Minn. Judge Rules Teen Must See Cancer Doctor

[jillio]

I see. then again - I'm sad for this country. Government knows what's best for us.

In the case of parent being permitted to kill their own child from neglect, yes, obviously they do know better than a small minority of people who would support a parent taking such unacceptable and neglectful risks with their child's life.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that this is an isolated case. The vast majority of parents would be actively seeking the medical treatment that has a 90% chance of saving their child's life. No need for anyone to become involved.

 

[jillio]

Ok, fine.

I could wish if I find out about Indian culture is typical against on chemotherapy, can't believe about that.

In other way, if one boy has bone cancer then it would be worst situation and tough to fight without remove the limbs.

Depends on the type of cancer. Not all bone cancers require amputation. Especially in the early stages.

So, are you saying that you would simply allow your child to die rather than take advantage of a 90% chance to cure them?

 

[jillio]

I see. then again - I'm sad for this country. Government knows what's best for us.

and no I'm not refusing to provide treatment. It's because I don't believe in it or I don't like it. (hypothetically)

This is not a hypothetical situation. It is a real life, documented situation. And not liking it, or not believing in it is still refusing to provide treatment.

 

[Jiro]

In order to answer that question, one would have to know that the risk of dying from chemotherapy outweighed the risk of dying from the cancer. No matter how you attempt to spin it, the chances of survival are still in favor of his receiving the chemotherapy.

For example - hypothetically, there are 2 options - a surgical procedure to remove the tumor and a chemotherapy. Both with same 90% success rate but surgical procedure has slightly higher risk of death than chemotherapy. The parents opted for surgical procedure but the child died. Is that medical neglect?

 

[Jiro]

This is not a hypothetical situation. It is a real life, documented situation. And not liking it, or not believing in it is still refusing to provide treatment.

How is it refusing to provide treatment if I opt for alternative treatment?

 

[Foxrac]

Depends on the type of cancer. Not all bone cancers require amputation. Especially in the early stages.

So, are you saying that you would simply allow your child to die rather than take advantage of a 90% chance to cure them?

Why ask me? I was means that I couldn't believe about Indian culture that against on chemotherapy.

I'm not practice in Indian religious then chemotherapy is needed to treat cancer.

 

[Jiro]

In the case of parent being permitted to kill their own child from neglect, yes, obviously they do know better than a small minority of people who would support a parent taking such unacceptable and neglectful risks with their child's life.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that this is an isolated case. The vast majority of parents would be actively seeking the medical treatment that has a 90% chance of saving their child's life. No need for anyone to become involved.

of course the parents want their child to get better but they have different opinion on it. I suppose you're fine with the government dictating things for minority just because it works for majority. That's not what's this country is about.

 

[jillio]

For example - hypothetically, there are 2 options - a surgical procedure to remove the tumor and a chemotherapy. Both with same 90% success rate but surgical procedure has slightly higher risk of death than chemotherapy. The parents opted for surgical procedure but the child died. Is that medical neglect?

Again, Jiro...this is not a hypothetical situation. We are talking about a real life, documented case in which the parents have decided not to provide any medical treatment whatsoever. It is not a decision between 2 types of medical treatment.

And, if your hypothetical situation were the case, the vast majority of physicians will refuse to do the procedure that is more invasive and requires greater risk if there is an alternative that has been shown to provide equal benefit with less risk and less invasiveness.

 

[jillio]

Why ask me? I was means that I couldn't believe about Indian culture that against on chemotherapy.

I'm not practice in Indian religious then chemotherapy is needed to treat cancer.

And these parents are not Indian, either. They are Catholic.

 

[Jiro]

Again, Jiro...this is not a hypothetical situation. We are talking about a real life, documented case in which the parents have decided not to provide any medical treatment whatsoever. It is not a decision between 2 types of medical treatment.

And, if your hypothetical situation were the case, the vast majority of physicians will refuse to do the procedure that is more invasive and requires greater risk if there is an alternative that has been shown to provide equal benefit with less risk and less invasiveness.

but the doctors DO provide surgical option.

 

[jillio]

of course the parents want their child to get better but they have different opinion on it. I suppose you're fine with the government dictating things for minority just because it works for majority. That's not what's this country is about.

The government is not dictating anything for anyone. They are preventing these parents from violating the law.

 

[jillio]

but the doctors DO provide surgical option.

And if they provide the surgical option, they also state what the difference in survival and cure rates are with the two procedures.

And again, it is still a matter of deciding between two forms of accepted treatment that have been shown to have a high degree of efficacy. That is not the case in this child's situation. This is an individual case being decided on circumstances related to this case only.

 

[Jiro]

The government is not dictating anything for anyone. They are preventing these parents from violating the law.

because of this case - it just set the dangerous precedent that they are dictating things for anyone with children.

 

[Jiro]

And if they provide the surgical option, they also state what the difference in survival and cure rates are with the two procedures.

And again, it is still a matter of deciding between two forms of accepted treatment that have been shown to have a high degree of efficacy. That is not the case in this child's situation.

again - a hypothetical question because I'm questioning your logic. I guess you failed to see the point. it's ok. Gotta jet!

 

[jillio]

because of this case - it just set the dangerous precedent that they are dictating things for anyone with children.

No it doesn't. To think that it does is absolutely absurd. It is about this child, and this child only. That is why cases are decided on an individual basis. To not protect this child's life is what would set a dangerous precedent.

We already have laws in place that prevent the abuse and neglect of children. The courts are simply upholding the laws that already exist.

 

[jillio]

again - a hypothetical question because I'm questioning your logic. I guess you failed to see the point. it's ok. Gotta jet!

I failed to see the point because your hypothetical question has absolutely nothing to do with this particular case. The circumstances are completely different.

 

[jillio]

How is it refusing to provide treatment if I opt for alternative treatment?

Two equally effective treatments with equal benefit and risk are not alternative. If you chose to take herbs instead of choosing one of the two accepted and proven treatments you would be using an alternative.

These parents are not making a decision that involves two equally effective treatments with equal benefit and risk.

 

[Dixie]

And herbal medicine in still questionable even in the Internet age, where really too much information is available - much of it inaccurate - and thus one cannot make an educated decision on using alternative medicines.

 

[Jiro]

Two equally effective treatments with equal benefit and risk are not alternative. If you chose to take herbs instead of choosing one of the two accepted and proven treatments you would be using an alternative.

These parents are not making a decision that involves two equally effective treatments with equal benefit and risk.

I've never said it was equal risk in my hypothetical question because in handful of cases - one opt for alternative solution because not all are believer in modern medicine.

 

[Jiro]

No it doesn't. To think that it does is absolutely absurd. It is about this child, and this child only. That is why cases are decided on an individual basis. To not protect this child's life is what would set a dangerous precedent.

We already have laws in place that prevent the abuse and neglect of children. The courts are simply upholding the laws that already exist.

that is PRECISELY what I'm talking about. The abuse and neglect of the children were mostly limited to non-medical related. The hospital reported medical neglect on parents just because the parents did not want to go thru 2nd stage of chemotherapy.

Doctors have recommended six rounds of chemotherapy followed by radiation. But after the first round left him ill and weak, Daniel’s parents refused to consent to any more. The second round, scheduled for March, was not administered. That was when the hospital reported the family to the authorities, charging medical neglect.

This precedent will give the doctors even more authority than parents - more like a defacto legal guardian. Can you even imagine the doctor would exercise this same authority by using this precedent to implant the CI in child? They would argue that it's for the sake of child's life in the future because by not implanting CI, the child will face abuse and neglect in the coming future.

this precedent will enable the doctors to do same way for obese children. and special needs children. and many more.