Courts going too far? Court-ordered Chemo for 16-year-old

[Quaker]

A judge has ordered the parents of a 16-year-old Chincoteague boy with Hodgkin's disease to return their son to conventional chemotherapy on Tuesday rather than continue the alternative treatment he prefers.

John Stepanovich, an attorney for the parents of Abraham Cherrix, said the family is devastated by the news, received late Friday afternoon. Stepanovich said the family will appeal the decision.

The family has been fighting in court since May to allow Abraham to use an alternative treatment called the Hoxsey method, which consists of an organic diet and herbal supplements.

http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=107952&ran=186104&tref=po

[the_big_man]

Maybe the court ruled to change the treatment to chemo because the other method was not proven to work or was not working...

I don't know, they must have their reasons.

[YetAnotherKitten]

The type of cancer Abraham has is highly treatable in early stages. Abraham had court-ordered X-rays at CHKD in June. He also had a follow-up exam with his doctors at the Biomedical Center in Mexico, where he's receiving the Hoxsey treatment. Both exams showed that his tumors - one in his neck and one near his windpipe - had grown since February.



I'm sorry, many times a person knows their body better than anyone else (even if they are a teenager)... but does he know his body better than an x-ray?

It states that his cancer isn't life threatening at this stage. Instead of using something proven to work, he'd rather risk his life to side-step the extreme pain of radiation.

To me that sounds like suicide- which is- against the law.

The courts have jurisdiction.

[Treadon]

It's the governments job to protect people from people and to protect people from themselves.

So they didn't go to far, not only are they in their limits, they are just doing what they are supposed to be doing!

[JaiJai]

I'm so glad someone posted on this subject. When i read the story in CNN I thought about doing a thread on it.
Here's another side of the coin:

My mother was diagnosed with Lung cancer approx 2 years ago. They couldn't remove it with surgery, and it hadn't grown beyond the lung.

She at first went to a regular oncologist, and they had a meeting with her and us kids, and basically said for us to go home, make arrangements and spend time together. That there' was nothing they could do besides chemo and radiation to slow its growth down.

We didn't accept that, and we ended up taking her to different types of treatment centers in kansas city. We found 2 diff doctors in which they (gov't, insurance, society) dubbed "Alternative treatment". We chose some methods of treatment that weren't considered conventional, but that we believed in.

First of all one doctor put her on an alkaline diet. He explained that if the alakline level in your body is below an 8, cancer cannot survive. So you basically starve your body of toxins which raise your alkaline level, such as smoking, alcohol, sugar, fats, caffiene, etc... She had to basically eat anything that you can grow, such as vegetables, fruits, whole grain breads, and she could eat meat, but cooked a healthy way. She had to drink 8 bottles of water a day, and only bottled water.


Then the doctor started Vitamin C injections, at 200 dollars a pop, once a week. It's a strong dose of the vitamin, injected straight into your bloodstream. There's an antioxidant effect from this, on top of some other thing he explained which i forgot.

She did also do a small regime of chemo, to kill the cells in it or around it or something, again I fogot the reason. Oh yea, also to make sure it didn't spread into the lymph system, while she was doing the other treatment.

She had a PET scan every month or 2. Each scan showed it had shrank in size. And during the last year, she's had a PET scan every 3 months, and each one has come back Cancer free! And anyone who knows about lung cancer knows its one of the hardest ones to stop.

Now then... Because it was deemed "alternative treatment", her insurance would not cover any of the treatment! We even tried beyond that and asked the state to help, and the cancer society, but NO one would since it was alternative treatment. Us kids helped her pay for all of her treatment. Makes u wonder what the government and the pharmaceutical companies are up to. But that's another thread in itself.

Neways... Alternative? That depends on who's interpretation you're considering. In my opinoin, the treatment my mom chose, should be more mainstream. Because had we listened to the doctors and insurance companies and follwed their expensive conventional methods, which insurance covers, I'm sure the only place we'd be visiting my mom now would be a cemetary.

