Mother charged with attempted murder taking her son off chemotherapy drugs

[rambone]

Medical tyranny... happening more frequently. This trend really scares me.

A mother of an autistic son with non-Hodgkins lymphoma, went along with 4 our of 5 stages of the cancer treatment that doctors recommended. However, she discontinued the chemotherapy drugs when she saw her son's health deteriorating.

As some of you may know, chemotherapy kills around 1/3 of people who take it -- buts the deaths are always attributed to cancer, not poisonous drugs. Chemo wipes out your immune system when you need it the most. It kills 499 healthy cells for every 1 cancer cell. Chemo will go the way of bloodletting someday, into the WTF Encyclopedia of Quack Science.



Now the mom, looking out for her son's well-being, is being charged with attempted murder and 3 other charges.

The State has spoken. Take your drugs, slave!

Mother of cancer-stricken son on trial for failing to give him medicine

​

 

[dross]

Based on the article, murder is a ridiculous charge for this situation.

 

[eldirector]

As some of you may know, chemotherapy kills around 1/3 of people who take it -- buts the deaths are always attributed to cancer, not poisonous drugs. Chemo wipes out your immune system when you need it the most. It kills 499 healthy cells for every 1 cancer cell. Chemo will go the way of bloodletting someday, into the WTF Encyclopedia of Quack Science.

You had me until that. Mixing issues, again.Now, instead of being aggravated with the State and having empathy for this child, I am annoyed with the "presentation" of the issue, and slightly confused about what the issue actually is.

Clear concise arguments, solid facts, and a lack of rhetoric might have sold me.

 

[dross]

You had me until that. Mixing issues, again.Now, instead of being aggravated with the State and having empathy for this child, I am annoyed with the "presentation" of the issue, and slightly confused about what the issue actually is.

Clear concise arguments, solid facts, and a lack of rhetoric might have sold me.

Agreed. It's one thing for a parent to make the choice for her child. It's another to refuse to acknowledge that chemo has been proven to save some people from cancer. One doesn't have to be demonized to protect the other.

 

[rambone]

You had me until that. Mixing issues, again.Now, instead of being aggravated with the State and having empathy for this child, I am annoyed with the "presentation" of the issue, and slightly confused about what the issue actually is.

Clear concise arguments, solid facts, and a lack of rhetoric might have sold me.

I'm just saying that not everyone agrees with the treatment. So it could be me or many others like me getting thrown in prison.

Its easy to demonize the mother when people believe that every doctor recommendation is the best thing for the patient. Not always the case.

 

[88GT]

You had me until that. Mixing issues, again.Now, instead of being aggravated with the State and having empathy for this child, I am annoyed with the "presentation" of the issue, and slightly confused about what the issue actually is.

Clear concise arguments, solid facts, and a lack of rhetoric might have sold me.

How about this: a mother is being charged with murder for not choosing the "appropriate" medical treatment?

 

[88GT]

Agreed. It's one thing for a parent to make the choice for her child. It's another to refuse to acknowledge that chemo has been proven to save some people from cancer. One doesn't have to be demonized to protect the other.

It can't be demonized on its own merits?

 

[dross]

I'm just saying that not everyone agrees with the treatment. So it could be me or many others like me getting thrown in prison.

Its easy to demonize the mother when people believe that every doctor recommendation is the best thing for the patient. Not always the case.

Bloodletting worked for some patients.

Every medical treatment will eventually go into the bin and be looked at as barbaric.

I'm looking forward to when Dr. McCoy can run that scanner over me and tell me what's wrong with no intrusion. He was always talking about the barbaric pracices of the 20th century, remember? Unless, however, we can transport ourselves ahead in time, we'll be using our best choices available today, in this century.

You should consider going to medical school, and hurrying up the process.

 

[dross]

It can't be demonized on its own merits?

