Dangerous trend toward medical autocracy?

POSTED BY: canttakesky
UPDATED: Tuesday, October 26, 2021 23:43
VIEWED: 12224
PAGE 1 of 2

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

CANTTAKESKY

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 6:35 PM

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

SIMONWHO

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 8:24 PM

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

GUYWHOWANTSAFIREFLYOFHISOWN

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 8:32 PM

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.

FREMDFIRMA

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 10:54 PM

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.)

SIGNYM

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 11:50 PM

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.

SIMONWHO

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 12:15 AM

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?

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 12:34 AM

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

SIGNYM

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 12:49 AM

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

CANTTAKESKY

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 12:59 AM

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

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 1:15 AM

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

SIGNYM

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 1:32 AM

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.

CALIFORNIAKAYLEE

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 1:47 AM

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...

RUE

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 2:27 AM

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.

CALIFORNIAKAYLEE

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 3:01 AM

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...

SIGNYM

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 3:29 AM

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.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 3:43 AM

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

CALIFORNIAKAYLEE

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 3:50 AM

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...

CANTTAKESKY

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 5:48 AM

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

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

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 6:02 AM

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

CANTTAKESKY

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 11:27 AM

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

HERO

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 1:36 PM

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

SIGNYM

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 1:42 PM

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 ca

HERO

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 2:12 PM

"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

CANTTAKESKY

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 4:52 PM

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

RUE

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 5:36 PM

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

GEEZER

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 6:30 PM

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"

SIGNYM

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 6:45 PM

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.

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 7:15 PM

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

SIGNYM

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 7:16 PM

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.

CANTTAKESKY

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 7:28 PM

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

SIGNYM

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 7:30 PM

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.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 7:34 PM

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.

RUE

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 7:36 PM

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.

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 7:44 PM

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

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 7:50 PM

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

RUE

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 7:52 PM

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.

RUE

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 7:59 PM

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

CALIFORNIAKAYLEE

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 8:06 PM

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...

SIGNYM

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 8:08 PM

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.

RUE

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 8:20 PM

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.

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 8:25 PM

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

RUE

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 8:33 PM

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

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 8:44 PM

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.

CALIFORNIAKAYLEE

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 8:55 PM

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...

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 9:00 PM

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

Oh.

Chrisisall

CALIFORNIAKAYLEE

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 9:11 PM

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...

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 9:20 PM

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

SIMONWHO

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 9:28 PM

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

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 9:32 PM

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

CANTTAKESKY

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 10:09 PM

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

RUE

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 10:21 PM

CK -

I can personally relate to an immune system run amok. And my BIL also had both cancer and autoimmune disease. (He appears to be cured of the cancer.) :shrugsshoulders: Mother Nature - mother is only half a word

My belief is that the first generation of bottle-fed babies had their immune systems badly trained. So breast-feeding the next generation only passes on the legacy. If that's true, can you see the return of the 'wet-nurse'?

RUE

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 10:22 PM

ABSOLUTELY!

Quote:
Originally posted by 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

CALIFORNIAKAYLEE

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 11:05 PM

Quote:
My belief is that the first generation of bottle-fed babies had their immune systems badly trained. So breast-feeding the next generation only passes on the legacy.

Interesting theory, but absolutely not a factor in my case. Four of my five siblings have autoimmune diseases, four of my mother's five siblings, my father and three of his five siblings, my maternal grandmother, and my paternal great grandfather all have an autoimmune disease of one sort or another (not to mention countless of my first cousins, but there's 33 of them, so I'm not going to try to go through and remember who has what). I know for a fact that myself and my siblings were all breast-fed, and I'm 99% certain that my mother and father and all their siblings were breast-fed as well. Knowing my maternal grandfather's mother, he was likely breast-fed. I'd have to go back further in the genealogy to see if there was a point when breast-feeding wasn't popular in either family, but getting back to my great grandparents is already all the way back to the end of the nineteenth century, so I'd be incredibly surprised to hear that was the case.

They've identified a gene that pre-disposes you to have certain autoimmune diseases, but I've been tested for that and came up negative. And yet there's scientifically measurable levels of autoimmune antibodies in my blood (my thyroid antibodies continue to be literally off the chart, registering at higher levels than the lab even tests for). It's a complicated thing, and I don't think there's any one thing -- nutritional, genetic, environmental, stress related, etc -- that we can point to and say "this is what causes all autoimmune diseases". Having one puts you at greater risk for developing another, and having a first-degree relative with one puts you at similar risk. And yet my youngest sister and my mother are both the only child out of six to have appeared to have escaped the family trend.

Autoimmune diseases are also one of the reasons that I support (responsible) stem cell research. Since diseases as diverse as diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, alopecia areata, etc, all come from the same place -- the immune system "flipping out" and attacking the body's own tissue -- I see stems cell research as holding the best chance of finding something that can "fix" the immune system itself. Lord knows I would like a reset switch, and one that doesn't involve immune system suppressing drugs or a bone marrow transplant.

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

Absolutely. I wouldn't mess around with my health like that just to satisfy some institution. Thankfully, this has only been an issue recently, and I've been out of school for a few years now, so I never had to make that sort of decision.

~CK

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

SIMONWHO

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 11:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 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

And would you base all children's medical treatments on vaguely remembered articles from newspapers (who push hundreds of contradictory ideas about medicine every year) printed decades ago? Or expect others to?

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

RUE

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 11:27 PM

Hi CK,

You have my sympathies.

I've observed family members go through high dose-steroids, IVIg, methotrexate, and other autoimmune treatments. It's been - sad. For my niece, the IVIg had no particular side effects but no particular benefit either. The most effective treatment was high-dose steroids for over two years. Considering my niece was a child at the time, and the misery the side effects caused - it was heartbreaking. The best that can be said was that it was actually better than the alternative. If only modern medicine had good answers for every illness.

SIGNYM

Thursday, July 27, 2006 12:08 AM

CTS- To reiterate Rue's point- if your baby is brain damaged and you're prosecuted after the fact (1) What good does that do? It doesn't help you, "the state" and ESPECIALLY the baby, and (2) Who takes care of the baby? Is the baby done away with once your ability to care for/ pay for care becomes depleted?

Your philosphy might work if everyone lived in a cabin and only depended on their family for care, but today's society is interdependent. My feeling is that authority and responsibility should be matched- if you have the authority you have the responsibility, and vice versa.

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

HERO

Thursday, July 27, 2006 12:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
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.

By recognizing the exemption, and I'm not sure its as widespread as you say...I've never met anyone who didn't receive their school shots, the vaccinations you mention are not truly compulsory. If the states in question chose, the Court is saying they could eliminate the exemption, which presumably they did when the case was decided.

Edited to add: And I think that when it comes to the wellbeing of children, the State and parents need to err as little as possible or on the side of caution. A dead child doesn't have religous freedom.

H

HERO

Thursday, July 27, 2006 12:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
-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?

Not to mention sex, physical labor, and whether they can stay up to watch Battlestar Galactica.

H

CANTTAKESKY

Thursday, July 27, 2006 1:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
(1) What good does that do? It doesn't help you, "the state" and ESPECIALLY the baby, and (2) Who takes care of the baby? Is the baby done away with once your ability to care for/ pay for care becomes depleted?

Good questions. I concede it's not a perfect system. Freedom carries risk. Risk that people, even children, might die or suffer injuries. Risk that society might bear the costs of such suffering. Hell, life itself is risk. Nothing is guaranteed.

But that is tangential to the point I am trying to make. I, like the state, want to choose the least risky option available to prevent my children from suffering and save society the burden of their care. Should I be allowed to think for myself and disagree with the state on what the least risky option is?

This may be tricky, but try to look at it from my point of view. Homebirth is low risk. Hospital birth is high risk. I believe, if we really want to save society money, we should all give birth at home and use hospitals for emergencies. Yet pregnant women insist on engaging in high-risk hospital birth, costing society millions of health care dollars every year and resulting in 25% caesarian rate, which carries inherent risks of surgery for both mother and child.

And yet I believe all women ought to be free to choose the high risk hospital option, despite what hospital birth costs society and exposing their babies and themselves to the risks of unnecessary medical intervention. They need to be free to disagree with me. Freedom carries risk. Sometimes it turns out well, and sometimes it doesn't. When it doesn't, I help pay for it with my tax dollars. It's not a perfect system.

Here is a question for you. Do you think dissenters (people who disagree with the state) should lose their right to self-determination in all areas of dissent?

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

CANTTAKESKY

Thursday, July 27, 2006 1:29 AM

(Was double post. Edited to respond to SignyM and use the space.)

Quote:
I said: "There are ... kids who survived cancer without chemo."

SignyM said: "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."

I'll overlook that you just called me a liar, and refine my statement.

http://www.burzynskipatientgroup.org/stories.htm
Here is a list of people, including kids, who survived cancer with non-chemo therapy after chemo failed to work. Granted this list is mostly for brain cancer, the treatment they used is only allowed by the FDA after chemo/radiation failed, which confounds the chemo issue. But it makes a point in my defense that my statement was not a lie. I should have said, "There are kids who survived cancer by using non-toxic treatment after chemo failed." That is what is pertinent to the Cherrix case.

There are PEOPLE, plenty of people, who survived cancer with nutritional therapies. (Here is a list of success stories of people who did:
http://www.cancure.org/chp12.pdf ) I'm having a harder time finding a CHILD's success story online because children are not allowed to try such alternative treatments for cancer in this country. But it is not unreasonable to assume that if adults have survived cancer without chemo, children can too.

Obviously, I patently disagree with your statement that "death is inevitable" without chemo. But note I am not calling YOU a liar.

Here is a story of a boy who died during chemo therapy. I link to it because his grieving parents have done extensive literature research and point out little known information about chemo. They concluded:

Quote:
Without chemo, Alexander wouldn’t have had been poisoned. He wouldn’t have had to spend his last months on earth in a hospital. He could have visited Disneyland and SeaWorld and played on the beach that he loved so much. Without chemo, Alexander wouldn’t have been isolated from his friends and family. He could have had the most joy you could pack into a child’s life. And most of all, without chemo, Alexander probably would have lived longer and would have undoubtedly enjoyed a superior "quality of life." http://whale.to/v/horwin1.html

Signy, you are absolutely right that every case is individual and we cannot decide what is best without knowing all the facts. We cannot make blanket statements or force a one-size-fits-all solution.

My contention is the outcome of chemo is not certain, and the outcome of not getting chemo is not certain. We can only calculate probabilities from available data. Parents should be able to decide, as the child's legal guardians, what they believe the outcome and risk probabilities might be based on their own research, experiences, and values.

ROCKETJOCK

Thursday, July 27, 2006 2:54 AM

*Whew* This whole discussion is full of slopes so slippery they might as well be doused in WD-40.

Material point not yet brought up:

Fact: Judicial and medical conservatism being what they are, the court system, beyond doubt, is always going to back conventional medical opinions as to best treatment.

Fact: Conventional medical opinions aren't always right! And they have a way of changing over time.

Classic example: Fifty years ago, the standard treatment for a middle-aged man recovering from a heart attack would be bed rest, minimal exertion, and a diet high in protein and iron (to "rebuild" the "tired blood".) Today, of course, we're aware of the dangers of a seditary lifestyle, and the effect too much ferron in the bloodstream has on heart disease, especially in men.

But--suppose fifty years ago someone recovering from a heart attack had consulted a doctor on the avant-guarde edge of conventionality? One that recommended moderate regular aerobic exercise, and a low-fat, high-fiber diet? Suppose this recommendation upset some concerned family member, and he/she brought the issue to court?

One could easily see the court ordering the patient into enforced bed-rest, and a diet incorporating at least two pounds of healthy beefsteak and pork products per day. And eggs; nothing healthier than eggs and whole milk.

There is nothing more dangerous than being right ahead of the curve. Ask Galileo.

"If a million people do a foolish thing, it remains a foolish thing." -- Berke Breathed

SIGNYM

Thursday, July 27, 2006 11:33 AM

Quote:
Homebirth is low risk. Hospital birth is high risk.

Statistics and sources, please? I would like to remain within the fact-based community as much as possible, so if you can, show me the death and complication rate of both and correct for the fact that part of the hopspital statistics include a self-selected population of women going to hospital because they are high risk: eg women who have already been dx with placenta previa, transverse or breech positions, at risk of premature birth due to hx, showing fetal distress etc.

Quote:
Should I be allowed to think for myself and disagree with the state on what the least risky option is?...Here is a question for you. Do you think dissenters (people who disagree with the state) should lose their right to self-determination in all areas of dissent?

ALL areas? That's a very sweeping statement and the answer is... of course not. I follow a simple discussion rule: "Never say never, always avoid always." (GUYS TAKE NOTE: Especially when preceeded by the word "you" as in "You always..." and "you never...". It makes for bad marital discussions.

)

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

SIGNYM

Thursday, July 27, 2006 11:59 AM

Quote:
Material point not yet brought up: Fact: Judicial and medical conservatism being what they are, the court system, beyond doubt, is always going to back conventional medical opinions as to best treatment.

Fact: Conventional medical opinions aren't always right! And they have a way of changing over time.

Classic example: Fifty years ago, the standard treatment for a middle-aged man recovering from a heart attack would be bed rest, minimal exertion, and a diet high in protein and iron (to "rebuild" the "tired blood".) Today, of course, we're aware of the dangers of a seditary lifestyle, and the effect too much ferron in the bloodstream has on heart disease, especially in men.

Rocket, You're assuming- wrongly- that "official" medical opinion is wrong more often than "unoffical" medical opinion by the examples that you chose.

Let's say that official medical opinion said to eat lots of meat, eggs, and milk, and the the avant-garde opinion said to be treated by magnets, drink lots of whiskey, and smoke cigars? Both could be equally wrong.

In the IDEAL world, medical opinion hews closer and closer to the facts over time because it's a science. And being a science and not a religion medicine DOES amd SHOULD change with time as errors are edited out. OTOH, avant garde opinions may be just that... opinion not based on any factual foundation. The problme with avant garde opinion is that there is no mechanism for self-correction: No case histories, no peer-reviewed journals, no studies, no accumulated body of knowledge.

It's not the I think medical science is always right. Heck, I can name you several major shifts in my lifetime (I'm an old fart) regarding nutrition, cancer treatment, efficacy of medicine (works only 30% of the time for any particular person), neurology, ulcer prevention etc. Used to be, everyone was SUPPOSED to eat margarine.

I have an idea how new ideas can be incoprorated more quickly but it's a long story that I don't want to type out at the moment.

