Medicine,religion collide in chemo refusa[5/25-Cancer-Stricken Boy,13,Mother return]

[Cooper]

www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-05-20-forced-chemo_N.htm


"The need of states to protect children who are suffering from life-threatening diseases is increasingly colliding with religious choices of parents, including one case where a child has died."

[LisaM22]

www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-05-20-forced-chemo_N.htm


"The need of states to protect children who are suffering from life-threatening diseases is increasingly colliding with religious choices of parents, including one case where a child has died."

this is sad one, we know they need treatment but their beliefs make them believe they will be miraculously cured and if they are not, then they believe it was their time, how do you handle this without interfering with separation of church and state, by interfering the government is saying your religion is a myth, we do not believe in it and you need a real doctor - but by doing nothing the child is being harmed, very sad and very complicated legal situation, especially with a treatment for cancer that often is a slow painful death in and of itself with no good results either, were still aways away from having a true cure all for cancer

[Details]

JMO - it's not religion. They had the first chemo treatment, voluntarily. So it's not against their religion.

And it worked - the tumor shrank. Then they stopped, went to their alternative treatments - and the tumor in the latest x-rays is back up to it's original size.

While we have no perfect cure-all for cancer - in this case - it's pretty darn close! This is an aggressive, fatal cancer - fatal 95% of the time. However, with the medical treatment he WAS receiving, they can cure it 90% of the time. And there is no alternative treatment with any track record of curing it.

For other cancers, for other cures, there might be more than one rational option to choose. Not for this one.

I think the mother should be charged for killing her son, if she keeps him hidden long enough that he dies, or the tumor becomes untreatable.

Religious beliefs are no excuse. When a mother believed God told her to drown her children to save them - did the religious belief mean it was OK? When a religion tells it's followers that punishing a child by cutting their food consumption to a rate where they starve - we prosecute the people available, and if the child is still alive, pick it up, and feed it - no matter how much the parent's religion says they think the child needs no food.

Children are not owned - they are not like a toy, like an animal. They're the parent's responsibility, and the parents get to make nearly any choice they like in how they raise them. But when a parent is acting in a way to kill a child, to let it die from neglect, in a clear case - it is society's role to protect the child. The parents can risk their own life by rejecting medical treatment anytime they like. The child can make their own choice when they are old enough to make life and death decisions on their own. But a parent cannot boost their own religious beliefs by sacrificing their children.

[LisaM22]

good points Details, and your right, this could not be a religious issue as they had already done it once, they just did not want to do it again? wonder why? it was working before too.... weird

[Cooper]

Details, what a good point! I totally missed it.

I've read about families who let their kids die because they wouldn't give them insulin for diabetes.

I agree that it is medical neglect and if adults want to refuse treatment then fine, but children do not have the experience nor maturity to make an informed decision.

[Lynden1000]

They did try chemotherapy but have since decided that alternative "natural healing" methods are more in keeping with their spiritual beliefs. I would call that a religious issue.

Young teenage murderers have been tried as adults after psychiatrists and psychologists concluded that they were capable of understanding the nature and consequences of their actions. Maybe this child should be interviewed to see if he fully understands the potential consequences of his actions. If he does understand the risks and still wants to pursue alternative therapies due to his spiritual beliefs, I don't think I could, in good conscience, go against the sick child's own wishes.

[lunchlady]

I hope the boy understands his long term chances with the different methods of treatment. If he agreed to flee after one treatment made him feel funny then he is probably throwing away his chance for having a longer life. Parents shouldn't be allowed to prevent their children from receiving life-saving treatment.
Christian Scientist parents have been fighting the battle for parent's rights to refuse treatment for their children for years. The courts have sometimes order lifesaving treatment but don't get involved unless the situation is dire. Many other children go without medical treatment to satisfy their parent's relgious beliefs.

[Details]

They did try chemotherapy but have since decided that alternative "natural healing" methods are more in keeping with their spiritual beliefs. I would call that a religious issue.

