ZOMBIE THREAD ALERT: This thread hasn't been posted on for a while.
Mother doesn't want her son to have radiotherapy after having brain tumour removed.(186 Posts)
Can't make the link work but it's on sky news.
Long story short a mother wants to deny her son radiotherapy treatment after his having ha a brain tumour removed because she is worried it will affect his long term health. Doctors have said he had a better chance of survival if he has it. Then estranged (according to the press) father agrees with the doctor.
Personally I think she's crazy. I know two small children who died of brain tumours in the last year and I can only imagine their parents would have given anything to even have had the chance of a discussion about radiotherapy with their doctors.
The papers keep saying 80% chance of living five years if he has the raduotherapy but i dont think that is very accurate? Esp guven he has already relapsed?
Its awful and some of the jydgemental.comments o line are horrid. I have just argued with friends of a friend on fb. People are seeing the 80% figure as an 80% chance of cure but that is not the case at all.
I am right in my understanding that the treatment is to halt the spread of the cancer and to extend his life but ultimately they cannit 'cure' him. He is going to die but uts a matter of when?
The thought of going through this is heartbreaking. No parent wants their child to die but equally months of a gruelling treatment that may cause suffering is not a nice option
This wont cure him will it?
Id back any family member who wants to just let him 'be'
Horrible situation for his parents and I judge neither of the TBH
I have only read about the case on the BBC website and nowhere have I read that the childs condition is terminal and that radiotherapy is purely palliative with a very short prognosis. I cannot begin to imagine the agony that his parenst have faced but I am not sure that the medical teams and childs father would have gone so far with their legal challenge IF his prognosis was so limited.
Plenty of people who originally had an 80% chance of cure still die. This may have also been the original figure. My daughter's original prognonsis was fair, until the cytogenetics came back and the induction round of chemo, whilst remitting her morphologically, very well (from 60-3% leukaemia) failed to remit her of a particularly damning genetic abnormality. This figure then dropped to terminal without stem cell transplant. We punted for it, of course, her risk of death was calculated at 15%. She died.
Her risk of relapse, even give successful transplant, was still over 50%.
But if her case had gone to press I'll wager London to a brick all that would have been seized on what her initial odds, which were useless.
Yes of course it could cure him. My DS had the same tumour in 1995. He was vey seriously ill before he had surgery and then radiotherapy. He's here now aged 25 and he graduated from Uni last year with an Honours degree.
Thankyou for that explanation expat
Neons cancer has already recurred, hence the resent operation? That in itself is not goid. It us a particularly aggressive cancer from what i have read and the 85% figure is the chance of him being alive five years from diagnosis. Not an 85% xhance of a cure. From what i have read had he stayed in remission for two years his idds would have been.better, but that has sadly not hapoened.
As ever the press are picking and choosing what and how to report this story.
It is horrible for all involved. I think those condeming his mother should be ashamed.
T h tho i agree it is a worthy discussion i do think.some form of annonymity for the family would be preferable.
For those who like to understand more about medulloblastoma, treatment, trials and survival rates. The mother is damned if she does and damned if she doesn't. It is heartbreaking.
glitter they were saying it coyld cure him.before he relapsed but as he has alreasy had a reccurrance of the tumour the cgances are now very slim?
There are many differing versions and information available it seems. I am pleased it worked for your son, this case must bring bacl horrible memories its very difficult for many mnmnetters.
Just realised about half of my post didn't appear. I also meant to say that they usually start radiotherapy 6 to 8 weeks after surgery so the court case won't have made much difference in terms of delay. As for the tumour regrowth, I honestly don't know as we were extremely fortunate in that didn't happen to DS. If they do believe that they have managed to remove it all now then radiotherapy and chemo could cure him and stop the thing from ever growing back again. Or not. It is a gamble and as a parent you can only try to make the best decision for your DC based in the advice the medics give.
Yes 5madthings there are too many MNers who have and are going through this. It's shit!
I realise I am late to this thread but have just come across it. I really feel for this mother. My daughter was diagnosed with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia in June 2011 at the age of 4. Despite being informed that her odds were very good (being a white girl under the age of ten) my first instinct was that I didn't want to put her through treatment. I couldn't bear the thought of her enduring chemo and hair loss, sickness etc. to make matters worse, she was not ill and had been diagnosed after complaining only of a sore hip, so I felt that by putting her through treatment I would be the one making her ill. Nonsense I know but logic had evaded me at this point. Of course she did have treatment, it's ongoing til September 2013 but I can totally understand why a parent would resist, particularly when it can be damaging and results are not guaranteed. This mother is not a nutter, she is not uncaring. She loves her son and is terrified for him. I hope for the best outcome for him and peace of mind for her.
Join the discussion
Please login first.