Amish Girl With Leukemia, Family Flees US to Avoid Chemotherapy

[Peikko 1,575]

I don't really have an argument for what you said but on the highlighted line: The story does not say what stage she is in or how much treatment she had already received. My father died of Leukemia a few years ago after going through three full rounds of treatment. The first round bought him a year and a half of good life. When the cancer came back the second and third rounds bought him nothing put pain and suffering for the few months before he died a horrible death.

My mother currently has stage four breast cancer, she has been through one round of treatment and was given a maximum of 2 years to live. She takes a constant stream of low level chemo and an experimental drug that has done wonders to slow down (but not stop) the cancer. The last lymph node to get a lump is halfway up the side of her neck and she is sure the vital organ that will get the cancer that will end her life will be the brain. She has refused to undergo a second round after seeing what it did to her husband and looking at the stats and quality of life with going past second rounds.

So these people are Amish.. They initially agreed to the treatment so they are not completely out of touch with reality. After watching the effects on their daughter (and we don't know what they were told as far a long term prognosis) they panicked and looked for something with a better (albeit most likely false) promise.

A quote from the father:

"If we do chemotherapy and she would happen to die, she would probably suffer more than if we would do it this way and she would happen to die," he said.

If they are sure she is going to die with or without the chemotherapy they are grasping at straws looking for hope - I think they are making the wrong choice but depending on the condition (and long term prospects) of their daughter I'm not 100% convinced that it is not their choice to make.

Well, you've talked yourself into thinking that the court ruling was based on something flimsy. It wasn't. The court would only make such a ruling if the available evidence was able to give a reasonable expectation of a good prognosis. Doctors were consulted and they would have only recommended continuing with treatment if the expected outcome was positive with a reasonable margin of error. Without the treatment it's a certainty that the child will die - miracles notwithstanding. Cancer treatments are not fun, no one has pretended they are, but this cancer and this treatment have a great success rate and that was the basis of the court ruling.