wtf????? he can live...

[strollingbones]

Judge to decide if family can refuse chemo for boy

MINNEAPOLIS – A Minnesota judge is expected to decide whether a family can refuse chemotherapy for a 13-year-boy's cancer and treat him with natural medicine, even though doctors say it's effectively a death sentence.

With chemotherapy, Daniel Hauser has a 90 percent chance of surviving his Hodgkin's lymphoma, according to his cancer doctor. And without it?

"It is almost certain that he will die," said Dr. Bruce Bostrom, a pediatric oncologist at Children's Hospital and Clinics of Minnesota. Bostrom, who diagnosed the disease, is an ally of the legal effort in southwestern Minnesota's Brown County to make Hauser submit to chemotherapy even though he and his parents believe it's potentially more harmful than the cancer itself.

District Judge John Rodenberg was expected to rule Friday on Brown County's motion.

the full article explains the native american tribe they paid 250 bucks to join the healing part....let me explain why i am about to go off on this....

a close friend....has had this twice...once around 19 next time around 21...both times lumps were found...and removed and her pitiful ass under went chemo and radiation....it set her life back a lot...she didnt finish school...well her aa and the chef's school...

each time a lump was found she had just moved out of her house and was finally indep....each time the lumps were found she had to move home....the chemo was exhausting...the girl has no gag reflex from the vomiting...from the chemo....then she get a good bill on the cancer and her mother fucking bone going into her hip begins to rot...from the chemo....her father....(he has a permanent halo) fought the insurance companies tooth and nail to get her the most modern treatment he could...the bone was not artifically replaced but a bone was taken from her leg and used....

today she is near 30..she is cancer free....as of last check up....her hip hurts her just like anyone's would with that much surgery and changing it around...it doesnt hurt continually but you can tell when she begins to stretch her leg out behind her and try to move it when it doesnt hurt so much....but when the hip surgery was done...she had to do what...move back home and be in wheel chair for 6 months....

fuck a bunch of ...what they want...90% survival rate vs. 5% survival rate....judge has no choice but to force that 13 yr old little fucker to live.
s

 

[editec]

This is one of those cases that test our resolve about how we feel about the rights of the individual and family versus the right of society to maintain some control over what we do.

Does society have the right and or obligation to protect children from their parents?

I think it does, but it must be decided on a CASE BY CASE basis.

In this case, I suspect were I judge, I'd rule that failing to avail the kid of medical attention with that high a degree of probably success amounts to CRIMINAL NEGLECT.

But..

If they are making this decision on RELIGIOUS grounds, THEN one must ask if the court has violated their FIRST AMENDMENT right to practice their religion as they please?

Of course we OFTEN violate people's right to practice their religion as they see fit, don't we?

The Rastafarians cannot smoke hemp, for example, even though that is their sacrament.

Devil worshippers cannot sacrifice children to Baal, and so forth.

So really, no constiutional right we have is ironclad.

And if it is not ironclad, why do we bother even pretending we have these rights?

They aren't RIGHTS if they can EVER be violated.

We ought to call our BILL OF RIGHTS our

BILL OF VERY GOOD IDEAS FOR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, EXCEPT WHEN IT IS INCONVENIENT FOR SOCIETY TO ALLOW US TO HAVE THEM.

Then, at least, we wouldn't still be confused about our rights...because we don't really have any rights, folks.

We never really did, either.

We have predispositions that sometimes we allow to take control, except when they're inconvenient.

 

[auditor0007]

I don't know why we have such issues with this. To me it seems as if it is cut and dry, black and white. If a child is terminal, then the parents have every right to withhold treatment, as treatment will only proglong the child's life for a short time. If however, the child is not terminal but will be made terminal due to non-treatment, then treatment should be forced. If the parents are not okay with this, then remove the child from the home.

Parents havve a right to raise their children as they see fit, so long as it is reasonable and within the parameters of the law. However, despite the fact that parents have and should have certain rights, the child is still a person separate of the parents. If the parents are not willing to act in the best interest of the child, then intervention is obligatory.

 

[KittenKoder]

I don't know why we have such issues with this. To me it seems as if it is cut and dry, black and white. If a child is terminal, then the parents have every right to withhold treatment, as treatment will only proglong the child's life for a short time. If however, the child is not terminal but will be made terminal due to non-treatment, then treatment should be forced. If the parents are not okay with this, then remove the child from the home.

Parents havve a right to raise their children as they see fit, so long as it is reasonable and within the parameters of the law. However, despite the fact that parents have and should have certain rights, the child is still a person separate of the parents. If the parents are not willing to act in the best interest of the child, then intervention is obligatory.

 

[Nik]

Lots of people who can live, die because of a lack of healthcare...why is it any worse when its a direct refusal by the parents as opposed to a direct refusal by the system?

 

[AllieBaba]

EXACTLY. Not only that, there are no definites here. He might undergo chemo and STILL die, and miserably.

People have the right to choose what sort of treatment they want for themselves and their children (provided it isn't something like injecting cyanide...which is essentially what chemo is). When the government starts dictating our medical treatment, we will be in very, very serious trouble.

 

[manifold]

I don't feel like I have any right whatsoever to force these parents to get chemo for their kid.

Aparently a few of you hypocrites think you do.

 

[Sarah G]

I am so into natural cures and remedies but I don't know that I could make that decision for my 13 yr. old child. Chemo keeps improving every year and you have to go for it when there is a 90% cure rate.

They can try their natural cures alongside the chemo if they believe that strongly.

 

[KittenKoder]

I am so into natural cures and remedies but I don't know that I could make that decision for my 13 yr. old child. Chemo keeps improving every year and you have to go for it when there is a 90% cure rate.

They can try their natural cures alongside the chemo if they believe that strongly.

Chemo is years of suffering for a chance of survival, but even if they do survive it isn't much longer. The only improvements they have made do not address quality of life.

 

[auditor0007]

I am so into natural cures and remedies but I don't know that I could make that decision for my 13 yr. old child. Chemo keeps improving every year and you have to go for it when there is a 90% cure rate.

They can try their natural cures alongside the chemo if they believe that strongly.

Chemo is years of suffering for a chance of survival, but even if they do survive it isn't much longer. The only improvements they have made do not address quality of life.

Chemo for Hodgkins Lymphoma is not years of suffering, and the cure rate is extremely high. We are discussing a disease that has a very high rate of survival with treatment. It is very important to distinguish the difference between that and other types of cancer with much lower rates of survival.

Hodgkin's Disease

http://www.answers.com/topic/hodgkin-s-disease-alternative-treatment

 

[auditor0007]

EXACTLY. Not only that, there are no definites here. He might undergo chemo and STILL die, and miserably.

People have the right to choose what sort of treatment they want for themselves and their children (provided it isn't something like injecting cyanide...which is essentially what chemo is). When the government starts dictating our medical treatment, we will be in very, very serious trouble.

So at what age does the child get to make the decision or at least an informed decision. This child is 13. I wonder if the child is okay with dying at such a young age.

 

[KittenKoder]

Doctors don't care about quality of life, all they care about is keeping people breathing. It should be a choice for all those involved, and we don't need the government to babysit us.

 

[Ravi]

EXACTLY. Not only that, there are no definites here. He might undergo chemo and STILL die, and miserably.

People have the right to choose what sort of treatment they want for themselves and their children (provided it isn't something like injecting cyanide...which is essentially what chemo is). When the government starts dictating our medical treatment, we will be in very, very serious trouble.

What if the parents were retarded...would you feel the same?

 

[Ravi]

I am so into natural cures and remedies but I don't know that I could make that decision for my 13 yr. old child. Chemo keeps improving every year and you have to go for it when there is a 90% cure rate.

They can try their natural cures alongside the chemo if they believe that strongly.

Chemo is years of suffering for a chance of survival, but even if they do survive it isn't much longer. The only improvements they have made do not address quality of life.

Not with this disease. One of my son's friends had it and did chemo off and on for a couple of years and he is cured.

If the kid is thirteen he should be allowed to decide for himself, imo.

 

[manifold]

If the kid is thirteen he should be allowed to decide for himself, imo.

I could go along with that. But of course it raises the question about the cut-off age. What if the kid was ten? seven? five?

 

[Valerie]

Child protection workers accused Daniel's parents of medical neglect; but in court, his mother insisted the boy wouldn't submit to chemotherapy for religious reasons and she said she wouldn't comply if the court orders it.

Doctors have said Daniel's cancer had up to a 90 percent chance of being cured with chemotherapy and radiation. Without those treatments, doctors said his chances of survival are 5 percent.

Daniel's parents have been supporting what they say is their son's decision to treat the disease with nutritional supplements and other alternative treatments favored by the Nemenhah Band.

The Missouri-based religious group believes in natural healing methods advocated by some American Indians.

After the first chemotherapy treatment, the family said they wanted a second opinion, said Dr. Bruce Bostrom, a pediatric oncologist who recommended Daniel undergo chemotherapy and radiation.

They later informed him that Daniel would not undergo any more chemotherapy. Bostrom said Daniel's tumor shrunk after the first chemotherapy session, but X-rays show it has grown since he stopped the chemotherapy.

The Associated Press: Judge rules family can't refuse chemo for boy


I agree it would have been neglect to not treat him.

 

[manifold]

I wonder if the judge ruled on who foots the bill.

 

[Ravi]

If the kid is thirteen he should be allowed to decide for himself, imo.

I could go along with that. But of course it raises the question about the cut-off age. What if the kid was ten? seven? five?

I think if the kid can reason he can decide.

"Look, son...if you do this uncomfortable medicine for a while you'll be all better. If you don't there's a 99% chance you'll be dead in a year or two."

Living people should have rights...

 

[AllieBaba]

Why then, he should be able to vote, drink, and join the Army, too.

90 percent is not 100 percent. Just because your friend's kid lived doesn't mean this one would.

BTW, KK...doctors actually don't give much of a shit if people live or die. See if you can find a doctor who is an organ donor. They are few and far between because they don't trust their colleagues to decide whether they should live or die.

 

[Ravi]

Why then, he should be able to vote, drink, and join the Army, too.

90 percent is not 100 percent. Just because your friend's kid lived doesn't mean this one would.

BTW, KK...doctors actually don't give much of a shit if people live or die. See if you can find a doctor who is an organ donor. They are few and far between because they don't trust their colleagues to decide whether they should live or die.

So you would let the parents decide even if they were mentally retarded?