Colorado feels a bit better now, but our house search does include Wyoming. We're both Westerners and really like places where you can see forever. Housing is cheaper there, too!

What will Mr. Khalling think about that?

"the myth that it's unsafe"? The reality is that the vaccine inserts have a long list of documented side effects. (Doctors and nurses won't provide them typically, but you can look them up online.) It's scientific truth that vaccines are highly unsafe for at least some percentage of people, who suffer side effects up to and including death. Here is an article with links to just a few of the medical studies which have concluded that vaccines can have serious side-effects, i.e., are "unsafe": http://www.regardingcaroline.com/pubmed

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.

lol martimus. I love you

I agree, but I have seen some suppose that a failure to act is equivalent with action. So I thought to clarify that I did not quantify this decision as falling under that heading. Glad to know I'm not the only one who arrived at that conclusion.

I am grateful for even lust +1.

A bit of carelessness in writing and this is what you get: misunderstandings.

Yup. Been in similar shoes - minus the government (fortunately). Pretty hard to stay logical and objective with such strong emotions in play. Toss into that the imposition of outsiders who have no sense of propriety or concern for what you (the affected individuals) want... That kind of callous disregard and arrogance of supposition makes my blood boil...

you are sure giving out the points today. lol this touches a big nerve with you, doesn't it...

How is this suicide?! It's personal choice...her body, her pain, her life/death. And isn't All suicide voluntary??

+1000 if I could.

If so, I would invite you to think of all the ways that this ruling being upheld invites the government to impinge upon your ability to make decisions for yourself. This is the same logic NYC is using to ban soft drinks, trans-fats, salt, and all kinds of things - because they pretend to know better than you do what is good for you. It's the same rationale that lies behind all of the social safety net programs, not to mention the entire education establishment.

"when she is 18 can she just walk?"

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.

Only that some would construe the actions taken by this family as voluntary suicide.

I look at this mostly as a question: who has the ultimate authority? I give nobody a right to DECIDE what is good for me, advice aside. Next: who has the authority to DECIDE what is good for my family? Isn't the answer obvious?
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.

I'm confused by your mention of suicide...how does that fit into this situation?

No one learns without the ability to make mistakes - that is my point.

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.

Yes, because the teenager owns his/her life. (And the age of adulthood shouldn't be as high as 18 anyway.)

Requiring vaccination as a condition of public school isn't really "forcing." (And the decision affects a lot of other people.) Besides, if you really believe the myth that it's unsafe, it's a good excuse to homeschool.

This ranks pretty small on my list of grievances against government. Indeed, if the teen wanted treatment and it was the parents that wouldn't allow it, I'd be for the intervention.

I understand this is an emotional issue. How do you know on the limited information you have? How?

This is such a clear-cut case that I wonder how the CT Supreme justifies their decision. Of course, I guess I really do know. As Michael Savage says, "Liberalism is a mental disorder."

An excellent point as well.