Arrest ordered for mom of boy, 13, resisting chemo

talloulou said:

No it's not. However in these types of cases whether or not the person understands the ramifications of their decision is key whether the person is a kid or a 65 year old.

Stating, "I know my cancer is growing. I know the drs. put my survival rate at such and such percent without treatment but I still have more faith in doing it my way come what may," does not require intelligence.

Looking at x-rays and listening to drs. tell you your cancer is in fact growing and then going to interviews where you insist it is not is - delusional regardless of intelligence. Folks with high IQ's can be delusional.

Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying, I just disagree. The woman in question has strong but stupid beliefs. I think we have to respect her right to be stupid. I also do not think the government should be getting involved in medical treatment disputes.

The problem with rights and personal liberties is that far too often, people use them to do bad things. I do not consider this an acceptable argument against having those rights and liberties though.

Redress said:

That is a similarity, it does not mean the two situations are the same, only that they share an attribute. Your example does not accurately describe the situation.

Click to expand...

A more accurate scenario would be an old man declines treatment for his cancer. He goes to court with his family and explains to the court if his time has come it has come. He knows he has cancer. He knows and understands his statistical outcome with different choices. He doesn't care and willingly accepts that he may die by refusing treatment. The court allows him to make his decision, declares him competent to do so.

vs.

An old man goes to court with his family. He has refused treatment for his cancer. He doesn't believe he has cancer. He especially doesn't believe it's as big as those dang x-rays are making it out to be. He doesn't believe that anything the drs are saying is true. He thinks they're all full of b.s. He doesn't believe he needs treatment. And he doesn't believe he's putting himself at risk by refusing treatment. Plus he has really good water delivered to his house which like cures all his ailments. Likely the courts in this case will appoint someone else in charge of making this guy's decisions because he's incompetent- delusional.

I'll be honest, I'm still trying to fully form my position on this and am unsure which side I'm coming in on.

For those going on about the "crazy religious" people, out of curiosity (as part of it makes me wonder how much of this is hatred for religions and part how much is hatred for christians) I'd ask this...

If this person was a...

athiest that was, to use a politically incorrect but more to the point term, a Hippy who didn't trust "the man" and the corporations and because of that wanted to use holistic healing.

American Indian family wanting to use traditional means of medicine due to their cultural traditions.

Wiccan who wanted holistic healing due to their religious beleifs.

Would all those be "Stupid ****s" and "lunatics" that were "brainwashing" their kid?

Zyphlin said:

If this person was a...

athiest that was, to use a politically incorrect but more to the point term, a Hippy who didn't trust "the man" and the corporations and because of that wanted to use holistic healing.

Click to expand...

Yes. The court should order treatment, and prosecute the parents for manslaughter if they defy the order.

Zyphlin said:

American Indian family wanting to use traditional means of medicine due to their cultural traditions.

Click to expand...

Yes. The court should order treatment, and prosecute the parents for manslaughter if they defy the order (unless they live on a reservation outside of the state's jurisdiction).

Zyphlin said:

Wiccan who wanted holistic healing due to their religious beleifs.

Click to expand...

Yes. The court should order treatment, and prosecute the parents for manslaughter if they defy the order.

Zyphlin said:

Would all those be "Stupid ****s" and "lunatics" that were "brainwashing" their kid?

Click to expand...

Yes, they would all be stupid ****s and lunatics who were brainwashing their kid. Pseudoscience is pseudoscience, no matter what the reason for believing in it is.

Redress said:

I understand what you are saying, I just disagree. The woman in question has strong but stupid beliefs. I think we have to respect her right to be stupid. I also do not think the government should be getting involved in medical treatment disputes.

The problem with rights and personal liberties is that far too often, people use them to do bad things. I do not consider this an acceptable argument against having those rights and liberties though.

Click to expand...

When someone dies because of your stubborn stupidity, it's called manslaughter. This form of cancer is highly treatable, with a very high success rate. The boy deserves his life, regardless of the mother's ignorance. How can someone get all worked up over a fertilized egg when here is a young boy who will lose his life needlessley.

Zyphlin said:

American Indian family wanting to use traditional means of medicine due to their cultural traditions.

Click to expand...

That seems part of it.

Devil505 said:

Arrest ordered for mom of boy, 13, resisting chemo
AP

By AMY FORLITI, Associated Press Writer Amy Forliti, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 32 mins ago

NEW ULM, Minn. – Authorities nationwide were on the lookout Wednesday for a mother and her 13-year-old cancer-stricken son who fled after refusing the chemotherapy that doctors say could save the boy's life.

