Judge Orders Teen to Cancer Treatment

[Sam Odom]

A judge ruled Friday that a 16-year-old boy fighting to use alternative treatment for his cancer must report to a hospital by Tuesday and accept treatment that doctors deem necessary, the family's attorney said.

The judge also found Starchild Abraham Cherrix's parents were neglectful for allowing him to pursue alternative treatment of a sugar-free, organic diet and herbal supplements supervised by a clinic in Mexico, lawyer John Stepanovich said.

Jay and Rose Cherrix of Chincoteague on Virginia's Eastern Shore must continue to share custody of their son with the Accomack County Department of Social Services, as the judge had previously ordered, Stepanovich said.

The parents were devastated by the new order and planned to appeal, the lawyer said.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/07/21/D8J0MGOO1.html

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. Eh.

Sounds more like the parents are fighting to use alternative treatment.

When he turns 18 he can go head and kill himself with whatever phony snake oil he wants.

[rainy]

20. You could educate yourself by reading:

Dying to get well by Keck or Nature's First Law. Nature can heal faster and better than drugs if it is given the chance. Eating raw and healthy food one can heal many diseases. By cutting out all processed foods your cells begin to get well. RESEARCH the facts.

[catmother]

43. have you ever heard of The Optimum Health Institute in san

diego? i went there years ago. it's all raw food and wheat grass juice. i met a woman who had cancer. she was staying there and following the diet. she was told she was terminal. i went back 2 years later and she was still there alive and well.

ben vereen lived there for awhile after his stroke. they have apartments for people who want to stay a while.

[JackDragna]

45. Cancers sometimes go into remission by themselves..

..and for every person who is lucky enough to experience a remission of that type, I can find you many more who are worm food after abandoning conventional cancer treatments that would have likely saved their lives. It's one thing to try alternative treatments when the cancer is so advanced that people cannot be saved, but it's a tragedy when people with cancers caught early don't get the treatment they need. People shouldn't eat too much processed food, but removing it from your diet is no cure for the uncontrolled division of body cells.

[catmother]

47. yes. some do go into remission. but this woman was not the

only one who has used this treatment. there's a lot of unconventional treatment out there. i belong to a group called "people against cancer" and they do not promote the traditional. i got a book from them called "options" which gives many different ways to treat cancer naturally. everyone has to make their own choice.

i prefer going with the natural but if others want to go the conventional way, it's up to them. it's "choice".

[havocmom]

93. For every person saved by conventional treatment, I can find many more

who died of cancer even after conventional treatment.

Your argument works against your position quite nicely.

Some get well. Some die of cancer. Regardless of the course of treatment, there are successes and failures.

The treatments are most unpleasant, to put it mildly. They can also spell financial ruin for entire families.

How can we say we have freedom if we are not allowed choice in how we face disease in our own lives?

[susanna]

243. havocmom, I agree...

This sentence really sums it up for me: "How can we say we have freedom if we are not allowed choice in how we face disease in our own lives?"

Absolutely. Everyone has a tipping point. I have seen this young man on a couple news shows, and it seems he is absolutely on board with trying everything else before another round of yet more debilitating chemo. (He's been through the chemo road before, it seems.) IMHO, his experience deserves a hearing, and he is close enough to "the age of reason" that I would take that into account if I were the judge. But that's just me...

[rainy]

66. It makes such pure and simple sense. Putting electric, live

energetic food into your body gives your body, which nature intended to be healthy, the materials to heal naturally. Until man can create a living cell I'll leave the healing to nature. But, the trick is to eat as nature intended us to eat. Living foods do indeed help the body cure itself.

There is so much info out there about this I would just encourage anyone interested in their natural state of radiant health just go research it.

[JackDragna]

68. "Electric?" "Live energy?"

What do these terms mean in terms of real science? What kind of energy are we talking about here?

[rainy]

89. enzymes which are killed when you cook your food. Cooked

fat is very unhealthy.

[kestrel91316]

96. Enzymes are not alive, therefore they cannot be killed.

Time to go back to Biology 101 for a refresher course, folks.

[Posteritatis]

110. Ain't pseudoscience grand? (nt)

[Realityhack]

282. I love N rays.

They have magical healing properties don't you know.

[Recursion]

123. Sigh... no, they're not "killed"

But they are "destroyed". Ever wonder why cooked or preserved food takes longer to spoil? It's because bacteria can't eat it. Hmmm... what do we use to digest food? Oh, that's right, bacteria in our gut. Well, if the bad bacteria can't eat it...

Hey, I get as irritated as the next guy at all the "granola" types who make up words about organic food, but the fact remains that most of our health problems now are nutritional and toxic, no matter how much we keep looking for new bacteria and viruses.

[zreosumgame]

127. not to put to fine a point on it.

our bodies were made to die in all sorts of ways. and WTH is 'electric food'?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

186. Ha ha ha.

Curing cancer by eating raw food.

Quit pulling my leg. People like Keck get their money from bilking idiots, probably sick idiots, and I'm no idiot.

Like I said: snake oil.

[iverglas]

271. cancelled n/t (responded wrong place)

[Sam Odom]

2. Background Info

Teen cancer patient battles to choose own treatment
CNN

The teen, who is known as Abraham, has Hodgkin's disease, a cancer of the lymph nodes.

Three months of chemotherapy last year made him extremely weak. So when he learned in February that his cancer was active again, he turned -- against doctors' advice -- to a sugar-free organic diet, herbs and visits to a clinic in Mexico.

A social worker asked a judge to require the teen to continue conventional treatment.

In May, the judge issued a temporary order finding Jay and Rose Cherrix neglectful for supporting their son's choice to pursue alternatives. Judge Jesse E. Demps also ordered the parents to share custody of Abraham with the Accomack County Department of Social Services.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/07/12/sick.teen.ap/

[joeunderdog]

177. I was exceedingly impressed with this kid on tv.

He almost died from the first round of chemo and the second round has a good chance at killing him. That's why he began to look to alternatives--he didn't think he would make round 2 and the doctor said he might not. The 2nd round of chemo itself is only somewhat less risky than the disease and there is no guarantee that the treatment will work.

He and his parents are bright, sensible people, well educated and articulate, facing a challenge for which there is no absolute answer. They are not whack-jobs sprinkling themselves in fairy dust and chanting under the full moon. These people believe in Western Medicine but are afraid that the kid will not survive round 2. That's why they opened their minds to other treatments.

The judge may have just sentenced this kid to death. This is America?

[MADem]

3. Starchild Abraham Cherrix

If the cancer doesn't kill him, that name might....

After three months of chemotherapy last year made him nauseated and weak, Abraham rejected doctors' recommendations to go through a second round when he learned early this year that his Hodgkin's disease, a cancer of the lymph nodes, was active again.


Sorry, I side with the County, and I think the parents are IDIOTS:

An estimated 1,410 people (630 women, 780 men) will die of Hodgkin disease in the United States during 2005. Because of advances in treatment, death rates have fallen more than 60% since the early 1970s. By 2001, there were over 123,000 people who had survived this disease.

The 1-year relative survival rate for all patients after treatment is 93%; the 5-year and 10-year rates are 85% and 77%, respectively. At 15 years, the relative survival rate is 68%. Certain factors such as the stage of the disease and a patientÂ’s age (older patients have lower survival rates) affect this. During the first 15 years after treatment, the main cause of death in these patients is recurrent Hodgkin disease. By 15 to 20 years after treatment, death due to other causes, such as developing a second type of cancer, usually caused by treatment, is more common.

The 5-year survival rate (for example) refers to the percentage of patients who live at least 5 years after their cancer is diagnosed. Five-year survival rates are used to produce a standard way of discussing prognosis. Of course, many people live much longer than 5 years. Five-year cause-specific or relative survival rates exclude patients dying of other diseases. This means that anyone who died of another cause, such as heart disease, is not counted.

Of course, current 5-year survival rates are based on people with Hodgkin disease diagnosed and initially treated more than 5 years ago. Advances in treatment have produced a more favorable outlook for recently diagnosed patients. For a discussion on 5-year survival by stage of disease, see the section How Is Hodgkin Disease Staged?"

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_4_1X_What_are_the_key_statistics_for_Hodgkins_disease_20.asp?rnav=cri

[Redstone]

7. You may get flamed, but you're right.

Redstone

[MADem]

24. Might? Sure bet!!!! But too bad, I have a right to an opinion, too

And no one will convince me that STARCHILD is an appropriate name for an infant. Or that it makes sense to withhold treatment with a 93 percent cure rate from a KID.

Notice how the kid prefers to be called ABRAHAM?? That should tell ya how much he likes his acid trip name!

[Redstone]

26. Gotcha. On all points.

Redstone

[catmother]

41. i agree about the name. they should think of what the child

has to go through with a stupid name. what did cher name her son, Elijah Blue?

[proud2BlibKansan]

114. Acid trip name - LOL

How right you are. :rofl:

[NashVegas]

242. ABRAHAM Doesn't Want Chemo, Either

16 is old enough to make that decision without interferance from the state.

[ixion]

9. cool, then I'm sure you won't mind chipping in for the medical bills

I sure hope the state does, considering they mandated treatment. :grr:

[MADem]

16. Well, of COURSE they will==they have CUSTODY, after all

But you knew that, I assume, if you read the article.

For the life of me, I can't understand people getting behind IDIOTIC parents who are denying their cancer-riddled kid a ninety three percent shot at survival with current medical treatment.

But that's just me.

Yeah, you're right, fuck it...let Darwin sort it out, I guess.

[megatherium]

44. My brother is a Hodgkins survivor. He relied on conventional medicine.

He had the disease more than 20 years ago, stage III B. Splenectomy and radiation. He's doing well.

There is some interesting research on diet and cancer (vegan diets seem to have much lower cancer risk). But if it were me, I would follow conventional medicine.

[MADem]

58. Wow, and the odds were not as good back then. GOOD for HIM!!!

I think the diet business is NOT something to be scoffed at, at all. We are what we eat.

But I think it is silly to ignore a proven technique in favor of one that isn't proven. Why not do both, contemporaneously with one another?

The either-or approach is a fifty-fifty bet (well, actually more of a ninety three percent medicine, fifty, maybe, diet, bet). Why not put your chips on red AND black, Isay?

[leesa]

102. My guess is that the clinic in Mexico is counseling them to not have any

chemical or radiation poisons in his body or treatment won't work. I have a brother with adeno ca of his neck who does homeopathy and he has refused recommended radiation and chemotherapy and they are always advocating against chemo/radiation. For him, it may not be a bad option. He has had surgery to debulk and it appears to be very slow growing.

But when you are dealing with something like Hodgkins, fast growing but very responsive, I would go for chemo/radiation in a heartbeat.

My brother and his wife were getting down on my brother-in-law for having chemo for acute leukemia. I had to lower the boom with that. He would have been dead had he not had chemo. They simply don't understand that 'cancer' is not just one entity.

[Recursion]

126. Oh, that one I know...

Why not do both, contemporaneously with one another?

Because a lot of people think chemo/radiation are instances of the cure being worse than the disease. You're essentially poisoning your entire body in the hopes that you kill the cancer before you kill the patient. And it's about a 50/50 shot. It's like the absurdly high doses of AZT they gave AIDS patients back in the day -- oops, turns out that was killing more people than AIDS did on its own.

I think the advances of medical science have been amazing, but at any given moment there are still a lot of quack, unproven theories being forced down people's throat by the medical establishment. And the idea of a court forcing someone to undergo a treatment he does not wish to undergo is really, really troubling.

[Recursion]

124. And that's your right, but count me out

A) I don't trust "studies" funded by pharma interests
B) I've known 8 people with cancer. 3 did chemo and were dead within 5 years (only 1 died "of cancer", though; the other 2 lost their immune system to chemo and died of pneumonia -- they don't get counted for the survival statistics that pro-chemo people like to cite); 2 did surgery, one of them was dead within a year and another is alive 10 years later. 3 did a nutrition regimen, went into remission within a year and are healthy today.

No, it's not scientific, but like I said in A), I don't have any scientific data I trust. So anecdote is all I have.

At any rate, 16 is old enough to judge for himself. Let the judge talk to him 1 on 1 and see if he really wants to continue the therapy and understands the implications. If so, 16 is definitely old enough.

One day we're going to realize how many people our pharmacalogical obsession is killing each year, and look back on the 20th/early 21st century medical practices like today we look back on bleeding with leeches.

[onenote]

130. 16 is NOT old enough to judge for himself

I can't count the number of threads where people have, correctly, objected to efforts by the military to recuit high school students. A sixteen year old has little perspective beyond that supplied by his/her parents. If a wingnut family decided they supported their 16 year old's decision to join the military and fight in Iraq, would anyone here claim that the 16 year old is old enough to make that decision and the government should take him? DOn't think so.

[Recursion]

131. I support the right of a pregnant 16 year old girl...

...to have control over her body, including her right to terminate that pregnancy or carry it to term. This despite the fact that I think in almost all cases abortion is a bad decision: it's not my womb, so it's not my call. It's not the public's womb, so it's not anybody's call.

Similarly, I support the right of a 16 year old boy to follow whatever course of treatment he wishes to follow. It's not my cancer, so it's not my call. It's not the public's cancer, so it's not anybody's call. This is his body, and his decision.

[susanna]

286. Well put. n/t

[CanSocDem]

237. Your "anecdotes".....

...along with my own, is close enough to science for me.






.

[rexcat]

222. My brother was diagnosed in 1978 with Stage IV-b Hodgkins...

He went through a lot of chemotherapy and radiation and lived disease free for 20 years. Unfortunately in 1999 he died from complication of a heart attack. The chemo and radiation did contribute to his heart condition but he was around for 20 years more because of his treatments. If he had not been treated he would have died within months of his diagnosis.

The good thing about treatment of Hodgkin's disease is it is treatable, especially for the young. There are four cell types to Hodgkin's disease. The cell type can make a difference in survivability. My brother was "fortunate" to have the right cell type. His disease did respond to the treatment but it took four rounds of chemotherapy and a high dose of radiation therapy to put his cancer in remission.

I always hate to see people going down to Mexico for alternative cancer treatment. The "cancer" treatment facilities that do "alternative" treatments are a sham!

[noonwitch]

107. I do too-Hodgkins in teens has such a high recovery rate

16 year olds are not legally entitled to make this decision, and the parents are making bad medical decisions because they don't want him to blame him for the physical pain involved during chemo.

This kid would rather die than complete medical treatment. I knew a woman once who was first diagnosed with early stage cervical cancer. She dropped out of treatment after a few weeks because she didn't like feeling sick all the time. She came back a few months afterwards, was given more aggressive treatment, hated the treatment even more and dropped out again. She came back a 3rd time a year later because her pain had increased beyond her ability to tolerate it and she was terminal.

If she had stuck through with the first or the second treatment, she'd probably still be alive and her children would still have a mother. But she was a grown woman, entitled to make stupid and careless decisions about her life. This kid isn't grown.

[proud2BlibKansan]

113. Yeah I agree

Stupid name and stupid parents.

I saw this kid and his dad on CNN. He was a well spoken, bright young man. I thought surely he is bright enough to know that herbs and Mexican clinics do NOT cure cancer.

[underpants]

158. I'm sorry but what does that really have to do with anything?

Jesus, grow up.

[MnFats]

211. two of my sisters-in-law suffered Hodgkins...and were saved by..

...conventional medical treatment.It did make them feel lousy and their hair fell out.
...that was more than 20 years ago.
...both are now healthy as horses, probably in better shape than the rest of the family.
...you'd never even know they had Hodgkin's unless they told you...thank God for conventional medicine.

by the way...I plan to attend a "relay for life" fundraiser for the American Cancer Society this weekend. Lately I've talke to a bunch of cancer survivors who will take part....NONE of them were cured through "alternative" means. All of them credit great clinics and medical staff and treatment for their return to good health.

and by the way, here's a web site that might prove helpful:

www.quackwatch.com

[Redstone]

4. His name is "Starchild?" That should tell us all we need to know about

his parents and their capacity to make decisions on his behalf.

Redstone

[BuddhaGirl]

11. Judgemental much?

There is nothing wrong with his name. It's their choice to name him, just as it's the family's choice on which treatment he should receive.

[MADem]

19. Sorry, I agree with the previous poster: the name is STOOOOOOPID

Parents who saddle kids with bullshit names do nothing but make people look at the kid like he was raised by LOONY TUNES and might not be relied on to shit in the toilet or use a knife and fork.

Now, if the kid grows up, goes to the court, and changes his name to something bullshittily expressive, well, fine. It's his choice, and his decision. But any time you give a kid a moonbat name, or one that sounds like a personal hygiene product, you are placing the bricks of societal oppression on that child's blossoming opportunity.

You think it's an accident that STARCHILD is known by his middle name?? Who could blame the kid???

It's a selfish, stupid thing to do to an innocent child, naming a kid something kooky like that.

And that's my opinion, and my judgment.

[bicentennial_baby]

27. and that has what to do with the issue at hand?

Absolutely fucking nothing, that's what.

[MADem]

30. So sez you. My mileage varies. NT

[reprobate]

86. Reinforces my belief that children should picck their own names when

they turn 18. Until then.... just numbers, like Smith child 01, or such.

[Recursion]

188. Or, using this as a precedent, have the court assign a name nt

[bicentennial_baby]

25. Sorry homie, that's way outta line...

I'm sorry to see you say shit like that... x(

[MissB]

57. I'll put his name up there really high on the list of stupid names.

[boilinmad]

77. Boy.....

....If i didnt know better, i would have thought i was on some ridiculous conservative website....His name has nothing to do with the issue!!!Besides, does anyone here know WHAT KIND of Lymphoma he has???It makes a big difference in treatment. Also, it seems to me he gave it a heck of a chance already by going through one round of poison into his system. Let people be, and let them make their own choices about how they want to live. Having gone through this with a close friend, I could never shake the feeling that our greedy insurance system wanted more and more money out of a hopeless situation. More tests and more treatment=more money!!!! I know i sound cynical, but thats just the way i feel................

[Bridget Burke]

106. He has Hodgkin's Disease.

And it's quite treatable.

[catmother]

5. how fucking dare they? i saw an interview with the young boy

and his parents last week. people should be allowed to make their own choices.

i, for one, would never, ever have chemotherapy or radiation. to put a toxin in your body that shuts down your immune system -- makes your hair fall out -- puke your guts out -- this is a cure and then the cancer usually comes back in a few years anyway. i would go the natural way myself. fortunately, being an adult, i can make those decisions.

i know some of you will think i'm nuts. i had a breast cancer scare a few years ago and i said to my husband "chemotherapy and radiation are not open for discussion". fortunately it was nothing.

on edit: no one ever follows the progress of those who refuse treatment or go the natural way.

[Redstone]

10. That's a scary situation, isn't it?

I respect your decision, and I also respect the decisions (like that of a good frend of mine in New York) to go with the conventional treatments.

They worked for her.

Redstone

[catmother]

18. thank you for respecting my views. i had a very dear friend who

was HIV-positive. he was getting ozone therapy once a week. then the FDA cracked down and he couldn't get it. his T-cells dropped to double digits and he was thin as a rail. finally, they let up on the ozone, he went back to getting it. within months his T-cells were back up to 500 (normal) and he was feeling great -- weight back to normal. he said that if they outlawed it again he would buy a machine from germany and hire a nurse to do it for him.

unfortunately he also had cardio myopathy. on 9/12/01 he and his SO were sitting drinking martinis -- talking about how lucky they were that they weren't in the city the day before. anyway his eyes rolled back in his head and he died of a heart attack -- 42 years old. his ashes are scattered on my property here in phoenix.

didn't mean to go on a rant. his picture is in a frame right here next to my computer. he was the nicest, kindest, person i have ever met.

on edit: i'm happy that it worked for your friend.

[Redstone]

22. I lament your loss. I do.

Unlike our president/fratboy, I really DO mourn each life lost.

Redstone

[catmother]

32. thank you. i don't know if i would mourn Bush' loss. i didn't

mourn ken lay's. and i don't mourn the loss of terrorists. i said to my husband earlier "i'd like to see the leader of Hizbollah's head on a stick".

[gator_in_Ontario]

I agree...

If this "child" is mature...it is up to him. Definitions of maturity vary, and lord knows some of us never get there...but his body, his decision.

[catmother]

36. he seemed very mature when i saw him interviewed.

[CanSocDem]

37. Something similar...

...happened in Saskatchewan a couple of years ago. A 15yr old boy refused conventional treatment because the 'chemo' made him sick(er). His background and that of his parents was hard-core Christian, the particular denomination escapes me, at the moment......

Even our so-called 'enlightened' medical establishment was forcing this kid to take the conventional treatment (without any reasonable guarantee) and yappin' like many of the posters here about the foolishness of going to Mexico for treatment.

"...and then the cancer usually comes back in a few years anyway."

This, I believe is the crux of the matter. It's time to get people free from the Cancer Industry and their notable lack of success.

Kudo's to you for taking charge of your health.

And the Cancer business should be speaking out about the carcinogenic qualities of living in an industrialized society instead of participating and perpetuating.

[catmother]

53. you are so right. they just keep polluting the air and the food.

i'm almost 65. people didn't get all these illnesses when i was young. our food was fresh -- free of hormones and chemicals. we got chicken pox and measels and we survived. now there's all these damn vaccines which god only knows what that does to the body.

i don't think i ever met a kid with an ear infection when i was growing up. now that's all you hear. kids are getting tubes put in their ears. and the dairy industry -- OMG -- they are the worst. now they try to tell us if we eat 3 servings of dairy a day, we'll lose belly fat. bullshit. and i see all these old women hunched over with osteoporosis -- they probably thought they were doing the right thing getting their calcium from dairy.

i have to stop. i'm on a rant. it's a really touchy subject for me.

[Recursion]

134. Personally, I think dairy is cool

It's just that the pasteurized stuff is bad for you. Too bad in most states that's all you can buy...

[iverglas]

283. good bleeding dog; I missed this one

i'm almost 65. people didn't get all these illnesses when i was young. ... we got chicken pox and measels and we survived. now there's all these damn vaccines which god only knows what that does to the body.

If you really want to know, ask.

I'm sure I could find you someone whose fetus was affected when she contracted measles while pregnant, and born blind and/or deaf and/or with permanent intellectual disabilities. Hell, you could probably just google for 10 seconds and find someone yourself.

I discovered when I was a young woman that I was not immune to rubella (I'd had it twice when a child and never developed the antibodies). I wasn't planning to get pregnant anytime soon myself -- but out of consideration for my friends and any other pregnant women I might come into contact with who might unknowingly not be immune (or other people I might contact who could pass it on to them), I had myself immunized, even at the slight risk to myself resulting from allergy to eggs/chickens/feathers.

Cost to me of getting vaccinated: a moment of discomfort
Potential cost to someone else of my not getting vaccinated: a pregnancy terminated, or a lifetime lived with needless suffering

Gosh, I wonder which was the right thing to do.

And how can you possibly say that people didn't used to die of all these diseases? Hell, maybe Hodgkin's wasn't as prevalent at the time; maybe, on the other hand, a whole lot of people just died before they had a chance to develop it. Like the several people in my family in the 19th century who died of tuberculosis -- completely treatable today. And all the children in all of our families who died in infancy or early childhood -- some of them, in my case, probably in one of the smallpox epidemics that smote England (and the United States), and would still be smiting us if vaccination hadn't finally been mandated and then enforced.

I just found out that the brother-in-law of one of my 19th century ancestors died after he fell out of a tree and developed lockjaw -- you know, tetanus, the thing that the shot for makes your arm hurt for a few days. Sore arm, dying ... sore arm, dying ... Hmm.

My mother's eldest brother died before she was born, in the early 1920s, of strep throat, for the love of anything you hold holy. Have you ever had to hold a child dying in pain for two weeks, like my grandmother did, and be able to do nothing? Would you do that if you had a choice, which we have now -- a simple course of antibiotics? Would you approve of of someone else doing it??

i don't think i ever met a kid with an ear infection when i was growing up.

Yeah, well, you didn't meet me. I had semi-annual ear infections all my life, starting in the mid-1950s. I'll give you one thing though: when a friend of mine (whose child had ear tubes) recommended using peroxide regularly as a prophylactic, I stopped having ear infections and seldom even have to use it now.

But dang, peroxide is one of those chemical thingies, isn't it?

I dunno. Sometimes I just dunno.

[OzarkDem]

67. Actually survival rate is quite high w/ evidence based treatment

As was pointed out in another post, the survival rate is quite high for patients who undergo chemotherapy, w/ alternative therapy - not much.

Sorry, but a 16 yr old is not mature enough to make this kind of decision. Better to let him go through the temporary discomfort of chemo treatment and survive than to die under alternative treatments.

[CanSocDem]

73. My point about religion....

...was to suggest that 'dying' from that perspective, is an opportunity to 'be with the lord' and in the same fight, choosing 'religion' over 'science'. Not ALL bad.

Letting someone go through "temporary discomfort" is just an euphemism for forcing a treatment on someone who cannot articulate their opposition.

My real problem, however, is with the apparent co-dependency between science and religion on this issue.

They use each other to promote the same message. "You are nothing, without us..."

[Recursion]

128. If I had a megaphone...

...I'd shout that sentence from the roof:


And the Cancer business should be speaking out about the carcinogenic qualities of living in an industrialized society instead of participating and perpetuating.

[iverglas]

284. this boy here? the dead one?

http://www.healthwatcher.net/Quackerywatch/Cancer/Dueck/tstar990702dueckdeath.html
(you'll want to read it all)

The 13-year-old boy from Martensville, just north of Saskatoon, made national headlines after Saskatchewan Social Services tried to take legal charge of his medical care.

Tyrell and his parents, fundamentalist Christians, refused chemotherapy and amputation to treat a tumour on his leg, opting instead for herbal and alternative remedies.

Social services dropped the case after doctors reported the cancer had spread to the lungs.

What? The cancer had spread? Couldn't have! --

Tim and Yvonne Dueck ended up taking their son to an alternative treatment clinic in Tijuana, Mexico, where doctors at American Biologic clinic said there was no indication the cancer had spread.

Even our so-called 'enlightened' medical establishment was forcing this kid to take the conventional treatment (without any reasonable guarantee) and yappin' like many of the posters here about the foolishness of going to Mexico for treatment.

Yes, laetrile (just one of the things used by the "clinic" in question) has such a proven track record at curing cancer. Damn the medical establishment for being so benighted.

The boy's cancer was discovered on October 1; it wasn't until March 18 that the parent's refusal to allow him to be treated was overridden. Nearly six months. Who knows whether he'd be alive to day.

I think what I should really be asking is: who cares?

Canadian social democrats really don't generally favour allowing stupid/malicious parents to kill their children, I'm pretty sure.

[saddemocrat]

292. And he died....duh...follow my link

http://www.healthwatcher.net/Quackerywatch/Cancer/Dueck/ssp990702dueckdeath.html

[iverglas]

298. oops -- thought I'd made that clear ;) n/t

[saddemocrat]

301. sorry....didn't mean to jump on you!

fiesty fiesty here! I apologize!

[Lars39]

50. I can give you some feedback on those who have refused

treatment for various cancers in my family...they died.
And their cancers weren't terribly advanced either.
I'd also be dead right now if I had refused treatment 2 years ago.

[catmother]

55. i'm happy that you survived. the choice was the right one for you.

[pitohui]

70. people shouldn't be allowed to kill their children

sorry no it's child abuse to brainwash that child that to be loved by his whack parents he has to give up the only chance he has

this is hodgkin's

without chemo he dies

with chemo he has a life expectancy of multiple decades

i am sorry his parents put their whack diet beliefs above their child's health but this is why we have rule of law

[onenote]

132. how fucking dare they? Would you say the same thing if they wanted

him to go Iraq and fight at 16, but the government wouldn't let him?

[Recursion]

139. What if he was a she,

and she wanted to terminate a pregnancy, and the judge said no?

I don't see any difference in terms of the principles that are at stake here. The military enlistment scenario is different because having a 16-year-old in uniform A) violates international law and B) puts others in his unit at risk; it's not just his body at state at that point.

[onenote]

162. Not a violation of International Law

Under the terms of the Geneval convention, nations are supposed to take all feasible measures to ensure that persons who have not attained the age of 15 do not take a direct part in hostilities. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court has jurisdiction over cases involving conscription of children under 15. Other international agreements use 18 as the benchmark, but only with respect to compulsory service and/or combat. By the way, the minimum age for service in the US military is 17, so I don't know that the putting others in the unit at risk argument is that strong.

But assuming it is, do you think that a 16 year old, with wingnut parents, should be allowed to make a binding commitment to join the army when he turns 17 (or 18)?

[Recursion]

173. No, but I think it's a moot point

No decision to enlist is legally binding until you are sworn in and briefed on the UCMJ, so it's a moot point, but no, if the law did allow for legally binding DEP commitments, I don't think the enlistment age should be lowered.

(Thanks for the Rome Statute info; I thought it was 18)

I also think it's really disningenuous of people to assume he has "wingnut" parents who have "brainwashed" or coerced him; from what I've read it sounds like he's made a decision that his parents support.

[ulysses]

305. following the progress

Kathy Acker - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathy_Acker

In April 1996 Kathy Acker was diagnosed with breast cancer, and began to undergo treatment. In January 1997 she wrote about her loss of faith in conventional medicine in a Guardian article, "The Gift of Disease." In the article she explains that after unsuccessful surgery, which left her feeling physically mutilated and emotionally debilitated, she rejected the passivity of the patient in the medical mainstream and began to seek out the advice of nutritionists, acupuncturists, psychic healers, and Chinese herbalists. What appeals to her is that instead of being an object of knowledge, as in Western medicine, the patient becomes a seer, a seeker of wisdom. Illness becomes the teacher and the patient is the student. After pursuing several forms of alternative medicine in England and the United States, Acker died a year and a half later from complications of breast cancer in an alternative cancer clinic in Tijuana, Mexico

[Susang]

315. Amazing

I thought I was the only Kathy Acker fan on DU.

[TaleWgnDg]

6. This is not an unusal nor ground breaking legal case. The state

.

This is not an unusal nor ground breaking legal case. The state has the legal authority to intervene on behalf of children when parents fail to due their parental (legal) duty on behalf of their kids. Here, these parents cannot deny their child modern scientific medical treatment, period. There's an old U.S. Supreme Court case wherein the Court ruled that a parents religion (Christian Science) cannot override the well-being of a child who requires medical treatment.

Stories such as this sell newspapers, sell advertisement, etc. S'all.

[Pithlet]

8. Exactly. This is nothing new.

And it looks to me like it was the right decision. Parents do not have the right to withhold life saving medical treatments from their children, and haven't had that right for some time.

[Sam Odom]

12. "withhold life saving medical treatments"

I'm not sure that phase is apropos here...

[Pithlet]

15. Hodgkin's disease is deadly if not treated.

I think it fits. If a child will die without specific treatments, and has a good chance of recovery with the treatments, then a parent doesn't have the right to forbid that treatment. The state has the right to intervene on behalf of the child, just as it does for other issues of neglect. I support such decisions.

[MADem]

21. a 93 percent chance of recovery...I'd take those odds.

I posted specific data above.

[Pithlet]

39. Thanks. I knew the odds were pretty good.

Thank you for posting them. It's important to note in this case because it makes it clear these aren't futile treatments causing unnecessary pain and suffering.

[Realityhack]

281. DING!!

Dead on. Its far from a groundbreaking case and the judge went with the case law.

As an asside I must say I am disapointed every time a topic like this comes up at the sheer ignorance of so much of the DU community. Both in terms of science and in terms of relevent history and posible unintended concequences of whatever it is they are screaming for.

[Odin2005]

13. The Snake Oil Sycophants here on DU will be all over this.

"Don't you know all mainstream medicine is a hoax to enrich Big Pharma?"

:sarcasm:

[BuddhaGirl]

17. as are the big pharma sycophants, obviously

n/t

[catmother]

23. well you must admit that much of it is. do you see these drug

commericals? they want you to think you need them. did you ever know someone who had "restless leg syndrome?"

[MADem]

29. How many ads do you see for HODGKINS DRUGS, though?

The only cancer one I see regularly is NEULASTA, to kick up the cell count, but I don't see ads for HODG-B-GONE or LYMPH-AWAY...

Comparing Hodgkin's Lymphoma to Restless Leg Syndrome is a bit disingenuous. One will kill ya, the other might make you kick someone outta bed.

[catmother]

34. you're right. i was being facetious. but you must admit that

these ads are a bit much.

[MADem]

49. No argument from me, there

But the reason they do this shit, with the "OOOOOH, I can't PEEE" and "OOOOH, I PEE tooooooooo MUUUUUCH!" and the Restless Leg, the incredibly growing prostate, and the Dry Eye, and the Irritable Bowel, and the this, the that, and the other is because:



Wait for it......




It's a SLOGAN.....




You've heard it before....




Courtesy of Glaxo Smith Kline....

"Today's medicines finance tomorrow's miracles"

AAAAAAGHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! If the goddamn GOVERNMENT would step up to the plate and help every so often, they wouldn't have to SELL US SHIT to keep the research cash, and the high CEO salaries, flowing in....

[catmother]

61. love your post. you are so right.

[AngryAmish]

75. Hodge-Away - Apply Directly to the Lymph Nodes

Hodge-Away - Apply Directly to the Lymph Nodes
Hodge-Away - Apply Directly to the Lymph Nodes

[brer cat]

51. my father did, and it drove him nuts. please be kind.

[catmother]

56. i can only imagine. my husband has a habit of shaking his leg.

but it's not restless leg syndrome. hope the meds helped your father.

[brer cat]

63. Thanks catmother,

My Dad died from Parkinson's disease more than 10 years ago, but his "restless leg syndrome" was not related to the Parkinson's according to his doctors. It's a separate disorder. Don't know the cause or cure. But I would not trust today's pharama's to treat the cause or provided the cure.

[catmother]

64. sorry about your dad. my dad died a year and a half ago from

lung cancer. he smoked his whole life. amazingly he made to 83.

[MADem]

65. It runs in my family, actually

Not so terribly that those who have it go totally boinkers and need drugs to deal with it, but it is a family thing and an annoyance to those who have it at times.

[Odin2005]

62. I am against drug ads.

Don't put word in my mouth.

[proud2BlibKansan]

115. Or that horrible toenail fungus

That commercial is so revolting.

[Mojambo]

14. I think people should be able to make their own decisions w/r/t treatment

It's their body and their life.

Of course I don't think suicide should be illegal either.

[catmother]

28. i don't think suicide is illegal -- only assisted suicide. think about

it if you commit suicide -- how are they going to prosecute you? lol

i think assisted suicide should be legal.

[Mojambo]

31. I remember reading somewhere that suicide was illegal

But I could be mistaken.

You're right that it's pretty impossible to prosecute.

[catmother]

33. maybe if you survive the attempt they prosecute you, but then

again they would probably put you in the nut house.

on edit: my husband just came in and i asked him. he said suicide is illegal. so you were right.

[NYC]

54. Suicide is illegal.

Ridiculous, but true.

[Gormy Cuss]

74. The reason suicide is illegal is to allow intervention

If suicide weren't illegal, someone standing on the railing of the bridge could not be restrained by law enforcement, for example, without the LE being liable for lawsuits. Because survivors and the family of those who do commit suicide this way often cite temporary distress or underlying mental disorders as the reason the action was taken, allowing law enforcement to intercede is considered the greater good.

The extension of this thinking to disallowance of suicide by those of sound mind but suffering from terminal or excruciatingly painful and difficult chronic conditions is where it becomes ridiculous.

[NYC]

88. Makes sense.

I hadn't thought about intervention being illegal if suicide was legal. Thanks.

[havocmom]

94. It's illegal in many, if not all, states

Try and fail - face forced hospitalization/treatment - which means basically, you lose your rights.

Hell, TALK about it to someone who gets paid to fill beds in private, for profit hospitals and (IF you have insurance) you are invited to sign yourself in or face commitment.

Once there, you have no rights until you can convince a doctor who does not get paid to fill beds that it is not you, but rather THE SYSTEM which is insane.

Given enough pain, sanity might be the choice not to endure more. Given our current laws, insanity sometimes wins the day.

[pitohui]

71. this child is a minor

save his life and in a few years he can decide again if he really wants to die

[onenote]

133. should an 8 year be allowed to make his/her own decisions

10? 12? 14? 16?

The law draws a line at 18. Arbitrary? Sure. But would you support allowing a 16 year old with wingnut parents to "decide" he wants to join the army so he can fight in Iraq? Should the military be allowed to recruit high school sophomores?

[Crowdance]

35. Appalling that this young man cannot make decisions about how

he'll heal his body. This right-wing move goes right along with those who know best about what women should do about their pregnancies, those who get to "decide" who lives and dies in the Middle East, and those who choose who can marry. Oh, yeah, and those who decide what we should name our kids.

I think I've finally found some fodder for an ignore list.....

[SoCalDem]

38. Sort of off topic.. but please watch "A Lion in the House"

It's about children with cancer..after watching it (and watching many children die from cancer), I'm not so sure anymore about the things we put kids through)
.....................................................................................................


from Steven Bognar & Julia Reichert "A Lion in the House." Photo courtesy of the Sundance Film Festival.
The Heartbreakers: "A Lion in the House"

Documentary coverage presented by SILVERDOCS
by Steve Ramos (May 23, 2006)



Non-fiction filmmakers Steven Bognar and partner and co-director Julia Reichert spent years filming inside and around Cincinnati Children's Hospital for their film "A Lion in the House" and the result is an epic, engaging journey and a rare opportunity to experience what families undergo when one of their children is facing death. Bognar and Reichert's Herculean efforts help justify the film's sprawling scope--over 230 minutes in length. Few details are spared and there are moments in the film's second half when you feel overwhelmed by the minutia of the numerous hospital rooms, taxi rides to the medical center, cramped city apartments and spacious suburban houses. With "A Lion in the House," Bognar and Reichert have created total immersion cinema.
SILVERDOCS

But the soul of the film, the key question at the heart of these stories, makes every moment matter: When should a parent say no to additional treatment for their child and accept death? It's a solemn, honest question and the inevitable answers help prepare one for the film's eventual outcomes.

"A Lion in the House" tells the story of five children, Tim, Justin, Jenny, Alex and Al, and their families during their time on the Children's Hospital cancer ward. The families represent the diverse population that comes to the hospital. They are black and white, affluent and poor. Sickness unites them in a common fate. These children are front-and-center rendering "A Lion in the House" more family drama than medical story, and the intimacy you feel with them is proof of Bognar and Reichert's achievement.


snip

[catmother]

40. i don't have to watch it. i would never put my child through that.

i get a kick out of McDonalds. they have the Ronald McDonald house where parents and sick children can stay while at the same time they're feeding them the poisons that probably made them sick.

[Ariana Celeste]

104. I second that

I couldn't believe what I was seeing when I watched it on PBS. Just tragic.

[saddemocrat]

230. Wow

You'd prefer to let your child die?

Unbelievable...and if you think their death would be pleasant....you're fooling yourself there too.

[JAYJDF]

42. What a tough topic. Having a father refuse treatment and dieing

from a heart attack at 62 was his choice. Mother dieing from cancer that they treated and treated and cut and removed was almost too much to bear. With her asking what should she do. All you can do is explain the possibilities. Someone at 15 should be explained the facts and options. It should be his choice.

You know, I think parents can sign a waver for their kids to join the service and go die, kill, abuse, whatever and they're not held accountable if said child dies.

Like I said, tough call. I also had a daughter who was in and out of Shriners hospital since she was 3. As parents we made some tough choices, but as she became a teenager, we definately used her input.

I do believe there are alternatives to current practices for some diseases. A small thing like acid reflux that I have. Have done a lot of reading. Found out that it's from the body being too acidic. So by eating less acidic foods and more alkaline. Has worked wonders for me!

[dsc]

46. I find it interesting that this 16 year old boy is not an adult

yet if the very same boy shot someone he all the sudden would be. We really should be consistent. Either he is an adult or he isn't.

[Biernuts]

48. And if he was a she and pregnant, any judge would say it's her decision

I have a bald spot developing, can you get the judge to order rogaine? That fucking judge can kiss my ass!

They should move to another state.

[dsc]

52. very valid point

[MADem]

59. But pregnancy isn't a death sentence, nor is balding NT

[Tsiyu]

76. pregnancy can be a death sentence for some women

Nine months of gestation put a severe strain on a normal woman's body.

A woman with other health issues can most certainly die from pregnancy. With so many women unable to afford prenatal care, the risks are great.

[MADem]

92. I think any woman given a choice that went along the lines of

HODGKINS.....or PREGNANCY? (if such a thing were possible, mind you)

would choose pregnancy, absent access to chemo, certainly.

Pregnancy isn't a disease, it is a condition. A woman has the option of changing her condition if she so chooses. But if she chooses not to change her condition, the odds are with her that she won't DIE. She COULD, but likely, she will NOT.

Cancer is a disease, and Hodgkins will kill most people who get it if they don't get treated. The odd spontaneous remission may occur, but most will end up DEAD.

I think it is inappropriate to try to suggest that they're somehow in the same league. They aren't.

[susanna]

288. I always laugh when folks say, "but childbirth is naaaaaatural." n/t

[Biernuts]

84. But what if I want to get laid and the bald spot turns off the

hot chicks and I get depressed to much that I no longer want to live, or worse, can't get motivated to vote. And finding out that I'm not voting, Karl Rove shows up to vote in my place, and they let him since asking for IDs are prohibited here. And as a result, Steele gets elected to the US Senate instead of Mfume or Cardin. And then, the Senate, by one vote has enough conservatives to stop any filabusters.

MAJOR, national, even international consequences - perfect case for a judge to stick his big nose into something else that is not his fucking business. (neat pun, huh?)

[MADem]

91. Shave the head completely, unless you look like four rocks in a

pillowcase without any cover above!

Then, you'll have the Telly Savalas 'who loves ya, baby' look, you'll getcher swerve, you'll be happy, you will vote, and all will be right with the world.

[Recursion]

144. Pregnancy sometimes is a death sentence

And hodgkins sometimes isn't

But that is a damn slippery slope you're walking down, anyways. If we let the government tell this boy what to do with his body, I really really think we lose our moral standing to keep the government from telling a pregnant 16-year-old girl what to do with her body.

[dsc]

178. chemotherapy does far more than make you bald

It makes people sick and has been known to lead to death itself. To call that balding is the height of insensitive minimization.

[susanna]

287. Thank you for that common sense. n/t

[FredScuttle]

60. I support him 100%

I don't care if he's 6 or 16 or 66.....Chemo is fucking brutal and I wouldn't wish it on anyone.

[Tracer]

81. It's not brutal for everyone.

I know this personally, just having gone through chemo.

It was --- for me --- not particularly awful at all. For 3 or 4 days after the treatment I had some pain, hair loss, and NO nausea. But considering the alternative --- it was well worth it.

A relative thought the chemo was too hard to do and she quit.

She died.

[FredScuttle]

95. I'm glad your experience went well

and my best wishes for a full recovery.

My cousin went through chemo and it damn near killed her. She made it and I'm overjoyed to have her around, but I couldn't put myself in her shoes. I couldn't put myself in anyone's shoes who has to go through chemo and I certainly won't support forcing it on patients who don't want it.

Everyone dies, baby that's a fact (with apologies to the Boss)....I won't stand in the way of how they want to die.

[Codeine]

100. Chemo is very brutal. Dying at 16 is even more brutal. nt

[pitohui]

69. hodgkin's disease is curable by today's chemotherapy

OMG do these parents hate their child this much?

a good diet will kill their child, giving up sugar has never saved anyone from hodgkin's disease

but that miserable poisonous makes you vomit all over chemotherapy is the reason my friend is alive today and has been in remission for almost 15 years

get the child well, and he will be cured, the disease is quite simply cured if you're under 50

worry abt pleasing god when your child is safe

the story of abraham and isaac never made any sense to me, save your child, god if he is god will always be there

[astral]

72. Both sides are right

I was totally on the side of the family but after reading this thread I am on the fence. The problem is the chemotherapy and stuff will weaken his immune system at the same time it kills the cancer --- he's gone the rounds once, the cancer came back, going through it again will leave him in worse shape yet, and possibly beyond the point of recovery being possible. In cancer, the treatment can kill you.

But in Hodgkins disease the recovery rate is high with treatment? Is it really true, or just a truism that it will kill you without standard treatment? Without controlled studies to fall back on we don't know that. But I can now see the point of view that this kid needed intervention, although I think there is too much intervention where there shouldn't be.

Natural cures do work, but like standard treatment there is no 100% guarantee. Dr. Lorraine Day cured herself of cancer using natural methods, but you gotta dive into it the whole 9 yards, not just quit eating junk food and start eating raw food, if you're already sick you are playing Beat the Clock in a big way.

Colon cleansing, nutrient and vitamin therapy, pure juicing, lots of fresh air and sunshine, and following the protocol of someone who was successful very specifically, I believe, would give this kid a pretty good chance.

Did they know enough to do it right? It sounds like they had done their research and were going for it.

This is a tough topic. I think with the parents being involved in looking at how to do the treatment right, and the kid being old enough to think for himself, the state had no business stepping in. Reminds me of the parents whose kids were taken away because they were vegetarian and too slender for some librarian's comfort so she reported them as being abused.

The FDA now has stepped up the fight against natural cures and said you can not use the word 'health' when describing anything that is not a drug. Saying cherries are good for you and in what way has made you turn cherries into a drug and they can then be confiscated because you have practiced medicine without a license. Sound too crazy to be true? Look it up this is a real story about a real cherry orchard.

Who is going to dictate our lives and decide what is right and wrong and what we are allowed ***NOT*** allowed to do regarding our own health / lives / bodies? Even if the state is right in this case, and I'm not sure one way or the other, this sets a precedent that the state owns you; you don't own yourself. The state owns your children, they decide what's right; they will force vaccinations on your children and if you think that causes illness and refuse they'll take your children. Then they'll not only be vaccinated, they'll be dosedon psychotropic drugs and will never, ever be the same again.

[Akoto]

78. I support Abraham and family 100%.

Both of my grandfathers had cancer. I can vividly recall one of them laying on the hospital bed, telling me that the treatment was worse than the problem. Chemo was absolute torture on them, and they were grown men.

In the end, both of them refused to continue with chemo. My grandfather who was still able to live outside of the hospital traveled and took the time to enjoy his family. Yes, they died, but they did so on their terms.

What are they going to do? Seize this kid from his house and chain him to the table, so that they can forcibly inject him with poison? They think this is merciful as compared to letting him live the rest of his life as he prefers?

[Liberal Veteran]

79. There is a certain contigent that is deeply mistrustful of medical science

...and sadly (my opinion), there are some on DU who feel the same way. I can't tell you the number of times I have defended antivirals for HIV. Some people say they are worthless, others say they are poison and actually cause AIDS, but if that were true, I'd have been dead 6 years ago. Are they perfect? Absolutely not. Do they have side effects? Sometimes. For myself, my side effects have been minor to the point of not even considering them side-effects.

The sad thing is this mistrust of science that some people have to the point they hear all the horror stories of cancer treatment and pounce on those to push an anti-science agenda. In my mind, I see that as really no different than people who say the unanswered questions about evolution means it's all wrong or the people who think global warming is a hoax.

Chemo is not pleasant. The drugs used are VERY strong and VERY toxic. The very idea behind chemo is cancer cells tend to fall victim to these drugs more rapidly than cancer cells, but we are not advanced enough to just target the rogue cells, thus, systemic therapy is required to reach those cells with toxic substances. But it's still good science and the best science has to help cure those cancers.

Alternative medicine is not without successes, but they really tend to shine in more minor ailments. And then there is the problem that alternative medicine is a catch all term. Could be nutritional, could be herbal, could be psychic surgery or aura cleansing or touch therapy.

I'll keep my faith in science and dabble in the alternative for minor things or to augment science.

[CanSocDem]

80. Count me one of them....

...as "medical science" has become another marketable 'philosophy', available to whatever company that has the political clout or the wealth to purchase it.

As has been mentioned, medical science could be doing more for the PUBLIC good, but it seems to be content to rest comfortably on its' 'gifted' status. How it can pass it's responsibility to the pharmaceutical industry is beyond the pale, but it seems to work with so many who are content to cope, as opposed to live. Not even medical science in all its' brilliance can explain that.

[FredScuttle]

97. why is self-will "anti-science"?

No one is campaigning to end the torture of chemo...it's just another variation of "whose life is it anyway?"

[sinogirl]

82. chemotherapy is torture......

Doctors don't necessarily look for what's best...

Have a friend with MS and his doctors always suggest hormones to boost him up when he's down..!! He's continued to refuse the doctors advice for the past 9 years and instead controlled his diet extensively .. (he actually did a lot of reading on MS and kept in contact with others similar to him)...

Today he's fine and better off than most who were in a similar condition to him...

The Judge was wrong in this case, but he would have set a very dangerous precedent allowing 16 year olds to determine their own treatment and medication, regardless of the parent consent.

Tough decision...

[OzarkDem]

202. No it isn't, for many its a cure

It got rid of my breast cancer and has done the same for many other survivors.

Everyone should get a second opinion from qualified positions, but to reject standard care that has been proven to work is foolish.

[Bonobo]

83. This is the true "Men's Roe VS. Wade"!

[Recursion]

138. 100% agreed

This is a case where the exact same principles as a woman's right to choose are at stake. The state has no authority to compel us regarding the disposition of our own bodies. He is not property of or slave to the state. I disagree with his particular choice of treatment, but it's not my call. It's his body, and his cancer.

[loudsue]

85. The AUTHORITARIAN stance here is NOT appropriate.

What about the MILLIONS of poor or even homeless Americans who cannot afford ANY kind of treatment -- for anything? You don't see the authoritarians insisting that all of them get chemotherapy, needed drugs, or even food, for that matter.

People's bodies are their own business. One size DOES NOT FIT ALL. If the kid doesn't want chemo, he shouldn't be forced onto the drug table. Let him die in peace. Some things are worse than death. Losing your right to choose is one of them.

I'm sick and tired of government, or authoritarians in society, "deciding" what someone else should do with their bodies. Yet, when some ASK for that same kind of help, they get nothing.

If we had free medical coverage, and a RIGHT TO DECIDE, then we could just accept that some folks are more interested in living their own lives, rather than fighting death according to someone else's rules.

The U.S. has become so AUTHORITARIAN it makes me sick. People want to stick their noses into everyone else's business, with the zeal of a hanging mob mentality.

Either we're FREE or we're not. Right now, we're obviously not.

[Nevernose]

98. He's 16 -- he doesn't have any rights

Or at least not rights that aren't overseen by the state. We, as a society, picked an age -- 18. We picked it in the Middle Ages and we've stuck with it because it seems to fit generally well. The state has a moral obiligation too look after the well-being of children.

We can't just let s kid die because they want to. If he was termianlly ill, or extrememly aged and infirmed, it might be a different story, but he stood a very good chance of being cured with medicine, and a non-existant chance of being cured without medicine (and a slight chance of it going into remission on its own).

Other than that, the rest of your post is dead on. We are an authoritarian society and we've become way too interested in telling people what to do with themselves. I just draw a line between adults and children.

[Recursion]

151. So, once again, if this were a girl

And she wanted an abortion, I assume you think the court should be able to stop her, given the many risks associated with abortion? (The fact that pro-lifers lie about the risks doesn't mean that there are not risks.) She's just 16, after all, and isn't responsible enough to make her own decision about that.

I can't believe I have to shout this on DU:

Your body is your own. It's not the government's. Even if you're 16, it's not the government's. The fact that your choice is repugnant to others does not remove your right to make that choice. If we can tell a 16 year old boy to get chemo that he doesn't want, then we can tell a 16 year old girl to carry a pregnancy to term that she doesn't want. It's as simple as that.

[genieroze]

87. Why not use both treatments? Sheesh, healthy food whadda concept.

The foods might help his body use the traditional treatments better.

[Ariana Celeste]

105. My Grandma did that

She had cancer in her bladder, kidneys, had gone through chemo many times and had to go in for dialysis 3 times a week. I won't go into gruesome details but after awhile she opted to start eating healthier and organic and whatnot... she still ended up dying in the end, but that last couple years that she was eating right, she looked and felt better.

[Bridget Burke]

112. "Integrative Oncology" is the study of conventional therapy....

In combination with "natural" methods. It's available at some hospitals & research is being done.

www.mdanderson.org/departments/cimer/

[Recursion]

141. Depends on whom you ask

Some people (and I'd like to add I'm not one of them, I'm just mentioning their arguments in this thread) think that chemo is a bigger problem than the cancer it is used against. Personally I think chemo gets overused, but has its place, but my opinion is neither here nor there.

Incidentally, all of our opinions on this question are neither here nor there. It's this kid's body, so his course of treatment needs to be his choice.

[genieroze]

148. He's a minor, so his parents have the last say. Oops, I forgot the NSF

or Nanny State Factor. Big Bro knows best. I still think he should do both but I'm not the Big Bro.
:sarcasm:

[mopinko]

90. we had a situation like this in my family

the "kid" was a young adult, so there was no way to involve child protection services. the parents were just terrified, and not thinking. looking for a way around what they were facing. easy prey.
many dollars, much brown rice and shark cartilage later, their my niece died. in a lot of pain, and without the palliative care that she would have had. believe me, they wish now that someone would have slapped some sense into them.
sad.
i think that people who deny their kids proven medical treatment, whether they believe in prayer, or herbs, or brown rice, are guilty of neglect. as much as i support a parents right to screw up their own children, i draw the line at letting them die of treatable disease.

[Recursion]

174. Why do you assume it was the parents' decision

rather than his?

And why does chemo require a consent form if it can be mandated?

[Nevernose]

99. Thread's one big exercise in non-sequiturs & "post hoc, ergo propter hoc"

Big pharmaceutical companies may be ARE the enemy, but that does not invalidate science or medicine.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

101. Authority rests with the legal guardians. As the state has partial custody

they had a right to sue the biological parents to have the child receive proper treatment.

Personally I'd take whatever treatment is recommended by healthcare professionals (doctors, consultants, specialists, nurse practitioners, pharmacologists), since they are the experts. However I make this decision as an adult.

[xilet]

103. More on the cancer

As someone who has Hodgkin's, the 93% is not even the whole picture. It is a type of cancer that can and often will come back even after being fully treated. However unlike other types of cancer, each time it does that you have the same odds of beating it with traditional methods. Also I was quoted a low 90's % chance of survival as well. That is a low number. That factors in everyone with this type of cancer and it has two age spikes, one in the late teens-early twenties, and another in the 50's-60's age range. So for a non-smoking, teenager in good health the odds are normally much higher the low 90's, but they low-ball it to not give hope that it is a 'sure thing'.

[MilesColtrane]

108. The Hoxsey Herbal Treatment, which is what the family wants to pursue,

is illegal in the United States, and didn't even manage to save the man who invented it.

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ETO/content/ETO_5_3X_Hoxsey_Herbal_Treatment.asp?sitearea=ETO

This seems to be just like a case of Christian Scientists refusing treatment for their child in favor of prayer.
Both prayer and herb juice are faith based.
Until scientific studies prove the efficacy of the Hoxsey treatment, the court has the obligation to protect the kid against his, and his parents beliefs. (google "Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 US 158"}

[Posteritatis]

109. Better than that bullshit vitamin C overdose some use, at least. :P (nt)

[AngryAmish]

122. Coffee enemas is the reason Steve McQueen is still making movies

Oh, I'm sorry, he's dead -- he relied on quacks also.

[Recursion]

149. Wow, that's a stretch of a decision

Prince v. Mass said that a mother couldn't force her children to sell religious pamphlets in violation of child labor laws.

And to quote UVa Law's take on the case:

Of particular interest is the conclusion of Rutledge's opinion in which he states that the state law does not restrict the Jehovah's Witnesses' religious freedom because the activity being outlawed occurs on public property. The religious significance of the act is minimized because of the venue in which it occurred rather than basing the evaluation on the nature of the act itself.

What happened to the belief in choice, personal freedom, and control over our bodies?

[MilesColtrane]

214. It's not a stretch..this, from the Prince v. Mass. decision...

"But the family itself is not beyond regulation in the public interest, as against a claim of religious liberty.
And neither rights of religion nor rights of parenthood are beyond limitation.

Acting to guard the general interest in youth's well being, the state as parens patriae may restrict the parent's control by requiring school attendance, regulating or prohibiting the child's labor, and in many other ways.

Its authority is not nullified merely because the parent grounds his claim to control the child's course of conduct on religion or conscience. Thus, he cannot claim freedom from compulsory vaccination for the child more than for himself on religious grounds. "


What is religious belief but faith without evidence?
And what is faith without evidence if it's not the belief that herbs will cure cancer?

[Bridget Burke]

111. The kid's receiving "The Hoxsey Treatment"

(As I discovered in numerous other articles on the case.)

Here's what Sloan Ketting has to say:

Hoxsey treatment, illegal in the United States, is available at the Bio-Medical Center and other clinics in Tijuana, Mexico. According to inventor Harry Hoxsey (1901-1974), a self-taught healer, the principal "brown" tonic contains potassium iodide, licorice, red clover, burdock root, stillingia root, barberry, cascara, pokeroot, prickly ash bark, and buckthorn bark at unknown concentrations.

The diet eliminates pork, vinegar, tomatoes, pickles, carbonated drinks, alcohol, bleached flour, sugar and salt, and emphasizes iron, calcium, vitamin C, yeast supplements and grape juice. Hoxsey claimed the treatment detoxifies the body, strengthens the immune system, balances body chemistry, and allows the body to digest and excrete tumors. Superoxide dismutase (SOD), vitamin B12, Gerovital (a mixture of procaine hydrochloride and vitamins), "Prolobin liver," TST-100, rosette cactus, Koch Antitoxins, BCG vaccine, and Shulte's medications sometimes are included in the regimen.

Hoxsey was convicted numerous times for practicing medicine without a license; the U.S. government reported that the 400 patients Hoxsey claimed to have cured never had cancer, were cured before receiving his treatment, still had cancer, or had died from the disease. The National Cancer Institute evaluated 77 case reports submitted by Hoxsey and concluded that none showed efficacy. No clinical data supports the value of this therapy. Patients should be urged not to use the Hoxsey method.

http://www.mskcc.org/mskcc/html/11571.cfm?RecordID=505&tab=HC

"Integrative Oncology is the study of "natural" treatments in combination with modern medicine. Here's information on the program at M D Anderson, another respected cancer center.
www.mdanderson.org/departments/cimer/

Anyone desiring an "anti-cancer" diet should begin it while still healthy. And I can understand that someone with a "hopeless" diagnosis might want to grasp at any straw. Any straw they can afford, that is--the Tijuana clinics are NOT free.

This young man has a disease that responds well to conventional therapy. The judge did the right thing.

[Lorien]

189. I agree

I've managed to treat my fibromyalgia, CFS, ADD and depression with diet and a device called the Alpha-stim SCS. Going organic, avoiding processed foods, white flour, and sugar can help to alleviate many conditions, no doubt about it. But diet alone won't cure cancer or most other life threatening diseases-especially if any of those conditions appear to be hereditary.

[Caution]

116. And this is just another example that disproves right-wing

conservative lack of faith in government's ability to help people. This kid's parents are a couple of total freakin idiots who got sucked in by yet another "faith" healer.

All the damned snake-oil lovers out there fail to ever acknowledge that the rates of survival of cancer have continued to climb steadily thanks to the "miracle" of modern medicine while not ONE person ANYWHERE EVER has been definitively shown to have survived cancer due to these purveyors of quackery. The fact that people show so much faith in these charlatans who are simply preying on them drives me nuts.

[Recursion]

140. Woah there... you think forcing someone to undergo a medical treatment

that he does not want is in any way "progressive"?

It's the exact same moralistic attempt to control our bodies that underlies the "pro-life" movement. It's his body, it's his cancer. It's his call.

[onenote]

161. He is a minor

Elsewhere you acknowledge you wouldn't let an 8 year old make this decision. Where exactly is the line. The law says 18. What else should be changed from 18. Should contracts entered into by 16 year olds no longer be voidable? Should a 16 year old be allowed to enter into a binding contract with the Army obligating the 16 year old to enlist when he turns 17?

[Recursion]

169. I also said there is no bright line

But succumbing to the fallacy of the beard doesn't help anybody here. He's clearly intelligent enough to know what he's getting into; he has his family's support. If you wanted to produce a series of hypothetical cases I could come to a conclusion for each of them, I suppose, but to me, this kid clearly knows what he's deciding.

[classics]

117. Easy solution.

Just cancel thier medical insurance. I'm sure any offers of treatment will suddenly and mysteriously disappear.

[Javaman]

118. That's fine and dandy...

Now will the Judge also pay their medical bills as well?

[Bridget Burke]

119. The parents are paying for the kid's treatment in Mexico.

You certainly don't think the "healers" down there offer free treatment.

[Javaman]

121. My point is: if he is ordering the kid to take cancer treatment here

is the judge willing to fork over the thousands it's going to cost this family? It's easy to pass a judgment like this, but the reality is and as we all know: High medical bills are the main reason why people declare bankruptcy.

[Bridget Burke]

125. The family never mentioned money as their motive.

Are they truly destitute? Or should they let the kid die because they are cheap?

[Javaman]

155. that's not my point. If the gov't is going to order a family

to use another form of treatment, then the gov't should pay for it.

It's like your boss telling you, you have to start driving a Rolls Royce to work because you are promoting the wrong image by driving a honda.

It's not about money, it's about freedom a choice.

[onenote]

135. I'm fairly certain the state is paying for the treatment

They have assumed partial guardianship of the teen.

[Javaman]

156. Okay, that I can work with. nt

[Bridget Burke]

120. Update: "Cherrix To Refuse Court Order For Chemotherapy"

Cherrix To Refuse Court Order For Chemotherapy

July 25, 2006 04:50 AM CDT

Abraham Cherrix, the Eastern Shore teen who is using an herbal diet to fight Hodgkin's Disease, will defy a court order to resume chemotherapy.

Speaking in Virginia Beach Monday evening before an appearance on Fox News Channel, Abraham Cherrix, 16, and his father, Jay Cherrix told Your NewsChannel 3 they will not report to Childrens' Hospital of the King's Daughters by a court-ordered deadline of 1p.m. Tuesday afternoon.

Instead, the family will be in conference with an Accomack County Circuit Court judge asserting their right to a brand new trial.

www.wtkr.com/Global/story.asp?S=5191911&nav=ZolHbyvj

It's interesting that most stories refer to "an herbal diet" instead of the Hoxsey Treatment.

"Hoxsey herbal treatment includes a paste of antimony, zinc and bloodroot, arsenic, sulfur, and talc as external treatments, and a liquid mixture of licorice, red clover, burdock root, Stillingia root, barberry, Cascara, prickly ash bark, buckthorn bark, and potassium iodide for internal consumption. A mixture of procaine hydrochloride and vitamins, along with liver and cactus, is prescribed." (Spencer) ......

During treatment, patients are asked to avoid consumption of tomatoes, vinegar, pork, alcohol, salt, sugar, and white flour products. (Fink 1988)

"The Hoxsey therapy was started in 1840, when it was used on a horse with a cancerous sore on its leg. This formula was passed down through the Hoxsey family and has been used internally and externally on humans for more than fifty years. Mildred Nelson, R.N., now operated this clinic , which has been in Tijuana since 1963 and formerly was run by the late Harry Hoxsey." (Fink 1997)....

Hoxsey developed prostate cancer in 1967 and treated himself unsuccessfully with his tonic. He eventually underwent conventional surgery. He died in 1974. (Hafner)

www.bccancer.bc.ca/PPI/UnconventionalTherapies/HoxseysHerbalTonicHoxseyHerbalTreatment.htm

The poor kid will eventually show up at a hospital, asking to be "cured."

[Recursion]

129. Now now, good people...

Doctors are Professionals (tm). They never lie, and they are never wrong. It's certainly impossible that a mere patient could be right, and a doctor wrong. That's why they call you a "patient"; you are passive in the healing process. You are not supposed to think for yourself or come to your own conclusions. You are not responsible for your own health: the good, benevolent, omniscient Doctor and his friends in the pharmaceutical industry are. There is a pharmaceutical solution to every single disease, and we don't need to be concerned about the toxins we are dumping into our environment and bodies. Clearly the only answer is drugs; never mind that they make you sick and kill you half the time. At least you won't be dying of cancer. That's why people who advocate non-pharmaceutical therapies for cancer, or AIDS, or mad cow, or whatever need to be put in jail (Note: I've heard people actually say that one): patients need to trust the Doctor completely and not be given distracting, misleading information that makes them look outside of the pharmaceutical paradigm.

Now, everyone please ignore these hippie cooks on the eastern shore and go back to your produce-consume-multiply activities, and trust the medical establishment next time we tell you to do something, because history shows it is never, ever wrong, and certainly wouldn't perpetuate an error out of a combination of pride and profit motive for decades...

oh, and if you didn't guess...

:sarcasm:

[Bridget Burke]

136. No, modern medicine is not 100% right.

I agree that we are all responsible for our own health. That means using our intelligence & doing some research.

Hodgkin's is highly treatable. In this case, modern medicine offers the kid a better outcome than the quacks in Tijuana.

[Recursion]

137. And you feel ok...

...with a court enforcing that judgment about what the best course of treatment is for him?

What if this were a girl with a pregnancy, rather than a boy with cancer? Could the judge tell her to carry the pregnancy to term?

[Bridget Burke]

142. Yes, I do.

And I don't see the pregnant girl as an equivalent situation.

[Recursion]

143. Can you explain why you see them as different?

Both face a potentially life-ending and certainly life-changing decision. Both have (in my opinion) a natural right to sovereignty over their own bodies. In both cases, the government is trying to assert that it knows better than the individual what should happen to that individual's body.

What's the difference?

[Bridget Burke]

146. No, I feel no need to explain this to you.

Your original message indicated a general mistrust of all medicine. When that argument failed, you tried a different one.

[Recursion]

147. You *do* owe everyone an explanation

You owe it because you are asserting the state has a right to make decisions for someone about the kind of medical treatment they want to seek. That means you would deny me or otheres here the right of choice over my body, which means you owe me an explanation as to why.

I never said I distrust all medicine, I said I distrust studies funded by companies that have a financial interest in those studies having a certain outcome and drawing conclusions based on those studies.

Now, tell me why you want to deny an individual his right to choice and bodily integrity. And tell me why you would defend a pregnant girl's right to personal choice and privacy, but not a boy with cancer.

[Bridget Burke]

171. You are the only one arguing with me & I owe you nothing.

As an adult, you are free to make idiotic choices about healthcare.

[Javaman]

224. I think you do owe dmesg a response.

Making blanket statement without supporting your argument is a sign of ignorance.

It's like a little kid in the playground that doesn't want to someone to use their ball based on the age old reason of: "just because".

This case is about simple personal rights. If one can't control the treatment one chooses for any sort of malady, condition or otherwise physical condition, then we might just as well just roll over and allow the government or the church decide for us everything that we do.

If we back down on simple logic such as this, then anything we do as Americans, whether it is how we choose which treatment we want or how we choose to spend our days off will all become subject to that same logic of "just because". It takes nothing to extrapolate a ruling such as this to extreme measures. Because over the last 6 years, the neo-cons have show they will take simple things to extreme measures. The one percenters anyone?

[Bridget Burke]

233. Then tell dmesg for me....

He's quite free to drink as much horse liniment as he likes. I wouldn't dream of interfering.

[Javaman]

236. Boy, you certainly are a pleasant soul.

Very adult of you.

have a smashing day.

[Bridget Burke]

245. Hey, I don't want to interfere with his Personal Freedom.

Given the state of our healthcare system, thank him for agreeing to stay out of doctors' offices & hospitals. There will be more room for those who want care.

[saddemocrat]

247. Darwin at work!

[ulysses]

307. this is about the life of the child.

Nice strawman, though.

[Recursion]

145. I find his sickening, DU

Seriously.

You guys would fight tooth and nail if this were a 16-year-old girl being forced to carry a pregnancy to term, and you would be right to.

This is a kid whose facing a nightmare most of us can't imagine. He's decided he's had enough with chemo, went through it once, the stuff came back, and he doesn't want it anymore. He wants to try something else.

Let's assume for a second (which I don't) that his decision is a death sentence to him. OK, I still defend it. If he wants to die with some level of dignity and comfort, that's his decision. Not mine, not yours, not a judge's. None of us get to decide where he should draw the line about what treatment to accept or reject. None of us. How dare we second-guess him? I'm appalled at some of the things I'm reading here.

We do not know better than this boy what the right decision for him is. It's his body, damn it. It's his body just like a pregnant teenage girl's body is hers. In neither case does government or society have the right to control what happens to someone's body. It's the individual's decision. There is more to life than simply staying alive.

[saddemocrat]

150. This is why

I don't post here much anymore, to be perfectly honest.

I can't believe that there are people here shouting about how alternative therapies could save this boy. :eyes:

I just survived a 7 month battle with Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma and finally got my "remission" status last Wed. I was pregnant during my entire 6 rounds of chemotherapy and had radiation after the baby was born.

No..it wasn't easy, but the alternative would have been death. No herbal supplements or vitamins could have stopped the aggressive tumor growth going on and quite frankly, I was much happier to take the risk of controlled-trials of medication and hope for a cure than to go out on a limb and try some sort of alternative therapy with no proven track record and a few anectdotal stories of "cure".

Some of you have cried "educate yourself" and then spouted out some bs "alternative medicine" crap. As someone with an MS in Molecular Biology, I consider myself educated about the cell cycle, oncogenes and mechanisms of tumor growth.

It is child abuse not to insist that a 16 year old gets the most proven medical treatment available. Even with recurrence, this child has a good chance of gaining a remission and even still a cure....without it, he will die.

One thing the previous poster said is true. If it was about a 16 year old being able to have an abortion, you same posters would be up in arms demanding that this medical treatment be available....you should all be outraged that this child is not being forced to undergo medical treatment for a potentially treatable cancer.

The National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine has double-blind studies looking at efficacy. Feel free to search for results of their published articles and let me know if you find one that shows alternative treatments to have provided a benefit to cancer patients.

Anecdotal stories of someone who knew someone who was 'cured' by taking shark cartilage are crap.

kris

[Recursion]

152. forced?

you should all be outraged that this child is not being forced to undergo medical treatment for a potentially treatable cancer.

(emphasis mine)

That says it all, I think. We have very, very different views about what liberty is. And yours scare me.

[saddemocrat]

153. Boo!

Good...but now don't you go running to the doctor when you get cancer. I don't want to hear a peep out of you about any kinds of PET scans, CT scans, biopsies or treatments. After all, all docs are just power-hungry, greedy sob's that never take patients seriously, right?

Please...stick to your guns on this issue when you get sick.

I didn't find a single doctor that belittled me, wasn't willing to discuss my options, choices or hear my feelings...All were willing to do what they could to make me more comfortable.

[Recursion]

154. Strawman

Again, you're being authoritarian and telling me what to do with my body. I thought this was a progressive board?

If I decide chemo is the treatment I should undergo, I'll take it. If I decide a nutrition regimen is, I'll do that. If I want hot coffee enemas like this kid (which I won't; no worries about that one), I'll do that.

What you authoritarian "I know what's best for you" types don't seem to get is that I will make my own decision regardless of what you think I should do. You do not have power over my body, and barring the sort of police state this court case is edging towards, you won't ever.

I'm very glad your treatment worked. Seriously. I'm happy for you. Your hand isn't the only hand that glove is going on, though. I've known people with tremendous successes and torturous failures using chemical medicine and using "alternative" medicine. It's their choice. When it's my time, it will be my choice. Not yours. You don't get to make my decisions for me, even if you think you know what's best.

[saddemocrat]

157. well

We're talking about a minor child making a decision that will result in his death when he could be treated. You are free to make your own choice, but please don't be one of those doctor haters who tries everything and then ends up coming in to see the doc still being angry.

Traditional medicine isn't perfect and sadly, there are failures. However, do your own research using the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine. They have embarked to "prove" alternative med works and are using double-blind studies. So far, you can read their research results that echinacea doesn't help you not get the common cold, that St. John's Wort is no better than placebo for the tx of depression....these are controlled trials....not.."My neighbor, Suzy, has a friend whose cousin got better..."

[Recursion]

159. My criticism of industrial medicine doesn't make me "alternative"

Any more than my criticisms of capitalism make me communist.

I think there's way way way too much corporate money in medical research and that it has compromised that research in thousands of concrete ways. I'm not that interested in most "alternative" medicines though I do think the importance of nutrition and environmental toxins as pathogens is overlooked in a lot of the research. I read PLOS and Pubmed, daily. I'm not some hippie off in the woods eating granola and locusts hoping to cure my ailments -- but I respect that hippie's decisions.

We're talking about a minor child
If the child were 8, I'd agree with the court. Is there a bright line? no, but 16 seems to be on the other side of the fuzzy line, and this kid seems mature enough to make his own decisions. And he's done chemo once already, so he knows the gravity of the decision.

making a decision that will result in his death
You don't know that. The death rate is not 100% without treatment, and the survival rate is not 100% with treatment. You may not like his odds, but it's not your life.

[reprobate]

166. this kid seems mature enough to make his own decisions.

No 16 year old is mature enough to make this kind of decision.

The human brain is not fully mature until at least 25, so a 16 year old is not even close.

That's why majority was set at 21 even before neurological research reach the point it is today.

Why can't we let kids be kids until they have to take on adult responsibilities?

[Gully Foyle]

160. Well

"What you authoritarian "I know what's best for you" types don't seem to get is that I will make my own decision regardless of what you think I should do. You do not have power over my body, and barring the sort of police state this court case is edging towards, you won't ever."

I agree. I also think that when you need any type of Social Service due to your decision you should NOT receive it.
I'm reminded of those militia types who bitched about the government yet still collected subsidies from them.
All or nothing baby, all or nothing.

[harpboy_ak]

319. That's fine, you're an ADULT. The kid is NOT.

And that's the difference. You can make your own foolish decisions, but a minor cannot. In this case his parents appear to be incompetent to make that decision. The judge must think so, or he wouldn't have ruled that they share custody with the state Youth Services folks.

[Lars39]

163. I'm glad you got your 'remission status', saddemocrat.

Congratulations! You've been down a hard road. :hug:
I can't believe some of the anti-science crap that's posted here sometimes.:(

[saddemocrat]

164. Thank You

It has been a really tough 7 months. I was 15 weeks pg at diagnosis and ended up delivering at 33 weeks...1 week after my last chemo. It seems that the chemo did a terrific job killing the cancer cells, but an unfortunate side effect was that it also made my amniotic fluid disappear. Baby spent 5 weeks in the NICU but is doing fabulously now!

Everyday I'm thankful that it was discovered when it was (it was a bulky tumor (7x10x3 when discovered) and that I had such good results with the treatment.

kris

[Lars39]

165. Wow. I'm not sure 'tough' covers enough ground!

Glad the bambino is doing great. Now I feel like an idjit for whining about a little nausea. :D

[saddemocrat]

167. This was

baby #5 for us...and it was the last thing that we expected. It put a lot of things into perspective for me...:puffpiece:

[Scairp]

170. That's great that both of you are well

I also thought that the boy should be getting his chemo, but I also have a big problem with the state stepping in and forcing the parents to "consent". That isn't consent, that's an order. I don't see how they can legally force them to sign papers. If the county has shared custody then they could sign the consent.

[alarimer]

168. Most alternative therapies are quackery

the modern equivalent of patent medicines. There is some effort to test these things scientifically, but as PZ Myers points out, there are a lot of problems with the methods of the National Center for Comlimentary and Alternative Medicine (mostly that they are not following proper scientific method):

"A major goal of NCCAM has been to carry out clinical trials of various herbal medicines…which is a good thing. Some might work, and this is how we'd find out, and some might fail, and then we can dismiss them and move on. Unfortunately, what seems to be happening is that these herbs flop in the trials, and nothing happens. They're still kept on as active candidates for research, there certainly is no regulatory action taken against the peddlers of these nostrums, and apparently, no one is going to believe any recommendation anyway."

more...

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/07/damn_the_nccam.php#more



For me I would never use any so-called "alternative" therapy for ANYTHING. I figure that placing my trust in the scientific method (and treatments that have been studied literally for years in some cases)over quackery anyday.

[OzarkDem]

201. Good for you!

You're right alternative medicine hasn't cured anyone, but evidenced based medicine has.

Congrats on your battle, you sound like a real warrior woman - join us in the cancer forum!

[saddemocrat]

297. Is there a cancer forum?

really? Is that here at DU? I'll have to look.

[Recursion]

172. Can a judge order a family with an overweight teen...

...to make that teen exercise? Obesity is a death sentence, you know.

[onenote]

181. and if a very young child is involved, would you let the parents decide

or do you agree that the state has a right to step in and override the will of the parents and protect a child if that child's parents or legal guardians are making decisions that threaten the child's life?

[Recursion]

182. Short of actively and directly causing harm, no

Doctors are not omniscient or always right, and the state does not have any business, really, forcing people to act like they believe them. (I mean, come on, forcing the parents to sign a consent form for the chemo -- surely we can all agree that's messed up. What does "consent" mean?)

And no, denying treatment is not actively causing harm, there's a huge difference. And, no, the Constitutional limitations on government don't magically disappear just because a child is involved.

And finally, why do you assume this was the parents' decision? It sounds like the kid made this decision.

[onenote]

184. denying treatment is actively causing harm

Sorry, but if a kid cuts an artery and is bleeding to death and the parents don't call an ambulance or take any steps to stop the bleeding, or if the EMTs arrive and the parents refuse to consent to the kid being treated because they believe he'll get better if they pray, or sing a song, or hold his hand or pour magic water on the wound, and the kid dies, the parents are and should be held responsible. ANd the state should have the right to override the parents wishes in order to protect the kid's life.

[Pithlet]

193. Absolutely. I agree.

If a decision a parent makes endangers a child's life, the state has the right to step in and intervene. This isn't a case about "my body, my choice", as some in this thread assert. The state has had the right to step in and intervene in cases of neglect and endangerment for a long time, and I support this. These parents are endangering their son by withholding treatment, and they do not have that right, nor should they.

[Recursion]

197. So the kid gets no say in it at all?

This was the kid's decision, the parents are just supporting it.

[onenote]

198. the "kid" is legally a "kid" so, no, he gets no say in it

As far as the law is concerned, he's treated the same at 16 as he would at 15, 14, 13, 12.....5,4,3 etc. Are some 16 year olds capable of making such a decision on their own? Maybe. But the law draws lines. And in this case, it assumes that a 16 year old likely lacks the experience to make an informed independent judgment. Frankly, I'd be more impressed by his supposed "maturity" if his position was different from that of his parents.

[Recursion]

205. Fair enough

I'll also expect you to support the next GOP-sponsored bill to keep pregnant teenage girls from making life-or-death decisions about their own bodies, too, especially without their parents' consent.

[Pithlet]

208. Parents don't have the right to condemn their own child to death.

Look, you wouldn't support a parent's decision to starve their own children, would you? You wouldn't support a parent's decision to take away their type I diabetic child's insulin? You're trying to make this into an issue that it isn't. This isn't about having personal autonomy, which is what being pro-choice is about. It's about the legal, moral and ethical responsibility that parents have to their children. They don't have the right to make decisions that condemn them to death.

Never mind that pregnancy and cancer aren't the same thing. Pregnancy can have deadly complications, but it isn't a deadly condition itself. It's entirely possible to be 100% pro-choice, and at the same time not allow parents to willfully neglect their children and make choices that will almost assuredly cause their death.

[Recursion]

210. I'm locking myself at this point

I'm getting so unspeakably angry here at people that I know are good people, I mean, I'm literally seeing red over some of the things you all are saying.

So, sorry for all the comments here, and I'm off this topic.

[Pithlet]

212. I didn't mean to upset you.

When I responded, I thought your comment was in answer to my post, and didn't notice it wasn't until after I posted. But, I did want to defend the position that the court was right (before it was overturned) because from my viewpoint it isn't a choice issue. I think that's why this issue is getting so contentious because everyone is talking past each other. I wanted to clarify that I'm not against personal choice when it comes to healthcare. I just don't think this case was about that.

[iverglas]

260. you'll be interested in this article

that I just linked to in the other thread on this subject:

http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/6-14-2005-71580.asp

Excerpt:

... But parents do not have an unfettered right to act in ways that harm their children, even if they are acting on religious beliefs. It is now well settled that religious motivation is no defense to illegal conduct. In addition, the Supreme Court has explained that children have rights independent of their parents:

Parents may be free to become martyrs themselves. But it does not follow that they are free, in identical circumstances, to make martyrs of their children before they have reached the age of full legal discretion when they can make that choice for themselves.

The preeminent right is the right to live, so the exemptions do raise some interesting constitutional questions whether a child might well have a constitutional (as well as a statutory) right to receive medical treatment despite the parents' beliefs. At the very least, the Constitution does not prohibit the states from mandating medical treatment for seriously ill children of faith-healing parents. The religious entities' capacity to avoid the child-welfare laws is derived from their political power and moxie, not any constitutional right.

Oh ... and I always suggest that anyone proposing that young women and girls should have to obtain parental consent (or give parental notification) in order to have an abortion be sure to explain how they plan to require that they obtain consent or give notification in order to continue a pregnancy and have a child. That's a risky business and a serious medical decision, that, and obviously kids should not be allowed to engage in such business, or make that decision, without at least informing their parents.

[Pithlet]

203. Not when it comes to matters of life and death, no.

If a child in the care of his/her parents or guardians makes a dangerous decision that puts his/her life in jeopardy, it is the duty of the parents or guardians to step in and stop it. Failing that, the state can and should step in. I don't think that the state should step in and micromanage everything as far as parenting goes. But, parents can't stand by and let their children harm themselves, so it doesn't matter if this truly was the teen's decision. For instance, if this were my child, he could rant, and cry all he wants, and insist he's not getting the treatment, but believe me, he's getting the treatment. I wouldn't stand by and let him effectively kill himself, and that is my duty, my obligation as a parent. And when parents don't meet that obligation, I support the state stepping in every time.

[knitter4democracy]

175. Patients should always have the right to refuse treatment.

It's a cornerstone of our (admittedly crappy) medical system.

My hubby's had patients refuse treatment. He didn't run to the government to force them to do it--he respected their decision and helped however they wanted him to.

Just as doctors have the right to refuse care (under proper guidelines), patients have the right to refuse treatment, even if they die from that decision. I'm not comfortable with these cases that work to undermine that.

[saddemocrat]

176. any adult

Should be able to refuse treatment (as long as they won't expect us to provide them for other services down the road related to their refusal of services).

A patient can refuse to quit smoking, but shouldn't be treated for COPD in the Emergency Room or be given chemotherapy for cancer until they have quit.

An individual may say "it's my choice" and go bungee jumping etc..but if they are injured, their insurance company has a right to deny coverage.

Sure...life is all about choices...but a minor child also has the right to be protected. If a religious zealot parent was refusing a blood transfusion for a young child who would clearly die without it, the courts have the right to step in and protect said child...if an adult refuses, it's a diff. ball of wax.

I know of people who believe that ingesting their own urine :yoiks: is a form of alternative therapy that they inflict on their children, of people who believe that locking children in closets is the best form of discipline .... do they have the 'right' under the law to practice their own form of parenting because they as adults shouldn't be forced by our govt. to do anything?

[knitter4democracy]

190. I disagree.

People make choices but should still be able to get treatment later. People do every day.

As for minors, I think it's a bit different with a 16 y.o. He's old enough to be a part of the decision-making process.

[onenote]

199. so do you think the military should be able to recruit 16 and 17 year olds

for service without parental consent? After all if they are old enough to make such momentous decisions, why shouldn't they be free to decide whether to join the military. (For the record, I don't think that a 16 year is "old enough" to make such decisions and I don't think the military should be recruiting teenagers who are too young to vote.

[knitter4democracy]

215. Huh? How is that comparable to this?

The military does go after sixteen y.o. kids, but they can't sign anything and make it stick. This patient can't sign anything and make it stick, either.

Look, refusal of care, even to the point of death, is a sacrosanct part of the medical system. If his parents and he were in disagreement, that would be different--if they were forcing him to get care he didn't want, unfortunately, that would be their right unless he emancipated himself or asked the state to interfere. They are in agreement, though, and since he's been through it before, you can't argue that he doesn't know anything about the treatment or the odds and numbers.

The kid is making a mostly informed decision (no medical decision is every fully informed, imo), and his parents agree with it. This is his second round of cancer, and there's no assurance that the chemo itself wouldn't kill him this time around. If he wants to refuse regular medical treatment, it's entirely his right.

Should teenaged girls who find themselves pregnant be able to get abortions without parental consent? It's a serious medical procedure with its own set of risks (yes, less risky than carrying to term, but still risky). Should parents be able to force their teenaged daughters to get abortions against those girls' will? I actually know a girl that happened to--horrible situation, and the school had to get social service involved (she wouldn't let the doctor use any pain meds, and the girl was so upset it took three people to hold her down, but the mom got the abortion she wanted her daughter to have).

The problem here is that sixteen or so is a tricky area. I used to teach high school, and while they act like the minors they are most of the time, many are quite mature and able to research things and make their own decisions. Just ask any teen about which car they'd buy if they could--you'll find hours of research put into that. ;) Some teens are more able to make medical decisions than others, and this young man sure sounds like one of them. The state should not be stepping in and forcing him to undergo anything against his will.

[onenote]

226. your response does everything but answer the question

As you acknowledge, a 16 year old can't be bound by his decisions. Why? Because 16 year old's are not deemed to be competent and experience enough to entrust with binding decisions. Indeed, a 17 year old can't even make a non-binding decision to join the military without parental consent. If we don't entrust teens to make a decision about joining the army, why would we entrust a teen to make a decision about foregoing livesaving medical treatment?

Put another way, if this kid was bleeding to death and he and his parents decided that the best treatment was fairy dust rather than a tourniquet and sutures, would you think that the state should stand by and do nothing?

[onenote]

180. self-delete

[w4rma]

179. Good decision by the judge. He probably saved the boy's life. (nt)

[alarimer]

183. Another judge has lifted the order and there will be a trial

http://www.salon.com/wire/ap/archive.html?wire=D8J3769G0.html

Appalling. But hopefully a jury will have more sense than these parents. We had a similar case here. The judge finally allowed the parents to choose quackery over medicine. I hope that when these kids die (and they will if not treated) the parents are sent to jail for neglect or whatever.

[Recursion]

185. Yeah, because sick people can't make their own decisions

And the courts and society need to step in and tell them what to do with their own bodies. And anybody who doesn't believe what a doctor tells them needs to be confined and re-educated until they do.

I'll say it again: I thought this was a "progressive" board.

[Bridget Burke]

187. "I thought this was a 'progressive' board"

Hey, we've heard that one before!

Most of us aren't into Creationism, either.

[w4rma]

191. I think the parents are taking the child to a cheaper doctor to save money

not the boys life. In fact I think they are trying to let him die so they aren't saddled with the bill.

Actually I don't believe that. It sounds like the parents really are misinformed about what they should do to help get their boy better. But the former position could have just as easily been the case.

This child needs to be treated *now* every day he is kept from seeing good doctors lowers his chance of survival.

[knitter4democracy]

195. Flying him to a clinic in Mexico isn't cheaper.

The treatments don't sound cheaper, either. I don't think it's about money, then.

[Recursion]

196. Do you have a single shred of evidence for that malicious claim?

Or are you simply unwilling to recognize that they are sincerely supporting what seems to be their son's decision? And that medical science isn't yet at a place to refute them. The first round of chemo made him very, very sick. The second round could kill him. He wants to try something else. Read the FDA Senate hearing from 2004 when Burton (yes, a GOP'er) took the FDA to task for letting Merck count a therapy as 100% successful when 9 of the 10 kids being studied died during the treatment (they didn't get the full 6 month treatment, you see, so their deaths didn't count).

God forbid I ever get a lymphoma, but I certainly hope you won't be looking over my shoulder second guessing whatever treatment options I choose. It's still my body, and it's still this kid's body.

[benEzra]

192. "My body, my choice" used to be a progressive ideal... (n/t)

[onenote]

200. because children generally aren't trusted to make their own decisions

And this case is a good demonstration of that. Because this kid's decision, undoubtedly influenced by his parents, is beyond foolish. Its potentially deadly.

[knitter4democracy]

194. It's their right, though.

I would be more upset if it were a young minor with no say at all, but the sixteen year old seems quite adamant himself. Refusal of care is a cornerstone of our system and not easily messed with.

[Pithlet]

204. A 16 year old should definitely have more say

than someone half their age, and in cases that aren't so black and white, I'd agree. But, this is one of those cases where outcome is more predictable. It's tried and true medicine that will likely save his life vs. snake oil that has no proven effect whatsoever. His form of cancer is very treatable. His chances of survival with medical treatment are very good. To refuse that is almost certainly a death sentence, and I think 16 is far too young to make that kind of a decision. I only favor such drastic measures as state interference for cases like this. There is all kinds of precedence for this kind of interference; it just doesn't always make sensational news. For whatever reason, sometimes parents refuse life saving medical treatment, and medical personnel will call on the state to step in and intervene on behalf of the child.

[flaminbats]

206. perhaps he should carry along a lifelong debt as well?

want to declare bankruptcy...even if it is for life-saving medical care? Tough..just let the states decide what our healthcare will be, and how we spend our limited time on this planet..those are good ole' American family values! :crazy:

Do we get anything real in return for our service, tax dollars, and suffering on this planet? I guess not..we are only here to serve, but never mind the questions :puke:

[Pithlet]

207. Well

Since I argue for universal healthcare, my obvious answer to that is no, he shouldn't. But, this isn't about letting the state decide what our healthcare should be. It's about parents being responsible for the welfare of their children, and the state stepping in when they abdicate that responsibility. No one (I hope) in this thread would argue that parents should have the right to starve their own children so they probably wouldn't argue that the state was overstepping if they acted in that situation. I don't understand why they would argue that parents should be able to effectively kill their children by withholding critical treatments that they need in order to survive. This isn't a case where there's a question if the treatment is necessary. It is vital for this boy to survive. They're killing them as surely as if they were withholding food and water. They shouldn't have that right in either case. Adults can choose to neglect themselves, and refuse lifesaving measures, but they don't have the right to make that choice for anyone else, their own children included.

[flaminbats]

213. at least we agree on universal healthcare..

I also believe that his parents should have more options when deciding what his treatment for such a condition should be. The problem is that state and county officials are often too quick to become involved in family affairs. Spanking can be taken to court as child abuse..family disputes are simply used too often as justifications for breaking up families!

I know many parents are too neglectful, but there are limits in how government can effectively address these situations. The best way I believe government can help is to make the necessary coverage available, thus allowing the family to have every possible choice. If this was done, I believe that new stories like this would be appearing less often.

[knitter4democracy]

217. I'd agree if he hadn't been through it before.

You can't say that he knows nothing of the risks and odds and all when he's been through this before. He knows just how his body reacts to chemo, he knows just what the odds of it coming back are, and he wants to take a different path this time. I can't disagree with that.

I asked my hubby, an internist, last night to look at the thread and read all the links about the story. He sided with the young man and his parents. He feels that the state is overstepping itself on this one.

Example story:
When I taught high school, the teacher across the hall had a student come to her with a problem. It turned out that the girl, only 14, had gotten pregnant, and her mother had forced her to get an abortion against her will. Her mother had threatened to send her to live with her father, whom she didn't know well and was scared of, so the girl agreed to go to the doctor, hoping he'd refuse to do the procedure. The doctor never talked with the girl by herself, always with her mom in the room, so she felt cornered and agreed to the procedure. As they were prepping her, she started to cry and then yell that she didn't want it. Her mom and two other nurses helped hold her down. She told them after her mom left the room when it was all done that she hadn't wanted it, and the doctor just left the room. Her mom refused all pain meds and even the hormone pills to get her back on her cycle afterwards (which really messed her up) so that her daughter could "learn her lesson."

The teacher told me all of this, and I told her that she needed to report it. She took it to the social worker at the school, who called in the mom and found out that the story was true. She contacted child and family services, and they told her that there was nothing they would do--the mother was within her rights.

Was she? I don't. I saw that poor thing--a star student who was a wreck for the rest of the year. It really messed her up, but the state decided that it wasn't abuse. She underwent a far less risky procedure than chemo against her will, and it was a bad thing. How is forcing a teenager to undergo chemo against his will okay? At which point do we say that it's his body and his life?

[Pithlet]

221. The fact that he's been through it before

did give me pause. I still think that the state was within bounds because the "alternative" does nothing for him. He's essentially deciding to give up and his parents are stepping aside and letting him do it. If he were an adult, I'd be supporting him 100%, no question. Since he isn't an adult, if he were at the point where it's questionable his chances are good enough to justify the punishment on his body, I'd support his parent's decision 100%. The main reason I support the state is from what I understand the type of cancer he has is very treatable, even with this second go around, so if I'm wrong about that, I'll change my mind. But, in cases where an otherwise deadly condition is treatable and highly successful in its treatment, I'll always support the state to do what the parents should be doing, and force the issue when it comes to a child. I respect your husband's opinion as a doctor, but there are doctors who say this boy can be saved, which is what the state is basing their case on. I err on the side of caution and say the state is right when a child's life is in danger.

I think in your example case, the state had the right to step in and were wrong not to do so. But it isn't the same thing. Forcing an abortion is not the same thing as forcing life saving treatment. I do think I have the right as a parent to make my child undergo life saving treatments like chemo. In fact, not only is it my right, it's my responsibility. Allowing a girl to decide whether she wants to carry a pregnancy to term is simply not the same. It doesn't logically follow that because we should allow girls to make their own decisions when faced with a pregnancy, that we should allow any child to make the decision to forgo life saving medicine and die.

[knitter4democracy]

240. It isn't the same thing?

In parts of our country, we have the same maternal and fetal death rates as third world countries. If a girl wants to keep the baby, she does face possible death, not to mention all the other attendant risks. Most people forget that, but it's still real in this country.

The reality is, just because a particular treatment hasn't been studied doesn't mean it doesn't work. It means that it hasn't been studied. Now, I looked at the treatment, and I personally wouldn't go for it. That said, it might work for him. Cancer's too complicated to point to any one thing and say this and only this works and nothing else does.

Yes, chemo has been proved to be more effective for his type of cancer. He did it once, and it came back. I can see how he and his parents wouldn't trust it a second time. The reality is, the chemo could kill him (the idea behind chemo is to bring the patient close to death and hope the cancer dies first--that doesn't always happen), he could get a stroke from the cancer, or his new treatment might work. No one can say either way with any real certainty. That's why my husband sided with him.

[Pithlet]

262. Nope. Not the same thing.

And I'm a pro-choice woman. I'll take pregnancy over cancer every single time, even the highly treatable cancers. And I had life threatening complications with my second one. I nearly stroked out because my blood pressure got so high right after I had my second one. So, I'm personally intimate with the dangers of a pregnancy gone wrong. If, somehow, I was told I had to either get pregnant or get cancer, I wouldn't even have to think about it. Pregnancy itself is not a death sentence, and even when the deadly complications arrive, it isn't an absolute death sentence, as my living and breathing right now can attest. Cancer, if left untreated, almost always is. That's why it's an entirely different thing to let a girl decide whether to continue a pregnancy, and not allow a child to make a decision that seals his fate and he dies. Two separate issues.

Doctors can have incorrect opinions, also. It's a virtual certainty that he'll die without it, and very likely that he'll live with it. That's enough to warrant the state stepping in, with other doctors backing that decision. They've done it before, thankfully. They will likely do it again. Hopefully, this horrible decision of overturning the ruling is an aberration.

[knitter4democracy]

268. Ummm . . . I still have to disagree.

I'm a bit cranky on pregnancy right now--our county party chair's wife had a stroke and is still in the hospital. They have two very young ones and now an infant and a mom not doing well in the hospital.

The only real treatment option, from what I've read, is a bone marrow transplant. That's a very risky procedure, and even though he's young, the fact that he didn't do well in chemo the first time makes me worried that he wouldn't do well with that. Many people don't make it out of the transplant process--that's why it's last resort and only done if all other options have been exhausted.

If he dies from the treatment the state forced him to get, will his parents somehow feel better? If he dies from the treatment they've chosen, they might at least feel like they had ownership of the situation and did the best they could. The state could honestly care less if he dies--the staff involved will move on to the next case, keeping professional distance, while the parents will be left to mourn alone.

It's not "very likely that he'll live with it," unfortunately. If he were on his first time around, his odds would be better. Even if he survives the complete irradiation to kill all of his bone marrow and doesn't get an infection, he'll still be weak after the transplant for a long time and could die from an infection after that. Even if he lives with that, he's at a much higher risk for cancer again down the road, auto-immune diseases, and other real health problems that are only now getting into the medical literature.

"Doctors can have incorrect opinions, also." It's good to know you went to med school and know that for sure. ;)

[Pithlet]

273. I don't think one has to go to med school

to know that doctors aren't always right all the time, or that they're human beings who have opinions that others don't have to agree with. I'm sorry, and I mean this with all due respect, but I don't think your opinion automatically has more weight because you have a husband who is a doctor and he agrees with you.

I also don't think think one has to think it's fine for parents to neglect their children and make bad decisions causing their death and think they have a right to choose to let their children die, in order to keep her pro-choice stance. (ETA I'm not saying you think parents do, but I think your stance on this effectively amounts to the same thing, because dead is dead regardless of intentions) Because the reason I'm pro-choice has nothing to do with the fact that complications of pregnancy are sometimes deadly. I'd still be pro-choice - even for underage girls - even if no one ever died from complications. In fact, if pregnancy were just as deadly as untreated cancer, or even close to it, my stance on parental choice when it comes to abortion would be quite different. But, things being what they are, allowing a girl to choose for herself whether or not to continue a pregnancy against her parent's wishes is *not the same issue* as parental responsibility to keep a child alive.

The reason I think the court made the right decision in stepping in in the first place is based very much on the same reasons I think parents shouldn't force their children to have an abortion. While they aren't the same issue, I use pretty much the same principle when making up my mind on both of those issues. That is that children aren't our property to do with as we see fit. We don't have the right to choose death for our children because they have their own rights separate from us, and one of those rights is to grow up to become adults without their parents impeding that, even if their intentions are good and they think they're making the right choice.

I think how treatable the boy's cancer is a factor, of course. If the evidence weren't so overwhelming that this boy's cancer is treatable right now, and that his chances of survival are so good, I would support the parents to choose to say "enough". I do think parents have the right to choose what's best for their children, but that ends when that choice leads to needlessly to death when the child could be saved.

[knitter4democracy]

278. I don't agree with the parents' choice, but they have that right.

I'm sorry about the med school thing, but it was a snarky comment that riled me up more than it should have, and I probably overreacted. No, my husband's opinion, on this board, is meaningless, ultimately, and just as meaningless as all of our chat about this topic. It's not like the parents or the teen are reading all of this and will change their minds about it based on anything we say.

*sigh* I don't agree with the parents. I haven't from the beginning. In my mind, cancer isn't anything to mess with, and the treatments are almost always better than other options. I can understand where they're coming from, though. When they have doctors saying they have to kill all of his bone marrow, hope he doesn't get an infection, and then replace his bone marrow to kill the cancer, I can understand them thinking of other options.

Also, the teen agrees with them. If he didn't, I'd be the first to say the state should step in. Yes, he might only agree with them because they're his parents and because they're coercing him in some way, but the teenaged boys I taught almost never automatically agreed with anything their parents said. Chances are, it's the other way around--he found that clinic on-line or something, said he wanted to do that instead, and they're supporting his decision for some reason.

Yes, he could die from that decision, and dead is dead. You're right. It's his right, though. It's horribly frustrating, and it feels super wrong, but it's his right. The rest of us will be able to move on, and his parents will have to live with this for the rest of their lives.

I can't imagine that they don't question this every second of every day--I mean, how could they not with it in the paper, on-line, and in every call with their lawyer, not to mention the court days with opposition lawyers and experts calling them horrible parents? I doubt they are sticking to this entirely out of a need to prove all the doctors wrong (I could be wrong on that), but more like they're doing it because their son has asked them to.

*sigh* It's just bad all around. I hope the right thing happens, that he lives a long and productive life, and that in the end, he and his parents are better people for going through this.

[Pithlet]

280. We agree on what we want the outcome to be.

It just seems that we just disagree on what a parent's rights are, and what a teen's rights are. I hope it didn't seem like I thought you agreed with the parents, because I always understood that you didn't. We just disagree on what a parent's rights are. I'll never agree that a parent's rights extends to deciding to let their kid die, or that a teenager has the right to make a decision to die, no matter what motivates those decisions, so we are at an impasse there.

My initial participation in this thread was to point out that this is nothing new, and that many states have viewed withholding vital lifesaving health care as a form of gross negligence, and have stepped in on behalf of the child. Every once in awhile it will make the news, and it seems shocking that medical treatment would be forced on a child when one isn't aware that this has been going on forever, and that it isn't really any different from when the state steps in and intervenes when a parent neglects their duties in other ways. It seems shocking because the parents probably aren't doing it to intentionally harm or kill their child, and so people then seem to think it makes the decision okay. But it doesn't, not from the state's point of view, because it doesn't matter what the intent is when preventing the end result, which is death. It also seems to offend offend on a deeper, personal level for some because from one point of view it looks like a breach of the right to decide medical care. But our own sacred right to choose our health care and matters of our own life and death does not extend to other people, even if that person is our child, and it never has.

ETA typo. Health care, not haircare. Entirely different subject :blush:

[knitter4democracy]

289. I know some doctors who would agree until the patient is a teen.

Teens are in a hard spot, medically. While pediatricians are trained to treat them and do, most teens don't like going there. While internists aren't trained specifically for teens, everything they do is based on adult sizes, which most teens are. My husband treats teens, but they're not a huge part of his patient base, and he most often sees them in the office without their parents in the exam room (mostly so he can aim to get their trust and the truth about their sexual behavior).

They're considered adults by most doctors, but they don't have the legal rights of adults. There have been a few pieces in my hubby's medical journals about this particular problem. The internists I know are squeamish about this kind of case; yes, it happens a lot, but not usually with kids as old as sixteen.

[onenote]

295. I'm confused as to what role you assign to the parents

You indicate that if the kid wanted conventional treatment but the parents were opposed, you'd want the state to intervene (I assume to override the parents wishes).

What if it was the opposite: the parents wanted conventional treatment, but the kid was opposed. Presumably you think that the parents' opinion should be honored over the kids view.

Why differentiate between when the parents view point is respected and when its not? If conventional treatment is to be preferred in the two scenarios posed (and in the third scenario: where parents and kid agree on conventional treatment), what justification is there for allowing the kid to face harm from non-conventional treatment just because he and his parents are on the same page.

[knitter4democracy]

299. It's that they agree.

If they disagree, then things get sticky. He's old enough (almost in some states, old enough in others) to be emancipated and make his own decisions. If there's disagreement, it gets sticky--does the doctor do the legal thing and follow the parents' wishes or the medically ethical thing and follow the patient's wishes?

[saddemocrat]

274. Actually

This child still has an excellent chance of recovery. In all likelihood, he would be given an allogenic stem cell transplant with an excellent chance of cure. He didn't do well with the other therapy because...he didn't finish it. He might have been cured by that alone if he had followed through with it.

My chemo buddy is currently having a stem cell transplant and they give him a 70% 5 year survival rate as the statistic, but then told him that that includes older people or people medically fragile being given the treatment. They fully expect him to be cured and he's 36.

kris

[knitter4democracy]

277. The odds have gotten better from what I remember.

That's very good news. Thank you for that.

I'm still quite torn on this. There is no way that I would do what these parents are doing--I have more faith in allopathic medicine than they do, apparently. If my children, God forbid, got cancer, I would take them to Rainbow with Cleveland's University Hospitals (where Hubby trained) and do whatever they recommended.

On the other hand, both the parents and the teen agree, and patients do have autonomy, even if exercising that choice means death. *sigh* I'm not always comfortable with that, like when my MIL refused more radiation for her stage III breast cancer, but that is the patient's right.

[saddemocrat]

227. From what I understand,

his treatment this time will be different...and it will include a bone marrow transplant.

When you look at first line treatment cure rates for him for lymphoma they were 90% or better...He was one of the unlucky ones who failed first line treatment...with high dose chemo and a bone marrow transplant he still has a good chance of cure...not just putting this thing into remission a few years...CURE. Without treatment, he will die...AND, I assure you that his long, slow death will be far worse in terms of how he feels physically than if he suffered through some high dose chemo/transplant. By the time he and his parents realize this, his chance of treatment or cure will be greatly reduced.

[knitter4democracy]

241. Hmmmm. That's bad.

Bone marrow transplant. That's bad. He's in bad shape no matter what happens at this point, then. Bone marrow transplants aren't as risky as they were a few years ago, but they're still risky. Very risky. I'm so sorry it's that bad. That poor family.

[mark414]

209. i know a guy who beat colon cancer with organic food and coffee enemas

that was 2.5 years ago and it's completely cleared up, he's never had any sort of side effects, and he's one of the healthiest, strongest 75 year old males i've ever known.

i am going to go ahead and assume that most people on this board are pro-choice - one of the main reasons for that belief is that the government should not have control over a person's body...

how is this any different?

[BuddhaGirl]

218. it isn't any different

and thank you for posting.

Great story about the guy who beat colon cancer. People should have the right to refuse allopathic medical treatments (for tthemselves AND their children) and choose alternative medicine if that is what they want!

[saddemocrat]

219. Parents should have the *right*

to kill their children...absolutely.

Let's not only support abortion, let's support takin' 'em out in the pre-teen or teenage years too.

Why should the govt. interfere?


So...someone here supposedly knows someone whose colon cancer was cured by enemas of coffee?

I'm laughing so hard I can't see straight.

kris

[BuddhaGirl]

223. LOL

take your blinders off, and you'll see straight :-) Your comparisons are not the same.

The teen and his parents should have the right to the treatment that they prefer.

[onenote]

225. if the kid cut an artery

and was bleeding to death and his preferred treatment (and that of his parents) was to sprinkle kool-aid on it because they believe kool aid has magical healing powers, would you think that the state should stand by and let the kid bleed out?

[saddemocrat]

228. of course ...

They have to support that...but just let a pharmacist refuse to sell someone the morning after pill because of their freedom to believe and act on their beliefs and they'll be running to the supreme court.

I, don't think pharmacists should have that freedom...but I'm consistent in my democratic beliefs.

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

285. Cayenne Pepper

Actually.

Cayenne Pepper is a good clotting agent for emergencies.

I read somewhere on an outdoor/hiking forum that Cayenne Pepper actually works to help stop the bleeding in severe cuts.

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

252. Was his name Steve McQueen?

EOT

[mark414]

261. no, but steve mcqueen was his cousin

actually that's 100% serious. they had the same last name. they were cousins.

that's kind of weird.

[rman]

216. so much for "freedom of choice" and "personal responsibility"

[saddemocrat]

220. *Freedom of Choice*

I think some of you here need to reconsider the idea of freedom of choice....because if you are so adamant that a parent has the freedom of choice to deny life-saving cancer treatment for their child (when this kid dies, I want to hear what you have to say and I will revisit this thread) then you have to support the freedom of choice of wack job pharmacists to deny medications to people based on their religious beliefs etc.

Freedom of Choice doesn't just apply to what you value then...so....pharmacists should be free to choose to not give out the abortion pill (why should the govt. intervene?) and doctors should be free to deny to perform abortions (don't they have the freedom to follow their religious convictions?)

If you argue "NO" to the above then you are being disingenuous.

kris

[CanSocDem]

232. Freedom of choice means...

...freedom to NOT involve doctors, pharmacists, priests, parents and the finger-waggin' throngs at DU.







.

[saddemocrat]

234. and

freedom to NOT be forced to prescribe or fill prescriptions for the morning after pill and freedom to not be forced to allow abortions in states that are more 'conservative'????

I mean...you can't pick your freedoms...which is it...or is it both?

kris

[DemExpat]

235. Huh?

What has one to do with the other?

Doctors and pharmacists refusing to provide legal healthcare are making decisions affecting OTHERS' lives, while deciding which treatment one wants to go for in illness is making a purely personal choice.

I don't get the connection here.

DemEx

[saddemocrat]

238. The person choosing

is a minor child who is being influenced by his parents.

And refusing to give this child chemotherapy will affect his life...by bringing it to an end. Will there be outcries of sadness when this young teen's life ends prematurity due to the irresponsible choice made by the parents and said teen?

There is no personal choice when it involves a minor....and any good doctor would encourage a patient of any age to read the studies of efficacy of alternative med and chemotherapy and wouldn't just say "oh, ok...go have some shark cartilage"...I know plenty of docs more willing to fight for the lives of patients ... of all ages.

[brentspeak]

229. I'm not the biggest fan of conventional medicine

There ARE way too many incompetent physicians running around.

But I'm absolutely no fan of "alternative" medicine. Get this kid some chemo and radiation -- and have the state pay for most of the cost, so as to not bankrupt the family.

[saddemocrat]

231. my husband

is a physician. His board scores are all in the top 5% in the nation and he would agree with you that there are a lot bad docs..just like there are bad teachers, lawyers, politicians (I know we can all agree on that).

Where you might part company with dh on this issue is that standard of care in this country for certain illnesses is a ...standard protocol...My treatment, for example for NHLymphoma was the exact same as someone would have gotten at Mayo, MDAnderson or in po-dunk USA...There are many diseases that have similar protocols...but most cancers are researched by bright minds and the protocols are based on the best available research and positive outcomes....not someone flipping a coin.

Yes, there are some bad docs out there...educate yourselves, ask a lot of questions of your doc and don't stop looking until you have a good one....but don't be so cynical about a few bad experiences that you refuse conventional medical treatment altogether...It's like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

kris

[knitter4democracy]

269. Mine too, and I agree with you.

Welcome to DU. Be prepared for a rather negative opinion of medicine here. I spend some time defending doctors here (not too much--I spend more time on a knitting board than here).

What do you do? I'm a sahm for our two kids, since Hubby's an internist and works a lot of hours.

[saddemocrat]

239. Many people in this thread are not

fans of conventional medicine...


And yet, I'm guessing that if they have a heart attack, stroke or life-threatening illness they'll be running to the doc begging to have everything possible done to save or prolong their lives. ;)

[DemExpat]

244. Absolutely they will.....but especially in the case of cancers

I want a choice of treatment.

It is wonderful to have modern medicine and a choice to not undergo the suffering it sometimes causes with its aggressive measures.

The boy and his parents tried chemo once, and besides, I would give my 16 or 14 or even 12 year old a say in his treatment in this circumstance.

I do believe that death is not the worst case scenario in some situations.

DemEx

[saddemocrat]

246. The 16 year old

Didn't finish the first treatment because he didn't "like the way it made him feel".

I am shocked that you wouldn't give your child chemotherapy to save him/her from cancer. There are no proven alternative treatments for cancer...only a few anecdotal tales.
Not giving treatment is a death sentence to your child.

Look, I just survived Non-Hodgkins lymphoma AND I had chemotherapy (6 rounds) while I was pregnant and radiation following the delivery of the baby. My tumor was aggressive and treatment with...shark oil or some other shit would have meant that I died.

Would death have been a not worse scenario? I don't know..I am married and at the time of diagnosis was pregnant and had 4 living children under the age of 12. Now I am cancer-free and can still be here to raise my family.

Treatment wasn't always pleasant and I may even end up with some long-term effects from the radiation...but in my opinion, it beat the alternative...which was death.

We are talking about a 16 year old boy, not an 80 year old man who has lived his life. This child has his entire life ahead of him and it is being cut short by parents who aren't educated on the treatment of cancer and the best way to "cure" him.

The kind of cancer he has is curable...and that is often not the case. Hodgkins disease is curable....I just can't get over it that he couldn't get through a few rounds of chemo because he didn't like how it made him feel. When he's in the throws of dying over a period of months, he's going to feel a lot worse...

Sad that you all so vehemently support this poor decision by the incompetent parents and that you would be willing to sentence your own children to death.

[DemExpat]

256. I am very happy for your success, saddemocrat

and your lease on life for your family. :hug:

I just know that sometimes even being in the 10 or 20 % of patients who DON'T respond to treatment but who feel it is too gruelling or painful or, to them, dehumanizing, is a risk they do not want to take again, that they would rather not experience this again and try something else, even if it leads to death.

These parents are far from incompetent IMO, and I applaud and support them through this incredibly difficult time.

Those parents who do have their children go through often horrific cancer treatments and then lose them have also in the light of your perception "sentenced their children to death" .....in these tough choice situations I trust the children and their parents to give a signal for what road they chose to take here.

I would give my (older) children the choice here, definitely.

DemEx

[knitter4democracy]

270. Now, wait. Take a breath, and read the links.

He's now faced with a bone marrow transplant, and you know how risky that is. I had a friend get one in eighth grade, and she died. It's not a definite thing.

Medicine's an art, not a science. You've said that your hubby's in ID and that you're a scientist as well. That's great--we need more people like you guys. ID's a hard part of medicine (figuring out the right weird disease out of a mass of odd symptoms isn't easy). It takes a soft touch and a real sense of how to read people well.

Not everyone here is vehemently supporting his decision, but many here understand that it's an agonizing one. Would you feel better if the state forced you to do something you didn't think was a good idea for your kids? What if they died in the process?

I am so very glad that you made it through your horrific situation and are doing so much better. What you faced is a scary, scary thing, and I can't even imagine just how awful it was for you and your family to go through. I'm glad that the treatment worked and that you're better. It had to be hard for your husband, to not be the patient or the doctor but to feel a need to help more somehow. It had to be even worse for you. :(

Everyone's experience in the medical system is different, though. I did almost all of the treatments the doctors gave me for my pain for ten years, and when I finally talked the specialist into trying surgery, it turned out the diagnosis had been wrong for ten years and was appendicitis. I'm married to an internist (nine years this summer), and no one ever thought it was my appendix. No wonder the treatments didn't work. That's why I say medicine's an art, and while standard protocols are there for a reason, that is also why there are other options.

[BuddhaGirl]

248. I agree

I want a choice of treatment as well. I also believe that if I had a child with cancer, he or she would definitely play a part in what treatment route we would take, whether it be allopathic or alternative.

[saddemocrat]

250. just curious

But how would you decide which treatment to take? It seems like some here just want to buck the traditional "bad" medical establishment without researching the data.

If your child had Hodgkins lymphoma and the CURE rate for this cancer was 95% with chemotherapy...but they might feel tired or nauseous or have some mild bone pain....with chemo once every 3 weeks x 6 .... or they could take shark cartilage and snake oil and have no side effects at all with no proven results that the cancer could be cured...

Which would you choose? What if you decided that you would save your child's life but the child was afraid. Would you have them go through with the treatment even if they were scared, sad, didn't feel well to save their life or would you let them choose death?

Let's be intellectually honest with each other now. If these alternative treatments really worked (and the double-blind studies show that they don't) then big pharma would be rushing in to patent them, change around a few side-groups and call them new and amazing drugs and would be charging the patients thousands for them.

[NotGivingUp]

251. Big Pharma makes money by keeping people sick...not curing them!

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

253. Riiiggghhhhttttt

A cure for AIDS or a vaccine for HIV really would be a bust on the market.

Those vaccines for polio, small pox, etc really have hurt the pharma co profits.

Do I even have to put the sarcasm tag up?

[saddemocrat]

254. I'm assuming

That you are being facetious.

I have my MS in molecular biology and my husband is an Infectious Disease physician....so I think I can speak to the HIV vaccine thing. (BTW, Aids is the disease caused by the HIV virus...) It wouldn't be a bust on the market...

There has been a great deal of research on the HIV vaccine...almost all of this research is done at academic centers...that are completely unrelated to Big Pharma. They are funded by NIH grants.

Take a step back...almost all new research comes out of universities and publically funded (NIH grants) centers (which is why I oppose the high cost of the drugs...we're already paying for the research). Universities/academic centeres aren't usually equipped to do the clinical trial research that is necessary and once they find something promising, then they turn it over to big pharma.

You can bet your butt that if a researcher at a university in the US or Europe or anywhere else discovered the best way to deliver an efficacious HIV vaccine he'd be screaming it from the mountaintops with the thought "Nobel Prize" in the back of his mind.

Now...there have been trials with vaccines. What is the problem? The strains are so variable and are subject to change. You have several diff groups (with diff. protein receptors) and each of these groups has several different subgroups (clades). It will take more than one vaccine to knock that baby down. As of yet, there has not been success.

I'm sure that you want to make sure that any vaccine you get actually works...and it doesn't happen overnight.

I'm cynical about big pharma too. They spend more money each year on marketing than on research and development..but I'm not going to suggest that they don't want any vaccines at all and are actively working to hinder that work. Think of the money in the vaccines...the glory of patenting the vaccine...Besides that...there ARE other countries working on this too...and not all of them are whores to big Pharma.

Think outside of emotion...

[saddemocrat]

255. You're wrong

Big Pharma is only half of the picture. Yes, they are corrupt...yes, they make money. Again though, research on diseases is NOT...I'll repeat this...NOT done through Big Pharma...it is done at the University level by grants funded publically by you and I (think National Institutes of Health grants).

When a favorable drug option has been discovered, refined and often tried on the animal model it is THEN passed on to big pharma. It's true that they often develop first the drugs that will bring them big bucks but for the drugs that won't, they just charge more.

Yes, big pharma is corrupt, but please dispense with the conspiracy theories that they want to keep you sick.

Medicine has developed so many effective treatments and cures for diseases over the last 50 years. There are newer antibiotics, chemotherapies and medications to treat rarer diseases. Many more people would have simply died as a result of these diseases years ago .... Now more people are going on to lead longer, healthier (when they take care of themselves) lives.

I think that if you really feel this way, from now on you should refuse to take any medications offered by "big pharma". I would suggest no more antibiotics, pain medications or treatments of any kind. Why support them? :sarcasm:

[DemExpat]

257. I sense that you are belittling the suffering some experience through

conventional cancer treatment here...:-(

Death is often not pretty and pleasant, whatever way one goes....with or without medical treatment.

I do believe that there are growing numbers of people who do choose to take a more palliative approach to preserve a sense of choice and self-determination - even while being aware of the inevitability of their death.


It all comes down to what people want to experience and what they want with their lives and their bodies.
We are all influenced by our families, friends, education and experiences. One road, one way, one size does not fit all.

I wonder how this boy's situation will play out? Did he comply with the court order? If he doesn't, will they arrest him and force treatment on him? What a nightmare....

edit: I see that the judge lifted the order.....http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2413059#2417382 and to take it to court.

DemEx

[saddemocrat]

258. I sense that

You don't know anything about me...I just finished 'suffering' through 7 months of conventional cancer therapy while pregnant. Both baby and I are now doing well, though it wasn't an easy road by any stretch.

My husband and 5 children are grateful every day that my highly aggressive non-hodgkins lymphoma of the chest could be treated.

This boy will die...but at least he is getting what he *wants*....no uncomfortable chemotherapy....just an awful, early death.


bummer

kris

[DemExpat]

259. Yes, I am so happy that you chose this route.

I can hardly imagine what it took to get through this, and the stress on your family.....I had cervical cancer treated successfully at hospital when my children were 8 and 10.

I do know that some people find long term cancer treatment unbearable.

:-(

It remains IMO a personal choice.

DemEx

[saddemocrat]

266. Thanks

It's been a tough year for us all.

It is personal choice, but IMO not when it comes to the life of a minor child. My body, my choice...but...a kid can't make that decision on their own....IMO.

kris

[NotGivingUp]

249. self-deleted

[midnight]

263. I wonder who is paying for this treatment?

Would this same judge order the hospital to give treatment to a 16 year old homeless boy. I'm just wondering why the community deems some children more important than others? O and another thing, Does this juge somehow become the parent? Some parents style will conflict with the norm, but it must be respected.

[mike923]

264. And his upcoming burial.

This is a sad story.

[saddemocrat]

265. Interestingly

The hospital system that dh worked for before was sued because after a pt. refused treatment and became critically ill/died, the family was furious that the doctors hadn't forced him to get treatment...Amazingly, these fruitcakes WON!

The doc had explained and documented multiple times that without adequate treatment (which in this case involved surgery and chemotherapy) the patient had little chance of survival. With standard treatment, the patients 5 year survival chances were ~65%...not perfect, but better than 0%. The patient (an adult), refused multiple times and then becaem noncompliant with follow-up appointments. After he missed 3 scheduled follow-up appointments made by the staff, the facility stopped making follow-up appts to check the progression of this person's....death.

Patient died, family sued charging the patient just didn't "understand" that not treating would be fatal...and the WON....

Unbelievable!

Anyone here support THAT?

If this kid's parents sue once their son dies, should they win? I can see it now...Family sues State for not taking custody of son to save his life...and wins...

kris

[wheres_the_love]

267. Freedom of Health

I’ve just read all the threads here, and I’m fascinated by how personally upset people get over someone with an opinion that differs from their own. Sometimes you need to step back, stop and listen to what other people are saying. Really listen, setting aside your ego, your personal opinions, your personal experiences which bias you.

One side feels that by not sending the boy to treatment, you are handing him a death sentence. The other side feels that by sending the boy to treatment, THAT is the death sentence.

What to do in a situation where both sides feel so passionately about their beliefs?

Choice. That’s why we live in America, right?

Agree to disagree, and let the boy do what he wants.

I’m for freedom of health.

[eggbeater]

272. hard situation to make an intellegent response to

Yet I will try.
In certain ways I agree that the patient should have a say in his/her medical treatment, I dont think that we should cross that line of forced care, it certainly wont stop here.
What if your genetics show that you have a chance of passing on an undesired trait to offspring, Should the medical industry and government be able to force you to undergo surgery to keep you from having the chance of doing so?

While I have concerns on the one side, I also have to question the education required to make a decision like this, and if the parents or the child have that education. I doubt they do, so in an attempt to save the child, the doctors best guess is to use the radiation and thats what they want to do.

but what happens if we allow doctors to dictate to us what we have to do? A greedy doctor could end up requiring patients to undergo treatments that they dont need just so he can make the BMW payment next month right?

In this case, the judge said that the child had to undergo the radiation, not much can be done now because the government stepped in where it does not belong. But the judge did not make a requirement that the treatments be made by any specific doctor or facility.
If I were the parents I would take my child to a doctor and facility that is not affiliated with the one that brought this to the courts, and I would have the treatments done. But the original doctors and facility would not recieve any money for their trouble.

I assume that we still have a personal choice to our doctors dont we?

[wheres_the_love]

275. Good post

I like your post because it looked objectively at the situation. It certainly is a difficult subject, because someone's life is at stake.

The problem is that people have differing opinions on medicine, and what is best. So if the government supports allopathic medicine, but you want to take your child to a naturopathic doctor, you're out of luck in many states. So to answer your question, in a way we don't have a personal choice to our doctors - or at least for the doctors to our children. Each state has different laws about this. For instance, in Washington naturopaths are licensed by the state as doctors, and most insurance even covers it.

Another issue to raise in certain states is that even if an allopathic doctor wants to support their treatment with alternatives, they can't, that would be "out of the scope of their practice" of what they were taught and licensed to do. Doctors today are very scared of law suits, as well they should be in this American climate of law suits at every corner.

There are many bright legal and health practitioner minds of America working to remedy these problems. I know of one program in Minnesota where the nursing students are also taught about alternatives, they aren't allowed to implement them but at least they know the drug reactions between several common herbs and the drugs they administer.

Cases like the trial of this young boy tends to bring both the best and the worst out in people. Everyone wants to lobby for their opinion. That's why I side with logic when I say - it's a matter of choice, and shouldn't be a decision based on which treatment is better or worse.

[saddemocrat]

276. Medical Outcomes aren't opinions

They are proven through research trials.

No offense, but why should any govt or health care insurance pay for treatments where the results are not proven by scientific studies?

If naturopathic medicine wants to become mainstream, they need to set up objective, double-blind studies and publish their results.

If they prove their efficacy, then they can be covered.

[wheres_the_love]

279. Make sure not to oversimplify the problem

Is it true that our government creates financial thresholds for legal studies which only the pharmaceuticals can afford to pay? Correct me if I'm wrong. I hear these things and I don't have a photographic memory. If so, then that would answer your question fairly clearly.

Also, I know many people have mentioned this in other posts, but often times the studies aren't reliable if they have a financial interest in spinning the data in one way or another to their advantage - like the person who posted about the members who died but then weren't included in the data because they didn't do a whole 6 months of treatment? I would think each treatment you were untested in needs to be researched on a case by case basis, as I'm sure there are as many good tests out there as there are poor ones. I don't think anyone can generalize in this area.

Another thing is, some health insurance companies ARE paying for alternatives now since they realize that money talks, and people who do alternatives are preventing long term diseases, and overall saving them a lot of money.

One other note to debate, is that who said naturopathic medicine wants to become 'mainstream.' Humans aren't machines, every single person is unique, and one treatment that works for one person many not work for another. It's good to have diversity in our options. In many states, allopathic medicine has a monopoly of sorts, and that's not good for anyone involved.

Here's a book I found interesting, which tells the story of the 'other side.'

Politics in Healing: The Suppression and Manipulation of American Medicine
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0970115008/sr=1-1/qid=1153932699/ref=sr_1_1/102-2196458-1543356?ie=UTF8&s=books

[DemExpat]

290. Well said, and welcome!

People are health care consumers and are turning more and more to complementary health care options for preventative measures, for stress-relief, and for managing symptoms of chronic health problems. As well as for palliative treatments in terminal illnesses.

Most people use these therapies alongside conventional medicine with high degrees of satisfaction.

And you are also right in that many alternative approaches do not want to be incorporated into mainstream medicine because the regulations and restrictions would possibly take away from the essence and personally focussed bases of their approach.

DemEx

[saddemocrat]

291. I'm not sure what you mean

by financial thresholds for legal studies.....that somehow only pharmaceutical companies can afford. First off, research at the basic science level is done at University's and academic centers. Grant money is applied for this...and it is just given for things of immediate interest to pharmaceutical companies. There is all kinds of weird crap being financed.

Secondly, yes, pharmaceutical companies do their own efficacy studies and those should be taken with a grain of salt. I always read who funded a study before diving in....to give me perspective.

Finally, studies of the efficacy of things like cancer treatments are not related to pharmaceutical companies. Large clinical trials take place at major medical centers and the results really can't be *fudged*...There is interest within the scientific and medical community to heal.

Allopathic medicine is medical treatment with results that are tested....in double-blind studies...and allopathic medicine will give you the best treatment if you have a serious illness.

There is also a place for non-mainstream medicine...but it isn't in cancer treatment for minor children.

[RCinBrooklyn]

293. You MUST ingest our poisons for your cancer or we'll what? Kill you? n/t

[saddemocrat]

296. feel free to decline

any conventional chemo if your time comes...

[saddemocrat]

294. Tyrell Duek dies...just one example

http://www.healthwatcher.net/Quackerywatch/Cancer/Dueck/ssp990702dueckdeath.html

Tyrell Dueck dies
# Young cancer victim who refused treatment succumbs to disease

By Leslie Perreaux and Brigette Jobin
of The StarPhoenix

A Martensville boy who fought the Saskatchewan government for the right to refuse cancer treatment has died.

Tyrell was at the centre of a five-month battle with his doctors, Social Services and the courts over control of his medical care for a deadly bone cancer in his leg. The battle ended abruptly in March when doctors in Saskatoon found his cancer had spread.


A judge handed control of Tyrell's care to the government late last year. After two rounds of chemotherapy Tyrell himself refused treatment, saying he wanted to try alternative medicine.

Social Services took the case to court again, saying that without chemotherapy and surgery the boy would die.

Queen's Bench Justice Allisen Rothery ruled March 18 that Tyrell did not have the mental capacity to refuse chemotherapy and surgery because he's deeply influenced by his father, whom she ruled had given his son misinformation. Rothery ordered Tyrell to take conventional treatment without his parents.

A few days later doctors found the cancer had spread from Tyrell's leg to his lungs. Doctors said his odds of surviving one year after treatment had diminished from 65 per cent to less than 15 per cent. Doctors and Social Services decided not to try to force treatment on the boy.

The Duecks went to the American Biologics hospital in Tijuana, Mexico for $5,900-a-week alternative treatment.

The treatments included herbs, vitamins and laetrile, an extract of apricot pits.

The clinic announced that Tyrell's lungs were cancer free about 10 days after he began treatment. The clinic said tests done at the reputable Scripps Memorial Hospital near San Diego confirmed its diagnosis. The hospital never confirmed the claims by American Biologics.

The trip cost about $50,000. Bourgault said the family still faces around $15,000 in bills connected to the boy's treatment.

Bourgault said Dueck's funeral is scheduled to take place Saturday at 2 p.m. at Gruenthal Church.

[Boomer]

300. I was diagnosed with Hodgkin's...

I was diagnosed with Hodgkin's (stage II-A) in 1984. Conventional medicine saved my life, of that I have no doubt.

On the other hand, I did differ with my doctors on some of the particulars and chose NOT to have my spleen removed for diagnostic purposes, which was standard procedure at the time. Instead, I felt more comfortable relying on the negative report from an MRI (a somewhat "new" technology at the time) that cancer had not spread to my spleen. I supported my decision with a Lancet article on MRI accuracy and my doctors reluctantly agreed to honor my choice. I was eventually proved right, but it's taken a decade for either party to know that for sure. Until my scenario played out, the "right" choice was unknown.

Now, 21 years later, I've never had a recurrence and I'm in good health. Chances are still very good that I will live a normal life span, which is rather long if I take after my parents and grandparents.

That being said, I absolutely disagree with this judgment. Everyone should have the right to make their own decisions -- in this case, the decision of parents and their child together -- even if that decision is not the one I would recommend or choose myself. I wanted the right to make my OWN decisions about treatment, and I would grant them that same right in heartbeat.

Liberty and freedom don't mean just the right to make a "correct" choice; they also mean the right to make a stupid one. Freedom cuts both ways, always has, always will.

[saddemocrat]

302. It's great to see another survivor...

I just found out I'm in remission as well.

I would only agree with you if the patient were an adult...because he is a minor, I can't. As democrats, we support some of the very social programs that are to protect and help minors whose parents make bad choices and neglect or abuse their children. We remove them from their homes to make sure that they aren't injured (or killed) by these parents. The actions of the parents in this case will lead to their child's death.

If he was 18, I would say it was his choice...He's not...rule of law...protect the children.

kris

[humbled_opinion]

303. However,

The law erring on the side of protect the child may not be the smartest precedent. Besides by the time he runs the through the appeal process he will be 18 and can make his own decisions. Final Thought Andrea Yates thought she knew what was best for her children too (Insane as it may have been).

[Boomer]

304. Where do we draw the line?

From what I've read, this was NOT a case of abuse or neglect. It's not that the parents didn't care what happened to their child, or that their choice was motivated by greed or indifference. Neither was it an automatic rejection of conventional medicine: they had tried that route once already.

The first round of chemo was brutal and they were reluctant to go through a second, possibly fatal, dose of the same. That, to me, is not a clearn and unequivocal display of parental irresponsibility. It does, however, deal with issues of "quality of life and death" that are not addressed in the philosophy of conventional medicine.

At what point do we judge that the reasoned choice of concerned parents is too flawed to be allowed? Obviously it's a very difficult call in this case, given the diversity of reactions on this forum. Which again, to me, signals that the judge is skirting very close to curtailing personal freedoms.

[saddemocrat]

308. but

He didn't finish his first round of treatment becuase he "didn't like how it made him feel"...not because he was so sick that he couldn't get out of bed for days or was terribly ill. He has mild nausea, but wasn't vomiting for days, etc. You are saying it was 'brutal', but he never said that. Yes, the chemo made me feel weird and at times a little yucky, but I can tell you that they now offer what they call the "caddilac" of anti-nausea medicines...and can treat almost every side effect that you get.

Bottom line is that we do have a rule of law that currently states that the line is drawn at 18 years of age....not 16.

I would argue that the parents are not making a 'reasoned' choice for their child. Also, this child has been receiving alternative treatment that is not working.

If it were my child and I made such a poor choice, I would hope that someone would step in and curtail my personal freedoms to save my child's life...

[ace2u_in_MD]

310. So, if someone in the government disagrees with your choice of care...

Say, an abortion for your 16 year old daughter, you would hope they take away custody?

Get real.

[ulysses]

312. again, this is concerning the life of a child.

The abortion comparison is disingenuous.

[saddemocrat]

314. exactly!

We're not talking about abortions...we are talking about chemotherapy for a cancer that will kill this child with a 100% certainty without it. Pregnancy does not have a 100% mortality rate.

This is like comparing apples to oranges and abortion (even for minors) is currently protected under the law.

But turn this around...what if your 16 year old was suffering from a pregnancy-related problem and her death was imminent without an abortion...but the family decided to use prayer to heal instead. Because this child is a 16 year old minor, shouldn't the state step in and provide a *uterine evacuation* to save her life?

kris

[ulysses]

306. another hodgkin's survivor here.

Diagnosed in 1980 when I was eleven. Yes, chemo sucks, but it's also why I'm here 26 years later playing with my little boy.

Dismayed at the ideas some have here regarding "alternative" therapies.

[saddemocrat]

309. WOW

Thanks for sharing some hope!!!

kris

[ulysses]

313. no problem!

I like to thank my oncodoc, though. :)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=380x72

[MilesColtrane]

311. I'm curious about the "chemo is a death sentence" idea.

I've googled, but can't find, any info on the fatality rate of chemotherapy.

Does anybody know exactly what percentage of patients receiving it die from it? And, how do they determine that death was from the therapy or the cancer?

[everythingsxen]

316. I don't know the death rate on it...

but my grandfather had cancer, got chemo/radiation and spent the last few months of his life in agonizing pain. His only regret was getting the chemo and radiation, he said he wished he had just let nature take it's course and been able to enjoy the time he had left instead of being so sick that he couldn't do anything or eat anything he enjoyed.

In a kid I am sure success rates are higher, but personally I think it is unfair to force this decision on them.

[Kailassa]

317. To put it simply, chemo is poison.

Well, it's a group of poisons, and different groups, in different proportions, are used to treat different cancers. And seeing it's being used to treat a large range of potentially deadly conditions, and the treatments are constantly evolving, you can't really get a figure on the dangers chemo presents.

All you can do is look at the death rates for a particular cancer with and without conventional therapy, and sometimes there is more than one conventional therapy too choose from, and look at the problems therapy involves, and make your decision from there.

I've seen therapy save lives, I've seen radiation treatment used successfully to ease pain when a bowel cancer patient could not be saved, and I've seen it used in a situation where it had no hope of achieving anything and made a friends last months miserable.

It's one of those times when there is no good answer, and it's important for a patient or their family to research the latest information and make their own choice as to the least bad answer.

[Contrary1]

318. " three months of chemotherapy last year made him nauseated and weak"

Three months of chemo makes most everyone nauseated and weak.
Not an excuse to give up, especially if the cure rate is good.

I know women who have had chemo off and on for 6+ years.