Saving a child or overreaching state interference.

[ScutMonkey]

Saving a child or overreaching state interference.

[ScutMonkey]

Not real sure on this one.

My gut says overreaching state interference because of my experience working in a Doctor's office with Cancer patients, but the article is scant on certain details.  Especially Doctor recommendations.

[Rocky]

Im curious Scut, how do you feel about assisted suicide.  It seems this case is sort of similar to those.  Or at least thats how I see it.

[powder]

It sounds to me like the parents have no idea what is going on, although, one would think that having a child with cancer, the parents would understand what needs to be done after a child goes through chemotherapy.

[ScutMonkey]

quote:
Originally posted by: Rocky
Im curious Scut, how do you feel about assisted suicide.  It seems this case is sort of similar to those.  Or at least thats how I see it.

Assisted suicide is a really, really tough issue.  The only reason I would be against it is people using it to "help" their supposed loved ones along for financial reasons.  If it's allowed, it will be abused.  I really have no doubt about that.

[ScutMonkey]

quote:
Originally posted by: powder
It sounds to me like the parents have no idea what is going on, although, one would think that having a child with cancer, the parents would understand what needs to be done after a child goes through chemotherapy.

This quote makes me think the parents are as aware of her situation as they can be without being doctors:

quote:
"I think they should treat her for what her body calls for and not standard protocol. Nobody will look at that," she said. "Not every cancer is the same. Nobody understands that. Her body is not standard, and her cancer is not standard."

Doctors can be lemmings too.

[omegastrike]

(How do I delete a message?)

[omegastrike]

The child did say she did not want any furthur treatment.

Her feelings have to be taken into account or the issue could turn out to be traumatic.

[powder]

quote:
Doctors can be lemmings too.

So you're saying that the doctors are being used by the state?  What motive might the state have to take custody of the girl from her parents?

[meepa]

Well, Jed Bush may not be the governator in Texas, but yeah...

We Americans seem to have a different definition of human dignity across the pond

[ScutMonkey]

quote:
Originally posted by: powder

quote:
Doctors can be lemmings too.

So you're saying that the doctors are being used by the state?  What motive might the state have to take custody of the girl from her parents?

No, I'm saying the doctors are saying this treatment is necessary only because that's what they've always done in the past, not because it's what is truly in the best interest of this particular patient.  If the parents feel as if they're being left in the dark by doctors and their concerns (not to mention their daughter's concerns) aren't being taken seriously, I completely understand their position.

Chemotherapy and Radiation therapy both work the same way.  They destory the human body and the cancer cells at the same time and you basically hope you kill the cancer before you kill the patient.  It's archaic, crude, and brutally difficult to go through.  If this girl has already gone through Chemo and both she and her parents feel radiation treatment isn't necessary because all the tests coming back say the cancer is remition, the doctors need to have a better answer than, "because that's the way we've always done it" if the parents are asking why they should continue with radiation and their daughter doesn't want it.

[ric]

Chemo destroys cancer cells, but at what price?

Does Chemotherapy Work??

“In 1986, McGill Cancer Centre scientists sent a questionnaire to 118 doctors who treated non-small-cell lung cancer. More than 3/4 of them recruited patients and carried out trials of toxic drugs for lung cancer. They were asked to imagine that they themselves had cancer, and were asked which of six current trials they themselves would choose. Sixty-four of the 79 respondents would not consent to be in a trial containing cisplatin, a common chemotherapy drug. Fifty-eight found all the trials unacceptable. Their reason? The ineffectiveness of chemotherapy and its unacceptable degree of toxicity.” (14)

“... Why so much use of chemotherapy if it does so little good? Well for one thing, drug companies provide huge economic incentives. In 1990, $3.53 billion was spent on chemotherapy. By 1994 that figure had more than doubled to $7.51 billion. This relentless increase in chemo use was accompanied by a relentless increase in cancer deaths.” (13)

[Intuit]

quote:
Originally posted by: ScutMonkey

quote:
Originally posted by: Rocky
Im curious Scut, how do you feel about assisted suicide.  It seems this case is sort of similar to those.  Or at least thats how I see it.

Assisted suicide is a really, really tough issue.  The only reason I would be against it is people using it to "help" their supposed loved ones along for financial reasons.  If it's allowed, it will be abused.  I really have no doubt about that.

"If it's allowed, it will be abused."

That same argument can be made for absolutely anything.  "If driving is allowed, it will be abused."
This is never a reason for totally denying a right to decide one's own fate.  Society should and will continue to greatly discourage it.  That will "never" change.  But at the same time, it seems rather asinine to outlaw the act itself.  Perfectly healthy or not, you have the right, to decide for yourself, so long as it's not at the expense of others.  (in other words, don't kill yourself with nuclear bomb in the middle of New York....)

