conuly

I wonder at that. In all of the cases of cancer I've witnessed, treatment decreased the amount of suffering. If the treatment is working, the cancer tended to be causing more suffering than the treatment did. And if the treatment is having side effects, you can usually discuss that with a doctor.

My household has been dealing with cancer in cats (one died, one is still alive), who obviously can't give verbal feedback. My housemate has to make decisions on their behalf, and we have to judge how they are doing, how they feel, and what is best for them.

Similarly, the cat who is alive has diabetes. It means he has to be injected with insulin twice a day. It's a small needle, and it's not supposed to hurt much, but he definitely doesn't like it. We know he can't understand why he gets stuck with a needle. But his overall quality of life is so much better with treatment that the small pain of hurting him a little bit is so worth it. And I think back to how much he was suffering when the cancer wasn't treated (before the diagnosis or early in, before the meds could really kick in), and he seems so much happier now.

We did a lot of things to him he didn't like. He even had a feeding tube for a little while, because he wouldn't eat (due to the cancer), and we wanted to give the meds a chance to work. But they did work. And he has had over a year without a feeding tube and daily purring and ...

I guess my point is if you really think the right decision is to discontinue care because it's doing more harm than good, then you talk to the doctor about it. Sure, that time might come. But you talk to a doctor about it. And you, among other things, make sure you are aware of all of the alternatives you have. My housemate tries to do this for cats, and she can't be bothered to do this for a human child?