Hodgkins Patient Court Battle

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by Buzz762, Jul 25, 2006.

  1. Buzz762

    Buzz762 Destroyer of Worlds Contributor

    Messages:
    2,928
    Likes Received:
    238
    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2006
    Location:
    Detroit, MI
    http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/07/25/sick.teen.ap/index.html

    I think this is a good discussion topic because I'm expecting quite a few of you to have some pretty different opinions on this matter.

    Frankly, I believe that the judicial system has no right to come in and force this child to recieve chemotherapy regardless on whether he is a minor or not. His parents are on his side with this one. I think it would be different if the child wanted to recieve chemotherapy and the parents refused. I would consider that abuse. My main points of argument for this are:

    A) The kid is 16. There are court orders that would allow him to seperate himself from his parents, albeit with some judicial review, even though he is not emancipated there are other teens that are (although not necissarily in his state, if that state even has emancipation laws.) I am not also saying he should attempt to try this route to overcome this obstical. I'm just trying to say if some teens are declared capable of handling themselves at this age, what right does that give the court to say this one is not? I know they have to review the child for emancipation to occur but when this child did not recieve any such review, there is no grounds for them to say "You're not capable of handling yourself. You must recieve treatment." I hope you guys understand what I'm trying to say by this.

    B) If the kid didn't have insurance, this wouldn't even be an option and there would have been no debate over it. The oncology department would've have touched him with a ten foot poll. So while this series of hearings is revolving around a touchy subject, I believe it was started on some pretty rocky grounds. They say they want to continue convential treatment for the well being of the kid, but if he couldn't pay for it, it would be a completly different story.
     
  2. Mastodon

    Mastodon Songs about My Cats

    Messages:
    6,698
    Likes Received:
    261
    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Location:
    Bizurke
    I don't understand what the big deal is.

    He dosn't want it.

    His parents support him.

    No loss to the government.

    Unless I'm missing something here.

    If anything it will help society since he wants to explore different cures. They might find something that works better.
     
  3. metalfiend666

    metalfiend666 - Forum MVP

    Messages:
    9,651
    Likes Received:
    591
    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2005
    Location:
    Basildon, England
    I wonder what the outcome would be if he was refusing treatment for religious grounds because he was a Jehovah's Witness or something? Would they have dared to interfere then?

    He's 16 years old. Ok, he's still a minor in the eyes of the law but he's old enough to realise the potential consequences of trying an alternative treatment. It's his life, let him choose which treatment he wants.
     
  4. distressed_romeo

    distressed_romeo F'king ............ Forum MVP

    Messages:
    11,297
    Likes Received:
    1,022
    Joined:
    May 2, 2005
    Location:
    Melnibone (duh!)
    He's old enough to consent to treatment, yet he's not old enough to refuse treatment...hmmmm.:scratch:
     
  5. thepunisher

    thepunisher just another hairy viking

    Messages:
    242
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2005
    Have any of you heard similar cases about lifesaving treatments, that the state has stepped into? For example, any of the 7 day evangalist cases with minors and blood transfusions/organ donation? If not, perhaps you should look into them and see a much longer history of government intereference.

    The government (where they get the power for this, i have no clue) can step in and intervine in a life or death situation, based in part by child protection acts, when they believe the kid's best interests are not in the parents choice.
     
  6. Buzz762

    Buzz762 Destroyer of Worlds Contributor

    Messages:
    2,928
    Likes Received:
    238
    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2006
    Location:
    Detroit, MI

    There have been even more similar cases to this than just relegious based. They artical specifically mentions one where the court ruled the 13 year old's parents had the right to decide on a treatment. This case was just a method to get this discussion started here. I guess my biggest problem with this situation is that the oncology department went to the courts when they refused the second round of chemo. If the family didn't have medical insurance they wouldn't even acknowledge his presence.
     
  7. thepunisher

    thepunisher just another hairy viking

    Messages:
    242
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2005
    doctors going behind patients is an interesting ethical question. In my opinion, seeking court intervention in ALL cases violates privacy. Morally, however, not all cases are equal. And this case is a no brainer. Let the 16 year olds decision hold.
    Assuming this is over money, while it may be correct, is a horrible mentality.
     

Share This Page