Minn. Judge Rules Teen Must See Cancer Doctor

Hear Again said:
Does that mean someone should throw in the towel and give up? What if chemo *does* help a person live longer than they would without it? Personally, I think that's a risk worth taking.
Click to expand...

even against their will? nope not worth risk taking to violate that medical ethic.
 
Hear Again said:
Does that mean someone should throw in the towel and give up? What if chemo *does* help a person live longer than they would without it? Personally, I think that's a risk worth taking.
Click to expand...

Exactly. There is 100% chance of death from the cancer. There is a 10% chance the chemo won't affect the cancer. There is a 90% chance that he will survive with chemo. So what do you do. Go with the 100% chance of death based on a 10% chance of chemo not working, when you have a 90% of the death not occurring?
 
jillio said:
To account for that, we would have to have all of the information surrounding the case. I doubt seriously that naisho's relative was a 13 year old boy with no other health complications suffering from Hodgin's Lymphoma with a rapidly growing thoractic tumor.
Click to expand...

In the case of my mother, she was 73 years old and had a myriad of other health problems. She had nothing to lose by having chemotherapy and was able to live 5 months longer than she would have without it.
 
jillio said:
What medical ethic is that, Jiro?
Click to expand...

performing the medical procedure against their will, Jillio. Try to stay on track. Perhaps your age's catching up with you?
 
jillio said:
Exactly. There is 100% chance of death from the cancer. There is a 10% chance the chemo won't affect the cancer. There is a 90% chance that he will survive with chemo. So what do you do. Go with the 100% chance of death based on a 10% chance of chemo not working, when you have a 90% of the death not occurring?
Click to expand...

so you just want to play with math and life while ignoring the ethic. I see. :roll:
 
jillio said:
That doesn't have anything to do with the case, Jiro.

The doctors followed the law.

The judge followed the law.

The judge has consulted with both doctors and parents. The judge has, at his disposal, the medical records of this child. Included in that is the informed consent forms, and notes regarding any verbal communications between doctors and parents.

I did not, in any post, say that these parents were guilty of abuse. I said they were guilty of medical neglect. Those are two different charges.
Click to expand...

see your posts. First of all - you do not know what was being discussed between them. The judge and doctors could have ignored the legal protocol in order to charge them with medical neglect and incompetence.

jillio said:
They have already asked him, and determined that he is not competent to make those decisions.

And if the child is obese to the point that their life is in danger, and it is the result of neglect on behalf of the parent, then yes, I am in favor of it. Why should parents be given a free ride to abuse and neglect their children?
Click to expand...

jillio said:
No it doesn't. To think that it does is absolutely absurd. It is about this child, and this child only. That is why cases are decided on an individual basis. To not protect this child's life is what would set a dangerous precedent.

We already have laws in place that prevent the abuse and neglect of children. The courts are simply upholding the laws that already exist.
Click to expand...

and few more...
 
jillio said:
Exactly. There is 100% chance of death from the cancer. There is a 10% chance the chemo won't affect the cancer. There is a 90% chance that he will survive with chemo. So what do you do. Go with the 100% chance of death based on a 10% chance of chemo not working, when you have a 90% of the death not occurring?
Click to expand...

:gpost:
 
jillio said:
You don't know for sure that you will be alive 15 minutes from now. But there is a better chance you will than there is a chance you won't. Which chance do you want to take?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you do mean.

Hear Again said:
Does that mean someone should throw in the towel and give up? What if chemo *does* help a person live longer than they would without it? Personally, I think that's a risk worth taking.
Click to expand...

1) To me, no. To others, it may be a yes or no.

2) It's a risk worth taking is fine to person, depends on who is who.

Again, I don't think you can expect the boy will successfully survive 100% on chemo when he have his own small risky, 10%. He could have either 90 or 10 percents. Like I said before, you never know, nor I know.

I know you disagree with that. It's okay; the "agree to disagree" option I will take that.
 
Jiro said:
performing the medical procedure against their will, Jillio. Try to stay on track. Perhaps your age's catching up with you?
Click to expand...

Which medical ethic provides for that? You said it violated a specific medical ethic. I'm asking you which one you think it violates. You have described an action, not an ethical principle by which physicians are bound.

People are provided medical treatment against their will all the time when they have been deemed incompetent to make the decision to receive or not receive treatment.
 
KarissaMann05 said:
I'm not sure what you do mean.



1) To me, no. To others, it may be a yes or no.

2) It's a risk worth taking is fine to person, depends on who is who.

Again, I don't think you can expect the boy will successfully survive 100% on chemo when he have his own small risky, 10%. He could have either 90 or 10 percents. Like I said before, you never know, nor I know.

I know you disagree with that. It's okay; the "agree to disagree" option I will take that.
Click to expand...

No one has said he will survive 100%. What the doctors have said is that he has a 90% chance of survival with the chemo. Without it, there is 100% chance of death from the cancer.
 
Let's see...

10% risk as opposed to 90% success.

Doesn't seem like a hard decision to me.
 
jillio said:
Which medical ethic provides for that? You said it violated a specific medical ethic. I'm asking you which one you think it violates. You have described an action, not an ethical principle by which physicians are bound.

People are provided medical treatment against their will all the time when they have been deemed incompetent to make the decision to receive or not receive treatment.
Click to expand...

remember back in old time when the deaf were deemed incompetent and sent to mental hospital? yea there you go. Time's changing, law's changing. I'm just disappointed at how this turned out. It's going backward.

Do you seriously think they are incompetent?
 
Jiro said:
remember back in old time when the deaf were deemed incompetent and sent to mental hospital? yea there you go. Time's changing, law's changing. I'm just disappointed at how this turned out. It's going backward.

Do you seriously think they are incompetent?
Click to expand...

I'm still asking, Jiro. Which medical ethic is being violated?

And this has absolutely nothing to do with the institutionalization of the deaf through history. Stick to the topic.
 
Hear Again said:
Let's see...

10% risk as opposed to 90% success.

Doesn't seem like a hard decision to me.
Click to expand...

unfortunately - that's not for you to decide. it's between the Hausers family to decide. I'm extremely disappointed that the 3rd party is dictating what's good for him.
 
jillio said:
People are provided medical treatment against their will all the time when they have been deemed incompetent to make the decision to receive or not receive treatment.
Click to expand...

I apologize for bringing my bipolar into this, but I wanted to mention that if it were not for the medical intervention I received, I probably would not be here. Sorry if I made this all about myself, but I'm trying to point out that sometimes medical treatment given on an involuntary basis can be lifesaving.
 
Jiro said:
unfortunately - that's not for you to decide. it's between the Hausers family to decide. I'm extremely disappointed that the 3rd party is dictating what's good for him.
Click to expand...

No. It's for the 13 year old boy to decide.
 
Hear Again said:
I apologize for bringing my bipolar into this, but I wanted to mention that if it were not for the medical intervention I received, I probably would not be here. Sorry if I made this all about myself, but I'm trying to point out that sometimes medical treatment given on an involuntary basis can be lifesaving.
Click to expand...

If i recall correctly - you were given PROPER drugs at your own accord with private session with your doctor, am I correct?
 
jillio said:
No one has said he will survive 100%. What the doctors have said is that he has a 90% chance of survival with the chemo. Without it, there is 100% chance of death from the cancer.
Click to expand...

Understandable. I do know what you do mean.

90% life or 10% death, how would you predict the boy will able to survive successfully when you don't know it will effect him?

Well, I will take "agree to disagree" option by then.
 
Back
Top