cybercoma Posted January 30, 2015 Report Posted January 30, 2015 Yes: http://www.criminaljusticedegreesguide.com/features/10-youngest-murderers-in-history.html Most recently, Jordan Brown, who committed murder at the age of 11 in 2009, was charged as an adult, although there was considerable controversy with the trial. Not in Canada. You can't be held criminally responsible under the age of 12 afaik. Quote
Black Dog Posted January 30, 2015 Report Posted January 30, 2015 Or the arbitrary age of 16, which has no foundation in psychology or anything. Meanwhile the age to vote or serve in the military is 18. You can drive at 16, but only with major restrictions these days. You could get your full license before. You get to operate farming equipment at 12 years old in most provinces though. Same with snowmobiles and ATVs. The age is arbitrary. Children don't mature at the same pace. Children are also people, which means they have varying degrees of intelligence and understanding. Yeah. And? You're still completely dismissing how I've been saying it needs to be taken on a case-by-case basis. probably because you also keep making absolutist pronouncements like the one I quotPd above. Sports can cause injury or death of the child too. We don't take custody of kids who're enrolled in hockey or football. This isn't worth dignifying with a response. And you continue to ignore the difference between euthanizing someone and refusing medical treatment. They're different things. Far from ignoring it, I've asked you several times to explain what the difference is and why it is significant. You have not. Quote
Bonam Posted January 30, 2015 Report Posted January 30, 2015 Let's say that's true. The fact this kid was 11 (not 17 and 364 days), combined with the obvious influence of her parents' crackpot beliefs had on an impressionable child seem like significant details to me. I agree, those are certainly significant details and should be considered. Nonetheless, it's not quite as black and white as saying if someone is a child (below a fixed cutoff age), then they should never have any ability to decide something like this for themselves. Quote
cybercoma Posted January 30, 2015 Report Posted January 30, 2015 Black Dog, you're being incredibly dishonest by ignoring the complexity of what I'm arguing. You continue to reduce those arguments into something that they're not, so you can argue against something more simplistic. I know you're smarter than this because I've seen it on these forums. I refuse to continue discussing this with you until you actually begin discussing the things I'm saying and not the oversimplified strawmen you continue to knock over. Quote
Boges Posted January 30, 2015 Author Report Posted January 30, 2015 What about adults who can be convinced of that? What about adults who are convinced of pseudoscientific treatments every single day? What about those who get their advice from Facebook and Dr. Oz? Why don't we take away medical decisions from people entirely and just allow doctors to do whatever they want? Yeah and you can also refuse chemo for a very treatable disease as an adult. Children are difference because society deems that the state needs to protect them from their parents if they aren't demonstrating due diligence to provide the child with acceptable care. Quote
cybercoma Posted January 30, 2015 Report Posted January 30, 2015 Are you consistently libertarian on medical choices then? Should parents be able to prevent their child from receiving a blood transfusion because of their religious beliefs? Is an exorcism a viable option? If it results in death, as surgeries and medical procedures often do, should there be any repercussions? I'm not trying to insinuate a support for woo on your part. I know that doctors avoid chemo more than the general population. I'm just interested in the conversation about where to draw the line. I've already addressed this. Not bringing your kid to the doctor in the first place is very different from what has transpired here. They brought her to the doctor and even went through chemo. They refused following the first round. Quote
cybercoma Posted January 30, 2015 Report Posted January 30, 2015 Let's say that's true. The fact this kid was 11 (not 17 and 364 days), combined with the obvious influence of her parents' crackpot beliefs had on an impressionable child seem like significant details to me.Actually, doctors are not allowed to discuss their patients with parents once they turn 16, not 18. Quote
cybercoma Posted January 30, 2015 Report Posted January 30, 2015 Far from ignoring it, I've asked you several times to explain what the difference is and why it is significant. You have not.You really need that explained to you? Here you go: One is dying the other is not. One is refusing medical intervention and letting nature take its course. The other is actively killing someone. Hope this helps. Quote
cybercoma Posted January 30, 2015 Report Posted January 30, 2015 Yeah and you can also refuse chemo for a very treatable disease as an adult. Children are difference because society deems that the state needs to protect them from their parents if they aren't demonstrating due diligence to provide the child with acceptable care.But they did demonstrate that by going to the oncologist and having chemo therapy. Quote
cybercoma Posted January 30, 2015 Report Posted January 30, 2015 Be back in a bit, guys. Good discussion. Thanks for keeping it mostly friendly. Quote
Black Dog Posted January 30, 2015 Report Posted January 30, 2015 (edited) You really need that explained to you? Here you go: One is dying the other is not. One is refusing medical intervention and letting nature take its course. The other is actively killing someone. Hope this helps. Starving someone who is incapable of feeding themselves isn't actively killing them. It's letting nature take its course. In any case, I have always understood the difference. I'm asking why the method matters when the underlying pricniple is the same. Edited January 30, 2015 by Black Dog Quote
Boges Posted January 30, 2015 Author Report Posted January 30, 2015 (edited) But they did demonstrate that by going to the oncologist and having chemo therapy. And one round of Chemo doesn't cure cancer (usually). The Doctors will tell you, this treatment will suck right off the bat, there is no evidence that her experience wasn't typical or extraordinary. RoFo has gone through like 5 rounds. Edited January 30, 2015 by Boges Quote
Bonam Posted January 30, 2015 Report Posted January 30, 2015 Not in Canada. You can't be held criminally responsible under the age of 12 afaik. So do you agree with this policy? If so, is that not inconsistent with your stance on an 11 year old being able to make a decision like this regarding medical treatment? If you agree that an 11 year old cannot understand killing enough to be held criminally responsible for it, then does it not also follow that they may not understand the concept of dying enough to make rational choices about it? Quote
Boges Posted January 30, 2015 Author Report Posted January 30, 2015 (edited) Starving someone who is incapable of feeding themselves isn't actively killing them. It's letting nature take its course. Terri Schiavo FTW. Edited January 30, 2015 by Boges Quote
cybercoma Posted January 30, 2015 Report Posted January 30, 2015 So do you agree with this policy? If so, is that not inconsistent with your stance on an 11 year old being able to make a decision like this regarding medical treatment? If you agree that an 11 year old cannot understand killing enough to be held criminally responsible for it, then does it not also follow that they may not understand the concept of dying enough to make rational choices about it?I don't agree with setting a specific age, no. I believe there needs to be judicial discretion in determining the maturity and understanding of the child when coming to these decisions. Quote
cybercoma Posted January 30, 2015 Report Posted January 30, 2015 Starving someone who is incapable of feeding themselves isn't actively killing them. It's letting nature take its course. In any case, I have always understood the difference. I'm asking why the method matters when the underlying pricniple is the same. Look. I can explain the differences to you. I can't understand it for you. If you're not going to be intellectually honest here, then I have no time for you. Quote
Mighty AC Posted January 31, 2015 Report Posted January 31, 2015 I've already addressed this. Not bringing your kid to the doctor in the first place is very different from what has transpired here. They brought her to the doctor and even went through chemo. They refused following the first round.Could you support the decision if they didn't try one round of chemo? Quote "Our lives begin to end the day we stay silent about the things that matter." - Martin Luther King Jr"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities" - Voltaire
cybercoma Posted January 31, 2015 Report Posted January 31, 2015 Could you support the decision if they didn't try one round of chemo?If they never brought the child to the doctor in the first place, then I would see it as neglect. But that's not what happened here and dealing with hypotheticals only serves to derail threads. Quote
Black Dog Posted January 31, 2015 Report Posted January 31, 2015 (edited) Look. I can explain the differences to you. I can't understand it for you. Can you? Because you haven't yet. Personal autonomy is either absolute (as you have been arguing) or it's not. If the government can't tell you how to live, they certainly can't tell you how to die. Edited January 31, 2015 by Black Dog Quote
GostHacked Posted January 31, 2015 Report Posted January 31, 2015 If her cancer was that progressed, then a second round of chemo would not have solved anything. It could have made her last days very painful and downright awful. As the parents do they want to see their child suffer? Or live out the last days with some kind of happiness? And I always thought it weird to treat cancer with radiation which can cause, more cancers. Something they are now revealing with mamograms. Quote
Smallc Posted January 31, 2015 Report Posted January 31, 2015 If her cancer was that progressed, then a second round of chemo would not have solved anything. . You know more than the doctors treating her then. She had somewhere between a 75 - 90% chance of survival. Quote
Mighty AC Posted February 2, 2015 Report Posted February 2, 2015 (edited) If they never brought the child to the doctor in the first place, then I would see it as neglect. But that's not what happened here and dealing with hypotheticals only serves to derail threads. Not at all. The for and against abstaining from treatment conversation has long been exhausted. I'm interested in the hypothetical discussion on whether or not there is a line to be drawn. In cases involving minors should parents have the ultimate say or doctors or some sort of medical dichotomous key? I'm not sure what level of prognosis it would take for me to just let my child die instead of accepting a horrible treatment. If there were two rounds involved in removing tonsils my son would have refused to continue the treatment if given a choice. Edited February 2, 2015 by Mighty AC Quote "Our lives begin to end the day we stay silent about the things that matter." - Martin Luther King Jr"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities" - Voltaire
Black Dog Posted February 2, 2015 Report Posted February 2, 2015 I feel compelled to point out that cybercoma is also making a great case for anti-vaxxers here. Quote
cybercoma Posted February 3, 2015 Report Posted February 3, 2015 Can you? Because you haven't yet. Personal autonomy is either absolute (as you have been arguing) or it's not. If the government can't tell you how to live, they certainly can't tell you how to die.If it needs to boiled down into something black and white for you to understand what I'm saying, then I guess you're just never going to. Quote
cybercoma Posted February 3, 2015 Report Posted February 3, 2015 You know more than the doctors treating her then. She had somewhere between a 75 - 90% chance of survival.Now it's as low as 75%? Earlier you were just saying 90%. Quote
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.