As we’ve been leaning this way and that over the past few days, swaying back and forth, we’ve acknowledged, with a degree of defeat, that there is no one thing that’s going to suddenly appear that will make this decision any easier.

But we were wrong.

This afternoon, as I sat in a reclining chair (just relaxing) down at the hospital while Austin, hooked to an eight-hour blood transfusion, slept in my arms, I held my breath and opened a return email from the lead author of the study protocol we’ve been following. We’ve never had any contact with this doctor, the head of Pediatric Oncology at Children’s Hospital-Los Angeles, whose name I simply typed into Google to search for an email address. His response, which I was quite frankly surprised to receive at all, said that there is NO STATISTICAL BENEFIT for children who did more than one maintenance cycle of chemotherapy. Here are his words, copied from my email: “Due to the small numbers, we were unable to detect any statistical difference or advantage for those patients receiving > 1 maintenance cycle.”

Well. That pretty much does it. Barring anything suspicious on Monday’s abdominal ultrasound and chest CT, that pretty much does it. There are so many known disadvantages to carrying on and no known advantages. How could we not choose to stop? It would almost be crazy to keep going.

We’ve been leaning in this direction, as I think you could tell, wanting to stop. But unsure whether we wanted to stop just because continuing would be so horrible or because it was really the right thing to do. Every time we check in with each other, last thing before drifting off to sleep and first thing upon waking in the morning: “Which way you leanin’ now, honey?” our answer is, “Weeeeellll, I sort of think we should stop, buuuuuuttttt . . .”

And now, we can feel like we are making the best decision given the information we have. It is not a victory, not a free pass to the future. We still face every unknown we faced yesterday: His kidney could fail anyway, his cancer could return and be even harder to treat. But at least, we have some peace in knowing we are not skimping out, we are not cutting loose early for selfish reasons.

The big question I assume most of you are asking, because I’ve asked it myself, is: Why does anyone do more than one cycle if there’s no detectable benefit? I don’t have a scientific answer for that but I think it’s because the researchers were trying to find that detectable benefit. They were hoping that four cycles would push the survival rate up to 60% and five cycles would push it up to 65%. But that didn’t happen. Even with extra weeks and months of chemo, the best number they could reach was 50%.

Now that shouldn’t make us feel super confident moving forward, and trust me, it doesn’t, but if this cancer returns, well, it might have returned anyway. I mean, if chemo is gonna work, it should have worked, right?

We had dinner with my parents the other night and my mom came armed with scrap paper charts to list out the pros and cons of each option. My dad had already made up his mind (stop), but the rest of us were still hemming and hawing. Before we left, my mom (still undecided) landed on an important point: Stopping is the one chance, the only chance, we have at a huge victory, at (and you know she didn’t use this word and I can’t believe I’m about to either, but here goes) at a miracle. Stopping is the only way we can ever look back and say, “Wow, we really, really did it.  And we didn’t have to sacrifice every last piece of ourselves.  We beat that damn thing and we’re still intact.”

We might be able to do both: we might be able to remain intact and still win. And that is what we are going to try to do.