| Tweet |  Delicious |
Colleen Coble writes romantic suspense with a strong atmospheric element. A lovable animal of some kind--usually a dog--always populates her novels. She can be bribed with DeBrand mocha truffles.
Denise Hunter writes women's fiction and love stories with a strong emotional element. Her husband says he provides her with all her romantic material, but Denise insists a good imagination helps too.
Diann Hunt writes romantic comedy and humorous women's fiction. She has been happily married forever, loves her family, chocolate, her friends, chocolate, her dog, and well, chocolate.
Cheryl Hodde writes romantic medical suspense under the pen name of Hannah Alexander, using all the input she can get from her husband, Mel, for the medical expertise. For fun she hikes and reads. Out of guilt, she rescues discarded cats. She and Mel are presently taking orders from four pampered strays.
19 Comments:
Kristin,
I'm sorry but I disagree. A thirteen-year-old is a child and he has been influenced by his parents. I suppose he had one treatment, so his parents must have supported that? I'm sure it was terrible, having watched a family member be treated for this very disease. However, the result was 11 perfect years of remission. I know it's never guaranteed.
The story I saw said the survival rate with chemo was 90% and without it was 5%. It's a tragedy a child would get such a disease. He needs leadership, nurturing and prayer by his parents. Helping him run away is not the answer. Their belief in alternative treatment will most likely mean his death.
I know you feel strongly about your position and I respect it. Of course a child this age must have his feelings respected, but if they are able to make life and death decisions, why are we parenting them?
I don't know what the right choice is. I hate chemo myself. I don't think I'd ever take it. But the issue here is CONTROL. The doctors have no right to try to take control of their child from the parents. This isn't Nazi Germany, at least not yet.
It's not her choice I'm defending, because that wouldn't be my choice. It's the right to make decisions for my child, with my teenage child.
I do not want the government involved in that when my child is old enough to make their own choice. I just have such an issue with this choice, since I can't be involved if my 13 year old wants an abortion or birth control. It seems like they want it both ways.
No easy answer on this, for sure. But one thing I do know, I don't want the government making decisions for me on how to care for my child.
A 13-year-old is a child, but if they decide that they cannot take the agony of chemo, then the answer should be "no" to the attending physician.
We all know that chemo therapy is hell on the body and I would never force that treatment on anyone.
I saw Farah Fawcet's special and I wouldn't dream of putting a loved one through that unless that is what they wanted to do to live.
It is a very hard question to answer.
Leticia, it's an impossible question to answer. I agree with you. I sure am grateful it's not mine to decide. I watched this St. Jude special with this poor little toddler enduring chemo and ultimately, he was dead at two. They had their reasons. This was a deadly cancer, and the research they did, may have saved other children. But wow, I don't think I could have done it. I honor those parents!
I understand what you're saying, Kristin. I'm afraid much is changing in our country. Rights being taken away, big government growing bigger by the day!
Our founding fathers would be horrified.
I got the impression from the stories I read that it was the parents putting their foot now. I haven't heard anything about what the kid wants. Normally, I would be supporting the parents and their decision about their kid...but b/c the survival rate is almost guaranteed, I'm having a hard time w/ this one. Not sure what's right here.
I think it is awful. I can see this going next into forced vaccinations.
I read one story where the child was quoted as saying that he would fight the doctors trying to administer the chemo. Chemo is not 100% and I think the parents should have the right to say no.
I, too, was apalled by that story this morning. It seems every time I turn on the news, another piece of freedom is gone. Used to be they were tiny slivers, hardly noticeable. The slivers are becoming chunks.
I doubt I would have made the choice this mother did, but I don't know. I'm not in her shoes---I didn't see what happened or how her child responded.
But I should have the freedom to make that choice. This is very troubling.
I agree. I'm not sure what the right decision would be in their case of chemo or no chemo, but I agree it's not right for the government to tell someone they HAVE to have the treatment and they cannot choose to stop treatment.
My mother is going through chemo right now, and I would say I agree with you Kristen to a point.
