Hmmm ... the parents here do have a point about the risks that Chemotherapy presents to their son. It's unfortunate that they sought out "alternative" cancer treatments rather than, say, something with a real track record (like angiogenesis inhibitors) -- but in this case I really believe the State was in the wrong for trying to force the parents to put the kid through Chemo.
Stunt his growth? Render him sterile when he's older? The kid has to SURVIVE first! Worry about the lack of growth and his reproductive status LATER. Or are the families so concerned about their little boy's ability to give them grandchildren that that comes first?
Crap dangit... ever hear of an endocrinologist? There are pediatric ones. They work with the doctors who administer chemotherapy.
What sort of farking reasons do these people have for denying their son, who is totally dependent on them for his care and wellbeing, the best opportunity he has to survive? While the article does not specify what sarcoma, is it unreasonable to assume the doctors would reccomend a treatment that is hopeless? It is even reasonable to assume that these people are not even correct in their thinking, because they did consider treating the kid with "alternative" medicine, and then the article says the family denies he has signs of cancer. (Or, "new tests do not show signs of cancer...")
What tests, if they were looking at "alternative" therapies?
This is hurtful to my brain cells.
Crap dangit... ever hear of an endocrinologist? There are pediatric ones. They work with the doctors who administer chemotherapy.
What sort of farking reasons do these people have for denying their son, who is totally dependent on them for his care and wellbeing, the best opportunity he has to survive? While the article does not specify what sarcoma, is it unreasonable to assume the doctors would reccomend a treatment that is hopeless? It is even reasonable to assume that these people are not even correct in their thinking, because they did consider treating the kid with "alternative" medicine, and then the article says the family denies he has signs of cancer. (Or, "new tests do not show signs of cancer...")
What tests, if they were looking at "alternative" therapies?
This is hurtful to my brain cells.
Eos of the Eons
Mad Scientist
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2003
- Messages
- 13,749
They aren't allowing all the tests. So the kid dies of cancer. So what? The kid is also telling everyone to leave him alone. It's his and his parents' choice.
Just make the recommendation. You've done your job. It's up to them to decide to allow treatment.
It's noone's faul but their own if the kid isn't cancer free. They can't sue a doctor for not treating him if he already tried to.
Less dumb people in the world is hardly a tragedy. It's my choice to be dumb and go jump out of a plane with no chute, they also are free to make dumb choices.
What's better? Sterility or death? Who knows, let them decide for themselves.
Sterility isn't even a given in chemotherapy. There have been times when a young child does not have these problems when they are an adult.
yes, as an independently thinking individual you have the right to make choices for yourself. But the lovely and intelligent Eos of the Eons (no really, I love your avatar and your posts) has a better grasp of reality and consequences than these people.
Of course, in the end, Eos is right, and these folks will do what they will. But if they do lose their son to stupidity, I won't be mourning another stupid person dying. I'll be rolling my eyes as the parents cry in public over this "tragedy." I hope they don't take donations, either, for a funeral fund. Those tick me off.
yes, as an independently thinking individual you have the right to make choices for yourself. But the lovely and intelligent Eos of the Eons (no really, I love your avatar and your posts) has a better grasp of reality and consequences than these people.
Of course, in the end, Eos is right, and these folks will do what they will. But if they do lose their son to stupidity, I won't be mourning another stupid person dying. I'll be rolling my eyes as the parents cry in public over this "tragedy." I hope they don't take donations, either, for a funeral fund. Those tick me off.
What would happen if people started the mourning process for the kid now, today? The parents would probably say, "But he ain't dead yet!" The response SHOULD be, "He soon will be." Would they then get the point?
And I remain curious as to what their justification is for withholding treatment.
And I remain curious as to what their justification is for withholding treatment.
Eos of the Eons
Mad Scientist
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2003
- Messages
- 13,749
I love my Avtar. I'm glad you think I have a good grasp on reality, sometimes I wonder...cause I think I just don't care about some things anymore, and that's dumb people causing their kids to die.I don't get mad anymore. What's the use? Nothing we can do about what people believe. It's sad yeah.
Just a few years ago these woo woos around here had their kid die from going too long with diabetes and he fell into a coma he never recovered from. They didn't believe in doctors and didn't even suspect anything was wrong with their kid. Nothing serious anyway. Sure they prayed for him to stop being so tired and thirsty, but that's it.
They tried to charge them for murder, but couldn't because of their religion. They even had all their other 10 kids taken away for a few months, but they got them all back.
Their kid died and they didn't change a thing. Their other kids can die of the same thing because it runs in their family.
These people won't change, even if their kid dies. They'll blame it on the stress of the courts and interference, not the lack of medical care.
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
http://www.abc.net.au/health/misc/enoughrope.htm
If you look at this, I was amazed. He had another show with the survivors 10 years later. I expeced most of them to be dead, with a few 'medical miracles' to have survived. In fact, most of them lived. They weren't all 100%, but the survival rate was amazing.
If you look at this, I was amazed. He had another show with the survivors 10 years later. I expeced most of them to be dead, with a few 'medical miracles' to have survived. In fact, most of them lived. They weren't all 100%, but the survival rate was amazing.
There is a difference between these Australian kids and the youngster in Utah.
In 1993, the Australians were being treated for their cancer. It was rough on them and on their families, but they were fighting. The results show now.
The poor little Utah kid isn't even going to get this chance...
Perhaps you should send this story to his parents???
In 1993, the Australians were being treated for their cancer. It was rough on them and on their families, but they were fighting. The results show now.
The poor little Utah kid isn't even going to get this chance...
Perhaps you should send this story to his parents???
Rolfe
Adult human female
This echoes a story in England from a few days ago. The wife of a prominent entertainer died of breast cancer at only 41. She was first diagnosed 18 months previously, and a biopsy showed malignancy which was metastasising. But judging from the news reports, it was a type of cancer which should have had a pretty fair chance of responding to treatment with good survival time - maybe even complete cure.
However, the lady was convinced that chemotherapy would "finish her off", and decided to restore her body's energy levels with health-food diet and yoga rather than subjecting it to chemical assault. There was a bit more to it, in that she was pursuing fertility treatment and was worried that chemo would leave her infertile, but again what's the use of being fertile and dead, and I know surgeons often discuss harvesting eggs first, then going ahead with chemo, where this is a concern.
Well, she was a competent adult, and had the right to refuse treatment she didn't want. But who gave her the idea that chemo "would finish her off"? Who suggested to her that health food (what's that?) and yoga could have any influence on the progress of cancer? Was she really making a rational decision, or did she allow wishful thinking to accept irrational offers of false hope from demented ideologues, rather than face the harsh reality of the situation?
The screamingly annoying bit is that the newspapers all launch into drippy adulation and praise for the woman's "brave fight". Never a cautionary word that dead is where you're likely to get if you follow her example, but the world is full of genuinely "brave" women who are biting the bullet and very often achieving very good long term results from that.
Same thing with Barry Sheene, who ended up the same way after trying to fight cancer with fruit juice. I think in his case it didn't make a lot of difference and the doctors felt on balance that if he was happy drinking fruit juice during the time he had left, good luck to him. But all this talk of brave fights is bound to sway some people to thinking there are rational, potentially effective alternatives to unpleasant cancer treatment.
It's just so sad when it's a child. Of course the kid wanted everyone to leave him alone. Who wouldn't? He won't have any real understanding of what's going on, and he probably never will. One for the Darwin Award, maybe, but I wish it had been the father and not the son with the cancer.
Rolfe.
However, the lady was convinced that chemotherapy would "finish her off", and decided to restore her body's energy levels with health-food diet and yoga rather than subjecting it to chemical assault. There was a bit more to it, in that she was pursuing fertility treatment and was worried that chemo would leave her infertile, but again what's the use of being fertile and dead, and I know surgeons often discuss harvesting eggs first, then going ahead with chemo, where this is a concern.
Well, she was a competent adult, and had the right to refuse treatment she didn't want. But who gave her the idea that chemo "would finish her off"? Who suggested to her that health food (what's that?) and yoga could have any influence on the progress of cancer? Was she really making a rational decision, or did she allow wishful thinking to accept irrational offers of false hope from demented ideologues, rather than face the harsh reality of the situation?
The screamingly annoying bit is that the newspapers all launch into drippy adulation and praise for the woman's "brave fight". Never a cautionary word that dead is where you're likely to get if you follow her example, but the world is full of genuinely "brave" women who are biting the bullet and very often achieving very good long term results from that.
Same thing with Barry Sheene, who ended up the same way after trying to fight cancer with fruit juice. I think in his case it didn't make a lot of difference and the doctors felt on balance that if he was happy drinking fruit juice during the time he had left, good luck to him. But all this talk of brave fights is bound to sway some people to thinking there are rational, potentially effective alternatives to unpleasant cancer treatment.
It's just so sad when it's a child. Of course the kid wanted everyone to leave him alone. Who wouldn't? He won't have any real understanding of what's going on, and he probably never will. One for the Darwin Award, maybe, but I wish it had been the father and not the son with the cancer.
Rolfe.
Caution - thread drift ahead -
I don't really have a point here, nor am I trying to refute anything.
I just feel like running my mouth and showing everyone what a pedant I can be sometimes.
I just happen to have a special interest in skydiving, having been stoopid enough to jump out of a perfectly good airplane more than 300 times and lived to tell about it.
I don't really have a point here, nor am I trying to refute anything.
I just feel like running my mouth and showing everyone what a pedant I can be sometimes.
I just happen to have a special interest in skydiving, having been stoopid enough to jump out of a perfectly good airplane more than 300 times and lived to tell about it.
In the U.S. it is against the law (Federal Aviation Regulation 105.43(a)) to jump out of an airplane without a parachute. Two parachutes are required, in fact, if the jump is not motivated by an emergency or another specified exception. And the pilot of the plane can be prosecuted for allowing you to jump in violation of FAR 105. So it's not just your choice, the pilot is also involved. Although to be honest, the one time I know of this happening, the pilot did not get sanctioned.
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
Eos of the Eons said:
Ok, first of all, if its a child, it doesn't have the legal responsibility to make its own decisions.
So, it means that the decision is the parent's alone.
Do you think that parents should have 'absolute' power over the child? Should they have the right to murder the child (if its the "parent's choice")? What about abuse (if its part of the parent's "belief system")?
How far are you willing to carry thie idea of "Parent's choice"?
Eos of the Eons
Mad Scientist
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2003
- Messages
- 13,749
I don't care about parent's choice. I'm talking about dumb people choice. Parents shouldn't be allowed that choice, but these guys are clearly making that choice. So why should I care? I can't do anything about it.
Like I said, sure it's sad, but why sweat over something you have no control over. If you want to spend the time energy and resources on trying to pass a law-then go to it. I don't have any time money or energy.
The kid will grow up just like them and keep his kid (if he survives) from getting medical help when needed, so they are doomed anyways in an evolutionary standpoint. The people who get treatment will survive and populate the planet, the dumb ones will die.
Hmm? I could give you a million claims from mostly homeopaths, and people selling the crap that will help you 'fight cancer naturally'. I'm sure you know that already though.
Like I said, sure it's sad, but why sweat over something you have no control over. If you want to spend the time energy and resources on trying to pass a law-then go to it. I don't have any time money or energy.
The kid will grow up just like them and keep his kid (if he survives) from getting medical help when needed, so they are doomed anyways in an evolutionary standpoint. The people who get treatment will survive and populate the planet, the dumb ones will die.
Hmm? I could give you a million claims from mostly homeopaths, and people selling the crap that will help you 'fight cancer naturally'. I'm sure you know that already though.
I think there's another rule somewhere else in the U.S. Code that says that dying is an automatic "get out of jail free" card.
In any case, jumping without a parachute is not a jailable offense, just a $1000 fine, typically. Also, there is much empirical evidence that a body hitting the ground at 130 mph will usually remain in one piece (contained within the skinbag) rather than splattering.
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
I am not for denying children medical treatment.
However we don't know alot of stuff rom this story. And we sure don't need to go into the evils of DCFS, but they are known to frequently lie themselves.
A couple things to think about:
1. has this child already had treatment?
2. what was that course of treatment?
3. how did he respond to that treatment?
(These questions are not discussed in the article, treatment is frequentlt very painful and distressing. Perhaps he already had tyreatment and didn't respond well.)
4. What tests exactly have been used to determine the level of the cancer? What is thier reliability?
5. Are there outside doctors recommending treatment or they all the stooges of the original doctor?(very common with DCFS)
6. What is the actual prognosis for treatment? (Should this kid have to go through chemical hell just for a 5% shot of remission)
7. While he is only twelve that is alomost the age to start making these choices, if he has already had chemo , and the prognosis is poor, then why force him to suffer, just becasuse the state can?
And beileve me, I am a children's advocate! I suffered lack of medical treatment myself, and I am very lucky that I only have 10% hearing loss in my left ear. I am dang lucky to even be alive! I do belive in giving all people reasonable medical treatment, but there are a lot of things not discussed in the article.
However we don't know alot of stuff rom this story. And we sure don't need to go into the evils of DCFS, but they are known to frequently lie themselves.
A couple things to think about:
1. has this child already had treatment?
2. what was that course of treatment?
3. how did he respond to that treatment?
(These questions are not discussed in the article, treatment is frequentlt very painful and distressing. Perhaps he already had tyreatment and didn't respond well.)
4. What tests exactly have been used to determine the level of the cancer? What is thier reliability?
5. Are there outside doctors recommending treatment or they all the stooges of the original doctor?(very common with DCFS)
6. What is the actual prognosis for treatment? (Should this kid have to go through chemical hell just for a 5% shot of remission)
7. While he is only twelve that is alomost the age to start making these choices, if he has already had chemo , and the prognosis is poor, then why force him to suffer, just becasuse the state can?
And beileve me, I am a children's advocate! I suffered lack of medical treatment myself, and I am very lucky that I only have 10% hearing loss in my left ear. I am dang lucky to even be alive! I do belive in giving all people reasonable medical treatment, but there are a lot of things not discussed in the article.