Those who feel that chemotherapy is the better or proven treatment for cancer should take a closer look at the statistics. Especially those not affiliated to industries that gain economically from the multi billion dollar chemotherapy treatment. It i true the survival or cure rate for chemotherapy is not 0%. The most recent study looking at survival rates in 22 types of adult cancers showed that while in Australia the survival rate is 60%, chemotherapy only helped to 'cure' 2.1% of this. In the US it's estimated at 2.3%. So it's not 0% it's 2.1%. For all the pain, suffering and cost, and the side effects that can kill you, nevermind the cancer!

I would guess that mud might have as good a chance!

The religious element was thrown into this ' documentary' purely for emotive reasons – and I can see from this forum that it's got the response it was after. A lot of religion vs science mumbo jumbo if you ask me. This family made this decision because this is the treatment they chose for their daughter, they didn't want chemotherapy. That they happen to be religious and follow a certain faith is by the by. Had they chosen chemotherapy, they would be using the same justifications about God's will.

You may think mud or tea or herbal treatment is mumbo jumbo, and it might well be. And you might think that belief in God is mum jumbo, and it might well be. But what the facts seem to be that this family truly believe in the curative properties of this mud and tea treatment, as some of you truly believe in the curative properties of chemotherapy. The difference is, mud hasn't been proven ineffective, but chemotherapy pretty much has! Except in a very small percentage of cancer patients.

Chemotherapy can sometimes be the only life-saving option.

If this girl is not yet terminal, how should she be treated? In your world, she should be left to die.

You have got be joking me Heather. These parents are irresponsible and deluded and completely ignoring good evidence. How are they acting in the poor girl's best interests when the only evidence-based clinically proven therapy for her is to receive chemotherapy specific for her tumour type? That chemotherapy has side-effects is why specialists ie. oncologists need to make a clinical judgement about the risks and benefits in every individual case. Hair loss may be a side-effect, but at least chemotherapy has proven efficacy unlike mud.

And why are you labelling the girl's condition as terminal? It may very well be if the parent's don't act swiftly (unfortunately they don't seem to be), but you are essentially saying it is OKAY for all children with cancer to die and be left to die and not be offered the one therapy that might save them.

And @Heather, you should be ashamed. You are a paediatric nurse for crying out loud. Clearly your personal crusade against "patriarchal doctors" and the "medical establishment" is clouding your judgement about what is in the best interests of this poor girl. You say "The sad reality is that the little girl will die no matter what you do. I've seen what chemotherapy does to a person" – how do you know she is going to die? Do you know the prognosis of her condition? Are you medically trained to understand that?

Chemotherapy saves lives. Yes, of course, it can and does have side-effects, frequently severe. These need to be considered. If a person's medical prognosis as assessed by an oncology doctor (not a nurse, who has NO training to do this) is terminal , then good palliative care needs to be offered – this is good medicine to know when not to be overly aggressive with therapies when the chance of survival is so poor. To someone who is also in the medical/health profession, I find your comments completely irresponsible.

"The costs in severe cancer treated with chemotherapy are horrific." Well Heather, the costs in severe cancer without any sort of therapy is usually death.

Perhaps it's because they have training and expertise in their field that qualifies them to make medical decisions. Yeah, that could be it.

And even if they did have egos the size of Montana, that wouldn't alter what we know based on the findings of medical research, reasearch based on that thing commonly known as reality.