Teen forced to continue chemo

[Balog]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090623/ap_on_re_us/us_forced_chemo

Apparently the teen and his mom fled to Kali to avoid continuing chemo; he prefers "alternative treatment." Sounds like a mistake to me, but is the .gov allowed to force parents to make medical decisions? Sounds like a pretty slippery slope to me.

[MicroBalrog]

I've been following this incident for ages now.

If he were an adult, I'd say "Go a head, Mr. Hauser. Kill yourself, I won't care."

(it says something about me I knew the kid's name before clicking on the link).


And yet Hauser there is not an adult.

On the other hand, the Israeli government had once caused the deaths of circa 6,000 children due to forced medical procedures.

[Balog]

Obviously kids shouldn't be able to have total control of medical stuff. But it sounds as though his Mom is backing the decision, so the state is over ruling his parent.

[MicroBalrog]

Should parents have total control over medical decisions regarding their children?

I do not know.

On one hand, I trust the government very little.

However, I also believe a situation in which a parent has total, unlimited control over medical decisions  regarding his child is also inherently dangerous. I would not trust a parent with this authority any more than I would trust the government.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

how old is the kid?

[Balog]

how old is the kid?

Thirteen.


I'm with Micro on this. I honestly don't know what the right response to all this sort of thing is.

[AZRedhawk44]

However, I also believe a situation in which a parent has total, unlimited control over medical decisions  regarding his child is also inherently dangerous. I would not trust a parent with this authority any more than I would trust the government.

OK... who WOULD you trust?  Not the patient, not the gooberment, not the parent(s).  Perhaps the doctor and/or insurance company?

[MicroBalrog]

...is it bad to say I don't know the proper answer to this?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

thats a real tough one. i know 13 year olds that i think could make a decent informed decision.  not many but a few. and it is his life

[Balog]

OK... who WOULD you trust?  Not the patient, not the gooberment, not the parent(s).  Perhaps the doctor and/or insurance company?

Refusing medical care can be abuse. I wish I could muster your easy outrage, but this is just a crappy area with no easy answers.

[AZRedhawk44]

...is it bad to say I don't know the proper answer to this?

Allow me to enlighten you:  

In the case of a person in the majority of their years, I think it's safe to say that he or she is the final arbiter of any decision to be made regarding their health care, as long as he or she can pay for it somehow.

In the case of a minor, however, the parents are liable for the bills.  The minor is liable for the actual results of the procedure or treatment (or lack thereof).  You have a classic potential conflict of interest not unlike the welfare state we currently have in the US, where 51% can vote themselves benefits from the treasury.  Not that kids are welfare leeches...  But the moral principle from a financial standpoint is the same.  However, you have to weigh that against the moral principle from the familial obligation standpoint.  It's a parent's duty to care for their children, including health care costs.

So, you can have a couple of conflicting situations:

1.  Minor cancer or other terminal patient that is so sick of treatment that he wants to just have some peace, but mom/dad/doc/ins all agree to give him more treatment.  Minor patient is being coerced into treatment against his will.

2.  Minor patient in need of treatment but parents cannot afford it or oppose it, yet doctor suggests it.  CPS and gooberment gets involved as a result.

I'd propose as a standard of practice WRT minors in expensive or controversial treatment:

As long as the following conditions exist:
1.  The patient is severely ill or terminal;
2.  A means of at least partial insured payment is available;
3.  The doctor believes that treatment is the best option;
4.  and the patient and parents disagree on the course of treatment;

That the result should be to follow doctor's orders.

But... if the patient and parents agree to terminate care... the doctor is obligated to honor that and the state has no right to interfere.

[Azrael256]

However, I also believe a situation in which a parent has total, unlimited control over medical decisions  regarding his child is also inherently dangerous.

Why, exactly?  I have held unlimited control over medical decisions when family members have gone under for surgery.  It's a form the hospital makes you fill out.  But really, the "unlimited control" angle is a strawman in this case.  If the parent and child disagreed about the treatment, I could see the state intervening to weigh the parental rights, the child's rights, and the medical necessity of the treatment in question.  The parent and child appear to be in complete agreement this time.

I don't think this is a slippery slope.  We're already at the bottom of the hill with this one.  The parent is not neglecting the child's condition.  She is obviously aware of it, and is seeking treatment for it.  The Christian Scientists deal with similar situations and are usually exonerated.

She is obviously an idiot, and her child will likely die horribly if she pursues alternative "medicine."  That is their problem.  They should be prepared to answer to their creator for it, but not the state.

[Balog]

Azrael: if a kid breaks a leg, and the parents refuse to have it treated, how is that not abuse?

[AZRedhawk44]

Balog, that's a strawman.

You're confusing an immediately painful and life threatening ER situation with an excellent prognosis for recovery (along with a disagreement between parents that "think its against god's will" or "costs too much", and a kid just screaming "make the pain stop!"), with a long term debilitating terminal case where the minor patient has been made rationally cognizant of the treatment options and their likelihood for success and their drawbacks... and the minor and parents both agree that "enough is enough."

Obviously the former case is child abuse.

[Balog]

Azrael doesn't seem to be making a distinction between types of care the parent is refusing. And again, who decides when and what kind of treatment parents get to refuse?

[Azrael256]

the parents refuse to have it treated

Strawman, but I think AZRedhawk and I have different reasoning.

Who said the parent was refusing to have anything treated?  She went so far as to travel to another state for the sole purpose of treating the child! 

The mother of this kid is not abusing the child by neglecting his condition.  She is very, very wrong in her belief that alternative hocus-pocus is going to fix the kid, but there is no neglect happening here.  She is refusing the state's treatment in favor of a method that both she and the child prefer.

[Balog]

Strawman, but I think AZRedhawk and I have different reasoning.

Who said the parent was refusing to have anything treated?  She went so far as to travel to another state for the sole purpose of treating the child! 

The mother of this kid is not abusing the child by neglecting his condition.  She is very, very wrong in her belief that alternative hocus-pocus is going to fix the kid, but there is no neglect happening here.  She is refusing the state's treatment in favor of a method that both she and the child prefer.

We're discussing the hypothetical reasoning behind state interference not this specific case. So again, if a kid breaks a leg and the parents refuse to have it set (whether out of fear of doctors, wanting to pray or burn incense or whatever over it instead) is that ok?

[Azrael256]

We're discussing the hypothetical reasoning behind state interference not this specific case. So again, if a kid breaks a leg and the parents refuse to have it set (whether out of fear of doctors, wanting to pray or burn incense or whatever over it instead) is that ok?

No, you're changing the question every time.  Last time you said they refused treatment.  This time, they're refusing to have it set.  They are not equivalents.  Neither are "fear of doctors" and "wanting to pray" equivalents.

Let me put this in one clear statement: When the child is injured or sick and the parents refuse to treat the child, they abuse the child through neglect.  When the child is injured or sick and the parents treat the child with generally accepted medical practices, they do not abuse the child.  When the child is injured or sick and the parents treat the child using "alternative medicine," prayer, incense, witch doctors, or any other kind of hocus-pocus nonsense that they believe by religion, social custom, or the advice of a very foolish but trusted advisor, they are not neglecting the child's condition and are therefore not abusing the child.

[MikeB]

Balog, that's a strawman.

You're confusing an immediately painful and life threatening ER situation with an excellent prognosis for recovery (along with a disagreement between parents that "think its against god's will" or "costs too much", and a kid just screaming "make the pain stop!"), with a long term debilitating terminal case where the minor patient has been made rationally cognizant of the treatment options and their likelihood for success and their drawbacks... and the minor and parents both agree that "enough is enough."

Obviously the former case is child abuse.

If I recall correctly and maybe I don't; it's not a strawman, this case is more like the scenario above than not. If  I recall correctly what this kid has is usually successfully treated with the treatment recommended vs. almost guaranteed fatal without the treatment, and no less fatal with the particular "alternative" treatment they were pursuing.


Of course I may not recall correctly in which case if it is in fact a pretty much guarantee the normal treatment most likely won't be successful, the parent/child should have more say than the government.

[Balog]

Azrael: "refusing treatment" and "refusing real treatment" are functionally equivalent, to me anyway.

[Azrael256]

Maybe they are to you, and frankly, they are to me, too.  I think that woman is an idiot, her son is too, and without government intervention she would bear enormous moral responsibility for his early and terrible death.

The law, however, views it differently, and I think rightfully so.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Should parents have total control over medical decisions regarding their children?

Yes, absolutely.  Until the child is mature enough to take responsibility for himself, the responsibility falls on the parents.  The government has no "right" to interfere with a parent/child decision any more than it has the "right" to interfere with an independent adult's decision.

[MicroBalrog]

So, HTG, do you believe parents can make any medical decision whatever regarding their children? What about cosmetic medical procedures?

[MechAg94]

So, HTG, do you believe parents can make any medical decision whatever regarding their children? What about cosmetic medical procedures?

Lacking any evidence to call the parents behavior or intentions into question, I don't see how you can take away the parents right to manage the welfare of their own children.  The principle of of "innocent until proven guilty" applies IMO.

My problem is that you are all bringing up exceptions that don't apply to 99.999999% of all cases or families.  You can't start unilaterally taking away parental rights because of some anecdotal exception you found.  Those rare exceptions are what child protective services and courts and judges are for. 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

So, HTG, do you believe parents can make any medical decision whatever regarding their children? What about cosmetic medical procedures?

I believe the parents should get to make the judgments about which medical treatments are the best for their child.  They are the ones with the best interest in achieving the "right" outcome.

I don't think all decisions a parent might make would be good ones.  I don't think that a parent can do anything he/she wants to a child willy-nilly under the guise that it's a medical treatment (for instance, pedophiles don't get to claim that abuse against their own children is somehow medicinal and therefore OK).  I simply think that in matters of honest disagreement about what treatment is best, or what outcome is most desirable, the parent's wishes should prevail, because they're the ones who bear ultimate responsibility.

The parents in this particular example are doing what they think is best.  They think (with good reason) that chemo is dangerous and harmful to their child and they're looking for better alternatives.  And although this particular article doesn't mention the spiritual angle, but I bet it's there as well.  Chemo might be the most effective way to kill the boy's cancer, but I bet if you ask them they'd all say that killing the cancer isn't the only matter at stake.  It's often hard for non-religious people to understand this, but to the devout there can be fates that are literally worse than death.  A "healthy" soul might be worth far more than a healthy body, and curing the body at the expense of the soul might be the height of folly.  Whether they're right about this or not I don't know, but it's their lives (and potentially their afterlives) at risk, so I'll let them make the call. 

I wouldn't force my ideas and beliefs on them, any more than I'd let them force their beliefs on me.