Minn. Judge Rules Teen Must See Cancer Doctor

Jiro said:
unfortunately - that's not for you to decide. it's between the Hausers family to decide. I'm extremely disappointed that the 3rd party is dictating what's good for him.
Click to expand...

Third party is not dictating anything. They are upholding the laws of this country. Thank god the judge has the intelligence and logical thought to look at the numbers and say, "Hey. This is a no brainer. Want the child to die. Allow his parents to continue their medical neglect. Want to give this child a 90% chance at beating this cancer and being alive? Stop the parents from neglecting the medical needs of their child and give custody to someone that has the ability to think."
 
Hear Again said:
No. It's for the 13 year old boy to decide.
Click to expand...

and their parents. Unfortunately - the judge ruled the boy incompetent and FORCED the boy to receive chemotherapy... against his will. I'm very interested in knowing the conversation between them in order to determine the boy's competency.
 
Hear Again said:
I apologize for bringing my bipolar into this, but I wanted to mention that if it were not for the medical intervention I received, I probably would not be here. Sorry if I made this all about myself, but I'm trying to point out that sometimes medical treatment given on an involuntary basis can be lifesaving.
Click to expand...

Yes it can. And that is exactly why these laws are in place to protect those that are unable to protect themselves.
 
Jiro said:
and their parents. Unfortunately - the judge ruled the boy incompetent and FORCED the boy to receive chemotherapy... against his will. I'm very interested in knowing the conversation between them in order to determine the boy's competency.
Click to expand...

Competency is not based on a conversation. Another error you are making.
 
Jiro said:
If i recall correctly - you were given PROPER drugs at your own accord with private session with your doctor, am I correct?
Click to expand...

They weren't proper meds in the beginning. Thanks to the high dose of meds I was given, I ended up in a catatonic state for 17 hours (according to one of the nurses who told me this upon my discharge) and it took 3.5 weeks for the meds to work.

Furthermore, it wasn't a private session between my doctor and I. I was evaluated in an ER setting and then literally dragged into the psych hospital by 6 people for all to see. My experience was humiliating and anything but private. Your point?
 
jillio said:
Third party is not dictating anything. They are upholding the laws of this country. Thank god the judge has the intelligence and logical thought to look at the numbers and say, "Hey. This is a no brainer. Want the child to die. Allow his parents to continue their medical neglect. Want to give this child a 90% chance at beating this cancer and being alive? Stop the parents from neglecting the medical needs of their child and give custody to someone that has the ability to think."
Click to expand...

then I'm very sad for this country. I guess the paper called "Informed Consent" is meaningless. I guess we just let the doctor and judge decide what's best for us, no matter if we disagree.

Good debate. I'm out. I have stated my argument and concern. No point in beating around the bush which will lead to getting this thread locked. The best we can do is sit and wait for the outcome of this case. I may pop in now and then...

:wave:
 
Jiro said:
then I'm very sad for this country. I guess the paper called "Informed Consent" is meaningless. I guess we just let the doctor and judge decide what's best for us, no matter if we disagree.

Good debate. I'm out. I have stated my argument and concern. No point in beating around the bush which will lead to getting this thread locked. The best we can do is sit and wait for the outcome of this case. I may pop in now and then...

:wave:
Click to expand...

No, Jiro, the paper called "Informed Consent" is not meaninless, but your pronouncing it so just demonstrates your complete lack of understanding of the issues of informed consent.

And, no this decision only means that in this case, a guardian ad litem will be making medical decisions for this child.
 
Chemotherapy on one hand could be helpful but sometime it is not always efficient.

I've seen how chemo takes a toll on the body. I've lost 2 people to cancer and the chemotherapy didn't help them but on the other hand, I know of 1 person took chemotherapy and was able to survive it.

In this case, it depends on how severe the cancer is in order for the chemotherapy to be efficient.

The other alternative is the radiation which is what the teenager's parents should may have looked into? :dunno:
 
Jolie77 said:
Chemotherapy on one hand could be helpful but sometime it is not always efficient.

I've seen how chemo takes a toll on the body. I've lost 2 people to cancer and the chemotherapy didn't help them but on the other hand, I know of 1 person took chemotherapy and was able to survive it.

In this case, it depends on how severe the cancer is in order for the chemotherapy to be efficient.

The other alternative is the radiation which is what the teenager's parents should may have looked into? :dunno:
Click to expand...

You are absolutely correct. When this teens cancer was first detected, the doctors recommended 6 rounds of chemo. That is a relatively low dose, so the cancer was no doubt in early stages. Since the parents have refused to have him receive the chemo, his cancer has advanced to the point that they are now recommending radiation plus chemo. That is because the origninal tumor has been growing without treatment. What stage the cancer is in is a determining factor on how effective the chemo will be.
 
50 years ago when Chemotherapy first came out as a treatment to kill cancer cells, it was still so new and risky that sometimes the patients did die of the chemo rather than the cancer because the chemo was also destroying healthy tissue surrounding the cancerous tissue. This is why in the 60s and 70s cancer was considered a for sure death sentence within a matter of months.

