Comments on: Boy with Cancer on the Run After Judge Orders Him to Have Chemotherapy

By: hhfghfgd

hhfghfgd — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 21:22:48 +0000

this is rediculous, he should be allowed to do what he wants, they can’t force him. i’m outraged that they won’t let the boy have his own opinion.

By: Athlyn Green

Athlyn Green — Fri, 29 May 2009 17:27:29 +0000

In society, people are generally free to believe whatever they want. That is their right; however, those beliefs should never be allowed to harm another person. Each person has the right to life–and this includes children.

Religious groups should not be allowed to force their beliefs on others, when doing so may cause harm or death.

A disturbed parent, likewise, should not be allowed to harm a child because of a distorted view of reality.

Medical issues are tricky because do we bend to a sane parent’s wishes for their child or to doctors who in many cases have more experience dealing with medical issues?

Chemo is a two-sided treatment; it has saved some; it has injured and killed others. Some people opt for chemo; others refuse it.

I can see a parent possibly refusing chemo if they are seeking out other treatments that are proven to render equal or better results. This is not necessarily child neglect or abuse, rather treatment via other options.

But, if a parent, because of religious belief or mental imbalance does not seek any treatment for an ill child, this should be addressed to protect the child’s interests.

By: M J katz

M J katz — Mon, 25 May 2009 06:34:28 +0000

Hi Chloe Oliver! Have I said anything that shows I have forgotton “that this is one of the few countries where parents do have rights.” ? It seems that if you’ll go back and re-read my posts, that I have been the one for parental rights while you have been saying that there are no gray areas where the law is concerned. ^-^
I’m sure attorneys all over the country will be sorry to hear this since now we can feed all of our laws into a master computer…and let the computer decide guilt or innocence…No interpretations, no gray areas! A ‘one size fits all’ legal system.
By the way, I used this “extreme” example in order to help you “understand the commonly acceptable aspects.”
The disturbing feeling your extreme examples evoked in me was not a reference to sad child abuse situations but to your inability or unwillingness to use more common examples that the majority of people can relate to. Whenever extreme examples are strewn around…things that many ordinary people wouldn’t usually know about such as the Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy.. this can make one wonder why the deep need to sound so superior to those around you?
But I’m sure you don’t have a control issue.
Now…how big is that stick you are going to use in order to “guarantee” the actions of another?

( I have a complaint…how come YOU get to “guarantee” another person’s actions but yet I can’t be “sure” that Daniel’s parents love their son more than the rest of us do? Somehow this just doesn’t seem fair……) ^-^ Oh yeah…right…the stick….

Well, it’s after midnight here so good night, my friend. This was very entertaining and informative but since this is your article, I will leave the last words for you. I truly enjoyed the debate. I wish the best for you, your daughter, and your granddaughter! I will keep you all in my thoughts and prayers.
God Bless You…Shalom…Blessed Be!

By: rizzei

rizzei — Mon, 25 May 2009 04:14:55 +0000

this piece is nice:) thanks for putting it up/ i just wish good things will happen in the future of that boy:)

By: Ruby Hawk

Ruby Hawk — Mon, 25 May 2009 01:55:38 +0000

i have been following the story. It will be interesting to see how it plays out. The boy has my best wishes regardless of what happens.

By: chloe oliver

chloe oliver — Mon, 25 May 2009 00:39:33 +0000

Guess what, the laws that I refer to were just as apt to subjectivity as the “parents rights” that you and others have referenced. Lest you forget that this is one of the few countries where parents do have rights. Anyway, the examples were intended to disturb. Often one has to see the extreme or taboo aspect of an argument before they understand the commonly acceptable aspects.

BTW: I am not using emotion as the basis of my argument. In fact, if anything my emotions would urge me to say let the parent do what they must. I have a handicapped granddaughter. At some point my daughter will have the daunting task of either leaving her to this world alone, or taking the matter into her own hands- since we do not have any other family. But, I guarantee you that my daughter will not use religion as an excuse for whatever she does.

By: M J katz

M J katz — Sun, 24 May 2009 21:52:05 +0000

Laws are subject to each judge’s interpretation as well as to the interpretation made by juries based on what they are shown and told by the attorneys in the courtroom. Religious beliefs have created much turmoil in the legal realms due to interpretation. This is why some lawyers are ‘good’ and some are ‘better’…it comes down to who can present the better case based on the interpretation of laws.
The extreme examples you are using…Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy to “prove that not all parents have their child’s best interest at heart” (your words, not mine) as well as your placing Daniel’s mom in the same category as cult leader Warren Jeffs feels a bit disturbing to me.
You seem a little too emotional and maybe just a little “too close to the forest to see the trees” in this particular situation. I think if you take a step back, breathe in deeply, and place your emotions on the shelf for a minute or two, you may start to understand what I was attempting to say…and then again…maybe not.

By: chloe oliver

chloe oliver — Sun, 24 May 2009 20:20:11 +0000

No, I do not see any gray area between religious observance and legality. My very point was that a persons’ belief (whether religious or not) does not give merit people doing unlawful, unreasonable, unethical , etc. . things. You seem to think that Daniels mom has the right to withhold medical care based on her religious beliefs and/or parental beliefs. BUT… religious interpretation does not overrule law. You seem to miss the point of my child abuse example. So, i will try one more example- Warren Jeffs. He and his reorganized Mormon religion practices marrying and sleeping with minor children and polygamy. Those things are illegal and unreasonable to the majority of society. You can not just do anything you want in the name of religion. Daniels mom can not withhold medical care from her son because it is illegal to do so!

Your tangent about chemo was completely unnecessary. I am a nurse too. My daughter, the author of this article, is also a nurse. I understand that chemo does not work for everyone, and that it is a long and trying process. If an adult chooses to not have chemo, that is their business. But, we are talking about a boy that can not read or write. The court transcripts prove that he does not have the necessary skills or knowledge to make an informed decision about the course of his treatment. He does not even understand what cancer is.

Münchausen syndrome by proxy was just an example proving that not all parents have the best interest of their child at heart. Your statement “I’m sure they want their son to live even more than any of us reading about their son’s plight!” is Pollyanna. This is not a perfect world, and all parents do not know what is best or have the best intentions. Maybe Daniels mom does, but you can not say that you are “sure.” Either way, your point is moot. Withholding medical care from a child is against the law in MINN

AMEN, SD MOORE!

By: M J katz

M J katz — Sun, 24 May 2009 19:16:50 +0000

Also…for S. D. Moore: The Soviet Union did not deserve this bigoted and unsubstantiated remark.
According to the World Death Rates, a male patient would be better off receiving chemotherapy in the U.S.S.R rather than going to such countries as Italy, Poland, France, Belgium, Scotland, Uraguay, the Netherlands, Hungary, and Luxembourg.
A female patient would be better off receiving chemotherapy in the U.S.S.R. rather than going to such countries as Belgium, Denmark, Canada, the United States, Germany, Ireland, Scotland, Iceland, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Poland, Australia, Sweden, Hong Kong, Austria, Israel, England and Wales,…well, even though the list goes on, I’ll stop it here.
Please don’t think that the United States is so ‘high up the food chain’, so to speak, when it comes to how good our healthcare system is because, truth be known, countries such as China and Japan blow us out of the water!

By: M J katz

M J katz — Sun, 24 May 2009 17:12:28 +0000

Hi Chloe Oliver; I’m sorry you feel that my opinions are very Pollyanna because I didn’t mean to convey this feeling. My having watched patients die from chemo was not an opinion…it was a repeated observance over the span of almost thirty years. In no way am I even implying that all chemo is bad because it’s not! During these past thirty years I have seen improvements in the life expectancy of cancer patients. However, I have simply stated that the success rate is not what the public has been told.
Also, yes, we do not have the right to beat our children nor cause any other form of child abuse to be heaped on them. Each state determines it’s own definition of Child Abuse, and you must admit that when religious observance is spoken of, there can be gray areas regarding religious beliefs and rights. Frequently the resulting decision is based on the judge’s interpretation of that state’s laws.

But I am somewhat confused about your mention of Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy. since this is a psychiatric disorder where the ‘Caregiver’ attempts to make healthcare professionals think that the Caregiver’s ‘patient’ is ill by giving the patient drugs/poisons/ etc.in order to create symptoms. Many times a person who is under the care of a Caregiver who has this form of psychiatric disturbance will show quick improvement while in a hospital setting but will become sicker each time he goes back home.
This is also a very hard disorder to diagnose and treat.
As the Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy is not an embedded detail in the above cancer situation, I can only assume that you mentioned this disorder in order to help point out that not all parents are good parents. This is true.
I, myself, would simply point to so many daily articles in local newspapers whereby children were burned, raped, and maimed for life by their parents….taken from their homes by Child Protective authorities…and later, after the parents ‘received counseling’ and were deemed ‘rehabilitated’, were returned to their homes only to die from further abuse.
Cyanide probably would have been less painful.