13 Year Old Boy Getting Chemo After All

[random3434]

Minn. parents agree to let son undergo chemo on Yahoo! Health


All I can say is thank goodness. Go look at that boy's face, aren't you glad he's given a chance to beat this cancer?

He looks like one of my 13 yo daughter's friends.

 

[Xenophon]

The boy will probaly live now.

Of course, the courts may remove him from his family.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Glad the parents decided to do the chemo. Hope he beats it.

 

[OneThunder]

I believe the ruling sets a precedent on the road we don't want to go down.
Granted, the chemo treatment has an 80-90% sauces rate, however, other cancer survival rates are not as generous. Do we want the courts to direct medical treatment?

 

[Yurt]

does the boy want treatment and his parents are denying treatment? if the boy does not want treatment, what gives the state the right to force treatment?

 

[Sarah G]

does the boy want treatment and his parents are denying treatment? if the boy does not want treatment, what gives the state the right to force treatment?

It said in the article that the parents keep changing their minds but that the kid didn't like chemo. If he doesn't like this round of chemo everyone is afraid that he will bolt again.

There was a tumor that had grown and is causing him some pain. A 10 on a scale of 1-10. That's why they brought him back this time.

 

[OneThunder]

does the boy want treatment and his parents are denying treatment? if the boy does not want treatment, what gives the state the right to force treatment?

From my reading, the boy had one treatment and it made him very sick. He threaten to "kick and punch" if he had to undergo another treatment. His parents sought out alternative medicine for his condition. I'm not sure who took it to court (physicians?) but he is now required to undergo more chemo. The boy threatened to run away so his mother took him "on the run". There is much speculation on where they were going, but they came back.

 

[Yurt]

does the boy want treatment and his parents are denying treatment? if the boy does not want treatment, what gives the state the right to force treatment?

From my reading, the boy had one treatment and it made him very sick. He threaten to "kick and punch" if he had to undergo another treatment. His parents sought out alternative medicine for his condition. I'm not sure who took it to court (physicians?) but he is now required to undergo more chemo. The boy threatened to run away so his mother took him "on the run". There is much speculation on where they were going, but they came back.

should the state have the power to force someone to undergo chemo therapy?

 

[plt42]

I believe the ruling sets a precedent on the road we don't want to go down.
Granted, the chemo treatment has an 80-90% sauces rate, however, other cancer survival rates are not as generous. Do we want the courts to direct medical treatment?

I agree. This is not a precedent we want to set. Giving authority to legislate treatment could lead to that same authority denying treatment.

I don't think this will end with the young man getting the prescribed chemotherapy. Consider... if he dies, will the state file a wrongful death suit against the parents for delaying the treatments? If he lives, will child-welfare remove him from the home of "unfit parents".

 

[Avatar4321]

The boy doesnt want chemo. Why is it good that he is being forced to get it?

If he wants to pursue alternatives, why shouldnt he?

 

[KittenKoder]

I feel more sorry for the kid now than ever.

 

[Tinktink]

I believe the ruling sets a precedent on the road we don't want to go down.
Granted, the chemo treatment has an 80-90% sauces rate, however, other cancer survival rates are not as generous. Do we want the courts to direct medical treatment?

The kid is 13 years old. Most kids that age still kick and scream having to get a shot. He didn't like the Chemo, of course he wouldn't, it makes you sicker then a dog. But did he truly have the capacity to understand that by not taking the chemo that the cancer will be far more painful as it progresses? I would bet not.

I have no problem with the courts or government intervening when it comes to the lives of children. If he were an adult, then I would worry about an adult being forced medical treatment, as of yet... that doesn't happen.

 

[Agnapostate]

The kid is 13 years old. Most kids that age still kick and scream having to get a shot. He didn't like the Chemo, of course he wouldn't, it makes you sicker then a dog. But did he truly have the capacity to understand that by not taking the chemo that the cancer will be far more painful as it progresses? I would bet not.

I have no problem with the courts or government intervening when it comes to the lives of children. If he were an adult, then I would worry about an adult being forced medical treatment, as of yet... that doesn't happen.

This perspective is not suitable for policy formation, though, inasmuch as it is inconsistent with the empirical literature regarding the competence of that age group to offer informed and rational consent to medical treatment. I most often refer to Weithorn and Campbell's The competency of children and adolescents to make informed treatment decisions to make that point. Consider the abstract:

This study was a test for developmental differences in competency to make informed treatment decisions. 96 subjects, 24 (12 males and 12 females) at each of 4 age levels (9, 14, 18, and 21), were administered a measure developed to assess competency according to 4 legal standards. The measure included 4 hypothetical treatment dilemmas and a structured interview protocol. Overall, 14-year-olds did not differ from adults. 9-year-olds appeared less competent than adults with respect to their ability to reason about and understand the treatment information provided in the dilemmas. However, they did not differ from older subjects in their expression of reasonable preferences regarding treatment. It is concluded that the findings do not support the denial of the right of self-determination to adolescents in health-care situations on the basis of a presumption of incapacity. Further, children as young as 9 appear able to participate meaningfully in personal health-care decision making.

