Strollerderby

Either we have the right to consent and refuse medical treatment or we don't.  This family has values and a path of treatment (such as it is) that is in line with those values.

Don't we have the right to live, and logically extended, to die, by our personal values in the US?  It is hard to stomach, and it makes me sad to think of a 13 year old child being lost to the world but he and his parents have the right to make decisions for themselves.

If his parents want to turn down their own chemo, that is one thing.  But to deny their son, whom they have apparently brainwashed into thinking he is a medicine man, a chance to even to adulthood-that is where the government's obligation to protect children should trump a parent's views.

I agree that this is the same as child abuse. Just because the parents want to drink the poisoned kool-aid (figurativly speaking) because it fits with their beliefs dosen't mean they can feed it to their child.

You have the right to make decisions for yourself when you are an adult.  You do not have the right to kill your child.  A 13 year old does not have the frontal lobe development to make this decision.  Thank God the judge is making it for him and not his parents.

Larissa, I agree with you. And I'm pretty sure that nobody on here actually *knows* that the child brainwashed. 13 y/o children can, in fact, have their own strongly held beliefs that, while influenced by their parents, are THEIR OWN. No one has the right to take this from him or his family.

So, where do we draw the line? Thirteen year olds can and do have and parent babies of their own. Is that a good idea? Probably not. But do we take babies away from teenage parents? Not on a regular basis. So, we somehow trust them when it comes to having sex and children, but not when it comes to choosing how to get their medical treatment.  

The family doesn't believe in conventional medical treatments. That judge doesn't have to go through chemo. That family does. They chose not to, based on religious beliefs. Even if we do think they're a little nutty, we have freedom of religion here. The government should not be in the practice of mandating specific medical treatment.

By that logic, how do you know that a fetus doesn't want to be aborted?  This is a pretty rough world, after all.  If a mother who wants to abort has a strongly held belief that abortion is what's right for herself and/or her family, no one has the right to take that from her.

I don't think a 13 year old boy is developed enough to really understand the gravity of his situation. His parents should be protecting and guiding him, not brainwashing him before he's old enough to make informed judgements of his own.

ChiLaura: What happens if we extend the idea that kids have their own strongly held beliefs that should be respected to the realm of sex between adults and children? Surely you'll grant that we can't always respect (or trust) the autonomy of young people.

To get to this case, though, I've heard a more complicated story that suggests that this kid has a family member who underwent rough chemo and then died. Furthermore, I gather the boy's first round of treatment was painful. It helps me understand why his family might find the loopy religious stuff a convenient excuse. (source: scienceblogs.com/.../daniel_hauser_and_the_rejection_of_chemo.php)

Religions based on the Koran believe that thirteen is the age of adulthood.  Don't they?

bbrain, you may be thinking of Judaism, where one becomes an adult at age thirteen. Either way, this is a tricky situation. The boy is old enough to speak his mind but not necessarily fathom the permanency of death, and he and his parents are of one mind on the issue. I'm wondering where the line will be drawn as to when a judge can override a patient and his or her guardians. Judges have ordered women to have C-sections against their will, and now are ordering chemo against the patient's will. What's next? Will we need judicial permission to wean our children, or follow an alternate vaccination schedule?

Bean's dad: You're right, in one respect. Sex between adults and children? If I found out my 13 y/o was having sex with ANYONE, well, it wouldn't be pretty. What I had in mind was the fact that many children are able to resist things like teen sex or pressure to smoke; they may also hold to the faith of their family even when confronted by secularism or faiths of friends. While their parents may have introduced the ideas of abstinence (or at least waiting) and good health to them, just as they have introduced religion to their child, this introduction does NOT denote indoctrination or brain-washing. At some point, kids and adults evaluate and either confirm or deny whatever their parents have taught them. Who's to say that this kid hasn't done so himself and, in fact, doesn't want to pursue chemo? While I may say that interviews or evaluations with psychologists shouldn't necessarily be off the table in order to establish his wishes, I don't think that the decision to decline chemo in and of itself is indicative of his state of mind.

I call bull****.  If they actually had a religious objection to chemotherapy, they never would have agreed to the first treatment.  I don't know why they want to stop it now, but I don't believe for a second that it's the one their giving.

zaksmom, I'm sure if you think back to when you were thirteen you understood the permanence of death.  If a thirteen year old does not understand that then there is something very wrong with them.

There was a similar case in England with a twelve year old and the family won.  To all the people that say that these parents are abusing their child would you say the Amish are abusing their kids because they are not big on mental health care?  Some of you have previously complained about how the government infringes on the rights of those that do not want to vacinate.

Dealing with serious illness will mature anyone pretty quickly.  But even though it may be best for this kid to continue chemotherapy, no governmental institution should force that upon someone of any age unless there is actual malicious abuse or the possibility to harm society as a whole.

The courts have become as corrupt as the rest of government when it comes to 'Disease Care'. The' Evil Medical Industry' Money talks and the Federal and State Governments with their pockets wide open listen.

Shana, interestingly, Hillary Clinton has said that everyone in the US needs to think of every child in the US as "their own." This sounds nice, doesn't it? But I think that it's actually pretty creepy. I think that this is the general sentiment that floats around our culture, though, which gives insight as to why people are so concerned about what others are "doing to" their own kids, and why there is actually some idea that harm (real or imagined) to any child is the same as harm to society as a whole. Apparently, the government needs to get out of our bedrooms, but it's okay for the government to tell us what we need to do in the doctor's office.

What about participation in clinical trials? Does that constitute "alternative medicine">  What about "alternative treatments" that give a chronically or terminally ill child ease and comfort without the side effects of a medication?  As a child, one of my biggest fears was that I could be forced to undergo a medical procedure without my consent - I knew my parents would support me if I refused, but I wasn't sure the law would.  I don't think that I can agree with Hannah on this one - as an attorney, I know how courts make decisions about what is and isn't an "unreasonable" risk to someone's life or what is and what isn't an "alternative" treatment.  (FYI, for example, email is still sometimes considered an unacceptable form of communication.  Because the courts are with the times like that.) I think the courts should stay out of my medical treatment or anyone else's - even a child's - unless we've passed a law regarding it (like vaccinations).  Parents make all kinds of decisions that can pose a risk to a child's life. That's part of their job. I completely distrust a judicial process for deciding who can and must be treated.  And will this judge order parents with no money or resources to give their children with Hodgkin's treatment? I'm betting not.

ChiLaura: if you believe that the government should get out of our doctors' offices, then I take it you are pro-choice?

Bunny, maybe your memory is that short; otherwise, from a recent discussion, you know that I'm not pro-choice. Do I really need to explain that I view the fetus as a person, too, who should be afforded at the least the right to be born and not killed? You know, undergo a medical procedure, probably painful, without consent? Sheesh.

So... the government should be in doctor's offices, but only when it suits your particular beliefs. Good to know that you require consistency from those you disagree with (see: bedrooms vs. doctors' offices) but don't require it for yourself.

Bunny, I'm being perfectly consistent when I say that a fetus is a person to and so deserves to not be killed by someone else's decision. You're free to disagree on the grounds that a fetus is not a person, or is a person but one who only deserves lawful protection after some arbitrary point in time, but I'm not being inconsistent when I say that a person shouldn't be killed by another. And, again, in my book, a fetus is a person and so should be protected from death at his mother's and doctor's hand. Hence the gov't is only in the doctor's office as far as it preventing a violent act upon another person. Which, I think, most people would agree is the most basic function of gov't. Maybe I'm really dense, but how is this inconsistent?