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.
This cancer has a 90-95% CURE rate from chemo....That is huge. Sure, quality of life sucks while on chemo but I guess you need to answer the question do you want to survive this because YOU CAN. This is not a 50/50 chance of living...this cancer has a huge CURE rate. This is not a terminal disease if treated.
Interestingly enough, the article also indicates that this 13 year old can not read yet either...that speaks volumes about the parenting mentality we are dealing with... they have also refused simple xrays...WHY?
AND...that Children's hospital has alternative medicine methods they use to deal with the effects of the chemo...
The court has nothing but what is good for this boy in mind. I am glad they stepped in and will save his life. He will be thankful to live a long normal healthy life...after treatment.
This cancer has a 90-95% CURE rate from chemo....That is huge. Sure, quality of life sucks while on chemo but I guess you need to answer the question do you want to survive this because YOU CAN. This is not a 50/50 chance of living...this cancer has a huge CURE rate. This is not a terminal disease if treated.
Interestingly enough, the article also indicates that this 13 year old can not read yet either...that speaks volumes about the parenting mentality we are dealing with... they have also refused simple xrays...WHY?
AND...that Children's hospital has alternative medicine methods they use to deal with the effects of the chemo...
The court has nothing but what is good for this boy in mind. I am glad they stepped in and will save his life. He will be thankful to live a long normal healthy life...after treatment.
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?
As far as not reading, he could very well have a learning disability... obviously most children read well before the age of 13, but there are a few who don't due to all sorts of problems. Yes, it could be a problem with the parents' mentality, but it could also very well be something else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 121804
My father was given 12-14 months to live if he did not get treatment. Sorry...he had a 10yr old, 5 yr old & 1yr old...therefore, the "sick year" was far worth what he now has.
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.
You are sooo smart. Teach me. Teach me after you take my rights away as a parent though, that's the most important thing to do first
Where did I say to take away your parental rights? Go READ my first post, where I say let the parents decide whether or not to treat the kid. Did you even see that, hmm??
Or did you just jump all over the thought of actually being held responsible if you deliberately endanger the safety of your child? Oh wait, that's it...if you're held responsible for the safety and well-being of your child, we're taking away your parental rights. Uh huh.
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.
Let's see...a nearly 100% chance of being cured if my kid has the chemo? Much as it would pain me to see them sick, they'd be getting it. Oh yes. Living with some pain for a few months now is better than not living at all, because Jesus and a few roots grubbed out of the dirt of a reservation isn't going to cut it.
At what point is it NOT the decision for someone other than family to make?
When the parents are doing something that is putting the child's life in danger.
And the judge has said that if the cancer has not spread. Fine. No treatment. If it has...treatment b/c the treatment's chances far, far exceed what the parents are taking a chance on.
When the parents are doing something that is putting the child's life in danger.
And the judge has said that if the cancer has not spread. Fine. No treatment. If it has...treatment b/c the treatment's chances far, far exceed what the parents are taking a chance on.
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.
Let's see...a nearly 100% chance of being cured if my kid has the chemo? Much as it would pain me to see them sick, they'd be getting it. Oh yes. Living with some pain for a few months now is better than not living at all, because Jesus and a few roots grubbed out of the dirt of a reservation isn't going to cut it.
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?
I am late to this thread and haven't read all previous posts but my mind can't begin to understand what the heck is wrong with these parents.
If my child had a 1% chance of survival he would have treatment! I would NEVER deny my child treatment. We are not talking about an adult who has lived a long life, we are talking about a child that has a long life still ahead of them.
Even if the child HIMSELF didn't want the treatment? I think the patient should have the right to decide in this case.
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.
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.
