11 year old girl who discontinued chemotherapy for alternative medicine dies

[polak]

The parents should have listened to their doctors who know a lot more about modern medicine than they do. Instead, they decided they know better and here we are.

[Jets4Life]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Holistic and "natural" remedies are so mind-boggingly irresponsible with serious infections and disease. I can't believe people try this route when trained doctors and professional treatments are available and almost certainly with a much higher success rate.

There is actually a somewhat large AIDS denialist movement. 300,000 people passed away in South Africa a decade ago, because some in the Government distributed propaganda to the people, proclaiming HIV did not cause AIDS. Even former boxer Tommy Morrison bought into this theory a year after contacting the disease, and it ultimately cost him his life.

I'm very surprised that the parents of the deceased child did not bother checking into the credentials of the holistic healer. There were many red flags.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by CalgaryFan1988

Again, chemo put the child into ICU. They felt that chemo was killing their child and probably had a very hard time seeing their child suffer like that.

If I was the parent, of course I would have continued the chemo, but I'm sure (given what they know now), the parents would have too.

Doctors aren't always right either, they are human like everyone else.

Personally, we listened to the doctors and (in hindsight) we shouldn't have. Easy to say now, but at the time we trusted their word.

When you say "chemo put her in the ICU", you make it sound like she was perfectly healthy before treatment. Of course that is not true. Chemo is an incredibly difficult thing to go through. It is the introduction of toxins in the body to fight the cancer. As tough as it may seem, it is temporary and as others have said, it would provide a 75% chance of survival rate versus 0%. The critique of the parents and the judicial system has nothing to do with hindsight. It isn't a results based critique, it is how they made that determination in the first place.
I am curious why you said as a parent, "of course" you would have continued treatment.

[CalgaryFan1988]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

When you say "chemo put her in the ICU", you make it sound like she was perfectly healthy before treatment. Of course that is not true. Chemo is an incredibly difficult thing to go through. It is the introduction of toxins in the body to fight the cancer. As tough as it may seem, it is temporary and as others have said, it would provide a 75% chance of survival rate versus 0%. The critique of the parents and the judicial system has nothing to do with hindsight. It isn't a results based critique, it is how they made that determination in the first place.
I am curious why you said as a parent, "of course" you would have continued treatment.

First, you don't have to explain chemo to me. It seems that you think everyone reacts exactly the same to it.

I never suggested she was anything close to fine before, obviously. Not sure how you interpreted that. She wasn't in ICU until after her chemo treatment began, which goes to show how badly she was reacting to the treatment.

I said "of course", because it's what we chose to do when we were in our situation.


.

[old-fart]

I've quoted this before, and I'm certain I'll quote it again whenever someone makes an idiotic choice when it comes to their health and/or (and perhaps more importantly) the health of their child.

Originally Posted by Tim Minchin

By definition ... alternative medicine ... has either not been proved to work, or has been proved not to work. You know what they call alternative medicine that's been proved to work? Medicine.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by CalgaryFan1988

First, you don't have to explain chemo to me. It seems that you think everyone reacts exactly the same to it.

I never suggested she was anything close to fine before, obviously. Not sure how you interpreted that. She wasn't in ICU until after her chemo treatment began, which goes to show how badly she was reacting to the treatment.

I said "of course", because it's what we chose to do when we were in our situation.


.

My point is that you bring up "how badly she was reacting to the treatment" as justification for pulling her out. I disagree, as ICU is simply part of the treatment, not necessarily a result of the treatment. I asked the question regarding what you would do, so as not to put words in your mouth. I too would "of course" keep my child in treatment, because that is the rational thing to do, based on the medical evidence at the time the treatment is going on. Again, nothing to do with hindsight.

[woob]

This whole discussion splits me right down the middle.

On one side, I'm not sure I want to be a society where we force people to subscribe to medical practices they don't believe in or are against. Who are we to decide that a person must be forced to have medical process A performed on them when sure, it may save their life, but that person may struggle with the reason why they lived for the rest of their lives and may not lead a happy life due to that. Regardless of whether the person is Caucasian, Native, Chinese, etc.

But on the other side we have movement likes the anti-vaccine crowd and their claims of what it does to their children, then that jibberish gets spread and people start making poorly informed decisions which affect the well being of their children.

I'd be curious to see what some of you in the "they killed her" camp think about Right To Die laws. To me, it's kind of the same ballpark. How far does a society need to go to ensure people live, if they're having a negative impact on a family unit by forcing someone to live? For sure, the child aspect is different, but the impact on the family can be just as negative.

[afc wimbledon]

I could care less what an adult does, kids should be protected from idiot parents though.

[polak]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

I could care less what an adult does, kids should be protected from idiot parents though.

Couldn't**

[CalgaryFan1988]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

My point is that you bring up "how badly she was reacting to the treatment" as justification for pulling her out. I disagree, as ICU is simply part of the treatment, not necessarily a result of the treatment. I asked the question regarding what you would do, so as not to put words in your mouth. I too would "of course" keep my child in treatment, because that is the rational thing to do, based on the medical evidence at the time the treatment is going on. Again, nothing to do with hindsight.

I agree with you, they obviously made the wrong decision. My meaning was, it is very hard to see someone you love go through chemo. Most people are smart enough to see that the bad is (most of the time) worth it in the long run.

A lot of speculating on my part, but....

From reading the article, I don't think the parents were very educated in the matter. I think they were "sold" on the idea of their child receiving treatment, without having to go through all of the negatives of chemo. I could honestly see how easily the parents could be manipulated into thinking they were doing a good thing, in their moment of weakness.

As far as my "legal" comments earlier, I just think this is a poor case to set legal precedence on.

[polak]

Originally Posted by woob

I'd be curious to see what some of you in the "they killed her" camp think about Right To Die laws. To me, it's kind of the same ballpark. How far does a society need to go to ensure people live, if they're having a negative impact on a family unit by forcing someone to live? For sure, the child aspect is different, but the impact on the family can be just as negative.

I think everyone in this thread has no problem with ADULTS right to refuse treatment.

It's the children we want protected from irresponsible and clueless parents.

Also, this case wouldn't even be subject to the traditional right to die and euthanasia debate since those are pretty clear cut illegal for treatable cases like this one. No doctor in Canada would perform Euthanasia on someone with a 75% - 80% chance of survival.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by CalgaryFan1988

I agree with you, they obviously made the wrong decision. My meaning was, it is very hard to see someone you love go through chemo. Most people are smart enough to see that the bad is (most of the time) worth it in the long run.

A lot of speculating on my part, but....

From reading the article, I don't think the parents were very educated in the matter. I think they were "sold" on the idea of their child receiving treatment, without having to go through all of the negatives of chemo. I could honestly see how easily the parents could be manipulated into thinking they were doing a good thing, in their moment of weakness.

As far as my "legal" comments earlier, I just think this is a poor case to set legal precedence on.

Fair enough. It raises many difficult questions.

[woob]

Originally Posted by polak

I think everyone in this thread has no problem with ADULTS right to refuse treatment.

It's the children we want protected from irresponsible and clueless parents.

Also, this case wouldn't even be subject to the traditional right to die and euthanasia debate since those are pretty clear cut illegal for treatable cases like this one. No doctor in Canada would perform Euthanasia on someone with a 75% - 80% chance of survival.

Are we protecting them or are we saying "you must use medical procedures we say" and if they don't do that then we're taking your child, fixing him/her, and adopting them out since you don't agree with us?

Like I said, I'm split down the middle on this as I know there are idiotic examples out there, but if a parental unit is proven to 100% care for their child, love and provide for them, and show no signs of any neglect, why can they not decide to try alternative methods on their own children? Yes, there are a lot of hoaxy things out there, but we're also starting to see more examples where changing ones diet, exercise, etc is having remarkable effects on certain conditions/diseases.

And I think you misunderstood what I meant by bringing up Right To Die - I did not mean to apply to this situation. Apologies for any confusion.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by woob

This whole discussion splits me right down the middle.

On one side, I'm not sure I want to be a society where we force people to subscribe to medical practices they don't believe in or are against. Who are we to decide that a person must be forced to have medical process A performed on them when sure, it may save their life, but that person may struggle with the reason why they lived for the rest of their lives and may not lead a happy life due to that. Regardless of whether the person is Caucasian, Native, Chinese, etc.

But on the other side we have movement likes the anti-vaccine crowd and their claims of what it does to their children, then that jibberish gets spread and people start making poorly informed decisions which affect the well being of their children.

I'd be curious to see what some of you in the "they killed her" camp think about Right To Die laws. To me, it's kind of the same ballpark. How far does a society need to go to ensure people live, if they're having a negative impact on a family unit by forcing someone to live? For sure, the child aspect is different, but the impact on the family can be just as negative.

I don't think "Right to die laws" are relevant to this discussion.

We can't compare privlages, responsibilites, and laws that are afforded to/affect adults to this situation.

The relevant thing in this situation is that minors are not able to make these sorts of important decisions, and parents have a duty to care for their children and to not endanger them.

If I'm just straight up stupid and don't think it's necessary for an infant to be bundled up in -30 weather becasue I think crystals will keep them warm am I being a responsible parent? Should I not be forced to bundle up my child because I believe in "Alternative Thermodynamics"?

How is that fundamentally differnet than what is going on here?
The parents had two choices:

1) continue with treatment under the advice of a qualified medical staff who have given your daughter a 75% chance of survival, and with the understanding that the treatment is difficult, and things will likely get worse before they get better, but it is very likely your daughte will survive

2) cease treatment and go see some quack. The consequences being that things will get worse, they will not get better, and your daughter will die

Anyone who choses choice 2 is clearly not making a rational decision. It doesn't matter how strongly you belive in your crystals, by using them to keep your kid warm, or to cure her cancer, you are directly responsible for increasing the danger and harm done to your child.

If we all agree someone shouldn't be able to do things like take an infant out in -30 weather under the belief that cyrstals will keep them warm, why should they be able to use them to cure cancer?

[polak]

I think that the government should be able to step in when it's a matter of life and death for the child and there is an overwhelmingly one sided consensus of what treatment the child should recieve amongst medical professionals.

There was no grey area in this situation.

It would be much different if she had very low odds of survival. Then it becomes a very murky issue. Personally I believe that a child has so much life left to live that you should try until the very end but I wouldn't be so quick to jump on the parents if the odds were grim, as I am in this case.

As for the inevitable next question of "okay, at what chance of survival do we intervine?" I don't know. But you sure as hell intervine if it's 75%.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by woob

Are we protecting them or are we saying "you must use medical procedures we say" and if they don't do that then we're taking your child, fixing him/her, and adopting them out since you don't agree with us?

Like I said, I'm split down the middle on this as I know there are idiotic examples out there, but if a parental unit is proven to 100% care for their child, love and provide for them, and show no signs of any neglect, why can they not decide to try alternative methods on their own children? Yes, there are a lot of hoaxy things out there, but we're also starting to see more examples where changing ones diet, exercise, etc is having remarkable effects on certain conditions/diseases.

And I think you misunderstood what I meant by bringing up Right To Die - I did not mean to apply to this situation. Apologies for any confusion.

There is a big differnce between saying "you must use the medical procedures we say" and saying "you have a respnsibiltiy to provide/consent to reasonable medical intervention to save your child's life"

Forgoing a treatment with a 75% chance of success for some quack witch doctor is not reasonable.

[woob]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

There is a big differnce between saying "you must use the medical procedures we say" and saying "you have a respnsibiltiy to provide/consent to reasonable medical intervention to save your child's life"

Forgoing a treatment with a 75% chance of success for some quack witch doctor is not reasonable.

See but you think it's black and white, which many do. I don't. Especially in a case where the society/government/whoever can't see any other signs of neglect. So we're going to go in, take this child away from their parents, put them through the treatment, and then once they're healed put them through the foster care system since we've deemed their parents "unfit"? Great, we saved them but in the process we destroyed a family and this kid could go through a life of bouncing between foster care, group homes or whatever. But by golly we saved the kid!

How else does the scenario play out? Because I think if we step in we are saying at that point these parents are unfit and so you lose your kid. Or we giving the kid back after?

Also, I think you're missing the point where I said I'm split on this as in certain scenarios I do see the other side.

[CalgaryFan1988]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

There is a big differnce between saying "you must use the medical procedures we say" and saying "you have a respnsibiltiy to provide/consent to reasonable medical intervention to save your child's life"

Forgoing a treatment with a 75% chance of success for some quack witch doctor is not reasonable.

I think we can all agree that this "witch doctor" is a quack.

I'd be curious to know how many people think "a cure is out there, but the government and doctors don't want us to know about it".

Many believe it, which leads to people believing these "witch doctors".

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by polak

I think everyone in this thread has no problem with ADULTS right to refuse treatment.

It's the children we want protected from irresponsible and clueless parents.

I agree with you that children do need protection in some cases when parents shows neglect or can not care and provide for a child.

I do not agree that parent`s rights to make decisions for their families and children should be taken away because they don`t necessarily agree with a proposed method of treatment. We don`t need government to be stepping in and making decisions on every single case or every single matter.

There is a somewhat related flip side to this discussion and that is with regards to the government not providing care or treatment for sick kids. There have been recent cases in Canada where various treatments or drugs are not provided by the health care program which could save lives but the government won`t step up to the plate to support the families and take care of the costs. Why should the government be deciding who lives and who dies?

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by woob

See but you think it's black and white, which many do. I don't. Especially in a case where the society/government/whoever can't see any other signs of neglect. So we're going to go in, take this child away from their parents, put them through the treatment, and then once they're healed put them through the foster care system since we've deemed their parents "unfit"? Great, we saved them but in the process we destroyed a family and this kid could go through a life of bouncing between foster care, group homes or whatever. But by golly we saved the kid!

How else does the scenario play out? Because I think if we step in we are saying at that point these parents are unfit and so you lose your kid. Or we giving the kid back after?

Also, I think you're missing the point where I said I'm split on this as in certain scenarios I do see the other side.

That bolded part is BY FAR the most important part of this scenario. Your statement is pretty implicitly saying "Hey, things could be really bad for this kid if she lived, so maybe she's better off dead, we don't know that"

Would anyone ever ask that question if there were completely unfit parents who were not feeding the kid, or were abusive? Sometimes there are situations where we have to weigh the consequences of intervening vs the consequences of inaction. In this case we have the certainly of death, vs the possibility of an unhappy childhood, and unadjusted adulthood.
I'll take those odds 100% of the time.


In this case, perhaps the kid could be sent back to their parents, perhaps not. There's a chance these people are good parents who have been swindled to believe their child has a chance with the witch doctor, in that case, if there is no further danger to the child, then sure, the kid can go home. We have no way of knowing how this would have played out beause her parents decided, "meh, this treatment thing is hard on her (and probably them too), best to just let her die"