Judge rules family can't refuse chemo for boy

Originally posted by Jessicamsa

Chemotherapy is more painful than cancer from what I'm reading about it. I would never want that stuff forced on me. I could never do that to a child, either. That is totally cruel.

Is death not a crueler fate than a year's worth of discomfort from chemotherapy?

I cannot speak firsthand about the effects of chemo on the human body. I do know that it is nasty stuff.

My father went through chemotherapy, and he was miserable for quite some time. He couldn't eat, he went bald, he looked as if he aged 20 years over the course of a few months.

However, he is alive now, and he is completely recovered. If you looked at a photo of him now compared with a year before he was diagnosed with cancer, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Yes, he went through a lot of pain getting treated, but he has put that all behind him and now leads a productive life. He is happy, healthy and most of all, still around to care for and provide for his family.

In 2 years, the child will have completely recovered (considering the type of cancer), and he will have a full life to look forward to. I believe this was the right decision, and in 20 years this child will be thankful for having the gift of life. A 13 year old is not old enough to choose suicide, and his parents certainly should not be allowed to choose suicide for him.

The parents aren't choosing to not treat the boy, they are merely choosing alternative therapies and the boy agrees.

We don't know if death is "cruel", perhaps it is wonderful?

Originally posted by jd140
reply to post by VelmaLu

 

"The frightening prospect about this is that the government may now dictate what is reasonable treatment and whether opting for other forms of treatment can be viewed as medical neglect."

That quote by you is the reason I found your initial post comical.

You are complaining about the government is now dictating what reasonable treatment is.

Yet you are for the government telling us how many humans are to many and that you think that they should depopulate the earth.

So you are against the government giving us medicine to live longer and you are for government to regulate how many people should be alive at one time.


I keep replying because I can.

I am infact bored and calling you out is giving me some enjoyment.

Oh, so you lied and you do care about my opinion. I see.

I would PREFER if we voluntarily controlled the number of human beings being born, especially by making all birth control free and early term abortions legal and accessible to everyone. That's not going to happen, especially when we fight tooth and nail to keep people alive who clearly do not want to live in the manner in which they find themselves. . .such as this boy with cancer.

So given the choice between millions and millions of people dying of starvation because of attitude that everyone should live, regardless of the quality of their life, and a method so those people are never born, I choose sterilization.

Silly me, I guess I think it's better to have been never be born than to be born and suffer miserably and then die.

reply to post by VelmaLu


They are chose an alternative medicine that is not working. Therfor they are choosing not to treat him.

Death may not be cruel.

But the journey there down the cancer path sure is.

Originally posted by VelmaLu

Oh, so you lied and you do care about my opinion. I see.

I would PREFER if we voluntarily controlled the number of human beings being born, especially by making all birth control free and early term abortions legal and accessible to everyone. That's not going to happen, especially when we fight tooth and nail to keep people alive who clearly do not want to live in the manner in which they find themselves. . .such as this boy with cancer.

So given the choice between millions and millions of people dying of starvation because of attitude that everyone should live, regardless of the quality of their life, and a method so those people are never born, I choose sterilization.

Silly me, I guess I think it's better to have been never be born than to be born and suffer miserably and then die.



No I did not lie.

I really don't care what you think on the subject regarding this child.

Like I said, I am bored.

I don't like womens magazines, but when I go to my wifes appointments for her sonograms I will flip through them.

Doesn't mean I care what they say.

Originally posted by drwizardphd

Originally posted by Jessicamsa

Chemotherapy is more painful than cancer from what I'm reading about it. I would never want that stuff forced on me. I could never do that to a child, either. That is totally cruel.

Is death not a crueler fate than a year's worth of discomfort from chemotherapy?

I cannot speak firsthand about the effects of chemo on the human body. I do know that it is nasty stuff.

My father went through chemotherapy, and he was miserable for quite some time. He couldn't eat, he went bald, he looked as if he aged 20 years over the course of a few months.

However, he is alive now, and he is completely recovered. If you looked at a photo of him now compared with a year before he was diagnosed with cancer, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Yes, he went through a lot of pain getting treated, but he has put that all behind him and now leads a productive life. He is happy, healthy and most of all, still around to care for and provide for his family.

In 2 years, the child will have completely recovered (considering the type of cancer), and he will have a full life to look forward to. I believe this was the right decision, and in 20 years this child will be thankful for having the gift of life. A 13 year old is not old enough to choose suicide, and his parents certainly should not be allowed to choose suicide for him.

I am tired of the euphemism "discomfort." Pain is pain. Inflicting pain upon another person just because you "know what's best for him" is wrong. Inflicting pain on another person is wrong.

reply to post by Jessicamsa


So I guess you think all surgeons torture their patients and should be jailed?

After all, they cut open their patients, remove organs and the recovery is often painful.

Originally posted by jd140
reply to post by Jessicamsa

 

So I guess you think all surgeons torture their patients and should be jailed?

After all, they cut open their patients, remove organs and the recovery is often painful.

That's different than a year or more of constant, 24/7 pain and suffering. I've been forced to suffer like that before. not chemo, but just as bad. totally cruel

reply to post by Jessicamsa


Thats not what you said though.

" I am tired of the euphemism "discomfort." Pain is pain. Inflicting pain upon another person just because you "know what's best for him" is wrong. Inflicting pain on another person is wrong."

That is what you said and what I replied to.

Chemo SUCKS! It SUCKS to get blasted with radiation! IT MAKES YOU SICK! It HURTS it is PAINFUL. It sucks. It also is the BEST chance to save this kids life. That is the bottom line THE BEST CHANCE. This kids should be given the BEST chance not A chance.

reply to post by TurkeyBurgers



Very well said!

Aside from that however:

This has gotten so off-topic. Lets show some love people. Im mad too! Mad as HELL! But please, place your anger with the parents or the judge... not our fellow members.

Come on - we're better than this.

Im no Mod but I dont have to be to see this tread beginning to rot - smell that?

Originally posted by Little One
reply to post by TurkeyBurgers

 

Very well said!

Aside from that however:

This has gotten so off-topic. Lets show some love people. Im mad too! Mad as HELL! But please, place your anger with the parents or the judge... not our fellow members.

Come on - we're better than this.

Im no Mod but I dont have to be to see this tread beginning to rot - smell that?

Thoroughly agreed. Your signature says it all.
And I urge everyone posting in this thread to read the links in my post on page 3. Very important information on the subject of the long term affects of children who undergo cancer treatment.

This is an excerpt from Submission to Inquiry into Services and Treatment for Persons with Cancer from Cancer Information & Support Society, St Leonards (Sydney)
Don Benjamin, Convenor/Research Officer
Australian Senate, March 2005

• The best survival results anywhere in the world from treating cancer come from systemic-based therapies such as those designed to restore natural body systems such as the immune system – supporting an alternative paradigm

• The reason such alternative cancer therapies are not being accepted is due to several factors, mainly political and financial, including the fact that the cancer industry world-wide is worth over $500 billion a year ($110 billion in the US, $2.7 billion in Australia) with strong vested interests, so that therapies that question the paradigm on which this industry is based are therefore unlikely to be considered, let alone accepted.

• Such therapies have been suppressed for many years throughout the world mainly for these reasons. A good example of this was exposed in a US Congressional inquiry into the closure of a cancer clinic in the Bahamas in the 1980s. The Congressional report revealed the political pressures that continue to operate behind the scenes.

• Examples of similar pressures operating in many countries (including Australia) are outlined

• The example of non-acceptance of psychotherapy is given above. Similarly the most effective physical alternative cancer therapies have been actively suppressed despite the very good results from these therapies published in mainstream medical literature.

• Such pressures are not confined to the area of cancer. The American Medical Association was found guilty of conspiracy to eliminate one of its competitors, chiropractors, and was helped by US government agencies such as the Post Office in this task. Governments in Australia, as in many other western countries, have legally conferred a monopoly status on the allopathic school of medicine for the treatment of cancer, and provide active support for elimination of its competitors from this area.

I guess that says it all.

Originally posted by jd140
reply to post by VelmaLu

 

They are chose an alternative medicine that is not working. Therfor they are choosing not to treat him.

Death may not be cruel.

But the journey there down the cancer path sure is.

Who's to say they are not working? Based on who's goal?

Let me tell you, the US is no longer "cutting edge" when it comes to medical care. They are often ten to fifteen years behind Europe, and in some cases, even Mexico. Yes, often health care across the border is not only better, but one-third the cost. There are standard forms of treatment that have been practiced outside the US for 15 years without side effect which have not been approved by the FDA here.

People routinely suffer and die in the US because of a lack of access to alternative medicines -- more effective than what we have. That, my fellow member, is "cruel."

However, US doctors probably don't know about these treatments, and if they do, they cannot recommend them. So the assumption is made that chemotherapy is the most effective method for treating this boy's cancer, based on what is approved and mandated by the FDA, NOT on statistical probabilities based on all treatments being offered globally.

A good example is DCA which has no patent and would be basically a "free" way to treat large populations for cancer. It could easily be added to the water source and cost nothing. Because it was so revolutionary, the University researching it had to ask for private donations to start clinical trials.

University of Alberta

reply to post by VelmaLu


The tumor that is growing says its not working. Did you read the article or just the headline?

He went to 1 session of chemo. The tumor shrank.

He stopped.

He started to do the alternative medicine. The tumor grew.


Takes a little common sense to see which one is and isn't working.


edit to add-

I don't care about these other methods you are talking about. I don't care that we don't use them. I don't care that other countries do. What if he took it and got all better, what if he took them and died.

What if
What if
What if

How about dealing with what is.

[edit on 18-5-2009 by jd140]

The truth is that any chemical therapy to treat cancer will poison your body and eventually will kill you but Doctors are not in the business of telling the truth.

The Dangers of Chemotherapy, many of the drugs in the use of chemo will damage the hart and other parts of the body and is irreversible, so is you come out of the chemo alive you will have long lasting adverse side effects from it

list of side effects of the most common treatments, radiation is actually the last resort and more often than not the patient is already too weak to come out of it a winner.

www.drkelley.info...





[edit on 18-5-2009 by marg6043]

reply to post by Little One


Yes you are correct and thank you for bringing it everyone's attention . The issue here, at least for me, is that EVERY patient or patient representative (ie Daniel's parents) has the right to refuse treatment, at any time, and for any reason. Do I think that it is unfortunate that Daniel will most likely die as a result of this decision, absolutely, but it is his (or in the case of a minor, the parents) his right to decide that. There are other treatments, as mentioned immunotherapy, stem cells transfers, etc that are backed in science, have had great results, and are far less traumatic on the body. The fact that the government sought to force Daniel to comply with any specific treatment option as they deem fit, has potentially startling ramifications. Let's say that the judge decides that Daniel has to move foward with the chemo. Daniel arrives at the hospital for the treatment, against his wishes. Just before the nurse or evening during the treatment (depending on how it is administered) Daniel and his parents express their desire to terminate. According to the law currently, everything must stop. Sure the nurse can explain the benefits and risks, as can the doctor, you can in the "grey area" try to guilt them into continuing said treatment or procedure, but you absolutely can not do anything against their will, end of story. So, does that mean the hospital has to go against the current law? Are the healthcare providers that are forcing this treatment going to be protected against legal ramifications? Not to mention if any parent decides not to seek a reccommended procedure, treatment, vaccine, etc. can that child be simply placed into foster care to have it done? The foster care scenerio (as mentioned in the article) would be an easy way to remove any legal action against the hospital and its staff since the state has custody of the child and the state desires the procedure, but to me that seems like quite a seizure of power and rights from the patient and his/her parents.

reply to post by jd140


I understand what you are saying, but the fact of the matter is that just because one session of Chemotherapy was working, doesn't mean that it will continue to work. Just because the tumor responded well to the first treatment doesn't mean that it will continue to. The same goes for the Alternative therapies. His body might not respond as well and then start responding. Notice in the article it never said how long he was on Alternative treatments (unless I missed it).

And really, the entire situation for any person, regardless of age, is a "What If." Nobody, including the doctors, know how well someone will respond to any treatment, or even if the treatment will work, until they try.

reply to post by riddle6


How long do you purpose they wait for the medicine he was taking to work? To combat cancer you have to hit it fast and early. The longer you wait the worse it gets.

There isn't a what if with the chemo, because it was working.

No you don't get what I'm saying.

reply to post by jd140


What I want to know is how long he was on the Alternative therapies. If it was one month, then I think give it another month before they start assuming that it wasn't going to work. It also said he had one treatment of Chemotherapy. For Hodgekin's, one treatment comprises of two parts, taking four weeks. Did he have one full treatment, or half a treatment that can be called one treatment? That's what I want to know, and that's why I'm cautious to fully blame the parents or take that side of the judge. There's too much that wasn't reported for anyone to make any conclusions.

You seriously don't think that I don't know that you have to get it early? Or did you not read one of my first posts in this thread? I was only a year older than Daniel is now when I was diagnosed with the same type of cancer as him. I know as well as anybody how quickly this type can spread.

Again, if he only had ONE treatment, it really is hard to know how well it was working. Yes, the tests showed that the tumor had shrunk, but you would need at least three more treatments to see if the tumor would continue to respond well, not to mention the years of tests after he had finished his treatments.