Replies

It was my understanding that the doctors and parents agreed that the child was in remission. Seems the doctors had the child in a test program, some patients with chemo and radiation treatments vs. just chemo treatments. The girl was part of a study program, and the medical profession didn't want their results skewed by over zealous parents.

There was an accusation made on the thread that there was a "test" of some sort going on. However, when you went to the net to find out about the issue, it was really, really, really old news. The current practice is chemo, and if there's a sign that the cancer is not in remission, they use radiation.

That doesn't mean such things don't go on. We had the problem with the syphilis patients in Alabama, and the military regularly conducted such tests with dependents.

There are many different levels of "remission." It's not an all-or-none thing, as it is unfortunately portrayed. You have clinical remission, which is simply when the patient begins to feel better. However, cancer cells will still exist at this stage. You have hematologic and cytogenic remission. Again, cancer cells still exist at these stages. You have FISH remission and flow cytometric remission. These refer to various types of tests that are used to determine the level of cancer cells. Some tests are more specific than others. An individual is treated until they are in what is called molecular remission, which indicates that the patient is negative for tumor cells in a test called PCR analysis. This is the most "complete" stage of remission. So a person may be in one of any stages of remission and still need treatment, because if molecular remission is not achieved, the cancer will recur. The cancer may even recur if molecular remission is achieved. But if the patient is not in this state, a recurrence is pretty much a given. So there is obviously a great deal of information that is being left out of this article for the sake of simplicity. Unfortunately, it's very pertinent information.

The girl was part of a study program, and the medical profession didn't want their results skewed by over zealous parents.

Well, it's pretty plain that this wasn't the complete truth, or the cancer would not have recurred so soon.

It's always amazed me how some folks are so distrustful of doctors. Yet when they are ill, they are first in line at the doctor's office, wanting as much to be done as possible for them. Individuals who want to impugn every motive of every health professional should rather see a voodoo priestess when they are ill.

Where would medicine be without study programs? Answer: probably the equivalent of the mid-20th century.

Similar issue would be residents; some people don't want to be treated by a resident. My take on that (I work in a residency-based practice): there is always a staff doc supervising, so you have 2 docs supervising your care, a resident is up on the latest treatments/trends, as opposed to the doc who is not working in a teaching institution, and by seeing a different doctor, you get a fresh perspective (in our practice, we have residents see our patients for acute visits; oftentimes, it's not their regular doctor). Whenever we bring my son to the doctor, he oftentimes will see a resident, and I have no problem with that.