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

SIGNYM

Thursday, July 27, 2006 12:17 PM

Quote:
There are ... kids who survived cancer without chemo.- CTK
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.- Signy
I'll overlook that you just called me a liar, and refine my statement.

And I said that death is ALMOST always inevitable, so I will refrain from pointing out that you seriously misquoted me. As I just said- "Never say never, always avoid always." I try to allow for oddball cases, new evidence etc.

Quote:
Here is a list of people, including kids, who survived cancer with non-chemo therapy after chemo failed to work. Granted this list is mostly for brain cancer, the treatment they used is only allowed by the FDA after chemo/radiation failed, which confounds the chemo issue. But it makes a point in my defense that my statement was not a lie. I should have said, "There are kids who survived cancer by using non-toxic treatment after chemo failed." That is what is pertinent to the Cherrix case.

First of all, brain cancer is seriously different from lymphoma. Cancers arising from brain cells grow differently- they are almost always solid tumors- and they are in a matrix of very slowly dividing cells. What works in one realm often doens't work in another.

Quote:
There are PEOPLE, plenty of people, who survived cancer with nutritional therapies. (Here is a list of success stories of people who did:
http://www.cancure.org/chp12.pdf ) I'm having a harder time finding a CHILD's success story online because children are not allowed to try such alternative treatments for cancer in this country. But it is not unreasonable to assume that if adults have survived cancer without chemo, children can too.

But you're ASSSUMING, and furthermore, you're ASSUMING a lot of things: that nutritional therapy has been successfully applied to lymphoma, that the current evidence on Cherrix himself supports such a treatment, that supporting evidence for alternate treatment has been suppressed by the court.

As far as I can tell- correct me if I'm wong- your MAIN point is that you're allowed to use your child as a guinea pig for your ideas as long as s/he doesn't die or suffer other prosecutable harm. You've covered the interests of "the collective" by referring to taxes (and one assumes insurances rates) but have you adequately protected the rights of the child?

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

CANTTAKESKY

Thursday, July 27, 2006 1:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Statistics and sources, please

Oh God, that would take so long.

Couldn't you just assume I have a long list of articles from reputable medical journals and WHO publications, and that you disagree with the way I interpret them? You know, skip to the end?

The point of that exercise was to TRY to see it from my perspective. That though I believe other women engage in high risk behaviors, I believe they should have the freedom to do so. That is, *I* value freedom more than the cost of such freedom.

Obviously, you don't... and there we part ways.

Quote:
ALL areas? That's a very sweeping statement and the answer is... of course not.

Then the next question is: how do you determine which areas of dissent should be allowed the right of self-determination and which should not? What criteria would you use?

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

SIMONWHO

Thursday, July 27, 2006 1:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Statistics and sources, please
Oh God, that would take so long.

Couldn't you just assume I have a long list of articles from reputable medical journals and WHO publications, and that you disagree with the way I interpret them? You know, skip to the end?

That's the beauty of alternative medicine - proving things takes so much time and effort so why not do whatever you feel like and just insist that you're right.

It's the broken clock theory applied to healthcare.

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

CANTTAKESKY

Thursday, July 27, 2006 1:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
And I said that death is ALMOST always inevitable, so I will refrain from pointing out that you seriously misquoted me.

My apologies. I still patently disagree with you that death is almost always inevitable. If you look at all the success stories of survivors, you will see it is far from "almost always." Of course, without a proper study, it is hard to evaluate whether these are "oddball cases" or anomalies, or even statistically significant. But I believe there are enough case numbers where it isn't "almost always."

Quote:
First of all, brain cancer is seriously different from lymphoma.

Redirecting. You called me a liar for saying children survive cancer without chemo. I was defending myself by producing cases of childhood cancer survival without chemo. Type of cancer is irrelevant here. (But for the record, this list does contain survivors of lymphoma, though they weren't children.)

Quote:
But you're ASSSUMING, and furthermore, you're ASSUMING a lot of things: that nutritional therapy has been successfully applied to lymphoma, that the current evidence on Cherrix himself supports such a treatment, that supporting evidence for alternate treatment has been suppressed by the court.

No, I already stipulated my only assumption, that if a good number of adults survived using nutritional therapy (some of which was for lymphoma), then it stands to reason that children can survive too.

Redirect. My point was that outcome of withholding chemo is not certain. You allow that death is only "almost always," or in high probability. I, and many other people, think that the probability is lower, a lot lower. Where the outcome of a choice is not certain, and the risk is disputed, should parents be allowed to make up their own minds about the risk level and disagree with you (and the state)?

Quote:
As far as I can tell- correct me if I'm wong- your MAIN point is that you're allowed to use your child as a guinea pig for your ideas as long as s/he doesn't die or suffer other prosecutable harm.

Just as everyone else is using their children as guinea pigs for THEIR ideas as long as the kids don't suffer prosecutable harm. I am not experimenting with my children any more than other parents are experimenting with theirs. YOU see my choices as experiments because you think they are high risk. Again, *I* think they are the least risky options I can find based on my interpretation of available data, or lack thereof.

It comes back to risk assessment. Who is allowed to evaluate risk for one's children? Parents or just the state?

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

SIGNYM

Thursday, July 27, 2006 2:14 PM

Quote:
My point was that outcome of withholding chemo is not certain. You allow that death is only "almost always," or in high probability. I, and many other people, think that the probability is lower, a lot lower. Where the outcome of a choice is not certain, and the risk is disputed, should parents be allowed to make up their own minds about the risk level and disagree with you (and the state)?

Statistics and sources, please? You have ideas, I have ideas... but what is the evidence? Look, I can SAY that my child may survive a gunshot to the head, and there have been cases where that has occurred. But the odds are that it's not a good thing to do, so if I were to shoot my child in the head I would probably be tried for attempted murder. We've got to bang our theories against reality once in a while or they're no good. So to reiterate: statistics and sources, please?

And to reiterate my previous point- What is the EVIDENCE that the nutritional therapy is actually working for Cherrix? Or not working? The proof of the pudding, so to speak, is Cherrix himself. He's been on thsi regimen of herbs and diet... what are his blood cells and lymph nodes doing? Better? Worse? About the same?

I'm not a big fan of modern medicine although due to my daughter's and SO's hx I've had far more contact with the medical world than ANYONE should have in a lifetime! I've even filed a complaint against our HMO (and lost). I supported a friend whose child really WAS brain-damaged by pertusssis vaccine (an immune reaction not a mercury problem). But one thing I DO know is that in these kinds of cases, like Terry Schiavo, the evidence is at least a three-foot stack of papers. Unless we got thru it, we're just making snap judgments.

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

ROCKETJOCK

Thursday, July 27, 2006 2:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Rocket, You're assuming- wrongly- that "official" medical opinion is wrong more often than "unoffical" medical opinion by the examples that you chose.

Just a point of fact--I never said that "official" medical opinion is wrong more often that right. (I didn't use the term "official" at all, I said conventional.)

The truth is, I think modern medicine is correct more often than incorrect.

At least when the medical/industrial complex doesn't have vested financial interest in pushing one kind of treatment over another, or personal/political axes to grind.

And avant-guarde methods do have a mechanism for self-correction; it's called scientific method; experimentation, properly documented, in other words. The problem right now is, if your method is unconventional or politically unpopular, nobody is going to look at your results.

