Parents ordered to take US teenager to cancer doctor

[strommsarnac]

I'm more for personal freedom of choice. There's no law anywhere in the US stating that a person must seek medical attention for themselves our dependent. Whether we like it or not, the judge in this case is breaking a fundamental right of being a US citizen. Don't give me depraved indifference either, that doesn't apply here.

What is most important in this case is what the sick person believes. Child or not, he doesn't want chemo. I'm not religious and would be one of those who chose chemo over prayer (my sister-in-law died slowly of cancer because she prayed instead of getting early treatment, and died happy too), but it's not for us to choose for him. It's definitely not for the government to either.

What's sad is that of all the people needing medical attention, they pick a "heart breaking" story to force the issue on. What about "that" bum on the street who has lung cancer and keeps getting turned away by hospital after hospital, etc. because they know they won't get paid? Is there a judge who's going to rule that hospitals must treat those types of people too?

I don't know the answer. I DO know that it's currently not the right of a judge to make the choice. Just another case of a judge over-stepping their power.

Brownfella. Congrats! My father is again fighting cancer. He was first diag'd 10 years ago. He jumped on it quick. Four surgeries, lost half his Large Intestine, 3' of his small, 40 percent of his liver and lots of assholeness (he used to be a major dick, but reality opened his eyes). He's close to 70 and almost didn't go through treatment again. He really didn't want to and I fully support his choice either way. Sadly, my sister gave him that "what about me, what about my kids crap". So he's suffering pretty heavy this time and the treatment only has about a %4 chance of effectiveness. Too many times, people don't get that it's not about the survivors, it's about the happiness of the patient.

[mr.brownfella]

Content, Pictures  and Download links visible to registered users only. 

REGISTER NOW to access all areas that are invisible to non-members.

You are so right. Sometimes it is about the family being together to! An thanks for the congrats...I wasn't sure for a while there. You know it's hard sometimes because we all don't understand what we want and what we need is not the same for everyone.

I am sad to sad that we do have a right to choice and it's just hard to see ones you care about suffering. I hope your dad does pull through, but I know it's harder. I went for the all three Chemo, radiation, and surgery. I lost some of my intestine to, and I to have now see life differently.

I can say so much, yet I do believe in the end , it is up to the family to just do whats best, I hope with eating the right foods and staying healthy does help him. IN the end , this is about helping prevent cancer instead of fighting it.

I am going on one year and a half clean. I still have a long way to go in changing my habits, slowly I am getting there.

[Liquid]

Content, Pictures  and Download links visible to registered users only. 

REGISTER NOW to access all areas that are invisible to non-members.

I'm not too far away from there and it's a fucking shame to. : They sat there for a month or so and watched their little girl die a painful death.

We do have freedom of religion in this country but to me a child is not grown up enough to choose their treatments on what they were raised with. They can't think long term and it's likely that this kid has been brainwashed since birth.

This has nothing to do with the parents but about the child who needs to be taken care of. We just can't stand by while religion kills more children in the name of it's faith.

Then there's always the argument that god gave man free will and our intelligence according to some believers, so it wouldn't be bad to get treatment from doctors. More of a patch then an actual fix for ignorance but it's out there.

[Trips]

If they don't believe there's a problem then how was the child diagnosed? If your religion prevents treatment then it should prevent the medical procedures to determine the cancer. If you KNOW your child has a medical condition, its negligence to not give medical treatment.

This has always bothered me about religious freedom. Some people don't believe in evolution, that's ok it their right as a human being. But the same creationist mentality should also stop them from taking a treatment such as a flu shot which is very broadly a controlled evolutionary response created in a lab.

Sorry got off topic. But it takes conviction to live up to ideals, even religious ones. Conviction isn't picking and choosing.

[mr.brownfella]

Content, Pictures  and Download links visible to registered users only. 

REGISTER NOW to access all areas that are invisible to non-members.

Well said...and I think it is still on topic.

[Mr Handlebars]

Content, Pictures  and Download links visible to registered users only. 

REGISTER NOW to access all areas that are invisible to non-members.

This is a case of the courts making the deciding decision. They didn't bring the case, it had to come from a third party. The issue here is an argument on both sides. Does religion supersede medical opinion or vice versa? The courts must decide the prevailing argument. It's not a case of government trying to restrict religious freedom, but rather what is the community's popular opinion as to the society as a whole.

If you seek out medical attention, then you are prescribing to it's tenures. To not to do so, if the resulting is death, then someone must be held accountable. If prayer and religious ritual cures the person, then all the better. But case history has shown, this not to be true. The parents do have the right to withhold medical treatment, up until the point that the disease is progressing. If the ailment is diminished or in remission, then they should be allowed to continue their practices. However, if the ailment continues to manifest, then the courts have to do what is right in preserving life. Continues observation must be maintained, since the initial diagnosis was made by a medical professional. Anything less would be negligent on the part of the doctor. So that also makes it the responsibility of the doctor to see that the family makes and keeps appointments.

The case boils down to this. If you seek medical attention for a problem, you involve the doctor. The doctor has a legal responsibility for the safety and care of his patient. If the family hadn't consulted the doctor, then they are free to practise whatever methods that they feel is in the best interest of the person that is ill. In this case, religious freedom is subordinate to medical necessity.

You may not agree with what the courts rule, but when you look at it from a logical point of view, you have to see the reasoning. The parents involvement of a third party was their undoing. By taking the child to a doctor, they are acknowledging the methods of the medical profession to preserve life to the best of it's ability.

[Trips]

Content, Pictures  and Download links visible to registered users only. 

REGISTER NOW to access all areas that are invisible to non-members.

I think the only issue here is that the parents are just a proxy for the child and make the medical decisions. If the child was 16 and killed someone the parents wouldn't go to jail, the kid would. As such I think the medical proxy is a retard. The child is not an adult so it can't make those kind of decisions, so an advocate should be chosen by CPS.

If you go to a doc for a diagnosis instead of a religious leader, then you're taking that covenant over the other. The leader would deem it a demon or some kind of evil spirit and some sort of ceremony would cleanse it. The kid eventually dies, or miraculously lives. If they had absolute faith in this, where is the need for the doctor? I'm not disagreeing at all, I just find a different issue working. The kid isn't the property of the parents, he/it is in their custody.

[Mr Handlebars]

Content, Pictures  and Download links visible to registered users only. 

REGISTER NOW to access all areas that are invisible to non-members.

[/quote]
Basically, that is my contention. Though I don't like the courts meddling in religious affairs, I have to agree with them this time.

Content, Pictures  and Download links visible to registered users only. 

REGISTER NOW to access all areas that are invisible to non-members.

I have to admit, I hadn't thought of it this way. So, I dug a bit, and found this article which pretty much cements your point. It seems they are picking and choosing their faith, but only after receiving the first round of chemo. In which case, negates the religious freedom angle. Anyway, check it out.

Content, Pictures  and Download links visible to registered users only. 

REGISTER NOW to access all areas that are invisible to non-members.

[Trips]

Content, Pictures  and Download links visible to registered users only. 

REGISTER NOW to access all areas that are invisible to non-members.

Good article mega.

I didn't know there was a holistic way to ionize water. Heh, that's what these parents don't get, its NOT their LIFE. They have a biased opinion from the onset because of their own convictions and want to imprint those on a child. The mom says he is no longer in danger, who is she and why wasn't she in the OR doing the surgery if she is so medically knowledgeable? The awesome part is that she got the information from the internet. I hope she asked advice from the greatest repository of all medical information: 4chan.