Dangerous trend toward medical autocracy? by canttakesky

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

ABSOLUTELY!

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

Don't use vaccines much myself Chrisisall

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

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 1:05 PM

CALIFORNIAKAYLEE

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

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

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

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

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

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

~CK

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

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

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 1:22 PM

SIMONWHO

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:

Source please?

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

TIME-CHALLENGED Chrisisall

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

Check out my Serenity Auctions for Equality Now!

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=004&item=1400121002
83
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=004&item=1400120938
86
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=004&item=1400121031
71

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

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 1:27 PM

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

Hi CK,

You have my sympathies.

I've observed family members go through high dose-steroids, IVIg, methotrexate, and other autoimmune treatments. It's been - sad. For my niece, the IVIg had no particular side effects but no particular benefit either. The most effective treatment was high-dose steroids for over two years. Considering my niece was a child at the time, and the misery the side effects caused - it was heartbreaking.

The best that can be said was that it was actually better than the alternative. If only modern medicine had good answers for every illness.

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

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 2:08 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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

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

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

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

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 2:52 PM

HERO

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

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

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

H

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

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 2:56 PM

HERO

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

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

H

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

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 3:27 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

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

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 3:29 PM

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

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

SignyM said: "The outcome of NOT getting chemo is death. Since death is almost inevitable, spontaneous remission has been relegated to the status of 'miraculous'. Please don't state lies as fact."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 4:54 PM

ROCKETJOCK

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

Material point not yet brought up:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thursday, July 27, 2006 1:33 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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

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

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

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

)

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

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

Thursday, July 27, 2006 1:59 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thursday, July 27, 2006 2:17 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
There are ... kids who survived cancer without chemo.- CTK
The outcome of NOT getting chemo is death. Since death is almost inevitable, spontaneous remission has been relegated to the status of 'miraculous'. Please don't state lies as fact.- Signy
I'll overlook that you just called me a liar, and refine my statement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thursday, July 27, 2006 3:15 AM

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

Oh God, that would take so long.

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

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

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

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

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

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

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

Thursday, July 27, 2006 3:28 AM

SIMONWHO

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

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

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

It's the broken clock theory applied to healthcare.

Check out my Serenity Auctions for Equality Now!

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=004&item=1400121002
83
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=004&item=1400120938
86
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=004&item=1400121031
71

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

Thursday, July 27, 2006 3:52 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

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

Thursday, July 27, 2006 4:14 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thursday, July 27, 2006 4:33 AM

ROCKETJOCK

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thursday, July 27, 2006 5:05 AM

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

We must part ways here.

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

There are several reasons.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

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

Thursday, July 27, 2006 5:26 AM

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

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

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

So now we know exactly where we disagree.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

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

Thursday, July 27, 2006 5:40 AM

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

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

Thursday, July 27, 2006 5:40 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thursday, July 27, 2006 5:41 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Deadlock victim my *ss!

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

Thursday, July 27, 2006 5:53 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:
and you STILL disagree with me.

Of course. Your evidence is lacking.

Quote:
I'm nuts!

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

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

Thursday, July 27, 2006 5:57 AM

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

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

BUT ---

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

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

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

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

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

Thursday, July 27, 2006 6:04 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Thank you Rue.

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

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

Gonna be offline for a while too.

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

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

Thursday, July 27, 2006 6:05 AM

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

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

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

Well, the jumping up and down part is optional.

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

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

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

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

Thursday, July 27, 2006 6:13 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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

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

TTUL.

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

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

Thursday, July 27, 2006 6:28 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

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

Thursday, July 27, 2006 6:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
...Once we agree the state has a right to intefere in a child's welfare the only thing left to discuss is the exact circumstances. ...

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

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

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

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

SergeantX

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

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

Thursday, July 27, 2006 7:17 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have to think about that.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

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

Thursday, July 27, 2006 7:32 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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

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

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

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

Thursday, July 27, 2006 7:50 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thursday, July 27, 2006 8:37 AM

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

CTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How is that scientific?

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

Thursday, July 27, 2006 9:04 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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

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

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

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

Thursday, July 27, 2006 9:26 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:

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

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

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

Vaguely remembering important stuff Chrisisall

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

Thursday, July 27, 2006 10:18 AM

FREMDFIRMA

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

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

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

Where exactly does it end ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:
And then what if the boy dies?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For the same reason a doctor who mildly suggests firing up a phattie in order to combat post-chemo nausea doesn't.

For the same reason many doctors fear to prescribe an EFFECTIVE amount of pain medication.

Bucking the "established order" has come to mean pretty serious consequences, so unless you can guarantee non-interference by the Gov, that meaning no hasslement from the alphabet goons, no one is going to step forward and put their neck on the chopping block - if they DID have something effective, big pharma would send in the corpolawyers, insist that THEY have patent rights, sue, and then copy and monopolize it for twenty times the price, that's how they work.

I am glad to see that some actual study is taking place, but forgive me if I am skeptical of the FDA, given things they have approved as "healthy" that are quite toxic, and things they have rejected, that are not... they have a pretty iffy batting average, when it comes right down to it.

As for inevitable mortality - well, isn't it exactly that ?
We all, every single one of us, will some day die.

For mine own, I'd like my opinion to matter somewhere in there.

-Frem

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

Thursday, July 27, 2006 11:21 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thursday, July 27, 2006 11:25 AM

SOUPCATCHER

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

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

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

Thursday, July 27, 2006 11:47 AM

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

SergeantX

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thursday, July 27, 2006 1:26 PM

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

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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

www.religioustolerance.org/medical1.htm

This is just from 2003...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thursday, July 27, 2006 1:39 PM

FREMDFIRMA

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

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

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

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

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

I'll take being free.

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

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

*hugz*

-Frem

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

Thursday, July 27, 2006 1:53 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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

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

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

Quote:
I'll take being free.

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

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

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

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

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

Thursday, July 27, 2006 2:40 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rue

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

Thursday, July 27, 2006 3:20 PM

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

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

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

SergeantX

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

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

Thursday, July 27, 2006 3:26 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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

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

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

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

www.therebelution.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thursday, July 27, 2006 3:32 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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

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

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

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

Thursday, July 27, 2006 3:39 PM

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

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

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

SergeantX

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

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

Thursday, July 27, 2006 3:50 PM