Perhaps, and I admitted as much. But the cancer did not recur until taken off of the planned 2 year treatment course.

But regardless of whether he would have died anyway, in the original conversation the fact that the boy was playing a role in making the decision seemed important. So I am curious where we fall when the child obviously is not mature enough to participate in that decision. Is it still entirely the parents' decision? And if so, is there a failure of treatment so egregious to overcome it? For example, what if instead of preferring holistic therapy (whatever that meant in this context) to chemotherapy the parents just said "You know, its kind of like the decision we faced with fluffy last year. $5,000 seemed to much for saving a cat's life and $250,000 is just too much money, as much as we love the boy we may need that money later and we can get a new kid. Want to see a picture of Whiskers?"

As is so often the case, I'm trying to explore whether there is a line, and if so, how fuzzy is it?

If anyone has a line drawn, it would be the insurance companies and the bottom line. The decision-making process is often expedited by monetary concerns, although I know of no parents (thank God) that would ever put a monetary value on their child's life. That has always been up to the insurers and providers.

There's always a fine line between protecting the public and those who may not have a voice for themselves, and meddling in the lives of others, forcing them into decision they don't want to make. While I tend to be against the government making choices for individuals, it gets tricky with the little ones. It's a slippery slope in either direction.

On one hand, if government continues dipping into family decisions, to me it's almost horrific that I may not be in control of mine or my family's medical choices (or otherwise.) By the same token, without government involvement, children are often times in danger for reasons that extend beyond medicine, and into abuse and other horrors that children face regularly.

These sorts of things are difficult when they're placed in a case-by-case situation. After all, precedence influences the next decision, and so on and so forth.

Hmmm..

Its unfortunate the kid died... Not that I knew much about Leukemia, but I just looked up some basic stats from the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society. The article posted doesn't say what kind of cancer the kid had, but survival rates aren't exactly super high, even if the chances are better for kids and science has come a long way in solving such problems.

I guess what I'm thinking is that the kid had a good chance of not making it anyway.

So, in this case, if you were a judge asked to intercede one way or the other, which way would you go?

I'm torn.

I'll have to deliberate.

I would allow the treatment, were I the judge in question. I think health care decisions should be left up to the family.

So no line for you? There is no decision making by the parents that could be so bad that government should intervene?

I would say that the kid should stick with the chemo if I were the judge. As blueerica said, it's a fine line, but in this case I would have sided with the proven treatment versus the unproven, given that the decision was not based on any personal belief system.

Slippery slope right there. Freedom to make your own decisions means being free to make what others perceive as the "wrong" decision. Telling people they're free only to make the government-perceived "right" decision isn't freedom at all.

Yes, some people do make horrible horrible choices. Yes, as parents that negatively affects another human being. But without the freedom to take risks and be innovative, we cannot advance. If someone believes there's a better way, and they believe it strongly enough that they feel it's worth putting their own child's life on the line (or feel the alternative is so horrible that it's worth the risk), then perhaps we take a chance and allow them to try to be innovative. If they're wrong, they suffer the most, so you have to assume they don't take the decision lightly. If they're right, all of society benefits from advances in treatment.

There are drawbacks on either side of the argument, and it's true most people are idiots. But I'd rather be a free idiot making my own decisions than a cared-for automaton living under Big Brother's watchful eye.

Fine. Public mojo then.