Boy forced to undergo chemotherapy

[Guest American Woman]

Studies, such as the one you cited only show what happens up to five years - that 85% have survived the chemo and are still alive. However, it drops off after that - because 'remission' is NOT cured.

It's considered "cured" because of the high rate of survival of those who make it to five years; because of the diminished chance of recurrence after five years.

How long would the person have had without any 'chemo'?

How long would the person have with alternative treatments?

If they are both five years (often this is the case) what is the difference?

They are not both five years. Furthermore, the vast majority live beyond five years with treatment. You can't just dismiss facts because they don't support your view.

I have stood alongside people dying of cancer - my cousin died of leukemia, my mother of pancreatic cancer. Treatment for these ailments should be up to the family and the individual involved.

I'm truly sorry you lost your Mom and cousin to cancer. I know it was difficult for you, too. This is about a child, though, and having to make decisions on behalf of someone else; a minor who isn't old enough/capable of making such decisions himself. And I don't know what kind of leukemia your cousin had, but this issue concerns ALL leukemia, and the survival rate is high.

If the State has the right to take a child for this - what is to prevent them from making it manditory for children to be vaccinated? Or treated in 'other ways' such as ritalin or 'other mood enhancing' drugs?

The issue here is treatment for a diagnosed illness; an illness that would result in death if not treated. I don't know why some people can't stick to the issues, but instead go off on tangents that have nothing to do with the actual issue. 'If gays can marry, what's to stop the state from allowing people to marry sheep?' Kinda like that, you know?

I think YOU are missing a big point here AW.

IOW - it's not about the Cancer - its about individual freedom of choice.

Yes, it most definitely is about the cancer-- and a child's right to medical treatment; a minor's right to due care.

But along the issue of "freedom of choice:" What if a parent truly feels it's in the child's best interest to beat him/her? Should the state allow them "individual freedom of choice?" What if a father wants to have sex with his 11 year old. Should he be allowed "individual freedom of choice?" We have laws for a reason, we don't have complete "individual freedom of choice" for a reason. In this instance, the child has a right to the chance of life, and lacking the ability to make that choice himself, if the parents don't step in and provide it, the state must.

Children see the immediate actions, in this case pain. They are often not capable of seeing beyond that. One needs to answer the following questions honestly. What if an 11 year burn victim didn't want the pain of skin grafts, should we give them that choice? What about physical therapy, which can be grueling. Should we give them that choice? What about a child like Helen Keller who doesn't want to have to undergo the intense learning process of how to deal with their disabilities, should we let that go? Should education not be mandatory for them? What about an 11 year old child who hates school, should the parents be allowed to not require them to attend? And if the children could make the decisions in these instances, if the parents based their decisions on the child's wishes, would the children thank them as adults?

Edited May 17, 2008 by American Woman

[AngusThermopyle]

Live long and prosper, Angus!

Same to you Wild Bill.

[Oleg Bach]

Same to you Wild Bill.

Nice to see good will.

[AngusThermopyle]

Live long and prosper,

Olegh.

the same applies to you, we may not always agree, but we always talk.

[segnosaur]

So, what you're saying is that you can't prove that I'm wrong, but you're going to ignore everything anyways in favor of your own personal dogma.

No! You are simply trying to use my points for your own personal gain!

You were one of the people who made claims about the successes of 'alternative' treatments. If you were providing claims, then the source of your evidence should be able to withstand scrutiny.

This is my last post here, by the way. Not because I'm losing this argument, as you seem to be indicating, but because I have a life to spend doing more constructive things than wasting it discussing it with people who refuse to listen.

I'm willing to listen. But for me to actually accept your claims you have to provide evidence. You have not done so, outside of irrelevant anecdotes.

You can't be proven wrong.

Actually, yes I can be proven wrong... provide just one proper, double blind study in a scientific journal that shows that certain alternative cures have a significant success rate (in curing cancer). Just one. Given the fact that there are probably millions of people who have tried such alternatives, and probably thousands of alternative health care practicitioners (not to mention the millions spent by people on such alternative cures) you figure at least one study would have shown results.

You can't prove the other side (the point of view I'm on) wrong either.

