Chemo is not always, in every case, so horrible. My mother handled it well (although it only gave her 2 more years- but wonderful years they were). The fact that she eventually succumbed to the disease had nothing to do with the failure of chemo, but everything to do with the fact that she delayed getting a lump checked out in anything CLOSE to a timely manner.
My plumber and friend is doing two treatments a week and is still able to work 3 days a week. What I am saying is I think we do a disservice to people by speaking only of those instances when chemo is "horrible". It's not always, and sometimes it works.
All of which has nothing to do with the topic at hand, but I had to get this off my chest. I am sorry for those of you who have witnessed horrid experiences with chemo. In my mother's case however, it gave her the time she, and we, needed to have with her, and they were cheerful, happy, enjoyable times.
I know a lot of people who have taken chemo and yes they still work. Try to keep your health insurance while not working.
Maybe all the weakness, nausia, hair loose, changes to the skin etc. etc. are not bad. The fact your bodie defences are down and you cant fight off any infection. Chemo is just a walk in the park.
Till you have been there dont tell me how easy chemo is. I have two friends that lost their wives to breat cancer. Yes early detection gives the best chance for survival. Depends on the type of cancer as to the regement of chemo given. Just because my wife couldn't eat for a day or two after each treatment. O and the first treatment they gave her was with a pump. The treatment lasted three days. Just hang around the hospital. No since driving the 275 miles home and then back. She could always carry a bucket in her lap so we didnt have to pull over for her to throw up.
Lets get back on subject. What right does a court have to say about how you raise a child. Well lets just let them say that they need to take our children out of our homes because we teach them christian values. They may think we are turning them into terrorists.
Government is taking our rights away. Every time you guve the government control over something they will control very thing it touchs.
The government began to make hepititis shots mandatory in younger and younger children. Now, hepititis is passed by sharing needles or body fluid (primarily sex) The increase of that shot and ADD and other problems is being looked at. First by France and China (I believe it was) then the USA. Parents in Florida, where their kids were made to have the shot around 6th grade, to return to school, noticed an increase of serious health problems in their children.
BUT anyone making a vaccination is exempt from being sued. No liability.
I do not think any kid should be forced to get a hepititis vacc, and if the family chooses alternative meds it is their choice. The ROYAL family uses homeopathics over standard care on a regular basis -- should we grab their children? I guess we could if they came here.
Where is CHOICE in this government anymore? And yes each side, left or right can pull examples that are extreme to make a point. This is a family in a health crisis. A family which agreed on treatment and are doing it. If the boy dies under the forced government treatment will they be respomsible.
My sis used chemo for breast cancer after deciding it was the best option. By the same logic, reverse it, suppose she wanted chemo and the goverment forced her to eat right and take vitamins -- would they have the right?
Chemo put my sister's father-in-law into a coma and then he died....
But the family choose that method of care and live with the results.
Looking at the subject line ... chemo has everything to do with this ...
In his interview I saw, the kid said when he was getting the first treatment he wanted to die right there rather than endure it. Apparently he didn't have one of those mild chemo treatments. Still the government initially was deciding for him and his parents how much pain he would have to endure in following the state's chosen treatment.
Not sure of this case, but it wouldn't be a surprise to find cases where the treatment choice is influenced by what is most profitable for the hospital ... or perhaps what is cheaper for the government might come into play. But maybe I'm too cynical ...
fat which ties in with the eat right and excersize lifestyle.
so... it is more about being responsible for your own care and health than anything eles these days.
if a person choses to make bad choices they will be the one who pays in stead of increasing the rates for everyone.
again accountability and responsibility for yourself should always be a factor and so many refuse to accept that.
my niece wants to have the same surgery I just had..
they wont do it she is just to fat and been fat with all of its complications and health issues. she is not diabetic. all of her lifeshe has not managed herself well. she has to suffer they say till she can manage a reasonable weight.
If I had cancer I think I would try alternative first. Rhino, I bet the hospitals do make a lot of money on Chemo.
I worked in an alzheimer's unit where they gave ECT Electric Shock therapy. A created seizure.
