TOTALLY GEEKED!

Mellow Momma · Sniff...sniff, sniff. Yay! A Bum!

RE: Should A 17-Year-Old Be Allowed To Choose Death?

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Mellow Momma wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
NO child wants medical treatments that will "hurt".

My kids certainly didn't want to get vaccinated, or get antibiotic shots when they were sick.

Getting one's tonsils or appendix out is not something any child WANTS.

This is NOT DIFFERENT.
Exactly. Bad for you in the short term, but good for you in the long run.
I want to hear a reason from the OP and her mother as to WHY she doesn't want it. What are her thoughts other than "it's poison" or "it's hard" ? I want an articulate, well reasoned explanation. I am betting she didn't have one and that is why the judge ruled against her. Because I don't want to is not a reason.

You can go watch the video interview with her mother. She wants to try other treatments. Chemo is not the ONLY treatment for cancer.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:

It's because they were qualifiers that you added--and therefore, automatically nonsense.
Excuse me? I added NOTHING. I copied it directly from a medical site. So now you are just making stuff up to support your nonsense?
Try again.
BS. You added YOUR interpretation of it. It says in bold black letters that they are to save a life if they can do so.

It's YOUR interpretation that saving a life means "playing God". That is utter bullsh!t.
It says IF I am given to save a life. Clearly. You are the one with the absurd denial of what is right there in black and white.
And that is the case here. They made that choice when they walked in his office the first time. He cannot just go away now when he can save her life.

-- Edited by huskerbb on Saturday 10th of January 2015 01:04:12 PM

So doctors can now do whatever the hell treatment they want to you without your consent if they think it will save your life?

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
Mellow Momma wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Mellow Momma wrote:
What about the religious people who think antibiotics and such are not God's will, whose children die of strep throat because the parent won't seek treatment? Is that ok with you ?
Oh, please don't point out their rank hypocrisy.

Or the hypocrisy of those who are supposedly "pro-life"--but are clamoring for death here.
I just want to know where the line is. Is it ok for the state to mandate those kids get treatment, as long as it isn't chemo? Where is the line? What is the difference?
And you are against people taking their own lives who have termin diseases...but that is exactly what the OP is doing by refusing treatment. I just don't get it.
I am not against terminal people refusing treatment ever. She is not trying to commit suicide - she is wanting to try alternative treatments.

A. People who choose that are ADULTS.

B. People who choose that almost always have a poor prognosis--even if they do the treatments, which is NOT the case here.

Mellow Momma · Sniff...sniff, sniff. Yay! A Bum!

Lawyerlady wrote:
Mellow Momma wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Mellow Momma wrote:
What about the religious people who think antibiotics and such are not God's will, whose children die of strep throat because the parent won't seek treatment? Is that ok with you ?
Oh, please don't point out their rank hypocrisy.

Or the hypocrisy of those who are supposedly "pro-life"--but are clamoring for death here.
I just want to know where the line is. Is it ok for the state to mandate those kids get treatment, as long as it isn't chemo? Where is the line? What is the difference?
And you are against people taking their own lives who have termin diseases...but that is exactly what the OP is doing by refusing treatment. I just don't get it.
I am not against terminal people refusing treatment ever. She is not trying to commit suicide - she is wanting to try alternative treatments.

What about my original question? How do you feel about the people who don't seek treatment for anything whose children die of normal childhood diseases because they refuse antibiotics?

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Mellow Momma wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
NO child wants medical treatments that will "hurt".

My kids certainly didn't want to get vaccinated, or get antibiotic shots when they were sick.

Getting one's tonsils or appendix out is not something any child WANTS.

This is NOT DIFFERENT.
Exactly. Bad for you in the short term, but good for you in the long run.
I want to hear a reason from the OP and her mother as to WHY she doesn't want it. What are her thoughts other than "it's poison" or "it's hard" ? I want an articulate, well reasoned explanation. I am betting she didn't have one and that is why the judge ruled against her. Because I don't want to is not a reason.

I will admit that I only saw one news story. The mom denied the diagnosis. I really feel that plays into the decision.

flan

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:

It's because they were qualifiers that you added--and therefore, automatically nonsense.
Excuse me? I added NOTHING. I copied it directly from a medical site. So now you are just making stuff up to support your nonsense?
Try again.
BS. You added YOUR interpretation of it. It says in bold black letters that they are to save a life if they can do so.

It's YOUR interpretation that saving a life means "playing God". That is utter bullsh!t.
It says IF I am given to save a life. Clearly. You are the one with the absurd denial of what is right there in black and white.
And that is the case here. They made that choice when they walked in his office the first time. He cannot just go away now when he can save her life.

