I take a somewhat different view. 1. We have no idea if the 21 months would have been less (or more) if the family hadn't done this. 2. If you or someone you love is sick with something horrible, beware. Hucksters will take you for everything you've got if you let them.
-
-
-
totally agree: the child may have lived a longer or shorter time, had better quality of life or worse; nobody knows. In the absence of fact, I'm ok w/the parent deciding, tho I'd want them 2B educated about all those possibilities &the low likelihood that treatment will B helpful
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
«Primum non nocere» not applicable when patients are paying?
-
That's not what I said. Read it again. WHERE THERE IS NO FACTUAL BASIS FOR DECIDING IF THE INTERVENTION WILL BE HARMFUL OR HELPFUL the patient gets to decide how much risk to take on the basis of how much/little evidence
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
"Their child, their choice" is a terrible argument. Parents are not owners of their child. They have to choose in the child's best interest, not just do what they like. And healthcare providers have to give full and accurate information to help them in this role.
-
I did not say “their child, their choice” as absolute rule. I said that in the context when there is neither evidence than a treatment would help or hurt the child.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.