Would you help someone get treatments you think are bunk?

[burnin_vernon]

I recently lost my sister to cancer. She had been sick for years with lupus and she didn't believe in alternative therapy. I honestly don't know if I do or not but when she was given a short time to live, I thought it was worth a try. It's a sensitive topic but I had to say how I felt. While she was touched at my show of care, she felt it was her time to go, and declined.

Anyways, the point is, if your neighbor wants to fight, I say support it if you can. I've heard many stories of patients overcoming impossible odds via alternative therapy. Whether it is all in the mind or not, if it works, who cares? Some people fight with more strength when they have a little hope. If she is that kind of person, natural treatments may be the shove she needs.

[j_j]

If they are going to go ahead with it whether you contribute/support it or not, then you arn't really enabling the "quackery," you are helping to lessen the burden associated with the way the parents are trying to deal with their sorrow and desperation.

So yeah, if you have the means to help make the hole they dig themselves a little less deep, you should consider it.

[Table 5]

I think a lot of these treatments are more for psychological purposes, and often times they simply help someone to feel better. Even if it does absolutely nothing to change your prognosis, that can be a big benefit. I've had a friend who have sent her mom to Mexico to one of these medical resorts, and she came back reenergized and with her personality back. Has it done something for her prognosis? Chances are, no. But they feel like it made all the difference, so it was worth it.

Personally, I've laid out my plan to my wife if I'm in a terminal situation.
1) Grieve for a day or two. Then get over it.
2) Blow almost all savings/RRSP and buy the most expensively awesome car that money can get me (being many years from now, I hope, by that point it can equal to something like a Ferrari 458 Italia).
3) Enjoy the crap out of it for as long as I can and travel as much as possible. Hopefully at least a few months.
4) Go to Rockyview Hospital and hopefully get a room that overlooks the Reservoir and spend some time in the garden looking at nice sunsets.
5)Die.
6) Have my wife sell the car, and still get a good 80-90% of the value out of it, and she can live happily ever after.

I might not be able to stretch out my existence to it's max, but I'd rather die happy.

[CGY12]

"When you are in the final days of your life, what will you want? Will you hug that college degree in the walnut frame? Will you ask to be carried to the garage so you can sit in your car? Will you find comfort in rereading your financial statement? Of course not. What will matter then will be people. If relationships will matter most then, shouldn't they matter most now?" — Max Lucado

Money comes and goes, giving this girl hope, even if its just a little is priceless and something you can't put a value on. I say donate what you can afford.

[firebug]

My issue with providing financial support in a situation like this is it enriches the fraudsters allowing them the funding to then sell more bogus 'hope' to others with similar prognoses.

Even if it is $20 or $100, wouldn't you be more comfortable (and ethical) to find something that not only might provide some tangible benefit (whether it be hope, health or pleasure) but wouldn't at the same time enable the uncouth to profit from other's suffering.

[To Be Quite Honest]

Originally Posted by Ashartus

I thought about posting this in the naturopath thread but it might get lost there.

I find myself with a bit of a dilemma. A neighbour's teenage daughter has cancer. She's basically exhausted all of the approved treatments and the prognosis really isn't very good from what information I have. Now her family is trying to raise funds for her to get some "alternative" treatments, possibly in Europe or Mexico, after talking to a naturopath.

As those who know me are probably aware, I'm not exactly a supporter of alternative medicine. I don't have exact details on the treatments she's pursuing (and I don't think they've reached a final decision), but the limited information I've got indicates at least some of it is well into the realm of quackery. So I'm highly skeptical that these treatments will actually treat her cancer, but at the same time she's at the point where she considers this to be her only hope.

Do I:
- Help her out and keep my mouth shut, knowing that the treatments are probably bunk and I might be making quacks richer, but that her feeling some hope might at least make her days a bit brighter.
- Help her out but say that I think the treatments are nonsense, possibly generating some bad feelings.
- Avoid helping out and hope no one notices and that my wife doesn't get too mad at me for being an uncaring selfish monster?

There are doctors out there that help fight cancer successfully through natural means. Watch "forks over knives"; it's pretty neat and a lot of work has gone into it, but it doesn't make money so it's hard to get exposure. I get a kick out of the posts here. Yes, western medicine is the only answer and everything else is a joke... That is a joke in itself.

[kirant]

Originally Posted by Canada 02

funny, the real medicines did not ellicit a positive placebo effect, but the fake ones will?

Real ones do too. The difference is that there is a noticable difference between the crowd with the placebo and the crowd with the real drug.

Let's say the condition of the patient can be quantified by a value from 0 to 1, 0 being on death's door and 1 being perfectly healthy. Before taking any treatmnent, the patients average .40. After taking placebos, the patients on sugar pills are rating life at .50, but so are the patients taking the experimental drug. There's no noticable effect of the drug, only the effect of feeling better knowing you're taking something. That's the placebo effect. If the patients taking the drug were rating at .70 and it is across the board with consistent evaluations which state that they're doing better than patients taking nothing helpful, then there is some experimental proof that it's better than a placebo and, barring negative effects, may get classified as a "real drug".

It's all hypothetical above (we can't easily quantify a patient with such a simple number. The closest thing is quality adjusted life years), but the mindset and the process is how drugs are considered able. The effect of taking a drug will act differently than a placebo.

More on topic, I'd talk to the family first and explain that, while you think it's bunk, see what they think and why they believe it's valuable to them (as well as why conventional treatments failed). If they're absolutely convinced, I'd be fine giving a little money to help improve their daughter's last few years/months/weeks (I'm not sure about the level of progression she's at) by giving them something to live by (hope, if the treatment decided on actually is not helpful).

[MarchHare]

Yes, western medicine is the only answer and everything else is a joke... That is a joke in itself.

If I ever developed cancer, I wouldn't care if I received an ancient remedy from China or a cutting-edge treatment from researchers at Johns Hopkins. What I would care about, though, is knowing that any treatment I received was shown to be effective in properly-designed clinical studies in which the results were published and scrutinized for peer review in a reputable medical journal.

This is not an issue of East vs. West or traditional vs. modern. It's proper medical science vs. quackery.

[normtwofinger]

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

I get a kick out of the posts here. Yes, western medicine is the only answer and everything else is a joke... That is a joke in itself.

Quoted for awesomeness.

[To Be Quite Honest]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

If I ever developed cancer, I wouldn't care if I received an ancient remedy from China or a cutting-edge treatment from researchers at John's Hopkins. What I would care about, though, is knowing that any treatment I received was shown to be effective in properly-designed clinical studies in which the results were published and scrutinized for peer review in a reputable medical journal.

This is not an issue of East vs. West or traditional vs. modern. It's proper medical science vs. quackery.

And watch "Forks over Knives".

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

And watch "Forks over Knives".

The description on wikipedia makes it sound like Forks over Knives is a documentary about the preventative health benefits of changing one's diet to avoid processed foods. What does that have to do with medical science vs. "traditional cures"?

[To Be Quite Honest]

If that's all your going to do to get the information then I guess you'll never know.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by bossy22

My father went to Mexico after doctors told him to get his affairs in order and said treatment wasn't going to help. They gave him 2 months tops to live. He went to the clinic in Mexico because of the success Jamie Platz had, the young boy the oilers helped send there. (Jamie's cancer came back a couple years later and he passed away). Anyways my dad lived another 2 years before he passed. Did Mexico really help? Was it Placebo? Who knows. All I know is I got an extra 2 years with my dad.

The problem is that it is impossible to prove whether or not your dad would have gotten those 2 years with or without Mexico.

And that is the heart of the issue here. Regardless of the treatment she receives, the results cannot be proven one way or another to be because of the alternative methods.

Maybe she gets no alternative treatment and lives for another 2 years. Or maybe she gets the alternative treatment and dies tomorrow. IT doesn't really matter what the outcome is because there is no way to attribute the results to the alternative medicine.

At the end of the day I think the treatment boils down to personal choice (obvious, I know).

[bossy22]

Nm

[bossy22]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

The problem is that it is impossible to prove whether or not your dad would have gotten those 2 years with or without Mexico.

And that is the heart of the issue here. Regardless of the treatment she receives, the results cannot be proven one way or another to be because of the alternative methods.

Maybe she gets no alternative treatment and lives for another 2 years. Or maybe she gets the alternative treatment and dies tomorrow. IT doesn't really matter what the outcome is because there is no way to attribute the results to the alternative medicine.

At the end of the day I think the treatment boils down to personal choice (obvious, I know).

This is true. But it gave us hope when the doctors here gave us none.

I'm not saying he should help. It's his money. He worked hard for it, and it's his choice. I was just telling my experience. People need hope sometimes, because sometimes that's all weve got.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by bossy22

This is true. But it gave us hope when the doctors here gave us none.

I'm not saying he should help. It's his money. He worked hard for it, and it's his choice. I was just telling my experience. People need hope sometimes, because sometimes that's all weve got.

Exactly. In a trying time so called "wacky" treatments are just part of the process to maintain some semblence of hope.

I certainly wasn't trying to bash alternative treatments or praise them.

[puckluck2]

It might not help the daughter but at least she will die and her parents will FEEL they did everything possible to help her and live without guilt.

[Zevo]

So OP, how much are we talking about contributing. 50, 100, 200, 500, 1000? Give us a ballpark figure.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

If I ever developed cancer, I wouldn't care if I received an ancient remedy from China or a cutting-edge treatment from researchers at Johns Hopkins. What I would care about, though, is knowing that any treatment I received was shown to be effective in properly-designed clinical studies in which the results were published and scrutinized for peer review in a reputable medical journal.

This is not an issue of East vs. West or traditional vs. modern. It's proper medical science vs. quackery.

It is not binary. That which is not (your definition of) medical science does not immediately qualify as quackery.

[morgin]

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

There are doctors out there that help fight cancer successfully through natural means.

No, there aren't. Not any that have been able to demonstrate this scientifically and that doing nothing would have had a worse effect than the natural means.

If you are suggesting that improving ones diet can contribute to improving health, that's cool. Pretty sure no one will dispute that. Not going to cure your cancer by drinking carrot shakes instead of eating big macs, but you might get your body into better shape to prolong the fight. If you're saying there are doctors who have proven that "natural" treatments have demonstrated the ability to slow or destroy cancer cells as well as or better than current "accepted" treatment methods, no, there aren't.