-- Edited by huskerbb on Saturday 10th of January 2015 01:04:12 PM
So doctors can now do whatever the hell treatment they want to you without your consent if they think it will save your life?

No. You are the one with reading comprehension issues, now.

For MINORS, they can treat them with what they deem to be effective treatments that are highly likely to save their life--which is the case here.

She wasn't given a poor prognosis. The outcome is very likely to be positive here.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Mellow Momma wrote:
flan327 wrote:
I wish I had an everything bagel right now...

flan
Eat it in the handicapped rest room.

Take your time too. 😝

Why, I do believe that I will!

flan

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Mellow Momma wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
Mellow Momma wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Mellow Momma wrote:
What about the religious people who think antibiotics and such are not God's will, whose children die of strep throat because the parent won't seek treatment? Is that ok with you ?
Oh, please don't point out their rank hypocrisy.

Or the hypocrisy of those who are supposedly "pro-life"--but are clamoring for death here.
I just want to know where the line is. Is it ok for the state to mandate those kids get treatment, as long as it isn't chemo? Where is the line? What is the difference?
And you are against people taking their own lives who have termin diseases...but that is exactly what the OP is doing by refusing treatment. I just don't get it.
I am not against terminal people refusing treatment ever. She is not trying to commit suicide - she is wanting to try alternative treatments.
What about my original question? How do you feel about the people who don't seek treatment for anything whose children die of normal childhood diseases because they refuse antibiotics?

There is a line if parents won't treat easily curable, non terminal diseases with simple medications that are not horrible and don't have lasting side effects. Chemo is not it.

huskerbb · Guru

Mellow Momma wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
Mellow Momma wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Mellow Momma wrote:
What about the religious people who think antibiotics and such are not God's will, whose children die of strep throat because the parent won't seek treatment? Is that ok with you ?
Oh, please don't point out their rank hypocrisy.

Or the hypocrisy of those who are supposedly "pro-life"--but are clamoring for death here.
I just want to know where the line is. Is it ok for the state to mandate those kids get treatment, as long as it isn't chemo? Where is the line? What is the difference?
And you are against people taking their own lives who have termin diseases...but that is exactly what the OP is doing by refusing treatment. I just don't get it.
I am not against terminal people refusing treatment ever. She is not trying to commit suicide - she is wanting to try alternative treatments.
What about my original question? How do you feel about the people who don't seek treatment for anything whose children die of normal childhood diseases because they refuse antibiotics?

She can't logically answer. It would expose her hypocrisy.

She's already a stark hypocrite for claiming to be pro-life--but now is clamoring for death of a child.

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
Mellow Momma wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
Mellow Momma wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Mellow Momma wrote:
What about the religious people who think antibiotics and such are not God's will, whose children die of strep throat because the parent won't seek treatment? Is that ok with you ?
Oh, please don't point out their rank hypocrisy.

Or the hypocrisy of those who are supposedly "pro-life"--but are clamoring for death here.
I just want to know where the line is. Is it ok for the state to mandate those kids get treatment, as long as it isn't chemo? Where is the line? What is the difference?
And you are against people taking their own lives who have termin diseases...but that is exactly what the OP is doing by refusing treatment. I just don't get it.
I am not against terminal people refusing treatment ever. She is not trying to commit suicide - she is wanting to try alternative treatments.
What about my original question? How do you feel about the people who don't seek treatment for anything whose children die of normal childhood diseases because they refuse antibiotics?
There is a line if parents won't treat easily curable, non terminal diseases with simple medications that are not horrible and don't have lasting side effects. Chemo is not it.

Says who? That is hypocritical bullsh!t.

There is NO DIFFERENCE. The treatment here is given a high probability of success.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:

It's because they were qualifiers that you added--and therefore, automatically nonsense.
Excuse me? I added NOTHING. I copied it directly from a medical site. So now you are just making stuff up to support your nonsense?
Try again.
BS. You added YOUR interpretation of it. It says in bold black letters that they are to save a life if they can do so.

It's YOUR interpretation that saving a life means "playing God". That is utter bullsh!t.
It says IF I am given to save a life. Clearly. You are the one with the absurd denial of what is right there in black and white.
And that is the case here. They made that choice when they walked in his office the first time. He cannot just go away now when he can save her life.

-- Edited by huskerbb on Saturday 10th of January 2015 01:04:12 PM
So doctors can now do whatever the hell treatment they want to you without your consent if they think it will save your life?
No. You are the one with reading comprehension issues, now.

For MINORS, they can treat them with what they deem to be effective treatments that are highly likely to save their life--which is the case here.

She wasn't given a poor prognosis. The outcome is very likely to be positive here.

No, for MINORS, their parents make the decision. And you are ignoring the fact that they were not even given the opportunity to seek a second opinion.

