More Truth about Chemo Mom

[rambone]

call me when you realize sometimes the side effects on the drug packages are welcome to people who have gotten to the point where they are an option.

Worth it, if you survive.

Be glad I'm not on the side foisting my beliefs on you. Its worth it to some, thats enough for me to protect your rights to seek the treatments you want. And I would hope others would respect my rights to go another route. That kinda went out the window when Hotdog said he was gonna break down my door and medicate me.

for all the talk of parental rights,why hasn't anyone mentioned the rights of this child to live and grow, and have the opportunity to build a life of his own?

Right to life is not the same as right to an entitlement healthcare plan that will give you all the latest and greatest mainstream medical treatments. No one has the right to redistribute tax dollars, even if they are giving them away to sick kids.

I believe you overstate the chances of those side effects, but swinging the other way and claiming that the chances are zero is ridiculous.

I think you pull a little too hard against the modern medical establishment, but I'm not involved in your healthcare decisions. I think others pull too hard in favor of it, and I'm likewise not involved in theirs. I agree with you that the freedom to refuse even good advice is something worth protecting.

All that is fair to say, Fletch. You gotta pull hard when the opposition is so very entrenched in the allopathic model, and using the government to criminalize alternative health seekers.

 

[Fletch]

I don't remember seeing an exemption for children in the constitution. shouldn't everyone's rights be protected regardless of race, gender, religion, or age?

Then every law that discriminates based on age is anti-constitutional. It's a position that I and some other hardcore libertarians might be willing to take, but most will not. It would necessarily mean the elimination of laws criminalizing "child molestation", for example, (though rape would remain on the table) and that could be very unsettling to large numbers of people.

Rothbard posited that every child has rights when he demonstrates them in nature, but with that view necessarily comes the attendant responsibilities that accompany those rights. Again, I might be persuaded to take that position, but many would balk right out of the gate.

 

[88GT]

Another thought for anyone to answer. Should parents be charged with murder/neglect if they willingly subject their child to a treatment/drug that ends up killing them? Is it a parental right to make life-and-death decisions like this? Does a panel of drug-representative get to vote on that decision for you? Would the world be safer by locking up those grieving parents?

Take it a step farther (and I saw that you alluded to this), if parental action is under scrutiny, then the parents should be held criminally liable if the child develops health issues related to inclusions or exclusions in his diet. But why stop there? Let's include the development of these health conditions as an adult because we've all read the studies that link adult health issues with childhood diet.

As someone who has LIVED it, when the choices are so clear cut , YES.

I have no problem with the state coming to your door and THROUGH YOU to save your children from you, when the choices are so clear cut!

I have no use for MORONS that want to KILL their own or any one eles's children.

Tell me when you have lived it and then your words might be more than a plie of

I have. I side with Rambone on this one 100%.

You don't have a monopoly on choices simply because you're a cancer survivor. Neither do you get to dictate to others what those choices should be. And you certainly do not become vested with the power and authority to tell a parent what decisions he will make for his family, medical or otherwise.

I now live everyday of my life dependent on a drug because of my cancer. How does that give me any superiority over another family to tell them how to live their lives?

I made plans with my husband on what to do in the event things turned out differently. Where in those plans did I have the right to tell another mother she could only choose certain medical options for her children?

I have no sympathy for your case if you insist on using it to browbeat and bully others into bending their knee in homage to the state. In fact, I rather detest you for it.

call me when you realize sometimes the side effects on the drug packages are welcome to people who have gotten to the point where they are an option. that's something survivors understand and people who scour the internet looking for anti medicine drivel to pass off as fact never will.

indeed. Yes, for some the side effects are worth it. And for some they aren't. Who are you or anybody else to make that choice for a parent?

having had cancer I will tell you no side effect from any medicine or chemo treatment I received was worse than cancer itself. I was misdiagnosed for months and once they finally found it they said I would have lived maybe 2-3 weeks otherwise so I also know the side effects of untreated cancer as well. death vs. nausea? it was a no brainer.

