Posted on 07/21/2006 5:00:44 PM PDT by Huntress
History is a harsh task master, and, in so many ways (from the ME war, to this type of thing), school is in session.
My sentiments exactly. I do believe though that a superior court will rule that this judge's ruling is entirely out of line and will overturn it.
This make me more mad than democrats....
" There is a sacred bond between newspapers and readers that promises "we will find out as much as we can and tell you as much as we can," Raines said."
The judge could always say obey my dictate or die. Oh, nevermind.
(Go Israel, Go! Slap 'Em, Down Hezbullies.)
So there are two questions:
1 - Was the family and patient given full informed consent?
and 2 - How much stock in chemotherapy companies does the Judge own?
So there are two questions:
1 - Was the family and patient given full informed consent?
and 2 - How much stock in chemotherapy companies does the Judge own?
As a physician I am skeptical of alternative cancer treatments. That said I am very skeptical of a government that feels like it has the right to make ones medical decisions. In my E.D. I cant treat a child without a parents consent. If it is a life threatening event and requires immediate intervention and the parents are not around I am covered by informed consent laws. But if a child comes in with anything else I can not touch him/her. Maybe now if I agree with a parents decision I can call social services. /sarcasm
LOL ... here's one better.
If the kid has to take Chemo, he should eat a huge breakfast before the treatment, then go take the treatment, THEN ask to be taken directly to see the Judge. By the time he gets to the Judge's chambers he should be nauseated sufficiently to BLOW CHUNK all over the judge, the judge's desk, and the carpet. If the judge gets mad, all the kid has to do is say "I'm sorry, but that's what your ordered-treatment caused me to do ... I'm not responsible for where or when I throw up. Oooh ... I feel another heave coming!!!!"
(Go Israel, Go! Slap 'Em, Down Hezbullies.)
I agree 100% I think this ruling is an outrage. Unless the parents are proven to me incompetent or abusive the child has a right to any rx he wants.
That's the worst of it; they should at least refuse to do that. If the judge is going to say that their consent doesn't matter, he can nullify the need for their consent. If he lacks the power to do that, he should lack the power to force them to give consent.
The clinic I think the boy is going to - has an excellent cure rate for many cancer types - with the chemo - he has a worse chance of survival than the natural treatment
Unfortunately, as a non-physician who was faced with a debilitating condition a year or so ago (which I solved by not believing some doctors and researching and going after alternative type treatments).....I am skeptical of doctors.....but, please don't take it personally.
I dont take it personally. A good example is accupuncture. I am one of few M.D.'s who will say it works. I have seen numerous pt's benefit from it. I think there is nothing wrong with trying natural or holistic remedies. But it wouldnt hurt to get an opinion from a doctor if you fear your condition is serious.
I'd say this is a nanny-state ping
"16 year olds can make other health care decisions according to the government (abortion/bc)."
Yes, abortion uber alles. However, there may be parental consent laws in the state involved here.
Previously, before the chemotherapy regimes for Hodgkin's disease were developed, the disease was a uniformly fatal disorder and it remains one today if untreated.
Today, in children, the survival rate for treated Hodgkin's disease is up to 94 percent.
The usefulness of blood-letting or the usefulness of curing Hodgkin's disease by doing nothing more than "strengthening the immune system" in an unspecified manner have never been documented by survival rate data.
Sometimes, a strong immune system is simply not enough. That is why, prior to antibiotics, bacterial infections killed strapping young adults by the millions every year.
The success of chemotherapy in the treatment of Hodgkin's disease by chemotherapy is more that proven by the 94 percent survival rate the are possible today.
Whether or not the therapy should have been forced on the boy is a totally separate issue but, in Hodgkin's disease, chemotherapy has definitely has changed an invariably fatal disease into a disease with a 94% survival rate.
We don't have the freedom to choose medical treatment? A judge can make that call? That seems very very wrong to me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.