And chemo is not a treatment to be FORCED on anybody.

And the PROGNOSIS doesn't matter. You don't get to strip people's rights because you don't agree with them.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
Mellow Momma wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
Mellow Momma wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Mellow Momma wrote:
What about the religious people who think antibiotics and such are not God's will, whose children die of strep throat because the parent won't seek treatment? Is that ok with you ?
Oh, please don't point out their rank hypocrisy.

Or the hypocrisy of those who are supposedly "pro-life"--but are clamoring for death here.
I just want to know where the line is. Is it ok for the state to mandate those kids get treatment, as long as it isn't chemo? Where is the line? What is the difference?
And you are against people taking their own lives who have termin diseases...but that is exactly what the OP is doing by refusing treatment. I just don't get it.
I am not against terminal people refusing treatment ever. She is not trying to commit suicide - she is wanting to try alternative treatments.
What about my original question? How do you feel about the people who don't seek treatment for anything whose children die of normal childhood diseases because they refuse antibiotics?
There is a line if parents won't treat easily curable, non terminal diseases with simple medications that are not horrible and don't have lasting side effects. Chemo is not it.
Says who? That is hypocritical bullsh!t.
There is NO DIFFERENCE. The treatment here is given a high probability of success.

With lifelong side effects.

Mellow Momma · Sniff...sniff, sniff. Yay! A Bum!

Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
Mellow Momma wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
Mellow Momma wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Mellow Momma wrote:
What about the religious people who think antibiotics and such are not God's will, whose children die of strep throat because the parent won't seek treatment? Is that ok with you ?
Oh, please don't point out their rank hypocrisy.

Or the hypocrisy of those who are supposedly "pro-life"--but are clamoring for death here.
I just want to know where the line is. Is it ok for the state to mandate those kids get treatment, as long as it isn't chemo? Where is the line? What is the difference?
And you are against people taking their own lives who have termin diseases...but that is exactly what the OP is doing by refusing treatment. I just don't get it.
I am not against terminal people refusing treatment ever. She is not trying to commit suicide - she is wanting to try alternative treatments.
What about my original question? How do you feel about the people who don't seek treatment for anything whose children die of normal childhood diseases because they refuse antibiotics?
There is a line if parents won't treat easily curable, non terminal diseases with simple medications that are not horrible and don't have lasting side effects. Chemo is not it.
Says who? That is hypocritical bullsh!t.
There is NO DIFFERENCE. The treatment here is given a high probability of success.
With lifelong side effects.

Not necessarily. That is the only uncertainty here.

Mellow Momma · Sniff...sniff, sniff. Yay! A Bum!

Lawyerlady wrote:
Mellow Momma wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
Mellow Momma wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Mellow Momma wrote:
What about the religious people who think antibiotics and such are not God's will, whose children die of strep throat because the parent won't seek treatment? Is that ok with you ?
Oh, please don't point out their rank hypocrisy.

Or the hypocrisy of those who are supposedly "pro-life"--but are clamoring for death here.
I just want to know where the line is. Is it ok for the state to mandate those kids get treatment, as long as it isn't chemo? Where is the line? What is the difference?
And you are against people taking their own lives who have termin diseases...but that is exactly what the OP is doing by refusing treatment. I just don't get it.
I am not against terminal people refusing treatment ever. She is not trying to commit suicide - she is wanting to try alternative treatments.
What about my original question? How do you feel about the people who don't seek treatment for anything whose children die of normal childhood diseases because they refuse antibiotics?
There is a line if parents won't treat easily curable, non terminal diseases with simple medications that are not horrible and don't have lasting side effects. Chemo is not it.

Easily curable is in the eye of the beholder I guess. Non hogekins lymphoma is easily curable. It's the best cancer to get diagnosed with because it's so curable !

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:

It's because they were qualifiers that you added--and therefore, automatically nonsense.
Excuse me? I added NOTHING. I copied it directly from a medical site. So now you are just making stuff up to support your nonsense?
Try again.
BS. You added YOUR interpretation of it. It says in bold black letters that they are to save a life if they can do so.

It's YOUR interpretation that saving a life means "playing God". That is utter bullsh!t.
It says IF I am given to save a life. Clearly. You are the one with the absurd denial of what is right there in black and white.
And that is the case here. They made that choice when they walked in his office the first time. He cannot just go away now when he can save her life.

-- Edited by huskerbb on Saturday 10th of January 2015 01:04:12 PM
So doctors can now do whatever the hell treatment they want to you without your consent if they think it will save your life?
No. You are the one with reading comprehension issues, now.

For MINORS, they can treat them with what they deem to be effective treatments that are highly likely to save their life--which is the case here.

