tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6528377935446865958.post2696800320771222534..comments2024-03-24T10:23:42.737-04:00Comments on Jim Fisher True Crime: Parents Versus State: Control Over a Child's HealthcareJim Fisherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03640110709472034191noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6528377935446865958.post-19309153102138985362014-12-04T18:10:39.493-05:002014-12-04T18:10:39.493-05:00It appears that the parents' decision led to t...It appears that the parents' decision led to their daughter being cured. Why threaten them with jail for that? If they'd continued with the chemo, and she'd died, would you be calling for the arrest of her doctors? Even the court appointed guardian says she no longer needs chemo. This whole thing is nothing more than the medical establishment getting embarrassed by someone without a US government approved license. <br /><br />And on the completely unrelated subject of religious freedom, your argument is incredibly short sighted. You plainly favor relieving the parents of their rights, in order to protect their child. What are the limits to that concept? Should the state take custody of a child if there's a gun in the home? Should the state take custody of a boy who's allowed to play football? A girl with a body mass index higher than 30? Should parents with unfavored political views lose their children? That appears to be your position, in this case. Their actions were successful. The girl was cured. The parents even allowed the proscribed treatments, until they judged the cure to be worse than the disease. Your only complaint is that they're Amish. Should all Amish children be removed from their homes? That's the plain inference you're making.<br /><br />Government is not common sense. Government is brute force, constrained only by mindless bureaucracy. If they're allowed to imprison us for our personal beliefs, we're all slaves already. There's no middle ground. The state doesn't allow middle ground. Every power they claim inevitably becomes absolute, and usually arbitrary.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6528377935446865958.post-31211729218776323622013-12-22T10:48:37.428-05:002013-12-22T10:48:37.428-05:00Maybe she will find Lorenzo's oilMaybe she will find Lorenzo's oil<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6528377935446865958.post-78299219630016519512013-12-08T20:59:55.930-05:002013-12-08T20:59:55.930-05:00People do die from chemo. Sarah H did chemo until...People do die from chemo. Sarah H did chemo until it began to harm her and her parents withdrew her. Hospitals and doctors often overreach and have massive financial interests that conflict with what a more scientifically capable and informed person might choose. <br /><br />Additionally the girl's parents are claiming that she was subjected to treatments experimental in nature without informing them. If so, the hospital should be completely severed and sanctioned severely. <br /><br />These aggressive chemo regimens are no mere 1-7 days retch, but rather can truly destroy you. That determination is when the parents quit. Also some alternative treatments do have substantial benefits, including immune control of residual disease. No pharma is going to sponsor 5 and 10 cent pills, nutrients, or even $10 per daytreatments.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com