5 Year Old Cancer Patient Abducted By Parents From Hospital!
Discussion
Blib said:
The results have vindicated the family's desperate decision. A terrible time for them and their son looks to be at an end.
Not quite yet unfortunately. The whole idea of proton beam therapy was less likelihood of side effects like brain damage. The NHS were predicting a 90+% (I can't remember the exact figure...) chance of a cure.mph1977 said:
Blib said:
The results have vindicated the family's desperate decision.
has it ? Parents don't need vindication for not following NHS advice in the best interests of their children. This is just goods news. It's the same story the BBC are running with if that makes it less facile to you.
Bill said:
The NHS were predicting a 90+% (I can't remember the exact figure...) chance of a cure.
Oh give over. The NHS were offering a 90% chance of turning the kid into a vegetable. He clearly has had better treatment than was being threatened by the NHS. Well done the parents for not being bullied, and best of luck to the kid on his continued recovery.
hornetrider said:
mph1977 said:
Blib said:
The results have vindicated the family's desperate decision.
has it ? or you could stop being an armchair Football manager ...
mph1977 said:
hornetrider said:
mph1977 said:
Blib said:
The results have vindicated the family's desperate decision.
has it ? or you could stop being an armchair Football manager ...
Maybe you could just stop......
grumbledoak said:
Bill said:
The NHS were predicting a 90+% (I can't remember the exact figure...) chance of a cure.
Oh give over. The NHS were offering a 90% chance of turning the kid into a vegetable. He clearly has had better treatment than was being threatened by the NHS. Well done the parents for not being bullied, and best of luck to the kid on his continued recovery.
again another PHer wasted on here and who can obviously do much better than actual oncologists with access to all the clinical information ...
unfortunately the demands for full information giving in healthcare can and do backfire when patients / parents willfully misunderstand the full and correct but rather technical both clinically and statistically information demanded by the vocal minority ...
Edited by mph1977 on Monday 23 March 08:19
mph1977 said:
Blib said:
The results have vindicated the family's desperate decision.
has it ? or are you just falling for the facile Heily Fail headline ...
I just read an article in which the hospital treating the child reports that the cancer has gone.
Rather than rejoicing with the family, you seem to be more interested in some vendetta or other. What a strange fellow.
I unfortunately have a lot of experience of brain tumour and I have to say that what has been reported is quite dreadful. I hope I am wrong, I hope he is fine.
Firstly 5 months is nowhere near long enough to to know what is going to happen. Personally I had a brain tumour diagnosed in November 2013 and removed at the start of December 2013. It was September 2014 before there was any sign of it reoccurring, that is not unusual, albeit every case being different. (It is worth noting that variation in tumours is huge, comparing one to another is in itself or dubious scope).
There is a comment that the NHS were talking about a 90% chance of turning the kid into a vegetable - I didn't see that but it rings true in that is precisely what can happen depending on the treatment. A key issue, and a major positive about the NHS, is their understanding of that. A very significant danger in surgical removal of a tumour is that it can result in a patient who remains alive but has very doubtful life quality ahead. Now that is a massively hard issue, in my case I have had surgery in the UK twice and on both occasions they have done so with little impact on my mental capability. Now that is huge, it cannot be misunderstood or down treated and some of the surgeons that we have working here are world leaders in their ability to do that. (I am fortunate, a multi-millionaire who can afford whatever it takes, although most of what is best comes from the NHS). Now there is a balance, they want to remove 100% or the tumour and retain 100% of the real brain, but a that's far from easy. A route is to take some brain with the tumour, makes it more likely to remove the whole tumour but also likely/certain to remove some ability of the patient. So coming out of it with no ability to remember, or to speak, or to control their limbs or be a person is a major issue. Being alive isn't it, it's being alive with a quality of life that matters.
I could go on for a long time on this, but the bottom line in my view is that reporting on from the Mail is scandalously bad done by journalists who have no clue what this is about. I hope that in this case the kid recovers well, doesn't have another tumour and is able to lead a good life. But to print something that may influence other people against what is happening here is just wrong. Knowing, as I do, people like Neil Kitchen - Lead Neurosurgeon at the National Surgery for Neurology and Neurosurgery - gives me a perspective and understanding of this that perhaps many others do not glean.
Firstly 5 months is nowhere near long enough to to know what is going to happen. Personally I had a brain tumour diagnosed in November 2013 and removed at the start of December 2013. It was September 2014 before there was any sign of it reoccurring, that is not unusual, albeit every case being different. (It is worth noting that variation in tumours is huge, comparing one to another is in itself or dubious scope).
There is a comment that the NHS were talking about a 90% chance of turning the kid into a vegetable - I didn't see that but it rings true in that is precisely what can happen depending on the treatment. A key issue, and a major positive about the NHS, is their understanding of that. A very significant danger in surgical removal of a tumour is that it can result in a patient who remains alive but has very doubtful life quality ahead. Now that is a massively hard issue, in my case I have had surgery in the UK twice and on both occasions they have done so with little impact on my mental capability. Now that is huge, it cannot be misunderstood or down treated and some of the surgeons that we have working here are world leaders in their ability to do that. (I am fortunate, a multi-millionaire who can afford whatever it takes, although most of what is best comes from the NHS). Now there is a balance, they want to remove 100% or the tumour and retain 100% of the real brain, but a that's far from easy. A route is to take some brain with the tumour, makes it more likely to remove the whole tumour but also likely/certain to remove some ability of the patient. So coming out of it with no ability to remember, or to speak, or to control their limbs or be a person is a major issue. Being alive isn't it, it's being alive with a quality of life that matters.
I could go on for a long time on this, but the bottom line in my view is that reporting on from the Mail is scandalously bad done by journalists who have no clue what this is about. I hope that in this case the kid recovers well, doesn't have another tumour and is able to lead a good life. But to print something that may influence other people against what is happening here is just wrong. Knowing, as I do, people like Neil Kitchen - Lead Neurosurgeon at the National Surgery for Neurology and Neurosurgery - gives me a perspective and understanding of this that perhaps many others do not glean.
mph1977 said:
were you there when the treatment was explained? ( and possibly willfully misunderstood by the parents )
again another PHer wasted on here and who can obviously do much better than actual oncologists with access to all the clinical information ...
unfortunately the demands for full information giving in healthcare can and do backfire when patients / parents willfully misunderstand the full and correct but rather technical both clinically and statistically information demanded by the vocal minority ...
The proton treatment he needed was not available here.again another PHer wasted on here and who can obviously do much better than actual oncologists with access to all the clinical information ...
unfortunately the demands for full information giving in healthcare can and do backfire when patients / parents willfully misunderstand the full and correct but rather technical both clinically and statistically information demanded by the vocal minority ...
Edited by mph1977 on Monday 23 March 08:19
However the country will be getting one soon. Forget that some poor country has one for a minute and that we just spunked billions to foreign aide in the eu.
They must have there uses or we wouldn't be getting one either.
Blib said:
What an aggressive post.
I just read an article in which the hospital treating the child reports that the cancer has gone.
Rather than rejoicing with the family, you seem to be more interested in some vendetta or other. What a strange fellow.
He always posts in that style. Usually uses more words though. It is rather strange.I just read an article in which the hospital treating the child reports that the cancer has gone.
Rather than rejoicing with the family, you seem to be more interested in some vendetta or other. What a strange fellow.
Blib said:
mph1977 said:
Blib said:
The results have vindicated the family's desperate decision.
has it ? or are you just falling for the facile Heily Fail headline ...
I just read an article in which the hospital treating the child reports that the cancer has gone.
Rather than rejoicing with the family, you seem to be more interested in some vendetta or other. What a strange fellow.
Mr Ambulance driver - cum - wannabe neurologist will have some kind of comeback for you no doubt.
mph1977 said:
grumbledoak said:
Bill said:
The NHS were predicting a 90+% (I can't remember the exact figure...) chance of a cure.
Oh give over. The NHS were offering a 90% chance of turning the kid into a vegetable. He clearly has had better treatment than was being threatened by the NHS. Well done the parents for not being bullied, and best of luck to the kid on his continued recovery.
again another PHer wasted on here and who can obviously do much better than actual oncologists with access to all the clinical information ...
unfortunately the demands for full information giving in healthcare can and do backfire when patients / parents willfully misunderstand the full and correct but rather technical both clinically and statistically information demanded by the vocal minority ...
Edited by mph1977 on Monday 23 March 08:19
However, you demonstrate a lack of understanding, or any empathy for, the family's plight. You express yourself with a unique coldness and absence of compassion. Your refusal to accept medical perspectives other than your own and your antagonism and condescension towards other posters, presumably from a position of greater knowledge, diminishes your clinical contributions.
Consequently I find you a somewhat sinister individual.
My dad died a slow (2 year) undignified death from a brain tumour, operations and radiotherapy didnt really improve his quality of life much.
The problem (explained to me later in life by a brain surgeon) is that brain tumours are extremely difficult to treat without knock on effects and the results of the treatment vary - its basically the most tricky as far as they are concerned.
I dont blame the parents for wanting the best for their child and if they got the treatment the child needed then it was definitely the right decision.
The problem (explained to me later in life by a brain surgeon) is that brain tumours are extremely difficult to treat without knock on effects and the results of the treatment vary - its basically the most tricky as far as they are concerned.
I dont blame the parents for wanting the best for their child and if they got the treatment the child needed then it was definitely the right decision.
The comments on here, and in the general media that the parents decisions have been vindicated show how little people understand what they are talking about.
The reason that Proton Beam therapy was not offered on the NHS is that there is no evidence it improves cure rates over traditional radiotherapy in cases of medulloblastoma (the particular type of cancer that this child had). There is a proton beam therapy centre in the UK, but quite rightly its time is spent treating cancers for which it has PROVEN benefit.
That the child is doing well is fantastic news, but as was stated several times by his NHS oncologists, it is likely he would have been doing well with conventional radiotherapy too.
Say we have two patients with the same brain cancer - patient 1 has conventional therapy and gets better. Patient 2 has conventional therapy and rubs avocado on his head and gets better. Patient 2 getting better does not mean 'vindicate' rubbing avocado on your head is an effective therapy for brain cancer!
Even if there are proven benefits for the use of Proton beam therapy, which currently for medulloblastoma there are NOT, it is then the difficult job of the NHS to weigh up those benefits and determine if the additional cost is justifiable. Taking 5 year survival rates from 90% to 91% at a cost of £70,000 per patient is not an effective use of NHS money which could have greater benefit elsewhere.
The parents of a sick child will do anything they are told may benefit their child and grasp hold of any offer of hope, but to suggest that this case demonstrates that the NHS doctors were wrong, and the parents right is nothing short of ridiculous. What has actually happened is around £70,000 of NHS money has been used on an unproven treatment, which all current evidence suggests is not beneficial, and the equivalent sum of money is now not available to spend on other treatments with proven benefit.
The reason that Proton Beam therapy was not offered on the NHS is that there is no evidence it improves cure rates over traditional radiotherapy in cases of medulloblastoma (the particular type of cancer that this child had). There is a proton beam therapy centre in the UK, but quite rightly its time is spent treating cancers for which it has PROVEN benefit.
That the child is doing well is fantastic news, but as was stated several times by his NHS oncologists, it is likely he would have been doing well with conventional radiotherapy too.
Say we have two patients with the same brain cancer - patient 1 has conventional therapy and gets better. Patient 2 has conventional therapy and rubs avocado on his head and gets better. Patient 2 getting better does not mean 'vindicate' rubbing avocado on your head is an effective therapy for brain cancer!
Even if there are proven benefits for the use of Proton beam therapy, which currently for medulloblastoma there are NOT, it is then the difficult job of the NHS to weigh up those benefits and determine if the additional cost is justifiable. Taking 5 year survival rates from 90% to 91% at a cost of £70,000 per patient is not an effective use of NHS money which could have greater benefit elsewhere.
The parents of a sick child will do anything they are told may benefit their child and grasp hold of any offer of hope, but to suggest that this case demonstrates that the NHS doctors were wrong, and the parents right is nothing short of ridiculous. What has actually happened is around £70,000 of NHS money has been used on an unproven treatment, which all current evidence suggests is not beneficial, and the equivalent sum of money is now not available to spend on other treatments with proven benefit.
Even when all this was headline news I found it a bit weird that Pistonheads has everything from trained marksman who can disarm villains with shots to the left upper bicep right through to cancer experts.
My take at the time was simply that the reporting of the parents taking the child "without permission" seemed very wrong.
It's early days but regardless of the treatment used it's nice to hear that things seem a little more positive than they did back then.
My take at the time was simply that the reporting of the parents taking the child "without permission" seemed very wrong.
It's early days but regardless of the treatment used it's nice to hear that things seem a little more positive than they did back then.
tdog7 said:
The comments on here, and in the general media that the parents decisions have been vindicated show how little people understand what they are talking about.
The reason that Proton Beam therapy was not offered on the NHS is that there is no evidence it improves cure rates over traditional radiotherapy in cases of medulloblastoma (the particular type of cancer that this child had). There is a proton beam therapy centre in the UK, but quite rightly its time is spent treating cancers for which it has PROVEN benefit.
That the child is doing well is fantastic news, but as was stated several times by his NHS oncologists, it is likely he would have been doing well with conventional radiotherapy too.
Say we have two patients with the same brain cancer - patient 1 has conventional therapy and gets better. Patient 2 has conventional therapy and rubs avocado on his head and gets better. Patient 2 getting better does not mean 'vindicate' rubbing avocado on your head is an effective therapy for brain cancer!
Even if there are proven benefits for the use of Proton beam therapy, which currently for medulloblastoma there are NOT, it is then the difficult job of the NHS to weigh up those benefits and determine if the additional cost is justifiable. Taking 5 year survival rates from 90% to 91% at a cost of £70,000 per patient is not an effective use of NHS money which could have greater benefit elsewhere.
The parents of a sick child will do anything they are told may benefit their child and grasp hold of any offer of hope, but to suggest that this case demonstrates that the NHS doctors were wrong, and the parents right is nothing short of ridiculous. What has actually happened is around £70,000 of NHS money has been used on an unproven treatment, which all current evidence suggests is not beneficial, and the equivalent sum of money is now not available to spend on other treatments with proven benefit.
But one child is CURED!!!! (well, for the time being...hopefully permanently, possibly not).The reason that Proton Beam therapy was not offered on the NHS is that there is no evidence it improves cure rates over traditional radiotherapy in cases of medulloblastoma (the particular type of cancer that this child had). There is a proton beam therapy centre in the UK, but quite rightly its time is spent treating cancers for which it has PROVEN benefit.
That the child is doing well is fantastic news, but as was stated several times by his NHS oncologists, it is likely he would have been doing well with conventional radiotherapy too.
Say we have two patients with the same brain cancer - patient 1 has conventional therapy and gets better. Patient 2 has conventional therapy and rubs avocado on his head and gets better. Patient 2 getting better does not mean 'vindicate' rubbing avocado on your head is an effective therapy for brain cancer!
Even if there are proven benefits for the use of Proton beam therapy, which currently for medulloblastoma there are NOT, it is then the difficult job of the NHS to weigh up those benefits and determine if the additional cost is justifiable. Taking 5 year survival rates from 90% to 91% at a cost of £70,000 per patient is not an effective use of NHS money which could have greater benefit elsewhere.
The parents of a sick child will do anything they are told may benefit their child and grasp hold of any offer of hope, but to suggest that this case demonstrates that the NHS doctors were wrong, and the parents right is nothing short of ridiculous. What has actually happened is around £70,000 of NHS money has been used on an unproven treatment, which all current evidence suggests is not beneficial, and the equivalent sum of money is now not available to spend on other treatments with proven benefit.
This is no time for common sense, reason and evidence based conclusions on the best use of NHS resources.
tdog7 said:
The reason that Proton Beam therapy was not offered on the NHS is that there is no evidence it improves cure rates over traditional radiotherapy in cases of medulloblastoma (the particular type of cancer that this child had). There is a proton beam therapy centre in the UK, but quite rightly its time is spent treating cancers for which it has PROVEN benefit.
My understanding is that proton beam therapy, in this case, would not improve the chances of 'cure', but could reduce the likelihood and/or severity of any side effects. Is there truth in that, or have I misunderstood?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff