Now, I found this interesting because of the questions it raises about having the right to die. For example, we allow old people to shuffle loose this mortal coil without life-prolonging treatment if they wish. Why not let the kid refuse treatment and die that much faster?
I can see several arguments why not. From a purely legal standpoint, he's not of the age of majority, so he can't legally make these kinds of desicions. His parents, on the other hand, can, and sided with their son. OK, so it should be open and shut. In steps the government, now. Why?
Well, it hearkens back to the notion of letting an old person die. When we let an old person die, we are silently acknowledging that his contribution to society has largely ended. He worked for fifty years, he raised a family, he helped his community, whatever. In the case of the kid, he has been nothing but a burden to society up until this point. He has, through his parents' insurance, received free medical care for his illnesses. He has received numerous services that are paid for by society. He has been provided a free education. In return, he has given nothing back, because he's still too young to do so. Thus, it is in society's best interests to see him made well, so that he can live a full life contribute to the society which sheltered and protected him in his youth.
Of course, the above is a purely pragmatic argument and if it doesn't raise your ire at least a little bit, then you're quite a callous person. A purely emotive argument would run along similar lines in that children, being unable to care for themselves, deserve every possible chance for survival that can be given to them. To attempt anything less would be monstrous, unethical, and immoral.
But then, you must consider the fact that families do let terminally ill children die without painful life-prolonging treatment and they catch no flak for it. I can't figure out what's so special about this particular case, so I'm tempted to say that they should be able to let their son pass away with dignity, if that's what he also wants.
Also, I'd like to point out that yes, I'm assuming he will die without this treatment, even though it specifically says that there's some sort of herbal remedy in play. The problem I have with that is that, as a treatment, it hasn't been evaluated. We don't know the survival rates when it's used; we don't know how it works, so we cannot know if it in fact works at all. With chemotherapy, the odds are known. With the herbal remedy, it is essentially the same as no treatment, whose odds are also known.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
In this kid's case, it doesn't seem like he actively wants to commit suicide, they actually fear that the chemotherapy is dangerous and that their voodoo holistic herbal tea method is his best bet. They're wrong, of course, but I honestly see no reason to stop them even if it does cost the kid his life.
Do you have any idea how horrible chemotherapy is? Even if it would successfully save him, he would have a shortnened lifespam and years of pain and general crappiness.
You want to die? Fine. I will do everything I can to save you when I get called in on your half-dead corpse, but anything you do up to that point is your own damn business.
But then again he is under 18, so the law can do whatever it feels like in the pursuit of... whatever the law does. So meh.
I just do not care for tryign to revive suicides. Good reason behind it for no, at least do it right. I dun care.
There are allowed exceptions in the case of particular religious beliefs in terms of refusing surgery or blood transfusions and such, but those don't apply here. This is just stupidity at work, and that's not protected by law.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Peanut butter ass Shaq Bloodsage booooze lime pole over bench lick:
How is this different from any other form of child abuse? No one would object to the state taking custody if the parents were withholding food or clothes or education. So how is withholding a life-saving medical treatment any different?There are allowed exceptions in the case of particular religious beliefs in terms of refusing surgery or blood transfusions and such, but those don't apply here. This is just stupidity at work, and that's not protected by law.
Well, for one, it's not absolutely certain that it's abuse. Withholding food or clothes or education is unquestionably detrimental to the child and granting those things is unquestionably beneficial. As Led pointed out, this is not the case with chemotherapy.
There isn't even any guarantee that the chemotherapy will help - doctors will frequently perscribe it even though there's only a remote chance that it will make any difference at all, just so they don't have to tell the patent to go home and wait to die.
The "child abuse" angle hangs on whether or not the chemotherapy has any irrefutable chance of helping the kid more than it hurts him, which certainly isn't always the case.
Chemotherapy is not the end-all, be-all treatment. It has a success rate, but it's not the miracle drug that is going to cure all ills. Sometimes, it doesn't have any affect at all, or very little. And it causes the patient a great amount of discomfort. It's not pleasant, and it makes you feel like you just want to roll over and die.
If he wants to try this other treatment, rather than feel like he wants to roll over and die every day, I say let him. And before any of you say I don't know what I'm talking about, I *had* cancer remember, I've been through all of this and I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.
Lyinar Ka`Bael, Piney Fresh Druidess - Luclin
So, yes, withholding necessary medical treatment is abuse. Pretty much by definition. Whether said treatment is pleasant or guaranteed to work is not the question.
Further, administering bizarre untested folk remedies on someone in lieu of real medical treatment is also a good definition of abuse.
Pretty much from any angle, these people are abusing their child.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Quoth Maradon!:
And who knows? Their voodoo holistic herbal tea method might actually have something to it, and the doctors are just too scared to use it because it's still experimental and don't want to risk even higher malpractice insurance premiums.
That's just dumb.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Peanut butter ass Shaq Bloodsage booooze lime pole over bench lick:
According to the experts, the kid's best chance to live is chemotherapy.
Your entire argument revolves around this, but there just aren't many facts supporting it in the article.
We don't know if the doctors are perscribing chemo because they think it will work or because it's all they CAN perscribe without risking a malpractice suit. We don't know what the doctors think the odds of his survival are with the chemotherapy. We don't even know if their voodoo herbal tea method is really all that unsound.
1. Chemotherapy is poison. Simple fact. It's medically-targetted and administered, and it ISN'T the same thing as, say, feeding a kid rat poison, but it is poison. It kills your immune system, it makes you lose your hair, it can (and often does) damage kidneys and liver. Why? because it's a poison.
Likewise, the radiation treatments people get are poisonous. It's radiation, folks. Don't delude yourself. It's toxic. Now, the chances of developing secondary tumors based on this dose of radiation has to my knowledge never really been conclusively hashed out (mainly because the person already has cancer which significantly ups their chance of further cancers, but you see my point I hope), but the generall assumption and hope is that the chances are pretty low.
I ask you, in the midst of everything else, to remember that the radiation and chemo they use are poisonous and HIGHLY toxic. You feel like shit. At best, you feel like you have the flu ALL the time. It gives you the shits, or it blocks you up, it makes your hair fall out, you drop weight. You get sick very easily, etc etc. I just watched someone in his 50's where I work fight the end of a bout of cancer and lose and he was in rough shape from his meds. There WERE no good days.
2. You let them do this to you because fighting cancer is essentially a race crossed with an endurance match. Can you outlast the cancer? That's the goal. They're going to target radiation, hit you with chemo, and probably cut into you surgically to get that crap out. And doctors take their oath VERY seriously..."Do No Harm" isn't just a catchy phrase. The only reason they do these horrible, mutilating, torturous things to cancer patients is because if you get the cancer gone and it stays gone, then you live and all the horror was worth it.
The only thing that makes it all worthwhile is if the other side of the = sign is "alive and thriving". Doctors mean well. They aren't doing this to be sadistic. They genuinely believe this is the best hope for their patients.
3. There's a lot of stuff doctors don't know. I don't know how much I believe in faith or the like, but there's been demonstrable proof that people in high spirits do a lot better than people in low spirits or in a depression. Even non-cancerous patients, even NORMAL PEOPLE get sick more, take longer to heal, etc when they suffer low spirits. It's one of the reasons stress, for instance, is such a problem. It's not just your blood pressure. It's your blood pressure with everything else.
4. Forcing people to take medication is a dangerous thing for a government to do. This is NOT a situation where the patient is likely to cause harm to others if he doesn't. It's NOT the same thing as making people with psychological disorders take their antipsychotic meds or their meds to balance out their bipolar or the like. It is NOT the same thing as making a repeat sex offender get shots to kill his sex drive.
And while an 16 year old is not old enough to make legal decisions for themself, they are allowed, in our system, to make a lot of life-altering choices. They can drive. They can have consensual sex. A sixteen year old can get pregnant, work, drive...they can't smoke, buy pornography, or drink alcohol legally, and they can't vote, but they can start functioning as productive members of society. And if they commit a crime, chances are a sixteen year old will be tried as an adult.
So yes, a 16 year old is not at the age of majority. But we expect them to take a lot of self-responsibility on their shoulders.
5. The parents aren't forcing this on their kid. All indications are the kid made the choice and the parents want to back him up. If it's a bad choice, the kid has to live or die with it. If this were some weird cult that was going to let him die when we have a guaranteed treatment available, that would be one thing. If he were doing this to avoid the unknown, that would be one thing. But it's not guaranteed to be successful (nothing is), he's already gone through one round of treatment (so he knows what he'd be facing under traditional treatments).
And ultimately, if the kid doesn't want the treatment, and he has no advocate willing to stand up for his position, and the government sides with his doctor, then you're putting the government in the position of strapping the kid down on a hospital bed and putting the medication through a tube and needle into his body through his arm. You're forcing him to take a treatment like you would a dangerous mental patient or a sexual predator.
If nothing else, you're ruining his mental state. His morale will be low, and we know what that can do. We know doctors think what they're doing is best, and their track rate is significantly better than it was twenty years ago, ten years ago, five years ago, or one year ago. But the issue isn't about doctors and their track record. The issue isn't about the treatment, which is horrible and harsh and might just save his life anyway. The issue is about the individual's rights. And the only reason it's a sticky point is because the kid is in that hazy two-year middle ground between definite child and legal adult.
Under the circumstances, I think this is a road that, if walked upon at all, should be walked upon VERY FUCKING CAREFULLY. It WILL have implications later, and they WILL be implications we'll all have to live with. Ja'Deth Issar Ka'bael fucked around with this message on 07-14-2006 at 07:48 PM.
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
quote:
Everyone wondered WTF when Bloodsage wrote:
Not at all. According to the experts, the kid's best chance to live is chemotherapy. Yeah, chemo sucks, but it's also in many cases the only chance for survival.So, yes, withholding necessary medical treatment is abuse. Pretty much by definition. Whether said treatment is pleasant or guaranteed to work is not the question.
Further, administering bizarre untested folk remedies on someone in lieu of real medical treatment is also a good definition of abuse.
Pretty much from any angle, these people are abusing their child.
Except for the fact that this nearly-adult teenager is asking for this himself. He merely has his parent's support.
Lyinar Ka`Bael, Piney Fresh Druidess - Luclin
Lets stop calling it a voodoo holistic bit, thats just going to make people think its some random plant with no remote chance of working, can't we at least use its name?
quote:
Aw, geez, I have Maradon! all over myself!
Your entire argument revolves around this, but there just aren't many facts supporting it in the article.We don't know if the doctors are perscribing chemo because they think it will work or because it's all they CAN perscribe without risking a malpractice suit. We don't know what the doctors think the odds of his survival are with the chemotherapy. We don't even know if their voodoo herbal tea method is really all that unsound.
Ah, but we do know what the odds are for conventional therapies like chemo. Unfortunately, there is a huge amount of information available to oncologists, so that through research, they can make the best desicion available. As the article said, the herbal therapy has not been evaluated, so stuff like dosage, duration, and side effects aren't even known. This therapy is, as far as we can tell, equally likely to cause cancer as it is to cure it.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Over the mountain, in between the ups and downs, I ran into Karnaj who doth quote:
Ah, but we do know what the odds are for conventional therapies like chemo. Unfortunately, there is a huge amount of information available to oncologists, so that through research, they can make the best desicion available. As the article said, the herbal therapy has not been evaluated, so stuff like dosage, duration, and side effects aren't even known. This therapy is, as far as we can tell, equally likely to cause cancer as it is to cure it.
My point is that the abuse argument kinda falls flat when it's not even certain that the actions in question are harmful. The fact that it's done with the kid's consent throws that off even more.
I looked up this Hoxsey method and it looks like it's been used in other countries with a degree of success, and even places critical of it like the Princeton OTA found evidence of antitumor or cytotoxic effects in the compound used, so while clinically unproven it's not exactly like this is 100% pure bullshit. Hoxsey clinics in Mexico report an 80% "drastic benefit" rate, which I take with a grain of salt because most holistic places inflate their numbers and, well, it IS mexico.
quote:
Bent over the coffee table, Lyinar Ka`Bael squealed:
Except for the fact that this nearly-adult teenager is asking for this himself. He merely has his parent's support.
"Nearly adult" = minor = can't legally make the decision himself = not an issue.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Channeling the spirit of Sherlock Holmes, Maradon! absently fondled Watson and proclaimed:
My point is that the abuse argument kinda falls flat when it's not even certain that the actions in question are harmful. The fact that it's done with the kid's consent throws that off even more.I looked up this Hoxsey method and it looks like it's been used in other countries with a degree of success, and even places critical of it like the Princeton OTA found evidence of antitumor or cytotoxic effects in the compound used, so while clinically unproven it's not exactly like this is 100% pure bullshit. Hoxsey clinics in Mexico report an 80% "drastic benefit" rate, which I take with a grain of salt because most holistic places inflate their numbers and, well, it IS mexico.
Argument from an unknown is a logical fallacy, dude. "For all we know, it might be better than chemo" is not a logical argument. Nor is, "For all we know, they wanted to recommend the tea, but were afraid of a lawsuit."
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage's unholy Backstreet Boys obsession manifested in:
Argument from an unknown is a logical fallacy, dude. "For all we know, it might be better than chemo" is not a logical argument. Nor is, "For all we know, they wanted to recommend the tea, but were afraid of a lawsuit."
So I shouldn't be expecting anything with my grant application, "For all you know, doing lines of coke off jailbait strippers is the key to immortality" then, huh?
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
quote:
Bloodsage had this to say about Captain Planet:
"Nearly adult" = minor = can't legally make the decision himself = not an issue.
Unfortunate reality.
That/those law/laws is/are really a tragedy in some cases. This is one of them! Kegwen fucked around with this message on 07-15-2006 at 11:23 AM.
quote:
Kegwen was naked while typing this:
Unfortunate reality.That/those law/laws is/are really a tragedy in some cases. This is one of them!
This probably came off as a little extreme. Let me clarify a bit.
I'm not saying that every 10 year old should have the same rights and responsibilities as an adult, but I can't think of a single reason why a 16 year old shouldn't be able to legally make decisions about his or her own life in a legally recognizable way.
I understand that in order to prevent administrative nightmare we cannot take everything on a case-by-case basis, and that there obviously has to be a cutoff somewhere. It just seems to me that there are occasionally unintended and shitty consequences of that cutoff being 18 and there's not really much that can be done about it in individual cases.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage had this to say about John Romero:
"Nearly adult" = minor = can't legally make the decision himself = not an issue.
His parents support him in the decision he wants to make and he has their consent. Parents are allowed to make decisions for their own children in other situations that can be life-altering, ie where Deth brought up having sex, so there should be no difference in this one.
Lyinar Ka`Bael, Piney Fresh Druidess - Luclin
quote:
Bent over the coffee table, Lyinar Ka`Bael squealed:
His parents support him in the decision he wants to make and he has their consent. Parents are allowed to make decisions for their own children in other situations that can be life-altering, ie where Deth brought up having sex, so there should be no difference in this one.
Parents are allowed to make decisions for their children, except where those decisions constitute abuse, as in the case of refusing necessary medical treatment in favor of quackery.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
Frankly, if chemo is making him to weak to even walk, I would be wary of it, too. They're either overdosing him, or he's having a bad chemical reaction. Chemo makes you feel like utter shit, makes you puke up your guts sometimes, and you feel really REALLY bad, but it should never make you *that* weak. And if they're overdosing him on it, then his parents are right to worry that it will kill him. Whatever people say, it does have lasting effects. I have a weakened immune system because of all the shit that was pumped into me. I can only imagine what chemo that strong is going to do to this guy.
Lyinar Ka`Bael, Piney Fresh Druidess - Luclin
That's the point.
The parents aren't getting a second qualified opinion because they have doubts as to the quality of their son's care. . .they are reacting emotionally to the effects of the treatment and withholding necessary medical care for no better reason than their own selfishness in not wanting to watch what happens. Might as well euthanize the kid like a dog, if that's the standard we're using.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Sakkra's unholy Backstreet Boys obsession manifested in:
"For all you know, doing lines of coke off jailbait strippers is the key to immortality" then, huh?
I find your proposal intriguing, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
quote:
Bloodsage had this to say about Reading Rainbow:
The parents aren't getting a second qualified opinion because they have doubts as to the quality of their son's care. . .they are reacting emotionally to the effects of the treatment and withholding necessary medical care for no better reason than their own selfishness in not wanting to watch what happens. Might as well euthanize the kid like a dog, if that's the standard we're using.
And who's more qualified than the son to judge the quality of his life? Is there no point where he's allowed to say "this isn't worth it", where they have left him with no life worth saving?
Please note, I'm not saying that the family is right, or wrong. I'm just uncomfortable with the idea that this appears to leave no room for personal choice for anyone.
quote:
Nobody really understood why Naimah wrote:
Are you saying that doctors have complete control over the child when it comes to treatments they deem nescessary? You say that the child has no decision in the matter, because he is a minor. That is fine. Then you say that the parents have no say in the matter because they are unqualified. Why should a persons life choices be placed in the hands of a complete stranger simply because they are more qualified?
quote:
Why should a persons life choices be placed in the hands of a complete stranger simply because they are more qualified?
quote:
because they are more qualified
quote:
because they are more qualified
In reality the most qualified people don't always do the job. If that was the case our lives would be dictated by professionals. People are allowed to make choices, sometimes they are the wrong ones, but they are allowed to make them. They just have to deal with the repercussions afterwards.
quote:
Everyone wondered WTF when Naimah wrote:
So you shouldn't be allowed to handle your money, because accountants are more qualified. You shouldn't be allowed to cook, because a chef is more qualified. You shouldn't be allowed to mow your lawn because a grounds keeper is more qualified.In reality the most qualified people don't always do the job. If that was the case our lives would be dictated by professionals. People are allowed to make choices, sometimes they are the wrong ones, but they are allowed to make them. They just have to deal with the repercussions afterwards.
As for the first paragraph, none of those are matters of life and death in situations where the average person would have little to no information on the subject. Nice attempt at strawman btw.
For the second, adults have the right to do things that are bad for us. We can smoke, drink, live out on the streets, refuse to eat, refuse legal representation when faced with capital charges, refuse medical treatment, etc. and there's nothing preventing us from doing so by law. Minors do not have these same freedoms, and as such it is up to the minor's guardian(s) to see that the minor's health and wellbeing are taken care of.
quote:
Sakkraing:
As for the first paragraph, none of those are matters of life and death in situations where the average person would have little to no information on the subject.
But it's not a matter of life and death. I'm not arguing from an unknown, I'm just pointing out that you guys are arguing under the mistaken assumption that these people are choosing to kill their son and that the kid's doctors want to grant him life, which is a pretty wild distortion of the actual events.
The whole adult/minor argument is irrelevant because the kid's parents agree with the kid.
Further, their reasons for doing so are entirely selfish; they'd rather their son died than have to watch him suffer through treatment. It's quite reasonable for the state to assert custody when the parents are not only wilfully rejecting medical treatment that may save his life, but are also inflicting an untested herbal treatment on him in lieu of proven techniques.
Edit: and it's really silly to say it's not a matter of life and death. Cancer is certainly a matter of life and death, and rarely--too rarely to really matter--gets better without proper treatment. Bloodsage fucked around with this message on 07-15-2006 at 04:46 PM.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Maradon! stopped staring at Deedlit long enough to write:
But it's not a matter of life and death. I'm not arguing from an unknown, I'm just pointing out that you guys are arguing under the mistaken assumption that these people are choosing to kill their son and that the kid's doctors want to grant him life, which is a pretty wild distortion of the actual events.The whole adult/minor argument is irrelevant because the kid's parents agree with the kid.
Without having access to the kid's medical records, we have no way of knowing how severe his condition is. However, given that chemo is something that is not prescribed lightly, it is more than likely bad.
No one is stating the parents wish to kill him, or that the kid wishes to kill himself. Were that the case, they wouldn't be pursuing another method. The fact of the matter is though, is that said method has no basis in American medical science. It has not been sufficiently researched, it has not been sufficiently tested, its side effects have not been sufficiently investigated, NOTHING. For all intents and purposes relevant to a legitimate doctor, it is the same as prescribing a sugar pill. Also, I'm relatively sure the Hoxsey method does not have FDA approval, and it would be very irresponsible for any doctor in good conscience to prescribe it until it is more understood.
As for ...
quote:
I'm just pointing out that you guys are arguing under the mistaken assumption that ... the kid's doctors want to grant him life, which is a pretty wild distortion of the actual events.
That is exactly what they want to do.
quote:
The whole adult/minor argument is irrelevant because the kid's parents agree with the kid.
Wrong. The freedoms an adult has in regards to their own wellbeing do not apply when those decisions are made for a minor in their custody. As far as the law is concerned, ensuring the life of a minor is more important that ensuring the comfort of the minor.
quote:
This one time, at Bloodsage camp:
stuff
Get the fuck out my head Charles.
quote:
The safest and least therapy that has the best chance of curing Hodgkins disease with the fewest acute and chronic toxicities is ABVD chemotherapy, and it should be the treatment of choice for all stages of Hodgkins disease.
Edit: oddly enough, green tea and hope weren't mentioned at all in terms of cancer therapy. Bloodsage fucked around with this message on 07-15-2006 at 04:55 PM.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
Now you know. And knowing is half the battle. 
G. I. Joooooooooooooooooooooooooe!
