For those critical of the child not receiving chemo/radiation.....

[Infinite Hope]

One example below points to the destructive effects chemo/radiation have on the body and organs. I don't condone or condemn any one practice for treating cancer and other ailments, but believe it's a matter of personal choice.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3886503

The purpose of this thread isn't a pissing contest as the point stands for itself. Those looking for a pissing contest can post, then reread the OP for a response. In this way, they can have their close-minded back-and-forth with themselves. Those with constructive and open-minded comments/thoughts on the issue, post away!

[Xipe Totec]

1. Non Sequitur

and that is the kindest thing I can say to the OP.

Don't push me.

[Realityhack]

126. +1 n/t

[donco6]

127. +1 n/t

[Maru Kitteh]

133. +1

[harun]

135. -4

[madeline_con]

2. Is the flight the choice of the cancer victim or the parent?

I haven't read a whole lot about it, just heard the blurbs on TV news.

spell edit

[Stellabella]

5. It's the parent's choice.

The boy is 13 years old. He's been homeschooled and he can't read. He doesn't know what chemo is. He thinks he's an 'elder' in their 'religion' and a 'medicine man'.

According to his doctor, his pain is '10 on a scale of 1 to 10'. The tumor is growing despite the ionized water and herbs his mother is giving him.

Even the head of the 'religion' they follow said she should return with him.

http://wcco.com/crime/chemo.trial.missing.2.1013970.html

[madeline_con]

10. Put me in the "critical of the parent" column.

And for MANY reasons other than the cancer treatment (or lack thereof).

[Stellabella]

15. Yep, I agree.

The worst thing about it is that the child is going to die in terrible pain and agony, and probably within weeks if he doesn't get treatment.

He got one round of chemo and the tumor shrank. They refused the second round and the tumor has grown again, back to where it was before the first round of chemo. It's also pressing against a port they put into his chest, causing him considerable pain.

[emilyg]

78. Yup.

[alarimer]

14. The fact that he is home-schooled and can't read is enough to sever parental rights.

Clearly they are fucking morons. Anybody can teach a kid to read, and if he has dyslexia or something else that makes it harder for him to learn, then he should not be home-schooled because it is clearly above the ability of these morons to teach him.

[Stellabella]

I agree. My husband (cancer survivor) is a teacher.

He's just incredulous that parents would be that negligent.

[madeline_con]

37. Yes, I agree wholeheartedly.

To say he's home schooled is a contradiction.

[Maru Kitteh]

140. It seems the mother and/or father is keeping him in purposeful state of ignorance for CONTROL

It's obvious she shouldn't be allowed to keep animals, let alone children.

[DollyM]

163. well, I wouldn't go that far . . .

He may have some learning difficulties or just his illness that have prevented him from getting a handle on reading. It takes a lot of energy to fight an illness. Our son developed very late in everything and is still behind in many ways because he spent his early years very sick with ear infections, bronchial infections, etc. We home school our son and feel that the gains that he has made have been because of the one on one attention he is getting from us. Just because he has some developmental delays is no reason to cast dispersion on home schoolers.

[Control-Z]

167. Do you honestly believe

that a 13 YO who can't read has only "some developmental delays".

'Just because he has some developmental delays is no reason to cast dispersion on home schoolers.'

I don't think anyone was casting dispersion(sic) on home schooling in general. Rather this particular case. While I'm not a big fan of home schooling, I am only critical when it proves to be a detriment to the child.

This woman has obviously failed to teach her son to read. Perhaps her child was ill during his key years of early learning. Perhaps Minnesota school districts have no programs for children who are too ill to go to school. Perhaps hiring a trained professional to help him was beyond the parent's means. But, with the mother's current behavior, I somehow doubt it.

[Stellabella]

3. Kidney failure from chemo used to treat hep c and Hodgkins are completely

different.

Double blind studies have been rigorously conducted over the years, and there is medical proof that chemo cures Hodgkins in kids 90% of the time. There are thousands of people alive today because they had chemo as children.

Of course chemo is destructive - it has to kill cancer cells. Because cancer cells grow more quickly than regular cells, they take up the chemo drugs and that kills them. People lose their hair and vomit on chemo because those cells also grow faster than most cells.

And that kid doesn't have a choice. He can't even read, he doesn't understand what chemo is, and his mother is killing him. And the point doesn't stand for itself.

Have you ever had a family member develop cancer and go through chemo? I have. When it works, and it does work, it is a literal miracle.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

4. No, it's not a matter of personal choice

when the "personal choice" of the parents are guaranteed to kill the child.

Yes, chemotherapy is poison. We all know that. It kills the good cells along with the bad.

That's irrelevant to this matter. A thirteen-year-old boy lacks the maturity - in every way - to make the appropriate medical decisions for himself. That's the job of his parents, and since they were eschewing medical treatment and putting his life in danger, the law stepped in - as is its duty - and a thoughtful, careful judge, in a 58-page opinion - that's a BIG opinion - left the boy in the care and custody of his parents (a big mistake, as it turns out) and ordered them to bring him to the proper places for his treatment.

The mother, instead, took off with the child, and now she's guaranteeing his death.

We don't allow thirteen-year-old children to drive cars, sign contracts, get married, join the armed forces, get married, have sex, or decide what their medical care should be. When the parents are negligent, and refuse to take proper care of the child, the court has no choice but to intervene.

The parents are perfectly free to make their own decisions for their own medical care, but they have no right to endanger their child's life by denying him the proper medical care.

There's a couple on trial right now for not getting medical attention for the young daughter who died of diabetes. The mother claimed she thought the child's symptoms were "signs that she had sinned."

Children need protection, even from their parents ...............................

[marybourg]

6. Well said. nt.

[Jackpine Radical]

8. Maybe ESPECIALLY from their parents.

You wouldn't believe the kind of stories that one hears in my business.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

16. What's your business?

When I was a young lawyer, just starting out in private practice, I got an appointment to be guardian ad litem for children in a couple of Northern Virginia counties. They were good experience, paid almost nothing, but it was enough to cover the rent, so I did it.

I could tell you some stories that would make normal people cry for the rest of their lives. I couldn't believe some of what I saw.

I still can't .......................

[Jackpine Radical]

165. Psychologist.

I do a lot of criminal forensic work.

[Recursion]

143. Does any child's parents, under any circumstances...

...have the right to judge that their child should not undergo chemo?

[Freddie Stubbs]

157. Would you require a 13 year old girl to get parental permission to get an abortion?

After all a 13 year old lacks the maturity - in every way - to make the appropriate medical decisions for herself.

[harun]

161. I'd love to see these self riteous assh*les answer this one.

:popcorn:

But I doubt they will.

[Robb]

164. Wow.

If you wish to compare parental permission to parental denial of service, I'm going to have to call apples and oranges.

[Orrex]

7. Flame bait

[Mimosa]

9. Judges and the state can't 'protect' everybody or necessarilly save a life

A 13 year old may make a bad decision whether or not he is influenced by his parents. Is society as a whole rendered less free or less safe because of the actions of this family? Did the parents cause their child to become ill? Sickness and death will always be part of the human condition. An honest doctor will admit that the administration of chemotherapy does not guarantee complete remission or a cure of any cancer.

If a family agrees they want to leave the child's fate in the the hands of God or fate and the child dies they are the ones who will hurt. When the State and judges take away the family's rights to choose to accept treatment we will all be less free.

[Orrex]

12. No treatment of any kind "guarantees" a cure

You're holding chemo to an impossible standard; do you hold so-called "alternative" "medicine" to that same standard?


Statistically, the boy's cancer is very responsive to chemo, and he would have an excellent chance of recovery if he were treated. That's as close to a guarantee as medicine--real or "alternative"--can ever offer.

Instead, the mother has almost certainly guaranteed his death.


If she'd opted to treat his cancer by withholding food and water because God or fate instructed her to do so, would you be as supportive of her choice?

[alarimer]

17. Without treatment, he WILL DIE.

What part of this don't you understand? With treatment, he stands about a 90% chance of living. Without it a 100% chance of dying, painfully I might add. It's not like cancer itself is a walk in the park.

The judge is 100% correct. These parents are KILLING their kid.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Contrary1]

80. Chemo drugs have changed quite a bit since 1987. n/t

[defendandprotect]

87. But not the nature of "for profit" medicine . . . nor the greed of pharmaceutical companies!

There are recent reports in the NY Times --
and, again, American ranks 37th in the world in health care!!!

Below Cuba!!!

[LeftishBrit]

101. But chemo for Hodgkins isn't a specifically American phenomenon!

As I've said on another thread, I know two long-term survivors who were treated with chemo in the 1970s - one in England and one in Canada. Both countries have 'socialized' medicine.

I believe France is top of the league for health care - and they certainly use chemo and all forms of modern medicine. Modern medicine does not equal 'for profit' healthcare.

As a citizen of a country that has had an NHS since 1948, I am shocked by the American 'for profit' system, and the influence of pharma and insurance companies on the healthcare system. But that has nothing to do with using chemo for Hodgkins - though it may have something to do with people's ability to afford it.

[ejpoeta]

115. my dad had hodgkins when i was a kid. he went through some form of treatment

and lived for thirty years after that just fine. he got to see his kids grown and married, and his grandkids. he referenced his hodgkins when he was diagnosed with advanced cancer about two months ago. i dont know if he really thought he could fight it or if he was just doing that for our benefit, but he couldn't have even tried at the point he was at. he died just days after that encounter. less than two weeks after he was diagnosed.

[northernlights]

109. that doesn't mean that certain drugs don't work

and America ranks 37th in the world in health care due more to things like the insurance industry and our crappy BigMac lifestyles than due to pharmas.

