My grandmother had radiotherapy on the brain and it really did affect her quality of life - she barely knew what was going on most of the time, didn't really know who her family were, couldn't look after herself at all. I would not want to put a child through that.

Reply 64

tommydeaks

13

She should have her child taken away from her and stopped from breeding ever again. I mean, "Neon"? Really?

I just heard on BBC news that she has dismissed a second opinion because it didn't tell her what she wanted to hear. FFS.

Reply 65

radiopred

OP

11

I guess its great news, you have to also acknowledge the womans opinion about radiotherapy permanently harming the child because its true, but if you were a doctor in that situation you would do what you could to try and save the childs life in this life or death situation, so I welcome the courts decision and personally i agree with it

Reply 66

cl_steele

2

Original post by redpanda41

My grandmother had radiotherapy on the brain and it really did affect her quality of life - she barely knew what was going on most of the time, didn't really know who her family were, couldn't look after herself at all. I would not want to put a child through that.

Maybe, my uncle has the same but came off slightly worse for where untill the cancer came back but the one thing he maintained was he'd rather be slightly loopy in the brain than be dead... The mum has no right to pass a death sentance on to a child least of all when she is completelyuniformed about the facts.

Reply 67

Domeface

9

The Article

She said she had sought advice and researched the condition on the internet and felt treatment would reduce her son's IQ, could restrict his growth, damage his thyroid and possibly leave him infertile.

She said his condition was not as bad as believed. "He is thriving. He has done so well since being in hospital."

Oh yes that's right, vague online information and your own uneducated opinion is obviously much more valid than that of the specialised medical professionals.

What an utter ****ing moron. If she was refusing treatment for herself then I'd just put it down to natural selection and rest easy. But the fact that this woman's sheer idiocy could potentially result in the death of not just another person, but a child is just absolutely appalling.

Reply 68

radiopred

OP

11

Neon Roberts brain tumour surgery 'went well'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-20798188

Reply 69

richiemayne

6

Of course it is fine to give the child treatment contrary to the mother's wishes. Parents do not have dictatorial rights over their children especially if their actions are to the detriment of the child's well being. I see very little difference between something like this and another parents neglecting to feed their child. Both are instances of inaction where children are being harmed because of parental decisions, and that is when society should intervene.

Reply 70

username1002982

14

Original post by princeofpersia00

if the child says yes then why not, if he says no, then you have no right to force it.

But at that age, the mother could easily influence the child to make them say no.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 71

radiopred

OP

11

Neon Roberts' father 'relieved' at ruling

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20819259

If only the father was in the childs life, then his word would overturn the childs mothers decision. She is not a bonkers mother, but in this case the decision was not in the best interests of the child, despite the consequences of radiotherapy, it is more beneficial than the risk of dying from the brain tumour.

Neon Roberts mother loses radiotherapy court battle

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-20807984

Reply 72

Brachioradialis

18

The people supporting the mother's rights seem to forget that medical professionals aren't just ruthless people wanting to do medicine for the sake of it, they're doing it to help people. If they didn't feel radiotherapy would have a reasonable chance of success, they would not do so and would consider palliative options.

Reply 73

eelnais

15

I think that it should ultimately be the parent's and doctor's decision, with some input from the child if they are competent enough to understand their situation. Most parents make the 'right' choice for their child, this extreme example of a specific case won't change my mind. In this case? The mother should be explained chemotherapy/radiotherapy and surgery required for her child more and see examples where it has worked out.

Reply 74

RetiredAccount89

18

Original post by radiopred

Neon Roberts' father 'relieved' at ruling

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20819259

If only the father was in the childs life, then his word would overturn the childs mothers decision. She is not a bonkers mother, but in this case the decision was not in the best interests of the child, despite the consequences of radiotherapy, it is more beneficial than the risk of dying from the brain tumour.

Neon Roberts mother loses radiotherapy court battle

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-20807984

Actually if both parents disagree it would have still ended in court.

But the dad wasn't man enough to make an opinion or go against his wife until the repeat scans showed residual tumour (before the 2nd surgery)
then i think it dawned on him that his son was still rather at risk.

Very difficult situation. At the end of the day one comment by a doctor (we need to fry his whole brain, not just that one small bit) led to mum over thinking the risk to benefit ratio of radiotherapy.
then she finds a doctor that shares her opinion and it validates it (although said doctor is not in any way an oncologist and gives a list of other non-oncologists who can 'help')

very tricky situation. if child surivives with no damage then mum gets healthy child.
if damage - mum feels validated in her attempt to stop the radiotherapy
if child dies regardless - then it was the doctors fault they were seperated.

Reply 75

Camoxide

14

Original post by rcummins1

It astounds me how ignorant and ill-informed the comments on the Daily Mail article are.

Edit: Well it doesn't astound me that much seen as we know what to expect from your average Mail commentator.

It's always like that.

Click best rated comments for the worst of it.

Reply 76

Idle

2

Original post by eelnais

I think that it should ultimately be the parent's and doctor's decision, with some input from the child if they are competent enough to understand their situation. Most parents make the 'right' choice for their child, this extreme example of a specific case won't change my mind. In this case? The mother should be explained chemotherapy/radiotherapy and surgery required for her child more and see examples where it has worked out.

I am pretty sure they tried to explain it to her before it ended up in court lol.

----

I am so glad they have decided to treat the child, at-least now he has a chance rather than pretty certain death.

Reply 77

chiggy321

8

Yeah, there are some major issues with specific elements of Family Law in this country - but at the core of it is a very noble principle, the principle that the Courts act as guardians of the children's interests. Whether they intend to or not parents do not always act in the objective best interests of their children - that's why I believe in this instance it's right that the Court found in favour of the child.