Court forcing 16 yr old with cancer into chemo

Alex · 05-22-2007, 09:34 PM

A bit of a resurrect. But I'm curious on how this story does or doesn't affect anybody's opinion.

What impact does the fact that the boy was 7 play in how you feel about the story as opposed to late teens in our original discussion?

Does it matter that there isn't an ideological reason for abandoning the chemotherapy (as with Christian Scientists and JW's on blood issues) but rather just being taken in by a quack?

Just to state the obvious, obviously there is no way of knowing that he would have lived any longer (or even as long) had the recommended course been followed.

Kevy Baby · 05-22-2007, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

...but rather just being taken in by a quack?

Do you believe that all holistic treatments are "quack?"

wendybeth · 05-22-2007, 10:57 PM

I have to admit, I am terribly conflicted on this issue. To me, it's all so ironic because I wanted our MD to perform a very traditional surgery on Tori when it became obvious to nearly all that she wasn't responding to antibiotics. He allowed himself to be pressured by the HMO to not refer her to a surgeon, and by the time I circumvented their asses and got her in the damage was done. Now, we have a case where the parents want to go against traditional medicine, and they get the same fight.

You brought up a good point, Alex- did the non-traditional treatment help or hinder in this child's case, and what was responsible for the brevity/longevity of his life, post-treatment? I suppose only those close to the case know with any certainty.

Alex · 05-22-2007, 10:58 PM

Insofar as they are unscientific, yes. If they have subjected themselves to proper clinical study and been proven effective, then no.

Telling a set of parents that diet and supplements are the way to keep their child in remission from cancer (a remission caused by the chemo), definitely so.

If you claim to know something works without any objective evidence to support that claim, then even if you should later be proven correct you've been engaging in quackery.

05-22-2007, 09:34 PM	#1
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	A bit of a resurrect. But I'm curious on how this story does or doesn't affect anybody's opinion. What impact does the fact that the boy was 7 play in how you feel about the story as opposed to late teens in our original discussion? Does it matter that there isn't an ideological reason for abandoning the chemotherapy (as with Christian Scientists and JW's on blood issues) but rather just being taken in by a quack? Just to state the obvious, obviously there is no way of knowing that he would have lived any longer (or even as long) had the recommended course been followed.
	Submit to Quotes

05-22-2007, 10:57 PM	#3
wendybeth Nevermind Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,847	I have to admit, I am terribly conflicted on this issue. To me, it's all so ironic because I wanted our MD to perform a very traditional surgery on Tori when it became obvious to nearly all that she wasn't responding to antibiotics. He allowed himself to be pressured by the HMO to not refer her to a surgeon, and by the time I circumvented their asses and got her in the damage was done. Now, we have a case where the parents want to go against traditional medicine, and they get the same fight. You brought up a good point, Alex- did the non-traditional treatment help or hinder in this child's case, and what was responsible for the brevity/longevity of his life, post-treatment? I suppose only those close to the case know with any certainty. __________________
	Submit to Quotes

05-22-2007, 10:58 PM	#4
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Insofar as they are unscientific, yes. If they have subjected themselves to proper clinical study and been proven effective, then no. Telling a set of parents that diet and supplements are the way to keep their child in remission from cancer (a remission caused by the chemo), definitely so. If you claim to know something works without any objective evidence to support that claim, then even if you should later be proven correct you've been engaging in quackery.
	Submit to Quotes