Young teenage murderers have been tried as adults after psychiatrists and psychologists concluded that they were capable of understanding the nature and consequences of their actions. Maybe this child should be interviewed to see if he fully understands the potential consequences of his actions. If he does understand the risks and still wants to pursue alternative therapies due to his spiritual beliefs, I don't think I could, in good conscience, go against the sick child's own wishes.If a child is brainwashed by their parents to believe they are a medicine man, and can save the island from a volcano, by jumping into it - even if it is a wholehearted belief the child agrees with - should the child be allowed to make the decision to jump?

However - he has been interviewed. He doesn't think he's sick, nor that he will die. He does not even slightly understand the consequences of his actions. He's 13, but cannot even read.

I would go against a child's own wishes - I do it every day when I feed my child chicken rather than cookies for lunch. She has very strong wishes for cookies instead. If we make children's decisions for them even on such minor matters as what they eat, how can we say it's right to let them choose a course of action that will cause them to die?

[Details]

I hope the boy understands his long term chances with the different methods of treatment. If he agreed to flee after one treatment made him feel funny then he is probably throwing away his chance for having a longer life. Parents shouldn't be allowed to prevent their children from receiving life-saving treatment.
Christian Scientist parents have been fighting the battle for parent's rights to refuse treatment for their children for years. The courts have sometimes order lifesaving treatment but don't get involved unless the situation is dire. Many other children go without medical treatment to satisfy their parent's relgious beliefs.Yep - if it's not a matter of life and death, if it's a choice between multiple treatments with similar success rates, if it's a choice of a treatment with low odds of success - then the parents get to choose.

It's only when rejecting a solid cure for a deadly disease, in favor of a cure with no rate of success, that the courts will step in - as they should. 95% odds of death, soon. 90% chance of a cure with treatment. This case just isn't even close to questionable.

He's 13 - he didn't like the chemo, so he's making the childish decision that the medicine is too nasty, he doesn't want it - without the adult perspective that this short term unpleasantness will prevent far worse problems.

[Lynden1000]

If a child is brainwashed by their parents to believe they are a medicine man, and can save the island from a volcano, by jumping into it - even if it is a wholehearted belief the child agrees with - should the child be allowed to make the decision to jump?

However - he has been interviewed. He doesn't think he's sick, nor that he will die. He does not even slightly understand the consequences of his actions. He's 13, but cannot even read.

I would go against a child's own wishes - I do it every day when I feed my child chicken rather than cookies for lunch. She has very strong wishes for cookies instead. If we make children's decisions for them even on such minor matters as what they eat, how can we say it's right to let them choose a course of action that will cause them to die?

I don't think we should force people to do what we believe to be in their best interests. People have to make their own choices in life. Sometimes people make decisions that are harmful to themselves. We grant adults this right every day. The sticking point is that we are talking about a child who is presumably incapable of providing consent.

On the other hand, we do sometimes try minors as adults when they commit heinous crimes. In doing so, we as a society - perhaps grudgingly - seem to be saying that there are situations where a minor is indeed capable of making an informed decision and accepting the consequences. There was an almost unanimous agreement on this board not too long ago that 16 year old Erin whats-her-face should be tried as an adult for plotting the murder of her entire family.

[Details]

We shouldn't force adults - but children do not have the judgment of adults. This one apparently has less adult judgment than most, being illiterate and unaware that he is even sick - and he's 13, not 16 - huge difference.

However - we'd stop an adult from committing suicide. And if an adult declined medical treatment that would save his life, but without a rational comprehension that declining the treatment would cost them their life, they would not be allowed to choose either. A rational, adult choice - you can do what you like, reject whatever treatment you like. An irrational, immature, uninformed choice - you are not allowed to kill yourself by rejecting treatment without it being a clear conscious and informed choice.

We do sometimes try 16 year olds as adults - for those younger, it's even less often. I think many of those occasions are wrong - but they are not the same as deciding a 13 year old child can choose to kill themselves.

[lunchlady]

I don't side with parents who avoid treatment for their children, especially after a unit I worked on came directly into conflict with some Christian Science parents over a blood transfusion for their daughter. She went without blood, which was where her parents drew the line during her treatment, throughout a long burn recovery and finally the need was critical. A judge ordered the transfusion and the family was threatening to rip the needle out of her arm, so we had to have security guards protect her room during the infusion. The girl was extremely anemic, weak and pale. She was 12 years old and did not complain about the infusion. She went on to finish her recovery and go home. Her parents never stopped being angry at the hospital and the staff and being generally oppositional. They apparently were willing to let their daughter die rather than get a transfusion. I wonder how the daughter felt about that and if she's continued being a Christian Scientist as an adult.

[Lynden1000]

We shouldn't force adults - but children do not have the judgment of adults. This one apparently has less adult judgment than most, being illiterate and unaware that he is even sick - and he's 13, not 16 - huge difference.

However - we'd stop an adult from committing suicide. And if an adult declined medical treatment that would save his life, but without a rational comprehension that declining the treatment would cost them their life, they would not be allowed to choose either. A rational, adult choice - you can do what you like, reject whatever treatment you like. An irrational, immature, uninformed choice - you are not allowed to kill yourself by rejecting treatment without it being a clear conscious and informed choice.

We do sometimes try 16 year olds as adults - for those younger, it's even less often. I think many of those occasions are wrong - but they are not the same as deciding a 13 year old child can choose to kill themselves.


I was not aware that he is illiterate and unaware of the nature of his illness. If that is truly the case, then it greatly increases my comfort level in having authorities intervene in the matter. I prefer that people - even 13 year olds - make their own hard choices without government involvement, unless (as with the case of a suicidal person) the person's state of mind is such that they are not capable of making an informed choice. If this child's mental capacity is as you say it is, then I might be inclined to side with the authorities in this particular case. I guess I'll need to look into it further.

[Lynden1000]

I don't side with parents who avoid treatment for their children, especially after a unit I worked on came directly into conflict with some Christian Science parents over a blood transfusion for their daughter. She went without blood, which was where her parents drew the line during her treatment, throughout a long burn recovery and finally the need was critical. A judge ordered the transfusion and the family was threatening to rip the needle out of her arm, so we had to have security guards protect her room during the infusion. The girl was extremely anemic, weak and pale. She was 12 years old and did not complain about the infusion. She went on to finish her recovery and go home. Her parents never stopped being angry at the hospital and the staff and being generally oppositional. They apparently were willing to let their daughter die rather than get a transfusion. I wonder how the daughter felt about that and if she's continued being a Christian Scientist as an adult.


I've always thought this is an extremely interesting issue from the standpoint of a theological/ethical mental exercise. I realize it's different when it's a real life or death situation involving a flesh and blood person.

If you really and truly believe that a blood transfusion might extend your child's earthly existence but damn her soul to eternal torment in the fiery pits of hell, do you fight agains the transfusion? Most of us here probably believe the whole Jehovah's Witness position against transfusions is pure hokum (I think the idea of hell altogether is hokum), but *if* you really and truly believed that your child might burn and suffer eternally...well, it's just interesting to contemplate.

[lunchlady]

I've always thought this is an extremely interesting issue from the standpoint of a theological/ethical mental exercise. I realize it's different when it's a real life or death situation involving a flesh and blood person.

If you really and truly believe that a blood transfusion might extend your child's earthly existence but damn her soul to eternal torment in the fiery pits of hell, do you fight agains the transfusion? Most of us here probably believe the whole Jehovah's Witness position against transfusions is pure hokum (I think the idea of hell altogether is hokum), but *if* you really and truly believed that your child might burn and suffer eternally...well, it's just interesting to contemplate.

Yes, its a dilemma, but I think the law should be on the side of keeping the child alive in the real world rather than in a hypothetical world. I'm hoping there's an afterlife too, but my faith doesn't require me to turn down life-saving medical treatment here on earth. And a parent making this decision for their child also seems wrong. If the court decides parent have this right then so be it, but it seems wrong to me.

The idea that the parents think they're saving their child from damnation seems unlikely. I bet the parents are more worried about their own little souls, no the sick kid's, whose life they are willing to sacrifice in their own quest for favor with God.

[Details]

I was not aware that he is illiterate and unaware of the nature of his illness. If that is truly the case, then it greatly increases my comfort level in having authorities intervene in the matter. I prefer that people - even 13 year olds - make their own hard choices without government involvement, unless (as with the case of a suicidal person) the person's state of mind is such that they are not capable of making an informed choice. If this child's mental capacity is as you say it is, then I might be inclined to side with the authorities in this particular case. I guess I'll need to look into it further.Yep - it's been in several news articles on the case. Not from interviews, from court hearings themselves.

[Riverwalk!]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,521732,00.html

MINNEAPOLIS — A sheriff's office in Minnesota says a 13-year-old cancer patient and his mother who fled the state to avoid chemotherapy have returned.

The Brown County sheriff's office did not provide any details Monday but said a news conference would be held later in the day at the county seat of New Ulm.

[4Life]

MINNEAPOLIS (May 25) — A sheriff's office in Minnesota says a 13-year-old cancer patient and his mother who fled the state to avoid chemotherapy have returned.

http://news.aol.com/health/article/teen-who-fled-chemo/497263

[Details]

Thank goodness!

I hope the delay - this one and the court battle haven't killed him. Hopefully the cancer is still in that easily treatable range.

I still wonder what was in that mother's mind - to flee after the X-ray showing the tumor was growing. To me, that would have been a clear indication I was wrong, and should change my stance. The one chemo treatment shrank the tumor, the time wasted on alternative treatments during the court battle enlarged it - clear message, even if you don't want to believe doctors and decades of cured children.

[sammy62]

ot.....I'm from the town in Minnesota where the little 13 year old was taken by his mother to California because they didn't want him to have Chemo. They found them today and they are back in Minnesota.:thumbsup: thank God.

http://wcco.com/local/colleen.daniel.hauser.2.1018724.html

[n/t]

Thank goodness!

I hope the delay - this one and the court battle haven't killed him. Hopefully the cancer is still in that easily treatable range.

I still wonder what was in that mother's mind - to flee after the X-ray showing the tumor was growing. To me, that would have been a clear indication I was wrong, and should change my stance. The one chemo treatment shrank the tumor, the time wasted on alternative treatments during the court battle enlarged it - clear message, even if you don't want to believe doctors and decades of cured children.


I didn't follow this case closely but what little I do know, apparently it was a religious belief and/or alternative medicine? She didn't want him to undergo the chemo.

Sad considering he had/has a good chance of recovery from what was discussed about his treatment.

Praying they'll do the right thing so this boy can have that hope.

[Cooper]

I was not aware that he is illiterate and unaware of the nature of his illness. If that is truly the case, then it greatly increases my comfort level in having authorities intervene in the matter. I prefer that people - even 13 year olds - make their own hard choices without government involvement, unless (as with the case of a suicidal person) the person's state of mind is such that they are not capable of making an informed choice. If this child's mental capacity is as you say it is, then I might be inclined to side with the authorities in this particular case. I guess I'll need to look into it further.

The Teenage Brain.

www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/teenbrain/work/onereason.html

"Reactions, rather than rational thought, come more from the amygdala, deep in the brain, than the frontal cortex, which led Yurgelun-Todd and other neuroscientists to suggest that an immature brain leads to impulsivity, or what researchers dub "risk-taking behavior."

[Details]

In some ways, this is sounding worse and worse. From her latest statements (she ran away because the child wanted to run away, and she didn't want to let him go alone) - she seems like the total indulgent 'mother' - never able to say No to her child.

I wonder if that's why he can't read - because he didn't want to? She did the whole court fight, find a religion that will give us an excuse to deny treatments when he didn't like chemo (no one does). A responsible parent would be telling him it was unpleasant - but the alternative was an even worse death. A responsible parent when their child says they're going to run away says, "No, you are not."

Now she's saying they'll go to court and ask for a painless, easier cure. If there was one, everyone would be using it!


I've read from parents of children with cancer who would just die to have any significant chance of curing their child, who go through chemo to gain a few years more - the ignorance of this mother is astonishing.

[Details]

The Teenage Brain.

www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/teenbrain/work/onereason.html

"Reactions, rather than rational thought, come more from the amygdala, deep in the brain, than the frontal cortex, which led Yurgelun-Todd and other neuroscientists to suggest that an immature brain leads to impulsivity, or what researchers dub "risk-taking behavior."Yep. There's a reason we have limits on what kids can do - no matter how much they think they know it all. The brain needs time to mature.

This kid is having a normal reaction - the medicine is unpleasant, so I don't want it. An adult reaction would be to look at the alternative and see how much worse it is - but not a child. And the mother, rather than helping him look to the future, is enabling him to run away from reality.