Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Kiwi mum Sally Roberts launches second appeal against son's radiotherapy

page: 1
1

log in

join

posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Kiwi mum Sally Roberts launches second appeal against son's radiotherapy


www.news.com.au

THE Kiwi mother of a seven-year-old British boy with cancer says she's doing the right thing launching another appeal to try to prevent him from having life-saving cancer treatment.
Mum launches second appeal against son's treatment New Zealand woman Sally Roberts, 37, told a British television program her fear of not becoming a grandmother was a factor in her decision to take further court action, just days before her son, Neon, is due to begin radiotherapy.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 03:57 PM
link   
Another example of the law gone askew with this woman, Sally, fighting the court because she believes that radiotherapy will send her son sterile and change his DNA.

Sound familiar, maybe she is a member of this forum??

The court will not allow her appeal and it seems her son's treatment will go ahead. She does not have custody of her son, who is 7 years old and it appears the father is making all the decisions. yet she says she will be the one caring for him.

So does radio therapy really cause you to become sterile and does is alter your DNA?

I bet she still has to pay child support.....

What rights to parents have these days regarding this kind of scenario. I assume if they do not have custody then they do not have any say. This article is from New Zealand.

www.news.com.au
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 3-1-2013 by magma because: layout



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 04:00 PM
link   
Has anybody stopped to think to ask what exactly the poor little boy wants? His mum and dad can fight over what they think is best for him but at the end of the day if they cannot decide between themselves then surely the boys opinion should be taken into account, despite his age, his opinion still counts.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 04:03 PM
link   
I find this all a bit odd, The mother is out of order in my book and all her reasons seem very selfish to me.
I would rather have my son alive then dead but she wants him to die?
I just do not get it at all.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 04:07 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by 1plusXisto7billion
 


So make another thread, don't derail this one



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 04:22 PM
link   
I could understand if the mum thought the therapy would endanger her son's life, but "preventing sterility" in a 7-year-old at the risk of the cancer spreading just doesn't seem like a good enough reason.

She doesn't have custody of the son, yet she's worried about not having future grandchildren? 'On the surface, it seems a little whacked.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 04:22 PM
link   
Double post
edit on 1/3.2013 by graceunderpressure because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 04:32 PM
link   
this poor lad has already had invasive surgery. his mother wanted to delay his further treatment so that she could seek 2nd and 3rd opinions. as far as i'm concerned she has every right to do so, and the stupid injustice that is the interfering british courts have taken over. she doesn't want him to die, she wants to make sure his treatment is necessary first.... as would any mother.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by boymonkey74
 


There are other alternatives to radiotherapy. A few years ago in NZ there was another family with a boy who had cancer. The parents where treating the kid alternatively, but the medical establishment didn't like that idea. Family went into hiding to stop the "authorities" taking their kid and pumping him full of their radiation. Turned into a big manhunt. Didn't turn out well, once the "authorities" got their hands on him, but their excuse was they didn't get him in time.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Which poses the question of where do out rights end. Surely we have the right to decide what is best for our children.

We have "pathways" to follow which deny us the right to medical care and to live as posted in other threads recently.

So we also have controlling authorities to tell us what kind of medical care we can and can not have.

See the pattern here?



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 04:47 PM
link   
It's a difficult one and my heart goes out to the mother and the poor lad in the middle. I had radiotherapy over 10 years ago for a brain tumour. I don't know if it effected my iq. I've had a few tests but suggest nothing major. It has effected endocrine production, so I do have to take testosterone in injections every 3 months.

Having said that, I would probably not be here without it. And from what I have read from this case, the radio therapy could cure the boys tumour. Which is worth the risk IMO.

Unfortunately the treatments come with side effects, but the side effect of no treatment is death. Harsh but true.
edit on 3-1-2013 by woodwardjnr because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by magma
 


i feel sorry for the guy...

Its bad enough that you had a kid with a looney idiot.... but then for your kid to get cancer.

Someday they may find that stress is a major factor in the developement of cancer, if they do this father is gonna feel even worse if his poor decisions and parenting killed his child.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by michael1983l
 


To be honest a young kid isn't going to understand the complexities of radiotherapy treatment and its potential benefits and side effects.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by magma
 


But medical care is not being denied, its being offered and refused by the mother. It is an effective treatment against brain tumours one of the few tools oncologists have in fighting this disease.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by magma
So we also have controlling authorities to tell us what kind of medical care we can and can not have.


No, you have the courts protecting the rights of a child who cannot (because of his age) have an opinion on this matter. This is the correct approach and the courts should be applauded for standing up to silliness and selfishness.

This woman is out of order and I question her motives. If she gets cancer and refuses treatment then that's her affair.

Courts occasionally intervene on health matters, e.g. to ensure blood transfusions are given to children of Jehovah's Witnesses. Indeed, my sister is a JW and there is agreement in the family that decisions over her children’s health (such as blood transfusions) can be made by family members, thus saving her religious conscience and her children.

Regards



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by magma
 




So does radio therapy really cause you to become sterile and does is alter your DNA?


There is a small CHANCE of becoming sterile but without it the kid WILL die of cancer. The DNA part does not really matter, the whole DNA thing is just something the alternative health crowd spouting off since the realized they have been saying "toxins toxins TOXINS!!" since the 80's. Just for fun ask the next alt health person that is bothering you to define "DNA" or "toxin". But anyways yes chemo drugs can act on and damage DNA, that is kind of the point. Your body is producing a large amount of stuff it shouldn't be producing, that is to say your DNA is already f....screwed.





new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join