Look, I'm a strong proponent of alternative health care. I grow and make my own medicine for certain ailments. But some illnesses and injuries aren't going to get cured from my garden, and I know it.

You need to know which health practitioner to go to and when. Pharmas can't do a heck of a lot for shingles, but I killed the pain and put it in remission withing days via my garden and a bottle of cayenne.

On the other hand, Hodgkins is 90% curable with chemo. 95% death rate without. That tells me where to go for Hodgkins.

[defendandprotect]

171. Synthetic drugs work but often with severe side effects and at great expense . . .

The insurance industry is a prime example of corporate influence over every
part of our lives -- from medicine to nutrition, even in our schools!

Every "medicine" is based on a plant model --

Re shingles -- I may be expecting a case . . . :)

a bottle of cayenne and what?


Re Hodgkins . . . the link I supplied says ....



TYPE OF CANCER CURE RATE*

Choriocarcinoma (low-risk patients) 90
Burkitt's Lymphoma (Stage I) 90
Acute lymphocytic leukemia 60
Hodgkin's disease (stage III and IV) 60
Diffuse histiocytic lymphoma 70
Nodular mixed lymphoma 75
Testicular carcinoma (stage II-III) 70-90
Childhood sarcomas (w/ radiation & surgery) 70-90
Childhood lymphomas 75

*Percent long-term disease-free survival. Source: Cecil's Textbook of Medicine (1988)

In many other cases, chemotherapy (or radiation therapy) is more of a gamble than a proven therapy.

As I've said before, I'm not making a judgement in this case . . just trying to point
out that all we have done with cancer is increase the number of cases -- and many other
diseases as well. And, that our medicial industry isn't infallible - far from it.

Education works -- forcing people to do things ... not so much!

[uppityperson]

90. if you go to that link, what poster put in quotes isn't there. Instead it says

"For some kinds of cancer, chemotherapy (as well as radiation therapy) can be life saving. These include acute lymphocytic leukemia of children and Hodgkin's disease, as well as a few others."

[uppityperson]

88. "for some kinds of ca, chemo can be lifesaving, including Hodgkin's"

For some kinds of cancer, chemotherapy (as well as radiation therapy) can be life saving. These include acute lymphocytic leukemia of children and Hodgkin's disease, as well as a few others.

Thank you for posting that link. Too bad what you put in quotes wasn't from the link you gave. Odd
http://www.healingdaily.com/conditions/conventional-cancer-treatments.htm

[northernlights]

108. you're lumping all cancers into one disease

They are not one disease. Some cancers are extremely aggressive; but others are not. Statistics for Hodgkin's disease show a 90% CURE rate. Not remission -- CURE. Normal, healthy life following chemo. That's versus a 90% death rate without chemo.

And understanding of the disease(s) and treatments have come a long, long way in 25 years. It really depends on the type of cancer you have.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

19. Wrong

They're not the ones who will die. I'm sure their grief at the son's death will be real, but it will also be self-inflicted.

There are no guarantees anywhere in life, even in medicine. So your big bold assertion is a simple case of stating the obvious.

So your thirteen-year-old son has a cancer that, when properly treated, has a 95% cure rate, but you don't like the idea, and you convince the kid that chemotherapy is the wrong way to go. And you run away with him and hide from the people who want to treat him and help him to live a normal life.

That is not God's will, my friend. That is you, an irresponsible parent, endangering your child's life.

And, if he dies, it won't be God's will. It will be because you made his treatment impossible, and that makes you his killer.............

[Posteritatis]

25. So?

An honest doctor will admit that the administration of chemotherapy does not guarantee complete remission or a cure of any cancer.

An honest doctor will admit that the application of a tourniquet on a severed leg does not guarantee survival, but you know what? You still put the goddamn thing on anyway, because the odds of death are immeasureably higher without it.

[saltpoint]

29. There is the soft romance of a compassionate God who conducts

merciful interventions for the innocent and the suffering.

The books on my shelf suggest that this is an oft-held and deeply-guarded notion but that it remains a soft romance and not a hard science.

I'm dismayed that a 13-year old person is unable to read. I would need more variables before condemning his parents or guardians but he's been of reading age for almost a decade or so and at this hour he's probably hunkered down in the back seat of his mother's car entirely frightened and confused about the events swirling around him. I think I'm even MORE uneasy if he is NOT frightened and confused.

If he cannot read it seems logical to believe he does not know about the nature of his disease or available means to treat it.

On trial here in part is the nature of parenting and not the leverage of a parent. I say that science is the more persuasive argument in behalf of the child's well-being and not the skewed judgment of his hyper-religious mother. If this young man were an honors student and entirely educated as to the details surrounding his illness, and himself inspired to trust a certified physician to offer customary and current treatment, AND inclined toward a healthy agnosticism, then he and his mother would not be on whatever highway they're on tonight pissing in the woods.

I'd like these two found, offered education and counseling, and the child treated appropriately at the Mayo Clinic.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

39. Beautifully spoken, my friend,

and carefully thought out.

But, he's thirteen years old. Thirteen. No matter if he were an honors student, he is still not sufficiently mature to understand the consequences of refusing treatment.

This kid needs treatment and fast. His tumor is growing, the port for his medication is being forced out of his body by the tumor, and that's terribly painful.

How the hell can a parent put a child through this? Help me, for I am drawing a total blank ..................

[saltpoint]

44. I was drawn to this thread because you were participating in it.

Agree with you that a 13-year old, even a very informed one, even a very mature one, cannot be expected to make decisions about his own health care. Would that this particular 13-year old had a parent who COULD.

I don't think this mother will elude law enforcement very long, do you? I'd like to think that she can contact some confidant or other who is able to persuade her to turn the car around and get her son into an emergency room. Sooner would be better than later. I'm hoping for the best.

As always and not surprisingly, I am reading your posts generally and in this thread tonight especially with extraordinarily pleasure.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

49. I love it when you show up ..........

Makes me want to dance even longer.

What I've read about this caper so far is that the mother has no credit cards, there are no checks missing from their checkbook, so there is a hiding place somewhere, perhaps a network of people who are ready to hide the mother and the son.

If that's the case, someone will slip up and they'll get caught. But, I don't know what the timeline is on the treatment of this kid's illness. If it were my child, I'd be out of my mind that every minute was passing by without his getting help.

This is an extraordinary thread, isn't it? Some really smart and thoughtful and perceptive and articulate people are participating.

I mean, you're here ....................... :)

[saltpoint]

52. O those paragraphs. You just underwrote the almost-certain screenplay

for this story.

The "network" of those willing to hide this woman and her son. Their traceless path through the muskellunge taverns of Minnesota. The slightly askew dream-catcher dangling from the rearview mirror...

Minnesota needs to get this youngun into a hospital and it needs to get Al Franken into the 111th Congress.

I want these things done by close of business Friday, at the latest, dammit!

- - -

Awfully good to run into you on the boards here tonight, Tangerine LaBamba.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

55. Always, saltpoint,

you are the brightest light in the galaxy..

Which reminds me - did you see this?

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/05/19/the-rise-of-the-milky-way/

Utterly amazing, yet, there you are.........................

[saltpoint]

57. That is splendid. No, I had not seen it. A clock minute or so very well spent.

Thank you.

[kimmylavin]

93. I don't mean to interrupt...

You two are very sweet and lovely to each other. :)

But oh my goodness, thank you for posting that video - just breathtaking.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

129. Isn't that amazing?

Yes, saltpoint is a true sweetie, and, obviously, I'm always tickled when he shows up.

But, that video is real! Doesn't that make you happy? I'm glad you liked it................. :)

[RoyGBiv]

166. That ...

... is the best post in this entire thread.

I saw that the other day, but I never mind seeing it again. It's just stunning.

[northernlights]

110. "they are the ones who will hurt. "

Oh, they may grieve.

But their son is the one who is hurting -- badly. And will hurt worse before he dies.

There are times when it is appropriate for the government to step in. Child abuse is one of those times.

You might think it's ok to inflict pain on a child. I do not. And refusing medical treatment for a curable disease, and forcing a child to endure excrutiating pain leading almostly certainly to his death counts as abuse in my book.

[Maru Kitteh]

156. Even STUPID people generally understand there is no such thing as a guaranteed treatment

But he will die an agonizing, wholly unnecessary death without treatment, THAT is GUARANTEED.

What you are advocating is the freedom to kill an ignorant person simply because you are their legal guardian.

Freedom my ass. The kid's RIGHT to survive, despite the ignorant whims of his dipshit parents absolutely trumps their "freedom" to kill him.

[alarimer]

11. He will fucking die without it. Period, end of discussion.

I guess you want him to die.

Cancer is painful and debilitating in all kinds of ways but I am sick of the fucking anti-science morons on this board. Sick of the stupid woo-woo bullshit no rational person should ever believe.

He is going to die without this treatment. Nothing else matters. His piece of shit parents belong in jail, especially if he does die. The delay is already making his condition worse.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

20. I haven't read much about this on DU -

are people really defending the parents?

REALLY?

[Posteritatis]

22. Lots of wooheads following this one

A lot of DUers believe there's this one single treatment monolithically referred to as chemotherapy that's completely ineffective or even designed to kill or worsen patients.

Pretty much all of the "medicine is bad if it's been proven to work" crowd are in the parents' corner on this one.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

28. Sometimes - and this is my own damn fault -

I am stunned at the level of ignorance I encounter on this wonderful site. It's my own fault because I have such high expectations, thinking as highly as I do of my fellow liberals. This especially trounces me when I run into people full of rage about one thing or another, yet having not the slightest idea of how the legislative process works.

This is yet another example of the failure of the American educational system.

But, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that when a child is sick, he needs treatment. Yeah, it's that simple. You have to be obscenely misguided to side with the parents on this one.........................

[Posteritatis]

38. It's not just the American system, alas

In my history master's program last year a third of my classmates were moon-landing deniers (well, until I was done with them), and a couple of others rejected evolution. Yes, I know, history's a humanities etc etc etc., but after a certain point and level of education one really has no excuse holding those sorts of viewpoints. People really ought to have at least a rudimentary bullshit filter capable of catching things like that much earlier than that.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

42. I once found myself

at a dinner party with a bunch of high-flown NY literary types, a curious mixture of libertines and Puritans, lefties and righties, an interesting and very smart group.

One man, a writer, an old friend of mine, started his usual pitch about requiring people to pass basic competency exams before they're allowed to vote. You know, just like back in the good old days in the American South when those pesky Negroes dared to want to :::: gasp!::::: vote and go to the University of Alabama and stuff like that.

And, to my horror, I almost spoke up and agreed with him.

Sometimes, they just wear you down, the ignorant ones, and you learn - the hard way - that you have to be done with them. That you are at that educational level - a master's program - and those people are also there suggests we, as a species, are well on our way to extinction, and we just might deserve it .....................

[Posteritatis]

53. I was in a somewhat similar situation

Not quite that level of vileness for the most part - well, there was one guy who thought museum fees were too low and allowed lesser types of people too much access - but a lot of powerful, well-maintained cluelessness about very basic things.

One of the courses would have easily been my favorite - a class on how to use various chunks of modern technology (electronics, the net, etc etc etc) to both research and present history. It was taught by a prof out of MIT who actually hopped into history from I think a cogsci doctorate midstream, and I chose the university specifically for that course. When I got there a bunch of the students who took it were a combination of the type who assume anything outside their area of knowledge is useless, and a bunch who thought that anything to do with modern technology, logic, etc., was evil. They fought the course tooth and nail all year, and eventually tried to get the prof fired literally for teaching them things outside their immediate experience.

To say I was ground down by the end of the overall program is a bit of an understatement; when you spend a full year having to justify and defend very basic concepts at length because people won't - not can't; won't - think it can be pretty hard to function at times. I got the degree, but coasted too much because of those other guys, and I'm kind of screwed as far as getting into a doctoral program for awhile as a result.

(Ohyeah, one of the other guys in the program was a self-identified fascist (in the "democracy is bad, we should be sterilizing people, etc" sense). In a fucking history program. Augh.)

Okay, I'm done now.

Sorry; this topic in general is one of my rant buttons. You might have noticed. ;)

[Tangerine LaBamba]

58. This:

They fought the course tooth and nail all year, and eventually tried to get the prof fired literally for teaching them things outside their immediate experience.

I run into this here at DU - if they haven't experienced it, it's not valid, it's not real, it's never happened, it's worthless, all of the above. When on earth did our society become such a litigious bunch of ignoramuses?

Your rant is well-received at this end, since, as you might have noticed, it's also one of my favs.................

:toast:

[Posteritatis]

63. I wish I knew, myself

At 28 I'm still relatively new to "our society," though the whole anti-intellectualism thing feels like it's spiked in the last decade or two and it's something I've been interested in poking at to know more about. In my case at university it was a region thing as much as anything; that part of the country holds some... odd views at times, and my peers in my undergraduate degree were far, far more openminded about such things. (That might be an undergraduate/graduate thing; being as I've only been either type of student once, I don't know.)

I consider the stuff I haven't experienced to be intriguing and compelling most of the time - even to the extent of trying to figure out where some of these guys, or freepers, or whatever other wacky mindsets, come from - and it bothers me that that seems to be unusual.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

64. You're a baby, and you're going to have

a whole lot of fun on your adventure called Life. Me, I've been around a LONG time, and I must admit, I've never met a pathology/anomaly that I didn't find intriguing. Led to some very interesting conversations and capers.

I think a lot of it is socioeconomic, which, very often, is tied to geography. My small town friends, where I grew up, could never understand my embrace of liberal causes, but I also had a mother - a dear woman who lived her whole life in that small town - who asked me if I thought there were really hungry people in America.

It takes a certain amount of self-confidence and strength to be curious, traits you appear to have in abundance. You may get discouraged, but you'll never quit looking, and that makes me very happy for you.

Your presence here tonight, along with some others, has heartened me, and I can live to fight another day.

Thank you ..................

[defendandprotect]

76. It is the very "treatment" that is being questioned . . . chemo/radiation . . .

That is the debate -- is this "slash and burn" medicine for profit?

Is it merely a gamble with unproven therapy?

This is from one of my posts below on this subject . . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5693359&mesg_id=5694020

[RoyGBiv]

82. This is not unproven therapy n/t

[defendandprotect]

89. And doctors who describe it as "unproven therapy" are simply disagreeable?

[RoyGBiv]

92. I have a question ...

Who do you think you're convincing?

I know I'm not going to convince you that there's more to determining the effectiveness of a medical treatment for a disease than citing those comments that seem to support your position. You know as well as I do that I could cite hundreds of peer reviewed journal articles that document the effectiveness of targeted chemotherapy for Hodgkin's disease, and I know that you'll continue to rely on these 20+ year old articles re-published with selective editing until we're both blue in the fingers. I'm not going to engage in this futile exercise. I will simply add that unlike faith-based healing and wishful thinking, the science involved in cancer treatment (in most areas of medical science actually) has advanced tremendously in 20 years.

So, who do you think you're convincing with this repetitive nonsense? Me? You're smarter than that.

P.S. If you actually want me to read all that, provide a proper citation for the journal articles in which they are published.

[defendandprotect]

136. As many other adventures under capitalism . . .

we find that profit corrupts results . . .

I doubt you would argue with that --

YOU have to open your own mind and convince yourself of whatever you believe.

No one can do that for you.

Under capitalism, we have complete exploitation of nature -- air, water, ground water,

soil -- and even of human beings -- and yet you are naive enough to believe that we

have health care based on concern for the patient?

I am not specifically suggesting that chemo may not have some positive effects in the
case of Hodkins -- I am trying to advise caution in regard to our overall medical
practices -- but especially in regard to chemo and radiation.

If I was engaging in "selective editing," I would not have provided the full links to
all the articles! I pulled from the articles information that would serve
to make clear that corporate-medicine isn't necessarily to be trusted.

Unfortunately, "cancer cures" have not increased -- but the numbers of cancers and new
cancers has dramatically increased over the past years.

And, presumably, you're suggesting that natural avenues to health are "faith-based" . . .?
Look around you at the history of our medicine -- from psychiatry's torture of patients
to the continuing use of treatments which are actually doing harm to patients. Look at
the side effects of our drugs!

Since you seem to be obsessed with this question, I'll answer it again for you . . .

So, who do you think you're convincing with this repetitive nonsense? Me? You're smarter than that.

No one is trying to "convince" you of something -- what I am trying to do is get you to
think about the fact that our system of medicine and its "cures" - it's treatments -- are
not contributing to the health of our citizens. We rank 37th in the world in health care.
That's below Cuba. We have health care based on money and the ability to pay. It's a
for-profit system which has led to expensive treatments with unproven results.

P.S. If you actually want me to read all that, provide a proper citation for the journal articles in which they are published.

If you haven't read the more thought-provoking quotes . . . I doubt you'd be bothered to
read anything else. All of the information contained in the article is footnoted.

Trusting our health care system is akin to trusting capitalism.
Is that working for you?

[RoyGBiv]

151. Quotation:

"Quotation, n: The act of repeating erroneously the words of another." -- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

I'm not wasting my time with an article on a highly complex subject like medical care that quotes professionals in the field without providing proper citations. Call me crazy, but I just don't take a person's word for it, especially when what they're offering goes against all my prior knowledge, contradicts itself dozens of times, and seems to go out of its way to *avoid* revealing the source of its seemingly supporting evidence.

One of your links had footnote numbers ... and no footnotes.

The bottom line is I don't pay attention to people who can't effectively compile legitimate basis for their claims. Running around yelling about the evils of capitalism is a hollow battle cry. Citing made up statistics or those for which you do not reveal the baseline scale mean nothing.

You're trying to get me to open my mind? Open it to what, stubbornly willful ignorance? Do you seek to convince people to open their minds to the goodness of spiritual awakening and all the wonders that can be ours if only we embrace the sacred mother earth and accept her wonderful gifts? Okay, try a book on the scientific method, then get back to me.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

154. If I could

K&R this post, I would............

[defendandprotect]

172. Let's just try to deal with . . .

your "knowledge" . . .

Do you really imagine that corporations have shown us corrupt and criminal behavior
but they're honest in health care matters?

Re Nixon video/"SICKO" talking about Kaiser Health Care and the new method of providing insurance . . . but little care!

My apologies for some incomplete information . . . that wasn't intention ---
I used a shortened version of my original post which left some info behind.

Running around yelling about the evils of capitalism is a hollow battle cry.

I think part of the problem on this thread is the very high level of emotionalism . ..
and perhaps seeing this conversation as "a battle."

I'll close with this . . . all of our medicines are based on plant models.

[Maru Kitteh]

159. I can imagine few fates less desirable than seeing boogymen everywhere

- in every corner and behind every bush. Sometimes the chasm between appropriate skepticism and hysteria is difficult to illustrate clearly. You come through for us once more and provide an example clearly illustrating the latter.

I know personally kids who will research the drugs that will probably save your life someday. I know several doctors. They're not evil. Every health professional I personally know does their job from a place of service, giving back, and compassion. I'd stack any of them and their motivations up against you and yours any damn day of the week.

