Should parents be allowed to refuse cancer treatments for their sick children?

I am also a Hodgkin's Survivor of 25 years. Hodgkin's is so treatable...and curable. It's sad to see the ignorance of parents with such devastating results. I hope they find him and save his life.

Having been cured of hodgkin's by natural remedies I know for a fact chemo does not help. Chemo is a horrible thing to do to any one when there are better ways to heal. NOT TO MENTION IT IS HIS PARENTS RELIGIONIOUS RIGHT TO CHOOSE DIFFERENTLY. It is a communist act to take away our freedoms and force us to do things. The judge and any police officer who follows these orders should be sent to jail.

Amen to that! I'm a cancer survivor too and a Christian and God gave children to parents; not to the government! Hurray for the parents and dear God please begin to heal this child before the authorities can find him and push poison into him!

So what is this remedy? And if you point me to some alternative medicine site, I will know you are full of it.

If they find him they will kill him with chemo. Do some research morons!! Cancer patients don't die from the cancer they die from the treatment. You ignorant people are sickening.

I wonder why there seems to be only one solution to a problem these days?

My father also had Hodgkin's in the 60's he didn't last 6 months. I think if my parents had to do it all over again they would not have chosen chemo. My mom died a few years ago. I wish she had not had the chemo either. We could have had more quality time together.

Frank, what are your paranoid rantings based on, besides your own delusions? You think purvayors of "alternative" medicine don't do it for the money? They often charge exhorbitant prices for common things. People like Kevin Trudeau saying the drug company's only do it for the money and they aren't even trying to find a cure for cancer or other diseases is sickening, drug companies spend millions on research for all kinds of diseases. It won't take away their revenues if they cure a disease, as long as there are people, people will be sick. Old diseases go away, or are easily treated with new therapy's, and new diseases are constantly emerging.

My oncologist told me I would die unless I allowed him to place a port into my body for 6 months and dump chemo into me [btw, check to see who makes the money off the chemo medicine; much is pocketed by the doctor. That is not to say that they all do their jobs for the money. But they do make good money off these drugs]. He told me that I would have to wear a mask when I finally went back to work because my immune system would be shot along with the cancer cells. Of course there would be the vomiting and the hair loss. I took the information he gave me to heart and prayed over it; studied like never before; and concluded that, based on my research, my best option was to go a whole foods and nutritional supplement route. It's been 3 and a half years and I'm cancer free as of January. I feel fantastic. It's not been a quick fix and it's been hard changing my lifestyle, but it's definitely been worth it! Will it return? No one knows but God. But the point is that I had to make the best decision based on what I believe and this child was given to these parents and until he is old enough to make his own decisions, they are responsible for him. There are many in the holistic field who do not know what they are doing. This is true. But the man who helped me was an MD who saw that drugs were not healing as much as they were hurting, so he studied and saw that the best way to heal the body was to give the right tools to the body so it would heal itself. How can we fault these parents for doing what they believe is best for this boy? And how can any of us say that their choice is not right?

I am glad to see all the people that have survived this disease voicing that the kid should be treated. I have never suffered from anything like that so I can not pretend to know the pain and suffering involved. All I know is what is in books and medical journals and they all say chemo and radiation can be used to cure it. I am sure the kid is scared but all his parents mainly his mom are doing is making it worse.

I've known plenty of people who have died and lived from chemo and plenty of people who also lived from natural medicine. If it's against their religion to seek modern medicine, it's not only not the place of the government to say it's wrong, it's not your place. People do what people will do. If you don't agree with me, watch Lifestories: Someone had to be Benny. That docu-film is OLD and airs on HBO somewhat frequently. It's the same story with a happy ending. Not all people are the same, and to judge this family is to judge their religion... God forbid anyone ever did that to any of you, right?

I have a couple of good friends who have gone into remission from cancer using natural and alternative homeopathy. chemo is not the only solution and we need to be more informed about our options and not just convinced by big pharmaceutical companies and government that these drugs are the only answer. Having freedom of choice may be more healing to this family and boy than being forced to use treatments they don't believe in.

Pro-life religious hypocrite-psychotics think life is more precious in the womb than out.

I don't support abortion-on-demand and I sure as hell don't support the kind of "family values" that deny terminally-ill children medical salvation in the name of some fantasy world prayer ritual "salvation!"

"Pro-life," and "Pro-birth" are not at all the same! Many Right-wingers don't support health insurance for children and some WON'T USE IT TO SAVE A DYING CHILD EVEN WHEN THEY HAVE IT!

Let's hear the rationalizations from the "err on the side of life" frauds who played politics with Terri Schiavo but then look the other way when some religious crazy is willing to let a sick child die!

A. Macarthur

You can kill a child growing in it's mother but after you're born the Govt tells you what medicine you must take. Idiotic!!!

A zygote is not a child. A child is capable of living outside of the womb.

Yes, pharmaceuticals stand to make billions of dollars by providing chemo to patients but at the same time, how many people have gone to live full lives after enduring bouts of cancer? We can argue the fact that alternative medicine works but not everyone will react the same.

Modern medicine has proven effective in extending life as the average life span is no longer 23 but 73+, with many people living well into their 80s, 90s and even 100! There is no denying its effectiveness.

The fact that this child is a child and has a disability, compounds the need for someone to step in and serve as his advocate. Religous freedom is one thing but allowing someone to die because your religion gets in the way, is quite another.This is very common among Jehovah's Witnesses and there have been hundreds of cases where the courts have gotten involved because these fanatics refuse medical treatment for their children. IMHO, this is no different than tying your kid up in a basement and feeding them bread and water once a day.

Where is the outrage???

This one is harsh. But let me ask this. Does anyone have the right to decide for me what medical treatments I need and when it should happen? I think not. I feel for this child. But the fact is the parent has the right to decide. Whether I agree with the choice or know all the facts is not the issue. The issue is we all have choices to make. As parents we are responsible for our children. No we do not always do the best but it is our responsibility. Now the courts want to march in and make a decision and then forget the responsibility. It is not child abuse. it is a mother trying to do what she feels is best for her child. In this country we have the freedom to do so. I hate the fact the child has cancer and might not survive. But I will fight as always for individuals rights given to then by the maker and also granted in our constitution. It is not if I agree with the choice or not. it is the right for this mother to make the choice. People need to stop teling others how to live and what to think. We do not need any government official telling us what to think and do. Yes sometimes it is sad. So what do we do stop people from having kids all together? Just think about it and remove your emotions. Because I join everyone in an emotion for this child. But I am not willing to remove the parents rights so quickly.

I clicked on this topic b/c I found it interesting. I have read most of these comments in here and while I feel it is a bit comical that so many of you care so much about this topic and all it's points of interest I notice that not one of you ( or perhaps I have missed one or two that may have) have said what you would do if this were your child. Your 13 year old child, still so young and innocent of what life is really about. Still playing with his sibilings and knowing probably nothing at all about the statistics to Chemo or who gets their cut of the money in the pharm. companies, nor probably caring. Just being a kid. See the thing is is that no matter how you slice it he IS a kid! Sure he can get drunk, get a girl pregnant, do drugs and be charged as an adult. BUT the bottom line is, is that he 13 and 13 will always be just 13. I know my daughter, she is mine, I gave birth to her, have loved and adored her every single day of her beautiful life. She is almost 13 and while I consider her very bright and knowledgable, I most certainly do not consider her old enough to make a life altering decision such as not to receive medicine that could, and more than likely WILL save her life. That decision is put upon me and as her parent, because I love her so much I would do whatever it would take to save her life whether it be chemo or any other medical treatment. To not treat my precious baby would be UNTHINKABLE! Chemo has a 90% success rate in curing Hodgkins....I would sign her up in a heart beat! I would tend to her every need for all those days that she would not feel good for to save her life would be so much more better than watching her die. To fight it and conquer it is what is important. I have NOT done my research. I do not know all the statistics of who survives who and does not. All I know is that as a parent you have to make decisions in the best interest for your child. So should the goverment step in? Yes, I think this mother ( I say that b/c I think the father would be willing to do anything for his son.) needs to step off her high religious horse, put aside her beliefs and her nonsense of homeopathic drugs and get this boy the real treatment he deserves. My daughter doesn't want to do things on a daily basis, should I allow her to constantly make her own decisions like not going to school or doing her homework? Or do I as a parent....well parent her? I am the parent, I DO KNOW what is BEST for her and she knows it. As she should. I can say with much certainty that she would also trust in me, in my love for her that if I felt the need to get her the treatment she needed she would trust that I know what is right for her because I love her with all my heart. We all won't agree nor see eye to eye on this for as humans we have our own opinions, but you can not deny that we are all the same when it comes to the love we have for our children and to what lengths we would go to treat them if they were to get ill. To not treat them would be ignorance at its worst. And if anyone wants to disagree with me, please show me stats on how many Hodgkins patients have been CURED with homeopathic remedies for I am truly interested in that!

"Should parents be allowed to refuse cancer treatments for their sick children? "

Wrong question. The question ought to be this:

"Should governments (our public servants) be allowed to be involved in medical decisions? "

"Should governments (our public servants) be allowed to be involved in medical decisions? "

You mean like with Terri Schiavo?

I could not have said it better. I'm so sick of loosing so many of my rights. I want to preserve the freedom that founded this country. This is no longer a free country unless you have plenty of money. Some of the opinions on here are very emotional. If in the situation that the parents are in I would go with medical advise but then I'm an athiest. Then again I would also do the research and maybe go with an alternate route. Not because of faith but out of the best choise. The article didn't say the parents weren't trying to find alternative medical treatments or did I miss that?

Ed

We don't know specifics nor the prognosis. With-holding treatment that you know will DEFINATELY make someone better is indeed neglect. Choosing not to undergo a procedure or treatment because no one can say for sure how things will turn out in the end is not neglect. It is a medical choice that has been made. These types of choices/decisions are never easy to make and are always difficult to resolve, yet they are part of life and something we will all struggle with at one time or another. In my humble opinion the judge over stepped his judicial and ethical boundaries. Speaking for myself- if I were in a similar position and I felt my child had suffered to much and for to long, I know I would choose to no longer interfere with God and nature. Initially, yes. I would battle on every front medically, but there comes a time when enough is enough.

I 100% agree as a survivor myself!!!!!!

I 100% agree--as a survivor of this disease!!!!

But hey, you're still alive. The kid is young, he has a good long life ahead of him. A parent is suppose to look out of their kids, not kill them. I heard that he has a 95% survival rate (not too sure how true that is) but if that's true then he will have a chance at a better life in the future. You know the outcome of no treatment, there is a chance he can life a decent life, why not take it?

Being that the son is a teenager, he is old enough to be part of the decision making. I think that they deserve the right to try alternative methods and if after a given period of time their methods fail, then proceed to chemo. We give the elderly the right to choose whether they want to undergo chemotherapy or die and the same thing should apply to all ages. However, it would depend on how hard the parents are trying in regards to alternative healing methods. If they aren't really trying and just hoping for the best then they are naive and the court should take matters into their own hands. Although the world of medicine is amazing we should never discount natural methods. They've even found great medicinal uses for marijuana including that the THC works as a superantibotic resistant to even our "super"bugs. And while there are those who have had great success with chemotherapy, there are those who have died and those who are still sick. The same goes with homeopathetic treatments. This debate is in a very gray zone.

This past year I lost a close friend to cancer. She decided to do chemo and I watched in horror as the beautiful (gorgeous) brilliant woman, a CPA and comptroller for a company, went through round after round fo chemo--finally she was a bald, grey shell of her former self. She was nauseated all the time, had no energy and suffered from her mouth full of painful sores. That's chemo. She didn't die the day she learned she had cancer. Her life was over when they poured those toxic chemicals in her body. No one, young or old, should have to endure this indignity. I am convinced she died of chemo--not cancer. This child is old enough to participate in his decision.

So according to the right-wing playbook...

Terri Schiavo didn't have the right-to-die but...

This teenage boy, if it is up to his mother...

May not have the right to live.

Is that the way it works?

Well you know what i think that the government is a dick head to be quite honest... it's none of there business. Believe it or not teenagers who have that kind of a thing in there life know how to make decisions on there own i know, i've had to make many dicisions in my life that changed it but thats just part of growing up. Plus since when is it illegal to refuse treatment?! I don't think that's in any law books... i would love someone to correct me on that one considering the fact that i've read many (really bored)

Another thing... a child, no matter what age should be asked for there dicision on the subject. Yes even little kids should be asked... there smarter than they think and people shouldn't just make those kinds of decisions without there child there, also to the dumb ass government I say this: What a family has decided to do with there life weather to end it... or in any other case it is none of you business and the sooner you realise this the better of you'll be.

It makes me sad to see that when i looked at the voting polles the way they looked, it's hard to believe that people agree with what the government is saying... think of that child, it's a hard thing to be forced to do something to do and all that family is doing is trying to fulfill that childs wish, what's so bad about that... who cares that he doesn't want to take chemo... quite honestly i wouldn't want to take it either... put yourself in that childs position before you vote on the government... it's none of our business what a family chooses to do or not do :)

for all the above that missed it; he/they had accepted treatment until he learned (the hard way) how awful chemo can be. at that point they opted for alternative medicines and a "native American" religion (they were Catholic up to this point). they lost the legal ability to refuse on religious grounds when they accepted the first treatment from their pre-existing family doctor.

this isn't about religious belief, it's about a spoiled child throwing a tantrum (remember his threats) and getting his way at the cost of his own life and his mother's freedom.

For all of you who believe that God will take care of this boy let me tell you an old story.

There is an old man in his house and he hears on the radio a warning that the town is flooding and everyone must leave now. The man says I am a man of faith, I pray and god will save me I am not leaving my house. The waters rise all around his house and a man in a boat comes by and says "Hey you in there. The river is rising let me take you to saftey." The old man says "No I am a child of God, I have faith, I pray and God will save me." The water rises higher and now the man is on the roof of his house when a helicopter hovers over head and a man yells down "Hey you down there. Let me lower this basket and take you to saftey" The old man says "No. I am a child of God, I have faith, I pray and God will save me." Well the water got even higher and the old man drowned. When the old man got to Heaven he demanded an audience with God. He said "God I don't understand, I thought you loved me. I am a good man, I have faith, I pray, why am I here?" God said "What the hell are you doing here? I sent you a radio report, a man in a boat, and a helicopter!"

Black and white. I think not. This child and this family have run away from chemo. some think it's wrong, some right. What would you do? Once you've decided, what would you do if the government told you 'No". I believe on the spectum of this argument that those who disagree very stongly would act out of their beliefs and follow their wishes. This family is at the other end of that spectrum doing the exact same thing. The VAST majority is in the middle and would only do what the majority of the population told them is "right".

Freedom of choice being threatened again...

If you have no desire to provide the best care for your children, you should not have them. This woman is an embarrassment to all people on this planet, not parents.

Religious beliefs should not be a viable defense in why someone is killing their child. People like this are reasons why most people think anyone that beleves in a god is a nut-job. Atleast I can take some solace in the fact that this woman will probably burn in hell.

While I do not believe the government should be able to dictate things like abortion, like assisted suicide (or even suicide for that matter), someone has to be able to stop things that are this irrational. If this person was 18 and does not want chemo, that is find. This 13 year old that has been brain damaged by blatant lies should have been taken from his mother.

Freedom of choice is the ability to buy a Chevy or Honda, shop at Wal-Mart or Target, not weather to let your child die or let him have a proven medical cure.

