Doctors attempt to force chemo on boy.

[XDdreams]

Here we are in Michigan , Jacob Stieler is cancer free after initial chemotherapy. All scans and tests say the boy is cancer free, yet doctors want to bombard Jacobs body with three different forms of chemotherapy drugs not approved for use in children. The parents refused this treatment, and the doctors have taken the family to court in a attempt to force treatment on Jacob. I would love to your thoughts and opinions on this, and on forced treatments.

Parents of cancer-free boy, 10, fight against the state to free him from more 'gruelling' chemo | Mail Online

Hope for Jacob -

 

[ATOMonkey]

Well, I think this one is pretty cut and dry. Parents are responsible for their children, not doctors. I would be especially hard to make a case that they're bad parents since they've already put him through extensive treatment.

These doctors need to have their you know what slammed in a drawer and told to knock it off.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

The parents refused this treatment, and the doctors have taken the family to court in a attempt to force treatment on Jacob.

Does Michigan have a statute on this?

How could this be found to be in the best medical interest of the child?

 

[ATOMonkey]

Wouldn't the state have to prove negligence moreso, than what is just in the child's best interest?

 

[DadOfFour]

I'm with the parents on this one. According to the article the kid is cancer free.

The parents of a ten-year-old boy are being taken to court for refusing to continue gruelling chemotherapy and radiation treatments despite the fact he is now cancer-free....Jacob's parents want to discontinue conventional treatments and are pursuing alternative methods for nourishing him.

'I think you need to be proactive and do your research and make an educated decision with your spouse and as a family,' Mrs Stieler said.
'I'll do whatever it takes to protect my kids. They're my babies and I love them and like I said, nobody loves them more than us, and that's why we're in this fight.'"

This isn't a case of parent's refusing treatment that could save their child's life, this is a case of a child who has already received treatment, is now cancer free. Unless there's something I'm missing, the State is way outta line here!

 

[level.eleven]

Ah, good old "alternative medicine" popping up again. Not much information in the article. My guess is that, with most treatments, continuing the therapy is necessary to prevent the disease from returning. Sort of like how your doctor tells you to take all 2 weeks of your antibiotic even if you feel better after 2 days. Medicine has either been proven to work or proven not to work. Do you know what they call alternative medicine that has been proven to work? Medicine. Again, my guess is the parents want to cut short the prescribed therapy because a test showed progress.

 

[FFM173]

I am on the fence. As both a parent and a cancer survivior. The parents should have every right to decline treatment, but I am sure the doctors have the best interest in the child in mind. I also work in the medical field. Like the child, my cancer was gone after intial treatment too, but it is the additional treatment that improves your odds that the cancer will not return. Although he may be tumer free, they need to continue to treat as a "blanket" to make sure that all the cancer causing free-radicals in the body are killed also.

 

[88GT]

I'm with the parents on this one. According to the article the kid is cancer free.

This isn't a case of parent's refusing treatment that could save their child's life, this is a case of a child who has already received treatment, is now cancer free. Unless there's something I'm missing, the State is way outta line here!

What if he weren't cancer free? What if they were refusing to subject him to the hazards and risks of chemo? Would you feel differently then?

Ah, good old "alternative medicine" popping up again. Not much information in the article. My guess is that, with most treatments, continuing the therapy is necessary to prevent the disease from returning. Sort of like how your doctor tells you to take all 2 weeks of your antibiotic even if you feel better after 2 days. Medicine has either been proven to work or proven not to work. Do you know what they call alternative medicine that has been proven to work? Medicine. Again, my guess is the parents want to cut short the prescribed therapy because a test showed progress.

But is there something wrong with that?

And should the state have the power to coerce citizens into prescribed medical treatments in opposition to their own wishes?

 

[88GT]

I am on the fence. As both a parent and a cancer survivior. The parents should have every right to decline treatment, but I am sure the doctors have the best interest in the child in mind. I also work in the medical field. Like the child, my cancer was gone after intial treatment too, but it is the additional treatment that improves your odds that the cancer will not return. Although he may be tumer free, they need to continue to treat as a "blanket" to make sure that all the cancer causing free-radicals in the body are killed also.

Not all cancers are the same. Your protocol would have been unnecessary and damaging to my body for the kind of cancer I had.

 

[Double T]

Probably prophylactic in case the cancer is there and is undetectable. I believe its common place to do one more round after determined to be "in remission".

Have not checked out the article, but I know that even after complete mastectomy my aunts that had breast cancer still underwent some chemo after the cancer was resected.

After reading the article, the kid had ewings sacoma, a cancer of the bones. I'm pretty sure follow up rounds of chemo are typically administered. I am not a doctor, just a person who calls and tells them what orders we need :-)

 

[steveh_131]

I'm not on the fence.

The government has no business making medical decisions for us, and these doctors have no business doing what they're doing.

I don't know if I agree with their medical decisions, and frankly it doesn't matter if I agree. It's their child, their business, and it sounds like they did their research. I'd fight it too. In the courts and beyond.

 

[findingZzero]

Second guessing the doctor and treatment protocol may be stupid, but I'm not sure it is against the law. Decisions based on emotion (I weigh the pros and cons and go with what I really want) are oft wrong, but not illegal. The debate may be if the child dies of this cancer because the parents refused to finish the chemo protocol (against the statistical evidence), is that child abuse? I can't wait to watch that debate here. For the patient's sake, I hope it doesn't happen. Don't f*ck with cancer. The more aggressive treatments are generally more successful. If you want to debate this, let's take this over to AACR forum. OK, now, bring it on, but I'm going to fix my water softener and do my taxes.

 

[EvilBlackGun]

The Dr gets an "potential abuse of minor child" warrant,

The Man in Dark-Blue shows at the home's door with warrant and weapon, child is removed. YadaYada. How might this play out in Indiana? EBG

 

[Westside]

I have a lot of unanswered questions before I can make a good decision on this. some are
1) Are the parents wanting to stop an, for lack of a better descriptor, "an agreed upon schedule of treatment? i.e. cut short the current system?
2)Why are Dr.'s trying to push unapproved drugs into a kid. As sue happy as this society is I would think Dr's would want to do as little treatment as possibe.
3) Is the the child adopted, yes it matters, if adopted and on the state medical program, the state program might require this set of treatment.
4) Is there a history of neglect or abuse with this family?

Just some of my questions I would like to see answered before I have too strong an opinion on it. My knee jerk reaction is that the state is overstepping it limits yet again.

 

[steveh_131]

She said of the chemo her son already received: 'It's the most horrible thing, most horrific thing. He was sick, he was nauseous, he was extremely depressed. He told me numerous times he wished he could fall asleep and never wake up.'

If I've done my research and decided that torturing my son is no longer necessary for his survival...you'd best keep your distance, doc.

 

[rotortech]

Hey, I am a cancer patient and I don't even have enough information. I am pretty sure that there is only part of this story being told. Doctors (whom I trust as much as lawyers) don't just make this crap up. They don't experiment. As someone else posted - everyone's cancer is different. I find it hard to believe that the doctors are suing to treat this kid. Maybe state law requires them to file with the state if care for a minor is declined. Unfortunately, more states are doing that these days because many parents are NOT very bright or caring with their children.

 

[steveh_131]

Doctors (whom I trust as much as lawyers) don't just make this crap up. They don't experiment.

Good one.

 

[rambone]

Second guessing the doctor and treatment protocol may be stupid...

Its not stupid. It is in your vital self-interest.

The debate may be if the child dies of this cancer because the parents refused to finish the chemo protocol (against the statistical evidence), is that child abuse?

And what of the large percentage of patients who die as a direct result of the poisonous chemo drugs? Is that evidence that the doctor is a child-abuser?

 

[DadOfFour]

What if he weren't cancer free? What if they were refusing to subject him to the hazards and risks of chemo? Would you feel differently then?

Honestly? I don't know. The side of me that believes we have the freedom to choose would say the parent's should be able to refuse treatment of their child. The side of me that doesn't want to see a child who could be saved die would say the State should step in. I think in the end I would probably come down somewhere in the area of, the State can't force them, but dear God I can beg them....if that makes sense?

 

[DadOfFour]

3) Is the the child adopted, yes it matters, if adopted and on the state medical program, the state program might require this set of treatment.

Actually it doesn't matter a lick! An adopted child is legally no different than a biological child. My oldest is adopted, in the eyes of the law she is no different than my children who are the "fruit of my loins"

Perhaps you mean is the child a foster child? It would matter then because a foster child is a Ward of the State, and therefore the State makes the decisions.