Medical slavery in Connecticut
I'm against suicide, but I'm even more against statism. This is a direct affront to individuality. After this and the gun control they're pushing up there, I'd strongly advise anyone interested in freedom to move out of Connecticut.
Cheyenne is a city that feels like a small town.
In the short time we've been here, Joan and I have identified a few "like-minded-enough" people:
A homesteader (Farm fresh eggs and 12 acres for a farming co-op)
A sausage-maker (Made on site - found that one yesterday, we got anduille. Woo-hoo!)
An auto-mechanic (The Tea Party candidate for governor stops by the garage often for coffee).
As for firearms companies, I believe Mag-Pul moved to WY from CO after Hickenlooper and the Marxocrats tried their BS.
Joan know about a couple of other, I will PM you with info.
Seriously, why stay?
Plus, I read yesterday that that fault line through CT that everyone's been warning about since I was a kid went active last week?
5 quakes in less than a week?
One of them 3.3 another 3.1?
The worst WY has is that you're sitting atop a mega-volcano ;)
Oh yeah, and Cheyenne is probably #2 on the list of places in the US to get the crap nuked out of it.
http://wyomingwhiskey.com/wp/
Haven't tried it yet.
But that will change soon.
Holy moley, it's good!
I made up my mind to get out right after the SCOTUS Kelo vs New London decision.
There are also interesting questions about whether vaccines are even effective. Scroll down to the Mumps section in the following article, which discusses the outbreak in the NHL last month among fully vaccinated players: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articl... . One of the players who contracted mumps had even had a booster shot within the year. If they aren't very effective, then the risk of harm due to the vaccine becomes even more significant.
I read an interesting point about this the other day: who exactly do you think makes up the "anti-vaccine movement"? Do you think it's a bunch of morons who will believe anything people tell them? (To the contrary, I've read that they're statistically more highly educated than those who are pro-vaccine.) Or do you think it's people who used to believe in the doctors' advice and the government pronouncements of "safety," who listened to that and vaccinated their children, and then saw them harmed? There are a lot of people in the latter category raising questions about vaccine safety, who the pharmaceutical companies have dubbed "anti-vaxxers" in an attempt to discredit them and avoid their valid questions as well as liability and lost profits.
From what I've read, vaccine safety "science" is based on a lot of unproved assumptions, and supposedly there is not a single scientific study which proves either the efficacy or safety of the huge number of vaccines given to children today in combination. Can you point me to one?
The supposed "safety" of vaccines sounds a lot more like a myth to me than the undeniable fact that they are unsafe to at least some of us.
Parents who won't vaccinate their kids cause outbreaks because no vaccine is 100% effective. Keeping their kids out is simply a necessity. They're idiots!
A related story in Reason just now: http://reason.com/blog/2015/01/13/measle...
You repeat the mainstream propaganda that "Parents who won't vaccinate their kids cause outbreaks." Proof? I've read of outbreaks of the vaccine strain of whooping cough, which could only be caused by vaccinated children -- but were still blamed on those who were unvaccinated, because that is more useful to those in control of the media and medical field. "Among live virus vaccines being used in the U.S. and other countries are measles, mumps, rubella, chicken pox (varicella zoster), live virus (nasal spray) flu vaccine, shingles vaccine, and the rotavirus vaccine that’s given to infants for diarrhea. When you or your child gets a live virus attenuated vaccine, you can shed vaccine strain live virus in your body fluids, and the vaccine strain virus could potentially be transmitted to others, in whom it might cause serious complications. Unfortunately, many doctors are not even aware of this risk." from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articl...
You can call names all you want, but if you are able to keep an open mind and look at facts, there's plenty of evidence to prove that vaccines are both unsafe and ineffective You've challenged the link to autism unsuccessfully by repeating smears of Dr. Wakefield's integrity, but you've ignored all the other health issues medical professionals have said are caused by vaccination, in the list of studies I linked in my first comment.
The rate of autism is now one in 88 children (or even more prevalent, according to some sources). What do those of you who are pro-vaccine believe is the cause of this dramatic increase in autism rates?
Yes, because she will no longer be a minor and the doctors will have to get her consent for treatment. That's what this whole case is about: an arbitrary legal designation.
person to take poisonous chemicals into their body --
or any other chemicals, for that matter. . the parents
must lead on child care, and we DO hope that
there are parents who care!!! -- j
Chemo is considered in some circles of discussion to be only 3% effective. Destroys cancer cells for awhile, and then destroys the body.
Unfortunately, most people who try alternatives have first been treated with “Slash, burn, poison” and have severely damaged their immune system before partaking in methods to enhance it.
In this case, though, the mom needs to smacked. What kind of parent let's their teenage child have the final decision about chemo to treat their cancer? Yes, it's awful while it's happening, but the alternative is death.
