Judge lifts order requiring treatment for teen cancer patient
ACCOMAC, Va. A judge ruled today that a 16-year-old Eastern Shore cancer patient who has refused conventional medical treatment does not have to report to a hospital.The judge also set a trial for August 16th to settle the dispute....
Accomack County Circuit Court Judge Glen Taylor agreed to a stay, which means Abraham won't be forced to undergo more chemotherapy for now. He has undergone alternative treatments, including herbal treatments.
A juvenile court judge on Friday ordered Abraham to report to a hospital for treatment of his cancer. The judge refused to lift his order yesterday and Abraham's parents sought a stay.
Taylor also ended joint custody of Abraham between his parents and social services officials, which was also ordered by the juvenile court judge.
This is really scary: your doctors don't like your choice of treatment, so they go through the juvenile court system to compel you to undergo the treatment they recommend -- and possibly to take you away from your parents, if it's deemed "in your best interests"?
If Abraham were a Sarah who wanted to undergo an abortion, nobody -- not the judge, not the doctor, not the parents -- would have anything to say about it. It would be between Sarah and her doctor. And if Sarah wanted to decline the abortion, supposedly it would be her choice.
So why doesn't Abraham have a choice about his own body -- one that he's made with the approval of his parents?
And what's up with these doctors? I thought the medical profession was trying to do away with "paternalism", the "we know best" idea -- that patients' autonomy was to be respected.
What happened to informed consent? When I was in nursing school, I was taught that performing a procedure on a patient against his will could potentially be prosecuted as assault and battery. If Abraham had been forced to report to the hospital, could he have brought charges against the nurses who started his IVs? (Would there have been nurses willing to go against his wishes?)
An attorney for the social services department, told the judge the agency would go along with the ruling if a new trial takes place quickly.
Oh, well, that's big of them. Nice to know that social services will obey a judge's order if they approve of it.
Nate Nelson blogged on this earlier this week.
i read about this and was actually going to post about it, but i got so blasted angry and depressed that i just couldn't do it with any tact. i'm glad you did.
Smock,
You got angry...I got really scared.
I agree with all of you, although I admit that I was involved in a discussion elsewhere on this topic and it made me wonder about something. Is this child's cancer really highly treatable and curable as the other side paints it to be? And is one round of chemo usually enough to combat it? I'm assuming not on both counts, but I wouldn't know either way of course. These are just questions I have been pondering answers to after hearing some differing views on this issue. I maintain however, that ulitmately it is the family's decision to make--it's the only position I feel comfortable holding quite frankly, as I feel doing otherwise sets a very scary precedent. I can just sense however, that this is going to be twisted in one way or another to account for abortion using the "my body, my choice" argument, which of course I believe is faulty (as there's a baby's body there as well that is conveniently forgotten!). And what about cases in which minors are not in agreement with their guardians regarding treatment options? Yikes. I'm glad I'm not a judge. I don't see how I can not let my feelings get in the way while deliberating if there isn't an agreement amongst family in a similar scenario. :\
Is this child's cancer really highly treatable and curable as the other side paints it to be? And is one round of chemo usually enough to combat it?
Dunno. As you point out, though, the point is moot: The patient (and the patient's parents) have the right to consent -- or not consent -- to a particular treatment.
I can just sense however, that this is going to be twisted in one way or another to account for abortion using the "my body, my choice" argument...
That's going to be some interesting twisting. How in the world can something like this square with the Right To Privacy And The Right To Define One's Own Concept of Existence, yada yada, enshrined in Roe and Casey?
Good question, especially if the minor is of an age where emancipation is a possibility. The best option, if the minor is female, is to get knocked up, because then Her Choice is sacrosanct.
I'm glad I'm not a judge. I don't see how I can not let my feelings get in the way....
If only more judges were like you and remembered that their job is to NOT let their feelings get in the way....
I just can't wrap my mind around the medical "ethics" part of this.
Patty -- You asked:
Is this child's cancer really highly treatable and curable as the other side paints it to be? And is one round of chemo usually enough to combat it? I'm assuming not on both counts, but I wouldn't know either way of course.
Actually, the child in question has already undergone one round of chemotherapy. I think I'm correct in saying that his cancer went into remission for a while but has now returned, and that he has decided against chemotherapy because he doesn't believe it will work (it didn't last time) and because he was so sick and in so much pain after the last round of treatment that he doesn't think he can go through it again.
I personally don't agree with the choice that he and his parents have made, and I would undergo another round of chemotherapy -- but I do believe it's their choice to make, and they have made it. I am particularly disturbed by the thought that social services, who don't know this family from Adam, feels qualified to make these decisions for them.
Hope that helped. :)
Peony -- Thanks for the link!