Who Decides The Treatment?
	found on The Detroit Free Press written by ms_sue_collins, edited by John (Plastic) [ read unedited ] posted Sat 3 May 1:18pm
		Is there a line that marks the limit of a parent's right to dictate a child's care, and the point where the government's role begins? Should a parent be allowed to refuse a treatment that might prolong the child's life but threaten the quality of that life? And ultimately, should a parent or family court judge decide what constitutes adequate medical treatment for a gravely ill child? "Jalaz and Shaheda Hogue believe that they have the right to decide what's best for their critically ill two-year-old daughter. Saying that 'It's in God's hands,' the parents have refused to allow doctors to perform brain surgery on Noshin, a procedure that doctors claim is necessary in order to save her life. Instead the parents have sought homeopathic treatment for the child in Canada," ms_sue_collins writes. "Oakland County prosecutors have charged the couple with medical negligence and are attempting to convince the court to order the surgery.

	"The prognosis for two-year-old Noshin, who weighs less than 25 pounds, is not good. Even with surgery to remove her brain tumor, doctors give her only a 20 to 30 percent chance of recovering fully. Although courts generally rule in favor of mandating medical treatment when a child's welfare is at stake, Noshin's dim prognosis concerns medical ethicists. Angela Holder, professor at the Center for the Study of Medical Ethics and Humanities at Duke, believes that government intervention should be made only when 'there is a virtual guarantee that the harm you will do to the child and the family will be far outweighed by the benefits to the child.' Holder argues that without a better prognosis 'they should leave this family alone.' Noshin's pediatrician, however disagrees: 'You have a 20 percent chance for some survival of years, and a 100 percent chance she is going to die without the surgery.... I know the decision I would take.' "But the Hogues don't like those odds and prefer alternative treatment for their daughter. According to Charles Cooper, their attorney, 'They don't have any hope in the doctors.' The prosecution fears that the Bangladesh couple may not fully understand the treatment options. Paul Baker, the court-appointed counsel who will weigh in on what's best for Noshin, agrees but also wonders what the best course is: 'This is very difficult.... I think the state has to be very careful before deciding to make decisions on behalf of this child who belongs to these people.'"

[ more plastic... ]    

show almost all: 57 commentsbest: 7 comments by oldest first (ignore threads) newest first highest scores first oldest first newest first (ignore threads)

1.  The Irony Dial Turned Up All The Way   by Anonymous Idiot       at Sat 3 May 1:39pm score of 0.5 disingenuous     Every five minutes, an otherwise normal child dies of simple starvation in Bangladesh. But the authorities in Michigan are obsessing about a marginally viable person. Somebody PROVE that a bunch of greedy U.S. sawbones with scalpels and hand drills can do any better than a Canadian homeopath, especially in a case like this. Is the city of Royal Oak going to pay for hugely expensive brain surgery that only has a 20 percent chance of success? Take the kid back to Bangladesh and have a mullah pray over it. That's as likely to work as anything else.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

60.  Re: The Irony Dial Turned Up All The Way   by eeksypeeksy       at Tue 6 May 5:07am score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 1     Somebody PROVE that a bunch of greedy U.S. sawbones with scalpels and hand drills can do any better than a Canadian homeopath, especially in a case like this. A more sensible question would be whether "sawbones" generally produce better results than homeopaths in cases involving brain tumors and so on. And the answer to that is, I think you would find, yes. One removes the tumor; the other gives the patient water. In this case, the odds of survival apparently are so small that any survival at all will be called a "miracle" no matter what treatments the kid gets. Someone will say it's because he prayed for the kid. Someone else will say it's thanks to those herbal teas she gave the kid. And so on. And if the kid dies, these people won't say that it's because their prayer or herbals teas or whatever don't work. By the way, if anyone out there can prove homeopathy works, here is a million dollars just for you. Good luck, pal.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

2.  Other Alternatives: remission, magic, bullet.   by iarnuocon       at Sat 3 May 2:55pm score of 2 brilliant     Sadly, what else is to be expected? We live in a country in which a substantial segment of the population will bend over backwards to ensure a child is born, even if unwanted, and this vocal group believes the government has every right to curtail the "parents" rights in doing so. Sadly, that same group is not nearly so vocal in defending children once they take their first breath. Then it becomes a matter of protecting parents' rights to follow any particular "medical" practice du jour. Government intervention at this point is largely viewed as "meddling." What you wind up with are varying segments of the population holding different views about the competing rights of parent, child, and state. What side you come down on depends largely on what your goals and desired end results are. My feeling is that in this particular instance it's a shame that anyone would buy the "parental right" theory. Homeopathy is a sham, predicated on the notion that a treatment consisting of water containing no active ingredient whatsoever (but "charged," mind you, by retaining a "memory" of contact with a molecule that had contact with a molecule that had contact with a molecule of some "active" substance) can work miraculous cures. Claiming that these parents have the right to "treat" their child how they see fit is tantamount to saying they have a right to put a bullet in the kid's head, and is about as sensitive to the child's plight. (And no, I have no desire to argue with the whole "homeopathy works" cheering squad. Review my past comments on homeopathy here on Plastic for my position, and if you're a follower of homeopathy, feel free to provide peer-reviewed evidence suggesting that homeopathy can work any kind of cure whatsoever on brain tumors.) Without evidence, let's stop calling this "alternative treatment," and call it what it is: a death sentence. The truth is that any decision regarding life-or-death matters (whether by parents for children, or by spouses or significant others, or simply by concerned family members) is often emotionally difficult, and can tear families apart. But where children are concerned, the state has come down on the side of science, and on the side of opting for children's best medical chances, often enough that it seems crazy to say doctors should be prevented from giving this child the best chance possible, all in the interests of preventing harm to the family. It's entirely likely that this family will be "harmed" no matter the course of action taken. And in that case, it seems somewhat addle-brained to suggest that the child's life takes a backseat to someone's feelgood notions about "alternative medicine." insanus omnis furere credit ceteros... ecce signum   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

