Though I have an aversion to the state intervening between a parent and a child, I tend to side with the state in trying to wrest Daniel Hauser away from his parents, who don't want to subject him to chemotherapy for his cancer, instead preferring to try natural/alternative cures. The kid is likely to die because of his parents' radical views. Yet, Dr. Rahul K. Parikh, writing in Salon today, cautions us not to be quick to judge the Chemo Kid. Excerpt:
Chemotherapy will likely save Daniel's life, and as a pediatrician I wouldn't hesitate for a moment to recommend it.But I would also like to turn down the volume on the talk-radio chatter and outraged editorials. That's because nobody seems to be talking about what it takes to beat Hodgkin's (or any other cancer). What it takes is a grueling regimen that can indeed give even a dying person pause. In fact, the Hausers didn't refuse chemotherapy outright. They defied doctors and a judge's ruling only after Daniel experienced some of its violent effects following one round. If you don't understand why, listen to my friend, Arun Ponnusamy, 36, who beat acute lymphocytic leukemia. "Surviving cancer is one thing," he says. "Surviving chemotherapy is another thing entirely."
Parikh goes on to describe the horrific side effects of chemo on his friend, and how it was a kind of living death. Nevertheless, his friend survived. This leads Parikh to conclude:
So I sympathize with the Hausers, who want to treat Daniel with complementary medicine. But there's a reason why it's called complementary. It may have a place, but that place must be alongside medications that will save Daniel's life, save him from a death that is bound to be more ugly and prolonged than hellish cancer treatments.
Agreed. On another matter of the state intervening to protect a child from his parents on health grounds, South Carolina authorities have arrested the mother of a 555-lb. teenager on charges of medical neglect, for letting the kid get monstrously, dangerously obese. I support this radical move, on the same grounds that I would support it if she were starving the boy. It's an interesting question, though: what's the borderline between a parent being lousy, in terms of providing poor nutrition and letting their minor child get obese, and a kid getting so obese that the parent can be reasonably accused of the crime of medical neglect?
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
seems the court required an xray to check on the status of the tumor. The tumor had responded to the first chemo treatment and reduced in size. At this point it has grown back and is pressing on the child's windpipe. The docotors expect that if treatment is not resumed - the child will die within the next few weeks not of the cancer but of the tumor blocking his air passages. Meanwhile - Mom has disapeared with the child, the father is asking her to come home so they as a family can make decisions. The father said the mother was "frightened" and therefore made this rash decision to flee. I appreciate how extreme the side effects of chemo are - for sure Doctors are not always right. But there is an element of panic in this story - the child had a bad reaction in terms of vomiting and exhaustion to the first round. This is very hard for a parent to watch - but this child will die if Momma doesn't get him back home and have this tumor treated. I sort of think watching him die might be tougher than watching him endure the chemo. His first symptom was difficulty breathing which he still has. I can't imagine being so frightened that I would take my child - who has difficulty breathing - on a fugitive escape. Very sad situtation.
Celtic Dragon
In answer to your question? As a person of science, I'm sure you know that CBS interview is not the same a s work found in a respected peer reviewed journal. There are very few journalists out there who understand the basics when it comes to the scientific method and don't even know the good questions to ask. I'm sure you've experienced a great deal of frustration when you see this happen with your field of study.
There are better sources for your information. Unedited. Honestly reviewed and supported by good scientific data.
A parent would need to do better research and not rely on what "feels right" and conspiracy theories, or Oprah for their medical information.
In answer to your question? As a person of science, I'm sure you know that CBS interview is not the same a s work found in a respected peer reviewed journal.
Absolutely. The problem is, according to Dr. Healy...the research is being deliberately avoided in the first place. Nothing that may implicate vaccines will therefore make it into peer reviewed journals.
What we end up with is junk epidemiolgy that supports the worst fears of parents, published in religious extremist journals on one side.
On the other we have research in better journals that dismisses any link, but may be fatally compromised by underwriting and support from pharma companies.
Since thimerosal has been removed from the vaccine supply, I advise parents to innoculate their kids. I don't hold out much hope that corporate money and corporate interest will be removed from the actual science. Billions of dollars are at stake, and there is no way that the government or the pharma companies will allow any real research that could show that children may have been harmed by bad drugs.
A point of interest: A very good friend of mine who is a retired Ph.D chemist from Lorillard Tobacco showed me the chemical composition and structure of Thimerosal. She stated that she could not imagine how anybody could have used such a toxic and dangerous product in something meant for human usage. All the same, she still came down on the side of the companies in the question of a class action lawsuit, reasoning that it was more harmful to society to bankrupt them then to allow them to just remove the chemical and continue business as usual.
I imagine a lot of other people feel the same way.
I mean why do we need parents anymore, we have the government? They want to play the part of parents in our kids lives. Obama has now made it legal for a minor to cross state lines for an abortion and do it behind her parents back. But what happens should their be complications? Will the government step in for moral support, financial and emotional support? Hell no.
And where will this boy be if this chemo does not work? What will the government say....."Gee we thought it was the best treatment, sorry."
There have been cases where this type of treatment worked but it can also be said that people have been cured by alternative methods as well.
Sooner than later we will have no rights.....except to pay for what the government forces us to do.
The government wants to run our lives. I take that back, they run our lives.
On a related case, for those who didn't catch it, Leilani Neumann was convicted of second-degree reckless homicide yesterday for failing to bring her daughter to a doctor to treat the daughter's diabetes. The straw poll associated with the Journal-Sentinel story shows that five out of six agree with the conviction.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.