Boy forced to undergo chemotherapy

[gc1765]

This seems disturbing to me:

The 11-year-old Hamilton boy, who has leukemia, was seized by the Children's Aid Society last week and is being forced to undergo chemotherapy against both his and his family's wishes.

...

A judge earlier ruled the boy is not capable of understanding the implications of refusing chemotherapy.

link

Fine, if you think the boy is not capable of making that decision, then the decision should be that of the family, not of the state. It's not like the father is being completely unreasonable either. I imagine chemotherapy is not an easy thing to go through, especially for an 11-year old boy. What if the chemotherapy doesn't work, isn't it better for the boy to enjoy the time that he has left? More importantly though, shouldn't that be his decision, or at least the decision of his family?

Thoughts?

Edited May 12, 2008 by gc1765

[segnosaur]

Fine, if you think the boy is not capable of making that decision, then the decision should be that of the family, not of the state. It's not like the father is being completely unreasonable either. I imagine chemotherapy is not an easy thing to go through, especially for an 11-year old boy. What if the chemotherapy doesn't work, isn't it better for the boy to enjoy the time that he has left? More importantly though, shouldn't that be his decision, or at least the decision of his family?

Chemotherapy may not be the most fun thing to go through, but from the looks of things its his only possibility of survival. At 11 years old, a child may not be able to grasp the concept of "short term pain for long term gain", that his discomfort while undergoing treatment will likely diminish and probably give him much more time cancer free.

I do believe parents should have the right to raise their children the way they see fit, but there ARE limits. The rights of a parent should end when their parenting techniques will lead to the death of the child.

Frankly, I have no idea what's going through the head of the father. Allowing the child to forgo real cancer treatment in favor of treatment with green tea and oregano is quite irresponsible. (What's the father doing, taking him out to an Italian restaurant?) The question is: is the father irresponsible because he believes in such alternative medicine non-sense? Or is he just lazy and doesn't want to bother making the 'hard' decision for the son.

[gc1765]

The question is: is the father irresponsible because he believes in such alternative medicine non-sense? Or is he just lazy and doesn't want to bother making the 'hard' decision for the son.

I think the answer to that is neither. He made the decision that he did because he wants his son to be able to actually enjoy his final years, not to have to spend his final years in pain:

Chemotherapy makes him extremely ill and causes effects such as vomiting, bloating, pain in his spine and difficulty walking.

[eyeball]

It'll always be hard to know what's appropriate in situations like this and I think that's a good thing. I doubt if a court ruling would be any better than legislation would be in terms of setting a precedent or determing a policy. Given the kids aboriginal background and medical history including FAS the government probably already had him on their radar so its not surprising they acted as they did.

It sounds like the kids known little but pain through much of his life.

Last night, about two dozen people, including members of the child's family, held a vigil in the rain outside his hospital window. The boy waved down at his supporters, who held candles in Styrofoam cups.

This is good too. Things seem to be unfolding...appropriately.

[noahbody]

I think the answer to that is neither. He made the decision that he did because he wants his son to be able to actually enjoy his final years, not to have to spend his final years in pain:

On the news they reported with chemo there is a 50% chance of remission. If it was only 10% then the father's positon would be understandable.

[segnosaur]

I think the answer to that is neither. He made the decision that he did because he wants his son to be able to actually enjoy his final years, not to have to spend his final years in pain:

From the article: The child was diagnosed with acute lymphoblastic leukemia, which has a cure rate exceeding 80 per cent....

So, if he does get the proper treatment, he may have many pain-free years ahead of him. (Note: There was also another poster who pointed out a 50% remission rate, also very hight, although unfortunately without references.)

[gc1765]

On the news they reported with chemo there is a 50% chance of remission. If it was only 10% then the father's positon would be understandable.

So, if he does get the proper treatment, he may have many pain-free years ahead of him. (Note: There was also another poster who pointed out a 50% remission rate, also very hight, although unfortunately without references.)

Also from the article:

He underwent chemotherapy and in January, marked one year cancer-free. But the disease came back just a few weeks later.

He has already had chemotherapy, and the cancer came back. Who knows whether this time will be any different.

You might disagree with the father's decision, but that's not the point here. I don't agree with his decision either, and if I were in that situation I would probably continue the chemo as well. But the question is who has the authority to decide what is best for the boy, especially on an issue as delicate as this where we don't actually know if the boy will survive with the chemo, or even whether surviving is worth going through the pain? I'd say the father is a much better person to make that decision than the state.

[noahbody]

Verticchio said doctors gave the boy a very good chance of going into remission.

"He had a 50 per cent chance of survival if the treatment was carried out. If the treatment was not carried out, then in fact his chance of survival would be not good. In fact they estimated it would be fatal in six months."

But the father said doctors told him the boy had a 20 per cent chance of making it through his chemotherapy treatments, then a 50 per cent chance after that, once he undergoes full body radiation and a bone marrow transplant.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/05/09/...emotherapy.html

[Guest American Woman]

Every child I personally know of who's had luekemia has survived. Eleven is definitely too young to make the decision of whether or not he should have chemo.

[gc1765]

Every child I personally know of who's had luekemia has survived.

That doesn't mean that this boy will necessarily survive.

Eleven is definitely too young to make the decision of whether or not he should have chemo.

Certainly the father is old enough to make that decision.

[Guest American Woman]

Certainly the father is old enough to make that decision.

He's basing his decision on his child's wishes, and according to the article, A judge earlier ruled the boy is not capable of understanding the implications of refusing chemotherapy. Parents have to provide due care for their children or it's abuse and withholding medical care would not be 'providing due care.' This child has a chance of survival.

Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia (ALL)/Acute Myelogenous Leukemia (AML)

The 5-year survival rate for ALL in children has greatly increased over time and is now 85%. This is primarily due to advances in treatment. Five-year survival rates of children with AML have also increased over time to about 50%.

link

According to the article, he has ALL.

Edited May 12, 2008 by American Woman

[gc1765]

He's basing his decision on his child's wishes, and according to the article, A judge earlier ruled the boy is not capable of understanding the implications of refusing chemotherapy. Parents have to provide due care for their children or it's abuse and withholding medical care would not be 'providing due care.' This child has a chance of survival.

Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia (ALL)/Acute Myelogenous Leukemia (AML)

If the issue were black and white, then I would agree with you. But I hope we can all agree that this is one of those grey areas where no one can say for certain what is best for the boy. If the father thinks that the boy is old enough to make that decision, and if the father agrees with that decision, then I don't think the state should interfere.

[sharkman]

It's obviously a tough issue, but I get concerned when the State has the power to seize and force treatment of its citizens. The issue is when does the State have the right to do this, and I guess each case would be different. Being that the boy's disease has come back, and the family has no doubt been given advice from many sources, I'm not satisfied that they are unable to make the best decision here.

[Guest American Woman]

If the issue were black and white, then I would agree with you. But I hope we can all agree that this is one of those grey areas where no one can say for certain what is best for the boy. If the father thinks that the boy is old enough to make that decision, and if the father agrees with that decision, then I don't think the state should interfere.

The boy also has fetal alcohol syndrome and is mildly intellectually delayed, his father said.

If the father thinks an eleven year old who is "mildly intellectually delayed" is old enough to make such a decision, he is wrong. Parents don't get to determine when kids are old enough to make some decisions, which is why kids must attend school even if they'd rather not, why they must receive immunizations in order to attend school even if they'd rather not, and why parents must provide due care for children until they are no longer minors.

If a parent is showing poor judgement, then the state needs to interfere; and I don't think there's any question that thinking a "mildly intellectually delayed" eleven year old is old enough to make life and death decisions is showing poor judgement.

The state definitely needs to interfere and determine what is in the best interest of the child.

[gc1765]

If a parent is showing poor judgement, then the state needs to interfere; and I don't think there's any question that thinking a "mildly intellectually delayed" eleven year old is old enough to make life and death decisions is showing poor judgement.

That is your opinion. In this case, I don't agree with the father either, but I don't think he is being completely unreasonable. I don't think it's unreasonable to want your son to spend what could very well be the last years of his life with his family doing what makes him happy, rather than spending those years in pain and misery. So who am I to tell him that he is wrong.

[sharkman]

It's easy to talk about chemo until you've gone through it or had someone close go through it. My mom went through chemo and radiation and flatly said she would rather die than do it again. It drastically wasted her body. She could hardly eat during and for months after, her stomach cramping sometimes violently with diarreha or vomit the result. Huge chunks of dead skin came off her body when she tried to soak in the tub. She would cry and moan sometimes at night. It was hell. After it was done she still couldn't eat with out sometimes violent results, and her body will never be the same.

To top it off, some of the medical staff who administered her treatments were very callous. Berating her and lecturing her if she couldn't sit entirely still because of the pain while they treated her. So it's easy to sit from afar in an office somewhere and decree that such and such a family shall have their child seized, and such child will be given chemo again, but the family, who has seen the disease come back after advised the child was healthy is right to be hesitant.

[BubberMiley]

How do you feel about "the State" sticking their noses into the business of individuals who choose to self-medicate with substances "the State" has deemed to be illegal?

[sharkman]

Like what?

[margrace]

Interesting thoughts on here, my Daughter had acute leukemia, she was given a year to live if she did not get a bone marrow transplant and only a 30% chance of surviving. To do a transplant they give you 2 gallon jugs of chemo and then they give you high doses of radiation to kill all your bone marrow. This is all done in the 36 hours before the transplant.

My daughter survived and is back working full time. A year later her cousin developed the same thing and got her bone marrow transplant and lived 6 months. My husband back in 1964 lived 10 days after he was diagnosed.

Note that although father and daughter got it, the other cousin was a different family. No relation to my husband. We now have two more with the problem which in my families case starts with low blood platelets.

[BubberMiley]

Like what?

Uh, let's say crack cocaine?

[charter.rights]

First of all...back the train up!

The parents did NOT refuse treatment. They refused chemo-therapy as the treatment. There are other less intrusive treatments, less aggressive but a treatment none-the-less.

The "boy" did not make the decision to refuse chemo. His parents did when he begged them not to put him through it again.

50% or 70% really doesn't matter in making these kinds of decisions. In cases where infections or cancers occupy so much of the body, and the pain is intense it is sometimes better to ensure a better quality of life for six months than to torture someone with long bouts of sickening, gut-wrenching chemo-therapy for 12 months. Only the parents can make decisions and it would appear this was not done lightly.

Well, (and I know this will rile some of the racists) the boy was native and it is not uncommon for CAS to steal native children away from their parents and ~think~ they have a better plan. How much pain would be inflicted on YOUR child if they were sick and some strangers refused to let them see you? This is part of the on-going genocide IMO and samcks of that same "we know better" paternalism that pervades our society against the natives. IF the child was Caucasian I suspect it would have taken a whole lot more time before the CAS intervened.

BTW the CAS and the hospital violated the law by seizing the boy without a court order. This kind of abduction amounts to kidnapping and forcible confinement - something the media seems to have overlooked....probably because stealing native kids sells better advertising than taking on the illegal actions of the government and its agencies.

So, at the end of the line the state does not always have our best interests in mind, nor the interests of the child. This is nothing more than a pissing match between McMaster University Hospital and a couple of native parents too poor to take them on.

[noahbody]

This is part of the on-going genocide

Trying to use the sickness of a child to further your native agenda is beyond pathetic. How selfish can you be?

And really, trying to save a child's life is genocide? Think that one through.

[AngusThermopyle]

Well, (and I know this will rile some of the racists) the boy was native and it is not uncommon for CAS to steal native children away from their parents and ~think~ they have a better plan. How much pain would be inflicted on YOUR child if they were sick and some strangers refused to let them see you? This is part of the on-going genocide IMO and samcks of that same "we know better" paternalism that pervades our society against the natives. IF the child was Caucasian I suspect it would have taken a whole lot more time before the CAS intervened.

BTW the CAS and the hospital violated the law by seizing the boy without a court order. This kind of abduction amounts to kidnapping and forcible confinement - something the media seems to have overlooked....probably because stealing native kids sells better advertising than taking on the illegal actions of the government and its agencies.

So, at the end of the line the state does not always have our best interests in mind, nor the interests of the child. This is nothing more than a pissing match between McMaster University Hospital and a couple of native parents too poor to take them on.

Couldn't resist playing the race card could you.

Then you back up your allegation in your usual fashion, pure opinion as shown by the use of "I suppose" and "probably", SOP I "guess".

You have absolutely no proof to form the basis of your claim that it would have taken longer or it's just because they are Native. You have no idea of what process was followed yet you automatically declare it illegal. Then you downgrade the entire issue by declaring that McMaster has some sort of grudge against these parents.

Given the fact that more than a few times in the past the state has intervened in similar manner when it concerned white people your entire premise is reduced to exactly what it is, non factual supposition with a heavy inate bias toward the negative.

As for alternate less intrusive methods for treating cancer. Well how bout you enlighten us and back it up with hard and fast success rates, figures, not opinion. From what I know, admitedly not everything, far from it, the current methods are effective and becoming more so.

There is no magic herbal cure for cancer and this issue is not racially based.

[charter.rights]

(remainder of quote deleted for nonsense content)

There is no magic herbal cure for cancer and this issue is not racially based.

Yes there is. Get into the real world and study it yourself.

[charter.rights]

Trying to use the sickness of a child to further your native agenda is beyond pathetic. How selfish can you be?

And really, trying to save a child's life is genocide? Think that one through.

Removing a native child from the care of their parents without a legal basis IS genocide. You seemed to have skipped over the fact that this was done without court order, which is against the law. And yes the two factors that certainly make it an issue of rights is that the parents are native, and they are poor. That follows a long trend of excuses for seizing native children and putting them in the care of the state.

Maybe you should start reading more than just internet discussion boards. The media articles made these pertinent points when the story first broke. Had you read anything in the beginning you might have found out these facts.