Boy with cancer

[CL]

So what do we think? Neon Roberts is a little boy caught in the middle of a battle between what one parent wants and what the other parent and doctors want. Today the court took the side of the father and doctors and told them to go ahead with radiotherapy. The mother is not happy and is planning to fight this move through the courts.

I think the court made the right decision but it would have been more difficult if the father was in agreement with the mother. Very interesting case and one which I will continue to follow.

[Graeme78]

It is an interesting case. I also agree that the court made the right decision, however, I would be interested to know why the mother didn't feel her son should have the treatment.
As an aside, as things stand if a father is not 'married' to a child's mother they cannot sign a consent form for a child's treatment at hospital, only a mother can.
I would be interested to know the relationship between mother and father and to find out why the father had to go to these lengths.

Part of my job is the newborn screening for inherited diseases, Phenylketonuria, Cystic Fibrosis, Congenital Hyperthyroidism and so on, (google it for more info).The clinical implications of some of these diseases is the death of your child if not caught early and preventative measures taught to parents. Why a parent would avoid this is beyond me, treatment and education are available for these conditions, yet some people choose to avoid testing.

(I use the 'married' as the definition of this is now a confused meaning, but that's another story)

[XRunner]

I believe that the best action would have been to keep the media out of this type of court case.

[Wheeze]

Good point xrunner. These sort of dilemmas are played out daily in every hospital up and down the land but rarely escape into the public arena. Quite why this one has is unknown but perhaps the answer lies in the relationship of the 'parents'.

[nippersmith]

From what I have read in the press it seems that the local authority were compelled to make an emergency application to court, following the mother failing to take Neon to medical appointments. Within that application it looks as if the court has agreed that the details can be made public, so that Neon could be located and presented for treatment. Otherwise he would have been entitled to privacy and any judgements would normally be anonymised.

The father has parental responsibility as he was married to the child’s mother, she has parental responsibility as mothers always do. If the father had not been married to the mother, he would have PR if his name was on the child's birth certificate. The doctors need the consent of all people with parental responsibility to carry out treatment.

The mother was concerned about the side effects of treatment recommended by the medics and was desperately researching alternative remedies. The court has had to make the decision, as the doctors have been obliged to ask the court for permission to treat the child, in the face of the mother’s refusal to consent. Neon had his own lawyer representing him in court.

The judgement of Mr. Justice Bodey will shed more light on the facts, I can’t find the judgement but the Telegraph quotes most extensively from it: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/he...legal-row.html

[XRunner]

The mother has sold her story to a newspaper and this is probably the reason for the publicity.
She has also said she will sue if her son suffers side-effects as a result of the treatment.
Will she also accept responsibility if her son suffers because of her intransigence?

[Graeme78]

From what I have read in the press it seems that the local authority were compelled to make an emergency application to court, following the mother failing to take Neon to medical appointments. Within that application it looks as if the court has agreed that the details can be made public, so that Neon could be located and presented for treatment. Otherwise he would have been entitled to privacy and any judgements would normally be anonymised.

The father has parental responsibility as he was married to the child’s mother, she has parental responsibility as mothers always do. If the father had not been married to the mother, he would have PR if his name was on the child's birth certificate. The doctors need the consent of all people with parental responsibility to carry out treatment.

The mother was concerned about the side effects of treatment recommended by the medics and was desperately researching alternative remedies. The court has had to make the decision, as the doctors have been obliged to ask the court for permission to treat the child, in the face of the mother’s refusal to consent. Neon had his own lawyer representing him in court.

The judgement of Mr. Justice Bodey will shed more light on the facts, I can’t find the judgement but the Telegraph quotes most extensively from it: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/he...legal-row.html

Interesting points, the first I was made aware of this case was the report that the boy and his mother had been found after she had absconded with her child so she could prevent any further treatment taking place.
As far as I was aware it does not require all those with parental responsibilities to sign consent forms, when my little lad has been admitted for the various procedures he's had, my wife has usually signed even when I've been present. Also the consent forms I have seen while dealing with patient samples have generally only had one signatory. (I'm not saying your wrong just quoting my experiences of these things)
It is an interesting case, my wife's initial reaction was to blast the mother, until I pointed out she could genuinely been afraid of the side effects, as is the case, it does not however make her anymore right. There are cases when treatment doesn't always improve the situation, but there are risks with any procedure, as a colleague once said to me, "The only routine operation, is one that's being done on somebody else" it's about giving yourself the best chance at improving the quality of life.

[noel]

The mother has sold her story to a newspaper and this is probably the reason for the publicity.
She has also said she will sue if her son suffers side-effects as a result of the treatment.
Will she also accept responsibility if her son suffers because of her intransigence?

The more I learn about this woman the less I like her. You can't choose your parents.

When I first heard this story and that they had named the child "Neon", I built up a likely profile of the mother in my mind. I'm ashamed to say, largely based on my prejudices.

All I've heard since then has confirmed this.

I apologise to all those Neons out there with nice sane, normal parents.

[nippersmith]

A doctor cannot provide a course of treatment for a child if a person with PR for that child opposes the treatment. In such a situation, the doctors would try to work with the parents, and would invite the court to make a declaration as to the child’s best interests, as a last resort. It is inevitable that an application to court will damage the doctor/parent relationship.

I believe this mother is desperate, frightened and suspicious of conventional cancer treatment. She seems to have more faith in alternative remedies. The sad fact is she says she spent days researching alternative treatments on the internet, and asked the court for more time to pursue these lines of enquiry – the boy’s father was reported to be at the child’s side in the hospital when the judgement was given.

If she sells her story that would be a new low.

[Deadlegs]

Article in Saturdays Times dealing with side effects. Not pleasant. Not a straightforward decision and thank God I haven't had to make it. The mother shouldn't be criticised unless you know the full facts.