The legality of medicine vs. religion for minors.

[Dave Gray]

Here's the story:
http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/health/44568447.html?elr=KArks7PYDiaK7DUvckD_V_jEyhD:UiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUHDYaGEP7eyckcUr

Basically, a minor needs chemo, but the parents are ignoring the doctors' advice, because it's against their religion.


As all of you know, I'm no fan of religion, but I'm kind of torn on this -- only because it might set a strange precedent.  I don't like the government getting involved in how you choose to take care of your kids, and I think it's important to protect religious personal freedoms.

At the end of the day, the way I see it is that religion is conflicting with another law: child abuse.  It would be like if you had a religious belief that it was okay to beat your kids.  I wouldn't be cool with that.  I think that denying the best available medical attention is negligence, and the state has the right to interfere.  If an adult made this personal choice, I'd have no problem with it, but when they're choosing on behalf of a kid, I just can't jive with that.

If the kid dies, I think the parents are liable.

That said, this seems pretty clear cut -- chemo = good.  Death = bad.  But what about other medical cases that might not be so cut and dry?  Does it set a dangerous precedent that the state has the right to choose medicines or treatments on the behalf of your kids?

[run_to_win]

Agreed.

Situations like this come up every couple years.  Tragic. 

[MaineDolFan]

At the end of the day the any state has the authority to step in and over rule a parental decision in regards to medical treatment if they feel the child's life is in jeopardy. 

Minors are considered incompetent to provide legally binding decisions regarding their health care. Parents or guardians are charged with those decisions on their behalf. This is not absolute - when a parent acts contrary to the best interests of a child a state / will / does intervene.

Dammit...hit "save" before I was ready.  Had this situation been a critical "snap decision, he'll die NOW without this" one...he would have had the treatment by now.  His form of cancer is one where they have a little time where this can be in the court.

[StL FinFan]

I seem to remember something about a kid trying to get some kind of treatment against his parent's wishes.  Maybe it was a tv show.  I can't remember the details. I'm old.

[Brians Stalker]

I was just going to post about this.  It is happening quite close to me, so we've heard quite a bit about it, but I am not sure how I feel.

In Wisconsin last  year, an 11 year old girl died from complications from untreated diabetes where the family chose to rely on prayer instead of treating her, and they have been charged with second degree reckless homicide. 

[Brian Fein]

Here I go getting into political/religion threads...

I have a problem with this.

Since when is it the state's/government's responsibility to protect people from medical conditions?  I can see charging the parents with homicide if they caused the kid to get sick and then refused to treat him.  In my opinion, if the family decides not to treat the kid (be it because they're poor and can't afford treatment, or because their religion says its evil and the kid will go to hell for eternity), and the kid dies, the only one affected is the kid's family, and they chose their own fate.

Call me a heartless jerk - fine.  Personal beliefs and preferences should overrule that of all the un-involved people surrounding the situation, like us.  I would be pissed if a bunch of strangers came in and told me how to run my personal life, how is this any different?

[Phishfan]

I tend to agree with Brian on this one. Just like I don't want government telling me what I cannot put in my body, I don't want them telling me what I have to either.

[SCFinfan]

I did a little research on this. There is already some precedent for a case like this.

In 1995, in a case called Lundman v. McKown, the natural father of a child who'd died while in the "care" of a Christian Science faith healing practitioner sued said practitioner, the child's natural mother (they were divorced), and the Christian Science church. The child had early onset diabetes, and any traditional medical practitioner would've treated him with insulin. Instead, he was treated with prayer.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals made a couple of interesting and pertinent observations in its decision:

The constitutional right to the free exercise of religion does not extend to conduct that threatens a child's life.

A civil claim against a person whose religious faith embraces spiritual healing is not barred because it is that faith that causes the person to fail to act in accord with state's interest in child welfare.

When a person acts on a genuinely held religious belief in spiritual healing, the standard of care is that of a reasonable person acting on that same belief. But that standard of care requires that the religious belief yield to the state's interest in protecting the welfare of children suffering from life-threatening diseases.

[end quote]

From what I can tell in Lundman, it appears as though a person who has a "special relationship" with a child (like the parents, or people who practice any kind of medicine on the child) have a duty of care to act in the child's best interests. If they have a religious belief that states that the child may not receive some sort of medical treatment, then they need to act as a reasonable person who had that religious belief would act, with one caveat: they have to disregard that religious belief if it would stop them from protecting a child's welfare when said child is suffering from a life-threatening disease. If they don't do this, then they can be civilly liable if someone files a claim against them. Furthermore, and probably more damning to the instant case, the Court of Appeals was very plain in stating that you don't have the freedom to exercise your religion to the point where it'd threaten a child's life.

With this kind of precedent in place, it'll be an uphill battle for these parents. That said, the child has filed his own brief, and stated his own personal opposition to the treatment. This is not merely a set of parents defying what is convention wisdom. So, I would wonder whether or not the state can force treatment on someone who himself objects to treatment. Obviously, the boy is a minor, but because he himself opposes the treatment, this case will be, in my estimation, much thornier than was Lundman.

This current case is the battle of one distinct right and one amorphous right vs. one very compelling state interest. On the one hand, you have the right to die/self-determination in medical choice (which is not yet federally constitutionally recognized, but who knows, this may be the case for it) and the right to free exercise of religion vs. the state's interest in protecting the best interests (and continued life) of the child. I'd hate to be the judge that got assigned this one.

Summaries and discussions on Lundman:

http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=3999

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=mn&vol=appunpub%5C9710%5C237&invol=1

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12041170

[Dave Gray]

I would be pissed if a bunch of strangers came in and told me how to run my personal life, how is this any different?

It's different because you're a consenting adult, and legally allowed to make decisions about your health care, even if they're the wrong ones.

A child is not legally (or otherwise) fit to make those decisions, so they rely on the parents.  When parents are doing (or not doing) something detrimental to a kid's life, it's against the law.  As a parent, you're legally obligated to care for your child.  If you don't, it's child abuse.  You see kids taken away from parents all the time for endangering their safety.  I think we can all agree on that.  This is just an extension of that same logic.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

[Dphins4me]

As all of you know, I'm no fan of religion, but I'm kind of torn on this -- only because it might set a strange precedent.  I don't like the government getting involved in how you choose to take care of your kids, and I think it's important to protect religious personal freedoms.

At the end of the day, the way I see it is that religion is conflicting with another law: child abuse.  It would be like if you had a religious belief that it was okay to beat your kids.  I wouldn't be cool with that.  I think that denying the best available medical attention is negligence, and the state has the right to interfere.  If an adult made this personal choice, I'd have no problem with it, but when they're choosing on behalf of a kid, I just can't jive with that.

Who's to says chemo is the best available treatment?   The people that provide it?  Cancer is a big time money maker. 

Alternative medicine have a success rate also, without killing your body in the process at a much lesser cost.  Ever heard of the Ph factor?

Friend of mine had breast cancer 4 Yrs ago.  They wanted her to take chemo after the surgery.  Her cancer was bad enough that when they found it the surgery followed only a Wk later.  She refused the chemo, since she felt it would most likely kill her.  They did surgery & she educated herself on alternative treatments & 4 Yrs later there is still a clean bill of health.   

Had another friend that passed away from cancer. Doctors gave him 6 months to live in '90 & basically sent him home to die since his body was in such bad shape from the damage the cancer had done..  He survived 10 Yrs before finally succumbing with alternative treatments.  His cancer actually disappeared for several Yrs.  He only died because he convinced himself it was not cancer that was causing his new problems.

Also, in Va back in '06 there was a case just like this one where a 16 Yr old had Hodgkin's.  He had previously tried the best available medical attention to no avail.  Doctors want him to take another round of chemo & he refused since it was so bad on him.  The Gov stepped in & threatened to take him away from his family because his parents were not going to force him to do it.

It went to court & they finally agreed to allow him to take the alternative medicines with doctors watching over him.  He will turn 19 next month.

Judge lifts order for cancer treatment

Starchild Abraham Cherrix turns 18

If the kid dies, I think the parents are liable.

So if the Gov forces them to take chemo & the kid dies, is the Gov liable?

That said, this seems pretty clear cut -- chemo = good.  Death = bad.  But what about other medical cases that might not be so cut and dry?  Does it set a dangerous precedent that the state has the right to choose medicines or treatments on the behalf of your kids?

  The precedent is already set.  The Gov can just about do anything they want to, because they know what is best for us.  We are simply dumb ignorant mice who are to stupid to make decisions for our self. If it wasn't for the Gov we would be lucky to be able to breath on our own.

[Dphins4me]

A child is not legally (or otherwise) fit to make those decisions, so they rely on the parents.  When parents are doing (or not doing) something detrimental to a kid's life, it's against the law.  As a parent, you're legally obligated to care for your child.  If you don't, it's child abuse.  You see kids taken away from parents all the time for endangering their safety.  I think we can all agree on that.  This is just an extension of that same logic.

Again, why are you so narrow minded into thinking only chemo will cure?  Chemo is one of the hardest things to go through & it basically poisons the body.

Its amazing how the age of being able to make a decision for yourself changes depending on the situation.

[Dave Gray]

Who's to says chemo is the best available treatment?   

The medical community.

There is no such thing as alternative medicine.  Alternative medicine that works is just called "medicine."

But seriously man, you don't have to jump down my throat.  I was just raising some questions and giving my opinion.

A certain amount of people will die from cancer with full treatment, and a certain amount of people will survive with no treatment.  But the success rate of chemo is astronomically higher than that of not having it.  You have to play the numbers.

[Dphins4me]

The medical community.

So basically the people making the money off of it.

Kinda like the tobacco companies telling everyone back in the day that smoking would not hurt you, even though they had the knowledge that it was.

There is no such thing as alternative medicine.  Alternative medicine that works is just called "medicine."

  We disagree here.  Alternative medicine is consider something other than what the Gov says is the approved measure.   This is why the money machines will only recognize conventional medicine as the only way to treat aliments.

You have to remember the medical community has lobbyist also to go along with some big pockets.  Why do you think Pharmaceuticals have exploded in Profit & cost since the Gov has allowed them to be advertised.

But seriously man, you don't have to jump down my throat.  I was just raising some questions and giving my opinion.

  Was not meaning to sound like I was jumping down your throat.  My apology if it came off that way.

A certain amount of people will die from cancer with full treatment, and a certain amount of people will survive with no treatment.  But the success rate of chemo is astronomically higher than that of not having it.  You have to play the numbers.

  Having it against doing nothing I'm sure it is.   I'd like to be able to find the actual numbers for chemo & alternative. 

[Dave Gray]

So basically the people making the money off of it.

No, I reject this oversimplification as conspiracy theory babbling.  I refuse to believe that an entire graduate school system, industry, and community of scholars, scientists and doctors are covering up the truth to make a buck.  Science requires peer review -- something that tobacco companies did not.  I have no doubt that certain pharmaceutical companies will unethically push a drug, but chemo is a whole different story.

Having it against doing nothing I'm sure it is.   I'd like to be able to find the actual numbers for chemo & alternative.

You wouldn't be happy to see the alternative medicine numbers, because they would be ineffective or placebo.  Again, it's about peer review.  When these things are tested in scientific conditions, with a control, they don't work.  ...that's why they're not medicine.  If it works, it's medicine.  If it doesn't work, the results that are claimed can't be duplicated by a non-biased 3rd party, and it enters the market as "alternative medicine" that's a bunch of hocus pocus garbage.  It works for some, because of the placebo effect.  You could make patients eat pencil erasers and a certain percentage of them would miraculously go into remission.

You always hear about "I saw a study that suggested [whatever bogus claim]".  And that's fine.  But science doesn't end there.  You have to be rigorous and attempt to continue eliminating variables to disprove.  Therefore, preliminary studies are very lax, and suggest things that may not be causal.  The problem with alternative medicine is that the studies stop there, because they've been disproved at a further level.  It's bad science.

By the way, the 2nd link you posted doesn't support your position.  It supports mine.  It claims that his reduction in cancer is most likely linked to radiation treatment, not the alternative medicine that he sought in Mexico.