Court mandated chemo

[lostfan]

Also, what about the first amendment?

????????????

 

Are we talking about religion? Because that's an even more slippery slope.

Edited May 15, 2009 by lostfan

[Balta1701]

Also, what about the first amendment?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

This is certainly a free exercise type issue. Here's the question in response...we still limit the right to free speech. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater because people will get hurt.

 

In this case...people are likely to get hurt. 1 person in particular...and it's a person that the law judges to not have the ability to fully make a decision on his or her own because he or she is a minor. Does that override the free exercise clause in the same way that you can't use free speech to cause someone harm?

[Soxy]

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?

But he's 13. There's a reason children can't vote, drive, drink, enter into legal contracts: they don't know what the hell they are doing. A 13 year old can't make an informed decision about medical care. They are entrusted to their guardians who are supposed to make good decisions on the child's behalf.

 

Also, can you clarify what you mean about safe medicine? Do you mean chemo has a ton of side effects? Or that chemo can kill you?

[StrangeSox]

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.

 

When it passes clinical trials.

 

"Alternative medicine" that works becomes medicine.

[NorthSideSox72]

When it passes clinical trials.

 

"Alternative medicine" that works becomes medicine.

Well, not everything is that black and white. For example, what if the treatment IS a clinical trial? How is that different than some alternative treatment that is homeopathic? I'm not sure the courts should be taking those options away. But I also feel it should be done case-by-case.

 

[StrangeSox]

Well, homeopathy (infinitely dilute solutions or "water has memory") is completely bunk, but its often used interchangeably with alternative medicine in general. But anything that's being given to patients has undergone rigorous non-human testing and has shown potential. Alternative medicine 'treatments' get made up on the fly and pushed on to susceptible people. There is never any testing or research.

 

However, I highly doubt that the courts would ever mandate in-trial treatment options, especially if there are existing (medically approved) treatments. He ordered treatment only, not a specific type of treatment. It just so happens that the way to treat this is chemo. He also did not forbid doing any sort of alternative treatment in tandem with more traditional treatments; the doctors may or may not encourage it, but the government is indifferent.

Edited May 15, 2009 by StrangeSox

[Texsox]

At what point should the probable success rate come into play? 25% successful? 50% successful? 75% successful? 99% successful? And what about the possible side effects? Shouldn't that also be balanced?

[StrangeSox]

Now that's an interesting question that requires some thought.

[CanOfCorn]

My nanny's nephew was recently diagnosed with leukemia. He's 5. They are doing chemo. He is on steroids. It has spread to his brain. He has lost some eyesight (which hopefully he'll get back). He will not grow for a year. He is constantly going to the doctor, poked at, prodded at, MRIs, CT scans, surgeries. While in the hospital, he was put in a coma by the doctor so he wouldn't freak out.

 

Now, as a parent, I would do anything and everything in my power to keep my kid alive. But, don't you think there are parents out there that would think that's just as much torture to a child? Especially ones that believe in the healing power of a God? I understand that chemo is usually more effective than, well, doing nothing. But my point is, many people would rather go through the suffering during prayer, hoping that this is God testing them, than someone at a hospital, who they don't know, has a bunch of patients and doesn't know your child from Adam.

 

 

[longshot7]

I'm with the parents. The Freedom of Religion (or lack thereof) should not be abridged.

If they want to pray instead of take chemo, that's their choice.

[NorthSideSox72]

I'm with the parents. The Freedom of Religion (or lack thereof) should not be abridged.

If they want to pray instead of take chemo, that's their choice.

But their choice is effecting a child who is not old enough to understand that kind of choice. That is the issue here. If it was for themselves as adults, then obviously the courts should stay out of it.

 

 

[Texsox]

How about where the child needs a transfusion of some sort and the only donor is another child. Would the courts mandate that treatment for both children?

 

Whichever course this country follows, parents or judges (neither of which are usually medical experts) there will be mistakes made. I would prefer that the mistakes be made by parents who will have to live with the consequences to their flesh and blood creation, than mistakes made by a legal authority. And is this a state's right or could it be argued to the SCOTUS?

[Harry Chappas]

What are the qualifications for being a parent?

 

There are plenty of people that are not bright enough to exist that are having children.

 

While I am not certain of this case at some point the realization needs to occur that there are many parents that are not qualified to be parents.

 

 

 

 

[Texsox]

But their choice is effecting a child who is not old enough to understand that kind of choice. That is the issue here. If it was for themselves as adults, then obviously the courts should stay out of it.

 

But the court's choice (strangers with no prior connection with the child) is effecting a child who is not old enough to understand that kind of choice. That is the issue here. If it was for themselves as adults, then obviously the courts should stay out of it.

 

If this was a situation where the parents wanted chemo and the hospital decided the chances were too low to offer it, should the government jump in?

[StrangeSox]

The courts are ordering the parents to follow the doctor's advice, so, no.

 

Give me a non-arbitrary explanation for the courts stepping in for nutritional neglect but not stepping in for medical neglect.

[Balta1701]

The Boy and his mother have skipped town.

A 13-year-old Minnesota boy resisting chemotherapy for cancer has missed a court hearing on his welfare, and his father says the whereabouts of the boy and his mother are unknown.

 

Daniel Hauser and his parents, Colleen and Anthony Hauser, were to appear in Tuesday in the southern Minnesota city of New Ulm. A judge had ordered the boy to undergo a chest X-ray to see how his Hodgkins lymphoma was progressing.

 

But only Anthony Hauser appeared in court. He testified that he last saw his wife and son on Monday morning.

 

He said his wife told him she was going to leave and "That's all you need to know."

 

A court-appointed attorney for the boy is recommending that custody of the boy be transferred to Brown County.

[clyons]

My feelings and opinions on this issue kind of surprised me. Six years ago, before I had kids, I'm sure I would have supported the court-mandated chemo. Now, I can't fathom the state stepping in to override any judgment I would make with respect to my children's welfare.

 

This has to be the parents' call to make. The analogies to the state stepping in when parents physically abuse their kids or willfully neglect them through malnutrition, etc. are not apt. It is a generally accepted FACT that a child who is beaten or starved will suffer harm. That's why those things are crimes. On the other hand, chemo is a roll of the dice--it might help the child, but it might not. I realize that without it, the odds of the kid dying are certainly much greater, but there is no guarantee that the chemo (which can be a bit of an ordeal itself) will even work. Its a judgment call; not a crime.

 

Personally, I'd go to the ends of the earth to help get my kids the best, most advanced medical treatment available. I don't agree with these parents' decision at all, but I respect their right to make it. I could only support a judicial override if the parents were proven to be mentally incompetent. I think their decision is crazy, but they themselves probably aren't.

Edited May 20, 2009 by PlaySumFnJurny

[StrangeSox]

It's a generally accepted fact that this kid will die without chemo. I think that a parent who refuses to treat their child in spite of this knowledge has demonstrated that they are mentally incompetent.

[lostfan]

I remember reading somewhere that the kid had gone through chemo and didn't want to go through it again.

[StrangeSox]

I remember reading somewhere that the kid had gone through chemo and didn't want to go through it again.

 

The article in the OP says that he went once. It wasn't just refusing chemo. They weren't even getting chest xrays to see if it was spreading.

 

 

[clyons]

It's a generally accepted fact that this kid will die without chemo.

 

Probably. But is it a fact that the chemo would save him? I don't know, but don't think so.

 

I think that a parent who refuses to treat their child in spite of this knowledge has demonstrated that they are mentally incompetent.

 

Incomprehensibly stupid? Perhaps. "Mentally incompetent" as a legal matter? Not necessarily.

[CrimsonWeltall]

The child is 13, so it's not like he doesn't know what he's doing.

 

The kid can't even read. How well equipped do you think he is to understand the benefits of chemotherapy and the hokum that is the "treatments" his parents' cult uses?

[Texsox]

The courts are ordering the parents to follow the doctor's advice, so, no.

 

Give me a non-arbitrary explanation for the courts stepping in for nutritional neglect but not stepping in for medical neglect.

 

We know people will die without food and water. We also know that not all medical treatments are 100% successful or without side effects.

[StrangeSox]

We know people will die without food and water. We also know that not all medical treatments are 100% successful or without side effects.

 

But there are people with spiritual beliefs who think you can live without food and water. We know they are wrong and that their child will die just as we know that these parents are wrong and that their child will die without treatment. No one is saying its 100% successful--that's not the point. The point is that not getting the treatment is 0% successful.

[Texsox]

But there are people with spiritual beliefs who think you can live without food and water. We know they are wrong and that their child will die just as we know that these parents are wrong and that their child will die without treatment. No one is saying its 100% successful--that's not the point. The point is that not getting the treatment is 0% successful.

You asked for a non arbitrary reason for the courts to step into one and not the other. That is what I am addressing here. The overall concept, nothing specific to this case.

 

I've never heard of a spiritual believe against food and water, but as I mentioned, the rational for stepping in for nutritional neglect is scientifically we know that 100% of people who abstain from food and water will die. We cannot attribute that same certainty to any medical procedure. Treatments are not 100% effective or 100% without risks or side effects. So at best we can say that the odds of survival drop from X% to Y%. I do not believe it drops to 0%. There have been just enough non medical cures, especially ones the medical community does not recognize, to tell me 0% is not correct. That opens up a gray area, which is, IMHO, the reason why nutritional neglect, and it's solution (feeding tube) is justifiable in all cases (Terri Schiavo), but should be looked at very carefully with medical neglect.