Girl dies of stupid parents

[Mister Agenda]

And you know she's in for a future of sickness and pain so bad life won't be worth living how?

Are you seriously questioning everyone who lived through this and what they have to say about it and calling them a liar?

Since the things they are claiming are things they could not reasonbly know, I'm calling them foolish and misguided, however sincere they may have been.

The reson people go through it is because there is hope on the other side of getting back to normal. But if there is little to no hope many opt out.

True. This was not one of those cases.

You are so quick to wish ill on people that it's a wonder your head doesn't explode when you scare quote other people's moral views in the same paragraph.

wishing ill, on someone is only a problem if they worship life above all else.

Or if you expect more from someone than casual malice.

If a person worships God first then the illness while still not a good thing, ceases to be the end of the world.

Which makes wishing ill on people okay? People like you doing God's advertising are evidence he doesn't exist, or at least doesn't want decent people believing he does.

He's old enough to make his own decisions. He's not a child. That's the difference.

This is what confuses me about you people. you all seem like semi intellegent people for the most part...

Which still won't make you give a moment's consideration to the notion that we might be right about something.

Yet just because some hack artical says the only determining factor in this kids death was the kid's desision you just drink the grape flavored Flav-o-Aide all up and want more.

The article didn't say that. You don't give a shit whether the things you say are actually true or not. The case the article made was that chemo was her best chance, not that she would definitely have lived if she underwent it.

To me a semi intellegent person one checks the facts like for one the bogus number the artical gave, so as to judge the artical honest or not.

And a liar for Jesus looks for something to support their postiion and posts the first thing they can find that seems to agree with them.

Then I would look into the cancer care process to see if it were even possible for a kid or even their parent to just stop treatment if the kid had a real chance at life.

Guess what? They can, at least in that location.

Yet you all have done none of this and simply assume everything the artical said is indeed true even though I punched a big hole in it.

You don't know that none of us have done this, you're just assuming it because we didn't reach the same conclusions you have, and thinking you have punched 'a big hole' in it and actually having done so are two different things.

Grown-ups have every right to do make that kind of decision for themselves. But if the doctors say that if your kid gets the chemo she'll most likely pull through but she'll definitely die if she doesn't, you have to remember that you're the parent and you have to be more objective than a suffering, drugged child might be able to be.

Again sport a 75% (over a 5 year period) chance of recovery in a kid under 15 is low, almost 30% low. that low number means the chance of reoccourance especially with an acute lymphoma is very high. and as the kid gets older the recovery rate goes down lower, while the reoccourance rate gets higher.

For the first time, sparky, since it never seems to have occurred to you, this child was not a statisitic, she was a specific case, and her doctors were far more qualified than you or I to asses her chances in her particular case. You can't just pull some averages out and assume she must be average, too. Since the recovery rate goes down as she gets older, it would have been a good idea to try to help her recover while she was younger (and alive), don't you think?

Everyone has a responsibility to give their child their best chance. It would be different if the odds were 90% against her surviving with treatment, letting her go might be the best thing for her. But the odds are greatly in her favor, if she gets the treatment. Her parents should back that. If she still needs treatment when she's of age and still wants to stop getting it, she can refuse then.

again the recovery rate in the artical was very misleading

If you're stupid enough to think statistics you pulled off the internet trump the judgment of the doctors actually working on her case, I can see how someone could believe that's persuasive.