January 7, 201511 yr 15 years old. Parents religion says they cannot take any medicine. Doctors say there's a 75% chance of survival with the medicine. Who wins? My wife is in med school, and their ethics lectures are about 40% elder care/power of attorney/living will (ethics dilemmas involving older patients who aren't of sound mind or patients in a persistent vegetative state), 20% HIPAA discussion, and 40% parent/child/religion dilemma like this. She's talked about several of the lectures with me, and since all of the lectures have to be recorded, I've even watched a few of them via Tegrity. To answer your question: no one wins, and a judge usually makes the call if the family can't successfully debate their way to an "acceptable" decision.
January 7, 201511 yr Enough with the hypothetical scenarios...Let's focus on this specific case. In your opinion is the state right or wrong to force her to undergo the Chemo? Easy answer. If she survives the chemo and has quality years added onto her life, then the state was right. If she survives the chemo, or survives only to die within a year or two due to recurrence or non-recovery, then the state was wrong.
January 7, 201511 yr Not a believer that the "State" should be able to intervene in these cases, even though legally a minor. Just because someone thinks they know what is best does not necessarily make it so.
January 7, 201511 yr I think it's wrong. A 17 year old is old enough to make the decision on his own. I am not fully in that camp.
January 7, 201511 yr I think it's wrong. A 17 year old is old enough to make the decision on his own. I am not fully in that camp. When I was in high school, I worked with a high school senior who was worried he got his girlfriend pregnant because they'd had oral sex. Dude was nowhere near being mentally capable of understanding all the possible scenarios revolving around cancer treatment.
January 7, 201511 yr I think it absolutely depends in the maturity and life experiences of the 17 year old and somehow that determination needs to be made.
January 7, 201511 yr I think it absolutely depends in the maturity and life experiences of the 17 year old and somehow that determination needs to be made. That seems difficult. How would that be determined?
January 8, 201511 yr That seems difficult. How would that be determined? How are most determinations made? In court. No different than right to die arguments, etc.
January 8, 201511 yr How much time would pass while the child is going untreated? I figure you can always start lifesaving treatment measures and then stop later if the court system decides so. You can't necessarily count on things working the other way around.
January 8, 201511 yr I like GC see both sides of this. I tend to lean to the family should have the right to decide.
January 8, 201511 yr Not a believer that the "State" should be able to intervene in these cases, even though legally a minor. Just because someone thinks they know what is best does not necessarily make it so. Again my problem is the government isn't the parent. If one of the parents have a problem that is differnt.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.