TommyK Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 13 year young man chooses to forgo chemo therapy. He has the support of his family. The government proposes to give him chemo whether he wants it or not. He is fully aware of the consequences, but preferrs to live out the remainder of his short life without the ravages of chemo. Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mick Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 His choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wicked1 Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 13 year young man chooses to forgo chemo therapy. He has the support of his family. The government proposes to give him chemo whether he wants it or not. He is fully aware of the consequences' date=' but preferrs to live out the remainder of his short life without the ravages of chemo. Thoughts?[/quote'] Actually, I don't know for sure that he *does* know the consequences. He is a 13-yr-old that can barely read. And while I would probably accept a decision like that from a 16 or 17 year old, I don't know that a 13 yr old is really capable of making an informed decision about such things. Also...they are trying to claim it's against their religious beliefs, but those beliefs didn't keep them from doing 1 round of chemo. (And if you read up on the founder of their "religion," you'll find he spent time in jail for selling "cancer cures"). I don't think government needs to be in every aspect of our lives, but in this case, I think the court took a smart approach. They ordered an X-ray, determined that the cancer was growing, and prior to going back to court mom ran off with him. With Hodgkin's Lymphoma there is about a 90% cure rate when caught early and treated with chemo and/or radiation. Without those treatments, he's sure to die. It's a parents responsibility to do what is best for a child whether the child wants to do it or not. This mom just got on the internet and made up a regimen for her son. A few months after we adopted our daughter, we had to take her to the ER. She didn't want to take any of the medicine that she needed. So I put her in a headlock, had her Nana squirt the meds in her mouth and then held her mouth closed til she swallowed. The part that angers me the most is that the *child's" court-appointed advocate is saying that the judge made the wrong decision. Who is he advocating for? It sure doesn't sound like it's a child's best interest. If this were a cancer with little or no hope of survival, it would be different. But the odds are in their favor if they would just take the child to the doctor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jannusguy Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 reminds me a bit of the terry schaivo circus of a couple of years ago. the boy and his family should be allowed to make the call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buc McMaster Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 Where does government and judicial interference in family matters end? Tough situation here. Suppose the court determines that a child being fed at McDonald's four or five nights a week and stuffing his face with Twinkies every night in front of the TV set is headed for an early grave (very likely the case!). How would you feel if the court said Mom & Dad have to stop the hamburger diet and feed the kid a medically prescribed diet? Mom & Dad can't buy anymore Twinkies and have to turn the TV off? A good idea, true, but how far are we willing to let the government go in living our lives for us? Where does it end? What is the next senario involving kids and the decisions their parents make that the government will stick it's nose into? Slippery slope, as they say............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wicked1 Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 reminds me a bit of the terry schaivo circus of a couple of years ago. the boy and his family should be allowed to make the call. Terry Schiavo & her husband should have been allowed to make their choice. Anyone who's ever been 13 knows that they don't *really* understand what they're doing. I'd trust a 13-yr-old to decide what he/she wants to wear or eat or watch on TV. But I wouldn't even trust a highly intelligent one to make a life/death decision. Sorry, but this case sounds more like neglect hiding behind religion. If their religion truly would not allow chemo, they wouldn't have had even one treatment. When a Jehovah' Witness goes into surgery, they make sure their doctors know they will not accept donor blood. Not even once. We've seen the same sort of thing in many areas of the country--parents neglect their child's medical needs and then plead religious exception. There's one case near here (from many years ago) where the parents decided to pray for a cure for their child's meningitis. They finally decided to go to a doctor when the child was on his deathbed. Now, if your religious beliefs are that strong, why did you ever go to the doctor? The boy died, by the way, and the parents were brought up on charges. If a 13-yr-old is willing to die rather than take chemo and potentially breach their one religion (they consider themselves both Catholic and members of the Nemenhah Band, even though they aren't Native American), then I would wonder if he's not also depressed. Either way it doesn't matter because Minnesota state law says they have to provide necessary medical treatment to their child. The religious exception was dropped about 20 years ago after a couple tried to pray their daughter out of a diabetic coma. OH--and the court had not yet ordered them to have chemo. The hearing on Tuesday was to discuss it after the child had X-rays on Monday. Those showed that the tumor had grown and the doctors did not give a positive prognosis if treatment was abandoned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wicked1 Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 Where does government and judicial interference in family matters end? Tough situation here. Suppose the court determines that a child being fed at McDonald's four or five nights a week and stuffing his face with Twinkies every night in front of the TV set is headed for an early grave (very likely the case!). How would you feel if the court said Mom & Dad have to stop the hamburger diet and feed the kid a medically prescribed diet? Mom & Dad can't buy anymore Twinkies and have to turn the TV off? A good idea' date=' true, but how far are we willing to let the government go in living our lives for us? Where does it end? What is the next senario involving kids and the decisions their parents make that the government will stick it's nose into? Slippery slope, as they say............[/quote'] I don't think it's a slippery slope at all. There is no other situation where we consider 13-yr-olds mature enough to make a decision. They can't enter into a contract alone. In most states they can't get married (except with parents' permission in a few). Hell, thirteen isn't even age of consent for sex in most states! The reason we have Child Protective Services is to argue for protection of the child even when the parents disagree. We don't hesitate to take a chlld out of a physically/sexually abusive environment even if the child says he doesn't want to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buc McMaster Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 Wicked.......... Certainly a 13-year-old is not capable of making such decisions on his/her own. My point is where do you draw the line between parental control of the family and government intervention? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jannusguy Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 Terry Schiavo & her husband should have been allowed to make their choice. Anyone who's ever been 13 knows that they don't *really* understand what they're doing. I'd trust a 13-yr-old to decide what he/she wants to wear or eat or watch on TV. But I wouldn't even trust a highly intelligent one to make a life/death decision. Sorry' date=' but this case sounds more like neglect hiding behind religion. If their religion truly would not allow chemo, they wouldn't have had even one treatment. When a Jehovah' Witness goes into surgery, they make sure their doctors know they will not accept donor blood. Not even once. We've seen the same sort of thing in many areas of the country--parents neglect their child's medical needs and then plead religious exception. There's one case near here (from many years ago) where the parents decided to pray for a cure for their child's meningitis. They finally decided to go to a doctor when the child was on his deathbed. Now, if your religious beliefs are that strong, why did you ever go to the doctor? The boy died, by the way, and the parents were brought up on charges. If a 13-yr-old is willing to die rather than take chemo and potentially breach their one religion (they consider themselves both Catholic and members of the Nemenhah Band, even though they aren't Native American), then I would wonder if he's not also depressed. Either way it doesn't matter because Minnesota state law says they have to provide necessary medical treatment to their child. The religious exception was dropped about 20 years ago after a couple tried to pray their daughter out of a diabetic coma. OH--and the court had not yet ordered them to have chemo. The hearing on Tuesday was to discuss it after the child had X-rays on Monday. Those showed that the tumor had grown and the doctors did not give a positive prognosis if treatment was abandoned. [/quote'] your point is well taken. the fact he's a minor does mitigate the situation. i know i've been angered in the past when reading stories about children who have been denied badly needed medicine or even food, due to the parents religious beliefs. i suppose i'm wrongly trying to equate the boy's situation with what may lay ahead for myself and the self determination i would insist on. but then, i'm a geezer and not a 13 year old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeRom Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 I don't understand the parents of this kid at all. I mean, what wouldn't you do to save your childs life, including forfeiting your own. This is one time I think the Gov't should step in, get the kid his chemo them b*tch slap his parents for being utter failures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.