What needs to be understood is that parental authoritarianism can be just as effectively unjustly coercive as state authoritarianism in such a case.

 

[Tinktink]

The kid is 13 years old. Most kids that age still kick and scream having to get a shot. He didn't like the Chemo, of course he wouldn't, it makes you sicker then a dog. But did he truly have the capacity to understand that by not taking the chemo that the cancer will be far more painful as it progresses? I would bet not.

I have no problem with the courts or government intervening when it comes to the lives of children. If he were an adult, then I would worry about an adult being forced medical treatment, as of yet... that doesn't happen.

This perspective is not suitable for policy formation, though, inasmuch as it is inconsistent with the empirical literature regarding the competence of that age group to offer informed and rational consent to medical treatment. I most often refer to Weithorn and Campbell's The competency of children and adolescents to make informed treatment decisions to make that point. Consider the abstract:

This study was a test for developmental differences in competency to make informed treatment decisions. 96 subjects, 24 (12 males and 12 females) at each of 4 age levels (9, 14, 18, and 21), were administered a measure developed to assess competency according to 4 legal standards. The measure included 4 hypothetical treatment dilemmas and a structured interview protocol. Overall, 14-year-olds did not differ from adults. 9-year-olds appeared less competent than adults with respect to their ability to reason about and understand the treatment information provided in the dilemmas. However, they did not differ from older subjects in their expression of reasonable preferences regarding treatment. It is concluded that the findings do not support the denial of the right of self-determination to adolescents in health-care situations on the basis of a presumption of incapacity. Further, children as young as 9 appear able to participate meaningfully in personal health-care decision making.

What needs to be understood is that parental authoritarianism can be just as effectively unjustly coercive as state authoritarianism in such a case.

I wonder if this study included the influence of parental ideals. Because whether you agree or not, at 13 a parents influence is still pretty strong, and that is the time where children begin to rebel against that infuence and start the road to independance. . Funny thing about the study you posted was that I have to assume because the age gaps (4 years) that 13 was probably catagorized with the 9 year old level of compentency. Add to that fact that the kid can't read, and has leaning disabilities. Do you still believe him capable enough to decide?

 

[Agnapostate]

I wonder if this study included the influence of parental ideals. Because whether you agree or not, at 13 a parents influence is still pretty strong, and that is the time where children begin to rebel against that infuence and start the road to independance.

So? This is merely a component of the social construct of adolescence, which plays a major role in forcing deliberately tardy development. I wouldn't assume that any intellectual "deficiencies" among that age group are necessarily related to age itself so much as environmental factors caused by this forcible tardy development.

Funny thing about the study you posted was that I have to assume because the age gaps (4 years) that 13 was probably catagorized with the 9 year old level of compentency. Add to that fact that the kid can't read, and has leaning disabilities. Do you still believe him capable enough to decide?

If I were to deviate from what the public policy norm should be in this specific case, it would be on account of his indoctrination, not his age.

 

[auditor0007]

does the boy want treatment and his parents are denying treatment? if the boy does not want treatment, what gives the state the right to force treatment?

If your 13 year old didn't want the chemo treatment and you knew it gave him a 90% chance of longterm survival, would you make him go for chemo, or would you allow him to die? Parents have every right to make the decisions for their kids, so long as those decisions are reasonable. When they become unreasonable, it is up to society to step in.

And yes, I understand that we could possibly be pushing the envelope, because the argument can be made that if we allow society to step in and make the decision in this case, where does it stop? To me, it stops when it comes to life and death. If it is not a matter of life and death, then leave it alone.

 

[Tinktink]

I wonder if this study included the influence of parental ideals. Because whether you agree or not, at 13 a parents influence is still pretty strong, and that is the time where children begin to rebel against that infuence and start the road to independance.

So? This is merely a component of the social construct of adolescence, which plays a major role in forcing deliberately tardy development. I wouldn't assume that any intellectual "deficiencies" among that age group are necessarily related to age itself so much as environmental factors caused by this forcible tardy development.

Funny thing about the study you posted was that I have to assume because the age gaps (4 years) that 13 was probably catagorized with the 9 year old level of compentency. Add to that fact that the kid can't read, and has leaning disabilities. Do you still believe him capable enough to decide?

If I were to deviate from what the public policy norm should be in this specific case, it would be on account of his indoctrination, not his age.

Get back to me on how emotionally developed children of 13 are, when you look at picture of yourself at thirteen and wonder what the hell you were thinking when you wore that damn Donny Osmond tee shirt that you so cherished, and thought it made you the coolest kid in school. Once you do, if you can still say that Donny Osmand fan was capable enough to make a informed decision on life or death, I may rethink my stance, not change it, but rethink it. .

