Refusing treatment for son's cancer - Page 4

Can you explain what you mean by that? What specifically am I failing to understand?
The reason why these numbers matter to me is because I think there is a fine line that is really hard to see - and that line is when does it become more than just your choice of treatment and turn into a choice of life or death? What chance of survival do you need to be given that makes it not even a question of whether you want the treatment or not. I think 85% is pretty high. But what if it was 100%?? Would everyone who said that the parents need to be able to choose what drugs their son gets agree that they should deny treatment that guarantees 100% that he will survive?? To me that would make a difference and the fact that he only has 5% chance of survival without it also makes a huge difference. I fail to see why people are so heated up about this when the government does make choices for people's treatments all the time, like when we call 911 because a kid is unconscious we don't ask the parents "should we let him heal naturally instead of calling 911"...How come there is not a huge debate about why we do that?

You were the one who said you'd never understand.

I'm just acknowledging that probably, to the vast majority of people -- most of us here included -- this family's decision does not make sense -- and the reason it doesn't make sense is that all anyone outside that family has with which to judge is logic -- but logic is only part of what goes into the decision for the people who are directly affected by it. We CAN'T understand, so we shouldn't judge.

I have talked about this subject until I was blue in the face, on this forum and a few others. If you don't "get it" by now, I don't think there is anything I can say that will make you "get it".

I think you were the poster that believes that this boy should be tied down and injected with chemo against his will while kicking, screaming and crying.

What can I possibly say to someone who is in favor of something like that?

Oh sorry I see what you mean now I was confused for a moment there. I see what you are saying.
I just want to add that what if we do let the parents choose what treatment is best for the kid, but the parents don't like their kid and want him to die, I mean there are parents like this who are criminal and murderous..Giving them a choice like that would be the same thing as giving them a free ticket to get rid of their kid! I mean it may be rare but we do have to think of all the possibilities there...How much power can a parent really have over their kid? and this kid is here a minor don't forget so in the face of the law he has very few rights that adults have.

Lol and I think there is nothing else I can say to make you get what I'm saying!..I guess our opinions are just so opposite that it's almost like we are speaking different languages because to me, what I'm saying is clear as day and to think someone doesn't get it is just as odd and feel just the way you do when you say you are blue in the face from talking about it!

I really doubt that these parents want to get rid of their son.

I believe that Cindy has actually been through chemotherapy, so to her, this isn't a question of "what ifs." She knows what she's been through, and though you have a different opinion, I really doubt that she "doesn't get it."

I haven't had chemotherapy. If I had cancer and chemotherapy were an option, I'd probably take it. But I can see the other side of that... it's called empathy.

Not trying to be argumentative but "they" (as in the parents) are not going to "allow" chemo, they are being forced and they have finally given in.

Legally, as of right now, they don't even have legal custody of their own son.
Daniel is being "allowed" by the court to stay with his parents but there is a guard staying at their house also.


Going Nova, thanks.

I never said these parents want to get rid of their son! I was just saying that all considerations need to be taken into account..

And all I can say is that she gets my point of view as much as I get hers! beyond this point all we will do is repeat ourselves while asserting our opinions, no point in that.

As far as having custody over their own son, I don't think "custody" entitles you to choose whether your child lives or dies. Again, just my humble opinon.

ut0pia, I just want to say that I completely understand what you are saying and agree with most of it.


The courts "interfere" with parents' rights to make decisions for their children all the time. This is no different, except that we can be almost certain that these parents think they are doing what is truly best for their child...and the child has an illness. Do I see the other side? Yes...and I feel for the parents. But, emotions aren't the best decision makers...

...so, to the person who asked how I would feel if during a situation like this, perfect strangers interfered with my decision...yes, I would probably be hurt, angry, etc. I would probably fight like hell to have my decision upheld. But that doesn't make my decision right...and sometimes, an objective observer who looks at the evidence is the best person to make a decision that involves so much emotion. If my son was dying and I was forced to give him chemo when I didn't want to...and my son ended up living a long, healthy life, I'd be darn happy someone interfered.

