16 year old Son killed because of refusal of "modern medicine"

[Mega-Tallica]

Even regardless of religion, it's hard to know where the state should step in and say "you may mean well, but what you're doing amounts to child abuse".

I certainly don't have a firm handle on what the "right" solution is.

Me neither, whenever it comes to science/medicine vs. religion there's never a clear cut solution. Somebody is going to be on the wrong end of the stick either way. If the state stepped in and force medicated the kid against the parents' wishes, the church and parents would be upset and will very quickly be pointing the fingers at the doctors and the state. But, instead, they let it go, the kid is dead and now people are going to start pointing fingers at the church and parents. Different headlines, same BS.

[raynebc]

but if their decision isn't informed and they are not doing what's best for the sake of their child, especially something as severe as life and death, I think there should be something in place to override the parents' power.

Here's where it gets problematic. Who decides what's best for the child? How much authority should be taken out of the parents' hands and placed into a that of a bureaucracy? Who's right and who's wrong is only a matter of perspective.

We are treading on some thin ice, kinda hard to discuss this sincerely without getting too in depth with religion which is pretty much what this whole thing boils down to.

It boils down further than that: Freedom of choice. Religion in this case influenced that choice. The people who make the choice shoulder the consequences, and other parties are absolved. It would be perfectly fair to hold the parents responsible, as they had the right to decide how their son's care would be handled. Failure to seek medical treatment is not the same as murder though, so that needs to be remembered.

[lvmathemagician]

Exactly, the fact that the patient was a minor changes the circumstances quite a bit. The parents were making these decisions for him rather than the actual suffering patient.

In your world, what do we need parents for? Why don't we just send all infants to government nurseries, stick a clock in the palms of their hands and kill them on their 21st birthday.



Mr. Sandman, bring me a dream......

[randomas]

Ok I'll try and reply more seriously this time (not that the general idea changes much).
First off, I work as a biomedical statistician, i.e. doctors make decisions based on our calculations. If you think modern medicine is a deterministic science, well think again (with the possible exception of surgical and orthopaedic treatments), it's a discipline based on the results of the scientific method. In pharmacology this means a hell of a lot of statistics and hypothetical postulations, this is because the human body is a complex (in the mathematical sense) system and these are the best tools we have.

I have a close friend who suffers from a degenerative autoimmune disease, and his wife asked my advice ... My reaction was "I'm not a doctor, but from the literature standard treatment odds are ridiculous and the side effects horrid, so my choice would be to skip treatment and use cortisone upon necessity. But it's his body and he needs to do what he thinks is best, he may even be in the lucky minority for whom treatment works well without side-effects." After a few years of trying different treatments, he's dropped them. He follows a strict, balanced and healthy dietary regime, and if it gets bad he uses cortisone. He now has a pretty good quality of life and the condition seems to be under control. Now this is an episodic anecdote and I won't tell you what the condition is in case someone decides to follow the advice of "some dude on teh interwebs". The important thing is the method: patient gathers qualified information and makes up his own mind under constant medical supervision.

So I'm going to ask you, if the parents had been doctors and they didn't agree with therapy and the result had been the same? Where would you stand?
So again, the issue here is what your stance on religion in modern society is and how far it should be allowed to go. Most socially accepted and acceptable religions won't get in the way of science based protocols, especially medicine. Even the catholics (I was brought up as one so I am allowed to bad mouth them) have come round and stopped burning astronomers.

My position is that minors should be protected by law and that in the case of parents denying treatments on religious grounds, doctors should have automatic power of attorney and therefore have the power to overrule the parents decision. As far as adults go, be my guest and get yerself killed, you'll have both mine and Charles' gratitude.

Last thing, in my wishful thinking parallel universe there would have been a heroic doctor who took matters in his/her own hands, treated the child and faced any legal consequences showing the religious nuts a despondent middle finger. I can but dream ...

[Mega-Tallica]

In your world, what do we need parents for? Why don't we just send all infants to government nurseries, stick a clock in the palms of their hands and kill them on their 21st birthday.

Completely exaggerated what I said, I'm not hinting that that's the way it should be at all. I'm saying due to the circumstances and severity of this one situation, it changes things a bit. I'm not saying in every life and death situation with a child the government should overrule the parents' decision because most of the time, parents do do what is best and of course what raynebc said, that's a matter of perspective, but that's my perspective. Praying for a miracle and denying a possible cure is not doing what's best.

[Ehfahq]

This story is so sad on so many levels. Poor kid.

[Der_Lex]

Even though it's been civil so far, I just can't see this thread ending well. I have to agree with Ehfahq that it's a sad story, though.