REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Dangerous trend toward medical autocracy?

POSTED BY: CANTTAKESKY
UPDATED: Tuesday, October 26, 2021 13:43
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 6127
PAGE 1 of 4

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 8:35 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Judge Orders Teen to Have Cancer Treatment
By SONJA BARISIC, AP

NORFOLK, Virginia (July 22) - A judge ruled Friday that a 16-year-old boy fighting to use alternative treatment for his cancer must report to a hospital by Tuesday and accept treatment that doctors deem necessary, the family's attorney said.

The judge also found Starchild Abraham Cherrix's parents were neglectful for allowing him to pursue alternative treatment of a sugar-free, organic diet and herbal supplements supervised by a clinic in Mexico, lawyer John Stepanovich said.

Jay and Rose Cherrix of Chincoteague on Virginia's Eastern Shore must continue to share custody of their son with the Accomack County Department of Social Services, as the judge had previously ordered, Stepanovich said.

The parents were devastated by the new order and planned to appeal, the lawyer said.

Stepanovich said he will ask a higher court on Monday to stay enforcement of the order, which requires the parents to take Abraham to Children's Hospital of the King's Daughters in Norfolk and to give the oncologist their written legal consent to treat their son for Hodgkin's disease.

"I want to caution all parents of Virginia: Look out, because Social Services may be pounding on your door next when they disagree with the decision you've made about the health care of your child," Stepanovich said.

Phone calls to the Cherrix home went unanswered.

The lawyer declined to release the ruling, saying juvenile court Judge Jesse E. Demps has sealed much of the case.

Social Services officials have declined to comment, citing privacy laws. After three months of chemotherapy last year made him nauseated and weak, Abraham rejected doctors' recommendations to go through a second round when he learned early this year that his Hodgkin's disease, a cancer of the lymph nodes, was active again.

A social worker then asked a judge to require the teen to continue conventional treatment. In May, the judge issued a temporary order finding Abraham's parents neglectful and awarding partial custody to the county, with Abraham continuing to live at home with his four siblings.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/nation/4064116.html




Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 10:24 AM

SIMONWHO


Why not just let natural selection take its course? It would be the perfect rebuttal to all those who begin their threadbare arguments with "As a parent..."

A pity a 16 year old would have to die as a result but then he could join the army at the same age here so...

Check out my Serenity Auctions for Equality Now!

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=004&item=1400121002
83

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=004&item=1400120938
86

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=004&item=1400121031
71

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 10:32 AM

GUYWHOWANTSAFIREFLYOFHISOWN


and how would you feel if it was your child?



http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/llama.php
-try it out, I dare you

98% of teens have smoked pot, if you are one of the 2% that haven't, copy this into your signature

I'm so into Firefly, my butt glows in the dark.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 12:54 PM

FREMDFIRMA


I note that this particular article (there's been a couple) makes no note of the teen in question's own opinion.

That being that chemotherapy sucked bad, and wasn't half as effective as the alternatives he was interested in pursuing.

Remember, these are the same asswipes who so enjoyed loading up kids with thimerosal-laced vaccines on a mandatory basis - something which enriched big pharma at the cost of a whole lot of now autistic children.

Remember, these are the same scum who push psychotropic drugs that are 'off-schedule' at young children without any mind to the long-term effects, some of which, we're finding, are pretty horrific.

The same folks who pushed an "antidepressant" that induces suicidal thoughts...

The same folks who seem to thing MSG and Aspartame are perfectly safe to ingest.

Who influanced lawmakers and policy to bend things to profit them.

Not a whole lot of trust in the medical establishment these days, and for good reason - and spare the tinfoil hat comments, if greed and selfishness is a 'conspiracy' then so is the human race.

Yes it's a damn dangerous trend - cause down that path lies forced medication and incarceration for naught more than bucking the party line.

Caveat Emptor indeed... folks should be allowed to make their own choices even if the rest of us do not agree, period.

-Frem

(PS - This is the same medical establishment who wrote me off at a corpse, not once, but TWICE, and who blatantly told me I would never walk again after a near fatal crash in 1992, do not expect me to have a lot of respect for them.)

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 1:50 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


At issue is "Who gets to make the decisions regarding a child's health care"- the child, the parents, or the state?" Well, it depends- on the age and mental abilities of the child and the kind of decision that's being made and the options available. Parents don't "own" their children and they aren't allowed to do whatever the hell they want with them - physically, economically, educationally, sexually, or medically. This is similar to a child who is made to take anitbiootics to treat sepsis altho the parents don't "believe" in medicine.

As far as what the child thinks- altho 16 y/o I'm afraid to say that legally speaking he is still a minor.

Frem- what makes you think that this cancer clinic in Mexico has anything in mind other than making money? Why do you suppose the Mexican medical establishment is any better than the USA medical establishment (other than being overall cheaper)? Remember, Steve McQueen died of laetrile from a cancer clinic in Mexico.

There has to be some pretty solid data showing that this course of treatment is actually working. Do you know where that is? Has the hospital been allowed to review it?

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 2:15 PM

SIMONWHO


Quote:

Originally posted by Guywhowantsafireflyofhisown:
and how would you feel if it was your child?



I'd be gutted that they had cancer and I'd want to save their life. Painful as it is, that would probably mean chemo.

16 year olds (Dougie Howser aside) don't have medical training. They don't have to take part in multi-million dollar tests to see if a treatment is effective. Their opinion is akin to someone requesting the band on the Titanic to play more upbeat music - uplifting but doesn't stop what's going to happen to the boat.

And if you make tinfoil hat worthy comments, you must expect the same back. My mother dragged me to a homeopath (to treat my spots which eventually healed on their own). He said I was allergic to milk. I faithfully gave it up for three long months - no chocolate, no cereal in the morning, etc, etc. No change. She insisted I should then start on a course of homeopathic remedies.

Instead I wanted a second opinion - from a different homeopath. He did the same tests on me as the first one. This time, I was "allergic" to wheat, pepper, onions, yeast and a whole heap more. He went through the list then asked if I had any questions. "Am I allergic to milk?" "No, you're fine with milk."

That was my last visit to a homeopath and indeed almost certainly my last visit to any quack medicine. While I can certainly agree there's some areas of medicine that are too eager to get involved when doing nothing is better (particularly the prescription of psychiatric drugs), the "alternative" medicine industry (and it is an industry) is largely frauds and charlatans, giving out false hope to the gullible and those with no chances left.

