This is probably one of the most disturbing things I have seen in a long time. http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/07/21/D8J0MGOO1.html Now I understand that the doctors are trying to do what is best for the kid but this guy doesn't want to undergo chemo and his parents agree with him. It isn't like the parents forced him to not undergo chemo, which I could then see as neglect because the guy didn't really have a choice but to force this guy to do something he doesn't want to do seems to go against the very foundation of the United States - Freedom. His decisions is hurting nobody but himself and his family, in the event that he dies, which means there is no basis for a judge to strip custody of this boy from his parents, award it to the county, and force him to undergo this treatment he doesn't want. I'm so upset about this I can't even form a coherent argument other than what right does this judge have to force this 16 year old to do something that if isn't done only causes harm to himself and emotional harm to his family.
well, it is technically a kid, and they dont really get the same rights as adults. for all we know his parents brainwashed him to want some stupid alternative holistic health crap, which will probably kill him. he can kill himself with mexican clinics and stupid herbal remedies when he turns 18. if he really wants to avoid chemotherapy, he can just leave the country for two years. i dont have a huge problem with it.
I don't really have a problem with this either. He's 16, I don't think he is mature enough to make his own decision. One then turns to the parents, but the parents sound insane...
I think this is a hugely hypocritical thing for the courts to decide. In Virginia a girl under 18 only has to tell one parent she is having an abortion and then she can go have one done. The parent doesn't have to approve the law only states that she has to tell the parent about it. So apparently a 16 year old girl, without parental approval, is allowed to decide what goes on with her own body but a 16 year old guy, with parental approval, isn't allowed to decide what happens to his body? I'm surprised at you Martin, you're normally all gung-ho against the courts and government interference in peoples lives but this you think the court was correct? An adult has the right to decide if he/she wants to recieve a certain medical treatment but a parent and a 16 year old "child" can't decide together if they want to go through a medical treatment. I just find that this is way too much government interference in a personal decision that affects no one but the boy with the Hodgkin's Disease.
it is true, i always favor freedom from government intervention, and the rights of people to make their own choices, no matter how bad. however, children are a different story and it is very complicated to figure out what we should allow them to do and not do. obviously if this guy was 8 years old his parents refused to give him medicine for a simple ailment and he died, we would find that unacceptable. so to some extent, we are accepting as a culture that parents do not have absolute control over the health decisions of their children. and this kid is much older, and his decision is not as outwardly outrageous as a parent refusing to use antibiotics or whatever. so this case is getting close to the point where the circumstances and age of the kid almost lead us to just shrug our shoulders and say "its his life". but not quite. and of course it seems arbitrary on a kid's 18th birthday to say ok, yesterday you were a child, but now one day has passed and you are 18 and can make your own decisions. nothing really changes between the last minute of your 17th year and the first of your 18th. but just because the line is abitrary no matter where it is drawn doesnt mean we dont have to draw it. we cant allow parents to abuse their children by making unwise medical decisions on their behalf. and there is an age at which we should allow people to make their own decisions. but as of now we have that age set at 18. i have no better solution. i think what this kid is doing is basically suicide, and generally we as a society will not let parents allow or encourage their kids to commit suicide. so as much as i do not like to tell a kid he has to do what we tell him, we have to force children to do what is best for them sometimes, even against the will of their parents. like i said, if i was the kid and i was hellbent on stupid treatment, i just hop the next bus to mexico and die there.
This is exactly what I first thought. This is likely the issue here... These things come up all the time in the north west & other cult areas.
I have no idea. No clue, though my gut instinct is I don't like this. Martin is kinda right that 18 was set as the magic number, but Gimp pointed out how abortion laws are different. I wish I could remember more of my peers when I was 16-18. They were probably a lot more immature than I recall, but that seems to be an age where you can make pretty good decisions for yourself.
"allowing him to pursue alternative treatment of a sugar-free, organic diet and herbal supplements" What the hell is this? This isn't alternative treatment, it is taking him to Mexico to die.
My guess is that the so called "alternative treatment" is not based on any science and has no data to back it up. If it did, the judge probably would not have ruled the way he did. When dealing with a minor, the welfare of the child comes first, meaning just not letting the kid die. Even if he is almost not a minor and a mature kids, the strict interpretation of the law is that he is a minor and therefore, the state has to look after his welfare if the family won't. If they family had presented an alternative treatment that had even the slightest bit of evidence that it was effective, he probably would have ruled differently. There is a big difference between alternative treatments and quackery. The judge probably recognized that.
