Judge rules family can't refuse chemo for boy

Originally posted by searching4truth
reply to post by jd140

 

I do not "hate the government that much", what I do hate is them putting their noses into matters that are none of their business, ie the health concerns of my family. It's not that they were not seeking any treatment and wanted their child to die, they were seek various treatments outside of chemo. Last, I checked there still was not a cure for cancer and if it were my child I would seek ALL possible forms of treatment.

They weren't seeking various treatments, the were seeking one treatment that was not working.

Opposed to undergoing chemo, which they did for one session and that session shown a reduction in the tumor.

As I said before, if the alternative medicine route was working then they were wrong.

Since it wasn't working then that means that if nobody stepped in then that kid would have died.

But hey, if he had died I guess that means the government was doing its job and letting us run our own lives.

The kid is a minor and somebody had to look out for his best interests. Letting him die isn't it.

reply to post by king9072


Did you not read the article at all?

With chemo at the time he undergone his first and only treatment, he had a 90% chance of surviving. The chemo had shrunk the tumor in his first and only session.

That sounds to me like progress was being made in him beating cancer.

Since he has stopped doing chemo and started to undertake this aleternative medicine route the tumor has grown.

That sounds to me as if the progress made by the chemo has been lost. Which means that he is dieing.

Chemo shown improvement.
Alt Medicine saw the tumor grow.

How can one defend the parents actions?

If you’re an adult you can do whatever you want with your body, but if a judge felt that this child did not understand his circumstance enough to allow his parents to involve him in alternative treatment then I side with the judge. The government is allowed to step in if it thinks a parent is not doing its duty as a child’s care taker. If you don’t school your children or have them attend school, if you neglect them, or if you abuse them then the government has the right to step in. As much as I dislike some of the government’s involvement in our lives I am THANKFUL for this. There are many children that are in dire situations who are helped by the government's intervention.

[edit on 16-5-2009 by rapinbatsisaltherage]

reply to post by searching4truth


I'm not concerned so much about 'future health concerns' - not the topic. But, you do bring up a valid point that got me to thinking (star for you! lol)

Now heres how I see this:

Lord knows, as much as I know in my heart that the Government has NO BUSINESS in our personal lives... it is what they MUST DO when we cant make decisions for ourselves.

Divorce, for example. Primary wedge that sees to it ALL hate ALL other parties before its all over with. Why? Because the more the husband and wife hate eachother - more money to be made from it - as they can not find any resolution to anything at that point.

One doesnt need to involve the government to get a divorce. If all parties can reach an agreement thats in the best interest of the child(ren) - you simply go uncontested and drop the papers off. DONE.

However! If the parties cannot find resolution to both the property and the children, we must involve the government. At that time THE GOVERNMENT tells the divorcees how its going to be. You have no say - you couldnt find resolution prior. Dont try at that point. Youre out of luck if you do.

So using this very basic example - one can EASILY see why the goverment SHOULD TAKE CONTROL OF THE INTEREST OF THIS CHILD. On the basis that the parents - in and of themselves - are not making decisions in the best interest of the child.

This is probably my only chance to be proud of my government. And I must say - with this being taken out of the parents hands and put into the Governments, is a pure blessing!!!

I doubt I'll ever feel that way again but here... Im all for it.

Screw these nut bags that let their kids die!!! To refuse treatment to a child - NEGLECT - PERIOD!

Animals, for that matter are much more protected and cared for. We step in ANYTIME an animal may be in the slightest danger. Sadly, the government isnt as worried about our children as animal organizations are about animals.

A child can get his eyes eaten out by his own father and it take days for anyone to arrive (see that thread). That needs to CHANGE and this is a step in that direction! I applaud the Judge and support the decision 100%.

If I were stupid or brainwashed into NEGLECTING my babies need for a life saving treatment, I could only hope the government would step in the save my baby! And meanwhile, I'd hope everyone that knew me or saw my face beat my ass redneck girl style!

Love Y'all too much!

~ Mikaela

Originally posted by ShadeWolf
Bloody well right you'd be guilty of medical neglect. Life is life, and just because this kid's parents are idiots, doesn't mean that he should have to die.

So does that cover abortion as well?

Originally posted by xxpigxx

Originally posted by ShadeWolf
Bloody well right you'd be guilty of medical neglect. Life is life, and just because this kid's parents are idiots, doesn't mean that he should have to die.

So does that cover abortion as well?

A thirteen year old child is now scientifically comparable to a fetus?

No, I don't know what this poster would say, but I would say that does not cover abortion. We do not treat all forms of life, ie bugs, animals, fetuses that can not survive outside of the womb, equally. We do not consider their lives to be comparable to a birthed human being.



[edit on 16-5-2009 by rapinbatsisaltherage]

Originally posted by jd140
reply to post by king9072

 

Did you not read the article at all?

With chemo at the time he undergone his first and only treatment, he had a 90% chance of surviving. The chemo had shrunk the tumor in his first and only session.

That sounds to me like progress was being made in him beating cancer.

Since he has stopped doing chemo and started to undertake this aleternative medicine route the tumor has grown.

That sounds to me as if the progress made by the chemo has been lost. Which means that he is dieing.

Chemo shown improvement.
Alt Medicine saw the tumor grow.

How can one defend the parents actions?

I have first hand witnessed what chemo does to a person. And your right, this is a complex case, but what I think it boiled down to, was that this kid honestly wanted to take the chance rather than undergoing the horror called chemo.

It's also unfair to use percentages when talking about the outcome of medical procedures. How many cases have you heard of a doctor saying "you will never walk again", then the guy is walking in a couple years. The opposite is true, people are told they have a high chance of survival if they undergo some form of treatment and people still die. So overall I think the percentage factor is overrated. For if in the same case someone told the family, well you have only a 50% chance to success, that's just a coin toss, one side of the coin equals death, the other equals slow painful, close to death, then survival. It's a tough choice.

Now I want to make it clear, it is none of my business what so ever to influence this person to either undergo or not undergo chemo treatment. Just as the same goes for everyone in this thread. But what IS important here, is the precedent that has been set with this case.

It's clear that chemo was horrific for this kid, but maybe if we was allowed to use medicinal marijuana for his chemo treatments then he wouldn't mind undergoing the treatment. Instead, they nuke the kids body, he obviously gets extremely sick and he doesn't want to continue like that. So its hard to say what is and isn't right in this situation cause none of us, are that kid.

Hence, we should deviate from the right and wrong point and rather focus on the precedent that has been set.

For the moment though, lets look into the effectiveness of chemotherapy. Link.

If you want to know the truth, read this article: “The contribution of cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adult malignancies.” The report of this study is exactly what cancer patients have been looking for. We have been waiting for such an answer -- what exactly is the contribution of chemotherapy to overall survival in cancers?

The authors:

The three authors of the paper are: (1) Graeme Morgan, Associate Professor and radiotherapist at the Royal North Shore Hospital in Sydney. (2) Robyn Ward, a senior specialist in Medical Oncology and Associate Professor of Medicine at St Vincent’s Hospital, Sydney. She is also a member of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. (3) Michael Barton, Research Director Associate Collaboration for Cancer Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Liverpool Health Service, Sydney.

Where it was published:

They publish their work in the Journal of Clinical Oncology Volume 16, Issue 8, December 2004, pages 549-560. This is a peer-review well-respected medical journal. Their paper was submitted for publication on 18 August 2003. It was revised and finally accepted for publication on 3 June 2004. This means the paper has been scrutinized by fellow doctors and has undergone the normal peer-review process. It is not a back-door, arm-twisting way to get into the pages of the medical journal. Given the above, you and I (and even doctors!) should not have any doubt as to the credibility and validity of what they say in their research paper.

WHAT DID THEY FIND OUT?:

The absolute real-life data that this article carries is most shocking: “The overall contribution of curative and adjuvant cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adults was estimated to be 2.3% in Australia and 2.1% in the USA.” In short, they said that the contribution of chemotherapy is not more than 3%.

Yes, 3%, chemo is only touted as a successful treatment. It makes a lot of money for those who are administering it, especially in the USSA, but it isn't as effective as its claimed to be.

If you talk to those who have undergone treatment, have survived, or even people who subsequently die from cancer/chemo, they all agree that chemo is a very rough ride. And if the real rates of success are 3%, then why should anyone have to spend their dying days having their body nuked, puking everywhere, unable to consume food and overall just dreading reality?

Now why I feel this is so important:

Mark my words, there WILL be another flu outbreak, exponentially worse than the swine flu. When that happens, THERE WILL BE A VACCINE, and we will be forced to take it.

What we WONT be told, is the actual EFFECTIVENESS of that vaccine. Additionally, we will NOT be told the consequences and probable negative side effects that will come from that vaccine. That is important, because we will be forced to take it. And it is one thing for us to refuse, but to refuse it for our children will be seen as negligence, and this case WILL be cited as precedence.

Good day everyone, lets take a moment of silence for our fascist police state.

[edit on 16-5-2009 by king9072]

reply to post by king9072


The kid has a serious learning disability and cannot read.

How much knowledge do you think he has to make an educated guess about this?

It would be like saying a 5 year old kid can make a decision on whether to get a shot of pain meds or not so that he can get stitches because the shot will hurt.

Nevermind what the pain he will go through if he doesn't get it.

Originally posted by jd140
reply to post by king9072

 

The kid has a serious learning disability and cannot read.

How much knowledge do you think he has to make an educated guess about this?

It would be like saying a 5 year old kid can make a decision on whether to get a shot of pain meds or not so that he can get stitches because the shot will hurt.

Nevermind what the pain he will go through if he doesn't get it.

The the post of mine above yours, I understand the case completely, and my point has nothing to do with him doing the treatment or not. It's about a persons willingness to choose. Read the post in its entirety, then reply. PLEASE.

Originally posted by ShadeWolf
Bloody well right you'd be guilty of medical neglect. Life is life, and just because this kid's parents are idiots, doesn't mean that he should have to die.

So they don't want to pump poison into their kid? And you are mad at them. Chemo can't be the only way. It's the only way companies make money though so it is pushed. Why not seek treatments from other countries? or mix treatments?

Originally posted by drwizardphd

Doctors have said Daniel's cancer had up to a 90 percent chance of being cured with chemotherapy and radiation. Without those treatments, doctors said his chances of survival are 5 percent.

Daniel's parents have been supporting what they say is their son's decision to treat the disease with nutritional supplements and other alternative treatments favored by the Nemenhah Band.

The Missouri-based religious group believes in natural healing methods advocated by some American Indians.

That's great that they hold these religious beliefs, but at the end of the day, that kid deserves to live.

He has a 90% chance of being cured, and if the treatment was refused he was almost guaranteed death. Children do not know how to make proper medical decisions for themselves, and in this case the parents were willfully endangering their child's life. By trying to refuse treatment, what they are doing is tantamount to child abuse.

While there are many legitimate cures homeopathic remedies can provide, cancer is not one of them.

Chemo does not give you a 90% chance to live. that is a lie.

Originally posted by LucidDreamer85
Chemo does not give you a 90% chance to live. that is a lie.

The specific type of cancer that Daniel has, Hodgekin's Lymphoma, generally has about a 90% "success" rate. Even though that rate is only measured for the first five years after completion of treatment.

reply to post by king9072


I read it.

Doesn't have any bearing on this case though. You finish off by saying that this is a stepping stone for the government to force medicine on us.

Bullcrap.

The kid was dying and nobody was doing anything about it.

He was being told that the alt. medicine he was taking would heal him and it wasn't. All he knew was that chemo hurt and this didn't. You can try and use this to point out the benefits of marijuana all you want. Doesn't change the fact that this kid was being led to believe the course he was taking would help him.

Originally posted by jd140
reply to post by king9072

 

I read it.

Doesn't have any bearing on this case though. You finish off by saying that this is a stepping stone for the government to force medicine on us.

Bullcrap.

The kid was dying and nobody was doing anything about it.

He was being told that the alt. medicine he was taking would heal him and it wasn't. All he knew was that chemo hurt and this didn't. You can try and use this to point out the benefits of marijuana all you want. Doesn't change the fact that this kid was being led to believe the course he was taking would help him.

You clearly didn't read it, marijuana is only useful in treating CHEMOTHERAPY SICKNESS. It does NOTHING to cure cancer. I only mentioned that it would help him get through his treatment, but he obviously isn't allowed it.

Regardless, the main point of the post that I was hoping you would read was the study that found chemotherapy AT BEST 3% effective. That has huge implications in this topic, do you not think?

Just because they claim it will work better doesn't mean it will. Thanks for bouncing around the topic though, and highlighting only a fraction of what I said.

reply to post by king9072


Wouldn't easing chemo sickness be a benefit?

Besides, nobody said anything about it curing cancer.

Nobody has to claim that chemo will work, because it did work.

He had one session and the tumor shrunk, the doctors gave x rays as evidence.

After he started his new treatment it has grown.

You want to talk about dancing around. Fine by me.

How about you stop dancing around the fact that chemo was working for this boy. I guess he would be in your 3%.

How about you stop dancing around the fact that since he has started this alt medicine, which all he knows about it is what he is told seeing as how he can't read, the tumor has grown and he is or was only getting sicker.

I keep hearing how chemo makes you sick and puts your body through hell. Well, so does cancer. This kid will die a painful horrible death without chemo.

He may go through hell, but atleast he will have a 90% chance at surviving.

90% is what a licsensed doctor said and until you can produce a medical license I will be taking his word for it.

People have the right to refuse medical treatment even it results in death, and this right is extended to children as well. The courts have no right to force someone to go through painful, invasive procedures regardless of the reason.

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.

It is merely a hop, skip and jump toward charging you with medical neglect if you do not want your daughter to have the HPV vaccine at 12 years of age; if you refuse to have your "recommended annual exams"; if you do not want to take medicines that the medical community thinks you should.

Imagine battling an illness your entire life -- being sick, exhausted and emotionally drained and having it recur. Should you be allowed to say no more or should the government trump your decisions?

reply to post by VelmaLu


This from someone who believes that the government should start sterilization because you feel the Earth is reaching its maximum capacity.

I'm not suprised that you don't mind the kid dying.

Lol and you are worried about the government getting to involved in our choices.

reply to post by riddle6

I too was diagnosed with Hodgkins. I first went through radiation therapy which put me into remission for five years. After my relapse I had chemotherapy. I had a very difficult time of it, so difficult that I did not take the final round. My last treatment was 22 years ago in September.

To not accept chemotherapy for Hodgkins is suicide (or neglectful homicide). It is probably the single form of cancer which is most universally receptive to therapy. I know of two others who had Hodgkins at the same time I did and refused chemotherapy. They've been dead for 20 years.


[edit on 5/17/2009 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage



Don't bother, they like the gloom and doom stats more.

It helps their way of thinking more.

Originally posted by ShadeWolf
Bloody well right you'd be guilty of medical neglect. Life is life, and just because this kid's parents are idiots, doesn't mean that he should have to die.

[edit on 17-5-2009 by gimme_some_truth]