One view on whether or not a minor should or should not receive chemo in spite of a parent's

[Mike 03]

inclination that he/she should be deprived of it:

This is my view, and I offer it with the utmost of respect to opposing opinions, and merely to see if others find it sound and/or agree with it. And feel free to disagree with it as well; those posts are usually the most stimulating.

Even as I type these words, I'm observing someone I love go through torturous chemotherapy, to the point where two days ago he told me he no longer wished to live.

I personally couldn't go through some modalities of chemo.

But I'm an adult. And the person I spoke of in the above example is an adult. I'm competent to make that decision. So is the individual cited above, who has undergone this past two weeks high dose chemo and a stem cell transplant. It won't even save his life. It will merely add some months to it.

Secondly, it depends on the type of cancer and the rate of cure for a given type of malignancy, and it's predicted outcome.

For example, testicular cancer, bladder cancer and Hodgkin's lymphoma are generally cured with modern chemothereapy, as are some other types of cancer, in particular some hematological cancers that children do get.

In some cancers that become advanced or spread, or cancers like certain types of lung or pancreatic cancer, there are other issues to consider.

But we are talking about a minor, not an adult. This is one instance where I actually believe--horror of horrors--that since life or death depends upon the decision of an expert rather than a parent, this issue should be abdjudicated by physicians or bodies or panels competent to suggest whether or not a child, a minor, should be permitted to receive chemotherapy, what the consequences will likely be, and what the outcome most probably will be.

Lastly, I put myself in the child's position: As that child, I would prefer doctors to make this decision, not my parents.

My two cents.

[hlthe2b]

1. This might be debatable in other situations...

but this is a highly treatable, responsive cancer when treated early--90% responsive. To me, that alone precludes any other factor from coming into play. I would entertain the debate with these or other parents if it were a poor prognosis, poorly treatable cancer. But this is a very clear issue in my mind and I simply can not entertain the seemingly manufactured debate that goes well beyond this situation.

To not treat THIS child is as negligent as the parents who chose to pray for their child in ketoacidotic crisis who subsequently died due to their untreated type 1 diabetes and whose parents now face charges.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

2. It is really in no way comparable.

And there's really no moral debate about the kid's situation.