Refusing chemo for a minor

[Fairweather Pure]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30824587/?GT1=43001

This couple is refusing to give chemo treatments to their 13 yr old son who has Hodgkin’s lymphoma citing religious reasons.

As a parent, the thought of anyone refusing to treat thier child just makes me sick to my stomach. How can you just sit by and watch them die?

[Funkmasterr]

Yeah that's been all over the news here. I am really curious as to their logic for doing this, assuming they have any and aren't just crazy.

[Aslanna]

Yeah that's been all over the news here. I am really curious as to their logic for doing this, assuming they have any and aren't just crazy.

"religious reasons" is their logic I would imagine.

[cadalano]

devils advocate


allowing him to get conventional treatment would be "watching him die", according to what she believes. she truly believes that she is saving his life and his soul. chances are the kid also believes this. thats how she's capable of doing it.. to her, its a no-brainer. worst part is, even if he dies a horrible slow death she will still feel that she did the right thing by not violating their religious convictions... which i presume she believes would result in a worse outcome than him dying

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

haven't each one of you posted that you are in favor of pro-choice and allowing a mother to kill her child? Anyone seen a kettle around here?

[miir]

Unborn fetus != 13 year old child

[Sylvus]

And so begins the derail...

haven't each one of you posted that you are in favor of pro-choice and allowing a mother to kill her child? Anyone seen a kettle around here?

Unborn fetus != 13 year old child

Here is the disconnect for me: do pro-lifers really believe that the "!=" in miir's statement should be "=="? Are the "lives" of a sentient, independent (as far as biological life is concerned), free-willed 13 year-old and an unborn, basically parasitic fetus totally equal?

I don't think they are, and that's where the line is drawn for me. If entity B cannot physically survive without entity A, then A should be able to decide the fate of B. If B can survive independently of A, then A has no business making those kinds of decisions for B. Keep in mind, I'm speaking purely of biological independence, not financial or whatever. While the parents support a 13 year-old by providing food and shelter and myriad other things, those could be provided by whoever. The same cannot be said for, say, an 18 week-old fetus. If the fetus is at a point where it could survive a premature birth, I'm against abortion at that point unless medically necessary for the health of the mother.

Is that hypocritical?

[Sueven]

Who cares about abortion, this is a fascinating subject without analogies to a beaten-to-death debate.

There are some really interesting legal issues spawned by these sorts of decisions. This is not, by far, the first time that something like this has happened. It happens all the time with Christian Scientists. Jehovah's Witnesses often refuse necessary blood transfusions for themselves or their loved ones, and so on.

Generally, people have the right to make medical decisions for themselves. This framework is challenged when you have a minor who may not be capable of making such decisions. Generally, we respect parental autonomy in these situations.

But what does that mean when the parents are making a decision, like this one, that seems to be clearly against the interests of the child, as judged by the virtually unanimous agreement of greater society?

Is it permissible to override the parents and to simply say "your child is getting chemo?" If so, who has the authority to make that decision?

If we're required to respect the parents choices, can we charge them criminally if their choices lead to the unnecessary death of their child?

How do our answers to these questions affect our opinions about other aspects of parental autonomy? If the state is permitted to limit parents choices regarding the medical care provided to their children, is the state permitted to limit parental discretion in other spheres? Which spheres? Why or why not?

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

And so begins the derail...

haven't each one of you posted that you are in favor of pro-choice and allowing a mother to kill her child? Anyone seen a kettle around here?

Unborn fetus != 13 year old child

Here is the disconnect for me: do pro-lifers really believe that the "!=" in miir's statement should be "=="? Are the "lives" of a sentient, independent (as far as biological life is concerned), free-willed 13 year-old and an unborn, basically parasitic fetus totally equal?

I don't think they are, and that's where the line is drawn for me. If entity B cannot physically survive without entity A, then A should be able to decide the fate of B. If B can survive independently of A, then A has no business making those kinds of decisions for B. Keep in mind, I'm speaking purely of biological independence, not financial or whatever. While the parents support a 13 year-old by providing food and shelter and myriad other things, those could be provided by whoever. The same cannot be said for, say, an 18 week-old fetus. If the fetus is at a point where it could survive a premature birth, I'm against abortion at that point unless medically necessary for the health of the mother.

Is that hypocritical?

This sentient 13 year old being CHOSE to not have chemo. The people making a stink about it are ones who support a mother choosing whether their unborn child lives or dies and then whining like beaten puppies when a family decides to try other methods than a horrible experience like chemo.

Have any of you seen chemo up close and personal? My mother died on her own terms rather than face chemo for a second time and she was a STRONG person. If you are going to argue pro-choice, then you need ot argue pro-choice. Picking and choosing shit at a whim is hypocritical at best and makes you a whining liberal pussy at worst.

[Fairweather Pure]

Kilmoll and Nick practice the exact same black and white world views, just on opposite ends of the spectrum. You cannot discuss or reason with people like that. Hats off for trying though!

I'm glad this board and the rest of the USA thinks more towards the center.

Sueven is more in line with what I was hoping to discuss. All good questions, but no time to voice my opinion atm.

[Xatrei]

Kilmoll's posts in this thread should make it obvious to everyone that it's impossible to have any kind of rational, grown up conversation on any serious subject with him.

[Boogahz]

Sueven is more in line with what I was hoping to discuss. All good questions, but no time to voice my opinion atm.

You pretty much summed it up in your original post.

"We" want parents to be responsible for the actions of their children, yet "We" want to say how they should care for that child. The fact that the parents can be ordered to put their child through chemo is what sits wrong with me. I have had to take people that I was close with to chemo appointments, and had to watch at least one die afterwards. While I would not wish death on this 13 year old, there are never guarantees that life will improve, or even continue, by making him go through chemo.

[Funkmasterr]

Who cares about abortion, this is a fascinating subject without analogies to a beaten-to-death debate.

There are some really interesting legal issues spawned by these sorts of decisions. This is not, by far, the first time that something like this has happened. It happens all the time with Christian Scientists. Jehovah's Witnesses often refuse necessary blood transfusions for themselves or their loved ones, and so on.

Generally, people have the right to make medical decisions for themselves. This framework is challenged when you have a minor who may not be capable of making such decisions. Generally, we respect parental autonomy in these situations.

But what does that mean when the parents are making a decision, like this one, that seems to be clearly against the interests of the child, as judged by the virtually unanimous agreement of greater society?

Is it permissible to override the parents and to simply say "your child is getting chemo?" If so, who has the authority to make that decision?

If we're required to respect the parents choices, can we charge them criminally if their choices lead to the unnecessary death of their child?

How do our answers to these questions affect our opinions about other aspects of parental autonomy? If the state is permitted to limit parents choices regarding the medical care provided to their children, is the state permitted to limit parental discretion in other spheres? Which spheres? Why or why not?

I don't feel that religious beliefs should be given any kind of consideration, which would indirectly in this scenario mean that the parents do not have the right to choice. That might have something to do with my complete disgust for religion, though.

Another good point to raise here is; if we are going to honor a middle eastern woman's request based on religious belief to allow her to take her drivers license photo with none of her face showing, then why not honor the next religious request?

As far as I'm concerned, either you allow people to do things based on religious right or you don't. I think consistency is important in this case otherwise a whole slew of other shit can start.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

Kilmoll and Nick practice the exact same black and white world views, just on opposite ends of the spectrum. You cannot discuss or reason with people like that. Hats off for trying though!

I'm glad this board and the rest of the USA thinks more towards the center.

Sueven is more in line with what I was hoping to discuss. All good questions, but no time to voice my opinion atm.

It is not black and fucking white. What the fuck makes you the authority on what this parent and family should do? What makes you the judge and goddamn jury of a situation you are not in? How the fuck can you sit there and make the decision that this family should be held accountable for choosing as a family to try an alternative route that may or may not work....but the alternative WILL cause major suffering and may or may not work.

Fuck you and your self righteous bullshit. The "rest of this board and the US" does not think towards the center...they think whatever the media encourages them to think. The government is forcing a family to do what THEY think is right and they have no regards for the family's choice. The federal government has ZERO rights under the constitution to do this and I am fairly sure there will be no specific clause in the state government either. At best they can go after "child endangerment". They are not the ones who put the disease there, so maybe the morons in that legislature can serve God with a subpeona.

[Xatrei]

While I would not wish death on this 13 year old, there are never guarantees that life will improve, or even continue, by making him go through chemo.

But is it OK to deny that chance to any minor with goofy parents just because there are no guarantees? As unpleasant as the treatment is, no one would argue that it's not his *best* chance at survival. A person's right to live their lives in accordance with their religious or philosophical beliefs ends when their practice interferes with the well being of others. Where do we draw the line when considering the right of parents to make health-related decisions for their children? I think that we would all agree that failing to give a kid adequate food, leading to malnourishment would be abuse, and thus subject the parents to civil and criminal penalties (yes, I know that's a ways down the slippery slope, but do consider the point). Is depriving a kid of potentially life-saving care any acceptable when the other is not?

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

Who cares about abortion, this is a fascinating subject without analogies to a beaten-to-death debate.

There are some really interesting legal issues spawned by these sorts of decisions. This is not, by far, the first time that something like this has happened. It happens all the time with Christian Scientists. Jehovah's Witnesses often refuse necessary blood transfusions for themselves or their loved ones, and so on.

Generally, people have the right to make medical decisions for themselves. This framework is challenged when you have a minor who may not be capable of making such decisions. Generally, we respect parental autonomy in these situations.

But what does that mean when the parents are making a decision, like this one, that seems to be clearly against the interests of the child, as judged by the virtually unanimous agreement of greater society?

Is it permissible to override the parents and to simply say "your child is getting chemo?" If so, who has the authority to make that decision?

If we're required to respect the parents choices, can we charge them criminally if their choices lead to the unnecessary death of their child?

How do our answers to these questions affect our opinions about other aspects of parental autonomy? If the state is permitted to limit parents choices regarding the medical care provided to their children, is the state permitted to limit parental discretion in other spheres? Which spheres? Why or why not?

I don't feel that religious beliefs should be given any kind of consideration, which would indirectly in this scenario mean that the parents do not have the right to choice. That might have something to do with my complete disgust for religion, though.

Another good point to raise here is; if we are going to honor a middle eastern woman's request based on religious belief to allow her to take her drivers license photo with none of her face showing, then why not honor the next religious request?

As far as I'm concerned, either you allow people to do things based on religious right or you don't. I think consistency is important in this case otherwise a whole slew of other shit can start.

Why is this even a question of religion? It has nothing to do with it at all. If you removed religion from thsi equation entirely and the family stated they wished to pursue other means because chemo is a nasty process that involves much suffering and was not a sure bet, then who here is arguing against it? How many people are against this purely because religion is in the equation? Go ahead and raise your hands.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

Is depriving a kid of potentially life-saving care any acceptable when the other is not?

Your key word invalidates your other arguments. "Potentially". Depriving a child of food or water is a known way to kill them. Alternative medicinal treatments may well help the child and you have no way of knowing if chemo will. You do, however, KNOW that the child will go through hell with the chemo.

[Xyun]

/raises hand

I support the freedom of the family to make whatever decisions they wish, even if those decisions are detrimental to themselves.

[Sylvus]

This sentient 13 year old being CHOSE to not have chemo.

My bad, I had not yet read the article, just the original post and your response. If the mother doesn't want chemo, and the kid doesn't want chemo, then they shouldn't make him have chemo. It should be their right to choose.

That said, I think it's a horrendously stupid choice and the kid's life could probably be saved by chemo, but if he wants to roll the dice with his own life then so be it. I also support legalized gambling and the right to die.

[Funkmasterr]

While I would not wish death on this 13 year old, there are never guarantees that life will improve, or even continue, by making him go through chemo.

But is it OK to deny that chance to any minor with goofy parents just because there are no guarantees? A person's right to live their lives in accordance with their religious or philosophical beliefs ends when their practice interferes with the well being of others. Where do we draw the line when considering the right of parents to make health-related decisions for their children? I think that we would all agree that failing to give a kid adequate food, leading to malnourishment would be abuse, and thus subject the parents to civil and criminal penalties (yes, I know that's a ways down the slippery slope, but do consider the point). Is depriving a kid of potentially life-saving care any acceptable when the other is not?

Well, the problem is you have a fair number of people out there that have heard some bullshit story about a friends relative who went to a soothsayer who performed some holistic bullshit on them and their brain cancer magically halted in it's footsteps.

If people would wake up and realize that magic isn't going to cure them, but medicine is - that would at least take care of a portion of these people. The religious whack jobs are a lost cause though, there will never be any reasoning with them.

[Funkmasterr]

Who cares about abortion, this is a fascinating subject without analogies to a beaten-to-death debate.

There are some really interesting legal issues spawned by these sorts of decisions. This is not, by far, the first time that something like this has happened. It happens all the time with Christian Scientists. Jehovah's Witnesses often refuse necessary blood transfusions for themselves or their loved ones, and so on.

Generally, people have the right to make medical decisions for themselves. This framework is challenged when you have a minor who may not be capable of making such decisions. Generally, we respect parental autonomy in these situations.

But what does that mean when the parents are making a decision, like this one, that seems to be clearly against the interests of the child, as judged by the virtually unanimous agreement of greater society?

Is it permissible to override the parents and to simply say "your child is getting chemo?" If so, who has the authority to make that decision?

If we're required to respect the parents choices, can we charge them criminally if their choices lead to the unnecessary death of their child?

How do our answers to these questions affect our opinions about other aspects of parental autonomy? If the state is permitted to limit parents choices regarding the medical care provided to their children, is the state permitted to limit parental discretion in other spheres? Which spheres? Why or why not?

I don't feel that religious beliefs should be given any kind of consideration, which would indirectly in this scenario mean that the parents do not have the right to choice. That might have something to do with my complete disgust for religion, though.

Another good point to raise here is; if we are going to honor a middle eastern woman's request based on religious belief to allow her to take her drivers license photo with none of her face showing, then why not honor the next religious request?

As far as I'm concerned, either you allow people to do things based on religious right or you don't. I think consistency is important in this case otherwise a whole slew of other shit can start.

Why is this even a question of religion? It has nothing to do with it at all. If you removed religion from thsi equation entirely and the family stated they wished to pursue other means because chemo is a nasty process that involves much suffering and was not a sure bet, then who here is arguing against it? How many people are against this purely because religion is in the equation? Go ahead and raise your hands.

Because from my understanding religion is the main factor getting in the way of logic in this case. They are choosing to let their child have less of a chance to live because some fairytale they read told them the treatment for it is bad. We should not humor their delusions.

Consider my hand raised.

[Xatrei]

Is depriving a kid of potentially life-saving care any acceptable when the other is not?

Your key word invalidates your other arguments. "Potentially". Depriving a child of food or water is a known way to kill them. Alternative medicinal treatments may well help the child and you have no way of knowing if chemo will. You do, however, KNOW that the child will go through hell with the chemo.

If my example was "what if parents starved their kid to death," I would have said that and then you'd be right. Instead, my hypothetical point was with parents malnourishing their children.

The only thing we KNOW is that herbs, prayer and chanting will not cure this kid. He improved after his first round of chemo, and has gotten worse since being denied further treatment. A 13 year old kid, effectively brainwashed by his parent's goofiness, is in no position to make a reasonable decision, and does not have the legal right to make choices for himself in any event. His parents do have that responsibility. They've failed and due to their neglect, the kid is in grave danger. The doctors involved gave him a good prognosis with aggressive treatment, but only a 5% chance without. The kid doesn't even believe that he's terribly sick according to the AP reports I've read.

This kid needs to be protected from his awful parents.


(edited to fix a typo, no content changed)

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

Who cares about abortion, this is a fascinating subject without analogies to a beaten-to-death debate.

There are some really interesting legal issues spawned by these sorts of decisions. This is not, by far, the first time that something like this has happened. It happens all the time with Christian Scientists. Jehovah's Witnesses often refuse necessary blood transfusions for themselves or their loved ones, and so on.

Generally, people have the right to make medical decisions for themselves. This framework is challenged when you have a minor who may not be capable of making such decisions. Generally, we respect parental autonomy in these situations.

But what does that mean when the parents are making a decision, like this one, that seems to be clearly against the interests of the child, as judged by the virtually unanimous agreement of greater society?

Is it permissible to override the parents and to simply say "your child is getting chemo?" If so, who has the authority to make that decision?

If we're required to respect the parents choices, can we charge them criminally if their choices lead to the unnecessary death of their child?

How do our answers to these questions affect our opinions about other aspects of parental autonomy? If the state is permitted to limit parents choices regarding the medical care provided to their children, is the state permitted to limit parental discretion in other spheres? Which spheres? Why or why not?

I don't feel that religious beliefs should be given any kind of consideration, which would indirectly in this scenario mean that the parents do not have the right to choice. That might have something to do with my complete disgust for religion, though.

Another good point to raise here is; if we are going to honor a middle eastern woman's request based on religious belief to allow her to take her drivers license photo with none of her face showing, then why not honor the next religious request?

As far as I'm concerned, either you allow people to do things based on religious right or you don't. I think consistency is important in this case otherwise a whole slew of other shit can start.

Why is this even a question of religion? It has nothing to do with it at all. If you removed religion from thsi equation entirely and the family stated they wished to pursue other means because chemo is a nasty process that involves much suffering and was not a sure bet, then who here is arguing against it? How many people are against this purely because religion is in the equation? Go ahead and raise your hands.

Because from my understanding religion is the main factor getting in the way of logic in this case. They are choosing to let their child have less of a chance to live because some fairytale they read told them the treatment for it is bad. We should not humor their delusions.

Consider my hand raised.

I consider it to be a very misguided religious view. From my viewpoint, God gave men the knowledge to use chemo and there should be no reason to not use it. It is not our choice though. If they decided to move into a grizzly bear cave (and lets say for sake of argument that the cave exists on property they own...before some asshat comes in picking it apart - Xatrei) , should we legislate against them making a potentially fatal choice for the family?

You can't legislate against making stupid decisions....and our government needs to step away from trying and/or bailing people out who make those choices.

[Funkmasterr]

Well, for one legislating against people making stupid decisions and bailing people out who have done so are totally different issues. I would agree with you on the bailing out part.

However, child protective services and the laws pertaining to child abuse are all there for good reasons. Fundamentally what is occurring here is they are saying because of religious viewpoints they have the right to endanger and possibly hand a death sentence to their child.

Lets say in the case of parents saying it's part of their religion to explore sexuality with their children, would you say the government should let that slide too? You can't say that some laws and rules of society should be ignored for religion but not all of them, imo.

Again, bottom line is the parents are putting this child in a situation that is almost assuredly going to have a worse outcome for him health-wise than the better alternative (chemo giving him a chance to live). Their religious bullshit is just getting in the way of the facts.

[Fairweather Pure]

Parents should not have the right to hasten the end of the life of their child in any way. I don't care if thier reasoning is based on religious views or ignorance.

The one thing we know for sure in this case is that the family broke the law by not appearing on court and instead opted to take thier child on the lamb. This removes all doubt in my mind that these people aren't doing what is in the child's best interest as far as health care is concerned.

I code chemo clinic a couple of times a month. People go into remission all the time. The success rate would likely surprise you. To deny that opportunity to your child should be against the law.

[Xatrei]

I think the "right to endanger and neglect your children" argument is a winner!

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

An adult has the right to refuse chemo correct? The teenager refused chemo. His parents agreed with it. End of story. Nowhere does it say they refused to allow it....it was a choice made by the family and not the parents denying their child a choice.

[Fairweather Pure]

An adult has the right to refuse chemo correct? The teenager refused chemo. His parents agreed with it. End of story. Nowhere does it say they refused to allow it....it was a choice made by the family and not the parents denying their child a choice.

Children do not share the same rights as adults.

[Spang]

An adult has the right to refuse chemo correct? The teenager refused chemo. His parents agreed with it. End of story. Nowhere does it say they refused to allow it....it was a choice made by the family and not the parents denying their child a choice.

Aren't you pro-life?

[Funkmasterr]

An adult has the right to refuse chemo correct? The teenager refused chemo. His parents agreed with it. End of story. Nowhere does it say they refused to allow it....it was a choice made by the family and not the parents denying their child a choice.

Of course the kid doesn't want to do it, don't be ridiculous dude. He is young and the chemo fucking hurts, and as a child that is when your parents are supposed to step in and say "I know it hurts son, but you need to do your best to get through it so you can get better".

He is not old enough to fundamentally disagree with the treatment for the same absurd reasons as his parents, and if he does believe anything to that effect it's because his parents told him that, not because he truly understands and agrees with them.

An adult has already lived a good portion of their life, and with that time on Earth they have (hopefully) gained some knowledge and wisdom that would assist them in making the best choice for themselves.

[Xatrei]

An adult has the right to refuse chemo correct? The teenager refused chemo. His parents agreed with it. End of story. Nowhere does it say they refused to allow it....it was a choice made by the family and not the parents denying their child a choice.

As I said before, A 13 year old kid that's been effectively brainwashed by his parental failures and their wacky religious beliefs is in no position to make a reasonable decision. As a 13 year old child, he has neither the psychological capability nor the legal right to make choices for himself, regardless of whether you agree with his wishes or not. His parents do have the obligation to care for him, and they've failed miserably. When parents willfully neglect the well being of their children, it becomes a matter for the government to handle.

[Fairweather Pure]

An adult has the right to refuse chemo correct? The teenager refused chemo. His parents agreed with it. End of story. Nowhere does it say they refused to allow it....it was a choice made by the family and not the parents denying their child a choice.

Aren't you pro-life?

Anyone seen a kettle around here?

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

An adult has the right to refuse chemo correct? The teenager refused chemo. His parents agreed with it. End of story. Nowhere does it say they refused to allow it....it was a choice made by the family and not the parents denying their child a choice.

Aren't you pro-life?

I am not a pro-lifer. I would not qualify as a hearty pro-choice person either though. I would prefer to see people allow their children to be born, but recognize there are situations where that is not a viable option.

[Fairweather Pure]

I am not a pro-lifer. I would not qualify as a hearty pro-choice person either though. I would prefer to see people allow their children to be born, but recognize there are situations where that is not a viable option.

Picking and choosing shit at a whim is hypocritical at best and makes you a whining liberal pussy at worst.

I could do this all day...

[Sueven]

I think it's silly to have a bright line rule like "the state may never interfere" or "the state may always interfere."

There are plenty of situations where the state is allowed to uncontroversially interfere with family autonomy and parent-child relationships. For instance:

- You're not allowed to have sex with your children, nor may you allow others to do so (if they're young)
- You're not allowed to shake your baby, hit your preteen with a baseball bat, etc
- You're not allowed to bar your child from receiving an education
- You're not allowed to raise your child without adequate food and hygiene

And then there are other situations where the state may, in large part, not interfere:

- You can choose to send your child to private school or home school
- You can spank your child (generally)
- You can feed your child a vegetarian diet, a macrobiotic diet, an atkins diet, as long as you're not endangering his health
- You can raise your child in whatever faith tradition you prefer
- You can set rules for your child's social life

I don't think anyone would argue that the state can ALWAYS override the parents wishes, but some people have already argued that the state can NEVER override the parents wishes. I don't think that either of these views, taken to the extreme, are tenable.

The fact that the child doesn't want chemo is interesting. I don't think it's in any way dispositive. If a five year old doesn't want to go to school, doesn't want to get a shot, doesn't want to go to the dentist, are we required to respect that preference? No. If he's eighteen? Well yes, then we're largely required to respect it. What if he's 13? Who knows? Depends on context, right?

The context in this case seems to point away from the child understanding his decision. For one thing, he's choosing to reject the treatment that would vastly increase his odds of survival. That seems illogical, although I'll admit that I am in some sense prejudging his lack of autonomy by claiming that his decision is uninformed because he doesn't reach the conclusion that I do. I'm privileging my own conclusion over his. More directly relevant may be the fact that he doesn't seem to understand that he's sick, and doesn't seem to understand the likely consequences of his choices. In this situation, I find it hard to put too much stock in his preference. If he wanted chemo and his parents refused to allow it, then I would want more respect given to his preference. But how can I respect a misguided preference from a 13 year old who's under the sway of the viewpoint of his parents?

I think it's OK to force this boy to get chemotherapy.

Refusing to allow your son to access available lifesaving medical treatment seems to me to be abuse and neglect rather than a legitimate choice about childrearing. This doesn't mean that any bad medical decision by a parent is grounds for state interference-- if a parent gives their child tea and chicken soup instead of sudafed, that's fine; if a parent intentionally exposes her children to chickenpox instead of quarantining the child, that's fine. But a situation like this-- where the choice is between "likely death" and "likely life"-- seems to be in a different category.

I don't think we should grant parents carte blanche to kill their children because of misguided and demonstrably incorrect beliefs, whether those beliefs are religious or not.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

I am not a pro-lifer. I would not qualify as a hearty pro-choice person either though. I would prefer to see people allow their children to be born, but recognize there are situations where that is not a viable option.

Picking and choosing shit at a whim is hypocritical at best and makes you a whining liberal pussy at worst.

I could do this all day...

I am not the one pushing an agenda. You made a claim that I am a pro-lifer. I do not fall in that camp. Trying to play a game of semantics is not something I am going to be a party to with you or Xatrei any longer.

[Xatrei]

I am not the one pushing an agenda. You made a claim that I am a pro-lifer. I do not fall in that camp. Trying to play a game of semantics is not something I am going to be a party to with you or Xatrei any longer.

Try this one: Fuck you. I've attempted to engage in a (mostly) civil discussion about this matter. I have presented a point of view and made arguments to support it. I haven't engaged in any semantic games with you, and I haven't called you a hypocrite or any other names. The most harsh thing I've done to you is mockingly make a sarcastic comment about your imagined right of people to neglect their children, and that's pretty damned mild for this place. Conversely, you have almost exclusively represented your point of view with childish arguments, name-calling, insults and non-facts thoroughly divorced from reality. Like I said in my first post in this thread, it's impossible to have a reasonable discussion with you, and my own attempt to disprove my assumption has merely served to bolster that position.

Next week or next month or whenever it is that you once again question why many on this board are so dismissive of you and your stated opinions, refer back to this thread.

[pyrella]

Wow this is an interesting one. So I'll always side with science over religion - but everything has it's extremes.

Without (hopefully) going over board on the conspiracy theory bullshit - Science is good - Corporate Science is evil.

Chemotherapy, leading to the need for taking certain medications, to handle pain/nausia/etc and on going treatments, to milk every last dollar out of the family/insurance for 'maybes' in so far as results. I love hearing/reading about some funky grass or bean found down by the river of the Amazon or in deep Cambodia or some bullshit - which has been shown to time and again actually treat the CAUSES of problems vs the SYMPTOMS. There are very few medicines or treatments in the US which actually handle root cause problems with the body - just things that suppress symptoms as those people can be counted on to purchase those products again every time they run out. As the FDA won't allow you to sell anything that hasn't gone through the money funnel - and those who sell symptom suppressants actively lobby against 'hokey natural and holistic' medicines (as it would put them out of business) - nothing ever makes it through.

Anyways - in regards to this: They don't want people using alternative medicines, not for the safety of the child, but for the safety of the wallet. If they go, perform 'alternative' medicine, and they have positive results - after this has been turned in to a national news story - this erodes even further the trust placed in todays pharmaceutical companies.

Anyways - sorry, only slightly tangential to the conversation just so I could push my own agenda, muaha, etc

down with big pharma!

[Tyek]

I think it is sad, but if the kid says no, then I say no.

If he has bought into the religious aspect of this then I have no problem with his decision. If the kid said he wanted it and the parents declined, due to their religion, then I would hope that some group would step up and support the child. In most cases we inherit our religion until we are old enough, or independent enough, to make the choice to continue or change our religious thoughts. He may not be old enough, but you cannot make a blanket decision to cover all people He should be able to decide his fate even when he is following a very stupid thought process.

[cadalano]

you just said that he is too young to make the decision himself, but you still support him based on his decision. and that we have no right to make "blanket decisions", even though you acknowledge that all individuals under that blanket are too young to make the decisions. what?

you're describing this as though he's perfectly capable of making an informed decision. as though he understands exactly what is happening to him and exactly what the consequences will be. what do you consider to be a minor?

What if he was 5 years old- would you support him then?

[Wulfran]

The thing that tears me in this case is the age of the kid. If he was 3 years older, everyone would say he's old enough to decide for himself. If he was 3 years younger there wouldn't be any valid argument against the need to appoint an advocate for the child (via the court). 13 is such no-man's land because the kid is old enough to understand a lot of the issues but not necessarily all the ramifications, and teens at that age are extremely impressionable. In the end, the deciding factor for me is the will to live of the patient: if he doesn't have it enough to try everything in his power to survive, then odds are he won't, so why cause additional distress?

As for the pros and cons of chemo, I've had several relatives go through it and known many more who have. Some were able to beat cancer with it (like my mother) and some weren't. I have a hard time talking to Mom about her going through it because I spent the whole time in denial (that shit wasn't allowed to happen to my mom!) and I'm still uncomfortable with thinking about it, even though Mom has been cancer free for almost 20 years. In one of our rare discussions on the topic she said "there were days I thought dying would be a mercy" and "I wondered if the cure was worse than the disease" but she did it because she wanted to live. I know she never wants to go through it again. No one does. But don't think for a minute she regrets it. Same went for my Aunt, who lived 35 years longer than the doctors expected back in the late 60s when she was diagnosed.

I sympathize with a lot of your outlook on the pharmaceutical and insurance companies, Sylus (as a Canadian I still shake my head at your entire health care system, as imperfect as ours is too), and support R&D to find better/alternative cures/treatments (yes I donate to the Terry Fox Run and other cancer campaigns), but at the same time you need to realize that established treatments aren't just about making Pfizer et al more money. Some do work.

[Tyek]

That's my point. What is the proper age to decide? I don't know and I am not in favor of the government deciding for me. It becomes the same slippery slope. What if he was 37 but has the mental ability of a 5 year old. You cannot have a blanket age.

Its not an easy choice, and would not be my choice, but at 13, if he seems to comprehend the situation and results of his choice, then I would let him decide. You cannot save every idiot from themself. Setting a standard age to decide is stupid, each case should be looked at on its own merits.

If he was 13 and said he wanted to live you would support him I would assume, so why would you not support his current decision if he seemed to understand it?

[Fairweather Pure]

The proper age is 18.

[Xatrei]

That's my point. What is the proper age to decide? I don't know and I am not in favor of the government deciding for me. It becomes the same slippery slope. What if he was 37 but has the mental ability of a 5 year old. You cannot have a blanket age.

Its not an easy choice, and would not be my choice, but at 13, if he seems to comprehend the situation and results of his choice, then I would let him decide. You cannot save every idiot from themself. Setting a standard age to decide is stupid, each case should be looked at on its own merits.

If he was 13 and said he wanted to live you would support him I would assume, so why would you not support his current decision if he seemed to understand it?

I don't know how much you've read about the story. I've not read much beyond what's come across the AP wire, but that is pretty telling. This kid does not even believe that he's sick. His mom has completely convinced this impressionable kid that he's OK and that some herbal remedies and a little prayer will cure what ails him. It's pretty clear that he is not in the position to make a rational, informed decision about his own health. Whether or not we think that a 13 year old is capable of making a decision like this (I don't believe they're psychologically developed enough to do so, myself), he is a minor and so the decision is not his. His mother is neglecting his health and the government rightfully stepped in. The point about a hypothetical, mentally impaired 37 year old doesn't really stand here. A mentally impaired person would not be allowed to make a decision for themselves, and that responsibility would fall to the family or to the state when there is no family to represent the person's interests.

This isn't a case of saving a stupid person from himself. If he was 33 with a loopy religious belief instead of a 13 year old child, it would be a non-issue. This kid needs to be saved from the failures that are his parents.

On a related note, how do you people feel about the kid in Wisconsin who died after her parents refused to get her treatment for diabetes, and instead relied solely upon prayer to cure their daughter. After she died in March, the parents were charged with reckless homicide. The mother is currently on trial, and the father will stand trial in July. Here's an AP story about it.

[Boogahz]

I would think that having someone that went through the same thing would make a bit of an impression as well...but it is lost in everything else right now.

The alert said they might also be with a Massachusetts man named Billy Best, who as a teenager in 1994 ran away from home to escape chemotherapy for cancer similar to Daniel's.

Best, who says he was cured by natural remedies, is supporting the family's effort to avoid chemo for Daniel but said this week he hasn't talked to the mother and son since they fled.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30824587/

[Tyek]

That's my point. What is the proper age to decide? I don't know and I am not in favor of the government deciding for me. It becomes the same slippery slope. What if he was 37 but has the mental ability of a 5 year old. You cannot have a blanket age.

Its not an easy choice, and would not be my choice, but at 13, if he seems to comprehend the situation and results of his choice, then I would let him decide. You cannot save every idiot from themself. Setting a standard age to decide is stupid, each case should be looked at on its own merits.

If he was 13 and said he wanted to live you would support him I would assume, so why would you not support his current decision if he seemed to understand it?

I don't know how much you've read about the story. I've not read much beyond what's come across the AP wire, but that is pretty telling. This kid does not even believe that he's sick. His mom has completely convinced this impressionable kid that he's OK and that some herbal remedies and a little prayer will cure what ails him. It's pretty clear that he is not in the position to make a rational, informed decision about his own health. Whether or not we think that a 13 year old is capable of making a decision like this (I don't believe they're psychologically developed enough to do so, myself), he is a minor and so the decision is not his. His mother is neglecting his health and the government rightfully stepped in. The point about a hypothetical, mentally impaired 37 year old doesn't really stand here. A mentally impaired person would not be allowed to make a decision for themselves, and that responsibility would fall to the family or to the state when there is no family to represent the person's interests.

This isn't a case of saving a stupid person from himself. If he was 33 with a loopy religious belief instead of a 13 year old child, it would be a non-issue. This kid needs to be saved from the failures that are his parents.

On a related note, how do you people feel about the kid in Wisconsin who died after her parents refused to get her treatment for diabetes, and instead relied solely upon prayer to cure their daughter. After she died in March, the parents were charged with reckless homicide. The mother is currently on trial, and the father will stand trial in July. Here's an AP story about it.

I know very little about it. Someone mentioned he did not want it and I was referring to that. If he is ill informed then I guess that is for the court to decide. I just feel we surrender too much freedom to the idiots in Washington.

[Xatrei]

I know very little about it. Someone mentioned he did not want it and I was referring to that. If he is ill informed then I guess that is for the court to decide. I just feel we surrender too much freedom to the idiots in Washington.

Washington isn't involved. This was purely a state (Minnesota) issue. The only federal involvement is with FBI now. They became involved when the mother abducted her kid and crossed state lines.

[Aabidano]

The problem with things like this is that we don't know the actual details. Some juvenile court judges are good, sensible people who try to do what's right by the children they become involved with. Some have nonsensical agendas.

Some 13 year olds are capable of making a decision like this, others (most) aren't. If the judge has sat down with this child and made a determination that this one isn't capable, and further that his parents are loopy (and not just religious) and not capable of making the decision for him then it's not a bad decision (IMO) to force him into a treatment that has a very good chance of success.

I'd agree with Py to a certain degree that our for profit pharmaceutical\health care system has some pretty serious issues. That it's in large measure dominated by the insurance industry is a big part of the problem. On the same note, capitalism in large part created and funded it. I don't think healthcare worldwide would be nearly as advanced as it is today without it.

*Edit - Having had some personal experience in this area, one of the biggest problems in making treatment decisions is understanding the statistics they base decisions\recommendations on. The doctors aren't always a big help as they don't always grasp them either.

[Drasta]

Here's my view on the subject ... DARWIN AWARD!!! k thx

[Nick]

Kilmoll and Nick practice the exact same black and white world views, just on opposite ends of the spectrum. You cannot discuss or reason with people like that. Hats off for trying though!

I'm glad this board and the rest of the USA thinks more towards the center.

Sueven is more in line with what I was hoping to discuss. All good questions, but no time to voice my opinion atm.

I expect a little more from you. I'll not make the same mistake again. And for the record, accurately and contextually, the USA is not "towards the center" on most issues. It veers heavily to the right. Go read a book, you're more than intelligent enough to know better.

I'm glad to see the parents wishes being ignored by the state in this case. Ultimately if only for the childs sake. Whether he has chosen to refuse chemo is to some extent irrelevant (although the moral ramifications of denying underage personal autonomy are still blurry yet important to continue debating).

Religious zealotry of this kind is a shitty thing, especially so when you see the children of such zealots suffering needlessly, being brainwashed and perpetuating the cycle.