And, I'll put my hands up as someone who thinks they should give this child the chemo even if they have to hold the child down kicking and screaming. If my child was on antibiotics, etc. and didn't want to take them and was kicking and screaming, I would hold them down and force them to take it (more likely, I would force them to take it using other, less physical methods, but I am giving the extreme)....because without it, the child could very likely get more ill. Without chemo, this child WILL get sick and die (short of a 5% chance of survival).

I'd really like more information on the parents' real reason for declining chemo. Is it really that it made the child ill, as many posters here are assuming? Or is it a religious issue as stated in the media? I'm not as sure as some here seem to be. If I knew that this chemo was really making this child THAT ill (more than the normal, I know it makes people very ill to start out with), then maybe my opinion would change.

Giving antibiotics is just a tad different than forcing a person, against his will to have poison injected in his veins. Do some research on chemo, before you, arbitrarily say you would force someone to take chemo. It is a far cry from some penicillin. I would compare chemo to strychnine.

I was comparing the situations, not the drugs. I won't do research, because I know enough to know that antibiotics and chemo are different. I have had family and acquaintences who have had chemo. I won't claim to know as much as you, as I believe it has been said you have taken chemo, but I'm not as ignorant as you seem to think I am.

But, the fact is, people have chemo treatments EVERY DAY. People live with the pain, illness, hair loss, etc. that goes along with it every day. They do so because they choose a chance of life over an almost inevitable death. NO ONE chooses to take chemo...their medical situation forces them to. People may choose not to take chemo, and that is their choice. As long as they are adults who have the reasoning skills, education, and maturity to make that decision.

As I said in my final paragraph, and will expand on now, I realize that every individual reacts differently to chemo. If this child's reaction to chemo was so far from the range of "typical" chemo reactions or the chemo was showing signs of being life-threatening (more than the usual risk), then my opinion would probably be different. But for the sake of this argument, I am assuming that the officials who made this decision looked at that evidence and took it into consideration.

I missed this response..I actually find this very true and I think I would understand why the parents would not want to give chemo to the child but only if his chances of survival weren't so high. This is hodgkin's lymphoma we are talking about, something that's treatable in 90% of the cases!! I have a friend who has the same kind of cancer, she's 22 or so, went through chemo, lost hair, etc but after having been close to someone with this type of cancer I know more details about this type of cancer than most people because I was so scared when I found out that my friend has cancer that I went and researched this cancer and read everything I could find. And so, that's how I know that this cancer is very treatable, it is what people are hoping it turns out to be when they already know they have lymphoma. Honestly though, I trust that the government wouldn't be pushing this hard for the kid to have the chemo if it wasn't such a treatable cancer. If it was an advanced stage of say pancreatic cancer that's metastized to the liver and the prognosis is not very promising, I'm sure no one would even question a decision to stop chemo!! That's actually what the doctors recommended to someone I knew who died of cancer shortly after stopping chemo. The doctors made sure the patient knew what her chances were and the pros and cons of chemo so that the patient can make the right choice for her.


What I said above also applies to what you're saying..

Where did I say that you said that these parents wanted to get rid of their son??? I didn't pull my statement out of a vacuum. You said:

"I just want to add that what if we do let the parents choose what treatment is best for the kid, but the parents don't like their kid and want him to die, I mean there are parents like this who are criminal and murderous..Giving them a choice like that would be the same thing as giving them a free ticket to get rid of their kid! I mean it may be rare but we do have to think of all the possibilities there..."

And I replied that it doesn't seem to be the case here. So then it isn't really an argument against this family refusing chemotherapy, is it?

No, there isn't and that wasn't an argument that I was trying to make. I was speaking in general terms, about if the government does allow these specific parents to make that choice it must allow all parents to make choices of this kind, and there are some not so well intentioned parents out there.

