Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Big difference between a 7 and a 17 year old - you have made a straw man argument.
To the contrary - the poster I responded to made no such distinction, their augment was that people have a right to whatever they wish with their bodies, he did not specify an age at which that concept goes into effect.
So at what age does a person have a right to recklessly endanger their own body?
The legal age is 18. How young is old enough for complete autonomy?
Location: Central Atlantic Region, though consults worldwide
266 posts, read 449,742 times
Reputation: 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minervah
If this girl has read all about the treatments and looked up the stats about recurrence and survival rates and made an informed decision, I think she has every right to turn down the treatment being forced upon her.
Interesting question. Can one refuse treatment, chemo at that. I once read a report that suggested a higher percentage of doctors would not take chemo.
Suzy, this is just downright disrespectful. I know you don't agree with what these people are doing and I have a sense of knowing why you feel that way, but no matter how strongly you feel, it's not right to call people mentally challenged just b/c you don't agree with them. Sometimes people have really good reasons for feeling the way they do.
As you know, I have a strong bias towards holistic healing myself and it's not b/c I'm a hippie, though that may have played into it. Actually, it's b/c so many people in my family have died from cancer. I had one aunt who got breast cancer and had surgery only--twice b/c they failed to perform the double mastectomy that she requested. She is still alive and had a bout of colon cancer last year and swore off any further treatment after that one b/c it has left her housebound--the treatment I mean. She has reached the point where she feels that her life is not worth living.
Another aunt got BC, had the full treatment and less than 5 yrs later it was back with metastases to the bones and she died soon after. She never suffered a single side effect from chemo.
Another aunt had breast cancer as well and her ordeal was horrifying to all of us. She reacted badly to the chemo which left burns on her body that appeared to be third degree--believe they said it was one of those antibiotic ones? Nurses in the family felt that her death was from the treatment.
Then a cousin got an inoperable brain tumor at 40 and decided to do holistic since conventional couldn't help him and he is still alive and thriving 20 years later. Unfortunately the wife that he met while doing treatment has died this past year of breast cancer, but she had over 15 years of health before she died.
So, knowing what you know about my family history, you can see why I might have a bit of a bias? Just as I can see where yours comes from after you dealt with a son with cancer. You may not agree with my bias but you can see where it came from.
So, when I got BC myself, it was natural for me to choose holistic healing. Well, at first I thought I'd go full conventional, but the more I researched and read and talked to people and remembered my own horrifying family history, the less inclined I was to go that direction. There is nothing more terrifying than a cancer dx (except one for your child I would think) and your first inclination is to do what the docs order. Well mine started screwing up straight out of the gate and I knew enough about the placebo and nocebo effect that I knew that it would seriously impair my healing. I needed to have confidence in my doc and decided this is not a DIY project and hired a holistic MD. It's more than a year later and I'm doing very well. Too soon yet to say how this will all end up, but the journey has been so rewarding that if I die next year I will feel it's been worth it. I have spent this past year feeling and looking amazing. One of my nurse friends told me she was scared to death when I started treatment but that she would probably do the same if she finds herself in my situation.
My girls are 19 and 22 now and were homeschooled as well. Yeah, I know, I'm a real nutter eh? However, neither one of them is completely sold on the holistic thing--despite the fact that my homemade creams and remedies always cured their ills much better than the drugstore stuff. I'm trying to imagine how it would have gone if one of them had gotten cancer at 17 and I'd tried to impose my ideas on her for how she should be treated. It would not have gone well and either one of them would likely have hauled my tail into court.
They are concerned but not bothering me about my own treatment though--they know better than to interfere in something that I feel this strongly about. They are also grateful to me for homeschooling them and teaching them to think for themselves.
Another thing I want to say about the chemo--hair loss was not a concern at all--I'd already knitted up two really cute chemo caps before I made my decision. What stopped me was the warning I kept hearing from friends who'd had it--chemo brain. I've had ADHD all of my life and the thought of losing any more brain function was what stopped me. Some said it never went away completely and I came to the conclusion that something like that would make life not worth living. Besides, the way I react to meds--completely unpredictably--would make it too high risk. So, maybe I am mentally challenged? But I don't want it to be worse--life is hard enough as it is.
This is an example of what I was trying to bring out in showing the cruelty of those like Suzy who persist in throwing the words "mentally challenged" or "childish" around just because someone does not agree with her. I have both Cancer and severe mental illness in my family and I do not appreciate anyone using these terms as throw-away descriptions as terms about which they know very little.
Also as a health insurance claims adjuster for over 25 years, I have my own opinions of the success, failure and price a patient pays for the use of chemo brought about by actual health claims I have seen. I can't say and won't say for sure whether or not I would go down that path were I to ever be diagnosed with Cancer but I do know and will say that I would not rush into chemo no matter what kind of statistics were quoted to me.
There is a saying, "the Devil can quote statistics for his own purposes" and I just don't put as much store in statistics as I do in personal observation.
When we talk about treatments I have to think of at one time the "treatment" of mental illness was lobotomy which was considered safe, practical and perfect in its time. My aunt back in the 30's and 40's received strong shock therapy routinely for schizophrenia routinely which was totally approved by the medical establishment. She was still being given them on a much limited basis in the 70's.
At one time, men and women who were considered to be unfit mentally were sterilized against their will. A couple of decades ago chemo and radiation therapy were stronger and more concentrated than those given now. Entire breasts were removed when the diagnoses was breast Cancer as opposed to today's mastectomies in which more partial surgeries are done.
Tonsillectomies, once the rage of the pediatric medical profession are now uncommon. So were myringotomies. Now kids usually just live with the condition until they grow out of them. When I was a kid, a popular surgical procedure for tonsil removal was radiation. My mother nixed it because it she felt it was too new. The doctors argued with her it was perfectly safe and no cutting with fast recovery time. They guaranteed it was perfectly safe when they really had no way of knowing what future problems might arise. Mom said no.
Fast forward to the teen years and many who did have it found their thyroid glands had become Cancerous from the radiation and had to be removed. They had to be dependent upon thyroid meds for the rest of their lives.
At the time, people would have defended all these procedures and the only proper and valid treatment to be given. Why? Statistics told them they were successful. The medical community told them they were the way to go. I am grateful to my own mom who said no radiation for her kid despite the doctors pushing it.
The list goes on but the point is, medicine is not perfect and it is not static. There are more failures than we, the public hear about because of course, success stories are the ones that are touted. Anyone who states that rejecting a treatment is mentally challenged is simply ignorant of the fact that treatments fail and they can do harm. If someone wants to take treatments because they believe the treatments might work that's fine, maybe they will. No one can predict unequivocally either way.
Interesting question. Can one refuse treatment, chemo at that. I once read a report that suggested a higher percentage of doctors would not take chemo.
Doctors are less likely to accept treatment that has a small chance of benefit. I suspect few would turn down treatment with an 85% chance of success.
This is an example of what I was trying to bring out in showing the cruelty of those like Suzy who persist in throwing the words "mentally challenged" or "childish" around just because someone does not agree with her. I have both Cancer and severe mental illness in my family and I do not appreciate anyone using these terms as throw-away descriptions as terms about which they know very little.
Also as a health insurance claims adjuster for over 25 years, I have my own opinions of the success, failure and price a patient pays for the use of chemo brought about by actual health claims I have seen. I can't say and won't say for sure whether or not I would go down that path were I to ever be diagnosed with Cancer but I do know and will say that I would not rush into chemo no matter what kind of statistics were quoted to me.
There is a saying, "the Devil can quote statistics for his own purposes" and I just don't put as much store in statistics as I do in personal observation.
When we talk about treatments I have to think of at one time the "treatment" of mental illness was lobotomy which was considered safe, practical and perfect in its time. My aunt back in the 30's and 40's received strong shock therapy routinely for schizophrenia routinely which was totally approved by the medical establishment. She was still being given them on a much limited basis in the 70's.
At one time, men and women who were considered to be unfit mentally were sterilized against their will. A couple of decades ago chemo and radiation therapy were stronger and more concentrated than those given now. Entire breasts were removed when the diagnoses was breast Cancer as opposed to today's mastectomies in which more partial surgeries are done.
Tonsillectomies, once the rage of the pediatric medical profession are now uncommon. So were myringotomies. Now kids usually just live with the condition until they grow out of them. When I was a kid, a popular surgical procedure for tonsil removal was radiation. My mother nixed it because it she felt it was too new. The doctors argued with her it was perfectly safe and no cutting with fast recovery time. They guaranteed it was perfectly safe when they really had no way of knowing what future problems might arise. Mom said no.
