Court forcing 16 yr old with cancer into chemo

[mousepod]

Originally Posted by tracilicious

My dislike for our sub-standard American medical system is intense.

tracilicious - I hear what you're saying, but I'm not exactly sure what you mean by the "American medical system". If you're talking about our fairly lopsided delivery of medical care, the misguided and profit-driven "insurance" business, or the absolute misunderstanding in DC about what Medicare should be, I'm with you all the way. But I think that the medical professionals in the US get a bum rap from all sides. From my own experience, I think that America's doctors and nurses rank among the best in the world.

As far as the thread topic goes, I guess I would try to put myself in the judge's position, and I just don't see how he could have decided otherwise.

I have know many people people who have dealt with cancer, some who beat it and some who didn't - and no matter what, this is a difficult and ultimately sad case.

[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 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.

[Moonliner]

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.

[SacTown Chronic]

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

[Moonliner]

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]

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.

[tracilicious]

Originally Posted by mousepod

tracilicious - I hear what you're saying, but I'm not exactly sure what you mean by the "American medical system". If you're talking about our fairly lopsided delivery of medical care, the misguided and profit-driven "insurance" business, or the absolute misunderstanding in DC about what Medicare should be, I'm with you all the way. But I think that the medical professionals in the US get a bum rap from all sides. From my own experience, I think that America's doctors and nurses rank among the best in the world.

I'm talking about all that and more. I'm talking about the "system" in general and not usually specific doctors. I think often specific doctors are the problem, but that would be the medical colleges fault and not their own. They are doing what they are taught. It's the system that chooses treatment based on insurance, the system that gives you a vicodin for a headache instead of figuring out what's really wrong or even if treatment is necessary, the system that immunizes babies for a disease against a disease acquired from sex and shared needles when the immunization only protects until age 10, the system in which women can schedule elective C-sections and dr.s will induce labor because they are going on vacation.

I think in general Dr.s are good people who want to help others. Nurses too. Their jobs are hard and they even manage to be right sometimes , but if our system were what it should be we would stack up to the rest of the world more favorably. It's truly frightening when you compare survival and disease rates for many things. I think it's getting better. Very slowly.

[Alex]

It depends on what the alternative treatment they were considering was, I suppose, for me to decide how strongly I feel about it.

Courts have been forcing medical procedures on children despite the protestations of the parents for a long time. Christian Scientists and Jehovah's Witnesses are well aware of that.


As you might guess I'm doubtful of most "alternative" methods of treatment. Most are simply bunk, the rest have never been subjected to actual validation and many are actually harmful.

Personally, I am pro-suicide so everybody should be free to choose whatever treatment they want, no matter how stupid. But in our society we have already decided that there are certain decisions of risk that parents are not allowed to make for their children (not wearing seatbelts, for example; or driving cars on public roads; or, frequently, refusing surgery and blood transfusions for religious reasons). The only wrinkle in this one is that the boy is old enough to make a compelling case for himself but legally there is nothing different here than if it were a 10-year-old.

I do wonder, though, if this is the same Mexico clinic that killed Coretta Scott King.

[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.

[scaeagles]

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.)