Only of YOUR CANCER!!!!! Based on YOUR priorities for YOUR life.

Frankly, I'm tired of the argument that prevention of death is morally superior to all other choices. I loathe with every fiber of my being the mentality that irrationally equates existence to life.

It's slightly off the topic, but here's a good article that touches on the mindset that justifies anything and everything for the sake of keeping the heart beating and the lungs inflating, even if it's such a ****ing machine doing it.

Harry and Louise must die - Healthcare Reform | Obama Health Care Plan - Salon.com

 

[Fletch]

It's slightly off the topic, but here's a good article that touches on the mindset that justifies anything and everything for the sake of keeping the heart beating and the lungs inflating, even if it's such a ****ing machine doing it.

Harry and Louise must die - Healthcare Reform | Obama Health Care Plan - Salon.com

I hadn't thought of this in the context of this discussion, but it is something with which I whole-heartedly agree. Americans are not on good terms with death, and in many ways I believe we sacrifice our humanity on the altar of life at any cost.

 

[dross]

Take it a step farther (and I saw that you alluded to this), if parental action is under scrutiny, then the parents should be held criminally liable if the child develops health issues related to inclusions or exclusions in his diet. But why stop there? Let's include the development of these health conditions as an adult because we've all read the studies that link adult health issues with childhood diet.




I have. I side with Rambone on this one 100%.

You don't have a monopoly on choices simply because you're a cancer survivor. Neither do you get to dictate to others what those choices should be. And you certainly do not become vested with the power and authority to tell a parent what decisions he will make for his family, medical or otherwise.

I now live everyday of my life dependent on a drug because of my cancer. How does that give me any superiority over another family to tell them how to live their lives?

I made plans with my husband on what to do in the event things turned out differently. Where in those plans did I have the right to tell another mother she could only choose certain medical options for her children?

I have no sympathy for your case if you insist on using it to browbeat and bully others into bending their knee in homage to the state. In fact, I rather detest you for it.


indeed. Yes, for some the side effects are worth it. And for some they aren't. Who are you or anybody else to make that choice for a parent?




Only of YOUR CANCER!!!!! Based on YOUR priorities for YOUR life.

Frankly, I'm tired of the argument that prevention of death is morally superior to all other choices. I loathe with every fiber of my being the mentality that irrationally equates existence to life.

Can't rep you again, so gave you some PM rep.

 

[Hotdoger]

I've seen family members suffer from taking their doctors' advice. My sister with vaccines and my aunt with chemo. Experiences that have shaped my opinions and outlooks dramatically.

Call me when you realize that those hundreds of side-effects on the side of the drug packages mean something.

Also, thank you for reminding everyone that there really are people out there who would break down doors and force-medicate people for their own good.

Shaped you opinions to side with the moronic?

Call you for what?
There are "side effects" to EVERYTHING.

Yet was I to withhold treatment and let my son die because of "side effects"?

Yes my sons vision is poor now but was I to let him die or live and wear glasses?



My son's white blood count was 179,000 normal is around 50.

All the alternative treatments in the world would have never saved him.

He was so bad he couldn't move his limbs without severe pain. And his body functions were effected.

He and thousands of others survive now BECAUSE of Chemo drugs!

I got no problem if they break down your door and use all force available if you with hold chemo treatments for a child in your care.


You really need to go to Riley everyday and get an ounce of compassion and a little education.

 

[Fletch]

You really need to go to Riley everyday and get an ounce of compassion and a little education.

I question your monopoly on compassion.

 

[88GT]

Shaped you opinions to side with the moronic?

Call you for what?
There are "side effects" to EVERYTHING.

Yet was I to withhold treatment and let my son die because of "side effects"?

No. Some of us just want the opportunity to weigh the entirety of the situation for ourselves and make a choice based on OUR priorities and standards and world views. Some people simply weigh the competing factors differently. No one is begrudging you your choice. Have the common courtesy to do the same in return and not sic the government on us because we value things differently than you do.

 

[Hotdoger]

I question your monopoly on compassion.

You say I have a "monopoly"? I say you are having truth issues.

 

[hornadylnl]

You say I have a "monopoly"? I say you are having truth issues.

I can tell you that there is not a single member on this site whose integrity that I hold in higher regard than Fletch's. I think you're barking up the wrong tree here.

So should a Jehovah's Witness be able to withhold a blood transfusion from their child on religious grounds? If not, then I guess we can't let you prevent your child getting a mark or microchip.

 

[Fletch]

You say I have a "monopoly"?

No, my post was headed in the other direction. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[tyler34]

So should a Jehovah's Witness be able to withhold a blood transfusion from their child on religious grounds? If not, then I guess we can't let you prevent your child getting a mark or microchip.

MINOR THREAD JACK: being raised as one I can give you a definitive answer on this as I have gone through it. they do prevent their children from getting blood transfusions and even go so far as to bring lawyers into the equation if the doctor tries to push it past the parents and some cases kids reject the blood.

 

[rambone]

COME AND DRUG THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I got no problem if they break down your door and use all force available if you with hold chemo treatments for a child in your care.

Ready your breakfast and eat hearty... FOR TONIGHT, WE DINE IN HELL!!!

 

[Fletch]

MINOR THREAD JACK: being raised as one I can give you a definitive answer on this as I have gone through it. they do prevent their children from getting blood transfusions and even go so far as to bring lawyers into the equation if the doctor tries to push it past the parents and some cases kids reject the blood.

That's a harsh reality dude, and I'm glad you made your way in spite of it.

 

[Hotdoger]

No. Some of us just want the opportunity to weigh the entirety of the situation for ourselves and make a choice based on OUR priorities and standards and world views. Some people simply weigh the competing factors differently. No one is begrudging you your choice. Have the common courtesy to do the same in return and not sic the government on us because we value things differently than you do.

Seems somes standards and world views on withholding chemo treatment for a child are based on ignorance instead of truthfullness and FACTS.

By Rambones own admission he has views of chemo drugs are based on treatment of an adult. He now wants to apply those views to chemo treatments of a child. Glad he wasn't one of my sons doctors!

Next thing rambone will want oral surgons doing brain surgery.

The OPs subject gave reason for the intervention. If you want to do the same go ahead, but don't do a "Rambone" and cry like a baby when the state knocks down your door. You should have considered the ramifiacations ahead of time.


BTW This is exactly why I didn't post in the original thread. The ignorance is appalling!

 

[Bond 281]

Seems somes standards and world views on withholding chemo treatment for a child are based on ignorance instead of truthfullness and FACTS.!

The same could be said about withholding treatments based on religious grounds. Do you support that or not?

 

[Hotdoger]

I can tell you that there is not a single member on this site whose integrity that I hold in higher regard than Fletch's. I think you're barking up the wrong tree here.

So should a Jehovah's Witness be able to withhold a blood transfusion from their child on religious grounds? If not, then I guess we can't let you prevent your child getting a mark or microchip.

Bloood transfusions are part of cancer treatments for kids. Yes I believe in court ordered ones for children.


Marks and a microchips are life saving treatments?

Is that you Art Bell?

 

[Hotdoger]

The same could be said about withholding treatments based on religious grounds. Do you support that or not?

For children or adults?

 

[tyler34]

there are plenty of oncologists who treat cancer without using blood so its not mandatory but is preferred.

 

[Fletch]

BTW This is exactly why I didn't post in the original thread. The ignorance is appalling!

The arrogance is no treat either.

Maybe if you were willing to take a deep breath and step back from your straw man a bit, this might be more productive. You chose a course of treatment for your son, and it worked out splendidly for you. That doesn't give you the right to mandate it for all, whether you're "doing it for the children" or not. That you refuse to see this is every bit as insensitive and cruel as you accuse Rambone of being.

Some things should not be commanded by the State, no matter how good an idea they may be.