Frem - how were you written by the doctors? Did they pronounce you dead? Twice?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 2:34 PM

CHRISISALL


Doctors can be excellent technicians, but when it comes to drugs, it's still largely a mystery to them when a not-by-the-book case comes along.
I was told as a teenager that oil consumption was causing my pimples, like in chocolate. I stopped eating anything but tunafish and water, believing that tuna in water had no oil in it. I lost 15 pounds in a month. Imagine if (as I believed) I was actually consuming NO fats or oils at all? I might be dead.
Turns out that it was SUGAR that was causing MY outbreaks. Huh.
Trained professionals. At theory.

Teach yourself what you need to know to tend to most problems, chances are you'll charge yourself less than a doctor would, too.

Rambo stitches Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 2:49 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Yes, one has to realize that quacks are ALSO in the business to make money.

One interesting issue is the big loophole that the FDA was forced to create for supplements and herbs. People are making money hand over fist for any kind of junk that can be stuffed into a capsule. I subscribe to ConsumerLabs and they're finding that more often than not the contents don't bear any resemblance to the label. But the FDA has to prove that there is serious harm before they can yank a product off the market.

---------------------------------
Caveat emptor indeed

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 2:59 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Caveat Emptor indeed... folks should be allowed to make their own choices even if the rest of us do not agree, period.

I'm with you, Frem. Folks aren't going to understand how important it is to not abdicate one's health care to the medical establishment if they have never been screwed by them. I have, so I can't ever leave my health care up to them again.

And if you really look at it, who can truly care for your health but yourself? Who can exercise for you and eat right for you and maintain your own hygiene--and all the other things that need to be done for health? Besides surgery and emergency services, doctors don't actually provide any tangible "care." They are consultants and salespeople; they give advice on which product is best for you of all the products they represent.

I am my own health care provider. I sometimes pay a health care salesperson to sell me a medicinal product I need. But I don't ask a doctor about what is best for my own health anymore than I ask a grocer what I should make for dinner.

There ARE a lot of quacks and charlatans out there. In both the conventional and alternative medicine camps. That is why it is so important to take responsibility for learning about your own health care options and decide for yourself.

I think it is tragic that people in our society believe that we no longer have the intellectual ability to make our decisions about out own bodies, but must let the medical oligarchy decide for us. If it were my kid, I'd leave the country.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 3:15 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


This is really a travesty. It would be one thing if the parents were in disagreement with the child, but they are not. The state has no right, as I see it, to intervene here, from what I understand of the issue. The decision is purely that of the parents (in consultation with the child, but the parents have the say here.)

This decision made by this judge is really based on ignorance. It would be different if chemotherapy and radiation treatment were medically acknowledge cures for cancer, but they are not. These are treatments of last resort employed simply because doctors don’t know what else to do. Cancer treatments like these largely involve extremely destructive processes that are designed to kill off the cancer cells in the hope, frequently tenuous, that it will force the cancer into remission. The idea is to push the body as close to death as possible in the hope that the cancer dies before the patient. People undergoing chemotherapy suffer horribly. They are in constant pain, both physical and emotional, as the drugs or ionizing radiation destroy their tissue. Their body rots before their eyes. These kinds of treatments really stretch the Hippocratic Oath very, very thin and it’s not an exaggeration to say that patients can and probably do often die from the treatment, long before the cancer would have killed them.

No one should ever be forced against their will to take chemotherapy or radiation treatment. Having watched children rot and die under a treatment that was supposed to save their lives, there’s no way that I can think that this is anything other then a travesty of justice, and indeed state oppression.

If it were my kid, I think I'd want her to take the chemotherapy, because I just don’t think anything else has any chance of working and I selfishly would not want to loose my children. But if she were to come to me and insist that she would rather die then take anymore chemotherapy, I don’t know for sure that I would have the heart to force her and no state has the right to force that kind of torture on my child, however good the intentions may be, against my child’s and my own rational will.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 3:32 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

The state has no right, as I see it, to intervene here, from what I understand of the issue.
I have heard of all of these happening, with serious consequences. Would you allow:

Parent to treat the child's constipation with lead sulfate? (hey, it works!) (permament brain damage)

Treat epilepsy with exorcism? (death)

Treat bipolar disorder with "rebirthing"? (death through suffocation)

Leave a serious infection untreated? (death)

At this point I have not seen any evidence that what the parents were opting for was any more effective than chemo. Yes, chemo is rugged but the remission rate for childhood cancer is going up, not down, and cancers that were death sentences 15 years ago have remission rates of >80% today.





---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 3:47 PM

CALIFORNIAKAYLEE


I'm not sure how I feel about this case yet -- I think there are legitimate cases where the state needs to step in and protect the child from the parents, I'm just not convinced this is one of those cases. So let me ask a question: do adults in the US have the right to refuse medical treatment? I thought they did, and that's what confuses me about this case.

~CK

You can't take the sky from me...

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 4:27 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Adults can refuse medical treatment. Emancipated children also can. Parents and guardians are the only people with legal authority to sign on the dotted line for treatment of minors in their care.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 5:01 PM

CALIFORNIAKAYLEE


Soo... Parents (and guardians) are the only ones who can refuse medical treatment on behalf of their children, but the state can step in and say that in so doing, the parents are being neglectful of their child? How does that make any sense? And what's to stop the state from forcing every parent to authorize medical treatment? What's the point of having a right if the state can take it away from you as soon as you try to exercise it?

~CK

You can't take the sky from me...

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 5:29 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

What's the point of having a right if the state can take it away from you as soon as you try to exercise it?
Once we agree the state has a right to intefere in a child's welfare the only thing left to discuss is the exact circumstances. There are a lot of things about this case we don't know which makes it impossible to judge. Picture (1): The form of cancer is very ammenable to treatment, the odds of chemo success is 80%, the herbal treatment is not doing any good and the child is visibly declining. Picture (2): The odds of chemo success is less than 20%, and the herbal treatment seems to be helping with energy levels, if nothing else.

My daughter was born seriously ill and I've had many, many hours in contact with doctors discussing very gray areas of medicine. I've also been with my MIL when she went thru a radical mastectomy and the first round of chemo, and when she refused the second round and died. My point is that I've never seen doctors get intrasigent about treating someone unless they thought there was a good chance of success. In equivocal situations... and believe me, I've been in quite a few... the doctors usually defer to the patient (or the parent).

I dunno. Possibly the parents and the hospital just got into a pissing match that developed a life of its own. We need details that we don't have.

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 5:43 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
At this point I have not seen any evidence that what the parents were opting for was any more effective than chemo. Yes, chemo is rugged but the remission rate for childhood cancer is going up, not down, and cancers that were death sentences 15 years ago have remission rates of >80% today.

We aren’t talking about parents inflicting some deadly or dangerous ‘witchmagic’ on their son. We are talking about a parent’s right to make a rational determination for what is best for their child and a 16 year old boy’s right not to undergo a painful medical procedure with a questionable result. Essentially, if you want to look at this way, a right to die.

