should someone be legally forced into receiving chemotherapy treatment?

[.invisible ink.]

The case in which a family is refusing to submit their 13 year old child into taking part in chemotherapy treatment has made national news. The family (including the child with cancer) have refused based on religious beliefs and now the mother has an arrest warrant out for her.

Should the court be allowed to dictate what treatments or lack thereof are taken for a disease?

here's the article regarding the arrest warrant: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2009240035_chemoboy20.html

[Animalhill]

Not at all. It is absolutely a personal choice- as assisted suicide (in the case of a terminal disease) should be.

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

if they are under 18 and it can fall under child endangerment laws then yes

[Animalhill]

if they are under 18 and it can fall under child endangerment laws then yes
A fair point. However, Chemotherapy has, on average, only a 3% contribution to any kind of recovery (varying of course on the type and location of the cancer) and is EXTREMELY painful. Not to mention that some company is making money of this treatment. That is one of the main reasons I disagree that it should be enforced by law.

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

A fair point. However, Chemotherapy has, on average, only a 3% contribution to any kind of recovery (varying of course on the type and location of the cancer) and is EXTREMELY painful. Not to mention that some company is making money of this treatment. That is one of the main reasons I disagree that it should be enforced by law.

but in this particular case:

Earlier in the afternoon, the boy's family physician, Dr. James Joyce, said that he took an X-ray of Daniel Monday, which showed that his tumor had grown back to its original size after responding well to treatment in January.

- so he stopped chemo and the tumor grew back

Daniel's doctors testified during an hearing May 8 that with chemotherapy and perhaps radiation, his chance of survival was 80 to 95 percent; without it he likely would die within 5 years

- uh I would take "80-95% full recovery" over "probably die within 5 years" if this were my child

[yves.]

if they are under 18 and it can fall under child endangerment laws then yes

this.

[Animalhill]

but in this particular case:



- so he stopped chemo and the tumor grew back



- uh I would take "80-95% full recovery" over "probably die within 5 years" if this were my child
In this particular case, I agree with you. But that shouldn't dictate a law for everyone.

[TK]

With this case, yes, the child should be forced into receiving chemotherapy. He does not understand the decision or the consequences of his decision he is making.

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

In this particular case, I agree with you. But that shouldn't dictate a law for everyone.

exactly. thats why there are child endangerment laws that cover certain scenarios.

i agree that it should not be mandatory for everyone./every situation

[.invisible ink.]

i personally don't think it's right for the government to be able to step in and demand medical treatment for anyone, whether it be a child or an adult. it's just not their place to do so. where does their reach stop? right now it's chemotherapy, what are they going to force on us next? it just sets a very bad precedent in my opinion.

[Animalhill]

i personally don't think it's right for the government to be able to step in and demand medical treatment for anyone, whether it be a child or an adult. it's just not their place to do so. where does their reach stop? right now it's chemotherapy, what are they going to force on us next? it just sets a very bad precedent in my opinion.
Exactly. Its more the future implications that worry me the most.

[Mercy Medical]

I think since the girl herself is refusing treatment, that the government is definitely overstepping their bounds. Yes, it may seem like a stupid decision and yes there's a good possibility that she will die, but that is her choice. If the parents didn't want it and were forcing her NOT to get it and she wanted it, that would be a completely different story.

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

uh the mother is refusing not the child.

[Adeniz19]

This is really a slippery-slope and i'm not really sure either way if this is right or wrong, even in this circumstance. But, I don't think it's right to basically write your own kid a death sentence based on your political/religious beliefs. Might as well just stick a needle in her and save her the suffering.

[Mercy Medical]

uh the mother is refusing not the child.
I haven't read the actual article, but according to the OP the child is also refusing.

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

I haven't read the actual article, but according to the OP the child is also refusing.

ok ya just re-read it they have one sentence about that part :

A Minnesota judge issued an arrest warrant Tuesday afternoon for the mother of a 13-year-old boy who is resisting chemotherapy for cancer after she and her son failed to show up at a court hearing.

imo from that its hard to tell if it is just the mother or both.

[Mercy Medical]

I mean, the state will obviously blame the mother in this circumstance and ignore the wants of the child because they are just that, a child and for some reason because they are under a certain age it is assumed that they have limited mental capacity and aren't capable of making decisions on their own. However, I would assume that a 13 year old boy who has been dealing with cancer will be much more mature then a 13 year old who hasn't had to deal with a situation like that.

If it's what the kid wants too, then I say it is definitely the government overstepping. If it's the mother forcing her opinion on this kid, then that is a different story, IMO.

[Animalhill]

Reguardless of this isolated incident, the way that the government is responding is fairly terrifying to me.

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

but they skipped a court hearing and fled

that was the reason the warrant was issued.

if you skip a court hearing for anything, even a speeding ticket. you will have warrant put out on you

I would have more sympathy if they showed up with a lawyer to the hearing.

