17-year-old CT girl taken from mother, forced to endure unwanted chemotherapy

[Denny347]

I should have been more specific. The state has no business overriding parents' medical decisions for their children.

We could debate the merits of government involvement in caring for parent-less children, but that is a different debate.

I would generally agree with this. For what I can gather just from the OP, this sounds like an overreach by the state. I cannot say they NEVER should intervene but the bar must be very high. There is a point that refusing to give your kids medical treatment will constitute abuse. Keeping a child in agony over an easily addressed ailment (broken bone, a laceration that won't heal without stitches or skin grafts) is beyond the scope of "parental rights". However, if the state must step in to address a medical condition then the guardian should also face charges, that is how high the bar should be set.

 

[steveh_131]

guys I don't know how to act when people agree with me. you're making me kind of uncomfortable.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

guys I don't know how to act when people agree with me. you're making me kind of uncomfortable.

It's the glyphosate!

 

[Kirk Freeman]

The state has no business overriding parents' medical decisions for their children.

Maybe, maybe not. As Denny says, and I am certain he has seen it in his gig, sometimes parents do not treat broken bones, lice, open/puncture wounds (I have lost track of all the untreated pit bull bites I have seen), starvation, or bother buying jackets for kids. These medical conditions call for state action under the law.

It is always fact sensitive. To say that the state "always" has no business is going too far. However, I am glad this case is being decided quickly.

 

[rambone]

So, sometimes the government should be considered a charity and deliver mandatory government health care.

 

[bradmedic04]

guys I don't know how to act when people agree with me. you're making me kind of uncomfortable.

I don't want you to feel bad, so I disagree, you're wrong, and silly to boot. Feeling better?

In the case of a 17 year old, I tend to think she would be capable of making her own decision about chemo. My mom is presently doing her third round of chemo and it's just awful. I think a lot of reasonable people could look at the pain that chemo puts one through and decide that risking almost certain death is better than that particular treatment. What's the chemo going to buy her? Maybe a few more years? That's a big maybe.

 

[HoughMade]

The state has no business making medical decisions for children.

If a parent is being abusive, let the state collect evidence of abuse and intent and charge him or her with the appropriate crime.

There is no utopian world where allowing the state to control the medical care of our children does not end in tyranny,

There is NO utopian world- period, with or without any level of state control.

After the fact investigations can punish criminals, but can not revive dead children, un-disfigure them, un-disable them or retroactively remove pain that was unnecessary.

Again, only in extreme cases should there EVER be state involvement, but, as Kirk said, these are fact sensitive cases. Bright lines do not exist here.

A healthcare provider seeking to override a parent's decision is exceedingly rare, as it should be, but it's more than an academic exercise for me. One instance stands out in my mind (there have been a very few others). A couple of years ago, on Christmas Eve, I got a call from a local hospital which was a long-time client (plus they knew I taught a medical ethics/ bio-ethics course at the law school). A 4 year old was in the ER and had a very treatable condition (no guarantees), but one that could have resulted in death within 24 hours (on Christmas Day, no less) without treatment. However, the mother did not believe in the type of medication that needed to be given (I am being vague on purpose). They ask me: "what should we do?" I probed how serious the situation was with the providers, the options, how urgent, etc (all factors in whether a court will issue and order), and essentially told them that if they felt that not treating in this circumstance was likely to lead to death or permanent injury and that the treatment was sound, and accepted, and they felt that the failure of the parent to give consent was completely unreasonable, in their medical opinions, I would draft up the papers, find a judge and see what the judge would do about issuing an order.

My Christmas gift that year was that as I was drafting up the papers, just a few minutes later, I got a call that on the 5th or 6th time talking to the mother, she agreed to allow the treatment.

Have your hypothetical discussions. I'll continue to live in the real world.

 

[steveh_131]

Maybe, maybe not. As Denny says, and I am certain he has seen it in his gig, sometimes parents do not treat broken bones, lice, open/puncture wounds (I have lost track of all the untreated pit bull bites I have seen), starvation, or bother buying jackets for kids. These medical conditions call for state action under the law.

You think a kid without a jacket warrants state action?

What might that action look like? If it is anything like these recent state actions then it would look something like this:

• Child hates his jacket. Wants to find a sweatshirt at a different store.
• Government to the rescue! Jacketless child? NOT ON MY WATCH
• Kidnap the child.
• Take the child right back to that store.
• Make him wear 3, maybe 4 jackets. All day and all night.
• Make him live in the jacket store for 6 months wearing jackets. Jackets everywhere.
• Child runs away? FIND HIM. JACKET HIM.
• Anti-jacketer parents want him back? Prove your innocence. Kneel before the court. Kiss the ring.
• Still can't have him back. Hah! That's what they get for being anti-jacketers.

This is what Kirk Freeman calls "Liberty".

 

[Denny347]

guys I don't know how to act when people agree with me. you're making me kind of uncomfortable.

 

[rambone]

However, the mother did not believe in the type of medication that needed to be given (I am being vague on purpose).

Don't you think it would be proper for the American people know which medications they are allowed to refuse, and which ones are mandatory? If you think this is a valid function of government, then there should be a list of un-refusable medical procedures, passed into law, so parents know how not to get their children taken away.

The vagueness is one of the disgusting aspects of this recurring story. Most parents haven't caught on that basically any arbitrary medical opinion can be backed with the force of government. Cross the wrong line -- seek a second opinion -- and they lose their family, and spend their life savings trying to fix the situation in court.

Making up rules as you go is the very essence of the "Rule of Man."

 

[HoughMade]

I have always respected your intellect, if not your positions, but that's a sort of dumb comment and shows that you do not know how the real world works in this context.

 

[hornadylnl]

I have always respected your intellect, if not your positions, but that's a sort of dumb comment and shows that you do not know how the real world works in this context.

It's in the real world where government forever moves the goal posts that lawyers make all their money.

 

[steveh_131]

A healthcare provider seeking to override a parent's decision is exceedingly rare, as it should be, but it's more than an academic exercise for me. One instance stands out in my mind (there have been a very few others). A couple of years ago, on Christmas Eve, I got a call from a local hospital which was a long-time client (plus they knew I taught a medical ethics/ bio-ethics course at the law school). A 4 year old was in the ER and had a very treatable condition (no guarantees), but one that could have resulted in death within 24 hours (on Christmas Day, no less) without treatment. However, the mother did not believe in the type of medication that needed to be given (I am being vague on purpose). They ask me: "what should we do?" I probed how serious the situation was with the providers, the options, how urgent, etc (all factors in whether a court will issue and order), and essentially told them that if they felt that not treating in this circumstance was likely to lead to death or permanent injury and that the treatment was sound, and accepted, and they felt that the failure of the parent to give consent was completely unreasonable, in their medical opinions, I would draft up the papers, find a judge and see what the judge would do about issuing an order.

This story is awful. I am disappointed that you would participate in such a process.

What was the mother's opposition to the medication based on? And what makes you think you know better than her what is best for her family?

 

[HoughMade]

... And what makes you think you know better than her what is best for her family?

You're right. If she had other kids, a dead one would mean more presents for the others.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

I have always respected your intellect, if not your positions, but that's a sort of dumb comment and shows that you do not know how the real world works in this context.

Yeah, anybody knows that when smart people with degrees and good standing tell citizens what's best, and the citizen doesn't agree, the citizen is by very definition incompetent.

 

[steveh_131]

You're right. If she had other kids, a dead one would mean more presents for the others.

There is no black and white in medical treatment. Many medicines that you think would keep the kid alive might well kill him or cause permanent injury.

So, again, what makes you think you know what is best for her family?

Are you prepared to take the blame if the medicine you force on him kills him?

 

[hornadylnl]

T

What was the mother's opposition to the medication based on?

Hey, religious beliefs should only exempt you from participating in Obamacare. Otherwise, they have no place in the medical arena.

 

[steveh_131]

Hey, religious beliefs should only exempt you from participating in Obamacare. Otherwise, they have no place in the medical arena.

What if a doctor says a teenager's pregnancy is risky and she should have an abortion?

Should we force an abortion on her?

Whatever the doctor says, right?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

You think a kid without a jacket warrants state action?

Depends. If it is July, probably not.

If it is winter and you are sitting in Tippecanoe Superior Court 3 and the 12 year old at the next table to coughs up blood on the table from acute bronchitis from not owning a jacket, likely CPS is going to be all over the parents.

What might that action look like?

It looks like a crack whore mother who cannot be bothered to buy her children winter clothing (because you know, priorities such as crack and all) since moving up from Mississippi so her child almost died from her neglect.

 

[hornadylnl]

Depends. If it is July, probably not.

If it is winter and you are sitting in Tippecanoe Superior Court 3 and the 12 year old at the next table to coughs up blood on the table from acute bronchitis from not owning a jacket, likely CPS is going to be all over the parents.



It looks like a crack whore mother who cannot be bothered to buy her children winter clothing (because you know, priorities such as crack and all) since moving up from Mississippi so her child almost died from her neglect.

What you got paid for that case could have bought several jackets.