Three out of Four Docs would Refuse Chemotherapy

[liveonearth]

That's right. According to this oncologist 75% of docs would prefer "alternative" treatments to the destruction of chemotherapy and radiation. And yet here in America, if you choose to refuse chemo for your child, the courts may well decide to take your child away from you and force chemo on him against his wishes. How messed up is that? Our courts are definitely in way over their heads when they start forcing medical care on children and calling parents criminals when they decide to do something other than what their doctor recommends.

If I had cancer, personally who would give all my attention and energy to alternative therapies and forgo chemo UNLESS I had new information and a compelling reason to be it would be effective for a particular cancer. There are situations that are more and less responsive to chemo. And there are things you can do to minimize the horrible side effects. So I still am unwilling to say that the dosing to toxic chemicals to kill dividing cells should be trashed. There are times when it could be useful. Even though it sounds stupid and wrong.

Comments

[d2leddy.livejournal.com]

It's important to perpetuate the cancer-economic engine. Careers and retirements rely on it, ya know.

[liveonearth.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I know. I hear different estimations as to what % of our population works in the healthcare "industry", something like 7-12%. And that doesn't count those who work for the insurance racket. From the looks of things Obama's revisions probably won't pull the rug out from under all those who live on cancer treatment moneys...but maybe we can at least educate the populace (and the courts!) that we have a right to refuse any given medical treatment whether the reason be religious or not, and furthermore we have a right to decide what treatments to use for our own children, even if the machine disagrees, and even if we or our kids die as a result. Certainly plenty of people die as a result of chemo.