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

[Ada Lovelace]

I've only had crumbs of time to read through this thread this week, so I'm responding to posts very belatedly. You've consistently been nice to me, and I hope you actually take it as a compliment that I've quoted so many of your posts to explain my disagreement with them. If I thought you were an unreasonable person or were prone to belligerence I'd just skip right over them without a word of comment.

Um no. That is not what I meant.

This girl is old enough to get an abortion without consent at most Planned Parenthoods in the country. She apparently is old enough to choose a procedure that is dangerous for her, and stops the heartbeat of a unborn baby.

But she is not old enough to seek out alternatives for her cancer? She is not old enough to make a medical decision for herself?

No one is saying she should just die. But if she did want to die, why would that be an issue? Again, remembering that someone along the way decided that a 17 year old had the mental capacity to decide to someone else's life. The general public recently celebrated a young woman's wish to kill herself...so I can't understand why anyone besides her family would think it's their business to tell this 17 year old what to do.

It seems paradoxical to me to be pro-life and yet be in support of a young woman with a curable illness choosing to gradually commit suicide. I understand your perspective that if at 17 we have the legal right to make choices about abortion on our own we should also have legal right to make decisions over medical treatment, but it sort of feels to me like a cutting your nose off to spite your face attitude. Hodgkin's Lymphoma used to be a death sentence, and now it's one of the more treatable types of cancer. It has an immensely encouraging prognosis with the majority of patients, and in Cassandra's specific case it's very favorable. If she was 87 instead of 17, or if she had a cancer with a 5% survival rate with treatment instead of one with an 85% rate I'd feel very differently. You keep posting as if alternative treatments are actually a viable alternative option for her. They are not.

Who are you referring to with a 17-year-old's decision to commit suicide being celebrated? Leelah Alcorn? Most find it heartbreaking and wished the disorienting pain of her present life hadn't kept her from realizing the possibility of hope in an independent adulthood that laid in a future within her reach. I don't know of anyone who faults her for it, but most don't celebrate the decision to commit suicide either. It's just ineffably sad.

I don't know of a single friend my age who didn't see "The Fault in Our Stars" last year, which is about a winsome couple who meet at a cancer support group for teens and then fall madly, poetically in love. It was one of a series of YA "sick lit" books that was made into a blockbuster. All over Twitter and Tumblr there were posts romanticizing dying from cancer in your teens, of how you'd be eternally young and beautiful. There were actually kids who wrote about how they wished they had cancer because they seemed to believe if they did others would admire them for their noble courage. I can't imagine many reasonable adults with fully matured brains and experiences beyond high school having the same delusions and fantasies. One of the things neuroscientists have distinguished about the differences between a developing adolescent brain and a matured adult's is consequential thinking. We tend to make more decisions based on feelings and desires of the present rather than considering the long-term ramifications. I don't know if she's able to fully analyze the tremendous success of treating Hodgkin's and think long-term. It's very possible some of the sentiments floating all over social media following TFIOS also influenced Cassandra.

I also believe her mother's feelings have been a driving force. In an article in the Hartford Courant it stated that her mother had significantly shaped her opinions on chemotherapy, and had been adamantly opposed to it from the start, labeling it as "poison" even after it was explained that the risks of serious side effects were actually quite minimal. She's an unemployed house cleaner, which isn't to minimize her rights as a parent or demean her intelligence whatsoever, but I do think she lacks the medical knowledge of those who are treating her daughter. i also wonder how she could reasonably afford alternative treatments if they were sincerely pursued since many are actually very expensive and time-consuming, and unlike with Cassandra's prescribed treatment, the state wouldn't cover any of the costs. Cassandra has been homeschooled, and it's very possible her mother had tremendous influence in shaping her worldview and there weren't as many other adults involved to expand perspectives. Since she is a stranger I really don't have any insight on her mindset or maturity, but I do think it's telling that after careful consideration and examination of evidence both for and against her ability to make this decision for herself, it was unanimously ruled against her. Please don't get me wrong and think I'm callous or that I don't realize the ethical Catch-22 of all of this; I'm absolutely sympathetic to her situation, as someone who has been forced into unwanted medical treatment myself. I'm being forced into a stupid dental surgery I don't want. It's actually because of compassion that I'm glad she's getting treatment with a demonstrably solid record of success, so that hopefully she'll go on to have the chance at a happy life and her mother won't bury her only child.

