Minn. Judge Rules Teen Must See Cancer Doctor

Jiro said:
February 5 - he received 1st round of chemotherapy
April 6 - he failed to report to hospital for 2nd round thus hospital reported his family to authority
May 25 - he came back to Minnesota
Click to expand...

Yes, Jiro.. That is a bit over 4 months. And if the first round of chemo was sufficient to control the cancer, the protocol would not have been 6 rounds as was recommended. They stopped after the first round. Since chemo actually supresses the immune system, they actually put him in a position of the cancer growing more quickly by stopping after one round instead of continuing with the protocol.
 
jillio said:
And I see a case of someone making accusations of medical and legal violations, but unable to cite exactly which of those have been violated. I asked you previously to tell us all exactly which medical ethics have been violated, and exactly which laws have been violated. You have failed to do so. Until you can list the specific ethics and laws that have been violated, your accusation of such is nothing more than hot air.
Click to expand...

jillio said:
Post number 411 does not outline any specific laws or ethics that have been violated. Please list the specific ethics and laws that have been violated, and substantiate your claim with an accepted model of ethical decision making that is applied to the medical profession.

You keep giving an opinion, but you have failed to provide anything that supports that opinion. If you believe that ethics have been violated, please support your opinion with exactly how you have reached that conclusion.
Click to expand...

perhaps you forgot. I've stated handful of them pages ago.
 
jillio said:
You again are attempting to throw hypothetical questions into the equation in an attempt to confuse the issues.

You say you watched your friend's mom go through chemo therapy and it wasn't pretty. No, it isn't. But let me ask you this...how many people have you watched die of cancer? That is even less pretty. How many kids have you watched die of lymphoma? It is excrutiatingly painful. And it doesn't happen quickly. It is a long, slow, painful death.
Click to expand...

I lost a few to cancers and multiple organ failures just a day before their death because they did not opt for chemotherapy and DNR. Yes it is a long-slow painful death but why lengthen that with chemotherapy?
 
Jiro said:
perhaps you forgot. I've stated handful of them pages ago.
Click to expand...

No you didn't. You have yet to cite exactly which medical ethic has been violated. Which ethics have been violated and in what way have they been violated?
 
Jiro said:
I lost a few to cancers and multiple organ failures just a day before their death because they did not opt for chemotherapy and DNR. Yes it is a long-slow painful death but why lengthen that with chemotherapy?
Click to expand...

Chemo therapy lengthens life, not death. Many, many people stricken with cancer every year undergo chemotherapy and survive to live long and happy lives.
 
jillio said:
Chemo therapy lengthens life, not death. Many, many people striken with cancer every year undergo chemotherapy and survive to live long and happy lives.
Click to expand...

and chemo lengthens suffering as well.
 
Jiro said:
and chemo lengthens suffering as well.
Click to expand...

Please explain how chemo lengthens suffering. The side effects of chemo are temporary. The side effects of cancer are permanent.

Your logic could be applied to antibiotics used to treat a bacterial infection, as well.
 
jillio said:
No you didn't. You have yet to cite exactly which medical ethic has been violated. Which ethics have been violated and in what way have they been violated?
Click to expand...

Yes I did so. try seeing post #367. Again - I've already stated my reasons and now it's your job to look back if you cannot remember.
 
jillio said:
Please explain how chemo lengthens suffering. The side effects of chemo are temporary. The side effects of cancer are permanent.

Your logic could be applied to antibiotics used to treat a bacterial infection, as well.
Click to expand...

that's why they opt to die peacefully at home.
 
Jiro said:
Yes I did so. try seeing post #367. Again - I've already stated my reasons and now it's your job to look back if you cannot remember.
Click to expand...

Post 367 does not contain a reference to any medical ethic at all, much less a specific one.:dunno2:
 
Jiro said:
that's why they opt to die peacefully at home.
Click to expand...

They die peacefully at home because cancer has ravaged their bodies to the point that life is no longer possible and they have opted for Hospice to provice palliative care when all hope for life has run out.

But that has nothing to do with this case.
 
naisho said:
I see this situation somewhat similar as no different to CI audists who want to force CI on deaf children.

Although it's not on the same level, since this child's life on the line, the mentality exists and the haggling of "The Doctor's Choice is Recommended" is there.


colbert.gif
Click to expand...

jillio said:
It is quite different. Deafness isn't fatal.
Click to expand...

I know that deafness isn't fatal but do the oralists?? I have heard someone described CI surgery as a life-saving surgery. I just googled it and found more than one link that says CI is life-saving.

Jillio; I found your later post where you said that you don't doubt Naisho. I put it there for everybody else to think about.
 
Buffalo said:
I know that deafness isn't fatal but do the oralists?? I have heard someone described CI surgery as a life-saving surgery. I just googled it and found more than one link that says CI is life-saving.

Jillio; I found your later post where you said that you don't doubt Naisho. I put it there for everybody else to think about.
Click to expand...

Well..there r some people who got a CI who felt that it saved their lives which their right as it applies to themselves.

However if people tell people to get a CI cuz it will save their lives, that's crossing the line and very audist.
 
Some people believe that chemotherapy is bad for you. My mom had chemo therapy and she still died for years later.

They may claim that chemo should be done but where's the evidence. Some people say you live longer without it. I'm not really in a possition to know either way as I'm not a doctor, but I don't trust the medical profession very much. If I had cancer I would refuse Chemo too.
 
In this particular case, there is a 90-95% survival rate.

However, each case must be decided individually. It depends on the type of cancer, the advanced stage of the cancer, the general health of the cancer patient, whether or not surgical removal of the cancer is possible, whether chemo is combined with radiation and/or surgery, and medications used in conjunction with chemotherapy.
 
jillio said:
In this particular case, there is a 90-95% survival rate.

However, each case must be decided individually. It depends on the type of cancer, the advanced stage of the cancer, the general health of the cancer patient, whether or not surgical removal of the cancer is possible, whether chemo is combined with radiation and/or surgery, and medications used in conjunction with chemotherapy.
Click to expand...

Jillio,

Excuse my ignorance, but what is the difference between radiation and chemo? I know what chemo is, but do not fully understand what radiation involves. :ty:
 
shel90 said:
Well..there r some people who got a CI who felt that it saved their lives which their right as it applies to themselves.

However if people tell people to get a CI cuz it will save their lives, that's crossing the line and very audist.
Click to expand...

Having a CI saved my life meaning that it increased my personal safety as a totally deafblind person. I was nearly hit several times by traffic I could not hear. Now that I have CIs, I'm much safer when crossing the street and walking from point A to point B in my neighborhood.
 
Hear Again said:
Jillio,

Excuse my ignorance, but what is the difference between radiation and chemo? I know what chemo is, but do not fully understand what radiation involves. :ty:
Click to expand...

Chemotherapy is drugs. Radiation is x-ray. They focus the radiation on the tumor specifically and shoot radiation into the area in order to shrink a tumor. It is often done prior to surgery if a tumor is too big to safely remove, or to help shrink an inoperable tumor. If there is a chance that there may be some of the margins remaining following surgery, they will often do radiation of the area.
 
Back
Top