Girl dies of stupid parents

[Jacob(smooth)]

We should really stop treating anorexia in teens. I mean starving yourself to death is as natural as causes get! Have to respect their decision.

[Thumpalumpacus]

From the article:

Here's what I got:

A Hamilton oncologist testifying at a hearing into an indigenous child who has quit chemotherapy in favour of traditional medicine says in a similar case earlier this year, another First Nation girl stopped her chemo and has now suffered a relapse.

Makayla Sault's leukemia has come back, according to testimony by McMaster Children's Hospital's Vicky Breakey. Although Breakey didn't name the patient, it's clear she was referring to Makayla.

Notice that first they say it came back and then they say the doctor didn't name Makayla. I'd like to hear the quote from the doctor. Like I said before though, she didn't die from leukemia. She died from a stroke, possibly caused by her chemo therapy.

Here:

Dr. John Letterio, chief of pediatric hematology and oncology at University Hospitals Rainbow Babies & Children’s Hospital in Cleveland, said it was unlikely that chemotherapy drugs could have caused a stroke months after Makayla stopped treatment.

“The drugs we use, literally thousands of patients have had these,” said Letterio, who did not treat Makayla. “One of the chemotherapy agents we use has the risk for some heart problems [but] it’s so very, very rare.”

Letterio said the chance of complications would also be further reduced if Makayla was out of chemotherapy treatment for months.

However, Letterio said if Makayla did have active leukemia disease, there’s a chance cardiac complications could occur.

“Leukemia, in essence, goes everywhere the blood stream goes. Those cancer cells can accumulate,” said Letterio. “It could be a complication of her disease if it began to march along. It’s hard to tell.”

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/coroner-inv...d=28405122

And as we have seen earlier, Makayla had relapsed. Simply because Breakey didn't mention Mikayla by name, that doesn't mean she wasn't talking about her, any more than you and I discussing the first President of America means we aren't talking about George Washington.

You're trying to set an artificially-high standard of evidence in order to avoid the admission that this child's death was entirely unnecessary, and brought about by blind faith.

Tell us: would you allow your child to reject life-saving treatment that has been demonstrated to work 75% of the time, in favor of unsupported treatment administered by a quack?

I wouldn't. At eleven, my son was not competent to make that decision, and there is no belief system in this world that would cause me to forgo doing everything in my power to give him a long and prosperous life. And shame on any parent who would put their faith above their love.

Even your Apostle Paul has it right when he says "[...] and now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love."

Are these empty words, to you? They aren't to me, and I'm a goddamned atheist.

[robvalue]

The bigger question is would you let that 11 year old stop the chemo just because they hated it (which is totally expected) and allow them to die? Or does some mythological ravings tip the balance, and then you have to respect it and allow her to commit death by fake medicine? But either answer is terrible. I really hope some people wouldn't act the way they say they would act on this forum, that they are giving lip service to their religion for browny points. When it came to the crunch I hope they would find it inside them to listen to their conscience.

If they really would behave that way... it is shocking to me, and a clear indication of how religion can rot morality right through.

[Esquilax]

How did going off the treatment cause her to have a stroke?

This has been explained to you by others in this thread better than I could, but going off the treatment that was keeping her leukemia in check, surprise, caused her leukemia to worsen.

But what I think is more interesting is that the story has changed. At first you were telling us her death was okay, because Jesus had communicated to her that it was okay to stop treatment and die of her illness because heaven, and now, without even pausing to acknowledge this, you're denying that she died of her illness at all. Which is it, Lek? You can't have it both ways.

Seems more likely that the chemo caused her to have a stroke. She didn't die from leukemia.

When you say "seems more likely that," did you perhaps mean to say "it is more convenient for my position if"? Because if you're saying that the chemo she hadn't been on for months suddenly caused her to have a stroke, then I'm saying that you are not a doctor, and it seems pretty disingenuous for you to be taking this position of convenience, in the light of the position you held until right this moment, after we conclusively proved that your Jesus idea was wrong. You're just leaping from position to position to retain the "it was a good thing she died," conclusion you'd already come to before posting.

