Arrest ordered for mom of boy, 13, resisting chemo

[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.

[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.

[CutiePie2000]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

My only concern is that HE doesn't want the treatment either.

He's a child. When you're a child, your parents' values are basically also your values, until you are old enough to decide for yourself.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?"

[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%.

[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.