Medico-ethical dilemna.. forced chemo on a 12 yr old

[troutman]

Poll at yahoo.com:

Family refuses dying son chemo: What's your opinion?

• (43%)It's their right to choose how he lives out his life
• (57%)Child welfare is right to step in and force treatment

[photon]

Thing is it's a potential slippery slope both ways.. if they allow the parent's choice to stand, what about Robert Latimer (sp?)? Or other situations that aren't as cut and dried, what if he didn't have 6 months, but 1 year? 5 years? where do you draw the line? Some cancers go into spontaneous remission as well, what if that happens here?

Going the other way, how much right does society have to intervene? If we allow this, how much further does it go? Can we force treatment for non-life threatening illnesses? Force vaccinations? Force good diet?

[llama64]

Originally Posted by photon

Going the other way, how much right does society have to intervene? If we allow this, how much further does it go? Can we force treatment for non-life threatening illnesses? Force vaccinations? Force good diet?

Force sterilization of genetic "undesirables" as we did in Alberta a couple decades ago?

This is why the parents rights must be upheld. Otherwise overly zealous, but well meaning people will run roughshod over any conception of individual rights.

[driveway]

Originally Posted by photon

Thing is it's a potential slippery slope both ways..

Very much agree with you and, as usual in cases like this, I find myself on the side of more individual freedom, not less. When in doubt, I feel that we should always err on the side of giving individuals more responsibility and liberty.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by llama64

Force sterilization of genetic "undesirables" as we did in Alberta a couple decades ago?

This is why the parents rights must be upheld. Otherwise overly zealous, but well meaning people will run roughshod over any conception of individual rights.

But conversly, what if the parents in a position of absolute authority convince their kid that he doesn't want to go through the treatments?

There are some people out there that wouldn't want to heart break of watching their kid wither and die, and we all know that they're not evil people, they're just not emotionally ready for the fight.

So I'm not sure that parental rights in this case trump the right of the medical experts.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

But conversly, what if the parents in a position of absolute authority convince their kid that he doesn't want to go through the treatments?

There are some people out there that wouldn't want to heart break of watching their kid wither and die, and we all know that they're not evil people, they're just not emotionally ready for the fight.

So I'm not sure that parental rights in this case trump the right of the medical experts.

He's their kid. By law, their property. They aren't abusing him, nor are they making any decisions designed to hurt him. They are choosing a different path that others just don't agree with. Whether or not it's in the best interest of the child is the responsibility of the parents and no one else.

Now, if the child was fighting the parents for the kemo, perhaps there might be a mandate for the Government to step in. But in this case, it's a clear violation and as a citizen, I'm appalled.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by llama64

He's their kid. By law, their property. They aren't abusing him, nor are they making any decisions designed to hurt him. They are choosing a different path that others just don't agree with. Whether or not it's in the best interest of the child is the responsibility of the parents and no one else.

Now, if the child was fighting the parents for the kemo, perhaps there might be a mandate for the Government to step in. But in this case, it's a clear violation and as a citizen, I'm appalled.

I really disagree with this, the parents of religious groups that deny their kids medical care due to their beliefs aren't really abusive people, yet they condemn their kids to a greater chance of death due to their beliefs.

Absolute parental rights are great if the Parents are perfect, or clear or not mentally deranged, or selfish. But since parents are not perfect, then there does have to be some avenue of oversight when it comes to the rights of the child, or the rights of the state for example to do everything that they can to preserve life.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by llama64

He's their kid. By law, their property. .

Absolutely not.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by troutman

Absolutely not.

I was going to say something to that effect, but I thought that children under the charter were treated as individuals not as cattle.

Even though it would certainly make life easier if they were property, you could sell them by the pound. Force them to mow your law with their teeth and use them as a floor polisher.

[photon]

As a parent I would hope that society would take some role in protecting my child from me.. where that line falls is a tough call though.

As a parent, if I were in this position I don't know I'd even trust myself to make a rational decision with all the emotions involved. At the very least there should be someone to help with the decision, someone who can be more objective.

[Locke]

Well, he has fetal-alcohol syndrome, so that would typically implicate the parents in some form of previous wrong-doing so they may not exactly be stellar judges of what is best for their kid.

[Ryan Coke]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I really disagree with this, the parents of religious groups that deny their kids medical care due to their beliefs aren't really abusive people, yet they condemn their kids to a greater chance of death due to their beliefs.

I am aware of some situations like this, and it is sad when a Jehovah family that doesn't believe in blood transfusions refuses treatment for their child with a very curable/treatable illness. At that point I certainly agree with the Govt stepping in to protect the child's best interests, even if the child doesn't realize it. But it certainly runs the risk of being a slippery slope, and a very grey area.

[Ford Prefect]

This issue strikes kind of close to home with me. In the early 1970s my niece, who was 2 at the time, was diagnosed with a form of leukemia ... I forget which exact form it was. She was considered incurable and untreatable ... and given 6 months to live by the doctors at Foothills hospital. Basically, the doctors told my sister to take her home and let her die because there was nothing they could do for her.

My niece was my sister's first and only child. She refused to accept the doctors' verdict and sought out alternative cancer treatments for my niece. The treatment she decided on was illegal in Canada and could only be obtained at that time in Mexico. It is now available in several US states, but that wasn't the case in the 1970s.

So my sister took her 2-year-old daughter to Mexico and basically camped out at the clinic that offered this treatment until they agreed to look at her daughter. After examining her the doctor at this clinic agreed to treat my niece, which involved my sister having to learn a lot about diet and how to administer this treatment. It also involved my sister having to smuggle the needed medication, which was illegal in both the US and Canada at the time, across 2 international borders. The medication is derived from natural ingredients and is not a narcotic or any other form of mind altering drug, but had she been caught by customs officials my sister would have been treated as harshly as a cocaine smuggler.

Six months went by, and my niece showed signs of improving. She continued to improve over the coming months and at some point between six months and a year following her original diagnosis the doctors at Foothills decided that maybe there was hope for my niece so they started her on chemo and the rest of the conventional leukemia treatment ... as well as some experimental procedures over the years.

Certain aspects of her conventional treatment in Canada were brutal. It took six orderlies to hold down my 2-year-old niece during certain portions of her treatment ... six grown men to hold down a 2-year-old. I have no idea how many such treatments she had to take over the next 14 or so years. My sister didn't argue with the conventional treatments though because she had been told that if she refused them her daughter would be taken away by social services. At one point over the years though the doctors in Canada were trying an experimental treatment on my niece that was having an even more damaging effect on my niece than the chemo. My sister did attempt to refuse this experimental treatment, on the grounds that it was experimental and therefore not part of the conventional protocol, and was obviously having disastrous effects on her daughter's health. However, when she tried to refuse this experimental treatment she was told "You cannot refuse it. If you do, social services will be on your doorstep on Monday morning and you will no longer have custody of your daughter." Her doctors eventually agreed that the experimental treatment wasn't working and discontinued it.

During this time my sister continued the illegal treatment which, unlike the conventional treatment, seemed to produce positive results. Between rounds of chemo and radiation treatments my sister would nurse her daughter back to health using a combination of diet and this illegal Mexican treatment, only to see her daughter slip backwards everytime she had to undergo more "conventional" treatment.

My niece was eventually declared "cured" of leukemia when she was 16. During that time the illegal Mexican treatment that my sister gave her gained some acceptance by the mainstream US medical establishment and was eventually legalized in several States as mentioned earlier. This was party due to my niece ... one of the US studies that lead to its acceptance was done by a doctor in Seattle, and my niece was one of the case studies he based his study on.

In the end, my sister couldn't say conclusively what saved my niece, but the emperical evidence strongly suggests the illegal Mexican treatment was certainly a factor. There were only two leukemia patients at Foothills at the time my niece was diagnosed who underwent the Mexican treatment ... my niece and another little boy. They were the only two to survive beyond a year, and my niece was the only survivor. She is 35 now.

Personally, I suspect it was likely a combination of the illegal drug, a specialized diet and the regime of chemo and other conventional treatments. I suspect the Mexican drug and special diet bolstered her health and immune system and helped her overcome the deleterious effects of her conventional therapy, which in turn cured her leukemia. That's just my theory though and not based on anything scientific.

While my sister cannot prove beyond dispute what cured her daughter, she has received admission from Canadian doctors that the chemo and the experimental treatment my niece received did yield some lifelong physical and psychological side effects. My niece was rendered sterile by her conventional cancer treatments, and she suffers from paranoid schizophrenia as a result of some of her Canadian treatments as well. She has also suffered damage to her long term memory from these treatments, which renders her learning disabled and unable to attend college or university. That much the doctors will admit to.

As a child, she was treated like a leper by her peers and teachers because they didn't understand her medical condition ... the kids her age shunned her because they "didn't want to become bald and stupid" like my niece.

When I asked my sister one time if it was worth it and whether she would do it the same way if she had a chance to do it all over again she said "probably not." Even though she won the battles, she feels like she lost the war. This in spite of the being known by many in the cancer community as "The Woman Who Beat Cancer". She beat it alright, but the price was extremely high. She now wonders if it's best to let nature take its course and not fight overly hard against the inevitable.

So when doctors or judges think they know what's best in these situations, I would say that they are being extremely presumptuous. Rather, I would suggest they should go straight to a very hot place underground and proceed to minding their own business.

[dissentowner]

Amazing post, thanks for sharing.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Does he even understand the ramifications beyond the physical pain, or is that the key point in his decision?

That is what people who don't go through tough illness tend to think.

Ramifications? What like life or death? News flash, everyone dies. Doesn't mean you need to spend your life in pain.

If you have fight and purpose, then you go for it. But people within in their own body usually know what's best.

I doubt this poor child, who has been through so much, is worried about the pain. He's just tired with the long trip.

I know when I started refusing treatment (not cancer, but heart) it wasn't cause I was giving up, or scared of the pain. It was cause I saw no value in the treatment.

Kids are smarter than you give them credit for, and sick kids often have a wisdom that adults don't match until they are on their deathbeds.

Ramifiations? Really? This kid is not leading a country or raising a family. He just wants peace.

EDIT: For some reason, our western ideals believe that life is the most important part of living. Go too far on that end and it's Terry Schivo. And those people get all high and mighty about it. Like they are the ones on the bed dying, suffering.

Being alive is not living. And no one should be forced to live a life they don't want. Now of course, some don't have the wisdom to see everything. But being around sick kids all my life, and being one, you are not going to convince me this kid doesn't know what's best for him.

We're not talking about a kid threatening suicide because they don't fit in. We are talking about an individual battling something most of you will never have to worry about, and would be ill prepared to deal with even as an adult.

EDIT x2: Sorry CC, but that one really got to me. Sick kids have the most fight in them than anyone I have ever seen. They endure pain adults call in sick about and still try and make 'the team' while hobbling around on one leg. If this one has no fight, I seriously doubt it's because he 'can't handle the pain'.

You basically told a 12 year old, recurring cancer patient to 'suck it up'.

I apologize if I went to far, it's just been such a part of my life, and I've seen so many kids battle through it too. Those who made it and those who didn't.

[BuzzardsWife]

The boy is the one feeling sick and pain and suffering every day. If he wants it to end, I think he has the right to. Just because he has fetal alcohol syndrome doesn't mean he isn't an intelligent person. After watching my Mom suffer worse than they would let an animal suffer, I have no doubt this child really does want it to end. Every human should have that choice. If his own parents agree, then it must be pretty awful. No parent would make that choice lightly.

[Knut]

Thanks Fp for that story.... it is quite touching.

The main reason i posted this is that i have trouble knowing where to stand on this issue. I am an Optometrist and i see people every day not taking care of their eyes. While I know that life/death is on a different scale than sight... it is still extremely important to people. Often i want to force treatment on someone that is non-compliant, however I have no authority to do so. I respect the individual right to choose, as i think that is a fundamental part of why human beings are so successful.. especially here in Canada.

To me diabetics who do not control their diets, or take the medications properly, can be used as a good comparison. They are slowly losing their sight, kidney function, and heart function, but they refuse to seek help. I liken this to slow-suicide... not controlling diabetes is certain death (much like Cancer).

I ask everyone this question?? Your diabetic child refuses to take their insulin, would you say no more treatment because they are tired of the diet control/needles ?? You know that it is certain death for them not to seek the treatment... now would the government step in????? (i know the Chemo is not 100% successful, but neither is insulin without proper diet control)

[Hemi-Cuda]

i take a rather cold and objective view at these things. the world is grossly over-populated as it is, the recent food crisis is further proof of that, and things will just continue to get worse. so if the kid is ok with dying and the parents are ok with it, why argue with them? i just can't wrap my head around why human life is considered so precious that even when a person and their loved ones have accepted death as the natural course, government still has to step in and "save" their life at any cost, disregarding the quality of that person's life as a result

i've had a long time to think about situations like this, suicide, right to die, etc. my mother committed suicide 6 years ago, and as a result my beliefs where thrown into chaos for a long time, i didn't know what to think. but after enough time had passed so that the emotions weren't as strong, i realized my beliefs hadn't changed. if a person truly wants to die, first off they will find a way. and second, no one else has the right to say otherwise, religious preaching about sanctity of life be damned. if this kid was tired of fighting and he and his parents wanted to let nature roll it's course, the government nor anyone else have the right to force treatment on him

[Devils'Advocate]

Just so that I have this straight -
the mother that was drinking while pregnant is now deciding her offspring should die? Or was the kid adopted by someone else?

[BuzzardsWife]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Just so that I have this straight -
the mother that was drinking while pregnant is now deciding her offspring should die? Or was the kid adopted by someone else?

If you read the article, it is the boys father and his step-mother fighting for this in court. What blows me away is this little boy is sick and dieing and the courts took him away from his family and put him in foster care for the duration of this fight. Pretty heartless government we have. I imagine that boy crying all night for his Dad. And they aren't deciding he should die, he is dieing and doesn't want to continue treatment. Big difference than them deciding he SHOULD die.