Sure it can, but that would appear to be a different thread. Unless his argument was that the mother was justified BECAUSE chemo is a bad type of treatment, in which case this thread is about chemo. I thought he was trying to argue that a parent shouldn't have a treatment dictated regardless of the treatment's efficacy.

If he's arguing both, this is going to be a complicated thread.

 

[88GT]

Bloodletting worked for some patients.

Every medical treatment will eventually go into the bin and be looked at as barbaric.

I'm looking forward to when Dr. McCoy can run that scanner over me and tell me what's wrong with no intrusion. He was always talking about the barbaric pracices of the 20th century, remember? Unless, however, we can transport ourselves ahead in time, we'll be using our best choices available today, in this century.

You should consider going to medical school, and hurrying up the process.

The problem isn't with the fact that our current best might later be considered inadequate or even harmful. It's that because our current best is the only option considered acceptable and there's a serious lack of public scrutiny and a ridiculous level of trust in doctors to do what's best for the patient. As a former cancer patient, I'm living the consequences of that every day....and I consider myself much more aware and educated than the average medical patient.

 

[steveh_131]

Bloodletting worked for some patients.

Every medical treatment will eventually go into the bin and be looked at as barbaric.

I'm looking forward to when Dr. McCoy can run that scanner over me and tell me what's wrong with no intrusion. He was always talking about the barbaric pracices of the 20th century, remember? Unless, however, we can transport ourselves ahead in time, we'll be using our best choices available today, in this century.

You should consider going to medical school, and hurrying up the process.

I agree with all of this.

However, the majority of the population accepts standard medical practices as absolute truth. If someone doesn't speak out and present the other side of the story, then why would the medical industry bother trying to come up with better ways to do things?

New inventions don't come about until their existing alternatives are proven to have problems.

 

[dross]

The problem isn't with the fact that our current best might later be considered inadequate or even harmful. It's that because our current best is the only option considered acceptable and there's a serious lack of public scrutiny and a ridiculous level of trust in doctors to do what's best for the patient. As a former cancer patient, I'm living the consequences of that every day....and I consider myself much more aware and educated than the average medical patient.

Fair enough, you no doubt know much more about the specifics of cancer treatment than I.

So, is chemo always a bad choice for treatment?

As an aside, I don't trust doctors except that I must. I don't know what they know, and I can't efficiently learn it in time to diagnose myself and treat myself in a timely manner. The best I can do is research the pros and cons of what they tell me, and get other doctors' opinions.

 

[eldirector]

New inventions don't come about until their existing alternatives are proven to have problems.

Something doesn't have to be BAD, for the next thing to be BETTER.

 

[redneckmedic]

WOW, I don't where to start with this. Lets start with the positive

Now the mom, looking out for her son's well-being, is being charged with attempted murder and 3 other charges.

This is a true tradgetiy, I agree. Parents have the rights to make any decision for their children as long as they aren't causing them harm. That is very hard to translate in some folks mind. Child abuse is causing harm.... is refusing medical treatment? What about low % "life saving" treatment. I think mom has the moral and ethical power to make this decision for her family without the powers at be criminally prosecuting her, however now we get into the doctor kevorkian Debate.

As some of you may know, chemotherapy kills around 1/3 of people who take it -- buts the deaths are always attributed to cancer, not poisonous drugs. Chemo wipes out your immune system when you need it the most. It kills 499 healthy cells for every 1 cancer cell. Chemo will go the way of bloodletting someday, into the WTF Encyclopedia of Quack Science.

This is just not true. If you had any idea how cancer worked, how chemo worked you would quite posting incorrect information. Chemo is cytotoxic, that is true. You immune system getting wiped out is a very important part of the treatment. Cancer is a very special animal, you can't make blanket statement about medicine when you are ignorant to the pathophysiology.

Now, I will say this, Chemo is very hard on the body, and does cause harm, call it collateral damage. There are breakthroughs that help, like isolated chemo treatment.

BTW bloodletting is still used today and is backed by Evidence Based Practice, along with lobotomies, which folks think is also bad science. Every treatment has its place, its just not every place.

 

[steveh_131]

Something doesn't have to be BAD, for the next thing to be BETTER.

I don't believe I said anything to the contrary.

However, I doubt anyone would deny that there are PLENTY of "bad" things about chemotherapy.

 

[rambone]

Sure it can, but that would appear to be a different thread. Unless his argument was that the mother was justified BECAUSE chemo is a bad type of treatment, in which case this thread is about chemo. I thought he was trying to argue that a parent shouldn't have a treatment dictated regardless of the treatment's efficacy.

If he's arguing both, this is going to be a complicated thread.

You KNOW I am, good buddy!!

I don't like the idea of dictated medicine for anything. It will trample the rights of the conscientious objectors, the religious objectors, the alternative health seekers, and of course, the Amish.

It is inconsequential that the treatment in question is Chemotherapy, but it just makes it 'icing on the cake' as far as I'm concerned. Chemo is horrific in my opinion. Dr. Ralph Moss writes that only 2-4% of cancer cases respond to chemotherapy in the first place. The number of people who survive because of chemotherapy should not be confused with those who survive in spite of it.

Amazon.com: Questioning Chemotherapy (9781881025252): Ralph W. Moss: Books

 

[rambone]

This brings me back to a question I posed in a similar discussion.

Should the definition of "child neglect" change with time?


Not so long ago, this mother wouldn't have been questioned whatsoever for these actions. Now she's on trial for attempted murder. Why must the state force the latest consumer products down our throats? I thought the government didn't have the right to tell people what they had to buy? Now they are advocates of the pharmaceutical companies.

Back to my question; should a mother 200 years ago be charged with neglect if she didn't allow the mainstream experts to perform bloodletting on her child? Why should the state's legal/moral role in our personal health care decisions change (expand) with time?

In the future, if scientists invent a "magic box" that miraculously heals everyone who enters it, should sick people be forced at gunpoint into the box?

 

[dross]

This brings me back to a question I posed in a similar discussion.

Should the definition of "child neglect" change with time?


Not so long ago, this mother wouldn't have been questioned whatsoever for these actions. Now she's on trial for attempted murder. Why must the state force the latest consumer products down our throats? I thought the government didn't have the right to tell people what they had to buy? Now they are advocates of the pharmaceutical companies.

Back to my question; should a mother 200 years ago be charged with neglect if she didn't allow the mainstream experts to perform bloodletting on her child? Why should the state's legal/moral role in our personal health care decisions change (expand) with time?

In the future, if scientists invent a "magic box" that miraculously heals everyone who enters it, should sick people be forced at gunpoint into the box?

Stop with this crap. You make yourself look silly. This didn't happen because of the power of the pharmaceutical companies, it happened because of an intrusive government. Please stop making these tinfoil correlation/causation errors unless you have evidence of causation.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Anecdotal evidence or "Evidence Based Practice" story coming up:

My Aunt has in inoperable brain tumor. They began chemo treatment on her and the tumor immediately shrank. She is still undergoing treatment, but the outlook is positive. They believe this is a metasticized tumor from her breast cancer where she underwent a mastectomy to remove the tumor. No chemo was done post-op. They believed she was cancer free up until she began to pass out and vomit from her brain cancer tumor.

Also my wife's aunt and grandmother both went through chemo for soft cell cancers in the breast/lung region. Both are 5 year cancer survivors. I believe both were operable tumors.

My wife recently had a melanoma removed, no chemo or other treatment, and her last PET scan was negative for cancer cells.

So, there you have it, clear as mud.

 

[ATOMonkey]

As long as the mother pursues some form of treatment, then I have to side with the mother.

If she is no longer able to afford treatment, then I have to side with the mother.

If she took the boy off of treatment and could afford an alternative treat, but chose not to, then I must side with the state.