Work, and that kid with cancer.

[wednes]

I'm working a short shift today. It's our slow time of year, so I'm working less than usual. Not really ideal from a financial standpoint, but completely swellenor (of Ellenor "gee I think you're swellenor" fame) from a finishing-my-novel standpoint. Got a bit of editing and polishing done yesterday, but not much actual writing. Going to work on it some more today and tomorrow...and probably all weekend since I'm going to have a few days to myself. We get Monday off for Memorial Day, which is neat. I've worked retail for most of my life, so it's still a little surprising when I get a bank holiday off of work. Plus, I'm going on a writing weekend with absinthofheart in June, (right before my deadline is up) so I'm starting to save up money for it now.

I'm sure by now you've all heard about the little boy with cancer whose parents are refusing the prescribed medical treatment. A judge ordered them to get the kid some chemo (he has some kind of treatable lymphoma), so the mom took the kid and split. According to the kid, he doesn't want the chemo either. They beleive in prayer and natural medicine.
Most of what people have been saying about this summs up as Well, I think parents should be the final authority on their kids--within reason. And then they go on to say how sad and irresponsible it is not to get the kid chemo, how "stupid" natural medicines are, and how the kid shouldn't have to suffer because the parents are "religious nuts." What they seem to mean is Parents should be the final authority, until they choose to do something I wouldn't do.
Of course we should protect kids from abuse. Of course it is sad when a little kid has cancer. Of course most people will want to do what their doctor prescribes...or do they? I certainly don't follow all of my doctors advice--as is my right. But they're choosing for a CHILD people say Parents have a responsibility to do what's "right". Right, of course, being completely subjective.
For a long time, the prescribed treatment for mental illness was electroshock therapy. Basically, they hook you up to a machine and shock your brain a la One Flew Over the Cukoos Nest. When people refused this treatment, they were often threatened with involuntary committment even if they were not violent. After all, it could be "proven" that this treatment could bring good results, so anyone who doesn't want it is a crazy fool, right?
I've never had chemo, but I hear tell it's fucking terrible. It makes you sick, you lose your hair, your appetite, you're weak and dizzy. So what? people say, If it helps you live, it's worth it! Well that, my friends, is in the eye of the beholder. No court in the world should have the right to make me hook my kid up to a machine and get radiation all over him. It's vile. And while some people can and do choose to utilize chemo to good effect, it should by no means be required.
ANY medical treatment be it natural or man-made, is not guaranteed to work. It should be a fundamental right to be able to choose what treatments to pursue, and what not to pursue. That's what freedom is, after all.

Comments

[maxverbosity.livejournal.com]

I've always been suspicious of people who object to treatments for religious reasons only because it seems a convenient thing to say (I mean, being a SubGenius, could I not claim it is against Bob's wishes that I NOT receive something? LOL). The flip side is that too many parents indoctrinate kids into believing some wacky and at the same time hideous things (e.g., Christian parenting in general. Hehe)

Anyhow, from the standpoint of being someone who is also in favor of assisted suicide, I have always believed that, if you don't want a course of treatment, then you shouldn't be forced to get it, especially if it will only prolong your wait for the inevitable as happens with far too many terminal patients.

From what I understand, the chances of the kid surviving with the chemotherapy were pretty good - that might have been the sticking point. I am not sure honestly. There is also the notion that he is a minor and I believe that drastically changes the picture legally - if it were you or me, they would have just noted that we were doing something against medical advice.

I know there have been cases where children have died because their parents chose this route (I can remember this being widely dissected in the early 1990s). I will be honest here, and maybe it is inconsistent with other things I have said - I do believe those parents to be liable for the deaths of their children, although the court record on it at the time was mixed.

[wednes.livejournal.com]

Actually, I just found out that in this particular case, the kid didn't even go to school. So while I stand by my original statements, it makes a big difference in how much say the kid should be allowed to have in his own care. I was basing my earlier comments on the presumption that he was as educated as a 13 year old would normally be in this country. No dice.

[maxverbosity.livejournal.com]

I saw that too. If that's the case, I don't know that, if I had been the judge, I would have ruled differently then. They've done a massive disservice to that kid if he is in his early teens, homeschooled, and illiterate.