Nationwide Manhunt for Mom of 13-Year-Old Boy Resisting Chemo - Children's Health - FOXNews.com

This is truly a sad story...

__________________
Be careful what you wish for.....

I totally agree, while I have always said life is all about choices, under no circumstances would I ever ever ever put my childs life at risk because of my personal beliefs or religious reasons never ever ever and whoever could help my child with any medical intervention or any means I will go 100 percent for my children. Again this story is totally sad and I sincerely hope they find that child and help him get some medical help... Peace. Catherine

I read about this yesterday....not sure how I feel. They say the boy can't read? They also said he does not want the treatments. There is a lot to this story...

__________________
"When you're drowning, you don't say 'I would be incredibly pleased if someone would have the foresight to notice me drowning and come and help me,' you just scream."

John Lennon

a 13 year old child should never be allowed to make a decision about wanting life saving treatments or not...
NEVER!

__________________
Be careful what you wish for.....

From what I have read---the boy doesn't think he's sick. This is an extremely curable and survivable cancer that the child has. Without treatment there is no doubt the child will die (barring a miracle). The parents think that alternative medicine will cure the boy. We're talking sweat lodges, herbal concotions, etc. kind of alternative medicine.
The child has learning difficulties, and I don't believe he understands the scope of the disease. I don't think he's competent to make decisions on whether to treat or not. The parents don't want to treat--but I've never really heard or read their rationale. Personally I think the parents are idiots. I think the court made the absolute correct decision.

If the child was aware of the extent of how sick he was, did not have learning difficulties, the chances for treatment being successful were less, and the parents weren't whack job, then I'd think differently.

__________________
Mental that one, I'm telling you. ---Ron Weasley, "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets"

Of course there are parent who never shold have opted for a child and we see them in our daily lives

__________________
Nobody can make you feel inferior without your consent.

E. Roosevelt

I didn't say he could, I was just saying that is a fact. Believe it or not, though, many people do not think the same way that you do. I am just not sure how I feel about this thing, because sometimes alternative treatments work, and sometimes, people are given the right to choose. I am still not sure how I feel about it, though.

__________________
"When you're drowning, you don't say 'I would be incredibly pleased if someone would have the foresight to notice me drowning and come and help me,' you just scream."

John Lennon

This is happening near my hometown, so we have been following it along. No easy answers here, but I hate that the courts had to step in. His cancer has a 90% cure rate with chemo/radiation. Without it, there is a 90% fatality rate. To me, this is a no brainer. No one likes chemo, it does make you sick/hurt/scared, but there are many medical and 'natural' things Dr's and healers can do to reduce the side effects.

What disturbs me is that his 'tribe' has pronounced him, a 13 year old, illiterate boy, a 'healer'. The papers up here are reporting that all tribe members become medicine men at 13, for some type of fee. Joining the tribe has nothing to do with heritage, it is fee-based!

Ultimately, the judge has ordered the treatments. I don't think there is a Dr in this world that will forcibly restrain a patient and inject chemo. So, who wins?

__________________
"It's not about how much baggage you have, it's about whether or not you can carry your own baggage with grace and dignity."

I'm torn on this one. Originally I was all over it that no 13 year old or his mother should be able to make decisions to withhold treatment for her child. I would never consider doing that especially when it's a treatable condition.

But my DH is on the totally opposite side, pointing out that it's a slippery slope when the government starts interfering and telling you what you must do when raising your own child. If the precidents start with the govt telling you that you must give him chemo because the doctor says so, what's next? Where does it stop?

I also don't believe that a 13 year old boy should be making life & death choices because he most likely doesn't fully understand, believe his parents should decide and I believe he should get the chemo, but my DH got met thinking, too.

So, now I'm torn. I can see both sides.

Lisa

__________________
"It's not having what you want,
It's wanting what you've got"

I couldn't agree more. I'm really torn on this one as well. If he were an adult, it wouldn't even be an issue. Lots of people decide not to pursue chemo and we're okay with that because it's their choice but when you throw a 13 yo child into it, it's not so clear cut anymore. There's also the freedom of religion angle as well.

As a parent, I find it hard to fathom not pursuing chemo for my child given the statistics but I certainly can see their side of the story.

__________________
Cecilia

"We must love them both--those whose opinions we share and those whose opinions we reject. For both have labored in the search for truth, and both have helped us in the finding of it."
Saint Thomas Aquinas

Both sides yes, and a VERY slippery slope. Were you here for the passion/opinions of Guardisil (sp?) injections for young girls? Both are medical treatments........

I tend to see too much government already and I think (while I have very mixed emotions about the child's health and life) the government should stay out of this. Once there is a starting point, where does it stop? My fear is that it will not stop if the gov does this.

Further, what physician is going to either do it or not do it? There are possible reprimands either way in that the family could sue if the treatment commences, or the government could discipline the license if there is a refusal.

dl

Yes. I have a 12 & 15 year old DD and neither have had these shots. We are still torn over this. I am still doing research and talking to our doctors.

Lisa

__________________
"It's not having what you want,
It's wanting what you've got"

I wouldn't do it. Those shots have just not had enough research, etc...
As far as this boy I would have to agree with Marilynk on this. Of course the treatments would be tough but with the cure rate, the fact that he has some learning issues, etc..he's in no position to decide what's best for him. Would you leave other major decisions to a 13 yr old that pretty much assure death vs about a 90% survival rate. I doubt it. You wouldn't let your kid play Russian roulette would you?? If the parents aren't doing what's in their childs best interest then the courts have to step in. I don't think they do it unless it's necessary in cases like this. If there was a low survival rate then I might rethink this but this case seems pretty clear cut to me. That's my two cents worth!

I'm not torn at all. While I wouldn't do what these parents have done and would seek treatment for my child, I think the goverment is becoming too invasive in everyday life. They should let the parents make the decision as to what medical treatment their child receives. I've seen too many cases where the treatment did more damage more quickly than the disease would have if left untreated. The parents should be the guardians of the child they created and the decision maker on their medical care.

Chemo isn't for everyone. It makes some people so sick that death is actually welcomed. It's so easy for some sanctimonious social worker to sit in his chair and say that they must force treatment whether the family likes it or not but these dogooders won't be the ones doing the suffering because of their interference. I guarantee that if this child dies during forced threatment, the director will say "What a shame" and go on his merry way, patting himself on the back for being so caring.

I agree. I don't think the government should force us to take medical care for us or our children. If this was something simple like a pill you could take that would guarantee results, I might feel differently but chemo is no guarantee and I know people who have died as a result or died faster (and in more pain) because of it. I know *I* wouldn't appreciate someone telling me that I HAD to do a certain medical treatment for my child. It's a tough situation

__________________
Proud to say I haven't shopped at a Wal-Mart since Sept 2003

Here in Ohio there was a case very similar to this one and the child died... Well the parents have been charged with his death now. It will be interesting to see how it turns out.

__________________
Be careful what you wish for.....

OK...this child underwent one chemo treatment and his tumor shrank SIGNIFICANTLY. Furthermore, per the medical evaluation that was done on Monday or Tuesday (just prior to Mom and son disappearing) the tumor had grown, and the child was complaining of being in pain! Whether you treat with chemo or not, no child or adult for that matter, should suffer needless pain.

With treatment (chemo and/or radiation) the success rate for the type of cancer this child has is 80-90%. Without treatment, the mortality rate is 80-90%.

And for those who say the government shouldn't intercede: How is with holding medical care any different than child abuse or neglect? If I don't feed my child, shouldn't the government intercede?

The religious reason that the family cites as why they don't want the treatment is a religion you have to PAY to join. It's a bogus "religion".

__________________
Mental that one, I'm telling you. ---Ron Weasley, "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets"

What I don't understand is why can't the gov't take the kid away?

If the parents "religion" stated that the kid shouldn't be fed, the gov't would wisk him away in a heartbeat. If the "religion" stated that the kid should be kept in a dog crate for 20 hours a day the gov't would snatch him right up.

I don't understand what the definition of "child abuse and/or neglect" is. I think that denying a child medical treatment that has an 80-90% success rate is neglectful.. If the treatment was very painful/invasive and only had a 10% success rate, I might feel differently but in this case I'm going with neglect.

__________________
Jesus SAVES by shopping smartly and using double coupons!

"It makes some people so sick that death is actually welcomed" Not all chemos are the same and the one that this child was taking was NOT that bad...
Having worked with Hodgkins patients in the past, I can tell you this...that treatment is not as terrible as they make it out to be. They go to the clinic every 14 days for 5 hours. They do this either 12 or 16 times depending on tumor shrinkage... USUALLY if the tumor is in one isoalted spot and is responding to treatment, they will stop after 8 infusions and go with radiation.
AGAIN this chemo has fewer side effects then most. The worst seems to be loss of hair.

The thing that scares me is that this tumor initially shrunk and then started to grow again when he missed a treatment. Anyone know how long since his last one??

__________________
Be careful what you wish for.....

It's not even a religion per say but a band of Native Americans-I just heard one of them talking on tv. I had googled it too and it looks pretty crazy-the payment is a real clue!