Mother charged with attempted murder taking her son off chemotherapy drugs

[Wwwildthing]

one could just as accurately say "Before Cancer and After Cancer"

I'm guessing you believe in chemo. I don't.

 

[88GT]

Here's another thought: if you can put a price on treatment, how do you reconcile going broke when you have more children coming up behind the one that needs treatment now?

Or, how do you divvy the funds and decide which treatments are acceptable if you have two or more children requiring treatment at the same time?

If I've spent all my money on Son #1's cancer treatment, what do I do when Son #2 simply needs an anti-biotic for a bacterial infection?

 

[.40caltrucker]

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.

Same here my Grandpa had cancer twice in 10 years Chemo both times killed it. He's now 77 and his last treatment was 6 years ago.

Here's another thought: if you can put a price on treatment, how do you reconcile going broke when you have more children coming up behind the one that needs treatment now?

Or, how do you divvy the funds and decide which treatments are acceptable if you have two or more children requiring treatment at the same time?

If I've spent all my money on Son #1's cancer treatment, what do I do when Son #2 simply needs an anti-biotic for a bacterial infection?

Two options:
1. Go to urgent care or CVS minute clinic pay $50-$60 for visit then fill the antibiotic at wally world for $4.00

2. Go to hospital and pay nothing there then scrape up $4.00 for antibiotic at wally world.

 

[ElsiePeaRN]

I'm guessing you believe in chemo. I don't.

It's not so much that I believe in it, as much as I appreciate the extra time it's given me with some friends and family that decided to take the risk. For them, the risk paid off. I don't know anyone who chose not to use chemo that is still alive. Anecdotal, yes. But it's my pesonal experience. Do you really believe that Swayze would still be alive if he hadn't used the chemo?

 

[rambone]

Same here my Grandpa had cancer twice in 10 years Chemo both times killed it. He's now 77 and his last treatment was 6 years ago.

My aunt is in the same boat. The way she describes it, she put her body and life through hell during chemotherapy, only to find that the breast cancer is "back" 2 years later. In actuality, the cancer was not destroyed to begin with. She says she is a "chemotherapy survivor who still has cancer". She's been a big influence on me regarding alternative medicine.

 

[lashicoN]

Here's another thought: if you can put a price on treatment, how do you reconcile going broke when you have more children coming up behind the one that needs treatment now?

Or, how do you divvy the funds and decide which treatments are acceptable if you have two or more children requiring treatment at the same time?

If I've spent all my money on Son #1's cancer treatment, what do I do when Son #2 simply needs an anti-biotic for a bacterial infection?

You don't have to worry about any of these decisions, 88GT, I'm sure our government will step in and make them all for you.

 

[Wwwildthing]

I don't know anyone who chose not to use chemo that is still alive.

Now you do.

I was diagnosed with Squamous Cell Carcinoma (skin cancer) in August 2008. In my case, it was internal (not external) and caused by contaminated tap water. The 'only' treatment I have undergone to date (by choice), is metabolic therapy... no radiation, no chemo, no surgery.

Do you really believe that Swayze would still be alive if he hadn't used the chemo?

If he had sought a non-invasive form of treatment.. quite possibly, yes.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Not an expert on chemo and I do not claim to be, but the few people I know that went thru chemo is probably enough for me to make the decision to do the things I wanted and spend time with friends and family and let the good Lord decide if its my time or not. I cannot imagine getting treatment one day and then spending the next three days in the hospital because I could not drink or eat just to wait another week or two for my next treatment that is going to put me back in the hospital again.

 

[88GT]

Two options:
1. Go to urgent care or CVS minute clinic pay $50-$60 for visit then fill the antibiotic at wally world for $4.00

2. Go to hospital and pay nothing there then scrape up $4.00 for antibiotic at wally world.

You missed the point entirely.

 

[Rob377]

What's all the fuss?

It's just a retroactive abortion, that's all.

Kid was gonna be too expensive anyway. You can always make more, right?

 

[ElsiePeaRN]

Now you do.

I was diagnosed with Squamous Cell Carcinoma (skin cancer) in August 2008. In my case, it was internal (not external) and caused by contaminated tap water. The 'only' treatment I have undergone to date (by choice), is metabolic therapy... no radiation, no chemo, no surgery.

I'm sorry to hear of your diagnosis. I know very little about "internal" primary SCCs. I do know that primary SCC of the stomach or colon (if I am inferring correctly) are very rare. I'll keep you in my prayers for a positive outcome.

I have no intention of debating your choices with you. My only experience with cancers with high mortality rates in people who have chosen alternative therapies has been in hospice at the end of their life. That narrow experience has had a strong influence on my opinions, so it is good to hear another side of the story. I continue to maintain that some people do choose chemo wisely (as my friends have) but I certainly don't claim that it is the best choice for everyone.

 

[Wwwildthing]

To keep this simple... it started in the left tonsil - the doctors wanted to pull my teeth, insert a feeding tube, and give me the maximum doses of radiation and chemo - and I told them what they could do with themselves.

The treatment I am doing is keeping the tumor at bay... it is not a cure, but as I'm sure you know, there is no cure... only treatment.

All I can add to that is... it was the right decision for me.

I didn't mean to 'hijack' the thread... I'm just very negative on the current method of treatment the medical industry is stuck on. If we can walk on the moon, surely we can do more than we are in treating this disease... killing the patient isn't the answer.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Only if that treatment is acceptable to you though, right?

Besides, your argument absolves all the poor people from having to treat their children at all, and now you've introduced an inequality in the law that holds different people to a different standard because of their status/income. Excellent!

Proving once again, there's no justification for mandating treatment outside one's own personal desire to force others to comply to his personal moral code.

No, that's not what I said.

A person has to do something to take care of their children. I don't care if that's waving incense over them while chanting, as long as that is what you think is the right thing to do, then have at it.

However, I don't believe someone should be allowed to do nothing when they have the means to do something.

That last time we had this same discussion, I made my point that it was perfectly acceptable for the parents to pray for a cure, rather than use western medicine, because that is what aligned with their belief system, and they were consistent in that belief.

I don't think anyone should be compelled to render aid to their children, but if you child dies due to lack of care, CONSISTENT WITH YOUR BELIEFS OR PHILOSOPHY, then you should be held criminally accountable.

If you are fatalistic Hindu and believe it's fate that your child contract a disease and die, then that is your belief. However, you can't just claim to be Hindu to avoid prosecution for being a terrible parent. You would need to demonstrate that this has been a long time conviction of yours.

 

[.40caltrucker]

You missed the point entirely.

What was your point? I took it as what if one child breaks the bank and another become sick. There are plenty of free clinics and more than enough donation based hospitals to get treatment for the kids. Any parent who lets their kid die and blames it on not having enough money should be prosecuted because you can get treatment without insurance.

 

[rambone]

A person has to do something to take care of their children. I don't care if that's waving incense over them while chanting, as long as that is what you think is the right thing to do, then have at it.

However, I don't believe someone should be allowed to do nothing when they have the means to do something.

Its complicated because sometimes, in some instances, doing nothing is perfectly appropriate. Some people pop a pill for every headache, cramp, and fever that happens to them. However, just because you have the means to give your kid all these unnecessary pills, doesn't mean you should be forced to by law.

What was your point? I took it as what if one child breaks the bank and another become sick. There are plenty of free clinics and more than enough donation based hospitals to get treatment for the kids. Any parent who lets their kid die and blames it on not having enough money should be prosecuted because you can get treatment without insurance.

During the Obamacare debates a lot of us decided that it wasn't our job to pay for everyone else's problems. People criticized the law because they didn't think it should be a crime to not buy insurance. I still haven't changed my mind. I don't think it should be a crime to not accept welfare just because you can.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Its complicated because sometimes, in some instances, doing nothing is perfectly appropriate. Some people pop a pill for every headache, cramp, and fever that happens to them. However, just because you have the means to give your kid all these unnecessary pills, doesn't mean you should be forced to by law.

As long as it's consistent with your beliefs.

That consistency is what draws the line at neglect, in my book anyway.

 

[.40caltrucker]

During the Obamacare debates a lot of us decided that it wasn't our job to pay for everyone else's problems. People criticized the law because they didn't think it should be a crime to not buy insurance. I still haven't changed my mind. I don't think it should be a crime to not accept welfare just because you can.

Agreed I don't want to pay for other peoples problems and want welfare gone.

However I didn't say they should use welfare as a means to get medical treatment. There are plenty of ways to get it without burdening the tax payers.

 

[88GT]

No, that's not what I said.

A person has to do something to take care of their children. I don't care if that's waving incense over them while chanting, as long as that is what you think is the right thing to do, then have at it.

However, I don't believe someone should be allowed to do nothing when they have the means to do something.

That last time we had this same discussion, I made my point that it was perfectly acceptable for the parents to pray for a cure, rather than use western medicine, because that is what aligned with their belief system, and they were consistent in that belief.

I don't think anyone should be compelled to render aid to their children, but if you child dies due to lack of care, CONSISTENT WITH YOUR BELIEFS OR PHILOSOPHY, then you should be held criminally accountable.

If you are fatalistic Hindu and believe it's fate that your child contract a disease and die, then that is your belief. However, you can't just claim to be Hindu to avoid prosecution for being a terrible parent. You would need to demonstrate that this has been a long time conviction of yours.

You must have amended your argument after I quit participating in that thread then because the last time I read it, you were not displaying such calm, rational dialogue. And you certainly didn't seem to be as accepting of the idea of treatment being anything but mainstream western medicine.

I think we disagree on where the zero is set regarding parental obligation to children. I think that a parent's obligation extends only to providing what is necessary for a healthy body to function: in other words, the basic necessities like food, water, shelter/clothing. But I don't believe a parent's obligation is to make the body healthy. It would seem, based on your arguments, that not only does a parent have to provide what a healthy body needs to function, he also must make the body healthy.

And here's where I have a problem with that: where do you draw the line? If he has to make the body healthy by curing it of disease, is it that much of a stretch to say he has to keep it healthy by actively fending off disease? Is it enough that he does this with diet and exercise in the child's life, or do we now choose to force parents to, say, vaccinate their children without exception? Taking it a step farther, can we agree that such a position opens the door to having the state dictate what kinds of foods and drinks we may offer to our children? After all, if the legal mandate is keeping them healthy and disease-free, then bad foods should certainly be prohibited, right?

I know this is taking it to the extreme a bit, but that is the logical consequence of justifying state control over this issue in a manner that you suggest.

What was your point?

I was trying to highlight the absurdity of using financial means as a way to judge the soundness of picking and choosing treatment options. There was a forest in all those trees.

Such a standard now presumes to tell families what to do with their children AND their finances. We currently call that terror Obamacare.