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.
Cassandra was not deemed by a judge to be emancipated before because the concerns she had about treatment were mostly trivial: hair loss and nausea, in the face of a treatment with a high probability of success. She also was concerned about infertility, but if you are dead getting pregnant becomes a moot point.
Cassandra says that she was concerned about the long term potential side effects of chemo such as organ failure. Her concerns were hardly trivial. She wanted a second biopsy. The hospital refused. I don't see why she was denied this, if nothing else it would have given her clarity on the situation since she was still uncertain after the first biopsy. Instead the authorities showed up at her house in force and basically kept her captive in order to force chemo.
Cassandra says that she was concerned about the long term potential side effects of chemo such as organ failure. Her concerns were hardly trivial. She wanted a second biopsy. The hospital refused. I don't see why she was denied this, if nothing else it would have given her clarity on the situation since she was still uncertain after the first biopsy. Instead the authorities showed up at her house in force and basically kept her captive in order to force chemo.
When her story first broke, the Media said she was concerned about side effects and the ignorant Public took that to mean nausea and hair loss. So in Cassandra's case, when they heard she was concerned about side effects they criticized her for turning down treatments by reasons of vanity.
But she was really concerned about more important side effects as you mentioned. This is what I meant in my previous post about people who are not familiar with chemo believing that it permanently "cures" and that the side effects are trivial and not long lasting.
Millions of people? What does giving mean to you? In chronic pain? Throwing up all the time not being able to eat. Doesn't like living to me. Why do they have give you a five year survival rate?
Perhaps because after five years cancer patients start going downhill. I would like to see a 10 year survival rate or fifteen.
My wife used to work with a women who had terminal cancer she never did do chemo she always ate very well & started using cannabis. She still alive & kicking today.
There is NO magic bullet sorry but there isn't one. Ask a oncologist why the survival rate is only three present. Chemo doesn't attack the cancer cells shrinking them doesn't get rid of them.
You can continue to deny that some people are cured of their cancers until the cows come home. It's not true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri
Cassandra says that she was concerned about the long term potential side effects of chemo such as organ failure. Her concerns were hardly trivial. She wanted a second biopsy. The hospital refused. I don't see why she was denied this, if nothing else it would have given her clarity on the situation since she was still uncertain after the first biopsy. Instead the authorities showed up at her house in force and basically kept her captive in order to force chemo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minervah
When her story first broke, the Media said she was concerned about side effects and the ignorant Public took that to mean nausea and hair loss. So in Cassandra's case, when they heard she was concerned about side effects they criticized her for turning down treatments by reasons of vanity.
But she was really concerned about more important side effects as you mentioned. This is what I meant in my previous post about people who are not familiar with chemo believing that it permanently "cures" and that the side effects are trivial and not long lasting.
Here is a detailed description of the efforts to get Cassandra treated:
[Moderator: Note that this is information from a public government source and is not copyrighted.]
"The respondents sought a second opinion about Cassandra’s diagnosis from Matthew Richardson, a pediatric oncologist at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Massachusetts. Richardson examined Cassandra on October 14, 2014, and, after reviewing the scans and pathology reports from the medical center, agreed with the diagnosis that Cassandra had Hodgkin’s lymphoma."
"In addition, Richardson told Isakoff that the respondents were seeking to have a second biopsy performed. Isakoff believed that a second biopsy was medically inappropriate because, even if it was negative, it would not invalidate the results of the first biopsy, and the biopsy procedure involves risk."
"... there was ample evidence to support Judge Quinn’s express factual findings that Cassandra was not yet fully separated from or independent of her mother, that she was prone to engage in compulsive and risky actions, that she was unable or unwilling to speak her true mind to those in authority, and that she was reluctant to hold opinions that her mother did not share. Specifically, there was evidence: that Cassandra was extremely nervous and timid during the hearing before Judge Taylor, and that she was fearful during the medical evaluation at the medical center emergency room that followed the hearing; that the reasons that Cassandra did not want to undergo chemotherapy were that she was afraid of seeing ‘‘tubes sticking out of her’’ and that she did not yet feel sick, even though she had been told repeatedly that she would die without the treatment and that delaying treatment until she felt sick could have very serious consequences, potentially including her death; that Cassandra was very emotionally dependent on her mother, and was heavily influenced by her mother’s distrust of physicians and other persons in positions of authority; that the respondents were influenced by their independent research into Hodgkin’s lymphoma and its medical treatments, even after numerous physicians contradicted that research; that Cassandra had intentionally misrepresented her intentions to Judge Taylor and the department when she stated that she was willing to undergo treatment; and that Cassandra intentionally violated Judge Taylor’s order and placed her own health at serious risk when she interrupted chemotherapy and ran away from home. In turn, Judge Quinn’s factual findings amply support her ultimate determination that Cassandra was not a mature seventeen year old and, therefore, was not competent to make her own medical decisions."
Most side effects of chemo are not long lasting. They go away when the treatment is finished.
Yes, chemo does cure many people, and the cure rate with Hodgkin's disease is high.
I know many people who never had chemo or radiation & are living their lives just fine without it. It's REALLY naïve to think there is a cure for cancer. Now comes all the links from doctors who said they have cured it.
There is a sucker born every minute.
PT Barnum.
This woman has Hodgkins lymphoma. She apparently had an 85% chance of cure with treatment. Cancer is not one disease, eveyone's prognosis is different.
Millions of people? What does giving mean to you? In chronic pain? Throwing up all the time not being able to eat. Doesn't like living to me. Why do they have give you a five year survival rate?
Perhaps because after five years cancer patients start going downhill. I would like to see a 10 year survival rate or fifteen.
My wife used to work with a women who had terminal cancer she never did do chemo she always ate very well & started using cannabis. She still alive & kicking today.
There is NO magic bullet sorry but there isn't one. Ask a oncologist why the survival rate is only three present. Chemo doesn't attack the cancer cells shrinking them doesn't get rid of them.
Because for some cancers the five and ten year survival rates are essentially the same, most people who will die do so before five years. Some cancers they do cite longer term survival rates, and others they cite shorter, like six or twelve months. It just depends what the prognosis is for that cancer. I know eleven people who have had cancer, been treated and are living normal lives many years after their cancers. I think one might have a colostomy bag, and one does have ongoing serious issues due to the treatment, another does have some muscle weakness (brain tumour). But you are wrong to think that anyone who's had surgery or chemotherapy or radiation or immunotherapy is permanently disabled.
This woman has Hodgkins lymphoma. She apparently had an 85% chance of cure with treatment. Cancer is not one disease, eveyone's prognosis is different.
Yes, I have seen people successfully survive this type of Cancer with chemo and also die from it with despite having chemo. No matter what anyone says, the choice is a gamble. The odds of survival in some cases may be better than others but no one can really predict what they will be.
This is also true of the long lasting negative side effects of chemo. Some come with the treatment, some don't and again different people will react differently.
It is cured if every single cancerous cell in the body is destroyed. The problem is, for 99% of cancers, it's virtually impossible to guarantee that every single last cell has been destroyed. As long as there is still one cell remaining, it will replicate and will become noticeable again after a certain period of time.
Reading this thread, I see a lot of people have misunderstandings about cancer. Some say it cannot be cured (true for most cancers, but not all, as there are two or three types of cancer that have a known and repeatable cure). Some say it is curable (mostly not a true statement). Some say chemo is effective (mostly untrue).
The main error I see people making is that they are talking about cancer as if it is one entity, which is is except for one caveat: the type of cell it originates in. Depending on which types of cells have become cancerous, greatly determines the progression of the disease. Some cancers linger for years or decades without causing harm. Others are virulent and rapid and kill someone within a couple years. There are even cancers that arise and disappear in your body and you never know about it because they happen to be susceptible to certain natural conditions in the body that make it difficult to persist.
Because for some cancers the five and ten year survival rates are essentially the same, most people who will die do so before five years. Some cancers they do cite longer term survival rates, and others they cite shorter, like six or twelve months. It just depends what the prognosis is for that cancer. I know eleven people who have had cancer, been treated and are living normal lives many years after their cancers. I think one might have a colostomy bag, and one does have ongoing SERIOUS ISSUES due to the treatment, another does have some muscle weakness (BRAIN TUMOUR) But you are wrong to think that anyone who's had surgery or chemotherapy or radiation or immunotherapy is permanently disabled.
I'm sorry, but if you think there is some sort of conspiracy by big pharma to sell cancer treatments you've obviously never had any dealing with people in cancer treatment.
As I've said in other parts of this forum my mom died of cancer just about four months ago. She's had cancer since she was 27 it always came back in one form or another. Always. They are not the same rates even more so with some cancer's being more aggressive then others. Shrinking cancer cells isn't a cure sorry that you think it is. They never totally go away shrink yes. No, doctor is going to post a 10 year survival rate because in the end they can't say what will happen that far down the road.
As Minervah (Awesome name by the way!) said cancer goes into remission there is a big difference between that and a cure.
You stated that * Most side effects of chemo are not long lasting. They go away when the treatment is finished.* You are wrong about that, this must be a guess on your part and nothing else.
It's not a conspiracy theory you just want to drink the Kool-Aid that they are selling. As for as the bold print goes that's not living.
Really? Having a weaker left hand than you used to have would make your life not worth living? In that case, you would be free to commit suicide. My friend, however, is having more fun with life than ever. Her husband and her kids are also appreciating her more than they ever did before the brain tumour. Their whole family really is living the dream.
If your mother found her cancer coming back unbearable she would have committed suicide. People do, all the time, just like the foolish woman in the OP. And other people who are in unbearable pain. This is why we are slowly accepting the need for euthanasia laws. And, if someone decided to treat their cancer and then discovered that they had some unbearable long term pain they could decide to die then, rather than deciding to not even take the chance that they might be cured.
Do you read the package insert for every drug you're prescribed? I do, and let me tell you there are some horrific potential side effects. Sometimes I get bad side effects, and sometimes I don't. That's how it works.
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.