Take the Federal Government's "No Galileo, I won't look through your stupid lens-tube, the moon is a perfect sphere!" attitude towards medicinal cannabis.

The official stance is that it has no, repeat no medical value whatsoever, despite more than three decades of federally-studied usage as a glaucoma treatment. (And yes, I know there are other treatments for glaucoma available these days--but that doesn't change the fact that at least one legitimate usage exists!)

The fact is, no amount of evidence is going to convince the fed, because too much political capial has been invested in keeping THC illegal.

Now there's a system that needs a mechanism for self-correction...

"She's tore up plenty. But she'll fly true." -- Zoë Washburn

CANTTAKESKY

Thursday, July 27, 2006 3:05 PM

Quote:
Statistics and sources, please? You have ideas, I have ideas... but what is the evidence?

We must part ways here.

If you've noticed, and I am sure you have, I have never produced any statistic in any argument I have made in RWE. Not on global warming or psychic phenomena or health care choices. I have deliberately stuck to arguments based on scientific methodology and philosophy.

There are several reasons.

1. If we can't come to an agreement on the PRINCIPLES of an issue, what do the statistics matter?

2. It is said, "There are 3 types of lies. Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics." Statistics are very, very malleable. Anyone who knows anything about statistics knows you can find stats for whatever cause you want. You have to evaluate methodology, design, and assumptions. So I focus on methodology and philosophy. If we can't agree on the flaws or strengths of methodology, and the principles of interpreting data, what do the data matter?

3. It just takes too damn long to produce a fair representation of available data. If I had to put together a written case for any issue, together with data and references, I would end up writing a publishable book. Moreover, most of my references are from books and journals, and not online articles, so it is not a matter of summarizing and linking. And if I just summarized and linked, it simply wouldn't do justice to the problem.

4. It takes too damn long for the reader to REALLY pore through and evaluate all the data. If I summarized and the reader believed me, he wouldn't really be evaluating the data and thinking for himself. To appreciate the uncertainties and complications of statistics, one has to spend quite a bit of time on the subject. If you really wanted to spend that much time learning about something, you could do it on your own, without my input.

(However, if you really want to learn about risk evaluation of home vs. hospital births, I can start you off with a recommended reading list, which contains all the statistics you want, written by people much more eloquent than I. It'll take some time, but I'll do it if you insist--under a different thread.)

Back to the point. Here, the PRINCIPLE is the right to dissent. If I understand you correctly, you want to evaluate dissent on a case by case basis, based on your interpretation on evidence. If a parent has hard data to back up his dissention, and you come to agree with the parent's conclusions of that data, you would allow dissent. But then really, the parent's opinion is no longer dissent, and is merely added as acceptable, though perhaps not preferred, option.

So let's clarify. Let's define dissent as a conclusion or interpretation of evidence that you/the state disagrees with. You've looked at the stack of evidence I produced, and you STILL disagree with me. I'm nuts! Do I have the right to self-determination when my conclusions are different from yours, even when it doesn't result in harm?

From what I understand, your answer is no. My answer, were I supported by the state and in the majority, would be yes. And therein lies our difference. There isn't much to say after that.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

CANTTAKESKY

Thursday, July 27, 2006 3:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
What is the EVIDENCE that the nutritional therapy is actually working for Cherrix? Or not working?

I don't know that. I don't need to know that. I believe, on the PRINCIPLE of the thing, that he (together with his legal guardians) has a right to assess that evidence for himself and make his choices. WITHOUT MY APPROVAL. Without my standing over his shoulder, making sure he is doing the right thing. Imagine that.

If I understand you correctly, you want the state to stand over parental shoulders and approve of all divergences from the norm. That is why you need evidence, to evaluate the risks of the behavior and determine if those risks are acceptable to you. Put your/the state's stamp of approval or denial on it.

So now we know exactly where we disagree.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

CANTTAKESKY

Thursday, July 27, 2006 3:40 PM

Quote:
The problem right now is, if your method is unconventional or politically unpopular, nobody is going to look at your results.

Thank you.

I am reading about many other therapies which start off with promising results, but whose research is quashed or ignored so they never achieve the level of clinical proof they need to become widely accepted.

It also applies to dismissing and ignoring dangers of conventional medicine documented in professional literature. The red flags aren't conclusive in and of themselves, but they are systematically ignored or ridiculed instead of followed up conscientiously for safety's sake. A lot of times, people can't PROVE something is dangerous because no one is funding the necessary studies.

People who control the money largely control the body of available evidence.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

SIGNYM

Thursday, July 27, 2006 3:40 PM

Quote:
If I understand you correctly, you want the state to stand over parental shoulders and approve of all divergences from the norm.

Did I say that, or even imply that??? Did I not say "Never say never, always avoid always" TWICE ... or in this case "all"? And yet here you are, GROSSLY misrepresenting me.

Quote:
I believe, on the PRINCIPLE of the thing, that he (together with his legal guardians) has a right to assess that evidence for himself and make his choices.

YOU want me to jump up and down with you and say that the state should ALWAYS keep out of family matters, on principle! (Hmmm... there's that "always" again.) So would you agree that parents should play Russian roulette with their children?

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

SIGNYM

Thursday, July 27, 2006 3:41 PM

Deadlock victim my *ss!

SIGNYM

Thursday, July 27, 2006 3:53 PM

Quote:
I have never produced any statistic in any argument I have made in RWE. Not on global warming or psychic phenomena or health care choices. I have deliberately stuck to arguments based on scientific methodology and philosophy.

Scientific methodology is BASED ON EVIDENCE. And when there are many variables affecting the data - as in medicine- it is sometimes necessary to use statistics to tease out the underlying principles at work.

Quote:
If I understand you correctly, you want to evaluate dissent on a case by case basis, based on your interpretation on evidence. If a parent has hard data to back up his dissention, and you come to agree with the parent's conclusions of that data, you would allow dissent. But then really, the parent's opinion is no longer dissent, and is merely added as acceptable, though perhaps not preferred, option.

It isn't simple dissent that I'm concerned about, it's a life and death issue with life and death consequences.

Quote:
So let's clarify. Let's define dissent as a conclusion or interpretation of evidence that you/the state disagrees with. You've looked at the stack of evidence I produced

But you haven't produced a stack of evidence. You've produced a few anecdotes about some people who've apparently been cured but you haven't shown that these therapies have more than Hail Mary's shot at success

Quote:
and you STILL disagree with me.

Of course. Your evidence is lacking.

Quote:
I'm nuts!

Please don't come back later and say that I said that you're nuts.

Quote:
Do I have the right to self-determination when my conclusions are different from yours, even when it doesn't result in harm?

That's where we disagree- the risk of harm. Disagree with me all you want, as long as it doesn't hurt anybody I'm OK with whatever.

Quote:

Do I have the right to self-determination when my conclusions are different from yours, even when it doesn't result in harm?

Like I said, it's all fun until someone gets hurt.

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

RUE

Thursday, July 27, 2006 3:57 PM

I just breezed through this and will be offline for a few days ---

BUT ---

CTS - your position is about as helpful as the medical philosophy of 'humors' (you know - black bile, blood etc). That theory was based on the reigning philosophies of the day, which had been debated, honed, rationalized and buttressed for, literally, centuries. The only problem was, the theory of 'humors' was wrong, no matter how well-established the philosophy behind it.

