Required Treatment for Cancer Patient?

[papayahed]

What do ya'll think:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/05/19/minnesota.forced.chemo/index.html?iref=newssearch


(CNN) -- A Minnesota judge issued an arrest warrant Tuesday for the mother of Daniel Hauser, a 13-year-old boy who is refusing treatment for his cancer, after neither she nor the boy showed up for a court appearance.


Doctors say Daniel Hauser's lymphoma responded well to a first round of chemotherapy in February.

"It is imperative that Daniel receive the attention of an oncologist as soon as possible," wrote Brown County District Judge John R. Rodenberg in an order to "apprehend and detain."

"His best interests require it," Rodenberg wrote.

I'm kinda on the fence regarding this case. On one hand the boy is in his right mind, but on the other handed treatment seems like it could be pretty effective.

But then again why are they going after this family when I just read an article that said a good deal of cancer patients don't get necessary treatment because of cost.

[Niamh]

:eek: Wait! the kid is refusing treatment? Lympatoma is a horrid cancer. If the treatment is working, i really think he should continue, or even give it another go. But in my opinion, he is still too young to sign his own death warant.

[BienvenuJDC]

There may be a lot of facts that we don't know about. It seems that it's not a factor of money, otherwise the courts would have to provide the means before they could pronounce judgment. I wonder if it is a case of neglect. Why would a mother not take care of this? I would like to know more about it before I made any judgments.

[Jozanny]

Me? I have mixed feelings. The state certainly has a vested interest in protecting children. It gets damned if it doesn't--like the Kelly case here in Philadelphia-- it caused a national uproar that a neglected and disabled child was allowed to starve to death.

OTOH, I do not like it when western medicine gets to dictate that a course of conduct is criminal because the established science is rejected. New Age medicine doesn't work, but it persists because it comforts the patient and recognizes emotional needs. The real science of correcting or healing the body is brutal. I should know, and since I do, I value my autonomy over and above paying the physician any mind.

That said, these parents have some really serious denial issues, even if I have conveniently not taken a firm stance for either side. :)

[BienvenuJDC]

I guess I would like to know if there was an alternative medicine that was pursued... Based on the article above there is still very little that we know about this case.

[Jozanny]

I guess I would like to know if there was an alternative medicine that was pursued... Based on the article above there is still very little that we know about this case.

From what I've read on Yahoo over the last few days, the mother seems to follow this Indian healing methodology on the basis of her beliefs. This is not really an uncommon conflict between the state and [Christian Science/Jehovah's Witnesses/Haitian Animism, take your pick].

[Niamh]

yeah we have had many a court case over here involving Jahovahs witnesses and blood transfusions.

[Stargazer86]

From what I read, the boy is refusing treatment because after one chemo treatment he had trouble walking. And after talking with the boy, they concluded that he does not fully understand how sick he is and will become without treatment. He is still a child. Of course he's terrified and hates the idea of chemo. Who wouldn't? The decision is based on what's best for him long term. Initially, I thought, well Jehova's Witnesses have the right to refuse blood transfusions. This is comperable whether or not people agree with it. If the child had a small chance of living, and the chemo would certainly deteriorate his quality of life even if it prolonged the duration, I don't blame them for refusing it. But it seems that his chances of living without the chemo are low, and his chances of living if he recieves it are high. Ask him in 10 years after he's recieved the chemo and lived if he's glad in the long run that he got it. If he doesn't get it, no one will have the chance to ask him in the future. He'll be dead. I can't believe the parents would rather bury thier child than to let him suffer chemo for awhile so that he can get better. But, as I mentioned earlier, its comperable to the refusal of blood transfusions. I don't agree with that either, but that's not my religious belief, nor my choice. I really hope the best for the boy. I have a lot of faith in modern medicine.


Me? I have mixed feelings. The state certainly has a vested interest in protecting children. It gets damned if it doesn't--like the Kelly case here in Philadelphia-- it caused a national uproar that a neglected and disabled child was allowed to starve to death.

OTOH, I do not like it when western medicine gets to dictate that a course of conduct is criminal because the established science is rejected. New Age medicine doesn't work, but it persists because it comforts the patient and recognizes emotional needs. The real science of correcting or healing the body is brutal. I should know, and since I do, I value my autonomy over and above paying the physician any mind.

That said, these parents have some really serious denial issues, even if I have conveniently not taken a firm stance for either side. :)


What was the "Kelly case"? I never heard about that...

[BienvenuJDC]

That sheds some new light on it ...thanks EE!! If this was a religious belief I could try to see their side, but I'd like to hear the mother's defense for her decision. The fact that she didn't SHOW for the court date I think would indicate something. What do you all think? The child cannot make such a decision if he doesn't understand the ramifications.

[Jozanny]

Star:

Here you go. (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2008/08/01/2008-08-01_nine_charged_in_starvation_death_of_disa.html) If you Google Danielle Kelly lots of urls come up. Apparently there is a memorial on Facebook too, but I refuse to do Facebook.

[Lokasenna]

It also depends on how influenced the child is by his mother - the British press, at least, is portraying her as the controlling party. If that's the case, then she is essentially going to kill her son; with chemo, he has a 90% chance of recovery, but without it only 5%. The general definition of legal freedom is the right to do anything you want so long as it does not impinge on the freedom of others, but that is clearly not the case here. IF, and I stress that, she is doing his thinking for him, then she is culpable for anything that happens to him, and should be punished accordingly.

[Jozanny]

Yes but Loka,

For someone like me, who was subjected to a regiment of surgeries and therapies which basically robbed me of childhood and normal adolescence, I am not so ready to be always compliant with medical prescription. Had my parents been less aggressive in trying to bring my body into physical norm, might I have been happier, more well-adjusted? I realize the boy has a curable cancer, and not chronic brain damage, but I know something about the price of living a life always subject to *treatment*.

Secondly, we supposedly take pluralism of faith seriously in this country. I can sit here and believe the parents are loons, but they might be sincere in their faith in natural alternatives. Is this necessarily criminal because they meld it with more traditional Christian tenants?

I am not sure that a state which dictates to its people that this has to be done this way for the sake of public health is much better than authoritarian regimes on the left or the right. It worries me because that is where social secularism seems to be going, if Saletan and his reporting is any indication.

If I had cancer and refused treatment, that is one thing, no one would force me, but if I wanted to treat my child in the way I thought best, then it becomes abuse. I'm not positive it is that clear cut here.

[Lokasenna]

Yes but Loka,

For someone like me, who was subjected to a regiment of surgeries and therapies which basically robbed me of childhood and normal adolescence, I am not so ready to be always compliant with medical prescription. Had my parents been less aggressive in trying to bring my body into physical norm, might I have been happier, more well-adjusted? I realize the boy has a curable cancer, and not chronic brain damage, but I know something about the price of living a life always subject to *treatment*.

Secondly, we supposedly take pluralism of faith seriously in this country. I can sit here and believe the parents are loons, but they might be sincere in their faith in natural alternatives. Is this necessarily criminal because they meld it with more traditional Christian tenants?

I am not sure that a state which dictates to its people that this has to be done this way for the sake of public health is much better than authoritarian regimes on the left or the right. It worries me because that is where social secularism seems to be going, if Saletan and his reporting is any indication.

If I had cancer and refused treatment, that is one thing, no one would force me, but if I wanted to treat my child in the way I thought best, then it becomes abuse. I'm not positive it is that clear cut here.

All fair points.


I realize the boy has a curable cancer, and not chronic brain damage, but I know something about the price of living a life always subject to *treatment*.

My understanding of his condition is that a fairly limited course of chemo would be enough to force the cancer into remission. Unless there are complications, I don't think it would be a long-term treatment.


Secondly, we supposedly take pluralism of faith seriously in this country.

Assuming America is roughly the same as Britain in terms of its religious laws, then freedom of religious practice is fine, unless it is to the detriment of others. In this instance, I would suggest (although I am admittedly talking from an outside perspective) that the poor lad is not old enough to make this decision rationally, and that his mother's religious beliefs are seriously endangering his life. Although I am a Christian, I think this is essentially a secular issue - a young life can almost certainly be saved with relative ease. Human decency should be enough to dictate the choice.


If I had cancer and refused treatment, that is one thing, no one would force me, but if I wanted to treat my child in the way I thought best, then it becomes abuse.

When my mum was eight years old, she was diagnosed with terminal leukemia, and given six months to live. My grandparents agreed to an experimental form of cure being used, one that made life very unpleasant for her, and one that involved her spending a fair bit of her childhood and adolescence in hospital. However, it worked, and since the age of about 16 she has been completely healthy, and with no long term effects. She is thankful to her parents for saving her life, and her love for them is extremely strong. She was even rather sad to hear about the death of the medical professor who subjected her to such painful and debilitating treatments.

I fully agree with you that its a tricky area, and an awful choice for a parent to make. My grandparents chose an option that would inflict a great deal of suffering on their daughter, and possibly even speed her death, but also stood a chance of curing her. Is that abuse? Or love? Certainly, my mum interpreted it as the latter, though I'm sure some people would see it as the former. However, in this current case, I can't help but feel that the mother's views are more overtly destructive. The cancer can be dealt with fairly easily, and with little chance of long-term effects.

That said, thank you for your comments - they were illuminating.

[Stargazer86]

Star:

Here you go. (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2008/08/01/2008-08-01_nine_charged_in_starvation_death_of_disa.html) If you Google Danielle Kelly lots of urls come up. Apparently there is a memorial on Facebook too, but I refuse to do Facebook.

Oh my god...that is horrific, and sickening, and wrong on every level. That litereally brought tears to my eyes. That mother and the state employees are lucky that the justice system is fairly reasonable. I think they should be subjected to the SAME EXACT THING that they did to that poor girl. I would beat the holy living s**t out of that "mother" if I ever got the chance

[Niamh]

In the papers over here today it said the boy has ran away... is that true?

[Nightshade]

I have been holed up readng for most of the last week - or not reading and trying to recuppirate from exam stress so missed all this. But it goes further than that ok child aside if it was an adult who decided they didnt want cancer treatment, even if it would potentially make them better isnt that ther desion to make.

[A Snowy Evening]

a mother fighting for the right to let her child die from an easily curable ailment. somehow it all seems so stupid.

[backline]

...from an easily curable ailment...


Having lost one of our sons to lymphoma, I can add that there are 30+ forms of non-Hodgkins type lymphomas, with varying survival rates.

Our son (who was grown) suffered from one of the more treatable forms, yet cancer does not play fair.

He was treated initially with a new miracle drug, just accepted for use after clinical trials which showed promise. Unfortunately in a small number of cases, there are known to be problems. He developed those problems.

His next option was another miracle cure: a stem-cell transplant: which he opted for and withstood. He was declared cancer free, but six weeks later it failed and the cancer returned.

Sometimes you just can't buy a break from statistics. Cancer does not play fair.

He suffered much over 22 months of treatment, yet wanted to beat it so did not complain.
Without treatment he would not have lasted 4 months from initial diagnosis.

In the end he was grateful for the people he had met undergoing the course of treatment, which he would not have had he not contracted the lymphoma.
He was a trooper and we miss him. He died about a year ago.

In this day and age I think the debate about alternative treatment is interesting, but I would like to point out that our son's oncologist, and many others, are aware of these alternatives and sometimes utilize them, or parts of them.
It usually comes down to benefit vs risk, and that is applied using statistical studies of cases. Of course statistics is science based (but we don't build bridges, buildings, or space shuttles using hunches or advice from our aunt Esmirelda and her Farmers Almanac either).

My wife has now been diagnosed with Stage IV lung cancer, so we're back on the roller coaster.
Unfortunately this time we're much more subject to what our HMO allows, so there will no experimental, clinical trial, or alternative treatments even discussed.

I'll stop here so as not to derail the discussion into the politics of HMO's.
Serious Cat doesn't want politics and I'm afraid I'm getting close to a rant.
So before the crazy Popeye music in my head gets any louder I'll just sign off.

Hope my comments add some useful perspective to this issue, but at some point I'm afraid politics will become the issue, as it seems to root its way into many places of contemporary dialogue about medicine.

[Jozanny]

backline,

My condolences on the loss of your son. I watched my brother slowly succumb to AIDS, over a five year period, so I have some inkling of what this does to families.

Two, not to put words in anyone's mouth, but I think the powers that be here in the forum understand that some issues invite controversy. I know they have let me *slide* as long as I made no direct political statements, like "President X is a dingbat" or something similar.

My HMO is making me suffer over my dire need for a power chair, so hey. Administrators have careers because they create obstacles to getting patients care, and I am not the first to point out that if you get rid of the HMO policy denier, you automatically free up more money for health care.

I wish the best for your wife. I worked with Dana Reeve for a while before both she and Christopher unexpectedly passed on, and she was always something of a steely optimist who did nothing but inspire one to try harder. But in any case, the boy is back under court jurisdiction, and I find the story itself altogether bizarre. They seem reluctant to charge the mother, so we'll have to see how it plays out.

[JBI]

It's interesting to note though, that the actual treatment procedures vary significantly by country - for instance, Cancer treatment in West Europe seems to have newer, more alternative methods for fighting cancer, than what are generally accepted procedures in North America. Generally, Chemo, the way I understand it, seems to be a treatment that rarely works - of course, such a statement would seem a bit bold, but generally, the medicine companies that get rich off such treatments are not about to disclose anything that could change things.

As for the debate about religion, and the patients refusal of Chemo - that seems a bit ridiculous. I am not a big fan of chemotherapy as a treatment, but to reject it for one's son on religious grounds seems to me a bit ridiculous - but then again, there have been countless cases of Jehovah's Witnesses refusing blood, and trying to refuse blood for their children, that it seems ultra-religious people are quite behind themselves - in truth, government policies have been put in place in many places with set plans on how to deal with difficult cases, such as in Canada (at least in Ontario, each province has a bit of a different system, but they are all similar) the government, if the parent refuses, transfers custody over to the State as a Warden for the child, and then forces the blood on the kid, which is seen as the only possible solution around this. Religious rights in these cases aren't as important as the potential harm to the child, and therefore it has been ruled that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is not being used within reasonable limits to justify a denial of a child medicine on the grounds of religious freedom.

Still, I can't say I'm particularly concerned - this is just the next story in long lines of pseudo-controversial sensationalist journalism that surface as filler. The Kid, unfortunately, seems like a Goner, no matter what his parents or doctors do, so all this does is tell us that there are people in this world who have an almost medieval belief in God over science and medicine (something which must set the clock back to 1100 or so).

[Virgil]

Having lost one of our sons to lymphoma, I can add that there are 30+ forms of non-Hodgkins type lymphomas, with varying survival rates.

Our son (who was grown) suffered from one of the more treatable forms, yet cancer does not play fair....

My wife has now been diagnosed with Stage IV lung cancer, so we're back on the roller coaster.
Unfortunately this time we're much more subject to what our HMO allows, so there will no experimental, clinical trial, or alternative treatments even discussed.


My condlolences on the loss of your son Backline and I hope your wife can survive this. My sympathies on all your struggles.

[Virgil]

Me? I have mixed feelings. The state certainly has a vested interest in protecting children. It gets damned if it doesn't--like the Kelly case here in Philadelphia-- it caused a national uproar that a neglected and disabled child was allowed to starve to death.


I have the same mixed feelings. The state does have an interest in protecting children, but ultimately the children do not belong to the state. How we square this circle is tough. If the child were an adult, one could presume it would have the same values as the parents, and therefore not want the medical treatment. But can we make such a presumption? Should we ask the child? Is he/she old enough to make such a decision? Certainly if the child says no and the parents say no, then it is clear the state can do nothing. If the child is an infant, then we have to leave it up to the parents. Your example of allowing your child to starve to death is not a comparable analogy. Letting your child starve is conscipous decision to not nuture him. Denying medical trreatment is a parental judgement that the parents are making in good faith interest of the child, even if it's wrong.

All in all, I may side with the parents here. The parents have a particular value system that whether we like or not is a good faith effort to care for the child, taking into account both physical and spiritual needs. I do not believe in the power of the state to dictate what is in our best interest. That is fascism.

[backline]

My condlolences on the loss of your son Backline and I hope your wife can survive this. My sympathies on all your struggles.


Thanks, and also thanks to Jozanny for condolences.

As it so happens the latest scans are very encouraging. My wife still has cancer, and it will be back, but now is a time of rest and recuperation from treatments. We may get to travel a little and enjoy the time we have left together, before the next battle is upon us.

[Nick Capozzoli]

I have the same mixed feelings. The state does have an interest in protecting children, but ultimately the children do not belong to the state. How we square this circle is tough. If the child were an adult, one could presume it would have the same values as the parents, and therefore not want the medical treatment. But can we make such a presumption? Should we ask the child? Is he/she old enough to make such a decision? Certainly if the child says no and the parents say no, then it is clear the state can do nothing. If the child is an infant, then we have to leave it up to the parents. Your example of allowing your child to starve to death is not a comparable analogy. Letting your child starve is conscipous decision to not nuture him. Denying medical trreatment is a parental judgement that the parents are making in good faith interest of the child, even if it's wrong.

All in all, I may side with the parents here. The parents have a particular value system that whether we like or not is a good faith effort to care for the child, taking into account both physical and spiritual needs. I do not believe in the power of the state to dictate what is in our best interest. That is fascism.

I agree. If the State has an interest in protecting innocent children, why does the State allow for the easy abortion of so many fetuses (even to the point of allowing partial birth abortion, which amounts to infanticide)? Why is the State so solicitous of this child's wellbeing when they would have allowed his abortion a few years earlier? As far as I can tell from this story, there is at least one person who loves this child (his mother). She may be deluded or misled about how to deal with his cancer, but there is something hypocritical about the State demanding that she relinquish her parentage rights at this point.

Nick

This is a complex moral/ethical case, pitting individual autonomy against the will of the State.. Medicine has progressed to the point that we can treat many diseases that previously were untreatable and even fatal, especially malignant diseases like leukemia and lymphoma.

I tend to come down on the side of autonomy. In general, a patient should be allowed to accept or decline offerred medical treatments, especially if you have a serious disease, like cancer, that often requires treatments with serious potential side effects.

In general, I would support the decision of any rational person to refuse treatment for a disease, even if the refusal would likely result in death. It all comes down to a gamble...nothing is really guaranteed as regards "cure." At best you can say something like "If you take the treatment you have an X% chance of cure, a Y% change of such-and-such side effects, and a Z% chance of dying from the disease if you don't accept the treatment."

The State already allows for over-riding automomy in cases where the patient is deemed to be incompetent to make decisions and a threat to self or others or "gravely disabled." In such cases, which mainly involve psychotic patients, the State allows for involuntary treatment, through a Court mediated "Keyhea" process.

The problem here is that the patient is a minor. We have had similar ethical issues with Jehovah's Witnesses who refuse life-saving blood transfusions on religious grounds. If the JW is a competent adult and refuses such treatment, we would have to respect his autonomy, even if we believed it was suicidal. The question here is whether or not a parent has the right to make such a decision for his or her child, who, under our legal system, is not considered entirely independent and competent to make such decisions.

The child seems to have refused treatment. His mother has certainly refused treatment. We can argue endlessly about whether or not the child is competent and/or unduly influenced by his parent.

Here's the way I see it. The child probably does stand a better chance of surviving with the treatment than without it, but there is no 100% certainty of this, and the treatment is risky and frought with discomfort and other potentially serious side effects. This discomfort and risk will have to be borne by the patien. The question is whether the State can make the decision for the parent and the monor patient. The only reason to do that would be the State's interest in giving the child the "best chance" for survival. This would require that the State take the position that life is precious and should be preserved at all cost.

Nick

[Jozanny]

Nick:

Your argument is sound until it waded into pregnancy termination. The right to an abortion focuses on two things:

1. the right to privacy
2. the right of any adult female to make decisions about her body (the precious autonomy we keep tossing around).

Which outweighs the right of the little human floating around in there. You may not agree that a woman has these rights to the degree that they over-ride the fetus rights, but I think dragging it in as an indictment against the state's equal protection clause is unfair, and expands the issue too much.

But as to Virgil's argument to me that the Kelly case is not on parity with this one, yes and no.

In the Kelly case, Danielle was already under the care of DHS, who sub-contracted the case out to providers, who then failed in their duty to protect a poor black disabled child who had some MR, and whose parents were already known to be incapacitated. The parents did not help themselves last year when they attempted to sue the city. The state may have failed, but the parents were the primary agents of the neglect.

In this case, we have a telegenic white kid, who has an ailment which invites sympathy as opposed to revulsion, whose parents may or may not be bad parents through belief or delusion, where the state may or may not have over-reached. To me it is borderline as to whether or not governmental authority went too far.

The two cases point to the limits, and / or lack of balance, when it comes to state interference into the dysfunctional family--and in the US, this is not *new*. It has been an issue since the 1930's and the development of family court, where the state burden on white dysfunctionalism is heavy-handed, and on black and minorities, non-existent until the 60's.

[Virgil]

I agree. If the State has an interest in protecting innocent children, why does the State allow for the easy abortion of so many fetuses (even to the point of allowing partial birth abortion, which amounts to infanticide)? Why is the State so solicitous of this child's wellbeing when they would have allowed his abortion a few years earlier? As far as I can tell from this story, there is at least one person who loves this child (his mother). She may be deluded or misled about how to deal with his cancer, but there is something hypocritical about the State demanding that she relinquish her parentage rights at this point.

Nick
Nick, I think we said essentially the same exact thing. Nice to see a soul brother here. :)

As to the introducing the abortion analogy here, I'm hesitant. I see it your way, but then I'm staunchly pro-life. I think this opens up too many side issues for a good analogy. And as to pointing out hypocrisy, well there is always hypocrisy in all sides, everywhere right, left, middle, inside-out. Hypocrisy is part of human nature. If we were limited to legislation that did not involve anyone's hypocrisy, nothing would ever get legislated.


In general, I would support the decision of any rational person to refuse treatment for a disease, even if the refusal would likely result in death. It all comes down to a gamble...nothing is really guaranteed as regards "cure." At best you can say something like "If you take the treatment you have an X% chance of cure, a Y% change of such-and-such side effects, and a Z% chance of dying from the disease if you don't accept the treatment."

This is exactly how science and engineers approach data. Kudos. Pure cause and effect in a complex web variables is rarely found in the real wrold, and the complexity of interactions creates varying probablities. Do you have science degree or work in a scientific field?


Here's the way I see it. The child probably does stand a better chance of surviving with the treatment than without it, but there is no 100% certainty of this, and the treatment is risky and frought with discomfort and other potentially serious side effects. This discomfort and risk will have to be borne by the patien. The question is whether the State can make the decision for the parent and the monor patient. The only reason to do that would be the State's interest in giving the child the "best chance" for survival. This would require that the State take the position that life is precious and should be preserved at all cost.



Nick:

Your argument is sound until it waded into pregnancy termination. The right to an abortion focuses on two things:

1. the right to privacy
2. the right of any adult female to make decisions about her body (the precious autonomy we keep tossing around).

Which outweighs the right of the little human floating around in there. You may not agree that a woman has these rights to the degree that they over-ride the fetus rights, but I think dragging it in as an indictment against the state's equal protection clause is unfair, and expands the issue too much.

Yes I agree the abortion analogy is fraught with complexities that should probably nullify it. But, let me throw this at you: If the state doesn't have a right to prohibit a woman's right to choose the fate of her unborn child, why would it have a right to tell this mother how to treat her sick child?


But as to Virgil's argument to me that the Kelly case is not on parity with this one, yes and no.

In the Kelly case, Danielle was already under the care of DHS, who sub-contracted the case out to providers, who then failed in their duty to protect a poor black disabled child who had some MR, and whose parents were already known to be incapacitated. The parents did not help themselves last year when they attempted to sue the city. The state may have failed, but the parents were the primary agents of the neglect.

In this case, we have a telegenic white kid, who has an ailment which invites sympathy as opposed to revulsion, whose parents may or may not be bad parents through belief or delusion, where the state may or may not have over-reached. To me it is borderline as to whether or not governmental authority went too far.

The two cases point to the limits, and / or lack of balance, when it comes to state interference into the dysfunctional family--and in the US, this is not *new*. It has been an issue since the 1930's and the development of family court, where the state burden on white dysfunctionalism is heavy-handed, and on black and minorities, non-existent until the 60's.
This is what makes it all so hard to support. I do not believe we should allow bad parents to abuse their children. But then it's hard to draw the line on a medical case. Still this mother with the sick child is not consciously harming her child. That's what persuades me to limit what the state can do in this case.

[Taliesin]

Still this mother with the sick child is not consciously harming her child.
What if a parent beats his/her children because she/he believes it is for the best of them? Wouldn't that be a similar case?

[Nick Capozzoli]

Nick:

Your argument is sound until it waded into pregnancy termination. The right to an abortion focuses on two things:

1. the right to privacy
2. the right of any adult female to make decisions about her body (the precious autonomy we keep tossing around).

Which outweighs the right of the little human floating around in there. You may not agree that a woman has these rights to the degree that they over-ride the fetus rights, but I think dragging it in as an indictment against the state's equal protection clause is unfair, and expands the issue too much.

I accept your point that abortion is a contentious and emotional issue and bringing it in to this discussion is unlikely to change anyone's opinion about the morality or abortion, but I still believe that the intellectual and moral questions surrounding abortion are relevant to this case.

You state that items 1 & 2 above outweigh "the right of the little human floating around in there." I'm glad you refer to that life as a "little human" and not something else. At least you recognize that in some way that fetal life is human and has some rights, albeit in your view trumped by the rights of the mother.