Court mandated chemo

[Soxy]

Linkage

 

Boy's family wants to treat his cancer with alternative medicine. Court says no. What say you?

[StrangeSox]

Yes. Children need to be protected from their parents' absurd beliefs. This is frequently a problem with Jehovah's Witnesses.

[kapkomet]

Yes. Children need to be protected from their parents' absurd beliefs. This is frequently a problem with Jehovah's Witnesses.

What gives you (or anyone) the right to determine what's best for the family? (I'm playing devil's advocate here...)

[Balta1701]

What gives you (or anyone) the right to determine what's best for the family? (I'm playing devil's advocate here...)

What gives them the right to choose to end their child's life in that manner?

[Texsox]

What gives them the right to choose to end their child's life in that manner?

 

That would be the government, same way they allow a parent to end it with an abortion.

[StrangeSox]

It's medical neglect. If you allow medical neglect, why not nutritional? Who are you to say beating the child into submission isn't in the best interest of the family?

 

While they aren't capable of forming their own legal contracts, medical treatments, etc., I don't view children as property or completely subject to the will of their parents, either. This issue is a philosophical mess inside my head, but I know where it comes out. I just can't explain it very well, and believe me, giving the government this sort of power makes me uncomfortable.

 

I think this comment underneath the article illustrates my point a little more clearly:

 

I keep reposting this because I think it sums up the issue. If Danny were standing on a cliff, and instead of leading him down off the cliff his parents and this con-artist Landis were saying "Flap your arms and jump and you'll fly safely to the ground," then ANYBODY would shove these idiots aside and rescue the boy.

 

The con artist says "The issue is Danny's right to decide how he wants to live his life." The snake-oil salesman is WRONG. The boy is a MINOR, it's his PARENTS job to decide how he will live his life, and in this case they are neglecting his needs in order to appease Landis' cult. When parents fail in their job to care for their children, it's the job of society to step in.

 

If Danny were an ADULT then I would regretfully agree that he can choose however he wants to treat himself. But as a child we ALL have a responsibility to see to his care.

[DukeNukeEm]

That would be the government, same way they allow a parent to end it with an abortion.

Abortion is a little different because there is actually a debate as to whether a fetus is life. There is no debate as to whether a child is life.

[Balta1701]

Abortion is a little different because there is actually a debate as to whether a fetus is life. There is no debate as to whether a child is life.

And there's another key point...the difference with an abortion is that the fetus is relying on the mother's body for life. After birth, the child is no longer doing so. That's key to the entire court decision...its always different, I know, but in this case it's important.

[Texsox]

It's medical neglect.

 

No, it is a choice of two treatments.

 

If the child still dies, can the parents sue the government for making the wrong decision?

[Balta1701]

No, it is a choice of two treatments.

 

If the child still dies, can the parents sue the government for making the wrong decision?

If they refuse treatment and the child dies, can the government put them in jail?

[StrangeSox]

No, it is a choice of two treatments.

 

If the child still dies, can the parents sue the government for making the wrong decision?

 

No, its a choice between treatment and woo. Medical treatment is far more likely to succeed than woo, so, no, the parents should not be able to sue.

[Texsox]

Abortion is a little different because there is actually a debate as to whether a fetus is life. There is no debate as to whether a child is life.

 

 

And there's another key point...the difference with an abortion is that the fetus is relying on the mother's body for life. After birth, the child is no longer doing so. That's key to the entire court decision...its always different, I know, but in this case it's important.

 

And I believe it is the government that gave that "right" which was the question. And it will be the government to decide this.

 

Is the government also going to pay for the treatments? This would be a great way to get the government to pay for treatments.

[lostfan]

No, it is a choice of two treatments.

 

If the child still dies, can the parents sue the government for making the wrong decision?

One treatment is valid, the other is BS.

 

Like StrangeSox said though this whole thing makes me uncomfortable. I guess I'd feel different if he was an adult.

Edited May 15, 2009 by lostfan

[BearSox]

And there's another key point...the difference with an abortion is that the fetus is relying on the mother's body for life. After birth, the child is no longer doing so. That's key to the entire court decision...its always different, I know, but in this case it's important.

So after the mother pops out the baby, the baby doesn't need the mother anymore?

 

What defines a human being? Is the fact that the baby (oh sorry, I mean fetus) grows and is biologically a human being not enough?

[kapkomet]

And I believe it is the government that gave that "right" which was the question. And it will be the government to decide this.

 

Is the government also going to pay for the treatments? This would be a great way to get the government to pay for treatments.

Well, pretty soon, the government is going to decide any and all treatments. The board is already set up to start this...

 

This is a really, really slippery slope. I have a really hard time with religions that say you can't treat a sickness, why in the heck did God allow or give us doctors and medicine then?

 

Anyway, "neglect" vs. "government mandated treatment" is a pretty brutal ethical dilemma.

 

[Texsox]

If they refuse treatment and the child dies, can the government put them in jail?

 

Yes, and they have. Shouldn't the parents be allowed to make that decision? Knowing full well what the consequences are?

 

I'd rather my parents make this decision for me than a judge.

[StrangeSox]

Parents are not dictators over their children. Children often need to be protected from their parents. This is no different.

 

How can you draw a line between this medical neglect and food, shelter, clothing, hygiene, etc. neglect that isn't completely arbitrary?

 

Should parents who are breathanarians be allowed to starve their child? Do you want your parents to have the ability to make that choice for you?

Edited May 15, 2009 by StrangeSox

[Soxy]

One treatment is valid, the other is BS.

 

Like StrangeSox said though this whole thing makes me uncomfortable. I guess I'd feel different if he was an adult.

Yeah, I think this is a murky area only because it is a child. With Terri Schiavo, I was so disgusted with the court's intervention. But here, I'm uncomfortable--but I think it was the right judgment.

[Balta1701]

So after the mother pops out the baby, the baby doesn't need the mother anymore?

In the sense that the child can survive, yes. You could give the child to another person and it would be totally able to survive. Or hell, you could even give it to a robot. You can't exactly do that before birth.

[Balta1701]

Yeah, I think this is a murky area only because it is a child. With Terri Schiavo, I was so disgusted with the court's intervention. But here, I'm uncomfortable--but I think it was the right judgment.

Which part, the court intervening to say that the husband hadn't lost his rights or the Congress trying to intervene to take those rights away?

[BearSox]

The thing is, this is a very serious and risky procedure to undergo chemotherapy. If it was a very safe medicine they were refusing to give the child, that'd be different. The child is 13, so it's not like he doesn't know what he's doing. From the article, it seemed both parents and the child all agreed to not undergo the procedures, and so I feel the government has no right to force him to go into chemo.

 

Also, what about the first amendment?

[StrangeSox]

Yeah, I think this is a murky area only because it is a child. With Terri Schiavo, I was so disgusted with the court's intervention. But here, I'm uncomfortable--but I think it was the right judgment.

 

Well, the court had to intervene in her case since it was a custody battle, more or less. Her husband wanted to pull the plug in accordance with her wishes*, her family wanted to keep 'her' going. I was more disgusted by Congress passing special legislation and one Senator making a "diagnosis" based on a 20 minute video.

 

*supposedly. that's what the whole fight was over.

[StrangeSox]

The thing is, this is a very serious and risky procedure to undergo chemotherapy. If it was a very safe medicine they were refusing to give the child, that'd be different. The child is 13, so it's not like he doesn't know what he's doing. From the article, it seemed both parents and the child all agreed to not undergo the procedures, and so I feel the government has no right to force him to go into chemo.

 

Also, what about the first amendment?

 

What's even more risky than chemo, with its 95% survivability for this cancer, is not-chemo, with its 5% survivability. At 13 you do not have the cognitive abilities to fully understand the situation. You're also very heavily influenced by whatever your parents tell you.

[Soxy]

Which part, the court intervening to say that the husband hadn't lost his rights or the Congress trying to intervene to take those rights away?

All of it?

[NorthSideSox72]

Yeah, I think this is a murky area only because it is a child. With Terri Schiavo, I was so disgusted with the court's intervention. But here, I'm uncomfortable--but I think it was the right judgment.

Huge difference for a child, I agree.

 

I feel the same way about seatbelt laws. For adults, the argument for seatbelt laws is about reducing insurance, rescye and medical costs. Those are valid arguments to make, but I personally don't think they "weigh" enough to offset the fact that its a paternal law, which is a slippery slope as Kap said.

 

Now kids, that is different. A parent throws their 5 year old in the car, no seat belt or kid seat or anything, and the kid is injured or killed in a car accident... that kid didn't make a choice. Can't make a choice, legally, he or she is a minor. Not only am I OK with seat belt laws for kids, but further, I've suggeted before that parents in that scenario should be prosecuted for reckless endangerment.

 

In this case? You have to be careful. If they are just refusing treatment at all, preferring to hope for help on high, then the courts should step in on behalf of the child. If its an alternative treatment though, that's awfully fuzzy - when is the alternative a real, possibly viable alternative, and when is it something crazy that isn't really a treatment at all? Tough choice to make.