A Compelling State Interest

How is it then, that no court is forcing a pregnant woman to carry to term, then?
You are right!! If women have the right to abort babies, then why is a parent not allowed to make the best choice in their opinion for them for the minor child?
I personally believe that this woman is misguided. I wonder if she will have the woulda, coulda, shoulda syndrome should her child pass away?
John Travolta's Christian Scientist stuff presented him the same problems with his son. We know that seizure disorders can kill. But, can you live with the choice?
My thought process is that I would do everything medically possible. Therein lies my belief that after that, it is out of my hands.

Have to agree with Nee here.Another problem is the OLDM gets hold of this,and trashes the parents,but never a peep about the medical/governmental establishment trampling their prerogatives as parents.The best course of action,IMHO here,let these parents decide what they want to do,after all,it is THEY who will have to live with their decision,no one else.And,the medidiots STFU about it. It is NOT their business,and,again,IMHO,no one elses.

I've been following this case, too, and have come to exactly the same conclusion. Since when does the state have the right to overrule the considered judgement of the parents, and in this case the child (13 year old) himself?

What about Christian Scientists? Now they'll be forced to accept mainstream medical treatment? What about "experimental" treatments? Will we have to subject ourselves to experimentation? Will patients be FORCED to pay for things they can't afford?

What about "death with dignity"? Will we be forced to endure "heroic" treatment if we don't want to?

What about the fact that the medical establishment comes up with "cures" that later turn out to be absolute fiascos? Some that end up being more harmful than the conditions they were designed to "cure"? Remember Thalidomide? The early birth control pills?

On top of these questions and a myriad more, the "treatment" recommended for this kid isn't a "guaranteed cure"; it simply improves his chances over the path the family itself has decided to take... according to the establishment medical professionals. That's an OPINION, not a GUARANTEE.

This is medical Nazism, frankly.

As potential patients, WE reserve the right to say "This much, but no more", and the courts are WAY out of bounds to impose their own judgement over ours.

This story is distressingly confusing in light of the doctor assisted suicide in Sequim, WA on Thursday.
A doctor can administer a lethal dose of medication at a patient's request to end the patients life - that is OK because is"death with dignity."
Danny Hauser has stated he doesn't want the "poison the patient until almost dead and hope it kills the cancer first" treatment called chemotherapy - so MN cites a "compelling state interest" in forcing him into treatment because the state is committed to making sure that he lives.

Beam me up.

It seems that we all have that libertarian streak in us...and that's a damned good thing!

Nee and clyde, I agree that the woman may be misguided, but like you pointed out, the family has to live with the choices they make and the consequences that come with them. And clyde is exactly right that the media has taken this up and has not really tried to understand what the parents are doing and are busy trying to paint them some sort of benevolent villains (an oxymoron, I know). Even Fox is on the bandwagon, with Peter Johnson on Fox and Friends the other day telling us how chemo saved him as a youngster and how the kid should just have the treatment and live. But chemo is not a sure thing, and the decision should be left to the family to decide how things are done in this case.

Brian, as usual we agree on so much LOL! But you raise some good points: other religions, such as the Christian Scientists, Scientologists, and Seventh Day Adventists reject in some way or other modern medical treatments. Does the G get to force them to make choices that go against their religions? And the medical establishment is often making decisions based on business relationships with the drug companies. I am not saying there is a conspiracy, but it all sounds very fishy to me. "Do what we say or pay the price" is the message this sends to anyone making a decision that the government doesn't agree with.

You make a compelling point, as did Nee with the mention of abortion. It is strange what the courts see as a compelling state interest, and which lives are the most deserving of protection. A person can choose to kill themselves with a doctor's assistance and that's okay. Killing a child that never even got a chance to live is okay, since it is the right of the mother to make that decision. But a mother makes a decision regarding her 13 year old son, who has a chance to be part of the decision making process is basically declared to be illegal. We have truly gone through the looking glass!

Get used to it. The government is getting bigger and private companies are being taken over by this President. Their long arm is still growing. I think this kid being 13 should have someone speaking for him. The father wants him to take chemo. The mother obviously does not. I think he might be trying to please his mother more than anything. I am sort of in the middle on this. I don't like government sticking their noses in something like this, but I think they should step in to save children from misguided parents. We've heard many times that a parent wouldn't allow a simple blood transfusion or shot that would easily save their child, but because of their decision the child dies. This is a tough call.

I'll tell you something else: if and when the time comes that Mom's put on trial for child endangerment or absconding or whatever, I hope there's at least one constutionalist on that jury who knows and understands jury nullification.

I wouldn't vote to convict Mom no matter WHAT the DAs presented as a case.

It's not a "tough call" for me.

The parents have an absolute right to make the decisions for their child. As a matter of fact, there's a legal term to signify when an outside person or agency steps in and takes over the role of the parent: in loco parentis.

Note the presence of the word "parentis", which is a de facto ackowledgement that SOMEONE is acting as a "parent".

Why should the state have a superior role in this process?

If a parent is actually abusing a child through inappropriate sexual actions or physical beatings, that's different in that they're overt acts.

But going down this road, where does it end? Are we someday going to see parents losing their kids because some social worker doesn't think they give enough hugs?

If you don't think so, then explain to me what would stop it.

I respect your point of view, but one of the parents does want him to take the chemo. I know it's a slippery slope, but I remember in my state alone there was a 9 year old girl that had an anemic condition that made her bleed more than the normal person. Because of the parents religious beliefs, this girl died because she simply fell. A simple transfusion would have saved her easily. I'm sorry, but there is no way when it comes to something like that that the parents should decide to let the child die.

Those famous words of the self proclaimed prophet of the global warming lie, Al Gore stated that the debate is over. This is his way of staying away from real debate.
The way I see this is that our government does not have the best interest of our children. One of the most basic results of a free society is the freedom of information and the freedom of speech. I will take our government serious when they decide to tell our young kids in our schools the truth about abortion. The science is out and we even have pictures to prove that when we abort a child that is what we are doing. What have we become as a civilized society when we are condemed for animal cruelty ( i do not support animal cruelty )but we can abort a child at almost any stage of the pregnancy and its just like calling the pest control. Who wants to live with those dirty pesky roaches. We are teaching our children to live a lie that is so obvious it defey's knowledge. This is not even a religous issue ! What happened to common sence ?

chemotherapy and has had two cancer diagnoses, let me just chime in that it is no guaranteed cure-all. Doctors actually know very little in terms of cancer treatment, all they have to go on is statistics. Even if there are lots of statistics, like there are say for breast cancer because of the many studies done on it, all they can say is if you do x, your chances improve by y%. They cannot tell what is going to happen in any particular case, only generalize based on past results.

The cancer for which I received chemotherapy is a very rare one (usually found in adolescents, actually), and as a result very few, small studies for them to go on. I received chemo, and was happy to do so, because they thought it would help, and besides I was young and could take it. Youth cancers are (thankfully) generally quite rare, and so I'm willing to bet that this kid's case is a lot more like mine (we gotta do something! Somebody please, think of the children!) in that they might hope it'll help, really don't have anything firm to go on, other than the fact that doctors play God so much they often forgot they're not. Besides, when you've got a hammer, everything looks like a nail, when you're an uncologist, well, there you go.

Now, riddle me this Batman, what's going to happen when you combine the medical establishment trampling individual liberties, nevermind parental perogatives, when the Dems enforce government-only nationalized healthcare where they own the medical establishment, lock stock and barel.

if you didn't know, all cancer treatments also carry the risk of causing cancer later on, which would typically develop about 15-20 years down the road my doctors told me. Which won't matter much to you if your current cancer will kill you in a few months or years, but is worth considering depending on what you're facing with your current cancer.

You have EXPLICITLY ceded ultimate power to the state over the parent; there's no way around that.

In which case, there's no difference between you and liberals other than a matter of degree. As the old joke goes, we've established WHAT you are, and we're just haggling over the price. Not meant as a personal insult, but for the purpose of clarity.

I note that twice you've mentioned the Dad wants the chemo; yet he's not a party to the action. You don't find that at all salient? This isn't a matter of a dispute between parents as to what action to take. That probably would be an issue for the court to decide; but HE'S NOT A PARTY TO THE ACTION. So I guess he doesn't disagree with Mom all that strongly. Or he's decided to defer to her and the kid, which is a FAMILY issue, not a court issue.


You wrote: "I'm sorry, but there is no way when it comes to something like that that the parents should decide to let the child die."

I see; so there are obviously some principles or beliefs which don't meet some standard of being "worth dying for". Why does some government hack get to make that decision? On what basis? Under what authority? Where in the Constitution is that power given to government?

If you "believe" in standard medicine (which in fact I do), then that's "officially approved"; but if you believe in faith-based outcome, that's NOT "acceptable"?

Buh-bye First Amendment; nice knowin' ya.

Further, as stated by Philosoph and me, this chemo doesn't even "guarantee" any kind of outcome. It MAY increase his chances. But that's ultimately irrelevant, because the REAL issue here is the government having the power to MANDATE that people follow the diktats of medical "professionals".

A small preview of what we can expect under "universal healthcare", I'm sure.

Jesse Norman, on this issue Brian and I are in total agreement. I don't believe for a hot second that the mother sees this as letting her child die, but is looking for a different way for her child to live. She is not refusing to get the child treatment, she is simply seeking an alternative treatment for the cancer. In fact, the boy has had one chemo treatment (and the side effects that come with it) and it was then that he and his family decided that chemo wasn't the route for them.

As for emotional arguments, which you seem to be making, I have one as well: My beloved grandfather was a diabetic who didn't take shots, but took pills to control the disease. When he got to a certain age, around 70, he decided that he didn't want to take the pills anymore and stopped. He knew the risks involved and eventually the diabetes cost him a foot...but it was HIS decision to make. Using an emotional argument we would see this as a point where the government should step in and mandate he take his meds; but that is not what the government should be doing in his case or any other. The state cooked up a 'medical negligence' claim to justify their actions and the media has advanced the ball for them by painting the mother as denying treatment to her son, when all she is doing is seeking a different treatment for him.

Randy, I agree that the G doesn't have the best interest of our children in mind when they make decisions. They surely don't when they push abortion as just another "right" for people to have or when they are talking about legalizing drugs for governmental profit. So their pretense of caring about our kids is a big lie and nothing more.

Phil, they say the kid would have a 95% cure rate (he has non-Hodgkins lymphoma) with the chemo...but that's no sure thing. And he and his family only made the decision AFTER trying chemotherapy and deciding not to do it again. I thought we had a right to be free in our persons...but I suppose it only applies when we are doing exactly what the government wants us to, when they want us to!

One only has to keep a child alive IF they don't abort, and IF a divorcing husband who wants her dead doesn't tell the state to kill her.

How have we gotten to this point where children are murdered, murderers can't be executed, and terrorists and their buddies have to be coddled and catered to?

Lord help us, the inmates are running the asylum.

We are so there already! The state pretends that it has a state interest in a child's welfare...except if that child is the results of a botched abortion. The state cares so much about life...unless the state figures you need to kill yourself. You have freedom of religion...unless your religion leads you to do something outside of the so-called mainstream. And you have a 'right' to healthcare...unless the care you seek isn't what the medical establishment wants you to pursue.

The inmates are running the asylum in too many ways, and it doesn't look like it will be any different in the short term.

a 95% success rate seems like a no-brainer to me, but if it was me I would still be able to say no, for whatever reason. When it's up to your legal guardian, I don't see why they can't also say no, again for whatever reason. As I am my own legal guardian, logically, they're the same proposition.

You know, I wonder if people ever refuse treatments for reasons other than religion, because it only ever seems to me that these situations only make the news when religious reasons are involved (and if the religion in question is Christian). Not that I likely have much in common, theologically speaking, with a sect that refuses medical treatment, but still I have the definite impression that an anti-Christian animus is generally the driving force behind most such stories.

We agree there pal! This woman is his mother and has never been declared unfit or anything like that until she decided that the chemo was almost as bad for her son as the disease. Then suddenly the courts decide she is 'medically negligent' and that hr son must be treated with chemo...or else! I thought that parents were allowed to make medical decisions for their children unless they were declare unfit...but I suppose I was wrong. Parents don't know what's best for their kids...the state does. I guess it does 'take a village', huh?

As for the religious aspect, most Christian religions raise no objections to conventional medical treatment, which is why I think these stories get so much plaay in the press. The religions usually aren't mainstream Christianity, if they are Christian at all which allows hte media a chance to sensationalize the 'weird' or 'cult' groups involved. To hell with religious liberty when there's a juicy story to be played up!

I just read a report that the mom has brought her son back to Minnesota for treatment.It was at Drudge.

I've been following this story (obviously) and saw that they had returned. It was a sad thing for me in a way, because the court basically blackmailed the family into agreeing to chemo: If the kid didn't get chemo the state would take custody from the parents. Yeah, that's just what we want the state doing isn't it? Threatening to take custody of your children if you don't have the medical treatment the state says you have to go through. I feel so free this morning...don't you?

I guess the next time I need open heart surgery they'll tell me I HAVE to do it,instead of simply electing to. More freedom lost over our day to day lives. Where DOES it stop,my friend?

Yeah, the courts are really protecting our rights aren't they? No ability to choose the best course of action for our families, no contracts that cannot be abrogated by the G, and judges know better than we do how to protect our children.

The power of the state is awesome, but it is totally out of control and growing daily. The more power they gather unto themselves, the more we the people become slaves to the wills of a few oligarchs in positions of power.

New one up at my blog, on one of my favorite topics.

I stopped by one my daily rounds and saw what I wrote last.

"Flaf"?

I swear, not a drop of Single Malt in sight when I wrote that.

Typos-R-Us