Arrest ordered for mom of boy, 13, resisting chemo

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by AGDee

I am very uncomfortable with the idea of anybody other than a child's parents making these kinds of decisions. These things require parental consent for a reason.

As a general rule, I'd agree. But that is because, as a general rule, I'd assume that the parents are acting with the child's best interests in mind. But if the parents are doing something that seriously endangers the child's life, then somebody has to step in.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

As a general rule, I'd agree. But that is because, as a general rule, I'd assume that the parents are acting with the child's best interests in mind. But if the parents are doing something that seriously endangers the child's life, then somebody has to step in.

I know, and that's why I see both sides. I worry about where that line is and who defines it. Will someone try to use this case as a precedent from preventing all parents from being able to choose hospice, for example, if the chemo would only lengthen life but not save it? Would it matter if it gave a kid 6 more months vs. 1 year, but the quality of life in those 6 months would better than the quality of life in that year? What about DNR and other "living will" kinds of issues?

This case in and of itself seems very cut and dried to me, as it does to all of you. It just makes me think farther. In many ways, I feel like we're being told more and more by the government how to live our lives. 1984 was way off in the guesstimate of the year, but it does feel like Big Brother is becoming more and more of a reality and my gut instinct is to buck anything that looks like it these days.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by Kevin

We don't allow parents to actively harm their children, even in the name of religious worship. There is no doubt in my mind that if instead of refusing to treat this cancer, the parents were savagely beating a healthy boy, the state would step in because such savage beatings could and probably would eventually lead to death -- even if the parents believed that those savage beatings were necessary for salvation.

How is this any different? This mother is, by her inaction, rather than action (what's the difference?) bringing about essentially the same result -- her child will die due to her inaction. This parent has a duty to do everything to protect her child. When she refuses to do her duty, the state needs to step in. This is how a civilized society deals with a failure in the parent-child relationship.

Exactly, and that's what makes me think it's fine for the state to step in here. The fact that he's a 13 year old makes it an easier question.

Originally Posted by AGDee

I know, and that's why I see both sides. I worry about where that line is and who defines it. Will someone try to use this case as a precedent from preventing all parents from being able to choose hospice, for example, if the chemo would only lengthen life but not save it? Would it matter if it gave a kid 6 more months vs. 1 year, but the quality of life in those 6 months would better than the quality of life in that year? What about DNR and other "living will" kinds of issues?

This case in and of itself seems very cut and dried to me, as it does to all of you. It just makes me think farther. In many ways, I feel like we're being told more and more by the government how to live our lives. 1984 was way off in the guesstimate of the year, but it does feel like Big Brother is becoming more and more of a reality and my gut instinct is to buck anything that looks like it these days.

I think with living wills and DNRs, if you're under a certain age, the parent has to sign it as well. Additionally you'd be looking at a situation where the medical proxy would probably be the parent anyway.

I could see age as a cut off, i.e. where the person is 18. I think once you get to an age where the person can be on their own (in the eyes of the law), it's a lot harder to convince me that the state should step in.

However, I don't think a case like this necessarily starts the "slippery slope," so to speak; the variety of factors at play here (child's age, mental capacity, etc.) make it a rather unique situation, if you're worried about the "Big Brother" effect.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by AGDee

I am very uncomfortable with the idea of anybody other than a child's parents making these kinds of decisions. These things require parental consent for a reason. And, if you do it for something like chemo, where does it end? What if they decide that NOT doing something like gastric bypass surgery is neglectful because a child is obese?

This is one of those issues where I can totally see both sides and I'm totally uncomfortable with both ideas.

Yeah.

On a slight tangent I also don't like it when a parent forces a child to donate an organ or marrow to a sibling against the child's will.

[Kevin]

We don't allow parents to actively harm their children, even in the name of religious worship. There is no doubt in my mind that if instead of refusing to treat this cancer, the parents were savagely beating a healthy boy, the state would step in because such savage beatings could and probably would eventually lead to death -- even if the parents believed that those savage beatings were necessary for salvation.

How is this any different? This mother is, by her inaction, rather than action (what's the difference?) bringing about essentially the same result -- her child will die due to her inaction. This parent has a duty to do everything to protect her child. When she refuses to do her duty, the state needs to step in. This is how a civilized society deals with a failure in the parent-child relationship.

[SWTXBelle]

It is my understanding that with the recommended treatment the 5 yr. survivial rate for this kind of cancer is 95% - without treatment, mortality is 90%.