Virginia teen fights for right to pick Hodgkin's treatment

[ginshun]

Last time I checked, chemo was not a cure for cancer, if it was, we wouldn't be spending millions every year looking for a cure.

Now if this was a case of the kid taking a pill and him being cured 100% of the time, that would be one thing, but that is not the case. The government is trying to force a person into an extremely painful treatment that has no guarentee of working.

Hodgkins is special in that the cure rate is very high for younger people that are diagnosed with it, so that may have played into the disision, but still, IMO its the families, not the courts place to diside what treatment (if any) an individual should recieve.

 

[Marginal]

Is the herbal diet is just as effective as chemo, seeing as how it's not a cure either? Seems to me I remember reading about a lot of people going with, and dying with that particular route.

Push the cancer into remission, or die chugging herbs?

 

[shesulsa]

Here's the deal:

Once you go through one round of chemo and regress, your prognosis for longevity and chance of a second remission drops a lot. The article originally referenced didn't indicate what stage of Hodgkin's the boy is in. If he's in stage three or higher, his chances of surviving the next round of chemo and radiation (or for much time beyond it) are minimal.

For the medically minded, here are some research abstracts and articles on hodgkins, aggressive allopathic treatments and prognoses.

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Blood - Journal of the American Society of Hematology

Hematology - American Society of Hematology Program Book

American Journal of Clinical Oncology

Happy reading ....

 

[OUMoose]

Is the herbal diet is just as effective as chemo, seeing as how it's not a cure either? Seems to me I remember reading about a lot of people going with, and dying with that particular route.

Push the cancer into remission, or die chugging herbs?

If he wants to die chugging herbs, and his LEGAL GUARDIANS are ok with it, who are you to tell him otherwise? No one is arguing that the herbal supplement is any better, however the choice should be his, not the courts. Period.

 

[OUMoose]

Here's the deal:

Once you go through one round of chemo and regress, your prognosis for longevity and chance of a second remission drops a lot. The article originally referenced didn't indicate what stage of Hodgkin's the boy is in. If he's in stage three or higher, his chances of surviving the next round of chemo and radiation (or for much time beyond it) are minimal.

For the medically minded, here are some research abstracts and articles on hodgkins, aggressive allopathic treatments and prognoses.

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Blood - Journal of the American Society of Hematology

Hematology - American Society of Hematology Program Book

American Journal of Clinical Oncology

Happy reading ....

That doesn't answer the question at the root of the issue. He could be in stage 1, 2, 3, or 8987234987124 for all we know. :idunno: Going by that logic, should someone in stage 1 have more or less rights to their own body than someone in stage 2 or 3?

If it's more, what happens to the more progressed patients? Are they going to be systematically stripped of their dignity and personal preference? Do we say "Oh, you're in stage 1? You've got a decent chance so do what you like. Stage 2? Oh crap, you don't know what you're doing and we'll take over..."

If it's less, what does it say about us? "Stage 1? You have the best chance of survival so we're doing everything we can whether you like it or not! Stage 2? Pfft. You're a gonner anyways so good luck..."

Plus, after re-reading the article (and granted, I might have missed it), who's footing the bill for this treatment? are they forcing the parents to pay? Are the taxpayers picking up the tab?

This boils down to the state interfering in a family issue that they really have nothing to say about. If the parents were neglecting, beating, or abusing the kid in some way, sure, step in and help. This is not such a case.

 

[shesulsa]

That doesn't answer the question at the root of the issue. He could be in stage 1, 2, 3, or 8987234987124 for all we know. :idunno: Going by that logic, should someone in stage 1 have more or less rights to their own body than someone in stage 2 or 3?

If it's more, what happens to the more progressed patients? Are they going to be systematically stripped of their dignity and personal preference? Do we say "Oh, you're in stage 1? You've got a decent chance so do what you like. Stage 2? Oh crap, you don't know what you're doing and we'll take over..."

If it's less, what does it say about us? "Stage 1? You have the best chance of survival so we're doing everything we can whether you like it or not! Stage 2? Pfft. You're a gonner anyways so good luck..."

I was really posting the articles in the interest of introducing things this family may have read which indicates his chances aren't the best anyway and may have shaped his decision. His choice should be his and his family's choice.

Plus, after re-reading the article (and granted, I might have missed it), who's footing the bill for this treatment? are they forcing the parents to pay? Are the taxpayers picking up the tab?

Most likely the parents since they're financially responsible for him.

This boils down to the state interfering in a family issue that they really have nothing to say about. If the parents were neglecting, beating, or abusing the kid in some way, sure, step in and help. This is not such a case.

The real problem is who gets to decide what abuse is. Is allowing the boy to make his own researched but young opinion which could end his life tantamount to neglect and, hence, abuse? I'm sure that the tack taken will be somewhere along those lines. Or is forcing this boy to endure much higher dosages of radiation, chemotherapy and other allopathic cancer treatments which he may or may not survive and which may or may not successfully treat his cancer tantamount to abuse by the medical establishment and governmental powers?

 

[Marginal]

If he wants to die chugging herbs, and his LEGAL GUARDIANS are ok with it, who are you to tell him otherwise?

So basically, if his parents are cool with him sticking a gun to his head, why should anyone criticise them?

 

[shesulsa]

So basically, if his parents are cool with him sticking a gun to his head, why should anyone criticise them?

So are you equating an informed choice on one's own cancer treatment with a psychologically damaged state?

 

[Ping898]

So basically, if his parents are cool with him sticking a gun to his head, why should anyone criticise them?

Yes, well for all we know the state is sticking a gun to his head as well. What it seems like keeps getting ignored is although the chemo/radiation may be the best medical treatment, there is no garuntee that he won't die anyways and have a lot worse time of it that if he followed the treatment plan he's choosen.

 

[Marginal]

So are you equating an informed choice on one's own cancer treatment with a psychologically damaged state?

I don't beleive for a second that everyone that kills themselves is in a psychologically damaged state.

 

[Cryozombie]

Is the herbal diet is just as effective as chemo, seeing as how it's not a cure either? Seems to me I remember reading about a lot of people going with, and dying with that particular route.

Push the cancer into remission, or die chugging herbs?

You believe in the Government's right to make Motorcyclists wear helmets, and Car drivers wear their seatbelts, don't you?

 

[Marginal]

Don't forget cell phone using drivers. They need bannage with a quickness.

I would call it a governmental obligation instead of a right. If people are too stupid to do things that prevent them from serious bobily harm, and potentially push the burden of their future care onto the public at large, then they've already demonstrated that they're incapable of reaching an informed decision on their own. Why would you want to leave it up to them at that point? Far better usage of our collective will towards nannystate-ism vs regulation of gay marriage and flag burning amendments.

But really, I just wanted to scoff at herbal voodoo cancer treatments.

 

[OUMoose]

I would call it a governmental obligation instead of a right. If people are too stupid to do things that prevent them from serious bobily harm, and potentially push the burden of their future care onto the public at large, then they've already demonstrated that they're incapable of reaching an informed decision on their own. Why would you want to leave it up to them at that point?

Yes, because we know the gov't knows exactly what's good for us. *rolls eyes*

As has been repeatedly stated, the kid knows what's going to happen. He's been through chemo once, and it did go into remission. The disease came back, so he wanted to try a different route. He researched it, his parents were ok with it, and they were footing it. If it didn't work, it's natural selection at work. If it did, all the better. Nowhere in that line of thought do the words gov't or social services come in at all.

Try putting yourself in that kid's shoes. You have a terminal illness. The established treatment has failed. You research an alternative treatment, because you're really just beginning your life and don't want to give up. You reach a decision and commit to it, and the government steps in from out of nowhere and says you have no choice in your treatment, and that you have to subject yourself to a painful and debilitating procedure against your will that you know is futile.

Does that sound like a "good" idea to you? The thing cancer patients need most is hope, and it saddens me greatly to think that "the man" can swoop in and crush it so carelessly and on a whim.

 

[FearlessFreep]

You believe in the Government's right to make Motorcyclists wear helmets, and Car drivers wear their seatbelts, don't you?

Not sure if you are being sarcastic or not, but I don't. : )

I'm not a suicidal idiot; I wear my seatbelt every single time I'm in a vehicle and if I rode a motorcycle I would wear helmet, but I don't think the Goct. should make itr a law requiring one to do so

 

[Marginal]

Yes, because we know the gov't knows exactly what's good for us. *rolls eyes*

When it comes to using a helmet while on a motorcycle, it's a no brainer. (Unless you prefer to crack your skull, which is plainly stupid.)

As has been repeatedly stated, the kid knows what's going to happen. He's been through chemo once, and it did go into remission. The disease came back, so he wanted to try a different route.

The treatment did make the disease go away for a time. The herbal treatment can't even claim that much.

He researched it, his parents were ok with it, and they were footing it. If it didn't work, it's natural selection at work.

I'd nominate him for a Darwin award yes, but that's hardly an example of natural selection.

Try putting yourself in that kid's shoes. You have a terminal illness. The established treatment has failed.

Interesting spin. The treatment didn't fail. It worked just as the doctors said it would. There's always a chance that the cancer will return.

You research an alternative treatment, because you're really just beginning your life and don't want to give up.

So you choose a nutjob herb shack. Obviously, this was carefully researched.

 

[Cryozombie]

So you choose a nutjob herb shack. Obviously, this was carefully researched.

Ok, so I take it then you are of the school that says herbalizm = quackary.

 

[Marginal]

It frequently is. (In the case of the Mexico clinic, their treatment has not demonstrated any capacity for pushing cancer into remissions etc.) Along those same lines, I suppose that the lady that suffocated that girl in a blanket during "rebirthing" or the guy who killed his cancer patient with hydrogen peroxide injections really should get a free pass though since it was the "right" of the people involved to do meticilous research and come up with the very best treatment options they could find.

 

[OUMoose]

It frequently is. (In the case of the Mexico clinic, their treatment has not demonstrated any capacity for pushing cancer into remissions etc.) Along those same lines, I suppose that the lady that suffocated that girl in a blanket during "rebirthing" or the guy who killed his cancer patient with hydrogen peroxide injections really should get a free pass though since it was the "right" of the people involved to do meticilous research and come up with the very best treatment options they could find.

You seem to be focusing on a non-issue. The treatment in question is not the problem. The fact that the gov't attempted to enforce a decision they had no right to, is. Malpractice is always an issue, and should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. A government is there to represent its people, not think for it.

Also, I have seen first-hand what chemo and radiation does to a person. I had an immediate relative die from hodgkin's. I would not wish that pain and suffering on my worse enemy, let alone a 16 year old kid I don't know from Adam.

Just think about your point of view when big brother comes for you in your golden years because they don't like the way you've been keeping yourself...

 

[Marginal]

Just think about your point of view when big brother comes for you in your golden years because they don't like the way you've been keeping yourself...

Just from watching my grandparents die last year, it's clear the state's protections on self-cognizance (even when both of the golden agers are riddles with dimensia, and incapable of caring for themselves anymore.) the state's more than happy to let you kill yourself. and drag your spouse down with you.