| Whose choice? Parents or governement?
Posted: 5/12/2008 9:02:21 PM | I found this article on the CBC website, and thought it could make for some lively discussion in here. The short version is that the child has cancer, Dad doesn't want it treated but the government is forcing him through it.
This is a recurrent issue (though not generally as highly publicized) that occurs often in hospitals... most commonly with Jehovah's Witnesses' views on blood transfusions where children get taken in by Child Services for the transfusion, and returned to the parents once it is done. I've also seen similar discussions in hospital surrounding various transplants and unwanted 'heroics' (CPR, tracheostomies, radical surgeries, and cancer treatments).
What are your thoughts? Should the government have the right to take your child away if 'they' feel your child ought to have a treatment that you don't agree with?
Child welfare officials to make sure boy they seized gets chemo
Last Updated: Friday, May 9, 2008
Child welfare officials have taken temporary custody of an 11-year-old Ontario boy to ensure he undergoes chemotherapy after his father decided to take him off treatment for his aggressive form of leukemia.
A father who cannot be identified says his son is being treated 'like a prisoner' at the hospital where he is being treated for leukemia. (CBC)His father, who along with the boy can't be identified due to youth protection laws, told CBC News on Friday that the boy didn't want to continue with the treatments.
"I think about the first time around, what it did to him and how it almost killed him, and when he told me he doesn't want it anymore," he said. "He doesn't want to die this way. He would rather die at home in a peaceful, comfortable way."
The dad, who lives in Hamilton, was briefly shackled by security when he arrived at McMaster Children's Hospital on Thursday with his son for what he believed was a routine appointment.
Local Children's Aid Society officials then took custody of the boy due to the father's refusal to admit the son for another round of chemotherapy.
The executive director of Hamilton's Children's Aid Society, Dominic Verticchio, said a court ruled the boy must be treated.
"It's been very emotionally draining for everyone," he said. "The fact of the matter is there is provincial legislation in place that states that children must receive the care and treatment they require."
Verticchio said doctors gave the boy a very good chance of going into remission.
"He had a 50 per cent chance of survival if the treatment was carried out. If the treatment was not carried out, then in fact his chance of survival would be not good. In fact they estimated it would be fatal in six months."
But the father said doctors told him the boy had a 20 per cent chance of making it through his chemotherapy treatments, then a 50 per cent chance after that, once he undergoes full body radiation and a bone marrow transplant.
The Hamilton man says his son is being treated "like a prisoner" at the hospital room where he is undergoing treatment for the next several days, with hospital security and child welfare officials keeping a close eye on him.
"He's very angry and very upset," the father said.
At first the family was unable to see the boy, but Friday afternoon, they were granted limited visiting rights and planned to see him later in the evening.
"I figured I would never see my son again ever until I was going to bury him, and now I get to see him and at least hug him and hold him and tell him I love him," the father said.
Children's aid said they would return custody to the father if he agreed to continue treatments. The father said he expects the case will end up back before a judge.
He called the entire situation disgusting and said the boy has already had a tough life — losing his mother to cancer at the age of four as well as suffering from psychotic episodes and fetal alcohol syndrome.
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2008/05/09/cas-chemotherapy.html?ref=rss&loomia_si=t0:a16:g2:r3:c0.117553 | |
|
| Whose choice? Parents or governement?
Posted: 5/12/2008 9:12:57 PM | | I think that is crap. It makes me sick that the government is even involved in something so personal to a family. Not to mention that if he has a "50% chance of survival if the treatment is carried out," that also means that he has a 50% chance of not surviving despite the treatment being carried out. | |
|
| Whose choice? Parents or governement?
Posted: 5/12/2008 10:01:21 PM | | It's a tough call. there's still controversy over euthanasia. I think this pretty much is similar to this case, they don't believe in not giving up on a person's life. It's a tough call personally. If it was me tho, I'd see if the treatment would work, if not then at least my child wouldn't have to suffer that long to die, wheras without treatment, the child may be more in pain and suffer. | |
|
| Whose choice? Parents or governement?
Posted: 5/13/2008 5:01:15 AM | Ok I read a diffrent story in the Toronto sun the other day regarding this. And it said something in that one that yours is not saying. And that was that it is the little boy who does not want go through the treatment anymore. It said that he has had cancer for a few years now and he had taken Chemo before and it put his cancer into remission, and the dr's told him that it wouldnt come back. Well when it did come back he said that he did not want to go through the Chemo anymore. And because he did not want it his parent's are trying to respect his wishe's on this. But CAS has taken over and is forceing this young boy (who they say is not old enough to make his own decission's) take the chemo.
Now my feeling on this is that the government, and the cas needs to back off and be found else where. This should be left up to the family on what happenes, it is them that has to go through the process not the government, not the cas people this family, and mostly this little boy.
I know it is not good to see your child sick and you want them to be better, but have you seen someone go through chemo? on an adult I seen it and I would not wish that on my worst enamy let alone a child. And if this little boy does not want to go through it I dont think he should be forced to, it is his life and his parent's responsibility to help him through it and make the best choice for him not the government.
This is just to show you once again that the government feels the need to tell us how to raise our children and that is not right. The government and the cas seem to be in the places they shouldnt be and not where they should be. | |
|
| Whose choice? Parents or governement?
Posted: 5/13/2008 5:34:46 AM | Wow...I dunno...what a profound subject! Is the father being an ass, or his he being totally unselfish?!
In some instances, it would seem no different than an assisted suicide...and since the child is not old enough to make an informed decision, saying he does not want to undergo (possibly) additional life saving treatment...then it is the parents responsibility. In other words, the father maybe should not be allowing the child to make that serious of a decision.
I guess the government has to have some sort of precedent for such cases because there ARE parents who would choose to not pursue medical care simply because they are tired of the battle, they are uncaring, etc.
There is another case, a Hallmark movie was recently aired about such, that is similar, though not a fatal possibility. The son went deaf (mom was deaf, dad was hearing) and could possibly regain hearing (and communication) by getting a Cochlear Implant. The movie was all about the Deaf Culture views of the CI, versus providing a child with the best ability to communicate. (Early implantation is neccessary versus allowing the child to decide for himself.) The movie was actually about the parents fighting for custody of the child, though they were still married.
As far as the government having any say so...I think this is just the government covering their own asses. They HAVE to have things such as Child Protective Services for the children who NEED it...and if they don't utilize some sort of base guidelines, then they are opening themselves up to the responsibilities of these children's deaths. What if it was just some crack wh0re parent who did not have the "time" to pursue treatment for their child? Someone has to step up to the plate, because unfortunately, there ARE children who need someone watching over for their rights. | |
|
| Whose choice? Parents or governement?
Posted: 5/13/2008 5:52:41 AM | Ack. Bone Marrow Transplant is nothing to be taken lightly. An ex-girlfriend of mine lost her husband to sudden rejection of a bone marrow transplant... apparently, it was pretty horrible.
As for the original question, the government, by its very nature, HAS to step in. Then a judge has to make a final decision. I hope the right decision is made FOR THE CHILD in this case. :( | |
|
| Whose choice? Parents or governement?
Posted: 5/13/2008 6:59:48 AM | | I just saw this on the CTV web site, and acording th what CTV is saying it's the KID himdelf who dosnt want to have treatments. | |
|
| Whose choice? Parents or governement?
Posted: 5/13/2008 7:08:22 AM | The child is 11. Thus not old enough to make an informed decision.
Additionally the child has other issues including mental health problems which would further limit his ability to make an informed decision.
the boy has already had a tough life — losing his mother to cancer at the age of four as well as suffering from psychotic episodes and fetal alcohol syndrome.
The government is doing their job which is to ensure the safety and well being of the child.
Any parents who allow their child to be inflicted with FAS has issues of their own and show poor judgement to begin with. Because of such it is necessary for intervention. | |
|
| Whose choice? Parents or governement?
Posted: 5/13/2008 9:21:17 AM | I think this is disgusting. My father had cancer and chose not to do chemo as his quality of life would have been nil and the "cure" could have killed him. He chose alternative therapies, lived an active life and was sick for a very short time before he died. Two cousins, young people, chose chemo and died from the chemo.
My friend has lymphoma and has done chemo 3 times and the cancer came back. This time she won't do it again.
It is a family's choice how to deal with cancer. Since chemo can easily kill the recipient, it has to be the family's choice to make that gamble. That child could be sick and die under the treatment he is forced to take. So can dad then sue the gov't for wrongful death? For a treatment that wasn't wanted? | |
|
| Whose choice? Parents or governement?
Posted: 5/13/2008 10:10:23 AM |
It is a family's choice how to deal with cancer. Since chemo can easily kill the recipient, it has to be the family's choice to make that gamble. That child could be sick and die under the treatment he is forced to take. So can dad then sue the gov't for wrongful death? For a treatment that wasn't wanted?
My point exactly, if they are steping into this (the goverment that is) and something happens to this child due to the treatment are the goverment going to step up to the plate and be responsible for his death? I think not.
My cousin has been battling cancer for the last 6 years, she has had 2 rounds of chemo, and yes in the end the chemo did put the cancer into remission but guess what? it came back full force again and this time she is not going thr0ugh chemo because she says it made her feel worse then she already did, and she would rather spend what time she has left with her daughter feeling better then she would if she had chemo.
I understand that people feel this child is not old enough to make this choice but I am sorry he is old enough, when you are fighting an illness like this you are much older then what your years are, and it is his body. Ever think that maybe he would rather live it without throwing up every day, without having to force himself to eat, without loesing weight, without loseing his hair, without having to have IV in him over and over again??????/ Why put him through that if he doesnt want that. There are other ways and other treatment's that they can try. My cousin like I said has been battling cancer for 6 years now and now with not going on the chemo they gave her a new drug that is out and since takeing it she has felt much better, yes it is not going to take the cancer away (It never goes away it just goes into hideing) but it is giving her strength to spend time with her daughter, it is makeing her eat better, it is makeing her feel better. Why not take that root with this young boy. | |
|
| Whose choice? Parents or governement?
Posted: 5/13/2008 10:48:54 AM | I respect everyone's individual opinions...I do! But as an almost 7 year cancer survivor, it scares the hella outta me to think what it would have done to my children, had I decided I just did not have it in me, to fight the battle.
Part of who I am today, is for what happened to me then.
But perhaps it is also that I am so much more selfish? I would have a very difficult time with "pulling the plug" on someone I love...even though this has been an expressed wish of my parents, my lover, and some of my friends. I know I could NEVER honor that if my children asked me such. | |
|
| Whose choice? Parents or governement?
Posted: 5/13/2008 11:02:19 AM | I am not sure which side of the fence I am on with this subject.
Here are my thoughts at this moment:
I would have to take each of these case by case. If the treatment has a good chance (no definition at this time of "good") to save the child then do it. If the treatment doesn't have a good chance, then don't. It is the family's right, but it is also the states responsibility to look after kids. | |
|
| Whose choice? Parents or governement?
Posted: 5/13/2008 4:57:56 PM | But Kelman, I have to say I'm not a gambling kind of person. What kind of odds would be good enough odds to risk it? A 70/30...you still have almost a 1/3 of a chance of dying. I don't think it is as much a question if the child could make the choice but if the gov't is going to take away a parent's right to make these decisions, what other rights would we lose? More and more the gov't decides how we are to parent. So in the end perhaps they should all be taken away from us at birth and taken care of in state approved institutions.
And to take away a child's loving family while they are undergoing such a difficult ordeal is criminal. At least half of survival would be attitude and spiritual health. What kind of stress is the gov't putting this kid under? Freaking outrageous. | |
|
| Whose choice? Parents or governement?
Posted: 5/13/2008 7:00:06 PM | Well..I'd have to really read up on this case to make an informed decision on what my *opinion* is on what should be done in the best interest of the child..
Now..to answer the question posed in your subject line....
The parents do not have free choice over thier children. the govement dictates what you can and cannot do. Think about what has become socially acceptable these days..Who decided that? It sure as heck wasn't me. Just listen to what people are complaining about!! How the goverment intereferes with eceryday life and most of the time people would should just be left along. Are there some people out there who deserve to be interefered with? Why yes i say. but does that alone give the goverment the right to come crashing through the door and disrupt your life because someone didn't like the tone you used when speaking to your child?? Hell no i say.. HELL NO. WHat they need to do is BUTT OUT.
Based SOLEY on what was given in the case above..i'd tell the goverment to butt out. Give the child morphine and let him enjoy his time. Do I sound heartless to some? Why? I've read in other places that children have an inherent right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. How can a child going through chemo have any of that..and what right does the goverment have to intervene with a choice of the child when it is supported by the parents? NONE and they need to butt out.
Just my opinion though | |
|
| Whose choice? Parents or governement?
Posted: 5/13/2008 7:18:09 PM |
And to take away a child's loving family while they are undergoing such a difficult ordeal is criminal. At least half of survival would be attitude and spiritual health. What kind of stress is the gov't putting this kid under? Freaking outrageous.
Not nec. agreeing or disagreeing...but I am pretty sure that the family is still entitled to being WITH the boy...they are just enforcing the chemo treatment.
When you think about it...the government does not just go around and monitor medical cases on a regular basis...so maybe they were monitoring the family for another reason...and this was the drastic measures that had to be taken because of their history? In other words, maybe they have a history with not seeking medical treatment??
As many have already said...no way for something like this to be cut and dried. | |
|
| Whose choice? Parents or governement?
Posted: 5/13/2008 7:23:48 PM | | The child is too young to make his own choice in this matter. And the government should step in. The pain the child is going through is awful but if there is a chance he will live then it is worth. No parent should refuse medical treatment for their child. | |
|
| Whose choice? Parents or governement?
Posted: 5/14/2008 3:46:04 AM | To have to go through what that poor father is going through would be sheer and utter hell.
My heart goes out to him and his son. No parent wants to see thier child in pain or even worse, dying of cancer. The father must be half out of his mind by now (i know i would be). Of course he wants his child to live and grow up, graduate, get married, have children. And i'm sure he would do anything to ease his pain and suffereing.
So whats he to do? Watch his son in chronic pain suffereing?
His son has expressed his desire not to go through the treatment again, so shouldn't his wishes be taken into account? Afterall, it is his life.
just thinking about what the father is going through is breaking my heart. | |
|
| Whose choice? Parents or governement?
Posted: 5/14/2008 6:07:03 AM | | My job as a parent in a situation like that would be to champion my child's wishes. Can't see any other way of living with such an awful choice. | |
|
| Whose choice? Parents or governement?
Posted: 5/14/2008 7:09:42 AM | When this boys hits 12 years he can legally refuse treatment.
The parents were given custody of their son yesterday, he will be returning home after treatment. But the CAS still has authority over his medical treatment.
I think the courts and CAS have over-stepped the rights of the child in this case. He accepted he is going to die and wants to die as peaceful as possible.
To me the parents are putting their child first, instead of trying to hang onto him. | |
|
| Whose choice? Parents or governement?
Posted: 5/14/2008 8:28:52 AM | One thing that crosses my mind, is that an 11 year old CHILD learns from his parents, in part...and what if, just what if, he has only expressed a desire to not continue treatment, because he has picked up from his parents, or he believes that his parents, think such...that he sees how emotionally grueling it is, and he feels guilty?
THIS is one reason why I think that the government did the correct thing. That, and we don't know the full monty of the story.
So...after all this...let's say he survives and goes into remission...never to have a recurrence? Everyone will be thinking about how they were going to go the route of letting him go, and shun the treatment that saved his life.
And if he dies...well...he died TRYING.
This is just an awful situaton...no matter...and I am sure will be a movie on Lifetime some day! | |
|
| Whose choice? Parents or governement?
Posted: 5/14/2008 8:48:45 AM | Well...I had the opposite happen. I was turned down for medical assitance for my daughter because I would not sign a do not resuscitate (sp) order. She had no health problems besides the fact that she was a micro-preemie. She was breathing on her own...but due to lack of maturity she would 'forget' to breathe. So she was on a machine called CPAP (constant positive airway pressure). There was always a steady flow of room air going up her nose in the event that she forgot to breathe. She was not even on oxygen. Normal room air. So, I was turned down b/c the government felt that it was an option for my child to live.
I'm in the states...but regardless of what country it is, I think the governments need to rethink their policies.
This child may not be old enough to make informed decisions like adults can...but he is old enough to know whether or not he wants to keep suffering.
~Welder's Girl~ | |
|
| Whose choice? Parents or governement?
Posted: 5/14/2008 8:55:03 AM | An 11 year old is old enough to know what they want and if they don't want to undergo MORE medical treatements, then their wishes should be considered, afterall it is THEIR body. They are the one going through the h***s of the treatement, despite the medications to help eliviate the pain, it's still painfull.
50% is still 50% regardless of what side of the coin you are on. I wonder if the father considered 'prayer' or alternatives to the chemo. If so, then the government needs to BACK OFF and let this father do what he is/was doing, parent to the best of his ability and make decisions for his son based on his son's input and on his heart. If he didn't they STILL need to back off. It's a personal and family decision to have chemo or radiation or not. Some people decide to never treate cancer; that's their choice. I know that when I was told I might have cancer a few years ago [I did, but I was damn close] I looked at all my options, justincase.
I think you can trow the arguments for and against this into the same arena as vacinations. Some people are for them an others against them. | |
|
| Whose choice? Parents or governement?
Posted: 5/14/2008 10:36:42 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.
I feel bad for the child but if he does not want to live why should government step in? | |
|
| Whose choice? Parents or governement?
Posted: 5/14/2008 10:53:49 AM | | Because he is a CHILD! He is not capable of making that decision! If he wanted to booze it up and sell himself on the streets should the governemtn let him do that too!??! NO! Because he is a child and can not make adult decisions. | |
|
| Whose choice? Parents or governement?
Posted: 5/14/2008 10:59:41 AM | | Very true Fab-mom but then why does the government not step in to save children who are refused blodd transfusions organ transplants because they are of a certain religion? The child (and in some cases parents) make that decision. Why not step in and say we do not care about your religion or your child;s wishes we will save this child? That is what ishappenning in this case. The child does not want treatment but the government is forcing it on the little guy. | |
|
Home
login 
