So, court ordered cancer treatment anyone?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Even for anyone still critical of the judge’s decision, I don’t think it’s possible to offer any justification for the mom taking off with the kid. Unfortunately, she’s becoming something of a right wing cause célèbre up here – a defiant soul standing up against an invasive, socialist nanny state. “Traditional medicine” is evil too, of course – I guess because it’s based on science.

[Marley23]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

“Traditional medicine” is evil too, of course – I guess because it’s based on science.

Yeah, well, it’s all those greedy drug companies. You know, they’re not interested in really curing diseases and there’s only a 95 percent chance this kid will survive his cancer if he has chemo.

[Odesio]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Even for anyone still critical of the judge’s decision, I don’t think it’s possible to offer any justification for the mom taking off with the kid. Unfortunately, she’s becoming something of a right wing cause célèbre up here – a defiant soul standing up against an invasive, socialist nanny state. “Traditional medicine” is evil too, of course – I guess because it’s based on science.

Most of the folks I’ve come into contact with who are big on trashing modern medicine in lieu of supporting woo woo new age baloney aren’t typically what you would describe as right wing. Not that they really fit in with most left wing folks I know either.

Odesio

[ParentalAdvisory]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Even for anyone still critical of the judge’s decision, I don’t think it’s possible to offer any justification for the mom taking off with the kid.

Just on that note, the mother is making the choice for the father by running off, so that aspect isn’t right either.

[Jackmannii]

@ParentalAdvisory

Just on that note, the mother is making the choice for the father by running off, so that aspect isn’t right either.

It’s not clear to me that the father has been helpless in this case and that he doesn’t know how to help find the child.

More than a “right-wing” cause celebre, from what I’ve seen this is an alt med and libertarian opportunity to blast the evil Big Pharma Medical Establishment and Big Government. If the child dies because of parental neglect, that’s acceptable collateral damage to them (you can also be sure that if the child dies after quack therapies have been administered, the woo crowd will blame his death on his briefly having gotten mainstream treatment).

While there’s been emphasis by the mother and supporters on how the child shouldn’t have to go through chemotherapy and radiation (never mind the 90% chance it will provide a long-term cure), the consequences of untreated cancer are no walk in the park either. And at the end of that - you’re dead.

If the case had involved a 17-year-old who had a terrible cancer for which mainstream therapy offered only a slim hope of remission, and who understood what he faced, I doubt a court would be mandating therapy or that we’d be having this debate. In the current instance, the right course of action is pretty straightforward.

[AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet]

The kid has a right to live, and doesn’t have the mental capacity to make his own decision.

Could it be subconscious euthensia? The Yahoo! link says that the boy has a “learning disabilty” where he can’t even reconize the word “the”
I wonder if “learning disabilty” is code for mild mental retardation ?
Maybe the mom thinks that the child will be “better off dead” or something.
Freaking sad…

[E-Sabbath]

http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/45850182.html
A parallel case, woman found guilty of murder for praying over her daughter to be healed, rather than taking her to the doctor to treat her diabetes.

Parental Advisory, do you think she had the right to do so? Was this conviction unjust?

[DSeid]

Some background reading.

In addition, under a theory known as the mature minor doctrine, certain minors may consent to treatment without first obtaining parental consent. If the minor is capable of understanding the nature, extent, and consequences of medical treatment, he or she may consent to medical care. Such situations typically involve older minors and treatments for the benefit of the minor (i.e., not organ transplant donors or blood donors) and usually involve relatively low-risk procedures. In recent years, however, some minors have sought the right to make life-or-death decisions. In 1989 a state court first recognized that a minor could make such a grave decision. A seventeen-and-a-half-year-old leukemia patient refused life-saving blood transfusions based on a deeply held, family-shared religious conviction. A psychologist testified that the girl had the maturity of a twenty-two-year-old. Ironically, the young woman won her right to refuse treatment but was alive and healthy when the case was finally decided. She had been transfused before the slow judicial process needed to decide such a difficult question led to a ruling in her favor.

Some state statutes specifically provide that minors may give consent in certain highly charged situations, such as cases of venereal disease, pregnancy, and drug or alcohol abuse. A minor may also overrule parental consent in certain situations. In one case a mother gave consent for an abortion for her sixteen-year-old unemancipated daughter, but the girl disagreed. A court upheld the daughter’s right to withhold consent.

Courts often reach divergent outcomes when deciding whether to interfere with a parent’s refusal to consent to a non-life-threatening procedure. One court refused to override a father’s denial of consent for surgery to repair his son’s harelip and cleft palate. But a different court permitted an operation on a boy suffering from a severe facial deformity even though his mother objected on religious grounds to the accompanying blood transfusion. In another case a child was ordered to undergo medical treatments after the parents unsuccessfully treated the child’s severe burns with herbal remedies.
**
Courts rarely hesitate to step in where a child’s life is in danger. To deny a child a beneficial, life-sustaining treatment constitutes child neglect, and states have a duty to protect children from neglect.** One case involved a mother who testified that she did not believe that her child was HIV positive, despite medical evidence to the contrary. The court ordered treatment, including AZT, for the child. Many other cases involve parents who want to treat a serious illness with nontraditional methods or whose religious beliefs forbid blood transfusions. Cases involving religious beliefs raise difficult questions under the First Amendment’s Freedom of Expression of Religion Clause, common law, statutory rights of a parent in raising a child, and the state’s traditional interest in protecting those unable to protect themselves.

Where a child’s life is in danger and parental consent is withheld, a hospital seeks a court-appointed guardian for the child. The guardian, often a hospital administrator, then consents to the treatment on behalf of the child. In an emergency case, a judge may make a decision over the telephone. In some cases doctors may choose to act without judicial permission if time constraints do not allow enough time to reach a judge by telephone.

(Bolding mine.)

[WhyNot]

@ParentalAdvisory

Do minors have patient rights?

No, generally not. The older they get, the more their input is generally considered, but parents and The State are still responsible for minors’ medical care.

@ParentalAdvisory

So it’s agreed then that minors have no rights as to their recommended treatment, and that the parents also have no rights to refuse treatment for their child when there’s a “compelling interest” by the legislature and a majority of doctors?

When can a parent refuse a majority opinion on treatment for their child?

I would say, in the world according to Me, that if they can clearly understand and articulate the risks and benefits of the standard treatment and the other options they’re considering, then they should have the freedom to choose their course of option.

So if a parent were to say, “Yes, I understand that this treatment will lead to remission in 90% of the kids who have what my son has. I understand that with no treatment, he will die. I know that the major side effects of this treatment include nausea, weakness, immune suppression and hair loss. I understand that none of these herbs or vitamins have FDA approval, and none of them have been proven to cure this disease. I understand that he may very likely die, and I’m willing to risk that on the very small hope that my gods will spare his life,” then I’d have a big ethical problem interfering. No, it’s not the choice that I would make, but I make lots of parenting choices other people wouldn’t make, too. If I want the freedom to make my choices, I must respect the freedom of others to make theirs.

But this case isn’t it. This mother is cookoo for cocoa puffs, and not in a fit mental state to make such a decision, IMHO.

@ParentalAdvisory

Ok, I read the judgement and am inclined to agree.

But for the record, I’m not usually an ‘opponent on issues like these’.

Not feeding your kid - government should intervene.
Lock up your kid - government should intervene.
Beat up your kid - government should intervene.
Naturally occuring medical conditions - Definite gray area for me, and what constitutes necessary medical care is also kind of a gray area. Even the judgement recognized the differences people may have on a ruling such as that.

So I’m not some kind of relgious wacko who think berries and rain dances are going to cure cancer. But I am a fan of individual and parents rights concerning naturally occuring medical conditions, but also recognize when governments should intrude on certain cases.

Yeah, me too.

[Chessic_Sense]

@WhyNot

So if a parent were to say, “Yes, I understand that this treatment …and I’m willing to risk that on the very small hope that my gods will spare his life,” then I’d have a big ethical problem interfering…If I want the freedom to make my choices, I must respect the freedom of others to make theirs.

But you see, that’s the problem right there. The kid doesn’t belong to the parent. The kid is a separate human being, entitled to life and general well-being. I’d agree totally if the parent were making a decision about their own life. But they aren’t. The parent, in your example, is sentencing a child to death. That’s not OK. I don’t have to respect that decision.

Your kids don’t follow your religion. They’re not old enough to have a religion in the first place. Therefore, a parent cannot make them trust the parent’s gods to save them.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@WhyNot

So if a parent were to say, “Yes, I understand that this treatment will lead to remission in 90% of the kids who have what my son has. I understand that with no treatment, he will die. I know that the major side effects of this treatment include nausea, weakness, immune suppression and hair loss. I understand that none of these herbs or vitamins have FDA approval, and none of them have been proven to cure this disease. I understand that he may very likely die, and I’m willing to risk that on the very small hope that my gods will spare his life,” then I’d have a big ethical problem interfering. No, it’s not the choice that I would make, but I make lots of parenting choices other people wouldn’t make, too. If I want the freedom to make my choices, I must respect the freedom of others to make theirs.

So the kids themselves have no right to live in your opinion? The kids are just chattel property? If the parents KNOW their decision will kill the kid, that makes it ok? Why do you think the parents have the right to decide whether the kid should live or die? What possible difference does it make what the parents understand? It’s not their rights that matter.

If a kid gets hit by a car and is lying on the street bleeding to death, do you think the parents would have a right to turn away an ambulance and pray instead just as long as they can demonstrate that they KNOW that decision will probably kill the kid?

Your position makes absolutely no sense to me. Who gives a FUCK what the parents understand? Where do you get the idea that they have some kind of right to choose if their child lives or dies? Cite? Where is that in the Constitution?

[DSeid]

The concept is straightforward: we give parents great latitude to act as their children’s decision makers but that latitude is not absolute. If it is overwhelmingly clear that a parent’s decision is not in a child’s best interest then the state will prevent that neglectful decision. A child’s right to make his or her own healthcare decisions requires that they meet criteria under the mature minor guidelines or be an emancipated minor.

[WhyNot]

@Chessic Sense

But you see, that’s the problem right there. The kid doesn’t belong to the parent. The kid is a separate human being, entitled to life and general well-being.

*Nobody *is entitled to life or a general well-being.

Yeah, it’s one of those times when logical ethics aren’t warm and fuzzy ones. I do hate it that parents should have the right to let their children die of natural causes in my ethical framework, but it’s a consequence of not infringing on other people’s free will, which is of paramount importance to me.

I’m also not as bothered by death, even the death of children, as a lot of people, so that may make it easier to accept. But even if I were, I’d put up with the discomfort rather than hold an inconsistent ethic. If people have total responsibility for their children, then they also hold the responsibility of dealing with the consequences of their choices, even if that includes death.

Now, if the child were vocal in expressing a desire for medical treatment the parent is withholding, I’d absolutely support them in seeking a medical guardian of the court. But if the kid is too retarded or young to do so, I don’t see how interference is ethical and consistent with my own desire to be left alone to raise my own kids as I see best.

It’s my own personal slippery slope, you see. If I force an informed parent into this procedure, which saves 90% of patients, then when do I stop? A procedure with an 80% success rate? 10%? Mandatory treatment of fevers over 100°?

[DSeid]

@WhyNot

… but it’s a consequence of not infringing on other people’s free will, which is of paramount importance to me… If people have total responsibility for their children, then …

… if the kid is too retarded or young to do so, I don’t see how interference is ethical and consistent with my own desire to be left alone to raise my own kids as I see best…

If one accepts that a child is too young to make an informed life or death decision for him or herself then “free will” has nothing to do with it. In the absence of the individual him or herself being competent to make such a decision who is entrusted with making such a choice on his or her behalf and is there any limit put on that ability to be decision maker?

Your “own desire to be left alone to raise my own kids as I see best” is fine and in this society is respected within broad limits. Neither your responsibility or your rights are “total.” You cannot brand your child with a hot iron because you see such an action best. You cannot anally rape your children because you see such is best. Even if your child went to a court and testified that such was what they wanted. You cannot let your child die from a cause preventable by application of standard procedures just because you see such is fit either. Your role as representative will for your child has limits placed upon it by society, the fuzzy edge of exactly where that limit is or should be notwithstanding.

[Freudian_Slit]

@WhyNot

Now, if the child were vocal in expressing a desire for medical treatment the parent is withholding, I’d absolutely support them in seeking a medical guardian of the court. But if the kid is too retarded or young to do so, I don’t see how interference is ethical and consistent with my own desire to be left alone to raise my own kids as I see best.

But if the kid isn’t aware or is too young to realize, then isn’t it also important to intervene? I’m sure there are a lot of medical procedures that kids don’t want to undertake. Anything with needles, operations, being examined. It’s one thing if the parent has the child undergo the scary procedure anyway but if they say no, and the kid agrees, it’s not like they’ve turned it down out of any rational reason. It might just be because it looks scary/painful, not because they’ve weighed the options.

[WhyNot]

@DSeid

If one accepts that a child is too young to make an informed life or death decision for him or herself then “free will” has nothing to do with it.
In the absence of the individual him or herself being competent to make such a decision who is entrusted with making such a choice on his or her behalf and is there any limit put on that ability to be decision maker?

Well, exactly. The child is too young to have a free will. The parent isn’t. The state, I argue, has a duty to respect the free will of the one who has it, in this case, the parent.

Once the kid can meaningfully squawk about it and raise objections more substantial than “No! Needles hurt!” then I think that’s evidence that they are developing a free will, and they deserve a person who will advocate on their behalf, parent or court.

Your “own desire to be left alone to raise my own kids as I see best” is fine and in this society is respected within broad limits. Neither your responsibility or your rights are “total.” You cannot brand your child with a hot iron because you see such an action best. You cannot anally rape your children because you see such is best. Even if your child went to a court and testified that such was what they wanted. You cannot let your child die from a cause preventable by application of standard procedures just because you see such is fit either. Your role as representative will for your child has limits placed upon it by society, the fuzzy edge of exactly where that limit is or should be notwithstanding.

I agree. I think the fuzzy edge should not include the state, as represented by the judge, being able to force *medical *decisions on competent, informed parents. I don’t think the saving of lives is worth the cost.

I don’t think the fuzzy edge should include the state allowing branding or anal rape, just in case that was in doubt. Unless, of course, the branding is part of cauterizing a wound or surgical incision or the anal rape is a colonoscopy on a child suspected of having colon cancer, and informed parental authorization is obtained. That’s about the best I can torture such subjects into the topic of the thread.

[elfkin477]

@CutterJohn

I say give him chemo, wait until he is 40, has a wife and kids of his own, then ask him if he thinks the state should have let his parents ignorance kill him. That will be the answer we need, and I’m pretty sure we can all guess what it will be.

Um…he might not be nearly as grateful as you think, because those kids of his likely would not be his bio-children. Sterility in males is a common side-effect of chemotherapy.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@WhyNot

Nobody is entitled to life or a general well-being.

WTF?

Show me where the Constitution says you have a right to prevent somebody else from receiving medical treatment. Cite?

I’m also not as bothered by death, even the death of children, as a lot of people, so that may make it easier to accept.

How wonderful and special that you feel that way, but, unfortunately, the kids you want to kill might feel a little bit differently.

But even if I were, I’d put up with the discomfort rather than hold an inconsistent ethic.

I don’t think the word “ethic” means what you think it means.

If people have total responsibility for their children, then they also hold the responsibility of dealing with the consequences of their choices, even if that includes death.

Responsibility doesn’t mean ownership, it means a legal obligation to protect the child’s best interests. Killing your own children is bad, M’kay? They are not property. You are imagining parental "rights’ that do not fucking exist.

Well, exactly. The child is too young to have a free will. The parent isn’t. The state, I argue, has a duty to respect the free will of the one who has it, in this case, the parent.

No, the state has a duty to protect the rights of the CHILD. Children are not physical objects for you to nurture or kill at your whim. They are separate human beings with individual rights of their own. Is this really news to you? You actually have to be told this?

[Trion]

@elfkin477

Um…he might not be nearly as grateful as you think, because those kids of his likely would not be his bio-children. Sterility in males is a common side-effect of chemotherapy.

Not the kind of chemo he’s likely to get for HL. Unless my daughter is a figment of my imagination.

[Captain_Carrot]

@elfkin477

Um…he might not be nearly as grateful as you think, because those kids of his likely would not be his bio-children. Sterility in males is a common side-effect of chemotherapy.

So? Adopted kids are loved just as much as biological kids.