Arrest ordered for mom of boy, 13, resisting chemo

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

My only concern is that HE doesn't want the treatment either. I mean it is not farfetched to have people decide they don't want to take chemo. Some people tend to feel that because the chemo makes them feel worse, they would just rather forego it. It would be different if the child himself wanted it but the mom was refusing to let him have it. And I don't think that he feels that way just because of his mom's beliefs.

He's 13. A 13-year-old simply isn't in a position to understand the implications of refusing chemotherapy or of choosing alternative treatments instead.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

He's 13. A 13-year-old simply isn't in a position to understand the implications of refusing chemotherapy or of choosing alternative treatments instead.

I disagree. A thirteen year old child is capable of udnerstanding what may appen if they don't take chemo. Children these days are far more precocious and have a better uderstanding than people might realize. Also, he is old enough to know if he doesn't like how the chemo makes him feel. I think that's my issue. I don't like to see children being forced to do something as serious as chemo if they REALLY don't want to do it. Lots of people try alternative routes because chemo makes them so miserable.
Interesting though how authorities are quick to jump on this, but there are other bad parental situations out there and they refuse to get involved. smh

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

I disagree. A thirteen year old child is capable of udnerstanding what may appen if they don't take chemo. Children these days are far more precocious and have a better uderstanding than people might realize.

Some can fully understand it, but the majority -- sorry, but no. There's a reason they're not considered adults yet -- they generally aren't capable of fully understanding all the implications and consequences and making adult decisions.

And of course we're talking here about a 13-year-old who has been taught that chemo is bad and unnecessary. Is he old enough to decide that mom and dad are maybe a bit loco, or is he still young enough to be sure that mom and dad must be right because they'd never do anything that would hurt him?

Also, he is old enough to know if he doesn't like how the chemo makes him feel. I think that's my issue. I don't like to see children being forced to do something as serious as chemo if they REALLY don't want to do it.

So I guess you'd say a 4-year old can decide he doesn't want chemo because he doesn't like how it makes him feel? 'Cause a 4-year-old is old enough to know he doesn't like how the chemo makes him feel and I can pretty much assure you the average 4-year-old isn't going to want to do it.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

I disagree. A thirteen year old child is capable of udnerstanding what may appen if they don't take chemo. Children these days are far more precocious and have a better uderstanding than people might realize.

This may be true on the whole (or it might be a "get off my lawn" moment in reverse, it's hard to say), but this kid specifically isn't exactly a rocket scientist in waiting.

I'm HUGE on keeping the state out of basically every part of life that it isn't needed, but there is a fundamental duty to protect children against the unreasonable or ill-informed actions of their caretakers. We wouldn't leave a 13 year old child with a mother who beat him or didn't feed him - why? Because he might die.

It's essentially the same as statutory rape laws, etc. - the kid feels old enough to make the decision, and some probably are, but on the whole the state really has a duty to keep CrazyMom from imparting her Crazy onto her child's gravestone.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

This may be true on the whole (or it might be a "get off my lawn" moment in reverse, it's hard to say), but this kid specifically isn't exactly a rocket scientist in waiting.

Would the reverse be "mow my lawn?"

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

He's 13. A 13-year-old simply isn't in a position to understand the implications of refusing chemotherapy or of choosing alternative treatments instead.

Agreed. In general I have an issue with the state imposing medical treatment, but in this situation, with someone this young, I have problems holding that position.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

Agreed. In general I have an issue with the state imposing medical treatment, but in this situation, with someone this young, I have problems holding that position.

I think that's my issue.

I felt differently about the parents who were withholding care for their child who was in a diabetic coma.

I think that instead of them forcing this child to take treatment, they should really just counsel him (away from his mother) and ascertain what HE really wants and WHY.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

I think that's my issue.

I felt differently about the parents who were withholding care for their child who was in a diabetic coma.

I think that instead of them forcing this child to take treatment, they should really just counsel him (away from his mother) and ascertain what HE really wants and WHY.

I think part of the issue with this story (and with any news story regarding medical issues) is that we're not getting the whole story. It's a fair point, in that you would hope and assume that the doctors have explained everything fully to both the teenager and his parents. Because of medical privacy issues, we'll likely never know the level of advice given by the physicians to the kid and his mother.

I think one of the issues about counseling him away from his mother is that most, if not all, medical offices are going to want to have the parent present when talking about these issues. I would guess that it's difficult for a doctor or medical professional to ask a parent to leave the room when discussing medical treatments with a teenager.

Plus, if she's gone to these lengths to avoid treatment for her child, I'm guessing she would never agree to letting the treatment staff speak with him outside of her presence.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

I think part of the issue with this story (and with any news story regarding medical issues) is that we're not getting the whole story. It's a fair point, in that you would hope and assume that the doctors have explained everything fully to both the teenager and his parents. Because of medical privacy issues, we'll likely never know the level of advice given by the physicians to the kid and his mother.

I think one of the issues about counseling him away from his mother is that most, if not all, medical offices are going to want to have the parent present when talking about these issues. I would guess that it's difficult for a doctor or medical professional to ask a parent to leave the room when discussing medical treatments with a teenager.

Plus, if she's gone to these lengths to avoid treatment for her child, I'm guessing she would never agree to letting the treatment staff speak with him outside of her presence.

Good point. She probably wouldn't.