Australian boy at center of legal battle over chemotherapy treatment dies - Polidicks

[URL="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-38456011"]Source.[/URL] [QUOTE]A six-year-old boy whose cancer diagnosis sparked a high-profile legal battle in Australia has died. Doctors said Oshin Kiszko should undergo chemotherapy and radiotherapy to treat his malignant brain tumour. But his parents, Angela Kiszko and Adrian Strachan, refused treatment because of the severe side effects. After a court decided in March that Oshin had to receive chemotherapy, a judge in September ruled he could be given palliative care. The Perth boy died early on Wednesday morning, his mother confirmed to local media. "My love Oshin took his last breaths peacefully as I lay cuddling him at 2am," Ms Kiszko told Seven News. "Oshin's journey has been extraordinarily traumatising for him and I am grateful he no longer needs to suffer through this nightmare."[/QUOTE] :goodjob:

Should be tried for manslaughter tbh. He might have died anyway, but thanks to his OWN FUCKING PARENTS he died for sure. They preferred certain death over the possibility of side effects.

This is really infuriating.

I will never understand how you can choose certain death over a chance at life.

[QUOTE=The Rifleman;51598195]I will never understand how you can choose certain death over a chance at life.[/QUOTE] Same logic anti-vax retards have they'd rather pretend that they are too perfect for bad things to happen to them so they'd prefer acting like X thing is worse

As a parent this rips apart my insides, how could they not even try to put him on it and let him have a chance at living? The side effects, severe as they may have been, were surely worth a chance at, you know, [B][U]life[/U][/B]?

Even if there's potential side effects, he'd still have a chance to live. Completely astonishing.

[QUOTE=The Rifleman;51598195]I will never understand how you can choose certain death over a chance at life.[/QUOTE] Once you see how chemo fucks you up and diminishes you to nothing with a good chance of spending several months in constant, excruciating pain before dying anyway, it does become a little morally grey.

[QUOTE=hippowombat;51598202]As a parent this rips apart my insides, how could they not even try to put him on it and let him have a chance at living? The side effects, severe as they may have been, were surely worth a chance at, you know, [B][U]life[/U][/B]?[/QUOTE] dont forget we're talking about giving chemotherapy to a 6 year old what parent would want to see their kid suffer like that just saying it's not an easy decision like some people are making it out to be in here, and i'm not even a parent

if I had a type of cancer where survival rates are horribly low with treatment, I would ask the doc how long I can live before the pain sets in and just shoot myself when that time comes there's no way a kid without proper decision making capabilities should not receive treatment, however

[QUOTE=Xephio;51598510]dont forget we're talking about giving chemotherapy to a 6 year old what parent would want to see their kid suffer like that just saying it's not an easy decision like some people are making it out to be in here, and i'm not even a parent[/QUOTE] Oh I'm definitely not saying it's not an incredibly difficult decision to make, but to not even try when that all but guarantees his death? I can't imagine not exhausting every avenue that could give my son or my daughter a shot at life.

This case might be different because it's a child being refused treatment by the parents. But in general I don't see how one could simultaneously be pro-euthanasia and not understand why someone might not want to undergo chemo and radiotherapy, even though it means certain death. Chemotherapy is not a guaranteed chance to live, with the more aggressive types of cancer, it's really just a prolonging technique more than a real treatment. So its results are not guaranteed, but what is guaranteed is the absolutely horrible side effects of pumping yourself full of toxic chemicals and radiation. You can lose your physique, your hair, your ability to enjoy food, and your independence. It's not a simple "do this and live or don't and die" choice. It's not like anti-vaxxers where it has basis in medical myth and BS.

[QUOTE=The Rifleman;51598195]I will never understand how you can choose certain death over a chance at life.[/QUOTE] Chemotherapy has incredibly horrific side effects, they probably didn't want their child to live out his last days in absolute agony. Brain cancer is about as bad as it gets for chances of survival. It's shitty and sucks in every way, but if I were that child, I'd thank my parents for letting me go without putting me through a living hell. One of my friends in high-school had been fighting bone cancer since he was 10. By the time he was 15, he had one knee replaced with an implant from having to remove the bone and joint in his leg. He went through chemo and radiation off and on for his entire adolescent life, and it finally spread to his spine when he was 16. After 2-3 months of chemo, and having lost the ability to walk, he chose to stop treatment and die. I saw him a few days before he died and he looked like a shriveled prune of a person. Hairless, pale, and barely conscious from the morphine drip he was on, it absolutely ruined his health even worse than the cancer and likely sped up his own death considerably. His entire family went through 6 years of pure hell, not knowing if or when his cancer would show up again. I can't really put into words how much his family went through, but his mom was so belligerent and emotionally shattered, she didn't even recognize me when I went over to see her at his funeral. No parent should ever, EVER have to experience something like slowly poisoning their child with the (possibly) vain hope that it might survive. Cancer fucking sucks. I'll be happy when nobody has to die of cancer again. It's a horrible, slow, invisible killer, and treating it is sometimes worse than letting it run it's course.

[QUOTE=J!NX;51598201]Same logic anti-vax retards have they'd rather pretend that they are too perfect for bad things to happen to them so they'd prefer acting like X thing is worse[/QUOTE] Not really similar, one is something that can definitely be cured, and the other has variable percentages, all not good at all, with almost guaranteed pain and agony. It's a complex in people's brains that they think they have to save every person no matter what cost to that person's freedom, it's the same type of shit that make's people think keeping brain dead people alive is good. I got a little carried away there, but bottom line is if you got to chose between agony and almost certain death (especially with this type of cancer) and just death without agony, idk what you'd choose but I'd choose death. [B]If it was my own kid though, I'd be kinda selfish to not try everything in my power to save him[/B], though I'm not gonna be an asshole and try to take that right away from other people.

The chemotherapy would have just prolonged his suffering, forcing him to truly understand the ramifications and horror of death before slowly twisting into a corpse. She did the right thing.

[QUOTE=The Rifleman;51598195]I will never understand how you can choose certain death over a chance at life.[/QUOTE] While doctors have an ethical duty to preserve or save life, you come to a point where you have to ask "at what cost?" I think in this case, that it was probably better if they let the boy be, than prolonging his suffering, and making the boy's final days even worse than they must have already been.

Oh hey this kid is from my city, didn't expect to this this story here. I see the BBC article says he had a 30% survival rate under chemo, When this case started it was more 60% to 70% but because the parents dragged it out his survival rate went down. I can understand not wanting to put your kid through chemo, I've seen what it does and it's terrible, but they should be charged with manslaughter imo. They basically let their child die so they don't feel bad. Also the dads a naturopath, which explains a fair bit.

[QUOTE=Darth Ninja;51599804]While doctors have an ethical duty to preserve or save life, you come to a point where you have to ask "at what cost?" I think in this case, that it was probably better if they let the boy be, than prolonging his suffering, and making the boy's final days even worse than they must have already been.[/QUOTE] The issue is that this is still quite illegal in Australia. However there has been a few times where loopholes are exploited for legal euthanisation, but there are also times when someone did it illegally anyway, like in 2005 when a nurse 'assisted' her terminally ill father and mother who was going through dementia in suicide. She was charged with manslaughter. Its very possible that these couple will be charged for manslaughter as well.

ok did a double check, it was a 50 to 30% survival rate for 5 years, pretty shity senario and I can understand choosing not to pursue chemo and radio if it meant a longer shitty life. [URL="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-28/oshin-kiszko-boy-at-centre-of-legal-battle-over-treatment-dies/8151550"]ABC article[/URL] Also apparently the parents said in court that their alternative therapies had a 90% chance of healing him. I can't find a source for the transcript though. I'm kinda conflicted on this one. I understand not wanting to put your son through hell just so he could live a few years but replacing actual medicine with snake oil and pretending it's a ok it's stupid as fuck and borderline cruelty.

I think parents should have as much as say as possible, only overruling them when they elect to effectively kill their child. The article says this child had a 30% chance of survival if they did what the doctors wanted to do. That's not even half a chance. So I find no reason to overrule them. I'd ask all of you who think otherwise, where do you draw the line? If a parent is feeding their child junk food, does the state step in? What about if a child isn't getting enough exercise? What about parents who can't afford health insurance? Why aren't we providing free healthcare to everyone if health is such an important thing? Denying their child healthcare is but one of many ways parents have of impacting their health, why make that the one choice they make that the state gets to overrule?

I don't think the case is as simple as it seems. I'm not a parent, but I can understand not wanting to put your kid through chemo. Apparently, the kid only had a 30% chance of living even if he received chemo when they discovered it. It is basically pouring poison in the body, hoping it kills the cancer before it kills the person. However, I can't see any of the kids own thoughts about it in the article, and I do think his own opinion should've counted for more. He was the one with the actual cancer after all. RIP

[QUOTE=torres;51601007]I don't think the case is as simple as it seems. I'm not a parent, but I can understand not wanting to put your kid through chemo. Apparently, the kid only had a 30% chance of living even if he received chemo when they discovered it. It is basically pouring poison in the body, hoping it kills the cancer before it kills the person. However, I can't see any of the kids own thoughts about it in the article, and I do think his own opinion should've counted for more. He was the one with the actual cancer after all. RIP[/QUOTE] He was 6 years old. He probably had no idea what was happening whatsoever and died peacefully as a result of that.

[QUOTE=BuffaloBill;51598122]Should be tried for manslaughter tbh. He might have died anyway, but thanks to his OWN FUCKING PARENTS he died for sure. They preferred certain death over the possibility of side effects.[/QUOTE] Yea, you have no idea what chemotherapy does to a person let alone a kid... the parents made an informed decision to have the last months of their kid be okay instead of absolutely fucking horrible... its a tough choice that in an ideal world is best made by the child, but considering its age... Its not a choice made through pseudoscience or other false beliefs, just fuelled by the compassion of having an as dignified end as possible.

My Gran had Cancer and she had to undergo Chemotherapy which was very unpleasant for her. The Cancer then came back and my parents and my Uncle fell out over whether to treat her or not: My Uncle wanted to give her more Chemotherapy but my parents didn't want her to suffer anymore. In the end, my Uncle got his way and my Gran ended up dying in a terrible condition. The point is that there is no simple answer, I don't think you can easily condemn the parents for the decision they made.

[QUOTE=BuffaloBill;51598122]Should be tried for manslaughter tbh. He might have died anyway, but thanks to his OWN FUCKING PARENTS he died for sure. They preferred certain death over the possibility of side effects.[/QUOTE] Mate there's no possibility of side effects, it's garunteed. Unless youre obscenely lucky or have VERY minute tumors, you're not going to 'live' because of chemo. Shits like suspended animation and takes over your life. Got a regular customer of mine who I've watched deteriorate over the last year and a half thanks to chemo, and the doctors have given him till July to live. That's about 4 months than the original guess.

[QUOTE=David29;51601299]My Gran had Cancer and she had to undergo Chemotherapy which was very unpleasant for her. The Cancer then came back and my parents and my Uncle fell out over whether to treat her or not: My Uncle wanted to give her more Chemotherapy but my parents didn't want her to suffer anymore. In the end, my Uncle got his way and my Gran ended up dying in a terrible condition. The point is that there is no simple answer, I don't think you can easily condemn the parents for the decision they made.[/QUOTE] We had a similar argument in my family. I think the problem is there are two kinds of people. One kind is 'life must be preserved no matter what'. These people believe there is always hope of some miracle, therefore life must be preserved by whatever means available. The other kind, I'm one of these, believes quality of life matters most. If someone prefers to end life preserving treatment in order to have a higher quality of life, we believe that is a legitimate choice to make. When both kinds of people are family and have to decide on treatment or no treatment= fight!!

If I had cancer, I'd just try cannabis oil therapy first. Fuck chemo.

[QUOTE=The Rifleman;51598195]I will never understand how you can choose certain death over a chance at life.[/QUOTE] If you're going to have a very poor quality of life after it it might be worth just dying. But, I really wouldn't put chemo under that. At the very least not to the point where the parents can decide to not go through with treatment.

god, fuck cancer. what an absolute horror. [editline]1st January 2017[/editline] if I had cancer that wasn't extremely curable I might just get it surgically removed and then go and do dangerous shit while waiting for it to metastasise

[QUOTE=The Rifleman;51598195]I will never understand how you can choose certain death over a chance at life.[/QUOTE] When the other option is worse than death, it's understandably. A lot of peole don't want to go through the suffering of chemotherapy, and just want to live their last couple of months in peace.