From the words you've used I think your training is in philosophy. Please note I have no problems with philosophers (some of my best friends are ...). But when I said you reject science in another thread, I was right. You DON'T want to discuss data, outcomes, statistics.

And we're not the boneheaded droids you seem to think we are. I do understand the idea that you only see what you look for ("You can see anything if you use the right filters"). Or to put it another way, you only answer the questions you ask. But the beauty of science is that it IS self-correcting. If we are talking about - say, cancer survival - then the philosophy going into the debate doesn't matter. I don't care if you are using vodoo, diet, chemo, or bloodletting. The philosophy bends to the data.

But you reject the data. Not only that, you reject the idea of data as being informative. Therefore, you reject science.

SIGNYM

Thursday, July 27, 2006 4:04 PM

Thank you Rue.

Rocket: I agree that conventional medicine is often- in fact USUALLY- swayed by money, and blinded by... well... convention.

One of the things that I've wondered about is why the practitioners of alternate (I'm not going to call it "medicine" because only DOCTORS are licensed to do THAT) therapies simply don't get together some sort of peer-reviewed journal of their own. Do-it-yourself science, like free software. With the internet it should be easy to bring together a solid body of non-mainstream evidence to assess the efficacy of alternate...ah... therapies.

Gonna be offline for a while too.

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

CANTTAKESKY

Thursday, July 27, 2006 4:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
all divergences from the norm.
Did I say that, or even imply that??? Did I not say "Never say never, always avoid always" TWICE ... or in this case "all"? And yet here you are, GROSSLY misrepresenting me.

Forgive me my sloppiness. Delete the ALL. Let me restate. If I understand you correctly, you want the state to stand over parental shoulders and approve of most (?)divergences from the norm.

Quote:
YOU want me to jump up and down with you and say that the state should ALWAYS keep out of family matters, on principle!

Well, the jumping up and down part is optional.

And no, not always. We are talking about what should be legal. Laws draw a line, and lawyers take those lines to court and debate them on a case by case basis. I am saying I would draw the line to allow parental choice unless prosecutable harm occurs or is universally acknowledged to be extremely likely to occur (such as playing russian roulette).

We can next debate the definitions of "universally acknowledged" and "extremely likely." But I think, and hope, you get the difference between shooting at a kid and choosing alternative health options.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

SIGNYM

Thursday, July 27, 2006 4:13 PM

Well, in this case, the evidence says that this boy has a VERY HIGH probability of being DEAD without effective treatment. A higher probability than than playing Russian roulette. The case has gone to court and is being weighed on an individual basis. So make your case. Pretend we're the court and show us otherwise.

And, no, I'm not concerned about simple "divergences from the norm". Where I am concerned... like you... is where there is a high probability of death or permanent and serious disability.

TTUL.

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

CANTTAKESKY

Thursday, July 27, 2006 4:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
From the words you've used I think your training is in philosophy.

I have a master's degree in a science. I have had 3 years of graduate courses in research methodology, design, and statistics. I have published a paper in a blind peer-reviewed professional journal in my field. I was enrolled in a doctoral program but took a leave of absence for personal reasons.

Quote:
But you reject the data. Not only that, you reject the idea of data as being informative. Therefore, you reject science.

See, that is why I have a hard time talking to you, Rue. I speak, and you come away with a completely different idea than what I said. I am scratching my head, wondering why. Maybe a personality clash? Or maybe I am just a piss-poor communicator and should just shut up. Sigh, I'm beginning to feel that way.

If you would read what I said, carefully, you would notice I used the word evaluate. I evaluate data based on methodology, design, and logic. I don't dispute the data itself, but the conclusions and interpretations.

Remember the black sheep in Scotland joke? The folks on the train don't dispute that a black sheep is observed. They are disputing what that observations means in terms of color of sheep in Scotland.

And there you go again, trying to get my goat with the "You reject science" comment, after I told you I am sensitive to that accusation more than others. Except funny, this time I didn't care anymore. Hmmm.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

SERGEANTX

Thursday, July 27, 2006 4:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
...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. ...

This is exactly why it makes me so nervous to give into this line of reasoning at all. You're point of view seems to be that all we're really concerned about is the particulars of a given situation. I'm saying that the principle of parental rights is first and foremost. It should take extreme circumstances before move past that and get into "exact circumstances".

The thing is, I'll never hand over responsibility for the welfare of my children to anyone, especially not a majority rule government. We can have all the laws about it that you want to write down, but my commitment to my children overrides them all.

I am more comfortable with the idea that parents can be prosecuted for child abuse. We should only consider the state to have a right to "interfere in a child's welfare" if the parents have been convicted of such a crime.

You might worry that this will leave a child's welfare to the mercy of the parents. It will, and I think it ought to. In the vast majority of cases this is a clear benefit. My parents, while not perfect, cared a great deal more about my welfare than any state agency could. I think this is almost always the case and in the extreme circumstance that everyone wants to focus on, arguments can usually be made for abuse. But, in general, I'll grant the state no interest in the welfare of my children. It's none of their gorram business.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

CANTTAKESKY

Thursday, July 27, 2006 5:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Where I am concerned... like you... is where there is a high probability of death or permanent and serious disability.

Well, look at that. We've finally agreed on something.

Quote:
Well, in this case, the evidence says that this boy has a VERY HIGH probability of being DEAD

I see my hope that you would get the difference between shooting at a kid and using alternative therapies was ill-founded.

Now, I have to make a decision. Do I try to convince you there is a difference between the two, with "statistics" as you desire, or do I let it go already? I'd be violating my self-imposed rule to avoid statistical squabbles. It took long enough to just get to this point of convergence. I can't imagine what all it would take communicate effectively about a topic inherently more slippery than principle. OTOH, if I decline, I have no doubt you and Rue would call me chicken and other unsavory names.

Rue and I cannot communicate with each other. There is simply zero understanding occurring when we speak to each other. You and I can communicate better, but there is still a fair amount of misunderstanding involved that takes a lot of work and redirection to overcome. I'd prefer to discuss something as tricky as statistics with someone who "gets" my arguments better, so to speak--even if they don't agree. Someone who doesn't argue concrete specifics when I am trying to argue an abstract principle. Someone who gets it when I say, "PRETEND you've already looked at the evidence and disagree--do I still have the right....." I don't know if that person exists here on RWE. Maybe Finn, or Emma, or Chrisisall. (Edited to add SergeantX, but I usually agree with him, so there isn't much to argue.)

I have to think about that.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

SIGNYM

Thursday, July 27, 2006 5:32 PM

And maybe witholding life-saving treatment is abuse. What is the difference between this case and a child dying of sepsis and the parents refusing anitbiotics, or child severely injured and parents refusing blood transfusion or surgery? Do we wait until the child DIES before doing something and THEN stepping in?

In my mind, the complicating factor in this case is that the child is "almost" an adult.

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

SIGNYM

Thursday, July 27, 2006 5:50 PM

Quote:
I see my hope that you would get the difference between shooting at a kid and using alternative therapies was ill-founded.

In my view dead is dead. I'm not sure the rationalization of how you get to that point is important. Heck, I know that people will argue that the world is flat. Human ability to rationalize is unbounded. That is why we need evidence, and specifically evidence that in THIS CASE the alternate treatment is doing some good or at least that the boy's condition is not deteriorating.

But what if... I don't have data either way, this is just a supposiiton... what if the boy's lymph nodes are getting larger and larger and his blood WBC are going up and his lymphocytes are going down? What if he's beginning to waste and run a fever? What if he's becoming progressively more fatigued and having a hard time breathing and beginning night sweats? What if his arms and legs are beginning to swell? That doctors predict that with that progression he will be dead in a year? And what if, despite all this, he and his parents INSIST that the alternate treatment is "working"?

And then what if the boy dies?
OK, now I relaly DO have to log off.

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

RUE

Thursday, July 27, 2006 6:37 PM

CTS

Quote:
If you've noticed, and I am sure you have, I have never produced any statistic in any argument I have made in RWE. Not on global warming or psychic phenomena or health care choices. I have deliberately stuck to arguments based on scientific methodology and philosophy.

The problem right now is, if your method is unconventional or politically unpopular, nobody is going to look at your results.

A lot of times, people can't PROVE something is dangerous because no one is funding the necessary studies.

People who control the money largely control the body of available evidence.

Now I WILL get to work - but I believe these quotes (you and various people) sum up your position.

In an extended argument which I don't have time to make, I could show that data will eventually correct the questions asked. But to briefly illustrate the process of how data feeds-back onto the questions, historically medicine only advanced with more and better data-gathering. That included autopsies, microscopes, bacterial/ tissue stains, statistics, and laboratory and clinical experiments. What science does initially is winnow out non-correlation. The wrong questions give nonsensical data. So the internally logical and philosophically accepted 'humours' theory asked the wrong questions and therefore fell before basic observation.

With enough pursuit, science can even determine cause, effect, or mere correlation. (Assuming we accept the theory of time - that cause happens before effect, the idea that 'nothing happens without cause', and the premise that thought can model reality.)

I will NEVER accept studies done by interested parties. That means I won't accept global warming studies funded by oil companies, or drug studies funded by pharmas. And it is true that under Bush, US academic science has become politicized. He (Bush) got burned when he asked the NAS to look at acceptable arsenic levels in water. And he has not repeated that mistake. But int'l science is a lot harder to control.

In the short-term $$ will focus the inquiry. But it will not determine the data (if only b/c there is a lot more motivation to disprove an accepted theory than to be just another 'me too' hack). And in the long-term, $$ will not determine the direction of inquiry. (See self-correcting questions, above)

IN THIS PARTICULAR DEBATE - the questions are philosophically uncomplicated: what are the survival rates without standard treatment, with standard treatment, with alternative 'therapy', and with a combination of both?

Fortunately, Congress passed and funded mechanisms to study alternative therapies. (That's why you're seeing studies on the power of prayer, herbs, acupuncture etc) But though the therapies are alternative the studies need to be standard. In other words, they need a null hypothesis, population, protocol, controls and analysis. Only a few alternative cancer therapies have been submitted for FDA protocol studies: Burzynski, Gonzalez and Simone. The Burzynski trial seems to have fallen by the wayside. I'm not sure if the Gonzalez and Simone studies are under way or if they've yielded any data. Proponents of alternative therapies are not brave pioneers being kept down by 'the man'. All the FDA asks is that these treatments be scientifically studied.

So far the only data on alternatives is anecdotal. Is that scientific? Will you trust anecdotal stories more than statistics gathered over decades and thousands of patients? Not that we have any more input in this than we did with Schiavo. But I submit you are biased. You require a standard of 'proof' for the things you agree with (alternative therapy) lower than for the things you dis-agree with (global warming - where I suspect NO amount of data will ever be enough for you). You quibble over the 'system' to avoid admitting to existing information and going from there.

How is that scientific?

SIGNYM

Thursday, July 27, 2006 7:04 PM

Quote:
Fortunately, Congress passed and funded mechanisms to study alternative therapies.

Huh. I didn't know that. Good for them!

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

CHRISISALL

Thursday, July 27, 2006 7:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:

And would you base all children's medical treatments on vaguely remembered articles from newspapers (who push hundreds of contradictory ideas about medicine every year) printed decades ago? Or expect others to?

1) Where did I infer that ALL children's medical treatments be based on vaguely remembered articles?
2) I 'vaguely' remember being told by doctors that I would need a cervical bone fusion before I hit fourty, that I would have trouble walking due to hip ligament stretching from martial arts, and Osgood Schlatter's disease, I also remember being told that gaining 30 lbs of muscle in six months was near-impossible...
Well, I escaped bone-fusion, can walk and kick as good as when I was twenty, and gained OVER 30 lbs of muscle in six months of weight training (Now I'm 155lbs, yeah, I was a beanpole).
So, should I have just listened to them that 'know'?
Subjectivly, the professionals are 0 for 3.

I ain't a medical expert, but I know enough to be able to tell if I'm talking to a doctor that I have more brains than.
So should we all.

Vaguely remembering important stuff Chrisisall

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, July 27, 2006 8:18 PM

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.

I have that story around here somewhere, as I recall, the dream was a little TOO pleasant and the kid decided he didn't wanna leave, so they made it a bit less pleasant.. (something regarding his father, I believe).. if I find the book, I will post the title, cursed if I remember it either.

As for the "Bright Line" Geeze mentioned, that's a right good point.

Where exactly does it end ?

I like ya Siggy, but in this case, ya haven't the right - legally maybe (and to an Anarchist like me that means exactly squat, mind you..) but morally, not a chance.

Ask the parents, or should I say, FORMER parents of Matthew Smith, who was one of the unlucky ones to run afoul of the nasty side effects of Ritalin in a fatal way...
*The certificate of death reads: "Death caused from Long Term Use of Methylphenidate, (Ritalin)."

Now imagine if they could have, without fear, taken him off that poison and tried something else ?

When you allow the state to decide such things, especially when the state is proven to be in cahoots with big pharma and their powerful and wealthy lobbies, you open the door to a whole lot of forced treatments - and this is DANGEROUS.

"For your own good" is the very worst of tyrannies, and as slippery a slope as it gets.

Life isn't safe, and all the laws, rules, regulations, medical practice and pharmaceuticals in the world cannot make it so, and to compromise a person, or a familys' lifestyle in all but the rarest cases is far more destructive than even death.

Would you take an Amish child by force to a hospital?
Would you force a blood transfusion on the child of a Jehovas Witness?
Would you force medical treatment of any kind on the child of a Christian Scientist?

What would the end result be, but the destruction of a family, under hostile circumstances, and an adversarial breach, whether the child was returned or not - at what price life, if the living of it isn't worth a damn anymore ?

Quote:
And then what if the boy dies?

Then he dies, and he dies as a result of his own and his families choices, much as some smokers die of their own choices, some drinkers die of their own choices, and some damn fools who drive like lunatics die of their own choices.

To take that choice away from someone, the choice to make damnfool decisions, is to deprive them of liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and degrade their quality of living possibly below their own personal "worth it" threshold.

I'll take quality over quantity myself, thankyaverramuch...

As for "conventional" medicine versus "alternative" - most of those conventional treatments were originally ridiculed and rejected as superstition, hogwash and the like, often for longer than they should have been, often for religous reasons.

One might make the argument that ALL "conventional" medicine originally sprang from "alternative" medicine which, over time, proved itself - most of the time struggling against the tide and being generally regarded as quackery or hogwash.

Quote:
One of the things that I've wondered about is why the practitioners of alternate (I'm not going to call it "medicine" because only DOCTORS are licensed to do THAT) therapies simply don't get together some sort of peer-reviewed journal of their own. Do-it-yourself science, like free software. With the internet it should be easy to bring together a solid body of non-mainstream evidence to assess the efficacy of alternate...ah... therapies.

Because many times those who practice them live in fear of being come down on by the (insert imperial march music here) "Medical Establishment" with both boots, or the FDA, or in some cases the DEA, or whatever overregulated bunch of jackbooted goons have swapped off jurisdiction THIS week.

For the same reason a

SIGNYM

Thursday, July 27, 2006 9:21 PM

Frem- I like you too but I respectfully disagree with your slippery slope argument. It can be simply cut off at the pass by medically examining a person to see how they are doing. And altho one or two cases where a fatal treatment was "forced" on a child is one or two cases too many, there are equally tragic cases where treatment was refused with equally fatal results.

Would I force a Jehova's witness' child into a blood tranfusion? If it meant saving his life- absolutely YES. Without hesitation and without regret. Otherwise, what's the difference between that and sacrificing your kid to Moloch? (Rather a kid die than trangress your religious beliefs. I mean... it almost seems like you simply want to play god with your children.)

And as far as a child "choosing" to die... it depends very much on the age of the child. Cherrix is almost an adult and in this case his wishes will be taken into account although legally he doesn't have the right to choose for himself. But is a 5 y/o able to make informed consent? An 8 y/o? Very doubtful.

It seems to me that many of you simply have a knee-jerk reaction to this case. I have no doubt that in the future, when Cherrix's case becomes clearer- as Terry Schiavo's case did- a more reasoned discussion might become possible.

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

SOUPCATCHER

Thursday, July 27, 2006 9:25 PM

Just a quick question: has a 16 year old ever been tried and convicted as an adult in Virginia?

* edited to add (and fix some spelling): Okay. I sort of answered my own question. Virginia is one of seventeen states where 16 year olds are eligible for the death penalty.

RUE

Thursday, July 27, 2006 9:47 PM

SergeantX

You made a couple of arguments simultaneously, so I'd like to highlight this specific one: the idea that parents all love and care deeply for their children - more so than 'the state'. I contend there are dangerous - even deadly - parents, and that, by contrast to those parents, the 'state' is comparatively benign.

In those cases I think the state has the duty and society has the moral obligation to protect those children.

It is possible that most abusive parents do love their children, and that they are ignorant, overwhelmed, or psychologically damaged in some way (past abuse, current drug use). There probably are also some intrinsically uncaring parents. But either way, there are homes where children are not safe. It's more clear-cut with immediate danger - beating, dehydration, starvation. Incest and forced underage marriage (especially polygamy) are no-brainers in the US.

But what about a child dying in agony and the parents refusing treatment? Or clitorectomy? Is the argument that justifies it based on parental 'ownership' of their children, to dispose of them at will? (BTW - that was the prevailing ethic until a mere century ago. Personally, the idea that parents somehow 'own' their children like property is repugnant to me.)

Once you get past parents' absolute rights and power to do what they will with their children, and understand that suffering children need and deserve society's protections, it becomes a mere question of when and how.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_endangerment

The majority (78%) of maltreated children were maltreated by their birth parents. Birth parents were responsible for 62% of the abuse cases and 91% of the neglect cases.

Birth parents were the most closely related perpetrators for 72% of physically abused children and 81% of emotionally abused children.

The vast majority (91%) of neglected children were neglected by their birth parents ...

SIGNYM

Thursday, July 27, 2006 11:26 PM

Quote:
In 1993, Douglass Lundman sued his ex-wife and various Christian Science groups due over the death of his 11 year old son in 1989. He had juvenile diabetes - a potentially fatal disorder which is routinely treated with insulin, diet and exercise. While under the care of his Christian Science mother, he had fallen into a diabetic coma and died.

www.religioustolerance.org/medical1.htm

This is just from 2003...

Quote:
Baby Dies Without Care
A couple who chose prayer instead of medicine, watching their sick baby daughter die, was sentenced to a year of weekends in jail and parenting classes. Julia, 11 months, died of bacterial meningitis in July 2001, suffering high fever, vomiting, and convulsions. The parents pleaded no contest to charges of involuntary manslaughter and child abuse. Richard and Angeles Weibe are members of the Church of God, Upland, Calif., which shuns medical care. Source: Associated Press, Sept. 16, 2003

Quote:
Untreated Newborn Dies
Rhiana Rose Schmidt, who was born on Aug. 17, died on Aug. 19, after being delivered breech-birth at home to parents who belong to the General Assembly Church of the Firstborn in Morgantown, Ind. The church eschews medical care. She died of puerperal sepsis, a general infection acquired at birth, which is treated with antibiotics. She had difficulty breathing from the onset and the family knew she was ill, but believed it wrong to rely on medicine over "God's will." Hers is the third such death involving children from the same church. Prematurely-born Aspen Daniel died at six days of dehydration and underdevelopment in November 1998. Bradley Hamm, 12, died in February 1999 of an undetected heart attack. Indiana law provides a defense for parents providing "spiritual care." No charges have been brought in any of these cases. Source: [Johnson Co., Ind.] Daily Journal, Aug. 23-24, 2003

Quote:
Exorcism Kills Teen
Walter Zepeda, 19, died of dehydration after a 7-day "exorcism" in his basement apartment in London, Ontario, at the hands of his father and a fellow church member. Diego Zepeda-Cordera and Missionary Church of Christ member Alex Osegueda pleaded guilty to manslaughter. The mother, Ana Mejia-Lopez, received one day in jail, following 500 days of incarceration. Walter was tied to chairs in the apartment, bruising his wrists and ankles. A pastor and ten other church members periodically prayed over him. Walter's mouth was duct-taped when he screamed. Source: Toronto Globe & Mail, May 23, 2003

Quote:
Teen Dies of Untreated Cancer
A Tennessee mother who let her daughter die of untreated bone cancer last fall was indicted on misdemeanor charges in April. Jessica Crank, 15, died on Sept. 15. Members of the New Life Ministries prayed over the girl's open casket for her resurrection. Jessica had a basketball-sized tumor on her shoulder. Mother Jacqueline Crank, 42, and Ariel Ben Sherma, 74, the church leader, each face a single count of child abuse and neglect. Source: KnoxNews.com, April 17, 2003

http://ffrf.org/fttoday/2003/oct/index.php?ft=deity

Quote:
juvenile death rates have risen along with membership in anti-medical sects.

www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,100175,00.html

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

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, July 27, 2006 11:39 PM

Sure, death is gonna happen somewhat if you allow people the freedom to determing their own lives and those of their children.

While no longer possible in practice, partly due to the state, dealing with out-of-hand issues was at one time dealt with by the community, not the state, people who knew the folks involved, who's kids played with their kids, who lived in the same neighborhood, shopped at the same shops...
In short, people who knew the family.

Nowadays such decisions are made by poorly trained, underpaid, burnt out social workers, many of whom are callous, nasty, vengeful and have one or more axes to grind - but don't take my word on that, take the word of Andrew H Vachss.
You want credentials, go check his.

But yes, if you allow folks certain freedoms, Gee, what a nice sounding phrase, that, ALLOWING someone "Freedom" eh ? nice to know where we've gone in this conversation, isn't it ?

Anyhow, if people are free, some of them will die - I am sorry, but that's the price we pay for it, or you could ask the state to take your shoes and belt, lock you up in a rubber room 2 miles underground to protect you, and still have an embolism and die, whee...

I'll take being free.

I know you mean well, but if I had one ounce of respect for the logic you are using to support your arguments - I would be dead now.

Ergo, there's no way in heck imma agree with you, so let's just agree to disagree and respect each others opinion and right to hold it, righty-O ?

*hugz*

-Frem

SIGNYM

Thursday, July 27, 2006 11:53 PM

Quote:
What would the end result be, but the destruction of a family, under hostile circumstances, and an adversarial breach, whether the child was returned or not - at what price life, if the living of it isn't worth a damn anymore ?

TO WHOM?
First of all, I would ALLOW my kid the freedom to live... but in your mind your fears... trump his rights. "It's all about YOU" (I just had to throw in that cliche)

So yeah... funny where this conversation has gone, huh?

Quote:
I'll take being free.

What I don't understand is your visceral hatred of the medical system. I'm not too crazy about it myself, but would you really watch your kid die after he screamed for days in agony?

Quote:
I know you mean well, but if I had one ounce of respect for the logic you are using to support your arguments - I would be dead now.

I think you misunderstand my logic. I am NOT saying "believe the medical system". My point is twofold:
(1) None of us has enough info to have an informed opinion on this case (altho it turns out that under alnerate treatment Cherrix' tumors ARE growing... not a good sign)
(2) Always follow the evidence.

BTW- What does Vachss have to do with this? I looked him up, and....?
---------------------------------
Hugz back. It's hard to have a conversation about which we all feel strongly.

RUE

Friday, July 28, 2006 12:40 AM

If I may interject here (and please don't take this as hostile, I'm just trying to find the boundaries):

As a general thing Frem, should the state involve itself when parents murder their children? (I mean murder in the legal sense - by premeditated act.)

Do you feel the state should intervene if the parents severely beat/ burn their children - where death is imminent? Or do you regard that as the right of free adults?

Does it make a difference if the parents say their religion told them to do it, or if it's something they do on their own because they enjoy it? (Sadly, there are parents that do enjoy it.)

Assuming you think the state can involve itself in the above, what about if the children are severely undernourished - 1/2 normal height, 1/4 normal body weight with malnutrition brain damage?

Does it make a difference if it's done for religious reasons, or if the parents like to torture the children by displaying but witholding food?

I know these are probing questions and may come off as hostile. As I mentioned, I'm just trying to figure out your boundaries. THANKS for your consideration !

Rue

SERGEANTX

Friday, July 28, 2006 1:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
And maybe witholding life-saving treatment is abuse.

Maybe, but I think it ought to be a pretty high bar. My specific objection to your characterization was the idea that the state has a general interest in the welfare of my children. You seemed to be saying that the issue of governments right to meddle in the parent/child relationship was as done deal. Saying that it's just a matter of the details of a situation seems to imply the state has a general right to oversee the upbringing of my children. I disagree with this point of view on a very fundamental way. Only when a parent has stepped outside the bounds of the law (and essentially given up their rights), should the government be allowed to step in and take over.

To Rue's point, that there are many bad parents out there. That may be true. I'm still reasonable certain that the vast majority of children with parents are better off than those who are wards of the state. Regardless, we could never replace parents with government anyway, even though it seems that's what many would prefer.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

SIGNYM

Friday, July 28, 2006 1:26 AM

I've tried pretty had to find specific information about Cherrix and a related case (Katie Wernecke, who also has Hodgkin's lymphoma) and I found this interview with Abraham Cherrix

Quote:
HANNITY: But at the end of the day if you make a wrong decision it could result in your life.
ABRAHAM: Yes.
HANNITY: Do you think about that?
ABRAHAM: Well, I really can't think about that, you know?
HANNITY: But don't you have to?
ABRAHAM: Well, there's always that possibility and, yes, you can look at it. But if I'm going to get better I have to maintain a positive attitude.
HANNITY: No, I agree with that.
ABRAHAM: I cannot look into the future, as I said before, and say, This is going to happen to me and I'm so scared. I can't wake up every morning and say, Oh, my gosh, I'm going to die. You know, I wake up every morning and I say, I'm going to live, and I strive to meet that goal.

According to the Bio-Medical Center where Abraham is being treated, treatment failures are all due to bad attitude. To continue...

Quote:
So there's that possibility that somewhere along this line we made a wrong decision. But you know what? If I die, I'll die happy, and I will die healthy, and I will die in my home with my family, not in a hospital bed, bedridden and sick.

www.therebelution.com

He'll die healthy??? Aside fomr being a complete contradiction in terms he clearly has no idea what cancer does! It's like I said (many posts earlier): He and his family can't possibly imagine anything worse than chemo. Well, they'll find out soon enough.

Quote:
In the time between the end of chemotherapy in December and April, the lump on Abraham's neck did get bigger, but the family thinks that's because the new treatment has not yet taken effect. His parents said the growth hasn't gotten bigger in the past two weeks. "Abraham said that God has told him this is his test," Jay Cherrix said. "I think that, too."

So then, I looked up Katie Wernecke- the 13 year-old whose family was given free rein to treat her by whatever means they saw fit,

Quote:
It turns out that Katie is still alive, although it is unclear how she is doing. Her family has apparently taken her to an undisclosed cancer treatment center out of state, where she is getting more altie "cures" other than the high dose vitamin C that she got late last year

According to Katie's website the family cannot comment on how Katie is doing or the people providing the treatments will stop. YUH. http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/06/two_young_victims.php

I have tried to find out what the chances are of Abraham being cured by/ surviving a second round of chemo. That info doesn't seem to be anywhere.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

SIGNYM

Friday, July 28, 2006 1:32 AM

Quote:
Maybe, but I think it ought to be a pretty high bar.

I think near-certain death is a pretty high bar, don't you? I can't imagine anything higher than that, except maybe actually killing a child. How high does this bar have to be before the state steps in, in your opinion?

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

SERGEANTX

Friday, July 28, 2006 1:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
...The vast majority (91%) of neglected children were neglected by their birth parents ...

Why is a statistic like this relevant at all?? Aren't ALL neglected children neglected by their birth parents?

If you want to prove your point, show me how a large percentage of children are abused by their parents. Because what I'm saying is that the vast majority are better off with parents, even mediocre ones, than they would be if the state were their guardians.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

SERGEANTX

Friday, July 28, 2006 1:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Maybe, but I think it ought to be a pretty high bar.
I think near-certain death is a pretty high bar, don't you? I can't imagine anything higher than that, except maybe actually killing a child. How high does this bar have to be before the state steps in, in your opinion?

Hmmm, well if you're talking about the situation above, the kid has cancer. I don't think the parents gave it to him. They're allowing him to pursue an alternative treatment that most people consider foolhardy or risky. Some people consider chemotherapy foolhardy and risky.

My point is that their decision was miles away from abuse. That's what irks me about the general premise you're arguing from. You're not (or don't seem to be) content with prosecuting truly abusive parents. You have, and believe the state should have, a pressing interest in telling other people what's good for them. This is the prime characteristic of modern liberalism that keeps me away. It's becoming pretty popular with mainstream conservatives as well. Regardless, it's exactly what I'll always hate about so-called 'progressive' government. Make 'better worlds' on your own dime, leave the rest of us out of it.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE