13 year old cancer kid & mother "missing"
 

yes, mom knows best, not those silly doctors who went to medical school.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090519/ap_on_re_us/us_forced_chemo

According to the article, the 13-year-old can't read. Either he's a retard and his death would be no great loss, or there is a pattern of child abuse and neglect that needs to be aggressively prosecuted.

no one should be forced to take treatment; if you (adult) want to die or try an alternative you should have the right. making someone take healthcare treatment from a private business is messed up. parents should have the right to access alternative treatment for their kids. damn, we let moms have abortions, why not decide what is best for their kids? this is all about $$$$$

my brother is retarded, but I can assure you that his death would be a loss to our family. you might feel the same if it was your family member. OTOH, nobody's life is so important that it is irreplaceable

There's another thread on this subject. In it I asked who would be paying for the chemo if it happens. Chemotherapy can be rather expensive.

The judge in this case ruled that the state had enough to override the constitutional rights of the parents and the boy.

Yeah he actually did say constitutional rights there. At this point it's hardly about the life of the boy anymore. Can you imagine five doctors getting together and denying you, say, the right to peacefully assemble?

like I said all about $$$. either a strong argument for nationalized healthcare or patient's rights (maybe both). no one should be ruined finacially be having to take a procedure that may or may not help them...it certainly is not the government's place to decide that.

I agree fully. From what I heard chemo is very nasty. No one should be forced to take it even if it may help them. That should be the individual's decision. Now if the boy wanted chemo and the mother was against it, maybe there'd be a reason for the state to get involved, but that's not the case here from the little that I've read about it.

the kid can't read. seems like he's a puppet of some whacked out parents.

Probably we will. Thankfully she has spared us the expense. It'll be over soon. His corpse will turn up and we won't have to pay for much besides maybe cremating or dumping it into a hole. I'm good either way.

It should be your choice to undergo a procedure that may or may not help you, healthwise. It should also be your duty to cover whatever obligations that come your way from your choice. Say I had the choice of getting a fixed rate or an adjustable rate loan. Sure, the fixed rate sucks if the adjustable would have gone lower. OTOH, had the adjustable rate gone up, your fixed rate would look good. Pick one and go with it. Choose wisely and be rewarded. Choose poorly and pay the penalty. Just like this case. It might help you if you are the 90% or it might not help you if you are the 10%. Either way, your choice. You should have to pay for it.

Cancer is even worse. The question is whether you want to take a chance or not. Yes, it should be your choice. In this case, the child is a ward of the parents and it should have been their choice, not the state's choice.

"he's" is a contraction for "he is", right? Yes, he is right now. Odds are that at the rate they are going, it will soon be "he was". :D

It should still be the parent's choice. There's no evidence the parents are abusing him or trying to harm him. Chemo can kill as well as heal and it's a nasty experience. Individuals or their legal guardians should have the right to try alternative treatments.

Well, yes and no. If the alternative treatment fails and now there is a bigger bill to pay to fix it, who pays for that? As they say, "A stitch in time saves 9". So, if you refuse the 1 stitch today and tomorrow 9 are needed, who pays for the 9? If the govt pays, the govt should have some rights. OTOH, if the person does a total AMA then let them do what they want.