[uppityperson]

91. From your link on that post, says chemo can be lifesaving for Hodgkins

Your link you give there says no, it is not "merely a gamble with unproven therapy" at all. Perhaps you did not read the at the link you gave, or perhaps you copy/pasted from somewhere else, hoping no one would check? Very odd. Aha, I found it.

Your quotes are from the link at the very bottom of your post. Well, here is the link at the top, right before the quotes. Here is also the first bit from that link.

http://www.healingdaily.com/conditions/conventional-cancer-treatments.htm
Do conventional cancer treatments work?

For some kinds of cancer, chemotherapy (as well as radiation therapy) can be life saving. These include acute lymphocytic leukemia of children and Hodgkin's disease, as well as a few others. For other kinds, chemotherapy almost certainly extends life. These include ovarian cancer, some colon cancer, small cell lung cancer, etc. Chemotherapy and radiotherapy may shrink tumors, when that is a medical necessity, and may succeed in relieving pain (such as from bone metastases). For a limited number of types of cancer, the combination of surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy have sometimes made a substantial difference in the outcome of treatment.

[RoyGBiv]

98. Excellent work ...

You're more tenacious than I.

I got to a place where the author of the article made an assertion that screamed for a citation and then embedded a link at a place that would have been an excellent location to link to a source.

Unfortunately, the "source" was the same website, and the link didn't even go to information directly related to the assertion.

So I gave up at that point.

[SidDithers]

130. I love it when woos post links...

that refute their own arguments :rofl:

Good digging :hi:

Sid

[defendandprotect]

138. Especially when they are at the TOP of the page . . . !!!

Where he had to "dig" for it -- !!!

This is about opening minds to the reality that our medical system is not infallible.

It is ruled by what much of our planet is ruled -- capitalism.

It's a destructive force -- including upon medical care.

[defendandprotect]

137. You mean my FIRST link . . at the TOP of the page . . . ???

many cases, more of a gamble than a proven therapy" . . .
http://www.healingdaily.com/conditions/conventional-can...

Wow . . . surprise you came across that -- I was "hiding" it . . .

TYPE OF CANCER CURE RATE*

Choriocarcinoma (low-risk patients) 90
Burkitt's Lymphoma (Stage I) 90
Acute lymphocytic leukemia 60
Hodgkin's disease (stage III and IV) 60
Diffuse histiocytic lymphoma 70
Nodular mixed lymphoma 75
Testicular carcinoma (stage II-III) 70-90
Childhood sarcomas (w/ radiation & surgery) 70-90
Childhood lymphomas 75

*Percent long-term disease-free survival. Source: Cecil's Textbook of Medicine (1988)

In many other cases, chemotherapy (or radiation therapy) is more of a gamble than a proven therapy.

Again, we would do better to find the source of these cancers rather than search for "cures."
And we would be wiser to seek less harmful treatments.

[uppityperson]

149. Yes, the link right before the quotes. Not the one way down by sig line

Yes, I mean the first one, right before the quotes. Not the one way down the page, past quote after quote, down by your sig line. It is best to put link first, then quotes. Esp if you are putting a link that contradicts your quotes.

Rather than like this:

Closing Gitmo won't work!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8062017.stm

President Obama's decision to re-institute the military tribunals at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay has raised questions about whether such a plan is feasible, given that Obama has vowed to close the prison by January.

The Obama administration won't say which of the 241 detainees at the prison in Cuba will be tried before the commission. Only some of trials will occur at Guantanamo partly because the president is still committed to closing the prison within a year of taking office.

But experts say it will be almost impossible to conduct commissions there before its scheduled closure.

"There is no way in hell that they're going to get these commissions done by January of next year unless, for some odd reason, somebody decides to plead guilty," Charles "Cully" Stimson of the Heritage Foundation, told FOX News.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/14/obama-restart-terror-tribunals-guantanamo-bay-detainees/

[defendandprotect]

173. Does it occur to you that you were intended to see that link . . .

FIRST . . . and use it --

Meanwhile, corporatism is providing a very expensive system of medical care and

drugs -- costly in every sense -- physically and financially.

[uppityperson]

181. So you are posting a link showing what you say is wrong, then quotes from another link

saying you are right, then the link those quotes came from? Too convoluted for me.

I'd rather people just post their opinions with links showing proof than inside out stuff like that. Or else simply say you were wrong

[defendandprotect]

184. No . . .

it didn't say I was wrong . . .

TYPE OF CANCER CURE RATE*

Choriocarcinoma (low-risk patients) 90
Burkitt's Lymphoma (Stage I) 90
Acute lymphocytic leukemia 60
Hodgkin's disease (stage III and IV) 60
Diffuse histiocytic lymphoma 70
Nodular mixed lymphoma 75
Testicular carcinoma (stage II-III) 70-90
Childhood sarcomas (w/ radiation & surgery) 70-90
Childhood lymphomas 75

*Percent long-term disease-free survival. Source: Cecil's Textbook of Medicine (1988)

In many other cases, chemotherapy (or radiation therapy) is more of a gamble than a proven therapy.


Again, I was addressing the overall situation with our medical industry --
all based on a "for profit" system --
Needless to say, ALL of our medical options suffer for it --
whatever may work to some degree could certainly be working better.

There's a trust and confidence in our medical system here at DU that is as misplaced
as trust and confidence in government, post Buscho!

And, whatever was bad enough before Bushco, certainly deteriorated even further during his reign.

[northernlights]

160. and you think nothing has changed since 1988

when your source was published?

Oh, and note that the Hodgkin's disease statistics refer to *stage III* and *stage IV*. That's advanced disease, not early.

[defendandprotect]

174. I certainly hope that things have improved since 1988 . . .

but we still have a system in the hands of for-profit corporations --

and they are certainly not profiting less from the "War on Cancer."

[Tangerine LaBamba]

128. The child will die without treatment -

his cancer has an astonishing cure rate using the proven treatment.

Your post means nothing in this situation. The child will die without the treatment. That's all that matters..............

[defendandprotect]

141. I'm not arguing this specific case . . . I am arguing that our medical care is not infallible . . .

and is not "proven" --

It is based on a system of profit which corrupts treatment and care.

Many patients are forgoing chemo/radiation --

Many are seeking alternative medicine.

Many understand the problems of "surgery" for cancer --

[Posteritatis]

150. Not one person in this thread is saying our medical care is infallible

In fact, other than my subject line above, I'm pretty sure you're the only one putting the two words in the same sentence.

But of course, you don't care; you just want to keep throwing your straw men around. It's a free country, so long as you don't seek to cause the death of others through ignorance, I suppose.

[defendandprotect]

175. Nor did I suggest that . . .

that anyone has said that our medical care is infallible . . .

I offered that observation ---

let me repeat that --

I OFFERED THAT OBSERVATION --!!!

[Tangerine LaBamba]

153. I think your "argument"

is a lot of nonsense, but you're entitled to your beliefs. Airing them here, in this context, is irrelevant and self-indulgent.

You don't want treatment for your cancer, fine. You're an adult, and you're free to choose.

Good for you, and have a long, healthy life ..............

[defendandprotect]

176. It is not a "belief" . . .

it is opinion . . .

As they say . . .

"A belief system is not the beginning but the end of all wisdom."

[RoyGBiv]

33. Oh yes ...

More than that, some have even called the judge's ruling a slippery slope toward totalitarianism.

And one individual yesterday flat-out dismissed any evidence of the benefit of chemo to the child's disease based on peer reviewed medical journals, reasoning, apparently based on the context of this person's other remarks, that these journals were funded by the medical industry and therefore suspect.

Personal anecdotes, however, were considered definitive proof ... of something.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

50. And we mock the "intelligent design" folks?

People who dismiss scientific, scholarly works, research, findings, results with the story about the cousin who decided not to have his brain cancer treated and, now, fifty years later, he's just fine and so that means that all of medicine is suspect are just as goofy as the people who think the earth is 6,000 years old.

My old college professor, back in the lovely times of the sixties, once told me that the hippies would grow up to become the biggest Puritans. Now, in the twilight of my buzz, I am seeing this more and more, and it ain't pretty. Or encouraging ..................

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RoyGBiv]

81. All of that is irrelevant to this case n/t

[defendandprotect]

85. How is information about "treatment" irrelevant . . .???

And, actually, many adults have refused this "slash and burn" method of

treating cancer. Do we say that those adults have no right to refuse

treatment?

[LeftishBrit]

103. Adults do have a right to refuse treatment

Adults have a right to do all kinds of things that may kill them (e.g. drink themselves to death; live on only one type of food for a year; even simply commit suicide). They don't have the right to inflict the same on children.

[defendandprotect]

142. I'm not arguing this specific case . . .

I am talking about the overall reality of our health care system --

37th in the world, below Cuba --

and the very nature of our treatments -- invasive and damaging.

I am suggesting that we seek other alternatives ---

and that a medical care system based on capitalistic views of profit

will always be corrupting.

That's clear from the pharmaceutical industry which is charging Americans

90% or more over what other nations pay for drugs.

And it is clear from the horrendous lists of side-effects connected with

those drugs.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

155. You keep blathering

You just stay with your meaningless citations, your ill-founded "research," and what you don't seem to understand is that all your words are meaningless in the context of this child.

Can you get your self-involved head out of your google long enough to comprehend that? It's not about health care system, or what you think of chemotherapy. It's about a child being denied treatment.

When you have something meaningful to add to the exchanges, please do. Until then, you're debris ..................

[defendandprotect]

170. "It's about a child being denied treatment"

Are the Mother/Child not being forced to treatment by this Judge?

I have not read the case nor do I offer a judgment on it --

but I seem to recall that the Mother is on the run from the court

and its instruction that the child receive the treatment?


THAT is aside from what I am saying to you about our health care system --

there are no "cures." It is not an infallible system.

And, none of these treatments are without serious side effects.

The level of emotionalism here is highschool --

[uppityperson]

182. Exactly! He is being denied treatment by the parent who has now broken the law

by kidnapping the kid. That is exactly the problem. The mom is denying him treatment. I am glad you now understand that.

The serious side effect of treating him is 5% chance of death. The serious side effect of not treating him is 90% chance of death.

Why do you insult?

[defendandprotect]

185. Rather, the Court is ordering the treatment . . . is that correct?

And, I doubt either that the Mother will be able to evade the court order for very
long - the punishment for her will continue to increase.

Again, force is always a mistake. Authoritarian rule is a mistake.
Education and assistance would have been a better avenue to explore here.

Further, considering that we are awash in death and torture in this country and doing
nothing about it -- and awash in impoverished children and homeless families and doing
nothing about it -- I'm surprised to see DU'ers so emotionally involved in this case-!!

Again, I've taken no position on the case -- I am discussing the overall state of our
medical system which is based on false "cures" and few options, especially in regard to
cancers which we continue to create!

What is it now . . . 4 out of every 5 Americans have cancer . . .?

And we're not exploring environmental causes?

And chemo/radiation with very serious side effects has been our #1 response for decades!

Laughable, if not so sad --

[eridani]

183. None of that has anything to do with the documented results of chemo for particular cancers n/t

[defendandprotect]

75. Indeed, you misunderstand science and the power of profit . . .

Science is merely and only observation of nature --

Chemo and radiation are simply part of our "slash and burn" medical care for profit --!!!

Your authoritian views and demands suggest more of a desire to end discussion than

to honor it.

Here are some more honest views on our "medicine" -- and keep in mind America ranks 37th

in health care worldwide . . . that's below Cuba!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5693359&mesg_id=5694020

[LeftishBrit]

124. I am not American, and am not defending the American healthcare system!

'keep in mind America ranks 37th in health care worldwide . . . that's below Cuba!'

That's awful, but it's due to lack of universal healthcare provision; NOT to the use of chemo for cancer.

France came first in the last league table. (I think my country came 17th or 18th). They use Western medicine, chemo, etc. as well. What makes you think that Western medicine is somehow specific to America?

Science is not just 'observation of nature'. It involves controlled experiments; comparisons of matched groups; etc.

It is no more 'authoritarian' to demand that parents allow their child access to a medical treatment that has been proven to be effective, than to demand that they allow their child access to food.

Adults should have full right to make their own decisions, but children cannot.


'Chemo and radiation are simply part of our "slash and burn" medical care for profit --!!!'

No they are NOT, because they are ALSO used in countries that have socialized medicine! Do you really, honestly, think that America is the only country that uses chemo and radiation for cancer?

ETA: I now realize that your post was not addressed to me. The tone of my post would have been a little less aggressive if I'd realized this; but the main points are still the same.

[defendandprotect]

145. I don't recall accusing you of being American . . .!

Our status in medical care is due to capitalism and for-profit systems which are
corrupting . .

and which also keeps cancer rates rising as we fail to explore environmental and
nutritional causes for cancers.

and keeps our system from exploring alternative, less invasive and less harmful
means of treatment.

France came first in the last league table. (I think my country came 17th or 18th). They use Western medicine, chemo, etc. as well. What makes you think that Western medicine is somehow specific to America?

I'm unaware what France is using to treat cancers, nor what their rates of cancer may be,
but I do recall that as they adopt our eating patterns their cancer rates are increasing.
But I will try to look into those questions later and try to gain more insight into their
system. IMO, it is our "for-profit" system which is so corrupting. There are still many
other treatments being used which are highly questioned. And great emphasis on "cures"
still -- and little emphasis on prevention.

Science is not just 'observation of nature'. It involves controlled experiments; comparisons of matched groups; etc.

i.e., observation.

It is no more 'authoritarian' to demand that parents allow their child access to a medical treatment that has been proven to be effective, than to demand that they allow their child access to food.

As I've said elsewhere, I am not arguing this case --
Many adults are moving away from chemo/radiation - many are forgoing the surgeries --
for cancer cures.
I doubt any of us would say they have no right to do that?

This is a question of a non-adult, evidently poorly educated.
However, IMO, force is always unwise.

Chemo and radiation are simply part of our "slash and burn" medical care for profit --!!!'

No they are NOT, because they are ALSO used in countries that have socialized medicine! Do you really, honestly, think that America is the only country that uses chemo and radiation for cancer?

And we are not exporting our ideas? Our products?
The French system of "socialized" medicine cannot be corrupted by our capitalistic ideals?

Much of France's systems which support workers, labor unions, etc are under attack -- and without doubt their medical system -- have been influenced by American for-profit "values."

ETA: I now realize that your post was not addressed to me. The tone of my post would have been a little less aggressive if I'd realized this; but the main points are still the same.

There is a high degree of emotion on this thread . . .
If this were about an adult there would be very little reaction.
Again, this is a non-adult -- and while I haven't looked at the specifics --
I do not seem to see much statement of the child's feelings, his thoughts.

Again, I am simply trying to say that our system of medicine here is not infallible --
and shouldn't be thought to be so. That's all.

[LeftishBrit]

162. I honestly think that you are confounding a system for delivering health care with the medicines

themselves.

What I am trying to say is that what is considered as optimal cancer treatment is pretty much the same everywhere, though access to it varies in different places. Whether the system is 'for profit' or not influences whether everyone can get the treatment, or whether you have to be rich, or supported by an insurance company, etc. to get it. But it doesn't affect the nature of the treatment itself.

I know you're not 'accusing' me of being American; but I think you are implying that anyone who supports chemo for certain forms of cancer must be also supporting every aspect of the way that the American health care system is run. That is not the case. One may be a strong supporter of single-payer health care/ National Health Service, and at the same time consider that chemo is the right treatment for Hodgkins Disease! The two aren't related - except that with universal provision of health care, all people are guaranteed access to the chemo, not only those who can afford to pay for it. I am sure that people in Cuba also get chemo for Hodgkins Disease.

'There is a high degree of emotion on this thread . . .
If this were about an adult there would be very little reaction.'

No doubt true - because an adult can choose for themselves, in a way that a child cannot. There is a criminal offense of 'child neglect'. It is not an offense to neglect oneself as an adult, even if it causes one's death. It is sad, but it is not criminal. But one does not have the same right to neglect or abuse children.

[defendandprotect]

177. Our medical industry is being motivated by bottom line thinking . . .

I'm not commenting on the "delivery" . . .

I'm commenting on the motives which move the industry . . . profit.

And how that motivation corrupts and distorts medicine/drugs/treatment.

What I am trying to say is that what is considered as optimal cancer treatment is pretty much the same everywhere ...

You're saying that you think that chemo and radiation are "optimal" cancer treatment?
Think about this . . . what have you to compare those treatments with except no treatment?

Whether the system is 'for profit' or not influences whether everyone can get the treatment, or whether you have to be rich, or supported by an insurance company, etc. to get it. But it doesn't affect the nature of the treatment itself.

First, I am not discussing "access" nor availability of treatement/care.
I am talking about corruption -- for profit in corporate medicine.
Would you say to me that the American Congress is not "influenced" by corporate money
and that corporate money doesn't interfere with the decisions they make in the public interest?
Wow!

...I think you are implying that anyone who supports chemo for certain forms of cancer must be also supporting every aspect of the way that the American health care system is run.

It's broader . . . my opinion, generally, is that DU members tend to be supportive overall --
have trust and belief in American medical treatments and medications -- and are naive about it.

That, plus the emotionalism of this threat, drew me to comment on our medical system.

One may be a strong supporter of single-payer health care/ National Health Service, and at the same time consider that chemo is the right treatment for Hodgkins Disease!

I don't think I hooked Single payer to support for chemo --
The question really isn't whether there is some benefit to using chemo/radiation for
Hodgkins - there seems to be about a 60% "cure" rate . . .
I wasn't discussing that specifically.
The question I would pose re even the POSITIVE uses is why have we no less invasive -
less harmful method? Why no alternative treatment with less side effects?

Overall, the questions about our health care system which I am relating to isn't about
"access" or who can afford it. It is about alternative health care and why decades
of chemo and radiation?

As I mentioned in the original thread where I offered information -- and I didn't pick
up all of that when I used the info here -- there have been many articles in the NY
Times about our "slash and burn" treatments. About the many uses of chemo/radiation
which have no proven results.

Re your commens on the case, specifically -- again, I have read pretty much nothing on
it . . . however, I wouldn't use the term "neglect" from what I've read of this . . .
I think the parent is frightened understanding how chemo/radiation can cause suffering
and side effects. I think a calmer approach by the court -- one of education and
assistance rather than threats and force would have been a more positive avenue to use.

:)

[RoyGBiv]

13. I'm sick of this ...

The "pissing match" you're talking about is being perpetuated by a bunch of science deniers who believe nothing that can be associated with the word "pharmacological" can have any benefit. They are aghast that our very own government would dare tell a parent he or she can't legally allow her child to die in excruciating pain when a treatment with a greater than 90% effectiveness in treating the disease that will kill him is available.

Here's your choice: Certainty of death versus likelihood of survival with the potentially severe negative side effects.

[alarimer]

18. I am tired of the anti-science morons on this website.

Sick to death of it. It is ignorant and it is why this country is in so much trouble.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

21. Oh, now I'm really intrigued -

I should check out the link in the OP, I guess.

Hold my keys while I dive in ....................

[RoyGBiv]

27. Not necessarily ...

The link in the OP just leads to a story about kidney failure as a result of chemo in a hep-C patient.

