Teen forced to have chemo

This sickens me.This teen did try the conventional methods and 1) He had reoccurance 2)the side effects were not worth the benefits to him. Children as young as 12 can "divorce" their parents, decide where they will live and yet a 16 year old who from the article made a researched desicion with the support of his parents and is having his rights trampled? What next? This more than sickens me...it scares me.

Stepanovich said he will ask a higher court on Monday to stay enforcement of the order, which requires the parents to take Abraham to Children's Hospital of the King's Daughters in Norfolk and to give the oncologist their written legal consent to treat their son for Hodgkin's disease.

this is the point that particularly upsets me.....how can he require the parents to sign for treatment.....it is being forced on him by the state......unless the judge forsees losing on appeal, and feels that this will trap the parents and patient into treatment.....me thinks this judge is on a power trip, big time....

Yes, forcing them to sign their consent really doesn't make any sense. They are obviously not consenting. If custody is being shared, make the social worker assigned to the case sign.

The judge's order for the parents to sign the consent puzzled me, too.

I don't know enough about the particular case to make a judgment on it, but I do have experience with similar cases. The real question is: "Where do you draw the line?" "Are the parents' rights to make the decision absolute?"

Society has always recognzied that parents' rights to decide about health care treatment is not absolute. Society has some right (and obligation) to step in and protect a child in cases in which the treatment in question has a high probability of success and the failure to provide the treatment is highly likely to be harmful for the child. For example, the parents of a child with a ruptured appendix can not choose to let the child die because they don't "believe in" surgical intervention. Children with curable infections are not allowed to die because their parents "don't believe in" anti-biotics, etc. Those kinds of cases don't happen often, but when they do, society has generally come down on the side of saving the child's life in spite of the wishes of the parents (and children) to avoid conventional treatment.

But where do you draw the line?

As I said, I don't know the specifics of this particular case well enough to weigh the likely benefits of chemo vs the dangers without it -- which is the primary consideration of the legal system -- protecting the child from an unecessary death. Would chemo probably save this child an unecessary death? I don't know.

Also, where do you draw the line in relation to the age of the child? 18? 15? 13? At the moment 16 year olds are not considered to be legal adults. Do we really want to change the laws to give teenagers total control of all of their health care decisions? Think of what that could lead to. Where and how do we draw the lines?

As I said ... I don't know. I just thought that someone in this thread should bring up these questions.

llg

This seems morally wrong. Whose body is it anyway? So now the state can force a person to have toxic chemicals infused into his body, when he clearly does not want this? Sixteen is old enough to understand and make choices for one's own well being. Going into this unwilling is likely to lower the outcome of success of any treatment.

How does one become an emancipated minor?

TO the OP: Please see my Private Message to you.

I totally agree with your statements. We don't know that exact medical stuff going on if the chemo would even help and you're right where to draw the line? However it does sound as if the court was trying to keep the teenagers best interest and felt the chemo would help. It's not clear cut as your appendix comparason but that is where they were going it sounds to me. However, if the chemo would not help or it was questionable that should have been in consideration.

This case is disturbing on so many levels. It will certainly start a precedent for many cases thereafter. If the boy already tried rounds of chemo, (which in the case of lymphoma this chemo was no picnic) and it did not work, than why can't he and the parents say no to the next round?

I am OUTRAGED by this. Normally, I'm on the side of anyone who will fight for the rights of children to receive medical treatment, even against their parents' wishes, but this is a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

For one, the 'child' in question is 16 years old........old enough to make his own decisions in this regard, IMHO. He also knows what chemotherapy did to him the first time, and he clearly doesn't want to repeat the experience. What does that judge know about puking up your toenails for a solid 24 hours or more after a treatment? What does he know about the profound weakness, the hair loss, the mouth sores, or any of the other lovely side effects of chemo?? How DARE he force this young man to go through all that when it's not his body that will be subjected to the torture?

The other really disturbing thing about all this is the precedent it will set for other state 'protective' agencies, which in all too many cases fail to act quickly enough when a child is in grave danger, but in others jump into a situation with little evidence that actual harm is occurring. Government in general is far too invasive these days; while there are certainly many circumstances in which intervention is necessary (such as homes in which the parents' so-called "religion" allegedly forbids seeking medical care for their children, as well as those in which health care is neglected even when it's obviously needed), I think this is one case where government's long nose doesn't belong.

Both Abraham and his parents agree on how they want to treat his cancer; where is the evidence that harm is occurring? I don't necessarily think his chosen course of treatment is the right one, but doggone it, it's HIS body, and he's old enough to decide how much he wants to go through for the sake of survival. And what's this about FORCING the parents to sign consent allowing conventional medicine to treat him? That's not consent, it's coercion, and that is ILLEGAL.

I hope sanity prevails in this sad case BEFORE young Mr. Cherrix has to face another round of treatment he doesn't want. Like most medical people, I have plenty of doubts about alternative treatments for cancer, and if he were my son I would strongly encourage him to reconsider chemotherapy. But Lord help anyone who dared to interfere in our private business and tried to force us to conform to some bureaucrat's idea of proper parenting!!! I'd squawk so loudly you could hear me from coast to coast, and then I'd hire the best attorney we can afford to slap these people into line.