Mom Refuses (then submits to) Chemotherapy for Son
May 27, 2009 by Julia King · Leave a Comment
I’m not sure what to make of the Minnesota mother who fled with her 13-year-old son to escape chemotherapy for his Hodgkin’s lymphoma. It would be easy to declare her absolutely crazy and be done with it. Vitamin therapy instead of chemotherapy? Come on. According to doctors, the numbers are heavily stacked in favor of traditional medicine on this one (something along the lines of 95% survival rate with chemotherapy versus 5% survival with the vitamins).
In the photos and news footage she looks like a normal woman, a loving mother, maybe a tad sure of herself, a bit too territorial (she touches her son almost as though he is an extension of her instead of simply himself). But there is no doubt in my mind that the woman loves her son – and that’s worth something (although we parents know all too well that our love, mercilessly, exists in a realm separate from our parenting skill).
Although I try, I can’t quite find the “loony” in her eyes, meaning the thing that makes her vastly different from me — or any of us who are trying to live out our values and beliefs.
Is it simply a lack of scientific understanding that allows her to disregard the advice of doctors? Most of us can’t fully grasp what’s going on in our bodies at any given moment, or what, exactly, our doctors are doing to alter them; but we can see that traditional medicine rests on a set of principles that, over time, lend themselves to honest inquiry. Yes, we’ve got an imperfect, profit-driven health care system that deserves some measure of distrust; but it’s irrational to imagine that the real problems within a traditional medical setting somehow translate into the superiority of other, less rigorously tested (or proven) alternatives.
My own worldview would have me rushing to get chemotherapy for my daughter, but as a general rule, is it wrong to believe that medical intervention is wrong? Is it wrong to submit to the rhythms of nature (or to “God”) rather than to humanity’s collective attempt to control those rhythms? In order to be moral, must we adopt each new medical “advancement” for ourselves and for our children? Is the mother’s embrace of vitamin therapy an ill-informed and stubborn belief that it will cure her son, or only the belief that the chemotherapy is immoral?
While these are all questions worth asking, the most important question involves the boy’s understanding of the situation. Does this child fully comprehend the potential (deadly) consequences of delaying or rejecting chemotherapy (in this article the boy is said to believe the chemo will kill him)? It looks to me as though he is a loyal, loving son who has absorbed well the lessons his parents have taught him – despite their erroneous content.
Because we’re human, we are entitled to be foolish. No amount of schooling or peer pressure has been able to rid our species of that trait. So maybe parenting just requires that we know our limits, that we grasp our inherent imperfection – and that we not confuse our certainty with truth. Maybe it requires that we not spoon feed our children our eccentricities, but that we let them develop their own.
(The last I heard, the woman reappeared with her son, ready to cooperate, although one presumes her return is an obedient act rather than a philosophical shift…)
President Obama and the Notre Dame “Controversy”
May 9, 2009 by Julia King · 7 Comments
I keep thinking of Lyle the Crocodile. Remember him — the lovable reptile from the late 1960s that lived in a Manhattan row house with a middle class family? He was irresistibly kind and funny and oh-so-scaly. All the kids in the neighborhood wanted to play with him because… who WOULDN’T want to play with a giant, tame crocodile!
Then one day the kind, good-hearted Lyle got an anonymous hate letter. A HATE letter. He was sad. Why did someone hate him? He got another, and then another… until one day he heard a noise on the front porch and somehow, despite the fact that he was a crocodile, he managed to quickly open the door and catch a little girl leaving a note. (Disclaimer: This is the way I remember one of my favorite childhood books, and this is the way I want it to stay.) Lyle confronted the girl and it turned out that her mother didn’t like crocodiles and wouldn’t let her play with Lyle (poor little girl!). Naturally, she had no alternative but to hate him. But then some plot was hatched to win over the girl’s mother, and it worked (hooray!); so everyone was happy, especially the little girl who got a brand new friend.
Fort Wayne/South Bend Bishop John D’Arcy is the character match for the little girl’s mother, because D’Arcy refuses to play with President Obama when he comes to Notre Dame and he’s telling all his Catholic “children” to do the same. Poor children!
And Obama, he’s Lyle the Crocodile. Of course, Lyle and Obama are different in many significant ways (Obama is a human being who went to law school, wrote two books, was elected president, and his spirits remain high even when people send him hate letters; conversely, Lyle is an affable, but emotionally needy, uneducated crocodile). But they are the same in that they share an underlying decency that translates into a mysterious, charismatic quality. An American president who displays gentleness is like a crocodile that chooses not to bite, because both temper their inherent power with self-restraint and discipline. There is something captivating about that, about being able to relax in the face of strength.
We had a slightly twitchy tough-talking, war-launching president for almost a decade. The world saw (and felt) what it meant to be constantly on-guard – and most of us didn’t like it. Some of us did, but if we are to believe the polls (and why wouldn’t we?), most people around the globe found it disconcerting. It’s still early in Obama’s presidency, early enough to celebrate the novelty of a man who reaches out to the world, a man who demonstrates our nation’s ability to shift direction, to grow beyond an array of old and destructive notions.
What a shame that some Catholics (the “good” ones?) are being called upon to forego any ownership of the progress Obama represents. And on what grounds? On the grounds that Obama doesn’t respect life. The man who condemned the Iraq war, who seeks health care for all people, who put an end to the American use of torture, the guy who wants to protect the entire population of the planet from the scourge of climate change… this man is being accused of lacking respect for life. Whatever.
It’s reasonable to critique a sitting president, to voice opposition to bad policies (and EVERY president has some) — but it just can’t be any fun to hate on Obama. Poor Bishop D’Arcy. It’s got to be lonely.
