Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

- Tilted Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/)

- - closer to oligarchy (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/106932-closer-oligarchy.html)

closer to oligarchy

When is your life truly your own? how close are we to being slaves of the state?

Judge ORDERS teen to cancer treatment

Quote:

A judge ruled Friday that a 16-year-old boy fighting to use alternative treatment for his cancer must report to a hospital by Tuesday and accept treatment that doctors deem necessary, the family's attorney said.

The judge also found Starchild Abraham Cherrix's parents were neglectful for allowing him to pursue alternative treatment of a sugar-free, organic diet and herbal supplements supervised by a clinic in Mexico, lawyer John Stepanovich said.

Jay and Rose Cherrix of Chincoteague on Virginia's Eastern Shore must continue to share custody of their son with the Accomack County Department of Social Services, as the judge had previously ordered, Stepanovich said.

After three months of chemotherapy last year made him nauseated and weak, Abraham rejected doctors' recommendations to go through a second round when he learned early this year that his Hodgkin's disease, a cancer of the lymph nodes, was active again.

A social worker then asked a judge to require the teen to continue conventional treatment. In May, the judge issued a temporary order finding Abraham's parents neglectful and awarding partial custody to the county, with Abraham continuing to live at home with his four siblings.

So, following the logic and path of the courts since 'the new deal' re-interpreted the constitution, how long will it be before you're told that you can't pay off a mortgage early because it will cost the bank money in interest payments?

I don't quite make the connection between the state stepping in to force adequate healthcare, to a minor child...and the state forcing profits to the banking industry.

Regardless...

On the surface this may sound like a load of horse crap. However, I can already hear the public indignation had Starchild expired without the state stepping in to insure that proper medical treatment was administered.
"How could the government have just stood by and done nothing, while those damn hippy freaks just treated the poor boy's illness with voodoo? Why didn't the courts look out for this childs best interest?"

Tell me I'm wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

ok, you're wrong. (edit, sorry BoR, I completely missed the sarcastic tone of your post regarding the 'indignation' part.)

This kid already went through chemo once, made him sick. He CHOSE not to go through it again and wanted to pursue another form of treatment. His parents didn't choose it for him, they supported his choice. Is the state our babysitter? Did the government become our parent to make our choices for us when we choose something they don't approve of? Who is the determinant of the childs 'best interest'? Liberals, thats who. People who think they know whats best for us. The 'Elite'.

The connection is that with almost every case that comes out of the courts we have more of our freedoms, more of our rights, and more of our 'choices' taken away from us in the name of 'our best interests'. Are we already slaves of the state?

A circuit court judge has stayed the juvenile court judge (both county judges in VA) pending the outcome of a new trial.

Check this out.

Looks like the system is working somewhat.

Completely disagree with the juvie judge, a while this stay is a good start, a final ruling is still pending.

-bear

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

Are we already slaves of the state?

No.
But, we are responsible to it.

We are free to make decisions, for ourselves, that harm no one but ourselves.

I have a phobia of dentists. I choose not to go to the dentist. My teeth fall out of my head. Poor me.
My kids have a phobia of dentists. I choose not to take my children to the dentist. Their teeth fall out of their head. Damn me.

The kid is 16. He is still a minor. Had this been a 6 year old, Mom and Dad would be in jail for child neglect, and Starchild would be getting chemo while living in foster care.

Frankly, I don't give a damn for Liberals or Conservatives. Both of 'em try to tell me how I should live my life. Neither side has a franchise on being "elite".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

The kid is 16. He is still a minor. Had this been a 6 year old, Mom and Dad would be in jail for child neglect, and Starchild would be getting chemo while living in foster care.

and you know, if the child in question had been 6 and said he didn't want to be 'sick' from the chemo anymore, I might tend to side with the courts, just might. But 16 is old enough in this instance. Easily made aware of the consequences of not getting the 'normal' treatment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

Frankly, I don't give a damn for Liberals or Conservatives. Both of 'em try to tell me how I should live my life. Neither side has a franchise on being "elite".

Whoot, right there with ya. :thumbsup:

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

at what age is someone "easily made aware of the consequences of getting the 'normal' treatment"?

and therein lies the problem

the kid's a minor, the state stepped in as they would have if the kid were 6

now, if he kills someone, i'm pretty sure he'll be tried as an adult...

as much as i hate to say it bc it does go against everything that is me, i gotta agree with the judge's decision to force treatment on the child on this one. The parents did no wrong, however, in supporting their child's decision to abandon 'normal' treatment.

I mean, do you think abortion opponents would like all 16 yr olds to have right to accept or refuse medical treatments on their own? Somehow, i feel it is tied into the adult vs minor nature of this whole trial.

I'm not saying it's right, just that it's what we got at the moment.

They named the kid "Starchild"? Maybe the state should take over from the parents ...

THought this might cheer you up DK

Quote:

House votes to block police from seizing legal guns in disasters

WASHINGTON -- The House voted Tuesday to prevent law enforcement officers from confiscating legally owned guns during a national disaster or emergency.

Republican Rep. Bobby Jindal, the Louisiana lawmaker who sponsored the bill, said firearms seizures after Hurricane Katrina left residents unable to defend themselves.

"Many of them were sitting in their homes without power, without water, without communication," he said. "It was literally impossible to pick up a phone and call 911."

The House voted 322-99 in support of the bill. Senators voted 84-16 earlier this month to include a similar prohibition in a homeland security funding bill.

The limitation would apply to federal law enforcement or military officers, along with local police that receive federal funds.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., repeatedly called the bill "insane."

He and some Democrats said the bill might satisfy the gun lobby, but it would put people into more danger during already perilous disasters.

"The streets of an American city immediately after a disaster are no place to abandon common sense," said Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y.

The Fraternal Order of Police endorsed the measure. In a letter to Jindal, National President Chuck Canterbury said law enforcement officials concentrate on search and rescue during major disasters, and breakdowns in communications and transportation can lengthen police response times to calls.

"A law-abiding citizen who possesses a firearm lawfully represents no danger to law enforcement officers or any other first responder," Canterbury wrote.

The National Rifle Association also supported the bill and has been asking police chiefs and mayors to pledge they will not forcibly disarm law-abiding citizens.

Jindal said the bill does not inhibit police from enforcing gun laws, nor does it overwrite state and local laws prohibiting people from bringing guns into shelters.

Nadler said the bill would prevent police from pickup up guns that could be seized by looters. Police and other law enforcement officials could face a personal lawsuit for picking up guns they later found to be legally owned, he said.

The bill allows the Coast Guard to require that people surrender their weapons before boarding a rescue vehicle.

yup, it does. Hearing Kennedy, Schumer, and Durbin cry about it made me happy!!! Although I don't think it went far enough.