24.  Re: Other Alternatives: remission, magic, bullet.   by Thalia       at Sun 4 May 4:54pm score of 0.5 disingenuous   in reply to comment 2     Oddly enough, this "sham" is used in Britain extensively, and was extensively analyzed in Lancet and found to have a real effect. It was also a successful treatment in reducing gangrene in battle field surgeries. It's a good thing you really understand alternative medicine, and obviously carefully evaluate it before declaring it a sham. Homeopathy was once accepted in the US, before the American Medical Association, looking out for doctors' revenue, declared it a "sham" and managed to persuade way too many people that it cannot work. Since then our understanding of physics has increased. And, as we know, the real effect of mating pheromones miles away (see the silkworm moth) which is reduced to less than a molecule in a million, cannot exist either... except that it does. Maybe you should know a little more about homeopathy before you dismiss it. Reality is that there are cures that are considered miraculous. I've known people who were told they had months to live... and years later, they're still alive and kicking. The medical community does not know everything. Why do they have the right to force a couple to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on a surgery that has a 1-in-5 chance of helping at all? Thalia Judeo-Christianity: just like regular Christianity, only insincerely 5% more inclusive! -- MC Nally   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   31.  I'm surprised at you, Thalia.   by iarnuocon       at Mon 5 May 5:15am score of 2.5 nuanced   in reply to comment 24     You've obviously shown yourself in other posts to be a person who carefully evaluates not only the information you receive, but the sources from whence that information comes. Yet in this case, you seem perfectly satisfied to accept, for example, the word of the Health Education Alliance for Life and Longevity when they state that a meta study of homeopathic studies is "state of the art" and therefore "scientists will have to learn to accept homeopathy as a legitimate medical system." Unfortunately for people relying on homeopathy to cure fatal diseases, that seems not to be the case. The trend seems to be that studies "proving" homeopathy's effectiveness are substantially flawed, while studies that are not flawed fail to "prove" its effectiveness. I am left to wonder why. To quote from a previous post of mine on homeopathy: "An example of some of the problems that need to be addressed in homeopathic studies can by found in A systematic review of the quality of homeopathic clinical trials by Jonas, Anderson, Crawford and Lyons. This study made an effort to substantively compare validity of homeopathic studies with studies in conventional medicine, with an eye to comparing in a neutral fashion areas in need of improvement in each. Some of the conclusions reached were that studies implying homeopathy offers promising results "may reflect the placebo influences common to both conventional and homeopathic therapies and the possibility of selection bias in favor of homeopathy for many studies reported." Regarding the validity of homeopathic research, the study concluded "Currently, the greatest weaknesses in homeopathic research are the variety of unreplicated studies and the small sample sizes. Although 59 studies were included, there was virtually no replication and practically no overlap in the conditions studied... Similarly, multi-site research with larger sample sizes is essential to improve the confidence and generalizability of findings... A... major flaw of homeopathic studies in [sic] many have a high "attrition rate." This means that the data analyzed and reported on is often lower than the entry sample size due to all causes, such as dropouts, lost or incorrectly filled out forms, etc. A high attrition rate can be a major threat to validity in a study. In addition, homeopathic studies often demonstrated a interaction of treatment setting and treatment indicating that non-specific effects in the environment more often contributed to the outcome than in conventional research." Additionally, in a variety of studies on homeopathy proponents accept the action of confounding variables as proof of the efficacy of homeopathy. I requested in my earlier proof that any homeopathy cheerleaders provide any evidence that homeopathy can reduce or eliminate brain tumors. Since you've stepped up to support homeopathy, I'll make that request of you. Anecdotal evidence can be left behind, please. Instead let's see if there are any replicable scientific results supporting this supposition. Likewise, homeopathy's use by a "substantial number of people" in Europe constitutes no proof of its effectiveness. Faith healing, voodoo, and leeches are probably still used by a substantial number of people. This does not make them the most effective, or even at all effective, treatments for serious illnesses. You bring up the "real effect of mating pheromones miles away" as evidence that homeopathy is at least in concept possible. I disagree. The difference being that a pheremone that constitutes one part in a million has an active ingredient that is at least physically present in the form of one part in a million. Homeopathic cures have active ingredients that are not present at all. To expect that a "medicine" that is not physically present can still effect a cure really is to believe in the miraculous. But then, we've covered all these same arguments previously on Plastic. I'll leave it to you to show that new information changes the debate by any part in a million. insanus omnis furere credit ceteros... ecce signum   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   40.  Re: Other Alternatives: remission, magic, bullet.   by Kurtz       at Mon 5 May 10:58am score of 1.5 compelling   in reply to comment 24     Oddly enough, this "sham" ... was extensively analyzed in Lancet and found to have a real effect. No, it wasn't. While the study couldn't definitively ascribe the effects of homeopathy to placebo, neither could it definitively say that homeopathy was effective in treating any specific illness. The study was a complete wash and found nothing decisive either way, despite what some may claim. I'm pretty sure that it's quackery, myself, as I'm actually quite familiar with Avogadro's number, but if you want to shell out your hard-earned money for 'medicine' diluted to 1 part per 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, be my guest. --What Would Azathoth Do?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   42.  Extensively Analyzed? Real Affect?   by Wolfetone       at Mon 5 May 11:36am score of 1.5 compelling   in reply to comment 24     The researchers uncovered 186 studies, 119 of which were double-blind and/or randomized placebo-control trials, and 89 of which met pre-defined criteria for inclusion into a pooled meta-analysis. The researchers found that by pooling the 89 trials together that homeopathic medicines had a 2.45 times greater effect than placebo. When did the rules of statistics change to make 2.45 times increase in anything, proof of anything, let alone a real affect?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   59.  Re: Other Alternatives: remission, magic, bullet.   by bytesex       at Tue 6 May 1:02am score of 2 compelling   in reply to comment 24     Sorry, but this is the kind of commentary that I have to take head-on, as I am the son of a doctor: Reality is that there are cures that are considered miraculous. I've known people who were told they had months to live... and years later, they're still alive and kicking. The medical community does not know everything. The fact that medicine (regular) does not have answers and cannot make accurate predictions does not make it unreliable. There is the 'edge' aspect to things like this (there have not been enough cases to generate enough data to be statistically relevant) and there is the 'human subject' aspect (different people react differently to the same treatment). The same goes for physics. Making predictions in sub-atomic experiments carry both risks (lack of history, unpredictable subject) with them, making them generally unpredictable. That does not impede, for example, the commercial creation of quantum computers. Science simply has to develop from experiment to finding, to theory to axiom. Sorry that we're caught in the middle of it — we always will be. Or a more recent example; the fact that software is an unpredictable and edgy science does not hinder the sending of people into space with the use of it. Science can be accused of not providing a comprehensible world-view, but it can't be blamed for not trying to do that, all the while documenting its ways. But to get back to the child; I personally would let it go. I feel this as a parent — it's just too big a mountain to climb. Maybe they will have another child, but for now, I'd say the job of the parents is to make the life of this little one be as pleasurable as possible while it lasts. Needless to say then that going to Canada for homeopathic treatment is the worst of both worlds: no pleasure, no chance. Casey.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   45.  More like homeo-CRAP!! (kidding)   by tlacolotl       at Mon 5 May 12:12pm score of 1   in reply to comment 31     Some of the conclusions reached were that studies implying homeopathy offers promising results "may reflect the placebo influences common to both conventional and homeopathic therapies and the possibility of selection bias in favor of homeopathy for many studies reported." I always thought — and this is perhaps going against the mainstream of homeopathic thought — that the placebo effect was pretty much what homeopathic healers were after. I mean, there are tons of clinical trials where individuals in the placebo group of the test had the same effect as those who took the drug in question. How do you explain this? Well, I would explain it as a simple effect of mind over body, which we all perform on a daily basis (e.g. walking around, eating, breathing, digesting, making white blood cells, etc.), both on conscious and unconscious levels. And the effect of many homeopathic "remedies" can be easily explained if you, like myself, believe in the mind's effect on the body — on your immune system, in particular. I don't think I need to bother digging up any links for anyone to accept the reality that our physical health is greatly affected by our mental health. Likewise, it isn't much of a stretch for us to acknowledge that regardless of how it happens, if something can trick your mind into improving your immune system, it's clearly a good thing, regardless of whether it takes chemical drugs (real or placebo) or a root dug up in the backyard and presented as an ancient Chinese blah blah blah... However: as far as I understand homeopathy, there is a big difference between what "traditional" medicines offer and what Western ones do. In Sri Lanka, for example, people use both: a traditional homeopath for general, long-term health, and a surgeon for immediate physical emergencies (broken bones, brain surgery, etc.). Nobody would mistake the two any more than you would mistake your dentist for your auto mechanic. They might be somewhat related, but nobody confuses the two. In Bangladesh, I can't say, as I've never met many people from that country, but I wouldn't be surprised if customs there were similar to that of the rest of the region, which would explain these particular parents' hesitance to give up otherwise 'solid' homeopathic medicine (which has 'worked' for them for so long) for what would appear to them a highly experimental medical procedure (which removing a brain tumor is). Given how little modern medicine knows about how the physical world really works (because, of course, the physicists themselves have no idea), it's incredibly naive to put ones faith entirely in Western medicine. If you do, I would be curious to know your opinion on non-locality, uncertainty theory, and the particle/wave duality of light. I mean, if we don't even know what's matter and what's energy, or whether solid particles actually exists (not to mention whether or not those particles prefer to exist in one space or more than one at any given time), how can we say something as relatively mundane as 'molecular memory' is patently bogus? Sure, my knee-jerk reaction is that it's a sham and/or scam, but that has to do more with my questioning of crystal-bearing hippies than with any presumption of absolute knowledge about how the universe works. And there's no point in basing our arguments off of our knee-jerk reactions, is there? Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of thy law   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   56.  do animals experience a "placebo effect"?   by hashashin       at Mon 5 May 4:01pm score of 1   in reply to comment 45     I always thought — and this is perhaps going against the mainstream of homeopathic thought — that the placebo effect was pretty much what homeopathic healers were after. I thought so too, but recently a veterinarian I know told me she has had great success treating animals with homeopathic remedies, and animals are usually not affected by placebos. Some skeptics have supposed that the animals just got better sometimes, and those events were recorded as successful treatment, but she says she usually only tries homeopathy on animals that have chronic conditions, and have not benefited from the usual medicines. Moreover, once a remedy has been found to work on one animal, it has often been successfully used to treat other animals with similar symptoms. I won't say that this proves anything, but it certainly has dampened some of my skepticism about homeopathy.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   57.  Re: More like homeo-CRAP!! (kidding)   by iarnuocon       at Mon 5 May 4:14pm score of 2 scholarly   in reply to comment 45     I don't think I need to bother digging up any links for anyone to accept the reality that our physical health is greatly affected by our mental health. Likewise, it isn't much of a stretch for us to acknowledge that regardless of how it happens, if something can trick your mind into improving your immune system, it's clearly a good thing, regardless of whether it takes chemical drugs (real or placebo) or a root dug up in the backyard and presented as an ancient Chinese blah blah blah... I concur. Furthermore, I would go so far as to say that some methods that have been traditionally dismissed as "new age-y" or "spiritualist" are quite probably simply methods of bolstering the body's self-healing processes. Visualisation, self-hypnosis, and the like have not been studied nearly as well as they ought, although that comes as no surprise considering that we are still at the beginning of very promising avenues of cognitive psychology, neuroscience and the like. Certainly there are alternative forms of therapy that offer intriguing possibilities for future study. I simply think that for a variety of conditions, however, relying on "alternative medicine" to the exclusion of solidly scientifically based medicine is tantamount to faith healing. It may be emotionally satisfying, but It's kind of like relying on winning the lottery in order to pay your bills. which would explain these particular parents' hesitance to give up otherwise 'solid' homeopathic medicine (which has 'worked' for them for so long) for what would appear to them a highly experimental medical procedure (which removing a brain tumor is). Again, you are most likely correct in your analysis. But the question here revolves around the health of the child and what responses to this disease process are appropriate. The state often intervenes in medical situations for a variety of compelling reasons, and some of those reasons are in play here. I empathize with those who feel that perhaps the family has given up hope and are simply trying to spend their last weeks and months with their child sans invasive medical procedures. But if there is a significant medical chance for an improvement in the child's health (and to me 20-30% chance at full life expectancy represents a significant chance-- hell, making it to the age of legal majority would be something for this kid), then it seems somewhat strange to claim that this family's choice of treatment should remain sacrosanct. The path they are choosing is a virtual guarantee of failure, and the state should step in for the child's well-being in order for her to have any chance at recovery, cultural differences notwithstanding. If you do, I would be curious to know your opinion on non-locality, uncertainty theory, and the particle/wave duality of light. I mean, if we don't even know what's matter and what's energy, or whether solid particles actually exists (not to mention whether or not those particles prefer to exist in one space or more than one at any given time), how can we say something as relatively mundane as 'molecular memory' is patently bogus? Well, we're straying quite a bit from homeopathy and medicine when we delve into particle physics. What we're looking at is a difference of scale. I can look at "traditional" medicines and see what progress they have made over the last several millenia (not much), and compare it to the progress made by a scientifically based, Western medicine (quite a bit). This is not to suggest that Western medicine is flawless, but if this were a horse-race, backing Western medicine would seem to be like backing the hands-down favorite thoroughbred in a race against a plough horse. Complexity of the universe alone precludes ever declaring absolute certainty about the processes of the universe, but one can certainly maximize his odds of understanding by choosing science over blind faith. If you really want to talk about quantum physics, string theory, and various conundrums of physics, message me and I'll try to oblige. (I'll even suggest a starting place for discussion: The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene.) But I can't let homeopathy off the hook simply because at the tiniest scale imaginable our scientific instruments aren't capable of resolving certain issues that seem to have no bearing whatsoever on the claimed mechanisms of homeopathy. Homeopathic explanations that rely on quantum physics are rife with glaring misunderstandings of the physics involved, and offer absolutely nothing in terms of an explanation (or even a testable theory) as to how quantum physics and homeopathy are tied together. Rather, such explanations seemed to be filled with pseudo-scientific jargon that is meant to imply that homeopathy works on a level that is "beyond the common man's understanding" by linking homeopathy to theories of physics that few workaday non-physicists understand. The hope here seems to be that the average person will simply give up and say, "well, I don't understand what t read the entire comment...   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   63.  Gasoline for your skepticism   by peppyhare       at Tue 6 May 7:20am score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 56     Testimonials are not double-blind tests. In many cases, people, or animals suffering illnesses just get better on their own. All medicine is, after all, is interfering with the natural progress of the disease or (rarely) assisting with the body's defense against it. Homeopathic medicine, when subjected to real double-blind testing, fails dramatically because no one can even tell if it has an effect beyond the laws of chance. If you need more, just examine the fundamental "science" behind this stuff: #1. Like cures like. This means if you take a homeopathic substance that makes you sick to the stomach, it will cure stomachache. If you take one that makes your head spin, it will cure dizziness. If you eat massive amounts of sugar, it will cure your diabetes. Well, actually no, because Homeopathy goes another step further and into #2. The "like" substance is diluted so drastically that in most cases not one single molecule of the active ingredient is actually present in the preparation. This is where science meets fantasy. Water is supposed to "remember" the existence of the substance and transmit its curative effects thereby. Are you still with this? Imagine if it's true. Imagine that every glass of water you drink is homeopathically "remembering" all the minerals and compounds and animals and everything else that were present in the reservoir it came from. It's at this point that homeopathy becomes sillier than shit, and really not worth considering. If any homeopath had actually gone through a rigorous testing process and achieved a significant result, I would re-evaluate my definition of silly shit. But since homeopathy only seems to work in testimonials and when reputable testers are out of sight, I continue to place it next to UFOs and witchcraft as not worth anything more than a good laugh. I shit and I stink, I'm real, join the club -- Pearl Jam, Satan's Bed   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   65.  Re: More like homeo-CRAP!! (kidding)   by tlacolotl       at Tue 6 May 8:31am score of 1.5 intriguing   in reply to comment 57     I hear ya... I think my point about the big gaping holes in our physical theories (the wave/particle duality of light was always a big 'hole' to me) was just to support the idea that we can't really 'believe' in Western science, only in its effects. After all, Einstein may have made Newton obsolete in particle physics, but if you want to build a bridge, Newton's your man, right? The whole molecular-memory thing sounds pretty stupid, however much I can ultimately believe in it as a theory — which is a huge long shot away from believing it in practice. Sure, Bohm might suggest that particles are ultimately not "local", and that there's no reason to assume that particles have to travel the distance between two points, or even that there are such things as distances and points, but c'mon, that's all suggestions, frontier/leading-edge type of stuff. As much as these theoretical physicists dismiss my faith in Western science's absoluteness, no homeopath can claim to be making use of such theories. All that said, though, credit should be given for all the homeopathic stuff that really does have long-term benefits for people: acupuncture, aromatherapy, meditation/positive visualization, all of that stuff is homeopathic, and has positive benefits for people that are untestable by science — so far. Crystals and glasses of plain water are just one aspect of what was (previous to the sixties) a well-established field of study (outside of the West), and shouldn't be held as being representative for homeopathy as a whole... Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of thy law   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