I'm an agnostic,( bordering on an atheist) but I don't see where the state's views should trump the parents, regardless of how wrong the parents may be. (also, in this case, the 13 year old is old enough to have major input in what he does or doesn't do)

Click to expand...

Doesn't the boy have a right to die if that's what he wants, with the support of his family and community?

talloulou said:

I think whether the choice is being made by someone of a sound mind is pertinent regardless of age.

Click to expand...

That has been argued and the position favored in this case.
Seems the moms the main pusher in this but who knows.
If the core rational is ignorant in our opinion.. well ours is in theirs.

There is obviously no "Correct" answer to this question & since there are no guarantees on either side of the issue, barring parental neglect or provable lack of care for their child, I think the state has no RIGHT to overrule the parent's & their child's decision.

There is a possibility that the cancer could improve by itself & there is a possibility that chemo may not work,or worse, may even kill the little boy.

Imagine this scenario:

With the parents locked up to ensure they could not interfere, the state send its agents in who grab the screaming & struggling little boy & hold him down while chemotherapy is forced upon him &.........the little boy dies during a treatment!
Can anyone imagine a scene like that????
Can anyone say that would not be a possibility?

The state has no business involving itself!

talloulou said:

A more accurate scenario would be an old man declines treatment for his cancer. He goes to court with his family and explains to the court if his time has come it has come. He knows he has cancer. He knows and understands his statistical outcome with different choices. He doesn't care and willingly accepts that he may die by refusing treatment. The court allows him to make his decision, declares him competent to do so.

vs.

An old man goes to court with his family. He has refused treatment for his cancer. He doesn't believe he has cancer. He especially doesn't believe it's as big as those dang x-rays are making it out to be. He doesn't believe that anything the drs are saying is true. He thinks they're all full of b.s. He doesn't believe he needs treatment. And he doesn't believe he's putting himself at risk by refusing treatment. Plus he has really good water delivered to his house which like cures all his ailments. Likely the courts in this case will appoint someone else in charge of making this guy's decisions because he's incompetent- delusional.

Click to expand...

See, now I don't see these situations as different from how I see things. In neither case should the government get involved in medical decisions.

Let me tell you a story about why I think this way. I tried looking up details on this, but it happened back when I was in high school, around 1980, and not having any luck. A 13 year old girl living in Detroit was molested by her mothers boyfriend and got pregnant. She wanted to have an abortion, but her mother would not allow it. Somehow she got in touch with a lawyer, and the lawyer filed with the court for her to have an abortion. The judge assigned was vehemently anti-abortion. he sat on the case for an extended period of time, then finally, after some deadline for performing the abortion was imminent, recused himself, leaving not enough time for a new judge to be assigned and grant the permission. Note that this is almost 30 years ago, and I am working from memory, but that is the basic element of the story.

Now, I realize that my stance means that the girl still would not have been able to have an abortion. That is not the point, I accept that it is sad, but sad things happen. The point I am trying to make with the story is, the people in government who would have to make medical decisions if the court intervenes are not proven to be any more capable of making clear, reasoned decisions than parents are. For that reason, among others, I feel that the government just should not get involved in medical decisions.

Jerry said:

Doesn't the boy have a right to die if that's what he wants, with the support of his family and community?

Click to expand...

Sure, if you consider a 13 year old who can't read and who is most likely under pressure from his parents to be mentally competent to make that decision.

The age of consent for other "adult" decisions and activities ranges from 16 to 21 in most states. 16 seems like a better place than 13 to draw the line here...and since the kid can't even read, I'm not inclined to give him the benefit of doubt when it comes to his mental competence.

WillRockwell said:

When someone dies because of your stubborn stupidity, it's called manslaughter.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Hunters are killed every year in Michigan accidentally, frequently from some one elses stupidity. There are rarely charges.

Captain America said:

Her religious zeal is so blinding that she gambles with the life of her very own son and also doesn't recognize that chemo may be the very hand God is reaching out with to save her son's life.

Click to expand...

A devout Christian heard a news report on the radio that severe flooding was expected in his town in a few hours and that all residents should flee immediately to higher ground. But he wasn't worried, because the Lord would protect him. So he set about reading his Bible and praying for safety from the impending flood.

Sure enough, a few hours later, the waters came and his house started to flood. So he ran upstairs to escape the rising waters, while praying to the Lord. Moments later, he found himself sitting on the roof of his house as the waters continued to rise. Just then, a helicopter appeared and a voice over a loudspeaker told him to get into the rescue basket. He declined saying, "The Lord will rescue me, so go and help someone else." So the helicopter continued on in a search for more victims.

Soon, his house started to float away and break up. Just before it completely fell apart, he managed to grab onto an over hanging branch of a tree. He desperately clung to the tree while still praying to God. Then he noticed a rescue boat approaching him and they told to get ready to jump inside. But he said, "I'll be alright. The Lord will rescue me. Please help someone else." So the boat continued on looking for more victims.

Moments later, the tree broke apart and the man fell into the deadly waters of the raging river and drowned.

Standing before the Lord, he asked, "Lord, why didn't You answer my prayer for help"?

The Lord looked at him and said, "Son, I sent you a message over the radio to flee your home, but you ignored it. Then I sent you a helicopter to lift you off your roof and you ignored that too. Finally, I sent you a rescue boat to take you off that tree, but you ignored that also. What more did you want Me to do?"

Kandahar said:

Sure, if you consider a 13 year old who can't read and who is most likely under pressure from his parents to be mentally competent to make that decision.

The age of consent for other "adult" decisions and activities ranges from 16 to 21 in most states. 16 seems like a better place than 13 to draw the line here...and since the kid can't even read, I'm not inclined to give him the benefit of doubt when it comes to his mental competence.

Click to expand...

If he were a pregnant girl he could get an abortion, so yeah I do think there's precedent for him to make his own decision here, especially since he has his family's support.

Zyphlin said:

I'll be honest, I'm still trying to fully form my position on this and am unsure which side I'm coming in on.

For those going on about the "crazy religious" people, out of curiosity (as part of it makes me wonder how much of this is hatred for religions and part how much is hatred for christians) I'd ask this...

If this person was a...

athiest that was, to use a politically incorrect but more to the point term, a Hippy who didn't trust "the man" and the corporations and because of that wanted to use holistic healing.

American Indian family wanting to use traditional means of medicine due to their cultural traditions.

Wiccan who wanted holistic healing due to their religious beleifs.

Would all those be "Stupid ****s" and "lunatics" that were "brainwashing" their kid?

Click to expand...

If this kid was an atheist 13 year old my position would be the same. Neither he nor his parents are competent enough to make such a decision. Only I wouldn't say they are doing out of their religious beliefs. Just sheer stupidity. In this case religious beliefs replace stupidity. They're basically the same only with different names. Once again. If your religious beliefs tell you that IONIZED WATER can in ANY WAY cure a decease like Cancer. Maybe it's time to start shopping for a new religion or dive into the shallow end of the pool.

Redress said:

Not necessarily. Hunters are killed every year in Michigan accidentally, frequently from some one elses stupidity. There are rarely charges.

Click to expand...

Being hit mistakenly is an assumed risk in those arias. Someone has to be severely injured or killed for charges to be pressed.

Jerry said:

If he were a pregnant girl he could get an abortion, so yeah I do think there's precedent for him to make his own decision here, especially since he has his family's support.

Click to expand...

Neither abortion nor childbirth are inherently life-threatening (although either can be). If a 13-year-old girl was seeking an abortion and the doctors warned her that there was a good chance it would kill her and advised her to give birth instead (or vice versa), then yes, I would question her mental competence.

That is different from this situation. We have a situation where one option is almost certain to save the boy's life, and the other option is almost certain to result in his death.

Devil505 said:

That's true (boy is a minor) & his parents MAY BE lunatics....Then again, they may not.
I still stand by my opinion:

1. Age 13 is old enough to possibly have pretty good maturity & understanding to decide what should be done to your body that may be against your wishes. Again, if I were the judge, the boy's wishes would weigh heavily in my mind.
2. If the parents are "clearly lunatics." then that would have to be taken into account. There would have to obviously be pretty good legal reason to decide against the parents & the boy himself.

Click to expand...

What is the difference in willfully denying your child life saving treatments for a highly treatable form of cancer and thus condemning them to a long and agonizing death, and a parent willfully starving their child to death?

13 is not even old enough to legally decide to drink a beer, yet you think its old enough to legally decide to refuse medical treatment and thus die a horrible death?

SouthernDemocrat said:

13 is not even old enough to legally decide to drink a beer, yet you think its old enough to legally decide to refuse medical treatment and thus die a horrible death?

Click to expand...

You might run into an is/ought problem here, at least with the extremists among us. :rofl

That is, I believe the majority of 13 year olds would probably be capable of making rational decisions if specifically taught to do so from an early age.

SouthernDemocrat said:

What is the difference in willfully denying your child life saving treatments for a highly treatable form of cancer and thus condemning them to a long and agonizing death, and a parent willfully starving their child to death?

13 is not even old enough to legally decide to drink a beer, yet you think its old enough to legally decide to refuse medical treatment and thus die a horrible death?

Click to expand...

If I (as the judge) interview the child (in Chambers, in private) & determine that he understands his situation & prefers to not accept medical treatment, I would not force it upon him.

That's how I would handle the situation.

I think the parent's and the child's choice is wrong, but NOT acting on something is not the same as ACTING to bring something about.

Don't we value personal freedom to determine the course of our lives? If one doesn't want to receive extraordinary medical treatment--what right does any legal body have in butting in and compelling a person to receive extraordinary care? The same people who will scream at the top of their lungs that a terminally ill person should be able to determine how and when he dies seem to be the ones raising holy hell that these people can't decide NOT to live. What IS that if not hypocrisy?

Comparisons have been made to not feeding a kid--nourishment is not extraordinary medical treatment. Being hooked up to poisonous chemicals in order kill off mutant cells--that is extraordinary.

Mind you--I totally disagree with the parents and the boy, but I side with their freedom to be wrong.

Felicity said:

I think the parent's and the child's choice is wrong, but NOT acting on something is not the same as ACTING to bring something about.

Don't we value personal freedom to determine the course of our lives? If one doesn't want to receive extraordinary medical treatment--what right does any legal body have in butting in and compelling a person to receive extraordinary care? The same people who will scream at the top of their lungs that a terminally ill person should be able to determine how and when he dies seem to be the ones raising holy hell that these people can't decide NOT to live. What IS that if not hypocrisy?

Comparisons have been made to not feeding a kid--nourishment is not extraordinary medical treatment. Being hooked up to poisonous chemicals in order kill off mutant cells--that is extraordinary.

Mind you--I totally disagree with the parents and the boy, but I side with their freedom to be wrong.

Click to expand...

Why does it matter if it's "extraordinary"? Both food and chemotherapy are necessary to keep the kid alive. Killing him in either case doesn't require doing anything to him...it just requires neglecting him and DENYING him what he needs to survive.

Kandahar said:

Why does it matter if it's "extraordinary"? Both food and chemotherapy are necessary to keep the kid alive. Killing him in either case doesn't require doing anything to him...it just requires neglecting him and DENYING him what he needs to survive.

Click to expand...

Food is not poison that makes you lose your hair and get really sick and weak. You never would go out on a chemo-date like you would a lunch date. You don't imbibe chemo every single day of your life. Many people live their entire lives NEVER having chemo--EVERYONE eats.:doh

Kandahar said:

Why does it matter if it's "extraordinary"? Both food and chemotherapy are necessary to keep the kid alive. Killing him in either case doesn't require doing anything to him...it just requires neglecting him and DENYING him what he needs to survive.

Click to expand...

Kandahar, a baseball and your testicles are very similar. They are both round, and both have things inside them that are important to their operation. There is also an important difference. One is designed to be hit with a bat, the other you would probably prefer was not. Just because things share similarities does not make them the same, and drawing incomplete comparisons based on the similarities can only need to mistaken judgments.

Felicity said:

I think the parent's and the child's choice is wrong, but NOT acting on something is not the same as ACTING to bring something about.

Click to expand...

Ok, then by that justification, you should not be able to poison your child because your acting to bring harm to them. However, if you just NOT feed them, then your not acting on something, and thus the authorities should not become involved.

Don't we value personal freedom to determine the course of our lives?

Click to expand...

Yes.

If one doesn't want to receive extraordinary medical treatment--what right does any legal body have in butting in and compelling a person to receive extraordinary care?

Click to expand...

They have no right at all, if that individual that turns down life saving medical treatment is a legally competent adult. The reason for that is that you own yourself. Thus you can and should be able to do with yourself what you want to do with yourself so long as your actions do not impact the ability of others to do the same.

However, you don't own your children. You have custody of them. You act on their behalf. Their care is your responsibilty. Yet, they are not your property like your body is your property. For example, you can lay up drunk every day of your adult life, smoke 2 packs a day, and ensure that you probably will never make 50. You can do that because the consequences of your actions impact your body, which is your property. You cannot though, force your kids to drink a 5th a day and smoke 2 packs a day, because you don't own them, and they cannot yet make that decision about their life yet because they are not a legally competent adult yet.

The same people who will scream at the top of their lungs that a terminally ill person should be able to determine how and when he dies seem to be the ones raising holy hell that these people can't decide NOT to live. What IS that if not hypocrisy?

Click to expand...

It would be hypocrisy if the kid was 18 and compitent rather than 13. See above.

Comparisons have been made to not feeding a kid--nourishment is not extraordinary medical treatment. Being hooked up to poisonous chemicals in order kill off mutant cells--that is extraordinary.

Click to expand...

There is no difference. Either way, its willfully ensuring the child's death. Perhaps a parent that starved their child to death believed God would nourish them so long that their faith was strong enough.