[Animalhill]

but they skipped a court hearing and fled

that was the reason the warrant was issued.

if you skip a court hearing for anything, even a speeding ticket. you will have warrant put out on you

I would have more sympathy if they showed up with a lawyer to the hearing.
I guess for me its just the fact that they had to go to a court hearing in the first place.

[Mercy Medical]

I guess for me its just the fact that they had to go to a court hearing in the first place.
Exactly, it shouldn't be happening anyway.

[stayforawhile]

In the case of a child being ill, then yes the government absolutely should be able to step in.

[samsara]

In the case of a child being ill, then yes the government absolutely should be able to step in.

Agreed.

[Machu505]

Yes, if they're under the age of 18.

[Animalhill]

Yes, if they're under the age of 18.
But what is to say that the government wouldnt then extend its hands into non-terminal diseases?
I was diagnosed with Schizophrenia when I was 17 and refused to take medication, and still refuse to.
I was mature enough to know what I wanted to do, and what consequences would come with it. Who is to say that, "do to the welfare of the general public" or something like that, they wouldn't make people underage in my situation take meds or some sort of medical treatment? Illnesses are a PRIVATE ordeal. The government should have no say.

[abbysmith]

I think it should be the choice of the patient. In the case with those parents, they should have no right to decide whether or not their child receives chemo, it's the kids life. But, if the patient doesn't want it they shouldn't have to get it.

[Machu505]

But what is to say that the government wouldnt then extend its hands into non-terminal diseases?
I was diagnosed with Schizophrenia when I was 17 and refused to take medication, and still refuse to.
I was mature enough to know what I wanted to do, and what consequences would come with it. Who is to say that, "do to the welfare of the general public" or something like that, they wouldn't make people underage in my situation take meds or some sort of medical treatment? Illnesses are a PRIVATE ordeal. The government should have no say.

Who's to say they would? I don't really see forcing people to take medication as a component of an Orwellian society. It's not really logical and people would understand that the government was overstepping its bounds.

[Machu505]

And if a parent refuses to have their child receive chemo treatment and the child dies, it should be seen as a type of child neglect.

[Animalhill]

Who's to say they would? I don't really see forcing people to take medication as a component of an Orwellian society. It's not really logical and people would understand that the government was overstepping its bounds.
Chemotherapy isn't medication? Now you're splitting haris. Its not this particular case that troubles me exactly, its the future implications.

[Machu505]

Chemotherapy isn't medication? Now you're splitting haris. Its not this particular case that troubles me exactly, its the future implications.

I'm referring to those future implications.

EDIT: I've changed my mind. If I could vote again I would choose the second option. But I do believe it's a sign of bad parenting for a parent to deprive their child of necessary medication or treatment.

[Animalhill]

I'm referring to those future implications.
How can you say that this article has no future implications of the government overstepping their boundaries? That's why its an article in the first place. Its controversial.

[doppelganger]

always depends on the situation imo.

[Duexy]

the thirteen year old doesn't know what he wants and mom has been huffing batshit.

[Volo]

This particular situation is pretty obviously child endangerment (as people pointed out on the first page), so the government can pretty readily come in and bitchslap people into chemo. In a standard "Someone's 30 and doesn't want treatment" scenario, though, it's their choice.

[TK]

And if a parent refuses to have their child receive chemo treatment and the child dies, it should be seen as a type of child neglect.

Who's to say chemotherapy would have prevented the child's death?

[Machu505]

Who's to say chemotherapy would have prevented the child's death?

Good point.

[Volo]

Who's to say chemotherapy would have prevented the child's death?Similarly, who's to say leaving a kid in a car would really kill them? I mean, hey, a cloud could come by.

Not doing what you can still counts as neglect, tbh.

[stayforawhile]

Similarly, who's to say leaving a kid in a car would really kill them? I mean, hey, a cloud could come by.

Not doing what you can still counts as neglect, tbh.
Hahahahahahahaha good points.

[TK]

Similarly, who's to say leaving a kid in a car would really kill them? I mean, hey, a cloud could come by.

Not doing what you can still counts as neglect, tbh.

Hate to say it, but you're comparing apples and oranges. Chemotherapy might help the child live, while leaving a child in a car might kill them. There is a subtle but very important difference in my opinion.

[splitsecond]

The kid is 13, and is learning disabled. He cannot even READ. He absolutely does not have mind to comprehend the decision he is making.

[Love As Arson]

You people put way too much faith in a thirteen year old. He can't drink, drive or buy cigarettes, but he is perfectly able to refuse chemo.

[Volo]

Hate to say it, but you're comparing apples and oranges. Chemotherapy might help the child live, while leaving a child in a car might kill them. There is a subtle but very important difference in my opinion.While inaction leading to obvious, foreseeable, bad consequences is technically better than action leading to the same consequences, it's still (a) wrong and (b) stupid.

