| Whose choice? Parents or governement?
Posted: 5/14/2008 11:17:50 AM |
A few religuos groups do not allow for blood transfusions or transplants of any kind. The children who belong to such groups die and government accepts this under the guise of freedom of religion. What if this boy was in need of blood transfusion and ws a member of one of these religous groups? We woud be hearing nothing about this at all.
Umm.. not to change the subject but yes we would be hearing about this.
Who here remembers the sextuplets born in B.C. and when the parents refused a blood transfusion to one or two of them (as they were preemies) the government stepped in and made sure the children recieved said blood so they would survive.
I don't feel that at 11 the child is unable to make his own decisions. Just because a government says that an adult is 18 years or older. Has anyone here ever experienced chemo and being in the hospital and everything that goes with being sick from cancer? If you have or are very close to soemone who has I believe the child is within his right to decide if he wants to experience it all over again. It is not the most pleasant thing.
I don't see why the government needs to get involved in this. Does the government get involved EVERY time someone refuses treatment for something or is this such a media circus because it revolves around a child? | |
|
| Whose choice? Parents or governement?
Posted: 5/14/2008 11:39:48 AM |
I don't see why the government needs to get involved in this. Does the government get involved EVERY time someone refuses treatment for something or is this such a media circus because it revolves around a child?
I agree that this is only going on because it is a child that it is happening to, if it were me, or you or joe blow down the street they would care less if we refused the treatment.
I understand that some people will argue that this is an 11 year old child and he can not make informed decission's on his life, but I have to disagree with you. Yes like I said he is 11 YEARS old, but his mantality I am sure is more then 11. I mean at 11 I did not know up from down but at the same time I was not sick all my life like this young boy is, nor did I have to make such a decission like this young boy has to. But like said before unless you have gone through it or seen someone go through chemo how can you sit there and say "he is not old enough to make this decission he is to young".
I would like the one's that think that it was right of the government to step in and do what they did just to go to the hosptial and watch an adult go through a chemo treatment and see how sick they are and what they go through and then think of that 10 times worse on a child.
All this little boy want's is to be able to enjoy the rest of the time he has here, weather that be a year or 20 more years.
And to the person that said that "well what if he has the treatment and then goes into regresson" yes that is great but come a few years ago when it comes back (because cancer always comes back sooner or later) and he has to go through it again what will the government do then? If he goes through this treatment and yes his cancer goes into remission and say another 4 years goes by and then he is 16 and his cancer comes back, if he refuses treatment at that time is the governement going to fight his parent's then? I know they wont because then at that time they will say he is old enough. But what is the diffrence between then and now? Nothing but a number. We are not the one's that have to go through it, his parent's are not even the ones that have to go through it, it is this boy that has to go through everything and it should be his choice what he does.
If it were a 90/10 percent that yes it would save his life then fine I understand really talking him into doing it, but it is a 50/50 for god sake, so either way he has a 50% chance of still passing on, why make him suffer for the time that he has left rather then let him live his life the way he want's to happy! | |
|
| Whose choice? Parents or governement?
Posted: 5/14/2008 11:40:22 AM | | There have been plenty of times the government has stepped in to help the children who due to their parents religion are not being giving adequate medical care. | |
|
| Whose choice? Parents or governement?
Posted: 5/14/2008 11:55:45 AM | this boy has only a 20% chance of survival. there was a debate the other night on the news show "live at 5:30".
although i understand the reasons behind why the CAS and the gov is involved, i still do not agree with the treatment being forced.
i think this is a very sad and unfortunate situation, which only the parent should have the last word.
i would honor my sons request. something this serious and heartwrenching would make it impossible not to. | |
|
| Whose choice? Parents or governement?
Posted: 5/14/2008 12:06:35 PM | Actually I looked for more information about the case and I can see why child services became involved.
The boy has fetal alcohol syndrome and functions at the level of an eight-year-old. He believes he can beat the cancer without treatment.
I don't believe this case has been handled properly but I do see the reasoning of the courts. | |
|
| Whose choice? Parents or governement?
Posted: 5/14/2008 12:41:59 PM | | ^^^Thank you...I figured there was MUCH more to the story, and that perhaps the father was being portrayed as the victim...when it is the CHILD. | |
|
| Whose choice? Parents or governement?
Posted: 5/14/2008 2:03:37 PM |
The boy has fetal alcohol syndrome and functions at the level of an eight-year-old.
ok where did you hear this? Because I have been following the story and I have not herd that he has FAS.
And keep in mind this is 22 months long, this is not 2 days, it is 22 months of treatment, of being poked at, of being sick, of not eatting right.
There is another story from Qubec where they decided not to force a 3 year old boy to have treatment, so why can they not do the same for this young boy?
We are only talking a 20% chance that he will live we are not even talking 50% so why put him through that for 20 freeking percent! | |
|
| Whose choice? Parents or governement?
Posted: 5/14/2008 2:54:00 PM | I read it in the Hamilton Spectator.
FAS is not my reason for changing my position it's the fact he believes he can recover without treatment.
And I believe it's a 50% chance.
One thing that bothered me about the article in the Spectator was the step-mother proclaiming they had won because the boy is coming home after treatment. It seemed less about the child and more about parental rights. | |
|
| Whose choice? Parents or governement?
Posted: 5/14/2008 3:16:46 PM | | I think it's sad. This is an older boy, he DOESN'T WANT THE TREATMENT. Now, I don't think the government stepping in is RIGHT or FAIR. I think it should be the PARENTS CHOICE, but they're just listening to their son. I mean, they make it like the parents are killing him, but they are respecting his wishes. Which is probably extremely hard for them to do but they love him and he's sick of suffering, so they were going to let him die in peace. What happened to "Human rights" seem nobody HAS ANY. | |
|
| Whose choice? Parents or governement?
Posted: 5/14/2008 4:16:31 PM | Well, 11 year olds can be way mature, and they can be the opposite. But I can see almost any child (or person, for that matter) saying they don't WANT the treatments because the idea of toxins, needles, losing hair, vomitting, diarrhea, swelling, and all that fun stuff that goes along with chemo is...SCARY. But they might not have a realistic view of the results of NOT having treatment.
Heck...my son was 15 when he broke his arm...and was NOT thrilled with the idea of surgery. He would have chosen to let his bone hang out his arm and heal grotesquely, if given the power to decide! (Small comparison, I know...but you get my point!)
As a parent, I just can see how a child will pick up their parents views and opinions...that is natural...with health, death, religion, marriage, etc...and it is probably not HIS choice...it is his parents. And apparently, these parents are not famous for making the best choices!
I think Ms. beavenhouse has a SUPERB point as well...this is more about conquering...about winning the case....not about what is BEST for the child. | |
|
| Whose choice? Parents or governement?
Posted: 5/14/2008 8:06:48 PM | I mentioned the FAS, and other mental issues the child has as contributing factors at the start.
plain and simple, he isnt of the right mind to make such decisions.
Neither is the father. | |
|
| Whose choice? Parents or governement?
Posted: 5/15/2008 8:02:44 AM |
losing his mother to cancer at the age of four as well as suffering from psychotic episodes and fetal alcohol syndrome.
The Father and his wife have been given physical custody once treatment is completed, however CAS rightfully so maintains the DECISION MAKING AUTHORITY over the child and his health. | |
|
| Whose choice? Parents or government?
Posted: 5/18/2008 9:33:45 PM | One thing that I have learned from years of working in the hospital system is that
there are worse things in life than death.
That's not to say to not treat things... but you do need to keep in mind the risks associated with various treatments, along with the potential benefits. If I were in a similar situation with my son, I would also be very inclined to not do a second round of chemo given how hard chemo is on a person, and the abysmal stats they gave him for a full recovery (the 20% initially told to the parents, not the 50% later told to the press). | |
|
| Whose choice? Parents or governement?
Posted: 5/18/2008 9:58:25 PM | | It's a question of quality vs quantity. At what point is it okay to make a child suffer for what may very well the remaining days of his or her life? They've been there, done that, and made, what I hope is, an informed decision. The government is most definitely oversteeping it's boundries. They have no right to force this child to be tortured with treatments again. | |
|
| Whose choice? Parents or governement?
Posted: 5/18/2008 10:10:36 PM | ^^Hmm....even bestest friends can think opposite! LOL
It's almost impossible to cover this up with a "quality versus quantity" argument, because we have no idea what the quantity could be. In other words...if kidlet ends up going on to live a full life expectancy...then the "quality" of his time during treatments would be far over shadowed. | |
|
| Whose choice? Parents or governement?
Posted: 5/18/2008 10:20:05 PM | IF, if, if... Initially they were given a 20% success rate. Based on that 20% would you choose to make your child undergo painful treatments and medication for a SECOND time?
I couldn't do it. And because I love my child I wouldn't... not for 20% | |
|
| Whose choice? Parents or governement?
Posted: 5/19/2008 10:09:27 AM | Yeppers...I would...cause I am selfish, and thinking of the 20% would be enough HOPE for me. But I admit I am selfish...and I want my kids around for the duration of my life!
What if this were not a disease...what if, say your child was injured in a car accident so severely that there was a 20% chance of him or her recovering fully? Would you say to halt all life-saving techniques, or do whatever they can? I mean, maybe they survive but they require assistance or they lose their limbs? This is definitely a quality issue...but one that could be adapted to. I guess that is MY theory...this life we have all been blessed with is so precious...and who are we to balk at a fight to keep it...to shun what could maintain it? Take it from me...recovering from cancer is something you forget about the bad parts, once you do recover! :O) | |
|
Home
login 