[Buddha]

if it means anything to you, while ive been told this story before, ive always been a real skeptic re: alternitive medicine untill meeting you, while for most part i think most of it is still bunk, you have opened my eyes to some of it worth looking at. i used to hear word "alternitive medicine" and immediately dismiss it, i no longer do that and its because of you and your mommy's story

[Aiyana]

i feel as parents it is up to us to do what we feel is best.some relig. don't believe in the docs at all and it is what they believe then they don't have to.so if it is not your relig. then how can the courts make you do something other.


My aunt did something almost the same as jajai's mom and she has been cancer free for years now.What all the docs are tought in med school is not always the best method i think .but we where taught are trainded to think it is the only way.

[JaiJai]

..and it may save one of your loved ones life someday boo :orign:

Listen, i also thought of something else.

Im not sure if any of you ever witnessed a person with cancer going through chemo and radiation. I have one time, and he got weak, lost weight, his coloring was pale, he lost his hair, etc... Why? because chemo and radiation are not only killing the cancer cells, they also kill/damage the good cells. Plus he died anyways.

The entire time my mom was in treatment, she looked healthier each day. As a matter of fact, she looked better and felt better during her cancer and post cancer, than she has in years. Because she was eating healthier than she ever had, and she was taking alot of vitamins and drinking green tea and other herbal teas as well, along with the Vitamin C shots. And she's still alive and cancer free.

So does this 16 year old boy's family have the right to give him the treatment they choose? Maybe so... of course there are instances where the court should have say so, we really don't know what form of treatment they were seeking. I mean if they were having a rattlesnake bite him 10 times a day and he was writhing in seizures and going downhill, then yea maybe its time to step lol But who are we to say what is best for someone else? Courts follow set procedures, and so do social services, and they don't always have the ultimate answers for everyone, imo.

[Treadon]

JaiJai, please don't take offense to this (as it is now on a personal level) but alternative treatment is a synonym for "Placebo".

Often time these big success stories for alternative treatment can be attributed to whats know as regression to the mean, that is if a group of 100,000 people undertake alternative treatment while on chemo or radiation therapy there is bound to be some one (or many) who recovers and may relate the recovery to the alternative treatment, which was completely unrelated to the healing.

Because regression to the mean is inconsistant and highly unpredictable, it is impossible for anyone to use it as a certified method; that is, it is not down the alley of an insurance company.

[JaiJai]

No I don't take any offense Rit, I understand exactly what you're saying here, and appreciate the input by you. :orign:

Honestly, the only experience i've had with this, is the one my mom went through. She didn't have enough of the conventional treatment for her alternative treatment to be considered a placebo affect though. Her main and concurrent methods were the "alternative" treatment. So it' would be hard to judge what you're saying from this case alone.

Placebo is the phenomenon that a patient's symptoms can be alleviated by an otherwise ineffective treatment, since the individual expects or believes that it will work.

Nocebo is where a patient who disbelieves in a treatment may experience a worsening of symptoms.

Even IF mom's alternative treatment could be classified as placebo, which I don't believe it was, I truly think the alkaline diet has a huge impact on a person's health. But for argument sake, lets say it was placebo.. Maybe this really shows that a patient's mentality towards her or his ability to get well is more important than people think. So if you force a type of treatment on an individual who fully believes it's going to harm them, isn't that more detrimental than allowing them to choose their alternative method that they feel will work for them?


The part I don't get is why wouldn't an insurance company pay for any treatment a person chooses, If that person pays their premium each month, and they choose a type of treatment that may or may not be the one that will cure them, shouldn't that be the insured's business? How can an insurance company dictate to us what is right for our bodies especially when it can mean life or death?

[Kat]

Neways... Alternative? That depends on who's interpretation you're considering. In my opinoin, the treatment my mom chose, should be more mainstream. Because had we listened to the doctors and insurance companies and follwed their expensive conventional methods, which insurance covers, I'm sure the only place we'd be visiting my mom now would be a cemetary.
As I understood the terms it doesn't depend on interpretation - conventional medicine is treatments that have been put through the proper rigerous testing processes required to use them in mainstream medicine, and alternative medicine is anything else.

Evidence for the benefits of alternative medicine tends to be anicdotal, like your story. While this doesnt mean the story isn't true, it's only one story - it doesn't prove that it's effective, and more worryingly, it doesn't prove it's not harmful. From all the evidence from your Mom, it wasn't harmful to her, but that doesn't mean it won't be harmful to other people - a conventional medicine will have had to have been tested 1000s (I think, this is from conversations with friends in this field) of times, and can only be used if statistical tests show firstly that it's beneficial, and secondly that it's not harmful.


JaiJai, please don't take offense to this (as it is now on a personal level) but alternative treatment is a synonym for "Placebo".
I disagree - just because it's 'alternative' or 'herbal', it doesnt mean it can't be either very effective, or very dangerous. Alternative treatment is a synonym for 'untested treatment'.


The part I don't get is why wouldn't an insurance company pay for any treatment a person chooses, If that person pays their premium each month, and they choose a type of treatment that may or may not be the one that will cure them, shouldn't that be the insured's business? How can an insurance company dictate to us what is right for our bodies especially when it can mean life or death?

Firstly, there have to be some limits don't they? Insurance companies have to be able to assess the risk of you claiming money to work out how high your premiums have to be. If you can demand any treatment you want, there's no way of them doing this because they can't project costs. I think the best insurance companies can do is work within the current advice from the mainstream medical community.

Secondly, for the reasons I mentioned above, I think it would be irresponsible for insurers to cover any treatment, because it could be dangerous.

In my opinion, the best thing that the people who advocate the treatment your Mum was put on can do is to get it through the proper testing procedures so the mainstream medical community can make an informed decision about whether to adopt it.

[tca]

I think personally, mentality plays a major role in beating some things

As for alternative treatments etc, I believe people/parents should do what they believe to be in the best intrests of themselves/their children

It shouldn't be in a court's right to decide

[Kat]

I think personally, mentality plays a major role in beating some things

As for alternative treatments etc, I believe people/parents should do what they believe to be in the best intrests of themselves/their children

It shouldn't be in a court's right to decide

I don't think this case is that extreme, and certainly a 16 year old should have a major say in their own treatment, but what about other cases?

If someone wants to take their child off conventional medicine and put them on a course of treatment that not only is not proven to be beneficial, but is not proven to be safe, then is that right? Doesn't the state have a duty of protection to that child (and to vulnerable adults)?

[Beli]

for example, some religons do not allow blood transfusions. i have seen situations where a child would die without the blood but the parents refused to allow it. the case that i was involved in was a 6 y/o who was in a car accident. the ER doctor called and got a court order to give the child blood. otherwise the child would have died for sure. in that case i think that is was appropiate for a higher power to over rule the parents.
in this case with the cancer treatment, i do not feel that the higher ups have any right to say that he must have treatment. no one should be forced to go through chemo. it is horribly painful. and there is no guarantee that it will work any better than the alternative methods.

[tca]

I don't think this case is that extreme, and certainly a 16 year old should have a major say in their own treatment, but what about other cases?

If someone wants to take their child off conventional medicine and put them on a course of treatment that not only is not proven to be beneficial, but is not proven to be safe, then is that right? Doesn't the state have a duty of protection to that child (and to vulnerable adults)?

It's not right, But it's life

Why should higher powers have the right to interfere?

[Kat]

It's not right, But it's life

Why should higher powers have the right to interfere?
Well morally, because a civilised society should go to certain lengths to ensure that its children and other vulnerable people are protected from others. If said people are not considered to be of sound mind and capable of making rational decisions they should also be protected from themselves.

Legally, because laws to protect people from abuse are already there, and I think in certain situations issues of this sort might fall under those laws. If a parent refuses to give their child antibiotics because they believe that tap water is healthier and has the same effect then should the parent's beliefs be protected or the child's welfare? If you think the child should be protected then surely we're just arguing about where the line should be drawn?

[Calienta]

It's not right, But it's life

Why should higher powers have the right to interfere?


The same could be said about ending your life then. It's illegal to end your life purposely, so shouldn't the courts be allowed to keep you from possibly ending it by pursuing treatment not proven to work?

