Woman refuses child chemo due to side effects

Seaneh · 08-12-2012 01:50AM

Dean09 wrote: »

Slightly off topic but has anyone seen the documentary "Burzynski"? Really interesting documentary. It may be s bit one sided but its well worth a watch. http://m.imdb.com/title/tt1632703/

"Henry Friedman, a neuro-oncologist at the Duke University Medical Center, was one of the independent doctors who reviewed (Burzynski's) data..."Despite thousands of patients treated with the antineoplastons, no one has yet shown in a convincing fashion, [through] the rigorous requirements for peer review, that the therapy works," he says, adding later, "You have to understand how incredible that is. Because normally, you can do a cancer study of as few as 30 [or] 40 patients...and begin to get an idea of whether there is activity or not. And then you can do larger studies, and you can really prove the merits or the lack of merit of the therapeutic strategy."...

Moreover, he says, Burzynski "has been making a fortune...on patients he's treated with antineoplastons. I find that of questionable ethics."

Basically, despite thousands of people being treated with his method, there is still no statistical evidence that it has any benefit...

All the while, he is making a fortune...

Dingle_berry · 08-12-2012 01:52AM

Seaneh wrote: »

It really depends on what form of cancer you have, what stage it is at, and a few other factors as to whether or not it will save you or just give you a little longer.

So do you blindly trust the course of treatment discussed by a group of strangers in a meeting that you're not included in? Hoping that these people are the best in their field and will make the best choice for you? I've been to MDTs, they can discuss everything from your diet to your attitude/spirit/motivation. Not every decision is based solely on radiological or pathological data.

Seaneh wrote: »

I know if I had stage 2 testicular cancer I'd be getting Chemo, radiationtherapy and Laparoscopic surgery to remove any affected lymph nodes ASAP.

You wouldn't look into immunological therapies first? You wouldn't research the different chemo cocktails or regimens used? You would just sign away to whatever they suggest?
Look at the difference herceptin has made in the treatment of HER2 positive breast cancers. Herceptin wasn't always available, even when licensed.
I heard of a trial for hodgkins where one of the chemo drugs would be left out (because of its close association with lung cancer later on) and substituted with monitoring by PET scans. The trial was pulled due to lack of funding but if it were my lymphoma I'd go for the PET scans instead of lung cancer.

El Guapo! · 08-12-2012 01:58AM

Seaneh wrote: »

"Henry Friedman, a neuro-oncologist at the Duke University Medical Center, was one of the independent doctors who reviewed (Burzynski's) data..."Despite thousands of patients treated with the antineoplastons, no one has yet shown in a convincing fashion, [through] the rigorous requirements for peer review, that the therapy works," he says, adding later, "You have to understand how incredible that is. Because normally, you can do a cancer study of as few as 30 [or] 40 patients...and begin to get an idea of whether there is activity or not. And then you can do larger studies, and you can really prove the merits or the lack of merit of the therapeutic strategy."...

Moreover, he says, Burzynski "has been making a fortune...on patients he's treated with antineoplastons. I find that of questionable ethics."

Basically, despite thousands of people being treated with his method, there is still no statistical evidence that it has any benefit...

All the while, he is making a fortune...

Like I said, the documentary is one sided. But it does make for interesting viewing.

Dude111 · 08-12-2012 01:58AM

Dean09 wrote:

Chemo is basically poison.

Indeed and it destroys your immune system!!!!

She is trying to help her son (Which was found the other day i read)

God bless him!!

MUSEIST · 08-12-2012 02:05AM

Dean09 wrote: »

Chemo is basically poison. I know that if I was diagnosed with cancer I'd refuse to receive chemotherapy. If rather take my chances with other treatments.

Everything is a poison, literally everything. It's the dose thats important. Chemotherapy is highly cytotoxic so it has many side effects but in reality it's extremely effective for certain types of cancer. Do you refuse all medical help like antibiotics and pain medication which are also poisons?

Scruffles · 08-12-2012 02:06AM

professore wrote: »

Depending on the cancer chemo can be completely useless but the hospital will still offer it, and I am speaking from personal experience.

not sure on the situation in ireland,but over here its offered to pets to as they offered it to a beloved cat of mine;sam,unfortuately after the tests they did it was found she was to far gone and it woudnt have made much difference at that stage,plus she also had dementia and it affected her quality of life greatly.

this woman needs a smack into reality,using iq as a reason to avoid it is piss poor..all of us living here have varying levels of learning [intelectual] disability from moderate to profound, doesnt stop us from having a quality of life or stopping us doing the things we want to do,might stop us from doing the things others want us to do of course,which it sounds like the case with this woman; projecting her own wishes and definition of what a 'life' is on to the boy.

Jimoslimos · 08-12-2012 02:08AM

Dingle_berry wrote: »

You wouldn't look into immunological therapies first? You wouldn't research the different chemo cocktails or regimens used? You would just sign away to whatever they suggest?

It's not always an either/or choice. Some immunological therapies are designed to enhance the effects of chemo or radiotherapy by preventing various repair mechanisms that are triggered by treatment. They can also be used for targeted delivery of the chemotherapy drug or radioactive isotope.

Dingle_berry wrote: »

Look at the difference herceptin has made in the treatment of HER2 positive breast cancers. Herceptin wasn't always available, even when licensed.
I heard of a trial for hodgkins where one of the chemo drugs would be left out (because of its close association with lung cancer later on) and substituted with monitoring by PET scans. The trial was pulled due to lack of funding but if it were my lymphoma I'd go for the PET scans instead of lung cancer.

You do know Herceptin is cardiotoxic, so not completely risk free. Plus does the extra radiation dose from PET (especially PET-CT) not concern you? There's is a balance between risk and efficacy for all treatments, the best person to present and judge on those is the physician - not an (understandably) hysterical mother.

Jumboman · 08-12-2012 02:09AM

crackers and cheese wrote: »

Regardless of her looking up information herself and looking at all the options available,she is not a doctor...

Doctors are in the pockets of the drug companies you have to take what they say with a large grain of salt. The reason many of these alternative cancer treatments have not taken off is because there is not much money to be made off them.

I find it very strange people have so much respect for doctors people dont seem to realise how corrupt they can be.

Jimoslimos · 08-12-2012 02:16AM

Jumboman wrote: »

I find it very strange people have so much respect for doctors people dont seem to realise how corrupt they can be.

Dunno, maybe cos they don't engage in scaremongering and downright lies.

El Guapo! · 08-12-2012 02:28AM

MUSEIST wrote: »

Do you refuse all medical help like antibiotics and pain medication which are also poisons?

No of course not. I'm not the conspiracy theory/hippy type at all. I'm being taken up wrong.
I was merely highlighting the fact that chemo can be dangerous and it isn't always the "go to" treatment. Personally I wouldn't jump straight in and get chemo. I'd look for other treatments and a second and third and fourth opinion.
That's not to say that it doesn't have benefits. It clearly does. It has without a doubt saved countless lives. But maybe my judgement is a bit clouded by my personal experience having seen what chemo and radiation therapy did to a family member.

petersburg2002 · 08-12-2012 02:30AM

I would rather have my child alive and take the risk of partial brain damage than have no child at all. Brain cancer is very aggressive. I would love to know how extensive the mother's research was. Her parents also seem to be supporting her decision.

Dingle_berry · 08-12-2012 02:36AM

Jimoslimos wrote: »

It's not always an either/or choice. Some immunological therapies are designed to enhance the effects of chemo or radiotherapy by preventing various repair mechanisms that are triggered by treatment. They can also be used for targeted delivery of the chemotherapy drug or radioactive isotope.

Yes, some cancers only have the one defined treatment regimen so the choice, in that case, is reduced to treat or not. But what about when it is an either/or choice? Using the immunological therapies means you can use less chemo because the effect is enhanced. Doctors are humans too. They have emotions and preferences and personal experience to bias them as well as support them.

Jimoslimos wrote: »

You do know Herceptin is cardiotoxic, so not completely risk free. Plus does the extra radiation dose from PET (especially PET-CT) not concern you? There's is a balance between risk and efficacy for all treatments, the best person to present and judge on those is the physician - not an (understandably) hysterical mother.

Yes I know herceptin isn't risk free. But look at how it has changed the stats for HER2 positive breast cancers. Yes there is extra risk with a PET scan but how does that compare with a chemo drug that's a carcinogen itself?
Physicians are trained to make these decisions and make them weekly and people survive thanks to them. I do not deny that. Thankfully the Irish system has followed others and is making use of multi disciplinary meetings to discuss therapies.
But physicians are humans. All humans are vulnerable to bias and error from time to time. I wouldn't do major work on my car or house based on one professionals opinion without reading up on it myself. My body gets the same respect.

le la rat · 08-12-2012 02:41AM

I had chemo when younger ( i was 10) 18 years ago. I was goosed for 8 months basically couldn't get out of bed, sick, throat infections low blood count platlets ect. Out of the 6 who had my type of cancer an osteo sar coma in femur 3 died 3 of us didn't. It was brutal but it worked for me. Its a ****ty spot but for me if it happens again (touch wood ect) I would be putting my faith in doctors and whatever course of action they deem neccessary. Gl to them whatever way they go

partyatmygaff · 08-12-2012 02:44AM

MUSEIST wrote: »

Everything is a poison, literally everything. It's the dose thats important. Chemotherapy is highly cytotoxic so it has many side effects but in reality it's extremely effective for certain types of cancer. Do you refuse all medical help like antibiotics and pain medication which are also poisons?

They're not the same kind of poison. Antibiotics/Painkillers are usually only poisons when they're used incorrectly. Cytotoxic drugs on the other hand are designed to be poisonous. That's key to their activity. Their objective is to kill cells and preferably (But not essentially) only the right kind of cells. It's very understandable that people would be apprehensive about ingesting poison or having someone inject them with poison.

Jumboman wrote: »

Doctors are in the pockets of the drug companies you have to take what they say with a large grain of salt.

Unlike the experts on Youtube who are always right.

While we're at it. Instead of spouting random nonsense, please explain how exactly doctors benefit from prescribing expensive medicines? Real examples please.

Somehow, just somehow, I don't think doctors working in the public healthcare system would want the HSE spending even more money than they are. The more money they spend on drugs, the less money they'll have to spend on staff and other resources.

The reason many of these alternative cancer treatments have not taken off is because there is not much money to be made off them.

I think the actual reason they haven't taken off is because they're no better than placebo and divert the patient away from treatments that have proven and substantiable efficacy.

I find it very strange people have so much respect for doctors people dont seem to realise how corrupt they can be.

And I find it very strange that you put all your trust in ridiculous and nonsensical Youtube videos with titles like "Why doctors are more dangerous than guns".

Jimoslimos · 08-12-2012 03:26AM

Dingle_berry wrote: »

Yes, some cancers only have the one defined treatment regimen so the choice, in that case, is reduced to treat or not. But what about when it is an either/or choice? Using the immunological therapies means you can use less chemo because the effect is enhanced.

The use of various immunological techniques, including antibodies, isn't as simple as you might like to make out. First of all is the difficulty in targeting cell surface receptors that are unique to the cancer, since many of these will also be expressed on normal non-cancerous cells. Delivery to the correct location is also a problem, as is clearance time. Don't get me wrong, immunotherapy has great potential but people shouldn't assume that it is inherently safer or more effective than current treatments. If you have any doubt look up TGN1412, a monoclonal antibody developed for the treatment of B-cell leukaemia.

Dingle_berry wrote: »

Yes I know herceptin isn't risk free. But look at how it has changed the stats for HER2 positive breast cancers. Yes there is extra risk with a PET scan but how does that compare with a chemo drug that's a carcinogen itself?

Oh I agree Herceptin has been a great success, and PET too. PET has enormous potential - not simply as a diagnostic tool but in predicting efficacy and potential toxicity issues related to the biodistribution of the treatment. There are a number of immunoPET trials ongoing with various radiolabelled antibodies, including Herceptin.

However just because one type of cancer responds well to immunotherapy doesn't mean all will, even those affecting the same tissue/organs.

Dingle_berry wrote: »

Physicians are trained to make these decisions and make them weekly and people survive thanks to them. I do not deny that. Thankfully the Irish system has followed others and is making use of multi disciplinary meetings to discuss therapies.
But physicians are humans. All humans are vulnerable to bias and error from time to time. I wouldn't do major work on my car or house based on one professionals opinion without reading up on it myself. My body gets the same respect.

As are you, and probably more biased considering the treatment will directly affect you. The doctor has the advantage of years of training, experience and professional regulations. They are often in a far better position to judge risk than yourself, since most people are incapable of that. By all means educate yourself and ask questions, which any proper doctor should answer honestly - even if they aren't answers you want to hear.

Dingle_berry · 08-12-2012 04:04AM

Jimoslimos wrote: »

The use of various immunological techniques, including antibodies, isn't as simple as you might like to make out. First of all is the difficulty in targeting cell surface receptors that are unique to the cancer, since many of these will also be expressed on normal non-cancerous cells. Delivery to the correct location is also a problem, as is clearance time. Don't get me wrong, immunotherapy has great potential but people shouldn't assume that it is inherently safer or more effective than current treatments. If you have any doubt look up TGN1412, a monoclonal antibody developed for the treatment of B-cell leukaemia.

all those difficulties are true. But they wouldn't be an issue for a doctor and patient discussing therapies. Any therapy available would at least be in the human testing phase. They are issues for pharmaceutical companies and is why they cost a fortune. There is a window after a new therapy has been licensed where the drug companies are trying to convince clinicians to try their new therapy. Possibly also while the clinicians beg for the therapy to be made available on drug payment schemes. By researching different therapy options I would hope to find something possibly better (improved survival, less sequelae) but the power to prescribe rests solely with the clinician, not me.

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Oh I agree Herceptin has been a great success, and PET too. PET has enormous potential - not simply as a diagnostic tool but in predicting efficacy and potential toxicity issues related to the biodistribution of the treatment. There are a number of immunoPET trials ongoing with various radiolabelled antibodies, including Herceptin.

However just because one type of cancer responds well to immunotherapy doesn't mean all will, even those affecting the same tissue/organs.

Yes - immuno therapies are very very specific. One of the reasons hospitals do a labour intensive, expensive, additional test before prescribing herceptin. It will only work if the tumour is over expressing the HER2 protein. But what do you do when the diagnostic biopsy was her2 negative but the sentinel node metastes are her2 positive? Or vice versa? Were your positive nodes even re tested?
What if a hospital in Dublin is doing a clinical trial for a new melanoma drug but your doctor in limerick doesn't get on with the guy in Dublin or assumes you'd have no interest in the trial or that the trial isn't worth it?

Jimoslimos wrote: »

As are you, and probably more biased considering the treatment will directly affect you. The doctor has the advantage of years of training, experience and professional regulations. They are often in a far better position to judge risk than yourself, since most people are incapable of that. By all means educate yourself and ask questions, which any proper doctor should answer honestly - even if they aren't answers you want to hear.

Of course I'd be biased. That's obvious. But what about the bias of the clinician? They are not computers who calculate odds based purely on stats, they are human too. Too much trust in clinicians doing what is best for the patient is not good. It allowed "dr" neary to do what he did. It allowed a man to die from melanoma that had been diagnosed but not fully excised. Look at psychiatry in Ireland!

The point I'm trying to make is that the mother in the news story is right to question the therapy offered. That resulted in her having fears that evidently weren't addressed by the clinicians. she found that not every consultant automatically irradiates their patients brains. She found someone who had survived a similar situation without the radiation. Would you really just say ok, you know what you're talking about those other doctors must be wrong to do that, give me the radio?

Jimoslimos · 08-12-2012 08:21AM

Dingle_berry wrote: »

all those difficulties are true. But they wouldn't be an issue for a doctor and patient discussing therapies. Any therapy available would at least be in the human testing phase. They are issues for pharmaceutical companies and is why they cost a fortune. There is a window after a new therapy has been licensed where the drug companies are trying to convince clinicians to try their new therapy. Possibly also while the clinicians beg for the therapy to be made available on drug payment schemes. By researching different therapy options I would hope to find something possibly better (improved survival, less sequelae) but the power to prescribe rests solely with the clinician, not me.

One of the advantages of our health system is that pharmaceutical companies cannot market directly to the public. For good reason too. You might believe you've found a promising new treatment but the doctor is far far better qualified to see past misleading clinical trial data.

Dingle_berry wrote: »

Yes - immuno therapies are very very specific. One of the reasons hospitals do a labour intensive, expensive, additional test before prescribing herceptin. It will only work if the tumour is over expressing the HER2 protein. But what do you do when the diagnostic biopsy was her2 negative but the sentinel node metastes are her2 positive? Or vice versa? Were your positive nodes even re tested?
What if a hospital in Dublin is doing a clinical trial for a new melanoma drug but your doctor in limerick doesn't get on with the guy in Dublin or assumes you'd have no interest in the trial or that the trial isn't worth it?