She wasn't given a poor prognosis. The outcome is very likely to be positive here.
No, for MINORS, their parents make the decision. And you are ignoring the fact that they were not even given the opportunity to seek a second opinion.
And chemo is not a treatment to be FORCED on anybody.
And the PROGNOSIS doesn't matter. You don't get to strip people's rights because you don't agree with them.

LOL!!!! More hypocritical bullsh!t.

If the prognosis doesn't matter--then I go back to mama's question. What about people who don't get their child treated for any disease or malady? Your original answer concerned "easily curable" diseases--so in those cases the prognosis absolutely DOES matter.

Therefore, in this case, it matters, as well.

You can't even keep track of your own BS, anymore.

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
Mellow Momma wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
Mellow Momma wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Mellow Momma wrote:
What about the religious people who think antibiotics and such are not God's will, whose children die of strep throat because the parent won't seek treatment? Is that ok with you ?
Oh, please don't point out their rank hypocrisy.

Or the hypocrisy of those who are supposedly "pro-life"--but are clamoring for death here.
I just want to know where the line is. Is it ok for the state to mandate those kids get treatment, as long as it isn't chemo? Where is the line? What is the difference?
And you are against people taking their own lives who have termin diseases...but that is exactly what the OP is doing by refusing treatment. I just don't get it.
I am not against terminal people refusing treatment ever. She is not trying to commit suicide - she is wanting to try alternative treatments.
What about my original question? How do you feel about the people who don't seek treatment for anything whose children die of normal childhood diseases because they refuse antibiotics?
There is a line if parents won't treat easily curable, non terminal diseases with simple medications that are not horrible and don't have lasting side effects. Chemo is not it.
Says who? That is hypocritical bullsh!t.
There is NO DIFFERENCE. The treatment here is given a high probability of success.
With lifelong side effects.

You don't know that.

Plus, that can be said of a lot of things. People who have knee surgery often have lasting effects.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Mellow Momma wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
Mellow Momma wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
Mellow Momma wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Mellow Momma wrote:
What about the religious people who think antibiotics and such are not God's will, whose children die of strep throat because the parent won't seek treatment? Is that ok with you ?
Oh, please don't point out their rank hypocrisy.

Or the hypocrisy of those who are supposedly "pro-life"--but are clamoring for death here.
I just want to know where the line is. Is it ok for the state to mandate those kids get treatment, as long as it isn't chemo? Where is the line? What is the difference?
And you are against people taking their own lives who have termin diseases...but that is exactly what the OP is doing by refusing treatment. I just don't get it.
I am not against terminal people refusing treatment ever. She is not trying to commit suicide - she is wanting to try alternative treatments.
What about my original question? How do you feel about the people who don't seek treatment for anything whose children die of normal childhood diseases because they refuse antibiotics?
There is a line if parents won't treat easily curable, non terminal diseases with simple medications that are not horrible and don't have lasting side effects. Chemo is not it.
Says who? That is hypocritical bullsh!t.
There is NO DIFFERENCE. The treatment here is given a high probability of success.
With lifelong side effects.
Not necessarily. That is the only uncertainty here.

The success of this is not certain, either.

But the chemo CAN cause additional types of cancer, infertility, death in and of itself, heart disease, and lung disease.

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
Mellow Momma wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
Mellow Momma wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
Mellow Momma wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Mellow Momma wrote:
What about the religious people who think antibiotics and such are not God's will, whose children die of strep throat because the parent won't seek treatment? Is that ok with you ?
Oh, please don't point out their rank hypocrisy.

Or the hypocrisy of those who are supposedly "pro-life"--but are clamoring for death here.
I just want to know where the line is. Is it ok for the state to mandate those kids get treatment, as long as it isn't chemo? Where is the line? What is the difference?
And you are against people taking their own lives who have termin diseases...but that is exactly what the OP is doing by refusing treatment. I just don't get it.
I am not against terminal people refusing treatment ever. She is not trying to commit suicide - she is wanting to try alternative treatments.
What about my original question? How do you feel about the people who don't seek treatment for anything whose children die of normal childhood diseases because they refuse antibiotics?
There is a line if parents won't treat easily curable, non terminal diseases with simple medications that are not horrible and don't have lasting side effects. Chemo is not it.
Says who? That is hypocritical bullsh!t.
There is NO DIFFERENCE. The treatment here is given a high probability of success.
With lifelong side effects.
Not necessarily. That is the only uncertainty here.
The success of this is not certain, either.

But the chemo CAN cause additional types of cancer, infertility, death in and of itself, heart disease, and lung disease.

No, it isn't certain--but neither is any medical treatment. People have died from surgery for appendicitis. Does that mean it should never be attempted? That's absurd.

