I guess that'll depend on the agenda of the person you ask ;)

I'm just glad to see that the right to determine one's own fate, even stupidly, is still occasionally granted in this country.

(Actually, given his past experience with chemo, his decision is not exactly stupid. Justified would be a better word.)

Sometimes the cure can be almost as bad as the disease.

Some times it can be worse.

I could go with that if he were expressing the desire to die with dignity. He isn't, he thinks this treatment is more likely to cure him than the traditional treatments.

Since he doesn't want to die (apparently) it is hard to see how the treatment could be worse than the disease, which will certainly kill him.

I was thinking of his reaction to chemotherapy, and how hard it can be on the body:

I agree that his Hoxsey method and radiation probably won't be worse than the disease (I hope).

It depends on individual reactions to treatment methods. It is possible that the treatment will kill faster than the disease. That's why my grandmother stopped her chemo. The cancer would kill her over a period of years (turned out to be a decade or so) but one more chemo treatment would have done her in. I'm not suggesting that is the case with this particular boy; I was merely responding to the "sometimes" statement I quoted.

The treatments and medications my mom had for lupus were far worse than disease itself, all designed to expand her lifespan only. As Prudence said, this does not necessarily translate to the boy. I suppose I don't think a slow painful death is better than a faster painful death.

its all based on quality of life, personal choice, having some say in ones own life and/or death and not being told "you will (do this) regardless of what you think is best".

with all Ive seen of late, a line from Pet Cemetary has stuck in my mind and undoubtedly always will

"Sometimes, dead is better."

I don't know if this made the national news or not, but there is an interesting follow-up to the story of Mr. Starchild.

In Virginia minors are now allowed to refuse medical treatment.

Gov. Tim Kaine has signed into law legislation giving teenagers and their parents the right to refuse doctor-recommended treatments for life-threatening ailments

I think what disturbs me sometimes is how "minors" are perceived. Under legal age does not mean someone is incapable of making an adult decision about their own life. I believe a 16 year old can be of mature mind *and* body when deciding to have sex with someone, even if they are a minor. I believe a 16 year old can be of mature mind *and* body (sound, etc.) when making a medical decision. And regardless of whether chemo really is the best course of action, he has a right to decide whether he wants to be put through the treatment again. If it was so horrible an experience that he'd risk his own life to pursue alternative (and very likely less effective) treatments, he should have that right. If he'd rather chance dying than live through chemo again, I respect that.

My mother's boss died of colon cancer because he decided that his quality of life would be so degraded after the surgery, he'd rather die than live. He was an older man and so had the legal right to make that decision. I think a mature 16 year old, rational and sane, should be able to make a similar decision. I think I believe that freedom to choose how one lives his life is more important than life itself. And I believe in the right to have some say in how I fight to live or how I choose to die if there's a potential expiration date in clear sight.

If he lives, he'll probably be grateful to those who forced him to undergo the chemo. Maybe someday I'll eat my own words. But I still think it's a horrible thing to do to someone. 16 isn't 6, after all.