3.  The immediate effects of a failed surgery   by M. Mosher       at Sat 3 May 3:03pm score of 1     What wasn't clear in the article was whether a failed surgery results in death or just the status quo. In other words, is it possible that they perform the surgery thinking they got the entire tumor, stitch her back up, and then find later that the tumor is still growing and that the surgery failed? If this is the case, the child should be operated on. 20-30% may not sound like much but I would take it over zero chance, which is what she'll get with homeopathic treatment. On the other hand, if the surgery is an either/or proposition the parents' wishes must be heeded. If the surgery stands an 80% chance of ending her life on the operating table, two or three months earlier than no surgery, the parents may value those last months with her more than the small chance of success. I wouldn't, but I'm not her father.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

5.  Re: The immediate effects of a failed surgery   by ms_sue_collins       at Sat 3 May 4:07pm score of 1   in reply to comment 3     What wasn't clear in the article was whether a failed surgery results in death or just the status quo. In other words, is it possible that they perform the surgery thinking they got the entire tumor, stitch her back up, and then find later that the tumor is still growing and that the surgery failed? It isn't totally clear, M. Mosher. But the way I read it in both articles, your first assumption seems to be the correct one here. According to the main link, her particular type of tumor often returns, causing major damage: Noshin's case is further complicated by her dire prognosis. Doctors have said that even with surgery to remove the astrocytoma tumor, the child has only a 20 to 30 percent chance of living her full life. Such tumors often recur — leading to blindness, paralysis, seizures and death. These odds were repeated by the couple's attorney: Cooper said that even with surgery, Noshin Hogue stands only a 20- to 30-percent chance of reaching full life expectancy. And as her pediatrician notes: You have a 20 percent chance for some survival of years, and a 100 percent chance she is going to die without the surgery.... I know the decision I would take. Interesting that you mention: but I would take it over zero chance, which is what she'll get with homeopathic treatment. The court-appointed attorney who will recommend the best course of action for the child seems to be reluctant to have the state intervene, particularly, he mentioned, if the child shows any improvement on homeopathic treatment. It's a dog's life   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   32.  Re: The immediate effects of a failed surgery   by nmiguy       at Mon 5 May 7:29am score of 1   in reply to comment 5     Sue, I am bothered by the doctor stating emphatically that the child has a 100% chance of dying without the surgery. How does a doctor know such things. Have they done a poll of every child of her size & weight that has not had surgery to remove a brain tumor? They may have reason to believe that the tumor will just grow and grow until she dies, but it is unfair to say 100%. Even 99% would be grossly more acceptable. Is it not possible that other doctors in the world may have an experimental treatment that may cure the girl? Chemotherapy, gene therapy, and other unknown treatments may work. To say that without surgery she has a 100% chance of dying sounds like they're trying to sell surgery like a used car. That is what bothers me. I don't like assigning odds on life & death matters like this, but doctors have to do it. Having worked in an operating room and seen this type of surgery I can tell you that it is a tough call. Survival often depends on teh condition of the patient. This girl only weighs 25 lbs. I would decide as a parent to go with the surgery. By deciding not to have the surgery, i think these parents feel their little girl is going to die either way. They know her better than I do, perhaps they are convinced she wouldn't survive teh surgery. I'll reserve my judgement on the parents. I do not feel that anybody else can force them to submit their child for surgery.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   37.  Re: The immediate effects of a failed surgery   by ms_sue_collins       at Mon 5 May 8:44am score of 1   in reply to comment 32     Sue, I am bothered by the doctor stating emphatically that the child has a 100% chance of dying without the surgery.... To say that without surgery she has a 100% chance of dying sounds like they're trying to sell surgery like a used car. I appreciate your point. This is the child's pediatrician, so it's possible he knows more about her condition than is revealed in the article. Is it not possible that other doctors in the world may have an experimental treatment that may cure the girl? Chemotherapy, gene therapy, and other unknown treatments may work. According to this link, surgery seems to be the first step. It's a dog's life   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

4.  I'm with the parents on this one.   by cortez       at Sat 3 May 3:06pm score of 1.5 interesting     It doesnt seem like they are very confident in their surgery, if it only has a 20-30% chance of success. It seems to me that the kid's gonna die no matter what. Why should the parents be forced into doing something they feel strongly against? It's not like this is a matter of hooking up an IV for a couple days or physical therapy for a couple years. Its friggin brain surgery. Just because her life will be longer, doesn't mean it will be better. Don't know WTF you want to do with your engineering degree? Ask me about UNH's MS Management of Technology program!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

9.  Re: I'm with the parents on this one.   by Minister of Inferior       at Sat 3 May 7:23pm score of 1   in reply to comment 4     It seems to me that the kid's gonna die no matter what. This is a very interesting way of seeing things, especially when your previous sentence attests that you have understood that the surgery has a 20-30% chance of saving the child's life. Why should the parents be forced into doing something they feel strongly against? Because a child cannot simply be viewed as something belonging to the parents. If a couple felt strongly against feeding their kid anything but rocks, the state would (and should) intervene. This is only a less obvious example of an analogous situation. The issue is not always black and white. But in this case, and with several studies suggesting homeopathy to be little more than purified nonsense, I know how I'd rule. someone you trust is one of us   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   13.  Re: I'm with the parents on this one.   by cortez       at Sat 3 May 10:11pm score of 2 compelling   in reply to comment 9     I took the quote "You have a 20 percent chance for some survival of years" in the article to mean she was going to die anyway, it was just a matter of time. If anybody thinks that she's going to live a normal life after this type of surgery, check this link. Honestly, if it were my baby, I would go for the surgery, but I definitely identify with the parents. Don't know WTF you want to do with your engineering degree? Ask me about UNH's MS Management of Technology program!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   34.  Re: I'm with the parents on this one.   by nmiguy       at Mon 5 May 7:42am score of 2 compelling   in reply to comment 9     I think the most compelling part of Cortez's argument was this line: Just because her life will be longer, doesn't mean it will be better. With odds of 20-30% for survival, I wonder what the odds of surviving in a meaningful way, a way that is not a vegetable, is? You made a good point. At what point is the parental decision abusive, or neglectful? I think in this situation, the child will die if they choose one thing. If they choose the other there is still a very strong chance the child will die. Even if they choose this and the child lives, there may be a strong chance that the child will survive brain damages, maybe paralyzed or blind. Maybe the child will not thrive and die. As a parent, deciding not to put your child through that kind of suffering may not be neglect. I would hope that a judge might see that and respect the parents' decision. Still it is nice to see that you are willing to make a decision that you feel is in the best interest of the child. That's great. I would think the parents know the child better than you or I, and I would give them the benefit of the doubt on what the best decision is. It is the parents' decision to make, not the courts.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   11.  Here's an analogy   by iarnuocon       at Sat 3 May 8:39pm score of 2 helpful   in reply to comment 4     The surgery is like playing russian roulette with four chambers loaded. The homeopathic "therapy" is like playing russian roulette with ALL the chambers loaded.* Very few people would do the former except in the most dire circumstances. Virtually no one without a death wish would play the latter version. *(or, if you prefer, with a semi-auto and a round in the chamber.) insanus omnis furere credit ceteros... ecce signum   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

6.  A similar case   by kiwiana       at Sat 3 May 5:04pm score of 1     In New Zealand there was a similar case. The parents went on the run after a court order was made for their son, who had neuroblastoma, to continue chemotherapy. The little boy Liam Williams-Holloway died — story here: a www.nzherald.co.nz link The parents were sort of hippie-dippie vegan types, but nevertheless there was a lot of sympathy for their choice — even though medical opinion was that a cure was likely to a range of 30-50% if chemo had been continued. There is in some cases a real justification for not going through conventional treatment in the case of an ill child — if the harm and suffering caused by the treatment is not justified by the likely outcome of that treatment. That is a rational choice, but the real questions arise when there is a necessity to weigh up what sort of chance of success justifies what degree of suffering to the child. It's quite simple when the procedure is relatively simple and risk free, with very good prospects of success — like a blood transfusion. But brain surgery? I don't know. Nor do I know what percentage of success (and the measure of success — a few months? years?) would justify depriving parents of their decisionmaking power in relation to the child. Hard questions. In the case of Liam Williams-Holloway, I would have supported the enforcement of the court order — the kid could have survived. In this case it seems that the prognosis is much worse, so my initial reaction is that the parents decision should be respected, regardless of what you think of homeopathy (not much, but it's much gentler than brain surgery). While the parents decision might not be one you would make, it doesn't seem irrational or unreasonable to me. open up your chi, maaan   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

