The child who needs radiotherapy

A dear friend of mine, mother to two young children, developed a nasty, aggressive cancer. She had the full range of orthodox treatment, but nothing worked. She then embarked on a costly and exhausting path of 'alternative' therapy, including a £5,000 trip to America for some sort of oxygen therapy. Instead of spending her last few months enjoying her children and in some comfort, she deprived herself of enjoyable foods, turned her kitchen into something resembling a lab, and failed to come to terms with her impending death. I know she was desperate, but it was truly awful, and of course, she died anyway. I think the court is right to overrule the mother in Neon's very sad case.

The doctor may not actually have said what the mother heard.

I knew someone who had an operation for a brain tumour and he said the pain was dreadul and went on for a long time. Even morphine did not help that much.

This child has had two such operations and will now need radiotherapy.

If I was unfortunate enough to be the mother of such a child I would try to balance side effects of treatment against probable outcome. What if the child survives but is left severely brain-damaged for instance? Ot survives but only for a few months and in terrible pain?

I'm just pleased it is not me who is having to make these decisions and I don't suppose it is helping that the parents are separated and at loggerheads.

I'm feeling very sorry for Neon and his dad. Also his grandparents.
There are no "alternative" cancer treatments. There are only "complementary" treatments like massage, or ginger drinks, that make patients feel a bit less grim.
There are only "alternative" treatments for things like colds - self limiting, non-dangerous ailments. Or possibly things like allergies - they won't kill you but you might want to do something else, other than take steroids, while hoping that the allergy will get better. (No evidence that any of them work of course)
But there are no "alternatives" for cancer, diabetes, AIDS or any other serious, life threatening disease. It is a complete mis-use of the word.
I think people that advertise "alternative" treatments for these diseases should be fined very heavily and made to take their adverts and fraudulent blogs off the internet.

How sad this story is.

I can just imagine the difficult conversations between the mum and dad. It must be terrifying for them both to have their opinions at odds with one another.

I just hope the liittle lad makes a full recovery, not only for the boy and his mum and dad but for the judge too.

I certainly woukld not want to be in any of their shoes right now.

I sympathise with this mother and can understand her waryness regarding radiotherapy.

I've often thought that doctors will recommend this kind of treatment for people who really they know are not going to make it anyway.

Glad it wasn't me who had to make the decision.

Not sure how much influence over her decision the quack cure had.

I don't think we should judge anyone who has to make these kind of decisions. No mother would make such a decision on a whim. She seemed an intelligent woman who had done lots of research, not just a quick trawl through internet garbage. However I can only speculate as I don't know her. I just don't like to think of anyone in that awful position being judged by people who are not party to all the facts.

All I meant by 'sensible' was 'not stupid'. We're all entitled to our opinions. Jess.

Not sure that "sensible" is the word.
The trouble is that there are a lot of frauds (and I believe the chap she is in touch with is being accused of fraud ) who post spurious "evidence" - ie marketing material all over the internet, which is of course much more accessible and easy to read than proper evidence. It reads plausibly to those without a scientific training. And there are a lot of people who lap up this stuff and then convince themselves that there are morally superior "natural" cures for serious illnesses. Of course surgery, radiotherapy and chemo are nasty and have side effects. One day we will see them as barbaric. And they don't always work. But they are the only tried and tested ways of actually killing cancer cells. But none of the "alternative" treatments work. They are fraudulent.
We don't know what the doctor actually said in fairness.

I am eternally grateful that I was never ever put in that position.
The burden must be monumental.

I think she has lost confidence in her doctors.

I think I would cling to every possible chance that treatment could give him, whatever the outcome. I'm glad the operation is going ahead and can only hope the poor boy's condition improves.

I agree, wisewoman. She seems a sensible and caring mother, and has obviously done a lot of research and talked to the parents of other children in a similar boat.

I admire the mother for trying to find out all the facts before she makes a decision about her son's treatment. When she was interviewed she said she could find no studies which showed radiotherapy would be helpful and no doctor could direct her to these. She seemed a very loving mother who was trying to do her best for a much loved son. Many years ago before leukaemia in children was relatively treatable (as it is today) a mother in the hospital where I worked refused to allow her son to have any more blood transfusions and took him away to Blackpool for a holiday thus making his short life a little shorter but happier His whole wee life had been needles and doctors and she wanted the time he had left to be as good as it could be. She knew no cure was possible at that time. I thought a lot of her for this though many people were horrified. I think most mums will do what they think is best for their children and certainly shouldn't be pilloried for their well thought out decisions.

In Times at week-end they report the Mum has had a lot of contact with some chap (not a doctor) who reckons he can 'cure' cancer by 'alternative' means.

The doctor who told her that the boy's brain could be scrambled (or did he say 'fried'?) by the radio-therapy should be disciplined and sent for training in parent communication. It may well be true that there is a risk, but surely there is a better way of putting it and giving the mother a balanced appraisal of the risks.

I can empathise with her fears about the impact of radiotherapy on her son's brain, and I think if I was in her shoes, I would be grateful for the judge and doctors taking the decision for me.

Hard to tell whether this was because she has a tendency to reject normal medicine (like those who are against vaccines etc) or whether she was genuinely confused. When it is a life threatening condition like this, arguing the 'side effects' case does not seem to hold water. Or maybe she is just a bit, well, not together?

The child must have his treatment. Very sorry for the mother, but she doesn't own him. He is entitled to his treatment.

Hope he comes through it all well.