It is, for the most part, an invalid comparison of circumstances.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

31. I know ..........

What was that link for? To prove that chemotherapy has side effects?

Well, duh.

Aspirin has side effects. So do herbal remedies. So does life.

The parents' actions are indefensible, and that's that................

[RoyGBiv]

26. Agreed ...

It's the one thing about this place that truly stuns me. It shouldn't, given how much ignorance (much of it willful) exists in the general population, but it still does.

[Posteritatis]

32. It's that fun little everyone-is-an-expert-now mindset

Coupled with the fact that nobody has a clue how to weigh evidence anymore. So someone has an anecdote, decides that's a universal Trooth(tm), cherrypicks a few blog posts and interest groups to justify it, and just ignores all evidence to the contrary. But they know about the contents of what they have looked up, so they're at least as competent as any oncologist, right? Right?

Of course, by merely saying that I've proven to some people that I'm a paid shill of Big Pharma or something. It's sad at best, and much worse in this case since all they're doing is justifying the murder of this kid.

[RoyGBiv]

36. We're all paid shills here ...

You'd think we'd drive better cars and complain less about the economy. :)

[Posteritatis]

46. Man, being a paid shill sounds awesome sometimes

You'd get to sit back at your desk, say the scientific or whateverelse-ific equivalent of "two plus two equals four" and watch the piggy bank swell.

That'd so be the life.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

60. Wait .........

I could be getting PAID for my opinions?????

All this time I've been shilling for free?

Mom was right. They won't buy the cow if they get the milk for free.

Wait.

Mom was nuts, too.

Never mind ...............

[Tangerine LaBamba]

34. There's another area -

it's probably not as visible, but it's certainly more striking, and that is how little people understand about how government works.

Separation of powers, how the Supreme Court works, how laws are made - those basic (tenth grade Civics, in my time) - haven't changed in many, many years, and yet people here still, over and over, rail about one thing or another, betraying again and again, their ignorance of the basics of the functioning of America.

That people are siding with those parents is even more shocking to me ...............

[RoyGBiv]

41. Absolutely ...

Back in 2006, I got so fed up at a particular thing that was going on regarding something involving the Congress (not going to get into it and risk starting that again ... I don't have the energy) that I started repetitively posting plain-English explanations of Senate rules, House rules, commentaries on parliamentary procedure, excerpts from the Constitution itself, etc. as thread starters.

IIRC, I got one reply out of all of it, and I did this for a couple weeks about once a day, something different.

Meanwhile, the "controversy" threads, all just full of people who had a clear and complete lack of understanding of how Congress works with a few brave souls trying desperately to push against the winds of willful ignorance, were on fire.

Frustrating, to say the least.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

47. I know the feeling,

and I applaud your effort. That's a shitload of energy, with no return, but you tried.

I just give up now when my knowledge is challenged by some know-nothing who demands - DEMANDS - that I give them a complete and comprehensive course in Legislative Drafting so that I can prove to them that their assertion about something or other is completely inane.

Good for you .........................

[Posteritatis]

43. That one's just terrifying on this side of the border

I sometimes wonder if I'm one of like five people in my province who have a basic understanding of how Canadian government operates, and that includes the government itself. Quite a few people better understand how the American government operates - which annoys me, but I understand it for a variety of reasons - but way too many haven't glanced at the Charter or Constitution enough to know their rights or responsibilities.

Annnnnd look where that gets us, on either side of the border. Ugh.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

54. Ignorance is ignorance, regardless of geography,

and it scares me. Always has. Now, with these Internet(s) Tubes, we get to see more and more of it, anonymity being the fanciest party dress Ignorance owns. That my vote counts the same as some of these blockheads pisses me off.

And, in so many ways, some DUers are no better than freepers where solid information and education is concerned.

Still, look at this thread - it's loaded with articulate, well-conceived, thoughtful, and intelligent replies. That's the kind of experience that keeps me going ......................

[Posteritatis]

59. Definitely

I'm just saying the civics ignorance is ignorancier on this side of the border, which hardly fills me with pride to say the least. On the other hand twice as many of my friends vote now as did ten years ago, so I'm doing something.

I like asking people what it would take for them to Be Wrong on something. Not in a specific, here's-some-evidence way, but just if they can think of what it would take for them to change their views on a given subject. Let's say the Mars rovers (which some people believe do not exist). I obviously think they do, and question the intelligence of anyone who doesn't to say the least. If we went there in the future, though, and scoured the place without finding a hint of their existence, I'd be forced to admit that they seem not to have been there after all. That kind of thing. (It's a nice mental exercise in general; pick something you believe in strongly and apply the question to it, see where you end up even if no evidence ever ends up forthcoming.)

If someone starts off unwilling to be able to even imagine a circumstance in which they could be wrong about something they believe in, though, it's hard not to consider them hopeless. I suspect there's a lot of those both in the clueless-about-civics and the all-medicine-is-bad crowds - which is a little frightening considering how many lives hinge on either.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

62. There is nothing more frightening

than a closed mind, but the ones I've encountered have been sealed shut with duct tape, Liquid Steel, Crazy Glue, and the lies of generations.

I spent my life - as a litigator, in the courtroom - working to convince people that the set of facts I was presenting were worthy of being believed. Sometimes I got through to them, sometimes I didn't. But I always tried.

And that's all we can do. You are getting folks to vote, which is a huge start. That's very good.

We can't give up, though. Not ever ........................

[Posteritatis]

65. Both extremes are troublesome

There's that line about keeping one's mind so open one's brain falls out, and there's a point in that. Believing everything one hears or sees can do as much damage as forming an opinion and dismissing anything that conflicts with it.

In a lot of discussions about stuff like this, medicine in particular, I get accused of being close-minded because I don't hate western medicine (or think moon-landing deniers are idiots, or believe the world's several billion years old, or don't think 300's a documentary, etc). There's some annoying black and white thinking there, where "open minded" has become a synonym for "agrees with me." I wish folks could see some in betweens more, instead of thinking everything, everything out there, is either 100% this or 100% anti-this all the time. Some stuff is, of course, and there's some things I'll continue to call BS on until I see some staggering evidence, but a lot of stuff is more complex than that.

Figuring that stuff out's harder, though. Bah. ;P

[Tangerine LaBamba]

67. As I grew up, things were black and white,

because I was young and knew everything.

Then, as I got older and got more experienced, things got grayer and grayer and the subtleties were sometimes almost overwhelming.

Now, in the twilight of my buzz, the gray is fading, and the black and white is coming into full and clear focus again. I think that's because I've been around the block a time or twenty, and I know what's what. This time, unlike my teen years, I can speak with a certain amount of authority.

I wish you much gray, but watch that black and white, too.............................

[Posteritatis]

70. I'm mostly out of my initial B&W phase; I was a horrible jackass then ;)

These days it's mainly trying to figure out what to be black and white about, and making sure I know most of those are conscious decisions and not necessarily ironclad Truth. I ended up picking up a few of those in my graduate experience, not due to instruction as much as an "argh, don't do what those guys are doing!" reaction.

Still working through that one after a year.

At times I actually like that excessive gray what-should-I-think-about-this situation with things, though. Some parts of politics are one of those - I'd love nothing more than to be able to, one election cycle or another, walk into a voting booth not entirely sure which of the two (or more) parties I want to vote for. The current situation in the US or Canada makes that a little too easy at this point, but I'd like to have to actually spend some energy to decide between some candidates for public office more than I've been able to so far.

[defendandprotect]

86. Actually, "modern" medicine is anti-science in it's denial of

plants as medicine/science.

[Posteritatis]

94. As the youth of today say in the vernacular: "...wut."

[LeftishBrit]

102. Actually, no, it isn't

Many modern medicines are derived from plants.

[defendandprotect]

178. Of course they are . . .!!!

That's what I am saying to you . . .

all medicines are based on plant models . . .

but moving into the synthetic realm is less satisfactory ---

also more profitable.

We have no medicines/drugs without plants!

And, unfortunately, many of our natural plants are destroyed before we

even discover what they can do!

[cali]

112. broad brush bullshit from you

you're an anti-science fundy. it's that simple.

[Garbo 2004]

113. Like quinine, digitalis, paclitaxel, vinblastine, vincristine? The last three used in chemo btw.

Just a few quick examples of plant based meds used in modern medicine that refute your assertion. Penicillin is from a fungus, does that still count?

[defendandprotect]

179. Of course they are plant based . . .

We have no medicines without plants -- !!!

Pencillin counts/fungus -- nature.

But an intersting story about penicillin . . .

England was getting ready to mass produce penicillin before it was attacked by Germany.

And, America then began to manufacture it --

There was sufficient only for our own troops --

however, they assisted the British troops' need for it by collecting the urine of our

troops who had been treated with it ... and used it to treat the British.

And the native American had penicillin before we "discovered" America!

[SidDithers]

131. You're not alone in that feeling...

I'm afraid for the future of humanity, reading some of the dreck that gets posted in threads like these. Some posters just bask in the glory of their ignorance.

Makes me want to puke :puke:

Sid

[defendandprotect]

146. And, of course, NATURE isn't "science" . . . !!!???

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

148. That's true, they're two different journals.

One's English and the other's American. But then again, they've got the same publisher, and they're pretty much the same thing when you get right down to it.

[uppityperson]

23. For anyone who doesn't understand there are different types of chemo for different things,

do some research rather than staying ignorant.

To repeat: THERE ARE DIFFERENT TYPES OF CHEMO FOR DIFFERENT THINGS.

Comparing them is wrong.

[Posteritatis]

24. But - but - but - that would require thinking and knowing what one's discussing!

Unacceptable! Blasphemy! Et cetera!

