Do you think the teen in Conneticut should be forced to take chemo?

[SepiaAndDust]

Here in the US there are a lot doctors that think chiropracty is a voodoo junk science.

And with good reason. You'll find chiros who don't accept the germ theory of disease, chiros who want to adjust your qi with magnets, and chiros who poison people with aroma therapy.

Actual voodoo probably has more science behind it.

 

[SteveNZ]

Here in the US there are a lot doctors that think chiropracty is a voodoo junk science.

I confess that I thought that myself..... I did not realise that there are some very good schools and real medical studies available. Maybe we have only met a subset of the overall field over here!

 

[SteveNZ]

And with good reason. You'll find chiros who don't accept the germ theory of disease, chiros who want to adjust your qi with magnets, and chiros who poison people with aroma therapy.

Actual voodoo probably has more science behind it.

Is Chiropractic medicine a bit of a free for all in the US?

Sorry getting off topic....... Medical health is one of those things where folk believe 'black and blue' something unproven works. It may, but I still want something proven, by the well set out methodologies, (that shows the good and bad effects as necessary) before trusting it in critical areas.

And rightly, so should the state and the courts.

 

[SepiaAndDust]

Is Chiropractic medicine a bit of a free for all in the US?

Pretty much. Going to the chiropractor is a good way to get actual musculoskeletal help, get some good weed or oxy, get your daily dose of woo, or get yourself a prostitute, depending on the chiropractor.

 

[FireDragon76]

If this were a neuroma I might feel differently but lymphoma usually responds well to chemotherapy in someone so young. It seems to me the mother would be abusing her kid by seeking out alternatives to as close as one can get to a "Sure bet" in terms of cancer treatments.

 

[Susie~Q]

And with good reason. You'll find chiros who don't accept the germ theory of disease, chiros who want to adjust your qi with magnets, and chiros who poison people with aroma therapy.

Actual voodoo probably has more science behind it.

Well, I can see that most of you are entirely ignorant on the concepts of chiropratic, I, for one, would NEVER go to a convential MD unless I absolutely had to.

The chiropractors have helped me and my family more than any darn doc ever has. Some examples. I use to get terrible ear-aches, the doc could not help them, neither did their "poison" drugs. Well, the chiro worked on my ear and neck for a few minutes, and then that night, I could actually feel the water drain out, my mom told the ear specialist the next day, he said he was shocked, he had me scheduled to have my ear drum punctured, but, thanks to our chiropractor, it was cancelled.

My mom had a blocked milk duct in her breast, the doc wanted to do surgery, well, when she was having her chiro treatment, she casually told him about it, he worked on a certain area of her spine and under her arm, that night, it drained, no surgery needed.

I have several herniated discs, no dang doctor can fix those, but my chiropractor in the states would do disc decompression on me and I was no longer in pain. Now, no doctor can do that, it is always, drug, drug, drug. The heck with the drug, I won't take them, they only mask the symptom, especially where pain is involved.

My mom had irregular heart beats, so do I, well, the chiro works on my upper back and before he is finished, they stop.

They have many more hours in x-ray reading than any doc has, they can interpret them, an MD has to send them out.

They have helped me is so many ways, they are worth their weight in gold, sure, there are some bad ones, but believe me, there are bad MD's as well, so, lets not pick on just the chiropractor.

As to vitamins and other "natural stuff" being poison, excuse me, but drugs have killed way more folks than the natural way ever has. The FDA and AMA don't want people to know this, it is kept a secret, but, so many hospital deaths a year are caused by drugs, it is a disgrace.

Now, I realize that sometimes drugs and doctors are needed, they have their place, but, by and large, for a lot of things, the chiropractor is a far better way to go. Mine have always recommended me to MD's when they feel that problems are out of their league.

So, you say that chiropractic is Voodoo, well, I say that MD's meds are voodoo, they are fake and synthetic, NOT recognized by the body, in emergency, fine, but when well, stop the darn things and get back to the healthful way of healing.

As a side note, this gal should have a right to the type of treatment she wants, it is HER body, and it is NOT suicide, I mean, she IS requesting treatment, it is not as if she is denying all of it. I have done numerous research on natural cancer cures by very well respected doctors, such as high dosage vitamin C IV's, these have worked miracles with no side effects. Dr. Jonathan Wright, from Seattle Washington, has used it. Chemo is so dangerous, and sometimes makes the patient sicker and still does not heal them. The nurses have to wear gloves as it will burn their skin, it is a type of acid. NO WAY would I allow it for myself and if a loved one rejected it, I would be on their side. The Lord has provided all kinds of ways for healing, yes, even drugs at times, but, His medicine cabinet is the best way to go.

If a person eats healthy, for the most part, they have less of a chance of getting cancer.

