What do YOU think?

[rissababynta]

http://news.aol.com/article/boy-resists-chemo/488967?icid=main|hp-laptop|dl1|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fnews.aol.com%2Fartic le%2Fboy-resists-chemo%2F488967

Ok, I've seen what chemo therapy can do to a person...and it sucks...but it is something that gives one a really damn good chance at making it. I feel that if someone chooses not to go through with the treatments when they still have a good fighting chance, that they are somewhat nuts (no offense intended), or just extremely comfortable with the idea of moving on to the next stage of their existance.

With that being said...I can kind of feel for these people. I can't agree with what they are doing and I feel that it is probably not the best decision in the long run, but if the parents and the boy all feel that it is not what is wanted (whether solely because of religious beliefs or not) I feel that they should have the right to make that decision.

Maybe it's because I'm a big advocate for people having a right to do what they want with their own lives. Hmmm...oh well. So what do the rest of you think?

[grayhound]

IMHO .... It should be left up to the parents and the boy. It should not have been up to ANY court. Maybe their insurance doesn't cover cemo and they can not afford it otherwise. Besides, cemo does not always work, and the side effects are bad.

[_Joe_]

But then in this case, seems Chemo is highly effective to what this boy has.

[12voltman59]

When it comes to children---in American law at least---we go with the legal concept of "Parens Patriae" a longstanding legal doctrine that means the state can act in what it considers the best interest of a child or someone else incapable of handling their own affairs (but the term has been broadened to mean the state can be a legal party to situations it would not otherwise have been recognized as having a pertinent interest)----the accepted wisdom is that chemo or other sorts of medical treatments are the best course of action---and in this case---the courts are saying the parents are not acting in the best interests of the child by withholding such treatment-----in most states, they do have court appointed advocates for children that go under the term of Guardian Ad Litems or here in Ohio--we call it CASA. (I recall the acronym standing for Court Appointed Special Advocate)

Like it or not--this is the law----those parents--as adults are perfectly free to do as they will in regards to whether or not to they chose, as adults, to undergo such treatment, but for a parent to withhold such treatment is equivalent to being at best negligent and at worst---actively seeking to do harm to the child.

These parents are in danger now of a few things--they have defied a court order, they have "absconded" from legal sanction, they have in effect kidnapped the child, and if the child dies--can and most likely will be charged with at least negligent homicide if not premeditated homicide depending upon the statutes of that state. (they could also face the lessor criminal series of charges of manslaughter or a similar legal term instead of homicide--but those can charges can still carry serious sanction)

At the very least---they might lose their parental rights in this case, the child taken as a ward of the state and then be given the chemo or other needed medical treatments.

People may not like it---but like I said---this is the law--it is pretty well established as such to one degree or the other in each of our 50 states.

I am not saying I agree one way or the other---I am simply stating the reality of the situation these people face.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Parens+Patriae

[PolyLoveTriad]

I think they should have their kid in chemo if its going to save his life. As for if the boy is saying he doesnt want to have it, Id say make him have it. At 13 yrs old some kids are more mature than others, but I dont know many 13 yr olds who could look at this situation and see that this could save his life and make the choice to have the chemo. Im sorry, but the mother needs to be knocked in the head. If it was for religious reasons, she wouldnt have let him have ONE treatment in the first place. I think she is only saying that because chemo in itself makes you pretty sick, it was most likely very hard on him so when he said he didnt want to do it again she obliged. But it seems that having chemo is going to literally save his life.

I dont agree with the government stepping into our lives and getting involved, except in a situation like this. A 13 yr old deciding he wants to die... because the treatment is hard on him... its sad... and confusing.... hard decision there Rissa

[onewhocares]

Funny my mom who is 78 this year was just diagnosed with Non Hodgkin's Lymphoma and she too is questioning the doctors about chemotherapy and radiation therapy. Much of her questioning is her belief in holistic alternatives. But when the hard facts came down and said that is is most common to have a more than ninety percent chance of remission, even she wants to see her grand children grow and prosper. She came to have faith in the medical community...I know I do. If they do nothing you die...if you take a chance you may live to see another day. Is it going to be easy...not on your life...but then again she may have a life.

Belle

[bityme]

I've been through this twice. My first wife had breast cancer, but refused chemotherapy. She was gone in 9 months.

My second wife had breast cancer twice. Went through chemotherapy and radiation therapy and beat the cancer. Then she developed a sarcoma from the radiation therapy. She had surgery and more chemotherapy. Her battle lasted 7 years. She was completely cancer free for a year when her heart gave out in her sleep.

The parents should be required to allow whatever treatment is medically indicated for their son. They should not be allowed to refuse treatment on religious grounds. Every time we see that happening, the child ends up dying. And in cases like this young boy, the recommended chemotherapy have proved to be very effective.

If their religion is their idea of a cure, what made their God so mad at the boy that he gave him cancer in the first place. Oh, yes, maybe God's just testing them.

[M. Wolfe]

They should not be allowed to refuse treatment on religious grounds

Amen to that brother.

[BiJoe696]

Here is a local case in trial now ( and trials go fast in small towns, will update)

LEILANI NEUMANN TRIAL

Neumann to police: Lord will bring daughter back to life

Just hours after her 11-year-old daughter died, Leilani Neumann told police she thought the child had suffered a spiritual attack and that the Lord would restore her to life.

Jurors in Neumann's reckless homicide trial heard the Weston woman say those words Wednesday as they viewed a videotaped police interview of Neumann.

The rest of the story:

http://www.wausaudailyherald.com/article/20090521/WDH0101/905210621

##################################

They should not be allowed to refuse treatment on religious grounds ?????

The question is always what if that were you? We are not even talking a fetus here. If the parents are wacko do we let them "kill" the kids by not getting proper treatment?

IMHO" Parents wrong both cases.