Judge rules family can't refuse chemo for boy

Judge rules family can

www.comcast.net

MINNEAPOLIS — A Minnesota judge ruled Friday that a 13-year-old cancer patient must be evaluated by a doctor to determine if the boy would benefit from restarting chemotherapy over his parents' objections.

Daniel's court-appointed attorney, Philip Elbert, called the decision unfortunate.

(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 15-5-2009 by searching4truth]

[edit on 15-5-2009 by mrwupy]

Apparently, the government has the right to redetermine medical treatment for you and your family, regardless of personal, religious, or whatever reason one may have. The judge claims the boy does not have suffiecent knowledge of his illness and treatment options and his parents are guilty of "medical neglect", so they have stepped in given themselves the authority to do so. So what does this mean for future health concerns? If I chose to not give my children certain vaccines will I too be guilty of "medical neglect"?

www.comcast.net
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 15-5-2009 by searching4truth]

Bloody well right you'd be guilty of medical neglect. Life is life, and just because this kid's parents are idiots, doesn't mean that he should have to die.

Doctors have said Daniel's cancer had up to a 90 percent chance of being cured with chemotherapy and radiation. Without those treatments, doctors said his chances of survival are 5 percent.

Daniel's parents have been supporting what they say is their son's decision to treat the disease with nutritional supplements and other alternative treatments favored by the Nemenhah Band.

The Missouri-based religious group believes in natural healing methods advocated by some American Indians.

That's great that they hold these religious beliefs, but at the end of the day, that kid deserves to live.

He has a 90% chance of being cured, and if the treatment was refused he was almost guaranteed death. Children do not know how to make proper medical decisions for themselves, and in this case the parents were willfully endangering their child's life. By trying to refuse treatment, what they are doing is tantamount to child abuse.

While there are many legitimate cures homeopathic remedies can provide, cancer is not one of them.

Originally posted by ShadeWolf
Bloody well right you'd be guilty of medical neglect. Life is life, and just because this kid's parents are idiots, doesn't mean that he should have to die.

Have you ever had a loved one go through Chemo?

After seeing it, and the fact that they still died, just now very sick and in constant pain when they weren't before, I'm against it.

There are thousands of people who battle terminal cancer each year and win without using radiation poisoning!

There are studies that show it works for some people and not for others.

The kid had already went though the hell, it didn't work, and now they want to do it again.

This kid was probably on his deathbed for months going through it the first time, and doesn't want to do it again!

If the parents agree, there's nothing anyone can do.

If the kid wanted it and the parents didn't, that's a whole nother story.

They are not going to let the kid die, they are just going to do something other than poison the cancer in their kids body with radiation!

All healing methods should be taken as a relevant choice and, unless it would interfere, be used in conjunction with chemo.

Whether I agree with their beliefs or not is irrelevant. Those are infact their beliefs and they had made their descion. When I was a child a friend of mine had cancer, at the time he was 10. He went through chemo and had to have his leg amputated at 12, which fortunately ended his bought with the disease for the time. At 14 he told his entire family and friends, that IF it were to come back he absolutely would not go through the chemo treatments again, he made this descion at 14, he would rather die. That was his right, certainly his parents given his age could have refused and forced the treatments, but they didn't they accepted it.

This is frighteningly important.

Children, are chattel. They are, for all intents and purposes of legality under the sovereign control of their parents. If a child brakes the law, the parents are liable.

But now, this ruling seems to denote that the child is under the purview of the state.

The medical condition and debates about treatment aside. At what point do we surrender our rights to actually raise our children to the state? And where does the power of the state over the child end?

I find it somewhat tragically amusing that the state protects the right to abort a child, but not to treat an unwell child as one believes is appropriate.

This is a tangled affair. I weep for the child's pain, I weep for the parent's pain, but unless the state is claiming they have a cure to give, what they are doing is valuing the opinion of a for-profit medical industry over those of the patient.

Chemotherapy is an affront to the idea of "Do no harm." Perhaps it works sometimes, but then so did 'blood letting'. At least that's what the medical community claimed.

reply to post by breakingdradles


Exactly, millions go through the chemo and they still succumb, others seek alternative treatment methods, and certainly there are some that chemo is totally successful and the person is cured. The point is government does not the right to make my health decisions for me, end of story. And that fact that now they believe they do have the authority to direct a course of treatement is frightening to me.

Originally posted by drwizardphd

While there are many legitimate cures homeopathic remedies can provide, cancer is not one of them.

Are you familiar with Max Gerson? Royal Raymond Rife? There ARE alternative ways to cure cancer that don't include the slash/burn/poison milieu.

The parents are supporting their son's decision to try alternative methods. They're not denying him treatment. They're allowing him to pursue treatment that is not state-approved. There's a difference.

Originally posted by whitewave

Are you familiar with Max Gerson? Royal Raymond Rife? There ARE alternative ways to cure cancer that don't include the slash/burn/poison milieu.

The parents are supporting their son's decision to try alternative methods. They're not denying him treatment. They're allowing him to pursue treatment that is not state-approved. There's a difference.

I would encourage anyone to review the most tragic tale of Royal Rife and what the medical trade guild did to him.

Again, "Do no harm" seems to be at odds with the profit model the AMA clearly worships.

reply to post by ShadeWolf


i have no idea of the case at hand, but i can see why people oppose chemotherapy.

www.icnr.com...

Basically, the authors found that the contribution of chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adults was 2.3 percent in Australia, and 2.1 percent in the USA. They emphasize that, for reasons explained in detail in the study, these figures "should be regarded as the upper limit of effectiveness" (i.e., they are an optimistic rather than a pessimistic estimate).

the real question is who will decide on life and death matters: the people who are affected or the government. each approach has its advantages, of course, but hardly anyone is looking at the issue that way.

reply to post by Maxmars



How true, "do no harm". I believe that many doctors believe they are doing the best for the patient, or at least the know how to do. But the fact remains, how many procedures have been performed throughout history that have been proven ineffective if not outright harmful. There has been some very positive work performed with immunotherapy, without the majority of the nasty side effects of chemo. If it would rid people of their dependance on drugs and various therapies it would be truly ground breaking and save a lot of lives at their natural quality. But its better to charge hundreds of thousands of dollars per patient with a low chance of survival. Perhaps, when in the future the cure for cancer is found all the future people will be laughing at us (or crying) for us and what "we" put the sick through.

Originally posted by Maxmars
This is frighteningly important.

Children, are chattel. They are, for all intents and purposes of legality under the sovereign control of their parents. If a child brakes the law, the parents are liable.

But now, this ruling seems to denote that the child is under the purview of the state.

The medical condition and debates about treatment aside. At what point do we surrender our rights to actually raise our children to the state? And where does the power of the state over the child end?

I find it somewhat tragically amusing that the state protects the right to abort a child, but not to treat an unwell child as one believes is appropriate.

This is a tangled affair. I weep for the child's pain, I weep for the parent's pain, but unless the state is claiming they have a cure to give, what they are doing is valuing the opinion of a for-profit medical industry over those of the patient.

Chemotherapy is an affront to the idea of "Do no harm." Perhaps it works sometimes, but then so did 'blood letting'. At least that's what the medical community claimed.

Well written as usual Maxmars. I have conflicting feelings about this case. As a parent I would be furious if the state tried to dictate how I should care for my child. That being said it would be horrific if a child died because the parents failed to provide the proper medical care.

I believe in less government. The more they stay out of our business the better off we will be.

reply to post by searching4truth


As someone who underwent chemotherapy and radiation treatments for Hodgekin's Lymphoma, as Daniel did, I can understand why he wouldn't want to undergo any more treatments. I think that if I hadn't been in such a "haze" of sorts from even the first treatment, I would have probably refused further treatments (however I was 14/15 at the time, so I know my parents would have made me take the treatments).

What really gets me is that the state is accusing the parents of neglect, when they are letting him make his own decisions. I can see how it would be considered neglect, but at the same time, I have to wonder where the line is drawn for when a parent's decision is neglect, and when its just being a parent. I think that CPS was set up to be a good thing, but at some point it branched into something so, how do I say this, "out of control," that it is now nearly impossible for a parent to do their job as a parent without fear of having their child/ren taken away.