Having been through this as a family, I can definitively say, it's worth it. State has no business in this issue, AND the mom needs to get her head screwed on straight.
It sounded to me like they had discussed the matter as a family and that the young lady had persuaded her parents on the matter. I think it's pretty presumptuous of us to armchair quarterback.
A seventeen year old simply does not have the wisdom/life experience to make a decision of this magnitude. A teenager's brain is not even fully formed (that doesn't finish until about 25), and one of the key components missing is the ability to recognize consequences of actions, "forecasting", etc.
For decisions of life and death, parents must be benevolent dictators.
I would further posit this: how are we supposed to expect our teenagers to make good decisions when outside the home if we as parents make all their decisions for them prior to that time? If they have never been forced to exercise their judgement skills and reap the consequences until the moment they leave the home, I think it pretty unreasonable to expect them to magically (and I do mean magically) acquire such wisdom in the two steps they take leaving the house.
(Personal aside - I knew of one such young man who lived next door to me whose mother was, shall we say, "over-protective". He was never allowed to make any decisions and his mother frequently overrode them anyway. It took this young man nearly a decade after leaving the house to finally take charge of his own life.)
I would also point out several potential fallacies involved:
1) That the parents actually know what is best for the daughter. I would contend that this is precisely the logic the government is using to say that it gets to override the parents. I think that this reasoning must be cut off at the source or one must concede a slippery slope argument.
2) That ANYONE - doctors included - actually can predict with any degree of certainty the outcomes involved. Though there have been great medical advances, I can tell you from VERY personal experience in the life/death of a child that doctors often have their own agenda in such high-cost practices. Their objectivity can very easily be called into question here.
3) Probably the most important - that somehow the parents' will SHOULD override the will of a daughter who in this case I would deem to be fully competent in making her own decisions. Most states allow 17-year-olds to make their own decisions to graduate early. Most allow driving at sixteen. Most set the age of consent at 16. And are not those similarly life-defining events?
Only parents should be allowed to decide whether to accommodate the wishes of their children. The only excuse for intervention is deliberate and obvious abuse.
In our times and in this country the respect for the institution of family has decayed generally beyond recognition. Hack, half the mothers think that their children do not need their fathers. Is this progress? I think of it as a symptom of the deadly collectivist (read STATIST) infection that has been spreading for about 50 years. For convenience, and imprecisely, I choose the JFK election as the point in time.
In short, dear B, I agree with you completely.
As a post script: one can greatly enhance and accelerate maturing of one's children by treating them with respect as if they were more mature than their age would suggest and NEVER EVER lying in answering their questions. In a healthy family, children develop a strong desire to meet their parents' expectations.
Sorry for verbosity. These subjects touch deep nerves.
No, doctors themselves should not have the final say. They can contribute to the evaluation, but the individual or their parents if minor child, must be allowed the final say. Not even a judge should have that power, unless it can be proven that the custodians have intentionally been harming the child. Withholding care is not intentionally causing harm.
To be clear, the state has NO business in this decision whatsoever. My point is, barring critical information (like the child was absolutely terminal no matter what treatment she received) the mom is an idiot for not taking charge and removing the decision from the child's hands.
One need look no further that one's own experience. How many times have we all thought, I can't believe I did such a stupid thing when I was a teenager. Except, this girl wouldn't be able to look back because she'd be dead.
NO state involvement, better parenting...
As a parent who has been in a very similar circumstance, I can tell you that if their decision-making process was anything like mine, it was nothing less than heart-wrenching. I wish nothing like it upon anyone else. At the same time, my wife and I were completely agreed on the course of action we needed to take in our situation and we were willing to accept the consequences - which included the very real possibility of loss.
There are no guarantees in life other than death and taxes. There are no guarantees that any medical treatment will work for any given diagnosis - especially in treating cancer. It is the presumption of knowledge that is the single largest fallacy in this whole affair - the idea that any of us can predict outcomes with any degree of certainty. But there are the following certainties: The State won't feel the anguish of the loss of the child. The State won't have flashbacks of those moments. The State won't second-guess their decisions. The State won't exhibit one iota of guilt about any of their decisions regarding the matter. They don't have to take responsibility for it either. As such, I say let the decision fall upon those who must take responsibility for such, let come what may.
Parent Liberty
http://www.quaqua.org/commonlaw.htm
+1000 if I could.
Parents are supposed to provide the guardrails, because teenager's don't have the necessary consequential or experiential knowledge necessary.
The state shouldn't be involved in this, but the mom should be chastised. Also, did you vote for Obama, because throwing around words like tyrant, racist, etc. to silence debated is typically a tool of the left. If you're not an Obama-ite, you may want to refrain from that tactic to avoid the association. Better to remain silent and be presumed a fool, than express oneself and prove it.