• In the Spotlight:
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

13 yr old's mother refuses treatment for cancer, how do you feel about it? What would you do?

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

I personally think that it's that mother's right to refuse treatment for her son especially if she's still trying to treat him she just wants to do something natural. I mean mothers get to choose whether or not to vaccinate their children, why can't she choose how to treat her son for this disease?

I guess if I were in her shoes I would *probably do the chemo/radiation, but who knows? I'd have to see if that ever happened before I'd know for sure.

I also don't like how they're treating her like a felon for not treating her son with modern medicine, okay she probably shouldn't have "fled", but she probably thought that was her only option. I'd like to know how the son feels about all of this.

What do you think about all this? (sorry if this has been previously posted, I haven't seen it so I thought I'd post it).

Answer Question
 
julipickle2

Asked by julipickle2 at 9:31 PM on May. 23, 2009 in Politics & Current Events

Level 4 (33 Credits)
Answers (47)
  • I think if a 13 year old is able to choose which parent he/she lives with then a 13 year old should be able to decide if he/she gets chemo.

    itsallabtthem84

    Answer by itsallabtthem84 at 9:33 PM on May. 23, 2009

  • It'd be nice to know how he feels and what their plans are to help him. I would definately think my kids would get to help make the choice about their own lives.
    TXdanielly

    Answer by TXdanielly at 9:34 PM on May. 23, 2009

  • I agree with you. I believe it's her choice. I also know that the law states that a 14yr old is old enough to make their own medical choices. So in one more year he will have a say in what happens too. Also, i agree with you that if it were my child i'd probably do the chemo too. But i think it is a big fat pile of bullsh*t that the government thinks it's okay to tell us how to give medical care for our children.
    neglect is one thing. But as long as the mother in informed of the risks and facts and she can prove she's doing what she believes is right for her child then who the hell is the government to step in and tell her AND her child that they are wrong?
    outstandingLove

    Answer by outstandingLove at 9:34 PM on May. 23, 2009

  • I agree with you. I am very conservative (not politically but I am a very moderate person), but sorry I think this is over stepping the bounds of parental rights. You made a great point with the vaccinations too. Those diseases can kill a child if they get them. We have not eradicated them at all. I would hate to explain to my child that they have to be in a respirator all their lives because I wouldn't get them vaccinated against polio. My cousin had cancer and when he died, he was cancer free. It was the tiny holes in his lungs from his treatments that killed him in the end. Its not foolproof and it is poisionous and harmful.
    Lesli

    Answer by Lesli at 9:38 PM on May. 23, 2009

  • but I would think that I would base my decision on the medical information provided to me to make the best choice for my child and I would allow my child at any reasonable age to be involved in the decision. I believe a person's mental state can help or hinder their prognosis and for that reason, they should be involved.
    Lesli

    Answer by Lesli at 9:40 PM on May. 23, 2009

  • I personally think the 13 year old should decide if he wants treatment or not...he is old enough to where he can make that decision with some help from others. If it were my child, I would let them choose, granted they are old enough, what they wanted to do. I would give him all the pros and cons of each side and let him make a decision from that. If he wanted chemo, he would certainly get it, if he didn't want treatment in no way would I force him to have it. I absolutely DO NOT think that it is the governments business to get invovled in this. This is a personal family matter and nothing more. It is not the governments place to make this decision for the child in question. You want universal healthcare? Here's a nice preview of issues that would happen DAILY.
    Ash9724

    Answer by Ash9724 at 9:40 PM on May. 23, 2009

  • "You want universal healthcare? Here's a nice preview of issues that would happen DAILY"

    I totally agree with this!!
    julipickle2

    Answer by julipickle2 at 9:51 PM on May. 23, 2009

  • I think the judge that made the order WAY overstepped the bounds of the law. They aren't REFUSING treatment- they are refusing CONVENTIONAL treatment. There is some evidence that in some cases, Holistic treatments are effective and much milder, to say the least.

    It is similar to the vaccine debate, as you pointed out, OP. Most of medical science declares vaccines to be safe and effective preventative measures against childhood diseases. Some parents feel they aren't safe, some feel they aren't effective, and some feel like they are flat out life threatening. Those parents have the right NOT to vaccinate, even though the medical community disagrees, and should a child get one of the illnesses, they could die.

    I don't understand how this is different.

    I would probably treat my child with the traditional methods if she agreed.
    lovinangels

    Answer by lovinangels at 9:54 PM on May. 23, 2009

  • I'd have run away too. This judge is a dick, and deserves to be disbarred and sued. He way overstepped his limits here. This is one of the results of absolute power. I'd have told him to stick it in his ass. he has no RIGHT to order this boy to do anything.

    And what's all this nonsense of putting that poor child in foster care? He has an active, involved dad, so why ruin his life? I hope this judge is publicly shamed.
    cookiedough100

    Answer by cookiedough100 at 10:13 PM on May. 23, 2009

  • I believe that parents have the right to make decisons for their children up to a point. The fact is we do not have this child's medical records and health information. It is possible that the doctors who have provided care believe more likely than not medical treatment and intervention will save this child's life. If they did not believe this was true than more likely than not they would refer to palliative and hospice care. Doctors do refer piediatric patients all the time when there is a very limited chance of survival. It would depend on the specifics of the medical history of whether or not I would concurr with the doctors that this child needed standard medical interventions that are appropriate for this child's specific cancer. Many parents have argued for doctors to continue to treatment despite little chance of survival. Which is why I tend to think with intervention this child has a very good survial rate.
    frogdawg

    Answer by frogdawg at 10:20 PM on May. 23, 2009

Join CafeMom now to contribute your answer and become part of our community. It's free and takes just a minute.