State doesn't let mom make medical decision for daughter with cancer

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: ScepticScot

11.3% die within the six months following the op... but Xtrozero reckons the operation is low risk...... I am not so sure after reading about liver resection.

Depends what the survivability of not having the operation is.

As far as I understand it it's a fairly major operations is going to risks, but if the operation is being recomended it should be because it has better outcomes than not having it.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: ScepticScot

Deciding to go ahead with any surgical treatment has to be balanced against the risks and benefits.

Yes.... but who decides what is best?

That is what the topic of the thread is about.

Parents and doctors should work together to come up with the best option.

In serious cases, when no agreement can be reached that's when it becomes the role of the courts.

a reply to: ScepticScot
Would you say that a liver resection op is low risk after reading the information on line?

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: ScepticScot
Would you say that a liver resection op is low risk?

Not my area of expertise but I probably wouldn't use that description.

a reply to: ScepticScot

What about 'extremely' low risk?

Which is what Xtrozero would have us believe.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: ScepticScot

What about 'extremely' low risk?

Which is what Xtrozero would have us believe.

I have already answered.

However the risk is relative to the benefit.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: ScepticScot

What about 'extremely' low risk?

Which is what Xtrozero would have us believe.

I have already answered.

However the risk is relative to the benefit.

From where you are standing!!

The mother and child concerned obviously do not agree with you.

I agree with Redneck..... there should be scans done to see if the tumour has shrunk.
I read in the comments on the article page that there was to be no op to begin with.... but because it has shrunk enough they want to perform the op now..... sounds believable.
This is an interesting topic that I would like to know more about.... there is not enough info online.... hopefully there will be more so I can see how it turns out.

If the scan showed the tumour has shrunk by 90% do you believe that the establishment will tell people that CBD shrank a cancerous tumour?

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: ScepticScot

What about 'extremely' low risk?

Which is what Xtrozero would have us believe.

I have already answered.

However the risk is relative to the benefit.

From where you are standing!!

The mother and child concerned obviously do not agree with you.

I agree with Redneck..... there should be scans done to see if the tumour has shrunk.
I read in the comments on the article page that there was to be no op to begin with.... but because it has shrunk enough they want to perform the op now..... sounds believable.
This is an interesting topic that I would like to know more about.... there is not enough info online.... hopefully there will be more so I can see how it turns out.

That's isn't agreeing with Redneck. He believes the parent has the right to decide regardless of evidence.

How would you settle the disagreement between parents and doctors?

I think a court should look at the evidence and make a decision based on the overall best interest of the child.

What would you suggest?

originally posted by: TheRedneck

I would personally like to see the court order an examination of the child before rendering any verdict, just so we can know what the tumor is doing. As you say, the mother's claims have apparently not been verified.

TheRedneck

This is the bit I was saying that I agree with.

The claim has not been verified (or denied) by doctors.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: TheRedneck

I would personally like to see the court order an examination of the child before rendering any verdict, just so we can know what the tumor is doing. As you say, the mother's claims have apparently not been verified.

TheRedneck

This is the bit I was saying that I agree with.

I would assume that as it has been to court the mother was given the opportunity to present evidence to support her wishes.

I would also assume that if an operation or treatment is recommended scans or other appropriate tests have already been done. Treatment isn't normally done on guesswork.

a reply to: ScepticScot
You seem to have many assumptions.

I would like to see the article that states that the doctors have either verified or denied the claim .... rather than assume.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: ScepticScot
You seem to have many assumptions.

I would like to see the article that states that the doctors have either verified or denied the claim .... rather than assume.

Is there to any evidence to support the mother's claims? If she is claiming the tumour has shrunk she must have some reason to believe this?

a reply to: ScepticScot
Exactly.

That is why..... the doctors have not verified the claim....... is strange..... why not state..... the doctors have denied this claim?

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: ScepticScot
Exactly.

So did the mother provide any evidence to support her claims?

a reply to: ScepticScot
Did the doctors deny this claim?

The mother does not own a MRI machine......does she?

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: ScepticScot
Did the doctors deny this claim?

The mother does not own a MRI machine......does she?

What is the mother's claim based on. Why is she saying the tumour has shrunk?

It's also worth noting that even if the tumour has shrunk that doesn't mean further treatment isn't necessary.

a reply to: ScepticScot
What if the tumour was shrunk by CBD and the other alternative treatments?

What if Kylee and her mother choose to be Guinea pigs for not going the surgery and chem route?

You never know..... they could save your children much suffering one day.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: ScepticScot
What if the tumour was shrunk by CBD and the other alternative treatments?

What if Kylee and her mother choose to be Guinea pigs for not going the surgery and chem route?

You never know..... they could save your children much suffering one day.

There is currently no accepted evidence that CBD has any impact on cancer. There is some inconclusive evidence it might help with treating symptoms but not actually provide any form of cure.

There are also well established processeses for testing the effectiveness of treatments. They don't involve using completely unproven treatments on a 13-year old.

She is 13. She doesn't get to decide if she is going to be a guinea pig for unproven treatments.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Olivia Newton-John decided against the traditional route.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: ScepticScot

Olivia Newton-John decided against the traditional route.

And?