There’s a case in the papers in the UK at the moment, which I’m surprised hasn’t made the SDMB (but the again it hasn’t made JREF either, and Ben Goldacre only made one tweet on it as far as I can see) where basically a seriously woo-woo, as I believe the term is, mother named Sally is trying to stop her kid named Neon Roberts from gettin life saving surgery for very stupid reasons, to the extent that this isn’t something like refusing to vaccinate or something, she’s essentially refusing life saving treatment in favour of crystals and diet changes and so on.
Much more information about the case is avaliable on google using the info I gave above - all you really need to know I think, for the purposes of this question, is that treatment is avaliable, everyone who knows what they are talking about thinks the kid should have it - including the independent expert appointed by the mother, the risks are not negligible but are reasonably small - I think we’re talking 20% chance of muteness or something, and the alternative is basically certain death.
So what’s the procedure in the US if something like this happens? Do parents/guardians have “ownership” of their kids to the extent they can basically force them to die by refusing medical treatment? Or would the courts step in like here?
By the way once this question is answered I’m cool with this going to the pit because this silly bint really deserves it. But maybe another purpose made thread is better?
Almost always the identities of everyone involved here would be anonymous, by the way. Court cases like this are not exactly common as I understand it, but I think there are a couple (UK couple not US couple) a month. But they became revealed because earlier in the case there was an appeal to find her and her son as it seemed they had run away.
Bonus question: Still, I don’t understand why this means their identities are still in the press - there was a 15 year old schoolgirl who ran away with her teacher in the summer with her name all over the place for a week but since she was found there has been an injunction (or similar) against mentioning her name, and I don’t really see why this kid’s identity should be in the press either now that he has been found - would welcome input from those who know UK law on that.
Hard to answer. It’s not too uncommon for kids in the US to die under the “spiritual care” of parents or their clergy. Depending on state laws (Wisconsin has some kind of exemption to neglect laws related to medical care and religious observance) and which way the political winds are blowing, they may or may not be prosecuted. More often than not they are prosecuted, but they don’t always convicted.
But like I said, that is when the whole situation has gone to hell and the kid is already dead. I don’t hear about many cases where the kid is still alive and the parents are battling it out to keep their kid out of a doctor’s care. I suspect that there is a pretty good likelihood that a court would intervene on behalf of the kind, but I have no stats to back this up. Also, I think the likelihood increases if the medical condition is well understood and there is broad general medical consensus on how to treat the condition, and particularly if the outcome is very likely to be positive.
There’ve been a couple cases here in Oregon where prayer-healing parents have been convicted of child neglect or manslaughter for not getting their kids medical treatment.
IN the US, the usual procedure is that somebody other than the parent notices the child seems to be suffering from some sort of mistreatment or neglect and reports it to the police or or Child Protective Services (gov. agency in charge of protecting children from abusive parents). They will then investigate the childs situation (home, diet, living conditions, etc.) and determine if the child is receiving at least the legally required minimum of care.
If they decide a parent is not providing that required level of care, the child is removed from the parents care and placed in foster care, or with a relative (if one is suitable and willing). I think the child can be returned to the parents later on, if the parents can show they are now capable of (and likely to) provide proper care for the child.
The general consensus (here in the US) is that anybody that disconnected from reality (like the OP described) is not fit to be a parent, and the child’s welfare takes precedence over the parents spiritual beliefs.
As I understand it, in this case the kid has been seeing doctors, and has already had some quite extensive medical treatment, perhaps even surgery (I do not quite remember the details). The mother has not opposed medical care for him altogether. However, the doctors are saying further treatment (including radiation) is needed, and she is baulking at that for some reason.
Anyway, it seems very different from cases where a child is kept away from medical care altogether.
It varies by state. Technically, the parent can make all decisions regarding the medical care of their children. Some states require these cases to be reported as potential child abuse / neglect. This is why you see lawsuits every now and then, when some parent (for better or worse) wants to make an objectionable choice for their child and comes into conflict with the law.
Cite: Emergency Care and Transportation of the Sick and Injured 9th Edition, 2005
Yes, there have been cases in the U.S. where courts have compelled parents to allow their minor child to receive medical treatment.
Here’s one case where parents stopped therapy for a highly curable cancer (Hodgkin lymphoma) in their son, in favor of “natural healing”. They were ordered by a court to resume medical treatment, the mom and son disappeared for awhile and then resurfaced and reluctantly agreed to evidence-based care.
"Cherrix was diagnosed with Hodgkin disease in 2005 and underwent three months of chemotherapy, a standard medical treatment with significant side effects. Hodgkin disease is highly treatable, even curable, type of lymphoma; 96% of young patients survive at least five years after conventional treatment.[7] He said later that the side effects were so severe that he had wished he were dead during treatment.[8]
In 2006, when the cancer returned, he rejected further conventional treatment and went to Mexico to receive Hoxsey Therapy (an herbal concoction based on the plants eaten by a horse with a swollen leg in the 19th century), which has been illegal in the United States since 1960, after it was proven to be ineffective.[9][10][11] His parents were charged with medical neglect as a result of this decision."
The parents in this case later “won” a higher court decision and the Virginia legislature decided to allow medical treatment refusal for teens between 14 and 17 if they and their parents wanted to opt out of evidence-based care.
A child need not be taken out of the home and put into foster care, however. Sometimes a judge will appoint a person to be the medical decision maker for the child when the parent is otherwise doing an acceptable job and isn’t considered likely to run away with the kid (which has also happened.) Hospital procedure is generally that when a parent refuses something a doctor deems medically necessary (not just “a good idea” but “only an idiot would refuse this”) - including discharge Against Medical Advice - a hospital social worker and/or medical ethicist on staff is called and they will work with the doctor(s) and nurse(s) to determine if a judge needs to be called. Most hospital groups literally have a judge on speed dial.
I actually ran into this myself once when I took my daughter to an ER at a regular hospital, rather than a pediatric hospital. It turned out they didn’t have any appropriate staff on duty or pediatric equipment, and their plan of treatment was to give her breathing treatments and oxygen. There were several serious errors in diagnosis and treatment made as well. They wouldn’t let us stay with her overnight (she was 5). I was one pissed off mama, and told them I would take her home, where I have oxygen and breathing treatments with the correct kind of mask. I was told in no uncertain terms that this was Not Going To Happen, and any attempt to remove her AMA was going to result in that nice security guard over there not being so nice anymore, and I’d be arrested while they got the whole thing sorted out with a judge, which would take a couple of days anyhow.
One medical ethicist lecturing my nursing class told us that, in his experience, Jehovah’s Witness parents “want” to be “forced” to accept blood products for their children - if they say yes, they will be disfellowshipped (kicked out of their church and shunned by their community), but if they say no and the doctor gets approval from a court appointed medical guardian instead, the parent is off the hook, religiously and socially. The kid is more likely to survive, and then the parent gets sympathy and support from their fellows, instead of ostracization. I’m not sure I entirely believe it in all cases, but I can follow the logic and see where it may apply to other religions/subcultures.
and you’ll get cases where charges of neglect and murder were pursued.
Diabetes type I (childhood) is a common factor in these “woo” treatment/lack of care cases.
This case in the UK is legally simplified to some extent because the father of the child does support the decisions of the medical staff, so in effect it is not one of belief systems but one of responsible parental consent.
Had this been strictly about belief systems this could have been much more difficult.
Medical professionals do have to accept there is some validity to the mothers reservations about radiotherapy in such a young child as there is a significant chance of some lasting changes to cognitive development.
She may get her way on this issue, even if she has faulty reasoning because there is a genuine medical argument regarding this second phase of treatment.
I thought this issue was settled 30 or 40 years ago over Jehovah’s Witness parents and blood transfusions. The state can intervene if the doctors think the life is in danger, but IIRC there was at least one case where an older child (15?) insisted on their right to decide for themselves.
Children approaching the age of majority are often deemed “mature minors” for medical treatment purposes and granted an independent right to refuse medical care.
Parents in the US have a broadly recognized fundamental right to direct the upbringing of their children, which includes the right to direct their medical care.
However, the state has a compelling interest, as parens patriae, in protecting children. Adults have the right to martyr themselves, but not their children.
As solosam notes, this balance results in different application of the law in different states. There’s no Supreme Court decision directly on point. Probably the closest thing we have is PJ ex rel Jensen v. Wagner, a Tenth Circuit case, which sets out the majority view: parents may refuse non-emergency treatment, but may not refuse lifesaving treatment. There’s no consensus at all on whether parents may refuse emergency non-lifesaving treatment (say, setting a broken arm, or something).
The classic case is Jehovah’s Witness parents refusing blood transfusions. The same rationale is almost exclusively followed: kid’s gonna die? He gets a tranfusion. Otherwise, no. The only distinction appears to be where the transfusion is necessary to perform some other type of treatment which itself has a low likelihood of success.
Christine Maggiore, a Duesberg follower and HIV denialist, transmitted the virus to her daughter, Eliza Jane Scovill, because she refused to take any precautions against mother-to-child transmission, such as taking ARV drugs and not breastfeeding. Scovill died at age three of AIDS-related conditions. Charges of abuse and neglect were considered against Maggiore but never pursued. Scovill’s pediatrician was stripped of his license for a few years for failing to test Scovill for HIV and other gross failures of care.
Maggiore herself dies of AIDS-related conditions three years later.
Adults can martyr themselves… up to a point. If a person is clearly endangering themselves (threatening to jump off a bridge, threatening to commit suicide, etc…), then the state can ‘interfere.’
And ‘interfere’ is in quotes because, as I understand it, all human beings are technically wards of the state. The state is our true and legal guardian. That’s why the state can protect us from others who want to harm us, the state is our guardian. The state can determine that all children be immunized or receive a basic education, because they’re the guardian.
Normally, adults are left to their own recognizance and parents are left to be the acting guardians of their children… until such time that they endanger themselves or others, then the state steps in. The constitution does limit how much the state should and can exert its guardianship so that we have as much freedom as possible… up to a point.
Consider the Terry Shiavo case where the husband OK’d the removal of extraordinary means of life support for his wife who was in a vegetative state. You would think that the husband would be the primary guardian of his wife who can’t speak for herself. Yes… up to a point. Her relatives contested the decision of the husband, and so the court had to decide who would speak for her since she had no end-of-life directives of her own. The state decided who would they would delegate to be her guardian since the state has the first prerogative to be guardian. If all her relatives abrogated the decision, then the state would have appointed a panel to decide.
Thus, it’s really important to have wills and end-of-life directives and have trusted powers of attorney spelled out… else a judge acting on behalf of the state will make those decisions you’d want loved ones to make for you (especially if certain loved ones fight with each other over who gets to make those decisions).
BTW, don’t tell any of this to any ultra right-wing libertarians you know… their heads will explode.
What happened? Was she OK?