First Nations Girl who Refused Chemo has Died

[Mighty AC]

Requiring the child get necessary medical care is perfectly in line with the rest.

Define necessary. Chemo is a very unpleasant treatment, that doctors forgo at a much higher rate than the general population. In your opinion, what prognosis would make it acceptable to skip chemo for a child?

[TimG]

Define necessary. Chemo is a very unpleasant treatment, that doctors forgo at a much higher rate than the general population. In your opinion, what prognosis would make it acceptable to skip chemo for a child?

There is a difference between an 80 year old forgoing treatment and a 10 year old. The stats you quote are likely for older people who already suffer from numerous other issues that degrade quality of life even if the cancer is beaten. My own grandmother skipped chemo for exactly that reason. There is no rational reason for a 10 year old to refuse treatment that is likely to save her even if it makes her very sick. Edited February 9, 2015 by TimG

[jacee]

Yeah, me too. What are your thoughts?

I know that chemo is brutal and that doctors refuse it at a far greater rate than the general population. However, in general I'm not sure how we determine what treatments are mandatory.

No medical treatments are "mandatory".

[Mighty AC]

There is a difference between an 80 year old forgoing treatment and a 10 year old. The stats you quote are likely for older people who already suffer from numerous other issues that degrade quality of life even if the cancer is beaten. My own grandmother skipped chemo for exactly that reason. There is no rational reason for a 10 year old to refuse treatment that is likely to save her even if it makes her very sick.

In your opinion, what prognosis would make it acceptable to skip chemo for a child?

[Mighty AC]

No medical treatments are "mandatory".

right. However, some are arguing that some treatments should be mandatory for children. Should the child in this thread have been forced to undergo chemotherapy?

[TimG]

In your opinion, what prognosis would make it acceptable to skip chemo for a child?

Say a child was in a car accident and suffered grave injuries that mean the chance of survival with a blood transfusion was <20%, however, the chance of survival without a blood transfusion is 0%. Most people would agree that, given these facts, the state should step in and require the blood transfusion because 20% is much larger than 0%. I don't see any reason to not to apply the same logic to cancer treatments. i.e. what matters is the chance of survival without the treatment - not the chance of survival with the treatment.

[Argus]

Define necessary. Chemo is a very unpleasant treatment, that doctors forgo at a much higher rate than the general population. In your opinion, what prognosis would make it acceptable to skip chemo for a child?

Necessary to survive.

[Argus]

No medical treatments are "mandatory".

They are for children. You can break your arm and refuse treatment. If your child breaks his arm and you refuse treatment that child will quickly be taken from you and treated anyway.

Edited February 9, 2015 by Argus

[jacee]

right. However, some are arguing that some treatments should be mandatory for children. Should the child in this thread have been forced to undergo chemotherapy?

That question becomes ... Should the child have been removed from the custody of her parents and put in the custody of the CAS to force her into treatment?

Since I'd not be involved in any of those decisions, I have no real opinion.

I can only say that if it were my child, I would have had her treated.

.

[Boges]

At the very least she should have been removed from the home and told her parents are being deceitful to her and that the chances of living a long fruitful life is very good.

Her parents weren't doing their jobs as parents and if they were of any other race the CAS would have yanked that kid from them faster than you can say treatable disease.

[jacee]

At the very least she should have been removed from the home and told her parents are being deceitful to her and that the chances of living a long fruitful life is very good.

Her parents weren't doing their jobs as parents and if they were of any other race the CAS would have yanked that kid from them faster than you can say treatable disease.

Has that ever happened?

.

[Mighty AC]

Say a child was in a car accident and suffered grave injuries that mean the chance of survival with a blood transfusion was <20%, however, the chance of survival without a blood transfusion is 0%. Most people would agree that, given these facts, the state should step in and require the blood transfusion because 20% is much larger than 0%. I don't see any reason to not to apply the same logic to cancer treatments. i.e. what matters is the chance of survival without the treatment - not the chance of survival with the treatment.

Blood transfusions are near painless, but chemo is horrible treatment to endure. If a child will live another 6 months should they spend their last bit of time nauseous and in pain if the chance of success is <20% ? It's not old doctors that choose to avoid chemo, it's doctors in general. They understand the odds and they know what the treatment is like. I'm not sure what the odds would have to be for me to choose to avoid treatment for my child and just let them enjoy their last days. Nobody really seems willing to give an answer as to where they would draw the line either. That's why for the time being it seems acceptable to let families make the call on cancer treatment.

[TimG]

Blood transfusions are near painless, but chemo is horrible treatment to endure.

There are two issues:

- Whether it is reasonable to expect someone to endure some pain/disconfort in order to save their life;

- Whether children are emotionally capable of making such a decision;

IMO, adults are free to refuse any treatment for any reason unless there are public health implications (e.g. vaccines).

OTOH, we don't charge children for murder because their brains are not able to grasp the concepts of mortality and it is logically inconsistent to claim they truly understand the implications of refusing treatment. For that reason, adult must make the treatment decision and since adults must make the decision on behalf of someone else they should be compelled to err on the side of preserving life even if that means short term discomfort.

If you want to argue that children should be charged with murder if they kill then go ahead. But don't try to argue that children should not be charged with murder AND claim they are mentally capable of making decisions about life saving treatments. The two positions are contradictory.

Edited February 10, 2015 by TimG

[poochy]

It is immoral to pretend that this child decided for herself without any outside influence and completely understood that she could suffer short term and live a long life, or allow herself to die.

[On Guard for Thee]

There are two issues:

- Whether it is reasonable to expect someone to endure some pain/disconfort in order to save their life;

- Whether children are emotionally capable of making such a decision;

IMO, adults are free to refuse any treatment for any reason unless there are public health implications (e.g. vaccines).

OTOH, we don't charge children for murder because their brains are not able to grasp the concepts of mortality and it is logically inconsistent to claim they truly understand the implications of refusing treatment. For that reason, adult must make the treatment decision and since adults must make the decision on behalf of someone else they should be compelled to err on the side of preserving life even if that means short term discomfort.

If you want to argue that children should be charged with murder if they kill then go ahead. But don't try to argue that children should not be charged with murder AND claim they are mentally capable of making decisions about life saving treatments. The two positions are contradictory.

Take another look, you just contradicted yourself.

[Smallc]

Since I'd not be involved in any of those decisions, I have no real opinion.

.

By that logic, you have opinions on almost nothing. Why do you even post here, then?

[Mighty AC]

If you want to argue that children should be charged with murder if they kill then go ahead. But don't try to argue that children should not be charged with murder AND claim they are mentally capable of making decisions about life saving treatments. The two positions are contradictory.

I'm not claiming children have the mental capacity to make medical decisions, it is the parent's call. In grim situations, I hope I could be selfless enough as a parent to allow my child to spend their last weeks living, rather than sick and pained in a hospital bed. I hope to never be in the position where I have to wager their remaining quality of life against a little quantity. It seems that lifelong guilt will be the likely result, regardless of the path chosen.

[TimG]

I'm not claiming children have the mental capacity to make medical decisions, it is the parent's call.

OK, then do you agree that the standards of care should exist when one person makes a decision for another? Or should parents simply be allowed to rid themselves of children by staging an accident and declining medical care? If you do believe that standards of care are required then we are talking about drawing a line and debating where that line should be drawn. We both accept that the line exists. When it comes to cancer treatments I would say the line should be drawn in ways that err on the side of preserving life. i.e. the chance of the treatment succeeding would have to be quite small before forgoing would be an acceptable choice provided there are no other issues that preclude a long and healthy life for the child. Edited February 10, 2015 by TimG

[Argus]

Has that ever happened?

.

Hell, they took one kid out of his home out west because the parents were Nazis.

[Boges]

They arrested a dad because his daughter drew a picture of a gun.

[Mighty AC]

OK, then do you agree that the standards of care should exist when one person makes a decision for another? Or should parents simply be allowed to rid themselves of children by staging an accident and declining medical care? If you do believe that standards of care are required then we are talking about drawing a line and debating where that line should be drawn. We both accept that the line exists. When it comes to cancer treatments I would say the line should be drawn in ways that err on the side of preserving life. i.e. the chance of the treatment succeeding would have to be quite small before forgoing would be an acceptable choice provided there are no other issues that preclude a long and healthy life for the child.

Agreed, it's just very hard to draw appropriate lines for the ranges of conditions and treatments. Doctors can currently decide if late term abortions are medically necessary, maybe doctors should be able to determine if a treatment should be required. Although, studies have shown doctors still push aggressive treatments they wouldn't accept for themselves.

[TimG]

Although, studies have shown doctors still push aggressive treatments they wouldn't accept for themselves.

The study is misleading because it asks the opinion of Type A over achievers what they might do if confronted with a serious disease. Other studies have shown that a person's attitude can change drastically when actually faced with a disease that can kill them. Also, I am not talking about making choices based on a doctor's recommendation. I am talking about making choices based on the statistical success rate for the treatment. Edited February 11, 2015 by TimG

[jacee]

The study is misleading because it asks the opinion of Type A over achievers what they might do if confronted with a serious disease. Other studies have shown that a person's attitude can change drastically when actually faced with a disease that can kill them. Also, I am not talking about making choices based on a doctor's recommendation. I am talking about making choices based on the statistical success rate for the treatment.

I don't think doctors want that liability.

.

[Boges]

Agreed, it's just very hard to draw appropriate lines for the ranges of conditions and treatments. Doctors can currently decide if late term abortions are medically necessary, maybe doctors should be able to determine if a treatment should be required. Although, studies have shown doctors still push aggressive treatments they wouldn't accept for themselves.

No one is arguing that Chemo sucks. But an Apples to Apples comparison would be, would a doctor choose death over a 90% chance of survival if it meant Chemo.

Even with that, it's irrelevant because we're talking about an adult that's of a certain age or majority over an 11-year-old child.

[Mighty AC]

No one is arguing that Chemo sucks. But an Apples to Apples comparison would be, would a doctor choose death over a 90% chance of survival if it meant Chemo.

Even with that, it's irrelevant because we're talking about an adult that's of a certain age or majority over an 11-year-old child.

I'm not arguing the merits of this case as I have already stated I don't agree with the choice of the family. I'm debating the potential for drawing lines.