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

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Show me proof that the surgery will save her life.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Show me proof that the surgery will save her life.

TheRedneck

Depends on the stage its at but at stage 1

Without treatment, the median survival for stage A liver cancer is 3 years.

With treatment, between 50 and 70 out of 100 people (between 50 – 70%) will survive for 5 years or more.

To treat stage A liver cancer, you might have an operation to remove part of your liver, a liver transplant or treatment to destroy the cancer (ablation therapy).

CancerReserchUK

Now we don't know very much about this girls cancer but that gives a general idea. If we knew exactly what she had and the staging it would be easier to say but there are lots of other factors that come together in making a risk/benefit analysis that really require a full understanding of the girls medical condition.

Now can you show me any evidence that shows CBD oil can have this same or grater efficacy.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

50-70% survival ratio is not proof that the surgery will save her life. That's a 30-50% chance it won't.

Show me a 100% guarantee that she will survive the surgery and that it will cure the cancer.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

50-70% survival ratio is not proof that the surgery will save her life. That's a 30-50% chance it won't.

Show me a 100% guarantee that she will survive the surgery and that it will cure the cancer.

TheRedneck

The question is what happens if the mother decides to use CBD oil or even tap water as a cure and the girl dies?

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

50-70% survival ratio is not proof that the surgery will save her life. That's a 30-50% chance it won't.

Show me a 100% guarantee that she will survive the surgery and that it will cure the cancer.

TheRedneck

Straw man argument I am not claiming that there is anything that will 100% provide a cure

Now once again any evidence about CBD alone providing better odds?

a reply to: Xtrozero

The question is what happens if the mother decides to use CBD oil or even tap water as a cure and the girl dies?

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

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

You keep wanting to turn this into a debate over cancer surgery versus CBD. That's not what I am debating. I am debating the argument that a parent's right to make decisions for their child should not be dismissed over a medical decision, any medical decision, that simply goes against a doctor's advice that can be as wrong as the parent.

Try to keep up.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I am debating the argument that a parent's right to make decisions for their child should not be dismissed over a medical decision, any medical decision, that simply goes against a doctor's advice that can be as wrong as the parent.

Dr: Your daughter is bleeding internally we need to take her to theatre right now and stop the bleed.
Mum: No sorry you can't do that because I don't believe you because ATS told em Dr's lie so instead am going to give her some Vitiam's because someone said that might help.

Under your argument that kid should just die. Its a stupid argument.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: JAGStorm

The child is 13 years old, and can't "agree" with a life or death decision made by her grieving, emotional mom.

1st, 2nd and 3rd medical opinions all agreed that the child needed surgery. Mom took the girl and ran out of state, and they hid out in Nevada(?) I think. At the doctors' alert, and the court's approval, police put a "missing person" out on the girl, and an APB on the mom.

Mom is being charged with neglect (hoping the courts are lenient) and the girl is in the custody of a family member, and will be getting her surgery.

Wouldn't it be great, for everyone, if this 13 year old girl beats her liver cancer?

Yep... so they will give her surgery, chemo, and the girl is going to die anyway... but they at least can extract their pound of flesh, despite getting it by ghoulishly dancing on the kids pending grave.

They will most likely try to pass the bill onto the parent... who I hope sues them for fraud.

What if this little girl wants to choose suicide rather than fight the cancer?

Do she have a right to euthanasia??

How about if she wants to kill herself with CBD?


My first thought when reading this thread was the the poor mom didn't know enough about how to disappear.

The doctors want billable hours! who the hell is this child, to say her mom shouldn't be bankrupted by medical bills (the leading cause of bankruptcy in the USA, btw).

My old dad refuses medical treatment, and they claim he isn't fully capable of making his own decisions. But they don't jack with him, because he is mean as hell. He says you gotta die of something, especially if youre 85 and worn out.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

And you had the gall to call my post a strawman?

You have already stated you work in a hospital, and you do not know the difference between internal hemorrhaging and cancer surgery? I'll say this: it's no wonder i never hear of anyone traveling to the UK for medical treatment. If you are a representative of their healthcare system, may God help you all!

Under your argument that kid should just die. Its a stupid argument.

