Teen Must Undergo Chemotherapy

[Jae Onasi]

Articles:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,520318,00.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30763438/

 

This is the key point of the ruling:

In this case, Rodenberg said, the state’s interest in protecting the child overrides the constitutional right to freedom of religious expression and a parent’s right to direct a child’s upbringing.

 

This is a challenging case for me. On the one hand, the type of cancer this child has is extremely treatable. While I think the court is doing what I think is best for the child, it does butt up against freedom of religion and parental choice. Chemotherapy and radiation are, frankly, brutal treatments, if effective, and I can understand people's decisions not to undergo either of those treatments.

 

Where should the line be drawn?

[Miltiades]

It's the parents' responsibility, and it's their right to refuse treatment. It'll be their loss when the child dies, of course, but again, that's their responsibility. You can't enforce treatment on anyone (as long as a sickness doesn't threaten anyone else). I find this interfering by the state in a parental choice to be ridiculous and unacceptable.

[jrrtoken]

It most certainly is the parents', and ultimately, the child's right to decide on using chemotherapy. Although the state's policy is in good intentions, it does fall upon the patient's right to accept or not accept said treatment, espeically with the difficult and painful process that is chemotherapy. The government should not dictate its policy when it violates one's free will in personal matters, good or bad.

[EnderWiggin]

The parents are idiots.

 

_EW_

[True_Avery]

If a Parent is too incompetent and ignorant to take care of the child, then responsibility falls upon the state. The state, legally, owns more of your child than you do anyway.

 

The parents, obviously, have no idea what they are talking about, and are expressing their religious beliefs in a way that is dangerous to their child. They have, or at least should be deemed incapable of caring for a child and he should be removed from their legal custody as soon as possible.

 

But, as far as the kid goes, he should have the right to deny treatment except for the fact he is not 18 and, if I recall correctly, does not have the right to deny treatment due to his age. The parents are too stupid to realize their child is dying and have convinced him that he is fine, while BSing herb treatments off the internet.

 

Kid is underage, parents deemed to be unfit parents... so that leaves the state. State has made a ruling to save his life, and perhaps with a competent human being explaining to him what his sickness is and how it can be treated he can be brought back to good health without parents stuck 2,000 years in the past poisoning his judgment.

 

It's the parents' responsibility, and it's their right to refuse treatment. It'll be their loss when the child dies, of course, but again, that's their responsibility. You can't enforce treatment on anyone (as long as a sickness doesn't threaten anyone else). I find this interfering by the state in a parental choice to be ridiculous and unacceptable.

It is their right to refuse treatment, but it is not, as you claim, their right to let their child die. The child is underage, technically belongs to the state, and the state is exercising their powers over the child after, I'm assuming, deeming the parents incompetent. The same argument could be used when a parent shoots their kid and they claim "Well, I'm their parent. I get to decide if they live or die."

 

It most certainly is the parents', and ultimately, the child's right to decide on using chemotherapy. Although the state's policy is in good intentions, it does fall upon the patient's right to accept or not accept said treatment, especially with the difficult and painful process that is chemotherapy. The government should not dictate its policy when it violates one's free will in personal matters, good or bad.

Again, I believe a child under 18 does not actually have personal rights over their medical treatments. We leave that to the guardians. I would agree with you if the child was over 18, but he is 13 years old with parents treating him life threatening illness with plants they found in their back yard.

 

This is a challenging case for me. On the one hand, the type of cancer this child has is extremely treatable. While I think the court is doing what I think is best for the child, it does butt up against freedom of religion and parental choice. Chemotherapy and radiation are, frankly, brutal treatments, if effective, and I can understand people's decisions not to undergo either of those treatments.

Freedom of religion? Just like freedom of speech, I think half of the people who say it need to re-read exactly what it means.

 

Your freedom of religion gives you permission to believe what you want. It does not, however, give you the right to harm others with your beliefs. As the court seemed to have ruled, using your religious beliefs to feed your 13 year old plants to cure his illness when there is a readily available treatment is child abuse and the parents should be put in jail for it. Religion is not a good enough excuse to let your kid die.

 

The kid's parents are making a choice. His parent right now, however, is the state and, apparently, the only entity right now that cares about his life. Maybe if the parents cared about their kid more than their god this wouldn't of happened.

[Web Rider]

I fully support the government's decision in this. Other cases of allowing people to choose "prayer" over a successful medical treatment have resulted in the child dying. And no amount of religion is enough of an excuse to allow your child to die. The parents and the child have clearly demonstrated that they don't know anything about this treatment, and its success rates, and refuse to become more informed. Therefore, I have no sympathy for them, and I think it's good for society that the government deny people the right to be stupid.

 

Because they will inevitably come running back to the government BAWWWWWWWing over the government not doing more. And then it will be on our dime to clean up their stupidity.

[Totenkopf]

Maybe if the parents cared about their kid more than their god this wouldn't of happened.

 

Forcing the state to act, you mean? If the child can demonstrate that he understands the repercussions and refuses treatment anyway, should the state be allowed to force the child against its wishes? My guess is that most people would opt to live if it meant they'd be cured. But in cases where treatment only = living in a degraded physical state full of pain, should the state be allowed to torture anyone, especially a child (more of a general, though related, question)?

[Jae Onasi]

But, as far as the kid goes, he should have the right to deny treatment except for the fact he is not 18 and, if I recall correctly, does not have the right to deny treatment due to his age. The parents are too stupid to realize their child is dying and have convinced him that he is fine, while BSing herb treatments off the internet.

Kids have to either be emancipated minors or legal adults to sign for their own medical treatment. We run into this all the time in our office fitting contact lenses, which are FDA Class 3 medical devices. We have to have parental consent to fit a child with them.

 

 

Your freedom of religion gives you permission to believe what you want. It does not, however, give you the right to harm others with your beliefs. As the court seemed to have ruled, using your religious beliefs to feed your 13 year old plants to cure his illness when there is a readily available treatment is child abuse and the parents should be put in jail for it. Religion is not a good enough excuse to let your kid die.

I understand what you're saying, but a small percent of the time non-traditional methods work. The parents are playing Russian roulette with bullets loaded in 19 of 20 chambers, however. As perspective, though, we used to think mercury was a great medicine--people who knew better and refused to take it would have been deemed 'backwards' at that time by the medical community. Chemotherapy is not an innocuous or risk-free treatment. It's very hard on the body, has short-term effects of making one extremely susceptible to life-threatening infections and long-term side effects including heart, liver, and kidney failure, sterility, brain damage, among other things, and can kill you if the cancer doesn't. This isn't something like an antibiotic for pneumonia that will clear up in a few days of hospital treatment. This is a months, if not years-long process of treatment that will affect Danny's quality of life dramatically. The only thing going for him was that he had such a good response to the one and only chemo treatment he did have and the fact that the cure rate is so good for this particular cancer.

 

You say the state owns our kid already. I agree to an extent. We as parents are told how many school days our children must go (even if they absorb the information in half the time), what immunizations they should get (although I agree with that one), and so forth. I don't want the state taking away all my rights as a parent, however. The state does not know best how to meet the individual unique needs of my kids. It does not know the gifts and quirks of my kids like Point Man and I do, because the state does not live with my kids. It does not play with my kids, it does not sit at the dinner table and talk to them to understand the ups and downs of their days, it does not make them do their homework or music practice, it does not read to them or play a variety of genres of music in the car so they're exposed to all different kinds, it does not identify species of birds because my son is fascinated with them or species of reptiles because my daughter loves frogs, it does not give them a solid foundation of ethics and morals. My kids need their parents, not a nanny-state that can never know them. That's part of the reason why I'm leery about the gov't getting over-involved in this kind of case.

[True_Avery]

Forcing the state to act, you mean? If the child can demonstrate that he understands the repercussions and refuses treatment anyway, should the state be allowed to force the child against its wishes? My guess is that most people would opt to live if it meant they'd be cured. But in cases where treatment only = living in a degraded physical state full of pain, should the state be allowed to torture anyone, especially a child (more of a general, though related, question)?

I actually agree with you that the kid, with the proper education on the treatment and so on, should be allowed to make that decision. That is really the only minor problem I have with this, but at the same time I think that the law should stay as, while his situation is this, another kids may be another.

 

In this situation, the treatment is indeed just a terrible ordeal to get through. I think it probably should be his decision, but as we have a guardian system in effect I think that he is actually in better hands with the state than his uncaring parents.

 

That, as well as refusing could be seen as a form of suicide. I, personally, am for allowing people with terminal illness to pull their own plug but the states see it differently and the refusal of treatments by a minor has a number of roadblocks that he can't really get around.

 

So, I basically agree with you morally, but agree with the state and its use of the laws for this. But, at the same time don't. Can't really make a solid decision not knowing more information.

 

But, treatment aside, the kid is still a kid and the state still owns kids under 18. For better or for worse, that is how it works right now.

 

Kids have to either be emancipated minors or legal adults to sign for their own medical treatment. We run into this all the time in our office fitting contact lenses, which are FDA Class 3 medical devices. We have to have parental consent to fit a child with them.

Thanks for clarification. Wasn't entirely sure, but made an educated guess.

 

I understand what you're saying, but a small percent of the time non-traditional methods work. The parents are playing Russian roulette with bullets loaded in 19 of 20 chambers, however. As perspective, though, we used to think mercury was a great medicine--people who knew better and refused to take it would have been deemed 'backwards' at that time by the medical community. Chemotherapy is not an innocuous or risk-free treatment. It's very hard on the body, has short-term effects of making one extremely susceptible to life-threatening infections and long-term side effects including heart, liver, and kidney failure, sterility, brain damage, among other things, and can kill you if the cancer doesn't. This isn't something like an antibiotic for pneumonia that will clear up in a few days of hospital treatment. This is a months, if not years-long process of treatment that will affect Danny's quality of life dramatically. The only thing going for him was that he had such a good response to the one and only chemo treatment he did have and the fact that the cure rate is so good for this particular cancer.

I'd agree with you if the herbs were actually curing him. I really would. But, from the articles, his situation is just getting worse by the minutes, and his parents are not helping him by convincing him that prayer will work, and that herbs will work as well. He doesn't full understand the very painful ordeal he is going through, and from his quotes it sounds like he has been convinced that the medicine will not work and is there just to torture him.

 

As the article says, he does not believe he is ill at all. If that is by his own ignorance, then I blame the doctors. If it is from the whisperings of his parents, then I'd claim they are abusing him by making a bad situation worse, and are essentially helping the illness themselves.

 

I agree that it is not risk free. It is, after all, poison. Doctors give it a 90% chance for his situation, which is better than the 100% certainty that he'll die if left untreated and fed internet herbs.

 

Again, for this particular situation I'm going to side with the state on the decision. If the kid was 18, I'd side with the kid. If the parents were legitimately well informed and so on, I'd be more inclined to be on their side. Its just unfortunate that the state is the one that has to be the final hope for this kid, who has been convinced he is perfectly healthy.

 

You say the state owns our kid already. I agree to an extent. We as parents are told how many school days our children must go (even if they absorb the information in half the time), what immunizations they should get (although I agree with that one), and so forth. I don't want the state taking away all my rights as a parent, however. The state does not know best how to meet the individual unique needs of my kids. It does not know the gifts and quirks of my kids like Point Man and I do, because the state does not live with my kids. It does not play with my kids, it does not sit at the dinner table and talk to them to understand the ups and downs of their days, it does not make them do their homework or music practice, it does not read to them or play a variety of genres of music in the car so they're exposed to all different kinds, it does not identify species of birds because my son is fascinated with them or species of reptiles because my daughter loves frogs, it does not give them a solid foundation of ethics and morals. My kids need their parents, not a nanny-state that can never know them. That's part of the reason why I'm leery about the gov't getting over-involved in this kind of case.

The state legally owns your child. It gives them permission to take them when you abuse them and so on. We are allowed to take care of our kids.

 

I agree they do not know the kid on a personal level, and most of the time cannot treat the kid with the same attention. Hell, state owned orphanages used to care for kids so little that they would breed wild children or the kids would die of lack of social interaction (yes, that is actually a cause of death in young children).

 

Nanny-state doesn't look particular good now, but from what I know of your experiences with abused kids you at least agree there should be some control as a safety net. For better or for worse, this kid got the state safety net after his parents pulled theirs out from under him.

[Rake]

I completely agree with the state's decision, it should not stand by while parents essentially murder their own child from their own ignorance.

 

This makes me wonder at what pro-life supporters are saying (instead of hanging out at Notre Dame).

[Darth Avlectus]

While this is one case in which the state acting turned out positively, this is one outcome of so many other interventions; interventions which may not necessarily have turned out as well. I wonder: for how many good cases, how many bad ones happen? Just supposition, I suppose.

 

The state can act regardless of whether or not parents are competent, totally arbitrarily? ...great. My thoughts the line ought to be drawn here: "Democracy stops at the doorstep". So says the old saying. Should the parents prove beyond reasonable doubt their incompetence...then the state should step in. Prior to that the state should be absolutely powerless. Case by case sort of thing, not an absolute.

 

Just my opinion I guess. One of millions. Totenkopf, I'm with you on this one.

[Tommycat]

I think it's far worse that the state HAD to step in. The only reason I kinda side with the parents is that Chemo is not an easy thing. When I shaved my head for a Locks for Love charity event(it was an over 3 foot long braid of hair), I got to meet a few kids who were on Chemo. On the good days they were only feeling bad. On the bad they were downright wishing for death. Chemo is not risk free by any means. And while the cancer is a greater risk, there is still around 2% possibility of death by the therapy as well. I know chemo sounds like a good idea, but until you see a kid on chemo, it's hard to imagine just how rough it is. They can become very susceptible to other illnesses. They can become anemic. They spend hours dry heaving. And of course.. losing their hair. It doesn't sound like much to you, but I've seen how the kids react when they are presented with the wigs. It's like they get a little piece of their life back.

 

Note: That is not to say that he shouldn't get the treatment. With treatment he has a 90% chance of survival Without it Lets just say survival is wishful thinking.

[CommanderQ]

Well, I think the State decided what to do about the 13-year-old's mother....

 

Recent Development...

[Jae Onasi]

I hope they find him soon and get him the appropriate help he needs.

[JediAthos]

I agree with Jae...I hope they find them soon otherwise the boy will likely die. I also agree that it is unfortunate that the state had to intervene in this situation but it's clear the parents were alright allowing their child to suffer while they pursued alternative treatment.

 

I'm not saying that alternative treatments for illnesses do or don't work but in this case whatever they were doing clearly wasn't helping him.

[mimartin]

Why can any idiot have a child, but you have to get a license to drive a car, get married or own a dog?

 

The states job is protect those that cannot protect themselves and since the parents are obliviously felling in that regards, then the state had to step in. No different than if the child was being neglecting in some other way.

 

And yes, I know all about the side effects of chemo and radiation.

[Totenkopf]

Why can any idiot have a child...

 

Didn't they explain that one to you in sex ed?

[Web Rider]

I agree with Jae...I hope they find them soon otherwise the boy will likely die.

 

Then his mom will be arrested for kidnapping and murder. And then our taxes, instead of paying to save a life, will go to incarcerating another person.

[Jae Onasi]

Then his mom will be arrested for kidnapping and murder. And then our taxes, instead of paying to save a life, will go to incarcerating another person.

Well, he hasn't died at this point, and he's unlikely to die within a day or two if he doesn't get treatment, though time is still of the essence. The warrant that the judge issued is for a felony, so I would not be surprised if she does time after this.

[Web Rider]

Well, he hasn't died at this point, and he's unlikely to die within a day or two if he doesn't get treatment, though time is still of the essence. The warrant that the judge issued is for a felony, so I would not be surprised if she does time after this.

 

Gotta say, at least with her doing time, she won't be able to make more babies. I mean, 4 is quite a few, but eight? It's one thing if you have twins and triplets x2, but if you have eight separate pregnancies, and they're all for just you, you need to be prevented from having more.

[Jae Onasi]

Gotta say, at least with her doing time, she won't be able to make more babies. I mean, 4 is quite a few, but eight? It's one thing if you have twins and triplets x2, but if you have eight separate pregnancies, and they're all for just you, you need to be prevented from having more.

 

I haven't read anything else about her family, so I can't comment on whether they were 'all for just her' or not.

 

You'd likely be impinging on her religious rights again if you tried to stop her from having any other children (barring jail time, but one can have conjugal visits). She's Catholic, and I suspect doesn't believe in any form of bc other than the rhythm method, though that's purely conjecture.

 

We have a large Catholic community in our town--big families are the norm here. We grew up 2 houses away from a family of 11, and they've grown into successful, wonderful adults. My sister-in-law has had up to 9 foster kids in her home at one time, and she and her husband parented them just fine--far better than their natural ones. Size of family is irrelevant to ability to parent well.

 

Now, what the state will do with her other children and any possible future ones is a different story.

[Web Rider]

I haven't read anything else about her family, so I can't comment on whether they were 'all for just her' or not.

Well, when I stated that they were "just for her", I meant their family, as in, they weren't having kids for other people such as in a surrogate mother situation.

 

We have a large Catholic community in our town--big families are the norm here. We grew up 2 houses away from a family of 11, and they've grown into successful, wonderful adults. My sister-in-law has had up to 9 foster kids in her home at one time, and she and her husband parented them just fine--far better than their natural ones. Size of family is irrelevant to ability to parent well.

 

Most foster homes in my area, on the contrary, were people who were attempting to abuse the system and get as much money as the state would give them for as many kids as they could get. And of course, providing nothing for those kids.

 

I'm not saying family size is a defining element of parenting, just that I personally think that people need to set some limits for themselves. Unless people start taking opinions like this woman, and just letting them die as kids often did a hundred plus years ago, kids don't die readily. And because of this, the need for large families doesn't exist anymore, unless you own a farm.

 

There are 9 billion people on the planet, and much as I would be glad to be rid of stupid people like this woman, it's much easier to not have kids, then to eliminate living people. As for the Catholic thing, in this day and age, that's no excuse. Religion dictated those things to raise it's membership quickly, and because kids died more often, it does not apply today.

[Q]

This just looks like a case of stupid parents. I'm still unclear as to whether their religious beliefs even apply here. Is it only because they said that they do? How is chemotherapy against Catholic beliefs?

 

And I reluctantly agree that the state has an obligation to step in and protect children from their parent's stupidity, but only when absolutely necessary like in this case.

[Web Rider]

This just looks like a case of stupid parents. I'm still unclear as to whether their religious beliefs even apply here. Is it only because they said that they do? How is chemotherapy against Catholic beliefs?

 

It's not, they're part of a quasi-native american cult thing that believes in natural remedies. The kid is also apparently a "medicine man" in this cult.

 

 

Is it just me, or it there something wrong with the fact that all these cults based of "native" beliefs are started by white people?

[Q]

Yeah, I've noticed that, too. Corny as hell, if you ask me.

 

So that's what the article was talking about when it mentioned the Nemenhah Band. I'd never heard of it.