But significant advances in chemotherapy have come along and now doctors and radiologists can more accurately destroy cancer cells while not harming the surrounding healthy cells. This is why many patients receiving chemo survive if the cancer is caught early rather than late, and as long as the cancer has not begun to attack vital organs such as the lungs, liver, and so forth.

This is why doctors who have years of research behind them urging the mother to bring her son home so he can receive needed chemotherapy treatments that can save his life IF they bring him in time.
 
It is also important to keep in mind how soon a person's cancer is diagnosed. In my mother's case, her pancreatic cancer had spread to 95% of her organs before it was detected resulting in Stage 4 cancer. Another person may have skin cancer that is spotted early who can take advantage of chemotherapy and survive. It all boils down to how quickly the cancer is identified as to how well chemo will work.
 
jillio said:
You are absolutely correct. When this teens cancer was first detected, the doctors recommended 6 rounds of chemo. That is a relatively low dose, so the cancer was no doubt in early stages. Since the parents have refused to have him receive the chemo, his cancer has advanced to the point that they are now recommending radiation plus chemo. That is because the origninal tumor has been growing without treatment. What stage the cancer is in is a determining factor on how effective the chemo will be.
Click to expand...

Yeah and not only that, the younger the patient is, chances are better for them depending on how severe or advanced the cancer is. Unfortunately, in this case, the matter is becoming worse all because of this hysteria.
 
yes but I am afraid the mother is going to wait until her son is too weak and sick from the cancer to bring him home, at that stage there is nothing the doctors can do other than say it's a matter of time until death.

I've heard of people who COULDN'T get cancer treatment when they needed it in the early stages and the families say its a long slow painful death in which the person gets to the point that they lose weight from being unable to keep food down because the cancer has ravaged their digestive system - one that comes to mind is a man in his mid twenties that has served in Iraq and was from an immigrant family - when he was diagnosed he was 175 pounds, the day he died from a lack of medical treatment, he weighed only 75 pounds. His cardiovascular system was shutting down and he had been on oxygen 24/7 for at least 6 months. He was extremely sick and ill and the military had denied their son medical treatment for his cancer and instead medically discharged him from the military, and the family couldn't afford the treatments on their own, they just more or less had to comfort him while he waited to die. This took place of the course of 8 years though I'm not exactly sure of the day of diagnosis and the day of death. But the fact that there was that amount of time of deterioration told me they either detected the cancer early enough that he had a high chance of survival with treatment OR the cancer was very slow growing.

Here is a link to this particular case:
A Question Of Care: Military Malpractice? - CBS News

The boy may live another 8 years untreated, but that's just 8 years versus a possible 80 if he receives treatment now.
 
I understand that Malpractice by a doctor and Negligence by the mother are two different situations, but I just want to show you what happens when a person dies of untreated cancer. Its not a peaceful death in one's sleep by anymeans.
 
Hear Again said:
Chemo happens to save many lives. If it were not for the chemo my mother received for her pancreatic cancer, she would not have survived 5 months following her diagnosis.

If you expect chemo to "save the lives of millions," you are being unrealistic. Chemo doesn't save every life, but it does save the lives of many.

I hope you are never diagnosed with cancer. Cancer is a relentless disease that slowly eats away at you mentally and physically.

I bet you would feel differently about chemo and doctors in general if you saw someone you love in constant pain and vomiting blood on a daily basis like I did.

People who have cancer should not be denied the right to have appropriate treatment. Saying otherwise is callous and cruel.
Click to expand...


:gpost: I withnessed my MIL survived after many chemo therapy after removed cancer from her breast. She fought for her life and did it sucessful. 5 years later after that, she got brain tumor and willing to have another chemo therapy. The doctor told her that she had 20% chance to be survive, chemo therapy won´t help her. She took those news very badly because she want to see my boys development into adult. She was determined to have surgery but the doctor told her that she MIGHT die on the operation table or severe brain stroke? Without surgery, up to one year alive. It´s very hard for her but she choose to stay alive up to one year than surgery and chemo therapy because they have no chance to save her life. It does the same with my good friend at 8 yeras ago. :(
 
jillio said:
I don't dictate it. The laws of the U.S. protect children from neglectful and abusive parents. And again with the hypothetical questions. Only option for what, in which case, and for which disease process? Which stage of cancer? Which patient?

That is why this case has been decided on an individual basis, and pertains to this child only.
Click to expand...

Exactly
 
Jiro said:
I'm sorry but I have not found any of your post that answered my question. This is not a muddy, hypothetical question. It's a very valid question because the child COULD die as the result of chemotherapy. See Naisho's post. His relative died as the result of chemotherapy - which was assured by doctors due to its high success rate.

Now Jillio - what would happen if the child die as the result of chemotherapy as ordered by judge?
Click to expand...

But you use common sense to know that 90% chance is very good to be cure. It would be understandable if there´re less than 50%.
 
Back
Top