U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Happy Easter!
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-15-2009, 02:55 PM
 
2,838 posts, read 8,846,159 times
Reputation: 2857

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Danielle* View Post
Good for the court...that child will now live...
Well, unless the chemo kills him or doesn't work, both of which are very real possibilities. (I did not read the article, so I'm speaking in generalities.)

Yes, parents should have the right to refuse treatment for their children. Children are not the property of the pharma companies to experiment with at will. While I would not withhold chemotherapy for my own child, I have refused prescriptions offered by our pediatrician. And every time, he says, "well, it's your choice," and every time my child has gotten better without the unnecessary antibiotic or antiviral medication.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-15-2009, 03:00 PM
 
Location: chicagoland
1,636 posts, read 3,655,716 times
Reputation: 1061
Quote:
Originally Posted by beanandpumpkin View Post
Well, unless the chemo kills him or doesn't work, both of which are very real possibilities. (I did not read the article, so I'm speaking in generalities.)

Yes, parents should have the right to refuse treatment for their children. Children are not the property of the pharma companies to experiment with at will. While I would not withhold chemotherapy for my own child, I have refused prescriptions offered by our pediatrician. And every time, he says, "well, it's your choice," and every time my child has gotten better without the unnecessary antibiotic or antiviral medication.

You always make sense. I agree
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2009, 03:00 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
2,868 posts, read 8,446,896 times
Reputation: 1500
Quote:
Originally Posted by beanandpumpkin View Post
Well, unless the chemo kills him or doesn't work, both of which are very real possibilities. (I did not read the article, so I'm speaking in generalities.)

Yes, parents should have the right to refuse treatment for their children. Children are not the property of the pharma companies to experiment with at will. While I would not withhold chemotherapy for my own child, I have refused prescriptions offered by our pediatrician. And every time, he says, "well, it's your choice," and every time my child has gotten better without the unnecessary antibiotic or antiviral medication.
You need to read the article. With treatment he has a 90% chance of living. With out it he will die.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2009, 03:09 PM
pll
 
1,042 posts, read 2,092,406 times
Reputation: 1048
Quote:
Originally Posted by skahar View Post
Judge to decide if family can refuse chemo for boy | Comcast.net

They say he has a 90% chance of survival if he gets the chemo. Are these people just mentally ill or what? I can't imagine betting my kids life on some unproven method let alone take guidance from someone who has been convicted of fraud in connection to the very thing they want his help with.
The parents in these cases always use the argument that their child is in agreement of not wanting chemo. Well, at that age a child usually follows their parents guidance especilly when they are frightened and when the medicine makes them feel sick. But, with many of the kinds of cancers young children get, chemo does have a high success rate...it's just getting through the treatment that is hard. I think the parents are wrong in this case.

Last edited by pll; 05-15-2009 at 04:07 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2009, 03:37 PM
 
Location: chicagoland
1,636 posts, read 3,655,716 times
Reputation: 1061
Quote:
Originally Posted by 121804 View Post
Yeah, that's right....chemo & radiation are solely done based on the profits of big business. As a child of parents who both were diagnoseed with cancer (mom-breast/dad-skin), please send me the link to the rain dance & song they could have sang instead of chemo/radiation!

Thank goodness a judge stepped in for these people who were WILLING to let their son die.

blah blah blah. Let's put little faces smacking heads, good point!!!

I didn't say it didn't work. BUT BUT BUT it isn't the ONLY fix/remedy/cure and so forth. But why look into it or bring other "fixes" mainstream when there is way less money to be made???

Sick people make some people VERY rich
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2009, 03:51 PM
 
3,842 posts, read 9,243,559 times
Reputation: 3177
Quote:
Originally Posted by miasmommy View Post
blah blah blah. Let's put little faces smacking heads, good point!!!

I didn't say it didn't work. BUT BUT BUT it isn't the ONLY fix/remedy/cure and so forth. But why look into it or bring other "fixes" mainstream when there is way less money to be made???

Sick people make some people VERY rich
When the success rate for the treatment this child can receive is in the mid90's, really, you want to throw in the how "it's soooo mainstream and expensive & only b/c companies who want to make money.."

Sick people make some people rich? You are employed in the medical field, correct? So, obviously, sick people pay some of your bills

Goodness, I hope your daughter never needs real medical assistance or a trip to the ER. Bet that would be a heck of a conversation with the ER doc...

Let the boy die without the treatment.

There ya go...not worries about being mainstream anymore
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2009, 04:01 PM
 
Location: St. Louis Metro East
515 posts, read 1,362,990 times
Reputation: 323
I completely agree with beanandpumpkin and JustJulia. I was told--by a well-respected expert in his field--that my son, then 9 months old, would never walk, never be able to use sign language (he is deaf), and (yes, he actually used these words) "He will never be normal. We'll see you in six months." He does sign, and does it very well... attends the state school for the deaf, actually. Oh, and he roller skates pretty well for a kids who would never walk. Normal is a relative term. He is normal, for him. He is the only way he's ever been.

In October of 2008, I found out that my younger son, then 6 years old, has type I diabetes. After my experiences with autism, as well as my own research and just plain gut feelings, I am anti-vaccine. I did not have my youngest boy vaccinated. I believe very strongly that the preservatives and additives used in them, in combination with the obscene combinations in which vaccines are given to very young children make them very dangerous to a few genetically-predisposed children. (Please don't flame me for this, this thread is about the parent's ability to provide the medical treatment, or withhold it, according to their beliefs. These are mine.) Type I diabetes can only be effectively treated by injectible insulin. Nowadays, in the US, the insulins that are available are synthetic insulin analogs. Basically, a man-made chemical designed to work similarly to human insulin. Natural insulin is almost impossible to get. I had to weigh my concerns about his potential reaction to whatever chemicals are in these things, look at the options, and balance it with doing what is necessary to keep my baby healthy.

Before his diabetes diagnosis, he had some little odd, quirky behaviors. After starting his insulin regimen, (almost immediately) those quirky litte things escalated into noticable behavior problems. We're currently having him evaluated to ensure that he does not fall on the autistic spectrum. Do I believe that his behaviors were instigated by his genetic reaction to the insulin analogs he takes to keep him alive? It's possible. There is a study in progress looking at this very thing in diabetic children. The point is this: When push comes to shove, to keep my child alive and healthy, I will do what is necessary. I just don't want to be told that I have to submit my child to a therapy in which I do not believe. Were money not an object, I might have made the push for the natural insulins. He did not have the luxury of time, so I did (and am still doing) what is necessary as a parent.

My children see a mainstream phyician who is openminded and understanding to my beliefs/point of view.

I believe in alternate medicines. I even considered studying them as a profession. My issue with medical science in its current state, as another poster pointed out, is that they concentrate almost solely on treating symptoms, as opposed to finding and fixing the cause. Chemotherapy does not target and kill only the cancer. It is intentionally designed to be extremely toxic, so as to kill everything in its path, in hopes that enough healthy tissue that survives to allow the patient to recover. That's a really watered down version of how it works, but it's still far from an exact science. According to the article, they did initially start chemo. At that time, there was a 90% chance for recovery. That may or may not be the case now.

I will do what I believe in my heart is necessary to provide proper care for my children. Who am I to tell someone else what is proper for theirs?

~D
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2009, 04:04 PM
 
3,842 posts, read 9,243,559 times
Reputation: 3177
Quote:
Originally Posted by *Danielle* View Post
I agree...when it is a life or death situation...and the parents are choosing death for their son, someone needs to step in and protect that child from dying.

I do think parents absolutely should have the say in choosing care for their kids...and I also think it is only right for someone to step in to save a life that is totally salvageable...moreso a life of a child. How could any parent willingly let their child perish when they could be totally be saved? That is borderline abuse IMO.
From the article: "Daniel was diagnosed with Hodgkin's lymphoma and stopped chemotherapy in February after a single treatment. He and his parents opted instead for "alternative medicines" based on their religious beliefs."....one of them being going to a sweat lodge!!!!

Oh, we want treatment. OH, we don't. Ok, we want treatment. Wait, maybe we don't. Let's go dance & figure it out.

The boy told the judge that he believes he no longer is ill. That is interesting to say the least.

The judge told the boy that if the cancer had stopped spreading, the ruling would NOT hold.

There are many, many documented cases where children & parents have denied chemotherapy & radiation. Most of the times either prior to the start or after a complete round & no improvements were made with the possibility of needing another round. But we are talking a treatment that it's chances of failing are incredibly small & a childhood cancer that can be cured.

They practice Catholicism (which has no say on chemo/radiation); actually, their choice goes directly AGAINST Catholicism. They are also part of some tribe where the boy is an "elder"... Family sounds a little out there. A shame for they could save their son.

Also, would help if posters READ the article prior to commenting ON THE ARTICLE.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2009, 05:23 PM
 
Location: chicagoland
1,636 posts, read 3,655,716 times
Reputation: 1061
Quote:
Originally Posted by 121804 View Post
When the success rate for the treatment this child can receive is in the mid90's, really, you want to throw in the how "it's soooo mainstream and expensive & only b/c companies who want to make money.."

Sick people make some people rich? You are employed in the medical field, correct? So, obviously, sick people pay some of your bills

Goodness, I hope your daughter never needs real medical assistance or a trip to the ER. Bet that would be a heck of a conversation with the ER doc...

Let the boy die without the treatment.

There ya go...not worries about being mainstream anymore

I work for a nursing home with doctors who practice alternative health methods. They are naturopaths. Most the residents are off of treatments and meds they had been on before they entered the home.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2009, 05:25 PM
 
Location: chicagoland
1,636 posts, read 3,655,716 times
Reputation: 1061
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtjmom View Post
I completely agree with beanandpumpkin and JustJulia. I was told--by a well-respected expert in his field--that my son, then 9 months old, would never walk, never be able to use sign language (he is deaf), and (yes, he actually used these words) "He will never be normal. We'll see you in six months." He does sign, and does it very well... attends the state school for the deaf, actually. Oh, and he roller skates pretty well for a kids who would never walk. Normal is a relative term. He is normal, for him. He is the only way he's ever been.

In October of 2008, I found out that my younger son, then 6 years old, has type I diabetes. After my experiences with autism, as well as my own research and just plain gut feelings, I am anti-vaccine. I did not have my youngest boy vaccinated. I believe very strongly that the preservatives and additives used in them, in combination with the obscene combinations in which vaccines are given to very young children make them very dangerous to a few genetically-predisposed children. (Please don't flame me for this, this thread is about the parent's ability to provide the medical treatment, or withhold it, according to their beliefs. These are mine.) Type I diabetes can only be effectively treated by injectible insulin. Nowadays, in the US, the insulins that are available are synthetic insulin analogs. Basically, a man-made chemical designed to work similarly to human insulin. Natural insulin is almost impossible to get. I had to weigh my concerns about his potential reaction to whatever chemicals are in these things, look at the options, and balance it with doing what is necessary to keep my baby healthy.

Before his diabetes diagnosis, he had some little odd, quirky behaviors. After starting his insulin regimen, (almost immediately) those quirky litte things escalated into noticable behavior problems. We're currently having him evaluated to ensure that he does not fall on the autistic spectrum. Do I believe that his behaviors were instigated by his genetic reaction to the insulin analogs he takes to keep him alive? It's possible. There is a study in progress looking at this very thing in diabetic children. The point is this: When push comes to shove, to keep my child alive and healthy, I will do what is necessary. I just don't want to be told that I have to submit my child to a therapy in which I do not believe. Were money not an object, I might have made the push for the natural insulins. He did not have the luxury of time, so I did (and am still doing) what is necessary as a parent.

My children see a mainstream phyician who is openminded and understanding to my beliefs/point of view.

I believe in alternate medicines. I even considered studying them as a profession. My issue with medical science in its current state, as another poster pointed out, is that they concentrate almost solely on treating symptoms, as opposed to finding and fixing the cause. Chemotherapy does not target and kill only the cancer. It is intentionally designed to be extremely toxic, so as to kill everything in its path, in hopes that enough healthy tissue that survives to allow the patient to recover. That's a really watered down version of how it works, but it's still far from an exact science. According to the article, they did initially start chemo. At that time, there was a 90% chance for recovery. That may or may not be the case now.

I will do what I believe in my heart is necessary to provide proper care for my children. Who am I to tell someone else what is proper for theirs?

~D

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top