Minn. Judge Rules Teen Must See Cancer Doctor

jillio said:
If the patient wants alternative medicine incorporated into the treatment plan, it is incumbent upon the patient to make that known to the physician.
Click to expand...

Agree. But there are doctors out there that don't believe in alternative therapies and in that scenario, I would look for another doctor that is willing to work with me.
 
jillio said:
No, she said he was brainwashed because he is 13 and cannot read. Therefore, he cannot obtain information on his own, nor can he read and sign informed consent. He is illiterate.
Click to expand...

Exactly...


Jiro, quit to misinterpret my post and thank you.
 
jillio said:
If their child was at the verge of death as a result? You bet your azz it would be all over the freakin' papers. Much quicker than a story involving some unknown family in Minnesota.
Click to expand...

newspapers and court proceeding are different. Do you think the doctors would report them to authority for medical neglect and that the judge would ordered them to have a chemotherapy?
 
Jiro said:
the doctors can verbally explain it to him. I'm sure the judge has explained to him behind closed session. he still refused the treatment. I guess we'll just ignore his wish because the judge ruled him as incompetent.

Now I'm wondering how doctors are going to treat him because it's against their ethics to forcibly treat the patient against his will.
Click to expand...

It has already been determined that he is not competent to make a medically informed decision or to give fully informed consent. Competence is decided after careful evaluation of one's cognitive functioning. And he is 13, Jiro. There are well known developmental limitations in his ability to think a decision such as this all the way through to the end.

No, you are wrong. It is unethical to treat without fully informed consent. In this case, the state gives fully informed consent as his guardian ad litem, just as his parents would be responsible for giving fully informed consent in the case that they had their son's life as their priority. In the case of an indivudual being found to be incompetent to make reasonable and informed decisions, the guardian ad litem is charged with doing so.
 
Jiro said:
the doctors can verbally explain it to him. I'm sure the judge has explained to him behind closed session. he still refused the treatment. I guess we'll just ignore his wish because the judge ruled him as incompetent.

Now I'm wondering how doctors are going to treat him because it's against their ethics to forcibly treat the patient against his will.
Click to expand...

Daniel choose to beleive his parents over the doctors which is very sad.
 
jillio said:
It has already been determined that he is not competent to make a medically informed decision or to give fully informed consent. Competence is decided after careful evaluation of one's cognitive functioning. And he is 13, Jiro. There are well known developmental limitations in his ability to think a decision such as this all the way through to the end.
Click to expand...

which is what I said in my post - the judge has ruled him incompetent. what's next is that I'm just expressing my concern for Daniel especially about doctors treating him against his will.
 
Jiro said:
newspapers and court proceeding are different. Do you think the doctors would report them to authority for medical neglect and that the judge would ordered them to have a chemotherapy?
Click to expand...

Absolutely. A doctor cannot fail to report suspected neglect or abuse simply because a patient is famous. They are mandated by law to report to the governing agency any and all cases of suspected abuse and neglect. The agency then investigates, and decides what action is appropriate and in the best interest of the minor child through the legal channels set forth to do so.
 
jillio said:
No, you are wrong. It is unethical to treat without fully informed consent. In this case, the state gives fully informed consent as his guardian ad litem, just as his parents would be responsible for giving fully informed consent in the case that they had their son's life as their priority. In the case of an indivudual being found to be incompetent to make reasonable and informed decisions, the guardian ad litem is charged with doing so.
Click to expand...

that still doesn't answer my question. Sure there will be guardian for him but what about the boy himself? The doctor still cannot treat him against his will even if the legal guardian consented to it.
 
Jiro said:
which is what I said in my post - the judge has ruled him incompetent. what's next is that I'm just expressing my concern for Daniel especially about doctors treating him against his will.
Click to expand...

Well, this is not the first time that cases like this have gone to court. Generally, when removed from parental influence that has been creating the negative situation, they are compliant and cooperative. They object not so much because of any deep seated belief on their part, but because they are simply doing what they believe their parents want them to do.
 
Edwin said:
Agree. But there are doctors out there that don't believe in alternative therapies and in that scenario, I would look for another doctor that is willing to work with me.
Click to expand...

Nothing prevented this family from doing that. They did not. Therefore, they were in violation of the law concerning medical neglect of their child.
 
For whatever courage Daniel's mother think she has mustered by being on the run and "saving" her son from so-called barbaric treatments, I hope she can find that same courage to attend her son's eventual funeral.
 
jillio said:
Absolutely. A doctor cannot fail to report suspected neglect or abuse simply because a patient is famous. They are mandated by law to report to the governing agency any and all cases of suspected abuse and neglect. The agency then investigates, and decides what action is appropriate and in the best interest of the minor child through the legal channels set forth to do so.
Click to expand...

I guess we'll never know! :hmm:
 
jillio said:
Nothing prevented this family from doing that. They did not. Therefore, they were in violation of the law concerning medical neglect of their child.
Click to expand...

I wonder if the family ever asked their doctor about combining alternative therapies with western medicene?

Probably will never know the answer.
 
Jiro said:
that still doesn't answer my question. Sure there will be guardian for him but what about the boy himself? The doctor still cannot treat him against his will even if the legal guardian consented to it.
Click to expand...

Yes, he can. If the guardian ad litem gives informed consent, then the doctor can treat. The guardian ad litem speaks for the child. Just as a parent speaks for a child. My son never wanted to get a shot, either, but as his parent, I made those decisions and authorized the doctor to treat him. A child doesn't want to eat vegetables and would much prefer a steady diet of sugar. But a child does not always know what is best, and what is best is rarely what they want. That is why children, as minors, are not afforded the same rights as adults.
 
Edwin said:
I wonder if the family ever asked their doctor about combining alternative therapies with western medicene?

Probably will never know the answer.
Click to expand...

Not according to the reports. They simply refused to take him in for medical treatment and were attempting to treat him at home via the internet.
 
jillio said:
Well, this is not the first time that cases like this have gone to court. Generally, when removed from parental influence that has been creating the negative situation, they are compliant and cooperative. They object not so much because of any deep seated belief on their part, but because they are simply doing what they believe their parents want them to do.
Click to expand...

oh! interesting.... :hmm: I suppose we'll just have to sit and wait. Since the child is so deeply brainwashed (supposedly)... I imagine that there will be a long session with psychologist to explain it to him.
 
Jiro said:
oh! interesting.... :hmm: I suppose we'll just have to sit and wait. Since the child is so deeply brainwashed (supposedly)... I imagine that there will be a long session with psychologist to explain it to him.
Click to expand...

Yep. It is not unusual at all. Especially in the case of any kind of abuse and neglect.
 
jillio said:
Not according to the reports. They simply refused to take him in for medical treatment and were attempting to treat him at home via the internet.
Click to expand...

That's scary! People actually believe everything they read on the internet?!
 
Back
Top