Good To See Fiscal Conservatism At Work

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/19...ntcmp=trending

Quote:

---

"What she's been through sucks," William May, the father of cancer-survivor McKenna May, told FoxNews.com. "But I think any money that the organization hands out to children, should go to dying kids. Not cured ones."

---

Good to see a man standing up for principle. 9-12 project!

What?

What I gained from this, is that sfts reads fox news.

Which means that in a year or two, we'll have a new Glenn Beck on this forum.

Guys, they can't all be homeruns

The dad is a jerk.

The dads a jerk, but his intentions are (somewhat) noble, Id say.

She is suffering because of her poor lifestyle choices and now she expects a handout. Typical liberal.

The father is separated from the Mom.
The father has a new wife.
Child is not considered cured until five years after her last treatment. Given she is four that means she is not considered cured by the standards outlined in the article.

I think the father may have alternative motives hen noble ones. Some people will do anything to spite an ex and that includes hurting the children.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

The father is separated from the Mom.
The father has a new wife.
Child is not considered cured until five years after her last treatment. Given she is four that means she is not considered cured by the standards outlined in the article.

I think the father may have alternative motives hen noble ones. Some people will do anything to spite an ex and that includes hurting the children.

---

That's a rather nasty assumption to be making

Might very well be true, though. His explanation that he wants to free up the money for genuinely ill kids (whereas it remains to be seen if his own kid is actually cured) smells like BS.

How did it even get in the paper? Publicity stunt by father?

But yes, the only hope the poor daughter had was that after all the nasty surgery and the like, she gets to go to Disney Land. She manages to become stable enough to enjoy it, then her father goes "lolol"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

Might very well be true, though. His explanation that he wants to free up the money for genuinely ill kids (whereas it remains to be seen if his own kid is actually cured) smells like BS.

---

Perhaps, but in the end if she goes somebody else can't, the budget is limited. It's no right it's a courtesy in the end, it doesn't count that it would mean a lot for her to be going to Disneyland imho. I would happily donate some money for her but it's not a right.

Dying kids isn't fun. But if they're terminal, resources are better spent on those who are going to live.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Dying kids isn't fun. But if they're terminal, resources are better spent on those who are going to live.

~:smoking:

---

So cold, but you all know that Rory is right.

Debatable. Id rather take a kid who was going to die to Disneyland than one who was going to live. The one who is going to live can go later on in life. The one who is going to die cannot. Why have them live their last few years of life in depression? Yeah, both kids are unhappy now, but in the long run, one will have beaten cancer while the other one didnt.

You don't "beat" cancer. You get over it and live with the constant, very real, fear or either a relapse or the fact the chemo or radiotherapy massively increased your risk of almost every cancer going.

Yes, enjoy one's time and carpe diem, but the phrase "beaten cancer" is to date a misnomer.

I'm not suggesting sending either of them to Disneyworld. How about some immunisations for those without?

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Perhaps, but in the end if she goes somebody else can't, the budget is limited. It's no right it's a courtesy in the end, it doesn't count that it would mean a lot for her to be going to Disneyland imho. I would happily donate some money for her but it's not a right.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

Debatable. Id rather take a kid who was going to die to Disneyland than one who was going to live. The one who is going to live can go later on in life. The one who is going to die cannot. Why have them live their last few years of life in depression? Yeah, both kids are unhappy now, but in the long run, one will have beaten cancer while the other one didnt.

---

I don't get it. The guy's excuse doesn't sound plausble to me in the slightest. What kind of person would:
1) deny his own kid a trip to Disneyland after an ordeal like that,
2) against the judgement of the charity in question

I don't see why you're giving this guy the benefit of doubt. I miss the times when the backroom was a collection of judgemental narcissists. You people are soft.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

the fact the chemo or radiotherapy massively increased your risk of almost every cancer going.

---

What do you mean by this, rory? You're speaking with medical knowledge I don't have, and now I'm curious...

Most chemotherapy and radiotherapy works on the principle that it damages fast dividing cancer cells quicker than the rest. Hence why people feel nauseous, loose their hair and feel dreadful - fast dividing cells are being killed (hair follicles and the lining of the gut). Radiotherapy is broadly the same. Sure, the targeted area gets most of the radiation, but other tissues gets a fair whack (PET is a lot better, more expensive)

Things are getting a lot better, especially in some areas where treatments are not the older blunderbuss alkylating agents but targeted treatments. but most will still cause damage to all cells in the body which often leads to problems down the line. The younger one is the longer one has for these problems to occur over. Better to die tomorrow than today.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Most chemotherapy and radiotherapy works on the principle that it damages fast dividing cancer cells quicker than the rest. Hence why people feel nauseous, loose their hair and feel dreadful - fast dividing cells are being killed (hair follicles and the lining of the gut). Radiotherapy is broadly the same. Sure, the targeted area gets most of the radiation, but other tissues gets a fair whack (PET is a lot better, more expensive)

Things are getting a lot better, especially in some areas where treatments are not the older blunderbuss alkylating agents but targeted treatments. but most will still cause damage to all cells in the body which often leads to problems down the line. The younger one is the longer one has for these problems to occur over. Better to die tomorrow than today.

~:smoking:

---

Thanks, but what kind of problems can it lead to, specifically? New cancer? The same cancer reappearing? All kinds of illnesses?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

I don't get it. The guy's excuse doesn't sound plausble to me in the slightest. What kind of person would:
1) deny his own kid a trip to Disneyland after an ordeal like that,
2) against the judgement of the charity in question

I don't see why you're giving this guy the benefit of doubt. I miss the times when the backroom was a collection of judgemental narcissists. You people are soft.

---

I'm still judegmental. I don't know that other word, sounds like a flavor of ice cream.

Narcissist flavoured ice cream. Salty with ammonia notes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

I don't get it. The guy's excuse doesn't sound plausble to me in the slightest. What kind of person would:
1) deny his own kid a trip to Disneyland after an ordeal like that,
2) against the judgement of the charity in question

I don't see why you're giving this guy the benefit of doubt. I miss the times when the backroom was a collection of judgemental narcissists. You people are soft.

---

I give him the benifit of the doubt because I don't expect anyone to be happy with a child that has cancer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Dying kids isn't fun. But if they're terminal, resources are better spent on those who are going to live.

~:smoking:

---

I was under the impression Make a Wish was not a charity that performs any medical intervention.


Bascially I have no reservation in saying this dad piece of human slime is a compete jerk who is obviously just attacking his ex out of spite. I seriousl doubt he will uphold these fiscal principles for himself or his new family one day if it was required.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Thanks, but what kind of problems can it lead to, specifically? New cancer? The same cancer reappearing? All kinds of illnesses?

---

All manner. It's not quite on the same level of the Medieval procedure for removing embedded arrow heads (pray the thing doesn't break, that the wound won't fester and the patient does not get a fever) but only because we use liberal amounts of antibiotics. Depending on the type of cancer (leukemia) for instance you have to have a bone marrow transplant because yours is now probably destroyed, and you will need a hefty blood transfer too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

I was under the impression Make a Wish was not a charity that performs any medical intervention.


Bascially I have no reservation in saying this dad piece of human slime is a compete jerk who is obviously just attacking his ex out of spite. I seriousl doubt he will uphold these fiscal principles for himself or his new family one day if it was required.

---

You can't know that unless you hear it from him personally, why draw any conclusions when the subject matter is so delicate. If you are wrong it is a very offensive assumptiom to be making considering the circumstances.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

You don't "beat" cancer. You get over it and live with the constant, very real, fear or either a relapse or the fact the chemo or radiotherapy massively increased your risk of almost every cancer going.

Yes, enjoy one's time and carpe diem, but the phrase "beaten cancer" is to date a misnomer.

---

Eg. Mo Mowlam.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

You can't know that unless you hear it from him personally, why draw any conclusions when the subject matter is so delicate. If you are wrong it is a very offensive assumptiom to be making considering the circumstances.

---

Careful there FRAG you may get that statememt read back to you in an "It's de Muzlims Thread"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

Careful there FRAG you may get that statememt read back to you in an "It's de Muzlims Thread"

---

With good reason if there is any