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.
Keeping a child from treatment is only likely to cause that point to be reached. When a child is diagnosed, as a rule, prognosis is made and that will have an effect on how the government looks at the case.
Keeping a child from treatment is only likely to cause that point to be reached. When a child is diagnosed, as a rule, prognosis is made and that will have an effect on how the government looks at the case.
You don't know that...no-one does. When the prognosis is made, and no chemo is recommended, and the gov won't steal your child away...do you think the doctors would still care? or even show concern for that matter? Do you think they'd force palliative care on you because they feel you could benefit from it?...you'd be forgotten in a flash.
Keeping a child from treatment is only likely to cause that point to be reached. When a child is diagnosed, as a rule, prognosis is made and that will have an effect on how the government looks at the case.
My only personal experience with cancer is with my brother. He was diagnosed with cancer in his throat. They started the treatment and he died within a month. There was not point in making his last day's that bad when they knew there was almost no chance. I cannot speak for every case for I do not know the details of every case. I can only speak from my personal experience and point out that you don't know enough to make such a claim yourself.
It's also not a discussion if "reason" is ignored.
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.