Posted on 01/05/2015 4:35:45 PM PST by workerbee
I agree.
The girl has a real shot with the chemo and no chance without it. I can understand if she were terminal. Then she should have the option to have her last days as comfortable as possible.
But when it’s a cancer with a 80-90% survivability rate (higher for a young person) then allowing her to make this choice is irresponsible.
What’s the point of being afraid of ‘poison’? You’ll be afraid that it will kill you.
Cancer will kill you.
She’s afraid that she won’t be able to have kids? She’s not going to have kids if she’s dead.
“Approximately 90% to 95% of children with Hodgkin lymphoma can be cured”:
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/treatment/childhodgkins/HealthProfessional/page1
Thus refusal of treatment for childhood Hodgkin lymphoma is equivalent to refusing to take antibiotics that will cure you of a fatal bacterial infection or refusing to have a compound fracture repaired.
Is it child abuse for a parent to refuse treatments for the above two medical conditions? Murder, even? If so, then that would be the case for refusing treatment for childhood Hodgkin lymphoma.
This is a ping list for cancer survivors and caregivers to share information. If you would like your name added to or removed from this ping list, please tell us in the comments section at this link (click here). (For the most updated list of names, click on the same link and go to the last comment.)
Yes, they're "individualized" as you say. One time she received a treatment, within a minute she got blotchy red skin and swelling, and was burning up. They stopped the drip, eliminated one chemical and switched it for another batch they mixed for later treatment. Another time, she got a hard swelling in her arm and they stopped it. Some of the chemicals are injected, while most are via intravenous drip. Her doctor advised her that some of these drugs didn't exist five or ten years ago, and the drug industry is creating new ones as we speak. One of my daughters works at Genentech and tells me it takes many years of trials and millions of dollars to create these wonder drugs, some of which my wife has received. My wife would probably not be alive without them.
Good question. I would assume someone other than the mother would be responsible for the costs incurred. Either Federal or State picking up the tab, which of course means you & I.
Saw this on Fox this morning. Video of the mother.
I agree they should be able to do what they want. The “girl” is 17 and perfectly capable of understanding and making her own choices, influenced by parents or not. Being 18 doesn’t magically make her disconnected from her parents and totally “independent” as implied. She is not 7.
Do I agree with their approach? No. I think especially with Hodgkin’s, they could get through it and everything would work out. It’s not pleasant, but that is the breaks sometimes, I guess. Even my sister really did not suffer that much with all the chemo she had. It all depends.
“She may not be able to have children after this because it affects everything in your body”
I had to quote this and reply: it’s all moot, lady, if she dies.
You two support the state having control over your body and health decisions?
More people die from chemo treatments than cancer. Chemo has a 2.3% survival rate, it is a death sentence.
More people are saying no to chemo and this may be big Pharma fighting back as chemo is their biggest profit maker.
Natural supplements and food treatments work best.
Most likely. She's definitely an altie of some sort. This stuff infects the Internet night and day, with armchair doctors thinking that acupuncture and homeopathy are good and vaccines and hospitals are bad.
The hospital should get a waiver if she refuses treatment. As far as the state is concerned, they should make the parents understand that they will be prosecuted for neglect if their daughter dies.
You can't deny your child treatment for a treatable disease based on ignorance (the mother claims chemo "kills everything in your body") and expect not to pay consequences.
For Hodgkin's? Please provide evidence for this baseless claim.
Said no oncologist ever.
Everyone has cancer cells in their body, people are diagnosed with cancer when their immune system is not able to control/kill cancer cells and tissue is turning cancerous (tumors). Repairing deficient immune system is what is necessary and boosting the Endocannabinoids is one of the most effective treatments. Ending the intake of toxins is another, no processed sugars or foods.
There are natural cancer cell killers, people need to educate themselves.
If living for another 5 years equates “surviving” to you, we have different expectations of what surviving is.
Believe what you want and do your own research on the survival rate of children who not have chemo treatments.
75% of US Oncologists surveyed say they would not use chemo drugs if diagnosed with cancer.
And your point? I lost a family member to cancer 8 years ago, and the chemo was devastating, so many and died anyway.
The oncologist will spend every penny of insurance, and get highly paid, and most cancer patients will die with chemo, unless in very first stages.
I watched a young woman die after being sent for treatment to Duke, within 6 months of diagnosis...she listened to the oncologist.
I would run from the oncologist.
Yep, we do.
They tier out survival rates in year increments.
I asked for evidence and you gave none.
Please cite a source with documentation.
You sound like Obama, blaming doctors for diseases and accusing them of being profiteers.
The anecdote is the enemy of all reason. Your personal experience is not indicative of all oncologists, or even the experience of 10 people, or 100. Any grown adult knows this.
You guys are long on claims and non-existent on evidence.
Here’s some evidence. A good friend of the family had throat cancer. So he started taking radiation for it. Stayed in a prestigious “Cancer Hospital”. In Houston I believe. Got rid of the cancer. Burned up his throat and tongue. So, he spent the last two years of his life not being able to eat. Or, eventually swallow. Cancer didn’t kill him. The treatment did.
Now, you might think that not being able to swallow is just a minor thing. But it’s surely not. He spent a couple of mo’s in a mental hospital to cope with it. And his last 6 mo’s with a feeding tube.
So there you go. I’m sure there is a lot of other, personal, evidence of cancer treatments gone bad.
And how much did this Cancer Hospital make off my friend. Doctors? Hundreds of thousands? Millions? I don’t know. He was under their “care” for over a year. Funny, never heard a word from them after he left.
You’d think they’d send a Christmas card or something.
One story told anonomously, unsourced, undocumented, and likely truncated and/or embellished is not evidence in any way, shape, or form, in any state, city, country, planet or galaxy.
The unbelievable ignorance of some Freepers as to the standards of evidence and proof, especially for serious medical matters, is mind boggling.
This is worse than the guy above who spouted that "75% of US Oncologists surveyed say they would not use chemo drugs if diagnosed with cancer", without citing any source or context.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.