First Nations Girl who Refused Chemo has Died

Smallc · February 3, 2015

Now it's as low as 75%? Earlier you were just saying 90%.

One girl was 75%, and one was 90%. I'm not sure which was which. This girl, on looking may have had the lower odds, which is completely irrelevant to the reality that her parents withheld treatment that, by the odds, would have saved her life.

Smallc · February 3, 2015

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.

Yes, it's much easier to be wishy washy about it. Then you never really have to worry about things like wrong or right.

Black Dog · February 3, 2015

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.

What a cop out.

If you can't articulate why it is moral to let a kid with a treatable disease die, but immoral to help someone with a debilitating illness or disability die with dignity, that's your problem.

Edited February 3, 2015 by Black Dog

cybercoma · February 3, 2015

What a cop out.

If you can't articulate why it is moral to let a kid with a treatable disease die, but immoral to help someone with a debilitating illness or disability die with dignity, that's your problem.

Look, you've done nothing but throw around strawman arguments and most recently a red herring about anti-vaxxers. If you can't debate what I'm actually saying, then get lost.

Black Dog · February 3, 2015

Look, you've done nothing but throw around strawman arguments and most recently a red herring about anti-vaxxers. If you can't debate what I'm actually saying, then get lost.

The antivaxxers thing is absolutely not a red herring. It's perfectly in line with your beliefs on this matter.

Under my way of thinking, people get to choose what medical interventions they go through. They have sanctity of the body and the right to life and liberty.

If people want to refuse medical treatment, I don't give a crap what their reasons are.

I don't understand why it's so difficult to accept that people ought to be able to choose for themselves what they subject their bodies to.

I said people have a right to choose what medical procedures are done to them. My argument is that no one should be forced to undergo medical practices without their consent.

How would that not apply to arguments about vaccination?

cybercoma · February 4, 2015

Because being radiated with chemotherapy and getting vaccinated are not comparable procedures. That's pretty obvious to anyone who's not being as intellectually dishonest as you've been this entire thread. Since you like to keep track of logical fallacies, this is a false equivalence fallacy that you're presenting here.

Edited February 4, 2015 by cybercoma

Smallc · February 4, 2015

But there's a chance the vaccine can do bad things, just as there's a chance the chemo won't save someone. The argument works for either.

cybercoma · February 4, 2015

But there's a chance the vaccine can do bad things, just as there's a chance the chemo won't save someone. The argument works for either.

Chemo therapy does do bad things. There isn't a chance of it. It's extremely difficult on people. The two things aren't comparable at all however. It's a red herring and completely irrelevant to what I'm saying.

AngusThermopyle · February 4, 2015

It should be pointed out again that Chemo does good things. Unless you consider not being dead from cancer to be a bad thing.

Black Dog · February 4, 2015

Because being radiated with chemotherapy and getting vaccinated are not comparable procedures.

If, as you are on record stating, no one should be forced to undergo medical practices without their consent, then the specific medical practice in question hardly matters. If the principle applies to chemo, it applies to open heart surgery, hysterectomies and, yes, vaccinations.

If there's caveats to that statement and others you made along the same lines, maybe you should present those instead of acting all butthurt about it.

That's pretty obvious to anyone who's not being as intellectually dishonest as you've been this entire thread.

My pointing out how your beliefs would apply in other situations isn't being intellectually dishonest. Quite the opposite.

Since you like to keep track of logical fallacies, this is a false equivalence fallacy that you're presenting here.

Except I'm not making any comparison between the procedures themselves. Like I said, that's not really relevant. Either the premise (again: that no one should be forced to undergo medical practices without their consent) holds or it doesn't. And if you're willing to acknowledge that there are circumstances in which it does not apply, you're going to have to do a better job of explaining why you're willing to apply that exception to vaccinations (without pointing out the obvious fact that they are different procedures because duh.) but not life-saving chemotherapy.

Black Dog · February 4, 2015

Chemo therapy does do bad things. There isn't a chance of it. It's extremely difficult on people. The two things aren't comparable at all however. It's a red herring and completely irrelevant to what I'm saying.

It's not enough to say "these are different things". You have to explain why those differences matter enough to make one the exception to your belief that people have the right to refuse medical treatment for any reason at all.

Mighty AC · February 4, 2015

It's not enough to say "these are different things". You have to explain why those differences matter enough to make one the exception to your belief that people have the right to refuse medical treatment for any reason at all.

You don't see a difference between virtually painless vaccines with extremely minimal risk and chemotherapy? Also, do you have a problem with adults refusing treatment for any reason or just adults refusing to have children treated?

Edited February 4, 2015 by Mighty AC

Black Dog · February 4, 2015

You don't see a difference between virtually painless vaccines with extremely minimal risk and chemotherapy?

OK, so the degree to which a person has the autonomy to say no to medical interventions for any reason is dependent on the relative unpleasantness of the procedure in question? Where do you draw the line, exactly?

Also, do you have a problem with adults refusing treatment for any reason or just adults refusing to have children treated?

Adults can do whatever they want. For example, I'm a supporter of the right to assisted suicide.

I do not believe those same rights should be afforded to children, especially ones as young as 11.

Mighty AC · February 4, 2015

OK, so the degree to which a person has the autonomy to say no to medical interventions for any reason is dependent on the relative unpleasantness of the procedure in question? Where do you draw the line, exactly?

Yes, I think the severity of treatment matters a great deal.

Where to draw the line? That's a conversation I have been trying to start here. I agree that adults should be able to refuse any treatment for any reason. As for kids, I'm not sure where to draw the line. For example, I am opposed to the refusal of transfusions for religious reasons. Also, in the case cited in this thread, given an 80% chance of success, I would have had my child complete the full course of chemo. However, given a more negative prognosis I would forgo the painful treatment. Though, I'm not sure exactly how low it would have to be.

Let's say my child had a 50% chance of success would it be acceptable for me to decide to let my child's last little bit of time be more comfortable? Should I need the consent of a doctor or possibly the state? I don't know.

I think I am most comfortable with parents making the decision, knowing that the vast majority will make reasonable choices and outliers, like the case being discussed here, will be few.

Edited February 4, 2015 by Mighty AC

Black Dog · February 4, 2015

Yes, I think the severity of treatment matters a great deal.

Where to draw the line? That's a conversation I have been trying to start here.

I`m talking about how you determine what level of severity or side effects justify opting out of treatment.

Mighty AC · February 4, 2015

I`m talking about how you determine what level of severity or side effects justify opting out of treatment.

Yeah, me too. What are your thoughts?

I know that chemo is brutal and that doctors refuse it at a far greater rate than the general population. However, in general I'm not sure how we determine what treatments are mandatory. As mentioned above, at this point I am most comfortable with parents making the decision, knowing that the vast majority will make reasonable choices. I wouldn't have made the same choice as the family in this thread, but I am comfortable with them having that choice.

TimG · February 4, 2015

As mentioned above, at this point I am most comfortable with parents making the decision, knowing that the vast majority will make reasonable choices.

So you have no problems with parents who choose to let their child die because they are opposed to blood transfusions?

Mighty AC · February 5, 2015

So you have no problems with parents who choose to let their child die because they are opposed to blood transfusions?

As mentioned, I am opposed. It infuriates me that people will let a child die because of groundless beliefs. That being said, I think more harm will come from the state trying to draw lines. I'm still grappling with my position on this which is why I wanted to discuss the topic of hypothetical lines and how they would be drawn and administered.

How good or bad does a prognosis have to be before we force children to submit to treatments opposed for reasons of compassion or ideology? Who makes the call? Courts would be far too slow, so do we let doctors decide or should the state draw lines? If we allow either will the extremely religious simply stop seeing doctors or stick to specific secret religious elders? If the state draws lines will we force dying children to live their last months sick from the chemo drugs rather than a few more moments of happiness? These are some of the questions that come to mind.

So many crucial decisions are left to parents regarding the quality of life for their children. I think allowing parents to decide what treatments to accept and forgo is currently the best option. I'd like to think that reason will prevail over anti-vaxxer types and the extremely religious thus making case like this one very rare.

On Guard for Thee · February 5, 2015

I would agree with AC here. In my opinion these parents made a bad decision, however I think the extreme majority would give their kid any and all chances for recovery. So we dont need the state swooping in any time soon to take over.

TimG · February 5, 2015

As mentioned, I am opposed. It infuriates me that people will let a child die because of groundless beliefs. That being said, I think more harm will come from the state trying to draw lines. I'm still grappling with my position on this which is why I wanted to discuss the topic of hypothetical lines and how they would be drawn and administered.

Kudos for taking a stance on principal and acknowledging that some harm will result from the stance. There are many situations where we need to make a choice between personal freedoms and the harms caused by people who abuse these freedoms. In most cases I agree that we should err on the side of personal freedom, however, the trouble is we are talking about individuals inflicting harm on a third party (the child). If we are going to intervene at all it should be in cases where third parties are hurt (e.g. vaccines). A parent that fails to provide a child with adequate nutrition because of misguided fears about food additives would be charged with child abuse. It is not clear why denying access to life saving care is any different. Edited February 5, 2015 by TimG

Michael Hardner · February 5, 2015

As mentioned, I am opposed. It infuriates me that people will let a child die because of groundless beliefs. That being said, I think more harm will come from the state trying to draw lines.

I understand what you're saying, but they already do draw lines.

I'm still grappling with my position on this which is why I wanted to discuss the topic of hypothetical lines and how they would be drawn and administered.

Yes, absolutely. You should continue to grapple, as will I. Life and humanity doesn't lend itself to clean geometric lines defining suffering, health, vibrant life, terminal illness and so on.

Part of our lot in life is to have no answers for things like this. If we can't be on the same page with our opinions and our metaphysical beliefs, hopefully we can at least share some humanity and empathy when discussing it.

Argus · February 8, 2015

Cybercoma the libertarian, never thought I'd see the day.

He's not a libertarian. It's because the child is native. We must respect brown people's rights to do whatever they want at all times.

Argus · February 8, 2015

I would argue that the difference between causing someone to die, and not saving them from dying, is an objective difference rather than a subjective one.

There is a law which says it is illegal to withhold the necessities of life from a child. If the parents had decided to starve the kid in order to force out some sort of demon and the child died they'd be charged. And it wouldn't matter a damn that the kid agreed.

TimG · February 8, 2015

He's not a libertarian. It's because the child is native. We must respect brown people's rights to do whatever they want at all times.

So true. If the parents were Christian he would be demanding that social services seize the child and the parents be charged.

Argus · February 8, 2015

As mentioned, I am opposed. It infuriates me that people will let a child die because of groundless beliefs. That being said, I think more harm will come from the state trying to draw lines.

Drawing lines is what the state does! You can do this, but not that. All of criminal law is about drawing lines.

The state has, over the last generation or two, very much drawn the lines around what parental authority there is when it comes to their child. The child does not belong to the parent. It is a person in its own right, and the state has an obligation to ensure the child is not being abused, even by the parent. The parents do not have the right to refuse education for the child, for example. The parents do not have the right to have sex with the child, or beat it senseless, or deprive it of food, or keep it in any unsafe situation or condition, such as a freezing home. Requiring the child get necessary medical care is perfectly in line with the rest.