She was diagnosed with Hodgkin's in September 2014 and underwent her first treatment in November. According to the Hartford Courant article I read, her family attorney did not present evidence of any alternative treatments that were pursued at the court appearances. She was living at home the month of October. A person evaluating her mentality said that she and her mother had indulged in "magical thinking," and hoping that if they didn't treat the illness it would go away.

Gah. Speaking of age.... my own mom is nagging me relentlessly to go to sleep because I have to be at school obscenely early today and it's after 2. I was going to respond to other posts here I'd already hit quote on but I can't. I'll just add some final general collective thoughts in response to them for now.

Cancer has afflicted humanity for more than 5000 years. We had to read a surprisingly fascinating book titled "The Emperor of All Maladies" for my science class last year and learned about its history and the myriad of attempts to treat it. It's only been in relatively recent history, in the past half century or so, since cancer registries were formed to collect, analyze, and share emotionless facts about cancer that there's been more success with treating the 200+ distinctive diseases that fall under the umbrella of cancer.

Almost everyone knows someone who knows someone who had cancer and was treated in an unconventional method, and yet there's little provable data of those treatments' efficacy. Anecdotal experiences should not be used when making decisions about a course of medical treatment because they often lack vitally important information. There are people who have claimed they were successfully treated without the "poison" of chemotherapy, but who had cancer that didn't even entail chemo as the first method of treatment. If the cancer is isolated to a part of the body and can be surgically removed, that's usually done rather than chemo. Sometimes radiation is only needed.

Cancer has affected people of all ages, nationalities, religions, character, demographic and socioeconomics. Doctors, pharmaceutical executives, judges - they've had loved ones with cancer, too, so I don't buy into the idea that there's some cure not being sincerely pursued so that their pockets continue to be lined. Plus, in countries where the government picks up the tab for medical care the standard of treatment are quite consistent. Besides, many of the "natural" treatments are actually poisonous and many in the "alternative medicine" industry are profit-driven. There's this magazine that comes with the Sunday edition of the LA Times and in the January 4 issue there's an article about the alternative therapy cancer tourism industry in Tijuana. Vulnerable people desperate for treatment pay to take a tour bus down to Tijuana and then go to all these resorts that provide "alternative" treatments. And the people running them are not MDs and publish no legitimate proof of efficacy. You also have to consider people like Steve Jobs with enormous wealth and influence who have the ability to procure nearly any treatment out there. If there was an effective treatment for his cancer, he had the means to obtain it. He was famous for being an unorthodox, innovative thinker. In the book about his life his biographer detailed how one of his deepest regrets was not listening to his family and friends who pleaded with him to undergo the prescribed course of conventional treatment for his cancer. Instead he indulged in "magical thinking" and pursued alternative treatments. I remember that Forbes had an article about this so if you're not interested in reading the crazy long book you could probably find that. And speaking of crazy long this took me almost 15 minutes to write cause I'm half-asleep, and is crazy long. Apologies if it's just rambling. I babble like crazy when I'm tired and totally fail at brevity.

Oh. I did find the article about Jobs', though.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2011/10/24/steve-jobs-cancer-treatment-regrets/

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I've only had crumbs of time to read through this thread this week, so I'm responding to posts very belatedly. You've consistently been nice to me, and I hope you actually take it as a compliment that I've quoted so many of your posts to explain my disagreement with them. If I thought you were an unreasonable person or were prone to belligerence I'd just skip right over them without a word of comment.

I think you know I respect your posts and your opinions quite highly!

And I always appreciate disagreement done respectfully!

It seems paradoxical to me to be pro-life and yet be in support of a young woman with a curable illness choosing to gradually commit suicide. I understand your perspective that if at 17 we have the legal right to make choices about abortion on our own we should also have legal right to make decisions over medical treatment, but it sort of feels to me like a cutting your nose off to spite your face attitude. Hodgkin's Lymphoma used to be a death sentence, and now it's one of the more treatable types of cancer. It has an immensely encouraging prognosis with the majority of patients, and in Cassandra's specific case it's very favorable. If she was 87 instead of 17, or if she had a cancer with a 5% survival rate with treatment instead of one with an 85% rate I'd feel very differently. You keep posting as if alternative treatments are actually a viable alternative option for her. They are not.

For me, the larger problem here is the government FORCING her to take chemo. These are decisions that should NEVER be made by the government. Sure, right now people support the government stepping in, because they agree with what the government is doing. What happens when the government decides that women MUST take birth control after 2 kids? If people think that's not possible...well...I don't live in fear of it but I see the reality of it.

Who are you referring to with a 17-year-old's decision to commit suicide being celebrated? Leelah Alcorn? Most find it heartbreaking and wished the disorienting pain of her present life hadn't kept her from realizing the possibility of hope in an independent adulthood that laid in a future within her reach. I don't know of anyone who faults her for it, but most don't celebrate the decision to commit suicide either. It's just ineffably sad.

I was referring not another 17 year old, but Brittany Maynard, the 29 year old who killed herself with a pill. THAT was celebrated.

I certainly didn't support the idea to kill herself, but I wouldn't have wanted the government to intervene and force her to take treatment.

I don't know of a single friend my age who didn't see "The Fault in Our Stars" last year, which is about a winsome couple who meet at a cancer support group for teens and then fall madly, poetically in love. It was one of a series of YA "sick lit" books that was made into a blockbuster. All over Twitter and Tumblr there were posts romanticizing dying from cancer in your teens, of how you'd be eternally young and beautiful. There were actually kids who wrote about how they wished they had cancer because they seemed to believe if they did others would admire them for their noble courage. I can't imagine many reasonable adults with fully matured brains and experiences beyond high school having the same delusions and fantasies. One of the things neuroscientists have distinguished about the differences between a developing adolescent brain and a matured adult's is consequential thinking. We tend to make more decisions based on feelings and desires of the present rather than considering the long-term ramifications. I don't know if she's able to fully analyze the tremendous success of treating Hodgkin's and think long-term. It's very possible some of the sentiments floating all over social media following TFIOS also influenced Cassandra.

This is not a new phenomenon, however. You may be right about it influencing Cassandra, but that has never been brought up so I can't take a guess on it.

I remember a Dudley Moore movie a looooooong time ago that had a sick little girl in it, and she performs in some ballet, her dream, and then that evening dies. I was maybe 9 when I saw it, and I wanted to be this girl. It was like she had some magic life.

I also believe her mother's feelings have been a driving force. In an article in the Hartford Courant it stated that her mother had significantly shaped her opinions on chemotherapy, and had been adamantly opposed to it from the start, labeling it as "poison" even after it was explained that the risks of serious side effects were actually quite minimal. She's an unemployed house cleaner, which isn't to minimize her rights as a parent or demean her intelligence whatsoever, but I do think she lacks the medical knowledge of those who are treating her daughter. i also wonder how she could reasonably afford alternative treatments if they were sincerely pursued since many are actually very expensive and time-consuming, and unlike with Cassandra's prescribed treatment, the state wouldn't cover any of the costs. Cassandra has been homeschooled, and it's very possible her mother had tremendous influence in shaping her worldview and there weren't as many other adults involved to expand perspectives. Since she is a stranger I really don't have any insight on her mindset or maturity, but I do think it's telling that after careful consideration and examination of evidence both for and against her ability to make this decision for herself, it was unanimously ruled against her. Please don't get me wrong and think I'm callous or that I don't realize the ethical Catch-22 of all of this; I'm absolutely sympathetic to her situation, as someone who has been forced into unwanted medical treatment myself. I'm being forced into a stupid dental surgery I don't want. It's actually because of compassion that I'm glad she's getting treatment with a demonstrably solid record of success, so that hopefully she'll go on to have the chance at a happy life and her mother won't bury her only child.

I'm sure she will be thankful she is alive. Which will only set the precedent even more.

There are more and more medical kidnappings happen because someone disagrees with the parents (or the child). People worry so much about a "police state" but they ignore how CPS grabs kids. Justina Pelletier comes to mind, as I mentioned before.

She was diagnosed with Hodgkin's in September 2014 and underwent her first treatment in November. According to the Hartford Courant article I read, her family attorney did not present evidence of any alternative treatments that were pursued at the court appearances. She was living at home the month of October. A person evaluating her mentality said that she and her mother had indulged in "magical thinking," and hoping that if they didn't treat the illness it would go away.

I'm not prone to conspiracy theories and the like, but I have no doubts that the state finds it easy to find witnesses to testify such things as this. Again, I reference Justina's case. A hospital arbitrarily decided that she was basically mental and not suffering from an actual illness. They were able to procure "experts" who testified to that fact. And I believe that connects to the ability of Boston Hospital to "experiment" on wards of the state.

So I'm understandably dubious about these types of experts.

Gah. Speaking of age.... my own mom is nagging me relentlessly to go to sleep because I have to be at school obscenely early today and it's after 2. I was going to respond to other posts here I'd already hit quote on but I can't. I'll just add some final general collective thoughts in response to them for now.

As a mom, I noted that you edited this post at nearly 5am. GO TO BED YOUNG LADY!!

Cancer has afflicted humanity for more than 5000 years. We had to read a surprisingly fascinating book titled "The Emperor of All Maladies" for my science class last year and learned about its history and the myriad of attempts to treat it. It's only been in relatively recent history, in the past half century or so, since cancer registries were formed to collect, analyze, and share emotionless facts about cancer that there's been more success with treating the 200+ distinctive diseases that fall under the umbrella of cancer.

Almost everyone knows someone who knows someone who had cancer and was treated in an unconventional method, and yet there's little provable data of those treatments' efficacy. Anecdotal experiences should not be used when making decisions about a course of medical treatment because they often lack vitally important information. There are people who have claimed they were successfully treated without the "poison" of chemotherapy, but who had cancer that didn't even entail chemo as the first method of treatment. If the cancer is isolated to a part of the body and can be surgically removed, that's usually done rather than chemo. Sometimes radiation is only needed.

Cancer Center of America has some viable statistics, probably as close as you will get, because they can only take certain cases on as was mentioned. HL is not listed as one of the cases, probably because it can be treated easily with chemo.

I have no issues calling chemo poison. It IS poison. Even the oncologists will tell you that. I view it as sort of cutting off your thumb to save the rest of your body. Sure, you're gonna miss that thumb...

There are long term problems with chemo. This doesn't automatically mean one should refuse chemo.

Cancer has affected people of all ages, nationalities, religions, character, demographic and socioeconomics. Doctors, pharmaceutical executives, judges - they've had loved ones with cancer, too, so I don't buy into the idea that there's some cure not being sincerely pursued so that their pockets continue to be lined. Plus, in countries where the government picks up the tab for medical care the standard of treatment are quite consistent. Besides, many of the "natural" treatments are actually poisonous and many in the "alternative medicine" industry are profit-driven. There's this magazine that comes with the Sunday edition of the LA Times and in the January 4 issue there's an article about the alternative therapy cancer tourism industry in Tijuana. Vulnerable people desperate for treatment pay to take a tour bus down to Tijuana and then go to all these resorts that provide "alternative" treatments. And the people running them are not MDs and publish no legitimate proof of efficacy. You also have to consider people like Steve Jobs with enormous wealth and influence who have the ability to procure nearly any treatment out there. If there was an effective treatment for his cancer, he had the means to obtain it. He was famous for being an unorthodox, innovative thinker. In the book about his life his biographer detailed how one of his deepest regrets was not listening to his family and friends who pleaded with him to undergo the prescribed course of conventional treatment for his cancer. Instead he indulged in "magical thinking" and pursued alternative treatments. I remember that Forbes had an article about this so if you're not interested in reading the crazy long book you could probably find that. And speaking of crazy long this took me almost 15 minutes to write cause I'm half-asleep, and is crazy long. Apologies if it's just rambling. I babble like crazy when I'm tired and totally fail at brevity.

It brings to mind Magic Johnson, one of the early high profile AIDS cases. When he first got it, AIDS was a death sentence. Somehow, he is still alive. I'm sure that can be attributed to his resources.

You should see some of my stuff when I'm too tired. I work in front of a computer all day and the other day I was editing parts lists tables. I think I was dreaming about a book I was reading, because I found references to characters interspersed into the text! :o

Oh. I did find the article about Jobs', though.
Steve Jobs' Cancer Treatment Regrets - Forbes

I will check that out.

 

[keith99]

I need to find the article I was reading, because I read a totally different story.

If you find it read it carefully. This is a politicized issue and I'd expect most articles to include significant spin. It would not surprise me in the least if the article you read gives a very strong impression of exactly what you thought it said, but upon rereading carefully you might find it never actually comes out and says it. That it is implied by the order that facts are presented in of some other way.

And of course link it is possible. I'd like more information on this.

Keith

 

[Ada Lovelace]

Artemis97, on another thread (nothing to do with this whatsoever) I saw a person claiming that wisdom comes with age. It's a great thing for people in their 50s to claim, because heck, we need some kind of compensation for being middle aged! But in your posts here I see a lot of wisdom and maturity, and that you know yourself very, very well. Just as an aside, I am also terrified of dental procedures, and ran away from a root canal last year - for real! I absolutely talked myself out of it and still didn't have it yet. Maybe some day, yes.

You are the same age as this girl, and your insight means a great deal. I never had - and still have not had - any serious illness ever in my life. I can't even begin to say how fortunate I have been so far. I can try to imagine how that "feels", to have a doctor tell me that my condition is life threatening and what would I do. IMO, I would want the best that well tried and researched and tested medicine could do for me. I would want to live. I give no apologies for wanting to live. It's quite natural imo.

However, this thread has gone somewhat astray. In this case, there was no choice between this well tried and tested medicine and alternative medicine. The girl was refusing any treatment because, imo, her mother had indoctrinated her with some fear of medicine/treatment. Perhaps these are those kind of kooky individuals who "long to 'go home'" (which means heaven if you hadn't heard that before!) I don't know, of course, but I know that some cults, such as Christian Scientists, refuse any kind of medical treatment and I guess that they can argue that position with God some day if they think it's his mandate. For me, I will take prayer and I will take medicine and I will try my darndest to stay on this earth, for as long as I can.

I was offline for a few days when this thread was very active and a couple of pages worth of posts skipped past my notice. I really appreciate your insight and your empathy for my dental phobia. I had to get root canals after my surfing accident caused the first dental trauma, and it was terrifying to me. My parents treated me to noise canceling headphones, and they made the procedure more psychologically endurable because I didn't have the cacophony of the drilling cranking up my anxiety. The whole process was still horrendous and the very definition of Murphy's Law. Omgosh. You seriously don't want to know. Then there was a whole other round of frustrations and stress with the crowns. So yeah, I definitely have compassion for any kid who is forced against her will into medical and dental procedures, but at the same time I also recognize that sometimes the ends justifies the means.

My mom gave me these tee shirts as hardy-har-har goofy gifts when I finally finished. Root Beer Not Canals Tees | Zazzle I SURVIVED A ROOT CANAL SHIRT | Zazzle I've actually worn the shirts in public. Just recently I wore the "I Survived a Root Canal" shirt to the farmers market and had so many people approach me to tell me their war stories, haha. Anyway. If you ever go back to get your root canal I definitely recommend asking if you can wear headphones during the procedure so it will be a tad less stressful.

There's another thread on here that was just created today to discuss the tragic death of an 11-year-old girl who had a type of leukemia with one of the highest survival rates. Her parents fought for and won the right for her to forgo the conventional treatment in favor of natural medicine. According to the articles I've read in the Toronto Star, her treating physicians told authorities that with the prescribed treatment she had a 75% survival rate. It's a fatal cancer if left untreated. Her parents contend it was the chemotherapy that ultimately caused her death, but oncologists dispute that claim. It's just tragic. I'm still so sympathetic to Cassandra, the girl with Hodgkin's Lymphoma, and yet so relieved that she is receiving treatment and hopeful it will enable her to move into her adulthood and do with her life from there as she chooses.

 

[Sammy-San]

The link below discusses the various treatments for lymphoma based hodgkins disease and chemo therapy is one of the prime treatment methods.

You will also notice, the types of treatment recommended, depend on specific variables involved with each patient and are not cookie cutter. So, these doctors recommended chemotherapy as the best treatment, based on their opinions. If the parents and or child did not like the opinion, they are free to seek another opinion from other doctors who specialize in treating this disease.

If the goal is to provide the best treatment that will give the greatest chance of saving the girls life, the doctors will have to be trusted at some point. That is unless, these parents feel, they have more knowledge of how to properly treat hodgkins lymphoma, than the specialists do.

In regards to the courts decision, each state has their own legal guidelines as to what is required to compel someone to seek treatment and it appears the court has concern about this families and individuals competence in the same.

Types of treatment for Hodgkin lymphoma | Cancer Research UK

How do you know they are motivated by concern for the family and kid? I believe even if they were shown, or believed, how some alternate treatment can be beneficial, they wouldnt be allowed to choose a verdict in favor of that without *sigh* being sued (probably not that-but at the very least criticized and gotten into trouble) by medical companies who said they were denying medical guidelines that chemo cures cancer. At the very least the judge would be afraid of breaking laws by coming to a verdict like that.

I have heard several other (unrelated) news stories where judges were forced to uphold laws that were unjust in certain situations, not because they wanted to or agreed with it, but because they probably just wanted to "do their job".

I may be wrong, but thats just what I speculate.

 

[Sammy-San]

Where is the medical evidence of alternative treatments that cure cancer. Solid, quantitative evidence from a properly certified source, not some quack website.

Amazingly, I have seen half a dozen people in my life be saved from an early death by surgery and chemo. I guess they must be rarities.

Where does the law even state that refusing standard treatment is neglect? Where do mandated reporting laws talk about standard treatment or even mention chemotherapy?

 

[Rion]

 

[Sammy-San]

Was posting that comment against the rules?

 

[Nithavela]

One doesn't have to break the rules to exhibit what many forum users would call bad manners.

 

[Sammy-San]

One doesn't have to break the rules to exhibit what many forum users would call bad manners.

I brought up a legitimate question regarding the topic. The comment was that the law doesn't mention refusing chemo is neglect, so its just an arbitrary view of the mandated reporting law.

 

[Tallguy88]

Here's the most recent info I could find:

"A teenager who was forced by the courts to undergo chemotherapy for her cancer says a new mass has been found in her lungs.

Cassandra Callender, of Windsor Locks, disclosed the news Saturday on her Facebook page, posting an image of a CT scan dated Friday.

This is the mass that is now inside of my lung," she wrote. "I've known about this for a while, but it's been hard going public with it. But this is why I fought so hard against chemotherapy. I am so sick of being treated like number and how everything is based off of statistics. I am a patient not a number."

Callender, who at 18 is now legally old enough to make her own treatment decisions, told The Associated Press in a text message Monday that she is "moving forward with alternative treatments."

Callender had been in remission after undergoing five months of forced chemotherapy for Hodgkin lymphoma when she was 17. She had said she didn't want to poison her body with chemotherapy.

The state had argued that the treatment would give her an 85 percent chance of survival.

"Here is my `85% chance' of life after chemo," she wrote in her Facebook post. "Unfortunately I didn't make the 85%, I fell into the 15%."​

www.nbcnews.com/health/cancer/amp/cassie-c-says-cancer-s-back-after-court-forced-her-n557991

 

[evoeth]

People that are still alive, that's all.



When the knife can be used, chemo has a much higher success rate. That's true of most cancers, regardless of other treatments used, unless if its caught before the point of needing surgery and it responds well.

This is pretty basic stuff

You know what is also basic stuff? Bothering to read the literature on the chemo survival rates given the specific diagnosis.

She has Hodgkin's lymphoma. Which carries a very high survival rate with treatment. In response you've cited some monolithic notion cancer as being deadly. Not all cancers are the same. In fact we've known these things for some time now.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

Cassandra's plight resonated with me because she's only a smidgen older, and I've had health problems since infancy that have lead to occasionally sparring with my parents over medical treatment. Despite sympathies for her understandable desire to have full control over choices regarding her medical care, I believed at the time this thread was created that forcing her to undergo her oncologist's recommended course of treatment - chemotherapy - was the correct decision. I believe it even more so now. I'd looked her up on Instagram and FB back then, and checked back now. The treatment was successful, leading to her achieving NED status (No Evidence of Disease / remission). Had it not been undertaken, or delayed any more than it already had been (to her detriment), the chance that she'd even be alive today is slim. She returned to good health, and appeared to be happy and thriving.

Unfortunately, she had a relapse. Fortunately, now that she's no longer a minor and is empowered with the ability to make medical decisions for herself, she has made the right ones. She posted last week about undergoing in-patient chemotherapy at the same children's hospital her mom had accused of essentially kidnapping and imprisoning her in. Her mom had wanted her to have "alternative treatments" instead, even though there was a lack of efficacy for them. In one of the comments, a mom of a younger girl who is also currently undergoing chemo thanked Cassandra for giving advice and care to her daughter, and being a source of comfort and strength. So Cassandra's attitude about conventional medical treatment has changed dramatically. She's not only undertaking chemo herself, but helping younger kids get through it as well.

 

[DaisyDay]

You know what is also basic stuff? Bothering to read the literature on the chemo survival rates given the specific diagnosis.

She has Hodgkin's lymphoma. Which carries a very high survival rate with treatment. In response you've cited some monolithic notion cancer as being deadly. Not all cancers are the same. In fact we've known these things for some time now.

Likewise, there are different kinds of chemo which are more or less effective for specific types of cancer. To say that "chemo" is or isn't effective for "cancer" depends entirely on what sort of chemo and what kind of cancer. Some cancers don't have an effective treatment (pancreatic is notorious) while others are highly curable.

Alternative treatments are mostly bogus money-eaters. If they were effective, they wouldn't be alternative.

 

[Vylo]

This is a bit awkward as I consider someone to be able to make adult decisions before 18. I would say 16 is a more appropriate age to start giving adult rights, but there will never be a consensus on this, just look at the disparity internationally (12-21).

 

[Tallguy88]

This is a bit awkward as I consider someone to be able to make adult decisions before 18. I would say 16 is a more appropriate age to start giving adult rights, but there will never be a consensus on this, just look at the disparity internationally (12-21).

Most states would have allowed her to refuse treatments, if I remember correctly.

Personally, I'm completely against forcing people to undergo medical treatments against their consent, and at 17 they are old enough to make that decision for themselves.

 

[Veritas]

Alternative treatments are mostly bogus money-eaters. If they were effective, they wouldn't be alternative.

Lol! Do you have any idea how much chemo costs? How do you know what the effectiveness rate is for "alternative" treatments? Does the CDC or NIH or Big Pharma publish them? Cancer "treatment" is a huge racket that profits the drug companies and the entire medical industrial complex. There are literally millions of people who've opted against chemo and radiation in favor of diet, exercise, meditation, supplements, etc. who kick cancer to the curb. I happend to know several including my own family. I applaud them for standing up to the massive pressure the medical industry puts on people to undergo quack, expensive treatment that ultimately doesn't save them.

 

[Mountainmanbob]

My best friends daughter at the age of 39 died from chemo.

She did not die from cancer, she died from chemo.

The doctors told my friend that prox 1 out of 20 who take chemo will die from the chemo.

These are facts that the industry does not want the common person to know.

Should anyone be forced to take chemo -- no -- especially in what we call a "Free Country."

M-Bob

 

[Veritas]

The contribution of cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adult malignancies. - PubMed - NCBI

The overall contribution of curative and adjuvant cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adults was estimated to be 2.3% in Australia and 2.1% in the USA.

Chemotherapy warning as hundreds die from cancer-fighting drugs

For the first time researchers looked at the numbers of cancer patients who died within 30 days of starting chemotherapy, which indicates that the medication is the cause of death, rather than the cancer.

On the other hand, there are non-toxic cancer treatments that your pharmaceutically paid oncologist is not going to recommend.

Curcumin and Cancer Cells: How Many Ways Can Curry Kill Tumor Cells Selectively?

Overall, our review shows that curcumin can kill a wide variety of tumor cell types through diverse mechanisms. Because of numerous mechanisms of cell death employed by curcumin, it is possible that cells may not develop resistance to curcumin-induced cell death. Furthermore, its ability to kill tumor cells and not normal cells makes curcumin an attractive candidate for drug development. Although numerous animal studies and clinical trials have been done, additional studies are needed to gain the full benefit from curcumin.

6-Shogaol Inhibits Breast Cancer Cells and Stem Cell-Like Spheroids by Modulation of Notch Signaling Pathway and Induction of Autophagic Cell Death

Cancer stem cells (CSCs) pose a serious obstacle to cancer therapy as they can be responsible for poor prognosis and tumour relapse. In this study, we have investigated inhibitory activity of the ginger-derived compound 6-shogaol against breast cancer cells both in monolayer and in cancer-stem cell-like spheroid culture. 6-shogaol has been shown to exert inhibitory effect on various cancer cell lines and animal disease models.

Ginger compounds have been found to be 10,000 times stronger than Taxol in killing breast cancer cells without being toxic.

Anticancer effects of garlic and garlic-derived compounds for breast cancer control. - PubMed - NCBI

Garlic and garlic-derived compounds reduce the development of mammary cancer in animals and suppress the growth of human breast cancer cells in culture

 

[variant]

If you believe in peoples medical privacy you have to respect their wishes and choices with respect to their own medical care and that of their children.

Given that the prognosis is 80-85% recovery and the cancer itself is a death sentence though the state may be wronging this person in order to save their life.

I'd say the girl is being extremely dumb but I would respect her decision and let her die.

I might feel differently if it were a child who is clearly incapable and had the decision foisted upon them by the parents.

Freedom is about letting people make their own decisions with their own bodies (especially when they are harming themselves alone), regardless of how you feel about it.