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.
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.
Yes she does.... CHEMO ULTIMATLY DESTROYS YOUR IMMUNE SYSTEM..... She has every right to stop it!
She still has cancer, even after undergoing forced chemo (and removal from her home by force) so she didn't end up falling into the 85% category.
But much of cancer treatment is done at home. I don't know about her case, but I am guessing if part of her regiment was a daily pill, she didn't take it.
But much of cancer treatment is done at home. I don't know about her case, but I am guessing if part of her regiment was a daily pill, she didn't take it.
Wasn't she was forced out of her home and made to stay in a hospital or someplace where she would be watched? I'm not certain about that but I imagine she was forced to take the pills if that was her treatment regimen.
It happens to DESTROY CANCER CELLS and save many people's lives as well
I have seen too many deaths due to Cancer despite the fact they took chemo where the treatments failed. Sure there are also many who survive but there is no guarantee. That's what someone has to decide before starting treatment.
But much of cancer treatment is done at home. I don't know about her case, but I am guessing if part of her regiment was a daily pill, she didn't take it.
Her treatment wasn't done at home. She was forcefully removed from her home and treated in a hospital. She was treated against her will and by force. She had a guard at her door. She wasn't allowed to have access to her phone so that she could call her mom. She wasn't often allowed to even see her mom. She spent almost 5 months in the hospital. You may want to listen to her account via the video. It's pretty shocking.
Last edited by MissTerri; 07-10-2016 at 04:39 PM..
I've read comments about this on other sites, and some people say that her type of non Hodgkin's disease is the most receptive to chemo and better chance of beating the disease than with other forms of cancer.
That said reading about chemo, sounds like a very horrible thing to endure with the side effects. I can't stand being nauseous and could only imagine how bad it must be.
Wasn't it back in the 1800's when doctors used to bleed people to cure them. Why don't we do that now? Because we have learned it doesn't help. I think chemo will some day be as obsolete as bleeding was in the past. The procedure makes no sense. I think lots of people may have lived longer if they had never had chemo. Good diet and exercise and nutrition would in my opinion be a better medical treatment than chemo.
I read that the man who discovered cancer said it was caused by a lack of oxygen to the area where the cancer started to grow.
We had a patron who was given up for cancer start her own treatment with vitamin therapy and she cured herself.
Wasn't it back in the 1800's when doctors used to bleed people to cure them. Why don't we do that now? Because we have learned it doesn't help. I think chemo will some day be as obsolete as bleeding was in the past. The procedure makes no sense. I think lots of people may have lived longer if they had never had chemo. Good diet and exercise and nutrition would in my opinion be a better medical treatment than chemo.
I read that the man who discovered cancer said it was caused by a lack of oxygen to the area where the cancer started to grow.
We had a patron who was given up for cancer start her own treatment with vitamin therapy and she cured herself.
My impression is that the OPs question here isn't about whether chemo can be beneficial or destructive - it's about whether this young woman should have the right to refuse treatment.
I was away from home at an ER once and they recommended emergency laparoscopy. I was in agonizing pain but wanted to go home (states away) for any treatment. They said it was my choice but that I'd need to sign a release or whatever because it was against their urgent recommendation - they believed it was possible I might die before getting home.
Works the other way, too - several years later a surgeon recommended a certain course of treatment for me. He said he'd do the surgery only if I committed to doing the follow up radiation and medication. I ended up finding a different surgeon and did a similar course of follow up treatment that the first surgeon had recommended.
It's about informed consent and the right to refuse treatment.
She still has cancer, even after undergoing forced chemo (and removal from her home by force) so she didn't end up falling into the 85% category.
Her cancer relapsed. It happens, but does not mean her front line treatment was a wash. It's still very curable, even with a relapse. Since her initial treatment, there is even a new chemo protocol that is less toxic to address relapse. Unfortunately, though, her only shot at living to see her 20s will involve a stem cell transplant.
I had the same cancer as Cassandra. In fact, mine was far, far worse and I had far less support during chemo - I did it on my own while working full time. I am in full support of the state saving her from killing herself.
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.
