Court overrides teen-&-parent's decision to seek alternative cancer treatement.

By the way, Trip20, the state just called. It wants your children to be updated with about a dozen different immunization cocktails, but it isn't sure what the effect is on the immune system. After that, it wants to put them on ridilin. And then once they're good and doped up, it will conduct forced mental screening on them, but only after the social workers have gone through your house to make sure it's a safe environment, including being free from guns. And don't even think about homeschooling them. That would be dangerous to their upbringing to be good, undiscerning citizens totally loyal to state interests.

I'll return the call and tell them you're happy with all that, so long as it "does some good."
 
You wouldn’t become so frustrated if you would stop twisting people’s comments into your outrageous suppositions. If people meant half of what you say they mean, I would understand being up in arms as well.

Who are these people? The ugly ones? The stupid ones? The poor ones?
Click to expand...

You know damn well this is not what I mean. Yet, you put forth this obvious misinterpretation of my comments so you can begin to build your straw man.

Get real. Straw man arguments are cowardly. Nazi comparisons are just plain tired.

You know the parents of which I speak. It’s not the ugly, poor, or stupid.

Don’t twist my comments to mean I do not believe a proper trial should take place and that parents must be found criminally negligent prior to the state taking their children. Not once did I disagree with this notion.

Your last post is superb. The phone call bit. Very amusing. Leave the junk outside, please. Come in to this discussion, and in to TFL in general, with calm discussion and courteous debating tactics. Otherwise, you will be dismissed.

Don't leave the discussion just yet. Hidden in all the drivel, you hold a decent point of view. Change the way your doing things so people will be able to see it more clearly, and you'll find that you’re preaching to the choir more than not.
 
In Virginia a court proceeding is required to remove children from parental control.
It cannot be accomplished without the courts participation. In emergencies the child welfare and the police will remove children and pace them in foster care, but a hearing is required within a few days (48 hours sticks in my mind).
To attempt to preserve some privacy we have a juvenile and family court system that tries to deal with all of these matters with more privacy than general and circuit courts.
The state actors are generally prohibited from saying anything about the cases and proceedings in public. Only the parents and children are free to reveal what is going on, if they desire to. Public hearings are not generally held to preserve privacy, but if you want everyone to hear about your dirty laundry you are often welcome to have them present.

Some subset of parents does not take adequate care of their children.
They may injure them actively or by neglect.
The state has a well established right to intervene when it believes a parents actions or inactions may cause harm to a child.
The process is very formal and requires prompt presentation of the facts before a judge.
Many cases are resolved before getting to this stage.
The parents are allowed to seek counseling in lieu of criminal charges being filed, and the entire thing is handled in as discrete a manner as possible.
Some cases are ended after an interview by child welfare determines there is no evidence of abuse or neglect.
It is not secret, but if the parents involved do not publicize things they will be kept private by the state side.
It is a touchy area, but Virginia has created a pretty reasonable system that avoids intruding on families unless there is a decent chance of a problem being present.
 
"I've said it like 4 times."

Yes, we know. Are you going to keep repeating it until we agree with you or are you open to considering the opinions of others and discussing the facts of this situation?

If a doctor reported the family he or she likely felt they HAD to because state law requires them to report suspected child abuse. Even if it was not your typical garden variety cuts-and-bruises kind of child abuse.

BTW, welcome to TheFiringLine.

John
 
>Denying medical care has been repeatedly found to be a violation of the child’s rights.<

True. However, does the situation change when the minor is quoted as saying "I'd rather die than go through that again"?
 
"However, does the situation change when the minor is quoted as saying "I'd rather die than go through that again"?"

Tough case.
Minor children are not adults and are not free to make any decision they want.
The law clearly recognizes they are not considered capable of making certain decisions.
Chemo can be rough. So is death.
I have known many folks who have gone through it, dreaded the next dose, curesed the doctors, and 5 years latter said they would indeed do it all over again. Life is rather precious and very hard to reclaim once it has been lost. So far there is ony one report of a 'survivor' and that was over 2000 years ago.
Is a minor rally capable of weighing the outcomes?
Since the court order has been reversed and a full hearing ordered the involved parties will be allowed to make their case before a judge.
It may not be perfect but it is better than simply allowing a minor to make decsions they may not be capable of realy deciding.
 
I think you kinda misunderstood my point: if he honestly feels THAT strongly about it, what's to stop him from acting on his convictions?
 
True. However, does the situation change when the minor is quoted as saying "I'd rather die than go through that again"?
Click to expand...

My 16 year old said the same thing after having her wisdom teeth removed, so does that mean I'm off the hook for anymore dental bills, because she hates the dentist?

While I agree the govt needs to butt out much of the time, I do believe there is a time to step in and make a decision on if a parent is fit and making a sound decision in the best interst of their child. An example would be when they are denying health care to a child who could die from lack of care. It's my feeling that the same people who feel they need to butt out, would also be outraged if a parent let their child die of pnumonia because they wanted to try a new age herbal idea.
 
gee folks... should the government then have forced my mother to continue chemo? What about me, if I were to come up with cancer?

How about having a hearing on the competance of the child in question, and basing judgements on that? I know that, were I in this boy's position, I might very well take extreme measures to get out of the hell of chemo...
 
I assume your mother was 18 or older. Adults can make their own decisions about their care or lack of care.

The 16-year-old under discussion is a minor according to Virginia law.

From some law firm's site I just googled up:

"Mandatory Reporting Facts

All 50 states have passed some form of a mandatory child abuse and neglect reporting law in order to qualify for funding under the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA)(Jan. 1996 version), 42 U.S.C. 5101, et seq.. The Act was originally passed in 1974, has been amended several times and was most recently amended and reauthorized on October 3, 1996, by the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment and Adoption Act Amendments of 1996 (P.L. 104-235).

CAPTA mandates "minimum definitions" for child abuse and sexual abuse. Child abuse or neglect is any recent act or failure to act:

Resulting in imminent risk of serious harm, death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse, or exploitation


Of a child (usually a person under the age of 18, but a younger age may be specified in cases not involving sexual abuse)


By a parent or caretaker who is responsible for the child's welfare"
 
Remember Elian Gonzales from Cuba?
One of the reasons we didn't want to send him back was, in Cuba all children are the property of the State.
So, we don't consider children property of the state, but the state has the right to just come in and overrule the parents choices?
Where's the difference?

AFS
 
"...the state has the right to just come in and overrule the parents choices..."

Only if the child welfare agency can demonstrate before a judge that the parents are endangering the child by action or inaction. They did it once but the ruling has been stayed pending additional court action.
A full hearing has been granted in this case, with the backing of the Attorney General.
So far the system seems to be working pretty well.
The judge may very well consider what the minor has to say.

Why is it that any time a third party (in this case the government) takes action in what may be a case of neglect the screaming about "property of the state"
starts?
Children are not the property of the state.
As minors the state has a legal basis for protecting them if their parents fail to act. Who else is going to protect them? Aunt Tilly?

Most people know very little about how these proceedings occur since they are handled discreetly in the vast majority of cases.
Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court is not as public as circuit court. It does not even produce a verdict of 'guilty'. The state side is not allowed to discuss the cases publicly. Charging documents and rulings are not normally available to the public.
A lot of effort is spent on trying to actually teach parents and turn kids around, instead of slamming them over the head with the judicial power of the state.
Locking up minors is really viewed as a last resort.
When the act becomes serious enough (typically murder) the case may be moved to Circuit Court with harsher penalties available than the Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court is allowed to impose.

"should the government then have forced my mother to continue chemo? What about me, if I were to come up with cancer?"

Adults are allowed to make their decisions and stick to them in almost all cases.
It is very difficult to prove an adult legally incompetent and have a guardian appointed.
Should your mother be allowed to make any decision she wants if she has Alzheimer’s?
She may not want to listen to you either.
 
How many people under the age of eighteen have been tried as adults in Virginia and other states for criminal offenses? (I agree with that practice, BTW.) Just a thought....
 
Remember Elian Gonzales from Cuba?
One of the reasons we didn't want to send him back was, in Cuba all children are the property of the State.
So, we don't consider children property of the state, but the state has the right to just come in and overrule the parents choices?
Where's the difference?
Click to expand...

Those of us who didn't want to send him back thought it was in the best interest and welfare of the child to stay here. I also believe it's in the best interest and the welfare of the child to get him a recognized treatment for cancer.
Overall I believe the courts can be and are too intrusive in everyday life, but in this case I think they may have it right.
 
Well, folks, after a little thought, I've changed my mind about the positions that I've heretofore expressed in this thread. Although the information was available to me, I didn't notice the part where Abraham (I like that name better. ;)) had previously experienced chemo and, based on that horrible experience, decided that he didn't want to go through that mess again. Reflecting on my level of maturity @ 16, and considering the maturity of my progeny at 16, I'd have hated to have had such a choice taken from me by the courts.

I believe, however, that there are times when the court does need to act in protection of children. While I think that the south-of-the-border "alternative medicine" regimen is a scam and utter nonsense, I do believe that Abraham should have been afforded the opportunity to die in Mexico, if that happened to be his desire.
 
Those "south-of-the-border utter-nonsense scams" often have higher success rates than institutional medicine, but aren't talked about because (a) they don't bring billions to medical companies and (b) medical companies don't want to pay for studies to be done by their competition and (c) medical companies will pay money to keep the lid on alternative therapies (for example, it is illegal in the United States to claim on a product that vitamin C prevents the common cold).

The type of medicine in this country today (i.e., antibiotics, antibacterial soap or chemotherapy) is about KILLING whatever problem your body has, be it bacteria, a virus, or cancer. Problem is that it often ends up using toxic substances that kill indiscriminately and hurt the body too. And it leaves the body with no more defense than it had before to fight off the problem if it ever popped back up.

The sort of "scam" alternative stuff I have used over the years involves the assumption that (a) the body wants to heal itself and (b) that in order for that to happen you have to give it the things it needs to fight.

As an analogy, consider standard medicine to be me saving you from a mugger by throwing a grenade at the two of you, while many alternative therapies put a gun in your hand, take the safety off and say "you're good to go."

On the other hand, there are quacks out there peddling crap. It's hard to be discerning, especially when facing a scary, life-threatening illness and institutional doctors who get literally angry to the point of violence when you tell them you don't want their treatments. But regardless, the decision should be yours to make.

For cancer, there are a ton of tried and proven treatments that do not involve chemo or radiation. For you to label them all scams shows a low level of knowledge on the issue and demonstrates a dull level of curiosity to what else is possible.
 
While I think that the south-of-the-border "alternative medicine" regimen is a scam and utter nonsense, I do believe that Abraham should have been afforded the opportunity to die in Mexico, if that happened to be his desire.
Click to expand...
A little more than 20 years ago, my mother was diagnosed with cervical cancer. Doctors told her there wasn't much they could do but start chemo, and that there was no guarantee it would do any good. She went for another opinion, from a nature pathologist, at that time, about as 'alternative' as one could get. She was told to 'change the diet, become vegetarian'.
Fortunately, she did, and two years later, the doctors gave her a clean bill of health. No more cancer. Many people thought she was crazy, even some of her own family. Had she followed the doctors advice, she probably wouldn't be alive today.

When a person can make a conscious decision about their medical care, they should be allowed to do it. Parents should have the say over their childrens medical care.
 
"Those "south-of-the-border utter-nonsense scams" often have higher success rates than institutional medicine..."

All they have to do is run a controlled study to show the results.
Despite their wonderful ability to create 'cures' they flunk basic science.
A certain fraction of patients are going to survive no matter what is done (or not done) to treat them.
Controlled studies are done to determine if the results observed are by chance or are statistically valid indications of the efficacy of the therapy.
Absent a valid study with a control group and peer review, you might as well claim drinking scotch cures everything.
At least in the scotch therapy the victims are liable to die happy.

My mother has been undergoing chemo of various types for about 3 years for lung cancer.
For the past 2 years the treatments have all been in the experimental stage.
All have reduced the size of the tumors, some more than others.
Many have had side effects, some worse than others.
She is well aware that the cancer is going to eventually kill her.
She has survived well past the average for the type and stage she has.
Did the chemo work? No if you expected a cure.
Yes if you are treating the cancer as a chronic condition.

A recurrence in the case at hand is not a great sign, but the death rate is still far from 100%.
The death rate with no treatment hovers right around 100%.
What rate is claimed for the alternative therapies and how do they demonstrate the validity of the results?

It is axiomatic the response of a group does not indicate the response of any particular member of the group. Patients are still treated one by one, but there must be a metric to ensure that any treatment has a better than chance rate of being successful.
A young healthy person with no other medical problems can take a large amount of damage in eliminating a disease that is pretty much 100% fatal.

I go back to the injection analogy. The needle hurts. There is a chance of infection and complication. Patients die from vaccine reactions occasionally (or have other unexpected responses).
Did you refuse a tetanus vaccine?
Was your child vaccinated?
Tetanus used to be a common killer of children and adults. Cases are very rare now.

While cancer treatment is more complicated, in some cases the ability to prolong life is very good. Actual cures for certain types are rather common.
Unless the parents can clearly demonstrate a likely outcome that is better than conventional therapy they are liable to loose in court.
If they can they deserve to remain in control and make the decisions.

They will have their day in court.
 
"They will have their day in court."

I still can't get over your immediate willingness to MAKE these people do what YOU think they should do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top