13-year-old girl with cancer mandated to have surgery over mom's objections

Kyle

ULTRA-F###ING-MAGA!
PREMO Member
So if the surgery fails to provide the desired outcome, it would only be proper if she can sue the judge and the state for damages.
 

RoseRed

American Beauty
PREMO Member
That's messed up. I'm curious who will be left holding the back for all the medical expenses.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
That's messed up. I'm curious who will be left holding the back for all the medical expenses.

That's an excellent point.

I'm not an enormous fan of cancer treatments because many times it just postpones the inevitable, and the person gets another few months to be sick and miserable while the doctor and Big Pharma get rich. If I got cancer, depending on the circumstances, I would likely refuse treatment and that should be my right.

But can a parent refuse treatment on behalf of their minor child? Part of me says of course they should have that right, but then I remember all the crazies out there whom I wouldn't trust to take care of a pet, let alone a child. I remember that some special interest group can buy media coverage and push their money-making scheme on an unsuspecting public with no oversight.
 

RoseRed

American Beauty
PREMO Member
That's an excellent point.

I'm not an enormous fan of cancer treatments because many times it just postpones the inevitable, and the person gets another few months to be sick and miserable while the doctor and Big Pharma get rich. If I got cancer, depending on the circumstances, I would likely refuse treatment and that should be my right.

But can a parent refuse treatment on behalf of their minor child? Part of me says of course they should have that right, but then I remember all the crazies out there whom I wouldn't trust to take care of a pet, let alone a child. I remember that some special interest group can buy media coverage and push their money-making scheme on an unsuspecting public with no oversight.
I don't think anyone should interfere with the mothers decision. I'm sure she has discussed it with her daughter, who at 13, is old enough to weigh in on the decision.

Chemo is brutal. As you know, my Dad is sick, and no coming back from it. He chose to forgo chemo. I would also do the same. I'd rather be able to enjoy the time I have left, rather than be sick as a dog.

On the other hand, look at all those crazy Munchausen Mommies who insist on treatments for their children that are not sick, at all. Those women should be prosecuted.
 

luvmygdaughters

Well-Known Member
Thats a tough one. Its not like the mother is refusing treatment for her daughter, she is just refusing the treatment the court deems acceptable. I dont agree with the decision that was made. And like asked before, who is footing the bill for this?
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
We have these discussions when someone refuses medical treatment for their child over religious views or something. As a general rule, we agree that the parents have the right (but, most also think the parents should be beaten to death for letting their kid die). We have the same discussions when some parent wants to turn their son into a mutilated version that looks like a daughter. Then, we say no way does the parent have the right to make those medical decisions, because it is harmful.

The hard part is trying to decide, for someone else's child, in a free country, what is "harmful" and what is not. We routinely let mothers kill their kids, and many on here fight for their right to do so.

In my humble opinion, if you are taking action that intentionally causes death or mutilation, that is wrong and government has an obligation to protect the innocent child. If, through INaction you MAY cause death or harm, that is the parents' right.

So, parents have a right not to vaccinate, not to seek medical treatment, etc. Parents do not have a right to mutilate genitalia or provide a hormone treatment or kill an unborn baby. The court is wrong on this one, and I would love to know what the consequence would be of the mother simply saying, "No, you can't do that no matter what the court says." Would they jail the mother? Would they shoot her to take the child?
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
While I think the mom is full of crap...
Christina previously told KGW she believes the alternative treatment of vitamins, herbs and pure CBD oil was effective in treating Kylee’s cancer.

“It started reversing her tumor for the first time,” said Christina. She claimed the tumor reduced in size by 90 percent during the past year.

I think she and her own daughter ought to come up with their own decisions regarding medical treatments.
 

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
Seems clear the wishes of the girl herself are not being respected.

Before we go with the "she's 13, how can she be expected to handle such a mature decision?" line I would remind the objector that we already (for better or worse) grant kids that young the "right" to make very adult decisions: get an abortion, go for transition surgery, etc.

If the kid has a clear understanding of what's going on the court has zero right to force a different decision.

--- End of line (MCP)
 

kom526

They call me ... Sarcasmo
Who else sees the irony of a state government that allows physician assisted suicide mandating (possibly) life prolonging for a person that dies not want said treatment?
 

WingsOfGold

Well-Known Member
That's an excellent point.

I'm not an enormous fan of cancer treatments because many times it just postpones the inevitable, and the person gets another few months to be sick and miserable while the doctor and Big Pharma get rich. If I got cancer, depending on the circumstances, I would likely refuse treatment and that should be my right.

But can a parent refuse treatment on behalf of their minor child? Part of me says of course they should have that right, but then I remember all the crazies out there whom I wouldn't trust to take care of a pet, let alone a child. I remember that some special interest group can buy media coverage and push their money-making scheme on an unsuspecting public with no oversight.
And often it's not a delay, this lil doll recovered 100% and without her surgeries and kemo she would have been dead months ago.

 

black dog

Free America
We have these discussions when someone refuses medical treatment for their child over religious views or something. As a general rule, we agree that the parents have the right (but, most also think the parents should be beaten to death for letting their kid die). We have the same discussions when some parent wants to turn their son into a mutilated version that looks like a daughter. Then, we say no way does the parent have the right to make those medical decisions, because it is harmful.

The hard part is trying to decide, for someone else's child, in a free country, what is "harmful" and what is not. We routinely let mothers kill their kids, and many on here fight for their right to do so.

In my humble opinion, if you are taking action that intentionally causes death or mutilation, that is wrong and government has an obligation to protect the innocent child. If, through INaction you MAY cause death or harm, that is the parents' right.

So, parents have a right not to vaccinate, not to seek medical treatment, etc. Parents do not have a right to mutilate genitalia or provide a hormone treatment or kill an unborn baby. The court is wrong on this one, and I would love to know what the consequence would be of the mother simply saying, "No, you can't do that no matter what the court says." Would they jail the mother? Would they shoot her to take the child?

If this was a Truly a Free Country it would scare the crap out of most of the population.
 

LightRoasted

If I may ...
If I may ...


An Oregon court is ordering that a 13 year-old girl with cancer must have surgery and other medical treatment for the disease despite objections from the girl's mother.

Hmmmm.....
I've often wondered, if government cannot force an adult, absent consent, to, in this case, have a medical procedure done against their will, (excluding a true serious incapacitating mental condition), how is it possible to go against the consent of an adult parent concerning their child? Informed consent must be required in all things, or there is no true rule of law. Only anarchy, dictatorial governments, and a judiciary.
 
Top