One more thing the research you posted included 12 children out of what billions? How did they select the children? What family dynamics were included in the study? What were their IQ's at the time? Give me a little more research then taking 12 kids and using that to represent billions of kids in various social settings, with various intelligence levels and various family/parently influence.

I would bet my life saving that if this kid survives the chemo and goes on to adulthood to have a life, he will most likely look back on today and say what the hell was I thinking.

 

[Tinktink]

does the boy want treatment and his parents are denying treatment? if the boy does not want treatment, what gives the state the right to force treatment?

If your 13 year old didn't want the chemo treatment and you knew it gave him a 90% chance of longterm survival, would you make him go for chemo, or would you allow him to die? Parents have every right to make the decisions for their kids, so long as those decisions are reasonable. When they become unreasonable, it is up to society to step in.

And yes, I understand that we could possibly be pushing the envelope, because the argument can be made that if we allow society to step in and make the decision in this case, where does it stop? To me, it stops when it comes to life and death. If it is not a matter of life and death, then leave it alone.

But you see that is where I am confused with all the fear of government forcing someone to take medical treatment. It doesn't happen now. Any one of us adults if were were diagnosed with a life threatening disease can refuse treatment.

 

[Agnapostate]

Get back to me on how emotionally developed children of 13 are, when you look at picture of yourself at thirteen and wonder what the hell you were thinking when you wore that damn Donny Osmond tee shirt that you so cherished, and thought it made you the coolest kid in school. Once you do, if you can still say that Donny Osmand fan was capable enough to make a informed decision on life or death, I may rethink my stance, not change it, but rethink it.

This anecdotal speculation is merely an excuse to sidestep consultation of the empirical research on the matter. Regardless of what your stereotypical conception of the abilities of the age group in question are, the empirical evidence indicates a converse reality.

One more thing the research you posted included 12 children out of what billions? How did they select the children? What family dynamics were included in the study? What were their IQ's at the time?

"12 children"? This empirical analysis involved structured interview of 96 subjects. As for IQ, you'll need to understand that it's not inexorably connected to the ability to competently make informed and rational decisions about medical treatments.

Give me a little more research then taking 12 kids and using that to represent billions of kids in various social settings, with various intelligence levels and various family/parently influence.

Certainly! The earlier study of researchers Grisso and Vierling, Minors’ Consent to Treatment: A Developmental Perspective, came to a similar conclusion, the authors stating the following:

[E]xisting evidence provides no legal assumption that minors aged 15 years and above cannot provide competent consent.

Researchers Bruce Ambuel and Julian Rappaport discovered similar results in a study intended to specifically focus on the topic of minors' competence to provide informed consent to abortion, entitled Developmental trends in adolescents' psychological and legal competence to consent to abortion. The study confirmed the fact that the rational judgment and decision making capacities of adolescents, (particularly those at or beyond mid-adolescence), were often on par with those of adults. Consider the abstract:

We examine an underlying presumption that minors are not competent to consent to abortion. Participants (N=75 age 13–21, seeking a pregnancy test at a women's medical clinic) completed an interview that was audiotaped and scored on four cognitive and volitional criteria of legal competence. Competence was compared in three age groups (15; 16–17; 18–21) for participants who considered abortion and for those who did not. Adolescents age 16–17 and adolescents 15, who considered abortion, appeared as competent as legal adults; only 15-year-old adolescents who did not consider abortion appeared less competent. Regression analysis was used to identify psychosocial predictors of competence. Results challenge the presumption that minors are not competent. An alternate policy based upon informed consent and empowerment of minors as decision makers is proposed.

In a wide-ranging review of the developmental literature on adolescents’ abilities to make rational decisions about medical treatment, entitled Children And Adolescents’ Capacity To Provide Informed Consent For Participation In Research researchers Kuther and Posada noted this:

[T]he literature in developmental psychology has shown that adolescents are able to make meaningful decisions and advocates for youth have argued that researchers must respect the autonomy rights of children and adolescents.

What else would you like to see?

I would bet my life saving that if this kid survives the chemo and goes on to adulthood to have a life, he will most likely look back on today and say what the hell was I thinking.

If so, I'd ascribe that to an enlightened religious perspective rather than increased age.

 

[brewerboy]

does the boy want treatment and his parents are denying treatment? if the boy does not want treatment, what gives the state the right to force treatment?

If your 13 year old didn't want the chemo treatment and you knew it gave him a 90% chance of longterm survival, would you make him go for chemo, or would you allow him to die? Parents have every right to make the decisions for their kids, so long as those decisions are reasonable. When they become unreasonable, it is up to society to step in.

And yes, I understand that we could possibly be pushing the envelope, because the argument can be made that if we allow society to step in and make the decision in this case, where does it stop? To me, it stops when it comes to life and death. If it is not a matter of life and death, then leave it alone.

Well said.

However, who, excatly, decides whats reasonable and unreasonable?

Let me ask this: What is reasonable and unreasonable to YOU?