Is the state on the hook?

[Brainonska511]

Of course, it's really all an allegory about healthcare systems.

Look at this way, you take your car to a dealership to have something repaired. They say it's going to cost you $3,500.00 to solve your problems.

You then take it to "Pete's Garage", and he says "Yeah, I'll take care of the whole thing for $250.

That's the biggest difference, and the conundrum, between "traditional medicine" and "alternative medicine".

In a perfect world, no one would have to make that choice, but when was the last time you saw a perfect world?

And, should you really have to lose your child for making that choice?

You're making no sense in this thread.

To follow your weird analogy, Pete's Garage would take your $250 and you'd still have a broken car.

 

[Viper1j]

No. The biggest difference here between traditional medicine and alternative medicine is that traditional medicine has a 98% cure rate and alternative medicine has a 0%? cure rate. And, yes, you really should lose your child for making THAT choice.

There's lots of anecdotal evidence that would beg to differ.

 

[Viper1j]

You're making no sense in this thread.

To follow your weird analogy, Pete's Garage would take your $250 and you'd still have a broken car.

So you're saying the dealership guarantees everything?'

Just like the doctors will GUARANTEE the kid will have no future problems?

The thing is you can take your car back to enforce that "guarantee".

You can't take the kids back to enforce that guarantee. I still believe that parents know what's best for their own children. A hundred years ago, this wouldn't be even be a topic for discussion. People would be shocked that someone (especially the government) could just come in, and take your child against your will. There would be riots in the streets.

 

[Brainonska511]

There's lots of anecdotal evidence that would beg to differ.

There is a lot of real data that says childhood leukemia treated with chemotherapy has a ridiculously high remission rate.

 

[interchange]

Easy answer. The state should be paying for everyone's medical care.

But back to reality. I don't know. This is probably one of those edge cases best viewed as trying to do the best you can among a selection of awful choices. Sometimes exceptional cases are useful to test principles and clarify legal questions, and other times trying to do that just breaks stuff.

Realistically, there are huge ethical challenges in engaging in these cases. Were somebody part of an indigenous tribe across the world, would you support forcibly removing them to the US for treatment?

In less extraordinary cases, states have statutes which allows treatment against patient's consent if they lack capacity and it would be unsafe to let them refuse. Lacking capacity being a clinical assessment and not a court order/guardianship situation. It can be messy, but rarely do lawyers and the media get involved. Usually that happens when it's a kid such as this case.

 

[allisolm]

There is a lot of real data that says childhood leukemia treated with chemotherapy has a ridiculously high remission rate.

This.


Not this.

There's lots of anecdotal evidence that would beg to differ.

 

[sdifox]

Of course, it's really all an allegory about healthcare systems.

Look at this way, you take your car to a dealership to have something repaired. They say it's going to cost you $3,500.00 to solve your problems.

You then take it to "Pete's Garage", and he says "Yeah, I'll take care of the whole thing for $250.

That's the biggest difference, and the conundrum, between "traditional medicine" and "alternative medicine".

In a perfect world, no one would have to make that choice, but when was the last time you saw a perfect world?

And, should you really have to lose your child for making that choice?

Kids are not cars.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Easy answer. The state should be paying for everyone's medical care.

But back to reality. I don't know. This is probably one of those edge cases best viewed as trying to do the best you can among a selection of awful choices. Sometimes exceptional cases are useful to test principles and clarify legal questions, and other times trying to do that just breaks stuff.

Realistically, there are huge ethical challenges in engaging in these cases. Were somebody part of an indigenous tribe across the world, would you support forcibly removing them to the US for treatment?--- That's is pure bull crap and does not suit this thread!!

In less extraordinary cases, states have statutes which allows treatment against patient's consent if they lack capacity and it would be unsafe to let them refuse. Lacking capacity being a clinical assessment and not a court order/guardianship situation. It can be messy, but rarely do lawyers and the media get involved. Usually that happens when it's a kid such as this case.

You have no grasp on anything in this thread!! There is NO ethical issue!! Now id the facts were different about the success rate of chemotherapy on this disease then there night be a good reason for not doing cheno!! In this case a 95 -- 98% remission rate due to chemo is all you need to know!!

 

[Sunburn74]

So you're saying the dealership guarantees everything?'

Just like the doctors will GUARANTEE the kid will have no future problems?

The thing is you can take your car back to enforce that "guarantee".

You can't take the kids back to enforce that guarantee. I still believe that parents know what's best for their own children. A hundred years ago, this wouldn't be even be a topic for discussion. People would be shocked that someone (especially the government) could just come in, and take your child against your will. There would be riots in the streets.

I'm not sure why you fail to grasp what is established law. The case is prince v Massachusetts 1944.

Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 64 S. Ct. 438, 88 L. Ed. 645, 1944 U.S. LEXIS 1328 – CourtListener.com

Prince v. Massachusetts — The custody, care and nurture of the child reside first with the parents

www.courtlistener.com

Parents cannot refuse life sustaining treatments for their children. That is the law and has been unchallenged precedent for 80 years. If you refuse life saving treatment for your child, it's considered child abuse. Period. I don't even see what is ethically complicated about that.

 

[interchange]

You have no grasp on anything in this thread!! There is NO ethical issue!! Now id the facts were different about the success rate of chemotherapy on this disease then there night be a good reason for not doing cheno!! In this case a 95 -- 98% remission rate due to chemo is all you need to know!!

You're funny. But if you're not one to recognize complexity, at least you value the life of a child who cannot make decisions for themselves.

 

[SteveGrabowski]

You're making no sense in this thread.

To follow your weird analogy, Pete's Garage would take your $250 and you'd still have a broken car.

The analogy would be more like taking the car to Pete the meth fiend and giving him $250 and returning the next day to your windshield kicked out, all your sparkplugs mindlessly thrown about the car, sugar in your gas tank, etc.

 

[Viper1j]

The analogy would be more like taking the car to Pete the meth fiend and giving him $250 and returning the next day to your windshield kicked out, all your sparkplugs mindlessly thrown about the car, sugar in your gas tank, etc.

I personally know of people that have healed their children using what you would call "alternative medicine". But then, they were in pretty good shape to begin with being vegetarian.

And I've seen firsthand, the toll that chemotherapy takes on a person. In fact my best friend is doing chemo right now, along with blood transfusions for esophageal cancer. When I met him almost 20 years ago he was 6'3' and about 320 pounds. Today, he looks like a shrunken old man at 180 pounds.

 

[Brainonska511]

I personally know of people that have healed their children using what you would call "alternative medicine". But then, they were in pretty good shape to begin with being vegetarian.

Anecdotal evidence is not data. We have real clinical trial data showing different regimes of anticancer therapies to be very effective. There are no trials showing "alternative medicine" to be effective. If there were, it would be called medicine.

And I've seen firsthand, the toll that chemotherapy takes on a person. In fact my best friend is doing chemo right now, along with blood transfusions for esophageal cancer. When I met him almost 20 years ago he was 6'3' and about 320 pounds. Today, he looks like a shrunken old man at 180 pounds.

And you know what cancer does to people? It fucking kills them. It even causes the cachexia (weight loss) you mention.

Taxane-based chemotherapy isn't pleasant, but in some cancers, it is highly effective. And you only take it for a limited time period.

 

[glenn1]

The state is never going to pay. Indeed states routinely stick the bill for care of children on anyone they can under whatever pretense. Look how many times that child support payments by men who aren't the biological father are mandated by states because otherwise the state would need to provide support to the mother. In this case their "moral position" for having the biological parents pay for care of their children is even stronger than the child support cases. The parents will no more be allowed to not pay than the "mens rights" groups will win their dream of allowing "financial abortions" when the pregnant mother doesn't want to proceed with an abortion.

 

[fskimospy]

I personally know of people that have healed their children using what you would call "alternative medicine". But then, they were in pretty good shape to begin with being vegetarian.

And I've seen firsthand, the toll that chemotherapy takes on a person. In fact my best friend is doing chemo right now, along with blood transfusions for esophageal cancer. When I met him almost 20 years ago he was 6'3' and about 320 pounds. Today, he looks like a shrunken old man at 180 pounds.

Parents have a duty to care for the wellbeing of their children, which includes using proven treatments to cure cancer. I've been through chemotherapy myself and it's not pleasant. It works though, especially in cases like this.

Any parent that is attempting to deny their children proven health care like this deserves to lose custody of their kid. They're lucky they aren't being prosecuted.

 

[Jhhnn]

The state is never going to pay. Indeed states routinely stick the bill for care of children on anyone they can under whatever pretense. Look how many times that child support payments by men who aren't the biological father are mandated by states because otherwise the state would need to provide support to the mother. In this case their "moral position" for having the biological parents pay for care of their children is even stronger than the child support cases. The parents will no more be allowed to not pay than the "mens rights" groups will win their dream of allowing "financial abortions" when the pregnant mother doesn't want to proceed with an abortion.

So what? When a child is declared a ward of the state, as in this instance, the state pays for the care of the child. Period.

 

[interchange]

So what? When a child is declared a ward of the state, as in this instance, the state pays for the care of the child. Period.

I'm not sure that's true. In my state, guardianship and conservatorship are separate things referring to responsibility for well-being and financial estate, respectively. But I don't know how that works for kids anyway. But still I'm not sure in this case if the parents lost all rights or if simply they were court ordered to provide that specific treatment. And even if the state had obtained guardianship, I don't know if the parents could still insure him and thus assume financial responsibility for his medical care as a result of putting him on their policy. That's jumping through some legal steps I'm not certain about, but I'm throwing it out there as examples of possibilities you may not have considered.

Anyway, I think the point here is not to determine what the actual legal financial responsibility is but to discuss how we think it ought to work. Personally, if parents are not neglecting him in any other fashion, and this specific choice represents a point failure to be able to decide on his behalf in a way that represents an adequate understanding and appreciation of the medical facts of his illness, then I think what should happen is them retaining all parental rights except to refuse his chemotherapy treatment and also to be financially responsible for it as, were they capable of making an informed decision, the one they would have chosen is the mandated treatment and without court intervention they'd still be paying for it.

 

[dainthomas]

Sounds like you're trying to say that the doctors guaranteed the kid would live, or rather WILL live.

That would be a neat trick. Doctors guarantee nothing.

I guarantee modern medical treatment offers a better chance than alkaline water and crystals or whatever.

They were neglecting their child, as determined by medical experts. This is the equivalent of them not taking their kid to any doctor and letting him die just to save on medical bills. They would (rightfully) rot in prison.

 

[Sunburn74]

I personally know of people that have healed their children using what you would call "alternative medicine". But then, they were in pretty good shape to begin with being vegetarian.

And I've seen firsthand, the toll that chemotherapy takes on a person. In fact my best friend is doing chemo right now, along with blood transfusions for esophageal cancer. When I met him almost 20 years ago he was 6'3' and about 320 pounds. Today, he looks like a shrunken old man at 180 pounds.

You should see what people with esophageal cancerand no chemotherapy look like. They are still shrunken and wasted but they die a lot faster. On a more important note chemotherapy regimens vary widely in toxicity. In addition believe it or not children tolerate much higher doses for their size than adults. It's why 50% of adults with ALL (the leukemia this kid has) are dead at 12 months whilst with cure (ie long term remission) is generally the rule.

 

[interchange]

I guarantee modern medical treatment offers a better chance than alkaline water and crystals or whatever.

They were neglecting their child, as determined by medical experts. This is the equivalent of them not taking their kid to any doctor and letting him die just to save on medical bills. They would (rightfully) rot in prison.

I don't think they were negligent or willfully harming their child. But I also don't think they understand and appreciate the actual consequences of their desired decision. They clearly wanted to spend money treating him in some way, just not one that makes rational sense. That is nowhere near equivalent to letting him die to save money. I do not think it would be right to be imprisoned for lacking a mental capacity.

 

[Jhhnn]

I don't think they were negligent or willfully harming their child. But I also don't think they understand and appreciate the actual consequences of their desired decision. They clearly wanted to spend money treating him in some way, just not one that makes rational sense. That is nowhere near equivalent to letting him die to save money. I do not think it would be right to be imprisoned for lacking a mental capacity.

The State would have been negligent to not intervene. On one hand, there's a well documented treatment with a very high success ratio & on the other there's the unknown territory where the parents want to take the child. It's their obvious duty to act in the best interests of the child, so they did.

 

[interchange]

The State would have been negligent to not intervene. On one hand, there's a well documented treatment with a very high success ratio & on the other there's the unknown territory where the parents want to take the child. It's their obvious duty to act in the best interests of the child, so they did.

Yes. I agree. Although really the important part is the hospital or some other such entity pursuing a court order for treatment. I'm not sure anyone actually would have faced criminal or civil liability if they didn't.