I wouldn’t support the treatment of constipation with lead sulfate (especially since one of the symptoms of lead sulfate poisoning is constipation) but chemotherapy is not too far removed from that kind of thing. I guarantee, many chemotherapy drugs are just as dangerous as lead sulfate, and almost all of them have nasty side effects, some of which can be permanent. And incidentally, many chemo drugs are carcinogens, ironically. With multiple chemo courses the likelihood of contracting leukemia from the chemo drugs goes up. And quite a few of them cause constipation as well.

And yes, we’ve see dramatic increases in remission rates and theirs no doubt that progress is being made, but chemotherapy and radiation treatment are still essentially witchmagic. They aren’t cures and they never will be. The absolute ONLY reason we use them is because cancer is fatal and we have no clue what else to do. We look back at more primitive times and view with disgust the kinds of supposed cures that often caused more damage then the disease simply because people just did not know what else to do, and I’m pretty sure that 200 years from now people will look back at present day Oncology with similar disgust.

I’m pretty sure there is no conclusive evidence that the parents’ option is any more effective then chemotherapy, but I’m also fairly sure, given what I know of it, that it will be far more comfortable. Given the questionable and painful nature of many cancer treatments, it is very likely that it is the better option based on what the patient expects to gain. Now as it turns out the particular type of cancer that this boy has is one that is often treated successfully, but after the first treatment has failed the likelihood of remission decreases and the second is often a lot rougher.

I’m curious. In the Terry Schiavo case, you were one of those who wanted to see Mrs. Schiavo euthanized because you believed she or rather her husband (as her guardian) had a right to decide her fate in terms of medical care, despite the fact that Terry Schiavo could not pronounce her opinion on the matter. Yet, in this case you seem to be opposed to that same right, even though the person in question is capable and has pronounced his opinion not to seek conventional medical treatment.




Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 5:50 PM

CALIFORNIAKAYLEE


I'm not necessarily commenting on this case specifically. I agree that there's a lot we don't know. But speaking in generalities, what is to stop the state from trampling a parent's rights? The appeals process, I suppose, and hopefully the toast will land butter-side-up in the end.

There is definitely a gray area with this sort of thing that makes me uncomfortable. I remember years ago seeing a news story on a couple in Oregon who had their children taken away because the children were underweight. The parents were vegetarians (or possibly vegans, can't remember which) and were raising their children with that life style. If I remember correctly, a neighbor called social services because the children were "so skinny", and the state took the children away. I believe they eventually had a doctor examine the children, and they were found to be healthy, not malnourished, etc.

Now, given the rate of obesity among children today, who is to say what is "too skinny" in children? If you don't allow your child to drink soda or eat processed sugar, only allow them one serving of protein a day, make sure they get several servings of fruit, and make sure that they are physically active, and through all that your child is the skinniest kid at school... Who is in the wrong, the parent of the skinny child, or the parent of the obese child?

Totally different situation here (cancer isn't a case of being "too" one thing or another, the cancer has been clearly diagnosed, etc), but it's that sort of judgment call that makes me uncomfortable. Many parents refuse to immunize their children (links to Autism, etc), so if their child comes down with measles, can the state take the child away? Where is the line between "a reasonable difference of opinion on what is the best course of action" and "only crazy people think that suffocating a child will cure their ADD"?

~CK

You can't take the sky from me...

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 7:48 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Where is the line between "a reasonable difference of opinion on what is the best course of action" and "only crazy people think that suffocating a child will cure their ADD"?
Good question. I think though, most people recognize child abuse that must be stopped when they see it, even if they can't pre-define it. This story catches our attention because we can sympathize with the parents, and we know they are not the exorcising or suffocating type of people. Moreover, their alternative didn't carry any inherent dangers like wrapping a kid in a blanket until he stopped struggling. The worst thing a sugar-free and fresh fruits diet can do is nothing--which is more than you can say for chemo. This is a clear case of "Does the alternative offer a better chance for survival or does chemo?" Obviously, in this country, we are not allowed to think for ourselves or try to answer that question for our children anymore.

Let's look at religious freedom, for example. Where is the line between some kooky religious practice protected by the Constitution and child abuse under the guise of religion? There is a little more reluctance for the courts to interfere unless there is pretty clear-cut evidence that a child is being harmed.

The fact is while religious freedom is Constitutionally protected, medical freedom isn't. It should have been. We now have a state-sponsored medical religion, if you will, where one medical "church" is the only one allowed, and all others are demonized as harmful.

Benjamin Rush, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, had the prescience to note,

"Unless we put medical freedom into the Constitution, the time will come when medicine will organize it to an underground dictatorship. To restrict the art of healing to one class of men and deny equal privileges to others will constitute the Bastille of medical science. All such laws are un-American and despotic and have no place in a republic. The Constitution of this republic should make special privilege for medical freedom as well as religious freedom."

If this had been done, and medical freedom was protected just like religious freedom, the distinction between dissent and child abuse would be a lot less synonymous. Dissenters wouldn't be so easily dismissed as child abusers.

You also brought up informed consent. Very good question. All medical associations have ethical guidelines on informed consent. The American Medical Association says,
Quote:

Informed consent is more than simply getting a patient to sign a written consent form. It is a process of communication between a patient and physician that results in the patient's authorization or agreement to undergo a specific medical intervention...This communications process, or a variation thereof, is both an ethical obligation and a legal requirement spelled out in statutes and case law in all 50 states.
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/4608.html


The American Academy of Pediatrics says,
Quote:

"Many now regard traditional practices based on the theory that 'doctor knows best' as unacceptably paternalistic. Society recognizes that patients or their surrogates have a right to decide, in consultation with their physicians, which proposed medical interventions they will or will not accept."
http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/pediatrics;9
5/2/314


Their mouths move, but the meaning just isn't there.

Although other similar cases have been reported, Cherrix's age makes dismissal of the need for his informed consent especially poignant.

Quote:

A 16 year old can hold a full time job, travel outside the country, drive a car, and have full responsibility for someone’s children while baby sitting. A 16 year old can even be tried as an adult for murder.

But if you are 16, you have no right to say what type of treatment is forced upon you by the medical system, even if your parents support your right to refuse. Cherrix explained to the press, "This is my body that I'm supposed to take care of. I should have the right to tell someone what I want to do with this body. I studied. I did research. I came to this conclusion that the chemotherapy was not the route I wanted to take."[3] His maturity carried no weight in the court of law and held no authority with the medical judge, his doctor.

http://www.newswithviews.com/Tenpenny/sherri10.htm


Moreover, I believe overriding informed consent for medical procedures violates the Nuremberg Code on experimentation on human subjects. There is never a guarantee that a medical treatment will be successful, least of all for chemo. All chemo treatment trials are, to some degree, experimental. It's a "let's try it and see what happens" situation.