Now, I have had my rant, I am leaving. Good-bye.

 

[Susie~Q]

Oh, I forgot to add something.

Chiropractors have at least 12 years of schooling, they have to have a general University degree, then go to a light version of med school, then to chiropractic college, they are highly respected, health-care professionals, at least the ones I have known. AND, they are constantly going back to school for reviews and to upgrade their skills.

NO, I will NOT hear of them being bad-mouthed, do your research, stop kissing up to those MD's.

Now................

 

[SteveNZ]

Well, I can see that most of you are entirely ignorant on the concepts of chiropratic, I, for one, would NEVER go to a convential MD unless I absolutely had to. ................


Now, I realize that sometimes drugs and doctors are needed, they have their place, but, by and large, for a lot of things, the chiropractor is a far better way to go. Mine have always recommended me to MD's when they feel that problems are out of their league...............

That to me is what makes any medical person trustworthy.
To know what specialist skills are available and guide clients as needed.

 

[DaisyDay]

Getting this thread back to the original topic...

I read in here that someone said if alternative meds were successful, they would now be mainstream.

My personal opinion of that is, no they wouldn't. I do think there's a huge market in cancer treatments today. There is a conspiracy theory that there's a cancer cure or two out there that won't ever see the light of day because it would end the nice deal between doctors and the providers of such therapies. I don't necessarily ascribe to it, but I understand the logic behind it.

Do you think that the family doctors are in cahoots with the oncologists and surgeons such that they recommend standard treatments for a kickback or something?

Certain things are mainstream that don't get the doctors any moolah such as baby aspirin, losing weight, regular exercise and a nutritious diet. These preventive measures when they work keep patients away from the surgeons, oncologists, pharmaceuticals and even the primary physician - and yet, this is exactly what most doctors will recommend. How do you reconcile this with them being more concerned with money than their patients' welfare?

I have two friends dealing with cancer. One is currently in remission and is cancer free but is facing a massive amount of debt. When she suggested looking into alternative treatments she said the doctor looked at her like she was crazy. Her cancer is a rare child cancer that can affect adults, but it was caught very early.

Catching it early (pretty much whatever "it" may be) helps tremendously. This friend's medical debt is a good argument for universal healthcare, but that is an argument for a different thread. The debt adds to stress during a vulnerable time.

My other friend is dealing with ACC, which is not curable. Currently she has chosen to try to avoid chemo. Her days are numbered either way. She's had a few surgeries to remove the tumor that was growing in her jaw. She is now missing part of her arm as that went into a graft for the upper part of her mouth. These procedures may have given her an additional 6 to 12 months, no one really knows. The chemo gives her about the same, if the doctors are correct. But she would be very sick from the chemo. She hopes that a cure of some sort can be found while she is alive, and she will continue to fight this, but she's not doing it by pumping her body full of poison.

If chemo is not going to help, then there is little point to it. Some alternative treatments are also essentially poison (laetrile) while some are just expensive placebos - but it is well known that placebos do have a good effect for a while, so if she can afford it, it may be good for her, give her cheer.

In both cases, the patients have been second guessed by all of their doctors because they sought alternative routes.

Second guessed in what way and for which alternative routes? For your first friend, adjuvant therapies may have been beneficial. For the second, I would think her doctors would encourage palliative treatments and discourage those known to harm (physically or financially) without real benefit apart from placebic.

When I did chemo, I'd get intense leg pain the third day after - but my oncologist didn't send me to an expensive pain management doctor or prescribe an expensive pharmaceutical, but Benedryl & Tylenol - which worked far better than the heavy duty pain pills I had left over from surgery. And my radiation oncologist recommended cornstarch and aloe leaves.

Maybe I had unusually decent doctors, but I think decency is standard.

 

[jayem]

I work in health care (though not in oncology), and no one here has mentioned a provider's perspective. Honestly, if I were an oncologist, I'd be loathe to treat a patient under these circumstances. Chemo is a complicated, on-going process, requiring monitoring for side effects, and regular testing to determine the response. Medication dosing and schedules often must be adjusted. A strong, committed doctor-patient relationship is a must. Treating someone who is resentful and uncooperative could be disastrous. Just because the court ordered treatment doesn't mean she'll find a specialist who'll agree to provide it. Personally, I can't imagine treating a hostile, unwilling patient without a court order myself.

Which brings up another point. Should a physician be subject to contempt of court for refusing to treat a patient against her will? Don't medical providers have rights, too?

 

[bhsmte]

Getting this thread back to the original topic...

I read in here that someone said if alternative meds were successful, they would now be mainstream.

My personal opinion of that is, no they wouldn't. I do think there's a huge market in cancer treatments today. There is a conspiracy theory that there's a cancer cure or two out there that won't ever see the light of day because it would end the nice deal between doctors and the providers of such therapies. I don't necessarily ascribe to it, but I understand the logic behind it.

I have two friends dealing with cancer. One is currently in remission and is cancer free but is facing a massive amount of debt. When she suggested looking into alternative treatments she said the doctor looked at her like she was crazy. Her cancer is a rare child cancer that can affect adults, but it was caught very early. My other friend is dealing with ACC, which is not curable. Currently she has chosen to try to avoid chemo. Her days are numbered either way. She's had a few surgeries to remove the tumor that was growing in her jaw. She is now missing part of her arm as that went into a graft for the upper part of her mouth. These procedures may have given her an additional 6 to 12 months, no one really knows. The chemo gives her about the same, if the doctors are correct. But she would be very sick from the chemo. She hopes that a cure of some sort can be found while she is alive, and she will continue to fight this, but she's not doing it by pumping her body full of poison.

In both cases, the patients have been second guessed by all of their doctors because they sought alternative routes.

Speaking from 20 years of healthcare experience, if there was a potential cancer cure out there, it would be impossible to keep a lid on it.

Also, cancer centers are dependent on obtaining enough referrals and or treatment to be viable, as any medical facility would be. The thing is though, there are protective measures in place, to keep doctors from having financial gain from referring patients for certain treatments and especially so with medicare patients, which would be a good chunk of cancer patients.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I work in health care (though not in oncology), and no one here has mentioned a provider's perspective. Honestly, if I were an oncologist, I'd be loathe to treat a patient under these circumstances. Chemo is a complicated, on-going process, requiring monitoring for side effects, and regular testing to determine the response. Medication dosing and schedules often must be adjusted. A strong, committed doctor-patient relationship is a must. Treating someone who is resentful and uncooperative could be disastrous. Just because the court ordered treatment doesn't mean she'll find a specialist who'll agree to provide it. Personally, I can't imagine treating a hostile, unwilling patient without a court order myself.

Which brings up another point. Should a physician be subject to contempt of court for refusing to treat a patient against her will? Don't medical providers have rights, too?

That's a good question.

Speaking from 20 years of healthcare experience, if there was a potential cancer cure out there, it would be impossible to keep a lid on it.

I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility, that's all.

Also, cancer centers are dependent on obtaining enough referrals and or treatment to be viable, as any medical facility would be. The thing is though, there are protective measures in place, to keep doctors from having financial gain from referring patients for certain treatments and especially so with medicare patients, which would be a good chunk of cancer patients.

I believe there are measures in place, but that they don't necessarily mean a doctor doesn't receive kickbacks.

It has happened before, maybe not with cancer treatments though - although there was just a doctor in Michigan who just got caught being naughty. I have the find the link for it.

 

[bhsmte]

That's a good question.



I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility, that's all.



I believe there are measures in place, but that they don't necessarily mean a doctor doesn't receive kickbacks.

It has happened before, maybe not with cancer treatments though - although there was just a doctor in Michigan who just got caught being naughty. I have the find the link for it.

There will always be doctors willing to break the law. When they do (and the feds watch this closely), they either get heavily fined, lose their ability to treat medicare patient, or even go to jail.

 

[SepiaAndDust]

As to vitamins and other "natural stuff" being poison, excuse me, but drugs have killed way more folks than the natural way ever has. The FDA and AMA don't want people to know this, it is kept a secret, but, so many hospital deaths a year are caused by drugs, it is a disgrace.
...
So, you say that chiropractic is Voodoo, well, I say that MD's meds are voodoo, they are fake and synthetic, NOT recognized by the body, in emergency, fine, but when well, stop the darn things and get back to the healthful way of healing.

Your entire rant is ludicrous and doesn't address what I actually wrote, so there's little point in discussing it.

 

[SteveNZ]

.............. When I did chemo, I'd get intense leg pain the third day after - but my oncologist didn't send me to an expensive pain management doctor or prescribe an expensive pharmaceutical, but Benedryl & Tylenol - which worked far better than the heavy duty pain pills I had left over from surgery. And my radiation oncologist recommended cornstarch and aloe leaves.

Maybe I had unusually decent doctors, but I think decency is standard.

That is great to hear.
I agree 'decency is standard'.
And all those (well maybe a few odd ones) who choose to be in the medical field do want to care for folk! After all they offer medical care.

PS- Hope all is well with you now. It must have been tough.....

 

[keith99]

Oh, I forgot to add something.

Chiropractors have at least 12 years of schooling, they have to have a general University degree, then go to a light version of med school, then to chiropractic college, they are highly respected, health-care professionals, at least the ones I have known. AND, they are constantly going back to school for reviews and to upgrade their skills.

NO, I will NOT hear of them being bad-mouthed, do your research, stop kissing up to those MD's.

Now................

Uh,

No just no.

What Education is required to be a Chiropractor - Why Chiropractic? - Chiropractors Tim McKay and Kent Jenkins

ACA - Education Requirements

Chiropractor Educational Requirements

Sites specifically claiming the high standards do not even come close the the 12 years you claim.

 

[SteveNZ]

MY CONCLUSION: Regarding the issue of this forum.
I am glad that the US has in place the ability (failings and all) for the medical care folk to identify issues and that the state will both hear and act it necessary to force medical care.

Such actions would be rare but in my view does not breach any healthy civil right. Especially as this type of action has the intent of health and well being. It is a choice to act against hurt or harm.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

I work in health care (though not in oncology), and no one here has mentioned a provider's perspective. Honestly, if I were an oncologist, I'd be loathe to treat a patient under these circumstances. Chemo is a complicated, on-going process, requiring monitoring for side effects, and regular testing to determine the response. Medication dosing and schedules often must be adjusted. A strong, committed doctor-patient relationship is a must. Treating someone who is resentful and uncooperative could be disastrous. Just because the court ordered treatment doesn't mean she'll find a specialist who'll agree to provide it. Personally, I can't imagine treating a hostile, unwilling patient without a court order myself.

Which brings up another point. Should a physician be subject to contempt of court for refusing to treat a patient against her will? Don't medical providers have rights, too?

The patient the OP is centered upon is undergoing treatment at a children's hospital where the staff are accustomed to dealing with hostile, unwilling, resentful, and uncooperative patients, and their parents who can be equally difficult to manage. I had to go into the hospital this morning for some stuff, and while there witnessed a girl of about 12 go apepoop on her nurse. Her mom then puffed up an attitude on him when he actually wasn't at fault in the slightest, and was trying to chill the girl out and be super gentle. He was totally unfazed. He calmed mother and child down, got the IV going, and then was still in such a sporting mood he super nicely got a charger for my dying iPad. None of the other staff members within earshot of her freakout broke a stride or seemed in the slightest bit alarmed. I've spent a fair amount of time in children's hospitals and have seen young patients kick, bite, throw things, scream, have spectacular tantrums, be belligerent little beasts, and curl themselves up into balls. I've been a panicked patient myself before (but when I was younger) and had to be sedated and strapped down.

I think most children's hospitals have specialized oncology department for adolescent and young adult patients. They are used to coaxing, cajoling, dealing with crapitudes. My stepmom is a pediatrician who focuses on adolescent medicine, and she's expertly dealt with patients being forced to undergo tests or treatment they didn't want. My dad is an oncologist who used to work at military hospitals and he and his staff dealt with several patients with PTSD who would have outbursts or behave erratically. The staff was professional and handled it. So yeah, I feel reasonably confident the staff at the hospital where Cassandra is being treated can manage. As for the ethics involved, she has a treatable illness and a promising prognosis. With the prescribed treatment, she'll most likely gain the ability to go in pursuit of a full and happy adulthood. Without it, she'll go through a lengthy one day at a time suicide. There is no "alternative medicine" that will provide the same hope, and she and her mother didn't obtain any anyways. They provided no evidence of seeing any other medical caregiver, alternative or otherwise, in two court sessions. Time ticked on, the cancer progressed, and they just had an ostrich approach. I don't think that many reasonable and experienced health professionals would have a moral dilemma with giving her court-ordered treatment that will spare her life.

 

[JohnLocke]

Unfortunately, the patient is a minor, and will likely both become 18 and have to submit to the treatment (or escape) before a proper appeal can be had. I disagree with the Court, because it asks the wrong question. It asks, "Is this person of sufficient age, maturity and experience to make an informed decision as to her own medical treatment?" The court concludes that the patient is not sufficiently mature while relying upon a collateral and irrelevant matter, the decision itself.

Did C investigate multiple therapies for her condition? yes
Did she ask questions about costs, side effects, prognoses, etc.? yes
Was C under some kind of delusion, duress, mental infirmity that prohibited her from thinking logically and rationally? No evidence (note that the issue is whether or not she had the ability to think logically and rationally, whether she does so is her choice.)

Other than the decision itself, and her resistance to the heavy handed actions of the trial court and DFACs, is there anyway in which she investigated, considered and chose between the options then available to her that differs in any material way from what a mature, experienced, rational person similarly situated would have done?

And if there is no material difference, then by what right does the State presume the power to invade a private citizen's body against her will? Relying on the legal fiction of the age of majority is both cowardly and substantially unjust.

 

[cow451]

Oh, I forgot to add something.

What is the Chiropractic treatment for Hodgkin's lymphoma?