Related threads:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1665104/posts
and
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1664416/posts
....but I also think the choice as to treatment should be up to this kid and his parents, as opposed to the state.
-----
The kid is a juvenile and the responsibility of his parents, not the state. Agreed.
16 is old enough to make up one's own mind. Earlier rulings have allowed 12 year old Jehovah's Witnesses the right to refuse blood products-I fail to see how a judge can rule a near adult can be forced to accept medical treatment against his will. The courts need to be reminded that citizens are not state property.
The government should not be doing this. It's not like the kid's parents are abusing him.
The State Almighty...horse pucky.
Your body is property of the state. Should you not care for it as they indicate, they will take matters into their own hands.
Never mind that doctors of 25 years from now will likely regard current treatments for cancer as barbaric.
A person's body is not the property of the state. While the treatment is stupid, the government has no right to refuse to allow the kid to go through with it so long as his parents consent.
I watched an interview with this boy and his father. Neither one came across as a 'nut case' and frankly, I don't think this is any of the government's business in this case. If the boy was two years older, would we even be having this discussion?
I'm also concerned about the precedent being set. If we accept that the government has the right to order treatment, then I think there's a danger that we have implicitly acknowledged the government's right to deny treatment if it wishes to do so.
This is just plain crazy!! How terrible that the government can force this on its citizens.
I have read many good things coming out of those clinics not to mention several friends who are doing great after going through the programs at several clinics in Mexico. That also goes for several clinics in Europe, too.
A friend with lung cancer and a friend with colon cancer are free of cancer after going the alternative route in Germany and in Mexico. This was years ago and they are both still doing great. Another little guy who was 3 when diagnosed with cancer was taken to Mexico and followed the program and he is fine. Another friend is doing well after following the treatment program from a Mexican clinic. Another friend went through everything the US had to offer, went down to Mexico as a last resort and he died anyway. So, you never know...but these 'officials' are WAAAAYY out of line!
Anyone who thinks that there is nothing to alternative medicine certainly hasn't done a lot of investigating into it. Including that moron judge.
This is more about the rights of the state to control medical care, than the right of a child to live.
In truth no matter what the parents had chosen, if it is not the position of the state, it would be wrong. This would not normally be a moral conundrum, for we assume that there are certain rules made to protect the lives of children. But that is not the case any more; many parents who wish their ill babies to receive the best of care are being told that their babies must die because of "quality of life issues". So it is not about protecting the life of this child, it is about state control over health care.
Had this young man's parent's wished him to live in spite of chronic disability or condition, the state might decide that it would be "in the child's best interest" to take away "life support" or medical treatment that constitutes "heroic measures". Likewise, if the subject were a pregnant teenage girl, the parents would be told that they have no right to know or influence the child away from an abortion. So the moral conundrum in this case is nullified - this young man is not taking the official state mandated health care regarding his choices for his own life, so alternatives are forbidden.
This is about state control of health care, and about the will of parents and patients being ignored.
Let's see....age 16.....if female, could have an abortion....could drive and put lives at risk, could decide which parent to live with if they were divorced....could come out as a homosexual at school, could have sex and make babies.....but the ALMIGHTY STATE knows which DOCTORS he should see for this.....how special. It's called a CHOICE, but ONLY when the STATE agrees!
This make me more mad than democrats....
(Go Israel, Go! Slap 'Em, Down Hezbullies.)
As a physician I am skeptical of alternative cancer treatments. That said I am very skeptical of a government that feels like it has the right to make ones medical decisions. In my E.D. I cant treat a child without a parents consent. If it is a life threatening event and requires immediate intervention and the parents are not around I am covered by informed consent laws. But if a child comes in with anything else I can not touch him/her. Maybe now if I agree with a parents decision I can call social services. /sarcasm
The clinic I think the boy is going to - has an excellent cure rate for many cancer types - with the chemo - he has a worse chance of survival than the natural treatment
We don't have the freedom to choose medical treatment? A judge can make that call? That seems very very wrong to me.
ping......
Nanny State Ping.
I am not a medical person, but to me the choice of treatment should be up to the family or patient.
This is close to home for me folks, I live in Accomack County, and spend a great deal of ime in Chincoteague.........