General Interest > Open Free for All

Cancer dilemma

<< < (2/2)

Paul:
BuzzKill,

Yes, that end of life desperation treatment
is more cruelty than effective.

Who is to say no to someone who wants to cling
to life.

Tough situation for sure.

Paul

BuzzKill:
Well Paul - I don't advocate denying care/treatment to anyone who wants it - no matter what the odds.
I just wish the medical professionals were more honest. This need not mean brutally honest - but simply stating truthfully what the side effects are and how much good or harm can be expected to result. Mostly, I think I am outraged at how dishonest medical personnel can be about what Hospice care is, and how close to death one needs to be to qualify.
Doctors flat out lie about the patient's prognosis to keep them out of Hospice care - Flat out lie about the services Hospice can provide; and I am personally convinced it is for monetary reasons.

The Liger:
Please see http://childrenshealthcare.org/ and click on "Victims" to the left of the page.  The issue of parents denying medical care to their children is extremely serious.  Children have died of everything from cancer to diabetes to untreated wasp-stings.  This issue is very close to my heart and I'd hate to see it written off so casually.

Sorry for changing the subject.  I know you wanted to keep it where you started it.  I just wanted to say my piece on that.

Carry on, carry on.


--- Quote ---On 2005-05-18 05:54:00, Paul wrote:

"If an adult, the decision would be the

individuals.



As a child? I assume the decision is the

parent's.



If they choose natural I think they would

be prosecuted, as I have seen Christian

Scientist (www.tfccs.com/) get challenged

in court when they for religious reasons

deny health care to their kids."

--- End quote ---

Antigen:
Sorry, Paul, for doubting your intentions.

"The dilemma?

Let kids die naturally of cancer so they
can avoid being abnormally sick later
in life.

"Or preserve life now through current
medical interventions, and risk life,
for potential higher illness rates later. "

The kinds of long term, far off problems listed in the article are pretty much worth it, in my view. And this is something I've had to think about. My daughter was 19 when she got sick. Legally an adult but still a young one. If it were me, at my age, w/ my chances of recovering pretty nearly completely it would have been a much more difficult decision. In her case, it was pretty certain that, if she recovered fairly well, she'd have anywhere from 5 - 40 years of relative good health. There was still a major risk that any of dozens of things could go wrong, cheating her out of any benefit for all the suffering. But we all had time to think about it and all agreed that it was well worth it.  

Now, if you want to get into the really stickey issue of payors, that could be interesting as hell! By my rough estimation, her treatment has cost just about all of the SS contributions from the entire family over all of our lifetimes. If she had been a minor at the time, we would have had to either impoverish ourselves to qualify for public funding or dedicate our lives to fundraising. I'm still toying w/ ideas about creative fundraising for the institution just cause they rock! :wink:


Religion is comparable to a childhood neurosis.
--Sigmund Freud, Austrian-born psychologist
--- End quote ---

Paul:
Liger,

That is an amazing link.

I thought it was a rare, almost novel
occurence.

Thanks for the insight to bring us up
to speed on this situation.

Paul

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page