Edit: Especially in this case, where physicians are outright saying the odds are 80% or better for chemo to work.

[apoemtothedead]

The kid is 13, and is learning disabled. He cannot even READ. He absolutely does not have mind to comprehend the decision he is making.
The point I came in to make. In this case, I believe that the chemo should be forced upon the child.

[more heart]

If the kid doesn't want it either, then let it be. If the kid does however, I'd say something should be done.

[TK]

While inaction leading to obvious, foreseeable, bad consequences is technically better than action leading to the same consequences, it's still (a) wrong and (b) stupid.

Edit: Especially in this case, where physicians are outright saying the odds are 80% or better for chemo to work.

The odds are 80-90% that the child to live. That still leaves the chance that chemotherapy will do nothing but make the child suffer and die regardless. I believe the government was right to step in, but this does not mean it was child endangerment or neglect.

You can prove that the mother's action of leaving a child in a car caused his death, you cannot prove that a mother's action of refusing chemotherapy would have saved the child's life or that such action caused his untimely death. That's the difference between stupidity and child negligence.

[Love As Arson]

The odds are 80-90% that the child to live. That still leaves the chance that chemotherapy will do nothing but make the child suffer and die regardless.
You must have misread the article:

Daniel's doctors testified during an hearing May 8 that with chemotherapy and perhaps radiation, his chance of survival was 80 to 95 percent; without it he likely would die within 5 years.

[Winstar]

The mother was not flat out refusing treatment, chemo yes but she was using herbal treatment. (I'm not sure on what results she got or thought she was getting)

[Mercy Medical]

The kid is 13, and is learning disabled. He cannot even READ. He absolutely does not have mind to comprehend the decision he is making.
Okay, I missed this component of the story. I was expecting that he didn't have any sort of disabilities and was of competent mind, but with this....as much as I hate the government intervening in people's lives, I would say it's justified.

[Animalhill]

Okay, I missed this component of the story. I was expecting that he didn't have any sort of disabilities and was of competent mind, but with this....as much as I hate the government intervening in people's lives, I would say it's justified.
Wait is he actually disabled or just have dyslexia or something? Big difference.

[YoMusicSoFat]

' Daniel testified he believed the chemo would kill him and told the judge in private testimony unsealed later that if anyone tried to force him to take it, "I'd fight it. I'd punch them and I'd kick them." '
I'm starting to wonder if the crazy religious parents put the idea of a medical treatment killing him in his head so he'd reject chemo.

[xshady121]

While I don't think someone should be forced, I think the issue here is the fact that he has a learning disability and cannot read, therefor the court believes that he doesn't fully grasp the situation. Under this circumstance, I believe he should be forced to get the treatment.

I would be interested in seeing a case with an average person (non-learning disabled) who wants to skip treatment. I think that would be something that the court would have to allow.

[yves.]

source (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,520690,00.html)

State statutes require parents to provide necessary medical care for a child, Rodenberg wrote. The statutes say alternative and complementary health care methods aren't enough.
He also wrote that Daniel, who has a learning disability and cannot read, did not understand the risks and benefits of chemotherapy and didn't believe he was ill.
Daniel testified he believed the chemo would kill him and told the judge in private testimony unsealed later that if anyone tried to force him to take it, "I'd fight it. I'd punch them and I'd kick them."

[perceptrons]

If the parents are refusing for religious reasons, I am fairly confident that they are religious enough to have brainwashed him to think just as they do. So, even if he wasn't disabled, I don't think he would be of a clear enough mind to make the decision anyway and he should be given the treatment.

[YoMusicSoFat]

Daniel testified he believed the chemo would kill him and told the judge in private testimony unsealed later that if anyone tried to force him to take it, "I'd fight it. I'd punch them and I'd kick them."
I know this sounds crazy, but maybe his religious parents told him this so he would reject the chemo?

[Sventhegreat]

I know this sounds crazy, but maybe his religious parents told him this so he would reject the chemo?

This is what clearly is going on here.

[saysmydoctor]

Okay, I missed this component of the story. I was expecting that he didn't have any sort of disabilities and was of competent mind, but with this....as much as I hate the government intervening in people's lives, I would say it's justified.
The government is intervening to save a life by forcing a treatment upon a kid who as actually getting better because of the treatment. No one feels good during chemotherapy.

His disability is irrelevant because his opinion is irrelevant--he is 13. It's his parents' choice, until the age of 18. Until then, he is a minor in the eyes of the medical professionals and the legal system.

This is not a case of this kid being a lost cause in the eyes of medicine. He stands a good chance. Any parent rejecting this treatment is endangering their child. Put him in a foster home and give him the medicine.

