Quote:
Originally Posted by Morrigoon
My guess is the chemo might not have saved him the first go-around. Consider he was on chemo for 3 1/2 months, then pulled off, the cancer came back, they put him back on chemo, and he eventually died. So chemo didn't save him either. I know the question will be "What if he'd stayed on chemo the first time?", but I still this his survival was in question either way.
|
Perhaps, and I admitted as much. But the cancer did not recur until taken off of the planned 2 year treatment course.
But regardless of whether he would have died anyway, in the original conversation the fact that the boy was playing a role in making the decision seemed important. So I am curious where we fall when the child obviously is not mature enough to participate in that decision. Is it still entirely the parents' decision? And if so, is there a failure of treatment so egregious to overcome it? For example, what if instead of preferring holistic therapy (whatever that meant in this context) to chemotherapy the parents just said "You know, its kind of like the decision we faced with fluffy last year. $5,000 seemed to much for saving a cat's life and $250,000 is just too much money, as much as we love the boy we may need that money later and we can get a new kid. Want to see a picture of Whiskers?"
As is so often the case, I'm trying to explore whether there is a line, and if so, how fuzzy is it?