State doesn't let mom make medical decision for daughter with cancer

Put this in NWO because I think this is where this type of scenario is heading for all of us.

www.oregonlive.com...



This case is just crazy. Here is the quick rundown. The 13yr old girl has a rare liver cancer. She was put on chemotherapy and was doing worse. The mom could not stand to see her child dying. She took her off chemo (the child agreed) and put her on cbd oil and vitamins and was doing better.
The state said the girl must have surgery and arrested the mom and put the daughter in foster care.
Other relatives tried to assume care and the state wouldn't allow it.


What in the world is going on with this? Anyone local that knows more details. This is just crazy.
If the child dies due to the states actions does the mom have any recourse?

It's not like the mom is against chemo, the child was on it. It wasn't working. Why not let the family decide what is best?
How can this be happening?

Your link isn't working so its hard to really comment with out knowing more specifics.

I would say though that if the mother has stopped her daughters treatment against the advice of medical staff and thus putting the life of the little girl at risk then it seams reasonable to me that the state would intervene and take steps to prevent this mother causing harm through neglect of her treatment.

I don't think they should be able to force the little girl to have the surgery if she is deemed to have the mental capacity to make that decision. That said I also think that in this instance the child agreeing to be taking off the treatment is a bit of a mute point because let's face it, a dying 13 year old girl is probably going go with what mum says anyway. So really I am with the doctors on this one, am sure that her mum means well but the truth is that their responsibility is to preserve the life of the child and its unfortunate that they have had to take this course of action but I suspect that the mother isn't giving them much choice.

a reply to: JAGStorm

The child is 13 years old, and can't "agree" with a life or death decision made by her grieving, emotional mom.

1st, 2nd and 3rd medical opinions all agreed that the child needed surgery. Mom took the girl and ran out of state, and they hid out in Nevada(?) I think. At the doctors' alert, and the court's approval, police put a "missing person" out on the girl, and an APB on the mom.

Mom is being charged with neglect (hoping the courts are lenient) and the girl is in the custody of a family member, and will be getting her surgery.

Wouldn't it be great, for everyone, if this 13 year old girl beats her liver cancer?

a reply to: JAGStorm

Here's a 2nd article:

NBC Article Link

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Wouldn't it be great, for everyone, if this 13 year old girl beats her liver cancer?

Yes of course that would be the very best outcome, but it is not guaranteed. It isn't and no doctor in the world would say it is.

So that begs the question, who has the right to decide for a child, the state or a parent? That is truly the question here. This is a very VERY slippery slope.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: JAGStorm

The child is 13 years old, and can't "agree" with a life or death decision made by her grieving, emotional mom.

1st, 2nd and 3rd medical opinions all agreed that the child needed surgery. Mom took the girl and ran out of state, and they hid out in Nevada(?) I think. At the doctors' alert, and the court's approval, police put a "missing person" out on the girl, and an APB on the mom.

Mom is being charged with neglect (hoping the courts are lenient) and the girl is in the custody of a family member, and will be getting her surgery.

Wouldn't it be great, for everyone, if this 13 year old girl beats her liver cancer?

But meanwhile in liberal lala land, that same 13 year old who isn't competent enough to decide if they want to continue chemo can declare themselves transgender....

This is one of those tricky cases where a child may not necessarily be acting in their best interest medically. It is one thing if Steve Jobs decides he wants to go all natural to cure his cancer and fails vs a mother going against tradtional medical consensus as to the correct way to treat this child.

To be clear, I am not against alternative treatments. However, many of them are completely unproven and not backed up by any real repeatable studies.

I guess the question comes down to if the state should intervene under any circumstances (even if a parent is wrong)?

a reply to: JAGStorm

So that begs the question, who has the right to decide for a child, the state or a parent?

Ethically it is the child, if the child has capacity, and the medical staff who have the right to make these decisions. After that its up to the parents but if the parents refuse life saving treatment if its imitate then medical staff can intervene, if its not then they go through the courts.

Consulting with the family is very important, their views are often considered in such a way that it's pretty much "their decision" until a point is reached where they are causing harm at which points the doctors go to the courts who then decide. If you take your 2 year old to a doctor and the doctor says I think we should operate and you say no then they take you to court and the courts will say yup go ahead doc most of the time.

The right to medical consent is a ethical mind field you always get these unfortunate cases and usually the courts side with the doctors because the decision isn't honestly the parents to make.

a reply to: JAGStorm

Nothing is guaranteed. But, the doctors think there is hope, where it seems the mother has given up hope, and just wants her daughter to be comfortable.

It's hard watching your child suffer, and feeling powerless, like there's nothing you can do. Doctors are better equipped to decide in this case, in my opinion, than an emotionally distraught mother, trying to protect her daughter from more pain.

a reply to: Edumakated

This is a case of immediacy, life or death.
It's not an experimental lifestyle choice.

a reply to: JAGStorm

I read it more like mom is a CBD fanatic that has bought into the CBD will cure anything nonsense.

Mom brainwashed the daughter to believe the same and she's scared of the surgery because mom is a nut.

The surgery is needed to save the kids life, but mom, being a fanatic, is risking her kids life on folk medicine and ignoring the doctors.

The State is trying to save the kids life despite the nutty mom.

CBD is becoming a religion for some. It's comparable to religions where people would let a child die, rather than have real medical help.

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: JAGStorm

I read it more like mom is a CBD fanatic that has bought into the CBD will cure anything nonsense.

Mom brainwashed the daughter to believe the same and she's scared of the surgery because mom is a nut.

The surgery is needed to save the kids life, but mom, being a fanatic, is risking her kids life on folk medicine and ignoring the doctors.

The State is trying to save the kids life despite the nutty mom.

CBD is becoming a religion for some. It's comparable to religions where people would let a child die, rather than have real medical help.

There are plenty of people that fully trust doctors 100% and their kids die too.

I'll give a perfect and personal example. My FIL died from complication of a flu vaccine. It is very rare and I am not an anti-vaxxer or against the medical establishment.

When my kids were little I refused to let them get it. Doctors actually called me silly for not getting them flu shots. I refused to be persuaded. LOW and behold some 10-15 years later research has now found that there might be a genetic predisposition. Doctors now totally agree with me, my kids should NOT get the flu shot. Isn't that amazing? That is a very very short time frame when you think about it.

a reply to: JAGStorm

They are plenty of people that fully trust doctors 100% and their kids die too.

Yeah but nobody is offering up a 100% guarantee of survivability, you will never get anyone who says you will 100% survive this. Its about a balance of risk benefit.

Also the flu vax might kill a tiny number of people through anaphylaxis but it will save many more.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: JAGStorm

They are plenty of people that fully trust doctors 100% and their kids die too.

Also the flu vax might kill a tiny number of people through anaphylaxis but it will save many more.

EXACTLY, imagine if they didn't LET me the parent decide, that is what i'm trying to say. I wasn't willing to risk it. It is easy to risk things on other people. This mom is also Not against Chemo, her daughter was on Chemo for half a year.

The medical industry is trying to seize power in this country, it is the fastest growing industry in America, they will sacrifice lots of people before people wake up and see it is a for profit industry. It is not your local doctor that pushes this, it is the big conglomerates, some of them being hospitals that have many doctors on staff. Others are huge clinics and of course, the AMA does not anyone healing people other than their members.

I doubt if CBD oil would cure liver cancer though, it might slow the progression. There are other natural products that can help to send the cancer into remission but surgery to remove the damaged part of the liver might still need to be done. The liver does have good regenerative powers, it will grow back a lot of the time, but chemotherapy might also damage what is left.

What would cause liver cancer, maybe the woman gave her too much tylenol or iboprophen. Those are contributing factors, they alone will not cause cancer to form. They just damage the liver and can trigger rapid repair.

originally posted by: JAGStorm

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: JAGStorm

They are plenty of people that fully trust doctors 100% and their kids die too.

Also the flu vax might kill a tiny number of people through anaphylaxis but it will save many more.

EXACTLY, imagine if they didn't LET me the parent decide, that is what i'm trying to say. I wasn't willing to risk it. It is easy to risk things on other people. This mom is also Not against Chemo, her daughter was on Chemo for half a year.

Honestly I think vaccines should be a legal obligation unless you have certain exceptions.

I mean thats a really stupid decision to make, because there is a tiny change of anaphylaxis but 80'000 Americans died of flu last year.

With out chemo and surgery this girl will die, special oils don't cure cancer.

a reply to: JAGStorm

Where do we get to draw the line?
Faith healers?
Holistic medicine?

The kids probably going to die and chemo was the best chance to beat the cancer.

It's a fine line. But if the mother wasnt so paranoid and understood that if the liver is even just 15% healthy it can still function and regenerate back to normal as long as is hasnt reached cirrhosis. Although it wasnt disclosed what type of disease it was other then cancer, maybe she was worried about a full transplant?

She did more harm to her daughter then if she continued with the treatment. Mothers love seeing her child suffer from chemo got the best of her I guess.

originally posted by: JAGStorm

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: JAGStorm

They are plenty of people that fully trust doctors 100% and their kids die too.

Also the flu vax might kill a tiny number of people through anaphylaxis but it will save many more.

EXACTLY, imagine if they didn't LET me the parent decide, that is what i'm trying to say. I wasn't willing to risk it. It is easy to risk things on other people. This mom is also Not against Chemo, her daughter was on Chemo for half a year.

The problem is people have a really poor understanding of statistics. There will ALWAYS be examples of people who might react badly to any kind of drug. However, this has to be weighed against the benefits of said drug.

We chose to vaccinate because we felt the risks were small relative to the risks of not being vaccinated. To me it is like flying airplanes. Some people are terrified of flying even though statistically, they are far more likely to die in a car accident than on an airplane.

I look at it this way. If I have a 1 out of 100,000 chance of dying or whatever from being vaccinated or a 1 out of 100 chance of getting some screwed up disease because I didn't vaccinate, the odds are in favor of vaccination.

I am no fan of pharma companies and the medical industry, but by in large, when the SHTF with your health, I trust the outcomes of a trained medical staff/right drugs than I do a hippy with CBD oil.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: JAGStorm

Where do we get to draw the line?
Faith healers?
Holistic medicine?

The kids probably going to die and chemo was the best chance to beat the cancer.

Exactly!

Dr. "Sorry wee jimmy needs chemo or he will die"
Mum: "am going to to try praying to this stone"
Dr. ".....seriously?"
Mum: "yes"
Dr. "See you in court"

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

About ten to fifteen people can get cytokine storms from the flu vaccine, which can result in them dying. If anyone has a severe reaction to a flu vaccine, they should not get one. This you can find on the site of the makers of the vaccines, and at places like Mayo Clinic, Even the FDA has this listed in their information at their site.

This cytokine reaction is often familiar meaning people in families can have them. My daughter from my first marriage gets a storm every time she had it, so did I two times. Her kids had one every time they had the shots, the first getting sick at least five seperate times after the vaccine before her doctor said she should never have another one. Her youngest child never had a flu shot, the rest had them and reacted badly, emergency room trips did occur.

My second daughter by a different wife can take them but still reacts badly to some other vaccines like I do.

Some how it is a genetic trait according to science, but I did not get enough data collected on our ancestry DNA to verify it. All of us eat eggs, that has nothing to do with the cytokine storm.