APNewsBreak: Girl says she knows she'll die without chemo

joko104 · Jan 14, 2015

The article is a lie as is the statement by authorities.

There is not a "cure" rate. Rather, projected "survival" rates.

"Survival" means 5 years, not a cure. "Chemo" is used for a huge array of drugs, not one drug. The function of some Chemo is to slow down the rate at which a person is dying, but at the price for which the person wishes to die because of the Chemo effects.

minnie616 · Jan 14, 2015

joko104 said:
The article is a lie as is the statement by authorities.

There is not a "cure" rate. Rather, projected "survival" rates.

"Survival" means 5 years, not a cure. "Chemo" is used for a huge array of drugs, not one drug. The function of some Chemo is to slow down the rate at which a person is dying, but at the price for which the person wishes to die because of the Chemo effects.

10 year survival rates is 80 percent.

After 10 years they consider the patient as cured.

My good friend who was in his 20s and in med school ( now a retired MD ) diagnosed himself as having Hodgkins.
He had the Chemo over 45 years ago and is now enjoying his retirement.

Here are some stats

The American Cancer Society’s estimates for Hodgkin disease in the United States for 2014 are:

About 9,190 new cases (4,120 in females and 5,070 in males)
About 1,180 deaths (510 females, 670 males) from this cancer
Hodgkin disease can occur in both children and adults. It is most common in early adulthood (ages 15 to 40, especially in a person’s 20s), where it is mostly of the nodular sclerosis subtype, and in late adulthood (after age 55), where the mixed cellularity subtype is more common. Hodgkin disease is rare in children younger than 5 years of age. About 10% to 15% of cases are diagnosed in children and teenagers.

Because of advances in treatment, survival rates have improved in the past few decades.

The 1-year relative survival rate for all patients diagnosed with Hodgkin disease is now about 92%; the 5-year and 10-year survival rates are about 85% and 80%, respectively.

Certain factors such as the stage (extent) of Hodgkin disease and a person’s age affect these rates. For more detailed survival rates based on the stage of disease, as well as a discussion of other factors that affect survival, see the section “Survival rates for Hodgkin disease by stage.”

What are the key statistics about Hodgkin disease?

Lursa · Jan 14, 2015

iguanaman said:
So you support assisted suicide on demand even when the patient has a chance for a normal life? Do you think we should set up suicide clinics for people who don't want to live anymore for whatever reason? Even for minors? I Believe in assisted suicide but for terminally ill patients only and only if they are suffering and have no hope of regaining their health. Death isn't all its cracked up to be.

It's different for minors but IMO, yeah, sure assisted suicide on demand. I think you still need to undergo counseling first and there should be a waiting period (but a week or a month, not a yr) but adults should be able to make this decision. Who are you or anyone else to say what is suffering or intolerable? Life isnt all it's cracked up to be for some people either.

If it were a legal option, maybe more people that do commit suicide for psychological reasons rather than chronic disease may change their minds. Because those are the people that go off and do it in secret and devastate their families. Maybe they would seek out a professional to get a more peaceful end and then be convinced not to do so if it didnt all have to be secret.

iguanaman · Jan 14, 2015

Lursa said:
It's different for minors but IMO, yeah, sure assisted suicide on demand. I think you still need to undergo counseling first and there should be a waiting period (but a week or a month, not a yr) but adults should be able to make this decision. Who are you or anyone else to say what is suffering or intolerable? Life isnt all it's cracked up to be for some people either.

If it were a legal option, maybe more people that do commit suicide for psychological reasons rather than chronic disease may change their minds. Because those are the people that go off and do it in secret and devastate their families. Maybe they would seek out a professional to get a more peaceful end and then be convinced not to do so if it didnt all have to be secret.

People who wish commit suicide without being terminally ill and in pain are mentally unfit by definition. To enable people to commit suicide without those conditions is barbaric. Most suicides are by the young and just because we can't prevent all is no reason to make it a business. You only get one life and throwing it away should never be an acceptable option.

Lursa · Jan 14, 2015

iguanaman said:
People who wish commit suicide without being terminally ill and in pain are mentally unfit by definition. To enable people to commit suicide without those conditions is barbaric. Most suicides are by the young and just because we can't prevent all is no reason to make it a business. You only get one life and throwing it away should never be an acceptable option.