The Nuremberg Code states:
Quote:

1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. . .
9. During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/313/7070/1448

Cherrix tried it. It didn't work. They wanted to try it again. He said, no, I'm done. They pulled out a gun and said, no, you're not.

Does that seem right to you?


Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 8:02 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Frem- what makes you think that this cancer clinic in Mexico has anything in mind other than making money? Why do you suppose the Mexican medical establishment is any better than the USA medical establishment (other than being overall cheaper)? Remember, Steve McQueen died of laetrile from a cancer clinic in Mexico.


I never said better, worse, or neither.
I said Caveat Emptor, which means "Buyer Beware".

Folks should be allowed to make their own choices, the validity (in our opinion, mind you) of the choice itself is not, and should not be, any of our business.

Quote:

the "alternative" medicine industry (and it is an industry) is largely frauds and charlatans, giving out false hope to the gullible and those with no chances left.

Frem - how were you written by the doctors? Did they pronounce you dead? Twice?



Again, I said Caveat Emptor - there's charlatans and opportunists in mainstream medical practice too, ya pays your money, makes your choice, get a second opinion and investigate.

I happen to know some alternative remedies for things that do work, because they are stuff that much of modern medicine was based on or came from, proven solid stuff, like Catnip tea as a calmative, for example, but you are correct in that folks exploit, inflate and flat out lie to push things - but big pharma does it too, and uses it's 'official' status to push even more outrageous claims, so..*shrug*.. Caveat Emptor.

Twice indeed - they were so damned convinced I was a stillborn (despise my mothers claim that corpses don't kick) that they had the paperwork handy, and a priest in the delivery room to comfort her... well ain't it just too bad that I was prettymuch howling my head off down the chute, eh ?

Second time was after the crash, they thought vitals flatlined in the ambulance, called in the time, and my supposedly fixed and dialated pupils locked onto the EMT in my sightline and I flat told him I was NOT going to die.

They went on *believing* I wasn't going to make it, even after they discharged me, and withheld care as long as possible in hopes of speeding the 'inevitable' and it took a lawsuit and two YEARS to force the issue, by which time I nearly was dead, and it took an amputation and some real frankenstein-level work to get me back to something resembling life, and my health is precarious to this day because of it.

I am alive, I can walk via prosthetic limb, and yes, I hold a bit of a grudge here, I would think I gotta right to.

Quote:

We are talking about a parent’s right to make a rational determination for what is best for their child and a 16 year old boy’s right not to undergo a painful medical procedure with a questionable result. Essentially, if you want to look at this way, a right to die.


Bingo - I think every person has a certain point of dignity and sense of self that they'd rather die than cross, for my own part if some doc were to tell me I needed chemo, or dialysis or some proceedure that I felt would strip away my personhood and reduce me to little more than 'meat' for the medical establishment, I'd look em right in the eye and tell em I would sooner die, and mean it.

Everyone's gotta line somewhere, hell, I know quite a few folk with "shoot me" buddies to make sure their wishes are carried out regardless of interference by the law or medical establishment, be damned if I would wanna be kept alive by machines like some kind of grisly zombie just so they can leech as much dough out of the insurance company as possible.. would you ?

---

And as for Chemo "working" - did folks somehow miss that lawsuit over the doc who watered down chemo treatments to save money cause he figured they were gonna die anyway ?
I'd be highly surprised if he was the only jerk to have done this.
http://www.uspharmacist.com/index.asp?show=article&page=8_1285.htm


FYI, the judge in the case we are discussing (no doubt inspired by rightful public backlash) backed down earlier today and apparently took a more 'reasonable' albiet still quite immoral, course of action.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 1:27 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by SimonWho:
My mother dragged me to a homeopath (to treat my spots which eventually healed on their own). He said I was allergic to milk. ...

Instead I wanted a second opinion - from a different homeopath. He did the same tests on me as the first one. This time, I was "allergic" to wheat, pepper, onions, yeast and a whole heap more. He went through the list then asked if I had any questions. "Am I allergic to milk?" "No, you're fine with milk."

That was my last visit to a homeopath and indeed almost certainly my last visit to any quack medicine.

The practice of homeopathy isn't regulated or monitored in anyway. Anyone can hang out a shingle and call themselves a homeopath, whether they are or not. You're right--a lot of charlatans out there.

For the record, homeopathy does not diagnose allergies or anything else. Many people who call themselves homeopaths practice other therapies (like acupuncture) and diagnostics--but those practices are not homeopathy. My entire family, myself included, is being treated with homeopathy, so I had to learn something about it.

I was very skeptical when I first tried homeopathy. But I figured, I have wasted tens of thousands of dollars on MDs, what is a little bit more to try something different. If it doesn't work, I can always pretend it was another MD! My child, who couldn't stop vomiting every time he ate, stopped vomiting--like a faucet was turned off. That caught my attention enough to pursue homeopathy. My husband's psoriasis is now visibly and significantly improved--without the use of steroids or UV radiation. I just started myself and my daughter on it. We'll see.

As far as allergies go, my son took a MD prescribed allergy bloodtest called RAST, which tests antibody production to common allergens. He tested positive for eggs, milk, wheat, and corn; negative for chocolate, nuts, fish, and others. After 1.5 years of trial and error, I've discovered he is NOT allergic to wheat and corn, but reacts horribly to everything else. So much for technology. When an MD makes a mistake, it's called false positives and false negatives. When an alternative practitioner is wrong, it is called quackery.

I'm not defending the quacks who took you for a ride. I am saying quackery exists amongst MDs too. Just that we are taught (by them) to be more forgiving with MDs and more condemning with their competitors.

I approach all health care consultants (MDs and alternative) as I would approach use car salesmen and auto mechanics. You can't just take their word for it. They are going to push what suits them best. You have to do your research before going in, both about the provider's reputation and the product/service you want to buy. And when you find a good one who is half honest and half knows what she is doing (be it an MD or otherwise), stick to her like glue. It doesn't get much better than that.

No matter what, WE have to be the ones to decide which practitioner we want to use and which practices we want to buy. We shouldn't ever be forced to buy any medical intervention that someone else decides for us.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 3:36 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Parents don't "own" their children and they aren't allowed to do whatever the hell they want with them


That is not entirely correct. Children are not property, but neither are they free and independent persons. They possess certain rights, but the State limits those rights in order to protect them. Most of a child's rights are left to the care of the parents who are charged by both law and moral responsibility to act in the child's best interests.

