posted
This article really nettled me. If the situation is really as the parents and neighbors portray, a doctor is essentially forcing the family to give their kid chemotherapy on questionable evidence of cancer.
quote: State officials have violated the parental rights of Barbara and Daren Jensen by court ordering their 12-year-old son to undergo chemotherapy, family members said Tuesday at a small rally in front of Scott M. Matheson Courthouse in Salt Lake City.
quote: Doctors from Primary Children's Medical Center and representatives from the Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS) say the boy, referred to in court records as P.J., has Ewing's sarcoma, a deadly form of bone cancer. Family members said Tuesday that the tests were inconclusive and the Jensens are not convinced their son has cancer. They are worried unnecessary chemotherapy could leave their son sterile and stunt his growth, according to Ray Howes, Daren's uncle.
quote: The boy had a tumor removed from under his tongue about three months ago. A Primary Children's doctor conducted a biopsy and concluded that the tumor was malignant. Howes said subsequent tests failed to find any cancer cells in the boy's body, but the doctor wanted him to receive chemotherapy to ensure the disease wouldn't spread.
So what do you think> Does the state have the right to force this family to give their son chemotherapy, to disallow a second opinion and to prevent practitioners in another state from examining him?
I think that this case could set dangerous precedents by allowing state-mandated programs to set an agenda you must follow in raising your child.
I would hope that the court would have gotten a second opinion. To move on the advice of one doctor? It sounds as though there is some missing piece in this story.... Posts: 1843 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm with you, there, Jacare. There often seems to be nothing more stubborn or pig-headed than a doctor who's omniscience and authority has been questioned.
Clearly not allowing a second opinion or examination by out-of-state doctors is way out of line. Sounds like a case of politics getting in the way of proper patient care.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: "The parents have a fundamental right to direct the medical care of their child, but if in making that decision they place the child's life in danger, the state has an obligation to step in," said Mark May, chief of the attorney general's child protection division.
I think this is the scariest quote. How far would they be willing to push this? Would they be willing to fight you in court for years to determine that their way is 47% likely to succeed, whereas the parents' way is only 45% likely? I know a woman who has undergone chemo and decided to stop because she hated it so much. They told her she would probably die if she stopped but she said she might as well be dead already. The cancer went into remission and she's doing quite well at this point.
Obviously the child is not old enough yet to make this decision, but that's what the parents are for.
My concern is that the parents may just be going through denial. I know that if I was letting my feelings get the best of me, I would want someone to jump in and take the reins. But honestly, those other people are my husband and other family members. Not the state.
I'm not sure, however, if refusing your child the care he or she needs is any different from child abuse. In that case the state would have to get in there.
It's a very fine line. I don't think that I'm the one to define it.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Officials at Primary Children's couldn't say much Tuesday because of federal privacy laws, but spokesman Bill Barnes stated, "The right to a second opinion is assured in our patients' rights document. We, without fail, encourage a second opinion if the parents want it." In fact, Barnes said, the hospital will facilitate a patient's right to a second opinion when asked.
This makes it sound like the hospital encourages second opinions. I think there's more of a story here.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If there had already been a second opinion and it agreed with the first, I would say this was a case of denial as was mentioned above. But since there hasn't I can't really tell. I do, however, agree that the story seems incomplete. It would seem there would have to be more to it for the state to jump in....but then again you never know. It's very scary if this is all there is to it. Bad situation.
Posts: 155 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
