http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/07/25/sick.teen.ap/index.html
I think this is a good discussion topic because I'm expecting quite a few of you to have some pretty different opinions on this matter.
Frankly, I believe that the judicial system has no right to come in and force this child to recieve chemotherapy regardless on whether he is a minor or not. His parents are on his side with this one. I think it would be different if the child wanted to recieve chemotherapy and the parents refused. I would consider that abuse. My main points of argument for this are:
A) The kid is 16. There are court orders that would allow him to seperate himself from his parents, albeit with some judicial review, even though he is not emancipated there are other teens that are (although not necissarily in his state, if that state even has emancipation laws.) I am not also saying he should attempt to try this route to overcome this obstical. I'm just trying to say if some teens are declared capable of handling themselves at this age, what right does that give the court to say this one is not? I know they have to review the child for emancipation to occur but when this child did not recieve any such review, there is no grounds for them to say "You're not capable of handling yourself. You must recieve treatment." I hope you guys understand what I'm trying to say by this.
B) If the kid didn't have insurance, this wouldn't even be an option and there would have been no debate over it. The oncology department would've have touched him with a ten foot poll. So while this series of hearings is revolving around a touchy subject, I believe it was started on some pretty rocky grounds. They say they want to continue convential treatment for the well being of the kid, but if he couldn't pay for it, it would be a completly different story.
I think this is a good discussion topic because I'm expecting quite a few of you to have some pretty different opinions on this matter.
Frankly, I believe that the judicial system has no right to come in and force this child to recieve chemotherapy regardless on whether he is a minor or not. His parents are on his side with this one. I think it would be different if the child wanted to recieve chemotherapy and the parents refused. I would consider that abuse. My main points of argument for this are:
A) The kid is 16. There are court orders that would allow him to seperate himself from his parents, albeit with some judicial review, even though he is not emancipated there are other teens that are (although not necissarily in his state, if that state even has emancipation laws.) I am not also saying he should attempt to try this route to overcome this obstical. I'm just trying to say if some teens are declared capable of handling themselves at this age, what right does that give the court to say this one is not? I know they have to review the child for emancipation to occur but when this child did not recieve any such review, there is no grounds for them to say "You're not capable of handling yourself. You must recieve treatment." I hope you guys understand what I'm trying to say by this.
B) If the kid didn't have insurance, this wouldn't even be an option and there would have been no debate over it. The oncology department would've have touched him with a ten foot poll. So while this series of hearings is revolving around a touchy subject, I believe it was started on some pretty rocky grounds. They say they want to continue convential treatment for the well being of the kid, but if he couldn't pay for it, it would be a completly different story.
