And just a few other articles....

[conuly]

First things first, just about the only cheerful link you're going to get!

One article on modern childhood.

A graph showing the difference between the demographics of the US and of Congress.

And this post about what has to be one of the most outrageous rape cases I've ever heard of.

And finally, this article about a woman who withheld cancer treatment from her autistic child. Yes, Time, it *is* murder if you keep lifesaving medicine away from your kid - particularly one who cannot talk and who is too young to trust him to have much of a say in his course of treatment anyway. (Comments where I got this article indicate that she didn't even quit openly, she simply stopped giving him the medicine and lied about it.)

Comments

[conuly]

Yeah, if it were the type of cancer with a 0% survival rate, I would agree, don't make the kid suffer. As I understand it, the way cancer treatment works is that you make the whole body sick in the hopes of killing the cancer off. But if that won't work, I can understand not wanting to bother.

And if it has a low (but slim) survival rate, and the kid is old enough to express a trustworthy opinion on whether or not they think it's worth it - say, a 12 year old who just wants to enjoy the next few months - okay, that makes sense too.

But this kid couldn't talk and wasn't, I think, old enough to make (or have much say in) life-and-death decisions about his own medical care anyway. It would've been murder anyway, given that the cancer has such a high cure rate, but....

[sayga.livejournal.com]

Right, even if he was just some average 9yo kid with cancer, he probably wasn't old enough to voice an opinion (wasn't the kid referred to in that article who also declined cancer treatments 15 years old though?), and any decision on his medication shouldn't be made by one person alone. It's one thing to discuss it with the doctor, spiritual leader and/or family and decide it isn't worth the suffering if it's incurable (which is wasn't) but something else completely to pretend to be giving the meds and not. I saw this on the news the other day and was so surprised that the whole report was slanted against the guilty verdict, saying it couldn't be helped because he was autistic and she was depressed. Well, the mom who drowned her 5 kids in the bathtub in the 90s was suffering from severe depression too, but she still decided to kill her children, and acted on it, and succeeded.

[conuly]

Andrea Yates was suffering from postpartum psychosis. My mother has long maintained (and I agree) that her asshole husband should've been arrested for spousal abuse. WHO insisted she have more kids? WHO insisted they move to a tiny trailer? WHO insisted they homeschool? WHO dragged her home every time she tried to check herself into a hospital to get help?

The same guy who set up the conditions that caused her to kill her kids, that's who.

[leora.livejournal.com]

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?