Anyway, these people would actually recruit folks to come in and get ECT.
WHY?
$5,000.00 from Medi-care each time they fired one off and that was in 2001.
Case in point, an ederly woman was raped a beaten to an inch of her life as was her husband. She was at the WOUND care center where one of the "recruiters" was. The recruiter spoke with the family about the woman's depression and convinced them to commit her. She came in and was SHOCKED at $5,000.00 a pop. The head nurse and I KNEW if this woman wan't depressed there would be something wrong with her.
The head nurse quietly told the kids (45 years old) to get their mother OUT of there.
So, that treatment was never to help but to provide cash to the hospital.
Geez, let's try other things first like a support group?
I doubt if the issue should be the age of consent but rather the choice of medical treatments. Chemotherapy and radiation treatments still kill people and does not necessarily cure everyone and this country does not give much room for alternative treatments.
Case in point: There was a case about five or so years ago about a 17 year old that was refusing chemo and radiation treatments on his own volition. The parents and authorities agreed to force him into it.
What happened?
The kid ran away and returned two years later, physicians baffled, free from the leukemia he had due to alternative treatments. He refused to tell anyone where he had gone. He had been missing for two years and the parents thought he ran away...to die when in fact he ran away to choose how he wanted treatment. Granted he was only one year under the age of consent, but the issue is butting into families medical decisions when lives are at stake.
Granted the JWs have no case, but this does appear different.
The court should have ordered the family to go ahead with the alternative treatment but if the treatment plan showed no progress after a specified period of time, then order the child into standard cancer programs.
But why even order them to do that? If they don't work, the parents and the child default to the only known course of treatment...chemo and radiation.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
4
11
5
7
Popular Days
Jul 25
32
Jul 24
17
Jul 27
5
Jul 26
3
Top Posters In This Topic
Watered Garden 4 posts
markomalley 11 posts
dmiller 5 posts
pond 7 posts
Popular Days
Jul 25 2006
32 posts
Jul 24 2006
17 posts
Jul 27 2006
5 posts
Jul 26 2006
3 posts
HAPe4me
Chemo is not always, in every case, so horrible. My mother handled it well (although it only gave her 2 more years- but wonderful years they were). The fact that she eventually succumbed to the disease had nothing to do with the failure of chemo, but everything to do with the fact that she delayed getting a lump checked out in anything CLOSE to a timely manner.
My plumber and friend is doing two treatments a week and is still able to work 3 days a week. What I am saying is I think we do a disservice to people by speaking only of those instances when chemo is "horrible". It's not always, and sometimes it works.
All of which has nothing to do with the topic at hand, but I had to get this off my chest. I am sorry for those of you who have witnessed horrid experiences with chemo. In my mother's case however, it gave her the time she, and we, needed to have with her, and they were cheerful, happy, enjoyable times.
~HAP
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex70sHouston
I know a lot of people who have taken chemo and yes they still work. Try to keep your health insurance while not working.
Maybe all the weakness, nausia, hair loose, changes to the skin etc. etc. are not bad. The fact your bodie defences are down and you cant fight off any infection. Chemo is just a walk in the park.
Till you have been there dont tell me how easy chemo is. I have two friends that lost their wives to breat cancer. Yes early detection gives the best chance for survival. Depends on the type of cancer as to the regement of chemo given. Just because my wife couldn't eat for a day or two after each treatment. O and the first treatment they gave her was with a pump. The treatment lasted three days. Just hang around the hospital. No since driving the 275 miles home and then back. She could always carry a bucket in her lap so we didnt have to pull over for her to throw up.
Lets get back on subject. What right does a court have to say about how you raise a child. Well lets just let them say that they need to take our children out of our homes because we teach them christian values. They may think we are turning them into terrorists.
Government is taking our rights away. Every time you guve the government control over something they will control very thing it touchs.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix
I am with you Ron.
The government began to make hepititis shots mandatory in younger and younger children. Now, hepititis is passed by sharing needles or body fluid (primarily sex) The increase of that shot and ADD and other problems is being looked at. First by France and China (I believe it was) then the USA. Parents in Florida, where their kids were made to have the shot around 6th grade, to return to school, noticed an increase of serious health problems in their children.
BUT anyone making a vaccination is exempt from being sued. No liability.
I do not think any kid should be forced to get a hepititis vacc, and if the family chooses alternative meds it is their choice. The ROYAL family uses homeopathics over standard care on a regular basis -- should we grab their children? I guess we could if they came here.
Where is CHOICE in this government anymore? And yes each side, left or right can pull examples that are extreme to make a point. This is a family in a health crisis. A family which agreed on treatment and are doing it. If the boy dies under the forced government treatment will they be respomsible.
My sis used chemo for breast cancer after deciding it was the best option. By the same logic, reverse it, suppose she wanted chemo and the goverment forced her to eat right and take vitamins -- would they have the right?
Chemo put my sister's father-in-law into a coma and then he died....
But the family choose that method of care and live with the results.
This thread to me is about choice and force.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
Looking at the subject line ... chemo has everything to do with this ...
In his interview I saw, the kid said when he was getting the first treatment he wanted to die right there rather than endure it. Apparently he didn't have one of those mild chemo treatments. Still the government initially was deciding for him and his parents how much pain he would have to endure in following the state's chosen treatment.
Not sure of this case, but it wouldn't be a surprise to find cases where the treatment choice is influenced by what is most profitable for the hospital ... or perhaps what is cheaper for the government might come into play. But maybe I'm too cynical ...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pond
talk about being forced.
many insurance will not cover you if you
smoke
have a drug or alcohol abuse history
fat which ties in with the eat right and excersize lifestyle.
so... it is more about being responsible for your own care and health than anything eles these days.
if a person choses to make bad choices they will be the one who pays in stead of increasing the rates for everyone.
again accountability and responsibility for yourself should always be a factor and so many refuse to accept that.
my niece wants to have the same surgery I just had..
they wont do it she is just to fat and been fat with all of its complications and health issues. she is not diabetic. all of her lifeshe has not managed herself well. she has to suffer they say till she can manage a reasonable weight.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix
If I had cancer I think I would try alternative first. Rhino, I bet the hospitals do make a lot of money on Chemo.
I worked in an alzheimer's unit where they gave ECT Electric Shock therapy. A created seizure.
Anyway, these people would actually recruit folks to come in and get ECT.
WHY?
$5,000.00 from Medi-care each time they fired one off and that was in 2001.
Case in point, an ederly woman was raped a beaten to an inch of her life as was her husband. She was at the WOUND care center where one of the "recruiters" was. The recruiter spoke with the family about the woman's depression and convinced them to commit her. She came in and was SHOCKED at $5,000.00 a pop. The head nurse and I KNEW if this woman wan't depressed there would be something wrong with her.
The head nurse quietly told the kids (45 years old) to get their mother OUT of there.
So, that treatment was never to help but to provide cash to the hospital.
Geez, let's try other things first like a support group?
Horrible what the love of money can do.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eagle
I doubt if the issue should be the age of consent but rather the choice of medical treatments. Chemotherapy and radiation treatments still kill people and does not necessarily cure everyone and this country does not give much room for alternative treatments.
Case in point: There was a case about five or so years ago about a 17 year old that was refusing chemo and radiation treatments on his own volition. The parents and authorities agreed to force him into it.
What happened?
The kid ran away and returned two years later, physicians baffled, free from the leukemia he had due to alternative treatments. He refused to tell anyone where he had gone. He had been missing for two years and the parents thought he ran away...to die when in fact he ran away to choose how he wanted treatment. Granted he was only one year under the age of consent, but the issue is butting into families medical decisions when lives are at stake.
Granted the JWs have no case, but this does appear different.
The court should have ordered the family to go ahead with the alternative treatment but if the treatment plan showed no progress after a specified period of time, then order the child into standard cancer programs.
But why even order them to do that? If they don't work, the parents and the child default to the only known course of treatment...chemo and radiation.
Eagle
Link to comment
Share on other sites
outofdafog
Teen Wins:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/08/16/cancer.teen.ap/index.html
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.