Should the government force teens to take chemotherapy? - surviving chemotherapy
Recently a 16 or 17 years. Age of Hodgkin's disease in relapse have chosen, a second treatment of chemotherapy because of the severity of adverse events was refused the first time he and his family decided to alternative medicine and herbs instead (which are not approved by the FDA). The boy said he did not think they could survive the chemotherapy and do not want. Now social services is rising, said that her parents are guilty of medical malpractice. The same thing happened about six months a year, a 13th She was placed in a foster family, and (chemotherapy against her will and her parents, and the best of my knowledge, has not yet) in Remission
If the courts of this country have a say in our health system? And if they are authorized to enforce the treatment of ourselves and our children? And if so, where do we draw the line?
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Surviving Chemotherapy Should The Government Force Teens To Take Chemotherapy?
11 comments:
No, the government has no right to intervene and say what they have to take drugs if they are a danger to society. The problem is that time passes, the government less like a government agent and parents are increasingly looking to society to determine things like seat belt laws, helmet regulations, etc., etc. The fact is that most people are more than willing to the government tell them how to live, and cases such as these are simply the natural growth.
Absolutely not! We need to be able to choose quality over quantity! We can not be forced to take a chemotherapy.
WOW!
Absolutely not! We need to be able to choose quality over quantity! We can not be forced to take a chemotherapy.
WOW!
Lemmee tell you ... Only when people know they can handle, not handling. We know that our bodies better than anyone else. Do you think that this guy really wants to die? Sometimes the quality of life is better without treatment. I can only say that first hand. If I ever do to, he would undergo surgery, but had no radiation. Sometimes the quality is better than quantity. I want the right to decide ... not the government. If the child and the parents are left.
No, I asked my son what he wanted. At 16.17 and 13, I believe that they have this right. After 2 years, which is a different story, but I would know your imput at all ages appreciate.
Lemmee tell you ... Only when people know they can handle, not handling. We know that our bodies better than anyone else. Do you think that this guy really wants to die? Sometimes the quality of life is better without treatment. I can only say that first hand. If I ever do to, he would undergo surgery, but had no radiation. Sometimes the quality is better than quantity. I want the right to decide ... not the government. If the child and the parents are left.
No, I asked my son what he wanted. At 16.17 and 13, I believe that they have this right. After 2 years, which is a different story, but I would know your imput at all ages appreciate.
God is not terrible.
regardless of the decision of the family should have the final decision.
who is really sick, they have so little faith in this country anymore.
is that the courts are so incompetent in the middle of things, that the appropriate steps to determine whether they continue using methods that are painful side effects than the disease itself and may have to (which is the reason many choose to instead s) .. The courts have no voice in our pursuit of happiness, if the alternative that we make our lives harder to live. **** Courts .. Most people who are already established and does not reflect the views of citizens.
Children are people should have the ability to make decisions about parental care, when it is young. if the treatment is an individual choice, if the parents are forced into child to do something against the wishes of the child when the intervention of the court. We should be able to die with dignity, not with all those tubes and needles.
I think one of the 17, which through a cycle of chemotherapy, she went out should be adult decisions about complementary therapies, without the intervention of government authorities.
Unfortnately may not always agree with the current government. It is perhaps a little in some states as an adult, but let a 17-year-old boy involved in other decisions about his life and end.
The government is responsible for buttermilk, because their parents eliminate rights that the government pay for all and to all other treatments are billd.
I think if parents are idiots and do not really care, the government has the right of way for the welfare of the child. But when parents and children should agree on the alternatives, the government have nothing to say, unless the alternative is far more dangerous than the FDA approved drugs.
Yes - it is sometimes necessary. There are times when the parents do not play in the best interest of the child and the state must intervene and take action. To stand by and let a child dies while parents try alternative methods are not proven to be effective by scientific methods, is negligent. I understand the difficulties of the first chemotherapy for lymphoma have been the case. Because it is used in a position to the treatment plan or some other combination of drugs.
Post a Comment