We have freedom of choice? Or do we have a limited freedom of choice? I applaud those who have survived cancer. I weep for those who have parished even with Chemo from cancer. Every person is different and will respond to treatments different. So by what guage do we say it is okay for the government to step in and order medical treatment for anyone? What ruler do we use to measure? A parent strive to protect and keep their offspring healthy. Are we to legislate against what one feels is stupidity? Should we have test done before we make a child to be sure we are "smart enough to have one? It is mentioned about abortion being the same. My feelings are the same. What I think about abortion is my choice. I am not ready to take away another persons choice and impose what I believe is right for them. Yes we need laws for public welfare and public actions. But we must be careful not to cross the line. Every post is passionate and compassionate. But what if the governemtn stepped in and made only one side of the issue right. And it is not your side. One group would celebrate victory and the other would vow vengence. There is not clear cut winner. But I still side on the individual rights to choose even if the individual make the most ignorant choice in the world. What some think is stupid others view as intelligent. But we all have the right to think and decide. That should not be infringed. Attempts to override and justify the reasoning to limit our choices or leave a broad range of activities is cause to limit our freedoms by the government. We left europe to come over here to begin a nation that is not oppressed. Now it seems like we want to be like europe again. We want to be just like the rest of the world. As for me I want to be an American. A free American. A citizen of what once the best nation in the world. But it seems as a whole we jsut want to be in the in crowd and jsut be of the world. Just like the world. Not stand out and be better. Now that is sad.

How sad that people of our country have forgotten their rights. There was a time when people believed leaching would cure them too. Chemo and radiation is big business in our country. Open your eyes, take time to study and realize how far ahead other countries are on cancer. I am also a cancer survivor. I have used alternative medicine and prayer for over 15 years now. What right do you or the government have to decide whether I choose tradional or alternative therapy for myself or my children? Your refusal to recognize alternative medicine as treatment shows your intelligence.

Cutup111 said:

There was a time when people believed leaching would cure them too.

Firstly, it's "leeching." Secondly, blood-letting is, in fact, an effective treatment, even today, for certain blood disorders, such as hemachromatosis.

By the same token, maggots used to be applied for the cleansing of infected wounds. They're still used for this purpose today.

Your implied argument that chemotherapy is barbaric by drawing references to blood-letting is flawed, because such treatment works. Chemotherapy works, too.

Chemo and radiation is big business in our country.

So is the selling of "miracle water" on the Trinity Broadcasting Network by schyster-televangelists, who often promise that you'll receive a miracle - guaranteed - if you donate money to their ministries. From the sound of it, though, you'd try this method to cure someone's cancer before you'd pay for medical insurance. As far as businesses go, they have wider profit margins, because, as religious groups, they don't have to pay anything in taxes. How's *that* for government-backed favoritism?

Open your eyes, take time to study and realize how far ahead other countries are on cancer. I am also a cancer survivor. I have used alternative medicine and prayer for over 15 years now.

"Prayer" and "alternative medicine," practices that base themselves on pre-historic superstitions, are your ideas of how far "ahead" a country is on the prevalent treatment for cancer there? Did you actually edit what you wrote for such self-contradictory statements before you posted it?

What right do you or the government have to decide whether I choose tradional or alternative therapy for myself or my children?

The government has every right - as it has since its beginning - to protect its citizens from abuse. "By what right do you do this?" can be cried by both the righteously indignified and the abuser alike. What right does the government have to tell people that they can't put cigars out on their children? What right does the government have to tell people that they can't rape their children? After all, it's *their* home, *their* property. People have the right to do what they want, right?

The line has to be drawn somewhere, and even a libertarian draws the line at personal freedom where it intersects with the rights of others. Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose, and your right to refusal of informed medical consent ends at the point where you would *needlessly* sign your child's death warrant. Personally, for *yourself,* I'd say that you have every right to throw your life away on junk treatment if it makes you feel better, but for *your children,* it's a different story. It's *very* easy for you or for someone else - as Christian Scientists do - to put religious conviction (or, in your case, political activism) ahead of a life that isn't your own. What right do *you* have to sacrifice your child - and yes, I call it child sacrifice - in the name of your god *or* in the name of "don't tread on me" politics? I'm a pretty libertarian-leaning guy, but even I think that goes too far.

Your refusal to recognize alternative medicine as treatment shows your intelligence.

I agree with you whole-heartedly on that one; your prior implication that such alternative "treatments" comprise progressive, cutting-edge medicine shows your lack of it.

What we need to remember here is that the parents are not doing this to hurt or punish the child. There is enough evidence out there to tell us that chemo is very, very harmful. And there are enough people out there who have dealt with their cancer through whole foods and other alternative means - and they survived! If you want to try chemo, great, do it. If you don't, you should be allowed to make that decision. We need to be able to make our decisions for ourselves and out children. Freedom of choice.

Concerned-719708 wrote:

What we need to remember here is that the parents are not doing this to hurt or punish the child.

Perhaps not for its own sake, but the goal of court intervention here is to stop a parent from harming her own child *whether it's for harm's own sake or not.* The case here is of a mother who is willing to see her child die before his teenage years are done if it means that her religious sensibilities remain intact. That is not a sacrifice anyone should be asking of her child. It is not rational, and presents a situation where someone *should* step in and actually put the child's well-being above the faith-based motives of a *third party.*

There is enough evidence out there to tell us that chemo is very, very harmful.

Advil, among all its other properties, is a blood-thinner. This can be harmful to anyone with a history of ulcers or some other chronic bleeding condition. Prescription antibiotics generally destroy many types of bacteria in the body, including the ones that it was prescribed to destroy. Since most people have bacterial colonies in their digestive tract that aid human digestion, this can cause dehydration through diarrhea, and this discussion completely glosses over the chance a patient has of being allergic to an antibiotic that he has taken for the first time. The general anesthesia used for surgeries can be deadly if it isn't prepared for and administered properly.

The list of medical procedures that incorporate some level of risk to the patient - no matter how slight - is extenive. They all have the element, however, of having benefit that outweighs their respective risks for the patients that need them. The matter under discussion here is that of a very young cancer patient. The risk to him is, presumably, much the same as the risk to any other chemotherapy patient, which is not miniscule. The benefit, however, is that it will significantly increase his chances of *actually* surviving past his adolescence.

And there are enough people out there who have dealt with their cancer through whole foods and other alternative means - and they survived!

There are plenty of people who dealt with cancer by *neither* method and survived. Imagine three people, each of whom have the same kind of cancer. Imagine that one has it treated with chemotherapy, another with prayer and beet root tea, and the other decides to try nothing but hopping on one foot for a month. Imagine that they all survive with the cancer for five years. What does this demonstrate? Does it show that hopping on one foot for a month is as effective a treatment for cancer as chemotherapy? Hardly. Anecdotal evidence is just that - anecdotal. Only one disease has a 100% mortality rate when untreated, and it isn't any form of cancer (it isn't even ebola virus - that disease has a mortality rate of just 98%), so the fact that some people have refused chemotherapy and survived cancer is *not* surprising. This fact is not, however, evidence that cancer is cured by prayer and homeopathic concoctions. Use your head.

Will a cancer patient have his life shortened by refusing chemotherapy? Not necessarily. Does that mean that his chances of such a shortened life span aren't significantly greater by such refusal? Not in the least. Anecdotal evidence does not refute this, regardless of how much some would like it to do so.

If you want to try chemo, great, do it. If you don't, you should be allowed to make that decision. We need to be able to make our decisions for ourselves and out children. Freedom of choice.

That's just it, though. The child's mother, in this case, isn't the one with lymphoma, so she's not the patient. If she was to express her disbelief in chemotherapy by refusing it for herself, no one should deny her, in my opinion. The patient, her son, however, is not capable of informed consent, since he cannot read, and is clearly informed of his condition only by what his parents tell him - that the chemotherapy, in effect, has a better chance of killing him than his lymphoma does without such treatment - and this is nonsense.

Colleen Hauser represents her religious conviction that chemotherapy is impure above her son's life. *His* freedom cannot be represented here; it's impossible. The question becomes whether his *parents* have the "freedom" to let him die as a child just because they are incapable of resolving medical science with their spiritual beliefs. Tell me, is that the "freedom of choice" that you're defending here? Would you defend it so strongly if the condition wasn't cancer, and the treatment wasn't chemotherapy? If the boy had pneumonia, and the treatment was penecilin, would you say it was OK for his Christian Scientist parents to refuse treatment, all but ensuring his death at the hands of their conviction that prayer is better? If he had contracted HIV from a blood transfusion, would you let his parents refuse him anti-retroviral medication because, although they had no problem with transfusion that saved their son's life, they happen to believe that AIDS is a plague from their god and that the proper treatment for it isn't medication, but to outlaw homosexuality? At what point do you *finally* say that it isn't right that a child *must* die in order to satisfy his parents' demands on his religious beliefs?

PrimeSoup, you have some good points, but do you really need to insult the other opinion? Call other evidence as anecdotical? According to your own logic the traditional treatment also can be called anecdotical (using your example with chemo, root bear and hopping on one leg and based on your own conclusions). If you believe in traditional medicine that it's going to help you, great! Use it! However if someone else believes in somethings else, that's their choice. Or do you believe that giving someone treatment they don't want to, using force is less abusive that using alternative medicine without force and being happy ? If what they are doing is helping him, let it be. This is not an abuse, abuse is when the kid is unhappy, when the kid has marks left for life (as with your example of rape and the cigar). Now, if the kid was feeling awful and was in so much pain and they did nothing, I can see goverment steping in, that is abuse (we have no evidence of such from the articles. They actually DID bring the kid to the hospital when he felt bad. They obsiously don't want any harm and use both, tradional and alternative medicine).

Krom wrote:

PrimeSoup, you have some good points, but do you really need to insult the other opinion? Call other evidence as anecdotical?

I didn't use the term "anecdotal" to be insulting. I used it because it's an accurate description, given the context. If you have a problem with that, I suggest you consult your nearest dictionary:

According to your own logic the traditional treatment also can be called anecdotical (using your example with chemo, root bear and hopping on one leg and based on your own conclusions).

I've never heard of the phrase "anecdotal treatment," so I'm not sure what you meant by it. I can only suspect, though, that what you actually meant to say in the above passage was this: "Evidence given by a single individual claiming that chemotherapy saved him from his cancer is just as anecdotal as testimony given by a single individual claiming that alternative medicines saved him from his." If that is what you meant, then you were correct. I defy you, however, to point to any place where I claimed otherwise. I also defy you to point to any place where I used any anecdotal evidence in support of my argument. You referred to a specifc piece of my argument in the same context as this claim, but you were mistaken to do so, and the following explanation is why.

The example I gave that described the three different treatments was not evidence of any kind, anecdotal or otherwise, because it did not describe an event that ever took place. I mentioned it as a hypothetical situation, and I indicated this by asking you, the reader, to imagine it in your mind. The point, of course, was to illustrate the use of anecdotal evidence (no matter *what* choice it advocates) in the form of "reductio ad absurdum" (Google that phrase, too, if you don't know what it means: ).

If you believe in traditional medicine that it's going to help you, great! Use it! However if someone else believes in somethings else, that's their choice

I've already addressed this viewpoint. I'm not sure how much clearer I can be a second time, but here we go again; maybe you'll actually read it this time: Such "don't tread on me" sentiment fails to be an effective argument because it does not represent the case in question. I certainly have the right to choose the nature of my own medical care, as you do yours, even if it kills you. You have the right to put your own life at risk in this way. You do not have the right, however, to put *someone else's* life at risk in this way.

This case is about a woman refusing medical treatment on behalf of someone else, and you seem to have confused the rights of one of them with the rights of the other. Part of my argument is that the fact that this third party is her son should not over-ride this principle and give her the right to put *his* life at risk in this way, either through arbitrary medical consent of her own *or* through misleading the boy into thinking that his chances are better without the chemotherapy than with it, thereby causing him to make a *misinformed* medical decision for himself.

Patients have the right to *informed* medical consent, and if the boy understood the consequences of his choice, that would present a different matter, and I would not be voicing the same opinion as that which I have expressed here. This, however, is *not* the case. His parents have misled him on the facts. They have an agenda that does not include their son's best chance at survival. Medical consent - and the withdrawal of it - is meaningless if the information presented is misleading.

Or do you believe that giving someone treatment they don't want to, using force is less abusive that using alternative medicine without force and being happy ?

I believe that giving someone treatment that will save his life when it is clear that he lacks the capability of making an informed choice for himself is *far* less abusive than manipulating him with falsehoods into desiring a treatment that will likely result in a far shorter life, yes.

As for what makes someone happy, well, everyone feels better without chemotherapy - *until,* however, the symptoms of the cancer actually *killing* them get worse than what they'd feel under the chemotherapy. By that time, though, it's too late. If chemotherapy is to work at all, it must be used *before* the illness has gone that far, not after.

If what they are doing is helping him, let it be.

That's a *big* "if," I'm afraid:

"Doctors have said Daniel's cancer had a 90 percent chance of being cured with chemotherapy and radiation. Without those treatments, doctors said his chances of survival are 5 percent." ()

"Authorities believe the mother and son fled Monday after a court-ordered X-ray showed a tumor in Daniel's chest was growing. Doctors have said the tumor will likely kill Daniel without conventional treatment...." ()

I suppose that you'll think that I'm wrong to say this, but for some strange reason, I don't think that letting a tumor kill your son when it can be avoided qualifies as "helping" him - not in the sense that both you and I mean the term, at the least.

This is not an abuse, abuse is when the kid is unhappy, when the kid has marks left for life (as with your example of rape and the cigar). Now, if the kid was feeling awful and was in so much pain and they did nothing, I can see goverment steping in, that is abuse (we have no evidence of such from the articles. They actually DID bring the kid to the hospital when he felt bad. They obsiously don't want any harm and use both, tradional and alternative medicine).

In point of fact, you are wrong on this, and I mean on *all* of it here. I quote these various points all at once, however, because I wish to address them in reverse order:

Your claim that the boy's parents provide him with both chemotherapy as well as alternative medicine - with the implication that it is on an ongoing basis - is factually false. The boy has received only one dose of chemotherapy, after which he refused further treatment because of its side effects. At that point, his parents have provided him with *no* treatment other than the alternative "treatments" that *they* prefer. If the case involved any form of combined treatment, Krom, this case would never have found itself before a judge in the first place. That is a point that *should* be obvious.

Your idea of medical neglect as only withholding treatment when symptoms are severe does not reflect the reality of this case. The boy does not believe that he is ill. If he is not ill, why, then, did he undergo even one dose of chemotherapy in the first place? In point of fact, he *is* ill, and the tentative step into chemotherapy implies that his parents know it, at least to some degree. As I have explained above, chemotherapy must be applied sooner rather than later if it is to work at all, so just because its side effects make the boy feel sicker than he feels without it is *not* evidence that the treatment is excessive. In fact, in his case, if the chemotherapy made him *feel* sicker, that was probably a *good* sign, an indication that the cancer was not advanced to the point where chemotherapy would no longer help.

The boy believes that chemotherapy will kill him, though, that is, that he has a better chance of surviving without chemotherapy than with it. This is medically false, and he certainly didn't get the notion from one of his oncologists. At worst, it's what his parents believe and what they have told him, or at best, his parents don't necessarily share this belief but have sympathized with it and simply done little to nothing to convince him otherwise. In either case, they are perpetuating his medical misinformation, which I *definitely* classify as medical neglect on the same scale as telling a child that condoms don't reduce the chance of pregnancy or of acquiring an STD, that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, or that prayer is better at curing a staph infection than antibiotics. There is no "we" when it comes to having no evidence of medical neglect in this case. It's blatant; you just don't want to see it.

I have seen caregiver abuses toward children with my own eyes, both as a third-party and as a recipient. Neglecting a child's care is just as abustive as mistreating him in more active ways, and I must say that whether or not a physical "mark" is left is a rather immature way of measuring abuse. Are you sure that that is what you meant? Please note that while I was abused in a *very* active sense, there are no scars on my body to reflect this. Does this mean that it never happened, or that what happened wasn't abusive? Rape and cigar burning are only some the most extreme examples of abuse one can give; they are neither exhaustive nor are they even representative of the typical forms of abuse one can see. Medical neglect - and I do believe that I have already demonstrated why that's what this case represents - is just another example on a different level.

If, after all this, you still insist on seeing a physical "mark" before you call it abuse, just wait a few weeks. Once the boy's lymphoma has turned him into a corpse, follow him to Mexico, attend his funeral and look inside the casket. I would hope that what you find inside it at *that* point would be enough of a physical sign to convince you, since, obviously, the x-rays showing the large, malignant mass inside his chest haven't been enough to do so.

Frank-277406 writes in post# 1.2:

NOT TO MENTION IT IS HIS PARENTS RELIGIONIOUS RIGHT TO CHOOSE DIFFERENTLY.

This is the where the problem lies, where people can commit acts of child neglect/abuse and then cry that their religious rights have been violated. No one is claiming that the parents don't have religious rights but let's not be so niave to think that those religious rights extend to their children.

NEWSFLASH: Parents don't own their children! Your children aren't like phucking pets that you can willfully neglect with little or no consequence. Parents have an obligation to see that their children are healthy and educated, at least to the standards set forth by the state. This isn't meant to take power away from the parents, it's meant to help the children become productive members of society that they will eventually join and live in long after their parents are dead and gone.

The idea of religious rights being an excuse for not getting medical care for one's own child is ridiculous. The next thing is we'll have parents claiming that God told them not to get their children immunized.

For all those stupid enough to think that parents are justified in not seeking medical care for their children based on their religious rights, have you ever thought that since God created man, and man's intellect created medicine, that medicine is God given knowledge?

There's one more thing I want to get off my chest about some of the comments I've seen here, along the lines of the hypothetical situation I described earlier (involving the three people treating their respective cancers with either chemotherapy, beet root tea, or hopping on one foot).

I can't help but suspect a level of hypocrisy from some of those who are fanatically defending the parents in this case. If the "religious beliefs" they represented in court entailed, in fact, the belief that hopping on one foot for a month was a better treatment for their son's cancer than chemotherapy, I strongly suspect that many of these same people would be vilifying them with their comments rather than defending them.

Because the beliefs the Hausers have represented involve the preference for "alternative medicine," however, it seems to have been the bait here for drawing out people to defend *that* issue with cries about freedom of choice rather than to defend that freedom itself.

The concept of "freedom of choice" assumes that the choices in question have been adequately represented to the person deciding among the choices in question. The person deciding here is Daniel Hauser, whose own testimony has demonstrated that the choices with which he is faced have not, in fact, been adequately represented to him by his parents. Becauase of this, *EVERY ONE OF YOU* who has been crying out about the trampling of freedom should be admonishing the *Hausers,* not the *judge,* for failing to provide their son with the information he *needs* to make an informed choice!

Because you are not doing this, however, your agenda is quite clear to me, and I hope that, after reading this, it becomes quite clear to others, too. You are not defending freedom of choice. You are using the mantle of freedom of choice to defend the *preference* for "alternative medicine" simply because it is "alternative medicine."

PrimeSoup,

The thing is, you don't know that family, I don't know that family and what was told to that child or was not, you cannot know (as well as I can't know that). A lot of your points are based on speculation and thinking that you know better. In reality, nobody does.... the thing is, there is no right or wrong answer here. There is an answer. Point. For you it's one answer, for me it's another (someone else can come up with a few others). We live in Democracy after all or at least I hope we do . The kid might die from chemo as well. There are risks w/ both treatments. For me this case will become "medical neglect" only when I'll hear that child asking for chemo and not being given one.

I meant both, physical and mental scars.

I don't want to wake up one morning and find out that my rights are no longer mine, that I have to do what the goverment wants me to do only because "it is better for you, because I said so and I have statistics to prove it". In my opinion this is where we are heading. Your opinion is different, and I respect that.

Krom wrote:

The thing is, you don't know that family, I don't know that family and what was told to that child or was not, you cannot know (as well as I can't know that).

Actually, Krom, I can, or rather, I can make an *extremely* educated "guess," if you insist on calling it that, based on the Hausers' own *testimony* in court.

Daniel Hauser doesn't think that he is sick. *He* testified to that; it's not something I'm *imagining* is in his mind. He thinks that chemotherapy will kill him. *He* testified to that, too; it's not words I'm putting into his mouth. Colleen Hauser testified to *her* belief that her son was in no medical danger, despite the fact that his tumor had grown since chemotherapy had stopped.

I haven't made up any of these facts, Krom, and I don't appreciate your implication that I have. Just because you haven't been paying attention to them doesn't mean that they're fictional.

A lot of your points are based on speculation and thinking that you know better. In reality, nobody does.... the thing is, there is no right or wrong answer here. There is an answer. Point. For you it's one answer, for me it's another (someone else can come up with a few others).

Use a little sense, here! It doesn't take Rembrandt to paint this picture. The idea that Daniel is better off without chemotherapy was *not* one presented to him by his oncologists. That much should be obvious, even to you. That leaves two sources of this misinformation: Daniel's parents, or Daniel himself.

My personal suspicion is that Daniel has gotten this cue from his parents, since, as I have described above, they seem to be in about as much denial about his condition as he is. That's the evidence that defends such suspiction. Yes, it is suspicion. No, it does *not* come from thinking that I know better. It comes from looking at Colleen Hauser's own words. For someone who is busy chastising me for wondering too much about what the Hausers think, you sure are assuming a lot about *my* thought process.

Your contention, however, is that Daniel's parents are loving, devoted, and simply excercising their rights to free thought. How you resolve this with your own admission that you don't know anything about them is unknown to me. In any case, what such a premise would mean is that Daniel's conviction that chemotherapy will kill him must be something he came up with himself, presumably, I suppose, from the side effects he felt during the first treatment.

*Even if that is the case* - that is, granting your "benefit of the doubt" approach that completely ignores what the Hausers have themselves said in open court - the *fact* that Daniel *remains* so misinformed after so much time would then indicate that his parents have done little to correct this misinformation, prefering instead to humor the boy in his ignorance of the truth about the treatment in favor of a "treatment" that *will not* save him.

Thus, even in the light that *you* would prefer to view this, the Hausers represent a case of medical neglect. Under *either* assumption, the logic leads to the same conclusion, so the fact that I don't know which assumption is correct with a certainty that would satisfy *you* is irrelevant. I tried to tell you this once already, that even if you're right, you're wrong. I hope I have spelled it out clearly enough this time for you to grasp it now, but such hopes are not high at this point, I must admit.

We live in Democracy after all or at least I hope we do .

Is that another assumption I see? I have no idea where you live. If by "we," you mean America, however, then your sentiment is wrong.

America is not an unlimited democracy, but a limited one. When one lives there, his freedom of speech does not include the right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre just to make people panic needlessly. He'll be locked up for it, and the first amendment will not help him.

His right to assembly does not include joining in with mob violence and disorder. He will be locked up for that, too, and the first amendment will not help him.

His right to freedom of religion does not include child sacrifice. He will be locked up for that, and the first amendment will help him *least of all* in this.

The Hausers have every right to *believe* that chemotherapy will not help their son. The moment that they *act* on this belief such that they put his life in danger, which is what they did by helping him refuse treatment, they committed an abuse of this right. The reasoning that concludes this is the *same* reasoning that concludes medical neglect in the case of a Christian Scientist refusing to take his sick child to a doctor for even the most common ailment.

The kid might die from chemo as well. There are risks w/ both treatments. For me this case will become "medical neglect" only when I'll hear that child asking for chemo and not being given one.

I've never implied that chemotherapy was riskless, Krom. In fact, I've said otherwise many times. I guess you didn't pay attention to that, either. What I've *also* said many times, if you happened to catch it, was that "risk" in this case is comparative. There is a BETTER prognosis for Daniel *with* chemotherapy than without it - not a CERTAIN prognosis; just a BETTER one.

The belief that the chemotherapy *will* kill Daniel - with certainty - however, is false, and this is what Daniel himself believes. He does not understand the actual risks of the treatment, and that makes his consent *uninformed.* Because he is a minor and obviously does not understand the facts, what he *asks for* should be regarded cautiously, which his parents are *not* willing to do. Your criteria for the stage when you would admit the presence of medical neglect *does not* account for the facts of this case. I've tried to tell you that already, as well.

I meant both, physical and mental scars.

I gathered that when I read it, Krom. My point remains the same: If you want to see the "mark" being left by the abuse in this case, just look at the x-rays.

I don't want to wake up one morning and find out that my rights are no longer mine, that I have to do what the goverment wants me to do only because "it is better for you, because I said so and I have statistics to prove it". In my opinion this is where we are heading. Your opinion is different, and I respect that.

No, you don't respect my opinion, because it's clear to me that you haven't even read what I've written. You can't respect something that you don't even understand.

This case doesn't represent the government arbitrarily taking over the medical care of a competent adult such as your paranoia-laden passage described. The patient is a minor. He doesn't know what's really going on or what will really happen to him, and it doesn't take a statistical study to see that. The essence of his parents' attitude is that they want to sacrifice him - not in the name of God, but in the name of folk remedies and spiritual healing. Child sacrifice in the name of religion is illegal, even in America. The freedom to worship does not extend *that* far. It's as simple as that. Your paranoid worries have *nothing* to do with the case at hand. All they represent is a situation that *is not present* here. It's a straw man, and I refuse to take the bait by attacking it.

PrimeSoup:

I will tell you only one thing: People who know little are usually great talkers, while men who know much say little.

At this point I think it's useless to continue a discussion.

My recent attempts to discuss the medical issues were a complete waste of time. The question comes down to one issue. Do the child's rights at least have parity with the parents rights? If they do then the parents cannot deny, nor interfere with, medical treatment of Daniel. If Daniel says I don't want chemotherapy then we have separate debatebale issue.

If I had been 13 with cancer and my parents said we don't agree with the doctor, I would have told them to take a hike.

Krom wrote:

I will tell you only one thing: People who know little are usually great talkers, while men who know much say little.

By that logic, Krom, you are arguing that Aristotle, Plato, Cicero, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington knew little, since they were great talkers, while Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, John Stuart Mill, Alfred Marhsall, and John Maynard Keynes didn't know much, since they said a lot. When men say little, you have no idea whether they know much or not, Krom. Thankfully, the men I just mentioned broke your retro-active mould.

Allow me to draw a counter-relationship: Men who don't know much *read* little. Maybe this conversation would have gone better for you if you had actually taken the time to read the background articles *and* what I had said before you gave your knee-jerk reactions. The fact that you didn't - and thus didn't have much to say except to repeat yourself over and over - *hardly* demonstrates that you "know much."

At this point I think it's useless to continue a discussion.

I couldn't agree more. You keep repeating the same objections, and I keep repeating my rebuttals. That's all that is happening here.

Bill-Weeks wrote:

My recent attempts to discuss the medical issues were a complete waste of time. The question comes down to one issue. Do the child's rights at least have parity with the parents rights? If they do then the parents cannot deny, nor interfere with, medical treatment of Daniel. If Daniel says I don't want chemotherapy then we have separate debatebale issue.

That's exactly what Daniel has said, though, which means that the supercession of parental rights over child rights is not the only issue to consider; informed medical consent also becomes important.

Assuming that Daniel's right to informed medical consent is equal with that of his parents' (which, legally, is not the case, but let's humor the hypothetical), the consideration is to Daniel's reaction. Daniel exercised his refusal to give medical consent the moment he refused chemotherapy, *but was it an informed decision?* So far, I have argued here that it was not. Judge Rodenberg has, in effect, argued the same thing (among others) with his ruling.

Assuming that Daniel's right to informed medical consent is *not* equal with that of his parents' (which, legally, *is* the case), the consideration is to his parents' reaction. They have agreed with Daniel's refusal to give medical consent, *but was that decision any more informed than Daniel's?* I see evidence that it was not; as I have mentioned, they seem to be in as much denial about Daniel's condition as Daniel himself.

Rodenberg feels - as do I - that it is the responsibility of Daniel's parents to represent his interests properly. To me, that means gathering the relevant medical information necessary to make an *informed* choice, which Daniel himself seems incapable of doing. It *doesn't* mean ignoring the malignant mass in their son's chest as a direct threat to his health, which the Hausers seem to have chosen to do instead. The result, in this case, is medical neglect.

Parents who blindly follow government medical decisions and the cut and drug medical fraternity are the ones to be labeled ignorant and acting like cult sheep. How many Dr.'s do you suppose choose Chemo to treat their own cancers?

"Informed:" How about all of them. Chemotherapy is a proven therapy for saving lives. Denying your child access to effective medical treatments is akin to child abuse, and if a child dies because of that neglect, it should be treated as murder. There have been cases of children dying of diabetes when it could have been treated, because parents refuse medical treatment, or blood transfusions that could have saved them were not performed because of archaic religious beliefs. The kid is too young to understand the ramifications of such a decsion, and the parents are in effect, killing their children. Before the disease really starts deteriorating the person, they pray and say "god will save him" and when they die, its "it was gods plan for them to die." But when modern medecine is used to intervene and save lives, you often don't hear "thank goodness for modern science, the medicine it provides, and the doctors who worked very hard to save my child" its "god performed a miracle and saved my child." Bunch of hypocrites.

When my daughter was about 5 she broke a bone in her foot. I made sure she kept it elevated. I wrapped it up and kept it wrapped and such for 5-6 weeks. The foot healed and she was fine. I didn't have insurance or $2000 to spend to fix it. Am I a bad parent? No. Parents who choose alternatives are not necessarily bad parents.

There are other viable alternatives to chemotherapy, depending on the cancer, but too few doctors even consider them. Plus, the Constitution guarantees us religious freedom, and as the family says their religion prefers the alternatives, it is within their religious rights to refuse treatments, just as Christian Scientists often do.

Gregovivch - a bone will heal itself if properly alligned and bound for long enough, but we're talking about life and death deciocions here.

CY - Christian Scientists have been prosecuted for child abuse for refusing treatments that could have cured common ailments, but can be fatal if left untreated. Practicing religion is one thing, providing adequate medical care is another. Religious freedom isn't blanket immunity to do anything you want that is harmful to other people, especially children.

First of all Government is NOT allowed to be opressive by the constitution. 2nd the family has the RIGHT to choose the treatment method. I live within 20 miles of where this is happening and the family is treating their son and they have not ruled out chemo but want to give something else a chance.

Government DOES NOT have the right to MAKE you take a treatment. We do not yet live in a police state but those that want to allow government and the judicial system illegally take our rights away deserve what they get, a prison state with no real rights. Farra Fawcett was not forced to take Chemo nor are other adults and adults ALONG WITH the child are trying to treat this the way they want and to give something else a try. How many people have been given a few months to live by their doctor and go to the right place and are alive decades later because of treatments that most hospitals do not have. This is a rural area hours away from any major city.

Those who say that the family does not have the right to seek the treatment that they want should just go to communist russia during the cold war cause that is what they are saying they want the USA to be. Plus I have met few kids this age that if they wanted to do something would not just go and do it even if mom and dad did not want them to. This kid has had several chances to change what treatment he is getting. These doctors and judges should be thrown in jail for the mental and physical torture they have forced on this family and this kid. If this was a dog being treated this way those people would be thrown into jail and fined.

First of all Government is NOT allowed to be opressive by the constitution. 2nd the family has the RIGHT to choose the treatment method. I live within 20 miles of where this is happening and the family is treating their son and they have not ruled out chemo but want to give something else a chance.

Government DOES NOT have the right to MAKE you take a treatment. We do not yet live in a police state but those that want to allow government and the judicial system illegally take our rights away deserve what they get, a prison state with no real rights. Farra Fawcett was not forced to take Chemo nor are other adults and adults ALONG WITH the child are trying to treat this the way they want and to give something else a try. How many people have been given a few months to live by their doctor and go to the right place and are alive decades later because of treatments that most hospitals do not have. This is a rural area hours away from any major city.

Those who say that the family does not have the right to seek the treatment that they want should just go to communist russia during the cold war cause that is what they are saying they want the USA to be. Plus I have met few kids this age that if they wanted to do something would not just go and do it even if mom and dad did not want them to. This kid has had several chances to change what treatment he is getting. These doctors and judges should be thrown in jail for the mental and physical torture they have forced on this family and this kid. If this was a dog being treated this way those people would be thrown into jail and fined.

CY - Christian Scientists have been prosecuted for child abuse for refusing treatments that could have cured common ailments, but can be fatal if left untreated

Just because they've been prosecuted doesn't mean it's right to do so.

The parents have chosen a treatment regimen for their son. Whether it works or not, whether we like it or not, it is not for us or any court to step in and override the parents' decisions, if for no other reason than if they start here, where do the courts stop telling us how to raise our kids?

The Constitution states you have Freedom of Religion. If you don't believe in man-made medicine, you shouldn't be forced to use it. Which also means families should have a right to use the study of homeopathy.

The other side of the coin is, if the parents are incapable of sound decisions, then someone has to step in for the child's well-being.

Religious freedom isn't blanket immunity to do anything you want that is harmful to other people, especially children.

Your quite right, it is not, however this is not about doing anything to anyone, this is about NOT doing something. This is the government directly telling a parent that they MUST make a particular decision regarding the Religious beliefs of them and their child based on the test of Science. No one is saying that  these parents are abusing thier child, they are saying that thier refusal to follow modern MD's advice is abuse, and frankly that is an unacceptable intrusion into the family unit by the State. Further this child is 13, well above the age of reason, his opinion should be concidered in this matter. If this was 13 year old girl, she could get an abortion without even notifying her parents, why can a 13 year old boy refuse to have toxic chemicals pumped in him? 

This kind of thing is happening more and more, and frankly I wich some of these fathers would grow a pair. If I make a medical decision for my son and CPS comes to overrule that decision and take him.... they are leaving in  body bag. The Founders would be disgusted by what we have allowed our country to become.

This is a tough one, and I sat and thought about my answer for a while before deciding that the ultimate decisions lie with the parents. They may be tragically wrong and they may lose their child, but the government should not force treatments on people.

I am glad they have health insurance!

"Oddity". Right or wrong, people have the "right" to their beliefs. And when the courts come to trample yours when they are no long either in line with the global disorder or become "inconvenient", then what? From what I'm learning about the ins and outs of the law, no matter how "good" their intent is, the judge is out of line & needs reprimanded. And CPS is out of line as well as this does not appear be a case of abuse, but of who deems what is "right" for the child. But right by who's opinion?

Also, you seem to be an authority on what's right and wrong when it comes to "medicine". Heck, you might even be a doctor, or maybe even a drug peddler! If it's based on either belief or a mere one or two thousand years of use, it must be the work of charlatans or alchemists, right? Maybe even the devil had something to do with it! It's far more convenient to cut, burn and poison, isn't it? Oh! I'm sorry, use surgery, radiation and chemotherapy/drugs, which have only really been around for what, around a hundred years or so, and have a myriad of side effects. Some more vile than what's being treated! Realize this. ALL drugs are poisons. Their benefit depends on the dosage... Just take a look at all of the drugs on the market today.

If treatment fails as a course for someone using traditional, natural methods, it's usually considered murder and fraud. And dammit! We gotta prosecute! If treatment fails as a course of someone using conventional medicine, drugs and the like, it's swept under the rug as a statistic, or worse yet, the patient gets blamed for either not having a resilient enough constitution or strong enough will to live.

My father died of a very fast cancer almost 20 years ago. I saw what he went through. People have the right to live and die with their dignity and beliefs intact, and their choices respected. And no GD court should have the ability to force the issue. Opinions are like arse-holes, and this judge's is quite "unclean". So unless you've walked a mile in my moccasins, or the family in this article, Blank-off! (Note: I am of the bloodline, so no racial BS.)

The above is not meant as an argument, but as information to be used by all. No rebuttal will be made.

I think too many people are missing the point. The treatment "could" save the boys' life. There are no guarantees in could. Keyword folks: Could, not will. There's a difference and I think if the parents want to try alternatives, then it should damn well be within their rights to do so. I know a couple of people that had chemo and still didn't last much longer after being treated for months.

Oddity,

There are thousands of kids without insurance. Why not FORCE them to all get treatment too??? Because it would break the system.

This child perhaps has insurance? I don't know, the article didn't specify. But whether he does or does not the issue remains about choices. If this family can be FORCED to receive medical treatment they do not believe in or don't want then the rest of the population had better also receive ALL THE TREATMENT THEY NEED AS WELL.

What? Poor people are supposed to wander off and die quietly. This child and story are becomming a pivot point. But keep the big issue in sight -

CAN WE BE COMPELLED TO TAKE MEDICAL TREATMENT?

Think about old folks getting medicare who don't want treatment. Their rights are removed because they might exhibit forgetfulness and other 'symptoms' of loss of mental decision making power.

As long as the BIG pool of medicare dough is there for them to dive into the treatment will continue. As for poor old folks??? No treatment because it would break the system. There's no big money pool to dive into.

Why does our government and court system have infinite control over our lives? The decisions they make are completely random when it comes to what "rights" we have as parents. The child in this story is forced to undergo poison treatments while other children are allowed to roam through society with no immunizations protecting them. What makes our nations law makers, judges, lawyers, and politicians better informed on the care of our children than the parents. These people did not enter into their decision lightly. It is safe to assume that they weighed the options for what they felt best served THEIR CHILD. To have some self serving politician come along and take away what little rights these people have is unacceptable. The medical community is not without fault here either. Our entire medical system is a money making machine that would much rather pump a 13 year old developing body full of poison causing major negative side effects than to admit there may be a less intrusive and less harmful treatment. In my years of parenting there have come times when there have been attempts to bully me into conforming. I always chose what is best for my child. We need to take some control back into our hands before our children are taken at birth and shipped to a state child development agency.

Why are they ignorant? Because they do not agree with the money making medical community that is insisting their child be forced to have poison shot into his veins? There is simply not enough money to be made in safe, comfortable treatments. Noone has a prommise of this child, or anyone, living beyond this moment. Simply looking for alternatives in the face of this devistating diagnosis is not ignorant but rather insightful.

Anyone who's had a 13 year old knows that is NOT the "age of reason". He is a child and is sick and should be offered the best treatments available that are KNOWN TO WORK.

Subscribing to some hairbrained religion doesn't mean it's ok to experiment on a child's life trying to prove your religion is viable. That IS abuse, treating this poor kid like a lab rat just so they can feed their ego's.

Religous freedom doesn't mean it's ok to break laws. Mormons can't practice polygamy, Rastafarians can't smoke weed, Satanists can't practice human sacrifice, Sikhs can't carry ceremonial knives everywhere, there are many places where religious beliefs and laws conflict and the law wins because it is supposed to be neutrally ensuring the safety of all.

Government is already intimately involved in family life and child rearing, haven't you noticed? Laws about child abuse, child labor, school attendance, immunizations, car seats, etc. All of those laws were considered necessary to protect children and give them the best start possible. If parents are going to opt for unproven, untested, and quite likely completely bogus "treatments" for fatal but already treatable diseases then I guess we need laws to protect these poor kids from their parent's stupidity and willingness to gamble with their child's LIFE.

The parents have the freedom to practice whatever stupid religion they want. That doesn't give them the right to risk the life of their child. When the boy is an adult he can make those decisions for himself, but until then, his parents religion shouldn't be the reason he never reaches adulthood.

If you allow this couple of nit wits to murder their child, where does that stop? If some insane cult leader tells his flock to give their kids draino to cure colds, is that protected by religious freedom?

If adults want to kill themselves off willingly for their religion...let them. Protect the kids.

I believe you have things flipped.  It's the "lay people" who are the sheep.  Those who actually understand that God (or "Mother Nature" if you don't believe in God) provided us with all the things we need on Earth.  We, as humans, have somehow screwed everything up. 

I have personally met and heard of many people who have cured "incurable" cancer using holistic methods.  If doctors would get back to basics and teach people fundamental principles, lilke how to eat properly, we wouldn't have all the sickness and disease we do today. 

By the way, the drugs (chemo in this case) NEVER cure the disease.  But, good food, love, and removing toxins from your environment can.  What this does is let your "immune system" actually function like it's supposed to.  Pretty simple, actually.

That is not true. You need to read Ralph Moss's book on the subject. The truth is, chemo does NOT save lives. This is NOT about religion. The parents tried that as a last ditch effort. The child believes chemo will kill him, and mark my words, IT WILL. You are all unfortunately very ignorant on the subject. I have been an RN for over 35 years. I would NEVER have chemo. This is barbarianism at its worst. I'm so sad for that child and his family.

"NotKidding" You have just shown who is truly ignorant...

People have been using holistic, homeopath and alopathic traditional remedies for thousands of years... THAT WORK! You've just been indoctrinated with the falsehood that western conventional medicine is always the only way to go. And keep in mind that our college educated "doctors" are PRACTICING medicine.

I'm sorry, but you must have forgotten about last year when the feds, infringed on the rights of the Mormons in Texas, that were, in fact, practicing polygamy. If it's such a crime, why were they all eventually released with no charges? Note: I'm neither a Mormon nor support any "religion". Rastafarian's do. Some Satanist's do. Sikh's... Are you 100% sure? Or are you just another sorry, self-righteous know-it-all?

And believe it or not, most of the laws mentioned are either directed at non-parental figures or are unconstitutional. Ask any family farmer about so-called child labor laws. And with all of the formaldehyde and mercury in the vaccines today, I can't say that I blame them for avoiding the inoculations. As stated earlier, this does not appear be a case of abuse, but of who deems what is "right" for the child. But "right" by who's opinion? And I bet you didn't have a child safety seat when you were a child, did you?

Around five to six hundred years ago, people started coming to this land to both avoid persecution for their beliefs and to practice them in peace. Last I checked this was a Republic, not a Democracy, (try saying the Pledge of Allegiance). You do what YOU feel is right for you and yours. They can do what THEY feel is right for them and theirs. I'll do the same for mine. Otherwise, shut up or go back to where you came from!

The balance is not addressed as it looks to be nothing more than an opinionated, childish rant...

The above is not meant as an argument, but as information to be used by all. No rebuttal will be made.

"Reformed Nurse" -- AMEN!!!

Notice how it's the uninformed that are siding with the "state", i.e. - big-brother.

0ddity: Question for you, what if the child dies(I hope that it's not the case) BECAUSE of chemo? According to your logic, the doctors are going to be murderes in that case. Should they be sued then? If there is an alternative to "traditional" treatment and it works, why not use it? We have a small little pain we take tylenol (or whatever brand you prefer) then we surprised why so many of us have allergies, we get sick easily, and "strong drugs just don't work for me anymore". We so used to rely on some "miracle drug to save us" that we don't use our immune system. It is there for you, if you use it. However if you do not... But it's YOUR choice....and this is THEIR choice.....that's why we call it DEMOCRACY.... not DICTATORSHIP......

Anyone who's had a 13 year old knows that is NOT the "age of reason". He is a child and is sick and should be offered the best treatments available that are KNOWN TO WORK

Well My children have not yet reached 13, but I have been teaching in middle school for 8 years, I have taught hundreds, if not thousands of 13 year olds and yes, they have definantly reached the Age of Reason. When they make a choice they almost always know exactly what they are doing; they are aware of the potential concequences and make their choice. Just because they often make choices that adults don't like does not make them unreasonable.

Krom - if he dies as a result of the chemo, he still had a 90% chance of living, without it, he only had 5-10%. That's an acceptable risk factor.

Nick- No, they're not. We don't let 13 year olds vote, drink, smoke, we make all their legal and medical decisions for them, and even someone as young as 15 years old having sex with a 13 years old consensually is considered rape. This kid doesn't even think he is sick, he is most definitely not making an informed decision.

And for all you wacko's (yes wackos) talking about "homeopathic" etc medicine "being used for thousands of years." Even if that were true (which its not, homeopathy was invented in the 19th century) old doesn't mean effective. It means it was used before anyone had a proper understanding of how the body works. Giving people, in effect, water, to cure cancer, is not effective. And for the anti-drug people railing against the drugs and talking about toxins and crap, get over yourselves. Disease has ALWAYS been with humans, its just now instead of killing large swaths of the population (think bubonic plague) it is managable and serious diseases have a much lower death toll, infant deaths are much lower, and the standard of living is way higher, thanks to modern medicine and the so called evil drugs. As for whoever said something about us having so many allergies because of drugs, we should just let our immune systems handle them, you show your own ignorance. An allergic reaction is caused BY your immune system, attacking foreign bodies it deems to be an invader, even if it is harmless. Yes, drugs are poison. They have side affects. Sometimes, when not used as prescribed, or abused, they cause deaths. But people use them because the therapeutic benefits outweigh the risks and sometimes uncomfortable side affects.

What If the child dies? Regardless of what "choice" this child is given he is going to die. Since our elected babysitters have chosen for him to begin poison injections he will die a painful and sad death. So, what then? As a believer in Christ I do not personally view death in a negative light, no I do not oppose all medical treatment and recommend that we live as we were created. Other faiths hold death to be a positive outcome to the human condition as well. Experience tells me that if an individual is strong in their convictions on life then death is not the "worst possible outcome." Would I allow my child to make this decision at the age of 13? Don't know. No one can answer that until they have experienced this dilemma. Not that people should be allowed to run around removing each other from this world. But why is death put in such a terrible light?

Firt, the formaulation of the only two answers is deplorable! It completely ignores the third course, that of seeking other competent medical advice. I think we can all relate to "Over Diagnosis" on the part of many in the Profession in this age of Insurance Reimbursement, Government Payments and the like.

That said, if there is help/hope for effective treatment and not just padding the bill on the back of a dying patient, then this patient should receive it, and now. On the other hand, the state of treatment for these type of illnesses is not complete and alternatives might prove at least, if not more beneficial than many commonly accepted therapies.

I come down to the third answer which, while not offered by the biased morons who put this Poll together is "Parents should exercise reasonable power of decision in the treatment of their children and, where there is any dispute, competent Third Party opinions should be brought in". Period!

0ddity: so according to you, if he dies using traditional medicine that is acceptable, however if he dies using alternative medicine that is a murder. Nice logic there. Calling other people "wackos" only because they are not in the same opinion as you, only shows that you are intolerable of other people opinions. It's a pity to see that in a democratic, or should I say "democratic", society.

Having known at least a dozen people who have had cancer, gone through chemotherapy and are now cancer-free, I cannot disagree more with people who say that chemotherapy is a bad thing and should never be done. I thank God above that my friends made the decision to treat their cancer, thereby saving their own lives. I thank God above that we have made so many advances in the medical world that we can save lives!

As an adult, it is your right to die however you want. As a 13 year old with a TREATABLE disease, where chemotherapy worked to shrink the tumor the first time around, I agree with forcing him to do it, because I do not believe his parents are making a sound and educated medical decision that is in the best interest of their child.

I won't comment on their religious beliefs, but I will say that beliefs aside, this is a simple case of "if it can be fixed, it should be." Why should it possibly be ok to allow a child to die a brutal death if chemotherapy can cure them? I've been 13, and while I was a smart kid, I was in no emotional place to decide my future, and thank heavens my mother was smart enough to not even think about letting me make any serious and life-changing decisions at 13.

With that said, I also believe in natural selection. So if people choose to commit suicide instead of getting treatment, then that's one less stupid person I need to worry about down the road. I don't say that to be cruel or denigrating, though I know it comes off that way, but it's just my personal opinion. Because yes, I PERSONALLY do believe that if someone has a cancer that has been proven to be 90% curable, and chooses to not treat it, then I believe that person has made a stupid decision. Personal opinion and I won't defend it or argue it, just as I don't expect anyone else to defend or argue theirs. *shrug*

Why does 'somebody' have to step in. If people want to kill themselves or their kids through neglect, they'll find a way. Hey, how about parents that teach their kids about radical Islam and that killing others and yourself will get you a free pass to heaven? Shouldn't the government 'save' those kids too? Where does it stop, saying the government knows what's best, the parents are dumber than snails, and the kids should be taken away and the parents should be sterilized to protect society at large. THINK about the big picture here, not just any one case.

Agreed. Some parents are simply not competant to make logical decisions for themselves let alone their own children. My father died from this disease when he was 23 years old. He would gladly have taken any treatment he could have gotten to try and live to see his children (my brother(2yrs) and myself (3yrs)) grow up. Unfortunately the choice was not available for him. He died before there was chemotherapy. Why anyone would deprive their child of the chance to grow up is beside me. Let the government decide until he is an adult.

the parents DID make a decision..

Here is a twist... a 13 yr old pregnant girl wants to keep her baby but her parents want the abortion or visa versa... should the government step in and make the decision or should it be the girls decision??

Should a 13 yr old be able to decide for her self?? It is the same thing, this 13 yr old boy wants no treatment..

The government should stay away from this

Chemotherapy often KILLS the person undergoing treatment. The medical side effects of many drugs and treatments are so dangerous that they cause other organ damage and death. People need to be in charge of their own medical treatment, and parents need to decide what is best for their children.

Do parents get "in trouble" when they give their kids permission to ride motorcycles or to sky dive when they are in their early teens? Same thing.

The only thing that really BELONGS to a person is their body/mind. NO ONE else should have control over the most private of all things.

Then for all you yes people and God Bashers what is your reasoning for supporting abortion??? Answer that you fricken hypocrits!!! Or just shut the hell up!!! You say you believe in God but do you really??? Do you really believe that Jesus Died for your sins??? Or are you just so unsure of what you believe that you make these senseless accusations.... You had better be sure of what you believe!!! It is a spiritual death that really matters and not a worldy one...

I can speak from actual experience - even with all the Chemo and Radiation treatments, there will always be the chance that the patient will still not survive - both of my parents had raditaion and chemo treatments for their cancers and still died...  When you can point to a 100% success rate with your treatment - then make it required, until then let the patients decide what is best for themselves.

Silly fundamentalist christians. Come out of the dark ages. Believing in a dead hippie who starved himself in the desert, hallucinated and proclaimed himself the son of god makes you an idiot. Why not worship Zuess? or Elvis for that matter? You have no idea what Jesus died for as you were not present at the time and thus not privy to the reasons why he died. You believe the psychobabble of a book that has been revised thousands of times over with barely an accurate translation of it's many original dialects, revised by other human beings claiming said human interpretation is the word of god. Absurd!! Does that mean if I translated the bible I too could say it was the word of god? The ego it takes to believe, within the vastness of all there is, divine providence is specifically concerned with you amongst the 6.5 or so, billions of people on Earth, is staggering. Come on into the 21st century. Just think, you could make a time machine and go back into time and stone somebody to death for saying "Jehovah" Or maybe you already do.

After 2 years of chemo and radiation on my 3 year old, the Doctors told us he had relapsed for the third time. We loaded our over-drugged child up, and went home to wait for death. To him it was wonderful. "No more owies Mommy!" We were actually relieved not to go thru the hospital-hell anymore. We enjoyed him for 3 months and then made him comfortable in a home enviroment.

I say if a teenager does not want to go thru the traditional western medical treatment by the doctors, their protocals, studies, and experimental programs, do not force him. We all have our free-agency.

Dignity and spirituality are not anything Insurance Companies and Doctors care to address...and surly a Judge ordering treatment for a child is not aware of these important human coping tools that are tied to personal belief systems, family and the heartstrings of home....these needs don't pay thier bills, and can only be provided by loved ones. Enough said.

It will be interesting to see what people say when this child dies and had a 90 percent chance of survival with conventional treatment. They probably think parents can decide if a child should be beaten, killed, or sexually indoctrinated by their parents as well. I'd love to see the 13-year-old who goes against his mother on an issue like this and says, yes, mom, I want the chemo.

My wife and I made a conscious and educated decision for the birth of our son without the presence of a doctor. He also has no more than a tetanus shot, and is a happy, healthy 10 year old, attending public school in Texas. Thanks to the legislature and Gov. Perry for preserving our FAMILY rights.

One state over from MN a week or two ago, in a similar claim a family denied medical intervention due to faith in a church that denies medical intervention.  Their eleven year old daughter died due to a juvenile diabetes complication that could have been easily treated (with risk of course, since all things carry risk).  

Apparently in a good percentage of the population, these parents had every right to refuse things they abhor like modern/western medicine on behalf of their child.  Though some will say that insulin is far more tested and proven then more modern treatments... so the comparison is mute.  But if a person doesn't trust the medical community that is doing the research and drug and treatment trials; no amount of proof will ever convince them otherwise.  So all people should be free to inadvertently heal or harm their offspring in any manner they see fit.  We must trust in the individual's right to chose on their own behalf, no matter how barbaric, arcane or inhuman it may seem to the rest of the population.

I wonder how many of you who cry "religious freedom" or accuse government intervention of always being bad would be making the same claims if, in the name of child rearing, these parents beat their child to death, or starved their child to death believing that they were doing the right thing. A dead child, whether bloodied and defeated at the hands of their parents or dead due to neglect in caring and treating disease that is otherwise treatable, is still dead. I'd like to hear how many of you believe the parents have an absolute right to beat their child to death, for whatever reason. So many of you argue that the parents have a right to do whatever it is they feel is right -- if beating their child to death is something they believe strongly in, you believe that they should be allowed to do that?

I wonder.

There seems to be a lot of anger directed at the medical field here today. Many seem to think that doctors and the pharmaceutical industry have formed an evil conspiracy to force poisonous medications that don't work into people just to line their pockets. And as I doctor, I can tell you that that is absolutely not true. Moreover, it's highly offensive to me and the other thousands of people who went through four years of college, four years of medical school (with the accompanying debt, usually $100-150,000 by the end), 3+ years of residency, and possibly a fellowship after that .... to help people! Yes, that's my evil motivation, and the evil motivation of most of the doctors that I know - we want to help people.

We promote the use of chemotherapy in many cancers because these drugs work. They're extremely unpleasant, but if they allow you to survive for 10+ years versus the two months you would otherwise, I think unpleasantness is something that I personally would put up with. And if you are an adult and choose otherwise, that's your right - I would, as your doctor, try to change your mind, but I would respect your decision. If you were the adult parents of my pediatric patient, though, I would have a very hard time letting it go - not because I'm greedy and want to be paid more, but because I would feel that you were killing your child, and I couldn't live with myself if I stood by and did nothing.

Some people have also claimed that chemotherapy kills people. Some, but certainly not all, of chemotherapy drugs, have potentially lethal side effects, but these occur in far less than 1 out of 1000 of the people who take these drugs - otherwise, the FDA would never have approved their use. (And for those who think the FDA just rubberstamps the pharmaceutical industry's new toys ... you've obviously never had to deal with the FDA! If aspirin were a new drug instead of one that's been available OTC for years, I doubt the FDA would approve it!) The vast majority of people who take chemo and die anyway (>99.99%) die from their cancer (or other unrelated conditions), not the chemo.

I wouldn't recommend chemo for all cancers, though. In glioblastoma (a very aggressive brain cancer), even the best chemo regimens are only proven to extend life by 1-2 months. Hopefully that will change one day, but right now, a glioblastoma diagnosis is a death sentence. When my father was diagnosed with glioblastoma, we put him into hospice care, where he would receive meds to control his pain but no chemo. We didn't want to put him through all of the side effects of chemo just to spend another month with him. And I'm still glad that we made that decision.

Now, onto the topic of alternative medicine. It was true that traditional Western medicine has historically had very little tolerance for the idea of alternative medicine, but that's changing. There is now a National Institute of Complimentary and Alternative Medicine set up within the NIH to scientifically evaluate many of these traditional medicines. Most doctors have absolutely no problem with patients using alternative medicines that work, and many will in fact recommend them - things like St. John's wort for mild depression, or acupuncture for chronic pain relief. We just like to have scientific evidence that they work before we tell patients to take them.

The problem with many alternative medicines (AM) is that there is either evidence that they don't work, or no evidence that they do work. If someone has a cold and takes an AM treatment, they may think the AM treatment helped cure the cold faster, but you can't know for sure. And just because something is "natural" doesn't mean that it's effective or safe - belladonna is a natural plant, but I wouldn't recommend anyone trying to eat that.

All of that being said, in this specific case, I don't know that there is a right answer. Forcing therapy on a 13-year-old against his wishes is horrible; so is letting him die from something that we could have cured.

: "Some people have also claimed that chemotherapy kills people. Some, but certainly not all, of chemotherapy drugs, have potentially lethal side effects, but these occur in far less than 1 out of 1000 of the people who take these drugs - otherwise, the FDA would never have approved their use."

Doctor, I cannot believe that you have ever taken the time to examine an actual study, rather than just reading the final tally. Within the parameters of the study, chemotherapy is not DIRECTLY lethal. But, there can be no reasonable doubt that chemotherapy is THE MAIN CONTRIBUTING FACTOR in death in many cases (although perhaps not directly lethal).

Otherwise, a good post, but your assertion above about lethality without providing context is foolish, and largely discredits your good points. Your ignorance on that particular point is shocking.

Doctor, I cannot believe that you have ever taken the time to examine an actual study, rather than just reading the final tally. Within the parameters of the study, chemotherapy is not DIRECTLY lethal. But, there can be no reasonable doubt that chemotherapy is THE MAIN CONTRIBUTING FACTOR in death in many cases (although perhaps not directly lethal).

Chemotherapy-Induced Changes to Cognition and DNA in Breast Cancer ...

Some research has shown that chemotherapy can cause changes in cognition in breast cancer survivors. However, it is not clear why this change occurs.

The FDA approved this? Based on what?

At what point, then, is true child neglect? If a family doesn't have insurance, and their child gets the flu, but they decide they can't afford a DR visit, and the child dies, could a court prosecute for murder?

This is a tough issue, but I do believe that as individuals, we all have a right to make decisions regarding our own health care, and parents should be able to make decisions about their own children.

I would hate to be the judge in this case.

Sooo when my cancer comes back and i have no insurance, will a judge order the medical community to give me free treatments if I want them. I bet they won't care. I make good money but not enough to pay for treatment out of my pocket, and I make enough money that I don't qualify for assistance. So in my opinion if a judge is gonna step in and order treatment for a child whose family doesn't want it, then they better jump in and order treatment for a person who has no extra resources or insurance to pay for it. Until then gov't needs to stay out of personal decisions.

Brilliant! Let's have the government take away our rights because you feel chemo is the only way to treat cancer and chemo can't even cure cancer haha. The medical field is a joke. After billions and billions of dollars in cancer research the best they can come up with is bringing the person close to death with radiation and hope that the cancer dies first.

You people that follow the medical field blindly are the exact same as cult sheep. You're following the high presits of medician with no question, then to justify your crazy beliefs you attack anything that is different you people are sad. All the while those with natural remedies are curing cancer everyday. Enjoy your cancer medical sheep.

I wonder how many of these "government should let people make their own personal decisions" and against government intrusion support repealing drug prohibition. Its a personal health choice, after all.

the kid cant even identify the word THE sorry you cant make a medical descion for yourselves and if your saying the government has no right and its in the constitution and then saying the government are all a bunch of commies because there has been million of men and women that have sacrificed theyre lifes to keep this country and other countries from reliogus oppression i beileve in god and i am a christain but my aunt was cured of breast cancer and has been cured for 9 years now because she had chemo and even though it is painful i think she perferred that to becoming very ill and having a painful death and if you think that the government and medical companies are too pushy than i dont think you should get social security, i dont think you should be able aquire a loan or anything and i sure as hell dont think you should still be allowed to live in this country that relatives of mine and tons of other peoples relatives died to protect this country and by the way i was able to reduce the bad swelling and inflammation in my knee by taking a med from your big med companies you hate and it healed it it wouldnt have been healed by rubbing daisies on it and drinking mineral water...okay people you didnt spend 8 years of your life and hundreds of thousands of dollars to become a doctor now did you? so how about we leave the medicines and the PROPER and CORRECT and RESPONSIBLE treatments to the people that now what their doing not to people who think their a medical expert because they watch HOUSE

Thank you for your scientifically based, yet totally understandable, comment. Not everyone out here believes that ALL medical professionals are in it only for the money. I'm sure that every life and death situation that you deal with every single day is very taxing on your spirits. I'm not sure how most Doctor's cope with it, because I know I couldn't!! Please continue to HELP people, and realize that the most ignorant people are going to make assumptions that just aren't true. Hopefully they will never need your help....

This is a debate that will rage on forever. As much as I might think these people should get the best treatment for their son, I balk at the notion that the govt should be able to step in and say what they should do. And who is to say that the natural treatment ISN'T the best anyway. It's not like they are standing in a circle chanting and dousing him with voodoo water. They are apparently (the article doesn't give specifics) seeking legitimate "alternative" treatment. And on another note:

Oddity - the last statement in your original post sounds a lot like sour grapes or jealousy, the comment:

"god performed a miracle and saved my child." Bunch of hypocrites.

People who believe in God know His hand IS in everything that happens, whether it is administered by man or not. That is the basis of their faith.

