July 22, 2006
I Have to Stop Reading the News
How often do we hear mention of the countless freedoms we as Americans enjoy? (Hint: lately, almost every time George Bush or one of his talking heads opens his/her mouth.) I’m getting more than a little irritated listening to this mantra when one news article after another tells a different story.A Virginia judge yesterday ruled that a 16-year-old boy fighting to treat his cancer with alternative therapy must now seek traditional medical treatment at a nearby hospital, according to an AP article.
Last year, he apparently went through three months of chemotherapy and complained that it made him nauseated and weak. When doctors recommended that he seek a second round of chemo, the boy refused; with his parents’ support, he opted intstead for non-traditional treatment including a sugar-free, organic diet and herbal supplements supervised by a clinic in Mexico.
I suppose it isn’t enough of a tragedy that a teenager is battling Hodgkin’s disease in the first place; no, now someone has stepped in and essentially told this kid that he and his parents are incapable of deciding what’s best for him in the treatment of his cancer.
Chemotherapy is a remarkable and often highly effective weapon in fighting cancer and has saved many, many lives. But I’ve witnessed first-hand the toll it can take on a person. And so has this 16-year-old Virginia boy. Sadly, it looks like he’s about to go through it again – all because a judge knows what’s best.
Posted by kristin at 11:30 | Comments (4)
<< Playing House No Longer a Crime in North Carolina
| Main |
Why is Public Breast-feeding Offensive? >>
Comments
Flipping it around - are you ok when Christian Scientists keep there kids from getting medication because they think God will cure them? That's pretty alternative.
I've got to doubt the effectiveness of a sugar-free, organic diet and herbal supplements versus cancer. Of course I've been influenced by this snake-oil salesman's infomercials....
http://www.naturalcures.com/
I've got to doubt the effectiveness of a sugar-free, organic diet and herbal supplements versus cancer. Of course I've been influenced by this snake-oil salesman's infomercials....
http://www.naturalcures.com/
Posted by:
Harper
at July 24,2006 13:21
That's a great question, Harper, and one I struggled with when thinking about this topic and reacting to it. That is pretty alternative, as you say. I really am not terribly comfortable with Christian Scientists (to name one example) keeping their kids from medical treatment, but I am much less comfortable with the government forcing us to seek conventional medical treatment against our will, so I'd have to support their decision. And I think one can make a distinction between religious objections to medical treatment, for ex., and child abuse. I may not be crazy about it, just as I'm not crazy about this kid's choice to seek alternative cancer therapy that may or may not work. But it's not up to me. It's not my body that's fighting cancer.
As far as doubting the effectiveness of the treatment he & his family chose, I think that has little to do with the issue. It's about a person having the right to refuse treatment for a disease and as far as I knew, we still had that right. My mom opted for no more chemo after several months - I don't remember anyone questioning her choice.
As far as doubting the effectiveness of the treatment he & his family chose, I think that has little to do with the issue. It's about a person having the right to refuse treatment for a disease and as far as I knew, we still had that right. My mom opted for no more chemo after several months - I don't remember anyone questioning her choice.
Posted by:
Kristin
at July 24,2006 13:41
Any adult has the right to refuse treatment if they so choose. Christian Scientists and others - it's their choice if they'd like to undergo chemo, change diet, or try taking Flinstone Vitamins. That's not in question here.
This is a social work situation. The child (even at 16 - for the courts it's a child) cannot be trusted to make an informed decision. Does the state then believe that the parents are acting in the best interest of the child? In this case the court decided no. Are they right? I don't know. A lot would depend on this clinic. But I don't see this case as the state vs the individual struggling over civil liberties, rather the ongoing struggle of defining the line between child/adult and the role of the state versus the role of the guardian in determining the welfare of a child.
This is a social work situation. The child (even at 16 - for the courts it's a child) cannot be trusted to make an informed decision. Does the state then believe that the parents are acting in the best interest of the child? In this case the court decided no. Are they right? I don't know. A lot would depend on this clinic. But I don't see this case as the state vs the individual struggling over civil liberties, rather the ongoing struggle of defining the line between child/adult and the role of the state versus the role of the guardian in determining the welfare of a child.
Posted by:
harper
at July 24,2006 15:13
Fair enough. It does boil down to the fact that he's a minor. I know that if he were 4 instead of 16, I'd have a much tougher time sympathizing with the parents, given that a 4-year-old is not mature enough to make such decisions. But 16? I know, I know, the law must cut off the age somewhere.
Posted by:
Kristin
at July 25,2006 07:33
Post a comment
