AIBU That Mumsnet won't allow any discussion on the Sally Roberts case?

[Zealey]

There's something about her that is media hungry - if she hasn't sold her story to a tabloid or glossy mag in the next week then I'll take it back. But more importantly, WHY is Mumsnet towers deleting any threads discussing the case?

I think she's wrong, but I wouldn't dream of insulting her personally on an open forum.

As an aside, I thought estranged meant estranged husband from his wife?

^^ that was to JUst Fabulous

Because he will probably die anyway and it is a huge dilemma to decide whether to risk odious side effects and watch your child die or just watch your child die anyway. It is a shit non choice. Treatment at best will only extend his life for a short period.

I don't understand either viviennemary, but that is because I have never been through this horrific and terrifying experience. Lucky me. What I understand even less is posters feeling the need to express their lack of understanding by spouting vicious ignorant gossip. Hoe can anyone feel anything but horror and sympathy?

It is completely unfair to suggest we would all follow medical advice in all cases. Honestly, I have no idea what I would do in such a situation.

The medics can advise on what treatment or combinations of treatment gives the best outcome from a statistical point of view.

They CANNOT say what the outcome will be for this poor child. Any thread that starts with comments on a media agenda by the mother is not trying to have a philosophical discussion of the case.

viviennemary From what I read it sounded as though she wanted to use alternative medicine that would not have detrimental side effects. Whether it would also work or not we will never find out.

I got the impression that she believes in homeopathy and natural remedies, and doesn't believe in Medical science?
For me, I'd go with medicine every time as I thing homeopathy is a lot of shite.
But, I'm not in her shoes, and maybe a court deciding, who have looked at the bare facts to make their decision, without emotion being involved, was the only way to go.
I hope whatever happens, little Neon will have the best treatment, and will live a long and happy life.

We have friends in a similar situation. Their DD will die with or without treatment. THey have chosen to opt for treatment as it will hopefully prolong life. I don't know what I'd do. However, I hope never to have to walk in their or Sally Roberts shoes for even a millimetre, never mind a mile. To debate the decision is one thing, to have a go a the mother is another all together.

Wasn't there a mahoosive thread discussing the case ad nauseam when it first hit the press? That's a funny sort of not allowing any discussion.

Ah yes, here it is, 172 posts, been there for a couple of weeks. Amazing how it escaped deletion given Mumsnet's apparent dastardly tactic of hunting down and deleting all the threads...

As i understood it Hobnob the treatment could save his life otherwise why worry about things like infertility if he has radiotherapy? If he was going to die from the tumour no matter what then I can't see a court would rule he has to undergo traumatic treatment & i think the medics wouldn't have taken this to court.

Because its highly likely he'll die anyway and she'd rather not subject him to painful, scary, invasive treatments that have a slim possibility of success?

Poor woman :(

The side effects of this form of radiotherapy include deafness, stunted growth, damage to "intellectual development" to name but a few. For a very slim chance of longterm survival.

Oh and "save his life" , ok there is some argument here about what sort of "life" he would have. Ethically it is a hugely difficult balancing act.

She was researching alternative methods and wanted more time to research. The medics said there was no time.

@MrsDVere, yes I know a fair bit about it thanks. My issue with the mother is that she having been born in NZ she has received over a hundred thousand pounds of UK tax-payers money through Legal Aid to fund her new-age belief in crystals and homeopathy - which is fine if you have the flu or bad back, but cruel and bordering on insane if you have a dying child. In this time of cuts think houw many lives that money could have saved? Doctors say with Radiotherapy NOW there is a 90% chance of survival, 35% without. Personal values are fine, but not when it threatens an innocent life.

I dont understand this case. Her little boy has recurrent medulablastoma ? Or has he not yet had a recurrence ?

Because if he does have the cancer as recurrent then from what i can find here and from this link here no treatment can help him .
In which case i can understand her pushing for no further treatment as it will affect the quality of life he has left.

Or have i misunderstood and he has not had the cancer reoccur and this is the first opportunity for treatment ?

Oh OP I am signing off , you really are quite vile.

OP - perhaps she does not want to sign a consent for for treatment that will, in the words of the doctor on the news last night, cause side effects which could 'make it difficult for him to learn', for example.

All so easy from the sidelines.

My DP has lost 2 immediate relatives to brain tumours. His views on this case are not repeatable in polite company or even Mumsnet. I can understand how any threads on this case would turn into a mudslinging exercise.

"Doctors say with Radiotherapy NOW there is a 90% chance of survival, 35% without."

really?

So, and pardon my ignorance on this, is there no hope for Neon whatever the treatment?
Is his condition terminal?

Oh god you are one of those idiots

"tax-payers' money"

@Enfyshedd

I can understand how any threads on this case would turn into a mudslinging exercise.

But this thread isn't going to do that is it?

Tis the season and all that....