No they're not. Not all. And even if they are, if it is prolonged and causes them great emotional pain...let them.

And again, minors would still not be able to do so.

How is it a business anymore than regular medical or psychiatric care? They unfortunately already have undesirable aspects in that regard.

It is only your opinion that someone is throwing their own life away.

Redress · Jan 15, 2015

I voted no in the poll. I do not feel the government should be able to overrule individual people in the health care choices they make. However, for clarity, that does not mean that I think the justices ruled wrongly, I do not know the laws of the state well enough to judge, only that I feel that it should not be right.

Redress · Jan 15, 2015

cpwill said:
The IPAB

You seem confused about what the IPAB was supposed to do. IPAB was to recommend what the government would pay for, not what treatments where actually available and who got them. That is a rather large, unsubtle difference. This case is judges deciding not who paid for treatment, but whether some one got a treatment at all. Major difference.

j-mac · Jan 15, 2015

Couldn't have just joined the existing thread?

Paleocon · Jan 15, 2015

danarhea said:
In essence, the government is confining a 17 year old girl in a hospital room, and forcing her to undergo chemotherapy. With the chemo, she has an 85 percent chance of a cure. Without the chemo, she will likely be dead within 2 years.

I have posted a poll with this thread, since I would like to know what everybody thinks of this. This is a very tough issue. Does the government have a right to mandate a life and death decision when the wrong choice is probably death? What about for adults? What about for children? Does the government have the right to take over a parenting function from the parent in some circumstances? Is the government acting in the child's interest, or is the government going overboard? Is this big government at work, or should government be a little big at times? There are a lot of angles to this issue, and I would like to hear as many as possible.

Thank you.

Article is here.

The court decision was grievously immoral. She has a right to decline chemotherapy, or other such dangerous treatments.

cpgrad08 · Jan 15, 2015

danarhea said:
OK, let me play devil's advocate here. Assuming that the girl wanted to commit suicide by putting a bullet in her head, and the mother was such a sicko that she supported it, would it be the government's right to step in and stop it? If the answer is yes, then what is different about this case that the government has no right to step in.?

A person has a right to suicide in my book.

Paleocon · Jan 15, 2015

danarhea said:
OK, let me play devil's advocate here. Assuming that the girl wanted to commit suicide by putting a bullet in her head, and the mother was such a sicko that she supported it, would it be the government's right to step in and stop it? If the answer is yes, then what is different about this case that the government has no right to step in.?

The difference is she doesn't want to commit suicide.

cpwill · Jan 15, 2015

Redress said:
You seem confused about what the IPAB was supposed to do. IPAB was to recommend what the government would pay for, not what treatments where actually available and who got them. That is a rather large, unsubtle difference.

You have misrepresented it. The IPAB determines what the government would pay for, which effectively is also determining what treatments are actually available.

Redress · Jan 15, 2015

cpwill said:
You have misrepresented it. The IPAB determines what the government would pay for, which effectively is also determining what treatments are actually available.

Except it does not determine what treatments are available. There are any number of available treatments the government does not pay for.

cpwill · Jan 15, 2015

Redress said:
Except it does not determine what treatments are available. There are any number of available treatments the government does not pay for.

:roll: sure there is. Ask any Medicaid recipient how easy and plentiful providers are.

Threegoofs · Jan 15, 2015

cpwill said:
:roll: sure there is. Ask any Medicaid recipient how easy and plentiful providers are.

Funny. I've seen hundreds of Medicaid recipients and no one has ever complained to me about scarcity of providers.

Threegoofs · Jan 15, 2015

cpwill said:
You have misrepresented it. The IPAB determines what the government would pay for, which effectively is also determining what treatments are actually available.

So if they won't pay for aspirin, does that mean aspirin disappears?

I suppose your solution is to just have them pay for everything? Or have for profit companies make decisions based on cost rather than cost effectiveness?

cpwill · Jan 15, 2015

Threegoofs said:
Funny. I've seen hundreds of Medicaid recipients and no one has ever complained to me about scarcity of providers.

Why No One on Medicaid Can Find a Doctor (and Why ERs Are Busier than Ever)
New research shows the health coverage gap for people of different races is shrinking, but the newly insured can’t always find a doctor to treat them.

Losing Patience and Patients with Medicaid

Attention Medicaid Patients: The Doctor Won't Be Seeing You

Medicaid Patients Realize They Can’t Find a Doctor

Even the liberal Kaiser group says that a third of doctors aren't taking new medicaid patients

which is perhaps why Medicaid patients are in at best in the same and at worst in worse health than those who are completely uninsured.

Redress · Jan 15, 2015

cpwill said:
:roll: sure there is. Ask any Medicaid recipient how easy and plentiful providers are.

Most people are not on medicaid, and availability varies widely.

cpwill · Jan 15, 2015

Redress said:
Most people are not on medicaid, and availability varies widely.

That is correct - Medicaid is worthy of inclusion here because it illustrates what happens when we have rationing boards whose mandate is to hold down costs through effectively denying services through the mechanism of offering too low reimbursement rates.

Threegoofs · Jan 15, 2015

cpwill said:
Why No One on Medicaid Can Find a Doctor (and Why ERs Are Busier than Ever)
New research shows the health coverage gap for people of different races is shrinking, but the newly insured can’t always find a doctor to treat them.

Losing Patience and Patients with Medicaid

Attention Medicaid Patients: The Doctor Won't Be Seeing You

Medicaid Patients Realize They Can’t Find a Doctor

Even the liberal Kaiser group says that a third of doctors aren't taking new medicaid patients

which is perhaps why Medicaid patients are in at best in the same and at worst in worse health than those who are completely uninsured.

I can only tell you what I've seen in practice, and with interactions with literally hundreds of Medicaid and uninsured patients.

Apparently, you can only tell me what you've seen on Conservative websites!

Medicaid patients are certainly in worse health. But it's not because they are covered by Medicaid. Really. It's generally because they've been uncovered and untreated for years, and, especially before the ACA, many were on Medicaid because they WERE sick, couldn't work and afford care, and ended up on Medicaid. Also, young healthy people don't bother to sign up for Medicaid.

Redress · Jan 15, 2015

cpwill said:
That is correct - Medicaid is worthy of inclusion here because it illustrates what happens when we have rationing boards whose mandate is to hold down costs through effectively denying services through the mechanism of offering too low reimbursement rates.

So now we are just moving the goalpost. Not even trying to defend your claim any more, just move onto the next complaint.

danarhea · Jan 16, 2015

Redress said:
So now we are just moving the goalpost. Not even trying to defend your claim any more, just move onto the next complaint.

Please don't feed the troll. He has been attempting to derail this thread for days with conspiracy theories.

j-mac · Jan 16, 2015

Redress said:
So now we are just moving the goalpost. Not even trying to defend your claim any more, just move onto the next complaint.

How exactly is Will moving any goalposts....? From what I see, his argument is spot on.

j-mac · Jan 16, 2015

Threegoofs said:
I can only tell you what I've seen in practice, and with interactions with literally hundreds of Medicaid and uninsured patients.

Apparently, you can only tell me what you've seen on Conservative websites!

Medicaid patients are certainly in worse health. But it's not because they are covered by Medicaid. Really. It's generally because they've been uncovered and untreated for years, and, especially before the ACA, many were on Medicaid because they WERE sick, couldn't work and afford care, and ended up on Medicaid. Also, young healthy people don't bother to sign up for Medicaid.

Aren't we told often by liberals that anecdotal evidence isn't good enough?

minnie616 · Jan 16, 2015

cpwill said:
You have misrepresented it. The IPAB determines what the government would pay for, which effectively is also determining what treatments are actually available.

Except we never had the IPAB and since congress has already gutted the funding for it we most likely will never have the IPAB.

http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20140124/NEWS/301249973

I find it pretty laughable :lol: you are still trying to derail this thread with a non existent board.

APNewsBreak: Girl says she knows she'll die without chemo

Was the court's decision correct?

Yes

No

Don't know / Not sure

Tenacious

Tenacious

Liberal Fascist For Life!

Liberal Fascist For Life!

American

Liberal Fascist For Life!

Sophisticated man-about-town

Sophisticated man-about-town

Liberal Fascist For Life!

Sophisticated man-about-town

Liberal Fascist For Life!

Slayer of the DP Newsbot

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency