13 Year Old Cancer Boy Court Case

In APGovernment today we sat and argued about this the entire hour. There is a thirteen year old boy with cancer who's refusing Chemotherapy because of his religion. His entire family refuses to let him get it. Without it there is a 90% chance that he will die and with it there is a 95% chance that he will live. I was just wondering what your guys' opinions are about when is it right for the government to impede on the right to religion and when it isn't.

I personally believe that the parents don't have the right to make that decision for him and that he as a thirteen year old doesn't have the right state of mind to be able to decide for himself yet. To me the answer is obvious to give him the Chemo.

Some arguments from the other side were that in the family's mind he can either die and go to heaven or die later and burn in hell for all eternity and the freedom of religion reigns supreme no matter what.

Sooo what does everybody else think about this? People in my class got really heated and rude and angry haha

The only way that they can make him take the chemo is to declare his parents/guardians as unfit, and if the only thing they have against them is that their religion forbids medical treatment, then I don't see how they can do it. On the other hand, how do they know the boy has cancer if he didn't go to a doctor? I guess I'm not actually aware of this specific case but similar ones have occurred down through the years, and I believe the family's wishes are always honored. It doesn't mean that you or anybody else has to like it, but I wouldn't want the state coming in and telling me what to do with myself or my family.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

I've seen kids younger than 13 that are quite smart. Not saying he's one of them, but if he's refusing it because of his religion, that's his choice. The government, technically has no right to step in and administer the chemo on him, unless, like Mark said, the parents are declared unfit.

It's much like a DNR order, if you ask me.

__________________
"I was walking down the street with my friend and he said, "I hear music", as if there is any other way you can take it in. You're not special, that's how I receive it too. I tried to taste it but it did not work." - Mitch Hedberg

__________________
"Film is a disease. When it infects your bloodstream it takes over as the number one hormone. It bosses the enzymes, directs the pineal gland, plays Iago to your psyche. As with heroin, the antidote to Film is more Film." - Frank Capra

I've read up on it now, and of course there are specific extenuating circumstances involved and the case is already before a judge. My earlier comments still stand, but I would think the judge has much more info on the family than I do, so I can't say how the ruling will turn out.

I'm having trouble conceiving of a set of religious beliefs that forbids such a treatment, personally. Anyway, everyone has a right to their beliefs, and if an adult wants to die for their beliefs, they may. When a child is involved, circumstances are different. If someone feels the child is being unduly influenced to their detriment, thankfully the system has mechanisms for this sort of thing, wherein a court can determine where the line between simple beliefs and abuse is drawn.

There's no right answer, because no matter how absurd a decision might seem, we'll always be able to find someone who thinks a parent's behavior is unacceptable, and we obviously don't want to be telling people what to do with their kids. But even if we put respecting another's faith near the top of our list of priorities, one struggles to see a coherent belief system that can exclude such treatment without being more or less arbitrary.

It's no good taking a firm stance because the law will never fully encompass the kinds of impossible situations which are bound to crop up. But we err on the side of freedom by and large, and we do it even when it's not easy to do so.

Always unsettling, though, to be reminded that no matter how much time and effort is put into our system of law and government, there will always be situations that it cannot properly account for.

I believe the religious reason, for not receiving medical treatment in such cases, are that the child's fate is already decided by God. To a Christian, God is of course the almighty, alknowing authority and they believe that He knows best. To them, His reasons for putting the child through such a thing could be that He is testing the child's faith. I agree with Yoda that this is extremely arbitrary, not to mention very Old Testamently. However, this kind of reason is vital to extremist catholics (which I assume these parents are), since their whole belief is based on it.
Now, I do believe that the government is able to declare the parents unfit to make this decision, if they are temporarily insane (see where I'm going with this?). To me, being temporarily insane, or just insane, is being incapable of seeing reason, and is instead blinded by some other factor. I firmly believe that these kinds of beliefs fall into that category.
This case, which I haven't read up on at all, seems to be regarding a fairly young child, yes? A reasonable person would believe that this child is heavily influenced by his parents, and maybe even believes that it really should be "left into the hands of God". This means of course that the child isn't able to solely make this decision by himself (though his voice should of course be heard). Seeing that the parents aren't able to make a reasonable decision either, there really is only one option left, which is that a third party should take over.
The child isn't the property of the parents and they have absolutely no right to decide that he should die, when there's a possibility that it could be avoided.

I didn't mean to offend anyone with this post. I am not against religion, except when it interferes with common sense. You know what, I don't really mind that either. Except when an innocent child's life is at stake.

__________________
The Freedom Roads

I don't think it's even Old Testament; if God has already decided our fate, then whatever happens is part of it, and we cannot deviate from it through any choice we might make. Why is chemotherapy not part of that fate? If the idea is that our choices are our own, but our bodies are not to be modified, just how far does this extend? Can we drink orange juice if it's flu season?

I have no problem with faith -- even when I may personally find a certain belief silly or irrational. But there's still a basic line of coherency. Reading the Bible and then just randomly declaring that you're also going to forego medical treatment on top of its edicts, without any Scriptural basis, is simple nonsense. Not because I disagree, but because it does not logically follow in any way, shape, or form.

Anyway, I still don't know that the law has a place in all this, but I do think there is a distinction between an honestly held system of beliefs, and arbitrary rules tacked onto such a system for no apparent reason. We may not be able to prove any such difference, but it is plainly there.

I want to elaborate on that.
The child is a minor and possibly heavily influenced by his parents, thus he's not fully capable of making such a descision. But then why are the parents, wihch are the cause of this brainwash? Solely because it's their child? Because they know better than the child?
Basic human instinct is survival, and if the child wants to live then it's absolutely his choice and right to receive chemo. If a child tells people that he wants to die, we'd figure there was something seriously wrong with him, and we'd sure as hell not kill him. Why is this much different than murder? Allowing a child to get killed or killing him himself - I would consider both a serious crime.

This is not pinned on you Yoda, I merely quoted you to bring this up again.

This is a common problem with religion. My wife and I were having this conversation the other night. It's always the same no matter what's being discussed. The Bible will state one thing, one person will take that as something totally different, and by the time it gets to you, it's morphed and lost all of its original meaning.

I just assumed they were of the ironically named Christian Scientist persuasion. Are they not?

You guys need to read up on this case. It has absolutely nothing to do with the Bible. The parents say they are "medically" treating their child using Native American treatments and that their "religion" forbids destruction of the body. They say that chemo is poisonous and destroys the body. The mother is quoted as saying that she approves of "mainstream" medical treatment in the case of an emergency but that her son's health hasn't reached any emergency state. I just googled "13 year old boy cancer", and there were several articles about it.

Also of the same "ironic" persuasion: Sir Isaac Newton, Copernicus, and Blaise Pascal, to name a few. So mark them down for discovering or codifying such superstitious nonsense as gravity, the hydraulic press, and heliocentricity.

Oh, and saving Latin.

I didn't mean to insinuate that it was about the Bible; I was just branching off into the more general topic of faith and when the law should or should not interfere with it. My bad if I didn't make that clear enough, or if I've been dragging this thread off-topic by speaking too broadly.

Ah-ha. Never heard of the Nemenhah Band before. They are a Band, not a Tribe, as they have been formed recently and Tribe is now a specific legal designation, though it looks like they borrow some ceremonies and practices from the Lakota. And it would also seem it has nothing to do with bloodline, that it is a faith based upon some Native American type of traditions that you simply accept as your philosophy.

According to their website, this is in the preamble of their Constitution...

We, Nemenhah, believe in the Creator and that the Creator made all men and women who have lived, do now live, and who will yet live, as free and equal beings. We recognize the inherent, ancestral, sovereign rights granted to all people by the Creator, human conscience, international law, and legal constructs of reciprocity, mutuality, and comity, which cannot be diminished or extinguished. We believe that we derive from and that we may become like the Nemenhah who lived in this land anciently and that, through their literal descendants, we claim the right to form a Native American Traditional Organization based upon their teachings which have been passed down to us through the traditions, customs, ceremonies, writings, and records of the Native American People, among which we acknowledge the Mentinah Archives by way of example.

Just browsing through their website, I don't see anything spelled out about refusal of modern medical techniques.

Sir Isaac Newton and Copernicus were part of the Church founded by Mary Baker Eddy in 1879? Now THAT would be a neat trick. As there seems to be confusion, I thought it was clear I was referring to The Church of Christ, Scientist whose members are called Christian Scientists and as the most famous major tenant of their faith believe in prayer over medical treatment and thus the irony of the word "science" being in their moniker.

But, you know, as you were.

Huh; I've heard of them and everything, but thought the "s" in "Scientist" in your initial post was uncapitalized, which obviously changes the meaning greatly. My mistake.

I agree with Kasper, i think that the child is unfit to make the decision as a thirteen year old. When i was his age i was a Lutheran because i was raised a Lutheran and my parents were Lutheran but now, many things have changed. If it was an eighteen year old refusing medical treatment then i wouldn't have as much of a problem with it. Also what about some Indian's whose religion makes the wives climb up onto the funeral pyre of their husbands and burn to death so that they can be together in the afterlife? Would you stop her from climbing up? Would the government? It's illegal to commit suicide. Just some food for thought

Is it still illegal to commit suicide? (My daughter asked me this recently.) Do they still put poor, pathetic souls who try to off themselves in prison?

Regardless, I don't know that allowing something to kill you, like a disease, is considered the same thing as committing suicide in a more active way.

I agree with you, Yods. If it's 'natural' can it be suicide?