You are right in that you can't prove a negative. You also can't prove that there's an invisible pink unicorn living in my sock drawer. But, what you can do is use a principle called Occam's razor... basically, the simplest answer is usually the right one. So, what's more likely... that after many decades that 'alternatives' have been around there are no reliable studies showing success because such methods have no success, or because, despite all the hype, money, and users of alternative medicines nobody has bothered publishing anything.

You see, that is a big difference between your position and mine... Mine is a logical, scientific position... I can be proven wrong with just ONE proper study. You, regardless of how long you wait for someone to show actual scientific studies showing success, will always claim its 'out there', just like the Loch Ness Monster and Big Foot.

You're wrong. I said A treatment. Not "treatment". In other words, I was saying that: "they weren't refusing A treatment, just chemotherapy, since they already tried that and want to try other methods".

Getting treatment with something that doesn't work is the same as having no treatment.

You might have an 85% chance of survival, but for how long? Give it a few years and it comes back. Do it again? Great! Another 85% chance. Comes back again? Who cares if you have to do this for the rest of your life if you're alive! Chemotherapy doesn't do as good as you're indicating.

Actually, if they're cancer free for 5 years, they'll likely be cancer free for a lot longer. 5 years is just given as a standard marker

Still, even if the chemo makes them feel horrible for a half year, feeling bad for a few months and then living the next 5 years pain and disease free is a lot better than dying in a few weeks because you somehow think you can be cured by a good italian dinner.

My point was "if you have to endure a longer period of intense pain, some people would prefer to die" depending on the circumstances.

Yes, I'm sure they would. And if its an adult, let them decide what they want to endure.

But, when you're dealing with a child, they are less likely to understand the concept of time (i.e. how long they'll feel bad before they get better), nor are they able to grasp the concept of death (I doubt many kids that age have even SEEN a dead body.)

Segnosaur, you are under the illusion that doctors know what they're doing. Only some are like what you've said. I know from family experience.

The plural of anecdotes is not data.

You MAY have had a bad doctor. Or you may have actually had a great doctor who was just dealing with a disease that could not be treated well, and didn't properly communicate what was happening.

There is something I want to introduce to you. Two things, actually:

1. Internet. Heard of it? It's where "tons" of medical information is stored among even more "tons" of information, games, sites, discussions, and forums like this.

2. Books. Books that talk about medicine. They happen to talk about other things.

The internet is only a reliable source of information when people actually go to reputable web sites. Heck, if I wanted to, for the cost of a domain registration and a server I could create a web site with any bogus claim that I wanted. I could say that eating raw chicken lips cures AIDS. Wouldn't matter if its true... wouldn't matter if I even believed it myself. But just because its on the internet does not mean that its true.

As for books... I've already explained about these... Book publishers are not always willing or able to validate 'scientific' claims made by the authors. You can find books claiming UFOs, Big Foot, and the Loch Ness monster exist, and publishers will have no problem printing and selling them.

Now to tell you my family's information when dealing with doctors. If you get a good doctor, they know what's happening with you (ie. sickness, etc.), and are willing to do something about it. If you get an OK doctor, they might look at you and do what a good doctor does, or maybe what a bad doctor does. If you get a bad doctor, they can look you straight in the eye and say "You're fine! Why are you in here?" and you could have infection in your ears, throat, and anywhere else. You could be feeling nauseous, dizzy, and they wouldn't do anything. Why? Who knows? They don't know why or just aren't good doctors.

Or, it could be that they recognize the problem with your ears or throat as a viral infection, for which most treatments would be a problem (and in some cases counterproductive).

"Uhh... no. that's not the way chemotherapy works. The cancer doesn't "think". It doesn't do anything to "abandon" the body"

I don't think the point was that the cancer "thinks". This is called imagery. It's how some people communicate when they aren't into science. Just to let you know.

The rest of your description of how cancer works was bunk as well.

"Not exactly a good analogy. Hundreds of years ago (when they were bleeding patients) we weren't really using the scientific method... our medical treatments were wrapped up in various superstitions. Its only been in the past hundred years or so that we've actually been using things like double blind studies and proper statistics to actually determine the effectiveness of certain treatments."

You think we're so smart. Pathetic.

We have "scientific method". Do you think back then you could say this...

"Hey, you know you're really wrong because you haven't done anything to prove what you're talking about?!"

and they would say this?

"Yah, you're right. Too bad we don't have SCIENTIFIC METHOD... that'd be so much better." or if you want to be realistic, saying "Yah, I know, but we don't have the intelligence to do better".

They'd be more likely to say "Are you crazy? Of course this is true!"

"But that doesn't mean that using chemo today is wrong... it is (in many cases) the best course of cancer treatment that we have today."

WRONG!!!!!!!!! They have better treatments in the US. Ones that work a lot better. Only problem is that either Canada refuses to look at it, or the US refuses to give it out. I think it's the first one, though. After all, "us doctors are smarter than everybody else, so go take a hike with your new meds and treatments".

If there are 'better treatments', then please post a reference to a scientific study appearing in a proper peer reviewed journal which describes the treatment and its success rate.

You know, I have to wonder if there are people in the U.S. who are making the same claims... "Canada has these wonderful cures but they're not available here". It reminds me of the people who claim there is some magical car engine that runs on gasoline, or proof of aliens in area 51... the evidence is always "out there", even though they've never actually seen it.

You know, you think you're picking apart everybody's arguments by pointing out grammar mistakes.

"Doctors are not gods. In fact over 50% of the graduated in the lower half of their class. They know nothing about quality of life except what they may experience - often from rich and sheltered families. That isn't quality of life. It is quantity."

I don't know about the math, I agree, but the rest of it I agree with. They only know what THEY know. They don't necessarily understand what other people want.

I never claimed that they did know what other people want. But, the vast majority of doctors ARE knowledgeable in what the effects of certain treatments will be, and what the effects of not having treatment will be.

But is it right to rip a child from the parent saying "You are too stupid to know what you're doing, let us deal with it you bad decision-maker", given the very understandable possibility that they DONT' want to go through more pain?

If the parent really is too stupid or ignorant to make the right decision, then yes, it is right to take them away.

I've asked this question before, but as of yet nobody has responded....

What if the parents were snake handlers? Perhaps they believed by handling snakes it would purify the child's soul and have him cured?

Or what if they were breatharians? (People who believe you can survive on air alone, and in some cases food was 'toxic' to the body.) Would you be willing to let the child starve because the parents made a decision (based on their own knowledge and beliefs) that the best course of treatment would be to let the child go without eating for as long as possible (or until the child dies)?

Edited May 20, 2008 by segnosaur

[charter.rights]

What if the parents were snake handlers? Perhaps they believed by handling snakes it would purify the child's soul and have him cured?

Or what if they were breatharians? (People who believe you can survive on air alone, and in some cases food was 'toxic' to the body.) Would you be willing to let the child starve because the parents made a decision (based on their own knowledge and beliefs) that the best course of treatment would be to let the child go without eating for as long as possible (or until the child dies)?

Ok, I'll bite.

Snake venom has been used successfully to treat a number of ailments including cancer. Being snake handlers, it is probably a good assumption that they know how to handler snakes without being harmed. Likely they would instill the same cautions they use every day in handling to their son or daughter. So snake handling in itself isn't anymore dangerous than say being an oxy-acetylene welder from home. Using snake venom may have its merits and it should be up to the parents to make the ultimate decision, especially if there was sufficient information to support the alternative treatment.

John Hopkins University Hospital has used fasting to fix a problem. Of particular note they found that patients with persistent seizures are most likely suffering form severe food allergies. Using only anecdotal evidence they took all food and drink away from one particular child who had been suffering from hourly grand mal seizures. The fasting lead to a complete cessation of the seizures. After 4 days they started first to re-introduce first water and then basic foods in small quantities looking for the trigger and after about 1 month of this treatment they were able to identify about a dozen foods that brought back the seizures. A cure by withholding food..interesting.... BTW the parents original sought out John Hopkins because another hospital was seeking a court order to treat their child as they saw fit. Their proposed treatment was to open the boy's head and remove the part of the brain that was causing the seizures. The side effect predicted were that the boy would lose his short term memory and likely have some kind of mental impairment the rest of his life. It was the best procedure they could think of.

Remember. 50% of all doctors graduated in the lower half of their class.........(To those that don't understand the analogy, there is no sense repeating your silly responses. If you didn't get it then, you certainly aren't going to get now...) Having faith in a system where failure and harm is an option is no better than thinking that a magical charm can cure your ugly face just because an ugly gypsy told you so.

[segnosaur]

Ok, I'll bite.

Snake venom has been used successfully to treat a number of ailments including cancer. Being snake handlers, it is probably a good assumption that they know how to handler snakes without being harmed.

First of all, 'snake handlers' aren't necessarily looking to get bit... simply handling the snakes is typically enough.

Secondly, snake handlers have also died from the practice...

A judge ruled Friday that grandparents will share the custody of five children whose parents both died handling snakes during church services. (from http://www.cnn.com/US/9902/12/snake.bite.family/index.html)

A woman who was bitten by a snake at a church that neighbors say practices serpent handling died of her wounds hours later (from: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-1...e_x.htm?csp=34)

And these were experienced snake handlers, people who supposedly "know how to handle snakes'...

Yup... I'm convinced how safe and beneficial snake handling is....

Using snake venom may have its merits and it should be up to the parents to make the ultimate decision, especially if there was sufficient information to support the alternative treatment.

I suppose it would be asking too much for you to actually provide any proof (real proof, from a reputable journal) that such alternative treatment (such as snake venom) is actually useful in the treatment of cancer, when the snake bite is administered naturally (i.e. where its actually a snake bite, rather than treatments where certain components are extracted from the venom).

John Hopkins University Hospital has used fasting to fix a problem. Of particular note they found that patients with persistent seizures are most likely suffering form severe food allergies. Using only anecdotal evidence they took all food and drink away from one particular child who had been suffering from hourly grand mal seizures. The fasting lead to a complete cessation of the seizures. After 4 days they started first to re-introduce first water and then basic foods in small quantities looking for the trigger...

Ummm... this is NOT the same as a breatharian.

In your story, they reintroduced food... obviously the researchers realized that food was necessary, because they eventually began to reintroduce the food. Breatharians believe that no food is ever required, and in some cases food is somehow toxic to the body. As such, a breatharian parent would not only take away all food, but they would never reintroduce ANY food.

So would you be OK with that? After all, it IS the parents that are making the decision. The parents may honestly believe that food is not needed and it is best to go without forever in order to cure their child.

Remember. 50% of all doctors graduated in the lower half of their class.........(To those that don't understand the analogy, there is no sense repeating your silly responses. If you didn't get it then, you certainly aren't going to get now...)

That's still an incredibly retarded argument.

That's a bit like saying if you took all the Millionaires in Canada, those in the bottom 50% of all millionaires are somehow poor. Doesn't work that way.

Being in the lower half of a group where selection criteria is especially stringent STILL makes a person more qualified than your average non-doctor.

Edited May 20, 2008 by segnosaur

[AngusThermopyle]

(To those that don't understand the analogy, there is no sense repeating your silly responses. If you didn't get it then, you certainly aren't going to get now...)

Actually the analogy (as you incorrectly identify it) is simple to understand. The math used originally was just nonesense and could not exist. Mathematics are obviously not your strong point or you would see that even changing it from over 50% to 50% does not really impart legitimacy to the "analogy". Obviously 50% graduated in the lower half of the class, it would be impossible for them to do otherwise.

For instance if 40% graduated in the lower half this would be mathematically impossible, they would have to graduate in the lower 40 percentile. Do you see the inescapable logic in this?

I forgot to add. The rest of your post could have had merit and some interesting information but all of it is unsubstantiated. If you'd provide a link or two for the points you make then it would have legitimacy. As it stands it can only be seen as so much vapour and as such unworthy of serious consideration. A few double blind studies would serve to eliminate any doubt as to the veracity of that being proposed.

Edited May 20, 2008 by AngusThermopyle

[Guest American Woman]

Actually the analogy (as you incorrectly identify it) is simple to understand. The math used originally was just nonesense and could not exist. Mathematics are obviously not your strong point or you would see that even changing it from over 50% to 50% does not really impart legitimacy to the "analogy".

I too noticed the change from "over 50%" to "50%" as charter.rights claimed 'people just don't get it.'

Obviously 50% graduated in the lower half of the class, it would be impossible for them to do otherwise.

Exactly. 50% of Mensa members' IQ's are in the bottom half, too. According to the "50% of doctors graduated in the bottom of their class 'analogy'" that charter.rights is trying to make, guess that makes 50% of Mensa members morons.

[Sharon den Adel]

I can only read a very small portion of the artical, so I am not sure whether the child has been through chemotherapy in the past. I will assume he has not, and that this is his first treatment and he is simply worn out.

I respect his right to choose not to endure anymore chemo, and I respect the rights of his parents to support his choice, but I also support the court ruling. Not because the child is too young to make such a decision, but because he seems to have a very good chance of survival.

Can someone show a little more of the artical in question so I may learn more about the case?

[segnosaur]

I can only read a very small portion of the artical, so I am not sure whether the child has been through chemotherapy in the past. I will assume he has not, and that this is his first treatment and he is simply worn out.

I respect his right to choose not to endure anymore chemo, and I respect the rights of his parents to support his choice, but I also support the court ruling. Not because the child is too young to make such a decision, but because he seems to have a very good chance of survival.

Can someone show a little more of the artical in question so I may learn more about the case?

This was actually the second time the child had been through chemo. At this point, the doctors are suggesting that if he continues chemo, he'd have an 85% chance of survival. Without chemo, he'd be dead.

The child (only 11 years old if I remember correctly, and possibly mentally handicapped), has decided to try to treat his cancer using "natural" remedies, such as oregeno and green tea. The article suggested it was the child who made the decision (and the parents supported him), but its also possible that the parents influenced his decision..

So, there are 2 basic issues at play here....

- Does taking such "natural" cures actually help? It should be pointed out that not one person who believes in natural cures has managed to give one single scientific study, from a peer reviewed journal, that shows green tea and oregeno is useful in combating cancer. While that doesn't necessarily mean that such treatments are ineffective, anyone with at least a little logical reasoning ability will view such 'cures' as hogwash.

- Does a child of that age have the mental capacity to make such a decision. At that age, they may not understand the concept of 'death' (never having been exposed to it), may not comprehend what the short and long term effects are.

[gc1765]

So, there are 2 basic issues at play here....

I'd say that there is at least one more issue at play here.

If the child is too young to make a responsible decision on their own, should that decision then be made by the parents or by the state? (especially on an issue as controversial as undergoing the pain of treatment for the possibility of survival)

[Sharon den Adel]

This was actually the second time the child had been through chemo. At this point, the doctors are suggesting that if he continues chemo, he'd have an 85% chance of survival. Without chemo, he'd be dead.

Hmm, that makes it a little harder, having already been through the trauma of chemotherapy...because the chances of survival are so high, I have to say that he should continue the therapy. If the cancer were to return, then he should be able to decide what path he wishes to take.

The child (only 11 years old if I remember correctly, and possibly mentally handicapped), has decided to try to treat his cancer using "natural" remedies, such as oregeno and green tea. The article suggested it was the child who made the decision (and the parents supported him), but its also possible that the parents influenced his decision..

Has the child been psychologically evaluated to know whether he is capable of understanding the decision he has chosen? It may help to know how he feels, without the presence of his parents.

- Does taking such "natural" cures actually help? It should be pointed out that not one person who believes in natural cures has managed to give one single scientific study, from a peer reviewed journal, that shows green tea and oregeno is useful in combating cancer. While that doesn't necessarily mean that such treatments are ineffective, anyone with at least a little logical reasoning ability will view such 'cures' as hogwash.

We can't say for sure if natural therapies help to cure cancer, despite the fact there have been no studies on the subject. Chemotherapy has been shown to be the best option here, and so anyone wishing to begin natural therapy has that option, they can do so while having chemotherapy at the same time.

- Does a child of that age have the mental capacity to make such a decision. At that age, they may not understand the concept of 'death' (never having been exposed to it), may not comprehend what the short and long term effects are.

I think it depends on the individual. The child may fully understand the consequences of his decision, but because of his age, it is automatically assumed that he does not have the mental capacity to make such a decision. A psychological evaluation is needed her, I feel, as this may give us an idea as to whether this child fully understands the ramifications behind his choice.