Featured Court forced chemo

They are thumbing their nose at the documented effectiveness of chemo on this particular disease. Why are they doing this? I’ll tell you why, because the little princess started feeling sick from the chemo, didn’t want to lose her hair and wanted to stop taking it and Mommy believes in giving her little darling everything she wants. Then when people who cared about the wellbeing this child, her very life, questioned that very poor decision the whole thing escalated into this political battle about the government interfering with parent’s rights. So, no, I don’t agree with how they want to deal with the illness. It is irresponsible and based on very poor judgment which is pretty much 100% guaranteed to condemn the child to death, it amounts to parental abuse and is motivated by the mother’s pride to be the ultimate decision maker RATHER than what is best for the child, which is to help her live!

Afraid? Fear is rarely an issue with me, I’m being practical in that the evidence shows that these “other treatments” will not work and that chemo has been documented that it DOES WORK, at least 80-85% of the time compared to what? A 2% chance that some supposedly alternative treatment works where that documentation comes from questionable sources at best?

Higher risk? That is an understatement, try more like an unconscionable risk which is virtually 100% guaranteed to condemn a child to death.

Does letting a child decide that temporarily losing her hair and feeling sick for 6 weeks or so in order to cure her fatal disease fall on a question of morality? Well, if one’s values are so low as to let the child die over an issue of being called on making a very poor parental decision about the child’s welfare RATHER than the parent valuing the very good chance of survival, ah, yes, as much as some would like to insist that morality is strictly relative to the point on non-existence – sorry, but moral lines exists and in this case to place the values on this child’ life so low is against any rational person’s sense of morality. For a parent to unnecessarily let their child die using these “issues” (parental rights over rational intervention of a fatal disease of one’s own child) as justification to do so is immoral – and irrational. It is abuse of the right to be a parent and there comes a time (like it or not, even though you have personally felt violated by CPS and have a strong bias against the government interfering, moral relativism aside…) that a parent’s rights should be taken away for the wellbeing of the child. For a society to not draw a line on morality removes any sense of a civil society’s existence.

Now, please explain how it is moral to let this child most certainly die by unnecessarily exposing her to an unconscionable and irrational risk based on the presumed right to do so.

 

Benjamin - have you experienced chemo, or have/had a relative who did?

 

My job is rehabilitation of breast cancer patients. Almost all of them have gone through chemo. I run the gym in a clinic and do interventions on 8 to upwards of 25 patients a day and you know how women like to talk, yes, I'd say I have considerable experience with the challenges and effects of chemo.

 

Just wanted to ask before I made any assumptions.

My wife started chemo a month ago. Every two weeks for six months. Five months, ten more treatments to go.

During the first one, she started thinking about not doing any more. After the initial five days, she was back to "normal," and thinking "no problem."

After the second round, we've figured out that she's going to be down for a week, back up for a week. That's gonna be our routine for five more months

She's already starting to feel the cumulative effects: not being able to touch cold things, for example. Initially, it was just during the infusion. Already, she's not able to grab a jug of milk out of the fridge without using a towel or gloves.

During the infusions, she can't drink tap water. I have to heat it up to room temperature. No mouth sores yet; but we've still got ten more treatments.

Those are the little side effects. More are coming. And I'm not talking about hair. That's the least of it. Her doctor says she's the heathiest person in the chemo treatment place. I can't imagine what those others are going through during their infusion periods.

You say you do rehabilitation and work with breast cancer patients. Well, I'm living it.

Regarding the main topic of this thread: the question is, when is the government allowed to annul your personal rights and decide what's best for you?

 

Don....my prayers are for you and your wife and your family.....may God provide comfort.

 

Every cancer case is different as well as the chemo treatments can and should greatly vary. That’s longer than I typical hear of for breast cancer patients, some get chemo twice a week or once a week often consisting of 16-18 times, although those whose cancer has metastasized may be on chemo for the rest of their life. They almost always get it through a port implanted in their upper chest going into a large vein in their neck.

I have patients that come in and workout pretty hard 3 times a week while on chemo during the whole treatment and others that come in and struggle to get through at a slow pace but they do it. Other times I cut the session the short and if I do that it is because I really see they are not up to it, but I try to keep them moving at least a little. There are days when some come by and tell me they just can’t do it today.

Down for a week and back up for a week is somewhat common for 2 week intervals. Although, sometimes the doctors find meds that help with the down time, if really bad symptoms sometimes they get on another type of chemo drug and do much better and sometimes I think they just adapt because they get less symptoms as time goes on and these might avoid coming in to workout during a certain small window of time, like 2 days. Some will only occasionally feel too bad to put in a good workout.

I’ve seen all kinds of stages and rates of neuropathy too, in the hands and also the feet. I had a few come in who regained the feelings in their hands after quite some time, a couple were told they might never regain these sensations. Some aren’t told to get physical therapy for months or even years after treatment and these can be more challenging cases. BTW, another issue is lymphedema onset after having a gland or glands removed which can take years to even show up but this should be watched for and kept in check if it arises, I say this because I get patients that never even knew this could happen.

It seems to me that usually the hands and/or feet are most affected in the later parts of the chemo treatments, it could be that your wife might do better if/when she becomes more accustom to the sensation. Some people are simply more tolerant than others and some learn to be tolerant and on rare occasion a person’s intolerance to pain causes issues such as chronic atrophy if someone stops using their hand(s) -> arms -> shoulders/feet, legs, hips for months. I encourage people to keep moving as much as possible, this makes rehabilitation easier. The patients that begin physical therapy at the onset and continues throughout are typically in much better condition than those who don’t.

What these women can go through breaks my heart at times, especially the soft sensitive ones that would have freaked out at a broken nail or paper cut before all this. Although, in my experience nothing has affected me more than a couple of patients that resorted to “alternative treatments” and waited too long and I won’t go into the details but to say aggressive out of control metastasized cancer is far worse than any chemo treatment I’ve ever seen. So maybe you can understand my aversion to the idea that there are home remedy treatments equally on par with physician prescribed chemo.

I was considering quitting my job because I was/am feeling and carrying so much emotion over the times I can’t make things better for someone, and frankly I still might. Seeing patients bounce back really helps though and most do and quickly. I had a patient I hadn’t seen for months come up to me in a store a while back with the biggest brightest smile on while she turned around and proudly presented how correct her posture and biomechanics were now (something I harp on), much better than before all this, in fact she’d never reached this level before and it was obvious that she was still on a fitness high and feeling good. That came at a time when I really need some uplifting because of another patient (yes, one that waited 1 ½ years to begin treatment while trying alternatives) whose situation and tears had been getting to me.

I know it’s rough but it will be worth it. I often get women in after the chemo treatments for rehabilitation and they can be in pretty poor shape but I get them moving again starting with light resistance and get them up into what I call “my big girl routine” as I increase the resistance and exercises while becoming as a personal trainer to them (their words). Many are very discouraged at first at how weak they are and I tell them I haven’t had anyone not get stronger yet, and that is the truth.

I typically have them for about 2 ½ months after chemo and the improvements are amazing, like unable to curl 2 lbs to curling 20 lbs one handed, they are like different people when they leave. I’ve had several that have never done any bodybuilding before and several have gone on and joined gyms or bought exercise equipment afterwards and they leave being excited about the new possibilities. It can be and often is an experience that you grow from and come out being stronger.

I believe “Tough Love” has a time and place when it comes to a child making poor decisions that seriously effects their wellbeing even if that decision is supported by their parent. This case, because of the irresponsible behavior by the parent, I feel is a time that intervention on the parental rights is justified. If that mother wanted to forego the overwhelming odds of success for “alternative treatments” which are doomed to fail for her own treatment, fine, whatever, she’s an adult, but to enable a child to throw away her life calls into question the mothers ability to make a rational parental decision. I wonder where the father is in all this, but I’ve said my piece and now am done debating this case.

You’ll be in my prayers.

 

Do our bodies belong to us or the government?

 

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup: or Military salue.

 

I said I was done, but this great example gives me one more opportunity to point out that this type of argument above is merely a simple-minded rhetorical question concerning the matter and of no value -other than for drawing attention to oneself. Here you go Poncho: That’s an argument I’d expect to hear from a boneheaded teenager.

Again, any society is going to have moral lines which are drawn in order to keep that society civil, without moral laws there would be utter chaos. The question should be when and where should the line be drawn on a parent’s action and on what? To make the suggestion that there should never be a law telling a parent what they cannot do with their child’s body is foolishness – hence Poncho’s question is meaningless rhetorical garbage, i.e., a purely fallacious argument.

For the sake of the child’s wellbeing the line was drawn on this mother’s actions. It is very reasonable to conclude that in this case the child’s welfare has been seriously endangered by an irrational parental decision and I agree with the judiciary action on those principles. As Gina brought up, this becomes a question of morality – in our civilized society should we allow for moral laws/lines pertaining to this individual case? I say, yes.

The typical public responses are ignoring the fact that moral lines exist concerning what a parent can do with their child’s body and/or in doing so are not reasonably taking into consideration the overwhelming facts which prove that in this case the child’s life has been seriously jeopardized by an irresponsible and unconscionable action that produced an emergency situation calling for immediate intervention to spare her life.

Have fun.

 

Just remember, good health is only dying slower.:thumbs:

 

No ....chemo is not a killer per se but it is not refined enough to target ONLY cancer cells, as it is very full of side effects....to the degree where people choose to have a shortened life ( maybe) rather than continual nausea or whatever, my father stopped chemo for this reason.

The poor girl involved in this is obviously a legal guinea pig. As a nurse, it would be considered as assault in cannula ting a person against their will...so is she considered a criminal as USA terminates some on death row, or an involuntary psychiatric patient? Interesting medical ethics involved here as well. So much for the land of the free!

I suppose she could sue the socks off everyone in time.

 

And if it doesn't, her mother can. :laugh:

 

This thread is a great example of why were are losing our freedoms here in America. People allow their emotions to control their way of thinking. Anyone who is a true conservative and truly values their freedom should be able to see how this is a terrible precedent, yet people here let their emotions about cancer drive their thought process.

 

:thumbsup:

 

By your reasoning, (Scare tactic, give the government an inch on this, individual case, and next they’ll be…blah, blah…add in “Patriot Fallacy”… blah, blah…) Should a mother in our society be allowed to tattoo their child from head to toe, or would you be willing to draw a line there on what she can do with her child’s body for the welfare of the child? And when answering, don't let your emotions about tattoos get to to you.

 

Ben, just look at the amount of intrusion by the feds into our lives now, as contrasted to the 40s -50s. I feel that this concern is extremely valid!!!!

As to the rest of your argument, I'd have to do some long hard thinking before I answered; primarily because very few things are as black/white as we would prefer them to be. But, even so, I lean strongly toward parental rights as opposed to gov't interference.