Pseudoscience/sham cancer treatments

[McQ]

I just saw something on the Today show that broke my heart. An American 16-year old boy (with apparently the same type of cancer as my son), has opted to stop his chemo and go to Mexico to a special clinic for all-natural herbal treatment of his lymphoma.

This is tough, because while I am for the right of the individual to choose his own destiny, including medical treatment, I'm against the obvious fallacy of these sham treatments and those who practice them. The US Government, naturally, has gotten involved and is trying to force the boy to undergo chemo (he already had three cycles and it made him sick and weak, thus his decision to do herbs). His parents support his decision because they all visited "the clinic" and were inpressed by the people there who claimed to have been healed by this. Don't get me started on that! These clinics have been known to employ "plants" to give sob stories in support of them to entice people to join.

Anyway, here is a kid who has an excellent chance to live a long life by going back to chemo and/or radiation, even though it will make him wiped out for six months or so, and chooses a method proven to be a sham, but because of anecdotal stories, goes with it. There's more to it, but the parent's  and the boy's arguments for it are so weak that it's sad. They just don't know any better, but no one is telling them.

Ann Curry, who did the interview, tried to point out that all the studies have shown the herbal treatment to NOT work, and that traditional chemo CURES 85% of patients with this lymphoma. They just argued that they had been to the clinic and talked to people who had been healed, so that was good enough for them.

It's their right, and the government shouldn't have a say, but it's so tragic. This kid will die, and he doesn't need to.

[Squid]

That's terrible.  I've always found it odd how many people will take pseudoscience based on such things as anecdotes but will demand great rigor from actual science to "prove" itself.

[Whitney]

Best wishes for your son's full and quick recovery.

The situation with that boy from the Today show is heart breaking.  It's really sad that people will take advantage of those in need by offering false hope of an easier solution.  Hopefully the boy and his parents will realize that it's a scam before his health or life is compromised.

[Big Mac]

That's terrible.  I've always found it odd how many people will take pseudoscience based on such things as anecdotes but will demand great rigor from actual science to "prove" itself.

Because Science, like Reality, is not as great at sensationalism as Fantasy/Psuedoscience. While science is reserved like a PBS documentary, psueod-science is like an Oprah segment: sensationalism. People don't like to be bored. Even if it means throwing their life away needlessly.

I think they should outright ban Herbal Medicine. It doesn't work. And just because Native Americans use to do it doesn't make it a valid reason. I wonder if they realize people lie to get money? I feel real bad for this kid. Having been said before, modern medicine can help him conquer his ailment, holistic medicines or whatever are a crock of shit.

[MommaSquid]

I saw the Cherrix family on Fox News Channel last night, and their story is tragic.  Not only do they have a sick child, but because they seek alternative medical treatments they may lose custody of the boy.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,203133,00.html

If Abraham Cherrix were 18 none of this would have made the news.  But because he is still a minor, the state of Virginia is sticking its collective nose into what should be a private matter.

I doubt that I would be strong enough to go through multiple rounds of chemotherapy, so I understand why they want to try a less disruptive herbal treatment.  

It's a very sad situation.

[Big Mac]

Yes but none the less Herbal Medicine is a sham. It's worse than chemo. Sure chemo takes it toll on a patient, and I hope I NEVER have to go through with it but if it came down to it: I'd rather have that than throw my life away taking ginseng or some crap. They're letting their child die, that's disgusting. A parent should help their children, regardless of how painful it might be if it allows them to survive.

[Jassman]

A parent should help their children, regardless of how painful it might be if it allows them to survive.

I don't think they know that they are diminishing their son's chance of survival. If only we didn't have any of the media supporting this kind of thing by giving stupid people a chance to broadcast things like "the doctors and pharmaceutical companies don't want you to know about herbal medicine because they would lose money!" and other unsupported bullshit claims.

[McQ]

BigMac and Jassman. Good points. And Jassman, that Kevin Trudeau ought to be in jail...again. For good this time.

[Big Mac]

I love that South Park with Miss Information: "Western medicine is so quick to cut and remove when it takes merely the right herbs!" "Thanks Miss Information!"

or the one part "Stanly, Native Americans were raped of their land and brutalized!" "And that has what to do with their medical abilities?"

To me if you manipulate people who are dying or on their last leg, something is wrong with you. I could never take advantage of someone in that condition. No offense if anyone is from Cali but dammit we just need to nuke that state, nothing good has come out of it. I'm assuming Herbal Medicine had a huge boom there because anything that is for Hippies thrives there.

[Amor Fati]

Question: is the state ever justified in removing custody in a case like this?  

And if not in this case, what about if the teenager was younger? or if there was a 100% success rate with proper but still painfull treatment?  

Does the state have the obligation to protect children from incompetent parents?  In a case where the father was continually raping his child, my guess would be that everyone, even the most diehard libertarian, would say yes.  But rape isn't usually lethal, cancer is.  So if the actions of the raping Dad warrant state removal because of the harm it causes, why wouldn't it also be justified here? Maybe even more justified than the raping father?

[McQ]

Question: is the state ever justified in removing custody in a case like this?  

And if not in this case, what about if the teenager was younger? or if there was a 100% success rate with proper but still painfull treatment?  

Does the state have the obligation to protect children from incompetent parents?  In a case where the father was continually raping his child, my guess would be that everyone, even the most diehard libertarian, would say yes.  But rape isn't usually lethal, cancer is.  So if the actions of the raping Dad warrant state removal because of the harm it causes, why wouldn't it also be justified here? Maybe even more justified than the raping father?

You've brought up a very important and difficult topic. There is just no easy answer, is there? This is such a huge issue for debate. Lots of gray areas. I wish I had a solid opinion on it, but I don't. My immediate answer is that the state (and by that I'm assuming we're both talking about "the government") has no right to butt in, but your examples make it hard to say that. It's a really touchy area, for certain. I don't know if I'll ever figure it out.

It's very hard for me because I'm dealing with my own son, who is of age to refuse further treatment for his cancer, if he chooses. That would be incerdibly difficult to deal with if he chose that option.

My mother chose to stop treatment for peritoneal cancer after three cycles of chemo. Her case was incurable, and she felt that the benefit of an extra few months of life weren't worth it, if she was going to be so sick the whole time. It was tough for us to hear her make the decision, but we understood why. With a child, it's much more difficult.

[Jassman]

Does the state have the obligation to protect children from incompetent parents?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the kid want alternative medicine instead of chemo as well?

What about his right to make his own decisions regarding his life? He's 16 years old -- easily mature enough to make his own life decisions. The focus should be on educating him about the dangers of his decision, not about forcing him to accept the government preferred method.

More "We suggest you reconsider. Here's why." and less "What the hell are you doing? You're getting more chemotherapy whether you like it or not!"

[Amor Fati]

Yeah it's definitely a gray area.  I understand and have no problem at all with adults that chose to end their own pain, though I honestly have trouble imagining that level of suffering since I've only seen it in others.

 As you said, with a child it's more complex, especially since those boundaries between childhood and adulthood are being pushed younger by teenagers being tried as adults for capital crimes.  Presumably, children aren't fully responsible for their actions because they have yet to reach some mental threshold for adult rationality.  So we protect them from entering into legal contracts with credit card companties, from police interrogation, and a whole host of things that adults are responsible for (and think of compulsory education).  These protections seem pretty obvious, but a lot of people become squeamish when it comes to issues of parental rights and custody.  I dunno, just a thought.


Edit:  Theoretically, age shouldn't matter at all, though it does in our laws.  Imagine if a 30 year old with severe autism refuses painfull yet successfull treatment.  Since our laws require specific boundaries these issues of legal and moral responsibility are almost impossible to resolve, and the effect of the polarizing nature of politics.

[Jassman]

I think it is ridiculous to think that all of a sudden someone magically turns into an adult on their eighteenth birthday. Biologically, every human is an adult at a much younger age...

There may not be too much of a problem with signing contracts regarding credit cards and all of that other icing on the cake that comes with being a "legal adult" but it is utterly insane to deprive a 16 year old the right to make his/her own decisions.

Edit:  Theoretically, age shouldn't matter at all, though it does in our laws.  Imagine if a 30 year old with severe autism refuses painfull yet successfull treatment.  Since our laws require specific boundaries these issues of legal and moral responsibility are almost impossible to resolve, and the effect of the polarizing nature of politics.

You are right about that. Perhaps people should have to take an aptitude test to obtain adult rights? Then if you are a particularly mature 15 year old, you could be considered an adult upon passing the exam?

[Amor Fati]

I think it is ridiculous to think that all of a sudden someone magically turns into an adult on their eighteenth birthday. Biologically, every human is an adult at a much younger age...

There may not be too much of a problem with not allowing them to sign contracts regarding credit cards and all of that other icing on the cake that comes with being a "legal adult" but it is utterly insane to deprive a 16 year old the right to make his/her own decisions.

You're right that there is no moment in time when a child becomes an adult, but the age of reason happens, presumably, sometime in the late teens.  

So, according to your reasoning, the state should protect teens from getting bad credit but not from making a bad (provably bad) medical decision?  Is this what you mean?