They are currently having to fight the government for custody because the family wanted to STOP the chemo treatments on their cancer free 5 year old.

Why can't they return to Texas with their child and seek a second opinion? Why doesn't Texas get involved? How can a child choose their sex but parents can't stop chemo treatments on a cancer free child?

@GrantCardone a family friend is having to sue the government to stop chemo on their OWN son. This is a travesty. They don’t even live in Minnesota. pic.twitter.com/nBfuH0b2GC

— Corey Thompson (@Roughneck2real) October 26, 2023

I'm gonna hope there's a legit other side to this story. Perhaps it's as simple as a single clean test, but docs want to run another couple rounds to be sure.

(Not responding against you but against the logic of the situation)
In this situation, rare as it may be?, Wouldn't it make more sense to get another test result prior to giving the child the enormous amount of meds/chemicals in chemo which is a kill all for rapidly multiplying cells?


Sometimes it seems like the tail is wagging the dog in the medical world.

I know a pediatric oncologist who in Texas reported a family to CPS after they refused to do cancer treatment for their child and decided that they wanted to do alternative medicine. He was sued by the family for having reported the family to CPS. He was embroiled in a lawsuit for several years. All because he tried to save the child's life. This was a cancer that with traditional medical treatment would most likely be curable. As I recall, CPS in the government did disallow the family from preventing the child from getting normal medical treatment.

The doctor had the stress of dealing with the lawsuit for those many years.

So the question is, does a family have the right to make a medical decision for their child that will lead to their death??

Quote:

---

So the question is, does a family have the right to make a medical decision for their child that will lead to their death??

---

You cant be serious, right?

Ask Planned Parenthood.

shiftyandquick said:

---

I know a pediatric oncologist who in Texas reported a family to CPS after they refused to do cancer treatment for their child and decided that they wanted to do alternative medicine. He was sued by the family for having reported the family to CPS. He was embroiled in a lawsuit for several years. All because he tried to save the child's life. This was a cancer that with traditional medical treatment would most likely be curable. As I recall, CPS in the government did disallow the family from preventing the child from getting normal medical treatment.

The doctor had the stress of dealing with the lawsuit for those many years.

So the question is, does a family have the right to make a medical decision for their child that will lead to their death??

---

It's the parents' right to make medical decisions for their children, not the doctor or the state.

While fortunately not with a child, I unfortunately know a little about leukemia treatment.

After the first round to chemo, if the cancer is undetectable that does not mean treatment stops. They are trying to prevent the cancer from returning. Many times when it returns, it can't be treated.


Sad story all around, and I don't know all the facts of this case, but in a general sense the State does have a role in protecting children. What if it is a situation. What if it is a situation where a child accidentally has his hand cut off by a lawnmower blade. Should the parents be allowed to not seek emergency medical help? Does a parent's right to make medical decisions extend to having the kids ween lopped off because he thinks he is a girl?

"Gender affirming care" for minors should be BANNED but that's a whole separate issue than whether kids have a right to receive life saving medical treatment over home remedies and cannabis.

Very tough case here, I hope this child survives this horrible disease and lives a long life.

Stock response to one of these CPS stories....

ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS two sides to the story.

So parents and child from Texas, are trying to leave to state of Minnesota to return to Texas for a second opinion and people on this thread equate that to them willingly killing their child. Last time I checked Texas has a pretty decent cancer treatment center by the name of MD Anderson with satellite facilities or MD Anderson trained oncologists across the state. Seems reasonable to reevaluate the treatment plan and adjust the chemo cocktail for round two and subsequent treatments, not sure what the problem is. If Covid should have taught us anything it should have been to be somewhat skeptical of the motivations of the medical community.

The parents are not seeking a "second opinion" from a place like MD Andersen. They are seeking to stop the chemotherapy. At the trial, they did not present any witness that said chemotherapy was not needed.

The guardian ad litem in the case recommended the child be transferred to Texas with Court Order to allow alternative remedies to be tried, but keeping chemotherapy in place.


More info here: It is paywalled, sorry.

https://www.startribune.com/wright-county-minnesota-retains-custody-of-cancer-stricken-child-whose-parents-oppose-chemo/600291444/

AnScAggie said:

---

Last time I checked Texas has a pretty decent cancer treatment center by the name of MD Anderson with satellite facilities or MD Anderson trained oncologists across the state.

---

Curious as to why this Texas family went to Minnesota in the first place.

I wasn't aware of the Tx strategy for leukemia so that would make more sense that despite no active cancer being detected.

In that case, assuming the doctor explained that to the parents ( which I'm sure they did), it seems like there should be some resolution that would allow the family to coordinate hand over treatment from the oncologist in MN to an oncologist near their hometown in TX. Sign the forms, if the child hasn't visited the Texas doctor by agreed date then TX doctor can contact CPS etc.
Has to be some balance between child protection, rights of parents and detaining family away from home at their expense.

coconutED said:

---

AnScAggie said:

---

Last time I checked Texas has a pretty decent cancer treatment center by the name of MD Anderson with satellite facilities or MD Anderson trained oncologists across the state.

---

Curious as to why this Texas family went to Minnesota in the first place.

---

Visit family for Christmas

The ad litem's suggestions seems like it should have been the way to go. The Order from the Court on this is not linked in the story, so there is nothing showing why that route was not taken.

Such as sad story.

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

I'm gonna hope there's a legit other side to this story. Perhaps it's as simple as a single clean test, but docs want to run another couple rounds to be sure.

---

There usually is.

Quote:

---

5-year old Keaton Peck was recently diagnosed with leukemia. His medical care team is insisting on a two-plus year chemo regimen to fight the disease. But his mother and father prefer natural therapies.
...
McKena Peck told the court, she believes it is not the cancer that kills, but rather the chemo.
...
His parents, already opposed to chemo based on religious and their own researched-understanding, hated seeing the side effects on Keaton. When test results came back indicating there was no active cancer, his parents said they wanted to go the natural remedy route.
...
But Keaton's medical team insisted the only path to properly treat the potentially deadly cancer and minimize the likelihood of it returning was a 2+ year chemo cycle. They pointed to survival rates of over 90% with a full complement of chemotherapy.
...
Wright County child protective services subsequently stepped in, and arguing medical neglect, stripped the parents of their rights to make any further care decisions

Link

---

I am a big supporter of parents' rights, and I take their side even in this extreme case, but they are probably going to kill their son if they regain medical rights.

If it's the parents right to make medical decisions for their child wouldn't it also be their right to abort the child and not the government?

shiftyandquick said:

---

So the question is, does a family have the right to make a medical decision for their child that will lead to their death??

---

In other words, do parents get to make the judgment calls as to what is best for their children, or will the state do so?

We are not talking about abuse. We are talking about parents who are making a judgment call that they believe to be in the best interest of their child ... no matter how wrong most of us may believe them to be.

Sometimes parents will make bad calls. Sometimes those bad calls will injure or kill their children. In this case, they probably will.

It sounds uncaring, but sometimes that is the cost of limited government.

I understand your position, but there are limits to "parental rights" and sometimes someone has to to protect the child when the parent will not.

Should parents have the right to change the sex of their young children through an operation?

I would hope to God every person answers "not just no, but HELL no" to this.

AnScAggie said:

---

So parents and child from Texas, are trying to leave to state of Minnesota to return to Texas for a second opinion and people on this thread equate that to them willingly killing their child. Last time I checked Texas has a pretty decent cancer treatment center by the name of MD Anderson

---

No, they want to try and treat leukemia with nuts and berries.

Quote:

---

5-year old Keaton Peck was recently diagnosed with leukemia. His medical care team is insisting on a two-plus year chemo regimen to fight the disease. But his mother and father prefer natural therapies.

---

Link

Antoninus said:

---

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

I'm gonna hope there's a legit other side to this story. Perhaps it's as simple as a single clean test, but docs want to run another couple rounds to be sure.

---

There usually is.

Quote:

---

5-year old Keaton Peck was recently diagnosed with leukemia. His medical care team is insisting on a two-plus year chemo regimen to fight the disease. But his mother and father prefer natural therapies.
...
McKena Peck told the court, she believes it is not the cancer that kills, but rather the chemo.
...
His parents, already opposed to chemo based on religious and their own researched-understanding, hated seeing the side effects on Keaton. When test results came back indicating there was no active cancer, his parents said they wanted to go the natural remedy route.
...
But Keaton's medical team insisted the only path to properly treat the potentially deadly cancer and minimize the likelihood of it returning was a 2+ year chemo cycle. They pointed to survival rates of over 90% with a full complement of chemotherapy.
...
Wright County child protective services subsequently stepped in, and arguing medical neglect, stripped the parents of their rights to make any further care decisions

---

I am a big supporter of parents' rights, and I take their side even in this extreme case, but they are probably going to kill their son if they regain medical rights.

---

NOW we're getting somewhere!

The CPS mission has always been a challenging one. On one had we (as a society) want to seek kids rescued from abusive households. On the other hand, we don't want government stealing children from parents over reasonable parenting decisions.

And in this case the bar for parental negligence can be defined by probability numbers provided by third party experts who have their own personal motivations (hopefully patient care focused, but personal licensure and hospital business processes are also at play).

I strongly err toward parental rights, and think the govt should need to prove their case, but if a bunch of docs independently review the case and generally arrive at "historical precedent gives a 75% chance of cancerous return and death if you don't continue, and a 5% chance of death from chemo" …I'd have to say it'd be hard to stand by and let the parents discontinue care.

The parallels to abortion are pretty similar here. The libertarian pro-life argument says that one of the only duties of the state is to protect it's citizens. Seems like it would apply both here and in abortions situations.

Definitely understand the distrust of the medical community on the whole, however.

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

I strongly err toward parental rights, and think the govt should need to prove their case, but if a bunch of docs independently review the case and generally arrive at "historical precedent gives a 75% chance of cancerous return and death if you don't continue, and a 5% chance of death from chemo" …I'd have to say it'd be hard to stand by and let the parents discontinue care.

---

I agree. Very hard. Gut-wrenching, in fact.

Sometimes it is VERY hard to be an advocate for limited-government..

Would you be stopping treatment at say the Mayo in order to return to Texas? That doesn't preclude them from seeking further treatment in Texas. I definitely don't have enough information, but I stand by my skepticism of the motives of hospitals and doctors post Covid.

Furious said:

---

The parallels to abortion are pretty similar here. The libertarian pro-life argument says that one of the only duties of the state is to protect it's citizens. Seems like it would apply both here and in abortions situations.

Definitely understand the distrust of the medical community on the whole, however.

---

The difference is that this pre-schooler has recognized legal rights for a court to protect (e.g. "is a citizen"), while a fetus does not (and is thus not a "citizen"), as a general rule.

The question presented is "Who has the right (or obligation?) to protect those "rights?" Is it the parents or the state. IS that the role of the state, and SHOULD it be?

46 stars and counting for the idea that parents should be able to refuse live-saving care for their child.

shiftyandquick said:

---

I know a pediatric oncologist who in Texas reported a family to CPS after they refused to do cancer treatment for their child and decided that they wanted to do alternative medicine. He was sued by the family for having reported the family to CPS. He was embroiled in a lawsuit for several years. All because he tried to save the child's life. This was a cancer that with traditional medical treatment would most likely be curable. As I recall, CPS in the government did disallow the family from preventing the child from getting normal medical treatment.

The doctor had the stress of dealing with the lawsuit for those many years.

So the question is, does a family have the right to make a medical decision for their child that will lead to their death??

---

I also know of a case where the doctors wanted to put a child through chemo and tried to take the kid away because they wanted a second view. The child did NOT have cancer after all.

They had to flee the state to avoid the treatments until they got other doctors to verify.

Antoninus said:

---

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

I strongly err toward parental rights, and think the govt should need to prove their case, but if a bunch of docs independently review the case and generally arrive at "historical precedent gives a 75% chance of cancerous return and death if you don't continue, and a 5% chance of death from chemo" …I'd have to say it'd be hard to stand by and let the parents discontinue care.

---

I agree. Very hard. Gut-wrenching, in fact.

Sometimes it is VERY hard to be an advocate for limited-government..

---

I want to be a libertarian, but pragmatism forces me to be a conservative because of cases like this. Limited government =/= absence of government. Because we are all sinners, and some commit acts of great evil, we agree to a societal umbrella that is able to exert surgical force for the preservation of innocent individuals.

What's the threshold of injustice and proportional governmental response? Those are the 2 issues in shades of gray at play here.

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

I want to be a libertarian, but pragmatism forces me to be a conservative because of cases like this. Limited government =/= absence of government. Because we are all sinners, and some commit acts of great evil, we agree to a societal umbrella that is able to exert surgical force for the preservation of innocent individuals.

What's the threshold of injustice and proportional governmental response? Those are the 2 issues in shades of gray at play here.

---

I get what you are saying, but here we are not discussing "absence of government." We are discussing where the line lies as to WHEN a government should be allowed to act when a child is in some degree of danger.

Personally, I draw the line at intentional acts by the parent ... perhaps GROSS negligence. You still end-up with questions as to whether a parental decision is SO bad as to constitute gross negligence. What is (or should be) the standard? Is it a "reasonable person?" LOTS of parents would find their decisions overridden.

If it is to be "gross negligence," I think you would have a hard case to make that these parents are acting with "conscious indifference" for the welfare of their son.

They are not uncaring. They are simply idiots.

Minarchist Libertarians think the only role of government is to provide protection and courts for it's citizens. And even under this extremely limited government approach, they would support the state protecting children from their parents in some cases. For abortion, there's definitely a grey area around pre-birth, partial-birth, etc.

Clearly a question of, does the state have a duty to step in, in either this case or abortion cases, and when and to what extent? There's clearly a slippery slope argument to be made, fallacy or not, as we saw with covid and even visitation rights being trounced in the name of "safety." In general, I completely distrust bureaucrats to make good decisions, especially when they've been compromised by greed and self-interest, which makes the moral dilemma that much harder...

The number of people who think they know how to cure cancer better than doctors is astounding...

Also, since when were all doctors bad and untrustworthy because of the actions of a vocal few during COVID?

shiftyandquick said:

---

I know a pediatric oncologist who in Texas reported a family to CPS after they refused to do cancer treatment for their child and decided that they wanted to do alternative medicine. He was sued by the family for having reported the family to CPS. He was embroiled in a lawsuit for several years. All because he tried to save the child's life. This was a cancer that with traditional medical treatment would most likely be curable. As I recall, CPS in the government did disallow the family from preventing the child from getting normal medical treatment.

The doctor had the stress of dealing with the lawsuit for those many years.

So the question is, does a family have the right to make a medical decision for their child that will lead to their death??

---

Like an abortion?

The Marksman said:

---

Also, since when were all doctors bad and untrustworthy because of the actions of a vocal few during COVID?

---

Looks like someone was busy deleting discussions from this...

Anyways, to sum up - doctors look to be right in this case but there's definitely a very real worry and discussion about how much power we are giving the State to intervene and in which cases. Staff didn't like the "derails" even though I think the issue is way more far-reaching than just this case.

Furious said:

---

The Marksman said:

---

Also, since when were all doctors bad and untrustworthy because of the actions of a vocal few during COVID?

---

Looks like someone was busy deleting discussions from this...

Anyways, to sum up - doctors look to be right in this case but there's definitely a very real worry and discussion about how much power we are giving the State to intervene and in which cases. Staff didn't like the "derails" even though I think the issue is way more far-reaching than just this case.

---

yep. Lost a thorough response, there.

I would add, the distrust in doctors comes from a peak under the skirt.

In Covid, numerous "good" doctors continued to advise the shot to young healthy naturally immune athletic men, even thought the shot was designed for a bygone strain, demographic risk was known to be near zero, and rumblings about myocarditis were growing.

The anthropomorphic flow charts are useful most of the time, but the industry has centralized a great deal between convergent administrative requirements, malpractice threats, and professional licensure.

Now we're seeing the profession advancing child genital mutilation for the mentally ill under the banner of "gender affirming care."

In this case - everything seems to point toward the a completion of a full schedule of chemo (based on a history of similar patients and their success / failure with various treatments) as wiser than discontinuing in favor of "homeopathic treatment"… but again - the medical industry has destroyed a lot of credibility lately.

If only liberals cared this much about unborn babies