In this case, I think the parents judgement should be respected and if the child dies they should be prosecuted for murder. Its a complicated position to hold, but it balances both the interests of the parents and the state...the child's desires and opinions are legally not relevant to the discussion after all, what child would volunteer for any medical procedure...I'm an adult and can't stand getting a shot.

H


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 3:42 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

We aren’t talking about parents inflicting some deadly or dangerous ‘witchmagic’ on their son.
Except herbals and a diet that will most likely allow death from lymphoma. BTW- have you even seen anyone die slowly from cancer? IF the parents have an picture in their minds of their son dying peacefully, then I would guess that after a year or so of herbals they would be begging to save him from a painful death.
Quote:

We are talking about a parent’s right to make a rational determination for what is best for their child and a 16 year old boy’s right not to undergo a painful medical procedure with a questionable result. Essentially, if you want to look at this way, a right to die.- Finn
Rationalization is not rationality. I've been saying all along that we need to know specific circumstances, but that my experience is that doctors do not become intrasigent about treating someone unless they feel they have a very good chance of sucess. So rather than talk in a vacuum, I decided to look up the remission rates of pediatric Hodgkins lymphoma.
Quote:

Approximately 75 percent of patients diagnosed with Hodgkin's disease and 30 to 50 percent of patients diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma can be cured with radiation and/or standard-dose chemotherapy. For those not cured, high dose chemotherapy, with or without radiation, followed by a bone marrow transplant (BMT) may provide a cure or prolong survival.
I have a friend dx with non-H lymphoma at age 50- not a good prognosis at all. His first symptoms was coughing blood, when they opened him up they saw a tumor that covered most of his left lung. They decided not to even "debulk" the tumor. They went to chemo, and when that didn't work they went to BMT where they took bone marrow from his hip and then blasted him with radiation until his bone marrow died. I supported that decision. Five years later, he is still cancer-free.

OTOH, I was with my MIL when she refused a second round of chemo. The best they could offer was six months of chemo that would extend her life by six months. However, they could offer palliative X-ray treatment for metastasized bone cancer (which is very painful.) And I supported that decision too.

However, I still don't have the info on THIS kid's probable outcome. I noticed that what they are proposing is chemo, not BMT so I'm guessing that they think that a second round still has a good chance of success. If that doesn't work, would they follow the bunny-trail to BMT? I don't know. We still need specific facts that we don't have.
Quote:

I wouldn’t support the treatment of constipation with lead sulfate (especially since one of the symptoms of lead sulfate poisoning is constipation)
AND diarrhea, lead sulfate is funny that way...
Quote:

but chemotherapy is not too far removed from that kind of thing. I guarantee, many chemotherapy drugs are just as dangerous as lead sulfate, and almost all of them have nasty side effects, some of which can be permanent. And incidentally, many chemo drugs are carcinogens, ironically. With multiple chemo courses the likelihood of contracting leukemia from the chemo drugs goes up. And quite a few of them cause constipation as well. And yes, we’ve see dramatic increases in remission rates and theirs no doubt that progress is being made, but chemotherapy and radiation treatment are still essentially witchmagic. They aren’t cures and they never will be.
Tell that to the people who are alive today... especially the 75% of kids who're in 10+-year remissions from lymphoma and leukemia.
Quote:

The absolute ONLY reason we use them is because cancer is fatal and we have no clue what else to do. We look back at more primitive times and view with disgust the kinds of supposed cures that often caused more damage then the disease simply because people just did not know what else to do, and I’m pretty sure that 200 years from now people will look back at present day Oncology with similar disgust.

DUH. Do ya think? Of course they're toxic. And they cause all KINDS of nasty side effects: diarhhea, shedding of the mucosa, massive infection, profound fatigue and wasting, neuropathy, and so forth and so on. Haven't been there/ done that but I've certainly watched it from the sidelines. Maybe in the near future someone will find out that allwe need to do is isolate the brain and heat the body up to 110 F or something, but for now the choices are either chemo/ radiation or death in the short run (which BTW is pretty brutal)
Quote:

I’m pretty sure there is no conclusive evidence that the parents’ option is any more effective then chemotherapy, but I’m also fairly sure, given what I know of it, that it will be far more comfortable. Given the questionable and painful nature of many cancer treatments, it is very likely that it is the better option based on what the patient expects to gain. Now as it turns out the particular type of cancer that this boy has is one that is often treated successfully, but after the first treatment has failed the likelihood of remission decreases and the second is often a lot rougher.
Well, we agree on that. But my point is that we don't have enough information to judge. There may be something specific in his test results- sensitivity of remaining cancer cells to chemo for example- that would swing the medical judgement to a more favorable outcome. I'm also reasonably sure that second and probably third opinions have been pursued. If the odds were better than 50/50 of remission and less than 10/90 of fatal side effects then I would blame the parent for being negligent. But if the odds are more equivocal than I would side with the parents.
Quote:

I’m curious. In the Terry Schiavo case, you were one of those who wanted to see Mrs. Schiavo euthanized because you believed she or rather her husband (as her guardian) had a right to decide her fate in terms of medical care, despite the fact that Terry Schiavo could not pronounce her opinion on the matter. Yet, in this case you seem to be opposed to that same right, even though the person in question is capable and has pronounced his opinion not to seek conventional medical treatment.
I think in Terry Schiavo's case, it was fairly clear cut what her prognosis was. But in this case I have NOT decided either way. Without all of the facts... which we simply don't have... it's impossible to insert ourselves in a blanket fashion on something that can only be decided on a case-by-case basis.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 4:12 AM

HERO


"Acting to guard the general interest in youth's wellbeing, the state, as parens patriae, may restrict the parent's control by requiring school attendance, regulating or prohibiting the child's labor and in many other ways. Its authority is not nullified merely because the parent grounds his claim to control the child's course of conduct on religion or conscience. Thus, he cannot claim freedom from compulsory vaccination for the child more than for himself on religious grounds. The right to practice religion freely does not include liberty to expose the community or the child to communicable disease or the latter to ill health or death. People v. Pierson, 176 N.Y. 201, 68 N.E. 243. The catalogue need not be lengthened. It is sufficient to show what indeed appellant hardly disputes, that the state has a wide range of power for limiting parental freedom and authority in things affecting the child's welfare, and that this includes, to some extent, matters of conscience and religious conviction."- From Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 US 158 (1944).

Mr. Rutledge could turn a phrase and this one says it all.

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 6:52 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
Thus, he cannot claim freedom from compulsory vaccination for the child more than for himself on religious grounds.


And yet religious exemption from compulsory vaccination is accepted in 48 states, and philosophical exemption accepted in 17 of those states. The only 2 states that do not allow religious freedom in this issue are WV and MS, two of the poorest states in the country whose depts of health need the funding from every vaccinated child.


