<p>“But how can you really enforce such a judgment, if it came out that way? Would the police just come in and take him?”</p>
<p>Well, yeah. That’s what they do when parents neglect or abuse their kids.</p>
<p>It takes a whole lot to get me to support government interference in a family decision. If the cure rate weren’t so high, I’d be inclined to let the family do what they want (all the way up to hospice or assisted suicide – I’m pretty radical on this topic). But this sounds over the line even to me.</p>
<p>That being said, there’s a significant practical problem here. If the state takes him, and can’t convince him that chemo is in his best interest, he’s going to interpret it as his enemy, not his ally. That really might make it less effective.</p>
<p>Yes. This isn’t an 8 year old, but a 13 year old with convictions of his own, regardless of how he acquired them.<br>
If I were the judge, I’d require counseling for the boy from a psychologist and medical experts who know this cancer inside and out. If they can’t convince him that the therapy is necessary for his life, then they need let it go.
Chemotherapy requires several treatments, which could take months, and the support of the patient. As a cancer survivor, I can’t even fathom how doctors could administer chemo without the patient’s cooperation.<br>
And of course, he could die even with the treatment.</p>
<p>I really think it’s unfair to call his parent’s actions abuse or neglect. They obviously love and care for their son, even if they don’t buy into the accepted medical protocol for his condition. Call them ignorant or delusional if you like, but they aren’t purposefully doing harm. They believe they’re doing what’s best for him.</p>
<p>Abuse isn’t measured by the parent’s intent to cause harm. Lots of parents abuse/neglect their children in perfect good faith. Locking the children indoors to protect them from bullies, thus trapping them when the house catches fire; beating them in the belief that it’s necessary to instill discipline, etc.</p>
<p>I can see an argument that this isn’t abuse or neglect, but the parents’ intent can’t form the basis of that argument.</p>
<p>My 15-year-old has opinions about his life and the way he wants to live it; that doesn’t mean I need to give his opinions equal weight with mine. He’d have been happy to drop out of school years ago, or now for that matter, play on the computer for every waking moment, eat junk food, not shower unless he’s going out of the house (which he’d rather not do, because then he wouldn’t be in front of a computer), and so on, and never mind where he drops his socks and dirty tissues!!</p>
<p>Hanna, I agree that it doesn’t hold as a basis for argument in every case, but I think it’s pretty clear in this particular case. I think it’s not a fair choice of words regarding this family.
But then I think it would be abuse to strap this boy in a straightjacket and infuse him with chemo drugs against his will when others apparently think this is perfectly fine.</p>
<p>All the docs can really do is advise and try to persuade. What else can they actually do?</p>
<p>What if a kid decided that he didn’t want to drink water anymore, because he didn’t want others telling him what to put in his body? I think this is an easier analogy than suicide with a weapon, but the morality of the situation is the same.</p>
<p>It isn’t the same. But that’s beside the point. How do you accomplish months of chemotherapy without a cooperative patient? Keep him in jail for the required weeks of treatment to keep him from running away, and then tie him down to transport him and handcuff him to keep him from ripping the IV out of his arm? For months? Yep, that will sure make him well.</p>
<p>“I think it would be abuse to strap this boy in a straightjacket and infuse him with chemo drugs against his will when others apparently think this is perfectly fine.”</p>
<p>Are you talking about the government strapping him down, or his parents strapping him down? Do you think it would be abuse in either case?</p>
<p>Any pediatrician has seen many children screaming, kicking, etc. as they fight treatment. They are held down for brief treatments, sedated for longer ones, like chemo or surgery. The same goes for adults who are judged incompetent due to mental illness. I don’t think that’s abuse.</p>
<p>Now, if he becomes a ward of the state, I think that there should be an inquiry, involving psychiatrists and oncologists, about the effect of the child’s emotional state on the likelihood of successful cancer treatment. It’s not self-evident that a 95% cure rate will apply in this kind of case. But the option of forced treatment has to be on the table when we’re talking about a seriously ill minor.</p>
<p>Pleural effusion would be terrifying. This poor kid and his family-- it kind of sounds like that episode was so scary for them that they think going through it again would be worse than death… So they’ve changed their entire belief structure to turn their back on organized medicine.</p>
<p>I can understand where all three of them are coming from, but I think that the parents also have the moral obligation to spend their energy trying to find a doctor they trust, figure out how to comfort their child during these treatments, and summon the strength to help him get through this.</p>
<p>Sad, scary situation. I send them my thoughts and prayers.</p>
<p>No one should be forced to undergo a treatment they don’t want, especially something like chemotherapy, which hurts as well as heals. He’s 13. He’s old enough to make his own decision. Give him counseling, explain to him the medical implications, and if his choice is still the same then that’s his choice. It would be worse if we forced chemo on him, and made what’s possibly his last days full of suffering.</p>
<p>Many things in life hurt while being beneficial- temporary (not lifelong) pain, inconvenience and all sorts of other unpleasant things that yield a good cost/benefit ratio should be done. I doubt any 13 year old can know fully the benefits of undergoing cancer treatments, teenagers believe they are immortal and don’t have the concept of living for many decades. This is not a case of 5% survival, it is presented as a 95% survival. No guarantees in life- he could be hit by a car while crossing the street.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, it’s their right to believe in whatever they want to, and they have faith that the cancer will be cured through spiritual means. It’s not like they’re saying that accepting chemo/radiation therapy is against their religion so they want their son to die instead. They simply believe that he will get better as it is the will of some supreme power.</p>
<p>Personally, I believe that this notion is absurd, as do the vast majority of even religious people, but if the government does not allow them to act on this belief then their freedom of religion has definitely been violated.</p>
<p>The fact that the son is going to die is completely irrelevant, as the parents and the son have no explicit intention of allowing this to happen. They simply don’t understand that a belief is not going to save them, the best thing anyone can do is to educate them.</p>
<p>To make this easier to understand, imagine that you have cancer and you want the chemo, but everyone in the government believes Jesus will save you so chemo is illegal. The government can’t act on what it “believes” because that violates an individuals freedoms.</p>
<p>“The fact that the son is going to die is completely irrelevant”</p>
<p>Maybe it’s irrelevant to you, but it’s not irrelevant to the law. Parents have an obligation to care for their children. If they fail to do so, the state has the right to step in and care for the children itself. We’re only debating whether the government OUGHT to intervene in this case; there’s absolutely no question that it has the legal authority to do so.</p>
<p>I find it disgusting that people are accusing these parents of abuse and neglect. They are standing behind their child’s wishes to not use modern medicine. This is NOT the same thing as forcing cough syrup down a 4 year old child’s throat because it tastes bad. </p>
<p>If the parents were keeping their child from treatment through brainwashing or through force, that would be a different story. Instead, they are respecting the wishes of their child.</p>
<p>If it’s illegal to respect the wishes of your child who doesn’t feel as though going to school will benefit their future enough to make it worth it, why isn’t it illegal to respect the wishes of your child who doesn’t feel as though chemotherapy will benefit their future enough to make it worth it? Why should the government be able to step in and take legal action in the first place, but not in the second?</p>
<p>If the child wanted to set fire to himself to protest the war in Iraq, should the parents (and the government) respect that? I don’t see this situation as much different, really. As a society we set some limits on people’s ability to be irresponsible toward their children.</p>
<p>imo, parents should force him to do the chemo. He’ll thank them later. He’s not old enough to make his own decision on this. (A lady at my church chose herbal treatments over chemo–then when the herbals didn’t work–after she wasted precious time and $$ on these scam treatments-- and she was dying, she went back to an MD who said it was too late. She would’ve had a good chance if she’d started chemo when the cancer first came back. She died a horrible painful death, and left 4 children ages 9-15 behind. Makes me so mad. Modern medicine isn’t perfect, but it’s the most effective thing we have now–both my parents and one sib have had cancer and wouldn’t be around if not for chemo/surgery/radiation).</p>