Court forcing 16 yr old with cancer into chemo - Page 3

tracilicious · 07-25-2006, 03:26 PM

Hmm, reading some of the responses I'm not sure where I stand. Yes, I think it sucks that a 16 year old who has an understanding of his disease can't make a decision with his parents as to what treatment to persue. But, on the other hand, if the court decided to let them not get treatment, then they would be setting a precedent. So at what age are we going to say that understanding begins? I think the only choice is to keep the minimum age 18.

On a non-legal issue, if his doctors would simply work with some of the many alternative medicine practitioners here in the states, perhaps they could treat it from all sides instead of getting in a nasty legal battle.

tracilicious · 07-25-2006, 03:53 PM

I also wanted to say that if I had cancer, I would probably do both conventional and alternative therapies, so it's not as though I think traditional medicine is useless or anything.

Moonliner · 07-25-2006, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tracilicious

I also wanted to say that if I had cancer, I would probably do both conventional and alternative therapies, so it's not as though I think traditional medicine is useless or anything.

Assuming you are over 18 and mentally sound, then in my opinion you could treat your cancer by watching a Sponge Bob marathon. That's your choice.

But what if it's your friends 4 year old little boy? Then what? As a society we have decided that 16 is too young to decide your own fate.

Not Afraid · 07-25-2006, 03:56 PM

I understand why the court made this decision and, since the person in question is legally a child, I agree with the decision. However, I don't see why treatment has to be an either/or option. I haven't read about the laternative treatment plan, but if it is anything like my Mother's alternative cancer tretment, then much of it can be done in the US while undergoing chemo.

Chemo is not fun, but neither is dying of cancer. I would think that, at 16, you would try every available option given to you to try and heal and your parents would support you.

SacTown Chronic · 07-25-2006, 03:59 PM

Next thing you know, the president himself will be shoving feeding tubes down our throats.

scaeagles · 07-25-2006, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SacTown Chronic

Next thing you know, the president himself will be shoving feeding tubes down our throats.

I see it as a slightly different issue than Schiavo, but poke away.

(BTW, with Schiavo it wasn't that I had a problem with her dying, I had a problem with her being starved to death. Just get some balls and do it without prolonging it.)

Moonliner · 07-25-2006, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Not Afraid

I understand why the court made this decision and, since the person in question is legally a child, I agree with the decision. However, I don't see why treatment has to be an either/or option. I haven't read about the laternative treatment plan, but if it is anything like my Mother's alternative cancer treatment, then much of it can be done in the US while undergoing chemo.

Chemo is not fun, but neither is dying of cancer. I would think that, at 16, you would try every available option given to you to try and heal and your parents would support you.

If the parents thought that way then yes, this would not be an issue. However they are refusing Chemo altogether. Ironically, if they had avoided all medical care and just let him die naturally this would also probably not be an issue.

Prudence · 07-25-2006, 04:06 PM

I'm much more concerned about a case local to my area. It hit the airwaves with a blast - Amber alerts everywhere you look, all pleading for the location of a baby boy who was desperately ill and kidnapped by his mother right before his scheduled life-saving surgery.

And then the "truth" trickled out.

Still not sure of the whole story, but after a day or so the authorities and hospital confessed that the boy wasn't actually about to die. Sick and vulnerable, but not the "going to die by morning if he doesn't get the surgery" that was broadcast the night before.

And the kidnapping? Yes, the mom took him from the hospital without permission after the baby had been made a ward of the state. So, she'll have to pay the penalty on that one.

However, why was the baby made a ward of the state? Because the parents wanted a consultation from a naturopath. Not that they had decided on an alternative wacko treatment in a backroads clinic out of the country, but because before going through with the surgery they wanted to see if there were any other viable options. My understanding from subsequent newspaper articles is that the baby has some kidney malfunctions, and the surgery (to prepare him for dialysis) is a form of treatment, but not a cure and with significant risks of its own. The hospital had promised an appointment with a naturopath on several occasions, but had cancelled them all, and the surgery was that morning.

Public sentiment shifted palpably over the several days this was in the news.

Oh, and as of this morning's drive-time news, she's finally allowed to see her child whenever she wants (as opposed to very limited, scheduled visits), but only if the father is there. She can't live with them.

Betty · 07-25-2006, 04:31 PM

Okay - I can't find it now but read a follow up article in the last day or so that says the courts have backed off.

scaeagles · 07-25-2006, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Betty

Okay - I can't find it now but read a follow up article in the last day or so that says the courts have backed off.

Here's a link

07-25-2006, 03:26 PM	#1
tracilicious avatar transition Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: in-between Posts: 2,487	Hmm, reading some of the responses I'm not sure where I stand. Yes, I think it sucks that a 16 year old who has an understanding of his disease can't make a decision with his parents as to what treatment to persue. But, on the other hand, if the court decided to let them not get treatment, then they would be setting a precedent. So at what age are we going to say that understanding begins? I think the only choice is to keep the minimum age 18. On a non-legal issue, if his doctors would simply work with some of the many alternative medicine practitioners here in the states, perhaps they could treat it from all sides instead of getting in a nasty legal battle. __________________ And now Harry, let us step into the night and pursue that flighty temptress, adventure! - Albus Dumbledore
	Submit to Quotes

07-25-2006, 03:53 PM	#2
tracilicious avatar transition Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: in-between Posts: 2,487	I also wanted to say that if I had cancer, I would probably do both conventional and alternative therapies, so it's not as though I think traditional medicine is useless or anything. __________________ And now Harry, let us step into the night and pursue that flighty temptress, adventure! - Albus Dumbledore
	Submit to Quotes

07-25-2006, 03:56 PM	#4
Not Afraid HI! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 17,108	I understand why the court made this decision and, since the person in question is legally a child, I agree with the decision. However, I don't see why treatment has to be an either/or option. I haven't read about the laternative treatment plan, but if it is anything like my Mother's alternative cancer tretment, then much of it can be done in the US while undergoing chemo. Chemo is not fun, but neither is dying of cancer. I would think that, at 16, you would try every available option given to you to try and heal and your parents would support you.
	Submit to Quotes

07-25-2006, 03:59 PM	#5
SacTown Chronic the myth of the dream Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 2,217	Next thing you know, the president himself will be shoving feeding tubes down our throats.
	Submit to Quotes

07-25-2006, 04:06 PM	#8
Prudence Beelzeboobs, Esq. Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Gavel - I haz it Posts: 6,287	I'm much more concerned about a case local to my area. It hit the airwaves with a blast - Amber alerts everywhere you look, all pleading for the location of a baby boy who was desperately ill and kidnapped by his mother right before his scheduled life-saving surgery. And then the "truth" trickled out. Still not sure of the whole story, but after a day or so the authorities and hospital confessed that the boy wasn't actually about to die. Sick and vulnerable, but not the "going to die by morning if he doesn't get the surgery" that was broadcast the night before. And the kidnapping? Yes, the mom took him from the hospital without permission after the baby had been made a ward of the state. So, she'll have to pay the penalty on that one. However, why was the baby made a ward of the state? Because the parents wanted a consultation from a naturopath. Not that they had decided on an alternative wacko treatment in a backroads clinic out of the country, but because before going through with the surgery they wanted to see if there were any other viable options. My understanding from subsequent newspaper articles is that the baby has some kidney malfunctions, and the surgery (to prepare him for dialysis) is a form of treatment, but not a cure and with significant risks of its own. The hospital had promised an appointment with a naturopath on several occasions, but had cancelled them all, and the surgery was that morning. Public sentiment shifted palpably over the several days this was in the news. Oh, and as of this morning's drive-time news, she's finally allowed to see her child whenever she wants (as opposed to very limited, scheduled visits), but only if the father is there. She can't live with them. __________________ traguna macoities tracorum satis de
	Submit to Quotes

07-25-2006, 04:31 PM	#9
Betty Kicking up my heels! Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: The Silver State Posts: 3,783	Okay - I can't find it now but read a follow up article in the last day or so that says the courts have backed off. __________________ Nee Stell Thue
	Submit to Quotes