XnForums

What dying child?

This case has no dying child. The child has a chance of being saved with the proper treatment.

Question: If the child is not dying, then just what does the child need to be saved from?

My view is that Hodgkin's Lymphoma is fatal (without treatment), so in this case the child is dying.

Yet at the same time, chemo, radiation, and other similar treatments can irrevocably damage the immune system, kidneys, and/or liver and they can also kill the patient, although death by chemo and radiation doesn't occur as often as it used to, while the occurrence of liver and kidney damage still remains probable depending upon the overall health of the patient.

On the other hand, chemo, radiation, and other similar treatment plans now render a 90%+ survival rate that often includes total remission of Hodgkin's, and so this is a good option for treatment.

I still agree with the Doctor about the choice for care being in the hands of the parents and the patient, but I question the motives of a government that feels it must intercede with threats if their 'advice' is not followed. Isn't this what defines an oppressive government? One that rules by force and strict obedience?

It's sort of like the government is saying: "You can't die until and unless we tell you you can die, and then you can only die in the way we feel is an appropriate way to die."

doc

The child is not dying unless the idiot parents refuse to allow him to be treated.

You seem to be forgetting that the 'idiot' parents weren't refusing treatment, but were only refusing to use chemotherapy as treatment. There are other treatment measures that can be employed for use in Hodgkin's.

In this case the parent's rights are being usurped by a government that used coercion to achieve it's goal of enforcing it's authority over the people, an authority it should not have, and an authority which isn't too far from being designated as an oppressive regime state.

IOW, rather than having a government that is for the people and by the people, we have a government that is ruling the people through means that diminish our right to choose what we see as fitting and proper as we endeavor to freely live by the concepts of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

It is becoming a coercive government - a government by force - plain and simple.

Doc, what you just said is both paranoid and misleading.

First, the black helicopters are not coming to get you.

Second, the government must force the treatment most likely to be effective.

Now, I know......as a quack mundungu, you favor dancing around a campfire and throwing chicken guts on the patient.....but, while that may be low-cost to you and profitable......it's not effective.

Well, I don't know what else to say on the subject except that doctors are willing to allow parental choice in cases of a dying child. At least the cases I've been familiar with. Maybe chemo will help Daniel Hauser and maybe it won't and I sincerely hope it does.

Why must the government force us to do anything?

Shouldn't we, as 'free citizens', be able to decide what we feel is the correct course of action in our own pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness?

And until you've danced around a fire and had chicken guts thrown in your face, you'll never understand the benefits of dancing around a fire and getting chicken guts thrown in your face.

Because we do wrong or fail to do what is right?

Happens every day.

Get over it.

So you're saying that government should step in, make and enforce what they consider to be the right choices for us, and that we shouldn't be free to screw up on our own?

I agree with you 100% here doc. Do you hold this position for euthanasia? I do.

Where I disagree with you is when a parent decides to go against medical recommendations when treating their child. It's fine for an adult but a child must be given what is considered the best treatment available.

If the alternative treatment the parents want is valid, then they can take whatever action required to seek this treatment instead. It needs to be more than the parent's opinion of what is better because like I said to Roselyn, what if the parents decide they want to pray instead?

"Why must the government force us to do anything?"

Because that is what government is established for and supposed to do. So, I'm backtracking here a bit due to the people who elect people as government. And what the people petition for they get. So, government is a petitioned process by and for the people in all phases of giving the people what they want. People said we want government oversight to prevent child neglect and the result is an overpowering medical establishment sanctioned by government. Not everyone likes it, as disagreements are evident, but that's the way it is according to the majority of people who encouraged it. So, when parents neglect medical care there is an arm of service that steps in to override parental neglect. A child dying of cancer and needs medical attention, and chemo proven to cure or otherwise hold in remission said cancer, then the treatments can be enforced by law. However, if the child is shown to be so far advanced in the illness, incurable and chemo/radiation will not prolong the childs life, and then knowing there can be nothing more the medical community can do, and the parents decide no more chemo, parental rights hold legal persuasion in such cases.

No one wants to see a child or anyone else die from medical neglect. And no one wants to see undue suffering from medical treatments. Difficult decisions we are sometimes forced to make. A fine line between life and death.

Just one of many examples........there are a lot of dumb rednecks who don't want to wear helmets when they ride their motorcycles.

We have learned we must force them to wear helmets.

Why? Because when they splatter their paucity of brains on the pavement, it endangers other drivers, it causes insurance rates to go up and it often results in a burden to taxpayers as the government may have to assume responsibility for long-term medical care, rehabilitation and aid to dependent children.

See how that works? We can't let them, "screw up on their own," as you say, because they are harming, not just themselves, but others along with them.

You apparently don't understand the function of government at all, but an essential part of that function is to protect us from the stupidity of others.

That most certainly includes protecting vulnerable children from stupid parents who refuse to get them the proper medical treatment to save their lives.

Pax!

O.K. then, why is it so important to save lives?

Then it should be their right to do so.

What some fail to realize is that we are becoming nation where "being our brother's keeper" can lead us to the point where we cannot take any action without being told what to do, thus creating a nation of mindless automatons.

In this sense, we would effectively diminish our own capacity to think about what is good or what is bad as it pertains to our own choices, meaning we sometimes need to experience the consequences of making bad choices, as opposed to having those choices made for us, as this results in a learning experience whereby we often won't make the same mistake twice.

Trouble is, people are becoming afraid of making the wrong choice once, and so we are leaning more towards dependence instead of independence.

I say let 'em learn the hard way if that is what it will take, although it seems we ought to learn by the mistakes others have already made.

So rather than forcing someone to abide by a set of pre-made choices, it seems we also ought to let them have the freedom to make their own choices - good or bad - and if this includes a choice that results in death, then so be it, cuz life itself will still find a way to be expressed...It may not be human life as we now understand it, but it will still be life nontheless...

As for me, I believe in the sanctity of life, but I also believe people have the right to make choices that pertain to their own lives.

This is kinda interesting...Here in Iowa we don't have a helmet law.

What's even more interesting is that I literally just finished examining a patient who wiped out on his dirt bike and smacked his head and shoulder just about a hour ago. (Quite the conicidence here if you ask me...) He tried to jump over his driveway at about 30 mph via the ditches on boths sides, but he evidently caught the front wheel on the edge and ended going over the handlebars face first into the concrete.

Along with all the still bleeding/seeping scratches and scrapes on his face and shoulder, my exam revealed that he has indications of neurological components that need to further be assessed. My impression (without verification of X-rays) is that he literally broke his second cervical vertebra, and that he is suffering from a brain contusion. So I put him in a hard collar and told his dad and wife, "Take him to the Emergency Room now to get this totally checked out. I'll call the E.R. for x-rays, a possible M.R.I. and to make sure they have a neurologist handy."

The guy said "Nope. I'm going home to bed."

I said "Your spine has been damaged and it will continue to swell, and this injury could become life-threatening in a few hours."

He said. "I'm going home to bed."

I said: "I'll call an ambulance."

He said: "I won't go"

I said: "Then I'm making a note in my records that you are refusing to follow up with appropriate care in a potentially life-threatening situation."

He said: "Thanks" and is now on his way home.

It's his choice...even though I coulda tied him up and forcebly taken him in myself.

Could be that he'll be dead or paralyzed in a few hours, but again, it's his choice.

I have a feeling, though, that his dad and wife are gonna force him to go, cuz they're even more stubborn than this guy is, and they care more about him than he does for himself.

I'll be calling them up in an hour or so to see how things are progressing.