Parents refuse to let son get Chemotherapy, he never showed up for court

[Predicto]

It is easiest to dismiss a families religious freedoms when we disagree with what they choose to do in the name of those religious freedoms. Chemo treatment is not a 100% absolute guaranteed success and the alternative treatments are not 100% absolute guaranteed failure. We may disagree with the course of action that the parents have chosen but until you are in their situation don't judge them for doing what they believe is in the best interests of their child.

The idea of court ordered medical treatment against the religious beliefs of the family is something that I believe to be dangerous to individual liberty in this country.

With all that - Colleen and Anthony Hauser "should" in my view weigh the medical opinions of the doctors against their religious beliefs and get that boy into treatment. But again that should be their choice not a court imposed enslavement of the individual against their will.

I understand and respect that point of view, even if I am not sure I agree with it in this particular case.

[Popeman38]

How is the DOCTOR forcing anyone to go through anything? The doctor provides medical advice and care in the same fashion as in any other case. It would be a court that was compelling this kid to accept the care in this case.

True. So the court should be held liable? Or the elected officials?

[Popeman38]

Is this accurate?

Edit - oh, Jehovah's Witnesses, not Mormons. I knew it wasn't Mormons.

Also, there are often at least some alternatives to blood transfusions.

My bad. I had Mormon in my head. I stand corrected.

[artmonkforHOF]

why are people voting yes? Chemo is not a 100% cure for cancer, the kid could get another round, or a few more rounds of chemo and still be in the same shape.

If I ever do get cancer (and it looks pretty likely since I smoke and don't take care of myself that well) I would refuse chemotherapy. it has got to be the worst way to kill disease that's out there, just kill everything on a localized area and hope it doesn't come back. Sure it has helped people in the past, but I'd rather take my chances with some other form of treatment that does not kill little bits of me.

And we are talking about cancer here, the medical term for "we have no idea whats wrong wit you, your cells are just mutating on their own". It is the most generic term in medicine today, as breast cancer does not mean that all women who have it have the same cell mutation, just that their cells are not reproducing properly, and it is localized in the breast. Even one cancer patient can have different types of cancer in the same area, but they still would both be called "lung" cancer if the lungs are the area affected.

Chemotherapy does nothing to address how or why the cells mutate, and only tries to stop it from spreading by killing off everything around it and hoping the cells don't mutate again. This to me is lazy medicine. Instead of trying to fix the problem, they simply try to alleviate the symptoms. it's equivalent to having a nail stuck in your arm and telling the doctor it hurts, so he pulls it out a 1/16" of an inch to relieve the pain and hope it doesn't start to hurt again. I would rather have my doctor try to find another solution or just hope the cells stop mutating, which has happened before, and more than the medical community is willing to admit.

[Predicto]

why are people voting yes? Chemo is not a 100% cure for cancer, the kid could get another round, or a few more rounds of chemo and still be in the same shape.

If I ever do get cancer (and it looks pretty likely since I smoke and don't take care of myself that well) I would refuse chemotherapy. it has got to be the worst way to kill disease that's out there, just kill everything on a localized area and hope it doesn't come back. Sure it has helped people in the past, but I'd rather take my chances with some other form of treatment that does not kill little bits of me.

And we are talking about cancer here, the medical term for "we have no idea whats wrong wit you, your cells are just mutating on their own". It is the most generic term in medicine today, as breast cancer does not mean that all women who have it have the same cell mutation, just that their cells are not reproducing properly, and it is localized in the breast. Even one cancer patient can have different types of cancer in the same area, but they still would both be called "lung" cancer if the lungs are the area affected.

Chemotherapy does nothing to address how or why the cells mutate, and only tries to stop it from spreading by killing off everything around it and hoping the cells don't mutate again. This to me is lazy medicine. Instead of trying to fix the problem, they simply try to alleviate the symptoms. it's equivalent to having a nail stuck in your arm and telling the doctor it hurts, so he pulls it out a 1/16" of an inch to relieve the pain and hope it doesn't start to hurt again. I would rather have my doctor try to find another solution or just hope the cells stop mutating, which has happened before, and more than the medical community is willing to admit.

Again, it depends on the cancer. Do a little research on Hodgkins lymphoma. A 95 percent success ratio means something.

Also, if you know of a doctor who isn't "lazy" and has a different cure for cancer, please send me his number. I'd like to meet the guy.

[BKSkinsFan]

Ugh, apparently people missed the article I mentioned in here. The court is holding the mother in contempt, and are going to place the child in foster care as soon as he's found.

Also, the father has even stated that they are NOT opposed to chemotherapy. A member of their church was quoted as saying he has no clue what the mother is thinking, and the boy should be getting some type of treatment.

With this said, we can continue the debate on whether the courts should interfere with religious beliefs even though that's not the case here. Carry on.

[SnyderShrugged]

Ugh, apparently people missed the article I mentioned in here. The court is holding the mother in contempt, and are going to place the child in foster care as soon as he's found.

Also, the father has even stated that they are NOT opposed to chemotherapy. A member of their church was quoted as saying he has no clue what the mother is thinking, and the boy should be getting some type of treatment.

With this said, we can continue the debate on whether the courts should interfere with religious beliefs even though that's not the case here. Carry on.

I also didnt think this was a religous beliefs stance in this case, I had read that it was simply the kid deciding he didnt want chemo and his Mom supported him in that decision because they wanted to go the wholistic route (which there are documented success stories of alternative treatments worldwide, just that the medical community isnt served well by granting those alternative treatments validity, btw)

[artmonkforHOF]

Again, it depends on the cancer. Do a little research on Hodgkins lymphoma. A 95 percent success ratio means something.

Also, if you know of a doctor who isn't "lazy" and has a different cure for cancer, please send me his number. I'd like to meet the guy.

I dont know a dr who has a cure, but how does chemo help in finding one? it's a medical gamble, albeit with improving odds, but is still not a cure. it might improve the kids chance of surviving , but there is no guarantee.

[chipwhich]

I dont know a dr who has a cure, but how does chemo help in finding one? it's a medical gamble, albeit with improving odds, but is still not a cure. it might improve the kids chance of surviving , but there is no guarantee.

Uh it's hodgkins lymphoma...and there is a pretty good guarantee of 95%. My cousin was cured of it.

So what is your point?

Cancer is not cancer is not cancer....and not guaranteed death.

It's hodgkins lymphoma. Give the kid the best odds. Give him his chemo.

[Corcaigh]

Another parent being persecuted just because she likes to feed her kid ...

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/05/21/sc.missing.boy/index.html

[Special K]

I dont know a dr who has a cure, but how does chemo help in finding one? it's a medical gamble, albeit with improving odds, but is still not a cure. it might improve the kids chance of surviving , but there is no guarantee.

What's your point? There's very little in medicine that is an absolute, 100% cure.

Another parent being persecuted just because she likes to feed her kid ...

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/05/21/sc.missing.boy/index.html

OMG, please tell me you are kidding, lol.

[Thiebear]

I'm coming around to Keeastman's stance. The only 100% is that we'll die.

90% if said by more than 1 doctor is about as close as your ever going to get.

It's a crazy thing medicine, but having 2 monkeys i'd give it a shot.

I've seen them be sooo very wrong with my Great Grandmother and the ex wife though i

can understand not trusting them.

[LaxBuddy21]

What's your point? There's very little in medicine that is an absolute, 100% cure.

Thats really the key point. Nothing is 100% guaranteed except death and taxes. Life is based on statistics and this is about as close to a medical statistical guarantee as you can get when dealing with life threatening illness.

[Special K]

I've seen them be sooo very wrong with my Great Grandmother and the ex wife though i

can understand not trusting them.

I'm really sorry to hear that Thiebear. I have a few friends who have had really bad run-ins with the medical community while pursuing treatment for certain conditions.

In fact, I had a terrible time with an ER physician in college who treated me like a lowely piece of crap, didn't diagnose me correctly, and only because I have a medically-connected family did I get in to see a general surgeon friend of the family who took a couple minutes to examine me and rushed me into emergency surgery. We filed an official complaint against the ER doctor during my post-op.

Whole point being, there are a lot of variables that go into the proper treatment of a patient that can make the experience of the patient better, and that includes getting multiple opinions and finding a doctor who isn't a freaking jerk and who you are comfortable with...it can be a difficult combo to find and I don't think a lot of the general population realizes that and they just take their bad experience and generalize medicine off of that...something that is very understandable to me because I certainly wanted to do that back in college when I was going through some of my medical issues.

Don't really know what the point of that story is, but I guess it's basically telling you that I understand why many people can develop a general distrust of physicians based on prior experiences with less than stellar ones, zero-personality ones, or other factors...and that's something I feel badly about. Anyway, I am empathetic to your views based on your previous experience with your mom and ex-wife and I'm sorry to hear that. And your point is well-taken about some of the distrust of the medical community that is prevalent among the general population today.

[Corcaigh]

OMG, please tell me you are kidding, lol.

Possibly.

I thought it was an interesting example of an intervention because a parent was putting a child's life at risk, without religious belief complicating the argument.

[War Paint]

nearly 95% of the people I know who were treated with Chemo, went through the hell that it brings to their bodies, then died anyway. They spent their last days on earth in pain, throwing up, and emotionally destroyed. This is a personal choice where the boy's wishes must be considered at a minimum.

Yep. I've known three people in my life, two were in their twenties and one a teen. They all got cancer. They all received chemo. They all got extremely sick and lost their hair. They all died.

The thing is, the way our law is, if there is a natural herb that is very effective against a disease, a person could get thrown in jail if they market the herb as a cure. Only the FDA has that authority. So if I got sick, took a natural herb that cured me, and then announced to the world that this herb cures the disease, I can go to prison.

[LaxBuddy21]

Yep. I've known three people in my life, two were in their twenties and one a teen. They all got cancer. They all received chemo. They all got extremely sick and lost their hair. They all died.

The thing is, the way our law is, if there is a natural herb that is very effective against a disease, a person could get thrown in jail if they market the herb as a cure. Only the FDA has that authority. So if I got sick, took a natural herb that cured me, and then announced to the world that this herb cures the disease, I can go to prison.

Because you have not put that herb through the vigorous testing required to say it works. Do you really think thats a problem? If it is so effective, it would hold up to the clinical trials standard we set forth for our other medications. If it doesnt, then it should not be marketed as a cure.

[War Paint]

Because you have not put that herb through the vigorous testing required to say it works. Do you really think thats a problem? If it is so effective, it would hold up to the clinical trials standard we set forth for our other medications. If it doesnt, then it should not be marketed as a cure.

So they tested chemo and found it works and should be considered a cure? Or maybe there is a huge money making industry that influence these testings.

The success rate given to chemo is if the patient survives for five years. That is considered a success. If the patient gets cancer again after five years and dies, it doesn't alter the original "success" stat. Also, the success stat doesn't consider terrible and sometimes permanent side effects from the chemo.

[pjfootballer]

To me, it's not up to the government to decide who lives and dies. If you come to the hospital, you have a right to refuse treatment. You can leave AMA if you want to. It's their decision no matter how wrong it may be or no matter how illeterate they are to the consequences. It's their right.

[LaxBuddy21]

So they tested chemo and found it works and should be considered a cure? Or maybe there is a huge money making industry that influence these testings.

The success rate given to chemo is if the patient survives for five years. That is considered a success. If the patient gets cancer again after five years and dies, it doesn't alter the original "success" stat. Also, the success stat doesn't consider terrible and sometimes permanent side effects from the chemo.

Nothing in medicine is called a cure because there is no 100% efficacy. The media calls things cures. They tested chemo and the survival and life expectancy on chemo are statistically significantly higher than no treatment at all. You have a better chance of survival receiving chemo than no treatment at all. This has not been proven with these "herbal cures". If they had any real merit, they would be run through the process and proven to have an advantage. Then they would be marketed and sold as such.

As far as your success stats, yes you are correct. Do you know why? Because you have to put a cap on it somewhere or clinical trials would never end. If the overall 5 year survival for a particular cancer is 30% and chemo raises that to 45% at 5 years, that would be considered an improvement and chemo would be shown to have benefits. With cancer especially, you have to look at shorter term goals because of the overall impact on life expectancy that cancer has. Do you really think these so called herbal cures would give you a better 5 year life expectancy? They could prove to have a worse 5 year expectancy. Until they run through a clinical trial, that cannot be known. One person does not equal a clinical trial. I for one am glad they go through the testing they do before they market something. I dont want to hear that it worked for Joe Schmoe. I want to hear in a trial of 500 people, it proved to be beneficial and improve life expectancy. If I hear it improved life expectancy from 5% to 90%, there is nothing that would stop me from taking that drug short of brain damage.

[LaxBuddy21]

To me, it's not up to the government to decide who lives and dies. If you come to the hospital, you have a right to refuse treatment. You can leave AMA if you want to. It's their decision no matter how wrong it may be or no matter how illeterate they are to the consequences. It's their right.

Its up to the government in the case of children and others that cannot make decisions for themselves. If someone over the age of 18 refuses treatment, that is definitely their choice but for children, they have not developed the reasoning ability to properly weigh their options. They should not suffer (and in this case probably die) because they got stuck with idiot parents.

[robotfire]

If the kid refuses chemo, it's suicide. Suicide is against the law. Therefore, the kid is breaking the law by not getting chemo. I think his parents are accomplices if they refuse treatment.