Reader comments
Doctor put study first, Jensen family says

Quite Frankly... | 9:47 a.m. March 4, 2008

I believe when the state acts like a dictatorship, then they have overstepped their bounds. I felt the State of Utah acted like we lived in communist Russia in this situation and I hope that the Jensens will be able to get their just rewards. It is too bad that the community turned against them and that he had to lose his employment, but it often happens when the State and the media get the whole situation wrong. Hopefully the State and those involved will learn from this lesson.
I support any parental rights over and above that of the State other than out right abuse of course.

To the Jensen family: you have our full support and hope you prevail now!

Bob | 9:55 a.m. March 4, 2008

It is not a question of punitive damages. Is is a question of who will pay the punitive damages.

OrthoDoc | 10:48 a.m. March 4, 2008

Ewing's Sarcoma is not a mouth cancer (as the article states), but is a bone cancer.

Comments continue below

Susie | 11:20 a.m. March 4, 2008

Hurrah for the Jensen's. We hope they win the lawsuit. The state has no right to tell parents what they can and cannot do. We are pleased that Parker is well - and hey, without chemo! Too many people run to the doctors when there are God's ways to heal. Go Parker!!!!!

Oren | 11:39 a.m. March 4, 2008

And if he'd died? Then how would we be responding.

To OrthoDoc | 12:08 p.m. March 4, 2008

Ewing's sarcoma is also a soft-tissue cancer.

What Next? | 1:10 p.m. March 4, 2008

I work in a Pharmacy. Should we turn parents in for putting their children in danger when a prescription costs to much and mom and dad decide not to fill it? After all, a Dr. did order it, and the child is ill enough for the parents to seek medical care. I always felt its the parents choice, not mine or the States. Hope this family wins big time.

pete | 2:22 p.m. March 4, 2008

Ewing's is a bone cancer, it can metastasize to other tissues but it is a primarily a bone cancer. Griffeth's 5-minute Medical Consult copyright 2006. gives that as the info on this disease. Orthodoc is correct.

Fredd | 3:13 p.m. March 4, 2008

Does anyone know at what point it can be said that this young man beat his cancer? A friend just died at the age of 48. She was diagnosed with cancer in high school and had remissions/recurrences through out her life. She lived large though and made the most of her life, advanced degree, marriage, etc. But she never beat the original cancer. Chemo etc let her live 40 more years. When does science say the cancer is gone if there is no more signs? 5 years, 10 years? As I recall the doctors wanted to do chemo to ensure this boy's cancer was killed.

Jake | 3:28 p.m. March 4, 2008

To Oren, if he died? Stupid question., IF a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his butt hopping along.

Wrong again.... | 3:35 p.m. March 4, 2008

Well I guess he did not have cancer, or certainly was in no imminent danger of dying, which the doctors INSISTED he was. The proscribed treatment would have likely left him sterile, hairless, and sick. The state of Utah went along with the doctors and harassed this poor family. I think some LARGE financial compensation is certainly justified for the family. Hopefully somebody is clipping the wings of the state when it comes to interferring with parent's rights!

Fredd | 4:43 p.m. March 4, 2008

Wrong again...He had cancer. It was removed surgically. The problem is there could be microscopic cells that are not detectable. Because Ewings is agressive the doctors reccomended chemo IN CASE there was still cancer in his body somewhere. He would recover from chemo side effects. May be not sterility, but you don't recover from dying. Plus there was only a possibility of sterility, I have no idea how large a possibility, but in my antedotal experience it seems small. I ask again, how long will he be cancer free before statistically he has considerd to have beat this disease? The parents, by the way, weren't stopping treatment. They were pursuing holistic and other unproven methods. So if they felt further treatment was needed you can't throw out the he was cancer free statement.

What's Wrong | 5:29 p.m. March 4, 2008

So, the state of Utah and the Drs. at Primary Children's Hospital were a little pushy. They were acting in the best interest of a child. I think it's a wonderful thing that this boy has made a full recovery. The fact that he is healthy, and is living out a normal life should be the "reward" in this case. To the Jensen family: Count your blessings. You got a happy ending. The fact that you are suing the state, the Drs., and anyone else who can line your pockets is exactly what is wrong with our country today. I would think that your son, alive and well, would keep you from looking for any further reward. It would me.

right to an open future | 6:48 p.m. March 4, 2008

Just to clarify a couple issues here. First, extraosseous Ewing's sarcoma is a rare variant of the more common (but fortunately still relatively uncommon at ~ 500 cases per year) Ewing's sarcoma. So to claim that Parker had a "misdiagnosis" based on Ewing's being a solely bone-based neoplasm is faulty. I am not quite sure what "genetic testing" Parker's parents wanted run-there are some classic chromosomal translocations with Ewing's sarcoma (t11:22 most common)-but these are not universal and I would trust the appearance of the cells under the microscope and the pathologic stains more than I would trust the "genetic testing".

Finally, chemotherapy, and all adjuvant cancer treatment, is no guarantee. Chemotherapy simply increases the chance of a patient being subsequently cancer free. Obviously, some patients, like Parker, get lucky and end up surviving without chemotherapy, but that doesn't mean that administering chemotherapy would have been the wrong choice. If you have 100 children like Parker you end up saving the lives of 40-50 of them with chemotherapy given post-surgery, although a small percentage of them (like Parker) can be cured with surgery alone.

itstrue | 8:06 p.m. March 4, 2008

I don't have all the facts on this case, but one thing I know for sure: DCFS is evil!!!

smarterthanthedoc | 9:50 p.m. March 4, 2008

I just find it interesting that the Jensen parents felt like they knew how to treat Ewing's Sarcoma better than the oncologist at Primary Children's Medical Center. Fortunately it turned out good for Parker, however what if it returns? Will they sue the government and the doctors for not forcing the chemotherapy? I know that physicians can make mistakes but the specialists at PCMC are top notch.
They are the best in their specialties and I believe anyone that goes into pediatrics has the patients best interest at heart. If the parents already knew how to treat the problem why did they bring him to PCMC in the first place? It is so easy to point a finger at the doctor for "taking the parents rights away" however from my own experience in the medical field many children would be better off if the parents did not get all the say.

Anonymous | 10:03 p.m. March 4, 2008

When a doctor, DFCS, or anyone else for that matter can over rule parents' decisions that are caring, well-thought out, even though different than what some may think, we have lost what is worth living for--personal choice and responsibility. Good parents have their child's best interest at heart. We have seen so-called "alternative" methods yield great and negative results as we have seen the same in the so-called "mainstream." These choices belong to families, parents and their children, not the state or others. Our U.S. Constitution should still be guaranteeing the rights of parents and families to do their best. In my mind (and in the Founder's minds -- read their letters and works) the cancer and disease of government intrusion is far worse than diseases and cancers of the body. Let us join with the Jensens and support putting the state and those who would wield it against us, "we the people," and re-establish proper boundaries that trust and proper dialgo and consultation may resume with those from whom we request their professional advice that we can make the informed decisions that are indeed ours and not theirs to make.

Geno | 10:09 p.m. March 4, 2008

The Jensens come from a medical background and are intelligent people. When the state can question every decision parents make, you will end up with more kids in foster care than with their parents. This child is loved and taken care of extremely well. Think for yourself people. Doctors aren't GOD.
Good luck to the Jensen family. It's uplifting to see people back down. They should be compensated for this state fiasco.

Power hungry DA's stink! | 12:26 a.m. March 5, 2008

Kinda like the parents being charged with child abuse for co-sleeping with their baby who died from SIDS.

What the heck is this state thinking?!?

What is next? Throw my wife in jail because she refuses an epidural during labor? HOW DARE SHE!

DCFS Defenders | 2:34 a.m. March 5, 2008

Anyone who defends the DCFS is clearly not thnking this through, or they are a Nazi, pure and simple. Why should the state get to decide what's right for a child? The child belongs to the parents, not the state, although they darn well tax us like they own us. I think parents will make the better decision more often than the state will. And how barbaric to tear a sick child from his loving parents to go into the cold hands of unloving, uncaring bureaucracy. Fight real child abuse and leave the good people of Utah alone.

R.A. Alsop | 6:46 p.m. March 11, 2008

Parents enjoy a Constitutionally-protected fundamental liberty interest to manage their childrenï¿½s best interests. This is basic to our society. In a recent case the U.S. Supreme Court declared that "it cannot be doubted that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children." The only people who were certain about what should happen to Parker were people who nothing to lose and much to gain. But the decision of Parkerï¿½s treatment belonged to Parker and his parents ï¿½ the only people who had something to lose if their decision was wrong. Under applicable Constitutional principles, the State can intervene only if it is shown by ï¿½clear and convincingï¿½ evidence that the parents are unfit, which did not happen in this case. Parkerï¿½s parents are smart, competent and caring. The doctors stepped outside their role by advocating coercive intervention based on a misdiagnosis. The State failed to protect the proper role of fit parents. Sadly, with the defendants working so hard to justify their actions, no one is asking where this process went wrong.

smart for sure | 11:31 p.m. May 11, 2008

to smarterthantheduc: The issue here is whether the goverment is taking away the parents rights not that the parents know more than the doctors. And the answer is we have a constitutional right to seek our own method of treatment and it would be unconstitutional for the goverment or any doctor to interfere and dictate. If you go to the doctor would you mind if he/she told you that you had no right to choose ? That would be a very hard pill to swallow.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.