Crunchy moo and her ongoing PNA

Forget chemo cause it's 'harsh' - let him die instead!

Very sad case of Crunchy Moo and Duh, that had a 50% chance of kid survival, rejecting life saving chemo and radiotherapy, opting instead of a very torturous and expensive PNA. They even had the courts order life saving treatment, only to have it overturned. Online petitions for Crunchy Parents abound.

Fast forward, kid is now about to expire, he's about to kick it, might as well let him. Court overturns treatment ruling as the kid is now palliative. Crunchy Parents get their PNA, plus spent a deckload of $$$ fighting it in court, and sending kid to get BS Crunchy 'nutrition' therapy.

I don't necessarily think that cancer treatment is always in a person's best interests. It's painful and quality of life may be greatly reduced. As far as I'm concerned, individuals should always be able to refuse medical treatment instead of being forced to endure increasingly extreme medical measures. Preserving life "at all costs" including situations where we'd put down a pet that was suffering that much is a a fixation I don't agree with.

A child, of course, cannot decide about treatment, but I would still think it could well be better to let a child with extreme defects die rather than undergo multiple surgeries or other treatments. I'm not convinced childhood cancer is always worth curing, especially when it requires suffering through chemo with less than great odds of success.

Of course that isn't the grounds on which these breeders are challenging - the view of a natural death - but on the basis of being too stupid to understand the treatment. So they are idiots.

Of course, I would then take things a step further to question the morality of natalism in the first place, especially where it is known that an individual's suffering will be above average. Breeders like the ones in question probably won't think twice about the fact that their choice to reproduce led to this unneeded suffering and death.

Possibly WK'ing for the Moo, but the article seems to indicate he had a 30% survival rate and if he did chemo + radiation, the odds increase to 50%. That seems like a lot to endure for a relatively small increase in survival chances. I would possibly make the same decision. People get all hung up on OMG HE'S A CHYYYLD AND EVERYTHING MUST BE DONE, but in reality he may just have a really shitty type of cancer and he's going to die eventually anyway. I support individuals being able to make their own medical decisions.

My father had cancer surgery that completely debilitated him. He said if the cancer recurred, he wouldn't have that surgery a second time. After seeing what he went through, I thoroughly understood that attitude.