Even beyond seizing they child, they sent the other three sons of the parents into foster care. What was the point of that?
And since when is government that involved in determing what is best for a child? And for that matter, where in the law does the government even have the power to seize a child under these circumstances?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I really hope they have strong evidence of neglect before doing this. It kind of seems like they're trying to compensate for the failures of the system in other cases by overreacting on this one. But I don't know all the details, so I suppose I'll reserve judgement. For now.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I get the feeling something is being left out of the story.
But it sure seems the state has overstepped it's bounds to me. This isn't someone denying their child have an apendectomy, this is a child that seems cured who they don't want to expose to radiation.
Pix
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
I agree with Lyrhawn. At least from the facts we have in that article.
It wasn't like they were refusing to give her treatment at all -- she had already gone through lots of treatments. They just felt like this treatment wasn't necessary at this time.
Are we not allowed to second-guess doctors now?
FG
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Also, they weren't feeling like their questions were being answered by their doctors. This seems more like a communication problem than willful neglect. And isn't taking the three non-sick children a little bit of overkill?
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
This makes me so incredibly angry.
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
They should have just said they were unable to pay for it.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
quote:Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. -C.S. Lewis
Remember...this is for her own good. What do her parents know, after all?
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
I wish they'd said in the article which Church of God the family belongs to. I belong to a Church of God (Anderson, Indiana) affiliated church, but it is clearly not the same one as theirs. Our church has nothing against blood transfusions.
Posted by the Professor (Member # 5319) on :
Why did they issue an Amber alert? To enforce a prior court order, or because the couple were fighting over the treatment?
My uncle the judge said once that cases like this involving religious reasons for denying medical treatment were among the thorniest he ever decided.
And I agree, taking the other kids definitely seems like unwarranted overkill. Like the Pixiest, I feel there has to be more to the story. Morbo
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote: While her three brothers have been returned home, Katie has remained in foster care.
Well, this seems like a very complicated case, so... Now its seems there are two issues:
1- The docters wether its intellectual vanity or soemthing of the sort may not be informing the parents of not only what the treatment is but also of the side effects.
2- Religious in nature. They don't wwant a blood tansfusion unless the blood comes from mother.
So IMHO there's no negligence, they're refusing treatment only because A: relgious or B: the doctors are fessing up enough info. And its not like she's getting ANY treatment she had chemotherapy and other stuff so the parent's aren't being negligence IMHO of course.
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
I'm not quite sure what not allowing blood transfusions has to do with this case. She doesn't need any blood.
Also, just because a family allows some medical care certainly doesn't mean they are not negligent. What if somebody gave their child 2 days of a ten day antibiotic course for strep throat, and she feels better after two days, so they throw out the drug. I might call it negligence when the child gets rheumatic fever later on.
However, I am amazed that this went so far. I suspect the family and the medical team have not been getting along well, for whatever reason, and things got out of hand, and somebody called CPS anonymously and prematurely. Once the judge hears the case I would guess the family will be allowed to do it their way. Although it does depend on how bad her cancer is and what sort of chemo she had.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
But if they are willing to give her treatment if they know what's going on, and aren't being informed, that's a problem. A big one. And it's really not cool for this to be happening when there are so many important places for those resources to go... Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
Oh, I agree.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I know.
It just makes me so mad!
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Like The Pixiest said, we just don't have the full story here. What Theca read between the lines of this story sounds about right to me, but without quite a bit more information there's no way to tell who is in the right in this case.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
On the surface it seems ridiculous, and like the state has overstepped its bounds.
Makes me think, like Theca has said, there may be more going on.
I seem to always get them mixed up - Theca, Hodkins' disease is the more dangerous, compared to non-Hodgkins lymphoma, correct?
And a 12 year old saying "I feel fine now" is not enough of an indicator that the cancer is really in remission. Other things need to be looked at.
Not saying the state is right here, don't get me wrong, I am a big believer in parental rights. But I'm also a big believer in protecting children, so I will withold judgment until I know more, if we ever find out what is really going on.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
quote: "I don't need radiation treatment. And nobody asked me what I wanted. It's my body," she said.
Poor kid. I know, a 12 year old is so strongly influenced by their parent's beliefs. But still.
Also, if a belief is religious in it's nature but not an official church doctrine, then what? I don't know of an organized religion that says "no blood transfusion unless it's from your mother." The biblical teaching, if you go by that, is "no blood." I can't give blood to any of my kids in such a scenario because somehow all 4 have come up tails (O type blood whereas I have B type).
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Story has changed. The three boys have since been returned home after Child Services inspected the home. Tests have been done on the girl and she does in fact still have cancer. The state is going ahead with radiation therapy, and the parents now support it, but will not be given custody of the girl.
Doctors now have total power in decisions made about the girl's medical care.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I don't think it's cool that they're not asking what led to this situation and trying to rectify it. Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote: Girl With Cancer to Stay in Texas' Custody Jun 16, 4:25 PM (ET) By LYNN BREZOSKY ,CORPUS CHRISTI, Texas (AP) - A judge ruled Thursday that the state will retain custody of a 13-year-old girl who was taken from her parents after they refused to continue her cancer treatments and the cancer, which appeared to have been eliminated, returned.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm surprised they didn't give custody back. The state attorney contends that it is the parents' fault that the cancer came back, since they didn't give her radiation treatment. Parents contend that they didn't think it was safe, since the doctors said that five chemo treatments would be enough.
I'd ere on the side of the parents here. It seems to be an honest miscommunication, and for that matter, the parents were only thinking about the future health of their daughter when they made that decision. So obviously it wasn't negligence or lack of care, just a misinformed decision.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Are they allowing visitation?
What's really sad is that this girl might die and she's being denied being with her family--if visits aren't allowed. In any case, if she's in the hospital, what does this mean for her? Can her mother still sleep on a cot in the room if she wants? (I have no idea if she ever did that...but I know many mothers would.) If she's in a foster home between trips to the hospital--well, that's just horrible.
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)