Opinion: Court has the right to insist on chemo

Keep the dadburn government and their courts out of people's business. It is not their function or responsibility.

If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all. – Jacob Hornberger (1995)

Patriotism means loving our country, not the government. – Michael Cloud

Everything government touches turns to crap. – Ringo Starr

I do certainly pray that this mother looks in her heart and sees that she is hurting her son more by no treatment then by having the chemo. The child needs a responsible adult to make sure that he gets the treatment that he needs before it becomes to late. His father now realizes that the chemo is the only choice left since the other non medicine treatment is not working. It is not that I do not believe that pray can help to save lives but I think you need that in addition to medical care. Pray can be the strength that the family uses to get through the chemo. Pray can be comfort for the family but I also believe that God has let people create these medicine theraphys to help us heal our bodies when they become unhealthy.

Sheila, you're absolutely right. I too believe that God has allowed people to come up with such therapies and treatments to allow healing and recovery. On the other hand, God too has allowed for recovery through prayer and FAITH. God works in mysterious ways so what if this woman's "disregard for her son's well-being" is an act of STRONG faith? Believe me, God sees and listens to such things. So I hope she continues to do what she feels GOD is telling her to do. Not what the court system or government is insisting she do. The child is HER son and HER responsibility. SHE puts him to bed at night, SHE nurtures him when he needs it, and SHE has been their for his entire life. Not the court system. Dr. Caplan, the author of this article, is completely right. The courts have a right to insist chemotherapy but they do NOT have a right to make the family do anything. It's a family decision, not some judges who knows nothing about the family or the child. So thanks for the words of wisdom, TOR. I hope more people are listening!

What I think is soo funny is that some people say that at 13 the boy doesnt know what he wants and is not capable of making his own decisions...yet the 14 year old boy who killed his dad....people are screaming to try him as an adult? So which is it? Are they capable of making decisions or not? One can and the other cant? And what about all the children in the US who are turned away because they have no insurance? Can the parents sue the doctors to give their child treatment? Where do we draw the line?

Someone needs to sit down with this mother and explain to her what chemo is, how it works, why it has such a high success rate with this type of cancer, and what the odds of survival for her son are if he does not have this treatment. Chemo is a terrible thing to endure, and I understand how difficult it must be for a prent to see their child recovering from this tough treatment. But, contrary to what this family believes, chemo will not kill their son. Failure to treat with chemo will. There are simply no other options in his case, and I hope that a loving mother would not condemn her son to certain death in this situation.

At 13 I do believe that a child at that age knows what is right and wrong. But we must remember that his mother is the one telling him different things. And at that age when you come from a loving home (or not) you want to believe her because she is your mom. She is the one who is suppose to take care of you and not let anything happen to you. But that is not the case in this story. She is killing her son by not bringing him home to get the treatment he needs to live. In my eyes, when they are found, she needs to held accountable. If she really loves her son, she will come home.

I can understand why some people are upset that the courts are involved. But I also see it as they are trying to help a child to live, and live he would since his disease can be cured. The courts see it as a parent killing their child. Neglect to care for you child is a form of child abuse i think. I understand both sides, but in this case, I am siding with the courts. Give the child his life back.

At 13 I do believe that a child at that age knows what is right and wrong. But we must remember that his mother is the one telling him different things. And at that age when you come from a loving home (or not) you want to believe her because she is your mom. She is the one who is suppose to take care of you and not let anything happen to you. But that is not the case in this story. She is killing her son by not bringing him home to get the treatment he needs to live. In my eyes, when they are found, she needs to held accountable. If she really loves her son, she will come home.

I can understand why some people are upset that the courts are involved. But I also see it as they are trying to help a child to live, and live he would since his disease can be cured. The courts see it as a parent killing their child. Neglect to care for you child is a form of child abuse i think. I understand both sides, but in this case, I am siding with the courts. Give the child his life back.

Just because the method of treatment the mother has tried has not worked DOES NOT mean that there are not other methods of alternative treatment that DO work. Why are people so closed-minded and naive in realizing that the health and pharmaceutical industries have NO intention to ever "discover" a cure for cancer or any other disease. Illness and disease is a multi BILLION dollar profit maker. Keeping people ill is PROFITABLE, CURING them is not !

What's even sadder is that there ARE already PROVEN cures for many diseases that have been developed by small independent research companies and private researchers. Because they don't have the $ that Big Pharma has their "cures" aren't allowed to see the light of day... it would jeopardize the orthodox health industry. There is proof that cancer is caused by a microbe that invades the cells. Its been known for over 100 yrs.

Just because the parent wants to treat their child's illness by alternative methods doesn't make her evil or negligent or uncaring. She has not been presented with any of the other alternatives that are available. Alternatives that would fit in with her beliefs and that are probably every bit as, if not more, effective than the chemo that could actually KILL him by destroying his immune system. Remember... chemo is a TOXIC POISON. It is NOT indescriminate and it can just as well CAUSE cancer as well as "cure" it... although we all know that chemo is NOT a "cure". That's why cancers treated by orthodox methods always have the possibility of recurring.

Thank you Dr Caplan for a clearly written opinion.

Why is the mother's right of more value than the father's IN THIS CASE (don't twist what I am saying onto another discussion). Moreover, by having run the mother has now denied her son both treatments. Additionally by not having remained to hear the test results she is no longer in a position to say that she understands her son's medical status. Denial is not going to save her child.

Luis - there are a number of studies that have shown that prayer in conjunction with conventional treatment increase the effectiveness of treatment. Keep up the prayers.

As for the father, he has never said he wants his son to have the treatment. The only statement he has made to the press concerning the matter is that he is "disappointed" with his wife for not going through with their plan to appeal the court decision. Such embellishments on the part of the author are a clear indication of a biased individual attempting to distort the facts of the issue in order to distract from the real issue at hand.

As for the court decision, this is not a case of the parents "neglecting" their child by not providing treatment. If the parents refused to do ANYTHING about the condition then I could see such a judgement being passed. The real issue here is that the parents have decided to go AMA (Against Medical Advice) which these days is as serious as being in contempt of court! The parents never said they would NOT provide treatment, they simply wish to pursue ALTERNATIVE treatment that has documented effectiveness in some cases. Admittedly the documentation in these treatments is subject to question, there is nothing to prove that it WON'T work.

The concept that doctors who spend decades training and researching medicine should be trusted without question is nothing more than rhetoric. Many years ago doctors spent plenty of time researching what they knew of medicine at the time. What was the result? Leaching and elector shock therapy! Many Americans have been lulled into a false sense of what we really know about life. Simply because one treatment is proven to be more effective than another DOES NOT IMPLY that the second treatment should not be considered, and such decision is not one for the government to make. Doctors will eventually be put back in their place in society. Let's just hope it happens before it is to late.

Okay, those of you who think Daniel should have the treatment, which ones of you are willing to PAY for it?

Daniel is "the boy has developmental disabilities that make it impossible for him to read and limit his understanding" - soooo, if acceptable treatment IS used on him and he IS cured, what kind of life lies ahead for him when his parents are gone? An institution. Yeah, get cured so you can spend years being mistreated by girls who won't take care of you because they're too busy discussing what they're going to do with their boyfriends after work.

You also can find more on Dr. Kaplan's opinions at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23885944/

all you have to do is look at the woman just convicted of "praying her kid to death" to see where this is going.the boy needs to be treated...yesterday!

This hardly compares to that situation. Just because religion is mentioned people think they can compare the two. It really is apples to oranges. Remove religion from the equation and what we have is a fight over what treatment should the boy be on and the court's arrogance in rendering an unconstitutional decision which will later be found so by the US Supreme Court. The parents would have been much better off leaving religious reasons out of this fight. All it does is give the media and atheistic extrememists; such as this author, ammunition to convolute the real issue.

In this case the parents ARE seeking treatment for THEIR child. They made the dreadful mistake of being in contempt of the omnipotent medical profession!

P.S. Most doctors are good dedicated people. Some of them are egomaniacs that become furious at any question of their superior intellect. Generally these egomaniacs are the ones who rise to positions of political influence due to the fact that the GOOD doctors would rather treat patients than spend their time lobbieing in Washington attempting to force policy that would increase their power.

I must say that I am impressed with the arguments from both sides. Each has a valid point, and each side can be contested. But, let's ask those who are for intervention by the courts how they would react to a judge demanding that their child must attend a particular school, regardless of the quality or location. Does the shoe still feel comfortable? True, that example does not (on its surface) involve life or death - unless the school has a violent reputation. But, the issue is a court deciding the welfare of a child, over and above those deemed appropriate by the parents.

For those against intervention, are you really willing to stand aside while a child may die? We are, after all, our brother's keeper, and cannot simply shrug our shoulders in apathy. I think this country seems awash in it at times.

Personally, the court system has absolutely no place in this discussion. In a divorce hearing, the child would automatically go to the mother (regardless of the father's contentions), and not place a child in foster care. How can it now threaten to do so? This is a slippery slope at best.

Regardless of the outcome in this sad situation, the court will lose.

another 30 yrs. and this *hit won't even come up. if you don't have money you wont be treated. my kid was diagnosed with quote a" learning diability"when he was in pre-school. they wanted him to go to a school with others who had this disability. i said NO WAY that my kid is bright. those eight specialist would have made me send him to that school if they had a way to do this. well guess what? not only did he max out on SAT's his school years but his IQ is over 130. this bunch had another reason for wanting to brand him disabled. if you feel that she does not have the right to be a parent, then neither do any of you.

another 30 yrs. and this *hit won't even come up. if you don't have money you wont be treated. my kid was diagnosed with quote a" learning diability"when he was in pre-school. they wanted him to go to a school with others who had this disability. i said NO WAY that my kid is bright. those eight specialist would have made me send him to that school if they had a way to do this. well guess what? not only did he max out on SAT's his school years but his IQ is over 130. this bunch had another reason for wanting to brand him disabled. if you feel that she does not have the right to be a parent, then neither do any of you.

So what does the court do if I can't afford the treatment? Will they force me to sell my house and file for bankruptcy? What if I am an adult and dying of cancer? Can I refuse treatment and die in peace? I think the court, in WA just agreed that you can choose to end your life if you are terminally ill. And an adult can refuse medical treatment if they wish. Much medical treatment is designed to prolong the treatment, and therefor the income stream to the doctors and hospital anyway.

I this case, I think the decision should be based on how likely the treatment it to be successful and how experimental it is; this should not be "5-year survival rates" but a complete cure. What is not answered is who should pay for it. I do not think the court should force anyone to spend money for medical care the individual chooses not to have the treatment, or doesn't want to pay for it. I think something fairly simple like antibiotics to cure something that would otherwise be fatal is reasonable to require. Chemo is very risky and uncertain, and the court cannot possibly predict the outcome and therefore should stay out of people's medical decisions.

While I think that the parents are idiots and I feel sorry for their child - I think the government does not belong in the daily lives of people.

Many people make these choices every day - buy medicine or food, pay the mortgage/rent or have surgery? I think that having government in medical decisions scares me more than that woman.

According to the article, morally the boy does not have the righ to say no.Whose morals?The boy has publically stated that he does not want Kemo.

Not his parents, the boy.The boy is considered a shaman/doctor in an native indinan religion

The boy has stated, he will resist tretment in any possible way, including kicking, striking and hurting anyone who attempts to treat him. The Dr in charge has said it will be difficult to treat him under these circumstances.

If you think, it would be right to force him, to take these treatments, the doctor will definitely accept help and spread out the number of people, that will face law suits on this.

Their are (and have been) provable treatments for a variety of cancers since 1930. However, they are alternatives which are NEVER approved by the FDA (governmental regulating agency which KEEPS alternative healthcare FROM the public rather than allowing the truth about such methods).

Chemo does not CURE cancer. It may put it into remission and the body can heal itself if diet and lifestyle are modified and alternative methods followed ongoing. Chemo actually KILLS healthy cells and many who recieve it continue to get sicker and die anyway.

Is his mother following a proven alternative therapy? Who knows. But the idea that the government can FORCE someone (mature or a minor) to receive a specific treatment whether it is against their beliefs, finances, etc is INTERFERENCE. It is none of the government's business to tell ANYONE what to do or how to live their lives.

If government REALLY wanted a cure for cancer, it could simply get OUT OF THE WAY of alternative medicine. We do not need the FDA's seal of approval considering it's track record in approving fatal medicine that supports big pharma at the expense of lives.

Look up any of the following to see where I'm coming from: Essiac Tea, Royal Raymond Rife, Spirit Wolf, Umbaya Gold products, and many other cancer cures if you do the research. Most are suppressed because Cancer is a big business and a profit center. It's not that they can not FIND a cure - they do not WANT a cure.

It's interesting that I've seen statements that no 13 year old can make informed decisions about their own health care, but until the Supreme Court intervened a few years back, the state of Oklahoma was going to execute a minor who had committed a murder at the age of 13, thereby maintaining that he could, in fact, make adult decisions and be held to an adult standard. It was only a few years back that adults won the right to refuse mrdical treatment. Perhaps it's all about the egos of the medical profession and the State wanting to control all aspects of peoples' lives... it's all about power.

At my core, I find it despicable that this parent has demonstrated such horribly selfish behavior. Since when is anything of value easy? And I have been through chemo so for those of you spouting off about the "poisen" in my veins, let me assure you this. If I gain 3 or 5 or 10 years and get to see my children graduate from college and get married, then by God it's all been worth it. I believe in wholistic approaches as well, but why does it have to be an "either/or" situation? Why not do both and cover ALL of your bases?

This situation is incredibly sad. And the poor kid is the one in the middle. Good parenting means sometimes having to help your kids understand that not everything is fair-- and not everything is easy. Let's hope reason holds out and this kid has the chance to live a full life -- because he certainly deserves it. Doesn't everyone?

The author of this ludicrous article says, "Daniel can get through the chemotherapy." Others on here have said things along the lines of "Yeah, chemo is bad but it won't kill him." REALLY?

These are very uninformed statements, folks. Deaths due directly or indirectly (eg infection) to chemo are common. Chemo is poisonous to the body and should never be forced on someone. If his parents choose it for him, then fine. But chemo is hardly the only treatment available, and is no guarantee that it will work. The chances of future cancer caused by the chemo are sky-high. Chemo is a carcinogen, after all.

So what will kill this boy-- The chemo today? The future cancer it causes? The infection brought on by the chemo's destruction of his immune system? The cancer itself, since 5% are NOT cured by chemo? Or maybe the cancer, left untreated will take his life.

He is entitled to a natural death, not one that is the hell of chemo if it is against his will.

Just to add some perspective...

Chemo is tough. It's the most difficult thing I've ever had to endure. I was sick and tired and frustrated that I had to fight so hard just to stay alive. And it's not fair. But it does end, and in this child's case his prognosis is VERY good with this treatment.

It's easy for people to get their knickers in a twist over a perceived toe-stepping into parental authority. But could you truly look at their child and say, "Yes - I'll gamble with your life?" I think most parents would say no way.

This child deserves a life. Just like an abused child deserves to feel safe, and an abandoned child deserves a family, and a hungry child deserves to eat. We have laws to protect our children because as a society we believe (I hope) that children need protection...and yes sadly...sometimes they need protection from their well meaning, but misguided or mis-informed parents.

The court did the right thing in this case. Mom has demonstrated by running away that she is more concerned with "her" parental rights than with what is right and medically necessary for her son. And that is indeed very sad...and in my mind....criminal.