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.
How could it relapse when it never was cured in the first place? It never went away.
In the video she talks about how she was told that she was in remission but just two months later had a pet scan that was concerning as it showed activity in her abdomen so I suppose you are right, this wasn't a relapse as the cancer was still present after the chemo.
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.
I watched my father suffer the last two years of his life BECAUSE OF CHEMO AND RADIATION. The cancer ended up not killing him. The treatments did.
The radiation and chemo ended up damaging his kidneys, which made him have to take dialysis which is turn eventually killed him.
Before he took radiation and chemo, my father only had cancer. After he started taking treatment he started getting other illnesses. Yea, it might slow down the cancer cells from forming BUT IT KILLS EVERYTHING ELSE.
Unless there is a 100% cure for my cancer, I will not take chemo and radiation.
None of the many comments about the disease and treatments have a thing to do with the issue at hand, which is whether she should be forced by the government to undergo any treatment--and only two months from the age of majority in her state.
Gee, maybe she should run away for two months. Or is she under lock and key? Maybe she should get married. If CT isn't one of those states that confers automatic emancipation upon marriage, she could move to one that does. Liberty can be an onerous thing.
She's 18 now and has chosen to fight her cancer that she was diagnosed with two months ago with alternative treatments. The state can't force her to do chemo now as she is a legal adult.
The state did force her to be hospitalized for five months and treated with chemotherapy at the age of 17. I don't agree that she should have been forced into treatment. She should have been allowed to have a second biopsy, even if it was just so that she could be assured of her diagnosis. She should not have had police and DCF agents show up at her house and forcefully remove her from her home. She should not have had to go into foster care. The way this was handled was so over the top that I can't believe that anyone would defend the actions of the state.
None of the many comments about the disease and treatments have a thing to do with the issue at hand, which is whether she should be forced by the government to undergo any treatment--and only two months from the age of majority in her state.
Gee, maybe she should run away for two months. Or is she under lock and key? Maybe she should get married. If CT isn't one of those states that confers automatic emancipation upon marriage, she could move to one that does. Liberty can be an onerous thing.
Live free or die.
Exactly. I've tried to point this out as well but unfortunately there are too many emotions involved here. We are not talking about a sure thing. Chemo helps some but not others. Dome people are helped but for others the treatment is worse than the disease. We are not made as "one size fits all" and we should not be treated this way. The medical profession tends to do this.
When she was a minor, I could see her parents making the decision for her although I believe she was mature and intelligent enough to make her own. Now as an adult, she has the right to either choose or deny treatment. It doesn't matter how many people chemo has helped because there are just as many or more that it hasn't.
But at the end of the day, neither of those things matter. It's up to the individual to choose their own path when it comes to medical treatment.
Yes. She has the right to refuse chemo. Or accept it. The choice is hers.
The issue is a legal one, although as a mature minor aged 17 years old she is entitled to refuse medical treatment. Patients of at least 16 may be assumed to be 'mature minors' for this purpose, patients aged 13 to 15 may be designated so by licensed providers, and pre-teen patients may be so-designated after evaluation by an agency or court.
In the United States, a typical statute lists: "Who may consent [or withhold consent for] surgical or medical treatment or procedures."
"...Any unemancipated minor of sufficient intelligence to understand and appreciate the consequences of the proposed surgical or medical treatment or procedures, for himself/herself.
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.
She is now legally an adult and can decide for herself to forgo treatment. I think it's a shame, but she can do what she wants to do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NLVgal
Unless it was mets. You know this.
( for the record, mets are short for when cancer has metastisized to other areas of the body ) Suzy knows this, but not everyone on here works in medicine.
Breast cancer is not metastatic ovarian cancer. Stomach cancer is not metastatic breast or ovarian cancer. Pancreatic cancer is not metastatic ovarian cancer, breast cancer, or stomach cancer. The poster's mother had cancers of four different cell types. That suggests that she had some fundamental disorder (perhaps genetic) that made her very susceptible to getting different tumors. However, she did not have one type of cancer that kept "coming back". The poster I am responding too insists a treated cancer will always "come back" in "some form" or another. That is not true. Many are cured and it never "comes back".
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri
In the video she talks about how she was told that she was in remission but just two months later had a pet scan that was concerning as it showed activity in her abdomen so I suppose you are right, this wasn't a relapse as the cancer was still present after the chemo.
It would still be considered a relapse, since there was no evidence (that they could find; it was obviously still there) of disease when she stopped treatment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by reed067
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.
Did those people have surgery? For example, the primary treatment for breast cancer is to remove the tumor. After surgery many women will not have it recur. Radiation to the breast reduces the risk it will come back in the breast and chemo helps get rid of cells that may have already spread to other areas of the body.
If cancer is never cured, how do you explain that my son is still alive 27 1/2 years after his original diagnosis (along with millions of other people)?
I do not believe Cancer is ever "cured." I think it is managed and put into remission but since it is a disease for which there is always potential for recurrence, successful treatment does not guarantee it will not return at some point.
No one can say because one person who was treated for Cancer has had a successful remission, all others will too. It is always going to depend up the type of Cancer and the person's physiology. Cassandra knows the odds, she has the option to make her choice with that knowledge not based on other people's anecdotal evidence but whatever evidence she feels pertinent to her situation.
If cancer is never cured, how do you explain that my son is still alive 27 1/2 years after his original diagnosis (along with millions of other people)?
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.
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.
. Or is she under lock and key? 
Maybe she should get married. If CT isn't one of those states that confers automatic emancipation upon marriage, she could move to one that does.
Liberty can be an onerous thing.