[meepa]

Ric, you left radiation completely out of the picture; one of the more common forms of chemotherapy is not inhibitng the growth of these tumor cells using antibiotics, but using radiation. Radiation in chemotherapy takes into consideration the strong nature of DNA by pointing it at several angles thereby destroying the ability for it to repair itself. Healthy cells will be able to repair if they aren't damaged at the ends, or can just die and new cells will take its place. The tumor cells, which have less ability to repair the mutant strain of DNA, will either die quickly, or in a matter of time. Of course it damages cells around it and they do repair, but there isn't anything as effective as it, and holistic measures sure as hell do not work.

[powder]

quote:
No, I'm saying the doctors are saying this treatment is necessary only because that's what they've always done in the past, not because it's what is truly in the best interest of this particular patient. If the parents feel as if they're being left in the dark by doctors and their concerns (not to mention their daughter's concerns) aren't being taken seriously, I completely understand their position.

Oh I see.  Well I've heard that she still requires treatment, so withholding her from the doctors would probably mean death for that little girl.  In a life or death situation, I would expect doctors to choose life over death.

[Vik]

Isn't it amazing how over the top "child protective services" are nowadays, compared to, say, 50 years ago?  I used to go to school with black eyes (courtesy of by bully older brother)), bruises from "Mommy Dearest,", raw welts on my forearms (I would always raise them to try to protect myself from my grandmother's whippings with a peach tree sprout), and nobody, teachers, neighbors, did anything.  Everybody just "looked the other way" back in the halcyon '50s.

[ScutMonkey]

quote:
Originally posted by: Intuit

"If it's allowed, it will be abused."

That same argument can be made for absolutely anything.  "If driving is allowed, it will be abused."
This is never a reason for totally denying a right to decide one's own fate.  Society should and will continue to greatly discourage it.  That will "never" change.  But at the same time, it seems rather asinine to outlaw the act itself.  Perfectly healthy or not, you have the right, to decide for yourself, so long as it's not at the expense of others.  (in other words, don't kill yourself with nuclear bomb in the middle of New York....)

Well there is a big difference between deciding your OWN fate and assisted suicide.  It's assisted because you can't do it yourself, correct?  In that sense, you're not making the decision by yourself fully.  You're putting your life in someone else's hands and we're talking about death.  That ups the ante quite a bit.

Trust me, I'm all over the idea that I decide what's right for my life.  I'm all for some very controversial issues like Legalized Drugs simply because I think the government should just stay out of it.  However, there is a part of me that feels very uncomfortable with assisted suicide (nto regular suicide).

[Intuit]

I personally don't really draw a line between assisted and unassisted suicide; provided that the task is performed in whitness to many people in a professional establishment.  This all is under the assumption that the suicidal individual is "mentally competent" and capable of expressing their desire.

[ScutMonkey]

quote:
Originally posted by: Intuit
I personally don't really draw a line between assisted and unassisted suicide; provided that the task is performed in whitness to many people in a professional establishment.  This all is under the assumption that the suicidal individual is "mentally competent" and capable of expressing their desire.

I see a distinction only because it's too simple to pray on someone's depression or reduced mental capacity while they're in a situation like this.  I firmly believe there will be examples, if this comes to pass, where people are coached into ending their lives for the gain of people surrounding them.  It's one thing if a person signs a bad loan or buys a lemon vehicle.  It's another if you're ending a life.  There are already examples in states like Texas where they pull the plug if you can't pay the bill.  What's going to happen if you've got bone cancer, are in a hospice on the state's dime, and the cheapest way out is assisted suicide?  "Sign this paper authorizing an assisted suicide, follow through on it, and we will give your family $10,000 plus the money for a burial."  $10,000 can be a couple hour's worth of care in one of those places and they make out like a bandit.  I'm sure both of us could see that happening.

And let me repeat, this is why I'm on the fence with the issue, not against it at the moment.  I just haven't made up my mind.  I can easily see myself in a situation where I'm terminal and would prefer a plunger hooked up to drugs that will end my life as opposed to "fighting the good fight" which will leave my family broke, and simply would be prolonging the inevitable.  Let Doctor Kevorkian hook it all up and I'll throw the switch.

[fall-apart]

quote:
Originally posted by: omegastrike
The child did say she did not want any furthur treatment.

Her feelings have to be taken into account or the issue could turn out to be traumatic.

There was a recent case in Canada where a young JW was forced to get a blood transfusion to treat cancer, after she became a state ward, because her parents were trying to get her out of the country...