For good reason too, Herceptin isn't something you prescribe on a hunch
1) It has side effects
2) It is expensive (yep, cost does play a role, like or not)

Yes, it would be wonderful if countless biopsies could be taken but our health system is limited. Administering Herceptin to a patient with marginal benefits effectively deprives someone who might need it more.

Funny you mentioned clinical trials, since if you were enrolled it would most likely be double-blind and neither you nor your doctor would know what treatment you were receiving.

Dingle_berry wrote: »

Of course I'd be biased. That's obvious. But what about the bias of the clinician? They are not computers who calculate odds based purely on stats, they are human too. Too much trust in clinicians doing what is best for the patient is not good. It allowed "dr" neary to do what he did. It allowed a man to die from melanoma that had been diagnosed but not fully excised. Look at psychiatry in Ireland!

I'm not saying clinicians are incapable of bias, mistakes or downright misconduct - they are. However the vast majority are far better placed than you or I to make critical medical decisions. Your window of experience for a particular illness is usually a few months, whereas a consultant has several years - they've seen therapies come and go, they have the relevant data. They are ar more likely to be a better judge than someone newly diagnosed with cancer.

I'm all for patients being informed on their treatments, however the internet is not the place to obtain that information.

Dingle_berry wrote: »

The point I'm trying to make is that the mother in the news story is right to question the therapy offered. That resulted in her having fears that evidently weren't addressed by the clinicians. she found that not every consultant automatically irradiates their patients brains. She found someone who had survived a similar situation without the radiation. Would you really just say ok, you know what you're talking about those other doctors must be wrong to do that, give me the radio?

She's right to question and demand a reasonable justification for the treatment. I'd also argue she is entitled to a second opinion. She was not, however justified in her over-the-top hysterical reaction. She put her own prejudices above the safety of her child - even if she thought the opposite.

Dingle_berry · 08-12-2012 10:15AM

Jimoslimos wrote: »

For good reason too, Herceptin isn't something you prescribe on a hunch
1) It has side effects
2) It is expensive (yep, cost does play a role, like or not)

Yes, it would be wonderful if countless biopsies could be taken but our health system is limited. Administering Herceptin to a patient with marginal benefits effectively deprives someone who might need it more.

I wasn't advocating prescribing herceptin on a hunch. I was trying to use it to illustrate a point.

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Funny you mentioned clinical trials, since if you were enrolled it would most likely be double-blind and neither you nor your doctor would know what treatment you were receiving.

Unless its an advanced clinical trial where the therapy is known to be effective and the placebo group is cancelled or people are put in a known treatment group parallel to the blind trial. I've seen it happen.

Jimoslimos wrote: »

I'm not saying clinicians are incapable of bias, mistakes or downright misconduct - they are. However the vast majority are far better placed than you or I to make critical medical decisions. Your window of experience for a particular illness is usually a few months, whereas a consultant has several years - they've seen therapies come and go, they have the relevant data. They are ar more likely to be a better judge than someone newly diagnosed with cancer.

I'm all for patients being informed on their treatments, however the internet is not the place to obtain that information.

Yes the do have experience on their side, but that experience can impact negatively on an individual patient just as it can be positive.
How would you decide wether your clinician is one of the few not offering the best treatment or not? If you said you wanted to discuss the treatment but were instead hit with a court summons what would you do?

Jimoslimos wrote: »

She's right to question and demand a reasonable justification for the treatment. I'd also argue she is entitled to a second opinion. She was not, however justified in her over-the-top hysterical reaction. She put her own prejudices above the safety of her child - even if she thought the opposite.

Again, if you were told to present your child for treatment before a second opinion could be provided or discussed what would you do? Let it happen and investigate after? I'm all for the doctors being more pro active and intervening to save a child. But it's their job to provide fully informed consent through a discussion with the patient and/or next of Kin. They shouldn't go to the courts to have the child placed in care and treated before the patient feels fully informed. Even in cases of neo natal transfusions for children of Jehovah's witnesses second opinions are sought and presented

Kidchameleon · 08-12-2012 10:24AM

It should be noted that the mom is hot

Wibbs · 08-12-2012 10:53AM

partyatmygaff wrote: »

While we're at it. Instead of spouting random nonsense, please explain how exactly doctors benefit from prescribing expensive medicines? Real examples please.

Somehow, just somehow, I don't think doctors working in the public healthcare system would want the HSE spending even more money than they are. The more money they spend on drugs, the less money they'll have to spend on staff and other resources.

+1 More to the point pretty much every doctor out there has had someone close to them die of cancer, if there was some super sekrit cure they'd be among the first to sing it's praises.

smash · 08-12-2012 11:00AM

She'll regret that decision later in life

08-12-2012 11:16AM

The second article changes everything.
He recovered from his brain tumour, it was removed. They said radiotherapy anyway and talked about "frying his brain" because it was standard. She brought him to another medical facility for a different treatment. Then they took away her son and found he was fine. Imagine doing that radiotherapy to the poor child who doesn't need it and might f*ck up his life "just because". And taking the child from her! That's awful. He was shown to be FINE.

Jimoslimos · 08-12-2012 06:11PM

bluewolf wrote: »

The second article changes everything.
He recovered from his brain tumour, it was removed. They said radiotherapy anyway and talked about "frying his brain" because it was standard. She brought him to another medical facility for a different treatment. Then they took away her son and found he was fine. Imagine doing that radiotherapy to the poor child who doesn't need it and might f*ck up his life "just because". And taking the child from her! That's awful. He was shown to be FINE.

The tumour was removed, that doesn't neccesarily mean the cancer was gone. It has been shown that post-operative radiotherapy administered soon after surgery to be effective in increasing survival rates. It doesn't work as well if you wait for the metastatic disease to become detectable.

The Big Red Button · 08-12-2012 06:53PM

The title of this thread and the first post really need to be updated.

The majority of replies in this thread relate to the use of chemotherapy, whereas the mother's objection is to the use of radiation therapy. Two completely different treatments!

Capt'n Midnight · 08-12-2012 10:35PM

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

other medical treatments or crystals and diluted water?

Look at Steve, Jobs tried that voodoo stuff for nine months before getting real medicine though he didn't get chemo or radio after treatment ( don't know if it was recommended or not )

He was worth $8.3Bn and probably had a higher IQ than yer one.

you can't beat cancer with wishful thinking
if you let it get too far all the money in world won't help

and more importantly if it isn't all removed, including areas too small to see, then it may return later

does anyone know how it would save our health services if everyone got a health check once a year ?

jaffacakesyum · 08-12-2012 11:48PM

Jimoslimos wrote: »

The tumour was removed, that doesn't neccesarily mean the cancer was gone. It has been shown that post-operative radiotherapy administered soon after surgery to be effective in increasing survival rates. It doesn't work as well if you wait for the metastatic disease to become detectable.

+1

Not only does it not work as well, it may not work at all if you send someone on their way having thought to have removed all the tumour, and then the cancer comes back and it's too late. Why people would take this risk I do not know. The risk of side effects FAR outweighs the risk of death

Zillah · 09-12-2012 12:02AM

bluewolf wrote: »

The second article changes everything.
He recovered from his brain tumour, it was removed. They said radiotherapy anyway and talked about "frying his brain" because it was standard. She brought him to another medical facility for a different treatment. Then they took away her son and found he was fine. Imagine doing that radiotherapy to the poor child who doesn't need it and might f*ck up his life "just because". And taking the child from her! That's awful. He was shown to be FINE.

Cancer has a tendency to return, and to remain undetectable until it does so. Secondary therapies after a surgery are designed to be the killing blow to any rogue traces that might remain. Failing to do so could result in the cancer coming back and then any treatments would be far less likely to succeed. The "fry his brain" comment seems very strange but one doctor's poor bedside manner doesn't change the facts.

09-12-2012 01:25AM

Zillah wrote: »

Cancer has a tendency to return, and to remain undetectable until it does so. Secondary therapies after a surgery are designed to be the killing blow to any rogue traces that might remain. Failing to do so could result in the cancer coming back and then any treatments would be far less likely to succeed. The "fry his brain" comment seems very strange but one doctor's poor bedside manner doesn't change the facts.

How is she supposed to know the facts when a doctor is saying "let's fry all of his brain, btw he's fine otherwise"? I'm not against treatment or anything, but I think it's understandable where she was coming from and all

Zillah · 09-12-2012 03:28AM

bluewolf wrote: »

How is she supposed to know the facts when a doctor is saying "let's fry all of his brain, btw he's fine otherwise"? I'm not against treatment or anything, but I think it's understandable where she was coming from and all

To be honest we haven't a clue how that conversation went.

Woman refuses child chemo due to side effects

Comments