Fast forward to the teen years and many who did have it found their thyroid glands had become Cancerous from the radiation and had to be removed. They had to be dependent upon thyroid meds for the rest of their lives.
At the time, people would have defended all these procedures and the only proper and valid treatment to be given. Why? Statistics told them they were successful. The medical community told them they were the way to go. I am grateful to my own mom who said no radiation for her kid despite the doctors pushing it.
The list goes on but the point is, medicine is not perfect and it is not static. There are more failures than we, the public hear about because of course, success stories are the ones that are touted. Anyone who states that rejecting a treatment is mentally challenged is simply ignorant of the fact that treatments fail and they can do harm. If someone wants to take treatments because they believe the treatments might work that's fine, maybe they will. No one can predict unequivocally either way.
the system provides in this situation that if Mom cannot make a responsible choice for her child, a guardian can be appointed by the court to do it for her. Some may not like that, but it is established law in this country.
Yah, we know.
We know, if the statists don't like what you want to do, they just declare you and your parent incompetent and do what they want to do instead, anyway, by force. We know, court orders are above individuals (parents and their kids). We know, the state owns this demi-person because... not 18.
We know all of these things. The state has won. It has asserted its power and there's nothing any of our quaint cries about individual ownership of the body and mind or the ability to reason and make non-mainstream choices or valuing a shorter time without chemo over a chance for a longer time with it will ever do about that.
I suppose, as long as we are on firm ground and not on any sort of slippery slope (which slippery slope would involve an erosion of self-ownership such that even so-called "adults of sound mind" could be forced into treatment of non-communicable disease at some point), that we can just agree to disagree and move on.
This is an example of what I was trying to bring out in showing the cruelty of those like Suzy who persist in throwing the words "mentally challenged" or "childish" around just because someone does not agree with her. I have both Cancer and severe mental illness in my family and I do not appreciate anyone using these terms as throw-away descriptions as terms about which they know very little.
Also as a health insurance claims adjuster for over 25 years, I have my own opinions of the success, failure and price a patient pays for the use of chemo brought about by actual health claims I have seen. I can't say and won't say for sure whether or not I would go down that path were I to ever be diagnosed with Cancer but I do know and will say that I would not rush into chemo no matter what kind of statistics were quoted to me.
There is a saying, "the Devil can quote statistics for his own purposes" and I just don't put as much store in statistics as I do in personal observation.
When we talk about treatments I have to think of at one time the "treatment" of mental illness was lobotomy which was considered safe, practical and perfect in its time. My aunt back in the 30's and 40's received strong shock therapy routinely for schizophrenia routinely which was totally approved by the medical establishment. She was still being given them on a much limited basis in the 70's.
At one time, men and women who were considered to be unfit mentally were sterilized against their will. A couple of decades ago chemo and radiation therapy were stronger and more concentrated than those given now. Entire breasts were removed when the diagnoses was breast Cancer as opposed to today's mastectomies in which more partial surgeries are done.
Tonsillectomies, once the rage of the pediatric medical profession are now uncommon. So were myringotomies. Now kids usually just live with the condition until they grow out of them. When I was a kid, a popular surgical procedure for tonsil removal was radiation. My mother nixed it because it she felt it was too new. The doctors argued with her it was perfectly safe and no cutting with fast recovery time. They guaranteed it was perfectly safe when they really had no way of knowing what future problems might arise. Mom said no.
Fast forward to the teen years and many who did have it found their thyroid glands had become Cancerous from the radiation and had to be removed. They had to be dependent upon thyroid meds for the rest of their lives.
At the time, people would have defended all these procedures and the only proper and valid treatment to be given. Why? Statistics told them they were successful. The medical community told them they were the way to go. I am grateful to my own mom who said no radiation for her kid despite the doctors pushing it.
The list goes on but the point is, medicine is not perfect and it is not static. There are more failures than we, the public hear about because of course, success stories are the ones that are touted. Anyone who states that rejecting a treatment is mentally challenged is simply ignorant of the fact that treatments fail and they can do harm. If someone wants to take treatments because they believe the treatments might work that's fine, maybe they will. No one can predict unequivocally either way.
My doctor, and a few others) pushed me towards the bariatric surgery (gastric bypass). I refused. My doctor told me he had all sorts of stats about how great it was, but I stood firm. I knew three people who had the surgery, two were dead, one was sick all the freaking time for two years after the surgery. One died from a heart issue, one died after 8 months of all sorts of complications, but they said the end result wasn't from the surgery. Yeah -- right. Not buying it. She was healthy before surgery.
I'm losing weight, slowly. So far a total of nearly 80 pounds. It's not hard -- but it's not easy. Takes determination.
Wow! This thread touches home. I had an older sister diagnosed with Hodgkin's disease when she was in her young teen years. This was back in the day that doctor's hadn't found a treatment. I think they were still trying out the chemo thing (but I was very young at the time and my knowledge was very limited) It was always considered the "end game". But my sister took the chemo and was considered one of the first survivors. She lived to be 39 before her life was taken by breast cancer. My cousin also had it and as far as I know she is still alive.
IMO - anything you can do to save a young life - bring it on... Did the chemo cause the breast cancer? I don't know. But she got to live a lot longer and our family got to enjoy her smiling face! We had so much fun together!!!
If this girl has read all about the treatments and looked up the stats about recurrence and survival rates and made an informed decision, I think she has every right to turn down the treatment being forced upon her.
Unless those alternative methods of "treatment" are supported by some reputable medical study (preferably studies) the use of the word "treatment" is inappropriate. Treatment implies that a certain regimen will cure a patient.
This is the problem with much of alternative medicine. It cannot be scientifically or empirically proven as effective. Perhaps, this mother could have succeeded in having her way if she had actually done some research and found the kind of studies that I refer too and specified the exact treatment that her daughter would be receiving. I doubt it though. Simply because I don't believe alternative methods of treatment generally work or that reputable studies exist that support that particular choice. Whatever the alternative "treatment" is, it is not par with methods that can be proven through reputable studies to cure Hodgkin's Lymphoma 85% of the time.
Probably the biggest problem with alt medicine is that it's all over the place. Some alt medicine has been extensively researched, like in the links below:
Some of it is ridiculous. Well much of it is ridiculous, and this just gives it a bad name. Not to mention when you begin to do the research, you go on information overload very quickly and so I'm not surprised that the mother did not submit a treatment plan. She's probably up past midnight every night still, reading everything she can get her hands on.
Also, few people comfortable with the goal of alt medicine, which isn't necessarily to zap out a tumor so much as it is to strengthen your body to fight off the tumor--enough NK cells can eradicate even large tumors. Or it's to strengthen your body enough to at least coexist with tumors so they don't go any further. In Hodgkins or breast cancer, it's not the original tumor that kills you--it's the metastases--as you know but others here may not.
So really, the problem with alt medicine is that it really depends on which kind you're talking about. There is so much out there. That and it very seldom is one thing that's going to make the tumor go away. There is no magic bullet in the alt med world, but then there isn't one in the conventional one either.
Also, I'm really going to lose credibility with you, a scientifically minded person, that is if I ever had any. But it doesn't matter. The thing is though that I don't necessarily trust scientific studies over healing methods that have been in use for the last 2000 years or more, just b/c they didn't test them with our modern scientific methods. Our ancestors weren't complete idiots and they did know a thing or two and health practices that survived for over 2000 years may have actually had something going for them. So when my doc tells me to practice oil pulling or drink some vinegar with my water every day, I will do it b/c when I try to follow the money I come up to a dead end. OK, so some random company that makes organic sunflower seed oil may make a small profit. OTOH, drinking baking soda strikes me as being kind of dumb, but I've heard people swear by it. Truth or placebo? Who knows?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
However, neither one of them is completely sold on the holistic thing--despite the fact that my homemade creams and remedies always cured their ills much better than the drugstore stuff. I'm trying to imagine how it would have gone if one of them had gotten cancer at 17 and I'd tried to impose my ideas on her for how she should be treated. It would not have gone well and either one of them would likely have hauled my tail into court. 
OTOH, drinking baking soda strikes me as being kind of dumb, but I've heard people swear by it. Truth or placebo? Who knows?
