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

a reply to: Xtrozero
Ok I see.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Yet again you are unable to back up your claims of what I supposedly said

Still chasing that tail, eh?

My position has clear and consistent through out the whole thread, unlike yours. So much so that you are you are unable or unwilling to provide a straightforward answer.

I'm not sure how much more straightforward one can get than "yes." I even went on to explain what conditions I saw as acceptable for the state to step in, and which situations I do not see as such. You, on the other hand, complain about good people making bad decisions and also believe that those potentially bad decisions should be followed to the letter and enforced by law. The only difference I see is that you support the decisions of those in authority over the decisions of those not in authority, hence my comments about your blind allegiance to the state.

I have you an incredibly simple scenarios. Should a child be allowed to die because the parents disagree with blood transfusions. And your answer was asking for evidence of an afterlife????

Again with the twisting. Here is what you asked, verbatim:

If a child needs a blood transfusion to survive and the parent objects on religious grounds is it OK to let that child die?

"On religious grounds." That implies an afterlife, since religion is by definition spiritual and spirituality typically is seen as extending past the physical life. Therefore, yes, my answer concerned the afterlife.

It seems pretty clear you put parental rights above the rights of the child to live.

No, it is not so cut and dried. Life is not black and white. You'll hopefully learn that some day.

TheRedneck

a reply to: ScepticScot

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

...unless a doctor says otherwise...

TheRedneck

a reply to: Xtrozero
It all depends on which procedure.... the liver one i randomly chose was much different than your results..... 4.5 days stay in hosp estimated.
ACS Risk Calculator - Outcome Report
riskcalculator.facs.org...

Which procedure did your quoted results estimate?

a reply to: ScepticScot

The process for experimental medicine becoming accredited treatment involves organised studies and peer review.

Organized studies usually based on anecdotal or accidentally discovered concepts using, wait for it, volunteers!

Peer review which is based on those same organized studies that attempt to replicate the results using, wait for it, volunteers!

Please, you embarrass yourself when you try to talk about scientific studies when you obviously do not understand how a scientific study works.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: ScepticScot

Yet again you are unable to back up your claims of what I supposedly said

Still chasing that tail, eh?

My position has clear and consistent through out the whole thread, unlike yours. So much so that you are you are unable or unwilling to provide a straightforward answer.

I'm not sure how much more straightforward one can get than "yes." I even went on to explain what conditions I saw as acceptable for the state to step in, and which situations I do not see as such. You, on the other hand, complain about good people making bad decisions and also believe that those potentially bad decisions should be followed to the letter and enforced by law. The only difference I see is that you support the decisions of those in authority over the decisions of those not in authority, hence my comments about your blind allegiance to the state.

I have you an incredibly simple scenarios. Should a child be allowed to die because the parents disagree with blood transfusions. And your answer was asking for evidence of an afterlife????

Again with the twisting. Here is what you asked, verbatim:

If a child needs a blood transfusion to survive and the parent objects on religious grounds is it OK to let that child die?

"On religious grounds." That implies an afterlife, since religion is by definition spiritual and spirituality typically is seen as extending past the physical life. Therefore, yes, my answer concerned the afterlife.

It seems pretty clear you put parental rights above the rights of the child to live.

No, it is not so cut and dried. Life is not black and white. You'll hopefully learn that some day.

TheRedneck

Calling out your repeated lies is not chasing my tail. I think you might be confused by what that saying means.

I am not the am not the one attempting to a apply a black and white parents always right rule. You need to accept that in the real world children sometimes need protected from their own parents.

Your answer seems to be that if a religion says it's then it's ok for them let their child die from lack of medical treatment that's fine. Do you really not see the issue with that?

a reply to: Itisnowagain

I don't know how to..... that is why I have said.... NHS Liver cancer site.

Just copy the url (address) and paste it into your post.

I found this page on liver resection. It doesn't sound low risk to me.

www.nhs.uk...

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: ScepticScot

The process for experimental medicine becoming accredited treatment involves organised studies and peer review.

Organized studies usually based on anecdotal or accidentally discovered concepts using, wait for it, volunteers!

Peer review which is based on those same organized studies that attempt to replicate the results using, wait for it, volunteers!

Please, you embarrass yourself when you try to talk about scientific studies when you obviously do not understand how a scientific study works.

TheRedneck

One of us obviously doesn't.

Here's a hint, it doesn't involve a mother on her own deciding to give her child an unproven medical treatment.

a reply to: TheRedneck
Yes i know that is the site i linked after learning how to link.
You try telling Xtrozero that it doesn't sound low risk.. I tried..... Good luck.

a reply to: ScepticScot

One of us conducts research as an integral part of their occupation.

Hint: it ain't you.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: ScepticScot

One of us conducts research as an integral part of their occupation.

Hint: it ain't you.

TheRedneck

Wrong again.

And are you really attempting to argue that the mother's actions are a study?

a reply to: Itisnowagain

The problem with assessing risk is that there are so many variables to consider. Low risk for one person may be high risk for another, and for reasons that appear quite unrelated. A close friend needs a knee replaced (both of them actually), but the doctors won't perform the procedure because he has an ulcer on his ankle that won't heal. What? They're not cutting on his ankle! But, as it turns out, they have a legitimate concern based on previous operation failures that the shock to the cardiovascular system in the legs can cause that ulcer to make him bleed out.

Every time you talk to a surgeon, they are giving you their best guess of what your chances are based on their experience. It's not a guarantee, but an interpretation, an opinion. Quite often there can be complications, thankfully usually minor complications that can be corrected in the operating room, that arise unexpectedly.

IN addition, most surgeons are specialized. The guy with the buzz saw that turned my ticker into a worn patchwork quilt doesn't do liver surgery... or brain surgery... or knee surgery... or back surgery. He does open heart surgery and only open heart surgery. He is so specialized that if there is damage to another part of the body, he sends the patient to a different doctor. As such, he doesn't really care about my liver while he's in there practicing his needlepoint techniques. He cares about my heart and whether or not I die and mess up his survivor stats. If another doctor has to treat a different organ because of a complication in the heart surgery, that is not seen as a failure of the heart surgery unless the patient dies within a certain time span of having the heart surgery.

Still, the liver is an extremely important organ. As I understand it, it is not the liver cancer that kills as much as it is liver failure due to the cancer. Any time someone cuts a person open and starts poking around an organ with a knife, there is a reasonable chance that the organ can fail. If a kidney fails, there's another one. If a lung fails, there's another one. Heck, if the heart fails, they have machinery to put you on temporarily that will buy some time to stitch it back together. But if the liver fails, it's pretty much all over; there is no backup and no machine that can do what the liver does.

I call that high risk.

TheRedneck

a reply to: ScepticScot



Now you know what I do? What, you got a hidden camera in here? If you do, let me know when that voltage reading reaches 12.3 volts, willya?

You are hilarious!

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: ScepticScot

Now you know what I do? What, you got a hidden camera in here? If you do, let me know when that voltage reading reaches 12.3 volts, willya?

You are hilarious!

TheRedneck

No I never claimed to know what you do. You claimed to know what I do. Is this getting a bit confusing for you

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: ScepticScot

One of us conducts research as an integral part of their occupation.

Hint: it ain't you.

TheRedneck

Here's the post to make it easy for you.

a reply to: ScepticScot

So you are a scientist?

B to the power of S.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: ScepticScot

So you are a scientist?

B to the power of S.

TheRedneck

No.

Can you show where I claimed to know what you do or is that another lie?

a reply to: ScepticScot

Can you show where I claimed to know what you do or is that another lie?

Sure, but it wouldn't do any good. It would be like trying to show a blind man the color blue.

It's all on this page.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: ScepticScot

Can you show where I claimed to know what you do or is that another lie?

Sure, but it wouldn't do any good. It would be like trying to show a blind man the color blue.

It's all on this page.

TheRedneck

Yes it is.

You claimed to know what I did for a living (or more precisely what I didn't).

When I pointed out you were wrong you then said I was claiming to know what you did.

This can all easily be confirmed by reading the posts.

I don't know what to you think you are achieving by continual lies and insults.

If you want to discuss the topic let me know.

Otherwise I have no intention of carrying on with whatever weird game you are playing.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: Xtrozero
It all depends on which procedure.... the liver one i randomly chose was much different than your results..... 4.5 days stay in hosp estimated.
ACS Risk Calculator - Outcome Report
riskcalculator.facs.org...

Which procedure did your quoted results estimate?

The key thing is I was looking at is the chance to died, and your's is .2%. I wasn't trying to fine tune her risks as much as trying to see what are we talking about with risk over all for the mother to not allow the surgery, and I see very low risk with a good chance it will help her beat the cancer.