Judge rules family can't refuse chemo for boy

reply to post by Phage


First off, I'm glad to hear that you are doing better. That's amazing that you were able to survive even after relapsing (I've known several who didn't). I've only been in remission for three years, but I'm doing very well. Hopefully I won't relapse and have to go through everything again.

I agree with you that it is a form of suicide/homicide to not accept chemotherapy for Hodgekins, but at the same time I have a problem with the state stepping in and telling the child that he has to go through with it. I've wondered if someone didn't try and see if there was possibly other medicines that they could give Daniel to try and make him more comfortable during his treatments (or at least as comfortable as possible, I had a terrible time with nausea and went through at least a dozen different medicines in a six month period). I would want to assume that his doctor tried everything to make it as "easy" for him as possible, and I would hope that everything was explained to him as best as they could.

It really does depend on the TYPE of cancer. Hodgkins Lymphoma has a 80-90% CURE rate if it is caught early. It is one of the most treatable cancers out there.

If this kid was diagnosed early and had a 90% chance of a CURE (Not to be confused with 5 or 10 year survival rates, totally different as some forms of cancer end in certain death even if it takes 10 years) with chemo then it would be irresponsible for the parents to deny that treatment.

Now if it was in a later stage, and the chemo was not expected to be a likely cure, that is entirely different.

Let's remember the story about the crazy Christians that prayed for their 10 year old daughter as she withered away for weeks, and finally died because she was an undiagnosed and untreated diabetic. They never took her to the doctor. Is that freedom of choice too? I think that is plain criminal stupidity.


(reposted comments from other thread)

Originally posted by Long Lance
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.

I was not able to read the original article without buying access to it, so I'm basing this on the abstract. But at least I went to the source instead of to a clearly biased summation and interpretation of it.

The study cited here was looking at 5-year survival rates attributable solely to chemotherapy. In other words, no surgery, no radiation, no other therapy, just the chemo.

There is a whole world of questions unanswered without reading the whole article and the comments on the article that appeared in later issues, but it should be clear that measuring the survival rate due only to chemo, while it may be an interesting statistic, is not the same thing at all as measuring the overall benefit of chemo.

It's important to check sources and determine for yourself whether they are being used appropriately or misleadingly.



As for the story in the OP, I find this to be one of the truly tough questions in medical ethics and in preserving parents' rights to raise their children while protecting those children from abuse or harm.

The fact that this particular cancer responds so well to chemo seems to make it more clear that the parents' refusal to continue with chemo was neglectful. But that actually implies that such decisions can be made pragmatically by assessing risk and benefit; that there are no emotional or moral components to be considered.

It's not clear to me what the religious beliefs of the family are, or how strongly held they are. Nor is it clear how capable the boy himself is of understanding and making such decisions. The judge believed he was not capable, and in this case I think I would have to trust the judge's word on that.

But I am troubled that a few people in this thread have pointed to his learning disability and illiteracy as evidence that he would be unable to understand the issue. Is there any reason to believe that his intelligence, understanding, or reason are compromised by his learning disability? Don't we know better by now? Difficulty with the written word does not necessarily imply low intelligence or comprehension. And honestly, I think in this sort of decision so-called "emotional intelligence" would be a more useful skill set than intellectual ability.

Originally posted by americandingbat
But I am troubled that a few people in this thread have pointed to his learning disability and illiteracy as evidence that he would be unable to understand the issue. Is there any reason to believe that his intelligence, understanding, or reason are compromised by his learning disability?

Uhh...obviously if he can't read he probably is rather limited with regard to information. Okay most 13 year olds would not likely do much research on their own anyway, but if he can't read he IS at a disadvantage.

Not being able to read at ALL at his age sounds like a fairly serious issue. Maybe it is just him, maybe it is his environment or whatever, but yeah it needs to be taken into serious consideration.

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage

Originally posted by xxpigxx

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.

So does that cover abortion as well?

A thirteen year old child is now scientifically comparable to a fetus?

No, I don't know what this poster would say, but I would say that does not cover abortion. We do not treat all forms of life, ie bugs, animals, fetuses that can not survive outside of the womb, equally. We do not consider their lives to be comparable to a birthed human being.



[edit on 16-5-2009 by rapinbatsisaltherage]

www.merriam-webster.com...

Seems to me he would still have the ability to understand the amount of pain he went through, and to decide not to go through it again.

Originally posted by Sonya610
Uhh...obviously if he can't read he probably is rather limited with regard to information. Okay most 13 year olds would not likely do much research on their own anyway, but if he can't read he IS at a disadvantage.

I would imagine that most 13-year-olds faced with the decision of whether or not to continue chemotherapy would rely largely on verbal explanations of the options given by doctors, parents, or others. There are other ways of getting information than reading it. The issue is not how much information he has, but whether he is able to comprehend and make appropriate decisions based on that information.

My concern is with the assumption that if he can't read he must be unable to reason. If that assumption influenced the judge's decision, then it is problematic. The article linked in the OP gives us very little information about the boy's mental state or understanding.

In general I would agree with you that complete illiteracy in a 13-year-old would be cause for concern in its own right. But since the judge and doctors involved in the case all are quoted about how wonderful the parents are, the kind of neglect that I would suspect is not in evidence.

edit: to bring the number of times I use the word "concern" in four sentences down from four to two

[edit on 5/17/2009 by americandingbat]

Originally posted by pexx421
Seems to me he would still have the ability to understand the amount of pain he went through, and to decide not to go through it again.

Yeah but we do NOT know how much of this is the kid himself, or how much is the parents. The kid is not playing with a full deck, and who knows what the parents believe or what they tell him.

Wonder how views on this subject would change if the judge ordered the parents to vaccinate their son for his own good?

Wonder how views on this subject would change if a judge ordered you to get vaccinated for your own good?

Originally posted by Ferris.Bueller.II
Wonder how views on this subject would change if the judge ordered the parents to vaccinate their son for his own good?

Wonder how views on this subject would change if a judge ordered you to get vaccinated for your own good?

Bit of a difference. Vaccines are there to prevent possible illness (which may or may not happen).

Cancer will kill, period. Not a matter of "maybe" but a matter of certainty.

Originally posted by Sonya610

Cancer will kill, period. Not a matter of "maybe" but a matter of certainty.

Actually, the article linked in the OP puts the boy's chance of survival without chemotherapy at 5%.

It's a lot less than 90%, but a lot more than certain death.

Originally posted by jd140
reply to post by VelmaLu

 

This from someone who believes that the government should start sterilization because you feel the Earth is reaching its maximum capacity.

I'm not suprised that you don't mind the kid dying.

Lol and you are worried about the government getting to involved in our choices.

I don't mind the kid dying. We're all going to die, as are you. The issue isn't so much when but the quality of life we have while we are here on this planet.

I find very little value in forcing a 13 year-old kid to endure pain and sickness to alleviate your need to not feel guilty that you "let him die." I find no value in a human life born into a world to suffer food deprivation and eventually starve to death. So the logic follows.

Perhaps it is that I do not necessarily view all human life in any form whatsoever as inherently sacred. Yeah, I'm all for unplugging the brain dead on life support as well.

Originally posted by xxpigxx

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage

Originally posted by xxpigxx

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.

So does that cover abortion as well?

A thirteen year old child is now scientifically comparable to a fetus?

No, I don't know what this poster would say, but I would say that does not cover abortion. We do not treat all forms of life, ie bugs, animals, fetuses that can not survive outside of the womb, equally. We do not consider their lives to be comparable to a birthed human being.



[edit on 16-5-2009 by rapinbatsisaltherage]

www.merriam-webster.com...

You do realize that a definition does not define the way one treats something, right? I never disputed that it was not "life", you missed the point, I just clearly stated the OBVIOUS, we treat all life differently. We even treat birthed humans differently. We decide that no one should die, UNLESS we need you to go to war, or you get the death penalty. I'm sad that you do not understand the way we regard life, to have a conviction about something you really should at least understand every nook and cranny.

This isn't my way of hijacking the thread, or spamming the board.
But, I did make a thread on this very subject with some startling details, and I would like to throw them into the discussion.However, please keep the comments to this thread, and add to THIS discussion.

Opening post..here..
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by AccessDenied
This isn't my way of hijacking the thread, or spamming the board.
But, I did make a thread on this very subject with some startling details, and I would like to throw them into the discussion.However, please keep the comments to this thread, and add to THIS discussion.

Opening post..here..
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Chemotherapy is more painful than cancer from what I'm reading about it. I would never want that stuff forced on me. I could never do that to a child, either. That is totally cruel.

reply to post by Jessicamsa


I agree and it should be our choice to make, not the governments. If someone wants chemo then go for it, if they want another form of treatment, go for it. But it should be our decision.

reply to post by VelmaLu


I guess I wasn't clear before.

You're stance on depopulation leads me to believe that you don't care if this kid lives or dies. You actually feel that if he died it would be better for the planet.

Therefor, your opinion on the subject means nothing to me.

If you want to dispute what I have said about you I can post some of your previous posts.

Originally posted by jd140
reply to post by VelmaLu

 

Therefor, your opinion on the subject means nothing to me.

If you want to dispute what I have said about you I can post some of your previous posts.

If my opinion means nothing to you, then why did you address your post to me? I never disputed anything and yet, you don't care, but you're willing to dig up my old posts? Why are you wasting my time then? Are you bored?

Wow, I wonder what you do when you ARE interested in someone's opinion.

Originally posted by jd140
reply to post by VelmaLu

 

Therefor, your opinion on the subject means nothing to me.

If you want to dispute what I have said about you I can post some of your previous posts.

If my opinion means nothing to you, then why did you address your post to me? I never disputed anything and yet, you don't care, but you're willing to dig up my old posts? Why are you wasting my time then? Are you bored?

Wow, I wonder what you do when you ARE interested in someone's opinion.

reply to post by VelmaLu


"The frightening prospect about this is that the government may now dictate what is reasonable treatment and whether opting for other forms of treatment can be viewed as medical neglect."

That quote by you is the reason I found your initial post comical.

You are complaining about the government is now dictating what reasonable treatment is.

Yet you are for the government telling us how many humans are to many and that you think that they should depopulate the earth.

So you are against the government giving us medicine to live longer and you are for government to regulate how many people should be alive at one time.


I keep replying because I can.

I am infact bored and calling you out is giving me some enjoyment.