7.  Cynically....   by silver222       at Sat 3 May 5:38pm score of 1.5 compelling     Or, perhaps, they don't have insurance and don't feel like losing their house and going into bankruptcy to pay a 1 million dollar + medical bill would be worth it, when the chances of success are roughly 1 in 5. Do they have any other children? I'd be interested in knowing that. Or, like someone upstream said, perhaps they would rather spend the last days holding their daughter than watching her die in an ICU with tubes coming out of her.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

36.  Re: Cynically....   by gparizot       at Mon 5 May 7:42am score of 1.5 succinct   in reply to comment 7     Or, perhaps, they don't have insurance and don't feel like losing their house and going into bankruptcy to pay a 1 million dollar + medical bill would be worth it, when the chances of success are roughly 1 in 5. Do they have any other children? I'd be interested in knowing that. Well, you might have a point, but I'm not so sure. I can't imagine that I would consider costs in the options in saving the life of one of my children. My children are my life. My nice house and car mean nothing without them and my wife. I think it's more the latter, that they'd rather spend what time the have with their child in some sort of quality fashion, rather than watching her die in a hospital. Reading stories like this reminds me how fortunate I am. "Just 'cause you feel it doesn't mean it's there" - Radiohead   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   50.  Re: Cynically....   by vorfeed       at Mon 5 May 1:17pm score of 1   in reply to comment 36     Well, you might have a point, but I'm not so sure. I can't imagine that I would consider costs in the options in saving the life of one of my children. My children are my life. My nice house and car mean nothing without them and my wife. I can understand that, but I can also see why one might want to consider the costs in this case. I don't have kids, myself, but since the little girl's surgery is not likely to give her a fulfilling life even in the best case, I would certainly take the cost into account if I were her mother. Assuming that the surgery will be billed to the family, the choice here seems to be between losing a daughter, and losing a daughter along with the money you need to take care of the rest of the family. Given the long odds of the surgery, it seems to me that the money would probably be better spent giving their daughter as pleasant a life as possible, for the rest of the time she has. It can seem harsh, but when death is near-inevitable, I think it should be made as gentle as possible, not dragged out into a painful and expensive mess. In cases like this, it's better to value the quality of life more than its duration. Vorfeed's Black Metal Reviews   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

8.  Belongs?   by TheMCP       at Sat 3 May 6:29pm score of 1     'This is very difficult.... I think the state has to be very careful before deciding to make decisions on behalf of this child who belongs to these people.' It's bad enough that children are effectively property in so many ways already, but one would hope that at least in the specific area of medical care parents would be required to act as guardians of their child instead of as owners. If the above comment is reflective of the court-appointed counsel's attitude toward children, I would think they're not well qualified for their job. End of line.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

18.  Re: Belongs?   by wrestler       at Sun 4 May 9:38am score of 1.5 compelling   in reply to comment 8     It's bad enough that children are effectively property in so many ways already, but one would hope that at least in the specific area of medical care parents would be required to act as guardians of their child instead of as owners. All right, let me outline the argument for parents owning their children, rather than merely being their guardians. I've numbered the points in order to help you tell me just where I've gone off the rails: 1. Survival. The ultimate policy issue involved here is the long term survival of our species. All other goals must be subordinate to this Darwinian perspective or they increase the risk of the irrelevance of extinction. 2. Diversity. The primary determinant of species survival isn't so much individual fitness as the diversity of the genes (& memes) of the population, because it is this diversity that increases the search space and search rate of possible configurations, thereby increasing the odds that some individuals will survive in some niche in a vastly complex, continuously changing world. 3. Freedom. Rather than being an intrinsic value, freedom, i.e. decentralized decision making, is valuable because it generates increased diversity, and thus an increased chance of species survival. (That is generally but not necessarily the case. An exception might occur if freedom resulted in some individual inventing a species-ending technology). 4. Ownership. Freedom is a function of the number of choices an individual in a society can make. Ownership of property is a convention we use to partition choices over property. Ownership is essentially that set of choices (e.g. to use, modify, sell, destroy, etc.) the owner can make over property. 5. Conservation of ownership. Property rights (ownership) are conserved where property is conserved. That is, the cluster of rights over a thing may be tranfered, say from a set of parents to a federal bureaucracy, but ownership is not destroyed unless the owned thing is destroyed. 6. Ownership of self. The most powerful, dynamic 'thing' in society is the human individual, and ownership of that thing is therefore the most critical to freedom->diversity->survival. Therefore ownership of self should be as decentralized as possible, and in this case that means that each human should be the property of that human. 7. Minority. Under a certain age humans are not capable of competently exercising ownership rights over themselves. But due to the conservation of ownership, somebody has control those rights. For the sake of diversity, that control should be as decentralized as possible. In this case that means ownership of children is better left in the hands of the parents (maybe even better — by default in the hands of the mother), rather than moved to the hands of a hospital committee or a federal bureaucracy. 8. Parents are the best owners of children. Parents are the potential owners most motivated to preserve the value of the 'property' called children, since compassion by parents for children is built in by billions of years of evolution. That connection is so tight that most parents would rather cut off their own limb than risk serious harm to their children, and the same can hardly be said of bureaucracies.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   20.  Re: Belongs?   by Nameless Cynic       at Sun 4 May 10:16am score of 1   in reply to comment 18     Parents are the best owners of children. Parents are the potential owners most motivated to preserve the value of the 'property' called children Unfortunately, we've come across a procedure not covered in the owner's manual, and the parents don't like the choices given to them by the "mechanic." Also, the question has been raised. Who pays for the procedure? If the parents won't, and the state supports doing the procedure, does the state pay? At a 20% chance of success, and possible brain damage even if the doctors do it "right"? How many hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of dollars should the government pay out, at a corresponding loss of that money for other social programs? Guess what? Not all creatures are viable, whether it's a baby or a calf. Sometimes you have to cut your losses. I know it's cold-blooded, but the state deals with people en masse, and has to be callous sometimes. It's the persons involved (in this case, the parents) who have to deal with it on an individual basis. So let them. Sentio aliquos togatos contra me conspirare   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   62.  You left the rails   by Sir Real       at Tue 6 May 6:33am score of 1   in reply to comment 18     ...back where your argument said that parents should be allowed to sell their children- after all, property rights are transferable. And your "billions of years of evolution" rationale, while correct, hasn't prevented child abuse and incest. The serpent, meanwhile, Sleeps his meal off in Paradise -Smiling to hear God's querulous calling.- Ted Hughes   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   33.  Re: Belongs?   by dinkum       at Mon 5 May 7:31am score of 1   in reply to comment 20     Guess what? Not all creatures are viable, whether it's a baby or a calf. Sometimes you have to cut your losses. I know it's cold-blooded, but the state deals with people en masse, and has to be callous sometimes. It's the persons involved (in this case, the parents) who have to deal with it on an individual basis. So let them. I wholeheartedly agree. Our culture is kind of messed up with the "life at all costs" mentality. [Doesn't that seem odd for a society which is predominantly Christian, and as such believing in a blessed afterlife?] There are worse things that death. Throw on any old thing and you'll look great.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   46.  Life at All Costs   by MarkLuffel       at Mon 5 May 12:14pm score of 1   in reply to comment 33     There are worse things that death. Yes. It's the persons involved (in this case, the parents) who have to deal with it on an individual basis. So let them. Yes again, though one detail that often evades social libertarians (and authoritarians) is that control of a person's actions is more readily created through education, not force. The government role in protecting children should be increasingly limited to proper education of parents. Possibly only a semantic issue is the use of phrases like "parents are able" when what is meant is "parents are legally able" — If it does reflect a state of mind though, it is worth considering that disabling parents from mistreating their children by making it repulsive to them is much more effective than making them legally unable. Laws too often come to replace common sense, that in such a diverse world becomes less visibly common, and thus devalue the sense they were made to fortify. Better to state the principles that underlie moral assumptions (as wrestler (comment 18) did) that to legislate each application.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   21.  "Belong" has several meanings   by monkihed       at Sun 4 May 11:28am score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 8     First, picking at semantics is not appropriate here. According to Merriam Webster's belong has the following definition (among others, which are not applicable). If we ascribe meaning b, then the statement is perfectly valid, and does not imply the the child is "property." 2 a : to be the property of a person or thing — used with to b : to be attached or bound by birth, allegiance, or dependency c : to be a member of a club, organization, or set. Second, a parent's biggest job is to make choices for their children that the children are not yet capable of making. Are you seriously arguing for the emancipation of two-year-olds? I can't wait 'til I'm old enough to feel ways about stuff.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

10.  Consequences   by LilyAyl       at Sat 3 May 8:32pm score of 1     Do people have a right to their beliefs? Do they have a right to act upon those beliefs? And if those beliefs point them to homeopathy (which is not just 'charged' water, but rather herbal remedies and such), do they have a right to that course of action? It is a parent's responsibility to do what they think is best for their child. While the government prevents abuse and such, medical decisions are a parent's right. Also note, that if the child were older and raised by the parents, the child's decision would most likely be the same, since the child's beliefs would most likely be the same as her parents'. Moving away from this particular case, one must consider the possible impact of this court decision. If the court opts in favor of the prosecution, the state could earn the ability to always act when it sees fit. Many religious groups do not believe in certain medical treatments and that the use of such treatments is wrong in the sight of God (think Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions), so if the state were to intercede they would denying the people their right to their beliefs. I want the child to live, but I also believe that the state cannot and should not intercede. ~Lily~   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

12.  Re: Consequences   by Anonymous Idiot       at Sat 3 May 9:08pm score of 1 helpful   in reply to comment 10     homeopathy (which is not just 'charged' water, but rather herbal remedies and such) Homeopathy is not herbalism. Herbalism actually has some small basis in science. Indeed, herbalism is the (distant) ancestor of modern pharmacology. Stuff like Aspirin and Digitalis and even Chamomile were discovered through herbalism. It is probably too early to tell whether such "treatments" as St. John's Wort and Echinacea will ever be added to the list of herbal success stories. Homeopathy, on the other hand, is complete bunkum with no basis in anything more than wishful thinking. To oversimplify, it states that having a little tiny bit of poison will make you better. In short, Herbalism is to Homeopathy as Astronomy is to Astrology. Many religious groups do not believe in certain medical treatments and that the use of such treatments is wrong in the sight of God (think Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions), so if the state were to intercede they would denying the people their right to their beliefs. Yes, and in many states, children are protected from such faith healing as well.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   16.  i share   by coprolalia       at Sun 4 May 12:47am score of 1   in reply to comment 12     your disdain for homeopathy, but there has been at least one success: zinc for colds. its the only thing that's been proven effective in double-blind controlled tests. you can sort of see how it would have been a valid model way back in the day, and we may very well get some useful medicines from it, but the premise it uses as an overriding approach to medicine is far too flawed to make it of any use to modern doctors. My whole life is an empty exercise in mean spirited sarcasm. --gordon shumway   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   25.  Re: i share   by Thalia       at Sun 4 May 5:26pm score of 1   in reply to comment 16     Yeah, because now that we're getting closer to nano-scale technology, the idea that smaller doses could be more effective than the monster doses perscribed by modern medicine make no sense at all. There are numerous double blind studies that prove homeopathy can work. Sorry to burst your bubble. Thalia Judeo-Christianity: just like regular Christianity, only insincerely 5% more inclusive! -- MC Nally   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   39.  ugh   by nme!       at Mon 5 May 10:57am score of 1   in reply to comment 25     That information, in case you didn't notice, is at holistic-online.com. Hardly impartial. Notice that the only studies that they do cite (the rest are only called "a study") are from the British Medical Journal or Lancet, both British. N.B. that homeopathic research is a top-down thing in the UK, with lots of pressure from Cherie Blair and Prince Charles. True believers with exactly zero background in medicine. Where's the studies in the New-England Journal of Medicine? Or Nature? When is the FDA going to approve them (they are not currently even under FDA jurisdiction)? Most importantly, when is Pfizer going to start marketing homepathis cures? Their name recognition, marketing money, and R&D budget oughta enable them to corner the market, right? Why would you assume that just because a treatment is "natural" and/or "alternative" that its purveyors have any less of an incentive to lie than Parke-Davis or Merck? Medicine is a billion-dollar industry that is only going to grow. I don't care who's selling it, or what it is, but hold on to your wallet. -nme! Virgo: (Aug. 23 - Sept. 22) It's all over but the shouting, but don't worry: It's going to be great shouting.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   44.  Re: i share   by dolohov       at Mon 5 May 11:59am score of 1   in reply to comment 25     Nano-technology has nothing to do with the issue, except for a vague sense of smallness of scale. A nano-scale motor cannot do the work of even the cheapest off-the-shelf DC motor, despite the fact that it takes much more work and science to build. It is simply too small for the tasks that a DC motor is built for. It cannot do the necessary amount of work, in the physics sense. Similarly, you cannot get as much work/energy out of a smaller chemical dose than a larger one. When I pop an aspirin, it dissolves in my stomach and then some of the active compound goes into my bloodstream. That compound circulates in my blood and is gradually taken up into my cells, where it is consumed in a chemical reaction. That chemical reaction does work. It probably produces heat, among other things. Popping half an aspirin cannot have even the same effect, let alone a "more effective" one, because that amount of chemical compound is just not capable of producing that much work. That half an aspirin may produce a sufficient effect, but not a greater one. As I reduce the concentration, the effect will at some point no longer be sufficient. If I start off at so-called "nanoscale" concentrations, I'm pretty much guaranteeing insufficiency. (Yes, I neglected the feedback effects of pH and exhaustion of chemical reagents, but you get the idea.) As for the article you linked to, it's hardly an impartial source, and I would be much more comfortable with it if it actually linked to the journal articles it references instead of dropping a name, a date, and a conclusion. "Carthago delenda est" -- Cato (in the world's first .sig)   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   48.  Let's take a closer look....   by Wolfetone       at Mon 5 May 12:18pm score of 1   in reply to comment 25     If I were writing a paper trying to prove the benefits of homeopathy I would start with a compelling case study to grab the readers attention. What does holistic-online start with? A study with a total of 81 subjects (Big Fat Hairy Deal) in which the homeos averaged 4 days for recovery and the non-homeos 5 days. I wonder what the chances are that the distribution happened randomly? How could the first study that involved homeopathy take place in 1994 and a metaanalysis of 107 homeo studies take place in 1991? And the Lancet study by Dr Reilly is a real humdinger! Another study on this same subject appeared in The Lancet in the following year. Dr David Taylor Reilly and Morag Taylor from the Glasgow Homeopathic Hospital and their colleagues from the departments of bacteriology and immunology and of statistics in the University of Glasgow conducted a double-blind trial. Patients were recruited from the Homeopathic Hospital and from 26 local general practitioners, most of whom practised some homeopathy. Patients were randomly allocated to receive either a homeopathic preparation of mixed grass pollens diluted 10030=1060 times or a placebo of 90% alcohol. The patients scored their own symptoms in a standardised fashion and the doctors assessed the patients in the same way. Results in 144 patients were analysed in a paper entitled "Is homeopathy a placebo response? Controlled trial of homeopathic potency, with pollen in hay fever as a model".[9] The symptoms were quantified for one week before treatment, during the two weeks of treatment with the homeopathic preparation or placebo, and for two weeks afterwards. There was a slight decline in patients' self-assessment of symptoms in the two weeks following treatment in the group of patients given the homeopathic preparation but not in those receiving placebo (Figure 6). a mywebpage.netscape.com link If I was familiar with homeopathy, which most of the patients seem to have been, what are the chances that I believed a mixture of 90% alcohol was a homeopathic treatment? What is the statistical significance of the slight decline in symptoms? Does alcohol ingestion contibute to congestion? Thalia, you are a smart women who needs to kick your homeopathic love affair.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   54.  Re: i share   by slippytoad       at Mon 5 May 3:17pm score of 1   in reply to comment 16     your disdain for homeopathy, but there has been at least one success: zinc for colds The problem with homeopathy is not whether or not the agent could be effective. It's whether or not something can be diluted so many times that it's effectively not there anymore, and still work. Those critical of homeopathy are wondering how water can have memory. Woohoo!!!!! FUCK YEAH!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   55.  Bubble intact, try again   by slippytoad       at Mon 5 May 3:29pm score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 25     There are numerous double blind studies that prove homeopathy can work. Sorry to burst your bubble. Your linked article is revealing, but not of the truth. None of the studies listed in your article are cited, which kind of makes them hard to check on. Yes, numerous big-name journals are named, but actual places where these articles can be found are not. Considering that numerous other double-blind studies, which can be referenced, have shown Homeopathy to be complete bunk, you've got a long ways to go to convince me of anything. Yeah, because now that we're getting closer to nano-scale technology, the idea that smaller doses could be more effective than the monster doses perscribed by modern medicine make no sense at all. Homeopathy and nano-technology have nothing to do with one another. This statement more than anything else convinces me you aren't really clear on what you're talking about. Nano-technology involves miniature machines, or carefully shaped miniature particles, like carbon tubes or bucky balls or other interesting constructs. Homeopathy involves the bizarre notion that water "remembers" some element that's been diluted to the zillionth time in it, and beyond that, the notion that "like cures like." There's not a science behind it at all. There are no reproducible results, let alone a coherent theory that explains the cause and effect of it all. Woohoo!!!!! FUCK YEAH!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   23.  Re: Consequences   by Mike1024       at Sun 4 May 3:42pm score of 1   in reply to comment 10     Hey, Many religious groups do not believe in certain medical treatments and that the use of such treatments is wrong in the sight of God (think Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions), so if the state were to intercede they would denying the people their right to their beliefs. If a couple refused thier child a life-saving blood transfusion, and that refusal lead directly to thier child's death, wouldn't they be directly responsible for thier child's death, regardless of thier religion? If you make the decision that you would rather have your child die than receive immediately available treatment with a 100% success rate, I don't feel that's different from directly causing the child's death in any other way. I am fairly sure the state would intervene if someone wanted to kill thier child in a satanic ritual sacrifice. Hence killing children is not OK, even if it's required by the parents' religion. Therefore, in my opinion, the state should intercede Just my $0.02, Michael Whipped that shit out, and aint no doubt about it; It hit the ground and caused an earthquake and power outage.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   51.  Re: Consequences   by CaptainLiberal       at Mon 5 May 1:24pm score of 1   in reply to comment 10     It is a parent's responsibility to do what they think is best for their child. What if the parents believe that the only way to cure their child of some disease is by anally raping them? Is it okay for the state to intervene then? How about someone who thinks the way to cure a brain tumor is by forcing their child to fast for extended periods of time? Does the state step in before or after the child dies of starvation? This idea that the parents always know what's best for their children is ridiculous. If you really believe that, why do we have child abuse laws? Many abusers suggest they are actually helping the child by instilling discipline and toughening them up. Should we make it legal for parents to help their children by pressing their little faces against a stove burner? Do people have a right to their beliefs? Only so far as their beliefs don't endanger the life of their children, would be my answer. Every dream turns into something on a T-shirt -- Shriekback   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

14.  Laws   by jasonm1       at Sat 3 May 10:23pm score of 1     I really don't understand why there are not established laws and procedures about this type of thing already. In many other realms of life, including child rearing in general, there is a societal consensus about right and wrong — translated into laws — that comes from some set of principles. Often, there is oversight by an authority, or many. In the case of medical questions for minors, there ought to be an oversight board in each hospital that has the authority to override a parent's choice if it's deemed in the interest of saving the child's life. This is the whole point of our medical system. Frankly, if a number of practicing physicians think they have a good solution that happens to contradict the parents, then the parents should not decide. This is perfectly in line with other laws concerning child welfare. Parents cannot beat their kids. They can't starve them, perform weird rituals on them (um, unless it's part of a state recognized religion, I guess), give them drugs, or let them ride in a car without a seatbelt! If so many less important decision-making powers are already out of the hands of parents, isn't it a bit hypocritical to leave them with the ultimate question of life or death? "Always be willing to speak your mind and a base man will avoid you" -- William Blake   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

26.  Re: Laws   by Thalia       at Sun 4 May 5:34pm score of 1   in reply to comment 14     There is a big difference between not doing harm (e.g. not beating/starving/ritually weirding the child), and being forced to do something. Prohibiting certain behaviors is easier in the law than requiring behaviors. Especially when the required behavior is as expensive as surgery. Should the government be permitted to force a family to spend money on a possibly-successful surgery? What if spending this money means that the family can no longer afford to pay rent? What if it means they can no longer buy the medication keeping another child healthy? Where do you draw the line? Thalia Judeo-Christianity: just like regular Christianity, only insincerely 5% more inclusive! -- MC Nally   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   30.  Re: Laws   by jasonm1       at Mon 5 May 12:39am score of 1   in reply to comment 26     When parents wish to have a risky surgery yet do not have the ability to pay, it is reasonable to want the state to cover the costs, assuming qualified overseers deem the procedure hopeful. It may be the case that the state will not pay, but they ought to. Looking at it the other way then, if the state will pay for the same procedure, yet the parents do not wish it to be performed, the parents ought to have their choice overruled. I also think we should have socialized medicine, so maybe my perspective is warped. However, inability to pay should not be a factor when trying to save the life of a completely dependent child — moreso than an adult, who at the very least has the opportunity to take matters into his own hands. "Always be willing to speak your mind and a base man will avoid you" -- William Blake   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   58.  Come, Now.   by iarnuocon       at Mon 5 May 4:26pm score of 1   in reply to comment 26     The government requires certain behaviors all the time. You must wear your seatbelt. You must pay taxes. You must pull over when a plice officer drives up behind you with flashing lights. The fact that it is easier to prohibit than require doesn't constitute a valid argument. The ease of the requirement has little to do with its validity. Maybe it would be better if we simply charged the parents with negligence after their daughter dies because of their reliance on homeopathy rather than medicine? Or are 1-in-3 to 1-in-5 odds for full recovery simply "too slim" for legal consideration? Your other arguments are quite compelling arguments for universal health care, but not compelling arguments for requiring the state to simply stand by while this child dies. insanus omnis furere credit ceteros... ecce signum   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   27.  Re: Laws   by charlies       at Sun 4 May 5:42pm score of 1   in reply to comment 14     There is a body of law in each of the United States regarding child welfare. There are certain common elements: The state must prove, by a preponderance of evidence, that a parent or parents are presenting a threat to the life, health or well-being of the child. Overwhelmingly these are abuse/neglect cases. "Medical neglect" cases are rare and are usually slam-dunks--Jehovah's Witness blood transfusion cases; Christian Scientist kids with appendicitis--where there is an accepted medical treatment which provides the child with a high likelihood of recovery. First, I should tell you I am a parent. I do not have faith in homeopathy. I would probably choose medical treatment for my child, although one cannot be certain until faced with the choice. And I think that, while a closer case than most, the parents decision should be honored. I read the links in the write-up and the link in comment #13, and the parents' decision seems reasonable--Maybe not the one I would make, but reasonable. The measure of "success" is the five-year survival rate, so the state is trying to impose high-risk, very painful surgery with a long recovery on this family with a 20% to 30% likelihood the child will live to the age of seven. The link in comment #13 makes it clear that even the "favored" 20% have problems with a high likelihood of cancer, stroke, or endocrine failure after the five-year period passes. Several comments have framed this as a choice between a 20% chance of life vs. no chance. But from a parent's point of view it is a 100% chance of six months or so with my child vs. an 80% chance she won't live to leave the hospital. It's a choice no parent should have to face, but when they face it, they shouldn't also have to deal with the state trying to second-guess them. We're fighting in a war we lost before the war began.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

15.  Sometimes life deals you a shit hand.   by MAYORBOB       at Sat 3 May 11:20pm score of 1.5 nuanced     On the one hand, your two-year-old is facing the certainty of death. On the other, your two-year-old is facing the possibility of life under reduced circumstances possibily with a lot of pain thrown in and may just end up dying anyhow. What do you do? Were I ever put into a situation like this (and thank God that I have never had such a dilemma) I think that my decision would be for the surgery that would at least give my child a shot at life. And that is a sentiment that is probably shared by the majority of parents. It is one thing to have to bury a parent or a sibling; it is almost unbearable to have to bury a child. Even a child that is so terribly ill. After all, you're responsible for him or her being here in the first place. To me, to sit by and do nothing (and yes, I consider the homeopathy option to be tantamount to doing nothing) while the life is sucked out of that child, is unthinkable. But, having said that, I really couldn't begin to criticize a parent who chose not to do the same thing that I might do. Perhaps, they truly believe that the homeopathic procedure holds a miracle cure for the child. Perhaps, they are just a bit more accepting about the fate that life hands out. Perhaps, they have seen the child suffer enough and don't want to extend its suffering anymore. Because, when you have a dilemma like this, there really is no right answer or wrong answer. Because, sometimes life deals you a shitty hand. Tending to final details.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

17.  Quality vs. Quantity   by monkihed       at Sun 4 May 9:31am score of 1.5 astute     I know other parents have weighed in on this issue, and I have an immediate emotional reaction to the case that may be akin to the government's reaction. However, when you think about how invasive medical treatment is likely to be, and how little chance the child has to survive, the choice might be between having this kid poked, prodded, pulled, cut open, sewed shut, dosed with painkillers, and whatever other medication, constantly surrounded by strangers in an unfamiliar hospital... or letting her live and die quietly at home with her family. It's heartbreaking, but I understand and accept the parents choice here. It's not like they won't give her antibiotics for a very curable thing like pneumonia, it's more like they're providing their daughter (and themselves) with a more dignified and gentle death than she might otherwise have. I can't wait 'til I'm old enough to feel ways about stuff.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

19.  Whose life is it anyway?   by deeluxx       at Sun 4 May 9:45am score of 1.5 intriguing     If the County wins the case and the girl survives, is she then the County's child? Will the County raise her and care for her and love her and teach her and cover her medical bills and her (likely) special schooling needs, etc, etc for the rest of her life? Or will they simply give her back to her parents and say "here you go, we told you so" and that'll be the end of that? And what if she doesn't survive the surgery? Can't the parents claim (and rightfully so, IMHO) that the County is responsible for her death? The fact that she was likely or even guaranteed to die in a short period of time anyway is irrelevant — if a man on death row who is scheduled to die tomorrow is killed by another prisoner today, that other prisoner is still guilty of murder. It's not as if this couple is refusing simple treatment for a simple illness, it's not as if they're not doing anything. Whether you believe in homeopathy or not you have to admit that taking their child to another Country for treatment shows that they're doing all they believe they can do. I have to agree with Professor Holder on this one. In a situation where both the County and the parents believe they're doing the right thing for the child and the decision of either is likely to be a death sentence, I have to side with the decision of the parents.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

22.  Why is this any different...   by karmia       at Sun 4 May 1:11pm score of 1     .. than the situation in which the government leaves the decision of whether or not to put a very ill elderly person on life-support to the ill elderly person's family? In both cases, it is assumed that the ill person is not capable of making a rational decision himself or herself. And, in both cases, there is a high chance that, the ill person may suffer horribly the rest of his or her life or become a vegetable: "Noshin's case is further complicated by her dire prognosis. Doctors have said that even with surgery to remove the astrocytoma tumor, the child has only a 20 to 30 percent chance of living her full life. Such tumors often recur — leading to blindness, paralysis, seizures and death." Note that the above quote is not even referring to possible complications from brain surgery. "One must still have chaos in oneself to be able to give birth to a dancing star." -- Friedrich Nietzsche   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

29.  amazing   by blisspix       at Mon 5 May 12:09am score of 1     50-100 years ago this kid would have died, no doubt about it. Today, she has a small chance of survival, maybe in 50 years from now 100% chance of survival. Such is technology. I just find it amazing that there is such a strong push for surgery when the odds of survival are quite low. Sadly, not all of us live for long once we are born. And how is this wrong? This is the way life is, life is unfair. Many people that are my friends would not be alive today if they were born 50 years ago, their conditions would have been untreatable. But they were fortunate to be born when technology is good. And so it goes. This must be the worst decision a parent ever has to make. Only they can know what is right. I don't see their decision as being any different than when adults refuse treatment for their frail, terminal parents. Sometimes it is better not to struggle. Yet I really don't know what I would do in a similar situation.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

35.  its a question of consent.   by colinsky       at Mon 5 May 7:42am score of 1.5 astute     Angela Holder, professor at the Center for the Study of Medical Ethics and Humanities at Duke, believes that government intervention should be made only when 'there is a virtual guarantee that the harm you will do to the child and the family will be far outweighed by the benefits to the child.' And that same argument could be used to endorse genital mutilation (male or female!). This is WRONG WRONG WRONG. The parent should NOT have the automatic ability to consent to submitting a child to surgical procedures; and the state should not give the parents rights to arbitrarily cut of parts of their childs body for religious purposes. Likewise, essential emergency medical care should not be DENIED to a child due to religious purposes. THE CHILD IS NOT A RELIGIOUS INDIVIDUAL, and until he or she is old enough to understand belief and choose one, the child does not belong to a religion. Making decisions about your child's health care based on your decision is unfairly imposing your religion on another. If you do so, the state should intervene and remove your control over the child. End of story.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

43.  Huh?   by goofyroo       at Mon 5 May 11:37am score of 1   in reply to comment 35     Routine infant circumcision has no proven medical benefit, but plenty of proven harm. (See CIRP, for starters.) So Holder's argument would actually seem to justify government intervention to outlaw RIC. That's pretty much the case made by those in the U.S. who won the 1996 outlawing of (Muslim) female circumcision. It hasn't been successful against (primarily cosmetic) male circumcision — one supposes, because it's just too lucrative for hospitals and doctors. Goofy Roo Calling someone judgmental makes you judgmental.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

49.  Resolved:   by Ajax       at Mon 5 May 12:32pm score of 1     Every argument about parental choice vis-a-vis the medical treatment of one's children is, more or less, an argument about abortion. "I could not consider myself a moral human being if I denied my child a chance, however small, to live." Does that argument sound familiar? It's the same argument that's made by many pro-life advocates. Discuss. "Coca-ColaŽ and ArmageddonŽ / We like it, like it, yes we do!" -- Clutch.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]