At the end of the day, if the treament isn't proven to be effective and may even be dangerous, then I think the law has to intervene as a voice of reason.

[tca]

Humans should be responsible for their own right in life/death

If somebody wants to die, Who's business is it apart from that person or that persons family?

That's another thread, The point is, It was in the familys intrest to keep on the alternative treatment, While maybe in this case the right decision was reached, A court still should not be involved

Act as like, They could say to them "It would be in your best intrest to pursue a known treatment" But i don't think by any means they should be able to order them too

[JaiJai]

Kat , I appreciate what you're saying but...

Radiation and Chemotherapy have been proven safe and effective?...that's why a high percent of people who undergo this type of treatment Die anyways and if they don't die, they have lovely side affects such as:

Feeling tired
Red or blistered skin
Pukeing their guts up
Loose bowel movements or not being able to go to the bathroom
Hair loss
Feeling very tired
Mouth sores
A feeling of numbness, tingling, or burning in the hands and feet.
Feeling hot
Weight changes
Mood changes.
Chills/fever
Muscle aches
Overall body Weakness
Low blood count > a serious side effect and happens frequently which can lead to many other ailments and can require blood tranfusions oftentimes.

Radiation induced pneumonia > something doctors told mom she could easily get and uh DUH!, we're treating lung cancer here and pneumonia would have surely killed her. (docs said, it would very likely kill her if she got it)

The chemo and radiation alone have been proven by your statistics you speak of, to cause cancer in itself as well.

Not to mention the cost of treating the side effects alone?? There was a pill the doctors prescribed to my mom, it was for the nausea caused by the chemo she had. (and she only had a small round of it). That pill was 180.00 PER PILL, and the friendly insurance companies wouldn't cover it because she also was doing "alternative treatment".

Conspiracy Theory 1: For fun let's consider one teeny weeny theory here. Cancer and it's treatment are Big business for the pharmaceutical companies and their shareholders. The standard business practices of identifying and finding solutions to Cancer, a leading cause of death, then filling its "needs" and expanding its markets..then securing effective and targeted advertising to inspire a fear filled consumer base..securing government contracts (lots of money there) is the legs pharmaceutical companies stand on.

Why are the "alternative" treatments not well known?? hmmmm

Could it be that Drug companies do not want people to be healthy... they do not want to cure disease..
AFterall they dont' make money off of ppl buying fruits n vegetables and drinking green tea. :Wink:

Or maybe it's simply because it's human nature to avoid confronting new information that might cause us to rethink closely held beliefs.

Either way, I think if someone wants to explore a safer, healthier method to try to save or extend their lives, that should be their right.

Now, I do agree that the courts should have jurisdiction over children who are being neglected/abused/maltreated in any shape or form. But the this should be definitive and not an assumption based on prejudice either. IMO

And Kat, as a "moral and civilized" society, I think we should be very careful when we judge that someone is of sound mind and capable to make their own decisions, and whether or not they are being rational or not simply because they choose some "alternative" method to treat THEIR own disease. We wouldn't want a govt that forces genital mutilation on young girls simply because it's what they or insurance companies deem appropriate or necessary only on the premise that statistics prove it prevents teen rapes and pregancies would we?

[hoos]

Let me first tell you something about Accomac, Virginia. It is on the Eastern Shore (the peninsula to everyone else) of Virginia. My roommate last year lives about 5 minutes west in Onancock (if anyone is interested to look at a map). This is a very rural area, but the people there are good hearted. This judge I believe is not educated enough on alternative medical practices and the technology of today. He was most likely doing what he believed was right by rejecting a foreign treatment that he most likely does not know about.

The Social Services person is probably in the same boat as the judge. He/She probably believes what they are doing is right and only want to protect the child. What I do not like is that this is a 16 yr.-old and I believe he has the right to choose what he wants to do. If a 16 yr. old murdered someone in the state of Virginia, you can bet your ass he will be tried as an adult. This kid should also be tried as an adult, because the consequence could be death.

[JaiJai]

Good point Hoos, very good.

The double standards amaze me, as u said, if he killed someone, he'd be tried as an adult.
But it must have fit their own agenda *sigh*

[Kat]

Kat , I appreciate what you're saying but...

Radiation and Chemotherapy have been proven safe and effective?...that's why a high percent of people who undergo this type of treatment Die anyways and if they don't die, they have lovely side affects such as:

Feeling tired
Red or blistered skin
Pukeing their guts up
Loose bowel movements or not being able to go to the bathroom
Hair loss
Feeling very tired
Mouth sores
A feeling of numbness, tingling, or burning in the hands and feet.
Feeling hot
Weight changes
Mood changes.
Chills/fever
Muscle aches
Overall body Weakness
Low blood count > a serious side effect and happens frequently which can lead to many other ailments and can require blood tranfusions oftentimes.

Radiation induced pneumonia > something doctors told mom she could easily get and uh DUH!, we're treating lung cancer here and pneumonia would have surely killed her. (docs said, it would very likely kill her if she got it)

The chemo and radiation alone have been proven by your statistics you speak of, to cause cancer in itself as well.

Not to mention the cost of treating the side effects alone?? There was a pill the doctors prescribed to my mom, it was for the nausea caused by the chemo she had. (and she only had a small round of it). That pill was 180.00 PER PILL, and the friendly insurance companies wouldn't cover it because she also was doing "alternative treatment".

I 100% agree that your Mum should have had every right to choose her own treatment; I just think that it's impractical to say that the insurance companies should fund everything. I don't know much about insurance, but wouldn't that effectively either push premiums sky high, or put them out of business? What there needs to be is a pragmatic approach where every case is considered on an individual basis. I'd imagine that is much easier to accomplish in a state-run healthcare system though.

Conspiracy Theory 1: For fun let's consider one teeny weeny theory here. Cancer and it's treatment are Big business for the pharmaceutical companies and their shareholders. The standard business practices of identifying and finding solutions to Cancer, a leading cause of death, then filling its "needs" and expanding its markets..then securing effective and targeted advertising to inspire a fear filled consumer base..securing government contracts (lots of money there) is the legs pharmaceutical companies stand on.

Why are the "alternative" treatments not well known?? hmmmm

Interesting point about cancer treatment - although I wouldn't want to do a diservice to the large numbers of people working towards cancer treatments who I'm sure are fully commited to the research rather than the money (I don't think the people doing the actual work get much of the money though).

However, my problem isn't that the alternative treatments aren't well known, it's that they're not tested. However much we talk about personal choice, ordinary people with no medical training are not qualified to choose their own medicines. Yes, they should have the freedom to choose to take advice from who they want - but if there's no restrictions on the advice they can be given (if they can be advised to try any untested medicines), then isn't there a risk of desperate people being exploited? Another problem with alternative medicine (although I wouldn't have thought this applies to your Mum's case) is that it can encourage self diagnosis, because you don't have to go to a conventional doctor (or pharmisist) to get the treatment. Self diagnosis can be very dangerous if it means that serious illness isn't spotted untill it has progessed further.


Could it be that Drug companies do not want people to be healthy... they do not want to cure disease..
AFterall they dont' make money off of ppl buying fruits n vegetables and drinking green tea. :Wink:

This is a problem with many industries in a capitalist state. A lot of people should be trying to put themselves out of business, but instead they're trying to make more money. Up communism!!


Or maybe it's simply because it's human nature to avoid confronting new information that might cause us to rethink closely held beliefs.
Quite possibly, but I think the way to combat this is to try and bring these medicines into the mainstream by funding proper research and testing, rather than making them available for use untested.



Either way, I think if someone wants to explore a safer, healthier method to try to save or extend their lives, that should be their right.

I agree, personal choice has to come first, or we'll end up with a Nanny state. I just think that the lack of regulation on alternative medicines is very dangerous.


Now, I do agree that the courts should have jurisdiction over children who are being neglected/abused/maltreated in any shape or form. But the this should be definitive and not an assumption based on prejudice either. IMO

And Kat, as a "moral and civilized" society, I think we should be very careful when we judge that someone is of sound mind and capable to make their own decisions, and whether or not they are being rational or not simply because they choose some "alternative" method to treat THEIR own disease. We wouldn't want a govt that forces genital mutilation on young girls simply because it's what they or insurance companies deem appropriate or necessary only on the premise that statistics prove it prevents teen rapes and pregancies would we?

Of course; I don't think that what the person wants to do medically should be taken into account when deciding if they're of sound mind. The criteria should be the same as in other legal situations.

I think we agree about children; intervention should only happen if the case can be argued to be tantamount to abuse or neglect. The cases I'm thinking about with adults are things like if the family of an elderly person with severe Alzeimers is refusing to allow him conventional treatment, or in the Scientology thread there were cases mentioned of followers being taken out of hospital and kept by the Scientologists with no treatment at all. In cases like this the medical professionals should have the facility to raise their concerns in a legal forum.

[JaiJai]

*Resa gives Kat an ice lolly* :ice:

[Jacx]

:ice: *Resa gives Kat an ice lolly* :ice::ice:

[Calienta]

*inserts nonchalantly cheeky ice-cream-licking smiley of her own*

:ice:

[cookedup]

ok well here is my 2 cents my dad just this december passed away from cancer and if anyone had to see him during the chemotherapy they would have hated it too and as far as the alternative treatments they are proven to work it is just a case (as was said before) of money issues not saving lives and if the parents want to persue alternative treatments that should be their (whith the consent of the 16 year old's) choice not the court! but i stand again chemotherapy as i have had to watch more than just my dad die during chemo but also my aunt and 11 years ago my girlfriend. and after that i can't condone watching someone go through treatment that just straight up kills them! its like this 1 year of happy living without chemo (or any treatment for that matter) or 2 years of absolute misery doing chemo! which incodently kills you any way! but you can always look on the bright side their 2 years of misery are making the drug companys rich! (not the farmers who can cure you with organicly grown food! )

but after watching my dad my aunt and my high school girlfriend go through the misery of chemotheropy only to die from it's side effects i can say i'm biased with good reason. i say ask the judge and lawyers to go spend a week with chemo patients and ask them what they think before forcing the kid to do it! see what they think then...

[JaiJai]

i say ask the judge and lawyers to go spend a week with chemo patients and ask them what they think before forcing the kid to do it! see what they think then...

*Gives cookedup some rep for that one* :Wink:

[Nazkyn]

Points to Ponder
-At 16 Abraham Cherrix can drive, making life or death decisions that affect everyone else with whom he comes into contact on the road (not just himself),
-but yet is not wise enough to understand the affect his own decision (for or against chemo) could possibly have on his own life??

.....

[Calienta]

yet is not wise enough to understand the affect his own decision (for or against chemo) could possibly have on his own life??

I don't know if it's that he's not necessarily wise enough, it's that he's understanding he could be killing himself. And that's illegal. Everyone drives, it's a necessity now, so I don't know that it's applicable.

[tca]

I don't know if it's that he's not necessarily wise enough, it's that he's understanding he could be killing himself. And that's illegal. Everyone drives, it's a necessity now, so I don't know that it's applicable.

What are they gonna do, Arrest his corpse?

Im not for anyone wanting to die, But if that's the path he chooses, Why should we say anything against him?

Sure it's illegal, But we all break the law sometime :ice:

[Calienta]

lol that's all I'm saying Jesse... It's defined as illegal and it's under that law that the courts are acting. I'm not saying that I agree or not.

[tca]

lol they are more likely to have ruled that he continue chemo n stop the alternative thingi majig because it was detrimental to his health, not because they thought he was purposely trying to die

*not saying he was, just putting it out there*

[Calienta]

But I think the 'detrimental to his health' can also be seen in a court of law as: If you don't go through the standard preventative measures you will probabaly die.

[tca]

I disagree with the last part of your statement, Who's to say he wouldn't have believed his alternative treatment to be working and mentally made himself beat the cancer eh? Who's to say it wasn't gonna piss off itself?

[Calienta]

Alternative medicine isn't recognized for the most part as effective. So when a court comes across a person saying they want to skip a procedure and do FA (essentially, because these alternative treatments aren't recognized, and for a reason), and it is generally agreed upon by the medical community that you are likely to die without the standard procedure (chemo in this case), then it could be viewed as suicidal. I don't think that the average person (and especially a 16 year old) is in a position to decide what will work for them. Chemo is standard for a reason, and until another procedure takes its place, it will be viewed as the best and probably only method of beating cancer.

[tca]

Depends on the cancer, The severity of the cancer etc

Obviously in this case chemo probably was better for the kids health, Im just arguing the point the court should have no right to make a decision that a person/s can make themselves

It's the person's life, Not the courts

[Calienta]

It's the person's life, Not the courts

I agree with you on that. BUT - if you apply that logic, they will have to allow every suicidal person to jump off those buildings. People make rash decisions and that sort of decision can't be reversed. I think you'll find stories of people who had been suicidal in the past and attempted it and failed... They say they're happy to have not succeeded. A 16 year old will have a much different view on things than when he's 30, and I think it's up to somebody with a clearer head (maybe?) at this point to keep him from possibly killing himself.

[tca]

Im not gonna argue the point with you, Cos you know exactly where this argument is going :D Just like i do

[Nazkyn]

I don't know if it's that he's not necessarily wise enough, it's that he's understanding he could be killing himself. And that's illegal. Everyone drives, it's a necessity now, so I don't know that it's applicable.

That doesn't detract from the fact that everyone who drives is taking a risk, it's still one of the biggest killers, albeit applicable.

From what you said, this 16 year old could be killing himself... and that's illegal, i'm going waaaay off topic here but couldn't the same be said about every driver??. Tomorrow I think i'll get a court order against my uncle to stop him from driving down town and instead... take the more government friendly way of public transport... aka, the bus.

[Calienta]

take the more government friendly way of public transport... aka, the bus.


Suppose that's an option, but with what people are doing today, how are they all supposed to get around on the bus? In some places the bus doesn't even run. Basic example: horse races- how do you get the horses to the races?

I was meaning that driving isn't applicable in the sense that while it is a risk, it's been deemed as a necessary risk. It is dangerous, but the law right now does not recognize driving as a form of punishable suicidal or murderous behaviour. Acting with the intent or knowledge that what you're doing will kill you, that's illegal, and as far as the court was concerned, the 16 year old was not in a position to see that he could possibly be killing himself.

[Nazkyn]

I really don't see how this could be classed as him killing himself when he has a disease that, however unfortunate... is natural...

I was meaning that driving isn't applicable in the sense that while it is a risk, it's been deemed as a necessary risk.

Isn't that exactly what the courts have deemed chemo in this case??

[Calienta]

I think that when there is an option to possibly save your life, and you refuse it... is that not allowing yourself to die? I'm not agreeing with him being forced to undergo chemo, I'm just trying to explain what I believe the courts were reasoning.

[Kat]

Suicide isn't illegal in the US or UK as far as I can tell (it's difficult to Google because 'assisted suicide' keeps coming up). Here's the Wikipedia entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_views_of_suicide

[Calienta]

Taken from that link:

However, in some US states, even though suicide has been removed from the criminal code, suicide is still considered an unwritten "common law crime," that is, a crime based on the law of old England as stated in Blackstone's Commentaries. (So held the Virginia Supreme Court in Wackwitz v. Roy in 1992.) As a common law crime, suicide can bar recovery for the family of the suicidal person in a lawsuit unless the suicidal person can be proven to have been "of unsound mind." That is, the suicide must be proven to have been an involuntary, not voluntary, act of the victim in order for the family to be awarded money damages by the court. This can occur when the family of the deceased sues the caregiver (perhaps a jail or hospital) for negligence in failing to provide appropriate care. See standard of care, tort, negligence.

[JaiJai]

Uhm, suicide IS illegal in the United States :YES2:

[Kat]

Taken from that link:

However, in some US states, even though suicide has been removed from the criminal code, suicide is still considered an unwritten "common law crime," that is, a crime based on the law of old England as stated in Blackstone's Commentaries. (So held the Virginia Supreme Court in Wackwitz v. Roy in 1992.) As a common law crime, suicide can bar recovery for the family of the suicidal person in a lawsuit unless the suicidal person can be proven to have been "of unsound mind." That is, the suicide must be proven to have been an involuntary, not voluntary, act of the victim in order for the family to be awarded money damages by the court. This can occur when the family of the deceased sues the caregiver (perhaps a jail or hospital) for negligence in failing to provide appropriate care. See standard of care, tort, negligence.



That's just about suing for damages though isn't it? I don't think it supports the legal arguement about the case the people've been having over the last few posts.

JaiJai - not trying to be arsy, but where d'you know that from? D'you have any links? I looked (not very hard to be fair cos I'm at work), but I couldn't find anything that looked at all official or reliable. I don't actually think the legal situation with suicide is that relevant to this debate (I personally wouldn't consider refusing mainstream treatment as tantamount to suicide), but I want to know now cos it's bugging me.

[Calienta]

That's just about suing for damages though isn't it? I don't think it supports the legal arguement about the case the people've been having over the last few posts.

Suing for damages, but maybe also using their health care insurance to pay for treatment? If the courts will rule against voluntary suicide in that case, I would think that's the same reasoning?

[Kat]

Suing for damages, but maybe also using their health care insurance to pay for treatment? If the courts will rule against voluntary suicide in that case, I would think that's the same reasoning?
Sorry Cali, I think I missed your point somewhere along the line. I thought you were arguing that courts should (or at least explaining legally why they do) rule to force people to have chemo in situations like this, because they're invoking the suicide law to support them legally.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying about health care insurance, but that's probably because I don't understand how the whole thing works.

[JaiJai]

I can research it on the net, but that's not how I know.

I've lived in the USA all my life, I've studied 4 years for a criminal justice degree, I've done practicums at jails, police stations, and in courts, I've worked for an attorney for 3 years, In doing all of that I just know that it's against the law to attempt to comit suicide, not only can you be taken into custody but you can be put in a psyciatric ward for up to 96 hours on a suicide hold, against your will, if you're caught trying to kill yourself OR if someone reports that you're suicidal. For example, they can take a parent or spouse's word for it if they report that you've tried to kill yourself or even threatened to kill yourself.



I'll go try to find information for you kat

[Calienta]

Sorry Cali, I think I missed your point somewhere along the line. I thought you were arguing that courts should (or at least explaining legally why they do) rule to force people to have chemo in situations like this, because they're invoking the suicide law to support them legally.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying about health care insurance, but that's probably because I don't understand how the whole thing works.

Yeah I wasn't very clear I don't think... What I was meaning, is if they can apply this law in health insurance situations, I thought maybe that would explain why they could apply it in this case as well... Sorry if I'm not making sense today :(

[Honeypot]

I saw this on the news not too long ago... I didn't know that the court actually did decide to force him to do the chemo, but I think that's bullshit. And I'm sorry if someone has already said this, but this pisses me off.

The kid already had a round of chemo, it didn't work. Not only did it not work, but it almost killed him. I totally understand why he wouldn't want to go through that again. Yeah he's young, but wouldn't you rather live a short productive life than spend the rest of your life going through chemo that most likely won't work anyway, and will take away the quality of your life?

I think it is complete bullshit that the government could force someone to get treatment that they don't want. What is this world coming to?

[the squid of despair]

I saw this on the news not too long ago... I didn't know that the court actually did decide to force him to do the chemo, but I think that's bullshit. And I'm sorry if someone has already said this, but this pisses me off.

The kid already had a round of chemo, it didn't work. Not only did it not work, but it almost killed him. I totally understand why he wouldn't want to go through that again. Yeah he's young, but wouldn't you rather live a short productive life than spend the rest of your life going through chemo that most likely won't work anyway, and will take away the quality of your life?

I think it is complete bullshit that the government could force someone to get treatment that they don't want. What is this world coming to?

Maybe you should read all the posts next time and click on some links.