Mellow Momma · Sniff...sniff, sniff. Yay! A Bum!

Not certain ? 93% is about as certain as you can get!!

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

I can't believe people are actually comparing taking an antibiotic to having chemo. How many of you have had chemo or WATCHED someone go through it?

I will never change my mind. Chemo is not a treatment that should be forced on anyone. It is torture.

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
I can't believe people are actually comparing taking an antibiotic to having chemo. How many of you have had chemo or WATCHED someone go through it?

I will never change my mind. Chemo is not a treatment that should be forced on anyone. It is torture.

I can't believe you can't see your own hypocrisy. On several levels. I had gotten the idea you were pro-life. Silly me.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Lawyerlady wrote:
Mellow Momma wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
Mellow Momma wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
Mellow Momma wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Mellow Momma wrote:
What about the religious people who think antibiotics and such are not God's will, whose children die of strep throat because the parent won't seek treatment? Is that ok with you ?
Oh, please don't point out their rank hypocrisy.

Or the hypocrisy of those who are supposedly "pro-life"--but are clamoring for death here.
I just want to know where the line is. Is it ok for the state to mandate those kids get treatment, as long as it isn't chemo? Where is the line? What is the difference?
And you are against people taking their own lives who have termin diseases...but that is exactly what the OP is doing by refusing treatment. I just don't get it.
I am not against terminal people refusing treatment ever. She is not trying to commit suicide - she is wanting to try alternative treatments.
What about my original question? How do you feel about the people who don't seek treatment for anything whose children die of normal childhood diseases because they refuse antibiotics?
There is a line if parents won't treat easily curable, non terminal diseases with simple medications that are not horrible and don't have lasting side effects. Chemo is not it.
Says who? That is hypocritical bullsh!t.
There is NO DIFFERENCE. The treatment here is given a high probability of success.
With lifelong side effects.
Not necessarily. That is the only uncertainty here.
The success of this is not certain, either.

But the chemo CAN cause additional types of cancer, infertility, death in and of itself, heart disease, and lung disease.

I heard that untreated cancer causes death, too.

flan

huskerbb · Guru

I know several children who have cancer and have or are taking chemo. They have a FAR less likely outcome of surviving the cancer than this girl.

She is figuratively spitting in their face. They'd take her odds in a heartbeat.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Mellow Momma wrote:
Not certain ? 93% is about as certain as you can get!!

You are looking at 1-year survival rates? Cancer patients can survive a year with no treatment.

"Cure" varies from 80-95% percent, BUT that is looking at the short term, not the long term. So, you are looking at a number for a year, and it's a year that involves repeated horrible treatments. Chemo patients often get another form of cancer after 10 years.

And it STILL doesn't matter. Nobody has the right to make that decision for anyone else except them or their parents just because they think it is the BETTER treatment, even if it would 100% cure her with no side effects.

huskerbb · Guru

This is a closed group, so I'm not sure how much you can see.

www.facebook.com/groups/battlingforbrendan/

Team Jack is another one. He's been fighting brain cancer for years.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

huskerbb wrote:
I know several children who have cancer and have or are taking chemo. They have a FAR less likely outcome of surviving the cancer than this girl.

She is figuratively spitting in their face. They'd take her odds in a heartbeat.

That is their choice or their parents choice.

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
Mellow Momma wrote:
Not certain ? 93% is about as certain as you can get!!
You are looking at 1-year survival rates? Cancer patients can survive a year with no treatment.

"Cure" varies from 80-95% percent, BUT that is looking at the short term, not the long term. So, you are looking at a number for a year, and it's a year that involves repeated horrible treatments. Chemo patients often get another form of cancer after 10 years.

And it STILL doesn't matter. Nobody has the right to make that decision for anyone else except them or their parents just because they think it is the BETTER treatment, even if it would 100% cure her with no side effects.

BS. The state absolutely has an interest in stepping in when parents have proven themselves unfit to parent.

We do it ALL THE TIME.

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
I know several children who have cancer and have or are taking chemo. They have a FAR less likely outcome of surviving the cancer than this girl.

She is figuratively spitting in their face. They'd take her odds in a heartbeat.
That is their choice or their parents choice.

It takes courage to make the right choice.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
I can't believe people are actually comparing taking an antibiotic to having chemo. How many of you have had chemo or WATCHED someone go through it?

I will never change my mind. Chemo is not a treatment that should be forced on anyone. It is torture.
I can't believe you can't see your own hypocrisy. On several levels. I had gotten the idea you were pro-life. Silly me.

Pro-life does not mean taking people's right to determine their own medical treatment away.

It's hilarious that several of the pro-choice people on here think she shouldn't have one.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

I have to go. I have to be somewhere at 2. Have fun.

