that law.

 


 Yes, we do it for negligence. That's understandable. But Justina Pelletier's parents weren't negligent, and IMO neither is Cassandra's mother. The state rushed in so quickly with Cassandra, and didn't even allow the mother to get other medical opinions. Everyone assumes the mother was going after alternative treatments. The article I read said she was trying to get another traditional medical opinion. That's not negligence, that's a proactive parent. They wouldn't even allow her the time to do that.  If I remember correctly from the article, they had gone to court and had her in state custody within about 3 months of the diagnosis.



__________________

No matter how educated, talented, rich or cool you believe you are,

how you treat people ultimately tells all.

Integrity is everything.



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 10215
Date:
Permalink  
 

Blankie wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Blankie wrote:
Ohfour wrote:

Would you think the same of a 20 year old with a high chance of survival? Really, what is a little over 2 years? Its obvious you are a supporter of the government forcing medical care against ones wishes...


I'm not arguing about what is the right course of action medically.

To me, this issue is about freedom to choose.

This case, and the Justina Pelletier case before it, set a very, very dangerous precedent.

That the state has the right, over a parent's wishes, to choose the medical care for a child.

Very dangerous ground.

And the precedents that these two cases set will frighten many parents away from using the traditional health care system for their sick children.

And that is very sad.


But we do it all the time. 

 

Many children whose parents have chosen not to get them treated for various ailments on religious grounds have had their children taken to be treated against their wishes.

 

The government absolutely has the right--and the DUTY--to step in when a parent's decisions are likely to cause the death of the child.  Again, we do it all the time.

 

We have car seat and seat belt laws.  Why?  Because we believe that not putting a child in a carseat is likely to result in harm to that child.  No, we don't take the child away, at least the first time they are caught, but there are consequences for making the decision to not follow that law.

 


 Yes, we do it for negligence. That's understandable. But Justina Pelletier's parents weren't negligent, and IMO neither is Cassandra's mother. The state rushed in so quickly with Cassandra, and didn't even allow the mother to get other medical opinions. Everyone assumes the mother was going after alternative treatments. The article I read said she was trying to get another traditional medical opinion. That's not negligence, that's a proactive parent. They wouldn't even allow her the time to do that.  If I remember correctly from the article, they had gone to court and had her in state custody within about 3 months of the diagnosis.


3 months is MORE than enough time to get another opinion. 

Choosing not to get your daughter treated for curable cancer is absolutely negligence.  



__________________

I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.

 

Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.



Sniff...sniff, sniff. Yay! A Bum!

Status: Offline
Posts: 7536
Date:
Permalink  
 

In cancer time - 3 months is forever. Waiting 3 months could be the difference between life and death. In that 3 months, did the mother get the second opinion? Since it took the government 3 months to get custody, what did the mother do in that time to seek treatment? Did she get the second opinion, did she start any type of treatment? These questions are important.

You can't just "pray it away". Children deserve better. We won't let parents pray away other childhood illnesses, the courts make them seek treatment. Where do we draw the line?

__________________

Out of all the lies I have told, "just kidding" is my favorite ! 



Hooker

Status: Offline
Posts: 12666
Date:
Permalink  
 

This is Exactly why my boss does not take any of his 6 kids to a regular doctor. And I have to say, if my kids were little again, I would do the same. The government has become way to involved with our parenting choices.

I would emancipate her in another state. That would solve this problem and would take about 48 hours...

__________________

America guarantees equal opportunity, not equal outcome...



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 2672
Date:
Permalink  
 

Mellow Momma wrote:

In cancer time - 3 months is forever. Waiting 3 months could be the difference between life and death. In that 3 months, did the mother get the second opinion? Since it took the government 3 months to get custody, what did the mother do in that time to seek treatment? Did she get the second opinion, did she start any type of treatment? These questions are important.

You can't just "pray it away". Children deserve better. We won't let parents pray away other childhood illnesses, the courts make them seek treatment. Where do we draw the line?


Sorry, my dates were wrong. It was more like one month.  I can't find the article I read, but from the article LL posted on page 1 of this thread, it said she was diagnosed with Hodgkin's lymphoma in September. Her mother said she and her daughter wanted a second opinion and a fresh battery of tests. They had begun looking for a new team of doctors to verify the diagnosis, and hoped to find alternatives to chemotherapy. But the state took temporary custody of Cassandra in late October 2014.


 



__________________

No matter how educated, talented, rich or cool you believe you are,

how you treat people ultimately tells all.

Integrity is everything.



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 10215
Date:
Permalink  
 

Yeah--"alternatives".

They must have been looking for witch doctors and medicine men. Maybe a shaman.

__________________

I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.

 

Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.



