By now, I’m sure you’ve heard the story of the 13 year old boy who has cancer and will most likely survive if he has chemotherapy. The one hitch is that he doesn’t want Chemo. He has the belief that the Chemo will kill him. I imagine that belief is erroneous. If you haven't heard about it, you can read more here.
His parents have decided to agree with him and citing “religious beliefs” they wish to try alternative methods of treatment. From my comfortable, non-stressed because I’m not in their shoes seat, it seems to me that they are making a bad choice. The government has stepped in and told the family that this 13 year old has to get chemo or he will be removed from his home and put into foster care.
What is interesting is that he has been quoted as saying to the judge that he doesn’t want Chemo, and that he would fight anyone who tried to give it to him.
The court’s have decided it is not his choice. I want to know why not? If he was a 13 year old girl, he would be allowed to have an abortion because it’s her body. In some states, she wouldn’t have to inform her parents. In all states, she could petition the state to circumvent her parents if they didn’t support her decision after informing them. The argument being that it’s her body and she should be free to do what she wants to do with her body.
So why can’t Daniel do what he wants to do with is body? Why can’t he refuse treatment? What gives the government the right to tell him has to have chemo? If the government can’t tell a 13 year old girl that she can’t have an abortion because she’s not old enough to really understand what she’s doing¬¬¬—because telling her that would be inhibiting her freedom, why can’t it give that freedom to a 13 year old boy?
Is it only your body if you have a uterus? Let me be clear, I find the entire “it’s her body” argument to be extremely unconvincing and irrelevant but this post isn’t about that. This post is about the seeming contradictory stand that our government has taken. It seems that the government is more concerned with forcing parents to raise children by the standards of the State than it is concerned about ensuring personal rights.
The court’s decision seems duplicitous. I realize that there are people who will say that the court is saving the kid’s life and that he will probably ultimately thank them. That argument cuts both ways. Maybe the baby that isn’t allowed to aborted will grow up and thank the court’s that they weren’t allowed to be aborted.
Daniel and his parents desire seems unwise and wrong to me. The court’s decision to impose it’s will seems very Orwellian.
This whole administration is scarily Orwellian!!!! The whole point of this ruling is that the government only wants you to be able to kill your children while they're still in your uterus.
Posted by: Karen | May 26, 2009 at 11:37 AM
I, surprisingly, agree with you. Wendy and i were talking about this last week. It should be the kids choice, end of discussion. It is not the governments right to step in. I could not imagine, being a parent, not trying any possible treatment imaginable to save my kid but that is me. However,if you believe it will cause more harm the good that is you opinion. I think it is silly. In fact, I have a friend right now who has an infection. He refuses to take his medicine because the side of effects of the medicine seem worse to him then the infection itself. To me, that is silly, but it is certainly his choice to let it go, and loose a part of his body as a result.
To me, especially as a parent I would want to exhaust all my options to save my child.
Posted by: Erica | May 26, 2009 at 11:38 AM
I think the issue here is that the refusal of chemo would be life-threatening, whereas the abortion would not. (At least not to the mother.) I do not believe that the girl should be allowed to have an abortion unless her life was in jeapordy, and I do not think this boy should have the right to refuse a treatment that will probably save him.
I am not sure I am comfortable with minors being empowered to make either of these decisions.
Posted by: Heath | May 26, 2009 at 07:20 PM
Simple, the cancer will kill the boy, the abortion will not kill the girl.
In both instances a minor could petition the court if parents are standing in the way of a decision the minor wishes to make concerning his/her medical care.
None of us have absolute rights. The government can and should step in when we are acting against our best interest.This is not absolute..............but when it comes to children we should err on the side of the child.
The right to life issue IS part of the discussion. An abortion at 2-13 weeks must be looked at very different than one at 7 or 8 months. From my moral mountaintop. the former is nothing more than a medical procedure and the latter is the killing of a human life.There are many factors that must be considered.
And I would say to Karen, the only safe place under the previous administration was IN the womb. Once born.......all bets off. The Bush years were far more Orwellian.........when it comes to lost freedoms and rights. (and of course everyone knew I would write this) :)
Bruce
Posted by: Bruce | May 26, 2009 at 10:30 PM
I knew you would write that. :)
Posted by: Heath | May 27, 2009 at 08:51 PM
Bruce,
Why the 2-13 weeks?
Short background: I have been pregnant 5 times. Three of my children survived pregnancy. I am currently a mother of 4 because my oldest is adopted.
When one of my babies died at 11 1/2 weeks pregnant, I had seen its beating heart 3 or 4 different times -- the first time was when I was 6 1/2 weeks pregnant (which is about 4.5 weeks from conception).
Why do you feel it's not a baby at 2-13 weeks? What about 14? 18 -- when you can see well enough to tell its gender? 22 -- when it could possibly live outside the womb?
I am not trying to get in an argument here, in case you or anyone else is wondering. I am trying to understand your line of thinking.
Thanks,
Lori
Posted by: Lori Bier | June 05, 2009 at 09:33 PM
Gotta love these ethical arguments! The difference between this boy and the aborting girl is that she is producing life and he is producing death. Fighting cancer with chemo is a death-death effect. Having an abortion is a life-death effect. Having an abortion has far more serious implications and consequences than not fighting cancer with chemo, not from a physical sense but from a spiritual sense. Which is exactly why you are right...it is completely backward; it is certainly a double standard.
Posted by: janelle | June 11, 2009 at 10:56 AM