Mother in court over sons cancer treatment...

[Mummy Bean]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-20643477

what do you guys think about this?

The mother is being taken to court as she is refusing to let her son have radiotherapy, even tho the doctors feel that his chances of survival are quite slim with out it.

Both the father and the doctors are in agreement he should recieve the treatment, but she is still refusing.

Do you think the court should be able to over ride her decision, esp when the father is in disagreement?

 

[RachA]

Wow - hard decision to make. I don't think i would withhold treatment but i can understand her wanting to. She knows the treatment is going to make her son ill and there isn't a guarantee that he will get better with it. Like i said i don't think i'd make that decision.

 

[Natsku]

If he is likely to die without the treatment then the court should definitely be able to override her decisions. Parents shouldn't be allowed to withhold treatment from their children if its a matter of life and death.

 

[Missy86]

its hard as both parents disagree, For me I would like to think I had given my child the best possible chance of survival

 

[Bevziibubble]

It is a difficult situation. I would say that if the child would most likely die without the chemotherapy then the court should be able to over rule their decision

 

[Tegans Mama]

I think the courts can overturn her decision. And so they should be able to. IMO no long term risk is bad enough to let your child die for.

 

[suzib76]

I don't know, the full facts are not there for us to see so it is difficult

The key thing for me would be what is his prognosis with the treatment? Often cancer patients are given treatment which does nothing more than delay the inevitable, if that were to be the case here then I think I would understand her decision

We watched my grandad suffer not only cancer, but cancer treatment as well. He was very very ill for months and then he passed away. Myself, my mum and my gran all agreed at that point that if it happened to us we would probably decline gruelling treatment and just make the most of a shorter life

I really feel for the mum here, I don't think for a minute she is doing this for any reason other than she wants to spare her son more pain

 

[ellismum]

I don't know, the full facts are not there for us to see so it is difficult

The key thing for me would be what is his prognosis with the treatment? Often cancer patients are given treatment which does nothing more than delay the inevitable, if that were to be the case here then I think I would understand her decision

We watched my grandad suffer not only cancer, but cancer treatment as well. He was very very ill for months and then he passed away. Myself, my mum and my gran all agreed at that point that if it happened to us we would probably decline gruelling treatment and just make the most of a shorter life

I really feel for the mum here, I don't think for a minute she is doing this for any reason other than she wants to spare her son more pain

According to another news site it's a slight risk of a lower IQ and a small chance of being more likely to have a stroke when he's older.

I'm sorry about your Grandad, I totally get where your coming from there, watching Cancer take over my Nan was the most heart wrenching thing and my Dad was diagnosed with Leukemia 3 years ago and had all the treatment. Whilst my Nan passed away my Dad back fighting fit and got the all clear to return to work this week (at 54!)

This little man is only 6, he's still got his life to live, give him a chance.

 

[Eternal]

I think the courts can overturn her decision. And so they should be able to. IMO no long term risk is bad enough to let your child die for.

This ^^

 

[beth_terri]

Really really don't know I wouldn't wanna see my child suffer either way and then imagine if it didn't work such a terrible situation to ever have to be in

 

[Bon18]

If the worst was to happen to my child I would want to know that I did everything I possibly could... I think the courts should overturn her decision.

 

[staybeautiful]

It's a very strange one, I'm at a bit of a loss as to why she wouldn't be wanting to do everything in her power to help her son. But not being in that situation it's hard to say, but if she has genuine faith in natural remedies for this sort of thing it could be very hard for either her or the doctors to compromise on a treatment course that both parties are happy with. However, if she's 'just' refusing radiotherapy for the lifestyle side of things (i.e. potential for reduced IQ affecting his creative/intellectual life as stated by his mother) then I think the court should absolutely decide what is best.

Link with the bit about her favouring natural treatment - https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2244602/Sally-Roberts-Runaway-mothers-lawyer-pleads-judge-sympathy-fled-son-Neon-7-fearing-cancer-treatment-fry-brain.html

 

[Natsku]

What I understand from that article (and considering its Dailymail its hard to know how much is acurate) is that she's scared of the treatment, is into alternative medicine, and is worried that her son will end up with a lower IQ (I guess she's scared that it will be to the point of mentally challenged or something like that. Significantly at least).

Her fears are understandable but I can't help but liken her to parents that choose faith healing over conventional medicine. I do think its wrong if the alternatives haven't been shown to be effective. I guess I think alternative medicine should be used in conjunction with conventional medicine but people have the right to choose for themselves but that right does not extend to choosing for their children. Children should always be given the treatment option that has the best evidence for effectiveness whether the parents want it or not because even though we are their parents, we do not own them and they deserve the best chance for life despite our own beliefs.

 

[Tegans Mama]

^ But really, any parent who is sound of mind would rather have a child who is ALIVE with a lower IQ than a child who passed away because they didn't allow them to have medical treatment.

 

[amjon]

Honestly I don't think the courts should have ANY say in the medical treatment of your child. I don't think I would do chemo or radiation either. Often it can actually cause death on it's own (and even faster than leaving things alone). There ARE treatments that can help that do NO damage to the body (but the pharm companies and governments do NOT want people to know about them). My grandmother was diagnosed with liver cancer and told she had 3 months max to live. She opted for no treatment. She ended up living 13 months (and would have likely gone longer if hospice hadn't mistreated her the weekend she was in and had her BS up to 300 and refused her insulin). Radiation and chemo are EXTREMELY damaging to the body and rarely do enough to cure cancer that is already lethal.

 

[Eternal]

^ But really, any parent who is sound of mind would rather have a child who is ALIVE with a lower IQ than a child who passed away because they didn't allow them to have medical treatment.

Again 100% agree, that child could live and ' IF' his iq is affected, and it's a big if, then he can still live a long and fulfilled life, he doesn't need to be a member of Mensa for that.

 

[special_kala]

We don't know the full facts so its hard to comment.

If the prognosis long term with treatment is bad anyway I can understand that the mum doesn't want to see her son to suffer unnecessarily. If she knew her son would have 3 months of a semi decent life left with minimal pain without treatment then why subject him too 6 months of a life of treatment and pain. Chemotherapy and radiotherapy are brutal if the prognosis is bleak eithier way I can understand why she would want her son to die still as much as her son as he can be.

That said if survival odds are good with treatment then any effects would be enough to push for the treatment. The low iq thing I hope is untrue, I can't understand how a mother would rather her son die then be a bit slower mentally.

 

[Tegans Mama]

That's what I meant Kala. I wouldn't prolong my childs life if the end was definitely going to come anyway, I would want them to be happy and pain free (as possible) for the remainder of their time with us.

But if we were told that they would likely recover but have a lower IQ/be infertile/lose a limb etc due to treatment I would definitely go through with it.

 

[Natsku]

Yeah if it was a choice between living a little bit longer with the treatment and a little bit shorter without I can understand choosing to opt for no treatment and I would hope the court takes into account the predicted outcomes from the treatment but I agree that any parent in their right mind would choose life even if it means lower IQ or something similar. It seems this mother might not be in her right mind though and the stress of such an event can take you out of your right mind. She does deserve sympathy but the court still should rule in favour of whats best for the child.

 

[PitaKat]

Sounds to me like it's an issue between what the parents want. I don't think that the fear that radiation will fry his brain is a good argument against it, but if she thinks a natural treatment would give better results, then I think that's a valid argument. If I had cancer, I think I would try natural treatments. But I honestly don't know what I'd do if it were my son...