When can the state butt in ??

  • Thread starter ledhed
  • 15 comments
  • 901 views

ledhed

Ultraextreme sanity
Premium
3,425
Please read this article..I think somethings missing..like common sense but how do you feel about it ?
August 29) - A 12-year-old boy remains in hiding with his mother while authorities in Utah battle to have him returned to undergo court-ordered chemotherapy to treat what they say is deadly bone cancer.

Daren and Barbara Jensen fled Utah with their son, Parker, on Aug. 8, after the state ordered that the cancer-stricken boy be placed in state custody so that he can receive chemotherapy.

On Aug. 15, Utah prosecutors filed kidnapping charges against the couple. Daren Jensen was arrested Aug. 16 in Idaho, where he is now fighting extradition to Utah. The whereabouts of Parker and his mother are unknown.

The story began three months ago, when Parker was diagnosed with Ewing's sarcoma, a deadly form of bone cancer. Doctors at Primary Children's Medical Center in Salt Lake City said Parker needs chemotherapy, and that he has only a 5 percent chance of survival without it. A Salt Lake City court agreed, and ordered the parents to have the boy undergo the treatment.

But the boy's family disagreed. They question the accuracy of the test that led to his cancer diagnosis, said Parker's uncle, Tracy Jensen.

"Ewing's sarcoma normally appears in the bone, but Parker's was a tumor in the mouth," Jensen said. "The hospital wanted chemotherapy right away. But we wanted a second opinion. They wouldn't let us get one, and before you knew it, my brother and his family were on the run."

Rick Jaffe, the family lawyer, contends that life-and-death decisions, such as whether to undergo chemotherapy, should be made by a child's parents, not the state. The parents did allow Parker to undergo surgery to have the tumor removed, but they do not believe he needs chemotherapy at this point.

"There is no scientific evidence whatsoever that you need chemotherapy for this particular kind of basically mild cancer," Jaffe said. "All the evidence really relates to this full-blown bone involvement where you have very sick kids."

He said that the hospital and the state have interfered with the parents getting an objective second opinion to see if their belief that Parker has the mild form of the cancer is confirmed.

"They have the best intentions for Parker and want to figure out the exact treatment for this," Tracy Jensen said. "They want to sit down in an environment where they can talk about this. This is a very rare form of Ewing's sarcoma, which has manifested itself in the soft tissue in the mouth and they say it's a bone disease."

The Jensens have located a pediatric oncologist who will treat and evaluate Parker, Jaffe said.

"The problem is, we can't bring him to him, because as soon as we show up, the mother will be arrested and the child hauled off by force to Utah," the lawyer said.

He also said Parker appears healthy.

"I'm not a doctor, but he looks healthy. He looks normal," Jaffe said. "He doesn't look sick and he doesn't look like any cancer patient I have ever seen. He looks like a great normal kid with a normal energy level for a 12-year-old boy."

State Says It Wants to Protect Parker

The Utah Attorney General's Office says it is concerned about Parker's welfare, and that the state has every right to step in to protect a child.

"We are very concerned with the health of this young boy and the surrounding issues of state power vs. parental responsibility," the office said in a statement. "Parents have a natural and fundamental right to direct the medical care of their child — but if in making that decision they place the child's very life in substantial danger, the Supreme Court has determined that the State has an obligation to step in. In other words, a child has a fundamental right, independent of a parent's wishes, to live."

Tracy Jensen says the family fears that Parker will only get worse, and may even die, if he is subjected to chemotherapy.

"Chemotherapy is a horrible and painful thing to deal with, especially for a child," he said. "It may also leave him sterile and stunt his growth. We want other options. And we fear it will take him to the brink of death, and we don't want that, especially when there is no evidence that his cancer is what the doctors say it is."

Parents Barred From Hospital

The legal charges against the parents have complicated the issue, Jaffe said. If his mother tries to bring Parker to any hospital, she will be arrested, he said.

"They [the parents] are fugitives from the law and they will be handcuffed, and Parker will be taken back to Utah and undergo chemotherapy," Jaffe said.

The family would like Parker to take genetic and blood tests, Tracy Jensen said. They do not want to rush and have chemotherapy if there is no evidence the cancer is still there.

Jaffe says the best solution for everyone would be for the police to drop the charges and allow the family to return to Utah so that Parker could undergo other tests at another hospital.
THIS PISSES ME OFF..Now we have the government ORDERING someone to act against their instincts reguarding the care of their son..WHAT F^%KN country did this happen in again ???
 
Well, on the face of it, I agree with you. I've never approved of court-ordered treatments, etc. If you want to refuse medicine, that's your right.

Now, since the kid is a minor, there's a fly in the ointment. Does not having the child recieve treatment constitute "neglect", which is punishable by law? It's not "child abuse", since they are not causing him harm. But isn't witholding treatment for a minor the same as witholding food?

The one thing about the story that tells me there's more than meets the eye is this:
"The hospital wanted chemotherapy right away. But we wanted a second opinion. They wouldn't let us get one...
No healthcare professional in America is going to prevent you - or is even allowed to try to prevent you - from getting a second opinion. It's standard practice everywhere, especially in a case like this where the diagnosis and treatment are so severe.

Something smells rotten about this, like the family got other opinions, and they weren't what they wanted to hear.

Either way, I fundamentally support their right to determine what happens to their child... but the question of neglect is still open.
 
Originally posted by ledhed

THIS PISSES ME OFF..Now we have the government ORDERING someone to act against their instincts reguarding the care of their son..WHAT F^%KN country did this happen in again ???

In the past, religious idiots, who created the belief that God told them that medicine was against their belief system, would refuse to treat minor illnesses in children and infants, which spread and eventually killed them. It happens every few months; it's really just an excuse to show how these people shouldn't be allowed to exist. Anyway - the state can butt in then, for all I'm concerned.
 
Whatever happened to parents being parents. There's no reason to ostracize(sp?) people for their religious beliefs. Anyway, this isn't the case. There is something fishy about what neon_duke quoted. Preventing a second opinion is pretty criminal, if you think that not allowing treatment is criminal. I still think that a good government is a government that hardly governs (if you get what I mean). If some people can hold parents responsible for a child's criminal actions, shouldn't we let these parents take responsibility for their own child, too?
 
damn-it,... the above doesnt justify my thoughts too well,.... so.....

IMO, a parent should be allowed to pull the plug on a child who is brain-dead, comatized, ect,.... therefore they should also be allowed to deny treatment for their child. Yes, abuse and neglect could be brought up as an issue,... but arent the doctors abusing the child (even if its for it's own good) with radiation and neglecting the child's future with the potential side effects? Just a thought....
 
Originally posted by Red Eye Racer
but arent the doctors abusing the child (even if its for it's own good) with radiation and neglecting the child's future with the potential side effects?
The kid has deadly bone cancer and his parents won't let doctors operate on him, and you're worried about side effects in his later life? Seems the cancer's about a million times more pressing...
 
Originally posted by Red Eye Racer
IYO,...

So you think that the cancer, which will kill him within five years, is not more deadly than some unseen, unnamed, very rare side effect which more than likely wouldn't lead to anything serious, and, because of this unnamed, not-yet-existant side effect, they shouldn't operate on him, effectively giving him a death sentence from which there is no escape?

Sounds good!
 
Originally posted by M5Power
So you think that the cancer, which will kill him within five years, is not more deadly than some unseen, unnamed, very rare side effect which more than likely wouldn't lead to anything serious, and, because of this unnamed, not-yet-existant side effect, they shouldn't operate on him, effectively giving him a death sentence from which there is no escape?

Sounds good!

I love how you worded that you manipulative sow :rolleyes:,......cancer, which will kill him........
 
According to the article the parents wan't more opinions and the state want's to arrest them , because they won't follow a doctors advice. since when should it be against the law to reject a doctors OPINION ? Also what guarantee are they giving that the child will be cured if they follow the doctor or doctors advice ? And what right do they have to limit your search for the best advice you can get to treat YOUR child ?
I may be quite guilty of reading between the lines here but the way I'm seeing this is the parents rejected the advice of a person who has the political power to get the state to bend to his will and thus force the parents who have rejected him to conform to his vision of whats right for the child. A God complex gone wild situation..of course in his mind all for the good of the child no matter who likes it or what precident it may set. The cynic in me says there must be some money involved. after all with managed health care your lucky to be alive if you have cancer and your insurance is inadequate. Maybe the criticaly I'll with poor or no health insurance should all move to Utah ( followed very quickly by all the doctors in that state to anywhere else USA ).
 
I'm telling you, there is more to this situation than is stated in that article. There is no healthcare professional in the United States who is going to prevent you from getting a second opinion.
 
But this is all I have to go on ..I searched for more but its not out there or I can't find it.
Quoted from the article ;
The story began three months ago, when Parker was diagnosed with Ewing's sarcoma, a deadly form of bone cancer. Doctors at Primary Children's Medical Center in Salt Lake City said Parker needs chemotherapy, and that he has only a 5 percent chance of survival without it. A Salt Lake City court agreed, and ordered the parents to have the boy undergo the treatment.

But the boy's family disagreed. They question the accuracy of the test that led to his cancer diagnosis, said Parker's uncle, Tracy Jensen.

"Ewing's sarcoma normally appears in the bone, but Parker's was a tumor in the mouth," Jensen said. "The hospital wanted chemotherapy right away. But we wanted a second opinion. They wouldn't let us get one, and before you knew it, my brother and his family were on the run."

Rick Jaffe, the family lawyer, contends that life-and-death decisions, such as whether to undergo chemotherapy, should be made by a child's parents, not the state. The parents did allow Parker to undergo surgery to have the tumor removed, but they do not believe he needs chemotherapy at this point. END QUOTE.

It says the Hospital so more than likely they had many doctors involved..at least two likely 4 or 5 plus the hospital board nd the insurance co. reps. They had to put alot of thought in it and time and effort. Somehow they convinced a judge.
 
Back