|
|
Post by Aqualung on May 15, 2009 10:09:57 GMT -5
I'm kind of surprised no one has mentioned this here yet: news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090515/ap_on_he_me/us_med_forced_chemo;_ylt=AonJHq5OJ1kISXUGg53lFvUDW7oFIt's kind of a tough call. On the one hand, you have the right to refuse treatment, and they shouldn't force him to have chemo just because he's a minor. And sometimes the treatment can be worse than the disease; cancer is funny that way. But on the other hand, I hate seeing people choose religious beliefs over medicine that could possibly save their lives. Like with the little girl who died from diabetes because her parents used prayer instead. The shit pisses me off. I don't know. What say you guys? |
|
|
|
Post by Lady Renae on May 15, 2009 10:32:36 GMT -5
I read this on Pharyngula. My response then was the same as it is now:
Sometimes I wish CPS had the ability to actually do things without broken bones or copious drugs being involved.
|
|
|
|
Post by xaria on May 15, 2009 10:43:53 GMT -5
fuck the family and their beliefs. that CHILD should be saved. they might as well hand a knife to someone and give them permiossion to cut out the boys heart.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aqualung on May 15, 2009 12:01:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on May 15, 2009 13:35:06 GMT -5
The story states that the boy only has a 5% chance to survive without the treatment. I agree with the judge on this one. The kid is not old enough to make an informed decision and his parents who should know better, don't.
|
|
|
|
Post by antichrist on May 15, 2009 14:17:10 GMT -5
The "medicine man" has actually spent time in jail for fraud. Why are people so stupid as to follow a convicted con-man?
And I'm curious about the learning disability. Is he really disabled? Or just homeschooled by a retarded mother.
|
|
|
|
Post by deliciousdemon on May 15, 2009 14:21:37 GMT -5
fuck the family and their beliefs. that CHILD should be saved. they might as well hand a knife to someone and give them permiossion to cut out the boys heart. Spare the hyperbole. The boy is just a child, he cannot legally act for himself. It is up to the parents to treat him or not. They must make this decision and act "in his best interests" until he is 18 years of age. Whilst I agree that the boy should be treated, there are plenty of ethical safeguards in place to allow his parents some recourse. People have the right to refuse treatment for example. Ethics or no, apparently the government has stepped in, which seems a good move in this instance: the boy cannot read. Given this information and his age I cannot accept he is in the position to be making these kinds of decisions for himself. |
|
|
|
Post by Old Viking on May 15, 2009 14:24:26 GMT -5
You become an adult the first time you realize that you are mortal. A 13-year-old knows what death means, but only as an abstract concept. Do we allow 13-year-olds to decide when they can drive?
|
|
|
|
Post by antichrist on May 15, 2009 14:38:15 GMT -5
Funny, in Canada we technically have less freedoms, but in someways this is a good thing.
There would be no issue here because of the boys age, his parents would be told to treat or they'd lose their boy. The only one that I can think of was a 16 year old girl, because of her age it was decided that she could make the choice herself, and she chose to refuse treatment (and died).
|
|
|
|
Post by xaria on May 15, 2009 15:06:26 GMT -5
fuck the family and their beliefs. that CHILD should be saved. they might as well hand a knife to someone and give them permiossion to cut out the boys heart. Spare the hyperbole. The boy is just a child, he cannot legally act for himself. It is up to the parents to treat him or not. They must make this decision and act "in his best interests" until he is 18 years of age. Whilst I agree that the boy should be treated, there are plenty of ethical safeguards in place to allow his parents some recourse. People have the right to refuse treatment for example. Ethics or no, apparently the government has stepped in, which seems a good move in this instance: the boy cannot read. Given this information and his age I cannot accept he is in the position to be making these kinds of decisions for himself. personally i dont think parents should be allowed to refuse treatment for a child, unless the child is in serious pain and will never improve. |
|
|
|
Post by deliciousdemon on May 15, 2009 15:20:51 GMT -5
You become an adult the first time you realize that you are mortal. A 13-year-old knows what death means, but only as an abstract concept. Do we allow 13-year-olds to decide when they can drive? A thirteen year old could very well know what death is. Parents die in a car accident, genocide, violent crime. If experienced first hand, I think a thirteen year old could figure out via transference that it can happen to him/her. |
|
|
|
Post by Distind on May 15, 2009 22:27:05 GMT -5
It's kind of a tough call. On the one hand, you have the right to refuse treatment, and they shouldn't force him to have chemo just because he's a minor. And sometimes the treatment can be worse than the disease; cancer is funny that way. But on the other hand, I hate seeing people choose religious beliefs over medicine that could possibly save their lives. Like with the little girl who died from diabetes because her parents used prayer instead. The shit pisses me off. I don't know. What say you guys? Having seen the damage of chemo on my own family members I wouldn't say it should be forced on anyone. Unless it's significantly improved in the last few years or this kid has a form of cancer easily treated through it, the damage and pain may result in little more than a longer death sentence. That said, anyone who suggests 'natural medicine' as a cancer treatment should either be shot, or given a nobel prize for science if it acutally works. Given my experience with natural medicine we'd have a pile of bodies long before any awards. |
|
|
|
Post by Mantorok on May 16, 2009 5:39:35 GMT -5
It's Hodgkin's lymphoma, there's about a 90-95% chance of remission with chemotherapy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Oriet on May 16, 2009 6:08:45 GMT -5
I second that chemo is incredibly harsh on a person. When there's not much more chance for them to survive (meaning like the single digits in percent chance) I can see letting them refuse treatment because of how much it can wreck a person's ability to even attempt to live what little life they have left. When there's such a huge fucking difference in the probability of survival though I don't think the option should be there; at least not until the person is a full out legal adult and mentally there enough to make hard decisions.
The only problem I can see with forcing the boy to have treatments is the cost. But then, if there was universal health care that wouldn't be an issue at all, as it would automatically be covered at no additional expense to the family.
|
|
|
|
Post by perv on May 16, 2009 18:35:26 GMT -5
I'm strongly in favor for patient rights, and youth rights. But I suppose there's a limit to everything. It sounds like this time, doctor really does know best. Only because in this case the correct course of action appears so obvious. If the chance of survival without treatment was higher or the treatment success rate was lower, then it would be hard to label one answer right. In that case no one should presume to know better than the patient and his family.
Added to that is the fact that they are apparently factually misinformed, thinking cancer can be treated with supplements. If they had made a carefully considered decision with all the right information, that might be different, but it doesn't seem to be the case here.
|
|