Under your argument, the kid is no longer sentient, just an automaton to be used as doctors see fit. As are everyone else.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Dr: Your daughter is bleeding internally we need to take her to theatre right now and stop the bleed.
Mum: No sorry you can't do that because I don't believe you because ATS told em Dr's lie so instead am going to give her some Vitiam's because someone said that might help.

Under your argument that kid should just die. Its a stupid argument.

Here's another scenario:

HOSPITAL: Your kid is going to die. There's nothing we can do except make them comfortable.

PARENTS: Well, there's another hospital that says they have an experimental treatment that might help. We'll take him there, what do we have to lose?

HOSPITAL: No, we've already decided your kid is going to die, and he will die right here. We'll have a squad of policemen standing guard around the clock to make sure you don't take him anywhere.

--------------------

We need to recognize that parents, doctors, and the State all have different agendas when it comes to the welfare of a child.

It should be obvious that when it comes to the State, that agenda changes based on the circumstances. One day that darling child could be the next Miss America, the next day it was her own fault for getting a rubber bullet in the eye at a protest.

We would like to believe that doctors are most interested in doing everything they can for their patients. Personally, I choose to believe that. But I still can't ignore what I've seen. The fact is, there are some people with medical degrees that have very low moral and ethical standards. I don't think any examples are necessary, let's just call them a very, very, very, small minority. But let's remember one thing. You can take the most principled, educated, caring, intelligent, dedicated doctors in the world, and they still have one problem. They are human. They work stupid long shifts in a high stress environment with almost no margin for error. They do the best they can.

Now let's look at parents. Any half-decent parent is going to have the best interests of their child first and foremost. Yes, there are exceptions, people who shouldn't be parents. Like the bad doctors, let's just put them aside for the moment. I mean, they probably wouldn't care if the child died anyway, right? If they could go back, they might have aborted.

Let's focus on the parents might be not so smart, or not so well educated, or might not have a lot of money. But they do have one thing going for them; they care for their children like no one else in the world does. When that child dies, they will miss them more than the State or the doctor ever will. And they will live with the guilt of whatever their decisions will be. The State will bear no responsibility, the doctor will move on to another patient, and the parents will grieve and mourn for what could have been.

--------------

What this boils down to is the parents disagreeing with the doctors, and the State automatically siding with the doctors. The problem being that the State, who has the least true interest in the matter, will enforce their position with force. If the parents are wrong, they face the full force of the legal system. If the doctors and the State are wrong, they face no consequences for their actions.

I don't think doctors should be held legally responsible if they acted in good faith to the best of their ability to help their patients.

The State, however, should be held responsible. Not just lawsuits or someone loses their job. If a parent can go to jail for poor health care decisions, the same should apply to the State.

If the State prevented me from doing what I thought I could to save my child, I'd want to see someone in jail or dead.

a reply to: rickymouse

I hear what you are saying, I know tylenol can be bad if overused. And I know there are different forms of chemo. I know a few people permanently damaged by chemo, the hardcore forms of it are pretty much designed to almost kill you, killing the cancer at the same time, tylenol not so much. I agree it's not benign though.

At least one of the people I know said never again with the chemo.

I think your food chemistry based therapy can be useful.

Here's to hoping neither of us has to test the theory.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

And you had the gall to call my post a strawman?

You have already stated you work in a hospital, and you do not know the difference between internal hemorrhaging and cancer surgery? I'll say this: it's no wonder i never hear of anyone traveling to the UK for medical treatment. If you are a representative of their healthcare system, may God help you all!

Under your argument that kid should just die. Its a stupid argument.

Under your argument, the kid is no longer sentient, just an automaton to be used as doctors see fit. As are everyone else.

TheRedneck

The incredibly obvious point being that parents don't have the right to withhold life saving treatment from their children.

If your position is so weak you have to resort to personal attacks on a poster maybe you need to rethink your position.

and what do people think separating her from her mother will do to her emotionally? might as well finish her off themselves. no family, no friends, just surrounded by strangers in a strange place with no will to live anymore.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

I don't really mind catching the flu from time to time. My body always deals with it just fine, and it's a good excuse to skip work, so I don't see why I must get the vaccine. Sure, there's the very small chance that it might kill me one day, but pretty much everything in life could kill me as well (like the scratches from my cats, but that doesn't mean I will kick them out of my house).

We're never ever going to eradicate the influenza virus, so I don't see the point in forcing vaccination over the entire population besides some orwellian form of social engineering.

a reply to: ScepticScot

The incredibly obvious point being that parents don't have the right to withhold life saving treatment from their children.

What about this procedure is life-saving? The poster i replied to himself stated that the procedure is 50-70% effective. That means that 3-5 people out of every 10 dies despite, or possibly due to, the procedure.

What part of that is so hard to understand? There is no guarantee that she will even survive the operation, much less the cancer. When I had my heart surgery, there was no guarantee... I had to sign a release that the surgeon or hospital would not be held accountable if I died during the procedure. That was for an operation that had a 97% survival rate. Why did I have to sign the release if the procedure was a certain life saver?

The same poster earlier stated they think everyone should be required by law to get a yearly flu shot. I've never had one, and I very rarely, as in once a decade maybe, get a flu. Those rare occasions I run a fever for a day or two and gripe a lot, then go on with my life. Why? Because I haven't purposely depressed my immunity with fly shots. But this poster thinks I should be required to rely on a flu shot developed by people I have never met or even heard of, like they have my best interest at heart more than I do. I reject that nonsense out of hand.

If you choose to accept a shot or a procedure, fine. I'm not stating that doctors are wrong most of the time; their knowledge and skill can certainly save lives. Where we disagree is that I do not believe doctors know everything about medicine and are far from infallible. As such, they should not have the blanket backing of the state. I already have a God; I do not need, nor do I want, a fallible human taking over that role.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: ScepticScot

The incredibly obvious point being that parents don't have the right to withhold life saving treatment from their children.

What about this procedure is life-saving? The poster i replied to himself stated that the procedure is 50-70% effective. That means that 3-5 people out of every 10 dies despite, or possibly due to, the procedure.

What part of that is so hard to understand? There is no guarantee that she will even survive the operation, much less the cancer. When I had my heart surgery, there was no guarantee... I had to sign a release that the surgeon or hospital would not be held accountable if I died during the procedure. That was for an operation that had a 97% survival rate. Why did I have to sign the release if the procedure was a certain life saver?

The same poster earlier stated they think everyone should be required by law to get a yearly flu shot. I've never had one, and I very rarely, as in once a decade maybe, get a flu. Those rare occasions I run a fever for a day or two and gripe a lot, then go on with my life. Why? Because I haven't purposely depressed my immunity with fly shots. But this poster thinks I should be required to rely on a flu shot developed by people I have never met or even heard of, like they have my best interest at heart more than I do. I reject that nonsense out of hand.

If you choose to accept a shot or a procedure, fine. I'm not stating that doctors are wrong most of the time; their knowledge and skill can certainly save lives. Where we disagree is that I do not believe doctors know everything about medicine and are far from infallible. As such, they should not have the blanket backing of the state. I already have a God; I do not need, nor do I want, a fallible human taking over that role.

TheRedneck

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

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.

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.

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.

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

a reply to: TheRedneck

Ahh right am going to give this another chance.

Right fundamentally you cannot prove that CBD oil has greater efficacy than traditional medical intervention, I have challenged you several times and each time you have failed to provide that evidence. That means that in the context of this thread that there is zero evidence that CBD oil will cure/extend this young girls life.

The median survival rate without treatment is three years, the five year survival rate for state 1 Liver cancer with treatment is 50-70% I am not claiming that anything will provide a 100% cure or is risk free. You are making the stawman argument by claiming that I am. My example about the bleeding was only to demonstrate how utterly stupid this argument of yours is when taken to an extreme.

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. 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. 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.

I am not going to explain this to you again because either your thick or its just a case of Alien in suit bad.

Now a few other points am not going through all of your posts line by line....

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.

......If you are a representative of their healthcare system, may God help you all!

What a #ty thing for you to say sir, fair enough you disagree with me but would you please stop getting personal with this, its not particularly nice, its attacking the ball not the player and am sure you Mods have a thing to say about that....

Anyway can't honestly be bothered having this discussion with you anymore because to be quite honest you don't have a clue what you're talking about, by your own admission you have no idea if CBD will work, yet still want to pretend you know better than me. Your arrogance is as astounding as is your lack of respect for fellow members.