They aren't the first child/family to refuse chemotherapy, and I doubt they will be the last. Why is this particular boy being forced to receive chemotherapy when others have not been forced? I was under the impression that they were not setting a precedent. If both he and his parents have been informed of their options and the statistics, then their decision should be respected. I wouldn't want someone to decide what I have to do with my body.

I think the reason why is like I mentioned earlier, because of the type of cancer and how curable it really is. Like I said I think if it was a different, more dangerous type of cancer, the doctors would be the ones suggesting that the family consider their options well and choose whether chemo is right for them. But this cancer is not deadly. Look up some info on hodgkin's lymphoma and you will see what i mean.

1. IMO, you can't "compare" the situation because chemotherapy and giving antibiotics are in a totally different realm.

2. I don't think you are ignorant and didn't mean to give you that impression.

3. Yes and people die from chemo every day also. People spend their last days and hours poisoning themselves, I know more than one person that is doing this as we speak.

4. It all comes down to choice to me and if the boy can be talked into chemo, great, but if he still refuses after being advised and told what will happen then he should not be forced and I think it is a sad day in a so called free country to force someone.

Exactly.

I hesitate to bring this in, but there's an element of similarity with the abortion debate. Another situation where you cannot know what you would do in the situation unless and until you are in it. And therefore, your life, your body, your decision, and whether another person/body agrees or not, they should respect it and not introduce further stress into what is an already stressful situation.

Exactly that

This is a lose-lose situation. Ultimately, though, the family has to decide what the family should do. Other people don't intimately know the family's dynamics and beliefs and shouldn't be making decisions for them; there is no one law that can cover all these different types of situations (and there shouldn't be). The parents didn't harm their son and give him cancer, they are only trying to cope.

This family has a right to make their own family decisions. It's what we all do every day, it's life, we make our decisions and accept the consequences, and the regrets.

And we don't know this family's full story from the media; journalists, editors, everyone has their own agenda when reporting the news, and the news we end up with is distorted, to say the least.

I could see the courts getting involved, though, if the kid wanted chemo, or if the parents disagreed, then somebody would have to make a legal decision. Otherwise, the family should be left alone.

Have not been following all of this thread so I don't know if anyone else has mentioned the possibility of that mother having a mental disorder called Munchousen by Proxy [sp?]. Just throwin' it out there as a possibility.

A 13 yr old who can't read? Come on now, that child needs some serious taking care of, don't you think?

I dunno, the forcing of chemo is a real slippery slope to me. Do they still force electric shock treatments on mentally ill people who do bodily harm to themselves? Do they still force meds on the mentally ill just to keep them docile [and make it much easier on the staff who work there]? If so.........them being able to do it still doesn't make it 'right', you know.

Maybe a judgement in a court of law should be the ticket, rather than the fixed machinations of a local bureauracy [IF that's the case here]??

But parents CAN choose what kind of education their kid receives....they can choose public school, Catholic school, a Montessori school, homeschooling, a correspondence course, etc. These parents were seeking alternative treatment, they weren't just leaving him entirely untreated.

Because doctors are not always 100% correct. Because you might torture yourself with chemo and die anyway, or die BECAUSE OF the chemo. So it's not 100% that this treatment will save his life. I'm sure all parents want to do everything humanly possible to save their child, but also not want to torture them in the process, especially if the treatment proves to be futile anyway.
I've know a few kids that age who couldn't read. Boys mostly. Sometimes they just aren't ready yet, sometimes they've received inferior education. One particular boy I knew couldn't read at all until his mom pulled him out of public school and taught him herself, when he was 14. He picked it up pretty quickly once he didn't have all the teachers and other kids calling him dumb every day. So I wouldn't automatically consider a 13-year-old that can't read to be educationally neglected.

Here's an interesting case from Australia.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/paren...x.html?page=-1

"A couple whose baby daughter died after they treated her with homeopathic remedies instead of conventional medicine have been found guilty of manslaughter.

Gloria Thomas died aged nine months after spending more than half her life with eczema."

Hmmmm, wonder if the law is the same here?

So sad for all involved!

I've come to the conclusion that it's never simple enough for any of us lay people to make a judgement. I was slightly familiar with hodgkin's lymphoma but I know very little about eczema and I know nothing of the kind of homeopathic treatment that they opted for. I think several witnesses with a medical or osteopathic medicine degree in a case like that can make all the difference. It all depends on the statistics of survival with the conventional medicine, the individual case, the homeopathic treatment's success statistics and just soo many factors. If it's a life threatening condition that you're choosing to treat with something that clearly stands on chance of helping it then yes they are guilty of man slaughter, but if it's a legitimate alternative treatment that is used to treat something that usually doesn't kill you anyway, then of course it isn't....

I feel for all those involved with baby Gloria's death, but none moreso than Gloria herself.

I had eczema as a child. It was pretty severe, though nothing on the scale of what this baby experienced. So I do understand a little more about this case, though I didn't have it as a little baby and my parents never sought a homeopathic remedy (they regarded that as "quack medicine" as did most parents in that generation in the US).

One thing that I see as a difference here is that Gloria didn't have a choice. They couldn't ask her opinion, it was 100% the decision of the parents - one of whom had a professional bias away from Western Medicine. The other is that eczema almost never causes death!!! No, it's not cured with treatment, but it is managed with treatment. Even if they didn't have anyone tell them that the eczema was life threatening, as a health professional with any kind of training he should have realized that there was something serious going on with her weight dropping so low and her hair turning white. I'm not trained, and I would sure as hell know something was seriously wrong! Not seeking treatment with those symptoms, not to mention her cornea melting is cause for child endangerment resulting in death or manslaughter charged.

There has to come a point when you're willing to admit that whatever you're doing, be it traditional or homeopathic or prayer or whatever, just isn't working. When it's a baby's life in your hands, I don't understand not being willing to try something else instead of maintaining the status quo and watching her die.

This seems to make a huge difference for many people who posted in the thread, the fact the boy was the one who was choosing. I'm kind of confused as to why because in my eyes, he's a minor who has no right to choose pretty much anything. When I was 13, I had no rights, I remember how I couldn't even walk outside of school grounds between classes when I was technically supposed to have a break... To me that was absurd cuz I come from a country where that's not the case but this is besides the point...I just feel like 13 is not legally an age where a kid can be granted the right to choose which treatment is best for him.

I think comparing the two cases is such an interesting thought experiment. It makes me think that people's experiences with cancer and chemotherapy is really a big factor in the decision of the responses that said he should definitely be given a choice- but again I differ because to me Hodgkin's lymphoma, being familiar with it, is something that doesn't kill- it has a 90% survival rate IN THE LATEST STAGES. I mean I guess there is the factor of chemotherapy itself being very dangerous...But after knowing that without it you'd be sure to die anyway and with it you have a 90% chance to survive?? That kind of makes the danger of chemotherapy itself pretty meaningless since without chemo he only had a 5% chance to survive..
I dunno, I guess it's so complicated and without knowing any really essential details it's hard to compare but I still think it's so interesting to see a different perspective of somethign similar happening to someone else. And again, to me the case of Gloria is very similar but to others i'm sure it will seem totally different.

Utopia, it has been said over and over and over again on this thread, 13 year olds DO have rights. 13 year old girls have the right to go have an abortion and there is not one darn thing anyone (even their parents) can do about it.

That is my whole thing with this boy, if a 13 year old girl can abort a baby then a 13 year old boy should be able to decide if he wants chemo or not.

IMO, you can't let the girl abort if you don't let the boy decide.

I was always under the impression a girl has to be 18 to have an abortion otherwise it's only if the parents agree.
an abortion is life threatening if complications occur...So i do see your point.