Is a 13 year old mature enough to... - Page 2 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Graplr · #16 05-12-2009, 09:40 AM

From the vast media coverage I have seen here in MN, it appears it is their Native American beliefs that are causing them to forgoe the chemo treatments and settle for the natural methods.

IMO, if an adult (as in Mburg's MIL's case) chooses to forgoe treatment, then they can do so. But a 13 year old should not be able to make that decision. Therefore it is the parent's decision. And in listening to this family talk it is very apparent that the decision is not coming from the child. How would he even know that forgoing chemo is an option unless someone in his family/religious organization told him?

I think a judge should resolve this matter. IMO, a judge would see that the parent is NOT doing what is in the best interest of the child and should mandate the child receive the proper treatment.

In this type of disease, kids that undergo chemo have a 95% survival rate. If he does not get chemo he will likely die. Seems pretty obvious to me.

kerry · #17 05-16-2009, 09:57 AM

Judge ruled parents have to take child to doctor to determine if treatment will still be effective. If so, kid must be treated. Good decision.

blackestate · #18 05-16-2009, 10:25 AM

Not so clear cut for me.
Are the parents a little off? ya, and should they do what they can to save their child, ya. And have they already violated their religious beliefs? yes.
But, if a judge, or gov. official can force you to do things that you are against, due to religon, then does that not violate the seperation of church and state? Which was intended to keep the state from sponsoring a religion, or interfering with religious issues.
We all have our own belief's, even if that is to not believe. Do you want the gov. to tell you what you have to do reguardless of those beliefs? They already control too much about our lives.

Graplr · #19 05-16-2009, 11:20 AM

This disease if treated with chemo, has a 90% survival rate. If it is not treated with chemo then there is a 95% death rate.

Duh......

POS · #20 05-16-2009, 04:11 PM

With a 13 year old, I think it comes down to the parent's call; if the parents want to honor their 13 year old's wishes, then they can do that.

tonkovich · #21 05-16-2009, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by POS

With a 13 year old, I think it comes down to the parent's call; if the parents want to honor their 13 year old's wishes, then they can do that.

tough luck for the thirteen year old then, eh?

POS · #22 05-16-2009, 10:02 PM

Pretty much - legally it's the parent's call. If the parents are good ones, they'll know their child and they'll know what to do as to what the child wants and what the child is like. If the parents are boneheads, then it's still the parent's call and it could end up as a situation in which I wouldn't agree with the outcome. A thirteen yr old may/may not be able to make that kind of decision, and it's up to the parents to take their child's wishes into consideration, but ultimately it falls on the parents.

Kuan · #23 05-17-2009, 10:29 PM

Judge stated that the county has shown

Quote:

a compelling state interest in the life and welfare of Daniel sufficient to override the fundamental constitutional rights of both the parents and Daniel to the free exercise of religion and the due process right of the parents to direct the upbringing of their child.

cmac2012 · #24 05-18-2009, 03:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mgburg

I'm watching my MIL going through that right now...

She's decided that there's not enough of her to make it through the whole process (her Drs. agree)...and it's not something that is easy to take...by any stretch of the imagination...

To force an adult to take a therapy that's too hard for them to stand would be criminal...

Why would it be any less so because it's being applied to a juvenile?

If he/she is able to decide whether they want the procedure or not, they need to make sure their parents understand exactly what's going on...and the parents have to understand exactly what the child is experiencing...the pain and pain and more pain...

Also, what's the chance of remission, let alone the complete cure of the disease altogether?

If it's 100% and the cure won't kill the kid, it's worth fighting...

But, if it's only going to give the kid and family another year or two together, then the comfort of the child should be paramount in the minds of the parents first, following the will of their child...

Here's the bad part of this whole thing...

We can sit here and type away what we feel should be done in these cases...

What we should be doing is asking those that have really dealt with these issues on a one-to-one basis to tell us what happened and how really difficult it was in doing what they did. They are the experts...we're nothing more than arm-chair nar'-do-wells...

Like I said earlier...my MIL is going down for the count...the cure was worse than the disease...but she decided that on her own and we have to live with that decision...not her living painfully with ours...

Should it be any different for that 13yo?

It's a tough one and you make some good points. A 13 year old could likely make it through chemo but going to extreme measures to try to save every life for a few more months can get a bit whack.

My dad was diagnosed with non-Hodgkins lymphoma, AKA 'unfavorable diagnosis lymphoma, in Jan. 2000, was put on chemo 2 days later and spent one lousy week before he died. He was cursing and shouting at my mother and did not recognize (best we could tell) most of the people - old friends all - who came to visit him.

He kept berating my mother for not giving him his pocketknife so he could cut off the thumb-less mittens they put on him because he kept pulling his catheters out.

I'm not sure how much that week of fun cost his insurers or us but I can only imagine the hospital did get paid for it, and amply so. What a way to go huh?

Graplr · #25 05-18-2009, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

It's a tough one and you make some good points. A 13 year old could likely make it through chemo but going to extreme measures to try to save every life for a few more months can get a bit whack.

I'm sorry about what happened to your father. But that case is different than this one. Children with this disease have a 95% survival rate if they undergo chemo. If they don't they have a 90% death rate.

This is not just getting him to be around for a few more months. He will most likley live if he undergoes chemo and will most likely die if he does not.

cmac2012 · #26 05-18-2009, 11:43 AM

No argument there. But chemo is said to be so onerous that some people would apparently rather face death.

At what point does the state insist that a person undergo days, weeks, of expensive medical care to preserve their life?

Skippy · #27 05-18-2009, 03:00 PM

Better question-who's paying for this chemo? I would really hate to think my tax dollars pay to save the life of someone too stupid to want to be saved.

cmac2012 · #28 05-20-2009, 11:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skippy

Better question-who's paying for this chemo? I would really hate to think my tax dollars pay to save the life of someone too stupid to want to be saved.

Or someone who will pull out of treatment halfway through. Sorta like someone taking anti-biotics until they feel a little better and then they stop. Illness can come back stronger and drug-resistant to boot.