Judge Rules Family Can't Refuse Chemo for Child With Cancer

[southcitymom]

Snipped...

I find it very interesting that Daniel was home-schooled. Usually, home-schooled children test above their peers in public schools.

Perhaps, they "unschool" which is what some friends of ours do. It is basically homeschooling with no set curriculum - children learn through the routine of life and set their own educational course. Many (but not all) un-schooled kids don't read until later than most of the rest of us consider normal - they learn to read when they becoming interested in something they want to read.

Lots of unschoolers have family businesses like a farm. I don't know if that is the case with Daniel's family - just wanted to throw out some of my experience with this type of homeschooling.

 

[EmMomma]

I have read this entire thread, and I am completely torn.
The thought of the state taking rights away from parents who ARE good parents terrifies me.
OTOH, the thought of a child dying when there's a 95% chance he could survive is heart wrenching.
Cancer is hell. Chemo is the inner circle of hell, but to watch a child die...I can't even imagine having to go through this.
I may, for once, not have a real opinion...

 

[Trino]

Perhaps, they "unschool" which is what some friends of ours do. It is basically homeschooling with no set curriculum - children learn through the routine of life and set their own educational course. Many (but not all) un-schooled kids don't read until later than most of the rest of us consider normal - they learn to read when they becoming interested in something they want to read.

Lots of unschoolers have family businesses like a farm. I don't know if that is the case with Daniel's family - just wanted to throw out some of my experience with this type of homeschooling.

Home schooling in MN requires a curriculum and requires yearly testing. Obviously, something happened that this boy slipped through the cracks. The MN DE should be held responsible if this boy cannot read. Below is the website for MN Home Schooling.

http://www.onamia.k12.mn.us/OnamiaSchools/index_files/HomeSchoolBasics08-09.pdf

 

[CyberLaw]

I am not "torn" in any way shape or form. This happened in Canada, the "boy" and I mean a "boy" lacks the capacity to "think" for himself and see 10, 20, 30 years down the road.

He has a "highly" treatable form of Cancer and can have a life after treatment. Do parents "always" act in the best interest of their child. That is "questionable" as to what in their opinion is in the best interest of the child and "what really" in the view of "right" minded thinking persons is in the best interest of the child.

So Chemo will be tough, really tough, but it will save his life. How many times, have we heard "they tried" to heal her/him with prayer and prayer groups and God will save the child as we believe in God and his healing powers. The child dies a very slow and painful death, which could have been avoided and the child lived if the child was "allowed" to seek medical help.

A similar type of thing happened here. A 13 year old boy who previously had cancer had a relapse. The form of Cancer again is very treatable. If he did not get treatment he would die. No doubt. The parents(in their wisdom) sided with what the "child" wanted.

Well to make a long story short. The Doctor stepped in. CAS(Children Aid Society) and the courts. The boy received treatment and is going to have a life is going to live.

Medical neglect comes to mind........that is what the court ruled.

So veto the parents, sometimes "others" who are not part of some religion or whatever can make the decision for the child, a sound logical decision that will save the life of the child.

I wish Cancer can be cured by "prayer, medicine man, vitamins, steam baths, wishful thinking, promises, food, sunshine, positive thinking, but unfortunately chemo is the most effective and 'proven" effective treatment.

Some parents are just "not objective" and thinking logically, so therefore "right minded, unbiased, objective thought must be "subsituted" for the parents "neglect".

The child is going to receive medical treatment for a serious medical condition. Bottom line........

 

[southcitymom]

......

The child is going to receive medical treatment for a serious medical condition. Bottom line........

(respectfully snipped for length)

Prior to treatment, patients (and/or their parents) are presented the Patient's Bill of Rights, which states in part:

"Consumers have the right and responsibility to fully participate in all decisions related to their health care. Consumers who are unable to fully participate in treatment decisions have the right to be represented by parents, guardians, family members, or other conservators."

The Patient Bill of Rights also includes this freedom: "The right to refuse medical treatment even if it is recommended by their physician(s)".

Apparently part of the Patient's Bill of Rights is a big fat lie. I think they should at least be honest enough to rewrite it to say "Since we doctors know what's best for all our patients, you'd better do what we tell you to do or we will be sure to take you to Court and make a stressful period of your life even more stressful."

 

[southcitymom]

Home schooling in MN requires a curriculum and requires yearly testing. Obviously, something happened that this boy slipped through the cracks. The MN DE should be held responsible if this boy cannot read. Below is the website for MN Home Schooling.

http://www.onamia.k12.mn.us/OnamiaSchools/index_files/HomeSchoolBasics08-09.pdf

Thanks for the link. I read all that and did not see where the State requires yearly testing - at least not a test that the State prepares and grades.

Unschoolers rarely have a problem assigning their kids educational activities to a formal curriculum or having their kids pass a home-grown test at any time.

There are several unschooling groups in MN so folks must be doing some of it there.

Now, Daniel may not be unschooled and, in fact, the fact that his parents were concerned enough about his reading to have an IEP done sort of leads me to believe they are probably NOT unschoolers.

 

[southcitymom]

If the document was read to him as written by the courts, then I doubt he could understand it. I agree that being illiterate does not mean you cannot make decisions. However, most of the people who I have known who are functionally illiterate are so because of the lack of opportunity or having a disability that was unnoticed until they were out of school. Since this child has an IEP and has not learned to read, how much of that is because he *cannot* learn to read? This would signal a pervasive developmental disorder of some sort that is stopping him from learning to read. This same type of disorder could also influence his ability to understand words in whatever form. Even if he can understand, how much of what he is thinking comes from his parents?

Someday we will have specialized treatments for cancer. Even now, scientists are working on DNA typing for different kinds of cancers to find the medicine that works best to kill them so doctors are not on the "chemo crap shoot" of throwing everything at a cancer to see what works. These will be genetically based treatments that will certainly improve the life expectancy of the patient, if not cure them. I am hoping that through this process, we are able to quash cancer to the point that it becomes no more than an annoyance, like the flu (OK, maybe not a good example right now) or more like a chronic condition you live with like diabetes.

I have seen studies that show that prayer seems to help people recover. I think it has more to do with giving the person a hopeful outlook than actually an answer from God. I mean, think about it. If you pray that your three year old with leukemia gets well and she dies, what does that say about prayer? That it doesn't work? Or that "God wanted her for heaven." Either way, whether she lives or dies, prayer is seen as the answer. A true study, for me, would show people who are being prayed for survive more than those who are not prayed for -- without the patient knowing they are or are not being prayed for. Anything else is about patient attitude and acceptance.

My faith lies in medicine and science. The parents in this case are being neglectful. Plain and simple.

I am deeply respectful of the faith you and others have in Western medicine and Science. I am just a respectful in the faith others have in different modalities to treat or not treat the disease process.

There is nothing plain and simple about this case. The Judge that heard the evidence and wrote the most recent opinion admitted several times that this was a very difficult issue for him to decide in light of the sincerity of Daniel's parents and the fact that, as the Judge finds "Daniel loves his parents and his parents love Him". That hardly seems like the Judge thinks they are neglectful. However MN law shoots down alternative healing therapies as being good enough and so the Judge's opinion is well-supported by case law.

 

[CyberLaw]

Consumers who are unable to fully participate in treatment decisions have the right to be represented by parents, guardians, family members, or other conservators."

That is what happened in this case. Medical neglect seems to contradict the "Patient" Bill of Rights. If you refuse medical treatment for your child for a "treatable" illness then who's interest are you acting in. You bet the law and hospitals will do what they feel is right, especially for a minor child.

Medical neglect is abuse.......child abuse.......therefore the courts will step in to "stop" the abuse and insure the child receives medical care and treatment.

Like I said before, parents do not always act in the best interest of a child. But you bet the courts usually will.

The child is a child, it is up to the "state" to protect him, even if that is from his own parents and his own parents "warped" and weird" decisions regarding his health and well being.

Being a parents does not give a person a right to do what ever the heck they want for and to the child. Laws clearly state this.

From www.childwelfare.gov.

Neglect

Neglect is frequently defined in terms of deprivation of adequate food, clothing, shelter, medical care, or supervision. Approximately 21 States and American Samoa, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands include failure to educate the child as required by law in their definition of neglect.


Seven States further define medical neglect as failing to provide any special medical treatment or mental health care needed by the child. In addition, four States define as medical neglect the withholding of medical treatment or nutrition from disabled infants with life-threatening conditions.

 

[Trino]

http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemw...e/index.cfm?event=stateStatutes.processSearch

Definition of neglect in MN includes medical neglect.

"Failure by a person responsible for a child's care to supply a child with necessary food, clothing, shelter, health, medical, or other care required for the child's physical or mental health when reasonably able to do so."

 

[ziggy]

Just because there is a precident or statute doesn't always make it right. It has been determined before in other areas that the government is overstepping its bounds. Decisions have been overturned and legislation has been deemed "bad law".

Statutes are also open to interpretation by judges. For instance, does medical treatment include mandatory vaccinations? The FDA is a government body and has not always done the right thing.

In this case, the judge is taking one individual case and making a precident that could affect many, many other parents down the line should the judge in their case interpret the language in the law to include perhaps more than the original legislators intended.

 

[southcitymom]

Just because there is a precident or statute doesn't always make it right. It has been determined before in other areas that the government is overstepping its bounds. Decisions have been overturned and legislation has been deemed "bad law".

Statutes are also open to interpretation by judges. For instance, does medical treatment include mandatory vaccinations? The FDA is a government body and has not always done the right thing.

In this case, the judge is taking one individual case and making a precident that could affect many, many other parents down the line should the judge in their case interpret the language in the law to include perhaps more than the original legislators intended.

I was just thinking about this.

After reading all the documents, I have to say - to be fair to the Western medical doctors, the law requires them to report cases such as this and to be fair to the Judge, I do not know if the facts of this case would have allowed him to make any other decision (ie - a decision that wouldn't be reversed fairly quickly).

I'm not a lawyer or a Judge, so you never know what MIGHT have happened.

Now, if the 13-year-old boy had been more verbose, more passionate about his beliefs, if he had come across to the Judge as more informed about everything, then I think the Judge could have fairly made a different choice. But this boy was shy, pretty softspoken. I do think the Court could fairly surmise from its interview with the boy (as well as the GAL's interview with the boy) that the child might not have been as fully aware of the potential outcomes of his choices as the court wanted him to be. And the Court wasn't going to allow the parents to make the choice.

So, I think the decision was a decision that probably had to be made given the facts of the case.

I personally don't agree with it. I think it's bad law. I don't agree at all with law and/or case law that forces a family to treat a child with poison. But all of the present law in MN seems to simply nod in acceptance of whatever Western medical professionals have to say about any given disease process and give no credence to other modalities.

There may be a case that can one day change all this - or at least give due respect and credence to personal spiritual choices - precedent, as you say. But sadly this was not that case.

My continued prayers for this family, who by all accounts are loving people who provide a loving home for their children.

 

[southcitymom]

In a way, the Court could even be seen as doing this family a favor - if the family opted out of the chemo and the child then died, under MN law it looks like the parents could then be charged with murder like that poor woman who is being tried right now (the link Trino posted earlier).

I wonder if Daniel will comply. I wonder how far the parents are expected to go to make certain he complies. All the Western med professionals told the Judge they would not be willing to use force to make this happen, so I guess it will be seen how much this means to Daniel.

I wonder if the tests show that Daniel's cancer has progressed far enough that the Western medical doctors don't think chemo will help if the family will then be charged with not getting him the chemo sooner.

 

[CyberLaw]

If the Judge ruled in favor of the "family", he would be over turned in a "New York minute", or heartbeat if other prefer.

Not only would he not be making a logical and sound decision, he probably would need some "exam" to see where his good reasonable "cause" is when the doctors are saying that without treatment this boy will 100% die.

Has anyone heard the term "assisted suicide", because that would be akin to what the Judge is doing if he ruled against law and the well being and long life of a child, who may not understand the "whole" consequences of his decision.

Medical Neglect is on the "books" for a reason........

Can you imagine how many children could die and the excuses for parents who children die of treatable and preventable sickness and injury.

WE see this already is cases of child abuse when the child die, who may have lived if the parents sought medical care for the child.

Bye the way....prayer did not "cure" the diabetes of the child. The Doctors whom were born on this planet in the face of G_d, have the intelligence and smarts to "ease the suffering of people and save lives.

Doctors are here for a reason, medicine too, the court also. No one is going to help this family "kill" this kid. The decision is sound.

 

[southcitymom]

The wiggle room the Judge had, IMHO, rests with the fact that chemo is a terrible, awful poison that many many people with cancer decide NOT to take into their bodies. I think there would be less wiggle room if the suggested Western medical course of treatment that might cure a child was something innocuous.

The Judge also had wiggle room under the Constitutional right to privacy, but Daniel (particularly) and his Mother did not fully convince the Judge of this. I personally wish the Judge had asked Daniel many more pointed questions regarding his understanding of his cancer and what the Western docs said about it. None of the documents I read gave me a clear picture of this.

 

[CyberLaw]

The state can also remove the child from his parents because of the medical neglect and place him in the care of the state.

After all he is still a child in need of protection, from himself and his family.

Again, is does not matter what this kid wants, he somehow does not understand, that Chemo is uncomfortable, heck, lets just call a spade a spade, it is the worst.

But it is not permanent, death is........this child is too "brainwashed" by his parents "warped" and weird" views to even consider "that he can dictate his own life.

Again, this child is a victim of medical neglect and the courts stepped in to correct the neglect and order the child get the necessary treatment to save his life.

BTW, this bloodly well gulls me. A lot of people would be "over the moon" to have a cancer that has a 95 % chance of survival with treatment.

But sadly, even with aggressive treatment they still die. Ask them about this situation and see what their opinion is.

Farrah Fawcett comes to mind...... my friend who died of brain cancer, and my best friend who is currently seeing her brother though terminal cancer.

That is why, the judge ruled in favor of the state.......and in the boys best interest.

If an adult wants to refuse treatment and fully knows with "adult" maturity and all of the aspect of being an adult to refuse treatment, it is his life and he is an adult. But this is a child.....a child in need of medical treatment.

Hey why don't we just let other 13 years make decision that can cause their death. Heck, they are only 13, it is not like they are children or anything.

 

[southcitymom]

The state can also remove the child from his parents because of the medical neglect and place him in the care of the state. .........

(respectfully snipped for length)

In this case, the Judge stated it is in the child's best interest to remain with his parents, who the Judge repeatedly described in his opinion as "kind and loving parents." The Judge said it would clearly not be in the child's best interest to be removed from the home. It is, of course, within the Judge's power to remove the child (a poster on this thread - GreenEyedGirl - had that happen in her own family to traumatizing effect.)

I cannot speak for everyone with cancer, of course, but my MIL has been dancing with ovarian cancer for 7 years now. She has had three surgeries and three rounds of chemo. If she knew then what she knows now, she would have never undergone chemotherapy. She now treats solely with homeopathic measures, measures which the state of MN deem "not good enough."

 

[CyberLaw]

The point being, is it better to have a very short time on earth and eventually die in pain from Cancer or endure treatment like say, like Farrah Fawcett and live a lot longer then anyone thought was possible and do everything possible to live.

I can tell you right now, homopatic(sp) herbs and such is not going to treat or cure cancer or put into remission. Cancer has been proven to respond to Chemo and radiation.

Ask her family how they feel about her being "alive" walking, talking and being part of life because of treatment for her cancer.

A friend of a friend who knew someone for many years, saw the person literally "waste" away because he had cancer that could not be treated, he lasted till the end, about 6 months. That is 6.5 years less then without treatment for ovarian cancer.

So unfortunately, there is short term cancer, and long term cancer treatment. This boy is differently the later and has a chance to live, unlike others.

Again, I agree with the Judge, I would have made the same decision, because honestly, if I ruled differently, I don't know how I could live with myself knowing that I literally sentenced this child to "sure" death. Even now it may be too late for the boy to benefit from treatment anyways. Why you ask, because he should have started treatment a a lot sooner then a court decision.

I need to look in the mirror now and then........and I could not live with my decision let alone look in the mirror if I ruled for this boys death.

 

[BuzzieCat]

There are so many reasons that can result in an inability to read! Maybe he is of normal intelligence and has severe dyslexia? Maybe his intelligence is normal but his vision is not?

If so, then why hasn't he been helped?

(respectfully snipped for length)

Prior to treatment, patients (and/or their parents) are presented the Patient's Bill of Rights, which states in part:

"Consumers have the right and responsibility to fully participate in all decisions related to their health care. Consumers who are unable to fully participate in treatment decisions have the right to be represented by parents, guardians, family members, or other conservators."

The Patient Bill of Rights also includes this freedom: "The right to refuse medical treatment even if it is recommended by their physician(s)".

Apparently part of the Patient's Bill of Rights is a big fat lie.

I would assume that part is for competent adults, not for children or others who are unable to make their own decisions.

(respectfully snipped for length)

In this case, the Judge stated it is in the child's best interest to remain with his parents, who the Judge repeatedly described in his opinion as "kind and loving parents." The Judge said it would clearly not be in the child's best interest to be removed from the home. It is, of course, within the Judge's power to remove the child (a poster on this thread - GreenEyedGirl - had that happen in her own family to traumatizing effect.)

I cannot speak for everyone with cancer, of course, but my MIL has been dancing with ovarian cancer for 7 years now. She has had three surgeries and three rounds of chemo. If she knew then what she knows now, she would have never undergone chemotherapy. She now treats solely with homeopathic measures, measures which the state of MN deem "not good enough."

That's a little bit of comparing apples to oranges. Ovarian cancer is much more aggressive than what this boy has. Also, it tends to be diagnosed only after it has spread, making it more difficult to treat. Yeah, chemo is a poison and who in their right mind would be happy about taking it? Nobody! And no, it doesn't always work and isn't without risk. It has to be taken on a case-by-case basis. Some types of cancer have a better chance of good outcome than others.

 

[Trino]

(respectfully snipped for length)

Prior to treatment, patients (and/or their parents) are presented the Patient's Bill of Rights, which states in part:

"Consumers have the right and responsibility to fully participate in all decisions related to their health care. Consumers who are unable to fully participate in treatment decisions have the right to be represented by parents, guardians, family members, or other conservators."

The Patient Bill of Rights also includes this freedom: "The right to refuse medical treatment even if it is recommended by their physician(s)".

Apparently part of the Patient's Bill of Rights is a big fat lie. I think they should at least be honest enough to rewrite it to say "Since we doctors know what's best for all our patients, you'd better do what we tell you to do or we will be sure to take you to Court and make a stressful period of your life even more stressful."

Notice the words "competent" and "incapable of understanding." According to MN law patients have the

"Right to Refuse Care. Competent patients shall have the right to refuse treatment based on the information required in Right No. 6. In cases where a patient is incapable of understanding the circumstances but has not been adjudicated incompetent, or when legal requirements limit the right to refuse treatment, the conditions and circumstances shall be fully documented by the attending physician in the patient’s medical record."

http://www.childrensmn.org/web/hospitalservices/122954.pdf

 

[southcitymom]

Notice the words "competent" and "incapable of understanding." According to MN law patients have the

"Right to Refuse Care. Competent patients shall have the right to refuse treatment based on the information required in Right No. 6. In cases where a patient is incapable of understanding the circumstances but has not been adjudicated incompetent, or when legal requirements limit the right to refuse treatment, the conditions and circumstances shall be fully documented by the attending physician in the patient’s medical record."

http://www.childrensmn.org/web/hospitalservices/122954.pdf

Yep, MN really does have it sewn up.