Sniff...sniff, sniff. Yay! A Bum!

Status: Offline
Posts: 7536
Date:
Permalink  
 

So in a month they had done exactly nothing. Didn't make an appointment. Didn't see a doctor. They had a MONTH! Call a doc and tell them your kid might have cancer, I bet you get seen immediately. They did nothing. She is a sorry excuse for a mother. In a month I would have had my kid all over town seen by every specialist I could find. She did nothing. Shame on her.

__________________

Out of all the lies I have told, "just kidding" is my favorite ! 



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 2672
Date:
Permalink  
 

Mellow Momma wrote:

So in a month they had done exactly nothing. Didn't make an appointment. Didn't see a doctor. They had a MONTH! Call a doc and tell them your kid might have cancer, I bet you get seen immediately. They did nothing. She is a sorry excuse for a mother. In a month I would have had my kid all over town seen by every specialist I could find. She did nothing. Shame on her.


No, she had begun looking for a new team of doctors to verify the diagnosis. That's not nothing. And you've got a few unfounded assumptions in those sentences above. Why don't we deal with reported facts instead of assumptions? You know how assumptions make an A$$ out of U and ME.



__________________

No matter how educated, talented, rich or cool you believe you are,

how you treat people ultimately tells all.

Integrity is everything.



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 10215
Date:
Permalink  
 

The initial question was "should a 17 year old be able to choose death".

Sorry, but the answer is "no"--no matter what arguments you come up with. We don't let 17 year olds make such choices--and the courts aren't going to change the law to make an exception here.

USUALLY, we do allow their parents to make such decisions except in extreme cases. THAT argument has some merit. The argument about letting a 17 year old decide does not.

__________________

I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.

 

Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 10215
Date:
Permalink  
 

Blankie wrote:
Mellow Momma wrote:

So in a month they had done exactly nothing. Didn't make an appointment. Didn't see a doctor. They had a MONTH! Call a doc and tell them your kid might have cancer, I bet you get seen immediately. They did nothing. She is a sorry excuse for a mother. In a month I would have had my kid all over town seen by every specialist I could find. She did nothing. Shame on her.


No, she had begun looking for a new team of doctors to verify the diagnosis. That's not nothing. And you've got a few unfounded assumptions in those sentences above. Why don't we deal with reported facts instead of assumptions? You know how assumptions make an A$$ out of U and ME.


"Begun looking" just shows that they were deliberately trying to stall until the girl reached 18.  That was their hope--the courts intervened.   



__________________

I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.

 

Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.



Hooker

Status: Offline
Posts: 12666
Date:
Permalink  
 

And just because you have been diagnosed doesn't mean that you get an immediate appt. ExMil was diagnosed with aggressive breast cancer and it took almost 2 months to even get a consultation by an oncologist. That you think a diagnosis gets you seen any sooner than that is incredibly naive on your part. It doesn't work like that.

__________________

America guarantees equal opportunity, not equal outcome...



Hooker

Status: Offline
Posts: 12666
Date:
Permalink  
 

17 year olds can get married and join the military with permission of their parents. What's the difference here?

__________________

America guarantees equal opportunity, not equal outcome...



Hooker

Status: Offline
Posts: 12666
Date:
Permalink  
 

huskerbb wrote:

The initial question was "should a 17 year old be able to choose death".

Sorry, but the answer is "no"--no matter what arguments you come up with. We don't let 17 year olds make such choices--and the courts aren't going to change the law to make an exception here.

USUALLY, we do allow their parents to make such decisions except in extreme cases. THAT argument has some merit. The argument about letting a 17 year old decide does not.


 Emancipate her. That could be done this week.



__________________

America guarantees equal opportunity, not equal outcome...



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 10215
Date:
Permalink  
 

Ohfour wrote:

17 year olds can get married and join the military with permission of their parents. What's the difference here?


The former depends on what state you are in.  In Nebraska, you have to be 19, otherwise your parents have to sign off. 

 

The latter is not true.  We had to sign off on our son signing up and he was 17.   

 

Plus, the difference is--the LAW.  Want to change the law to allow 17 year olds to make their own medical decisions--have at it--but that is not the law NOW, and we can't just make exceptions because we feel like it. 



__________________

I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.

 

Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 10215
Date:
Permalink  
 

Ohfour wrote:
huskerbb wrote:

The initial question was "should a 17 year old be able to choose death".

Sorry, but the answer is "no"--no matter what arguments you come up with. We don't let 17 year olds make such choices--and the courts aren't going to change the law to make an exception here.

USUALLY, we do allow their parents to make such decisions except in extreme cases. THAT argument has some merit. The argument about letting a 17 year old decide does not.


 Emancipate her. That could be done this week.


I doubt any court would agree to that under the circumstances.  So no, it could not be done this week.  



__________________

I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.

 

Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.



Hooker

Status: Offline
Posts: 12666
Date:
Permalink  
 

Did you not read "with permission of the parents"? Or do you like to see what you want...

__________________

America guarantees equal opportunity, not equal outcome...



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 2672
Date:
Permalink  
 

Ohfour wrote:
huskerbb wrote:

The initial question was "should a 17 year old be able to choose death".

Sorry, but the answer is "no"--no matter what arguments you come up with. We don't let 17 year olds make such choices--and the courts aren't going to change the law to make an exception here.

USUALLY, we do allow their parents to make such decisions except in extreme cases. THAT argument has some merit. The argument about letting a 17 year old decide does not.


 Emancipate her. That could be done this week.


She's already in state custody.  I think the emancipation ship has already sailed. And I believe that would require her appearing before the court or a judge coming to her hospital bed. The state system is holding all the cards as to her every physical move right now. I don't see them allowing her to appear before a judge to get emancipated.



__________________

No matter how educated, talented, rich or cool you believe you are,

how you treat people ultimately tells all.

Integrity is everything.



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 10215
Date:
Permalink  
 

Ohfour wrote:

Did you not read "with permission of the parents"? Or do you like to see what you want...


Yes--but it's irrelevant.  

 

The court has a duty to step in when parents are making choices that are likely to result in harm to the child.   



__________________

I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.

 

Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.



Hooker

Status: Offline
Posts: 12666
Date:
Permalink  
 

huskerbb wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
huskerbb wrote:

The initial question was "should a 17 year old be able to choose death".

Sorry, but the answer is "no"--no matter what arguments you come up with. We don't let 17 year olds make such choices--and the courts aren't going to change the law to make an exception here.

USUALLY, we do allow their parents to make such decisions except in extreme cases. THAT argument has some merit. The argument about letting a 17 year old decide does not.


 Emancipate her. That could be done this week.


I doubt any court would agree to that under the circumstances.  So no, it could not be done this week.  


 One in another state might. No harm trying...you have no idea if that could be done this week.  



__________________

America guarantees equal opportunity, not equal outcome...



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 10215
Date:
Permalink  
 

Blankie wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
huskerbb wrote:

The initial question was "should a 17 year old be able to choose death".

Sorry, but the answer is "no"--no matter what arguments you come up with. We don't let 17 year olds make such choices--and the courts aren't going to change the law to make an exception here.

USUALLY, we do allow their parents to make such decisions except in extreme cases. THAT argument has some merit. The argument about letting a 17 year old decide does not.


 Emancipate her. That could be done this week.


She's already in state custody.  I think the emancipation ship has already sailed. And I believe that would require her appearing before the court or a judge coming to her hospital bed. The state system is holding all the cards as to her every physical move right now. I don't see them allowing her to appear before a judge to get emancipated.


Plus, they don't hand out teenage emancipations like candy at Halloween.  Usually, the teen has to be living on their own and have a source of income.   



__________________

I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.

 

Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 10215
Date:
Permalink  
 

Ohfour wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
huskerbb wrote:

The initial question was "should a 17 year old be able to choose death".

Sorry, but the answer is "no"--no matter what arguments you come up with. We don't let 17 year olds make such choices--and the courts aren't going to change the law to make an exception here.

USUALLY, we do allow their parents to make such decisions except in extreme cases. THAT argument has some merit. The argument about letting a 17 year old decide does not.


 Emancipate her. That could be done this week.


I doubt any court would agree to that under the circumstances.  So no, it could not be done this week.  


 One in another state might. No harm trying...you have no idea if that could be done this week.  


They are under the jurisdiction of the state they are living in.  You don't get to choose what court you want to go to.  



__________________

I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.

 

Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 2672
Date:
Permalink  
 

Their best move would have been to relocate out of CT in September or early October of 2014. But how could the mother have known the state would swoop in so quickly and  take custody in late October?



__________________

No matter how educated, talented, rich or cool you believe you are,

how you treat people ultimately tells all.

Integrity is everything.



Hooker

Status: Offline
Posts: 12666
Date:
Permalink  
 

I didn't. I was emancipated at 17. Still in school, no job, was living with my parents at the time. Was emancipated so I could get married. Oh, he didn't have a job either...

__________________

America guarantees equal opportunity, not equal outcome...



Hooker

Status: Offline
Posts: 12666
Date:
Permalink  
 

huskerbb wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
huskerbb wrote:

The initial question was "should a 17 year old be able to choose death".

Sorry, but the answer is "no"--no matter what arguments you come up with. We don't let 17 year olds make such choices--and the courts aren't going to change the law to make an exception here.

USUALLY, we do allow their parents to make such decisions except in extreme cases. THAT argument has some merit. The argument about letting a 17 year old decide does not.


 Emancipate her. That could be done this week.


I doubt any court would agree to that under the circumstances.  So no, it could not be done this week.  


 One in another state might. No harm trying...you have no idea if that could be done this week.  


They are under the jurisdiction of the state they are living in.  You don't get to choose what court you want to go to.  


 Again, you don't know what you are talking about. In my business, we handle emancipation proceedings all the time. And only a couple have had residence in TN.



__________________

America guarantees equal opportunity, not equal outcome...



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 10215
Date:
Permalink  
 

Ohfour wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
huskerbb wrote:

The initial question was "should a 17 year old be able to choose death".

Sorry, but the answer is "no"--no matter what arguments you come up with. We don't let 17 year olds make such choices--and the courts aren't going to change the law to make an exception here.

USUALLY, we do allow their parents to make such decisions except in extreme cases. THAT argument has some merit. The argument about letting a 17 year old decide does not.


 Emancipate her. That could be done this week.


I doubt any court would agree to that under the circumstances.  So no, it could not be done this week.  


 One in another state might. No harm trying...you have no idea if that could be done this week.  


They are under the jurisdiction of the state they are living in.  You don't get to choose what court you want to go to.  


 Again, you don't know what you are talking about. In my business, we handle emancipation proceedings all the time. And only a couple have had residence in TN.


Whatever.  I thought you worked for Sony?  Now you are a lawyer working on family law? LOL!!!!! 



__________________

I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.

 

Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.



On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Status: Offline
Posts: 27192
Date:
Permalink  
 

Blankie wrote:
Ohfour wrote:

Would you think the same of a 20 year old with a high chance of survival? Really, what is a little over 2 years? Its obvious you are a supporter of the government forcing medical care against ones wishes...


I'm not arguing about what is the right course of action medically.

To me, this issue is about freedom to choose.

This case, and the Justina Pelletier case before it, set a very, very dangerous precedent.

That the state has the right, over a parent's wishes, to choose the medical care for a child.

Very dangerous ground.

And the precedents that these two cases set will frighten many parents away from using the traditional health care system for their sick children.

And that is very sad.


 Exactly.  All of this.  The prognosis doesn't matter - what matters is the freedom of choice and who it belongs to.



__________________

LawyerLady

 

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. 



On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Status: Offline
Posts: 27192
Date:
Permalink  
 

Ohfour wrote:
huskerbb wrote:

The initial question was "should a 17 year old be able to choose death".

Sorry, but the answer is "no"--no matter what arguments you come up with. We don't let 17 year olds make such choices--and the courts aren't going to change the law to make an exception here.

USUALLY, we do allow their parents to make such decisions except in extreme cases. THAT argument has some merit. The argument about letting a 17 year old decide does not.


 Emancipate her. That could be done this week.


 It's too late for that now.  Her guardian is now the state and they would not consent. 

 

Funny thing - she could have gotten married and would have been legally emancipated automatically.  Her mother could have consented to marriage, and she would be considered an adult.



__________________

LawyerLady

 

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. 



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 9186
Date:
Permalink  
 

Lawyerlady wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
huskerbb wrote:

The initial question was "should a 17 year old be able to choose death".

Sorry, but the answer is "no"--no matter what arguments you come up with. We don't let 17 year olds make such choices--and the courts aren't going to change the law to make an exception here.

USUALLY, we do allow their parents to make such decisions except in extreme cases. THAT argument has some merit. The argument about letting a 17 year old decide does not.


 Emancipate her. That could be done this week.


 It's too late for that now.  Her guardian is now the state and they would not consent. 

 

Funny thing - she could have gotten married and would have been legally emancipated automatically.  Her mother could have consented to marriage, and she would be considered an adult.


Yes, but then she might have had something / someone to live for. 



__________________

The Principle of Least Interest: He who cares least about a relationship, controls it.

Always misinterpret when you can.



Hooker

Status: Offline
Posts: 12666
Date:
Permalink  
 

huskerbb wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
huskerbb wrote:

The initial question was "should a 17 year old be able to choose death".

Sorry, but the answer is "no"--no matter what arguments you come up with. We don't let 17 year olds make such choices--and the courts aren't going to change the law to make an exception here.

USUALLY, we do allow their parents to make such decisions except in extreme cases. THAT argument has some merit. The argument about letting a 17 year old decide does not.


 Emancipate her. That could be done this week.


I doubt any court would agree to that under the circumstances.  So no, it could not be done this week.  


 One in another state might. No harm trying...you have no idea if that could be done this week.  


They are under the jurisdiction of the state they are living in.  You don't get to choose what court you want to go to.  


 Again, you don't know what you are talking about. In my business, we handle emancipation proceedings all the time. And only a couple have had residence in TN.


Whatever.  I thought you worked for Sony?  Now you are a lawyer working on family law? LOL!!!!! 


 I do work for Sony. And we emancipate almost all child actors 16 and over and almost all child musicians 16 and older.  We handle all of the legal work. Care to show your ignorance of my field again? Cause you clearly don't understand basic entertainment process. Let's see how many times you can be made to look a fool THIS week...



__________________

America guarantees equal opportunity, not equal outcome...



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 10215
Date:
Permalink  
 

Lawyerlady wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
huskerbb wrote:

The initial question was "should a 17 year old be able to choose death".

Sorry, but the answer is "no"--no matter what arguments you come up with. We don't let 17 year olds make such choices--and the courts aren't going to change the law to make an exception here.

USUALLY, we do allow their parents to make such decisions except in extreme cases. THAT argument has some merit. The argument about letting a 17 year old decide does not.


 Emancipate her. That could be done this week.


 It's too late for that now.  Her guardian is now the state and they would not consent. 

 

Funny thing - she could have gotten married and would have been legally emancipated automatically.  Her mother could have consented to marriage, and she would be considered an adult.


No, no.  Didn't you get the memo--it could be done in a week.  



__________________

I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.

 

Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 10215
Date:
Permalink  
 

Ohfour wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
huskerbb wrote:

The initial question was "should a 17 year old be able to choose death".

Sorry, but the answer is "no"--no matter what arguments you come up with. We don't let 17 year olds make such choices--and the courts aren't going to change the law to make an exception here.

USUALLY, we do allow their parents to make such decisions except in extreme cases. THAT argument has some merit. The argument about letting a 17 year old decide does not.


 Emancipate her. That could be done this week.


I doubt any court would agree to that under the circumstances.  So no, it could not be done this week.  


 One in another state might. No harm trying...you have no idea if that could be done this week.  


They are under the jurisdiction of the state they are living in.  You don't get to choose what court you want to go to.  


 Again, you don't know what you are talking about. In my business, we handle emancipation proceedings all the time. And only a couple have had residence in TN.


Whatever.  I thought you worked for Sony?  Now you are a lawyer working on family law? LOL!!!!! 


 I do work for Sony. And we emancipate almost all child actors 16 and over and almost all child musicians 16 and older.  We handle all of the legal work. Care to show your ignorance of my field again? Cause you clearly don't understand basic entertainment process. Let's see how many times you can be made to look a fool THIS week...


You are the only fool on here.  



__________________

I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.

 

Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 10215
Date:
Permalink  
 

Lawyerlady wrote:
Blankie wrote:
Ohfour wrote:

Would you think the same of a 20 year old with a high chance of survival? Really, what is a little over 2 years? Its obvious you are a supporter of the government forcing medical care against ones wishes...


I'm not arguing about what is the right course of action medically.

To me, this issue is about freedom to choose.

This case, and the Justina Pelletier case before it, set a very, very dangerous precedent.

That the state has the right, over a parent's wishes, to choose the medical care for a child.

Very dangerous ground.

And the precedents that these two cases set will frighten many parents away from using the traditional health care system for their sick children.

And that is very sad.


 Exactly.  All of this.  The prognosis doesn't matter - what matters is the freedom of choice and who it belongs to.


And it doesn't belong to those under 18.   



__________________

I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.

 

Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 25897
Date:
Permalink  
 

I think the prognosis does matter. This is highly highly curable.

__________________

https://politicsandstuff.proboards.com/



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 10215
Date:
Permalink  
 

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

I think the prognosis does matter. This is highly highly curable.


It matters in EVERY OTHER example we gave of highly curable ailments that other posters readily said the government should step in and make sure they get treatment for. 

 

It's hypocritical to say it doesn't matter.   



__________________

I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.

 

Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.



On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Status: Offline
Posts: 27192
Date:
Permalink  
 

huskerbb wrote:
Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

I think the prognosis does matter. This is highly highly curable.


It matters in EVERY OTHER example we gave of highly curable ailments that other posters readily said the government should step in and make sure they get treatment for. 

 

It's hypocritical to say it doesn't matter.   


 I certainly did not say all highly curable ailments.

 

And after more thought - I do not think a parent refusing an antibiotic for something as simple as strep throat should be actionable.  It is very easy to get drug resistent to antibiotics when they are used too often, and parents have to consider that.  Baby J had to keep getting stronger and stronger antibiotics every time she got an ear infection to get rid of it, so now we try other methods to get rid of it first b/c what happens if she gets REALLY sick and is resistent to antibiotics b/c of taking so many?  Medical decisions are not cut and dry and all factors need to be considered.  Just because someone doesn't do what YOU would do doesn't mean the state should step in. 



__________________

LawyerLady

 

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. 



Hooker

Status: Offline
Posts: 12666
Date:
Permalink  
 

huskerbb wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
huskerbb wrote:

The initial question was "should a 17 year old be able to choose death".

Sorry, but the answer is "no"--no matter what arguments you come up with. We don't let 17 year olds make such choices--and the courts aren't going to change the law to make an exception here.

USUALLY, we do allow their parents to make such decisions except in extreme cases. THAT argument has some merit. The argument about letting a 17 year old decide does not.


 Emancipate her. That could be done this week.


I doubt any court would agree to that under the circumstances.  So no, it could not be done this week.  


 One in another state might. No harm trying...you have no idea if that could be done this week.  


They are under the jurisdiction of the state they are living in.  You don't get to choose what court you want to go to.  


 Again, you don't know what you are talking about. In my business, we handle emancipation proceedings all the time. And only a couple have had residence in TN.


Whatever.  I thought you worked for Sony?  Now you are a lawyer working on family law? LOL!!!!! 


 I do work for Sony. And we emancipate almost all child actors 16 and over and almost all child musicians 16 and older.  We handle all of the legal work. Care to show your ignorance of my field again? Cause you clearly don't understand basic entertainment process. Let's see how many times you can be made to look a fool THIS week...


You are the only fool on here.  


I know the rest of the Geeks would disagree, but you keep thinking that...:) 



__________________

America guarantees equal opportunity, not equal outcome...



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 10215
Date:
Permalink  
 

Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

I think the prognosis does matter. This is highly highly curable.


It matters in EVERY OTHER example we gave of highly curable ailments that other posters readily said the government should step in and make sure they get treatment for. 

 

It's hypocritical to say it doesn't matter.   


 I certainly did not say all highly curable ailments.

 

And after more thought - I do not think a parent refusing an antibiotic for something as simple as strep throat should be actionable.  It is very easy to get drug resistent to antibiotics when they are used too often, and parents have to consider that.  Baby J had to keep getting stronger and stronger antibiotics every time she got an ear infection to get rid of it, so now we try other methods to get rid of it first b/c what happens if she gets REALLY sick and is resistent to antibiotics b/c of taking so many?  Medical decisions are not cut and dry and all factors need to be considered.  Just because someone doesn't do what YOU would do doesn't mean the state should step in. 


But they are not likely to DIE from a strep throat.

If they are--then it should absolutely be treated.  Are you saying we should let kids die from such diseases?   



__________________

I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.

 

Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 10215
Date:
Permalink  
 

Ohfour wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
huskerbb wrote:

The initial question was "should a 17 year old be able to choose death".

Sorry, but the answer is "no"--no matter what arguments you come up with. We don't let 17 year olds make such choices--and the courts aren't going to change the law to make an exception here.

USUALLY, we do allow their parents to make such decisions except in extreme cases. THAT argument has some merit. The argument about letting a 17 year old decide does not.


 Emancipate her. That could be done this week.


I doubt any court would agree to that under the circumstances.  So no, it could not be done this week.  


 One in another state might. No harm trying...you have no idea if that could be done this week.  


They are under the jurisdiction of the state they are living in.  You don't get to choose what court you want to go to.  


 Again, you don't know what you are talking about. In my business, we handle emancipation proceedings all the time. And only a couple have had residence in TN.


Whatever.  I thought you worked for Sony?  Now you are a lawyer working on family law? LOL!!!!! 


 I do work for Sony. And we emancipate almost all child actors 16 and over and almost all child musicians 16 and older.  We handle all of the legal work. Care to show your ignorance of my field again? Cause you clearly don't understand basic entertainment process. Let's see how many times you can be made to look a fool THIS week...


You are the only fool on here.  


I know the rest of the Geeks would disagree, but you keep thinking that...:) 


Better look up a few posts.  TWO posters have said you are full of crap on the emancipation issue.   



__________________

I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.

 

Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.



On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Status: Offline
Posts: 27192
Date:
Permalink  
 

huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

I think the prognosis does matter. This is highly highly curable.


It matters in EVERY OTHER example we gave of highly curable ailments that other posters readily said the government should step in and make sure they get treatment for. 

 

It's hypocritical to say it doesn't matter.   


 I certainly did not say all highly curable ailments.

 

And after more thought - I do not think a parent refusing an antibiotic for something as simple as strep throat should be actionable.  It is very easy to get drug resistent to antibiotics when they are used too often, and parents have to consider that.  Baby J had to keep getting stronger and stronger antibiotics every time she got an ear infection to get rid of it, so now we try other methods to get rid of it first b/c what happens if she gets REALLY sick and is resistent to antibiotics b/c of taking so many?  Medical decisions are not cut and dry and all factors need to be considered.  Just because someone doesn't do what YOU would do doesn't mean the state should step in. 


But they are not likely to DIE from a strep throat.

If they are--then it should absolutely be treated.  Are you saying we should let kids die from such diseases?   


 That's why I said it was not comparable in the first place when it was first mentioned, and then I was called a hypocrite.  Do you really think you can have that argument both ways?



__________________

LawyerLady

 

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. 



On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Status: Offline
Posts: 27192
Date:
Permalink  
 

huskerbb wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
huskerbb wrote:

The initial question was "should a 17 year old be able to choose death".

Sorry, but the answer is "no"--no matter what arguments you come up with. We don't let 17 year olds make such choices--and the courts aren't going to change the law to make an exception here.

USUALLY, we do allow their parents to make such decisions except in extreme cases. THAT argument has some merit. The argument about letting a 17 year old decide does not.


 Emancipate her. That could be done this week.


I doubt any court would agree to that under the circumstances.  So no, it could not be done this week.  


 One in another state might. No harm trying...you have no idea if that could be done this week.  


They are under the jurisdiction of the state they are living in.  You don't get to choose what court you want to go to.  


 Again, you don't know what you are talking about. In my business, we handle emancipation proceedings all the time. And only a couple have had residence in TN.


Whatever.  I thought you worked for Sony?  Now you are a lawyer working on family law? LOL!!!!! 


 I do work for Sony. And we emancipate almost all child actors 16 and over and almost all child musicians 16 and older.  We handle all of the legal work. Care to show your ignorance of my field again? Cause you clearly don't understand basic entertainment process. Let's see how many times you can be made to look a fool THIS week...


You are the only fool on here.  


I know the rest of the Geeks would disagree, but you keep thinking that...:) 


Better look up a few posts.  TWO posters have said you are full of crap on the emancipation issue.   


 I said it's too late.  Had they tried it before the state took over, who knows?



__________________

LawyerLady

 

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. 



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 10215
Date:
Permalink  
 

Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

I think the prognosis does matter. This is highly highly curable.


It matters in EVERY OTHER example we gave of highly curable ailments that other posters readily said the government should step in and make sure they get treatment for. 

 

It's hypocritical to say it doesn't matter.   


 I certainly did not say all highly curable ailments.

 

And after more thought - I do not think a parent refusing an antibiotic for something as simple as strep throat should be actionable.  It is very easy to get drug resistent to antibiotics when they are used too often, and parents have to consider that.  Baby J had to keep getting stronger and stronger antibiotics every time she got an ear infection to get rid of it, so now we try other methods to get rid of it first b/c what happens if she gets REALLY sick and is resistent to antibiotics b/c of taking so many?  Medical decisions are not cut and dry and all factors need to be considered.  Just because someone doesn't do what YOU would do doesn't mean the state should step in. 


But they are not likely to DIE from a strep throat.

If they are--then it should absolutely be treated.  Are you saying we should let kids die from such diseases?   


 That's why I said it was not comparable in the first place when it was first mentioned, and then I was called a hypocrite.  Do you really think you can have that argument both ways?


Do we have an obligation to try to save a child's life--or don't we? 

 

They are absolutely comparable--but if you don't like that one, pick another.  What about a parent who refuses to let their child get an appendectomy when needed?  Or a parent that lets their child die from dehydration due to the flu because they refuse to get treatment?   



__________________

I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.

 

Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 10215
Date:
Permalink  
 

Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
huskerbb wrote:

The initial question was "should a 17 year old be able to choose death".

Sorry, but the answer is "no"--no matter what arguments you come up with. We don't let 17 year olds make such choices--and the courts aren't going to change the law to make an exception here.

USUALLY, we do allow their parents to make such decisions except in extreme cases. THAT argument has some merit. The argument about letting a 17 year old decide does not.


 Emancipate her. That could be done this week.


I doubt any court would agree to that under the circumstances.  So no, it could not be done this week.  


 One in another state might. No harm trying...you have no idea if that could be done this week.  


They are under the jurisdiction of the state they are living in.  You don't get to choose what court you want to go to.  


 Again, you don't know what you are talking about. In my business, we handle emancipation proceedings all the time. And only a couple have had residence in TN.


Whatever.  I thought you worked for Sony?  Now you are a lawyer working on family law? LOL!!!!! 


 I do work for Sony. And we emancipate almost all child actors 16 and over and almost all child musicians 16 and older.  We handle all of the legal work. Care to show your ignorance of my field again? Cause you clearly don't understand basic entertainment process. Let's see how many times you can be made to look a fool THIS week...


