Parents refuse chemotherapy for son

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by A Mac Gamer, May 19, 2009.

  1. A Mac Gamer macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Location:
    US
    #1
  2. emt1 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2008
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    #2
    The mother has since fled with her son and a warrant was issued for her "detainment"
     
  3. Xfujinon macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2007
    Location:
    Iowa City, Iowa
    #3
    I'm training to be a medical doctor.

    This stuff gives me the creeps. This is what will give me an ulcer someday.

    Feel bad for the kid. He doesn't have as much autonomy as he needs to combat the doctrinal force of his parents. I hope the court provides him with a fighting chance. Hodgkin's disease is largely treatable.

    These events are to blame for why I don't watch the news much anymore.
     
  4. emt1 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2008
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    #4
    I think the kid agrees with his parents though. Survival of the fittest.
     
  5. ravenvii macrumors 604

    ravenvii

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2004
    Location:
    Melenkurion Skyweir
    #5
    He's 13.
     
  6. A Mac Gamer thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Location:
    US
    #6
    Yeah, I don't know. The kid is only 13 years old, so he is probably following what his parents say, telling him he is not sick, and doesn't need the chemo.

    The thing I don't get is that they are Catholic, and religious reasons are why they are not doing the treatment. But I am Catholic, and I don't know why that would keep you from getting chemo. I don't know anybody that said no to treatment because they are Catholic.
     
  7. CorvusCamenarum macrumors 65816

    CorvusCamenarum

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Location:
    Birmingham, AL
    #7
    These days, the fittest are also literate.

    I have a hard time accepting that the parents think he's going to be cured with sunshine, kittens, and Jesus.
     
  8. Chundles macrumors G4

    Chundles

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2005
    #8
    Now, I don't believe in God but I'll fight for anyone's right to do so.

    Buuuuuut.....


    Haven't these people ever thought that Jesus gave them medicine? I know I'd rather be alive than dead. What if this divine intervention they're hoping for is the doctor pleading to help save their kid?

    Preferring to do nothing and watch someone die should be classed as a mental illness.
     
  9. emt1 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2008
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    #9
    The goal of natural selection is for the weaker ones to die before they reproduce. Obviously, his parent's made Darwin sad, but not all hope is lost.

    /me is going to hell.
     
  10. jaw04005 macrumors 601

    jaw04005

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2003
    Location:
    AR
    #10
    To some extent, I would understand if his chances were slim to none. However, ...

    "Doctors have said Daniel's cancer had a 90 percent chance of being cured with chemotherapy and radiation. Without those treatments, doctors said his chances of survival are 5 percent."

    is another story. For once, I'm glad the state stepped in.
     
  11. Sun Baked macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    #11
    I thought he had tried it and couldn't take the pain or was it the being sick from the chemo.

    While I agree the state should have some say in the treatment, if they want to put him back on the same course of treatments ... you are basically forcing somebody to undergo torture that is sanctioned by the state.

    Basically you have to bring in patients that had a really miserable time with this same 6 course treatment and ask them if they would force somebody to go through what they did.

    If you go through 1 course and make the decision to say I'd rather die than do that again 5 times -- it is time for the doctors to say OK, or alter their treatment plan.

    Edit: now if is simply the parents saying this, and not the kid ... then you have a chance for the state to come in. But, if the kid was the one who cried uncle first, I'd side with the kid.
     
  12. chrono1081 macrumors 604

    chrono1081

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Location:
    Isla Nublar
    #12
    Its obvious the parents hate their child and want to watch him die. The kid was brainwashed by the stupid ignorant parents.

    If they're trying to claim "religion" is the reason for not getting the treatment they're lying just so they can watch their son die. This story pisses me off. Stupid parents.


    My sister had this same form of cancer when she was 25 years old. Yes the chemo made her sick but she came out of it and got on with her life. The parents should be thankful they live in a country where their child has access to treatment to save his life.

    I think the parents should be locked up in prison if their son dies from this.
     
  13. JCastro macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    #13
    I do believe that he has been influinced by his parents. That is the role that a parent is supposed to play in their children's lives. Of course any parent should put the health and well being of their children first and for most. I don't see how they are doing that either.

    Being a Christian, I can't see reason why not to go through with medical treatment. I don't believe that everything is going to be some spectacular miracle. We were created with capacity to think, learn and reason. Modern medicine is a perfect example of that. Whether you think it is God given or not is irrelevant. Modern medicine has grown by leaps and bounds in the last 100 years or so. I just don't understand what makes people believe a God that is supposed to be a good and loving God would want them sit there and suffer when some of these options are available.

    It reminds me a fictional story I heard before.

    A town was starting to flood and all of the people were evacuating except one man. When the water was ankle deep a man came by in a big truck and offered to drive him out. The man thanked the guy in the truck but said, "I am waiting for God to save me." The next day the water had risen to about chest high. A man in a boat came by and offered to take him out. Again the man thanked the guy in the boat but said, "I am waiting for God to save me." The next day the water had risen to the roof top. The man was sitting on top of his house when a helicopter flew by and tried to pick him up. Again the man said "I am waiting for God to save me." The man ended up dying and going to heaven and he asked God why he didn't save him. God answered him by saying "I don't know what you were waiting for? I sent a man in a truck, a man in a boat and a helicopter and you refused them all."

    Regardless of everyones beliefs, I hope the kid gets some relief and treatment. I know I could not just sit by and do nothing if one of my kids were sick.
     
  14. chrono1081 macrumors 604

    chrono1081

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Location:
    Isla Nublar
    #14
    Um...did anyone else notice at the bottom of the article the whole "I think I'm an elder medicine man" thing? As well as the fact that the poor kid is 13 and cant read?
     
  15. Osarkon macrumors 68020

    Osarkon

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Location:
    Wales
    #15
    Yeah, I saw that bit.

    To be honest, he's only 13. I don't think he should have a say. Tell the parents the kid has to have the chemo, have it done, save his life, and 10 years later he'll look back and be grateful.
     
  16. JCastro macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    #16
    Wish it was that easy! It should be...:confused:
     
  17. Torajima macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Location:
    USA
    #17
    Grateful he lives in a socialist country where the government can FORCE you to have medical procedures against your own wishes?

    Him and his parents may be religious nut-jobs, but in America, they should have that right. The only ones they are harming is themselves.

    Besides, belief does play a big role in healing, and if he believes that chemotherapy will fail, it will most likely fail.
     
  18. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #18
    No kidding. It's chemo. It sucks, but it works.

    If strictly radiation would have worked, they probably would have prescribed it.


    No, because those parents clearly don't know anything about medicine, and they've influenced their son to not accept treatment for religious reasons, or perhaps they really believe that vitamins and water are going to do the trick

    . The government is making the best decision for the child, and isn't even close to being state-sanctioned torture. It's just that treatments are rarely pleasant, the kid isn't old enough to make that decision, and the parents are a poor influence on him with regards to his health.


    I guess if the kid dies, he dies. I have no problem with him dying of cancer, or his parents later in life. We're already over-populated. However, it would be nice if we properly attempted to save the son.
     
  19. iShater macrumors 604

    iShater

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2002
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    #19
    When I got the the apart about the 13 year old being illiterate it hit me that something is wrong here. :(
     
  20. ski2moro macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 3, 2007
    #20
    Another viewpoint

    Wait, wait, wait!!!

    If YOU had a terminal disease, would you want to spend the last year of your life in and out of hospitals or would you rather be doing something you wanted to do?

    The kid had chemo once, and the cancer came back. He doesn't want to go through it again.

    Would you prefer to spend your end of life doing what you want to do with drug-controlled pain or confined to a hospital, agonizing with months of chemo and radiation burning your insides and poisoning your body and STILL DIE ANYWAY?

    I think that everyone needs to be able to make this decision for themselves and for their child without the government interfering with the personal decisions of the family. I certainly don’t want the government taking my child and forcing him or her to undergo painful treatment. My child, my choice.

    Before you all go off on religion, you need to understand one thing.

    In the US, the ONLY legal defense you can refuse medical treatment for a child and have it stand up in court is based on religion beliefs. In order to protect my child from the pain of chemotherapy and surgeries and all that comes with this ‘choice,’ I call my lawyer to ask what I can do.

    My attorney tells me that I have to 'get religion.' So I become a religious fanatic in the eyes of the world, and all I want to do is keep my child happy in the last days of his life.

    There is no 100% guarantee that the government’s decision to treat this kid will cure him. This mother made her choice and we should respect it.
     
  21. djellison macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Location:
    Pasadena CA
    #21
    He had one dose of chemo, he did not have the course of six doses - he didn't see the course through.

    If he had - there would be a 90% chance of him being cured and thus surviving.

    As of now - there is a 5% chance of survival.

    If I were that childs parent - it's a complete and utter no brainer.

    Yes - chemo is nasty. But dying of cancer is worse - because it's suffering that gets worse and worse, until you are dead. Chemo is nasty, but then, chances are, you get better. It's not as nasty as dying.

    How on earth does a kid get to 13 and not be able to read?

    And - given that he can't read - on what basis can he state...
    "According to Daniel's court testimony, he believes the chemo will kill him"

    Who's told him that? As to if the government should step in - I just don't know. One could claim that they are essentially, 85% murdering him.
     
  22. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #22
    In the case of non-curative disease treatment would only be offered on a palliative basis anyway. i.e. to improve your symptoms so as to increase your quality of life. The aim of the medical team would be to discharge you ASAP to enjoy what time you have left. Treatment would not be offered if there was a high likelihood that it would render you hospital-bound for the remainder of your days.

    No. He had a single "round" of chemotherapy out of an entire "course". Numerous rounds make up a course. His cancer didn't go away - he never completed enough treatment for it to do so. The one round he did have shrunk his cancer which is usually a very positive sign that the entire treatment will be successful.

    Quite possibly. And unfortunately his other option is death from his untreated cancer. Which is very nasty fate if you're completely shunning modern medicine. But also something he'll only have to go through once.

    For hodgkins lymphoma the cure rate is quite good. The figure given in the article is 90%. And you are being a little sensational about chemotherapy there. It's not the nicest treatment but it's very effective for a lot of cancers and our ability to deal with the side effects is quite sophisticated these days.

    So instead of putting your child through "painful" treatment with a 90% success rate you'll commit them to a 95% chance of a painful death from non-treated cancer?

    Which, if true, is insane.

    If your child had hodgkins he would have a 90% chance of a full life. If your child had an incurable cancer they wouldn't be offered treatment unless it was on a palliative basis to deal with symptoms and increase their quality of life.

    No, there is a 90% chance in this case. There's a 95% chance doing nothing will kill him. Slowly, and painfully.

    One can respect her right to make a decision, but one doesn't have to respect the decision. In this case choosing pseudoscientific herbs, vitamins, and car battery water is categorically the wrong decision and deserves zero respect.
     
  23. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #23
    I agree. If it were the case that he wasn't treatable, I'd say refuse it. But this is clearly not the case here.

    I watched a friend with non-Hogdkins lymphoma die from the treatment itself. They gave him a bone marrow transplant after he'd already been through a lot of chemo. He died on the table. If I were him, I'd have refused and tried to live my final days as best I could. He was already so beaten down at that point and he'd even said, "I wish I'd just die already."
     
  24. chrono1081 macrumors 604

    chrono1081

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Location:
    Isla Nublar
    #24
    My sister, who has 0 pain tolerance went through chemo just fine for the exact same cancer which hit her when she was 25. Yes she was sick for it for a day or two after treatment but still was able to do the things she wanted. She is now enjoying life, she graduated college, she has a good paying job and is having lots of fun. (And just recently got her first mac this past Christmas. My wallet is still crying)

    This kid could have all that if his parents weren't murderers who want their child to die. My opinion is they want insurance money.
     
  25. Dmac77 macrumors 68020

    Dmac77

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2008
    Location:
    Michigan
    #25
    These people are complete and total idiots. That sums it up IMO.

    Don
     

Share This Page