Teen forced to have chemo

Yaay! Another example of Small Government in action. Wonder how the Child Protective Services got involved, anyhow? Notified by a zealous MD?

this makes me so mad!!

you can't force your beliefs onto someone else! this is why we have wars and terrorism and religious bigots.. because whenever everyone's happy with a situation, someone comes along and says 'no, do it my way'.

it would have to be a very cold day in hell before i gave ANY treatment to an informed, mentally sound patient who was refusing it.

i'd like to say to the judge 'good luck finding someone to accept that consent and administer that chemo', but the sad thing is, i'll bet that there's a nurse out there who's so sure the courts are right that they'd go right ahead.

so sad so maddening so scary so f***in wrong!

How do you suppose they will give this chemo? Tie him up? Have security guards or state police with drawn guns keeping his family at bay? What physician would write an order to give chemo to a person who refuses? And, yes, I, too am sure that they can find some nurse who believes that because the state says it's the legal thing to do, it must be "the right thing to do," even if he's kicking and screaming. But, I hope they don't.

How can the citizens of that state allow this to happen? I would be protesting, and demanding that government stay within it's own purview. And, this so clearly is not! This is so innately wrong that I can not even believe that is this could be allowed to occur.

This is a major step backward for individual freedom because it won't stop there. Unless the people in this country wake up, they will find themselves legislated out of all of their "unalienable" (not a typo) rights. It's already happening.

It is such a scary thought! We are losing our individual freedom little by little. First it is our right to choose ,now it is our right to refuse. Is there any thing left?

I may not agree with what they want to do regarding treatment but they should have the right to do what they decide is best and considering both the parent and this young man agree on how they want him to be treated the state should have no right to decide otherwise. It's messed up, and not right to force him to have chemo done when he doesn't want it. Besides what if, in the end, the chemo shortens his life, rather than extend it, or just makes his last months on earth miserable, instead of enjoyable.
My son, who will be 4 in Sept, at the age of 15 will be allowed to decide if he wants to live with myself or my(soon to be) ex-husband. He will also get to decide how often he sees the parent who he does not reside with. So at 15, he could decide to move in with my ex and never see me again or continue to live with me and never see my ex again. He could also decide that he wants to see the parent he doesn't reside with every weekend or whatever, it is totally up to him. 15 is the average age for a child of divorced parents to be given the freedom to decide who to live with and how often to see the parent the child doesn't reside with. Now if a 15 year old has the right to decide who they want to live with and how often to see the other parent, why should a 16 year old not be allowed to decide how he wants to treat his cancer, especially considering his parents AGREE WITH HIS DECISION.
My MIL's sister survived breast cancer about 3 years ago(she was diagnosed when I was pregnant and was in remission, I believe, before my son turned 1.) A few months ago she was diagnosed with lung and bone cancer after she was rushed to the hospital to have 750 ml of fluid drained from her right lung and yes, obviously, it's terminal. She decided to go with having the chemo and, on top of dying, she has had all the bad effects of chemo, the hair loss, the vommitting, the skin on her hands and feet has peeled off and other nasty side effects. That was her choice and I respect her for that. However, had she decided that she didn't want to go through chemo again no one would question her and they sure as heck couldn't force her to go through it. Why is it any different in this case? It it because the child is a minor? In that case the parents decide.
Hold on, the parents did decide and they sided with their child's choice not to have chemo. So why in the heck is the state involved in this and who in the heck said the state SHOULD have any say in this.
They are taking our rights away one by one and that is just so messed up. Pretty soon, we will have no medical decisions to make because when we go to the dr the gov't will have already decided what treatment you get.
I agree that pro-choice is not just about abortion.

Taryn

anyone know what happened to this kid? i know what i WANT to have happened to this kid, and i know what i HOPE didn't happen..

It was overturned on appeal; currently awaiting new trial:

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/CancerP...2233959&page=1

As a HCP I would refuse to administer that chemo. That is NOT right.

I sure wouldn't... and that's NO lie.

It seems that Abraham and his parents have won their court battle.http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/08/16/ca....ap/index.html

Thank goodness the right desicion was made. This young man is old enough to drive, to marry (in some states), and to be prosecuted as an adult if he commits a crime. It sounds like he has weighed his options carefully. He has the support of his family. He ought to have some input into his own medical treatment.