You are the only fool on here.  


I know the rest of the Geeks would disagree, but you keep thinking that...:) 


Better look up a few posts.  TWO posters have said you are full of crap on the emancipation issue.   


 I said it's too late.  Had they tried it before the state took over, who knows?


And that's what makes it crap.

 

However, are you saying that people get to pick whatever family court they want to because they laws might be more favorable there?  I can sue my wife for divorce in California court if I think it will be more advantageous?

My brother could sue for custody in Nebraska instead of South Dakota where the kid was born and lived?   



__________________

I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.

 

Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.



On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Status: Offline
Posts: 27192
Date:
Permalink  
 

huskerbb wrote:

 


And that's what makes it crap.

 

However, are you saying that people get to pick whatever family court they want to because they laws might be more favorable there?  I can sue my wife for divorce in California court if I think it will be more advantageous?

My brother could sue for custody in Nebraska instead of South Dakota where the kid was born and lived?   


 They could "forum shop" by moving.  That's as easy as renting an apartment in another county. 

There are other ways to emancipate her because she is 17.  I think the easiest, fastest way would have been to get a friend to marry her while her mother could still consent.  That would have emancipated her under common law.  Even without marriage - girls who have had babies and moved in with boyfriends have been deemed emancipated.

Common Law Emancipation: "By voluntarily removing herself from her parents' home and securing her own support originally by sharing her boyfriend's workfare support from the town, and subsequently by becoming a recipient of town welfare in her own name and that of her baby the minor has effectively removed herself from parental controls. This circumstance, combined with her parents' acquiescence therein, results in her becoming, under common law principles, an emancipated minor." Town v. Anonymous, 39 Conn. Sup. 35, 38-39, 467 A.2d 687 (1983). See also § 46b-150e. Emancipation under common law.

 

To be emancipated by the court under Connecticut law by court order, you must be at least 16 years old. You must also meet one of the following conditions:

  • You must be married, or
  • You must be in the U.S. armed forces, or
  • You must be living apart from your parents or guardian and be managing your own money, or
  • The court must decide that emancipation is in the best interests of you, or your parents, or your minor child (if you have one).

 

 

 

Of course I think it silly they would have to resort to this.  If she was 17 and pregnant and wanted an abortion, so many would be clamoring to say it's her right to make THAT medical decision.  And in fact - in Connecticut, a teen can get an abortion without parental consent.  So, they consider teens old enough to make THAT decision.  Ridiculous.

 



__________________

LawyerLady

 

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. 



Hooker

Status: Offline
Posts: 12666
Date:
Permalink  
 

huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
huskerbb wrote:

The initial question was "should a 17 year old be able to choose death".

Sorry, but the answer is "no"--no matter what arguments you come up with. We don't let 17 year olds make such choices--and the courts aren't going to change the law to make an exception here.

USUALLY, we do allow their parents to make such decisions except in extreme cases. THAT argument has some merit. The argument about letting a 17 year old decide does not.


 Emancipate her. That could be done this week.


I doubt any court would agree to that under the circumstances.  So no, it could not be done this week.  


 One in another state might. No harm trying...you have no idea if that could be done this week.  


They are under the jurisdiction of the state they are living in.  You don't get to choose what court you want to go to.  


 Again, you don't know what you are talking about. In my business, we handle emancipation proceedings all the time. And only a couple have had residence in TN.


Whatever.  I thought you worked for Sony?  Now you are a lawyer working on family law? LOL!!!!! 


 I do work for Sony. And we emancipate almost all child actors 16 and over and almost all child musicians 16 and older.  We handle all of the legal work. Care to show your ignorance of my field again? Cause you clearly don't understand basic entertainment process. Let's see how many times you can be made to look a fool THIS week...


You are the only fool on here.  


I know the rest of the Geeks would disagree, but you keep thinking that...:) 


Better look up a few posts.  TWO posters have said you are full of crap on the emancipation issue.   


 I said it's too late.  Had they tried it before the state took over, who knows?


And that's what makes it crap.

 

However, are you saying that people get to pick whatever family court they want to because they laws might be more favorable there?  I can sue my wife for divorce in California court if I think it will be more advantageous?

My brother could sue for custody in Nebraska instead of South Dakota where the kid was born and lived?   


 YEP!  My sister and her husband sued for custody of his son that lived in Mississippi.  They went through the family court here. They won.  He now lives with them and they take him to Oxford every other weekend.  This is nothing new...



__________________

America guarantees equal opportunity, not equal outcome...

«First  <  1 2 3 4 5 6 7  >  Last»  | Page of 7  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.



Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard