SITE NOTICE | MORE..Gospel of John Third Printing! We're excited to announce the third printing of the Gospel of John Personal Edition booklets! To date we have seen over 200,000 copies printed and sent out. .. click for more info!
Ohio Amish girl ordered to resume chemotherapy despite pleas of parents
An Ohio hospital can force a 10-year-old Amish girl with leukemia to resume chemotherapy over the protests of her parents who decided to stop treatment, an appeals court ruled.
Akron Children's Hospital asked the judge to appoint a guardian for the girl after doctors became worried when her parents stopped treatment in June after only one of five prescribed rounds of chemotherapy.
The court ruling appointing a guardian reverses a lower court decision. Medina County Judge John Lohn had twice denied the limited medical guardianship request by Schimer.
"A parent's right to make medical decisions for a child is an important incident of parenthood, subject to broad protection the Constitution," Lohn wrote in his September 3 ruling....
DM, I've seen those unrealistic choices work, and I've buried those who took their chemo, but do you think that the cancer societies are the ones that will tell you any different? When the option is only one, the output will be singular. I'm glad when you have seen successes. That is good news. Have you ever considered thermography?
Penny - yes I have seen the effects of chemo. I am a nurse, and have seen many lives being saved through this means. And also first hand in family, including a child's life saved in our family. No it is not pleasant. But cancer isn't pleasant either. When faced with death without treatment there are any "other" realistic choices. I have seen people choose the 'natural' route, to their death.
Ecc 7:17 "why shouldest thou die before thy time?".
prayforHisinstruments wrote: No one inferred that they are the same thing but why let someone let you (or others) die IF you can be treated and survive even with chemicals. ---
Is it true that man has an appointed time to die, or can man die before such a time? If we say the words "The Lord is in control," do we actually believe that, or is his control dependent on our choices, and the words relegated to a nice sounding Christian cliche?
DM wrote: You would rather let the child die..... Wow.
who are you, DM? are you God to decide who lives and dies? and you expect me now to support the policing of a family going through this?
we aren't talking about fairy dust. its chemo.
its not blood its not antibiotics its not fairy dust
despite the stats, its a serious decision with repurcussions.
I've watched what it does to loved ones, and I've known people who found other means who are doing really well now. and I've seen the microscope pictures of the bacterial colonies and the discussion on fungal issues.... outside of mainstream is where the people I've known have been educated and helped.
a controlling society loses free market and free exchange of ideas. there's much more to this story than the one rudded road of radiation, and free exchange will generally go where the control is not.
....the amish are generally known for having healthier children... I would much rather pray for them than pry from them.
I believe that God provided medical knowledge for our benefit and that modern medicine, the knowledge of it, that is, is a gift from God that He provided to heal the sick until He, the great physician, comes again. Are they always right...hardly. Do they make mistakes...definately. Do they have much to learn...for sure, but I believe that God provides the knowledge medical science uses to treat the sick and dying. I also believe that God provides, within nature, every sort of plant that can be used to heal naturally. A lot of the pharma out there are from plant derivatives. I think we would have fewer illnesses, deaths, and mental/emotional disruptions if we just got back to nature, eating and exercising properly, drinking responsibly, and reduced our stress levels to zero. Prayer is important but I don't think it is to be substituted for the healing knowledge that God provided for us until He returns.
When my Dad was a Sergeant in the United States Army during World War II in New Guinea he had a Christian Scientist under him and my Dad ordered the Christian Scientist to take his sick child to the doctor.
God of course has the power to heal me and give me a replacement gold tooth without a dentist, but He generally meets the need not the greed.
Ordinarily, common sense tells the Christian to pray and go to the dentist who is a teeth expert.
The Dentist tells me I could have died if the abscess was not treated. He gives me chemicals (antibiotics) and tells me if they do not work then he might have to remove the tooth.
I go home and pray for God to give me a gold tooth?
I do pray that God would be pleased to bless those chemicals and God does heal me without losing that tooth.
God extraordinarily could have healed me without chemicals, but the very antibiotics were God's intended means via the instrument of the dentist. Yet the dentist had no power to heal and the chemicals of themselves were useless without His blessing.
Sadly the world considers 'cosmic bad luck'-the story yesterday about 2 twins having cancer. One in the clear after 6 months chemo BBC
penny wrote: I don't believe this article has anything to do with JW's nor blood transfusions. chemo chemicals are not the same thing as blood.
No one inferred that they are the same thing but why let someone let you (or others) die IF you can be treated and survive even with chemicals. The point is that we are not to dismiss something without good medical and scriptural reason, so please inform how chemo doesn't or never works.
I am unsure of your expertise but is Lisa mistaken below:Childhood leukaemia is actually very traceable with chemo etc ( just seen a statistic of 79 % survival rate with chemo etc).
Was it not a Christian James Young Simpson who gave us the chemical for anaesthetic and another Alexander Fleming-penicillin.
How many lives saved through such and I trust you have nothing against chemicals used to save lives or to put you out when you undergo any operation.
There are many testimonies that chemo has helped those with cancer to a full recovery. Did the Lord therefore use chemicals in their recovery?
So why do Hospitals persist in using it if it never works would be interesting?
Makes me consider the logical fallacy of the JW 'controlled watchtower adherent' rejecting the 'supposed' heavy guilt trip of not only Christ's blood for their eternal salvation, but also blood transfusions for their poor dying JW baby. Life Eternal and also life for a dying child are 'freely' rejected BECAUSE of an indoctrination controlled to reject 'blood' under the constraints of a satanic faith deception.
Yet could 'the need to control others, against their own nature and faith' sometimes be necessary. False faith in a false system isn't any freedom BUT prayerful trust in a Sovereign God who controls all things and can and does move the hand of a physician- even when necessitating Chemo or blood transfusions for healing.
If the doctors are forcing chemo, it is highly likely that the cancer is curable. If it was palliative treatment the parents would have a choice in the matter, as ultimately the child would not survive either way, just elongate the life.
The problem lies where parents believe prayer can cure their child and if it is God's will He will cure. We have already read of the (unnessessary) deaths of 2 children in a family where this was the case. Antibiotics could have cured in that instance, but the parents insisted on prayer..
Medical means are God given, we are not to take them for granted or rely on prayer alone.
Ultimately, all of this boils down to who are truly the "caretakers" of our children. Is it their parents or the state? GOD made it clear that it's the parents. I think Satan has more control if it's the state. There will always be cases where the state steps in to protect children from genuine abuse, but a much greater abuse will result from an ungodly state superseding the position of parents. (I think it was) Plato who wanted to have children brought up by the state after living the first few years with their parents.
I agree how terrifically complex this is! Like SF was getting at, where do you draw the line? After two, three, four treatments? What if you're fully informed about the pro's and con's and after much prayer decide not to continue? Who ultimately holds the control, for better or worse, over a child? I believe the Bible clearly points to the parents. Yes, there are cases in which a child needs to be rescued from abuse but I can only say that because the Bible has human guideline we are to follow. What if the other person/group doesn't believe in the God of the Bible, like our government? If I know what's in the vaccinations for kids and don't want them to get the shots, at what point might it be considered abuse? What if Johnny comes home from school and informs us he wants to be gay. If we pray with him and extol him to turn his life to God, our current system has a very good chance of making US out to be abusers! Where do you draw the line...? Kids spend their earliest years trying to figure this out - it will sow a harvest of hate and bitter confusion to have ungodly parties vying for your child's mind and winning.
This is a complex ethical issue and it's a lose lose situation for the drs involved. Firstly we do not know all of the facts- there are often more bits to the jigsaw that cannot be told. The amesh thing could just be a red herring- maybe the parents are loopy. Childhood leukaemia is actually very traceable with chemo etc ( just seen a statistic of 79 % survival rate with chemo etc).