7 yr old and forced Radiotherapy
Discussion
Not sure where I stand with this, and both arguments have some weight.
The child's parent argues that other alternative treatments can work, and that Radiotherapy will cause long term serious harm to the child. Why is this case different to a religious argument that no treatment should be given?
The parent has a right to decide what happens and how to raise their child - we do live in a free country after all. So why is the law even having to make a decision on this? A parent should surely have the right to consider the options, and weigh up what they believe is best for their child. If the parent did not want the treatment through ignorance, the the is another story, bu they believe it will cause more long term harm tha good. I have no definite thought on this, bu would like to think I would choose treatment for my child.
If the child had Jehovas Whitness parents, it could basically be murdered by the parents for want of a simple blood transfusion, based on fairytale stories as opposed to rational thought, so am I missing something?
The child's parent argues that other alternative treatments can work, and that Radiotherapy will cause long term serious harm to the child. Why is this case different to a religious argument that no treatment should be given?
The parent has a right to decide what happens and how to raise their child - we do live in a free country after all. So why is the law even having to make a decision on this? A parent should surely have the right to consider the options, and weigh up what they believe is best for their child. If the parent did not want the treatment through ignorance, the the is another story, bu they believe it will cause more long term harm tha good. I have no definite thought on this, bu would like to think I would choose treatment for my child.
If the child had Jehovas Whitness parents, it could basically be murdered by the parents for want of a simple blood transfusion, based on fairytale stories as opposed to rational thought, so am I missing something?
The child has two parents, That's why it has to go to court. I am actually quite surprised as teh woman usually gets the whole say so,
The below is my take on it. Obviously could be completely wrong.
one wants to save the childs life using the best medical practices. The other is a hippy wishy washy mental case who went on the run and probably thinks acupuncture will save him.
The below is my take on it. Obviously could be completely wrong.
one wants to save the childs life using the best medical practices. The other is a hippy wishy washy mental case who went on the run and probably thinks acupuncture will save him.
Trax said:
The child's parent argues that other alternative treatments can work...
I think the problem is that if it's an alternative to a treatment, then it's not actually a treatment. I have spent too long with immediate family members in and around cancer wards, and while the conventional treatments are often brutal, they do offer the only real hope of recovery or long term survival. If there was something that offered better results, then that's what you'd be offered (notwithstandung the non-availability of certain drugs on the NHS).
I've always assumed it would just be tree huggers and other loons on the fringes that would dismiss the best modern medicine and experience had to offer, but I gather even Steve Jobs shunned the conventional treatment that would have kept him alive.
Now if the arguement was 'I don't want the treatment as it's too intense/disfiguring/upsetting etc., I'd rather the cancer takes it's course and I die from it' I'd understand it. But if the arguement is 'I don't want the treatment as I've some better way of treating the disease', then that strikes me as sheer lunacy.
I believe it is the case that the separated parents are in dispute?
So the court is essentially determining whether the child is a pawn in two adult's hatred of each other or whether the mother's argument has genuine validity.
Do we know what the alternate course is that the mother wants?
So the court is essentially determining whether the child is a pawn in two adult's hatred of each other or whether the mother's argument has genuine validity.
Do we know what the alternate course is that the mother wants?
DonkeyApple said:
Do we know what the alternate course is that the mother wants?
Court Case said:
The suggestions included immunotherapy, radioimmunotherapy, BMCT therapy, molecular targeted therapies involving biological agents, photodynamic therapy, the use of Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors and treatment through diet and lifestyle.
So, basically, hocus pocus.She named the kid 'Neon'
That tells you all you need to know....
Think this also comes down to consent issues as for a child the drs don't need the consent of the parents if the dr feels they are acting in the best interests of the child.
If the mum is refusing to consent for the treatment and the dr feels it is in the best interest for the child then a court order needs to be obtained (I think that's correct)
If the mum is refusing to consent for the treatment and the dr feels it is in the best interest for the child then a court order needs to be obtained (I think that's correct)
Caulkhead said:
Pesty said:
one wants to save the childs life using the best medical practices. The other is a hippy wishy washy mental case who went on the run and probably thinks acupuncture will save him.
^This.REALIST123 said:
Very likely. BBC just showed her leaving Court. She made no comment because "it is understood that she has sold her story to a newspaper".
I can't say you can judge her for that though. If the kid survives then every bit of money will help him. If you can screw a chunk of cash out of a tabloid because they feel it will give chimps a boner then go for it. What she needs is Max Clifford, although that may not be in the kids best interests.
tvrolet said:
I think the problem is that if it's an alternative to a treatment, then it's not actually a treatment.
I have spent too long with immediate family members in and around cancer wards, and while the conventional treatments are often brutal, they do offer the only real hope of recovery or long term survival. If there was something that offered better results, then that's what you'd be offered (notwithstandung the non-availability of certain drugs on the NHS).
I've always assumed it would just be tree huggers and other loons on the fringes that would dismiss the best modern medicine and experience had to offer, but I gather even Steve Jobs shunned the conventional treatment that would have kept him alive.
Now if the arguement was 'I don't want the treatment as it's too intense/disfiguring/upsetting etc., I'd rather the cancer takes it's course and I die from it' I'd understand it. But if the arguement is 'I don't want the treatment as I've some better way of treating the disease', then that strikes me as sheer lunacy.
He did and then regretted it: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/884134...I have spent too long with immediate family members in and around cancer wards, and while the conventional treatments are often brutal, they do offer the only real hope of recovery or long term survival. If there was something that offered better results, then that's what you'd be offered (notwithstandung the non-availability of certain drugs on the NHS).
I've always assumed it would just be tree huggers and other loons on the fringes that would dismiss the best modern medicine and experience had to offer, but I gather even Steve Jobs shunned the conventional treatment that would have kept him alive.
Now if the arguement was 'I don't want the treatment as it's too intense/disfiguring/upsetting etc., I'd rather the cancer takes it's course and I die from it' I'd understand it. But if the arguement is 'I don't want the treatment as I've some better way of treating the disease', then that strikes me as sheer lunacy.
rhinochopig said:
Do you know what they call Alternative Medicine that's been proven to work? Medicine.
With thanks to Tim Minchin.
Or Dara O'Briain's take on it - herbal medicine has been around for a thousand years, and the bits that worked we called 'medicine', and the rest is pot-pourri or a nice bowl of soup.With thanks to Tim Minchin.
Oakey said:
He did and then regretted it: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/884134...
That saga struck me as a sad case of a severe corporate capitalist suddenly believing his own hippy marketing blarney. Very sad when you consider what a great mind he was. She was hiding out a few miles from where I live
http://www.thisissussex.co.uk/Missing-mum-ill-son-...
and taking her Son here
http://www.scotsontechnique.com/
As far as I'm concerned she delayed the child receiving treatments which have proven clinical benefits and may have totally cured him, instead opting for alternative nonsense with as far as I'm aware no proven clinical benefit for brain tumours, all the while giving the tumour more chance to develop.
She was quoted as saying she didn't want her son's personality altered as a result of the radiotherapy, this in itself displays her ignorance of the treatment. Radiation can be delivered incredibly precisely these days with utterly minimal dose hitting surrounding tissue and the idea that her son would be altered as a result of the treatment is fantasy.
Whether or not this is wilful ignorance on her part, a lack of understanding on her part of the treatment or the treatment not being explained correctly by the Oncologists dealing with her son's case is open to debate, but I'm inclined to go with one of the first two options.
http://www.thisissussex.co.uk/Missing-mum-ill-son-...
and taking her Son here
http://www.scotsontechnique.com/
As far as I'm concerned she delayed the child receiving treatments which have proven clinical benefits and may have totally cured him, instead opting for alternative nonsense with as far as I'm aware no proven clinical benefit for brain tumours, all the while giving the tumour more chance to develop.
She was quoted as saying she didn't want her son's personality altered as a result of the radiotherapy, this in itself displays her ignorance of the treatment. Radiation can be delivered incredibly precisely these days with utterly minimal dose hitting surrounding tissue and the idea that her son would be altered as a result of the treatment is fantasy.
Whether or not this is wilful ignorance on her part, a lack of understanding on her part of the treatment or the treatment not being explained correctly by the Oncologists dealing with her son's case is open to debate, but I'm inclined to go with one of the first two options.
Halmyre said:
rhinochopig said:
Do you know what they call Alternative Medicine that's been proven to work? Medicine.
With thanks to Tim Minchin.
Or Dara O'Briain's take on it - herbal medicine has been around for a thousand years, and the bits that worked we called 'medicine', and the rest is pot-pourri or a nice bowl of soup.With thanks to Tim Minchin.
Jasandjules said:
I wonder whether everyone will be happy if the radiotherapy kills him !?!?
what a daft thing to say. The radiotherapy may not work, but it stands a better chance than whatever complementary medicine she is proposing as treatment. In a case where the parents are at loggerheads with one wanting medical treatment, the other not, it is entirely right that he receives treatment.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff