boy required to have chemotherapy and radiationRegister Today!
- by GingerSue May 9, '08this boy is 11 years of age, and it sounds like he does
not want treatments, but Children's Aid Society has decided that
he must have treatment.
What is best for him?
- May 9, '08 by CHATSDALEthere is contradictory information here, i know that projecting a how much time a person has when with these aggressive cas ae present
i have seen people going through chemo and rad tx in so much pain sometimes just to please their families who can't let go, only to die a horrid death in the end
i don't know what i would do in a situation like this if i was the parent
- May 10, '08 by leslie :-Di would get a few expert opinions, then decide from there.
whether chances for remission are 20% or 50%, i know i'd have my child endure treatment.
if treatment was only going to prolong the inevitable, i'd let my child decide.
heartbreaking either way.
let's pray the boy gets better and appreciates the drastic actions taken.
- May 10, '08 by justyah, it is very difficult to decide. but the boy should have to take the treatment even though the chance of survival 50 per cent. let`s pray the boy gets better and the God will help him.
- May 13, '08 by big-chickenI thought this nonsense only occurred in the USA, but I guess the Canadians follow our lead when it comes to parent/custodial interferance.
The decision to accept/refuse treatment should be made by the parents and the child, not by some professional do-gooder. They actually shackled the father?? Unbelievable. We wonder why people go postal or file law suits.
- May 23, '08 by davbThere was a case like this in my state a few years ago. The parents refused treatment for their son and were treated like criminals, everyone was trying to force treatment. They had to evade the authorities and hire attorneys, it was ugly.
Last I heard his most recent tests came back normal, no evidence of leukemia anymore with no treatment. He may have been lucky, but remember the treatments for most cancers are risk factors for the cancers. So if you don't really have leukemia before chemo, you may have it after.
The parents are the legal guardians, it would be wrong if they were refusing treatment for a broken arm or leg, but maybe not for something as risky as radiation and chemo. It should be their choice.
My brother sure suffered through the chemotherapy 25 years ago with a 50/50 chance of him living. Seeing what it takes to go through that at 8 years old, if my son had the same odds now I would probably decline treatment.
They have improved the survival rates they say, but until we actually have an Iinformation Technology system in place to accurately track treatments and outcomes in the clinical setting the numbers aren't that accurate.
It's a tough decision any way you look at it. But the government or hospital shouldn't force you to subject your child to those treatments, it should be the families choice in my opinion.
- May 23, '08 by nursemedic78Duh. That's all I can really say.
It's really no surprise to those of us who live in a country where we embrace our "certain unalienable rights" that a socialist country with a socialist health care system would have any misgivings about trampling on the liberties of the individual.