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
I can't believe people are actually comparing taking an antibiotic to having chemo. How many of you have had chemo or WATCHED someone go through it?

I will never change my mind. Chemo is not a treatment that should be forced on anyone. It is torture.
I can't believe you can't see your own hypocrisy. On several levels. I had gotten the idea you were pro-life. Silly me.
Pro-life does not mean taking people's right to determine their own medical treatment away.

It's hilarious that several of the pro-choice people on here think she shouldn't have one.

If they are choosing to needlessly die--it absolutely means just that.

It's more hilarious for you to claim to be pro-life, and then insisting this girl should die.

I know what to do_sometimes · Frozen Sucks!

Mellow Momma wrote:
What about the religious people who think antibiotics and such are not God's will, whose children die of strep throat because the parent won't seek treatment? Is that ok with you ?

Ok so this is what bothers me about this OP case. Many kids with parents of the Church of Scientology and JW have been forced to have medical care. I agree with that. I don't agree with the OP however. Why is chemo being chosen as THE course of action? There are several other treatments out there for cancer. Chemo can be very devastating physically and quality of what life you have left is poor. Why does the court force the chemo? As long as the patient is receiving care, why force one that will make her puke, lose her hair, and be too tired and sick to enjoy what time she has left? However, I am conflicted on the difference between the two types of cases; Religion versus personal life quality choice.

huskerbb · Guru

I know what to do_sometimes wrote:
Mellow Momma wrote:
What about the religious people who think antibiotics and such are not God's will, whose children die of strep throat because the parent won't seek treatment? Is that ok with you ?
Ok so this is what bothers me about this OP case. Many kids with parents of the Church of Scientology and JW have been forced to have medical care. I agree with that. I don't agree with the OP however. Why is chemo being chosen as THE course of action? There are several other treatments out there for cancer. Chemo can be very devastating physically and quality of what life you have left is poor. Why does the court force the chemo? As long as the patient is receiving care, why force one that will make her puke, lose her hair, and be too tired and sick to enjoy what time she has left? However, I am conflicted on the difference between the two types of cases; Religion versus personal life quality choice.

There is chemo--and treatments that don't work.

They give her a high probability of survival with the chemo.

There is really no difference between the situations you are talking about and this.

I know what to do_sometimes · Frozen Sucks!

huskerbb wrote:
I know what to do_sometimes wrote:
Mellow Momma wrote:
What about the religious people who think antibiotics and such are not God's will, whose children die of strep throat because the parent won't seek treatment? Is that ok with you ?
Ok so this is what bothers me about this OP case. Many kids with parents of the Church of Scientology and JW have been forced to have medical care. I agree with that. I don't agree with the OP however. Why is chemo being chosen as THE course of action? There are several other treatments out there for cancer. Chemo can be very devastating physically and quality of what life you have left is poor. Why does the court force the chemo? As long as the patient is receiving care, why force one that will make her puke, lose her hair, and be too tired and sick to enjoy what time she has left? However, I am conflicted on the difference between the two types of cases; Religion versus personal life quality choice.
There is chemo--and treatments that don't work.

They give her a high probability of survival with the chemo.

There is really no difference between the situations you are talking about and this.

But that is not a true statement. Depends on the physical make up of the patient. Remember when chemo was the preferred treatment for Aids? And when the rich celebs started doing alternative treatments and are still alive today the world was shocked? Chemo is just the preferred method today, doesn't mean it's the only one.

huskerbb · Guru

I know what to do_sometimes wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
I know what to do_sometimes wrote:
Mellow Momma wrote:
What about the religious people who think antibiotics and such are not God's will, whose children die of strep throat because the parent won't seek treatment? Is that ok with you ?
Ok so this is what bothers me about this OP case. Many kids with parents of the Church of Scientology and JW have been forced to have medical care. I agree with that. I don't agree with the OP however. Why is chemo being chosen as THE course of action? There are several other treatments out there for cancer. Chemo can be very devastating physically and quality of what life you have left is poor. Why does the court force the chemo? As long as the patient is receiving care, why force one that will make her puke, lose her hair, and be too tired and sick to enjoy what time she has left? However, I am conflicted on the difference between the two types of cases; Religion versus personal life quality choice.
There is chemo--and treatments that don't work.

They give her a high probability of survival with the chemo.

There is really no difference between the situations you are talking about and this.
But that is not a true statement. Depends on the physical make up of the patient. Remember when chemo was the preferred treatment for Aids? And when the rich celebs started doing alternative treatments and are still alive today the world was shocked? Chemo is just the preferred method today, doesn't mean it's the only one.

Uh-huh.

There is actual medicine proven by science--and voodoo. The courts cannot possibly rule in favor of the latter.

huskerbb · Guru

The religious people believe they are providing "alternative" treatments, too.

ed11563 · Guru

I know what to do_sometimes wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
I know what to do_sometimes wrote:
Mellow Momma wrote:
What about the religious people who think antibiotics and such are not God's will, whose children die of strep throat because the parent won't seek treatment? Is that ok with you ?
Ok so this is what bothers me about this OP case. Many kids with parents of the Church of Scientology and JW have been forced to have medical care. I agree with that. I don't agree with the OP however. Why is chemo being chosen as THE course of action? There are several other treatments out there for cancer. Chemo can be very devastating physically and quality of what life you have left is poor. Why does the court force the chemo? As long as the patient is receiving care, why force one that will make her puke, lose her hair, and be too tired and sick to enjoy what time she has left? However, I am conflicted on the difference between the two types of cases; Religion versus personal life quality choice.
There is chemo--and treatments that don't work.

They give her a high probability of survival with the chemo.

There is really no difference between the situations you are talking about and this.
But that is not a true statement. Depends on the physical make up of the patient. Remember when chemo was the preferred treatment for Aids? And when the rich celebs started doing alternative treatments and are still alive today the world was shocked? Chemo is just the preferred method today, doesn't mean it's the only one.

What other treatments are there for Lymphoma that actually work? "Work" meaning the chance of survival exceeds 10%.

The nature of Lymphoma is that it is all over inside the body, in the lymphatic system. What besides Chemo and make believe, works all over inside the body?

I know what to do_sometimes · Frozen Sucks!

ed11563 wrote:
I know what to do_sometimes wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
I know what to do_sometimes wrote:
Mellow Momma wrote:
What about the religious people who think antibiotics and such are not God's will, whose children die of strep throat because the parent won't seek treatment? Is that ok with you ?
Ok so this is what bothers me about this OP case. Many kids with parents of the Church of Scientology and JW have been forced to have medical care. I agree with that. I don't agree with the OP however. Why is chemo being chosen as THE course of action? There are several other treatments out there for cancer. Chemo can be very devastating physically and quality of what life you have left is poor. Why does the court force the chemo? As long as the patient is receiving care, why force one that will make her puke, lose her hair, and be too tired and sick to enjoy what time she has left? However, I am conflicted on the difference between the two types of cases; Religion versus personal life quality choice.
There is chemo--and treatments that don't work.

They give her a high probability of survival with the chemo.

There is really no difference between the situations you are talking about and this.
But that is not a true statement. Depends on the physical make up of the patient. Remember when chemo was the preferred treatment for Aids? And when the rich celebs started doing alternative treatments and are still alive today the world was shocked? Chemo is just the preferred method today, doesn't mean it's the only one.
What other treatments are there for Lymphoma that actually work? "Work" meaning the chance of survival exceeds 10%.
The nature of Lymphoma is that it is all over inside the body, in the lymphatic system. What besides Chemo and make believe, works all over inside the body?

Ed you are commenting as if she has a grand chance of survival. She wants quality of life, not quantity. I think that is a mature decision. This type of crap with gov't interference in someone's choice in health care is going to drive people underground and not go to doctors. It is NO ONE's business but the patient as to their choice of care.

Fort Worth Mom · Mod/Penguin lover/Princess!

I know what to do_sometimes wrote:
ed11563 wrote:
I know what to do_sometimes wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
I know what to do_sometimes wrote:
Mellow Momma wrote:
What about the religious people who think antibiotics and such are not God's will, whose children die of strep throat because the parent won't seek treatment? Is that ok with you ?
Ok so this is what bothers me about this OP case. Many kids with parents of the Church of Scientology and JW have been forced to have medical care. I agree with that. I don't agree with the OP however. Why is chemo being chosen as THE course of action? There are several other treatments out there for cancer. Chemo can be very devastating physically and quality of what life you have left is poor. Why does the court force the chemo? As long as the patient is receiving care, why force one that will make her puke, lose her hair, and be too tired and sick to enjoy what time she has left? However, I am conflicted on the difference between the two types of cases; Religion versus personal life quality choice.
There is chemo--and treatments that don't work.

They give her a high probability of survival with the chemo.

There is really no difference between the situations you are talking about and this.
But that is not a true statement. Depends on the physical make up of the patient. Remember when chemo was the preferred treatment for Aids? And when the rich celebs started doing alternative treatments and are still alive today the world was shocked? Chemo is just the preferred method today, doesn't mean it's the only one.
What other treatments are there for Lymphoma that actually work? "Work" meaning the chance of survival exceeds 10%.
The nature of Lymphoma is that it is all over inside the body, in the lymphatic system. What besides Chemo and make believe, works all over inside the body?

