Here is something to get all your lovely, foul, drunk, hostile but delightfully active minds a thinkin'....
www.ctv.ca/servlet/Arti...0513/20080513
I'm not going to say anything because I don't want to influence your comments, but I do want to hear what YOU think.
www.ctv.ca/servlet/Arti...0513/20080513
I'm not going to say anything because I don't want to influence your comments, but I do want to hear what YOU think.
posted by:
|
Toronto
|
-
Re: When life is at stake, who should get final say?
Tue, May 13, 2008 - 2:22 PMI feel a lot of conflict about this. If it were my child I would want them to continue with what would give them the 50% chance of survival compared to possibly lower chances with alternative treatments. However, I would not want treatment forced upon them that requires separation and guards on duty. No wonder this kid is tired and scared, he's been through it once and feels that he should have a say in his treatment. That is something that makes perfect sense to me as a fellow human being. -
-
Re: When life is at stake, who should get final say?
Tue, May 13, 2008 - 4:24 PMYeah, this is a conflicted area. As a minor, his parents or guardians have legal say-so re. what happens to him and whether he receives medical treatment (the flip side--do we let a kid die because he has Christian Science parents who forbid the blood transfusion that would save his life, even though the kid is sane and is begging the doctors for the transfusion?).
The article mentioned that this kid had been tested by shrinks and didn't seem to understand the nature and consequences of his decision; in that case, I think the guardian's decision carries the weight. But even if the kid did grok, legally it's the guardian's call.
-
-
Re: When life is at stake, who should get final say?
Tue, May 13, 2008 - 4:44 PMI think it's up to the parents. And if it were my child, I'd do what he asked, though my heart breaks to even think about it. -
-
Re: When life is at stake, who should get final say?
Tue, May 13, 2008 - 11:29 PMWhat if you were made aware of the fact that the kid has fetal alcohol syndrome?
To me, that screams that the parents have already proven that they are irresponsible.
My own opinion on this is that an 11-year old that had already got developmental problems that has been tested by a psychiatrist who says he's not capable of making the decision, should not be allowed to make the decision. He's still a child.
And while I would usually say the parents should make the decision, I would think again if the parents have already proven themselves incapable.
While I know that chemo is nasty business, if I were a parent, I'd be the rock for my kid, especially since he has good odds on living through it. Yes, the kid knows it will be painful, which is why he is saying no, but as a parent, better he should go through the pain and LIVE than die painfully without taking the chance to live.
And that story has been updated, the Children's Aid Service will be sending him back to his parents once he has treatment. -
-
Re: When life is at stake, who should get final say?
Wed, May 14, 2008 - 12:52 AMWhen I worked with young children, the school's official policy was to resuscitate any child with a do not resuscitate order and then claim ignorance afterwards.
Can you imagine letting a toddler choke to death on a marble because their parents think god wants it that way? *shudder*
On the other hand, I know of a number of firsthand accounts from inside the medical field that have proven to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that many (maybe even most) doctors are opinionated idiots and there are many other effective ways to approach fatal diseases, yes even cancer, that go against medical advice and work even better. Forced chemotherapy is fucking retarded. We are more humane to our pets!
-
Re: When life is at stake, who should get final say?
Wed, May 14, 2008 - 2:56 AMI think it's an INCREDIBLY slippery slope to start trying to decide which parents are responsible enough to make this choice for their children and which aren't. Abuse and neglect of a living child are one thing, but FAS... well, considering I have a friend who didn't know she WAS pregnant until she was 7 months along (kept having regular periods and everything), that proves very little to me. Had said friend been heavy drinker, she too would have had an FAS child. Not knowing she was preggo doesn't make her irresponsible. -
-
Re: When life is at stake, who should get final say?
Wed, May 14, 2008 - 8:42 AMOnce again proving that i really know nothing about women...
You can still have a period once you're pregnant?!
Isn't that counterproductive? Or counter-reproductive as the case may be?
And wouldn't you be seriously showing at 7 months? That would be a serious flag of pregnancy, no? (Not to slag your friend Arani, I'm sure she's a wonderful person if you are friends with her.) -
-
Re: When life is at stake, who should get final say?
Wed, May 14, 2008 - 9:03 AMValizan, pregnant women "spot" blood, and a woman who has a very light period normally may not realize she's pregnant. Also, a large woman may not notice she's pregnant because her body won't 'show" the pregnancy as much as a small woman. -
-
Re: When life is at stake, who should get final say?
Wed, May 14, 2008 - 12:11 PMAhhh! -
-
Re: When life is at stake, who should get final say?
Wed, May 14, 2008 - 3:05 PMI've also known several women who didn't show with their first pregnancy (and not large women, either... don't ask me where they kept the babies), even when they knew they were pregnant. It does seem hard to believe (the first time I was ever a week late for a period, yup, I was preggers) but it does happen. There's not much hard data on FAS, but I'm under the impression that the fetus is most vulnerable early in the pregnancy, anyway, when more people don't know they're pregnant.
As to the kid... gaaaah. My MIL went through chemo last year and it SUCKED... The cancer was worse, but after the operation she was fine until the chemo started. I would hate seeing any kid of mine go through that, especially a second time. I can't blame them for not wanting to do it again.
Is there a point when it's acceptable to let go of someone we love? To say that less pain is better even if it means a shorter life? I don't know. We do it for our pets all the time, but it's a different situation. God, I hope I never have to make a decision like that.
-
Re: When life is at stake, who should get final say?
Wed, May 14, 2008 - 5:46 PMActually, she was fairly small... but you really honest to goodness couldn't tell. With me, I didn't start showing until my 6th month with my first child, and this time around I was showing at 3 months!
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: When life is at stake, who should get final say?
Wed, May 14, 2008 - 7:33 AMIt would entirely depend on what kind of person the 11 year old was. I have known several kids that age and younger who were perfectly capable of making this sort of decision, I have also met others who would be hard pressed to remember the date if a video game or tv were involved. :0)
Circumstance is everything in these sorts of situations, the press has a bad habit of giving the least information to get the most reaction.
Were the parents responsible and solid people? What is the kids personality? How did CAS get involved in the first place? Was the Psychiatrist an independent or brought in by CAS and has their mandate in mind? What was the hospitals involvement; attentive or indifferent?
Now at this later date, with more information being made available the story has a completely different tone than originally suggested by the media. I'm not sure if I should be annoyed with that or not. -
-
Re: When life is at stake, who should get final say?
Wed, May 14, 2008 - 8:48 AMSheridan, you are very astute. Yes there are details purposely being left out of the story by the media.
1. Because of the child's age, there is a press ban on mentioning the family name.
2. The judge has also imposed a press ban on certain other details to preserve the family's peace. (I still have a few contacts in the press who are sharing some details with me. )
CAS got involved because the doctors legally had to contact them (it was in the story.)
-
-
Re: When life is at stake, who should get final say?
Wed, May 14, 2008 - 1:16 PMHonestly, I'm with the kid. He is 11 years old, and regardless if he has developmental problems, he seems to understand the concequences of his illness and that without treatment he will die.
If it were me and I had a 50% chance of making it, I'd probably do it. Then again, I've never had this sort of disease nor have I undergone chemotherapy.
He should have a say in his own life and as there is no abuse involved here then the Government should just let it go and let the family carry out their wishes.
-
Re: When life is at stake, who should get final say?
Wed, May 14, 2008 - 5:16 PMI have 3 children. Thanks the Gods that I never had to face this dilemma.
That having been said, I think 11 is not old enough to make an informed decision about health care, BUT it is old enough to have preferences. The parents need to make the best possible choice in an intolerable situation.
Chemo is not a cure, it's only the most widely recognized treatment, even if it's not all that effective.
Alternative therapies exist and (some) work at least as well as chemo.
That doesn't change the parents responsibility to provide the best care that they can for their child, and if it means going against established medicine, that's what it is.
But at 11 the child is still to young to make the decision on his own. -
-
Re: When life is at stake, who should get final say?
Wed, May 14, 2008 - 6:54 PMHe's 11. If he only has a 50% chance of living - let him go live for a while. If he only gets to be tortured by chemo and doctors poking at him - that's not living. That's being a lab rat. Let him go play for the last 50% chance of his life. Let him be a kid for a minute. Live what you got. -
-
Re: When life is at stake, who should get final say?
Wed, May 14, 2008 - 9:50 PMThing is Laura, he only has a 50% chance if he gets the Chemo. Without chemo he has a 0% chance. I'd always give my kid that shot at 50% rather than 0%.
Without chemo, they think he may have a month to live. -
-
Re: When life is at stake, who should get final say?
Wed, May 14, 2008 - 11:40 PMThey said they wanted to try an alternate method of treatment, yes? I'm with that completely.
I asked a director of a cancer center whether they would use chemo if they got cancer and they said no, there are healthier ways of getting rid of cancer.
The radiologist is the person making survival rate percentages. I'd get 20 second opinions.
Have you ever had to take medicine you know makes you sick? ...like 12 pills a day,...really sick...
Sometimes you just want it all to stop.
Were it one of my sons, we'd do the same as we always do; decide together. -
-
Re: When life is at stake, who should get final say?
Thu, May 15, 2008 - 6:27 AMMy boss had a tumor on his throat. The medical doctor cut it out. It grew back. They said they could cut more but he'd never be able to talk again. His son had just been born and he really wanted to be able to talk to his son. They told him without treatment it could spread and all other kind of scare tactics.
He went to a Chinese medicine doctor. He took herbs, changed his diet, and drank Red Zinger tea 4 times a day every day. In one year he went back to the medical doctors. The cancer was gone completly. Not a trace of it in his body. He lived 20 more years, a good life with his son and died recently of heart disease, happy and chatty.
Sometimes, they are wrong.
-
-
-
-