[Mercy Medical]

The government is intervening to save a life by forcing a treatment upon a kid who as actually getting better because of the treatment. No one feels good during chemotherapy.

His disability is irrelevant because his opinion is irrelevant--he is 13. It's his parents' choice, until the age of 18. Until then, he is a minor in the eyes of the medical professionals and the legal system.

This is not a case of this kid being a lost cause in the eyes of medicine. He stands a good chance. Any parent rejecting this treatment is endangering their child. Put him in a foster home and give him the medicine.
Yes, I gathered all of that from previous posts so I don't really know why you're replying to me especially since I said in this case it is justified.

[saysmydoctor]

Only the first paragraph applied to you. The rest was just repetition.

[Mercy Medical]

I still don't see how it applies, considering I said it was justified...

[saysmydoctor]

I guess bigger picture I had a problem with the 'intervening in lives' part--as if the government does it willingly. I doubt the government wants to get involved in what should be routine medical practices. The government steps in when it sees a problem.

[Mercy Medical]

I guess bigger picture I had a problem with the 'intervening in lives' part--as if the government does it willingly. I doubt the government wants to get involved in what should be routine medical practices. The government steps in when it sees a problem.
Yes, but if the child is of right mind to make decisions for himself and it is something the parent also wants, then I don't think the government has a right. Yes, many people would view it as stupid for them to refuse chemotherapy to their dying child, but you know what...that is their choice and it is their life and they shouldn't be forced to do something they don't want to do just because the government thinks they have better decision making skills. If it's a child being forced into a bad situation without his consent because the parents want it, then yes, the government has the right to intervene. Obviously you can get into the whole "BUT HE'S UNDER 18!" debate, but I would like to think that there are kids out there who are under the age of 18 who are extremely more mature then most. How do we judge that, I have no idea.

The government unnecessarily intervenes will people's lives on a daily basis...and just because the government sees it as a problem does not mean that it is a problem for the individuals involved (this is a broad statement, not necessarily specific to this case).

[YoMusicSoFat]

This is what clearly is going on here.
Sarcasm? (Can't tell over the internet).

[saysmydoctor]

Yes, but if the child is of right mind to make decisions for himself and it is something the parent also wants, then I don't think the government has a right. Yes, many people would view it as stupid for them to refuse chemotherapy to their dying child, but you know what...that is their choice and it is their life and they shouldn't be forced to do something they don't want to do just because the government thinks they have better decision making skills. If it's a child being forced into a bad situation without his consent because the parents want it, then yes, the government has the right to intervene. Obviously you can get into the whole "BUT HE'S UNDER 18!" debate, but I would like to think that there are kids out there who are under the age of 18 who are extremely more mature then most. How do we judge that, I have no idea.

The government unnecessarily intervenes will people's lives on a daily basis...and just because the government sees it as a problem does not mean that it is a problem for the individuals involved (this is a broad statement, not necessarily specific to this case).
The child's state of mind is irrelevant. He is a unemancipated minor.

My issue is parents letting faith and what-not guide medical issues. If a child's life can be easily saved, the parents interfering with that is just wrong.

I think we agree, we just agruing over semantics of other possible cases.

[Mercy Medical]

The child's state of mind is irrelevant. He is a unemancipated minor.

My issue is parents letting faith and what-not guide medical issues. If a child's life can be easily saved, the parents interfering with that is just wrong.

I think we agree, we just agruing over semantics of other possible cases.
The child's state of mind is not irrelevant. I think more often then not, we don't give kids the benefit of the doubt and just assume that since they're a certain age that they must not understand what is going on or don't have a solid grasp of things. I don't think that's always true and think it's somewhat unfair to kids. Yes, sometimes it is true, but others it is not.

And removing the child from this situation, if someone wants to live by faith and have that guide their medical decisions, so be it. I don't agree with it, I wouldn't do it, but if that's the way they wish to live...it's their life.

[sjb2k1]

sometimes, and in this case, yes. the treatment was working and it seems pretty clear this kid's parents (just the mom?) couldn't make sound medical decisions, let alone him being able/old enough/wise enough to do so.

[Duexy]

"State statutes require parents to provide necessary medical care for a child, Rodenberg wrote. The statutes say alternative and complementary health care methods aren't enough."

If they don't like it they can move the fuck away.


yes I know they fled to california, but i don't consider that a legit move.

[J.C.]

A child, yes.

[Sventhegreat]

Sarcasm? (Can't tell over the internet).

It is not! Don't you worry. (Also, not sarcasm.)

[YoMusicSoFat]

It is not! Don't you worry. (Also, not sarcasm.)
Yey! But I feel bad for the kid- surely he doesn't realise what the hell is going on here. Even though I think the government should step in (it seems the most rational thing to do) I don't think it'll work if the kid himself refuses it seeing as he probably think he's right in thinking chemo will kill him. So sad.

[Sventhegreat]

Yey! But I feel bad for the kid- surely he doesn't realise what the hell is going on here. Even though I think the government should step in (it seems the most rational thing to do) I don't think it'll work if the kid himself refuses it seeing as he probably think he's right in thinking chemo will kill him. So sad.


Yeah I totally agree. I'm kind of torn here though. Like one side feels like the government SHOULD get involved, but there's another side of me that hates that big gverment. It's a tough call. I just wish there weren't crazies in this world like his parents. Poor kid.

[hockeyguitar99]

I don't know how I'd feel about other cases, but it is most certainly justified in this scenario IMO.

[zion the lion]

The kid was practically illiterate (that's what I've gathered from the news) and was only 13. I'm sorry he really doesnt have the decision making skills to decide he'll be better off with what his mother wants as an alternative treatment. Now I would get it if he was an adult who had an acceptable reading comprehension level and didnt want to do chemo because of his religion (the man with those nasty bubble tumors on his face practically did the same thing), but he's not. He's a minor which means he's his parents responsiblity until he turns 18, unless his parents arent doing their job and then he's the government's responsiblity. His parents are supposed to take care of him, keep him healthy, protect him, and give him an education...and so far theyre failing.

[YoMusicSoFat]

Yeah I totally agree. I'm kind of torn here though. Like one side feels like the government SHOULD get involved, but there's another side of me that hates that big gverment. It's a tough call. I just wish there weren't crazies in this world like his parents. Poor kid.
Nobody is totally at peace with the government, but in this case it seems like the best thing to do. Surely the parents should love their kid enough to let them have the treatment? Isn't medicine created by God and stuff and therefore the chemo is kind of a miricle? I don't know how that works for their religion though..

[Ryan Mills]

Amazing. Some of you spend too much time watching television.

1. Chemotherapy is medication. Period.

2. The child, and any child for that matter, has no clue as to the intricacies of the medical decision to use chemotherapy and what specific drugs to use. The fact that this child, beyond the fact that he is further handicapped, wants to decline treatment because he thinks that it will kill him is irrelevant. He clearly has no understanding of his position (he is going to die) or the benefits of chemotherapy (likely to live a much longer life). Therefore, his opinion should not matter here.

3. The parents are morons. The end. Give him herbs and see how that works against CD21-positive Hodgkins Lymphoma. It doesn't, no matter how many moronic cult leaders pretend it does.

4. The child is likely to survive with chemotherapy and die without it. I think that is pretty self-explanatory. Believe it or not, that simple fact that does not mean an Orwellian future of government rule. Denying medication for schizophrenia is not the same (although I would not recommend it). You're unlikely to die quite soon from schizophrenia; this child is going to die soon. Plus, there are many varying degrees of signs and symptoms in schizophrenia, and medications only really treat the positive signs and not the negative signs. While the positive signs/symptoms can be bad, they need not be, and the negative symptoms are normally what are more socially disabling anyway.

No one says chemotherapy is fun, but sometimes you have to do things that are not fun. I would imagine dying at 15 isn't fun either.

[thespearkid]

I'd have to agree with everyone saying this is a slippery slope. It's just like the Schiavo thing and abortion to an extent; why should the government have the right to come in and say what we can and can not do with our medicine (especially since they won't socialize medicine). As long as the kid isn't hurting anyone else, the government has no right to interfere with the decision he has already made with his parents. Who's the say the kid doesn't know what decision he is making? I don't trust my government enough to give them the right to decide whether or not I know what's best for myself.

[Ryan Mills]

I'd have to agree with everyone saying this is a slippery slope. It's just like the Schiavo thing and abortion to an extent; why should the government have the right to come in and say what we can and can not do with our medicine (especially since they won't socialize medicine). As long as the kid isn't hurting anyone else, the government has no right to interfere with the decision he has already made with his parents. Who's the say the kid doesn't know what decision he is making? I don't trust my government enough to give them the right to decide whether or not I know what's best for myself.

Uh, me? The second this kid can explain to me the pathogenesis of the cancer he has then we can consider his decision logical. Until then, he doesn't know a damn thing. I spent some time Googling this to see what people thought, and reading the complete idiocy of some people makes me sick. Yes, chemotherapy can have severe side effects, but they are side effects. That does not make the treatment any less effective. I've had chemotherapy as a kid, a lot younger than this kid. Would I have been happy if my parents said no? I doubt it, since I would most likely be dead. This type of cancer is responsive to chemotherapy, and he should be on it. Just because he does not understand that is not a reason to withhold treatment. The parents are just as ignorant as the kid.

And if you don't know anything, then you should keep your ignorant opinion to yourself.

[.invisible ink.]

Uh, me? The second this kid can explain to me the pathogenesis of the cancer he has then we can consider his decision logical. Until then, he doesn't know a damn thing. I spent some time Googling this to see what people thought, and reading the complete idiocy of some people makes me sick. Yes, chemotherapy can have severe side effects, but they are side effects. That does not make the treatment any less effective. I've had chemotherapy as a kid, a lot younger than this kid. Would I have been happy if my parents said no? I doubt it, since I would most likely be dead. This type of cancer is responsive to chemotherapy, and he should be on it. Just because he does not understand that is not a reason to withhold treatment. The parents are just as ignorant as the kid.

And if you don't know anything, then you should keep your ignorant opinion to yourself.

whoa. this is a forum for people to discuss their opinions, whether they be ignorant in your eyes or not. i understand that you have personal experience with cancer but that doesn't make your opinion any more or less valid than someone else who did not suffer from cancer.

I don't believe this is a debate about chemotherapy and its merits or drawbacks. this is a debate about the government being able to step in and demand someone get medical treatment, against his or her own will. I am willing to bet you that you probably know more about cancer and chemotherapy than the judge who is hearing this case. perhaps you could step back from the situation and look at it not so much as being about cancer but more about where government fits in our lives and how much control you're willing to hand over to your country.

[thespearkid]

Uh, me? The second this kid can explain to me the pathogenesis of the cancer he has then we can consider his decision logical. Until then, he doesn't know a damn thing. I spent some time Googling this to see what people thought, and reading the complete idiocy of some people makes me sick. Yes, chemotherapy can have severe side effects, but they are side effects. That does not make the treatment any less effective. I've had chemotherapy as a kid, a lot younger than this kid. Would I have been happy if my parents said no? I doubt it, since I would most likely be dead. This type of cancer is responsive to chemotherapy, and he should be on it. Just because he does not understand that is not a reason to withhold treatment. The parents are just as ignorant as the kid.

And if you don't know anything, then you should keep your ignorant opinion to yourself.
You're completely missing the point. It doesn't matter if chemotherapy will save his life or not. It doesn't matter whether he's making an informed decision or if he knows what he's doing. The point is, he and his guardian have both decided they don't want this treatment and the government is forcing it on them. It's wrong.

To put this in perspective, imagine the government invents a cure for being black. All you have to do is get a shot and you become white. Shouldn't I be allowed to refuse this treatment even though being white would make me live longer (medical fact)? This case would set a precedent that the government is allowed to come in and force people to undergo medical procedures they don't want.

Take that bolded sentence and see how many hypothetical situations you can apply it to.

[Love As Arson]

You're completely missing the point. It doesn't matter if chemotherapy will save his life or not. It doesn't matter whether he's making an informed decision or if he knows what he's doing. The point is, he and his guardian have both decided they don't want this treatment and the government is forcing it on them. It's wrong.
If one does not feed their child, the government will intercede because it is abuse. Whether the family thinks this is the norm or not, is irrelevant. The familyis placing someone in their care in danger and are legally culpable if they choose to follow this trend to its logical conclusion. Ignorance,disguised as religious belief, is not a viable defense.


To put this in perspective, imagine the government invents a cure for being black. All you have to do is get a shot and you become white. Shouldn't I be allowed to refuse this treatment even though being white would make me live longer (medical fact)? This case would set a precedent that the government is allowed to come in and force people to undergo medical procedures they don't want.
The medical problems facing African-Americans are largely the result of social circumstances, so we shouldn't compare being black to having a disease.

[thespearkid]

If one does not feed their child, the government will intercede because it is abuse. Whether the family thinks this is the norm or not, is irrelevant. The familyis placing someone in their care in danger and are legally culpable if they choose to follow this trend to its logical conclusion. Ignorance,disguised as religious belief, is not a viable defense.


The medical problems facing African-Americans are largely the result of social circumstances, so we shouldn't compare being black to having a disease.
They have the right to follow their personal beliefs in whatever way works for them. If their religious beliefs say they can't treat the kid with chemo, I don't think the government should have the right to force them.

[Love As Arson]

They have the right to follow their personal beliefs in whatever way works for them.
No, they have a right to follow their personal beliefs, so long as they do not adversely affect others. Their beliefs are violating this. What's more, religious belief isn't something that simply ends the debate, especially if those beliefs are dumb.
If their religious beliefs say they can't treat the kid with chemo, I don't think the government should have the right to force them.
Well, if we're going to explore slippery slopes, what of honor killing? Your broad view opens the door to this. All this is aside from the point. The point is, if a minor is in danger, authorities should intercede. Belief in fairy tales do not change this.

[thespearkid]

No, they have a right to follow their personal beliefs, so long as they do not adversely affect others. Their beliefs are violating this. What's more, religious belief isn't something that simply ends the debate, especially if those beliefs are dumb.

Well, if we're going to explore slippery slopes, what of honor killing? Your broad view opens the door to this. All this is aside from the point. The point is, if a minor is in danger, authorities should intercede. Belief in fairy tales do not change this.
Whether you or I agree with their religious belief has nothing to do with this situation. The child himself shares the beliefs with his parents (although you'll probably argue that he's been "brainwashed", not every minor who is religious is brainwashed). The religious beliefs of this child and his parents are not adversely effecting anyone but the child so the government does not have a right to interfere.

[Love As Arson]

Whether you or I agree with their religious belief has nothing to do with this situation
Yes, it does. If these beliefs are dangerous, as in this case, they affect millions of children and adults.

The child himself shares the beliefs with his parents (although you'll probably argue that he's been "brainwashed", not every minor who is religious is brainwashed).
From a purely psychological standpoint, the home plays the most critical role in developing the child's outlook on life at this point; if they allowed him to live a few more years, we'd see the development of a more egocentric individual who can have more complicated thoughts. Putting that aside, the child is a minor and, as was stated, if we do not allow a thirteen year old to drink, then why is it appropriate to allow a child with mental disabilities to make a decision regarding chemotherapy. The custodial guardian would then be in charge, and they've proven themselves unfit by denying him his treatment. As such, the decision falls to the proper authorities.

The religious beliefs of this child and his parents are not adversely effecting anyone but the child
Exactly. The child being a minor has to be protected.

[Ryan Mills]

You're completely missing the point. It doesn't matter if chemotherapy will save his life or not. It doesn't matter whether he's making an informed decision or if he knows what he's doing. The point is, he and his guardian have both decided they don't want this treatment and the government is forcing it on them. It's wrong.

To put this in perspective, imagine the government invents a cure for being black. All you have to do is get a shot and you become white. Shouldn't I be allowed to refuse this treatment even though being white would make me live longer (medical fact)? This case would set a precedent that the government is allowed to come in and force people to undergo medical procedures they don't want.

Take that bolded sentence and see how many hypothetical situations you can apply it to.

Your extrapolating way too far out. The kid's opinion here is basically meaningless since he does not understand his choices and he is only 13. Your analogy is not even close to similar, but it's a nice attempt to use something that people might be uncomfortable with to try and prove a point you're off-base from. "Being black" does not necessarily shorten your lifespan. The fact that average lifespan is different may be somewhat loosely related to certain genetic factors that gave different races survival value long ago, but it's also probably due to controllable elements such as risk behavior. I'm not sure what you mean by "cure for being black" either. A simple change in melanin would obviously not make any difference (except negatively if you enjoy the sun too much); a genetic overhaul obviously goes beyond this.

I find this case to be a very clear cut instance of child neglect, and just because your imagination runs a little wild should not blind you to this fact. Believe it or not, forcing this child into life-saving therapy does not mean any of the wild ideas you've put forth are any more likely.

Would you feel any different if this kid didn't want treatment and his parents forced him to have it? There's really no difference, except the parents are negligent in this case and the state has to take over the obvious choice here.

[Ryan Mills]

whoa. this is a forum for people to discuss their opinions, whether they be ignorant in your eyes or not. i understand that you have personal experience with cancer but that doesn't make your opinion any more or less valid than someone else who did not suffer from cancer.

I don't believe this is a debate about chemotherapy and its merits or drawbacks. this is a debate about the government being able to step in and demand someone get medical treatment, against his or her own will. I am willing to bet you that you probably know more about cancer and chemotherapy than the judge who is hearing this case. perhaps you could step back from the situation and look at it not so much as being about cancer but more about where government fits in our lives and how much control you're willing to hand over to your country.

I'm sure I do know more than a judge would, medical school will do that. The point is, I don't feel this way because I've had cancer, but because of the blatant medical facts underlying the case. You're not ignorant of the judicial side of this argument, but of the medical side.

If you want to step back and look at it that way, I think the same result is prudent. Children are helpless in many ways: they lack an understanding of what is going on in certain cases; they often lack the means to make rational decisions due to incomplete evidence, knowledge and in this case even mental capacity; and they rely on their parents/guardians to help guide them to the right choices and protect them while they grow, both physically and mentally. If this was an adult, it would be a totally different story. Adults all over refuse medical treatment and die as a result. Although I find this stupid, it is their choice to make because they can better understand the consequences and they are at a stage where they can choose different options for different reasons. Children are not. Whether you agree or not, children have very few rights in this society, and with many of you falling in that category, I'm not surprised you would fight that feeling. The fact is, a rational parent/guardian would have their child undergo chemotherapy here because it is clearly in the child's best interest. Might he still die? Of course. But he might die driving to the hospital for chemotherapy, too, but that doesn't mean it's better to sit inside all day. His chances for survival are very low without treatment and very high with treatment. A rational parent would follow the sound medical advice of receiving treatment to help the child. The parents in this case are idiots, but that is not this kid's fault, and he should not be punished for it. Nor should the fact that they have convinced him of their irrational beliefs count against him.

[thespearkid]

Your extrapolating way too far out. The kid's opinion here is basically meaningless since he does not understand his choices and he is only 13. Your analogy is not even close to similar, but it's a nice attempt to use something that people might be uncomfortable with to try and prove a point you're off-base from. "Being black" does not necessarily shorten your lifespan. The fact that average lifespan is different may be somewhat loosely related to certain genetic factors that gave different races survival value long ago, but it's also probably due to controllable elements such as risk behavior. I'm not sure what you mean by "cure for being black" either. A simple change in melanin would obviously not make any difference (except negatively if you enjoy the sun too much); a genetic overhaul obviously goes beyond this.

I find this case to be a very clear cut instance of child neglect, and just because your imagination runs a little wild should not blind you to this fact. Believe it or not, forcing this child into life-saving therapy does not mean any of the wild ideas you've put forth are any more likely.

Would you feel any different if this kid didn't want treatment and his parents forced him to have it? There's really no difference, except the parents are negligent in this case and the state has to take over the obvious choice here.
The precedent this would set is just too dangerous in my opinion. If the parents forced him to have it when he didn't want it, I wouldn't care. The choices of his parents have no effect on me whatsoever. But we're talking about the government here. If they're allowed to force treatment now, despite the religious beliefs of the family, it's opening up a pretty bad can of worms.

[thespearkid]

From a purely psychological standpoint, the home plays the most critical role in developing the child's outlook on life at this point; if they allowed him to live a few more years, we'd see the development of a more egocentric individual who can have more complicated thoughts. Putting that aside, the child is a minor and, as was stated, if we do not allow a thirteen year old to drink, then why is it appropriate to allow a child with mental disabilities to make a decision regarding chemotherapy. The custodial guardian would then be in charge, and they've proven themselves unfit by denying him his treatment. As such, the decision falls to the proper authorities.


Exactly. The child being a minor has to be protected.
To me, this decision falls on his parents because he is a minor and the entire family does not want him treated. There was a piece I read in an English class this past semester that questions whether or not cancer patients have the right to die. I feel like it's a matter of personal/private matters here and the government are overstepping their bounds majorly. What if this is applied to pregnancy? Is a teenage mother really fit to decide for herself whether to have a child or to have an abortion? Some would argue no. I wouldn't want to see the government use this case as a precedent to move onto other things.

[Ryan Mills]

The precedent this would set is just too dangerous in my opinion. If the parents forced him to have it when he didn't want it, I wouldn't care. The choices of his parents have no effect on me whatsoever. But we're talking about the government here. If they're allowed to force treatment now, despite the religious beliefs of the family, it's opening up a pretty bad can of worms.

Yes, it's the government, but they are clearly stepping in because this kid's parents are idiots. Their religious beliefs, from what I read, are basically cult-like following of some moron. The point is, it is prudent to have the government step in on cases of child neglect. For example, if a 10 year-old child is being molested by parents/family members or the like, but that child "wants it" or is okay with it because their parents convinced them it was normal and acceptable, would it not be obvious to step in and take the child away into a safe environment. Granted, in that case there is abuse, and in this case there is neglect, but both ultimately lead to harming the child. This kid doesn't want to die, but he thinks treatment will kill him because his parents are morons and told him that. So instead, he should listen to his parents who are feeding him lies and just let him die? If your child is in an accident and bleeding out and you don't take him for treatment and he dies from shock, isn't that negligence? How is this different?

[thespearkid]

Yes, it's the government, but they are clearly stepping in because this kid's parents are idiots. Their religious beliefs, from what I read, are basically cult-like following of some moron. The point is, it is prudent to have the government step in on cases of child neglect. For example, if a 10 year-old child is being molested by parents/family members or the like, but that child "wants it" or is okay with it because their parents convinced them it was normal and acceptable, would it not be obvious to step in and take the child away into a safe environment. Granted, in that case there is abuse, and in this case there is neglect, but both ultimately lead to harming the child. This kid doesn't want to die, but he thinks treatment will kill him because his parents are morons and told him that. So instead, he should listen to his parents who are feeding him lies and just let him die? If your child is in an accident and bleeding out and you don't take him for treatment and he dies from shock, isn't that negligence? How is this different?
Because the religious beliefs of the family are coming into play.

[Love As Arson]

To me, this decision falls on his parents because he is a minor and the entire family does not want him treated.
Thus making them unfit.

[Ryan Mills]

Because the religious beliefs of the family are coming into play.

What if sex with the child is part of their "religion" (which is not so far off from some extremist sects anyway). Then what?

[yves.]

I don't think religious beliefs trump the safety and health of children.