Abraham vs. Hodgkin - Is a 16-year-old wise enough to decide to skip chemotherapy?

Reason ^ | August 1, 2006 | Cathy Young

[svcw]

Is a sixteen old enough -YES!

[Tax-chick]

I hadn't seen what the judge decided before now. Good ruling, in my opinion.

[TonyWojo]

Are 13 and 14 year old girls old enough to have an abortion without parental permission?

[fso301]

Well, if he is convinced the conventional treatment is wrong, a reverse placebo effect can come into play which seriously degrades his recovery chances under conventional therapy.

[markomalley]

A 16-year old kid may not be old enough. But a 16-year old kid, with the concurrence of his parent, should fully be old enough to make that kind of decision.

[frogjerk]

A 16-year old kid may not be old enough. But a 16-year old kid, with the concurrence of his parent, should fully be old enough to make that kind of decision.

I agree.

[20yearvet]

If He were a She, She could have an abortion and the state would not say a thing, in fact the state may even tell the parents that it was her right to decide what happens to her body. So why dose He not have the same right to decide what happens to his body.

[frogjerk]

That means opposing government surveillance that can foil terrorist plots

Stupid argument.

[kingu]

You make laws based upon the rule, not the exception. No medical practitioner will stand up and guarantee that this next round of treatment will cure or even prolong the boy's life. Going off to play nature boy will most likely kill him.

The family court judge overreached, the circuit court judge put back /some/ sense of reality, but still scheduled a trial. My response upon hearing the family court judge was to flip the court the bird and move out of it's jurisdiction.

[DustyMoment]

Should the government intervene to save the life of a 16-year-old boy, even if it means forcing him into medical care against his and his parents' wishes

The Preamble to the Constitution guarantees us the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. It is NOT the function of government to determine for us what type or quality of life we wish to pursue, nor what makes us happy.

The life of this 16 year-old is his and, between him and his parents, if paying a faith healer to pretend to pull dead chickens out of him all day long and twice on Sundays is what makes this kid happy and makes him believe that he is prolonging his life, THAT is his choice (example is mine)!!! It is NOT for a bunch of pointy-headed bureaucrats looking for a function in life to dictate to this kid or his family what their choices in medical treatment will be.

[bamahead]

Ping

[kaylar]

I agree wholeheartedly with you.

I am also tired of the prointerventionist crowd making the 'argument' that 16 is too young, that he isn't capable of understanding the permanency of death , etc etc etc. I'm surprised they haven't started referring to this young man as a 'tiny wee tyke' or something equally nauseating .

If he were 6 years old-then it would be time for the state to step in. But 16 is old enough and bottom line to me is this : We own ourselves ; we are not state property. The overruled judge overreached, he acted like he was an iman and not a western judge, and I'm glad he was reined in.

[Xenalyte]

I'm torn. Freakin' hippies.

If he were 18, and/or independent, the "we own ourselves" argument would have merit.

As a dependent child, he is under the aegis of his parents, who get to make the decisions because they will be held legally liable for the consequences of said decisions.

Parents ceding authority to children - and make no mistake, in 2006 America, 16 is inarguably still a child - are wrong and acting against the child's best interest.

So I guess I'd be a little better off with this whole situation if I knew the parents wanted this quack treatment as much as Starchild (!) does.

[kaylar]

Jehovah's Witnesses are allowed to refuse blood products when years younger (I recall at least one 12 year old).I believe it's old enough to make a life-and-death decision-especially when the chemo failed once and it caused the person actually taking it such suffering that he decided he'd rather let nature take its course tan go through that regimen again.

[kaylar]

Oh, and as for them being hippies....I don't think we've ever gotten an answer, but it's been pointed out that Starchild is a common last name in the area, and that it was and is common in the south for parents to give a child a last name as a first name . If so, then Starchild would suggest traditionalists rather than hippies.

[sakic]

If you agree that he has a right to kill himself (in effect what he is doing) then certainly you must feel that Kevorkian should not be in prison for helping adults older than him end their own lives. People will be giving the kid treatments that will kill him too.

I believe that at whatever age a state considers you an adult you should be able to do whatever you want in regards to your life.

[Sloth]

Is Abraham mature enough to make reasonable decisions about his care? At his age, one often doesn't think far ahead, and the prospect of short-term pain and suffering caused by chemo treatments may seem more important than long-term survival, particularly to a teenage boy who is not used to being weak and physically dependent.

Unless Cathy Young has had cancer & undergone chemo herself, I'd wager that the boy she's writing about has a better grasp of the situation than she does.

[KenmcG414]

It's up to the young man and his parents. Government has no business sticking their nose into the family matter.

[RightWhale]

The real question is whether the state owns the health of the citizens. In nazi Germany there was no question, the state owned the health of the citizens as national assets, worth perhaps 2/3 the national wealth.