Recently a 16 or 17 yr. old boy with relapsed Hodgkin's Disease chose to decline a second treatment of chemotherapy because of how severe his side effects were the first time around. He and his family chose alternative medicines and herbs instead (which are not FDA approved). The boy said he doesn't think he could survive any more chemo and doesn't want it. Now social services is stepping in, saying his parents are guilty of medical neglect. The same happened about six months ago to a 13 year old girl. She was put into a foster home and given chemo agains her and her parents wishes (and to the best of my knowledge, she still isn't in remission)
Should the courts in this country have a say in our medical care? And should they be allowed to force treatments on us and our children? And if so, where do we draw the line?
2006-07-15 18:08:53 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Health ➔ Diseases & Conditions ➔ Cancer
Here is a link to the story, if anyone is interested
http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/teen-fights-for-right-to-pick-cancer/20060712050109990002?cid=474
2006-07-15 18:22:43 · update #1
As a Hodgkin's Survivor myself, I might add that the survival rate drops when the cancer becomes refractory or relapsed.
Also, the boys doses of chemotherapy would be higher than the initial ones, possibly even high dose chemotherapy plus a stem cell/bone marrow transplant. Which would put him into the hospital for a month while the administer doses high enough to destroy all of his bone marrow (easily quadruple normal chemo doses)
Also, for anyone that believes a 17 year old should be forced to have toxic chemcials pumped into him based on government order, should the government be held accountable if the treatment harms him?
2006-07-15 18:33:55 · update #2
No, the government has no right to step in and tell anyone what medication they have to take unless they are a danger to society at large. The problem is that as time goes on the government is seen less and less like a governing agent and more and more like the society's parents- dictating such things as seat-belt laws, helmet regulations, so on and so forth. The fact of the matter is that people for the most part are more than willing to allow the government to tell them how to live, and cases like these are simply the natural out growth.
2006-07-15 18:17:13 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes - sometimes this is necessary. There are times when parents do not act in the best interest of the child and the state must step in and take action. To stand by and let a child die while the parents try alternative methods that have not been proven effective by scientific methods is negligence. I understand how difficult the first chemotherapy treatment may have been for the Hodgkin's case. Because of that they may be able to use different treatment plan or combination of drugs.
2006-07-16 01:24:28 · answer #2 · answered by petlover 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think a 17 year old who has already gone through one cycle of chemo should be able to make adult decisions about additional therapies, without intervention from any government agencies.
Unfortnately, the current administration doesn't always agree. They can try a minor in some states as an adult but let a 17 year old participate in other decisions about his/her life and they put a stop to it.
The government will be held accountable because whey his parents rights are removed the government will be footing the billd for any and all subsequent treatment.
2006-07-20 15:57:40 · answer #3 · answered by knittinmama 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think if parents are being jerks and really don't care then the government has the right to step in for the welfare of the child. BUT if the parents and the child agrees on alternatives then the government should have no say unless the alternative is much more dangerous than the FDA approved meds.
2006-07-16 01:13:19 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Lemmee tell ya... Only we as the individual knows what we can handle, and not handle. WE know our bodies better than anyone else. Do you think that this boy really WANTS to die?? Sometimes quality of live is better without treatment. I can tell you that first hand. If I had to do it over again, I would have yes had the surgery, but no would have not had the radiation. Sometimes quality is better than quantity. I want that right to make the decision... not the government. It should be up to the kid and the parents.
NOPE, I would ask my kid what he wanted. At 16,17, and 13, I think they have that right. At 2 years old, well thats a different story, but I would value their imput at any age.
2006-07-17 01:59:23 · answer #5 · answered by barbaradjt 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
being that the courts are so inept in half of the things mediated, it should be the individuals right to determine if they are going to continue to use methods which can have more painful side effects than the ailment itself (which is why so many choose to die instead).. The courts have no say in our pursuit of happiness when the alternative they are presenting us makes our lives more painful to live. **** the courts.. Most of those people are appointed anyways and don't reflect the opinions of the citizens.
2006-07-16 01:15:16 · answer #6 · answered by wildhair 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
children are human they should be allowed to make their choices with parental guidance when they are young. whether taking the treatment is the choice of an individual unless the parents forced the child to do thing against the child's will should the court intervenes. One should be able to die with dignity and not with all these tubes and needles.
2006-07-16 01:16:50 · answer #7 · answered by pianist 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely not! We should be able to choose quality over quantity! We can not be forced to take chemo.
WOW!
2006-07-16 15:34:43 · answer #8 · answered by james c 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
god no that's awful.
whatever the families decision should be the final decision.
that's really sick i have so little faith in this country anymore.
2006-07-16 01:12:44 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