[uppityperson]

30. Rather like saying an aspirin is comperable to oxycodone

Chemos vary. Widely. And anyone saying they don't is wrong (edited to remove personal comments about intellegence)

[Posteritatis]

40. Some of these guys would probably equate aspirin with plutonium, never mind oxycodone

I kind of think the intelligence comments should remain at that point. ;)

Seriously, ignorance maintained in the face of obvious facts is an ugly thing, and "maintained" really is the best way to describe it for a lot of peoples' perspective on medicine in particular and science in general. I'm a fairly fluffy historian in training and can keep my head above water in some of the moderately technical medical discussions I see here and elsewhere; I have little trouble understanding what excuse other people have for refusing to.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

66. Uh (oh, honestly, I hate myself for this, but I am weak -

and a sucker for a good funny), you misspelled "intelligence."

Now, to make it up to me (?), you have to post those personal comments.

Come ON!!

Please???????

I'll buy you a beer and you and the pussycat can drink together for a while:

[uppityperson]

84. I'll admit it, I do typos. Regularly since I don't take time to spell check

Personal comments included along the line of willful ignorance, but not quite so polite.

Aha, misspelled regularly.It says "mispelled" is wrong, but misspelled looks tooooo lloonngggg for me. Ah well.

[uppityperson]

35. To make an apt comparison, here is info for the disease that kid has, not another disease.

Here is info for treating what he has. Not what he doesn't have. I am assuming that this post is an example of "constructive and open-minded comments/thoughts on the issue".

http://www.lymphomainfo.net/hodgkins/chemo.html
http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/help/default.asp?page=4277
http://www.oncologychannel.com/hodgkins/chemotherapy.shtml

[handmade34]

45. Wow!

lots of passion here. Although no science deniers or great supporters of the parents (mother). Is the anger just because someone dare question? I do have concerns about the story. I understand the concern for the young boy and I also have concerns about what the state can do and not do in other situations.

[Posteritatis]

48. It's probably overflow from some other discussions

Some of the other threads about this got really heated too, generally in nastier ways.

[RoyGBiv]

51. Well ...

In the first thread in which I commented on this, I just made a general observation in agreement with the judge's ruling and left the thread alone without thinking about it.

I woke up the next day, checked My DU, and discovered I had been called a ghoul for wanting to see this child suffer with chemo.

And it got worse from there.

So, yeah, as was said, there's some spillover from other threads.

[Stellabella]

56. That's too bad. I wonder if those name-callers have had personal experience

with cancer.

My husband had cancer at age 25. It had grown to a football-sized tumor in his abdomen. He was in terrible constant pain and had lost 70 pounds.

And yes, we had been going to doctors who couldn't figure out what was wrong, so I'm not a blind advocate of all traditional medicine. I'm still furious about that, 25 years later.

But when he started treatment, he started immediately feeling better. IMMEDIATELY. The first day the pain disappeared, then he could eat dairy products again.

Of course he got sick, vomiting and losing his hair. But the suffering with chemo was NOTHING compared to the suffering with the tumor.

And yes, this is anecdotal evidence. But it's supported by peer-reviewed research and thousands of people who are alive today because of that treatment.

[RoyGBiv]

61. Blind advocacy ...

That hits on an important point.

A lot (perhaps most) of those many of us have referred to as "science-deniers" have been approaching this whole issue as though those of us who *in general* prefer the advice of medical professionals accept all medical advice uncritically.

As some comic once said, somewhere out there is the world's worst doctor. There are scientists who almost flunked.

To counter a personal-anecdote with one of my own last night, I posted a story about my grandmother who had a doctor who almost convinced us and her that allowing her to die from potassium poisoning due to renal failure was a better option than dialysis. I personally had a heart attack four years ago that was misdiagnosed and which has caused some rather interesting problems for me in the past year since my current doctor discovered the problem. I have a cousin whose brain is essentially fried because her doctor was a Writer who had her so many drugs she had to take two handfuls in the morning and eventually ended up taking two drugs that reacted badly together. So, yeah, I "get it."

But I also know, based in part on those experiences, that "wing and a prayer" wishful thinking doesn't work.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

71. I have an autoimmune disorder,

and it's pretty serious. I'm lucky, though, in that I'm under the care of one of the country's best physicians.

Some of the drugs I take were originally used in cancer treatment - they found out, anecdotally, that methotrexate works wonderfully well with my illness.

I was really leery of taking the drug, knowing what the side effects could be, but my physician - I trust her - assured me we'd stop if I was uncomfortable, and we'd try something else.

Within 48 hours of taking the first dose - I take it once a week - I felt so much better, I could not believe it. There have been some side effects, but nothing that compared with how sick I was.

Anecdotal evidence, yes, me, too, and it works. I wouldn't stop it for anything, and when I'm at her office, she often asks me to speak with other patients who are scared to try taking the methotrexate.

Yeah, I'm a success story, and people who just condemn the concept of chemotherapy without knowing what they're talking about are simply stupid..........................

[Stellabella]

117. I'm glad the treatment works for you!

And I hope that you continue to get better. Modern medicine is wonderful, but only when patients are informed and doctors are held to high standards.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

69. No kidding ...

I missed that.

I'm not sorry I did. You must have been stunned.

".. suffer with chemo."

Morans. All of them, morans.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

68. Anger?

I haven't spotted any angry posts here. Did you? I've seen a lot -a lot - of thoughtful and considered opinions expressed, and the majority - if not all - do not agree with what the parents are doing.

But, angry?

Naw.

If you regard the concept of the law intervening to get proper medical care for a thirteen-year-old child when his parents have decided he doesn't need it - and his life is in danger - I would urge you to reconsider your ideas concerning "what the state can do and not do" because this matter really doesn't translate to any other situation. These cases - and they've been around forever - are unique. Each on its own merits, but, always, when the child's life lies in the balance, the law comes down on the side of saving the child's life.

That is the right thing to do ......................

[kiranon]

72. Have you seen what cancer does to the human body? Take the chemo and radiation - it

will stop the cancer from consuming the child.

[defendandprotect]

73. "In many cases, more of a gamble than a proven therapy" . . .

http://www.healingdaily.com/conditions/conventional-cancer-treatments.htm

In 1953, U.S. Justice Department lawyer Benedict Fitzgerald led an investigation into the cancer industry. The investigation concluded that the AMA, NCI and FDA had entered into a conspiracy to promote radiation, chemotherapy and surgery, while suppressing promising therapies that were highly praised by the cured patients themselves. What was the government’s response? Fitzgerald was fired.7

“The majority of cancers cannot be cured by radiation because the dose of X rays required to kill all the cancer cells would also kill the patient. 11

Professor John Cairns, Harvard University School of Public Health, 1985

Most cancer patients in this country die of chemotherapy. Chemotherapy does not eliminate breast, colon or lung cancers. The fact has been documented for over a decade.... Women with breast cancer are likely to die faster with chemotherapy than without it.”18

Dr. Alan Levin, Professor of Immunology, University of California Medical School, 1987

Early studies at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center In New York showed that radiotherapy was deadly and that patients who received NO radiation lived longer than those who were irradiated.15

...untreated patients do not die sooner than patients receiving orthodox treatment, and in many cases they live longer. This negative assessment was subsequently supported by three other studies done by other researchers. No study has ever refuted these findings.5

Over the course of time, the AMA has denounced midwifery, selfcare, optometry, homeopathy*, osteopathy, acupuncture and lay analysis as being dangerous, fraudulent, or both.

* A long-established medical profession in Europe

FACTS ABOUT SURGERY
Here are some things to think about when pondering having surgery. The September 22, 1986 issue of “Business Week” noted that surgery, radiation and chemotherapy all tend to fail for a very simple reason: a tumor the size of your thumb has one billion malignant cells in it. Even if a treatment gets 99.9% of them, a million remain to kill you.8

"An operation on a bad malignant case is a very matter. Sometimes one gets a blaze up of toxaemia.... Further, cancer has very frequently spread far beyond the reach of operation and the operation shock hastens the spread of the virus and the death of the patient.”9

How about lymph node surgery, in an effort to remove every cancer cell? Patrick McGrady of CANHELP says: “Even though it’s been proven conclusively that lymph node excision after radiation does not prevent the spread of cervical cancer, you will still see lymphadenectomies performed all over the country routinely. This despite the fact that lymphadenectomies make women feel so bad they wish they were dead – and are a proven useless procedure.”10

“The ‘proven’ methods of toxic chemotherapy, carcinogenic radiotherapy and surgery are a failure for the majority of patients. The death rates from the six major killer cancers – cancers of the lung, colon, breast, prostate, pancreas, and ovary – have either stayed the same or increased during the past sixty years.21

http://www.starthealthylife.com/page296.htm

[SidDithers]

132. From the very first fucking line of the site in your link...

For some kinds of cancer, chemotherapy (as well as radiation therapy) can be life saving. These include acute lymphocytic leukemia of children and Hodgkin's disease, as well as a few others.

You do know what kind of cancer this boy has, don't you?

:banghead:

** All credit to uppityperson who did this research upthread **
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5693359&mesg_id=5694212

Sid

[defendandprotect]

147. You mean you found the link at the TOP of the page . . . ???

Wow !!! Congratulations Sherlock Holmes!!

[SidDithers]

152. Just highighting your cherry-picking of quotes...

that appear to support your misguided position.

Sid

[backscatter712]

79. Sorry, I'm playing it using the odds.

If the kid gets his full course of chemotherapy, he has a 95% chance of surviving. If he doesn't, his survival chance is 5%.

The kid's too young to make the decision, and the parents are being irresponsible. Throw the parents in jail, and send the kid for his chemo treatments whether he wants them or not.

So call me a cold-heated bastard for wanting to boost a child's survival chances from 5% to 95%.

