Anyone heard this on the news?

[Blackbird]

I heard quite a bit about it since I'm in Minnesota, seems like a good example of what the government can make people do..

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090520/ap_on_re_us/us_forced_chemo

What the link leaves out is that the mother was already warned that if they denied chemo she would get in trouble, they fled after the fact.

What does everyone think about natural ways to battle cancer?

 

[Big Daddy]

Sounds like in this case that the natural healer is a fraud. If the cancer has a very high cure rate with chemo then it should be utilized. If it had a low chance of cure than it's debatable. It's too bad that courts have to get involved in cases like this. Sometimes the religious beliefs are not for the good of the child. I'm always surprised when people go with religious beliefs over what is best for the child. Everybody should have the right to make their own decisions when it comes to their body. In the case of a minor, the minor is generally not mature enough to make their own decision. Unfortunately sometimes the parents judgment is skewed. Case in point would be Jim Jones and his religious cult. If the parents wanted to drink the kool aid that's fine, when their kids were given kool aid with the parents consent, that was wrong. I realize a lot of those people were forced to drink the kool aid, but a lot weren't. In that case children died because of their parents skewed beliefs. The same will probably happen to this child.

 

[hennypenny9]

Ever since this came on the news I've been torn. I believe very strongly that the government should not be able to force medical treatment on people. BUT on the other hand, this kind of cancer is supposedly "highly curable." And, I dunno if the article mentions it, but the boy went through a round of chemo and the tumor started to shrink. So at some point they thought chemo was the way to go. Why did they change there mind? Brainwashing, or actual information?

I guess I'm most worried that the outcome is going to make the government think they should be more controlling of minor's medical care, and make it easier for them to overrule a parent's choice.

 

[Big Daddy]

Ever since this came on the news I've been torn. I believe very strongly that the government should not be able to force medical treatment on people. BUT on the other hand, this kind of cancer is supposedly "highly curable." And, I dunno if the article mentions it, but the boy went through a round of chemo and the tumor started to shrink. So at some point they thought chemo was the way to go. Why did they change there mind? Brainwashing, or actual information?

I guess I'm most worried that the outcome is going to make the government think they should be more controlling of minor's medical care, and make it easier for them to overrule a parent's choice.

If the boy was going to die within a few years and the chemo was just going to make him miserable, then I could understand the parents wanting to try something else. In this case the cancer is curable with chemo. Deciding if your child should die when there is an alternative is not right. Sometimes parents are wrong. Children are not animals, parental rights are not the same as ownership.

 

[Blackbird]

I agree that the medicine man was probably wrong.

I can also see both sides of it, I can understand the want to use an alternative less harsh then chemo, but if chemo would have a very high chance of working, I don't now if I'd want to take the risk of an alternative that may or may not work. And definitely not on a child..

No Henny, I guess I hadn't heard that they did a round.
I agree that the government should not have the control to force things like that, but I can also see why they would for the benefit of the kid.. What might the government control next..?

I wonder what the kid wants? Not that it would probably change much though.

 

[Big Daddy]

It's a tough call. In this case I don't agree with the parents. If it wasn't a life or death issue I would probably side with the parents.

 

[Beekissed]

A thread on this subject was closed on BYC, so I don't know if this one will survive or not.

One thing to say....two sides to every coin...especially the cancer coin!

Yes, Amos, I'm in favor of natural or alternative treatments for cancer as opposed to the Merck approved version of poison, burn or slash. I've been an oncology nurse and I now work hospice, so I get to see the left overs from cancer treatments. Not my idea of livin'.

 

[hennypenny9]

I'm not saying the parents are right in this case, I just worry over the precedent this high publicity story will set. It's actually worse because the boy has such a high chance of living with the treatment. Then the courts can say "see look, parents don't have the knowledge to make decisions about the welfare of their children." Sorry if it seems like I'm going off the deep end, but that's the way I see things. That's why when I hear the story I am conflicted.

 

[Beekissed]

They SAY he had a high chance of living with the treatment, but I'd be willing to bet they wouldn't guarantee it nor bet their licensure on it. A chance is just that, a chance.

 

[Wifezilla]

I strongly believe that diet plays a HUGE role in cancer. That being said, if it was me or my kid, I would give them the chemo while using diet and vitamins.