Quote:

. . .the state has a wide range of power for limiting parental freedom and authority in things affecting the child's welfare, and that this includes, to some extent, matters of conscience and religious conviction."- From Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 US 158 (1944).
Yes, obviously, to some extent. "God told me not to feed my child" doesn't deserve religious freedom protections. The outcome of not feeding a child is certain to cause a child harm.

But "God told me not to vaccinate my child" or "God told me not to give my child chemo" is a different story. The outcome of harm is not certain. There are plenty of unvaccinated kids who are perfectly healthy and happy, and there are kids who survived cancer without chemo. When we start to talk about probabilities, the state should err on the side of religious and conscientious freedom.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 7:36 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


I come to this with some professional, personal and familial medical experience.

'Back in the day' you knew you were already done for when they called the doctor. Even up to the early 1900s, the doctor came in when all else failed, he (usually a male) was the second to last step before the last rites.

That isn't to say that medicine didn't make important advances:
cowpox vaccinations (late 1700s)
anesthesia (mid 1800s)
the discovery of germs (Pasteur mid 1800s - who later developed cholera, anthrax and rabies vaccines)
hand-washing (Semmelweiss mid 1800s) and environmental cleanliness (Lister late 1800s)
formulation of the connection between germs and disease (late 1800s Koch's postulates)

But, until relatively recently most heath improvement came from:
1) public sanitation (sanitary sewers, horse poop pickup, trash pickup, vermin control)
2) clean water
3) improved diet (including food inspection)
4) vaccination, and
5) in localized areas, abatement of environmental risk factors like swamps.
In other words, most health improvement with the exception of vaccination didn't come from the medical community. It came from public expense to improve living standards.

In the early 1900s a girl who would have been my aunt, had she survived, went to a sanitarium for TB as the best possible treatment of the day. It was a big building with lots of windows for sunlight and fresh air. (It was later transformed into the county hospital, where I worked my first full-time job.) There were ten children in the family, and two wives, the first died in childbirth. Of those ten children only five survived to adulthood. They died of TB, polio, meningitis, flu, and an unknown cause.

The discovery of insulin helped diabetics. Antibiotics and blood transfusions transformed medicine during WW II. Chemotherapeutic agents followed shortly afterward, some of these were adapted into early anti-virals. Trauma medicine came into its own in the Korean war, EMTs were 'invented' as a lesson-learned from Vietnam.

Medicine gained more POWER in its POTENTIAL to save lives, and even revive the newly dead. But of course, there are no guarantees. And more powerful medicine comes at the cost of more unpleasant potential side effects. And so treatment does become a roll of the dice. If you perform CPR will the person revive? If you put them on a ventilator, will they be able to come off of it? If you administer chemotherapy will you put the cancer in remission?

These are the imponderables on which medical decisions are made. So on the one hand you have the medical community - hopefully experienced and knowledgeable and providing their best judgment. And on the other hand you have the patient with, for the most part, not nearly as much education and experience, but vitally interested in the outcome. The fit is a poor one, but it’s the only one we've got.

There really are no guarantees either way, and no one should be demanding certainty from medicine. All there are are shades of grey. For example, there is a minimum number of people that need to be vaccinated for 'herd immunity' (generally 80%). 'Herd immunity' is what protects unvaccinated individuals. OTOH there is the chance of individual side effects. Do you go unvaccinated eliminatng the personal risk of side effects but inviting the breakdown of herd immunity (and consequent disease)?

And the expansion of medicine's POTENTIAL has also created - literally life-and-death -legal issues, which I won't get into at the moment (I have a lot of work to do).

Anyway, my $0.02US

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 8:30 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Meanwhile, another judge has lifted the order requiring Starchild to get treatment.

http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=25&sid=859381

So. Anyone have opinions on whether the State should have any say-so in other parental decisions regarding a child's health and safety? Is there anywhere a 'bright line' can be drawn?

-Child seats and restraints in motor vehicles?
-Helmets and protective gear for bicycle riding, skating, etc?
-Vaccinations prior to school admittance?
-Physical means of discipline?
-Educational requirements?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 8:45 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Yes, obviously, to some extent. "God told me not to feed my child" doesn't deserve religious freedom protections. The outcome of not feeding a child is certain to cause a child harm. But ..."God told me not to give my child chemo" is a different story.
Not really.
Quote:

The outcome of harm is not certain. There are ... kids who survived cancer without chemo.
The outcome of NOT getting chemo is death. Since death is almost inevitable, spontaneous remission has been relegated to the status of "miraculous". Please don't state lies as fact.

FWIW, I think what is happening with the parents and the son is that up to this point the disease (lymphoma) has been a lump in the neck and a laboratory diagnosis... in other words, up until now the disease experience has been benign. The parents and the child apparently do not have the experience or the imagination to project what WILL happen if nature is allowed to take its course. But the treatment experience is burned into their consciousness and they can't imagine anything worse.

Maybe the kid will get lucky and simply waste away quietly and peacefully. But end stage lymphoma can be very painful and difficult, symptoms depending on what organs are affected. I do not think that the parents have fully visualized seeing their bloated son in pain and struggling to breathe for weeks. They may be in denial.

http://cancer.caring4health.com/Hodgkins-Lymphoma/Articles/Hospice-Car
e_A307500_C316112.aspx


http://cancerguide.org/emacdonald_story.htmled.


------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 9:15 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:


And yes, we’ve see dramatic increases in remission rates and theirs no doubt that progress is being made, but chemotherapy and radiation treatment are still essentially witchmagic. They aren’t cures and they never will be. The absolute ONLY reason we use them is because cancer is fatal and we have no clue what else to do.

THANK YOU!
I agree totally with your every word on this thread.

I think it also depends richly on the Doctor, many are competant, some are brilliant, but a signifgant number are dopes, or plain burned out.

I've also had chemo play a part in my family's healthcare (or lack thereof), seen the effects firsthand, and with minor exceptions, I'd have nothing to do with it myself.

Good to see ya back around, Finn.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 9:16 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Geezer- Just as I don't think there is a "bright line" between human and non-human, or alive and dead, I don't think a bright line can be drawn between the rights of the parent, the state enforcing the rights of the child (if they're violated by the parents), and the interests of the state (which may be different). The best that we as a society can do is provide guidelines and use the courts to decide those cases that don't "clearly" belong in one category or another.



---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 9:28 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
So. Anyone have opinions on whether the State should have any say-so in other parental decisions regarding a child's health and safety?

Hey, this is RWE. Everyone has an opinion!