Ed you are commenting as if she has a grand chance of survival. She wants quality of life, not quantity. I think that is a mature decision. This type of crap with gov't interference in someone's choice in health care is going to drive people underground and not go to doctors. It is NO ONE's business but the patient as to their choice of care.

I lost faith in medical care, a long time ago.

I don't see a doctor, for regular check ups.

The only one I still go to is my eye doctor. I have glaucoma, and cataracts.. I will still go in for a regular check up with my eye doctor.

Is someone, going to force me, to go to the doctor, for anything?

I think not.

Is someone going to force me to do a treatment that I don't won't to do?

Let them try.

They will die, trying.

Won't happen. furious

ed11563 · Guru

I'm not saying she should be forced to stay alive, I'm saying I disagree with her decision.

Maybe someone told her that the chemo would destroy her ovaries, and she decided that her life is not worth living if she can't have children.

Maybe someone told her the chemo would damage her heart, so she would be disabled and short of breath for the rest of her life.

I don't know what other things can happen. Maybe it's an informed decision for her.

Maybe not.

I think (IMHO) people should choose life.

huskerbb · Guru

I know what to do_sometimes wrote:
ed11563 wrote:
I know what to do_sometimes wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
I know what to do_sometimes wrote:
Mellow Momma wrote:
What about the religious people who think antibiotics and such are not God's will, whose children die of strep throat because the parent won't seek treatment? Is that ok with you ?
Ok so this is what bothers me about this OP case. Many kids with parents of the Church of Scientology and JW have been forced to have medical care. I agree with that. I don't agree with the OP however. Why is chemo being chosen as THE course of action? There are several other treatments out there for cancer. Chemo can be very devastating physically and quality of what life you have left is poor. Why does the court force the chemo? As long as the patient is receiving care, why force one that will make her puke, lose her hair, and be too tired and sick to enjoy what time she has left? However, I am conflicted on the difference between the two types of cases; Religion versus personal life quality choice.
There is chemo--and treatments that don't work.

They give her a high probability of survival with the chemo.

There is really no difference between the situations you are talking about and this.
But that is not a true statement. Depends on the physical make up of the patient. Remember when chemo was the preferred treatment for Aids? And when the rich celebs started doing alternative treatments and are still alive today the world was shocked? Chemo is just the preferred method today, doesn't mean it's the only one.
What other treatments are there for Lymphoma that actually work? "Work" meaning the chance of survival exceeds 10%.
The nature of Lymphoma is that it is all over inside the body, in the lymphatic system. What besides Chemo and make believe, works all over inside the body?

Ed you are commenting as if she has a grand chance of survival. She wants quality of life, not quantity. I think that is a mature decision. This type of crap with gov't interference in someone's choice in health care is going to drive people underground and not go to doctors. It is NO ONE's business but the patient as to their choice of care.

BS. Not in the case of a child.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

This isn't a "quality of life" issue. This is temporary discomfort for a CURE. No different than going through surgery to get your tonsils out or your gallbladder or whatever where you suffer temporarily for the better good. Yes, chemo is very difficult. But, all chemo is not God Awful. And, they have come a long way in dosing and treating and treating side effects. Yes, it will suck for a TIME, then she can live the REST of her life. I think her mom is a freaking idiot.

Ohfour · Hooker

The people I know that have had chemo and lived are miserable. I do not know one person that says they would do it again. The effects are long term and more often than not, permanent. I would never EVER have chemo after what I have seen with my own eyes. Ever...

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

You can't compare one type of cancer and chemo to another. Did she have Hodgkins lymphoma?

huskerbb · Guru

I've known quite a few, as well, and except for a few who died (that had a poor prognosis to begin with)--none of them ever said they regretted doing it.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

But I have also known people who had chemo and while it was difficult are veru happy to still be here.

Ohfour · Hooker

Just saying, from what I've seen, I wouldn't do it. G knows my feelings and he feels the same. Neither of us would want the other to go through that.

huskerbb · Guru

Whether I would do it or not would depend on a lot of factors--but the experience of others with it would NOT be one of those.

At this point of my life, unless they told me that "yes, we can try it but you are going to die, anyway"--then I'd do it. My wife and sons still need me. I have a new granddaughter. It would be selfish of me to not try everything I could to live. I don't live for myself, I try to live for others, so my pain and discomfort would be irrelevant.

If I'm 70+, maybe even a little younger, it would depend greatly on the prognosis. If it wasn't at least 50/50, I might not do it. Heck by that age, I might not live much longer, anyway, even if the chemo is successful.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

It depends. Depends a lot on the actual prognosis. And what stage if life I am at.