guyser Posted January 20, 2015 Report Share Posted January 20, 2015 I hung a cow bell outside my door, I was told it would ward off bear attacks. Been bear attack free for going on ten years now. Im guessing it worked huh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted January 20, 2015 Report Share Posted January 20, 2015 I hung a cow bell outside my door, I was told it would ward off bear attacks. Been bear attack free for going on ten years now. Im guessing it worked huh? I see you're mistaking science with superstition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted January 20, 2015 Report Share Posted January 20, 2015 How can a parent decide to kill their child?Easily, lots have , lots will. Because that's what happened here.They gave her the disease ? How did that happen? I thought she contracted it via some other way , or born with it. In any event, the disease killed her. Now.....shall we talk about contributory negligence going forward ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted January 20, 2015 Report Share Posted January 20, 2015 I don't think negligence is strong enough here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remiel Posted January 20, 2015 Report Share Posted January 20, 2015 We are probably going to be hearing about this girl for God damned decades as evidence of how it is us "settlers" and our colonialism that killed this girl with our evil chemotherapy treatments. Jesus Christ indeed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted January 20, 2015 Report Share Posted January 20, 2015 I don't think negligence is strong enough here. But murder is? We both know they didnt 'kill' her . They contributed in a negative way to a disease their child has. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted January 20, 2015 Report Share Posted January 20, 2015 But murder is? We both know they didnt 'kill' her . They contributed in a negative way to a disease their child has. They contributed to her death. Being that her chance of survival was pretty much 100% with treatment, they were the major cause of her death. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted January 20, 2015 Report Share Posted January 20, 2015 How can a parent decide to kill their child? Because that's what happened here. As for math skills, you're the one talking about there still being a chance of dying. It seems like that would be an irrelevant statement. I could die right now. You could die right now. That's very relevant to the discussion. You know what else is relevant to the discussion? You are going to die. Every single one of us is. The parent didn't kill their child. A stroke killed a very sick child. Only a completely heartless asshole would tell parents who just lost their child to a serious and difficult illness that they murdered her. You don't like their decision not to subject her to chemo, that's your own damn problem. Keep it to yourself. They tried chemo. The kid suffered. They made a very difficult decision together not to continue treatments. That's for them to decide. Not you. Not me. And not anyone else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted January 20, 2015 Report Share Posted January 20, 2015 They contributed to her death. Being that her chance of survival was pretty much 100% with treatment, they were the major cause of her death.So now 90% is 100%? Let me explain to you how percentages work..... Let me also explain to you who gets to decide what medical practices doctors get to perform on you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted January 20, 2015 Report Share Posted January 20, 2015 Tell us again though how you're a libertarian, Smallc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted January 20, 2015 Report Share Posted January 20, 2015 (edited) They contributed to her death. Being that her chance of survival was pretty much 100% with treatment, they were the major cause of her death.I'm not a medical expert, but they said on the news that her weekly blood tests were negative for cancer. We can't be sure now and we may never know for sure as it's personal, so perhaps accusations could be tempered a bit. . Edited January 20, 2015 by jacee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 They contributed to her death. Being that her chance of survival was pretty much 100% with treatment, they were the major cause of her death. So in that case, they should get 90% the sentence of manslaughter? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 (edited) You are going to die. Every single one of us is. Technically, you don't know that and that hypothesis is unfalsifiable. Only a completely heartless asshole would tell parents who just lost their child to a serious and difficult illness that they murdered her. Then I am a 'complete asshole' for wanting people to be charged for a crime they committed and to not send the message to other parents that child neglect is okay. You don't like their decision not to subject her to chemo, that's your own damn problem. Keep it to yourself. They tried chemo. The kid suffered. They made a very difficult decision together not to continue treatments. That's for them to decide. Not you. Not me. And not anyone else. They made a bad decision that killed her. That is child neglect. If I see a child suffering on the streets am I supposed to keep it to myself? Edited January 21, 2015 by -1=e^ipi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 So now 90% is 100%? It's extremely close. She had an almost absolute certainty of survival. Now she's dead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 I'm not a medical expert, but they said on the news that her weekly blood tests were negative for cancer. We can't be sure now and we may never know for sure as it's personal, so perhaps accusations could be tempered a bit. . We can know this - doctors guaranteed she would not survive without treatment. There is no reason to doubt that, and no reason to doubt that this outcome had something to do with the cancer. So in that case, they should get 90% the sentence of manslaughter? 100% responsibility in terms of negligence....it might as well be murder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 We can know this - doctors guaranteed she would not survive without treatment. There is no reason to doubt that, and no reason to doubt that this outcome had something to do with the cancer.Or damage from the cancer treatment. I'm not saying either way as I don't know. Neither do you. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 No adult should ever be forced to undergo a medical treatment that they don't want to. Parents make the decisions for their children. If these parents decided to let their child decide for herself, then that's all there is to it, as far as I'm concerned. They will live with their decision. The rest of us have no say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 Or damage from the cancer treatment. I'm not saying either way as I don't know. Neither do you. . Without treatment, her sentence was certain...with it, not so much? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 No adult should ever be forced to undergo a medical treatment that they don't want to. Parents make the decisions for their children. Not always. There are some decisions that are not for others to make, and that cannot be made until they're old enough to make the decisions themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 Tell us again though how you're a libertarian, Smallc. I never said I would, but as a libertarian, I probably wouldn't be comfortable with someone deciding for me that I can die now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 "Chemotherapy did irreversible damage to her heart and major organs. This was the cause of the stroke." An oncologist countered, however, that untreated leukemia can in fact cause strokes. A leukemia cell could go into the bone marrow and crowd out normal cells, leading to a very low platelet count which could result in a bleeding stroke in the head, explained Dr. Jacqueline Halton, a pediatric hematologist-oncologist at the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario. Alternatively, leukemia could cause a patient to have a very high white cell count, which could also lead to a stroke, she said. "If your white cell count is so high, it can make the blood very sludgy," she said. "You can have a stroke from the blockage of the arteries in the brain." Halton added that while certain forms of chemotherapy can possibly lead to a stroke, that would happen within days or weeks of receiving chemotherapy, not months after it was stopped. http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/arts-and-life/life/health/ontario-aboriginal-girl-who-refused-chemotherapy-dies-------------289158971.html Or damage from the cancer treatment. I'm not saying either way as I don't know. Neither do you. . In fact, I do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 You are going to die. Every single one of us is. Technically, you don't know that and that hypothesis is unfalsifiable. In fact, given the trends in biotechnology, nanotechnology, neuroscience, and computation, it's quite possible that many of the people alive today will have the opportunity to have their effective lifespans extended indefinitely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 Not always. There are some decisions that are not for others to make, and that cannot be made until they're old enough to make the decisions themselves. The other option then, would be to force the child to undergo painful medical treatment to which she did not wish to be subjected, against the wishes of her parents. I wouldn't want to do that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 The other option then, would be to force the child to undergo painful medical treatment to which she did not wish to be subjected, against the wishes of her parents. I wouldn't want to do that. If she lives, that's what I'd want. She can die later, when she's old enough to make her own decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 She isn't old enough to understand death and consciousness in a way that would allow her to make this decision properly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.