This is just crazy...

[RAINRA]

I thought this was land of the free... people have rights to choose not follow medical dictatorship. If someone forced me I would run as well. I would never sign up for lethal radiation and chemo injections... sounds like a plan.... Show me evidence that it is highly effective and that people live more than 7 years after this treatment. Most I have seen don't make it past 5-6 years after kemo and they call them survivors. How much money have people put into curing cancer and how is that we are still using the same stone age methods.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_forced_chemo;_ylt=AlHwbgRlOuV50fFtt0QsCOKCfNdF

[Fallen_Horse]

"Doctors say Daniel has a cancerous tumor growing in his chest that's likely to kill him without chemotherapy, but the Hausers prefer natural healing methods inspired by American Indian traditions."

 

In this situation I feel justified in calling this child abuse by the parents. You don't wanna go through chemo? Fine. But that doesn't give you the right to kill your kid trying to use some Native American voodoo.

 

It's about as bad as those idiot parents who try to use 'the power of prayer' to heal their kids, and the kids naturally end up dying (because prayer doesn't do shit) and then they wonder why they get in trouble with the govt. Duh!

[sosso]

It's about as bad as those idiot parents who try to use 'the power of prayer' to heal their kids, and the kids naturally end up dying (because prayer doesn't do shit) and then they wonder why they get in trouble with the govt. Duh!

 

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25525963-401,00.html

[RAINRA]

My guess is that is was just an attempt of an excuse so they could try to get away from the horrible chemo. It don't believe they really wanted to get Native American Treatment. People who deal with cancer and search with alternative treatments are more likely to get nutrition based alternative treatments.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10Xq2TUhFnw

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbRM2RAjgh0

 

 

[sinisterkungfu]

This reminds me of the Cherokee Hair Tampon episode of South Park

[MollyMormon]

A woman I used to correspond with was a huge believer of plant based diets, vegetarianism, and alternative medicine. She wouldn't see traditional doctors but would use naturopathic medicine. She worked with labs on nurotransmitter testing and other types of tests for various things. She was a nutritionist and worked with diets for everything from ADHD to autism and anything that out people wanted an alternative to traditional medicine for. I got a call the other day that she died from cancer. She found out last year and it was so spread that they really couldn't do much about it.

I do agree that we put tons of money into cancer so why are we still using the same old treatments.

[Zack]

Most I have seen don't make it past 5-6 years after kemo and they call them survivors.

 

Garbage Statement.

 

"With appropriate treatment, more than 80% of people with stage I or II Hodgkin's survive for at least 10 years."

 

http://www.lifespan.org/adam/healthillustratedencyclopedia/1/000580.html

 

well cited too.

 

Treat him early, the kid is likely to live quite a while. This IS child abuse.

[Gaia]

If he dies, will it then be murder?

[RAINRA]

yeaup

[VeganEssentials]

It is a bit odd to me that a Jehovah's Witness can have their child refuse something critical to saving their life based on religious views (as has been done legally in the past), but others often cannot. That being said...

 

I still think that it's pretty silly to dismiss something that has proven to work for SOME people when you have an illness that can take your life downhill quickly. I've said it before and I'll say it again - I don't LIKE the fact that I've had to resort to my eye treatments, but I'd have been insane to think that there was any better way to save my vision. Not everything that happens illness-wise gives you a long timeline to try alternative therapies to halt the decline of one's health - had I tried diet and natural therapies alone, I'd almost certainly be 40-50% blind in my left eye, possibly more. You can't "cure" what I have, only slow down the damage to try and get it as close to a complete halt as possible. When damage increases daily (and can happen in one huge blast, if a new blood vessel ruptures, which could cause massive vision loss in a single day), there's no time to play around and weigh the options over which treatment is better - it's act now or forever lose something precious. Now, I have suffered unfortunate effects from my treatments in the way of minor double vision with reading and my healing time for cuts and scrapes is markedly slower (both potential side effects noted by the drug maker), but would I trade in the side effects for the risk of having a barely-useful left eye on the gamble of natural therapies not working? Hell no! Rather, I combine the effects of a better vegan diet with natural treatments AND conventional medicine, and to me, that's the best way to go.

 

I know some people here have strong distrust of the medical and pharmaceutical establishments, and I can't say I blame them, but we're not talking about abstaining from using a nasal spray to alleviate sinus problems from seasonal allergies. When we're talking about someone's LIFE or something that could potentially change one's life for the worst, it's easy to be an "armchair athlete" in regard to saying you think you know what the best methods would be based on one's own personal beliefs and theories. However, there's no guarantee that anything natural would have ANY better chance of success in saving this boy's life, so I'd always be very reluctant to say that in a case like this, that it would be the better way to go. In this case, the kid isn't even close to 18, and in all likelihood, probably does not have proper knowledge of the potential that traditional treatments may have for saving his life. I was no dummy at 13, but I can safely say, I wouldn't have had the powers to know what was really the best for myself at that age if it was a life-or-death issue with my health. And, as we've all come to see over time, just because a parent is older and seems to be wiser, it doesn't always mean they make the right choices, and encouraging their child to do what they as the parent thinks is best might just end up in disaster.

 

In my opinion, not having the child try the traditional methods of treatment is negligence if time is of the essence in trying to keep them alive much longer. Why not try both traditional AND non-traditional, reap the best of both worlds, and keep fingers crossed that one (or both) therapies will lead to a long-term remission?

 

Too many people see in black-and-white for things like this. Traditional medicine and alternative medicine are not mutually exclusive and CAN work together. But, the traditional side likes to call alternative medicine quackery, and the alternative side wants everyone to believe that traditional medicine is pure evil and will cause more harm than good. Once both sides finally stop bickering long enough to understand that a combination is likely the best option, perhaps we'll see more people get through potentially fatal (or, seriously negative life-changing) diseases.

[Guest]

I do agree that we put tons of money into cancer so why are we still using the same old treatments.

Because modern medicine hasn't developed a better treatment for cancer. Don't except a cure for cancer to be discovered over night like researchers are trying to repair a leaky roof.

 

 

I agree with what VeganEssentials said in his post.

 

 

To add my 2 cents here. I know Big Pharma is profit driven. Alternative treatments work for many people and I personally avoid taking medications unless it's absolutely necessary. I don't believe in quick fixs and popping pills. However, I also think alot of alternative medicine IS quakery and many people get swindled out of a lot of money. Anybody who thinks ALL severe mental illness is cause by either nutritional deficencies, food allergies, synthetic toxins in the body, or gut problems is a loon.

 

Both sides traditional and alternative medicine make exaggerated claims about the benefits and risks of the others treatment protocol.

[Marcina]

Most I have seen don't make it past 5-6 years after kemo and they call them survivors.

 

Garbage Statement.

 

"With appropriate treatment, more than 80% of people with stage I or II Hodgkin's survive for at least 10 years."

 

http://www.lifespan.org/adam/healthillustratedencyclopedia/1/000580.html

 

well cited too.

 

Treat him early, the kid is likely to live quite a while. This IS child abuse.

 

Agreed. I've heard about this story before and discussed it on another forum. It's unfair for the parents to deprive their kid of proper medical care just because they have skewed opinions about chemotherapy and radiation.

[Guest]

Most I have seen don't make it past 5-6 years after kemo and they call them survivors.

 

Garbage Statement.

 

"With appropriate treatment, more than 80% of people with stage I or II Hodgkin's survive for at least 10 years."

 

http://www.lifespan.org/adam/healthillustratedencyclopedia/1/000580.html

 

well cited too.

 

Treat him early, the kid is likely to live quite a while. This IS child abuse.

 

Agreed. I've heard about this story before and discussed it on another forum. It's unfair for the parents to deprive their kid of proper medical care just because they have skewed opinions about chemotherapy and radiation.

+1

[Marcina]

Amy Tuteur, MD wrote a blog about this. I read this part reposted on another forum and thought it was interesting:

 

 

"As a mother myself, I cannot imagine anything worse that hearing that your child has a life threatening illness, and needs brutal treatment with no guarantee of survival. The mere thought of explaining that to a child, forcing a child to endure chemotherapy and witnessing his or her suffering makes me sick to my stomach. I don’t doubt that the reality is far worse than my worst imaginings. The only other choice is to pretend that the whole thing is not happening; it is just some perverse mistake; that the cancer will go away by itself or with gentle, “natural” treatments.

 

Daniel’s mother clings desperately to that belief. For her, it is an absolutely essential psychological coping mechanism. Unfortunately, it will almost assuredly result in Daniel’s death. This case is being reported in the media as a battle over who has the right to decide treatment for a child, the parents or the State, and legally, of course, that is exactly what it is. But psychologically, it is something else entirely, and it is important that everyone analyzing this case take note. In reality, it is about the mother’s need to protect herself psychologically from devastating news vs. her son’s right to receive life saving treatment.

 

That’s why the State is right to vigorously pursue the Hausers and force Daniel to have the brutal, but life saving treatment. Mrs. Hauser does not want to hurt her son; she loves him desperately and her willingness to single handedly defy the State of Minnesota proves it. Yet ultimately, the decision to run away is about her and her needs, not about Daniel and what is good for him. She needs to believe that he doesn’t have cancer, or that his cancer is not serious, or that she can treat him “naturally.” She may need to believe that, but it does not give her the moral right to forfeit his life to make herself feel better temporarily.

 

That’s what’s really at stake here: a mother’s need to protect herself by pretending that her child is not deathly ill vs. a child’s right to life saving treatment. In the best of all possible worlds, someone would be able to break the thick shell of her denial and get her to acknowledge reality. Her child is dying, no amount of pretending will prevent his death, and medical treatment represents the only chance to avert the disaster that she cannot bring herself to contemplate.

 

Daniel’s mother doesn’t realize it, but she and the State are in total agreement. More than anything else, she wants Daniel to live. More than anything else, the State of Minnesota wants Daniel to live. Her denial of reality is completely understandable, but that’s what it is: denial. And no child should have to die because his mother cannot face reality."

 

The source: http://skepticalob.blogspot.com/

[Gaia]

Nice repost Marcina. I just read that the mom has returned with her son. The article also said that his Hodgkin's lymphoma is usually 90% cured for children his age, which by the way is a teenager's age of 13. And the article said she fled after they got the test results that his tumor had grown since being diagnosed and the State forcing them to test again. Which means that whatever they were doing wasn't helping it go away, but was progressing. So your repost is correct in that it is the mother's denial that has put the son in jeopardy.