Author Topic: Cancer dilemma  (Read 1687 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Paul

  • Posts: 438
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Cancer dilemma
« on: May 18, 2005, 08:54:00 AM »
I just heard on the radio, and have
not looked up or found the article that:

Kids treated successfully for cancer
with chemo or radiation have a higher
incidence of illness than health kids.

I am posting this because it relates to
any medical intervention, just about,
that their are risks and rewards.

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.

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.

So, again, the dilemma? Be the parent!
Make the decision.

---

You can use adult examples, but remember
we as adults would be making up our own
minds. These examples would not be relevant
to this originating post for this thread
topic.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
or those who don\'t understand my position, on all subjects:

* Understand the law and your rights.

* Make sure you have the freedom of choice.

* Seek and receive unbiased information and
know the source of information.

Offline Antigen

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12992
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
    • http://wwf.Fornits.com/
Cancer dilemma
« Reply #1 on: May 18, 2005, 10:45:00 AM »
I can tell you it can be a very dicey situation. What form of cancer are we talking about? What are the cure rates? Other health factors? When a kid is dxed w/ cancer, there are a lot of objective wittnesses. There are the lab techs who read the biopsies and other samples, the doctors, usually some interns and such (if it's a teaching hospital, still others). And there's a nursing staff who are experienced w/ these particular illnesses, how they manifest and the side effects of treatment.

Believe it or not, there often comes a time when somebody has to make a decision as to whether or not the pain and suffering of treatment are worth the likely benefits. It can be contentious as hell. Usuall, when it's time to let a kid go, the parents, doctors and other staff are ready to come to terms. The kid, by that time, is usually unable to give any real meaningful feedback. It's usually the grandparents who hold out unreasonably lone.

And, believe it or not, in the children's hospital I know about, even when dealing w/ objective and certainly deadly disease, the kid has some sayso in which proceedures and drugs they're willing to take. It's not hard coded. No reasonable adult is going to let a kid pass on therapy that we know w/o reasonable doubt they need. But I've seen my share of pissed off mothers after they lost the argument w/ the kid and the med staff took the kid's side. It helpes imensely to have the patient's cooperation. Better to miss some meds, see the onset of the results and have the kid (as young as 4yrs old, in some cases) agree that they need it than to perpetually strap them down and force something on them w/o their consent. That way, when the doc tells them "If you don't do this then that will probably happen" they believe it. They try hard, every day, to keep all of that in balance.

And here we're talking about objectively observable disease w/ well tested therapies. I'm guessing you're relating this back to the other thread about involuntary committment for very subjective reasons.



By 1940 the literacy figure for all states stood at 96 percent for whites. Eighty percent for blacks. Notice for all the disadvantages blacks labored under, four of five were still literate. Six decades later, at the end of the 20th century, the National Adult Literacy Survey and the National Assessment of Educational Progress say 40 percent of blacks and 17 percent of whites can't read at all. Put another way, black illiteracy doubled, white illiteracy quadrupled, despite the fact that we spend three or four times as much real money on schooling as we did 60 years ago.
--Vin Suprynowicz

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
"Don\'t let the past remind us of what we are not now."
~ Crosby Stills Nash & Young, Sweet Judy Blue Eyes

Offline BuzzKill

  • Posts: 1815
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Cancer dilemma
« Reply #2 on: May 18, 2005, 11:41:00 AM »
My feeling is - with a child or young person - you treat it and treat it aggressively. Children have amazing ability to heal and overcome odds that seem impossible. I once got into a conversation with my family doc on this subject - and he told me several stories about children he knew when he did his rotation on a pediatric ward that were truly incredible.
As for frequent illness through out life - This is the lot for many of us and we still would rather live than not.
I do understand Gingers point and would agree that there are no doubt situations when it is best to let the child go - but to do so b/c they might be "sickly" if they live is an obscene notion as far as I'm concerned.

When it comes to older folks facing cancers that are really not curable - I think it is more often than not a mistake to treat it with the kinds of treatments we have available today. I watched my dad die a horrible and prolonged death, made so, mostly by trying to treat the cancer. There was no hope of cure. It was just a matter of trying to buy time. But there was going to be no months or years free of the effects of the cancer; All they could hope for were a few more months of pain; and the treatments were more horrible than the effects of the cancer. Far more so.
It makes me angry that the medical professionals aren't more honest with their patients. Dad should have been told at diagnosis that it was terminal, and that treating it would be not just uncomfortable, but horrible, and really offered no hope of cure. He should have been offered the option of Hospice care - Told how much better the Hospice doctors and nurses were with managing pain and symptom relief.
Instead he was talked into chemo - lied to about what Hospice offered and what they required - and more or less tortured for the last few months of his life.
Still pisses me off. I could still slap that dam doctor silly. I am convinced it is all about money and they don't give a ratts ass what they are putting people through.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Paul

  • Posts: 438
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Cancer dilemma
« Reply #3 on: May 18, 2005, 02:19:00 PM »
Ginger,

Thanks for your thoughts.

I should have made it clear that this
was serindipidous, I happened to have
heard it on the radio.

It has nothing to do with the involuntary
thread. You do bring up a good point though
that this is a palpable illness.

I would like to keep this thread clear of the
other issues.

It is just a tough decision making process.
Unbiased question.

I actually hate these dilemma's, but real
life happens to us all.

So, nope no hidden agenda here. Just a thought
that I decided to post. Darn dilemma management
I guess?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
or those who don\'t understand my position, on all subjects:

* Understand the law and your rights.

* Make sure you have the freedom of choice.

* Seek and receive unbiased information and
know the source of information.

Offline Paul

  • Posts: 438
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Cancer dilemma
« Reply #4 on: May 18, 2005, 02:25:00 PM »
http://www.latimes.com/features/health/ ... lth-womens

THE NATION
New Pains for Adult Survivors of Childhood Cancer
Researchers find that treatments later cause other health problems, including heart disease, in two-thirds of these patients.

By Thomas H. Maugh II
Times Staff Writer

May 18, 2005

Two-thirds of children who are cured of childhood cancer survive only to be afflicted as adults with other severe health problems caused by their treatments, including second cancers, heart problems, mental retardation and blindness, Texas researchers reported.

Overall, survivors are five times as likely to suffer from such problems as their siblings, Dr. Kevin C. Oeffinger of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center told a meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in Orlando, Fla., on Monday.

More aggressive and improved treatment regimens have increased the proportion of children whose cancer is cured from 58% in 1975 to more than 75% today. The American Cancer Society estimates that there are about 270,000 survivors of cancer in this country who were diagnosed when they were 15 or younger.

"We have had remarkable success rates when it comes to curing their cancers," said Dr. Len Lichtenfeld, deputy medical director of the American Cancer Society. "What we haven't been as good at is analyzing, cataloging and understanding the effects of these treatments."

The study found that radiation treatment was the most damaging. Radiation to the head can cause retardation and learning disabilities; to the chest, it can cause lung scarring, breast cancer and heart disease; to the abdomen and pelvis, it can cause infertility and loss of sexual functioning.

Chemotherapy drugs also can cause cancer, heart problems, liver failure and sterility. Surgery to remove a brain tumor can cause retardation or other damage.

Researchers were aware of the broad range of problems that could affect young cancer survivors, but this was the first study to show how many of them were actually affected, Oeffinger said.

The study looked at 10,397 adults who were diagnosed with pediatric cancer between 1970 and 1986, along with 3,034 of their healthy siblings. The survivors, treated at one Canadian and 25 U.S. hospitals, were ages 18 to 48 at the time of the study.

By age 45, 57.1% of the survivors ? but only 18.2% of the siblings ? reported moderate health problems, including lung scarring requiring oxygen therapy, congestive heart failure requiring medications, a blood clot in the head or lungs, cirrhosis of the liver, ovarian or testicular failure, or blindness.

By the same age, 37% of survivors and 4.6% of siblings reported severe health problems, including second cancers, heart disease, kidney transplant or dialysis, mental retardation and paralysis of an arm or leg.

Those treated for Hodgkin's disease were most likely to develop health problems, followed by those treated for brain tumors. Both conditions are typically treated with radiation and chemotherapy.

As the number of survivors grows, physicians need to be more aware of the extent of the problems and provide more effective follow-up care to head off some of the potentially catastrophic health problems, Oeffinger said.

Survivors "need to be followed by someone who is familiar with the risks ? and the vast majority of physicians are not," he said at a news conference at the meeting.





Copyright 2005 Los Angeles Times
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
or those who don\'t understand my position, on all subjects:

* Understand the law and your rights.

* Make sure you have the freedom of choice.

* Seek and receive unbiased information and
know the source of information.

Offline Paul

  • Posts: 438
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Cancer dilemma
« Reply #5 on: May 18, 2005, 02:26:00 PM »
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
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
or those who don\'t understand my position, on all subjects:

* Understand the law and your rights.

* Make sure you have the freedom of choice.

* Seek and receive unbiased information and
know the source of information.

Offline BuzzKill

  • Posts: 1815
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Cancer dilemma
« Reply #6 on: May 18, 2005, 03:42:00 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline The Liger

  • Posts: 212
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Cancer dilemma
« Reply #7 on: May 18, 2005, 05:59:00 PM »
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."
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
t\'s pretty much my favorite animal. It\'s like a lion and a tiger mixed...bred for its skills in magic.

Offline Antigen

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12992
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
    • http://wwf.Fornits.com/
Cancer dilemma
« Reply #8 on: May 18, 2005, 06:05:00 PM »
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

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
"Don\'t let the past remind us of what we are not now."
~ Crosby Stills Nash & Young, Sweet Judy Blue Eyes

Offline Paul

  • Posts: 438
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Cancer dilemma
« Reply #9 on: May 19, 2005, 04:17:00 PM »
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
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
or those who don\'t understand my position, on all subjects:

* Understand the law and your rights.

* Make sure you have the freedom of choice.

* Seek and receive unbiased information and
know the source of information.