Mother never told her teenage daughter she had months to live.

[bitesize]

This is a few years old, but I stumbled across it and found it interesting....what do you guys think??

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...hid-truth.html

[dancinfool]

I think the mother was justified in doing what she did, especially since her daughter was given 6 months to live and lived another 4 years. She still had time to say goodbye to friends and family, but she had 4 pretty normal years before that. It must have been really hard for the mother but if you were the girl wouldn't you rather not know? Imagine that hanging over you for 4 years, surely that would result in depression and probably worse health.

[Aletheia*]

The mother was doing what she thought was best. I think she was justified in doing this. It's her daughter, nobody elses, and she made the decision to let her continue to live a normal life. She defied doctors and went on to live another 4, normal years. Eventually, she might have figured out she wasn't going to make it. It's just an intuition within us, but her mother had the right to keep that information from her. I think she did the right thing, on letting her continue to live a normal life without having to worry about when it would happen, how it would happen, etc.

[The Morrigan]

I don't know. I get that the mother thought what she was doing was best but since the girl was 13 surely she should have had a right to know, maybe if the girl was only 4 or 5 she wouldn't have understood it but what about all those other people who are terminally ill and want to make bucket lists? This girl never had a chance to do that and even though she did live 4 years longer than expected what if she had only lived the 6 months she was predicted?

If it was me I'd rather know.

[Cosmo]

I think both decisions she could have made could be justified. I think she did what she felt was best, I don't necessarily disagree with her.

If she told her daughter, her daughter's life would be ruined and she'd no longer have any happiness, however she'd have time to say goodbye.
If she kept it to herself, her daughter would be able to live her life as she'd actually want to live it.

[Le bonheur*]

I think that her mother did the right thing by keeping it from her. If she was told she was going to die within that six month period the girl might have given up all hope and [in my own opinion] she might not have lasted that extra four years. When her health took a turn for the worst, I think she may have realized she was dying, as that's human instinct.. But as far as I read in the article, I think she lived a fairly normal life after being diagnosed with cancer and she didn't worry about death. I really think the mother did the right thing.

[Anthropomorphic]

There are plenty of people who would probably want to know if they had a very limited amount of time to live (predicted, at least), but personally I wouldn't want to know. I think this mother was well within her rights not to tell her daughter. It's quite possible that the girl would have just broken down and not enjoyed any days she had left, regardless of if she lived that long or lived much longer.

[Kate*]

There are scientific studies where they take 2 groups of paients with the same prognosis and tell one group and not the other. The group that is told the time frame has more deaths which to an extent proves that, if given a time frame, people will prove that prediction right. The mother was clearly within her rights to tell her or not. I think I would want to know, but at 13 I don't know if I could've handled that.

[Boobies]

The girl had the right to know and I think the mother should have told her. I don't care much about the whole 'I wanted her to love a normal life' and similar things, in the end it wasn't the mothers life so why should she get to keep such vital information a secret?

[Cosmo]

Originally Posted by God.

The girl had the right to know and I think the mother should have told her. I don't care much about the whole 'I wanted her to love a normal life' and similar things, in the end it wasn't the mothers life so why should she get to keep such vital information a secret?

You can only ask the question 'Why would she keep such vital information a secret?' if you've both a) Ignored every answer given in this thread b) not thought about it longer than about 30 seconds.

[Marguerite]

Originally Posted by MonsterCosmonaut

I think both decisions she could have made could be justified. I think she did what she felt was best, I don't necessarily disagree with her.

If she told her daughter, her daughter's life would be ruined and she'd no longer have any happiness, however she'd have time to say goodbye.
If she kept it to herself, her daughter would be able to live her life as she'd actually want to live it.

I basically agree with this. She found out her 13 year old was dying... there was no right or wrong way to go about it.

Either decision she could have made would have been acceptable.

[Boobies]

Originally Posted by MonsterCosmonaut

You can only ask the question 'Why would she keep such vital information a secret?' if you've both a) Ignored every answer given in this thread b) not thought about it longer than about 30 seconds.

I fully understand why she'd want to keep it a secret, but that's not what I said, I asked why should she get to to keep it a secret. Should and would are completely different.

[Cosmo]

Originally Posted by God.

I fully understand why she'd want to keep it a secret, but that's not what I said, I asked why should she get to to keep it a secret. Should and would are completely different.

Because she's the mother? She's the one that brought her into this world and is responsible for her safety and wellbeing? Because if she'd told her daughter, she'd have ruined her daughters life?

[Aletheia*]

Originally Posted by MonsterCosmonaut

Because she's the mother? She's the one that brought her into this world and is responsible for her safety and wellbeing? Because if she'd told her daughter, she'd have ruined her daughters life?

I second this.

[Boobies]

Originally Posted by MonsterCosmonaut

Because she's the mother? She's the one that brought her into this world and is responsible for her safety and wellbeing? Because if she'd told her daughter, she'd have ruined her daughters life?

Because she's the mother? That's your reason? It's not a very good one, same thing could be said if she'd kicked her daughter really hard, after all she is the mother and she brought her into this world, so of course there is nothing wrong that she can do to the child.

[Cosmo]

Originally Posted by God.

Because she's the mother? That's your reason? It's not a very good one, same thing could be said if she'd kicked her daughter really hard, after all she is the mother and she brought her into this world, so of course there is nothing wrong that she can do to the child.

It's apparently a reason more than a few people agree with. She's the parent, the carer, the person who brought them into this world and is fully responsible for their childs wellbeing. It is up to her, being given the news, to decide if telling her daughter is in the daughters best interest. Now, you may not agree with the decision you made, but if she'd told her daughter then her life would have been ruined and people would still complain that she made the wrong choice.

[Reverie.]

I think she made the right choice in this case. When I think about it NOW I think that I'd want to know but if I was placed in that position, i think I wouldn't want to know. The article is so sad...

[thebigmole]

I think she absolutely made the right choice. It's more than just a little likely that that girl would not have lived the extra 4 years had she been told she only had 6 months left at 13. The mind is a powerful thing. She thought she was going to be fine and for 4 years she was, that's a great gift her mother was able to make happen.

[Fairy Poppins]

"She had four years of being a normal teenager, not four years of fear and dread."

This quote from her mother is what makes me agree with her decision not to tell her daughter the full extent of her cancer.

This story actually made me well up 'cause my Aunt died of exactly the same cancer (malignant melanoma) in 2003 (and that then triggered my OCD and subsequent Clinical Depression).

[Heartlines.]

I don't agree with most of you. While the mother did what she felt was right, it's not her body. I don't think it was fair for her to lie to her daughter about HER OWN body. I do agree with you all to an extent. However, even if it would make my life potentially worse.. I would still want the truth. Then again, that's me.. and we don't know how she felt.

[Gymnophoria]

This brought me to tears, it's such a sad, and beautiful story.
I completely understand the mother's decision, she was right. What mother wants their 13 year old child to wake up every day knowing they were going to die?

[Iridescence]

I think that the mother was right to not tell her, I mean yes it was sad that she didn't tell her daughter she had so little time to live but at the same time, would you rather have your daughter worrying every second of everyday if that will be the moment they die? Or have her living as long as she can happy and free?
I feel bad about the girl and the mom though.

[-A-]

If this happened in the US, there's a chance the mother would of been charged with child neglect if not negligent homicide. Hiding the medical records from her daughter, who was the one suffering from the illness, even in good faith, was irresponsible. Yes, the mother wanted her daughter to "live her life, but not disclosing what the doctor had told her endangered her child's life more so by not letting her know ther seriousness of the subject and to show her to take even minor symtoms seriously.

[Heartlines.]

I also want to add something.
Why would finding out something like that result in a bad thing?

Let's say that the child was depressed or took life for granted. Knowing that she was sick could make her value life more. Just a thought.

[Pelios]

Originally Posted by -A-

If this happened in the US, there's a chance the mother would of been charged with child neglect if not negligent homicide. Hiding the medical records from her daughter, who was the one suffering from the illness, even in good faith, was irresponsible.

And that's why the USA is so messed up.

[Cosmo]

Originally Posted by -A-

If this happened in the US, there's a chance the mother would of been charged with child neglect if not negligent homicide. Hiding the medical records from her daughter, who was the one suffering from the illness, even in good faith, was irresponsible. Yes, the mother wanted her daughter to "live her life, but not disclosing what the doctor had told her endangered her child's life more so by not letting her know ther seriousness of the subject and to show her to take even minor symtoms seriously.

Even if she had known about it, she wouldn't have lived longer. Actually she'd probably have lived the expected 6 months, not 4 years. Plus she'd have woken up every day knowing that she was falling apart and was going to die. I don't see how it's "irresponsible" or that you have any right to judge her for what she did. She could tell her daughter, and her daughter would probably have killed herself, or she could keep it to herself and let her daughter live what remained of her life as she wanted to.

Also, on the first bit, if she does get charged, I'm going to lose any lingering respect for America.

[-A-]

Originally Posted by Cosmo

Proof?

It was irresponsible cues she did not tell her child how serve her condition was. She hid the truth from her daurghter

"probably have killed herself". You have nothing to back this statemtent up.

Also, on the first bit, if she does get charged, I'm going to lose any lingering respect for America. I believe it stated this happened somewhere in the UK, so salt on you.

And even if this had happened in the US, to sticking bad. She lied to her child about her medical condition. She in no way gave the shild insight into her treatment and in the US, at the age of 13 you have the right to view your own medical record, request a different doctor and even seal part of your record off from your parents if you believe that the course of treatment is not in your best intrest. Granted, for the majority of that to happened you'd have to take it through the court.

..........

[Cosmo]

Originally Posted by -A-

..........

Due to the way you responded it's difficult to quote you.


As for proof that keeping it from her may increase her life span, it's called the placebo effect. Basic stuff.


I don't see how that's irresponsible. You're essentially arguing that you think the daughter should have lived 6 months of crushing depression (depression isn't a strong enough word) before dying rather than 4 years of blissful ignorance living her life as she wanted to. Why do you want to argue this?


"You have nothing to back this statement up"


It's called logic. Many people with terminal illnesses choose suicide (or assisted suicide) as the quick, easy way out of a long, drawn-out suffering. A young girl would be unlikely to cope with it to any degree.

And even if this had happened in the US, to sticking bad. She lied to her child about her medical condition. She in no way gave the child insight into her treatment and in the US, at the age of 13 you have the right to view your own medical record, request a different doctor and even seal part of your record off from your parents if you believe that the course of treatment is not in your best intrest. Granted, for the majority of that to happened you'd have to take it through the court.

Why does this matter? It's about what's right for her child, not about what is legal or not.

[Fairy Poppins]

Originally Posted by Amoroso

I don't think it was fair for her to lie to her daughter about HER OWN body.

There is technically a difference between an omission of truth (e.g. the full extent of the cancer) and a complete lie (e.g. "No, you're completely healthy and will live 'til you're 80").

The article says, "She was never told the extent of her cancer. The doctors said that if she asked, they would have to say, but she never did." So it wasn't like she didn't have the chance to find out.

There is the argument that her mother shouldn't have even omitted the truth, but I guess once she had started down that road it would have been difficult to come clean and tell her daughter everything.

Plus, 13 is a difficult age. Some children are very emotionally mature at that age. You mentioned that telling her might not have been a negative thing because she may have valued her life more, however that outlook on life in times of impending death is something that not all 13 year-olds would be able to have. Perhaps her mother figured that her daughter would react negatively rather than positively, since she would know have known her level of emotional maturity better than most.

[ShimmeringFaerie]

I don't know how anyone can say that the mother was within her rights. I don't think anyone has the right to hide medical information from a patient, regardless of their relationship with them. The daughter had a right to know. If there were things she wanted to do before she died, she should have had the chance to do them before she was too sick to do so. Yes, she did get the chance to say goodbye, but she was terribly sick by the time she knew she was dying.

And it's ridiculous to argue that she lived longer than she would have otherwise. Nobody can possibly know that. Nobody knows that she wouldn't have lived a longer, better life if she had been told her prognosis. There are plenty of patients suffering from terminal illnesses who are told when they are supposed to die and continue to live for many years after that point. Who is to say that she wouldn't have been one of those people? Who is to say that she wouldn't have achieved amazing things if she had been aware that she had little time to live?

If the daughter was younger, then I probably would say that the mother made the right decision. But once you are a teenager, you should have the right to know and be informed of your own medical information. If it was the doctor who had kept information from her, I doubt anyone would say that was okay. Why is it okay for a mother to do so?

[Paix et Amour]

i think what she did was right. if i had terminal cancer, i would not want to knnow how long i would live or even that it was terminal. i could live the rest of my life happier if i didnt have to think i could die any day.

[Cosmo]

Originally Posted by ShimmeringFaerie

I don't know how anyone can say that the mother was within her rights.

Because both decisions were equally valid and you therefore get many people arguing both side? Seems to be most people agree she did the right thing but in all honesty if she'd done what you suggest an equal amount of people would have complained about it, not to mention the effect it would have on her daughter.

[ShimmeringFaerie]

Originally Posted by Cosmo

Because both decisions were equally valid and you therefore get many people arguing both side? Seems to be most people agree she did the right thing but in all honesty if she'd done what you suggest an equal amount of people would have complained about it, not to mention the effect it would have on her daughter.

My point was about people using the phrase "within her rights", not with people arguing that she did the right thing. I don't believe that a parent has the right to withhold medical information about their child from that child, especially if their child is capable of understanding the medical information. If a child had a life-threatening disease, but treatable disease, I'm sure no one would argue that a parent has the right to withhold such information. I'm sure no one would argue that a parent has the right to withhold other information about the child, such as report cards. It shouldn't be a parent's right to withhold such important information.

[Thurineth]

I think what she did was right. She didnt want to give her child a death sentance which is essentially what she could have done. Her child lived in hope and strived to be happy rather than worry for whats going to happen.

My brother has Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy and learning difficulties. Would it be right for us to tell him that he probably won't live to his mid-twenties? I don't think so..

[Cosmo]

Originally Posted by ShimmeringFaerie

My point was about people using the phrase "within her rights", not with people arguing that she did the right thing. I don't believe that a parent has the right to withhold medical information about their child from that child, especially if their child is capable of understanding the medical information. If a child had a life-threatening disease, but treatable disease, I'm sure no one would argue that a parent has the right to withhold such information. I'm sure no one would argue that a parent has the right to withhold other information about the child, such as report cards. It shouldn't be a parent's right to withhold such important information.

Why does it matter if she was 'within her rights'? She did what was right for her child. The point is that she had a terminal illness with zero chance of recovery or being able to treat it, that's why this case is very different.

[bitesize]

I do see where you guys are coming from when you say that she was right, but honestly I just can't agree. I really feel that her daughter had a right to know. If I was her daughter and had found out that had been kept from me I would ahve found it difficult to forgive my mother....I would definitely have preferred to know.

[escape_thereal_world]

I think her mother did the right thing. I'd rather not know I'm dying if nothing else can be done about it. She had gotten her daughter treatments and watched for changes. Then they were confirmed and unfortunately it seems the doctors didn't want to try anything. I don't believe the mother ever denied treatments to help her daughter.

So I think it was a good choice.

[-A-]

Originally Posted by Cosmo

Due to the way you responded it's difficult to quote you.


As for proof that keeping it from her may increase her life span, it's called the placebo effect. Basic stuff.


I don't see how that's irresponsible. You're essentially arguing that you think the daughter should have lived 6 months of crushing depression (depression isn't a strong enough word) before dying rather than 4 years of blissful ignorance living her life as she wanted to. Why do you want to argue this?


"You have nothing to back this statement up"


It's called logic. Many people with terminal illnesses choose suicide (or assisted suicide) as the quick, easy way out of a long, drawn-out suffering. A young girl would be unlikely to cope with it to any degree.



Why does this matter? It's about what's right for her child, not about what is legal or not.

I'll try to repost over here...

Yes, I understand about the placebo effect, but that does not make it it fact that should would of died sooner. How much the brain will effectively help treatment over a long period of time varies dramatically.

And no, I'm not arguing the daughter should of lived 6 mons with serve depression. Lets go over this again... We don't know if should would of only lived 6 mons. In fact she lived for 4 years past the original time span. I'm arguing (if she was in the US) that she legally could not of done that.

Yes it gave the young lady SOME peace of mind, but that also allowed her to keep her guard down to ignore future signs on relasp, which in fact killed her.

Yet again, you don't have anything to prove your statement. Your making generalizations as oposed to facts in order to justify the mothers actions.

For the most part, laws are put into place cues people are too stupid to do the right thing.

[Cosmo]

Originally Posted by -A-

And no, I'm not arguing the daughter should of lived 6 mons with serve depression. Lets go over this again... We don't know if should would of only lived 6 mons. In fact she lived for 4 years past the original time span. I'm arguing (if she was in the US) that she legally could not of done that.

So assume she lives 4 years. Is 4 years of depression not even more cruel?

Originally Posted by -A-

Yes it gave the young lady SOME peace of mind, but that also allowed her to keep her guard down to ignore future signs on relasp, which in fact killed her.

There was nothing she could have done.

Originally Posted by -A-

Yet again, you don't have anything to prove your statement. Your making generalizations as oposed to facts in order to justify the mothers actions.

Do you also want me to prove that the grass is green?


Telling a young teenage girl she has terminal cancer and will die within 6 months will cause depression.
Depression with a terminal illness normally leads to suicidal thoughts.
A young teenage girl with suicidal thoughts and 6 months to live is more likely than most to follow through with either suicide or assisted suicide.


I don't need to 'prove it', you just follow logic, hope that isn't too difficult.

Originally Posted by -A-

For the most part, laws are put into place cues people are too stupid to do the right thing.

And? She did the right thing where the law would have had her do the wrong thing. Let's not pretend the law = morality.

[-A-]

Originally Posted by Cosmo

So assume she lives 4 years. Is 4 years of depression not even more cruel?

Who said she would live in sevrve depression? I know plenty of people, who for the most part, do not suffer from serve depression. Sure, they is some depression but thats part of have a terminal illness. It shows you how fragile life really is.

There was nothing she could have done.

Isn't ignorence bliss? Yes, there was quite a bit she could of done. I pretty sure that your insight into medicine is quite small.

Do you also want me to prove that the grass is green?

It's a fact common yard grass is a shade of green.

Telling a young teenage girl she has terminal cancer and will die within 6 months will cause depression.
Depression with a terminal illness normally leads to suicidal thoughts.
A young teenage girl with suicidal thoughts and 6 months to live is more likely than most to follow through with either suicide or assisted suicide.


I don't need to 'prove it', you just follow logic, hope that isn't too difficult.

Depression in general leads one to suicidal thoughts, but whether they act on it is a completely differen't thing. And I never did I say she could not suffer from depression. Your making a statement that she would most likely comitte suicide with the only knowledge of the girl based on a bias news article. Thats why I;m saying your making a generalization.


And? She did the right thing where the law would have had her do the wrong thing. Let's not pretend the law = morality.

And lets not pretend that people do the right things. People will do what they want with little care about the ramafactions it may have on others. Yes, the mother believed that that this would be best for the girl, but she took her daughters rights and life into her own hands. The girl (in the US) had the legal right to know what her medical records (what the Doctor told her mom) had to say.

..........