Judge Forces Parents to Allow Chemotherapy for Their 3-Year-Old

How much say do we really have when it comes to our children’s medical care? When is it okay for a doctor or judge to override a parent’s wishes? The recent case of parents being forced to put their 3-year-old child on chemotherapy has taken the media by storm --- but there may be more to the story than we’ve been told.

Recent headlines have painted a picture of parents being stripped of their rights, forced to allow their 3-year-old son to undergo dangerous chemotherapy treatments. The ethical dilemma appears complicated --- until you look at the statistics that many people think these parents have ignored.

Keep reading for the full story on the judgment that has everybody asking, "Is it ethical for a judge to force chemotherapy on a toddler?" 

The Decision That Made Headlines

Three-year-old Noah McAdams has been the center of a major legal battle ever since his parents, Taylor Bland and Joshua McAdams, tried to take him off chemotherapy. The toddler, whose story has appeared on CNN and numerous other news outlets, suffers from acute lymphoblastic leukemia. He began chemotherapy in Tampa, Florida, at Johns Hopkins All Children's Hospital, but his parents were reportedly unhappy with his treatment there.

According to CNN, the parents wanted a second opinion on Noah’s treatment options, and they were considering alternative therapies --- cannabis, vitamins, and diet --- in lieu of conventional treatment. When they didn’t show for Noah’s second chemotherapy treatment, an official from the hospital reported them to Child Protective Services. Police found them in a hotel in Kentucky.

The parents have been accused of fleeing the state to avoid continuing Noah’s treatment, fearful it was doing him more harm than good. They claim they were in Kentucky to seek a second opinion and were exploring their options. A judge pulled Noah from their custody and ordered the chemotherapy to continue, allowing the child to stay with his grandparents until further notice.

Ethical Dilemma?

The American Medical Association’s Journal of Ethics paints a fine line between accepting parental rights to refuse treatment and enforcing a child’s best interests. While the courts typically uphold a parent’s right to refuse treatment on religious grounds, the burden of proof of benefit often falls on the parents in most other circumstances.

In the case of Noah McAdams, the parents were likely harming him by refusing chemotherapy. According to St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, acute lymphoblastic leukemia is highly treatable. In fact, with appropriate treatment, the remission rate is about 98%, and it usually occurs within a few weeks of starting treatment. The treatment completely cures about 90% of cases. This means Noah’s chances of living a long and happy life are extremely high, but only if he receives his prescribed treatment.

The judge in this case is allowing Noah to undergo alternative treatments, but only alongside the chemotherapy course. The ruling goes against the parents’ wishes, but is that really wrong? Given the success rate for treating his illness, would it be much more tragic if the judge did nothing and Noah died?

The right ethical choice can be a tough call, and most of the time parents of course do have a say in a child’s medical treatment. But in this case, the parents were rejecting a tried and true treatment plan, hoping cannabis and vitamins would work just as well. What do you think of this decision? Please share your thoughts in the comments section below.

~ Here’s to Your Health and Wellness