A medical/spiritual dilemma

[Dover]

We've all heard stories about children who were denied medical treatment due to their parents' beliefs.

Well, there is a story currently in Austin, Tx. about a 13 year old girl who has cancer, and has been through the intitial stages of chemo. But her parents have decided not to continue the chemo as they seem to have decided it's too toxic and want to try something else. I haven't gotten the whole story yet, or heard the parents' response, but the girl was taken into custody because it was determined that the parent's decision put the girl's life in danger.
We'll see how it turns out.

Regardless of the specifics of this case, given this general premise what are your thoughts on how this collision of attitudes toward traditionally accepted medicines and procedures vs. alternative treatments should be dealt with? As an adult I know that if I come down with cancer I have the option to do whatever I chose about it, regardless of the opionions of any doctors I go visit. But what about minors? Should doctor's recommendations for treatment trump a parents decision?

Another issue is.. with the healthcare system in such poor shape, should those who turn down treatment because they can't afford it be held accountable for the subsequent effect on the patient's health?

[Quakerfriend]

1. This is so sad. She obviously comes from a very loving and

normal home. I have known others who have taken their children to clinics in Mexico in order to receive alternative therapies. They did so with wonderful healing results.

As I recall, the parents hid this from their doctors because they feared this very thing.

I'm afraid we will only see more and more of this, as the gov't continues to try to take from us...and all in the name of "medical ethics."

Perhaps, kids should write living wills??

[davsand]

2. Kids' rights do not exist.

No matter what we parents or even caring adults think, kids simply do not have legal rights that resemble those of adults.

My eight year old can't make a living will. My eight year old is deemed unable to decide things about her own body because somebody has decided that in the US the age of majority is either 18 or 21. Most of the time, I am quite comfortable making decisions about her care and her body--I have nurtured her from conception. However, there may come a time when my decisions for her do not meet the expectations of the government.

Those parents are in that situation right now, and the government has stepped in--claiming they are acting in the best interests of the child. I ask myself how I'd feel about it, if those parents were saying they refuse treatment for the child because they think prayer alone will cure her.

As a parent, I'd want a LOT more than a prayer there to help my kid in a critical situation. I'd probably say I disagreed with the parents.

Now, to take it one step further, what if I was a parent and the docs wanted to bleed my kid--her humors are all wrong?

I'd say no and I'd call the Doc some kind of backward idiot because we've known for a long time that bleeding anyone does not cure a disease.

I deliberately cited those two scenarios because our current treatment of cancers is pretty primitive, IMO. Some people say it is the only thing we know and it works sometimes--thus it must be the only right way to treat a cancer.

Other people will say that alternative treatments are nothing more than superstition (or faith healing) and that it is criminal NOT to use chemo.

I have no answers. I simply pray I never have to face the kind of dilemma those parents are looking at.


Laura

[Dover]

3. Interesting about the will. The parents of this girl had her make a video

claiming that she felt fine, that she was in agreement with her parent's decision and wanted to stop the chemo. The girl also challenged the doctor to have radiation treatments done to himself if he felt it was so 'safe'. (It sounded like she was parroting her parent's rather than coming from her).
So that's sort of like a living will.

But I think the law does not value a child's input because parents can have such a strong influence on their children (akin to brainwashing, some might say). So until or unless a child is seen as being able to make independent decisions for themselves, living wills or videos or anything else will not be of help with resolving this dilemma. There would likely have to be "proof" that other alternative treatments have a track record of success. Of course this kind of battle is not simply an attempt to protect children, but is exploited by interested parties (pharmaceuticals, medical research, etc) to derail "alternative" medicine/treatments...since it cuts into their profits. They've tried many times to take herbal remedies off the shelves and forbid them to make any medical claims, calling their use 'dangerous'...even though many have been thoroughly tested in other countries like Europe, and found to be very helpful.

But I think a case could be made that many adults have chosen to forego chemo because of it's harsh and dangerous effects. My mother died from her chemo treatments (she was part of a research study and may have received ultra high doses to test toxicity levels)...NOT her cancer. I would not chose it for myself OR my children.

The problem is that each case is very different, and laws are prone to be too rigid to be responsive to individual situations. But if they are not rigid enough, then it's possible they will be misinterpreted and misused by a handful of people.

[Dover]

4. Here's the CNN story on the girl.

CORPUS CHRISTI, Texas (AP) -- Child welfare officials seized a 12-year-old cancer patient from her parents, saying they were blocking radiation treatment that doctors say she needs.

During a court hearing Wednesday, Michele and Edward Wernecke asked that doctors be barred from giving radiation therapy to their daughter Katie until a hearing next week to determine whether she will stay in state custody.

They say their daughter's cancer is in remission and they object to her getting the radiation treatment after undergoing a round of chemotherapy. Katie has Hodgkin's disease, a type of cancer involving the lymph nodes.

..snip..

"I think they should treat her for what her body calls for and not standard protocol. Nobody will look at that," (her mother) said. "Not every cancer is the same. Nobody understands that. Her body is not standard, and her cancer is not standard."

The couple, members of the Church of God, have said they oppose blood transfusions unless they were from Katie's mother. But the couple's attorney, Daniel Horne, said religion wasn't at issue in the fight over cancer treatment.

Rather, they believe doctors haven't been upfront about Katie's care and have not answered all their questions about the side effects of the radiation.

"This issue is about parental rights, not about religious rights," Horne said. "They just want to be informed of her treatment. They want to be involved in this."..cont'd


http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/09/cancer.battle.ap/index.html

And the DU discussion of this in LBN:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1537605

Gleaned from the article, her birthday is this Saturday. She'll be 13.
So for interested astrologers she was born June 11, 1992..a Gemini.

[tlcandie]

5. IMO until the world.... western more so than the rest of the world

recognizes alternative therapies as healing modalities instead of allopathic medicine ONLY then these dramas will continue to play out.

People should have a choice that is not rigid to only one set of beliefs or results. Even with allopathic medicine one medicine does not effect every person the same; therefore, how can there be only one or two ways to treat DIS-ease?

When we truly open our eyes to the myriad of possibilities for healing THEN and only then will this not be an issue, IMO.

For what it is worth, I know a woman whose son is now on the other side. He was diagnosed with cancer and she chose alternative therapy for him as her parents were master herbologists and very educated about alternative therapies.

She was jailed and her son taken away from her until/unless she treated him via the standard allopathic methods.

It was very hard for her, she loved him dearly and still has a lot of pain over the ordeal. Her son did not want the treatments either.

[Dover]

6. tlcandle, see my other post on Tumeric research

Surprisingly it is being funded by the DOD, for the reasons stated in the article.

The drug companies won't get behind 'alternative' medicines and testing of same because they can't PROFIT from it without the patents.

This patent issue has also been a big sticking point in the development of food sources and their seeds, which have activists enraged that companies can OWN seed to common plants and prevent people from collecting them for replanting, etc. It's NUTS.

[Quakerfriend]

7. The cancer industry is a powerful money maker and IMO a total

SHAM.

Having done medical research for the NIH for many years and having survived stage IV cancer myself, I can honestly say that I believe this with all my heart.

It was only when I found that I had cancer that I began to dig.
If you trace the history of cancer treatment back to the late late 1800s-early 1940's you will find that the use of chemo/radiation is quite arbitrary and there is VERY LITTLE in the way of clinical research to support its use.

Read "Questioning Chemotherapy" by Ralph Moss, PhD.

[davsand]

8. I wonder about mutated viral treatments coupled with nutrition.

I know that sounds like an odd mix, but after reading a bit about Non-Hodgkin's Lymphomas in the last year, I was struck at one point by the fact that certain types are associated with a cellular mutation that began as a viral infection. Really, my understanding of most cancers is that they are, essentially, mutant cells (or renegades, if you will) that have run wild.

If they began with a virus entering the cell, then surely they could be ended the same way.

A buddy of mine went thru a second bout of Chemo this last year because he had a recurring Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. I did a lot of reading to try and understand what he was dealing with, and also just out of curiosity. I was amazed at how little we really know about treating cancers, and at how barbaric our treatments are.

If I'm being honest, it seems to me that our "best" treatment practices right now are to carefully poison the entire system just so we can kill off a selected number of cells. Its kinda like killing off everyone living in New York City just to get rid of the sewer rats--same logic really.) I fail to understand how that makes sense.

Seems to me some viral engineering would be a place to stop that viral mutation, along with followup with some specific nutritional support to enhance the immune system for general resistance to viral infection...

When I asked a Doc about it he got really uncomfortable with the discussion--claiming it was out of his expertise. I'm not exactly an Einstein myself, so maybe my ideas are way off the mark--but I honestly think what we are doing to fight cancer now is about as barbaric as drilling a hole in the skull when somebody has a headache.

When you were with the NIH, Quakerfriend, was anybody looking at the kind of stuff I'm talking about?


Laura

[tlcandie]

9. I did much reading as well ...

I agree and the approach is backwards. PREVENTIVE nutrition is the main approach that should be used and people informed about correct nutrition.

We all have cancerous cells (Free Radicals)in our bodies waiting for that opportune moment to take up residence.

There is a better way and even Europe treats with hyperbaric(?) where they heat the body to some 100+ degrees which kills off the bad cells ONLY.

There ARE other ways. Just like there are other ways to produce energy rather than oil. Until the people stand up and make the government in this country change the path we are on...it will not change. South American countries are leading the way by taking back their rights, their lands, and their governments.

May we soon see the same groundswell to move in peace and unconditional love rather than the regressive path the US is currently running.