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.
lljkk the Mirror reports his sister is calle Elektra.
I have no idea what I would do in this situation, but I do know I would not run away to an oxygen chamber in Sussex. I would try and maintain a good level of communication with HCPs so that I could understand their recommendations and discuss my concerns. Running away will never help your cause.
I know I'm judging her based in two shocking cases in my own circle in the last year. It's really coloured my view of what she's done.
The whole story is just desperately sad.
well, just as well the child I had with a brain tumour was the only one with a normal name!
the mother isn't trying to cure him through wacko methods though, she's consented to subjecting him to chemo - that will have consequences for his general health, and for his development.
i can't guess at her logic, not really, but perhaps she has faith that chemo will be enough and doesn't want the added risks of radiotherapy.
she may have a feeling about it that is to do with knowing her son really well - that's one thing no doctor will have on it.
hugs back mdv i don't usually talk about this one, strangely i don't know much still cos i can't google it!
I was the one who mentioned the blood transfusion cases which I suppose are at the easy end of things and helped established the legal principle that a parent cannot in England decide something that might kill a child. The question is in particular cases what goes in which category. If I refused our babies extra vitamins because in my view breastmilk was enough the health visitor tutted but accept the position. Mothers can choose whether to breastfeed or take the probably worse option of bottle feeding. You can smoke at home around your child etc etc....
I had a discussion with a child tonight about medical treatment and suggest his proposed GP visit would be a waste of NHS resources. He made his case and it will be fixed up. Sometimes things are not clear cut.
If allowing chemo but not radiotherapy means death then it is in the blood transfusion cases. If it just means say a difference in outcome of 20% may be a court would let the parents decide (plusral not singular - children have two parents). It would help if the mother had her own medical expert putting her views but I'm not sure she does. Very difficult issues
Whilst people sit and judge - please just listen to MrsDeVere, and other parents who have had to go through - not only a living hell - but then regrets................should I have made my very very very ill child go through more of this ......shit............crap..............pain...............what, why, yep, cancer is a fucking wanky toss crap, and so are other illnesses and conditions. Today I am wearing no judgey pants. As parents - maybe we should all just ........................ <wish I knew the answer>
Who cares what this womans children are called?! FGS
I can't imagine how she feels and what's going on in her mind as thankfully I have no experience of having a dangerously sick child.
I hope he ok.
It would be interesting to know what Neon wants. Ultimately it is his life that will be affected.
I wonder if both parents have parental responsibility. Usually you only need one person with PR to consent to a treatment to be able to go ahead.
I agree that it isn't as clear cut as a blood transfusion. The media are implying she is saying she would rather take the increased risk of death over risks to his growth (which can be managed with hormone treatment) and IQ and it is this rather than any distress that the treatment might cause him that is stopping her from consenting. If it was the case that the treatment would cause him significant pain and suffering and it was that that she was objecting to then I would have much more sympathy with her. If I was offered the choice of death or the loss of 10 IQ points I would take the loss of IQ.
I hvae a lot of sympathy for giving parents more rights - they are their children. I'm a libertarian. I want an England where you can home educate or use Eton or the Saudi school in London. I want parents to be able to make choices even of things of which I don't approve so I would side with the mother here.
However the principle is one of the most important parents ever need to consider. The easy cases are if the child will die anyway and X treatment will just make it suffer more then I think most of us would agree the parents should both decide. However if a treatment has an 82% success rate and without it there is a good chance of death which is what I think we were being told in this case that is a very different matter. I think the judge was surprised today that the mother said she would accept chemo though so if chemo can be a massive help even without radiot which may just be a bit of an added extra possible advantage it would seem reasonable to let the parents decided no radiot. It is certainly not wrong it's before a court.
I like Electra as a name, I went to school with one.
I think the comments re names were very obvious asides.
I agree that a parent (or both) can make and informed choice over treatment for their child.
Sadly, we don't always agree on what is 'good' for a child - preventable deaths from refusal of medication/treatment (so a blood transfusion on religious grounds). Or maybe a mum who is just not in her right mind. This is where the courts do need to step in but it is a minefield in some cases.
Sadly there are also well meaning parents/family who read all sorts of crap on the web and get their hopes us - treatment regimes, diet, dodgy medicine from Mexico (which my brother was prepared to fly to Mexico to buy and smuggle home - no, really) and many other things in varying degrees of quackery.
I like the children's names and I agree that has bugger all relevance to anything.
I understand that that court will br ruling today. I hope that means, whatever the outcome, that Neon is back in his mother's care as soon as possible. I think she's wrong about the treatment for him but nobody surely could doubt her love and care for him or his need of her.
I think what is sad, and what is not necessarily clear from some news reports, is that it is disagreement between the parents that have led to legal action.
It must be so stressful to be in this situation and not feel able to come to joint decisions on treatment.
Ps-their names are unusual, they're twins named as a pair and I think comments on their names reflected that. Noting their names are unusual does not negate the sympathy posters feel for their parents.
What I throught was really off and lacking relevance in lots of the online media reports is the number of photos of his Mum - clearly personal photos.
bbc doc on paediatric cancer really worth a watch - very moving and explains some of the very difficult decisions faced.
The treatment is cruel, grueing, and often uncertain. I have whitnessed many children die this year from paediatric cancer. Have leant things about brain tumours and radiotherapy that I had no idea about.
about 32min in is where the parents and drs are discussingt he long term side effects of radio therapy on their 5yr old dd.
The point is where does the law intervene and where not. Life and death they will. Issues like should the child have the MMR or not they won't.I don't know why this ie before the court. I don't think it was the father applying. I think it was the NHS trust which wanted to give more treatment than the mother wanted.
Treatment for cancer is almost always about weighing up a balance of probabilities - often two doctors will disagree about the best treatment. So it's a very sad story. I'm sure the mum has her son's best interests at heart.
I wish them all well and would hope that there is a mechanism the court can use to help them to make a decision rather than force one upon them.
Just heard on the radio that the decision has been postponed because of 'changes in the medical landscape'. No idea what that means. Just hope the lad's condition isn't worse.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.