quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

This is the sort of thing where parents should get to choose, in my opinion. Yes, the kid may die without conventional treatment, but it may die anyway, and there's side effects that may be as serious as the disease itself. Besides, there's something profoundly messed up about the idea of the state claiming a child whose parents are guilty of no crime.

IWYW,
— Aswad.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

It isn't the task of the courts, in my view, but that's another thread, I suppose.

For the average risk group, the five year survival rate is 60%, rising to 80% with resection, and up to 90% with radiotherapy. Notably, radiotherapy isn't used at that age for a patient in the average risk group, only for a patient in the high risk group, due to the severe side effects of radiotherapy in a child of that age. The increase from 80% to 90% simply isn't seen as a worthwhile tradeoff with those side effects.

That the docs wanted to use radiotherapy means the kid is in the high risk group.

For the high risk group, the five year survival rate is 0%, rising to 20% with resection, and up to 30% with radiotherapy, and the side effect profile is at least as severe, if not more so, compared to the average risk group. Of course, the treatment itself is hardly gentle in the first place, and one may wonder whether the quality of life adjusted lifetime gained is actually worth it. The courts may have made a good choice in mandating the resection, but pushing for another 10% at the expense inherent in giving that treatment doesn't strike me as something a court should override a parent on.

Bear in mind that the adverse effects will be there whether the kid gains something from this treatment or not. If he was in those 20%, he will have suffered more because of the courts for no gain. If he was in the 10% extra, he wil have gained years, though probably of a low quality of life. If he was in the remaining 70%, he will have suffered extra for nothing, and lost a portion of what precious little time he had left.

That strikes me as something for a parent to decide, not the courts.

IWYW,
— Aswad.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad
That strikes me as something for a parent to decide, not the courts.

quote:

She feared radiotherapy would stunt the boy's growth, reduce his IQ, damage his thyroid and potentially leave him infertile.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

So if your parents are lazy, stupid, gullible or, in the US, cheap the chid should die a slow agonizing death? Is that really what you're saying?

quote:

ORIGINAL: defiantbadgirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

So if your parents are lazy, stupid, gullible or, in the US, cheap the chid should die a slow agonizing death? Is that really what you're saying?

I suspect many brain cancer patients die agonizing deaths. Most cancer patients are fairly comfortable when they die because they are able to use their brains to communicate their level of pain to pain management doctors and nurses. Brain tumors, because they're in the brain can hinder a patient's ability to communicate. Therefore, they can be in excruciating pain on their deathbeds with no way to tell anyone. Can you imagine what that would be like? Honestly, I think the most humane thing to do for patients with end stage brain cancer who can't communicate is to euthanize them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: defiantbadgirl

IMO the child should NOT be forced by the court to become mentally retarded for the rest of his short life. That's basically what they're doing, forcing the child to receive a treatment that will make him mentally retarded. He won't be able to spend time with other children his own age before he dies because they'll bully and make fun of him because of his mental retardation. Wouldn't it be better for the child to be able to enjoy the rest of his life with his intelligence intact?

quote:

ORIGINAL: JstAnotherSub

quote:

ORIGINAL: defiantbadgirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

So if your parents are lazy, stupid, gullible or, in the US, cheap the chid should die a slow agonizing death? Is that really what you're saying?

I suspect many brain cancer patients die agonizing deaths. Most cancer patients are fairly comfortable when they die because they are able to use their brains to communicate their level of pain to pain management doctors and nurses. Brain tumors, because they're in the brain can hinder a patient's ability to communicate. Therefore, they can be in excruciating pain on their deathbeds with no way to tell anyone. Can you imagine what that would be like? Honestly, I think the most humane thing to do for patients with end stage brain cancer who can't communicate is to euthanize them.

The fact that I have a dear friend who had brain cancer, was given 3 months to live, but elected to have a radical new surgery, and now, 8 years later, is cancer free, living life, teaching 3rd graders, making folks smile, engaged, you get the picture,,,,,

that fact makes me want to puke at how ignorant you continue to be when you post about just about every fucking thing.

Do you even think before you type?

Your suspicions reflect no facts. Please keep them to your self.

quote:

ORIGINAL: defiantbadgirl

IMO the child should NOT be forced by the court to become mentally retarded for the rest of his short life. That's basically what they're doing, forcing the child to receive a treatment that will make him mentally retarded. He won't be able to spend time with other children his own age before he dies because they'll bully and make fun of him because of his mental retardation. Wouldn't it be better for the child to be able to enjoy the rest of his life with his intelligence intact?

quote:

I keep thinking about his quality of life. What if he dies anyway and is unable to enjoy the time he has left because of permanent disabilities?

quote:

What if his peers bully and laugh at him?

quote:

Many people would rather die than suffer from severe brain damage and disability.