I think that the parents should be allowed to let Daniel make his own decision, regardless of how unpopular it is. Yes, he is only 10 years old, but at the same time, he is the one having to go through this. Not the CPS workers, not the Judge, hell, not even his parents (although they are having to deal with watching their child suffer). Regardless of his age, he needs to be the one to make the decision, because it will ultimately affect him the most (with again the exception of his parents, but in a completely different way).

Lets reverse the ruling and let the kid die. That way we can read stories like this.

www.foxnews.com...

I swear, some of you hate the government so much that you would let this kid die because it was his choice, instead of using some common sense and seeing that this kid was not getting the help that he needed.

A kid who is 13, cant read and has a severe learning disability made this decision that his parents supported. How much do you think this kid understands about what is happening to him?

18 you get to make your own decisions at 13 your parents are responsible for you.


I remember a few weeks back a video floating around here of a kid with a shock collar around his neck getting video taped by his dad. His dad bet him 5 dollars that he wouldn't shock himself.

The outrage from that video was loud and clear. Calling it child abuse. Yet the parents of this kid is letting him die and you guys say it is his choice.

All because the court ruled that the boy must get chemo.

Pathetic.

The parents have the full right to pursue alternative treatment. Anyone who's too ignorant to research does not deserve his opinion to be heard.

www.cancertutor.com...

That is only the tip of the mountain.

The truth is even more shocking than some parents refusing chemo. You will actually be outraged that they use something as poisonous as chemo at all. The FDA and big pharma do not care about your health. Once your wallet runs out you are lower than stray dog to them.

reply to post by broli


Hey if the alternative treatment was working then that is fine and the court should not have gotten involved.

But it wasn't now was it? Nope, it grew. The kid was dying.

reply to post by jd140


I do not "hate the government that much", what I do hate is them putting their noses into matters that are none of their business, ie the health concerns of my family. It's not that they were not seeking any treatment and wanted their child to die, they were seek various treatments outside of chemo. Last, I checked there still was not a cure for cancer and if it were my child I would seek ALL possible forms of treatment.

Originally posted by ShadeWolf
Bloody well right you'd be guilty of medical neglect. Life is life, and just because this kid's parents are idiots, doesn't mean that he should have to die.

That's such an ignorant statement, and the OP's point is only one of many. Cause that is exactly what this will lead to, they will be forcing vaccines and anyone who chooses not to have their kids vaccinated will be charged with neglect, even though the vaccines will no doubt do more harm than good.

Additionally, just like AIDS, the government and researchers have absolutely 100% failed society after literally billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of man hours of research, there is no PUBLIC cure.

Radiation therapy (chemo) does little to actually cure patients, and most end up dying anyways but now instead they die going through immense pain, unable to eat and constantly sick. The cancer industry, just like EVERY medical based industry in the USSA is based upon profit, and not care for the patient.

Furthermore, since there is NO DOUBT that the kid will NOT be able to use Medical Marijuana which is the only sure-fire, SAFE, effective way to combat chemo sickness I am sure the last of his days will be miserable beyond belief.

Now I understand this is a unique situation because the kid is challenged, and his parents simply agreed with his wishes but the debate is the same. This has just set a precedent that will no doubt be used in the future to justify forcing parents to comply to unsafe and risky procedures.

For anyone who wants to learn some real information today, checkout AIDS - We've been lied to

Aids is just like Cancer, they are both just being used to make money, and rather than CURE people the industries have instead TREATED people, chemo is just one of their weapons. All of the therapies that both industries have provided us after billions of dollars of research is effective in only a fraction of the patients. And in alot of cases, the medicine does more harm than the disease.

Seriously invest an hour into watching the AIDS documentary, I am willing to bet that nearly everything you know about AIDS at this point is bogus, just as I am sure the same can be said about the Cancer industry which NO DOUBT has a real cure, but does not allow it to be released due to the BILLIONS in funding that would be lost, as well as tens of thousands of jobs.

Notice how it's never George bush or Donald Rumsfeld, or a Rockefeller dying of cancer? For some reason, diseases dont affect any of the top people in power... weird hey? More like, they have the cure.

[edit on 16-5-2009 by king9072]