Wednesday, May 20, 2009

A nationwide manhunt is underway for a mother & son who are in hiding after the boy refused to undergo chemo to treat his cancer

On January 22, 2009 Obama stated: “We are reminded that this decision not only protects women’s health and reproductive freedom: but stands for a broader principle that government should not intrude on our most private family matters” Ironically, one reason this boy argues he doesn’t want treatment is because he is concerned it will impair his reproductive ability. Again, we argue for our girls to have reproductive freedom to abort a baby without parental consent (FOCA anyone?), but then we say this boy cannot have the reproductive freedom to choose to protect his right to procreate.

Argument: You cannot be pro-life and argue the government cannot intervene here.

The argument is heart felt, but the logic is flawed. Pro-life people argue that it is not a legal choice to murder a child. There are many educated well meaning thoughtful caring people that do not believe traditional medicine is the best way to cure cancer. As a chaplain in an oncology department I saw this frequently. Furthermore, I know of highly trained respected medical professionals, who believe in using alternative methods. This could actually be an educated decision against conventional medicine that does not offer a 100% cure rate, but does offer both short term and long term side effects. This family is not denying treatment to their child. Instead, they are arguing for their right to disagree with government sanctioned TX. They believe in another form of medicine. That is very different.

Part 2 of the argument: They are killing their son. You can't be pro-life and for his TX choice.
The argument is erroneously stated. Comparing apples to apples would restate the argument that this mom is refusing TX for her son as a pregnant woman might refuse conventional prenatal care. The family isn't actually saying Kill our son and end his life with high doses of Rx drugs. At its very ugliest, this is a DNR and not a Dr Kevorkian. Again, to introduce TX designed to kill is very different from saying let nature take it's course.

Argument: This mother is incompetent to make the decision.
Abortion is legal in America and I have taught my children it is a genocide.... should the government take my kids away because I am training them up in my belief opposite theirs? I refuse to give my children aborted fetal cell line vaccines. It is against my deeply held religious conviction. I am denying them TX according to this logic. The same reason being used here could be argued against any of us. Since abortion is legal and medically accepted, you cannot have freedom against this reality so therefore we will force this into your child’s body. The government could come into my home and say; if you do not comply we will remove him from the home because refusing this medically accepted TX is allowing xyz disease to kill him. I believe injecting dead babies into him is death. The government sees it the other way? Who decides?

Argument: The parents disagree on the course of treatment.
If this is true then the story has been reported poorly and the argument shifts dramatically. If the parents disagree then it is a necessary point for the courts to intervene and decide which parent has the authority to choose in the best interest of the child. This is very different from the courts deciding for the child. It is the courts deciding which parent decides. It has very different implications. Side note: This is why the Bible gives clear chain of comand so Christian families can avoid court intervention....

For the record: To the best of my knowledge today, I would absolutely 100% give my child chemotherapy in this situation - but I will fight for the constitutional right of this family to oppose the new HMO - the GMO or Government Managed Organization. Remember, Britain is now denying some breast cancer treatment because it isn't cost effective.