U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
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 05-16-2009, 02:31 PM
 
2,839 posts, read 9,561,387 times
Reputation: 2938

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by 121804 View Post
I don't load my children up with Tylenol the moment they get a sniffle & feel a bit warm. But, when the temp starts to rise & they are indeed sick, I make sure they are taken care of b/c there does come a time & place when medical treatment is necessary for the well being of the child. Not comparing the flu to cancer, but trying to compare it to something all parents do encounter at one time or the other with their child. If a judge told me that I had to give my child Tylenol the moment he had a temp, I would not. But it the temp was 104 & I was still refusing it based on my belief that my child is a shaman & can speak in another tongue...probably a good thing a judge does step in....
Just for the record, you don't need Tylenol to "cure" your fever, even if it's 104. When we all had the flu, we did not take fever reducers round the clock, and yes, our fevers did reach into the 103s. I did not hand out the Tylenol because we weren't that miserable, and because all it does is reset your thermostat for a few hours, not cure the illness. I do not believe that my children are shamans, and while they know a few Spanish and German words, I do not believe that they can speak in another tongue.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-16-2009, 02:34 PM
 
Location: chicagoland
1,636 posts, read 4,023,833 times
Reputation: 1076
Quote:
Originally Posted by beanandpumpkin View Post
Just for the record, you don't need Tylenol to "cure" your fever, even if it's 104. When we all had the flu, we did not take fever reducers round the clock, and yes, our fevers did reach into the 103s. I did not hand out the Tylenol because we weren't that miserable, and because all it does is reset your thermostat for a few hours, not cure the illness. I do not believe that my children are shamans, and while they know a few Spanish and German words, I do not believe that they can speak in another tongue.

Funny, my doctor told me NEVER to give fever medication. He told me that it messes with the liver's ability to work on the illness. And that since it masks symptoms you might not know how sick your child is. He said if the fever is 104.5 or higher for longer than 36 hours while fasting the child on distilled water THEN call him and we will go from there.

Different doctors different strokes. We must be horrible parents
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-16-2009, 02:35 PM
 
Location: chicagoland
1,636 posts, read 4,023,833 times
Reputation: 1076
I'm sorry but I firmly believe that these parents just like any other parents have the right

Do you believe in religious freedom or don't you? The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

All parents have the right to make all sorts of decisions for their children. Raising their children according to their own deeply held religious principles is one of the most important of these rights whether you believe in religion or not.


It's crazy horrible when a child dies after not getting medical care. But MANY tiems medicine fails too. Children die in hospitals EVERYDAY. How many of these kids are dying EVERYDAY because of the use of natural remedies and/or prayer???? I don't think a comparison exists.

What about some of you who are against the parent's right; What if YOUR child had cancer and you weren't religious and some court said you HAD to try and cure your child with prayer and herbs?

This is a parent's right. MANY MANY MANY states have laws that protect these parents from this insane business and I'm happy for that.

Still, even though I believe THESE parents and all parents to have this right, I would try EVERY avenue to help my child with cancer BEFORE stepping foot into a chemo facility.
[SIZE=3] [/SIZE]
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-16-2009, 03:00 PM
 
1,986 posts, read 3,813,182 times
Reputation: 1333
Quote:
Originally Posted by beanandpumpkin View Post
Where did you get any of that from my post? I did not say that I personally would deny my child chemotherapy. I said that it should be a choice. Why do you think I would withhold pain medication? There are people who decide not to use chemotherapy and radiation, and they are not denied pain medication at all. It's not an "all or nothing" type of thing.

I don't give my kids Tylenol or Motrin or cold meds, though, unless it is clearly warranted. Having a fever of 99.5 certainly does not mean that you need to be loaded up on Tylenol, and having a runny nose does not mean that you need Vicks Formula 44D. In that case, yeah, my kids "suck it up." And so do I. Your body can heal itself from the common cold or a mild virus without Tylenol or Robitussin. Severe coughing or high fever, though I do break out the symptom-maskers to make life more comfortable.

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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by beanandpumpkin View Post
Well, not exactly. The point of chemo is to make the patient very, very sick, in the hopes that it kills the cancer. Many patients die on chemo, or are miserably ill on chemo and end up dying from the cancer a few months later anyway. You are infinitely safer walking on the sidewalk than you are taking chemotherapy (or any drugs, including Motrin, really). In some cases, it's a quality of life issue. Would it be better to have a relatively peaceful last 3 or 6 months while letting your cancer run its course, or to have a very sick year in the hospital while treating your cancer? It's not a black or white issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by beanandpumpkin View Post
In this particular case (I went and read the article), it does seem as though the boy has a very good chance of surviving if on chemo. What if it were an 80% chance, though? Or a 70% chance? Or a 50% chance? At what point is it NOT the decision for someone other than family to make?

I'm glad that your parents are doing well. I actually meant 3-6 months of peace, then death, OR 12 months of sickness, then death. Obviously 12 months of sickness then life is preferable to both of those scenarios! Sometimes, though, chemo is just a way to prolong life by a few months or a year, and might not be worth it to some patients.
Quote:
Originally Posted by beanandpumpkin View Post
Okay, but when is the line crossed? 90% chance of cure with meds, 5% without, it would seem as though the child's life is definitely endangered by NOT taking the meds.

How about 80% cure rate with meds, 40% without?

Or 50% cure rate with meds, 5% without?

Or 25% with meds, 0% without?

Is there a point where the parents can say "enough is enough," and stop treatment? Or is it the doctor's/judge's choice to continue as long as the chance of survival WITH meds is greater than the chance of survival WITHOUT meds?

It's a slippery slope, IMO. Yes, children have to be protected from abusive or neglectful parents, but turning to alternative treatment options is not necessarily neglect. I'm glad the judge made the provision for not continuing treatment if the cancer was not spreading... so at least if the alternative treatments are working, they won't be forced to abandon them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by beanandpumpkin View Post
Right... I was not talking about this particular case. Yes, this particular child with his particular cancer has a very high percentage of being cured, but there are many cancers with much lower cure rates. At what point is the cure rate percentage low enough for a parent to decide to stop treatment? Or do they never get to make that call, as long as there's any chance at all?
Quote:
Originally Posted by beanandpumpkin View Post
Where did you get any of that from my post? I did not say that I personally would deny my child chemotherapy. I said that it should be a choice. Why do you think I would withhold pain medication? There are people who decide not to use chemotherapy and radiation, and they are not denied pain medication at all. It's not an "all or nothing" type of thing.

I don't give my kids Tylenol or Motrin or cold meds, though, unless it is clearly warranted. Having a fever of 99.5 certainly does not mean that you need to be loaded up on Tylenol, and having a runny nose does not mean that you need Vicks Formula 44D. In that case, yeah, my kids "suck it up." And so do I. Your body can heal itself from the common cold or a mild virus without Tylenol or Robitussin. Severe coughing or high fever, though I do break out the symptom-maskers to make life more comfortable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by beanandpumpkin View Post
Just for the record, you don't need Tylenol to "cure" your fever, even if it's 104. When we all had the flu, we did not take fever reducers round the clock, and yes, our fevers did reach into the 103s. I did not hand out the Tylenol because we weren't that miserable, ..
We have no medication in our house except Tylenol, and a bottle lasts about a year. If my daughter had cancer, I would not hesitate to have her treated with chemo AND for pain.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-16-2009, 03:05 PM
 
2,839 posts, read 9,561,387 times
Reputation: 2938
Quote:
Originally Posted by stormy night View Post
We have no medication in our house except Tylenol, and a bottle lasts about a year. If my daughter had cancer, I would not hesitate to have her treated with chemo AND for pain.
I agree with you, and would likely make the same decision for my own children. I still do not believe that parents do not have the right to make a different decision, though, especially if they are pursuing alternative treatments, or if that particular cancer had a low cure rate using chemo.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-16-2009, 03:06 PM
 
271 posts, read 162,260 times
Reputation: 52
It's-their-child-it's-their-right.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-16-2009, 03:37 PM
 
1,986 posts, read 3,813,182 times
Reputation: 1333
FYI, the parents are not refusing treatment for religious reasons. They are Catholic. Catholics do not refuse medical treatment. There are LOTS of cases where parents made the decision to not allow treatment and their children died.

Can Parents Refuse Treatment to Children Who Could Die? - Digital Journal: Your News Network
Last year Madeline Neuman died because her parents refused to give her insulin, choosing prayer instead.

Another child, Ava Worthington, died because her parents refused to give medical care, again with prayer for care.

The Right to Refuse Medical Treatment

"But this right of theirs ends where somebody else's right begins. Their child is a human being in his own right with a soul and body of his own. He has rights of his own—the right to live and grow up and live without disfigurement.

The child is a citizen of the State. While he “belongs” to his parents, he belongs also to his State. Their rights in him entail many duties. Likewise, the fact the child belongs to the State imposes upon the State many duties. Chief among them is the duty to protect his right to live and to grow up with a sound mind in a sound body . . . .

When a religious doctrine espoused by the parents threatens to defeat or curtail such a right of their child, the State's duty to step in and preserve the child's right is immediately operative.1 "

This particular article is precise about neglect and children's rights to live.

Parents Charged With Death of Baby After Refusing Medical Treatment in Favor of Homeopathic Treatment « JONATHAN TURLEY

http://jco.ascopubs.org/cgi/reprint/24/34/5454.pdf

The net is full of stories of parents withholding treatment for sick kids with the result being death. It happens all the time.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-16-2009, 03:41 PM
 
756 posts, read 2,106,649 times
Reputation: 633
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoneWolf88 View Post
It's-their-child-it's-their-right.
No, the courts have already determined that it is not the parents right to withhold treatment.

The child has the right to treatment that will save his life, that is HIS right.

Simply because someone has a child doesn't give them the right to make detrimental decisions for them. Some parents think it's ok to abuse their children. Thank goodness the court stepped in.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-16-2009, 06:40 PM
 
Location: Bradenton, Florida
27,236 posts, read 44,301,500 times
Reputation: 11036
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZugZub View Post
He's an illiterate, mentally challenged 13-yr-old boy who doesn't believe he's sick anymore, and his parents believe is a SHAMAN and a TRIBAL ELDER.

You really think he's in the position to make that kind of decision?
He's the patient. The patient should not require a reason to REFUSE treatment, if that IS his or her desire.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-16-2009, 06:44 PM
 
Location: Bradenton, Florida
27,236 posts, read 44,301,500 times
Reputation: 11036
Quote:
Originally Posted by usmcfamily View Post
Nope, you can't expect a child to make an adult decision. Thats why he has parents that are supposed to look out for his best interests.

Heck, my kids wouldn't have taken bad tasting antibiotics (or any bad tasting medicine) if I left it up to them.
And it should have been their CHOICE not to take them. It should be about what the patient wants, not the doctors. Instead of saying you know what's best for them, let them make the choice. Maybe their immune system could have fought it off. I haven't taken any sort of prescription drug in my life. And I've suffered colds, maybe even the flu--I don't know, because I didn't seek treatment from medical quacks. Edit that: OVERPAID medical quacks.
Rate this post positively 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

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2022, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top