Boy taken away from his family for refusing chemo

If it looked like he was going to die no matter what, then I'd support the decision for him to go home. But he has a 50 percent chance of being cured by taking chemo? As opposed to some sort of alternative quackery? I can't really blame the doctors for trying. And I don't think 11 years old is old enough to understand the consequences of the decision. Kids that age still see things in terms of the immediate.

On the other hand, chemo IS painful and horrid. But on balance, I don't think it's so awful to warrant letting a child decide against it when there's a half-and-half chance of being cured by it.

Taking the child away from his family is reprehensible, though. Surely they could find a way to enforce the decision without him out of his home. That's just wrong. He's going to need his parents' love more than ever as he goes through another round of chemo.

[ 13 May 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]

I don't think anyone has any right to force anyone into treatment they don't want to do. I'm a little shocked at the responses here. What happened to a woman's right to make her own decisions about her own body? Does this right become null and void if it's a child making his or her own decision? Explain that to me please.

I could tell you a story about what you call "alternative quackery", but you probably wouldn't believe it anyway.

Are you guys forgetting that Canadian courts ruled that the late Sue Rodriguez was not even entitled to decide upon her own death? The state intervenes all the time and has an "interest" that it vigorously defends.

Anyway, there is another recent case in which Winnipeg Medical Ethicist Arthur Schafer made a few public remarks. In that case, dated last July in Quebec, a 3-year-old boy was not compelled to proceed with chemotherapy "after his parents said they would prefer he had alternative medicine". The details are important here: the boy's condition was not viewed as life-threatening:

quote:

---

Arthur Schafer, University of Manitoba, told CTV's Canada AM that the province did not intervene because [b]the child's condition is not currently life threatening.[/b] If medical experts had told the courts it was a medical emergency their response would have been different.

According to the boy's mother, his condition has improved since he started the alternative treatment. She stressed that she would seek chemotherapy again if her child's condition got worse.

---

[url=http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/78119.php]Boy Can Have Alternative Medicine Instead Of Chemotherapy, Quebec[/url]

I couldn't leave the following alone without comment ...

quote:

---

Catchfire: I'm also suspicious of 'bioethicists' when invoked generally. Are they doctors? Do they have any medical background? What makes them think they are justified in commenting on this specific case?

---

They have special training in [i]thinking[/i] about such issues. Arthur Schafer is a fine example of a Canadian bio-ethicist. Check out his piece on panhandling (panhandling.pdf), on Biomedical conflicts of interest (Biomedical_conflicts_of_interest.pdf), on the good death (good death.pdf), on assisted suicide, and so on.

[url=http://umanitoba.ca/centres/ethics/downloads/]ethics downloads[/url]

I'm in favour of the right to vote.

But not for 11-year-olds.

There is a world of difference between an 11 year refusing treatment that could save his life and women who chose to have abortions. Frankly, I do not really appreciate this being thrown in our faces as an analogy to the anti-abortion crowd. Seriously.

I personally believe the boy should be able to decide his own fate re: medical options. I think it is horrible that they have pulled him away from his family. On the other hand, I can see that this boy has a 50 percent chance of chemo working. That's a rather good chance and I do not think an 11 year old has the mental capacity to decide this.

Let me pose something to you then, along the same lines as you re: women's right to choose.

Since you are of the opinion that the boy has a right to decide his fate (BTW, anorexics don't for the most part. But that is another story) and that he is old enough and mature enough to understand the implications of no treatment, can I also assume that you think 11 year olds are old enough to stand trial as adults when they commit crimes?

You see how silly analogies are here? And how offensive it is?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
There is a world of difference between an 11 year refusing treatment that could save his life and women who chose to have abortions.

---

What's the world of difference? I'm all ears.

In Ontario, and probably other provinces also as these things tend to be pretty uniform, a person can consent to or refuse treatment at age 12.

I saw an interview with the kid's dad this morning. If what he says is accurate, the best case scenario would buy him a few years, but at considerable cost to quality of life. His quality of life with the chemotherapy right now is pretty miserable.

People seem to be operating on the automatic assumption that the child couldn't possibly be cured by alternative means. In fact, there is very little research in the west to prove or disprove the effectiveness of various alternative treatments, while the only country to ever conduct such research in any depth (China) has produced very positive results.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against chemo by any means. My little nephew is currently going through it to cure his lukemia and it has all gone very well. Still, if the child's parents have supported his decision to try other means, there is no reason whatsoever to equate this with a death sentence. If the state can point to a strong body of evidence that clearly discredits the treatments they want to take, then a case could be made for intervention in the child's best interests. Without this, all we have is fascist meddling based on irrational prejudice. They have no right to decide that these parents are threatening their child's life with no evidence to back them up, based on "conventional wisdom". We all know how reliable that can be. Decisions like this lead to a very bad place indeed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jas:
[b]I am talking about the right to make decisions about one's own life and body, not about the right to choose political representation.[/b]

---

Well Duh! But Choice is choice, right? Regardless of the context - you said so yourself.

Now, if 11-year-olds are not considered legally competent to do something as harmless as put a ballot in a box, why would they be considered capable of making informed and reasoned choices about something as serious as their own medical treatment?

quote:

---

Originally posted by jas:
[b]Well, I think that some Babblers need to perhaps contemplate their [i]pro-choice[/i] stance in the context of the broader human spectrum. I don't think it's a convincing or valid position to be pro-choice in some contexts, and anti-choice in others.[/b]

---

Women aren't children. Women aren't children. Women aren't children. Women aren't children.

If it was a woman who had the choice of whether to go through with chemo or not, she could choose not to, and the state would not interfere.

In this case, it is a child. Not a woman.

Women aren't children. It's not the same.

Women aren't children.

All this is besides the point. It isn't the child's decision. It's the parent's decision and they made the decision to support what their child wanted. The question is does the state have the right to overrule them. I say absolutely not. The burden of evidence here has to be on the state and it must be a heavy burden indeed. They don't even come close to meeting it.

The same reason they can't choose their bedtime. The same reason they can't choose whether or not to go to school. The same reason they can't vote. The same reason they can't drive a car. The same reason they can't choose to eat twinkies all day long. The same reason they can't decide custody cases.

They aren't old enough to make adult decisions. Because they're children.

An 11-year-old doesn't understand what death is? (And an adult does?) Doesn't understand what the potential consequences of stopping treatment might be? An 11-year-old is allowed to say 'no' to an adult molesting him or her, but can't say 'no' to invasive chemical intervention?

I think she's saying abortion is like child molesting, wait, I can't really tell. I don't know which goal posts I am aimming for anymore.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jas:
[b]I'm saying that a child of a certain age has a right to make a decision about his or her own body and what medical interventions he or she is comfortable with. [/b]

---

And you compared that with a child having the right to decide not to be molested. You're claiming that a child of a certain age has a right to make a decision about medical care and you compare that to a child's right to say no to being molested.

So, does this mean that only children of a certain age have the right to say no to being molested? Or was that just a really bad analogy?

Does a six year-old have the right to decide for himself against going to the dentist? No? He doesn't? Well, does that mean he also doesn't have the right to say no to being molested?

It's exactly the same thing, right? A six year-old not wanting to go to the dentist and a six year-old not wanting to be molested are the same thing, right?

[ 13 May 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]

[url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=11&t=001975]Pick away[/url]

Michelle, this isn't a six-year-old, he is eleven. Almost an adolescent. And if he were a she, if a bit precocious, could become pregnant, if more average, in a year or two. Surely you don't think parents should be able to prevent a teenaged girl from having an abortion - or teenagers male or female having access to contraceptive measures?

Chemotherapy is horrific. Probably worth it if it can save a life or extend it significantly (in terms of a life that is not just torture). Outcomes are better now than a generation ago, but it depends on the cancer. (I'm also thinking of what friends with AIDS had to go through).

But there is also so much crap about heroism, I'd much rather die - say my life has ended there (not that I want to die by any means) than spend years living in torture, mutilated or with a severely-reduced quality of life. Others might take a different decision, but it is my bloody life.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]
Does a six year-old have the right to decide for himself against going to the dentist? No? He doesn't?
[/b]

---

He doesn't? If a kid doesn't want to go to the dentist and his parents support that decision, will there be any consequences? This is getting pretty surreal.

This isn't about the child's right to decide, it's about the parents right to decide for their child. Who should make the decision here, the parents or [i]the authorities[/i]?

quote:

---

Originally posted by wage zombie:

This isn't about the child's right to decide, it's about the parents right to decide for their child. Who should make the decision here, the parents or [i]the authorities[/i]?

---

Well, I think the bio-ethicists are suggesting, as am I, that it [i]is[/i] about the child having some say in whether or not or what kind of treatment to undergo, especially, as the article points out, already having had experience with that treatment.

We would probably be having a slightly different conversation if it was the parents either refusing treatment on behalf of the child, or, conversely, forcing the child into treatment.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wage zombie:
[b]He doesn't? If a kid doesn't want to go to the dentist and his parents support that decision, will there be any consequences? This is getting pretty surreal.[/b]

---

Okay, follow along here, folks. I mentioned the example of the six year old not to be an analogy to the 11 year-old refusing treatment, but in discussion of the side issue that jas raised, about whether medical treatment is the same thing as sexual molestation.

The only reason I brought up the six year-old being forced against his will to go to the dentist is because I was comparing it to a six year-old being forced against his will to being sexually molested.

The point is, a six year-old CAN be legally forced against his will (by his parents) to go to the dentist. A six year-old CANNOT be legally forced against his will BY ANYONE to be sexually molested.

That's the only reason I brought up the six year-old and the dentist. To show that saying that forcing a child to undergo medical treatment he or she doesn't want is NOT the same as forcing a child to be sexually molested, no matter what the age of the child.

Our oldest son is 11 so this issue has given me pause to think. As one of his parents, I often tell him to do things he doesn't want to do. Sometimes we try to negotiate a resolution. The state does not recognize our 11 year old as being old enough to make major life decisions and therefore vests that authority in his parents. The state also places restrictions on how parents can exercise that authority usually by legislating what is not permissible.

As medical advances allow us to extend life, it often seems that the extension of life has become some sort of prime directive. If life can be extended then life must be extended. We allow indivduals who are deemed compis mentis to choose to disregard this "imperative." The issue is more complex when we are dealing with minors. Although parents usually make decisions for minors, parents are prohibited by the state from making decisions that harm children. If the state accepts that the prolongation of life is an imperative, it will step into to prevent parents from declining to take steps to prolong their child's life.

An interesting issue is the behaviour of doctors in this situation. Doctors normally recommend treatment that can be rejected by adult patients. Doctors do not go to the courts to force an adult patient to undergo treatment. In this case doctors are petitioning the state to require treatment of a child against the parents' wishes and as reported against the child's wishes. Are the doctors operating in the interests of the state in these cases when they are seeking to enforce what they consider the best treatment options?

It is a very complex issue.

quote:

---

May 14, 2008 04:30 AM
Parents agree to accept court-ordered treatment

The boy, who cannot be named because he is in the care of the Children's Aid Society, could finish his first round of chemotherapy this week and be home by Saturday or Sunday.

Before yesterday's hearing, the father said his son's spirit had been broken and his family was worried he'd get even weaker if he doesn't regain the will to fight his leukemia.

The man said his son is despondent, run down and wants to go home.

(snip)

The father lost custody to the Children's Aid Society after trying to fight for his son's wishes. But the boy has now given up fighting, his father said. He likened his son to a tortured prisoner willing to say anything to be released.

"All he ever says is, 'I just want to go home.' Now he's agreeing to everything and anything as long as you let him go to be free," he said.

The boy is surrounded in his hospital room by security guards and Children's Aid and youth-protection workers, the father said.

"He's a little prisoner. He can't leave his room or anything ...

"We told him, 'Don't worry buddy, please try to be healthy, relax, relax, relax, relax,' and he even said to me, 'I don't care. They can even kill me with their chemo and stuff I don't care, as long as I can come home and be home with you and mommy.' "

---

[url=http://www.thestar.com/News/Ontario/article/425201]11 year old at centre of chemo fight going home: theStar.com [/url]

The last two posts really show what we're talking about here.

and in this:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
But I think the principle of children being allowed to refuse treatment and the parents being allowed to allow them to do so is one that should not be automatically accepted. There are always going to be borderline cases like this one. But in principle, parents should not have the absolute right to refuse medical intervention on their child's behalf.

---

I can agree with you almost completely.

I'm pretty sure you understand that I'm not saying that medical treatment is the same as sexual molestation. I'm pretty sure you understood that from my first post.

From a child's perspective however, both of these can be seen as invasive, as breaking an important boundary that [i]we teach our children to establish for themselves[/i]. In the former, the intention is good, but the results may not be. So, you have a treatment that is forced on a child, hypothetically, that the child didn't want in the second place (in this case, having already gone through it) and that may not produce the desired results in the end. In this case, you have the parents also saying, yes, we also don't want our child to go through that again. We support his decision.

What is so reprehensible about this? You would give the state the right to overrule both parties? That's what I don't understand. That is a very frightening prospect in my view.

A medical treatment that compromises your entire body's ability to cope with everyday life is not the same as having a tooth filled. OK? You're offended by my analogy, but yours is not much better.

OK. So, sexual advances, NO.

Invasive and horrendous chemical treatment with dubious life-saving results, YES.

So we're clear now on where you stand. Got it.