<p>It seems to me that the parents are irresponsible for encouraging their kid to find hope in a treatment that has been clearly proven not to work… however, since the kid is 16 and he and his parents both agree and have done their research, it seems like the state shouldn’t have any role in the decision. If the kid wanted treatment and the parents were prohibiting it, or if the parents wanted to treat the kid and he refused, maybe things would be different… but if the whole family agrees, the kid is 16, and it’s clear there hasn’t been any religious brainwashing or other sources of pressure, then I say it’s sad, but none of the state’s business.</p>
<p>I’m interested in hearing contrasting opinions, since I don’t think I’ve fully made up my mind.</p>
<p>The family should have the final decision.<br>
As a parent, I don’t want the state to tell me what I have to do with my children. It seems as if they did their research. He tried chemo once. It is not the cure-all, just a treatment, as indicated in the story. This will be interesting to see how it all plays out if the judge rules that he has to take chemo again. Who is going to make him do this? The Police?
Doctors are NOT Gods…</p>
<p>Those laws are in place to protect children from parents who are forcing religious beliefs on their child, or who feel that treatment is too expensive, or who are ignorant enough to believe that practical, proven methods are quackery, etc. This is not the case, here. Both the parents and the child have researched their course of action. They understand that chemotherapy and radiation may be successful; they just don’t want it, and instead are seeking alternative therapies.</p>
<p>I have serious doubts about how successful traditional therapies can be if someone doesn’t want them…</p>
<p>If it can be established that the parents have not pressured or influenced the kid into wanting the alternative treatment instead of the medically accepted one, the court shouldn’t get in the way of it. That would be hard to prove though. He’s 16, so he has the ability to understand the treatment options. In a short two years Darwin would rule.</p>
<p>No matter what happens in the courts though it might be hard to find a doctor to administer chemo/radiation treatments if both the parents and the kid are well informed about them and say that they do not want them. It doesn’t seem like it would be very ethical for a doctor to do so, even though he or she would very well know that the treatments the family and kid do not want are the best hope for survival. Can the courts actually compel a certain doctor to administer the treatments?</p>
<p>I’m too much of a libertarian to like this. </p>
<p>It’s not like the parents are refusing to let their 6-year-old kid get a blood transfusion. Philosophically, it’s hard to make the distinction - if the state can intervene with a 6-year-old and standard treatment, what’s the real, fundamental difference and how can we draw a line? Again, philosophically, I don’t want the state dictating the medical treatment of a minor where adults would make the same decision. We all know that chemo is brutal. It is completely possible that the doctors said that chemo would only marginally improve his chances of recovery. </p>
<p>I really wonder who even brought this to court. The doctors? Simple. Switch physicians if they are trying to force something on you. Several years back, a woman did that with some success. She had delivered some five children vaginally, but doctors were trying to force her to have a C-section. Her husband taxied her to another hospital before the first doctors got a court order gaining temporary custody of her unborn baby, who was delivered without complications. I no longer see doctors with whom I had a bad rapport. </p>
<p>In response to David06’s rhetorical question about forcing doctors to do this: no, I don’t think they can force a physician to administer the treatment; however, I think that some MD brought the suit to begin with, so he would probably be the one in charge. </p>
<p>Personally, I wonder why this kid isn’t being sent to live with an aunt in Minnesota or something. Let Virginia’s DSS try to extradite him, once he’s moved and switched hospitals.</p>
<p>I was very interested in this situation as I have a child who had a life threatening illness. It seems to me in this case, given the way the law is written in that article, the parents and child should have been permitted to make the call on this one. The child is close to adulthood in age, he is supported by his parents on the decision, and medical treatment resulted in failure, the first time around. Though salvage therapy for Hodgekins can still give you a fighting chance, the odds are lowered. Some years back, a young man ran away from home before completing an initial Hodgekins protocol. There was a lot of publicity about that case. The young man claimed that the chemo was unbearable and that he would rather die. His parents and the doctors were in sync about the treatment. The odds were good that he would have a good prognosis if he went through the chemo. In that case, the doctors came up with an alternative protocol that was not as brutal, but also less effective, with the parents acquiesing on this change, and the boy did come home to resume treatment. How he is today, I don’t know.<br>
As Ariesathena said, someone, most likely the doctors pushed this case. I saw too many cases where a family opted out of treatment with children younger than this boy, and the chances of longterm remission much higher, and the medical profession let it go, though they did not agree or support this decision.<br>
Personally, I do not agree with this family choice, but I also feel that the doctors and courts are out of line. I believe that the young man and his parents were informed enough of the risks to make this decision.</p>