Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
"you're Killing My Son"
21 Answers
Heads up for those interested;
Documentary on C4 tonight,9pm.
This sounds like it might be an interesting documentary about the case last year of the mother who went into hiding with her son,not wanting him to receive radiotherapy treatment for a brain tumour.
She favoured more natural treatments. Case went to court, she was over-ruled, and her son received the radiotherapy.
http://
Documentary on C4 tonight,9pm.
This sounds like it might be an interesting documentary about the case last year of the mother who went into hiding with her son,not wanting him to receive radiotherapy treatment for a brain tumour.
She favoured more natural treatments. Case went to court, she was over-ruled, and her son received the radiotherapy.
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by LazyGun. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I thought it an interesting documentary. I do hope the young lad gets through his radiotherapy and chemo treatments and comes out the other side effectively tumour-free, without too much impairment.
For me, it was worrying, the extent to which the mother had rejected medicine, calling doctors brainwashed and largely uncaring, whilst embracing complimentary and alternative therapies. She kep going on about the research she had done, and I wanted to point out to her that research usually consists of a lot more than reading about something or having an alternative practitioner tell you about it. And her hesitancy when getting her son the radiotherapy was also painful to watch.
And the alternative practitioners, especially the one banging on and on about hyperbaric oxygen therapy, and the other one warbling about EM fields! This is why most practitioners of such therapies should a/ come with a government health warning, and b/ Need to be registered and insured for public liability.
It was difficult to conclude the mother was rather in love with the camera and the publicity, and making the whole thing a civil liberty issue was also pretty disturbing.Overall, I am rather glad the NHS and the courts acted as they did, and that the father has custody of the young lad right now.
For me, it was worrying, the extent to which the mother had rejected medicine, calling doctors brainwashed and largely uncaring, whilst embracing complimentary and alternative therapies. She kep going on about the research she had done, and I wanted to point out to her that research usually consists of a lot more than reading about something or having an alternative practitioner tell you about it. And her hesitancy when getting her son the radiotherapy was also painful to watch.
And the alternative practitioners, especially the one banging on and on about hyperbaric oxygen therapy, and the other one warbling about EM fields! This is why most practitioners of such therapies should a/ come with a government health warning, and b/ Need to be registered and insured for public liability.
It was difficult to conclude the mother was rather in love with the camera and the publicity, and making the whole thing a civil liberty issue was also pretty disturbing.Overall, I am rather glad the NHS and the courts acted as they did, and that the father has custody of the young lad right now.
I mostly agree with you. But I also thought the father was a drip and I'm not convinced by him either. And this business about seperating the twins is not to the benefit of the children, and what good exactly are they doing for the daughter sending her to live with the loopy mum for extended periods? Ridiculous. Both of them want a large boot up the jacksy at the very least.
I also thought there was something of a gap towards the latter part of the documentry - like something was not quite 'filled in' so to speak and I believe that there is much more to the story than could be told. Especially about dad who seemed exceptionally crap at showing any authority/responsibility towards mum on behalf of their child - as evidenced by the scene when she is trying to take him back to that stupid therpaist for oxygen and Neo clearly doesn't want to go and with father actually still indulging and giving Neo the ridiculous amount of supplements.
I also thought there was something of a gap towards the latter part of the documentry - like something was not quite 'filled in' so to speak and I believe that there is much more to the story than could be told. Especially about dad who seemed exceptionally crap at showing any authority/responsibility towards mum on behalf of their child - as evidenced by the scene when she is trying to take him back to that stupid therpaist for oxygen and Neo clearly doesn't want to go and with father actually still indulging and giving Neo the ridiculous amount of supplements.
Why should the debate depend on the outcome? Even the conventional treatment had a probability label attached to it, something like 80% chance of recovery (figure is off top of my head, but it wasn't 100% which is the main point), so that there was always the risk that this poor boy would die of the cancer despite treatment. Despite this, the radiotherapy is surely more likely to cure the boy than any of the alternative "therapies" the mother was advocating. That assessment doesn't appear to me to change regardless of whether or not the boy does die of cancer -- an outcome that would have been even more likely had he been "treated" the way the mother wanted.
@Sqad Thanks for the clarification :)
@CD Its interesting how people can see others so differently. I rather liked the father as portrayed in this documentary. He appeared to be genuinely finding some kind of amicable position with his ex-wife, treading a fine line in treating with his wife over what was important - ensuring the boy got timely radiotherapy, and that he was not pressured by his Mum to attend another hyperbaric oxygen chamber session - and conceding to the Mum over unimportant stuff; the various complimentary "remedies" she was keen for him to take.
It is obviously an extremely artificial situation, with the cameras and a documentary team being there - people will respond differently, and of course their is then the editing that has taken place - but that apart, I thought the Dad came across pretty well.
The real losers were the alternative therapy "advisors", and their weird ideas, IMO.
@CD Its interesting how people can see others so differently. I rather liked the father as portrayed in this documentary. He appeared to be genuinely finding some kind of amicable position with his ex-wife, treading a fine line in treating with his wife over what was important - ensuring the boy got timely radiotherapy, and that he was not pressured by his Mum to attend another hyperbaric oxygen chamber session - and conceding to the Mum over unimportant stuff; the various complimentary "remedies" she was keen for him to take.
It is obviously an extremely artificial situation, with the cameras and a documentary team being there - people will respond differently, and of course their is then the editing that has taken place - but that apart, I thought the Dad came across pretty well.
The real losers were the alternative therapy "advisors", and their weird ideas, IMO.
Also I think in terms of different opinions, it depends where you mind set is I guess, I work purely in paediatrics and within that I'm child safeguarding and this is a child safeguarding case from the point of view of mum not engaging with treatments. With that head on I don't think dad was protecting his son or daughter from their loopy mother enough, especially the daughter who had to go and stay with mum so that all the focus could be on Neo.
Really, really tricky case.
So yeah, I'm sticking with dads a drip :c)
Really, really tricky case.
So yeah, I'm sticking with dads a drip :c)
Putting aside the fact the OP has used this post as a platform for his well-known disdain of any alternative therapy, the programme did show how anything taken to extremes, is a very negative thing. The programme was, as expected, artificial and biased. For me it was not a revelation that alternative therapies are at best useless at worst dangerous, it proved that these alternative therapies are wrongly named -they should be Complimentary medicines and as such only allowed to be administered by people who have a recognised medical qualification ( ie not some fake degree in oxygenation ) and practitioners should be answerable to a formal organisation on the same lines as BACP or BMA. The mother was wrong to try and refuse treatment for her son, hopefully he will recover and his father grow a set...
@TheMorrigan Thanks for putting aside "the well known disdain of the OP" by mentioning it at all. Well done.
How was the programme "artificial and biased"? Did it fail to give the mother a platform to air her nonsense views or not? Did it give the ridiculous Scotson woman time to air her gibberish about the nature of cancer, or the fact that both her and the mother were in denial that it was cancer at all to start with?
What evidence was shown - what evidence is there, in fact = to show that a hyperbaric chamber, or mistletoe extract or anyone of the other suggested remedies - actually has even a complimentary effect? Err- none.
The mother had drunk deeply of the CAM cool-aid. Witness her stupid allegation about Doctors, lack of care, and brainwashed by big pharma rant in the car. She was so convinced that her "research" into CAM showed genuine alternatives that she was willing to compromise her childs life.
So they should not even be labelled complimentary therapies unless they have robust clinical evidence to support them. About the only thing we can agree on is that practitioners of CAM should most definitely registered and have to abide by a code of practice.The problem is that, to date, the registered bodies have proven to be not particularly efficient at disciplining their own practitioners who contravene their own codes of practice. Examples of that can be found in various ASA rulings against homeopaths and the Society of Homeopathy, and rulings against the Royal Homeopathic Hospital, as well as judgements against individual chiropractors and their regulatory body.
How was the programme "artificial and biased"? Did it fail to give the mother a platform to air her nonsense views or not? Did it give the ridiculous Scotson woman time to air her gibberish about the nature of cancer, or the fact that both her and the mother were in denial that it was cancer at all to start with?
What evidence was shown - what evidence is there, in fact = to show that a hyperbaric chamber, or mistletoe extract or anyone of the other suggested remedies - actually has even a complimentary effect? Err- none.
The mother had drunk deeply of the CAM cool-aid. Witness her stupid allegation about Doctors, lack of care, and brainwashed by big pharma rant in the car. She was so convinced that her "research" into CAM showed genuine alternatives that she was willing to compromise her childs life.
So they should not even be labelled complimentary therapies unless they have robust clinical evidence to support them. About the only thing we can agree on is that practitioners of CAM should most definitely registered and have to abide by a code of practice.The problem is that, to date, the registered bodies have proven to be not particularly efficient at disciplining their own practitioners who contravene their own codes of practice. Examples of that can be found in various ASA rulings against homeopaths and the Society of Homeopathy, and rulings against the Royal Homeopathic Hospital, as well as judgements against individual chiropractors and their regulatory body.
There is no bias. Complementary medicine is treated exactly the same way as all other medicine. Subject to certain standards of experimental evidence before it is accepted as a viable treatment. Since most alternative therapies (including homeopathy and all of the alternatives explored by this mother) fall far short of those standards, they should be treated with disdain indeed whenever someone continues to claim that they work or are viable. They do not work, beyond a placebo effect, and they are not viable.
lazygun -you feel the need to have evidence that all therapies work -well find me evidence they don't work. Some of these therapies are stupid I agree but you can't and shouldn't put them all into the same boat. Any regulation is better than none -but as you so eloquently argue the fact these therapies are useless then why would there be a need to regulate? If people want to sit in an oxygen tent or take miniscule amounts of what you describe as water , then thats their choice -if it doesn't work they will not spend anymore time or money on it -if it does -for whatever reason including placebo effect -well they got what they paid for. The problem arises when Adults make decisions for children contrary to what a medical doctor has prescribed and in this case the Court was right to over-rule her decision.
@TheMorrigan - Why should I have to provide evidence they do not work? The onus is always on the proponents of a particular therapy to show that it works, not the other way around.
And I can tell you right now that the evidence to support the use of a hyperbaric oxygen chamber for the treatment of cancer is ermm, none. On the other hand, were Neon suffering decompression sickness or suffering from severe carbon monoxide poisoning, that would get a big old thumbs up from me - because they have evidence to show its efficacy.
And the problem with the whackaloons prescribing these sorts of alternative therapies is that they fill the patient or patients guardian with nonsense about miracle natural cures and distrust for conventional medical treatment to such an extent that the patient refuses conventional therapy to their detriment, as was quite clearly the case here, the delay in radiotherapy after the first surgical intervention almost certainly contributing to the resurgent growth of the tumour that necessitated a second surgical intervention.
That's the danger. I have seen evidence to show both homeopaths and faith/spiritual healers who have told their prospective patients to stop the radiotherapy or to stop the chemotherapy whilst taking this alternative nonsense.
Whats the harm, you ask. That is the direct harm. And then there is the indirect harm of condoning such "harmless" CAM therapies - that it gives such therapies and self declared "healers" a quasi-legitimacy which can be exploited, rather like your favourite shop, Ainsworths did, when they were selling - and recommending to prospective travellers as a legitimate alternative to standard malarial prophylaxis - Homeopathic Malarial Tablets.
Given that malaria can sometimes be fatal, this sort of practice borders on the frankly murderous.
And I can tell you right now that the evidence to support the use of a hyperbaric oxygen chamber for the treatment of cancer is ermm, none. On the other hand, were Neon suffering decompression sickness or suffering from severe carbon monoxide poisoning, that would get a big old thumbs up from me - because they have evidence to show its efficacy.
And the problem with the whackaloons prescribing these sorts of alternative therapies is that they fill the patient or patients guardian with nonsense about miracle natural cures and distrust for conventional medical treatment to such an extent that the patient refuses conventional therapy to their detriment, as was quite clearly the case here, the delay in radiotherapy after the first surgical intervention almost certainly contributing to the resurgent growth of the tumour that necessitated a second surgical intervention.
That's the danger. I have seen evidence to show both homeopaths and faith/spiritual healers who have told their prospective patients to stop the radiotherapy or to stop the chemotherapy whilst taking this alternative nonsense.
Whats the harm, you ask. That is the direct harm. And then there is the indirect harm of condoning such "harmless" CAM therapies - that it gives such therapies and self declared "healers" a quasi-legitimacy which can be exploited, rather like your favourite shop, Ainsworths did, when they were selling - and recommending to prospective travellers as a legitimate alternative to standard malarial prophylaxis - Homeopathic Malarial Tablets.
Given that malaria can sometimes be fatal, this sort of practice borders on the frankly murderous.
"well find me evidence they don't work" -- that's precisely what all the studies LG and I keep referring to are saying -- up to placebo of course.
The "problem" is that some people do get better after taking alternative treatments, and then feel obliged to assume that it was the treatment that led to the recovery. But there are so many reasons this is likely to be a false correlation, including the fact that some people just get better anyway, and tend to seek medication at their lowest point.
Anyway, you cannot prove a negative, and so the ideas will continue as long as it seems to work on an individual level. But it's not really our job to prove anything, or find any more evidence against such therapies. The onus is - as it should always be -- on those who claim that such treatments work to back up their claims and to demonstrate them with hard, cold, solid, irrefutable evidence.
The "problem" is that some people do get better after taking alternative treatments, and then feel obliged to assume that it was the treatment that led to the recovery. But there are so many reasons this is likely to be a false correlation, including the fact that some people just get better anyway, and tend to seek medication at their lowest point.
Anyway, you cannot prove a negative, and so the ideas will continue as long as it seems to work on an individual level. But it's not really our job to prove anything, or find any more evidence against such therapies. The onus is - as it should always be -- on those who claim that such treatments work to back up their claims and to demonstrate them with hard, cold, solid, irrefutable evidence.
