Parents Treating Kid's Cancer with Homeopathy.

[Jonnusthegreat]

And where does "killing your own child" fit in with the law?

Illegal. Unfortunately, that's not related to this case.

[IIamaKing]

Lol, this case, yeh I said with the doctors, obviously.

[Torgent]

There's no "being" behind it, it's just biology. We're learning more and more about cancer with every year, it's just a matter of time before we beat it.

We will likely never "beat" cancer. It's not a disease. It's a mutation of cells. There will never be a "cure" for cancer until we can figure out how to make sure our cells perform perfect replication, which we won't. You can only treat cancer, and we are researching ways to treat cancer better. No scientist worth a damn is claiming to be seeking a true cure.

[Heladys]

If there was medically nothing to be done and they wanted to try that shit out of desperation it'd be one thing, but they should be charged with child abuse at minimum for opposing getting proper treatment, and manslaughter if the kid dies.

[Goldielocks]

We will likely never "beat" cancer. It's not a disease. It's a mutation of cells. There will never be a "cure" for cancer until we can figure out how to make sure our cells perform perfect replication, which we won't. You can only treat cancer, and we are researching ways to treat cancer better. No scientist worth a damn is claiming to be seeking a true cure.

We can't ensure that our bodies perfect replication but we can artificially induce it. It's still a ways off but nano tech is probably the way to go here.

Also the other way is very highly advanced detection techniques that allow us to flush out tumors before they become stage 2 and above. As for inoperable ones that will be something else entirely. Nano tech is probably the only way there.

[MatadorMedia]

The state has a right (and a duty of care) to take over when a parent is endangering their child's life. Bypassing these dumbo parents to save the child is imperative. Should be the same for vaccines; that parents can choose not to vaccinate their kids right now is just ridiculous.

[Shadowferal]

Illegal. Unfortunately, that's not related to this case.

"Child endangerment" is very much related.

[Jonnusthegreat]

"Child endangerment" is very much related.

If that is the case, then not seeking the best treatment is considered child endangerment. Which it's not.

[beanman12345]

If you don't wanna give your kid proven treatments for methods with far less survival rates or you don't wanna give your kid vaccines you should lose custody of your kids. I get it if you can't afford it, but that's why we need universal coverage in the US. In this case it looks like the parents did lose custody of their kid, which was the right decision for the betterment of this child.

[exochaft]

Here's what's not put in the story: what was the actual catalyst for the change. If the parents had their child undergoing chemo and things were rosy and going great, they wouldn't just suddenly stop and think "WoW, this is working great! ...wait a minute, I'm having second thoughts, stop the chemo!". We also don't know what type of chemo treatment was undergone, which could vastly affect the child in negative ways. My guess was that their child was experiencing extreme side effects, and the parents wanted to try something less "intense" on their actual child while still fighting the cancer. The tidbit was thrown in that they left the state when there was zero signs of cancer, so maybe they wanted to transition from chemo to something safer for their child at this junction. However, no one here actually knows what happened to cause this change of heart and are just taking this story at face value.

I'm just giving the parents the benefit of the doubt until new info comes forward, as I've seen what chemo can do to people. While some people respond well to it, I personally know a few people whose physical condition never recovered and is so debilitating after chemo that they're pretty much on suicide watch for the rest of their lives. Simple put, chemo treatments, while potentially lifesaving, also can carry a massive risk and potentially death, as well. If you're someone like me, who is super sensitive to most pharmaceuticals, even bare-minimum can be overkill or deadly. This is why I don't like government being involved with this, as they're the no experts in properly assessing medical situations. Also, doctors should not be given authoritative power over patients, as I've lived times where the doctors were wrong... and I needed time to find the right ones, as such laws would've kept me stuck on treatments that were bad. I technically shouldn't be alive today because the VA doctors basically OD'd me with meds because they didn't believe me when I told them I'm sensitive to meds, and I had deadly levels of said med in my system for weeks (they even told me I should be dead).

Here's the short version: keep the decisions as local as possible, between the parent and the doctor, while also realizing doctors can be just as fallible as anyone else (hence why 2nd, 3rd, etc. opinions are always a good idea). You want a doctor that questions their own judgement and asks for different perspectives, not one that believes they're always right. I'd be a helluva lot more concerned if the parents were doing nothing versus starting with chemo then looking for safer alternatives... but everyone here is acting like the parents didn't do anything at all to try and help their child.

[Torgent]

We can't ensure that our bodies perfect replication but we can artificially induce it. It's still a ways off but nano tech is probably the way to go here.

Also the other way is very highly advanced detection techniques that allow us to flush out tumors before they become stage 2 and above. As for inoperable ones that will be something else entirely. Nano tech is probably the only way there.

That's still not a cure. That's a treatment. And it's all very highly theoretical.

[Goldielocks]

That's still not a cure. That's a treatment. And it's all very highly theoretical.

If the treatment has a very high success rate and is ubiquitous the distinction is arbitrary. Also nobody would have ever conceived of the computers we carry in our pockets today in the 80s, so it's best to keep an open mind about what can be. We're on the cusp of defeating the HIV, something I wouldn't have expected a decade+ ago.

[Torgent]

If the treatment has a very high success rate and is ubiquitous the distinction is arbitrary. Also nobody would have ever conceived of the computers we carry in our pockets today in the 80s, so it's best to keep an open mind about what can be. We're on the cusp of defeating the HIV, something I wouldn't have expected a decade+ ago.

Apples and Oranges. HIV is a disease caused by a virus. Kill the virus, cure the disease. Cancer is a condition of nature. We will never cure it.

[Doctor Amadeus]

If your kid has cancer and you try homeopathy but refuse proven treatments, should you really be allowed to be a parent?

Yes, but if they die and it can be proven conclusively that the parents denied their child life saving treatment, then the parents should be criminally liable.

- - - Updated - - -

If you don't wanna give your kid proven treatments for methods with far less survival rates or you don't wanna give your kid vaccines you should lose custody of your kids. I get it if you can't afford it, but that's why we need universal coverage in the US. In this case it looks like the parents did lose custody of their kid, which was the right decision for the betterment of this child.

Yeah going to have to agree with all of this.

The only reason, I sort of pump the breaks is that you still have some without affordable access, because they live in places where politicians are fucking morons.

[Varitok]

Apples and Oranges. HIV is a disease caused by a virus. Kill the virus, cure the disease. Cancer is a condition of nature. We will never cure it.

Cancer is caused by cells dividing improperly and those improper cells dividing. If you stop those divisions or remove those bad cells, you cure the cancer.

The main issue isnt that there isn't just one type of cancer, so a treatment for one wouldn't work with them all.

[qwerty123456]

well, at least the poor thing won't feel too much pain before the end, if they're using canabis.

but this shouldn't have to happen in the first place. whatever allows children to get cancer is an evil, sadistic, wretched being.

If there was a being behind it then it would imply that a soul is real meaning this world is basically a video game/play for your true self. Or alternatively a creator could just see us like any other artist sees their works of art (something they care deeply for but ultimately not "real") Is Arthur Conan Doyle evil for the shit he put Sherlock Holmes and the other characters in his books through?

[Najnaj]

Yes, but if they die and it can be proven conclusively that the parents denied their child life saving treatment, then the parents should be criminally liable.

..but the kid dies!

[derpkitteh]

If there was a being behind it then it would imply that a soul is real meaning this world is basically a video game/play for your true self. Or alternatively a creator could just see us like any other artist sees their works of art (something they care deeply for but ultimately not "real") Is Arthur Conan Doyle evil for the shit he put Sherlock Holmes and the other characters in his books through?

holmes and other characters we create are fake.

a more apt comparison would be me and my chickens(when i still had chickens). i own the chickens, it's my responsibility to take care of them. if i do not provide for them, keep them safe from disease and each other(game roosters fight to the death), i am an evil, neglectful person.

[Bae]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48220571

THis is some of the more infuriating stupidity I have come across all year and a reminder to all of us not to believe everything we read on the internet.




If your kid has cancer and you try homeopathy but refuse proven treatments, should you really be allowed to be a parent?

Ah, more police state bullshit from you. Its a joy seeing your narrow minded stupidity everytime i come here.

The only time it would be appropriate to refuse actual treatment is if you can't afford it.

The state is ordering them to continue chemotherapy... is the state paying? If they aren't, that seems fucked up.

The fact that you have to pay for healthcare to stay alive is disgusting in itself. If you're born into a poor family, you're fucked because the government cant wake up to affordable or universal healthcare. The rich get the benefits, the poor get fucked in the arse.

This is why I believe that strong, law-backed child services are an absolute must.

Also, mandatory vaccination for those who are eligible for it. Use police force if need be in case the parents resist.
But in places where liberty is over-valued, that will never happen.

The amount of people who would lay down for a NWO or big brother style authority really does astound me. You'd be happy to be slaves as long as you didnt know about it.

well, at least the poor thing won't feel too much pain before the end, if they're using canabis.

but this shouldn't have to happen in the first place. whatever allows children to get cancer is an evil, sadistic, wretched being.

What allows children to get cancer is the same thing that allows that child to be born in the first place. Its called Nature. Thats how life is, deal with it and stop blaming false ideas and myths for the ills of a shit world.

Just do them in combination with the chemo.

Cannabis will be very effective in treating the nausea the child gets from chemo treatments.

You're the first sensible poster in the thread. Only took 4 morons before you to get there.

People die everywhere because they don't have access to medical treatment. The US is one of those places.

Indeed, the USA has the healthcare system of a 3rd world country. Yet most of the country still back it. The rich get it all, the poor suffer. Home of the brave indeed.

What kind of idiocy is this? The state is ordering them to save their child, who the hell cares about money there? You'd rather keep them trying to cure cancer with weed?

Who cares about money lol? Maybe they dont have any money. So people have to be slaves in debt for the rest of their life to save a life. What Horse Shit. If the USA had free healthcare id support what you're saying. However, it does not.

And where does "killing your own child" fit in with the law?

Through what? So people have to be in vast amounts of debt for the rest of their lives to prolong or maybe save a life.

The fact theres no free healthcare is as much a killer as the family. But nah its ok, this is america, we do things right cause were told its right and every other country in the world with free healthcare that dont put their citizens in huge debt is wrong.

Simple fact is, free healthcare should be available for everyone. If then you get people refusing it then theres a case. At present apparently it costs about 100k a year for cancer treatment. Family may not be able to afford it but they're being MADE to pay for it. Thats slavery. Thats pure slavery. Will their employers up their wages? Will the govt help them fund the treatment? If the answer is no then the usa is one of the most money hungry, corrupt and vile countries to exist.

You HAVE to save a life....and then you have to force that life to live in poverty after its been saved

[Doctor Amadeus]

..but the kid dies!

Yeah, and I am not against taking the kids away from the parents before that, the problem is it's tricky, because where is the kid going to go, how do you enforce that, and how do you then deal with the issue of taking a kid away from what they might know as an otherwise loving mom or dad.

So if you have a solution outside of what I said great.