I agree that the worst possible outcome of not providing Neon with treatment far outweighs that of providing him with treatment. As well as that the doctors probably have more knowledge of the best option for Neon.
On the other hand if the decision to give the treatment is the mother's (I'm not sure if it is..?) then she shouldn't choose which option is 'right' for her son?
I think the doctors have the final say. Hoowever, taking into account the wholl Liverpool Pathway debate that is in the news a lot lately, then one can see that there is a shift of power, at least it appears that way, away from the medics back to the 'public/clients'. This democratisation of medicine is obviously not popular with the profession as they feel that they are the 'experts'. The High Court ruling - that delayed treatment - is probably just a soft soaping exercise.
I don't know what to say; this is a very difficult situation for all involved.
Firstly, I agree with Tahiyyah; the disadvantages of not receiving the treatement far outweigh the effects of receiving the treatement.
However, I do not doubt for a second that Neon's mother only has her son's best interests at heart; in fact, I commend her for thinking this through carefully and considering the effects the treatement may have on Neon in the future. Many other parents would have leapt at the chance of treatement without a second thought.
But without the treatement, is it certain that Neon will even have a future? Even if the tumour has been removed, couldn't the cancer still come back as in many cases we hear about everyday, perhaps this time with fatal consequences?
Doctors have said it was clearly in Neon's best interests to undergo radiotherapy and chemotherapy and I have to say that I agree with them, for what is more important than the preservation of the life of a child seeing as Neon cannot possibly make these choices himself, regardless of these somewhat mild consequences that may or may not occur (a small minority develop a long term health problem)?
I look forward to read further comments regarding this ethical issue and to hear other opinions on this fundamental issue.
This is an interesting discussion..
ReplyDeleteI agree that the worst possible outcome of not providing Neon with treatment far outweighs that of providing him with treatment. As well as that the doctors probably have more knowledge of the best option for Neon.
On the other hand if the decision to give the treatment is the mother's (I'm not sure if it is..?) then she shouldn't choose which option is 'right' for her son?
I think the doctors have the final say. Hoowever, taking into account the wholl Liverpool Pathway debate that is in the news a lot lately, then one can see that there is a shift of power, at least it appears that way, away from the medics back to the 'public/clients'. This democratisation of medicine is obviously not popular with the profession as they feel that they are the 'experts'. The High Court ruling - that delayed treatment - is probably just a soft soaping exercise.
DeleteI don't know what to say; this is a very difficult situation for all involved.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, I agree with Tahiyyah; the disadvantages of not receiving the treatement far outweigh the effects of receiving the treatement.
However, I do not doubt for a second that Neon's mother only has her son's best interests at heart; in fact, I commend her for thinking this through carefully and considering the effects the treatement may have on Neon in the future. Many other parents would have leapt at the chance of treatement without a second thought.
But without the treatement, is it certain that Neon will even have a future? Even if the tumour has been removed, couldn't the cancer still come back as in many cases we hear about everyday, perhaps this time with fatal consequences?
Doctors have said it was clearly in Neon's best interests to undergo radiotherapy and chemotherapy and I have to say that I agree with them, for what is more important than the preservation of the life of a child seeing as Neon cannot possibly make these choices himself, regardless of these somewhat mild consequences that may or may not occur (a small minority develop a long term health problem)?
I look forward to read further comments regarding this ethical issue and to hear other opinions on this fundamental issue.
Just found the follow-up to this story; he can have the treatment against his mother's wishes. Relieved.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/neon-roberts-high-court-judge-1495651
The judges have the final say, so, is it an ethical issue after all? By the way Yasmine, The Mirror!
ReplyDelete