Chemo isn't an exact science, most of what happens is hit and miss and the side effects are sad. But they give another medicine to counter the side effect then have to give another to counter that.
I realize some people have gone through the chemo and lived and others have gone through years and years and gave up.
A friend of my sister's did so after six years of surgeries and transfusions and such.
There has been great headway in made in other methods, but those are usually marked as hokey or stupid. Tell that to the person who used that method and lived without all the side effects and getting knocked to the side lines by chemo.
As for my mother, after four months they found a regiment of drugs that somewhat word together, but would like her to do radiation and a tranfer beyond the chemo.
It's disheartening to watch her trying to get past the feeling of being zapped when it's supposed to be helping.
As for the parents and their son, I think they have the right to make a decision and they'll live with the consequences of it whatever happens. It's not the government's place to dictate that, but they seem to encroach more and more.
Just my two cents.
I don't trust the word of a doctor unless I know him (my husband had to go through chemo because he was mistreated/misdiagnosed by a doctor who acted too slowly and in his own best interest, not ours).
And as far as the media? My sister did an internship for the federal dept. during law school. Of all of the papers she saw on a daily basis, only about 10% of the info ever made it to the TV/papers.
For those two reasons I would encourage people not to come down too hard on this family. We will only ever know what the (possibly self-serving) doctor and media want us to know.
Regardless of those things, however, I do worry about the day when the federal government will regulate my diet, tell me what car I can drive, and tell my future children where they can and can't go to school. If these kinds of court decisions continue I doubt my children will get to make many decisions for themselves.
[And I DID read that this family wants to try natural methods - they aren't trying to kill their kid. They just want to help them in their own way.]
I'm late in joining the discussion but I think I disagree with you, Kristin. I absolutely agree that the parents should have control over their son's life.
But if at a 80-95% survival rate and only 5% without it, they're choosing to refuse the treatment then I can see why the court ruled as it did.
I understand what you said about it not being a sure-fire cure but, really, is anything?
My other problem with it is that the boy is 13 - he might be a teenager but only barely. He's still a kid. The age of sexual consent is 16 (where I am anyway) and at 13, nobody would consider him mature enough to make such a decision.
In MHO, the court ruled to save a life (or tried to anyway) - something that is rarely the case anymore and as much as I hate that it takes control from the parents' hands, I have to agree with them. I want to see that little boy live.
- Christine
This is a tough one. I am completely for parents rights!I hate the trend where we are losing them.
But what about when they want to lock their kids in a closet.
Or deny them the basics of life.
If this kid had appendicitis and the mom refused surgery, what would our opinion be?
Where is the line between parental freedom and neglect?
This boy has a very high chance of surviving if he gets treatment.
It would be agony, but it could mean 60 more years of life!
It would be different if there was little hope for a cure, but Hodgkins has a good cure rate.
On the other hand, I do believe that some alternative therapies work. I am using some for a condition I have.
Tough situation.
I'd be curious to know what the actual survival rate is and why the parents made this choice. I know what the press is saying, but a woman who has seven kids? I just think she would ultimately want the best for her kids. That doesn't mean she can't be stupid, but this is dangerous ground.
If it was an appendicitis, no question because I know that will cure my son. It's the chemo I have trouble with them ordering. If you don't have the will to go through it, chemo isn't going to fix you.
I just had to share, we were driving home from a long weekend and my 13 year old son was in the car. The news announced that the 13 year old with cancer and his mom had returned to Minnesota. I explained the details to my kid and he goes, 'What the heck is wrong with those parents?" LOL
So I guess I'd have no problem with Jonah, he'd opt for chemo too. : )
I am posting late so this comment may not be read. I am from MN and have been following this story. The 13yr old is illiterate. I don't believe he is at the mental capacity as other 13 yr olds. Also, there is a hospital in Mpls that offers alternative options to either be used instead of chemo or a long with the chemo treatments.
Wendy
Oh you're right then Wendy, that does play into it. I heard they've decided to get him the chemo, but I hadn't heard that about the mental capacity. That ticks me off. (my brother's mentally disabled)
Post a Comment
<< Home