The Right to Choose Your Own Medical Care Challenged by Ohio

[XLFD]

The law has taken very different approaches to the question whether individuals have a right to make autonomous medical treatment choices, depending on the context.

 

For example, in cases concerning the rights of choice in abortion and the right to use medical marijuana, the Supreme Court reached radically different results, based on radically different reasoning. Should the recognition of the right to choose your medical treatment (or to be bound by your legal ward's decision) be artificially limited by excessive deference to legislative findings of medical fact?

 

How should this right be balanced against the state's real and legitimate interest in regulating the practice of medicine to protect the public? I offer a case in point that is currently in the news of an Amish family choosing to defy court-ordered chemotherapy for their 10 year old daughter, allegedly fleeing the country to get 'natural' treatments for her tumors.  This follows the picture of the horse-drawn buggy.

 

Please feel free to comment on the oft-neglected facet of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) which makes the freedom to choose medical treatments more likely to be made by bureaucrats and/or doctors-- not the person seeking medical attention for their injury or illness.

 

 

No one likes going through chemotherapy. Most people suffer through the treatment because it is better than the alternative.

 

An Amish family from Ohio has recently decided, however, that chemotherapy is not the right choice. They have fled the United States in order to stop their 10-year-old girl from being treated after an appeals court appointed a guardian to decide medical decisions for the family. The family had been previously taken to court by the Akron Children’s Hospital in July when the family had first decided to stop the treatment. The little girl, whose name is Sarah Hershberger, has tumors on her kidneys, chest and neck. Hospital doctors say that Sarah has no chance of surviving if she does not receive chemotherapy.

 

Unfortunately, simply getting Sarah started on chemo again may not be entirely effective either. Doctors report that stopping and then starting chemotherapy can be very dangerous and not always effective. Sarah was originally receiving chemotherapy as part of a planned attack against the leukemia cells. Her parents made the decision to take Sarah off of the treatment when it began to make her sick and she begged them to please stop the treatment.

 

Last August Andy Hershberger said in an interview that he has seen how sick the chemo can make her and that “our belief is the natural stuff will do just as much as that stuff if it’s God’s will.” He also added that chemo only brings more suffering to the sick child.

 

Doctors say that it is possible for Sarah to appear as though she is feeling better over the next month, because the work the chemo did is still taking place. However, they are gravely concerned for her safety in the near future. The family’s lawyer, Maurice Thompson, announced that the Amish family has fled the country to seek different forms of treatment than the court mandated chemotherapy for their daughter. He also added that while there is a constitutional right for hospitals to seek the general welfare of the citizens of this country, there is also a “moral right to refuse conventional medical treatment.”

 

Officials suspect that the family has been gone for more than a month, based on their investigation. The Sherriff of the Herschberger’s county, Tom Miller, added that it would take a court ordered mandate in order for him to get involved and that he is not expecting one.

 

One of the big questions being asked in this case is over parent’s choice. Will this case paint the hospital as a large corporation that can force you to undergo expensive treatments or will people see the hospital as a loving and concerned entity that wants the best for its patients and is willing to save them no matter what.

 

It will also be interesting to see how this case effects the conversation about faith based healing in America and if the parents are pursued, should Sarah die. Just this past summer in Philadelphia, two parents were found guilty of murder after their second child died of pneumonia because the parents believed in faith based healing and did not seek medical help.

 

The couple will be sentenced in February. There has been no word as to where the Herschbergers are or if they have begun any unconventional treatment. The Herschberger’s home has been answered by neighbors in the past weeks as people sought news of the Amish family who has fled this country rather than face court mandated chemotherapy.

 

http://guardianlv.com/2013/11/chemotherapy-forced-by-courts-is-fled...

[Dave]

This is a tough issue, specially when children are involved. Its one thing when its an adult with medical issues in that an adult will generally be able to make a fairly informed decision and if needed, could go somewhere else for their care. When its a child, specially when they are younger, its unlikely that they are able to make as informed of a decision mainly because they just don't have life experience. The main issue in these cases is when is the parents refusal considered child abuse or if it even is considered child abuse because of the parents religious rights. Safe to say that its a slippery slope and there are no easy answers.

[XLFD]

Governments have no rights, just powers granted to them by the people, and powers they immorally make for themselves by taking away the rights of the people.  Legislators and courts are increasingly trying to be the caregivers for our children, and I agree with EyE's sentiments on this one, and Dave's slippery slope argument. 

[Willy]

I have known people, children and adults, who have died from the chemotherapy treatments. Tumors that have been shrunk for chemotherapy are notorious for returning.

"It’s been estimated by some experts that by the year 2018, cancer will be the number one killer of us humans in North America. I can almost see the confused look on your face. If so much money is being poured into cancer research and so much progress being made, how can this be? Well, I imagine there’s much more money being made than progress when it comes to conventional cancer treatment. It’s obvious that some form of chemotherapy is the first choice of most doctors when it comes to treating your cancer. But is chemotherapy really safe?

Basically, when you have cancer and are prescribed chemotherapy, the drugs enter your bloodstream and destroy every rapidly dividing cell they can find. This means cancer cells. This means hair follicles. This means digestive tract cells, reproductive cells, and even bone marrow. This is why chemo patients become so violently ill and lose their hair during treatment. So, if your chemotherapy regimen kills your cancer before it kills you, then I guess it was a success. The cancer industry will shout about newer, gentler forms of chemo, but in order to be successful they all have to search and destroy.

According to a study published by Clinical Oncology in 2004, the average 5 year survival success rate of chemotherapy was just over 2% for all cancers. Pretty great odds, don’t you think?

Add to that the fact that many polls and questionnaires suggest that as many as 75% of doctors would refuse the very same chemotherapy treatments they’re prescribing for you! Can you believe that?

We live in a society where we’re able to make educated choices about these types of things. When it comes to chemotherapy, you should educate yourself before making any decisions. Chemotherapy is very questionable in its effectiveness and certainly unsafe. In the end, I just can’t see how something so utterly destructive can ultimately heal your body. There are many, many other options out there. You just have to take a look around."

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Joshua_McCarron

[XLFD]

Three out of four doctors opt out of chemotherapy when given that choice?!  Very telling.

[XLFD]

A case in 2009 involving Daniel Hauser was very similar to this one.  I am swayed by the arguments of the parent's attorney, in the .pdf file below.  Is it a legitimate course for parents to use 'alternative' methods if it is reasonable and backed by some of the 'professionals' of the field.  I think yes, the courts have gotten into the practice of saying no.