court forces brain radiation on child

court forces brain radiation on child (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

defiantbadgirl -> court forces brain radiation on child (12/22/2012 7:41:42 AM)
http://news.yahoo.com/mother-loses-uk-legal-fight-stop-sons-cancer-170325898.html If there's a good chance of a cure with little to no permanent damage, I could understand. Unfortunately, that is never the case with brain cancer. Malignant brain tumors have tentacles that are impossible eliminate. Even if radiation could kill the tentacles, is side effect of permanent brain damage, permanent mental retardation worth it?

Aswad -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/22/2012 8:00:37 AM)
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.

DomKen -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/22/2012 8:40:27 AM)
Actually the court saved the boys life, by allowing the tumor removal surgery he absolutely needed. The mother wants to explore known quackery while her son's tumor consumes his brain.

defiantbadgirl -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/22/2012 9:01:55 AM)
My understanding is it was the brain radiation she had a problem with.

Politesub53 -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/22/2012 9:38:58 AM)
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. This isnt exactly the case though. the parents are seperated and the father wanted the surgery. The Courts, rightly in my view, have done what is in the childs best interest. Ken is correct, this has been a main news item all week here. The mother didnt want the initial surgery, which doctors say saved the boys life. She doesnt want any follow up treatment either. More here. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-20807984

Aswad -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/22/2012 10:04:34 AM)
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.

Politesub53 -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/22/2012 10:11:48 AM)
It is exactly the task of the courts if a childs life is being put at risk by parent. I agree the parents have rights but wouldnt you say the childs are paramount. You also overlook the fact that one parent wants the surgery, so it isnt as if they are united on the issue. Ironically the mother hasnt made any comments as her "story" is tied up with a national newspaper. IE a cash sale. That in itself isnt rational or in the childs best interest.

Powergamz1 -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/22/2012 10:12:41 AM)
Which parent? 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.

DomKen -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/22/2012 10:29:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad That strikes me as something for a parent to decide, not the courts. 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?

defiantbadgirl -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/22/2012 10:52:12 AM)
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?

tazzygirl -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/22/2012 11:01:56 AM)
quote: She feared radiotherapy would stunt the boy's growth, reduce his IQ, damage his thyroid and potentially leave him infertile. Personally, the only one on that list that would make me pause would be the IQ.

defiantbadgirl -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/22/2012 11:07:09 AM)
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.

JstAnotherSub -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/22/2012 12:38:34 PM)
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.

DomKen -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/22/2012 12:58:47 PM)
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? The radiotherapy may reduce the child's IQ. It also may have no effect at all. We don't know and the child is not certain to die. The surgeons reported that the tumor was completely excised and the radiotherapy is just to kill any stray cells they missed. This child doesn't have a great prognosis but he isn't terminal even after his mother's attempts to kill him.

DomKen -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/22/2012 1:00:02 PM)
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. Have I mentioned that you're my favorite lunch lady recently?

defiantbadgirl -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/22/2012 1:02:30 PM)
JustAnotherSub, I'm glad your friend is ok because of surgery, but radiating the brain causes mental decline in children. Either you think that's listed as a side effect on medical websites for no reason, or you don't know how to read. The brain makes communication possible. Therefore, cancer in that section of the brain or late stage cancer throughout the brain can make communication impossible. That conclusion can be drawn from common sense. Next time, look up the effects of brain radiation on children yourself before assuming I'm wrong.

DomKen -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/22/2012 1:08:45 PM)
The child in question has a tumor of the cerebellum and/or brain stem. Speech and nonverbal communication is a function of the cerebrum. Targeted radiotherapy on the tumor site should have very minimal effects on the cerebrum. BTW some research reveals that post tumor removal surgery, survival is less than 30% on chemo alone but over 80% when chemo is combined with radiation. A decision when faced with those odds seems fairly obvious.

defiantbadgirl -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/22/2012 1:31:08 PM)
My comment about inability to communicate was referring to late stage brain cancer patients in general in their last weeks of life. I see your point, but wouldn't killing any remaining cells involve radiating a much larger area? Maybe even whole brain radiation? Even if they only concentrate on the cerebellum, the boy is likely to suffer significant damage. "The cerebellum is responsible for relaying messages about posture, equilibrium, movement and fine motor skills such as writing or catching a ball. It is a very important part of the brain that keeps us aware of our surroundings and therefore alive. Voluntary movement is monitored and initialized by the cerebellum through the manipulation of fine muscle movement. Cerebellum injuries can lead to forms of paralysis in many various ways such as paraplegic, quadriplegic or partial impairment of the motor neuron pathways." 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? What if his peers bully and laugh at him? That's what disabled children go through. It's horrible, but unfortunately, it's a fact of life for them. Many people would rather die than suffer from severe brain damage and disability.

Politesub53 -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/22/2012 2:28:13 PM)
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? With respect, This is nonsense...... There is no evidence to say the child will become mentally retarded, only that he might. The alternative in this case, according to the boys doctors, and an independent doctor the mother used, are that the boy will die within a few months.

tazzygirl -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/22/2012 2:36:21 PM)
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? So we do nothing knowing that nothing means he will die? quote: What if his peers bully and laugh at him? Why would that be a major concern at this point? quote: Many people would rather die than suffer from severe brain damage and disability. The severe brain damage and disability are potentials, not assurances. In other words, there is an 80% survival rate with radiotherapy. I could invest a lot of time on this post, but, frankly, why bother. The side effects listed on web sites are possibilities and recorded side effects from studies. Of someone takes a drug to grow hair, and gets the flu during the trial study, they report fevers, tremors, nausea, feeling bad, ect.... when the study gets published, those are listed as side effects, even though the flu caused them and not the drug.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875