would you refuse your child life saving surgery?

ktuludays

As a parent i cannot fathom why anyone would refuse their child life saving treatment.

The mother in this case obviously has her reasons but i cannot believe for one second that any reason is good enough to refuse a child this treatment

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-20769155.

tiredofwhiners

Welcome to her world of belief.

Reason doesn't come into belief.

mfin

Cue Jehovahs Witnesses and blood transfusions etc. Idiots.

chrisaonabike

In fairness, it's not the same sort of thing as JWs and their religious objections to blood transfusions.

Her view, from what I've read of this sad case, is that the risk of brain damage from the radiotherapy outweighs the risk from the residual tumour, and therefore she's trying to protect her child from harm.

Again, purely from what I've read in the press, she's probably wrong on the balance of risks, given that the medics think it's better for the kid to have the radiotherapy than not, and the judge has looked at both sides and ruled on it. So of course she's portrayed as a nutter in the press, but that doesn't mean everyone else has to.

tiredofwhiners

ChrisAOnABike wrote:

Her view, from what I've read of this sad case, is that the risk of brain damage from the radiotherapy outweighs the risk from the residual tumour, and therefore she's trying to protect her child from harm.

No, what she is saying is that the treatment will degrade his future intelligence and so she doesn't want the treatment even though his IQ will be zero if he doesn't have it. She believes in homeopathy as a cure.

Its like arguing about who pays for the drinks at the pub later that evening, when your car is about to go over a cliff.

chrisaonabike

tiredofwhiners wrote:

ChrisAOnABike wrote:

Her view, from what I've read of this sad case, is that the risk of brain damage from the radiotherapy outweighs the risk from the residual tumour, and therefore she's trying to protect her child from harm.

No, what she is saying is that the treatment will degrade his future intelligence and so she doesn't want the treatment even though his IQ will be zero if he doesn't have it. She believes in homeopathy as a cure.

Well if that's really what she thinks then yes, she's a nutter. I hadn't read that in any of the articles I've seen on it.

Cleat Eastwood

ChrisAOnABike wrote:

tiredofwhiners wrote:

ChrisAOnABike wrote:

Her view, from what I've read of this sad case, is that the risk of brain damage from the radiotherapy outweighs the risk from the residual tumour, and therefore she's trying to protect her child from harm.

No, what she is saying is that the treatment will degrade his future intelligence and so she doesn't want the treatment even though his IQ will be zero if he doesn't have it. She believes in homeopathy as a cure.

Well if that's really what she thinks then yes, she's a nutter. I hadn't read that in any of the articles I've seen on it.

No chris, you're initial thoughts were right - its nothing to do with homeopathy or anything of the sort - the mum is prepared for he child to receive chemotherapy, but she was made aware of the risks radiotherapy causes to the developing brain of a child. Its not a position any parent should face, and especially not accompanied by ill informed bollocks.

oscarbudgie

I find her actions completely baffling and I am probably unique on this forum as having been in exactly the same position as her.

tiredofwhiners

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

No chris, you're initial thoughts were right - its nothing to do with homeopathy or anything of the sort

Yes it was - the first reports quoted her in believing that homeopathy would solve the problem which is why she ran away in the first place, but then changed her story when it was pointed out he would die without it. This was on the 7th December when SHE told the court that she was treating him with 'natural remedies'.

markos1963

I think it says more about her attitude to mental impairment than anything else. I think she would rather let her son die than let him live with a lower IQ. Didn't the judge or a specialist say she would have to lower her expectations for him?

tiredofwhiners

No idea Markos but contrary to al logic, Mrs Fruitloop tries it again in court and is told to stfu

"Sally Roberts, 37, wanted to explore alternatives including immunotherapy, the use of biological agents, photodynamic therapy, diet and lifestyle therapies and hyperbaric oxygen therapy to treat her son Neon, who is receiving treatment for a medulloblastoma, the high court was told."

lostboysaint

Neon? FFS!!

jonesey10

You've posted your surprise of the childs name rather than actions of the mother? :roll:

Pross

oscarbudgie wrote:

I find her actions completely baffling and I am probably unique on this forum as having been in exactly the same position as her.

We came close to it, fortunately chemo was determined to be enough with out little one in the end but if it hadn't been we would have gone with the radiotherapy albeit reluctantly. To be honest the risks of removing the tumour in the first place were pretty high but fortunately there has been little effect on mental development, she's a bit behind in school but I suspect a lot of that is attributal to the amount of time missed in the first couple of years of school.

Rigga

She is a Milf!




Sorry, and i hope her son makes a speedy recovery!

mamba80

Yes she is

Thing is i dont think its a case that there is a slight reduction in IQ - i understand it could be very severe.

Another mother on ch 4 news tonight said her son - following radio therapy - will prob never be able to leave home and will never be independant - so who will look after this boy when is mum is long gone and how will he cope?

Our child almost died when she was 8mths old due to a liver infection - your ability to think straight is compromised

tiredofwhiners

mamba80 wrote:

Thing is i dont think its a case that there is a slight reduction in IQ - i understand it could be very severe.

The statistics according to the doctors evidence in court (presumably qualified) show a decrease in IQ, of 0.42% over four years - most of which is likely to be caused by the time off school.

Again, according to the evidence in court, most of her 'suggestions' from alternatives come from emails she has had from unqualified persons, and from Google searches. She even cited a 'doctor' in her evidence who wasn't even qualified by the BMA.

She's just an irrational worrier who thinks she knows best because she can use a computer, but she has no ability to distinguish between quackery and good practice.

Lookyhere

Her son is extremely ill buy your basing your opinion on her, on what? media reports and one liners from the court case.
much like the Mitchell case, media and police reports may not be the complete picture.

ref the IQ - i also saw the ch4 stuff and that lad had a bit more than 0.42% reduction, backed by the boys mother - having said, you do come across as a particularly caring person, with a deep empathetic nature.

tiredofwhiners

Lookyhere wrote:

Her son is extremely ill buy your basing your opinion on her, on what? media reports and one liners from the court case.

What di you suggest - the woman herself who bases her entire case upon Google searches, unqualified doctors, emails she has received and untried cures ? Or a Channel 4 documentary ? One of the experts she found could not even spell the cancer's name properly. Give me the court case and a BMA expert every time.

Lookyhere wrote:

ref the IQ - i also saw the ch4 stuff and that lad had a bit more than 0.42% reduction, backed by the boys mother - having said, you do come across as a particularly caring person, with a deep empathetic nature.

Maybe you should listen to a qualified doctors court evidence than a C4 documentary on one case. One case does not make a trend. I actually do care about the lad but not one bit for her fruitloop mother. The lads father wants him treated no, without delay. When asked by the court to present evidence to support her assertions of there being alternative cures, she refused, as she doesn't want to be seen as stupid (bit of paraphrasing there). So even she knows her evidence says she has nothing, knows nothing and is a fool.