If you think that chemo cures cancer ...your crazy and ill informed. Its torture and people end up being more sick from the chem than from the actual cancer. Infact the majority of people die..not from the cancer but from the infections they get because the chemo has killed every bit of immunity in there body. Big Medicine and Big government want to try and dictate how we choose to treat ourselves. People need to wake up!! Its not the governments place to tell us what to do and make our decisions for us. If this boy refuses who are we to say he has to have chemo. This is why we live in a democracy.

To -

Within the parameters of the study, chemotherapy is not DIRECTLY lethal. But, there can be no reasonable doubt that chemotherapy is THE MAIN CONTRIBUTING FACTOR in death in many cases (although perhaps not directly lethal).

Contrary to your assertions, I read scientific papers and medical studies on a weekly basis at the very least. And yes, chemotherapy can contribute to death through secondary causes such as infections - many chemo drugs weaken the immune system, which then predisposes the host to developing an infection. I still maintain, however, that the incidence of death both directly and indirectly due to chemotherapy is still very low compared to the benefit received from them.

I didn't choose to go into this because it varies from drug to drug and from cancer to cancer (since different dosages may be used to treat different types of cancer). It was already a long post - I didn't feel adding statistics from different cancer types would significantly improve it.

Oddity, Chemo is not proven. This is what are conventional medical doctors study provided by Big Pharms money and text books. This is what they are led to believe is right and the only treatment. When they administer the chemo, they make you sign documents that they are not responsible for side effects or death. How long has chemo been around? Centuries of natural alternative cures or inject our bodies with toxins, you choose. You seem to like Big Government making decisions for you. I suggest you move to a country where you need your hand held and guidance.

I think a lot of people are confusing freedom of choice with the best interests of a minor child.

If this woman is so noble, so righteous, why did she run? She is nothing more than a coward. A coward that hides behind irrational beliefs and cannot justify any of her actions.

Broken bones are potential dangerous. People used to die of simple fractures because toxins were released into their system, sepsis would occur, and they die. Not having insurance is the dumbest excuse I have ever heard. You take your child to the ER. They HAVE to treat her, whether or not your have the money. Just goes to show how naive people support the irrational, and I am glad I am not your child.

So BEFORE chemo and radiation therapy, everone who was diagnosed with CANCER died right?

It is crazy to hear people say that nothing else will work. What did people do BEFORE the guys or gals in the white coat told them what to do?

Get a clue, buy a clue or steal one if you have to! JUST GET ONE!

Rigorous drug trials give use some idea of the efficacy and consequence of a particular drug treatment. I'm confident those supporting the use of "natural remedies" would not hesitate to sue drug a company for not following FDA drug trial procedures.

We know these so called "natural remedies" are not subjected to rigorous testing because we can purchase them legally without prescription. They do not, and in most cases are not, approved by the FDA.

One should make an informed decision about their choice of treatment. Because we are not all scientist with the time and resources to perform rigorous drug trials on every substance we think might help cure a particular ill, we rely on an organizing authority to ensure best practices to determine efficacy and treatment are established, followed, and constantly improved upon.

I see nothing in the background of these parents that should give anyone any confidence in their knowledge and ability to determine this child's treatment for Hodgkin's Lymphoma. On the contrary, I see much to convince use they are unqualified to determine a course of treatment.

The mother introduced her own bias and fear into the treatment of this child's cancer when they shouldn't have. Her actions indicated an overwhelming desire to satisfy their own emotional needs to the detriment of their child.

It was a late night.

B.Brown #2,

If it is you, then it is your choice. When it is someone else, it is their choice !

Please read what curable means. It means they have staved off the cancer and has been cancer free for 5 years. It will return if the chemo doesn't get him first. When it returns then the treatment gets worse. His pain is only beginning and the cure just maybe more then his body can handle and he will die from the cure.

Why are these parents not being rational in your opinion, and the opinion of the court system? Is it because their opinion differs from yours?

ignoforo does not realize that this particular cancer has a very very high CURE rate. Once CURED, it does not come back later as a much worse cancer. Even so, 5 years would make this boy a young man. He could then decide what his own fate should be. Not his ignorant parents.

Not necessarily a 100% guaranteed cure rate.

There is never a 100% cure rate for anything, and I doubt there ever will be. Human bodies are just too complex, and there are too many variables that we can't account for.

Unless the parents have something mentally wrong with them, not just ignorance, they should not be told what to do with their children. What a waste of taxes to have the government encroach on these parents rights, search them out and make sure they do chemo. I agree with many, the parents should do chemo, but it's not my decision. I don't support the government in moving in on family decisions.

Maybe the government should start monitoring if parents allow their kids to become obese. These kids will die from obesity for heavens sake! These parents should be forced to stop buying fatty foods and soft drinks for their kids!

I was going to use a post with the same word you used: Barbaric. Chemo is horrible, and if people want their child to let life take it's natural course, then God be with them. If they choose the chemo, then God be with them also. It's up to the parents.

This isn't the same as a child with a strangulated hernia that can be fixed with a simple outpatient surgery. This is a big long-term commitment to a painful and dibilitating process.

Cancer s barbaic. If you have never gone through it, dont assume. Differnet people handle chemo in diffrent ways.

Joe: Im sorry your mother had to go through what she did. But, sadly, its the only treatment today. My chemo nurse cried with me every two weeks for a year. They understand that this is not easy. But again, they know that its the only thing that works. If you dont agree with the treaments, start donating to ACS. The funding they recieve helps in research.

I would'nt think twice about putting my child through it. A small price to pay in exchange to enjoy life.

Joe, I'm sorry you lost your mother but please don't allow that to cloud your judgement. Chemo works, I did a year of chemotherapy 15 years ago. It was a tough year, I was tired all the time but I'm still here leading a full life. My sister did chemo and radiation 4 years ago and had to have a feeding tube for over a year. She had a really rough time for about 6 months but then she was fine. She lived to enjoy her children and grandchildren for 4 years and counting. I have a cousin starting radiation on Monday with the same type of cancer that my sister had and we're confidant that his results will be the same.

Yeah...but a fellow I work with had Chemo to treat his cancer and is now living a seemingly great life. The treatment in no way destroyed his long term quality of life...just the cancer that would have left his wife and children without a husband/father.

Sometimes the way through a situation isn't a happy one, but if the outcome means a child gets to grow up to be a man, you've gotta tough it out.

Oh, and how can anyone be so sure that medical advances/technology isn't something that God wanted humans, with our advanced brains, to use and help one another?

Suzanne Summers and my stepmother used alternative medicine to cure breast cancer, and both are doing fine. Don't assume Western medicine is the only way.

C.Y., Suzanne Summers used Surgery and radiation therapy, these are conventional Alternative medicines. Not ones Based on religious belief. Your analogy is completely invalid.

The issue would be different if the kid wanted the treatment. But he dont. HIM and the parents are making that decison if he was getting an abortion I as a parent dont have any say. And to many that is a life and death situation. No government should have the power to Impose its will in such a way. Let him do what he wants.

I'm sorry you went through that experience. I'm totally with you on this.

I'm so sorry for your terrible experiences with chemo, but as I stated in another post, chemo saved more than a dozen of my friends lives. Was it a tough row to hoe for a while? Absolutely. Did they survive it? In spades. Are they with us today to enjoy their children and family? Yes. Chemotherapy allowed their children to grow up with mothers and fathers instead of going to visit a gravesite. While it's not an "ideal" way to fight cancer, and yes it's downright miserable for some, right now it's one of the best ways for most cancers, and it's proven, at least in my book. Far better than dying in agony over days, weeks, months, years, if you ask me.

I wish we didn't even have to have this discussion. Maybe some day...

I believe what has not been mentioned in all this chemo works vs chemo doesn't work debate is that it is the TYPE of cancer and the TYPE of chemo that matters. My dad died 13 years ago from lung cancer. He had had 5 rounds of chemo and was being admitted for a 6th. He went in, told us he loved us, thanked us for everything we did. Before we got home that night, he was dead. I truly think he preferred death over another round of chemo. Yet a friend of mine was diagnosed with breast cancer a year ago and went thru chemo & radiation, barely missing work. Two very different types of cancers treated with different types of chemo.

That said, I say the family has the right to choose how to treat an illness. I fear the intrusion of Big Brother into our lives. We've already given up so many privacy rights; this seems to be another bit being chipped away.

Oh, and how can anyone be so sure that medical advances/technology isn't something that God wanted humans, with our advanced brains, to use and help one another?

Very good point. God gave us intelligence - is it wrong to assume that he wants us to use it?

We had a saying growing up in my house: "God helps those who help themselves." So, if there's something that you can do to affect your situation, do it, and then ask God to help with the rest. Why should he give you something that you could have accomplished on your own?

CY and HJL - Suzanne Summers used surgery and radiation. They are not alternative medicine but alternative treatments of conventional medicine. Some cancers are treated with radiation and/or surgery. Some cancers can only be treated by chemo. Many do complementary medicine such as diet changes or vitamins - but those are complements in addition to conventional medicine not alternatives.

CY - I am glad your stepmother is doing well. I'm sure others would be interested in what alternative treatment she used. Did she not have any surgery at all to remove the cancer? In some cases of breast cancer, a lumpectomey alone can cure. Unfortunately Hodgkins is not so easily targeted as it is systemic.

Joe Clark: I am sorry for your mother but as of now, chemo is the only viable option for some cancers. (other cancers can be cured using other techniques or even a pill) The doctors do feel badly about what they are doing to people but they can live with it because they know that they are trying their best at giving their patients their only real shot at life.

mightyquinn: Ummm, you are just so wrong that it's scary. It doesn't even matter much what the kid says because he can't judge for himself what is best for him? Do you seriously expect a kid to know what doctors have trained for 8 years to figure out? In addition to this, the kid has a learning disorder making it that much easier for him to be brainwashed by his parents. Government officials and doctors are educated people who care about the rest of society. It would be wise to heed their advice. You really should think about these things before you make wild accusations.

Who said they were only praying for a cure. There are proactive alternative medicine and treatments out there that are viable options.

Criminal?

He can get the death sentience at that age and yet he can't make up his own mind on this?!?!?! What a bunch of $hit

I remember back to the early 60's, when the medical profession said that cancer would be cured within 30 years, yet it still exists.

Are we sure that the people undergoing these procedures are anything more than "lab rats" to carry on research?

Let's make sure that the "experts" are being truthful to these people.

I'm not judging anyone, but human nature being what it is, one can never rule out anything.

Gordon... there will NEVER, EVER be a cure for cancer ( well there ARE PROVEN cures for cancer already....but they are only attainable with ALTERNATIVE medicine and holistic healthcare) in traditional medicine. Do you realize there has not been a CURE for any disease since POLIO ??? And do you know why ?? Because it would put Big Pharma out of business and that will NEVER happen as long as people by into their BS and the ill advice of their physicians who get big kickbacks from pushing these toxic "medicines" that are created purely to keep us ill and dependent on Big Pharma.

Chemicals medicines are NOT a "cure"... they are a bandaid. Bandaids that come with deadly consequences and horrific side effects. For those of you that don't know anything about alternative medicine, treatments and holistic healthcare I suggest you educate yourselves. Big Pharma thrives on keeping people SICK, NOT making them well. Wake up.

These parents are RIGHT to want to choose alternative healthcare. Obviously they know what many of us know. They are not refusing care for their child. Only refusing care that is UNPROVEN to actually CURE and that could ultimately CAUSE this child's death. I surely wouldn't want ANY family member of mine using toxins and radiation that further DAMAGE the body and the immune system. The reason Farrah Fawcett's alternative therapy didn't work was because CONVENTIONAL therapy ravaged her body, destroyed her organs and devastated her immune system. If she had sought ALTERNATIVE therapy first, she'd probably be cancer free ... PERMANENTLY.

Conventional medicine should be a LAST resort... NOT the first one.

http://www.new-cancer-treatments.org/index.html

You are ignorant.

gemini618--There have been cures for many diseases over the past several centuries. You say alternative medicine can cure cancer--what kind of cancer? And what alternative medicines? Site your source. If you can't site your source, it's because one doesn't exist. At least not a credible one. There are many cancers that have been cured using conventional and alternative medicines in combination, but none with just alternative medicines. Put your proof where your mouth is--prove it!

magsnak i agree with you. I have never heard of an alternative source either. If you ever notice on those homeopathic medicines you find in rite aid and gnc they all say that they may help. you don't see that on Tylenol bottles. You know why? Because there is science to it.

Gemini needs his/her medicine!

Ok, to you that is criminal, but to others it is what these parents and thier child have decided. Where do we draw the line, whose OPINION is going to be the one that we go with from now on? Who are you to decide that these people are wrong? What right do any of us have to judge here? I have read many of these comments and I wonder if these parents had simply said, "We have all decided to try to find another type of cure because Chemo is too harsh" and not mentioned that they have any religious beliefs, how "ignorant", "backwards", or "abusive" would these people be?

"I am America" I don't think anyone knows what you are saying. Get a dictionary out and figure out that there is actually more than one definition for criminal. Also, I wonder if you seriously think that being a criminal implies the death sentence. If so then go back to college. Seriously.

palmer: you are right in saying that we should not have the right to judge. however, we are basing our arguments on the medical information that we have read. The doctors DO have a right to decide. Their goal is to help people but their mission is getting complicated from constant lawsuits from greedy pigs who are trying to find an easy way of making money. I am not saying that all doctors are good though because i know that a few of them are corrupt. I would think that people who have 8 years of training in medicine would know more about healthcare than blind followers of religion. Chemo is harsh, but think of how the kid would feel if he did not receive treatment. This is why the parents are being abusive. They don't even know how their kid feels and they are trying to brainwash him into believing their ignorant ways.

I am one of the first survivors of Spinal Meningitus due to the sulfa drugs that was developed back then. Anyone who has had it knows the pain you go through to get cured. Are there after affects that persist? Yes. Nerve damage. Ringing in the ears that gets worse with age. (I know one survivor who lost her hearing from it.) Others have lost more than I have. Some less. One kind nurse offered her hand for me to hold while they were treating me. After the treatment, she had to have her hand X-rayed. I almost crushed her hand from the pain of the treatment. I was only 5 years old. I had 3 spinal taps while in the hopital. They said I had 18 to 21 shots in my back. I can't remember if it was the first one or all three. One of them, I remember the doctor saying it only took 6 shots this time. After isolation, they played pin cushion with my butt from all of the doses of medicine.

After I was released, my immunity was shot to hell and I was still getting shots. One time, it took 4 grown men to hold me still to get just one shot. The doctors told us I was suceptable to most anything. I was given the flu shot, or whatever, every time there was some potential out break. I hated needles. Getting a shot was torture. For three years, I tried to get out of getting the shots. When I was almost 9 y.o., I asked my mother if I get the flu shot and I still get the flu, why should you pay for me to get the flu? That was the first time she said no to the doctor to get the vaccine. I didn't get the flu until in my 20's, and only because I didn't get the rest and take proper care of myself, like everyone needs. I still refuse the flu shot and still don't get the flu. I haven't had a tetinus shot since the 70's. Ditto there, too. And believe me, I've been cut and punctured many times since then. But I am not "anti-modern medicine". I've had bones pinned back together. I just don't use all of them fancy drugs they push after the procedure. (None on the last two. Not even pain killers.)

You can argue that "I lived." It's true. But what about that torture I went through? Am I glad I am alive? Today, yes. If I was to face having to go through that again, would I? My friend's dad who also had a spinal tap in his later years once said, "Next time you want to give me a spinal tap, just hand me a .22 instead."

As far as doctors go, do I trust them? It was my uncle that had learned about the advancements when he was at some medical convention. He just got back from that doctor's convention a few weeks earlier. He was an M.D. He was the one who diagnosed the problem and saved my life. How would I feel if I didn't get the treatment? I don't know. That would be 20/20 hind sight. Of course, there stood a very large percent (98.5% ?) that I would eventually be dead from it, too. Still 20/20.

No Michael. Doctors don't have the right to decide your fate. With your permission, they have a right to choose what they will treat you, or at least for the moment. The government is about to take that choice away from them and mandate what they will or will not, or IF they can treat a patient. Check out the Blogs on the latest healthcare bill. Go to jail if you don't do it the gov't way. Just remember, it was accepted practice for leaches as a cure. Some people did get better after the leaches. But was it leaches or something else? Heaven forbid you told the doctor "no" to the leaches, and some judge mandating the court order for that treatment. It was the known cure, or so they said.

If you choose Homeopathic route, Prayer, or the latest "fad" called hospitals, that should be your own choice. Would I agree with the courts if a child wants the hospital and the parents said no? That's a good question. If the child dies, then I might side with the courts. But there is always the problem on both sides of "if you do it my way, then it's medicine, yours is quackery." "If he is cured, then I was right. If he dies under my care, then, ummm... you didn't get him to me fast enough?"

If the child dies after being forced the treatment, is the judge held responsible for his bad decision? No. If he was, I don't think the judge would be so quick if he were charged with the child's murder by forcing the treatment. It's easy to mandate something if you are not held responsible for that action. The parents have to live with the consequences no matter which party wins. (or loses if the child dies).

If the boy committed a crime, he would be tried as an adult...... if he is adult enough to do adult time, he is adult enough to make a decision about his own healthcare. I would refuse chemo too. B-17 people --- read the book 'A World Without Cancer.'

As I said above a 13 year old girl has the right to choose to have an abortion, without parental consent. Why doesn't a 13 year old boy have the right to refuse Chemo, with parental consent?

Brigitte,

you are going to piss of the real Catholic.

brigitte

This child doesn't want to go through the process again. He also needs 6 treatments of chemo and one radiation treatment. Every single time this child is going to feel like hell and as he goes along these treatments get harder and harder on the child's body. His hair will begone, he will lose large amounts of weight. Mostly because his appetite disappears. He will eat because he has to and not because he wants to. He will most likely lose his sense of taste and sometimes even smell. He will have major changes in the way he looks and his skin texture will change as well. He will have severe nausea and vomit a lot. This stuff may lead to and esophageal ulcer(30% possibility). The stress may lead to duodenal or stomach ulcers. He will also have a very compromised immune system, already compromised by the cancer it may become nonexistent and delay his treatments decreasing his survival chances. you may likely become anemic and also may get thrombcytopenia, low platelet count. There are countless other things. This child doesn't want any of this and it seems we look past all of this and says its a small price for a potential return to life as normal.

Even after the cancer in gone it may take another year to get back to near normal so please quit minimalizing his treatment. It will be hell and this child does not want to experience it again.

um...actually...it helped stave off the nausea (never threw up...just felt like doing it for days) when I ate stuff like plain popcorn...something bland...but only for a while. I didn't lose weight...I started losing my hair, but a friend suggested I go ahead and shave it...it came back healthier. I don't remember losing my sense of taste...certainly not my sense of smell...popped vitamins every day...ate better when I felt like it...I believe the blood test they took before every treatment (once every other week for 8 weeks) was for my platelet count...I would have had to have a shot if it was too low...but never had to. Came close, but I think because I took better care of myself it helped....

...so you see, igofor, everyone is different. I think if he understood what he could be doing if he didn't get treatment (dying) he'd put up with the discomfort. I doubt anyone who doesn't read or write and depends on some one who thinks her church knows more about cancer than the doctors do, is NOT getting all the facts.

I wish people who get informed before they blast out their opinion. The boy is not your normal 13 yr old. He is developmentally delayed in that he can not read. Now whether this is due to poor homeschooling by the parents or an inability to learn, I don't know. But the fact is that he can't read and is not about to even spit back out the "teachings" of this cult-like group they joined on the Internet for $90. This story has been followed for weeks in Minnesota.

Also they "tweak" adjunct medications to allieviate the side-effects of his chemo. Children respond differently than adults and each one responds in their own way. For example, some kids will develop shortness of breath from certain protocols and require nebulization. They usually premedicate against the side effects once they ascertain what they are. This family never gave Dr Bostrom the chance to do so. I have taken care of scores of these kids. They feel a little crappy but they cover as much as they can. I have seen some bad mucositis but they can usually prevent that with really good oral care.

I doesn't matter how little the side affects will be, or that the cure rate is 90%. The whole issue is with the government encroaching on parental and family rights. I think the parents should allow the chemo treatment, but it's not my place or the governments to force a family to accept this decision.

Maybe the government should ensure parents are making their kids do excercise. Without excercise they'll die sooner, be more susceptible to diseases, and build bigger costs for the healthcare system! I gotta write my senator!

The parents should be able to make decisions regarding the medical treatment of their children, especially if the child is at the age of reasoning and can make his/her preferences known. This child should be able to make the decision about his health care with his parents and loved ones - not forced by the government and lawyers.

So how many die because of these known treatmeants. Just because its routine doesn't means it really works or is worth the suffering inflicted.

First of all Government is NOT allowed to be opressive by the constitution. 2nd the family has the RIGHT to choose the treatment method. I live within 20 miles of where this is happening and the family is treating their son and they have not ruled out chemo but want to give something else a chance.

Government DOES NOT have the right to MAKE you take a treatment. We do not yet live in a police state but those that want to allow government and the judicial system illegally take our rights away deserve what they get, a prison state with no real rights. Farra Fawcett was not forced to take Chemo nor are other adults and adults ALONG WITH the child are trying to treat this the way they want and to give something else a try. How many people have been given a few months to live by their doctor and go to the right place and are alive decades later because of treatments that most hospitals do not have. This is a rural area hours away from any major city.

Those who say that the family does not have the right to seek the treatment that they want should just go to communist russia during the cold war cause that is what they are saying they want the USA to be. Plus I have met few kids this age that if they wanted to do something would not just go and do it even if mom and dad did not want them to. This kid has had several chances to change what treatment he is getting. These doctors and judges should be thrown in jail for the mental and physical torture they have forced on this family and this kid. If this was a dog being treated this way those people would be thrown into jail and fined.

AND there is a death rate for Chemo so to say this person you know would have been saved by chemo is totally wrong, you only hope that they will be.

And what PROOF was there that she would have been cured ?? You don't know that and neither does anyone else. Also....although a treatment may be considered "routine", there is no guarantee that it will either be effective or that it's a good choice. It may be the ONLY choice because better, alternative choices are shunned ( again, Big Pharma influence ). Don't be like the rest of the uneducated... CLOSED MINDED. Remember, some day conventional medicine might KILL you or a friend/family member when an alternative SAFE remedy, procedure or treatment could have saved you or them.

double post

There is no known "centuries old medicine" that has EVER cured cancer. They can use some of that alternative medicine to ensure he remains healthy during chemo. If the mother had bothered to do a little research on Hodgkins Lymphoma, she would know that the boy could already have been cured, instead of him having to go through all this excruciating pain now! What an idiot! I guess her "beliefs" in some cult are more important than the life and comfort of her son. God gave man the ability to develop medicines that will help others. This mom needs to read her Bible some more!

Michael,

I agree with you. Once the pool of money is dried up the push toward any therapy rapidly dries up too. If this kid didn't have insurance we wouldn't be having this conversation.

I will say again, if the gov't mandates treatment for this kid then it had damned well better mandate treatment for all the other sick kids as well.

Ooops, can't do that - it'll break the system. (Sorry for the rant.)

I completely agree.  Chemo is horrid and it should be every person's own choice what they want to do.  No one should be forced to endure a treatment they don't want.  While some people may come through it pretty healthy and emotionally okay or even happy.  Others may not.  Children who go through this, often end up with serious life time ailments, stunted growth and sterlity, (more in girls than boys) Cancer attacks certain parts of the body, Chemo attacks the entire body. 

This type of cancer has a great survival rate. People have been treated for it ten years ago and are still cancer free. You need to do some more reading. Non-hodgkins lymphoma is the one that can't be cured. This boy has Hodgkins Lymphoma, completely curable!

Minnesota covers kids without insurance. His parents are farmers. They most likely do not have insurance. The pediatric hospitals in MN do not withold ANY treatment from a child due to inability to pay. In fact, MA retro covers up to 4 months of back medical expenses. We also have MnCare that is available to just about anybody without insurance and an ability to pay a small premium. Example, my sister's father-in-law was uninsurable due to a minor heart defect. Their family of 4 paid $60/month. Before my mom retired she received MnCare for $33/month. prescriptions were $4 copay. I used to work casual but made $20/hr in 1994. I received MnCare for my son and I (widowed) and I paid $144/month. This covers Medical, Dental, Vision.

The reimbursement rate is low. The peds hospitals raise donations to offset the losses.

God I wish the less informed of you would do some research before you spout

I suppose you also believe that the government should not be allowed to prosecute parents who beat their children to death, becasue the parents have an absolute right to determine whether their child lives or dies. Perhaps you should look into moving to one of the countries where it is widely believed that the family has the right to end the lives of their children for simply being an embarrassment to them, whether they are minors or adults.

Hope, FANTASTIC point.

If this child didn't have insurance, this issue would never have come up.

For those of you who feel that this child MUST have this treatment, do you also support a National Health Care plan in which we all have insurance? (The answer must be yes.)

Greg, congrats on not reading any follow up's to the OP.

Greg-281912

In my perfect world we wouldn't have insurance. To me insurance is deliberately hiring an intermediary to pay our bills. In my perfect world, the amount we might spend for insurance would be the amount we would pay for the medical care directly.

Notice some of the BIGGEST BUILDINGS in many down-town districts are INSURANCE COMPANIES??? There's a reason for that.

Insurance is a gamble and the odds are all on the house.

you do not know what the parents are doing. I live close to where this is all happening and they are treating him and chemo does kill and you do not know if it will be you or not.

Why is the safety and welfare of a child paramount to anything? Why is the physical wellbeing more important than the Spiritual well being? My faith is more important than my Life, it is more important than my children's lives, it is more important than the lives of millions, nay billions of people. I do not care what others may think on the subject, in America don't I have that right?

The government has now decided what parts of Religion we can and cannot practice we don't really have Freedom of Religion anymore, how long will it be before certian religions are just out and out illegal, not to be one, that woudl be unacceptable to the general American, just illegal to actually practice.

I have known quite a few people who have undergone chemo, almost all of them have died significantly earlier than there original no treatment estimated death date and I live near one of the best cancer hospitals in the world. I would nevr ever take Chemo. I should be able to make that choice and so should this family.

I agree that chemotherapy is often administered when there is little chance of benefit. I am opposed to this practice. However, this is a disease that is well-known to be responsive to chemotherapy. It's false to call anything else "alternative therapy" because that implies that it is another valid, effective therapy. It is not. So-called natural remedies are not remedies at all for cancer. This is hardly different from parents of an insulin-dependent diabetic kid taking their kid off insulin and opting for "alternative therapy" consisting of herbal tablets.

It's not as if we don't know what will happen. Anyone condoning the parents' decision is in principle cosigning the kid's death warrant.

jtlittle....you are very ILL informed if you seriously believe that there are no "alternative" treatments for cancer that are effective. There are alternative treatments that actually CURE cancer yet Big Pharma is never going to let the ignorant joe know about it. Why their profits would just plunge into oblivion. If you have never practiced "alternative" medicine and know nothing of how it works, I would suggest you keep your opinions to yourself because you're speaking out of pure IGNORANCE. Alternative medicine WORKS, is SAFE and can actually CURE many or most things that conventional medicine can just "put a band-aid" on. If you have nothing of intelligence to say that can be backed up by cold hard facts.. please refrain from blathering your nonsense which you've based on absolutely nothing factual.

No one is saying that they should not use the alternative methods. If it was MY child, I would be using EVERY method. But denying proven medical treatment to a MINOR is no different that denying FOOD! What if your religion says that all 13 year olds will be pulled out of school, or beaten, etc.? When he is 18 he can decide for himself, but until then, denying him the medical care he needs is child abuse. He is not old enough to offer his consent, nor is he old enough to deny it. If the parents will not provide medical care for him, then the courts should.

Joe,

their treatment was ineffective. Read the Star Trib. His tumor is back to the size it was before the first chemo (it had shrunk) and may be a bit larger. But since his idiot mom fled with him and his pain was already a 10/10 I can imagine that he is in excruciating pain. How sad.

Why is life more important than Faith? What is wrong with martyrdom? there was a time we admired people who chose to die rather than violate their beliefs and principles.

Nick, what if I were to revive the ancient and venerable religious practices of the druids? We would sacrifice a child from our community at the beginning of every fiscal year to importune the gods for good business. If that is my belief, how dare you interfere?

For anyone who takes their religious beliefs seriously, they are not something they "step aside". They are instrumental in making ALL decisions.

This family, the child AND the parents, made medical decisions based on their faith - which they have EVERY RIGHT to do.

To a family of faith, death isn't the end of the world.

There is also a big difference between murdering a child and allowing a child to die of a disease.

What if this were an insulin-dependent diabetic kid? If the parents witheld the insulin until the kid died, would that be all that different from murder?

If the 13-year old child refused to take his insulin, knowing the possible results, that is his decision.

This is not a case of the parents refusing treatment for the child. It is a case of the child refusing treatment and his parents supporting his decision.

I would also add that you are comparing a chronic disease which responds easily to basic care to a non-chronic disease which may not respond to care AND cause horrible side effects at the same time. There are vast differences in treatment. Apples to oranges.

This child may survive without any treatment. It is not a death sentence to refuse to treat him with chemo and/or radiation.

If a nursing home withheld food and water until a patient died, would that be all that different from murder? Apparently this is okay in this country. Heck, we even get judges to support it.

If you read the details of this case, the judge noted that the child cannot read and was declared incompetent to make medical decisions. Look, I'm not entirely unsympathetic to the argument that people have a right to die even when there is a likelihood of a cure. This kid clearly does not understand his options. He doesn't even think he's sick.

It was not an apples to oranges comparison. Cancer is a chronic illness. His particular type of cancer has a 90% cure rate with chemotherapy and radiation. The side effects are much more tolerable now than they were in the past due to advances in medications for nausea, pain, etc. No question, it's not fun, but then neither is getting a shot of insulin several times a day.

Do you know what the likelihood of spontaneous remission is? Negligible.

Regarding the nursing home scenario: every treatment has to weighed according to potential benefit and harm. In many situations involving someone with a terminal illness dying in hospice/nursing home, there is no benefit to providing food or water. People naturally go through a stage where they do not desire food or water and do not benefit from it when it is given.

Nick, what if I were to revive the ancient and venerable religious practices of the druids? We would sacrifice a child from our community at the beginning of every fiscal year to importune the gods for good business. If that is my belief, how dare you interfere?

If the person was willing, not being cohersed, was above the age of reason, and not mentally ill, I don't think that in this country the Govenrment should stop you, I mean we have assisted suicide in many states, whats the differance in assisted suicide and willing human sacrifice accept that the first is entirely selfish and the other is not.

If you read the details of this case, the judge noted that the child cannot read and was declared incompetent to make medical decisions. Look, I'm not entirely unsympathetic to the argument that people have a right to die even when there is a likelihood of a cure. This kid clearly does not understand his options. He doesn't even think he's sick.

It sead he couldn't read and that he was learning disabled, that does not make him incompetent.

Are we saying that every 13 year old has the right to each and every medical treatment available?

Or, are we saying that every 13 year old who has insurance has the right to each and every medical treatment available?

If we agree, as a society, that each and every single person has the right to each and every medical alternative, then we have to have a National Health Care plan, and we all have to be willing to pay for it. Otherwise, in essance, we are agreeing that we are all guilty of murder should someone die because they couldn't afford health care.

Greg-282912, I agree completely. I didn't get what you meant at first, but I just read it again, and I think I know what you mean now. We have the ability to help, yet do not because of financial reasons, and selfish ones. But really, it must be distributed pretty well, evenly, and effectively if it's goign to be feasible, and there must be lines drawn for what will be paid for and what will not. I'm all for partial payments by the government to cover basics like checkups, and i know even then some people would not be able to afford even that, but it can be stair-stepped on the basis of affordability. I would not support anything barring private insurance. Whatever's done, though, to expand care and coverage, more doctors would be needed, otherwise we'd be like Canada, France, and Germany in terms of waiting lines for hospitals.

For this particular case, I can not emphasize enough (not directly addressed to just you here) that a person's religion and religious beliefs are more important than anything else in their life, and it is their decision, not the court's. The court only has say if it interferes with another person's inalienable rights, but that SHOULD NOT exceed its bounds. This 13-year-old boy can think for himself, even if he's illiterate, and that does not mean to me that he can not make decicions for himself. Chemo IS dangerous, it does have that pesky little likelyhood accumulating bad detrimental side effects, among them being death. I think he has the right to say that he does not want to go down that path, and I think his parents have the right to say that they will support him in his decision. We say the same about gay people and their families supporting them now, yet when it comes to another life decision suddenly it's hands-off for the family and person directly in question, and hands-on for the court? Yes, it is his life in question, not just his lifestyle, but it is the same principle, and I can not help but notice how irregularly it is applied.

There are in fact treatments for cancer alternative to chemotherapy. the first is simple excision, but I believe that if chemo was even being considered, then it would be beyond that. The next one that comes to mind is the gamma-knife, wherein gamma radiation is blasted in a small, precise beam shaped to the very tumor itself, but again, if it's that big by now, then that might not be such a good option anymore. The third is this "alternative medicine" that people are so prone to bash, my self included some times, that some forms of which do have appreciable success rates. I wouldn't say to rub some magic ointment on his fingers and ears, whisper to the wind and rocks or anything, but there are other proven, legit. medicines (I don't happen to have a list on me right now, otherwise, trust me, I would post it), and he wants to take those instead, then so be it. The boy has the right to accept or refuse for himself any treatment he wants to. He is under the legal care of his parents, but his parents support his own decision, and no one can blame them for that. This is not neglect, this is not murder, and no one can blame them for those.

What makes you think the parents are "ignorant"? I'm sure they know a whole lot more about their child and his medical concerns than you or any judge knows.

give me a break the people are religious extremists. oh we`ll pray. if there god was around why is the kid dying to begin with?my mother died of cancer .she let nature take it`s course.didn`t like chemo. but she was 83 and lived a full life.this kid has his whole life ahead if the treatment works.people say percentage of survivors is low ,well tell that to the survivors.how many survive an herb and a prayer?

and i`d like to add she lived 4 years past the forcast because the chemo slowed the progression.she may have gone longer if my stepdad hadn`t put a gun in his mouth and blew his frikin brains out.see his first wife refused chemo lasted 6 months.i think she really died of a broken heart.

Wizard, are you asking why human beings die? It's because we're mortal, that's how we're made right now. It's pretty simple. Are you asking why God lets us die? Again, that's the way things work here right now. You seem pretty bitter about God letting us suffer, if there even is a god. I understand that, really. But much of the suffering we cause ourselves, some of it we don't, but this is an imperfect world that we live in, not everything is going to turn out how we want it to.

And as for the survival rate and side-effects of chemo-therapy, (though you are obviously familiar with it others are not as familiar) depending on treatment type they are: pain, nausea and vomitting, diarrhea or constipation, anemia, malnutrition, hair loss, memory loss, depression of the immune system (thus potentially lethal infectison or sepsis), weight loss or gain, hemorrages, secondary neoplasms, cardiotoxicity, heptoxicity (liver damage, potentially lethal), nephrotoxicity (kidney damage, potentially lethal), and oxotoxicity (ear and hearing damage). While one probably would not expect all of these, this is what might happen depending on whatever treatment they are on.

As for survival rate, I think that should just be Google'd.

I could not agree with you more. Thanks for your wonderful way of stating so eloquently what a lot of us believe. I hope never to have to see anyone close to me go thru the horrors of chemo. I hope science can find a better way. There is no doubt that alternative ways should be considered and doing so does not render the parents unloving in any way!! Thanks for what you said, I have saved your comments to share with others.

don

Well put. I applaude you!!!!!!

Ms. Jordan- finally a well written argument on the anti-chemo stance. But your success figures on radiation efficacy are on general rates of cure. Cancer cure rates are different for each type of cancer. Apparently, this type af cancer is very curable.

Patty, you mught have your tin foil hat on a little to tight there.

Please cite the source and post the link of your information.

OMG...the conspiracy has begun...

First of all, prove beyond a reasonable doubt your claim that vaccines cause cancer and do not prevent illness. Polio, mumps, typhus, etc. are all virtually gone from our lives because of widespread vaccination. Also, as it has been pointed out, different types of cancer- not to mention differences in cancer patients- respond variously to chemotherapy. However, it is currently the best option for treating the specific type of cancer this kid has.

It is your right to believe whatever conspiracy theory currently occupies your lunatic attention. It is also your right to express yourself, regardless of how many all-caps words you use. However, it is my right, and I exercise it now, to tell you that you're clearly unhinged, willingly swallowing whatever nonsense you've been spoon-fed by whatever source. There's no difference between "believing whatever the government says" and "believing whatever some unbalanced cult leader says."

Many who pray don't get a healing.

Many who don't pray live long and prosper.

My ag professor said it best, "If a disease doesn't kill an animal it generally makes it a better animal."

There's no rhyme or reason to it. Some of us simply won't make it to 100 years of age. Best utilize each and every day to the fullest to enjoy life with your loved ones.

God gave us many alternative medicines as well, and many people are not informed of how they really work. Mainstream medicine is not always the best way. People are making comments and judgments without really knowing the facts. Many alternative medicines/treatments are known to cure disease. Forcing one particular treatment is outrageous!

It never ceases to amaze me how many people willfully sacrifice their children's lives on the altar of "religious freedom."

As an adult, you have the right of religious freedom, but you do NOT have the right to harm someone else with it. When that kid ends up dead because his parents were scared of the big ole city docs, it will be a different story.

This isn't the Dark Ages! Why are so many people living like it is?

1.3 MILLION unborn children murdered in their mother's wombs each year in the U.S - children sacrificed to their parents' whims - for selfish reasons.

This is okay? Parents can kill their children in the womb, but shouldn't be allowed to let them die once they are out?

God also gave these parents this child, along with the right to make decisions for and WITH him.

One would be so lucky to believe that all physicians who practice western medicine are here to help us - it's a very naive and unrealistic belief. I am neither a clinician nor a physician; however, I know enough about the medical industry to realize one fact: it's really all about the money. As cynical as it seems, it's true. Yes, I believe that physicians do some wonderful work with the drugs they develop - in clinical trials supported financially by the pharmaceutical companies that later patent them and make millions and millions in profits - to treat cancer. I also believe that our society is generally ignorant about how all this works because we typically believe most everything we hear and see in the media - which always has a spin and is only a fraction of the truth. I also believe there are alternative treatments - whether it's Native American rituals, acupuncture, yoga, organic foods, or praying to the God of your choice - that can heal. The reason these alternative options are not usually part of a physicians treatment plan is because they cannot be patented (ie marketed to the masses for millions of dollars in profits).

The part of this case that was most troubling for me was that the 13 year-old boy cannot read. If he cannot read, then he cannot fully understand his cancer and make a truly informed, objective decision on his treatment. He is getting his information from filters imposed by his parents and doctors.

I don't think the government should ever have the right to tell a human of proven intellectual understanding what course of medical treatment they should seek for a diagnosis - the decision should lie with the individual; however, there will be exceptions, and this may or may not be one of them.

If it were me, and my child fully understood what was happening to his/her body, all the treatment options available, I'd have to respect the wishes of my child.

Sorry Mommy... GOD doesn't exist and there is no guarantee of ANY doctor's ability to do anything. There are plenty of doctors out there who care nothing about the patient and only $$ from expensive treatments, pharmaceutical company kickbacks and keeping us ILL in order to support this entire medical charade. Wake up and smell the TRUTH OF REALITY.

Gemini618, you have no proof that God does not exist. I, among others, believe in God. I believe he blessed us with the intellect to find medical treatments that can save lives. Believers should mingle their faith, with the gifts of God, to treat illness, poverty, and all manner of afflictions.

Can't be that much of a free country when you violate the rights of people different than you and tell them they can't get married because you don't agree with their rights to their own decision. You lose on that one.

Also, I would not want to force my own beliefs on my child, and I wouldn't have scared her to believe in my own personal opinion. I would have been honest with her and let her make her own decision. This isn't a decision about what style clothes she should buy or wear or who she can hang out with. This decision could end up killing her to force her into my own beliefs and I could not accept with possibly robbing her of the only life she will ever have - could you do that to your own child and coerce them into only believing your own side? This boy also has learning disabilities...

They live in Mn like I do. We have extensive programs to help pay for these things. In fact, the social workers at Children's hospital set up the apps for SSI, CACK waiver, MA, mileage reimbursement. Care Management coordinates home administration of medications.

It is not all about getting paid either. I know many of the pediatric specialists in the MPLS area. They are all about saving children. The docs and nurses at all the children's hospitals in Minnesota are amazing. I was honored to work with them for 20 yrs. The chemo protocols come from all over the country, including St Jude's Hospital for Children. The most effective, least toxic combinations are used.

Wow Carolyn-1105817, seriously?

I'm scratching my head that you don't get the distinction between a 90 year old who has lived their life and a child who has their whole life ahead of them. So yeah, in answer to your question - It is all about the child! I won't question if you have any children, from your post it's obvious that you don't.

Sincerely,

Mother of 2 and cancer nurse for over 15 years.

BWG - you are ASSUMING that this child has his whole life ahead of him. You aren't God, you don't know what he has or doesn't have.

I absolutely agree with Carolyn - and I have eight children - one of whom has died.

That's a bit judgmental of you to suggest that because she is questioning a government's "right" to make medical decisions that she doesn't have children.

juju10junk -

Had you read the article you would know that the oncologists say this child has a 90% survival rate with the treatment. I'd say that's a pretty good chance he could live well into an average mid-life expectancy of at least age 40.

The issue is NOT about government's "right" to make medical decisions as you stated. I believe the issue is that a 13 year old isn't old enough to make life and death decisions. If the parents are willing to defer to a child's judgement on something of this magnitude than Children's Services are REQUIRED to step in on behalf of the child.

Like it or not, the welfare of the child HAS to come first.

You are entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. And by the way, I never once said that I think I'm God. What a ridiculous thing to say.

BWG

actually 13 yr olds make life and death decisions all the time.... they can kill babies in abortions, pick up a gun and shoot a cop or their class mates or themselves.. take drugs..

13 yr olds make adult decisions all the time, most of which effect more then themselves.. Unlike this decisions where it is HIS life, no babies involved, no class mates, no drugs, cops or guns. Seems simple to me..

The parents and child should be able to make their own decisions without the government stepping in.

The welfare of the child is also teaching him that he has his own decisions, nice way to teach the child that your opinions about yourself mean nothing and government has complete control of you.

The welfare of a child would dictate that getting an abortion shouldn't be legal, what do they know about their own health? But somehow THAT is legal...

Bwg, if you had been following this a little more closely, you would know, that, in the original story the report was that the boy is a shaman or doctor in native american religion, the parents converted to his religion. The boy mad the decision not to take the treatement and has publicly said that, he will fight his any way he can including kicking hitting and hurting the medical people administering the drugs.

The boy went to court his mother had already ran away, he disappeared after the court hearing

The original story said that, apparently the liberal media has decided he needs the treatment and are omitting facts again.

Well said Bob! Religion is a form of child abuse. One thing no one seems to have brought up is the child didn't choose to be a member of this crazy religion, his parents did. I'm sure his parents never presented alternitive religions or that having no religion as alternitives, since he was born he was repetedly told that this is the right religion by his parents. I say all the first admendment arguments are invalid because of the above.

I read the article, and I didn't see any reference made to the parents' religion. In fact, the boy HAD a chemo treatment. It was after he received the treatment, and suffered the side effects, that the parents decided to seek alternative treatments. I don't think it has anything to do with them being "zealots."

Well said Bob...

Let's not forget that religion is the opiate for the masses.

Do you own the children? What right do you claim to them? Gov'ts have done as much harm as religion in history, should we burn DC to the ground along with relgiion?

What if I disagree with how you live your life? can I take your family away? Looking at the last 100 years, can you say science and medicine has always been 100% correct? Have ideas we used to consider 'sound' now become laughable? Should dissenters of those false ideas, who may have been right, denied their natural rights because popular opinion was different?

Democracy is as Jefferson stated, mob rule. If the majority makes decisions, you sir, have no rights. What if we decided we want YOUR possesions and YOUR family, and YOUR body? well, too bad for you, majority rule right?

Freedom is for those we disagree with too. Galileo and Darwin would've supported that.

Right on!!

Well said Bob and nice quote John ;D

Religion and government may both do harm but we must look at what kind of religion we are talking about. In this case, the boy's religion rejects current medical treatments for diseases in favor of "natural remedies" These remedies do not have the backing of scientific experimentation. How can these people think that they know more about the body than doctors who have trained for eight years in the field? This is complete nonsense and i hope those parents get caught and thrown in jail before the poor kid dies.

Second John: Democracy is certainly not mob rule. The reason why the senate and the house decides on all of the laws is because the average person is not capable of making such important decisions. The average citizen does not have much of an education and can easily be manipulated to support any side of the argument.

btw, the ideas by Galileo and Darwin were not really disagreed with. They were rejected because it went against traditionally held beliefs. In saying this, u are actually supporting the judges and the doctors since "natural" remedies are traditional while chemotherapy is rather new.

Didn't read it did you Bob,

The 13 year old is considered to be a doctor, in a native american religion.

His parents converted to his religion.

He made the decision not to have chemo, and has publicly said he will resist taking chemo, by every means within his power, including kicking an dhitting the people administering the medication.

The Dr in charge has it will be very difficult to do this in this case.

his mom went into hiding with him and he was already in terrible pain. This was reported Friday (the pain) the running was reported Tuesday . He has no pain meds to help and he is suffering this very minute.

Take a break guys you didn't read it did you?

The boy has publicly stated he does not want treatment and will fight iin every way within his power, including kicking and hitting the people trying to administer chemo. Doctorsa have sid it will be ver difficult to admisister unde those circumstances.

The mother is simply allowing his wishes.