My opinion:
-Child seats and restraints in motor vehicles? No.
-Helmets and protective gear for bicycle riding, skating, etc? No.
-Vaccinations prior to school admittance? No.
-Physical means of discipline? No.
-Educational requirements? No.

I'm big on health freedom. Most of my health care choices are unconventional. My children were born at home with no medical intervention, for example, and have never been examined by an OB, before or after their births. This issue impacts me and my family in a very serious way.

If parents commit a crime and hurt their children, their children need to be removed and the parents need to go to jail. If their children are happy and healthy, if they aren't hurt, where is the crime?

Whenever the State tries to play a significant preventative role, it invariably becomes authoritarian and oppressive. Sci-fi and futuristic literature and media are full of such scenarios, including our own beloved Serenity and Firefly. It can't approve and disapprove of citizen choices, and still pretend to protect self-determination and freedom. Prevention control = authoritarianism. That is just how it works.

A benevolent authoritarian state might indeed save more lives. But people tend to be willing to risk unhappiness and death for the ability to be free and make mistakes. I would imagine everyone on this board is, or they are watching the wrong Firefly.

The only way for the State to respect liberty is to play a punitive role after the fact. If a parent chooses not to restrain a child in his car, he takes the risk that if the child should be hurt in an accident, he can be prosecuted for criminal neglect. If he is confident enough in his choice to take that risk, he deserves to exercise it. He might use alternative methods to lower that risk, such as drive more carefully and and less frequently. In the end, the citizen owns his choice and takes responsibility for it.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 9:30 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

I think it also depends richly on the Doctor, many are competant, some are brilliant, but a signifgant number are dopes, or plain burned out.
Chris- In this case the decision to press for treatment was likely not made by "a" doctor. The hospital's Ethics Committee and Legal Department were certainly involved, and I would bet a fair sum of money that the hopsital obtained second and third expert opnions. This particular line of reasoning is a dead end (so to speak).
Quote:

I've also had chemo play a part in my family's healthcare (or lack thereof), seen the effects firsthand, and with minor exceptions, I'd have nothing to do with it myself.
I have a friend who was dx w/ non-Hodgkins lymphoma at 48 y/o. He was hollowed out by chemo and radiation and then had a bone-marrow transplant and is cancer-free today (5 years later). As I've said before, my MIL turned down a second round of chemo because it had NO chance of success. I've seen both sides of that equation. I do not feel competent to make a blanket statement about this case.

What disturbs me about the responses in this thread is the fact that people are providing very blanket responses with very little knowledge of the actual case and in many cases very little knowledge of medicine.

For example, the point that thimeroseal causes autism has been repeated ad nauseum w/o proof. But research has shown that newborns (who are later dx w/ autism) have elevated levels of the brain-signaling agent vasoactive intestinal peptide (vip) AT BIRTH... well BEFORE vaccinations take place. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi? cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12957488&query_hl=4

There's a whole lot of misinformation "out there".

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 9:34 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Whenever the State tries to play a significant preventative role, it invariably becomes authoritarian and oppressive. Sci-fi and futuristic literature and media are full of such scenarios, including our own beloved Serenity and Firefly. It can't approve and disapprove of citizen choices, and still pretend to protect self-determination and freedom. Prevention control = authoritarianism... people tend to be willing to risk unhappiness and death for the ability to be free and make mistakes
Make mistakes with their children? It's not that you think "authority" is bad, you're simply reverting absolute authority to yourself.


---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 9:36 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Quote:

And yes, we’ve see dramatic increases in remission rates and theirs no doubt that progress is being made, but chemotherapy and radiation treatment are still essentially witchmagic. They aren’t cures and they never will be. The absolute ONLY reason we use them is because cancer is fatal and we have no clue what else to do.
UUhhhmmm ... if the cancer is treated and never comes back, a case could be made that the cancer is indeed 'cured'. You can't blanket claim 'cancer is fatal' and never is cured.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 9:44 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:

What disturbs me about the responses in this thread is the fact that people are providing very blanket responses with very little knowledge of the actual case and in many cases very little knowledge of medicine.

There's a whole lot of misinformation "out there".


Agreed. That's why self-reliance is the key; work WITH your physician, not UNDER him/her.
You EMPLOY them, so choose carefully, and learn yourself.

Empowered Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 9:50 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
... if the cancer is treated and never come back, a case could be made that the cancer is indeed 'cured'. You can't blanket claim 'cancer is fatal' and never is cured.

Technically speaking, cancer is never 'cured'; most of us get it constantly, our systems just control it, like taking out the garbage...
It's the days the trash-peeps don't come that we have the problems...

Strange analogies Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 9:52 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Society has a say in health matters because it bears the costs. Children who are crippled or brain damaged end up being supported by the society at large. If your child is in a car accident and is paralyzed for life from the neck down (for example), who will provide resources for lifetime care? And how will prosecuting the parent after the fact help? Un-vaccinated children deplete 'herd immunity', inviting massive outbreak (like polio) and great social expense.

SergeantX made the same argument about health and auto insurance and pesky seat-belt laws. And to the extent he can guarantee society will not bear the burden of his choice, I think it is his to make. The problem is no one can make that guarantee.

Also, Firefly is fiction. You can't live fiction.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 9:59 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


So much MORE cancer occurs and is eliminated than most people realize. But at some point it escapes immune (and other) control. (eg DNA patrolling, triggered cell death) My own opinion is that cancer treatments (like chemo and radiation) reduce the cancer, giving the body time to mount a response. Studies have been done showing low numbers of cancer cells in cancer survivors' bloodstreams - even people who've been cancer free for decades. But the body is able to keep them in check.
Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
... if the cancer is treated and never come back, a case could be made that the cancer is indeed 'cured'. You can't blanket claim 'cancer is fatal' and never is cured.

Technically speaking, cancer is never 'cured'; most of us get it constantly, our systems just control it, like taking out the garbage...
It's the days the trash-peeps don't come that we have the problems...

Strange analogies Chrisisall


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 10:06 AM

CALIFORNIAKAYLEE


Quote:

What disturbs me about the responses in this thread is the fact that people are providing very blanket responses with very little knowledge of the actual case and in many cases very little knowledge of medicine... For example, the point that thimeroseal causes autism has been repeated ad nauseum w/o proof.

Not sure if this is directed at me specifically, but since I did mention vaccinations and autism, I thought I'd clarify. I personally don't believe that autism is caused by vaccinations, and I believe that in most cases, vaccinations are worth the risk -- and I say this as someone who cannot even get a flu shot, because of the way my immune system could react. That said, I am not a parent, and I haven't done any research into the possible link between vaccinations and autism. I brought it up because it is a mainstream controversial medical topic, and one in which both sides are fairly large and fairly loud. I wasn't advocating either way, just pointing out an instance where the state can't necessarily side with the majority and call it done.

~CK

You can't take the sky from me...

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 10:08 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Can'ttakesky- To respond to your previous post, religious freedom is enshrined in the Constitution, medical freedom is not, but the FIRST freedom is the right to LIFE. hat is why murder is a crime. If parents deprive their child of the right to life through willful action or inaction where does that place them?

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 10:20 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


CK,

That's the problem with certain topics. A small group of people loudly dispute a finding and suddenly what used to be science-based becomes 'controversial'.

Quote:

Originally posted by CaliforniaKaylee:
Not sure if this is directed at me specifically, but since I did mention vaccinations and autism, I thought I'd clarify. I personally don't believe that autism is caused by vaccinations, and I believe that in most cases, vaccinations are worth the risk -- and I say this as someone who cannot even get a flu shot, because of the way my immune system could react. That said, I am not a parent, and I haven't done any research into the possible link between vaccinations and autism. I brought it up because it is a mainstream controversial medical topic, and one in which both sides are fairly large and fairly loud. I wasn't advocating either way, just pointing out an instance where state can't necessarily side with the majority and call it done.

Now I suspect CTS (if she were communicating with me) would say I'm just treating science like a religion. But medicine is something I know quite a bit about, and in this instance I can make solid evaluations on many medical topics. To see science called religion and then dismissed out of hand as just another kooky cult belief - pains me. And it's simply not true.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 10:25 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
My own opinion is that cancer treatments (like chemo and radiation) reduce the cancer, giving the body time to mount a response.

Ahh, and that's the tricky part, not destroying the immune system we need to keep 'normal' cancer in check.
It can be done, sometimes with big cancer problems, more often with small ones.

But I like the story of the kid that envisioned his cancer cells as Tie-fighters, and his white and T-cells as X-wings; he won the battle with very limited chemo that way- much to the doctor's irritation at not being able to provide the full explanation, heh heh.
"This boy had a wonderful immune system, it seems."
Yeah, then how'd he get the problem in the first place?

Take the credit, young Skywalker.

Using the Force Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 10:33 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


The problem with cancer and the immune system is that they're both generally rapidly growing. (As I'm sure you know, hair follicles, platelets and the digestive tract also have rapidly dividing cells.) Since both chemo and radiation target actively dividing cells, they can cause side effects in those systems.

The problem with the boy's cure is that for every one of those stories, there's 10,000 or more like Gilda Radner's - who tried her best with alternative treatments - and died of ovarian cancer anyway.

Anyway, I've got to go to a meeting.

TTUL

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 10:44 AM

CHRISISALL


Cancer treatments are like politics and martial arts; no one way is THE way, you take what works, and use it.

And if it doesn't work, well, like my mom, you take the greatest adventure, ahead of us who are still here, and we see if we don't catch a bit of each other on the next go-around.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 10:55 AM

CALIFORNIAKAYLEE


Quote:

But I like the story of the kid that envisioned his cancer cells as Tie-fighters, and his white and T-cells as X-wings; he won the battle with very limited chemo that way- much to the doctor's irritation at not being able to provide the full explanation, heh heh.
"This boy had a wonderful immune system, it seems."
Yeah, then how'd he get the problem in the first place?



Hm, in that line of thinking, my immune system is the Alliance, and my thyroid, my joints, my hair follicles, and a handful of other things are the ragged remains of the Independents. Ok, that's not really a happy thought.

(I have at least three autoimmune diseases, and my immune system is so over active that any time I run a fever, it'll not only kill the infection, but also start attacking and killing some part of my own body, usually resulting in four to six months of daily pain. Which is why my doctors have recommended against the flu shot.)

Strangely enough, there has been some research recently linking certain autoimmune diseases with specific subtypes of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. So a person can have both an over-active immune system and cancer.

~CK

You can't take the sky from me...

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 11:00 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by CaliforniaKaylee:
So a person can have both an over-active immune system and cancer.


Oh.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 11:11 AM

CALIFORNIAKAYLEE


Yeah, you'd think they'd balance each other out, but apparently that's not always the case.

Anyhow, that's getting a bit far afield from the topic, my apologies.

~CK

You can't take the sky from me...

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 11:20 AM

CHRISISALL


Back on: If a school or whatever required you to get a flu shot, could you get a 'Doctor's Note' to get out of it?

Don't use vaccines much myself Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 11:28 AM

SIMONWHO


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:

But I like the story of the kid that envisioned his cancer cells as Tie-fighters, and his white and T-cells as X-wings; he won the battle with very limited chemo that way- much to the doctor's irritation at not being able to provide the full explanation, heh heh.



Source please?

Check out my Serenity Auctions for Equality Now!

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=004&item=1400121002
83

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=004&item=1400120938
86

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=004&item=1400121031
71

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 11:32 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by SimonWho:

Source please?


Oh no! I feared that question...Look, I read it in a newspaper (NY Times or Newsday) back in the late eighties/early ninties...


TIME-CHALLENGED Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 12:09 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Can'ttakesky- To respond to your previous post, religious freedom is enshrined in the Constitution, medical freedom is not, but the FIRST freedom is the right to LIFE. hat is why murder is a crime. If parents deprive their child of the right to life through willful action or inaction where does that place them?

Well, as I said before, if the children are actually harmed, and life has actually been deprived, the state can put together a case for murder and prosecute them for the crime.

I gave birth to both my children at home. If my baby had died during the homebirth, the state could prosecute me for felony child abuse or murder or any number of charges. This has happened to other homebirthing parents. I was willing to take that risk and responsibility to do what I believed to be best for my kids. As I expected, my kids were born happy and healthy. So I wasn't and shouldn't be charged with a crime.

Harm = criminal charges. No harm = no criminal charges. See?

It comes down to differences in risk assessment. Some perceive homebirths to be extremely risky. I perceive homebirths to have a very low probability of harm, much lower than the risks of birthing in a hospital. We all want the least risky option for our children, but we don't agree on what those options are.

The state wants to prevent people from engaging in behaviors IT has determined as highly risky, whether actual harm will occur or not. I simply want the right to think for myself, form my own opinions, and disagree with the state's risk assessment if I choose.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Elections; 2024
Thu, March 28, 2024 21:07 - 2072 posts
Biden
Thu, March 28, 2024 21:04 - 852 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Thu, March 28, 2024 21:02 - 54 posts
China
Thu, March 28, 2024 20:53 - 446 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 17:24 - 3413 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 17:20 - 6155 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Thu, March 28, 2024 16:32 - 9 posts
Well... He was no longer useful to the DNC or the Ukraine Money Laundering Scheme... So justice was served
Thu, March 28, 2024 12:44 - 1 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL