It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 6
20
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2019 @ 07:51 AM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin


Right fundamentally you cannot prove that CBD oil has...

And that, again, is completely, 100% unquestionably, irrelevant.

I am not arguing that CBD oil does anything. Why are you continuing to frame this in such a way? It does not matter if the alternate treatment was meditation, drinking 5 gallons of orange juice a day, or standing on one leg and crowing like a rooster every day at 5:07 AM while facing due north.

Understand this if nothing else: I AM NOT CLAIMING ANYTHING ABOUT CBD OIL.

I repeat, I AM NOT CLAIMING ANYTHING ABOUT CBD OIL.

And just for clarity, I AM NOT CLAIMING ANYTHING ABOUT CBD OIL.

Got it yet? I AM NOT CLAIMING ANYTHING ABOUT CBD OIL.

I have stated that umpteen different times in this thread, starting in my first post. Do you get it yet?

I AM NOT CLAIMING ANYTHING ABOUT CBD OIL.

My God, man, this is becoming actually hilarious.

What I am claiming is that the fallibility of medical processes and the possibility of as-yet unproven treatments that may be superior make requiring medical procedures by law an assault on the life of the patient.


The mother is refusing to allow the medical team to provide potentially live saving treatment, without this treatment this girl death is pretty much inevitable.

You just stated that the survival rate without the surgery is 30%. That is not the same as inevitable.


This is no different from that mother refusing to let doctors intervene to stop a massive haemorrhage or other potentially live saving surgery because she read online that popping a few vitamins will fix the problem online. Its the same thing, if the daughter dies then you would logically have to blame mum.

Then by the same token, if the child dies under this forced medical care, one must logically blame the medical professionals involved. Ready to take that chance yourself? If she lives, you saved a life; if she dies you are imprisoned for homicide.

What's good for the goose...


Therefore the doctors are going to take her to court and prevent harm coming to that child, their responsibility at the end of the day is to the child not her mum really.

You cannot harm the mother without harming the child. I cannot believe you seriously believe that is even possible. This much I do know: mental attitude is the key to most cancer recoveries. So exactly how is imprisoning her mother not harming her mental attitude?


I am not claiming that a doctor is infallible, they can be wrong but unless you have evidence that CBD has greater efficacy there is no justification for putting this girls life at risk.

I AM NOT CLAIMING ANYTHING ABOUT CBD OIL.

The girl's life is already at risk. By your own statements, there is no guarantee that she will survive. That is called "risk."

While we're on that subject, the risk to the mother is almost as large as the risk to her child. Do you not comprehend the pain losing a child causes? You must not have children, because as a parent I can tell you this: if there had ever been a choice between burying my child or dying myself, I would be under the dirt right now and we wouldn't be having this debate. What, though, is the risk to the doctors? What do they lose if the child dies? Do they have to mourn? No. Do the doctors have to even plan a funeral? No. Do the doctors lose any payment? No. Do the doctors risk prison? No.

The doctors risk nothing.

I have no issue with that until one brings in the force of law. At that point, I am sorry, everyone who treats this girl should run the risk of imprisonment for either homicide or conspiracy to commit homicide should anything happen to her. That includes the doctors, the nurses, the orderlies, the hospital, the pharmaceuticals that make the drugs... everyone. So I ask you again, are you willing to risk that? Would you care for her knowing that was your potential fate?


What a #ty thing for you to say sir, fair enough you disagree with me but would you please stop getting personal with this

This is personal. I have experienced enough issues with the medical profession to understand the fallibility involved. True, most doctors do great work. Most operations are successful. I'm lucky enough to have a cardiologist who actually seems to care whether his patients live or die. But I have also dealt with doctors who overprescribe medication, who are more concerned about collections than successful treatments, and who are blissfully unaware of simple things that work. My mother died of scleroderma after fighting it for 30 years. As you are no doubt aware, secondary Raynaud's Syndrome is a common side effect of scleroderma, and it appears my family has a genetic predisposition to it (I have primary). She had lost one finger to it when I took over her care. During her care, she became at risk of losing another digit, and she was terrified at the thought of that. Her rheumatologist simply shrugged his shoulders and told her he could have it taken off. Luckily, while talking to another family member, they told me their rheumatologist, who practised alongside my mother's rheumatologist, had treated a similar condition she had with Betadine.

Betadine is OTC. I bought some and started treating my mother's fingers with it. Within a week they were healed up.

According to Mom's rheumatologist, that was an alternate treatment. Should I be imprisoned for saving her finger? According to the general push I am getting from reading your replies, yes I should. So don't tell me to stop getting personal; you made this personal when you started saying that legal force should be used to ensure medical compliance. That attitude is why I made the comment, hopefully to wake you up to what you are supporting. Sometimes someone is so close to a situation they cannot see beyond their occupational bias. It's too bad you chose to disregard my attempt; it might have made you a better professional.

I did mean it, though... after this conversation with a medical professional from the UK, who has openly stated positions that would have both harmed and then killed my own mother and could potentially place me at risk, I'll take our overpriced, under-insured system any day. It may be financially unstable, but at least it is not so authoritarian as to imprison people for disagreement with the treatment du jour.

You represent your industry. Running away will not change that.

TheRedneck




posted on Aug, 22 2019 @ 07:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: ScepticScot


No one is claiming that any medical procedure is a 100% effective or that doctors are always right. That is the Strawman.

Excuse me, but yes they are. When the force of law is exerted to force a treatment on the basis of it being life-saving, that is a claim that the effectiveness of the treatment offered is guaranteed. Otherwise, the force of law is being used to enforce a potential homicide.

If I choose to undergo a procedure, like my bypass surgery, I am agreeing to accept the risk that complications may occur and there is a small chance I could not survive the surgery. I get to determine whether or not that small risk is acceptable to me. In my case, I understood the risk and accepted it; evidence was presented to me of the need for the surgery ad the risks and rewards were explained in detail. I would point out that I took my time making my determination based not only on the risks to me, but on the risks to my lifestyle and those who depend on me. The largest disagreement with the doctors was the fact that I had to put off that surgery for over two years while I took care of an ailing mother. Had I undertaken the operation when it was first presented to me, she would have died two years before she did.

What you are proposing, and what others here are proposing, is that an old woman be prevented from living out her final years because a doctor was unable or unwilling to take into account her situation depending on me. I reject that out of hand. Make any medical procedure legally required and you will make me a criminal.


However choosing to ignore the evidence of what is the most effective form of treatment in favour of something that is unproven at best is endangering the child's life.

No. The cancer is endangering the child's life. The mother and (hopefully) the doctors are weighing the odds of the most effective treatment. Recall from the article that the mother's position is that the child was deteriorating under traditional medical care, and improving under the alternative care.

I will point out again, since redundancy is apparently required on this point to foster comprehension, that I do not know if CBD oil works or not. That is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the mother disagreed with medical advice for her daughter, based on her own observations. Who has a deeper knowledge of the child's moment-to-moment condition? Who holds that child when she cries? Who is there when she wakes up and when she goes to sleep and every moment in between? It's not the doctor.

As for being unproven, every treatment used today, including the surgery being forced on the child, was at one point unproven. Only by actually attempting a procedure can that procedure be proven to be effective. If legal force is used to prevent alternative treatments from being possible, medical science cannot progress by definition because no treatment can be utilized until it has been utilized.


Patents absolutely should have a say in what treatment a child gets. However when the wishes of the parent risk major harm to the child then the courts absolutely should be involved just as they should for abuse or neglect.

That, sir, is an oxymoron. Either the parents get the final say in a child's treatment or they do not. There is no "however." "However" in this case negates the entire premise.


You as an individual have a right to refuse any treatment you want assuming you are mentally competent and old enough to make that decision.

Assuming nothing. I have that right, and I will exercise that right, for myself and for any minor children under my care. Period. End paragraph. End chapter. Close the damn book and wrap in in duct tape.

TheRedneck


We are not talking about your right to refuse treatment for yourself. We are talking about parents right to withhold potentially life saving treatment from their child.

Parents do not, and should not, have absolute rights over their children. You don't have the right to let your child starve to death and no you don't have the right to withhold lifesaving treatment. They are your children, not your property.

Going with a medically unproven alternative is just the same as withholding treatment.



posted on Aug, 22 2019 @ 08:19 AM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

Spoken as someone who is not a parent.

Read my reply to OtherSideOfTheCoin above. No, children are not "property"... they are much more than that. Not everything can be reduced to a financial value or ownership of property. It is sad you don't seem to grasp that.


Going with a medically unproven alternative is just the same as withholding treatment.

I hope you never need a treatment that does not exist because no one was ever allowed to try it.

Might be a good time to bring up another case I am very familiar with. My son once dated a girl who was on psychoactive medications. Her parents didn't want her on those psychoactive medications, but her doctor demanded it, they refused, and the courts stepped in and took the side of the doctor... with a threat to imprison the parents if they did not comply. He only dated her for a short time, because this sweet young girl had a habit of becoming uncontrollably violent at random times due to the side effects of the medicine she was being forced to take. She was home-schooled not out of choice, but because no school would take her due to her behavior problems.

I looked up some of the medicines. The pharmceuticals themselves stated not for use in children under 18. I believe she was 14 at the time and had been on them for several years. Luckily, my son saw what was happening and broke up with her quickly (with some urging from me).

Last I heard, she was shacked up with the latest in a long line of loser boyfriends, pregnant (again!), unable to hold a job, and had a rap sheet. A real shame... pretty young girl, smart, good parents it seemed. She seemingly had the world by the short hairs. Nice way for these courts and infallible doctors to make it all better.

Not.

TheRedneck

edit on 8/22/2019 by TheRedneck because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2019 @ 08:24 AM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

Dude the problem here is that some members lack the cognitive abilities to understand that this mothers actions would probably have killed her daughter so the courts and medical team have taken action to prevent that child coming to harm.

I honestly don't know how you debate people who don't understand this.

I guess its like a cat, a cat has a limit to its understanding of the world, it might sit and watch the washing machine but it has no concept what the washing machine is so can't understand it. This thread is like that, people who have no concept of the danger this mother is putting her child at and therefore cannot be expected to comprehend why the courts and medical team took the action that they did.
edit on 22-8-2019 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2019 @ 09:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: ScepticScot

Dude the problem here is that some members lack the cognitive abilities to understand that this mothers actions would probably have killed her daughter so the courts and medical team have taken action to prevent that child coming to harm.

I honestly don't know how you debate people who don't understand this.

I guess its like a cat, a cat has a limit to its understanding of the world, it might sit and watch the washing machine but it has no concept what the washing machine is so can't understand it. This thread is like that, people who have no concept of the danger this mother is putting her child at and therefore cannot be expected to comprehend why the courts and medical team took the action that they did.


Nobody on this thread lacks cognitive ability and you know that. It is very weak of you to call people that don't share your same opinion that. It shows your lack of open mindedness.

If we are talking about this story and just this one, you fail to acknowledge some truths.
#1 This girls mom allowed her to be on Chemo for HALF a YEAR per her doctors advice and direction
#2 This girls mom saw her declining and slowly dying
#3 When taken off chemo and given alternative treatments, she was getting better.
Isn't that the goal, for the child to get better?



posted on Aug, 22 2019 @ 09:23 AM
link   
a reply to: JAGStorm

Prove she was getting better.



posted on Aug, 22 2019 @ 09:36 AM
link   
a reply to: JAGStorm

I've seen this before. People who somehow have convinced themselves that they are the savior of everyone who comes under their care, and if that someone doesn't agree with them, it's because they're lower creatures. I've gotten that vibe from nurses, orderlies, and doctors. I hope it is not an attitude that exists primarily due to the medical profession, but I know it does exist in the medical profession.

Just shut up and take this medicine. "What is it?" None of your business; just do as I say.

And now, if you refuse, you can go to jail.

That attitude must stop. It is wrong and it harms the patient. This case is just another extension of that, another step towards "do what we say or else! It's for your own good!" Those are not broken machines lying on that operating table or in that bed; they are living, sentient humans and deserve to be treated as such. Anything less is a crime against humanity, whether one wishes to see it in themselves or not.

And I have to point out that many of the posters who are all for ripping this child from her mother's arms and jailing the mother for daring to question authority will later on be posting in other threads about how it is a crime against humanity to separate children from their parents.


Isn't that the goal, for the child to get better?

No. It should be, but it isn't. The goal is to do the job, get paid, and go home thinking one has helped people without looking too deeply into the harm one did along the way.

"How'd your day go, honey?"
"Not bad. This one patient tried to refuse treatment, but we forced him into it."
"Is he OK now?"
"Oh, he died, but we'll have a new patient tomorrow. Pass the gravy?"

Pitiful.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 22 2019 @ 09:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: JAGStorm

Prove she was getting better.


www.nbcnews.com...

There is a video on here



posted on Aug, 22 2019 @ 10:42 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




Just shut up and take this medicine. "What is it?" None of your business; just do as I say.


That would be interesting wouldn't it. How many people took the advice and died, and how many didn't and lived.

In 1983 the doctors told my mom her lungs were black (chain smoker) and she needed immediate medical care. EXTREME urgent medical care. She said no way.
Ol' gal is still kicking today. Her secret, she refuses to go to the doctor. That's right, Some 36 years after doctors warned her of imminent death, she is still alive and well.

I'm not against doctors, as I've said before they have saved my life. I still wouldn't put blind 100% faith in everything they say. I guess some people just believe anything they are told..



posted on Aug, 22 2019 @ 11:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Western medicine is often crap, it's a slippery slope when you give them power over your children.



posted on Aug, 22 2019 @ 11:15 AM
link   
a reply to: JAGStorm


In 1983 the doctors told my mom her lungs were black (chain smoker) and she needed immediate medical care. EXTREME urgent medical care. She said no way.
Ol' gal is still kicking today. Her secret, she refuses to go to the doctor. That's right, Some 36 years after doctors warned her of imminent death, she is still alive and well.

I've been a smoker for right about 50 years now, most of it a heavy smoker. Heck I tried my first cigarette before I was 10!

My lung capacity is fine... better than most non-smokers. The heart attacks, according to the doctors themselves, were not caused by my smoking... it was my triglycerides clogging up the pipes (over 500 after that first congestive attack; I was pumping jelly). I literally cannot count the number of times a doctor has told me: "If you don't stop smoking, you're going to die!" Every single one who told me that is now dead.

I'm not.

My surgeon after the operation started to tell me the same thing but I stopped him. I simply told him that everyone who had ever told me that was now dead, and I didn't want the mandate of having to outlive him too. He shut up. He doesn't like me smoking, but neither does any other doctor I have ever been to. Of course, they don't have to live with an old crotchety redneck trying to kick a habit he doesn't want to kick either. I am not a nice person without my nicotine.

Since I've been pulling out anecdotal stuff this whole thread, here's another one that happened to my mother. At one point, she lost the ability to swallow... the throat muscles just quit working. We found out when she went into the hospital for pneumonia. The doctor wanted to put in a feeding tube and I reluctantly, after desperately picking the brain of her speech therapist and realizing that ability was gone, agreed.

She went into rehab therapy since the episode left her so weak. The rehab office suggested hospice, which I agreed to because I frankly needed help. Hospice nurses were great, except for one thing: they were crazy about prescribing opiates. Mom had a prescription for Norco, and it seemed every time I refilled her medication (and we're talking about a mini-home pharmacy here), there was a free (paid for by hospice) prescription of Norco waiting as well. Now, my procedure had been that she always had the things available, but never more than a couple... she was very good at watching how many she took, but I kept the bulk of them out of reach just in case (and her husband had dementia and a bad habit of taking pills without looking to see what they were). That worked great; some weeks she would pop them like mad because she was in pain... then she might go several months without taking one.

The nurse from hospice always made sure to feed her one with her meal every day. In addition to that, she was taking an iron supplement. Both can cause constipation. Constipation after so long with a full stomach can cause vomiting. Without the ability to swallow, guess where the vomit goes when it goes back down? That's right: straight into the lungs where it sets up pneumonia.

We almost lost her due to over-medication by a LPN, prescribed by a doctor.

I made a unilateral decision to take her off the iron (her anemia was minor), and demanded that the nurse stop the daily Norco as well as reduce the amount she was feeding her. Mom made a full recovery back to where she was when she started on hospice within a couple of weeks, without another trip to the hospital.

Like you, I try not to disparage doctors. I simply expect to be kept abreast of what is being taken, why it is being taken, and any alternatives and side effects. That goes whether it is me, my kids, my wife, or anyone in my charge. I have a great cardiologist and a good GP now; both will painstakingly explain what is going on to me and I make my decisions. So far it has worked. I'll go with that.

I think a lot of our health issues today stem from two things: too clean a lifestyle and too much medicine. Cleanliness is a good thing up to a point, but trying to hermetically isolate oneself from any bacteria or germ causes the immune system to slow down. Too much medicine has the same effect. Myself, I take an aspirin a day (I tried stopping it, but the twinge in my shoulder started back so I figured it was worth it) and a vitamin D pill because it seems to help combat the fatigue problem. That's it. If I get sick, which is extremely rare, I eat a raw onion (immunity booster) and go to sleep in the hottest place I can find. I'll wake up after the fever breaks in a sweat, dehydrated, but no longer sick. A few tall glasses of water and I feel human again.

Tell your Mom to hang in there.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 22 2019 @ 11:26 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




Tell your Mom to hang in there.


Sounds like your mom is made from the same cloth as mine. My mom weighs 80lbs soaking wet and we are certain she is going to outlive all of us. Remember granny from Beverly Hillbillies, well that's my mom, but the Asian version.

Her secret? Beer, cigarettes and a good old fashioned hot temper. I wish I were kidding, but that has pretty much been her diet for the majority of her long life.

Not to one up you, but my mom told me that she has basically been getting drunk since she was 5 years old.



posted on Aug, 22 2019 @ 11:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: JAGStorm

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: JAGStorm

Prove she was getting better.


www.nbcnews.com...

There is a video on here
A

So thank you for the link I have read it and watched the video.

Neither prove that she was getting better and in fact the main theme of the video is to explain how the state has the justification to overrule the parents rights as the parents rights to refuse treatment for their kids is not absolute. Basically your link and the video just back up what am getting a little bored of trying to explain after 6 pages of this thread.



posted on Aug, 22 2019 @ 11:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: JAGStorm

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: JAGStorm

Prove she was getting better.


www.nbcnews.com...

There is a video on here
A

So thank you for the link I have read it and watched the video.

Neither prove that she was getting better and in fact the main theme of the video is to explain how the state has the justification to overrule the parents rights as the parents rights to refuse treatment for their kids is not absolute. Basically your link and the video just back up what am getting a little bored of trying to explain after 6 pages of this thread.


This will be my last reply to you. If you are too dense to see with your own EYES, that the girl was in a coma and left for dead by the medical team, and then RESCUED by her mom and very much alive well and talking, there is nothing in the world that can change your view. So I suggest you stop trying to explain. The entire reason for the video, for this thread, for many others, is that people do not think it is right. People are fighting it because it is wrong. They are going to court over it.

Yes we get it, the medical community and the state think they own the people, for "their own good". Right now it is a serious situation for this girl. Tomorrow it will be if you can give your kid a scoop of ice cream, or if you must get them braces, or their ears pierced. etc. All I have to say, is be careful what you are fighting for.



posted on Aug, 22 2019 @ 11:55 AM
link   
a reply to: JAGStorm

For those that love studies...



Johns Hopkins study suggests medical errors are third-leading cause of death in U.S.

hub.jhu.edu...



posted on Aug, 22 2019 @ 12:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck

Why? Why is the question not "what happens if the doctors operate and the girl dies?"

Why do you assign all credit to a doctor who has a 50-70% success rate at best, and all blame to the mother? Do you worship your doctor? Would you sacrifice your child for your doctor?

TheRedneck


Well with the one we have actual historical data to base percentages on. Do you suggest we should treat 10,000 cancer patients with only CBD oil to build historical data on that too. So lets say in the end 1% survives we can say well CBD oil doesn't work.

We can then do another test with 10,000 cancer patients by rubbing just dirt on their cancer and see if that works too. Who knows maybe the old "rub some dirt on it" is a 99% cure all.

How about this...Do both....If doing both increases the 50 -70% to lets say 80 to 99% or it just stays at 50 -70% then we have data to work with while not needlessly killing people that didn't need to die.



edit on 22-8-2019 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2019 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

healthwyze.org...

This is a different cancer, but proves my point.




Dr. Ewan Cameron, and two-time Nobel Prize winner Linus Pauling, did studies in Scotland (which were later duplicated by studies in Canada and Japan) comparing vitamin C therapy versus chemotherapy. Guess which group of patients lived longer on average, and by how much. The vitamin C patients lived an average of six times longer than the chemotherapy patients did; and of course, they also had a substantially better quality of life too. The difference was due to the fact that vitamin C strengthens the immune system, but chemotherapy poisons one's entire body.


Want another example.... Just think about this... Many states require chickenpox shots in order to go to school in the United States..Beacause it keep them safe, etc etc... you know the drill.
Guess what they don't do in the UK, you know with socialize medicine and all.... So which is it?

www.nhs.uk...



The chickenpox vaccine is not part of the routine UK childhood vaccination programme because chickenpox is usually a mild illness, particularly in children. There's also a worry that introducing chickenpox vaccination for all children could increase the risk of chickenpox and shingles in adults.


It doesn't take a lot to start connecting the dots, it really doesn't.
It's all about money.



posted on Aug, 22 2019 @ 12:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: ScepticScot

Spoken as someone who is not a parent.

Read my reply to OtherSideOfTheCoin above. No, children are not "property"... they are much more than that. Not everything can be reduced to a financial value or ownership of property. It is sad you don't seem to grasp that.


Going with a medically unproven alternative is just the same as withholding treatment.

I hope you never need a treatment that does not exist because no one was ever allowed to try it.

Might be a good time to bring up another case I am very familiar with. My son once dated a girl who was on psychoactive medications. Her parents didn't want her on those psychoactive medications, but her doctor demanded it, they refused, and the courts stepped in and took the side of the doctor... with a threat to imprison the parents if they did not comply. He only dated her for a short time, because this sweet young girl had a habit of becoming uncontrollably violent at random times due to the side effects of the medicine she was being forced to take. She was home-schooled not out of choice, but because no school would take her due to her behavior problems.

I looked up some of the medicines. The pharmceuticals themselves stated not for use in children under 18. I believe she was 14 at the time and had been on them for several years. Luckily, my son saw what was happening and broke up with her quickly (with some urging from me).

Last I heard, she was shacked up with the latest in a long line of loser boyfriends, pregnant (again!), unable to hold a job, and had a rap sheet. A real shame... pretty young girl, smart, good parents it seemed. She seemingly had the world by the short hairs. Nice way for these courts and infallible doctors to make it all better.

Not.

TheRedneck


I am a parent so something else you are wrong on. (And another failed attempt at making it personal).

You are the one claiming absolute rights over your children, treating them as property. It's frankly scary that you don't seem to grasp that.

There are extensive and well proven methods of assessing the effectiveness of different medical treatments. Wishful thinking isn't one of them.

Anecdotes are interesting, but there are very good reasons why we don't make medical decisions based on them.



posted on Aug, 22 2019 @ 12:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero




How about this...Do both....If doing doing both increases the 50 -70% to lets say 80 to 99% or it just stays at 50 -70% then we have data to work with while not needlessly killing people that didn't need to die.


I honestly think that's a good solution in this case, while there is no evidence to support that CBD oil can "cure" cancers there has been some evidence to suggest that it can alleviate some of the side effects of chemo and there are other complementary and alternative therapies that have been shown to have similar effects. I think that so long as it is done under medical supervision and it's not going to cause harm the go for it but use it in conjunction with traditional medicine.



posted on Aug, 22 2019 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: JAGStorm

Nothing is guaranteed. Nothing is 100% certain. In the absence of certainty, we defer to evidenced-backed consensus because deferring to "faith," or "rights" = 350,000,000 different standards for care. That simply isn't doable.

The truth is we can't run a civilization on personal belief because personal beliefs are multivariable.

Regardless, I wish this family and little girl recovery and long life. I lost a sister at 13 to Leukemia. Mom was the sole provider so it fell to me to be the constant family member at the hospital every day after school. I was there with her and watched as she died. I have never truly recovered from the experience and I doubt I ever will.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join