Mother flees with son who wants to avoid chemo?
 

heard of this story? Trying to find a link. Something about a young child who has cancer, does one treatment of chemo and chooses not to continue. The boy wants to try alternative ways to treat his cancer. Mother and family agree.

But the courts are ordering them to do chemo on the boy....

..something like that. Trying to get the real story.

she should be put in jail, if michael vick can spend jail time just for killing some dumb dogs, she is trying to kill her kid.

Seems like natural selection at work if u ask me

I have had friends with cancer that died, and in the last year of their life they said that the chemo made them feel much worse than the cancer itself :2 cents:

Fuck the judge and fuck the state!

Reasonable people can disagree on medical care options.

This is an erosion of basic individual rights.

Uhh, because she wants to explore alternative style treatments? I applaud her for actually educating herself above the masses and not just going with a status quo approach. :2 cents:

The way i heard it was;
It was the CHILD who didn't want the chemo. He tried it, but didn't want to continue it. He wanted to trying something else. But since he's not an adult, it's not his right to choose. So his mother is helping him get the alternative treatments that he wants by leaving and going against the courts.

Who knows though....

if the kid doesnt want it and the parents dont want it, let them go without it...his best shot is chemo, sounds like it is pretty treatable...but oh well people are exempt from logic when religion is involved...

They should have the choice to die. Let the kid pass. Sad shit.

sad story - if the child has a reasonable chance of responding to the chemo and going into remission or possibly cured then the government should step in - he's not old enough to make the best decision for himself. if his prognosis is bleak even with the treatment then leave them alone - because as somebody else said, chemo is worse than the disease often. patients and their families grasp at straws and undergo treatments that ultimately do nothing and cause a lot of suffering.

That would be pretty hard to tell cause your friend never had the chance not to have taken chemo. His life must've been shorter and more painful, or maybe not.

Its hard dealing with cancer. I'm sorry about your friends. Cancer destroys not only the patient's life but also those who love them as well. The kid and the kid's family mentioned at the start of this thread are no exception.

I understand her. Chemo can make patients feel way worse and not to anything about the cancer at all it is just a small percentage that is helped by the treatment. Maybe they want to try thc oil which is supposed to cure cancer when applied correctly as a medicine. Watch the documentary run from the cure and visit the site phoenixtears.ca for more information on that.

harvard study says thc cures cancer http://www.nowpublic.com/thc_marijua..._harvard_study

scientific video proof that thc kills cancer cells completely using the same test as they use for testing the effectiveness of new chemo treatments http://www.sethgroup.org/

According to the articles that I have read he has a very treatable form of cancer but he and the family are choosing not to go the chemo route because of religious beliefs..

If that is the case I feel sad for the kid and I would let the parents know that if they have talked the kid into not going for chemo because of their crazy religious beliefs and he dies they will charged with his death.

It is one thing if someone is dying and chemo will only give them a few more months to live so they and their parents decide not to do it. It is another thing all together when someone with whacked out religious beliefs thinks that something that can cure their kid will send him to hell and they have brainwashed him into believing the same thing. The kid is too young to make his own decisions. If the parents tell him he will go to hell for getting chemo he believes it.

There was a case not too long ago where a little girl died because her parents didn't give her medical treatment because it was against their religious beliefs. They prayed and said God would heal her if he wanted her to live. Well, of course she died. It turns out she had diabetes. With some simple medicine she could have lived a very long and healthy life. But they robbed her of that.

if their choice is based on religion, I think the court has a right to overrule their decision. There are quite a lot of nutters out there. I'm just too lazy to read all the articles on this case :)

Personally do not care if they thought a magical pop tart was out there that could cure them. Still not a valid reason for the courts to step in and force the treatment that others want.

This is right from the article: "Judge John Rodenberg said Daniel, who has a learning disability and cannot read, did not understand the risks and benefits of chemotherapy and didn?t believe he was ill."

So if the kid has a learning disability and is 100% at the mercy of his parents then he should just die because they believe God is going to heal him? To me that is paramount to child abuse.

When a kid turns 18 and is responsible for their own action and beliefs, if they want to choose to not have treatment because of religious beliefs, no problem. Hell even if the kids is maybe 16 or older they might be capable of making a choice for themselves. But until then it is the parent's job to protect their kid and if the kid has no idea what is happening the parents need to set aside their wacky beliefs and get the kid help and if they don't someone needs to step in on the kid's behalf. If they were beating the kid up or molesting him or starving him someone would step in and nobody would complain. This really isn't any different.

A parent can be pregnant and get an testing to find out a child is severely fucked up and decide to terminate it, no court will force her to give birth instead.

Reversed a parent can decide to bring in a child that will perhaps live 3 years in ungodly pain and know this in advance and not have a court order termination.

A parent can have their kid ran over by a car and give DNR orders even if it would save the kid, court will not step in.

Same parent can refuse for their kid to be placed on life support and allow nature to take its course even if it is medically obvious that the kid would more than likely recover if given time, court will not step in.

This list can go on and on, only difference is motive and it being a religious one.

we should jail parents of obese kids first, they suffer a longer life if medical conditions.

chemo is have nothing with cure

their decision is based on their religion, not medical knowledge and the best treatment options. you don't have the right to put your childs life at risk in this manner as the court has ruled, anymore than you have the right to tie your child to a tree in the forest and leave him there for 2 weeks for forgetting to clean his room.

If a kid is placed on life support and the doctors think the kid would make a full recovery if given time they will often file to have the state step in. I have a friend who's wife is a nurse in a pediatric ICU and she sees cases from time to time where this happens. Of course it is not very common because most parents don't give up on their kids, but if the parents do and the doctors think they are making a mistake they can and sometimes do step in and ask the court to interject via DCFS.

Abortion is different. This is before the kids is born. The same with having a kid if there is a chance they won't live long even with medical help. The kid is gravely ill from day one and in many of those cases they get help for the kids, but it isn't enough.

This is a kid who, other than a learning disability, was/is a healthy 13 year old boy. His parents don't want him to get treated so they are going to let him die. His life is in his parents hands and they shouldn't be allowed to determine if he lives or dies based on their personal religious beliefs.

Let me ask you this: There was a case a little while back where a family let their young daughter die. She was sick and they said if God wanted her to live he would heal her. They prayed, she died. It turns out she had diabetes and it could have been very easily treatable. Nobody outside the family knew about it until it was too late so nobody could step in and help the kid. Should the parents be charged with the death of their kid? I say yes. With some basic medicine the kid would be alive today. Just because they are the parents of the child does not mean they should have explicit rights to decide if a child lives or dies when a reasonable solution is available. A parent should do whatever they can to help the kid. If simple medicine can help/cure the kid than that should be given to the kid. When the kid is old enough to decide for themselves if they want to continue the treatment then let them make the decision.

Ahhhhh I get it now.. Because she does not have the same amount of money John Travolta has, THE COURTS ORDER her to get treatment, but because he is rich and famous he can let his kid die in the name of his fucked up religion or what ever it is.

this whole story is so sad, this family should be left alone to deal with this as they feel they should