[dyresand]

Esquilax he is Lek is using grade F apologist tactics.

[Bad Wolf]

I wouldn't. At eleven, my son was not competent to make that decision, and there is no belief system in this world that would cause me to forgo doing everything in my power to give him a long and prosperous life.

[robvalue]

It's really awkward trying to high-5 a Vulcan.

[Thumpalumpacus]

... and I'm not even a Trekkie!

[Thackerie]

\
Firstly, we don't force them 'no matter what'. Secondly, children are not legally responsible for themselves, the parents are. They are incapable of fully comprehending the situation they are in due to the fact that their brains are not yet fully developed. As a result, it is down to someone with a fully developed brain to make the decisions for them. Seriously, how is this confusing you? Would you not give your kids vaccinations just because they didn't want it because they're scared of the needle? Of course not. But why you ask? Because the child doesn't understand that if it doesn't get these vaccinations, there is a very good chance they will catch a disease and die. And that is why we don't give them a choice.

You're right that children are not fully able to comprehend the situation. That's why we pass the decision to the parents who are able to comprehend and also have the best intentions for the children.

I don't doubt that the parents had the best intentions. It's obvious, however, that they did NOT comprehend. Like Lek.

---

Lek: I'm really close to entirely giving up on your morality. But I'll give it one more spin.

If everyone let their 11 year old children make all their decisions themselves, do you think that would be a good thing? And if not, why let them make the most important decision they could possibly make? (75% chance of life, versus certain death)

Do you really think it was explained to the girl that she would die if she stopped the chemo? Please answer this question at least.

I've already given up on his morality. I think anyone who would condone not treating a sick child appropriately just in order to give glory to god is a horrible person.

[Mister Agenda]

Lek, nothing against you, but I hope you don't think anyone here wants you to become an atheist. I would be fairly pleased if you gained an intuitive understanding of why a child's life might be considered more valuable than a dog's, and thrilled if you started applying critical thinking consistently, but I wouldn't want you to become an atheist without clearing those hurdles first.

I do know why I value a child's life more than a dog's life. Like I said before, that child is a special creation and rates more consideration than other animals. The only reason I can see for an atheist to value her life more is that she is a body of matter that is more intelligent than other animals; and for that reason her life should be more highly protected. This is only because she differs from your pet only in degree of evolution. This mentality taken further would say that if we must kill either a dolphin or a rabbit, we should kill the rabbit because it is more intelligent.

You're better at putting yourself in our shoes than some folks are. Being more intelligent is one reason to protect her life more than a dog's. Just one, though. For example, we feel more connected to a stranger's human child than to their dog, usually. We have more empathy for human children, we value them having the opportunity to reach their potential, to participate in human life to a degree that an animal can't. We've all been children.

My other point is that we have compassion on an adult who doesn't want to go through treatment and decides to let the disease run its course and die in peace.

I don't think that's a matter of more compassion as much as a matter of more rights. If an adult made the same decision for themselves with the same odds, I would still think it is a big mistake, but it would not be society's place to stop that adult from refusing treatment.

But we won't afford the same compassion to a 11 year-old or even a 17 year-old; or even an adult parent who has the best interests of their child at heart.

It is not in the child's interest to have her future thrown away in the name of easing her suffering now. With that reasoning, you might as well go Angel of Death on children's cancer wards. Gaining years of life is worth more than avoiding months of suffering. People generally don't regret their short-term suffering in the long run, once they make it through.

In this case, you who haven't been through this situation claim to know better than the parents of this girl and are aware of maybe 5% of the facts of the situation, know better what course of action should have been taken.

I'm sure if the alternative treatment had worked, we would all be singing a different tune. But it failed, as it almost certainly was going to fail, and the girl is dead when there's a 75% chance she would have been alive today and on her way to recovery if her parents hadn't overridden the doctors. The only way you can say that her parents knew more about her MEDICAL CONDITION is if they were physicians themselves. The fact is, they had no idea of what they were doing. They might as well have turned to Voodoo.

But Jesus is mentioned, and you're team Jesus, so you have to vote for the 'somebody mentioned Jesus' side no matter what, it seems.