I won't denied it, I got this topic from somewhere else. But it does raise a lot of questions as a parent.

Here's part of the Story; Aug.13,2006
http://us.cnn.com/2006/LAW/08/11/cancer.fight/index.html

In Virginia, age 16 is old enough to drive a car, work a 40-hour week, stand trial in adult court, and marry.

Whether 16 is old enough to reject traditional cancer treatment is at the heart of a trial slated to begin next week on the Eastern Shore town of Accomac.

Teen Wins Court Battle To Stop Chemo
http://us.cnn.com/2006/LAW/08/16/cancer.teen.ap/index.html


To hear the Doctor say, I'm sorry you have cancer, is never a easy thing to go through. To hear that your child has cancer, is even worse. All kinds of thoughts run through a parents mine. Parents would do anything they can, to save their child for dying. In our hearts we as parent expect us to go first, to go before our children. This child is making adult decision, on what kind of treatment he wants for himself. Whether that's right or wrong. Who is to say. Will he survive, it's unlikely. Chemo slow the growth down for awhile. Only to once again come back.

P.S. I was going to post this in Maryland News, but it's not there. It said Maryland Events now. Not sure where to put this at.

More than that, IMO this case is more about whether the parents or the State Social Service agency has the right to make medical decisions regarding a minor. The boys parents agree with the boy and IMO the parents are the ones who should have the right to make the decision. SO IMO this is more about parental rights than anything else.

As such, this is not an isolated case. Social service agencies across the nation often try to take over for parents whose decisions they disagree with, or worse yet, are politically incorrect. In some cases, the State is suing and parents' rights are being trampled. This is Hillary Clinton's infamous "Village" attempting to wrest control of children from the hands of their parents.

A parents should be able to decide, what's best for their children. Not the state.

I find it especially odd that the liberal media is trying to make this into a case of teens rights to decide things as if they were an adult. That's not really what this is about. Historically, medical decisions about minors' health care have always been up to their parents, and in this case, the parents are being attacked by the State social service agency because the state social service agency doesn't agree with their decision. It's more about parents rights verus the state than it is about whether a teenager has the right to make the decision.

I suspect an ulterior political agenda at work in the biased reporting. It may just be obfuscation attempting to distract us from the state's attempt to usurp parental authority. Trying to confuse us so we won't see the blatant government attempt at social engineering.

I too, think it's more about the Parents right verus the State. But once you get the State involved, where are the parents rights then. Don't we as parents have the right to raise our children as we see fit. Shouldin we have the right, to take any actions a far as medical issues goes?

As far as cancer goes, There is alot of other people, that takes different approach to the disease. Chemo and Radiation is not a cure, it's only a treatment. There's no guarantee.

Ok, this kind of stuff really upsets me....guess this could be included in the "i just don't get it" thread for me. Social Services chanllenging the loving care and authority of the parents and child's wishes, in this case, is just plain nuts.

Very good point, sweets. Nothing is guaranteed with cancer and any treatment. It should be between the teen and his family. Get the state out of this.....none of their business.

Like the artical said, The teen had Chemo treatments done, the cancer growth slow down and then it came back. So to me, the chemo only work for a little while. So the teen and parents, wanted to try something different. It might not be what we would have choosen, but who are we to judge.

Who in the heck the State think they are. To get involved with someone's personal issue. That could and can happen to anyone of else. Do we as parents want the State to tell us, what's best for our children. I don't think so. The state is always sticking their noses where it don't belong. No wonder we have some parents afraid to be parents. Wonder why some children are the way they are. Who are the parents here?

It's an awful thing to have to go through for both the parents and the teen. Can you imagine the stress that Social Services is adding to the picture? It is also well known that any kind of stress can make the immune system break down and make recovery even that more difficult.

How horrible if they took that young man out of his home and placed him in foster care and forced him to have chemo. Being separated from the very people that you love during the time that you may be dying or at least terribly ill.......What a nightmare! I can't imagine anything more horrific and yet it happens. And SS will say it's all for the benefit of the child.

Well the kinds of situations where it gets trickier are things like certain religious groups who don't allow their kids to receive any vaccines of ANY kind, or just plain don't believe in traditional medical care at all. The further their beliefs are seen as being out towards the fringe, the more likely it is that the State is going to try and claim the parents are incompetent and take over making medical decisions. This case is a bit unusual in that it's NOT about parents with unusual religious beliefs, which may make it more palatable to those who would usually be quick to dismiss parents with unusual religious beliefs as just plain freaks whom they would argue for discriminating against.

This case might offer an interesting twist in that we may see some of the folks who usually argue for forcing Jehovah's Witnesses to give their anemic children blood tranfusions actually speaking out in support of this family and their choice for "alternative medicine". It might actually force them to reevaluate their thinking on the larger issue. Not that I'm holding my breath.