[defendandprotect]

83. Here's more info on chemo/radiation as "unproven therapy" .. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5693359&mesg_id=5694020

[RoyGBiv]

97. And some more ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5693359&mesg_id=5694212

[defendandprotect]

169. Yes . . . from MY LINK -- at the top of the page . . .!!!

"cause I was hiding it from you!!!

[Stellabella]

118. Those are some pretty old links.

Mid 1980s? That's when my husband had chemo and it saved his life. He's still alive today.

Chemo and radiation are the ONLY proven cures for cancer. Have you had personal experience with it? Sure, some cancer patients die - but so does everybody, eventually. Some cancers just won't respond to treatment. In my husband's case, a doctor figured out the perfect combo of drugs a few years before he was treated. Before that doctor's research breakthrough, his cancer had a 90% death rate. Now it's a 90% cure rate.

[Occam Bandage]

95. He'd have a 95% 5-year survival chance with chemo.

Without it? It's a death sentence.

[Name removed]

96. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LeftishBrit]

99. Not all chemo is the same; nor is all cancer

I certainly do not think that everyone always should get chemo for any disease where it might offer some prolongation of life. I have sadly known a few people who had forms of cancer where chemo could only offer some extra months of survival; and who gave up chemo or refused to take it in the first place, because the side effects were too awful, and they would not be cured anyway. I might well make the same decision in a similar case.

The difference with Hodgkins is that chemo offers a very high chance of cure: not just prolongation of life, but actual CURE. I think it a pity if someone chooses death in such a case, rather than face the chemo. I think it is especially sad if this is not based on a real, absolute inability to tolerate the chemo, but on ideological opposition to modern medicine: whether religious or political. However - an adult should have the right to make their own decisions about their own health, even if it means their death. It is different with a child.

I am far from unaware of the bad effects of chemo (my father had it and was very ill with it at times); but I think this is a much more clear-cut case than most.

[Forkboy]

100. Hard to get much stupider than this without a lobotomy.

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TWiley]

105. For those supportive of this type of stupid religious fuck .... read this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5694484

[northernlights]

106. how can an illiterate, home-schooled boy make that choice?

When his parents are ignorant fools?

However much the chemo might have damaged his organs, the cancer will *kill* them.

Again, this form of cancer is *highly* curable. Apparently the chemo it requires doesn't damage organs beyond their complete recovery, because 90% of the people who get chemo for hodgkins are completely cured. Not remission -- cure.

[WeDidIt]

107. This case is cut and dried. The parents want to kill their kid.

The kid has a 90-95% chance of survival with the cancer treatments or a 0% chance without.

Cut and dried.

[armyowalgreens]

111. One function of the state is to provide for the welfare of is its citizens. That includes the child.

Until a child is of the age to make legal decisions for himself, the parents or guardians are legally responsible for making decisions on behalf of the child.

But to what extent does the parent have control over the decision making? How far can the parent go?

In a situation where a parent is clearly neglecting their duties as a provider and protector of the child, the parents custody of the child can be removed under law. The custody of the child is then given up to the state or another legal guardian.


In a situation like the one this discussion is based on, the parent is willingly neglecting tried and true methods of treatment that will more than likely save the childs life. When those medical treatments are used, there is a 95 percent chance of survival. Without the medical treatment, there is less than 5 percent chance of survival. The statistics clearly show the effectiveness of treatment. This isn't voodoo magic. It's proven medical care that has been used for decades.

The side effects of chemotherapy are very nasty. My mom endured them multiple times. I witnessed it. It's quite horrible and at times seems to be worse than the disease they are trying to fight. But that is simply the cost of treating such a violent disease. Not all medicine is clean and easy. But none the less, it is still highly effective.

So by neglecting effective treatment that will more than likely save the childs life, the parent or legal guardian is in fact derelict of their responsibilities over the child, recognized under law. The parent should lose custody of the child and the child should be placed under the responsibility of the state or a legal guardian that can carry out the necessary medical treatments.


It's pretty clean cut. There should be NO debate over this. Either the parents allow the child to be treated, or the child should be put in the custody of someone who will.

[ejpoeta]

114. my thinking is that it should be the kid's choice. he is old enough

to get the information and decide. i mean, if this was his first encounter with chemo, i am not sure. of course he may be afraid and it would make him sick. but if the pros and cons were explained to him and maybe you say, why don't you try this cycle and see if that works... then if you decide you don't want to go through that then you don't have to. but it should be the kid's choice based on facts. i don't know if this is his parents doing this or if they are doing what he wants.

last night on law and order they had a storyline similar. a four year old girl died of AIDS because her mother went to a quack AIDS denier (I fear the idea of people like this actually being out there) who claimed that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. so the four year old dies. then the mother dies (she has AIDS too). then they discover that the mother had AIDS before she said she did and the son could have it. He refuses to even be tested, insisting that he is fine. spouting the stuff his mother and her doctor had spouted. in the end the one character brought him to a hospital where the kid talked to a kid with cancer who talked about how his parents were religious and refused treatment for him. they told him to pray and they'd pray. and then he said he went blind, and his friend took him to the hospital and he did chemo and his sight came back. and when the other kid asked him if his parents were mad, the kid said they were pissed. and the kid asked him what about what you believe. the kid said he just wanted to get better. god makes doctors too. why would he make all these treatments and medicines if he didn't want us to use them. makes sense to me.

[cali]

116. ridiculous. Not saying that he shouldn't be heard but

this is a child, and he should not be able to decide what he "wants" when it comes to this decision. And in this particular case, the child is uneducated and brainwashed.

fuck this nonsense about letting pycho mommy or psycho daddy or the brainwashed kid decide.

[ejpoeta]

120. i am saying this in the sense that the kid probably doesn't even know

all the information. i don't know what the kid's level of education is, though. i have seen after posting this that the kid can't even read. if this is true there are other issues involved here... like child neglect. something like that should cause social services to look at ALL the kids. normally i don't think it's ridiculous to have a child involved in deciding their own fate. but usually that is after they have had to endure it already. they are the ones that have to go through that. so yes, they should have a say. unfortunately for this kid, usually the parents are there to help him to know what will happen and such.

[cali]

121. it's simple with chemo the kid stands a 90% chance of being cured

without it he'll almost certainly die- and die a needless painful death. Now if an adult wants to make that choice, fine, but no, a child should not be allowed to make such a choice.

[ejpoeta]

122. i understand what you are saying. but THEY are the ones that have to go through the chemo

which isn't always so great in and of itself. but they should at least a)be given the education, b)have friggin support of their damned family!! i think that given the kid's lack of education you are probably right. from my perspective all those kids should be taken away if they are not even getting an education at all. if i don't send my kid to school i would lose them.... obviously they aren't sending them to school and they aren't teaching them anything either. that alone ought to be enough to get them at least LOOKED at. it's just a tough situation, because i generally think that the person (even if they are a child) should have the right to say no if they want. but again, generally i mean that they have been through it. i mean, i know that hodgkins is highly treatable and that when the chemo was over the kid would be able to be a normal kid again. i think the kid would go through that if they had a light at the end of the tunnel. the problem in this situation is that the kid is apparently not even educated enough for a 13 year old. and hi parents are probably feeding him a bunch of crap and lies. so he wouldn't even be able to make a decision based on pros and cons and facts because he is uneducated and lord knows what his parents have been telling him.

[Stellabella]

119. The kid is illiterate. He can't decide because he has no knowledge of the issue.

He's a homeschooled 13-year-old who can't read. He thinks he's a medicine man. And his mother has told him that chemo will kill him.

His mother is controlling the whole situation. The kid said his pain is 10 on a scale of 10, this after his mother 'treated' him with ionized water and herbs, for God's sake.

[ejpoeta]

123. when i wrote the post i didn't know how uneducated the kid was.

personally, i think the kids should be removed just based on the fact that the kids are so uneducated!! a normal 13 could reasonably choose to do what is necessary to live. but based on what seems to be the case, this kid can't really make an educated decision. generally,i do believe that a kid should have a say. maybe if the boy could see other cancer patients of his age and how successful their treatment has been.... then he could see why he needs to do it. but first i think he and his siblings should be taken from the home.... if i didn't send my kid to school then i would have social services breathing down my neck. and does no one pay attention the status of homeschooled children in that place where they live!!??!! someone needs to seriously look at their homeschool rules and be making sure kids are being properly educated even at home.

[Stellabella]

134. Yes, I don't understand why they are allowed to neglect their children like that.

I understand homeschooling, but there should be basic standards and testing of these kids.

[Control-Z]

168. Not when his decision making

is based on a lifetime of crazy, ignorant teachings.

[Peacetrain]

125. This cancer has a 95% cure rate if treated in time

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

139. I'm reminded of people who shoot abortion clinic doctors.

It's the same willingness to kill people for the same ego-stroking greedy self-satisfaction religious belief.

They've got the same wild-eyed insanity too.

[Kajsa]

144. I have taught several students with Hodgkins Lymphoma.

I am a Home Teacher for our school district,
grades 7-12.

In all cases, the chemo worked, the cancer was gone and
the students returned to regular classes at school.

Oh yes, one of my neighbors, a fellow in his late 50's
had the same outcome with chemo for his lymphoma-
he's cancer free now.

This mother is unknowingly killing her son.

:(

[walldude]

158. Well the effect of not getting the treatment is DEATH

gee, I wonder why the parents rights have been superseded :eyes:

[varkam]

180. You're missing a huge point here.

It's a child that we're talking about.

Sure, if you get cancer, then feel free to drink your wheatgrass and balance your chakras and forego chemo - that's entirely up to you. But the kid doesn't really have a choice when his parents are making those choices for him - especially when things like kidnapping start to get involved.