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

[txsvicki]

I'd be interested to hear what type of natural treatments the Mom is hoping to get the boy and why she thinks they'll cure cancer. So many of those treatments would be unpleasant for him and he probably has no clue. Chelation treatments, enemas, fasting, herbal remedies with chemo-like properties, or whatever. They probably are at some clinic in Mexico that thinks parasites is cause of all cancer.

 

[Trino]

Update. Mother and son supposedly seen in southern CA, heading to Mexico. Does she really think she'll get across the border?

http://www.startribune.com/local/45...qyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aU1yDEmP:QMDCinchO7DU

 

[Trino]

I have just read this entire thread and I picked you to quote because I really like your logical approach.



That aside, I thought of an answer to your question above.

The answer is quite simply, abortion.

There you have a circumstance where Daniel's mother had the right 121/2 years ago to not only not take "measures" to protect his life but the legal "right" to end his life.

Legally sanctioned.

The reasoning behind that legislation is that the woman has physical possession of her body and therefore the child's. That "possession" continues thought out pregnancy and as a society we all recognize that as the best thing. That is why the medical community will do all it can to keep that same child in its mothers body when it is 24 weeks old and 32 weeks old etc...

So at what point exactly in the last 12 1/2 years did Daniel's mother lose that moral right to decide if he lives or dies?

And when she lost that right who did it pass too? If Daniel was 18 we would say it passed to him but he isn't. So at what age is this "no mans land" that falls between a woman's right to abort a human and that humans right to speak for itself?

And do we want that answer to be decided by a nameless faceless entity (which is what a government actually is)?

Everyone on this thread has one thing in common, they want to see Daniel live.

That is not the real debate here, as I see it.

Yes, Glow, we live in a strange world. How weird is it that a woman can abort a baby, yet if a fetus is killed by someone else, it's murder? Somewhere between conception and birth the government takes over, and the State of MN has ruled, which is the bottom line in this case. I think the difference is the word "neglect," which is what the judge stated. She wanted the baby, but she has not cared for him. What 13 yr old cannot read anything?

Pray the boy will be found in time.

 

[poco]

Haven't read every single thread here - no time - but my question to those of you who think he SHOULD NOT be forced to take the therapy - what is your stance on people who want to commit suicide??? Why is it that we commit people involuntarily when they want to take their own life? Isn't this, too, the government and/or medical profession stepping in to take control of a person's wishes???? Where do we draw the line?

 

[fortytwo]

Haven't read every single thread here - no time - but my question to those of you who think he SHOULD NOT be forced to take the therapy - what is your stance on people who want to commit suicide??? Why is it that we commit people involuntarily when they want to take their own life? Isn't this, too, the government and/or medical profession stepping in to take control of a person's wishes???? Where do we draw the line?

I'm not quite sure how, but that's pretty much the same place I ended up while trying to puzzle this out.

It was only a few posts back, if you missed it.

 

[southcitymom]

Haven't read every single thread here - no time - but my question to those of you who think he SHOULD NOT be forced to take the therapy - what is your stance on people who want to commit suicide??? Why is it that we commit people involuntarily when they want to take their own life? Isn't this, too, the government and/or medical profession stepping in to take control of a person's wishes???? Where do we draw the line?

I don't think he should be forced to take therapy. Your post and Glow's post - both provocative and interesting to consider - could be the basis of an entire thread for contradictory laws and/or moral situations.

On the suicide issue - some professions are legally obligated to take action (or start proceedings to involuntarily commit someone) in the face of a person threatening suicide.

But what is our obligation morally? I can only give my experience and opinion. My opinion is that people absolutely have the right to commit suicide. In my experience, the people in my life (quite a few) who have committed suicide successfully did not tell anyone that this was their plan - others may have known they were depressed, but no one knew they had an intent to end their lives by their own hand.

There have been three people in my life who have threatened suicide or made suicidal gestures directly to me. The first (a roommate in college who cut her wrists and came and found me) - I got her to a hospital. Her actions turned out to be attention-seeking college drama and she is happy and healthy today with no other self-harm incidents. The second (a woman I did not know very well who called me on the phone and indicated that she had been stockpiling pills to finish herself off) - I call the police to go check on her. I don't know what her situation is today - she mailed me an angry, hostile letter and I have not heard from her since. The third (a friend in a bank parking lot with a gun) - I talked into checking herself into a mental health facility. She had/has a long history of mental health issues and suicide attempts/ideation. Today, she says she was serious about what she was getting ready to do when she called me, but I don't know - he situation is long and complicated.

All three of those people certainly had the right to take their lives, but I think they wanted someone to convince them otherwise. I don't regret any of the actions I took - I really don't have anything to offer someone who wants to commit suicide so I always want them to get professional help for their mental state. But my experience has been that those who do it, don't call me or anyone first - they just do it.

ETA: I don't see this boy and his mother's desire to treat his cancer in ways many of us don't agree with as suicidal.

 

[southcitymom]

I'd be interested to hear what type of natural treatments the Mom is hoping to get the boy and why she thinks they'll cure cancer. So many of those treatments would be unpleasant for him and he probably has no clue. Chelation treatments, enemas, fasting, herbal remedies with chemo-like properties, or whatever. They probably are at some clinic in Mexico that thinks parasites is cause of all cancer.

Hey txsvicki,

One of the articles spoke about them being close with a man who - at the age of 16, stopped chemo for the same type of cancer Daniel has, and treated the cancer with alternative methods in Mexico. This man claims it cured his cancer.

So I think, but don't know of course, that Daniel and his mother may be heading to the place in Mexico where this man received these different therapies - or at least to another place in Mexico where they do these therapies.

 

[southcitymom]

Yes, Glow, we live in a strange world. How weird is it that a woman can abort a baby, yet if a fetus is killed by someone else, it's murder? Somewhere between conception and birth the government takes over, and the State of MN has ruled, which is the bottom line in this case. I think the difference is the word "neglect," which is what the judge stated. She wanted the baby, but she has not cared for him. What 13 yr old cannot read anything?

Pray the boy will be found in time.

As I stated earlier in this thread, my Husband could not read until around that age (12/13) - that is the age when he started to read. My husband was not neglected.

I also mentioned earlier the two friends of mine who homeschool whose 13 year old is just beginning to read (very basic stuff - "the cat sat on the mat"). Ironically, his 9 year old brother reads just fine and was interested in reading much earlier than his older brother. My friend's children are not neglected.

I think it's a stretch to assume that because the child cannot read, the Mother has not cared for the child.

 

[angelmom]

Angel, do you really think this child's parents or his greater community would have respected him or honored him any less had this boy chosen NOT to have that risky surgery? I am not being insensitive here. It is laudable that he was willing to fight against high odds until the very end, but is that necessarily any more noble than a person who says, "No more - enough - I'm not going to try that."

Both responses to cancer are valid and brave and should be honored with dignity.

Not having the surgery was definitely an option that his parents considered and, possibly, preferred. It was very risky; however, Sam was 19 and an adult when the cancer returned. He was determined. His risk of death was almost certain without it. This is where your percentages factor in - I think when the chance of success goes down, the chance of survival without treatment doesn't go up, it goes down. So being "judgmental" goes down, because it is a less certain undertaking than 90% vs. 5%.



As for the suicide issue, I don't care where you stand on that, I can't imagine anyone thinking that a 13yo should be allowed to make that decision. I would throw my body in front of a 13yo trying to take his own life. They are notorious for immature decision making. They cannot think things through to the logical conclusion. They do not foresee consequences. They do not perceive danger in a completely realistic way. They think they are tougher than they are. They WANT to be tougher than they are.

Does anyone remember being 13? Do you really want that person making your decisions for you? I thought I was mature, but I know enough now to thank God for my parents.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Haven't read every single thread here - no time - but my question to those of you who think he SHOULD NOT be forced to take the therapy - what is your stance on people who want to commit suicide??? Why is it that we commit people involuntarily when they want to take their own life? Isn't this, too, the government and/or medical profession stepping in to take control of a person's wishes???? Where do we draw the line?

My stance on suicide is this....

Perfectly rational, mentally healthy people with terminal illness should be able to if they so chose.

People suffering from any sort of mental illness should be committed and helped.

I am on the fence with this particular case. I have a real problem with the concept of the government removing children from their parents for treatments that go against the family's religion.

Just like I have a real problem with mandated vaccinations for Hep C As a parent I feel I have the right to NOT vaccinate my child for this. He isn't out sharing needles or engaging in sex of any kind.

IMO It's a slippery slope.

I personally do not agree with their decision but I defend their right to make it.
If I happened to cross paths with this mother and her child, I don't think I would turn them in.

What would you all do?

 

[BuzzieCat]

If I crossed paths with them I would so turn them in. I don't think it's so much a religious belief with them or they wouldn't have tried one chemo treatment. I think they are hoping for some "natural," perhaps "easy" treatment that will not make him feel sick. But they are going on information from questionable sources (this Nemeniah (sp?) guy) - who knows if he is telling the truth? Has this mother checked out his story? Talked to the people who offer this treatment? Investigated their success rate?

 

[Trino]

As I stated earlier in this thread, my Husband could not read until around that age (12/13) - that is the age when he started to read. My husband was not neglected.

I also mentioned earlier the two friends of mine who homeschool whose 13 year old is just beginning to read (very basic stuff - "the cat sat on the mat"). Ironically, his 9 year old brother reads just fine and was interested in reading much earlier than his older brother. My friend's children are not neglected.

I think it's a stretch to assume that because the child cannot read, the Mother has not cared for the child.

MN has a set curriculum, and students are tested yearly. This would not "fly" in MN.

 

[southcitymom]

My stance on suicide is this....

Perfectly rational, mentally healthy people with terminal illness should be able to if they so chose.

People suffering from any sort of mental illness should be committed and helped.

I am on the fence with this particular case. I have a real problem with the concept of the government removing children from their parents for treatments that go against the family's religion.

Just like I have a real problem with mandated vaccinations for Hep C As a parent I feel I have the right to NOT vaccinate my child for this. He isn't out sharing needles or engaging in sex of any kind.

IMO It's a slippery slope.

I personally do not agree with their decision but I defend their right to make it.
If I happened to cross paths with this mother and her child, I don't think I would turn them in.

What would you all do?

I personally wouldn't make their decision, but I don't think it's nuts and I feel strongly that it is theirs to make. No, I would not turn them in if I crossed paths with them. I would help them get where they wanted to go.

 

[southcitymom]

MN has a set curriculum, and students are tested yearly. This would not "fly" in MN.

Who tests them yearly in MN, Trino - I read those links you posted earlier and couldn't find that. Does MN actually required homeschooled students to take a test administered by the state or are the parents required to test them?

Georgia doesn't require any testing, so what my friends do flies here. Most states have a curriculum.

My husband was not homeschooled. He was educated in Connecticut public, private and intensive schools, but he still couldn't read until he was 12/13 and it didn't have anything to do with neglect.

 

[southcitymom]

If I crossed paths with them I would so turn them in. I don't think it's so much a religious belief with them or they wouldn't have tried one chemo treatment. I think they are hoping for some "natural," perhaps "easy" treatment that will not make him feel sick. But they are going on information from questionable sources (this Nemeniah (sp?) guy) - who knows if he is telling the truth? Has this mother checked out his story? Talked to the people who offer this treatment? Investigated their success rate?

To some extent, I think we can assume they have. They are close with (and perhaps even traveling with) a person who claims to have healed his nonHodgkins lymphoma without chemo but by other non-traditional means.

I do not think that there are any "real" statistics on non-traditional means of treating cancer and their success/failure rates. But for me personally, the stats don't matter.

 

[fortytwo]

To some extent, I think we can assume they have. They are close with (and perhaps even traveling with) a person who claims to have healed his nonHodgkins lymphoma without chemo but by other non-traditional means.

I do not think that there are any "real" statistics on non-traditional means of treating cancer and their success/failure rates. But for me personally, the stats don't matter.

(bold above by me)

Whoops! Is this what you meant? I thought (assumed? ... bad me) that both Daniel and this Best guy had Hodgkins Lymphoma. If he had Non-Hodgkins then we're not even talking about the same disease.

From this link.

While consensus was rapidly reached on the classification of Hodgkin's lymphoma, there remained a large group of very different diseases requiring further classification. The Rappaport classification, proposed by Henry Rappaport in 1956 and 1966, became the first widely accepted classification of lymphomas other than Hodgkin's. Following its publication in 1982, the Working Formulation became the standard classification for this group of diseases. It introduced the term non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma (NHL) and defined three grades of lymphoma.

However, NHL consists of 16 different conditions that have little in common with each other. They are grouped by their aggressiveness. Less aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphomas are compatible with a long survival while more aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphomas can be rapidly fatal without treatment. Without further narrowing, the label is of limited usefulness for patients or doctors.

(bold above by me)

Daniel's mom could be comparing apples to oranges if this is the case.

I have to say that none of this would really change my opinion about this particular situation.

 

[southcitymom]

(bold above by me)

Whoops! Is this what you meant? I thought (assumed? ... bad me) that both Daniel and this Best guy had Hodgkins Lymphoma. If he had Non-Hodgkins then we're not even talking about the same disease.

From this link.
(bold above by me)

Daniel's mom could be comparing apples to oranges if this is the case.

I have to say that none of this would really change my opinion about this particular situation.

My bad, fortytwo - thanks for catching the error - my fingers got ahead of my brain (story of my life!!)

Daniel has Hodgkin's lymphoma and so did Best, who ran away at 16 years old to avoid having chemo.

Like you, the type of cancer does not change my opinion about this case!

 

[poco]

Two scenarios -
1) An 11-year-old boy has ACUTE appendicitis on the verge of rupturing. If is not taken to surgery immediately, it will rupture and he will die from peritonitis. The parents do not want to sign the consent for religious reasons of for whatever reason - Should anyone intervene or is it NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS?

2) An 87-year-old man who has Alzehimers needs to undergo a life saving procedure and is unable to sign of his own consent form - he has a major heart block and requires emergency stenting. Just to happens that they little old guy has quite a bit of money stockpiled - the family does not want to sign? Should anyone step in to help this poor old guy old or IS IT NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS?

To me both situations above are akin to murder and I see no difference in them than the one that is being discussed about in this thread about the little boy needing chemo. His mother has no right to chose whether he lives or dies.

 

[kgeaux]

God forbid, if I went to the Doctors and he told me I had cancer, I would fight tooth and nail for every second on this earth to be with my family and friends. I would do what ever it took, go where ever, pay any amount of money.

I would fight for my life anything less would be a huge disservice to my family. Even if the quality of my life was not great, they could still see me, talk to me, tell me they love me and I them. I would fight like heck.......live and hope and pray for a miracle so I can see my children though their future.

Morning, Cyber! :blowkiss: I respect your point of view, but want to point out that for EXACTLY the same reason you've given for fighting tooth and nail is the reason I will NOT fight to extend my life (unless the odds are very, very favorable for a quick, successful recovery!)

I have seen so many families left in financial devastation because of excessive, hurtful and expensive treatments when the hope of survival was dim at best-----

I hope this young man recovers! However, I still think that at age 13, unless his intelligence is so far below normal that he cannot understand very basic things, then his wishes should be respected.

 

[kgeaux]

Yes, he has a brain and a mouth. No, at 13- he does not have the right to make decisions or refuse treatment. Were you able to make life altering decisions at 13?

But other COURTS of USA have decided 13 year olds can be tried as adults! THEY'VE decided that children of this age CAN and DO make life altering decisions!

It's an "either or" situation to me. EITHER 13 year olds do not have the right or ability to make decisions that have life altering capabilities, OR they do.

We really, really need to have a consensus on this age matter in our country. We can't damn them with one hand and "cher cher" them with the other.