fayfreethinkers.com

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

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

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

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

See here.

Doug wrote:Judge Orders Teen to Have Cancer Treatment

Kevin Trudeau will have a field day...

If Starchild were an adult (full-fledged moral agent) there would be no doubt of his right to determine his own treatment. Being a minor, the moral questions get sticky. If I were judge, I'd leave it to the kid and his family; the last thing I want is for the State to tell people how they must be treated. The slippery slope is clear: Do you want the State to e.g. order gay people into shock treatment for "cure"? Or order people to endure toxic chemotherapies when there are alternatives?

Hogeye wrote: The slippery slope is clear: Do you want the State to e.g. order gay people into shock treatment for "cure"?

DAR
The medical establishment deemed decades ago that gay is not something that needs to be treated.

Or order people to endure toxic chemotherapies when there are alternatives?

DAR
Adults can do as they wish. It if is parents that want to use prayer therapies (Christian Science) in place of scientifically proven beneficial methods (chemotherapy), then I say yes. Parents overruled.
Some Christian Science parents let their child die some years ago due to a blocked colon and they refused to use any medical intervention. They went to jail. Good. Fortunately that religion is dying. I regularly play piano at a Christian Science nursing home. I played just last Thursday and made the mistake of saying I was playing fast because I had just had a cup of coffee. Oops. Frowns all round. Those folks don't believe in drugs. I don't think they believe in atoms or matter either. You can't even have an aspirin, or a back rub (if you call it theraputic massage).

D.

Hogeye> The slippery slope is clear: Do you want the State to e.g. order gay people into shock treatment for "cure"?

Darrel> The medical establishment deemed decades ago that gay is not something that needs to be treated.

Right, but that doesn't mean the government won't act otherwise, nor that the government can't hire some "scientists" to say otherwise. You know better than most that the government doesn't always do what's scientifically correct.

Darrel wrote:Those folks don't believe in drugs. I don't think they believe in atoms or matter either. You can't even have an aspirin, or a back rub (if you call it theraputic massage).

So what's the problem? Their irrational behavior picks not my pocket. It sounds to me like the situation is self-correcting, Darwinian style - these stupid people are more likely to die off, or alternately, the survivors will likely be more resistant to human ailments.

The bottom line is: The moral means to try to change their irrational attitude is persuasion, not aggression by government.

If my choices by law are chemo, radiation, or surgery, I'd leave that legal jurisdiction. A kid of 16 is old enough to be tried as an adult if he commits a crime. In my book, that makes him old enough to decide whether he wants to die by chemo or cancer. Check the stats on over-drugged, improperly drugged, and otherwise mis-treated people and you can understand why the kid might want to take his chances elsewhere (I sure would). Funny how you hear about the kid who dies because they didn't have medical procedures. Nobody seems inclined to put the numbers right up there of kids who died from medical procedures.

Christian Science has been around for over 100 years, so I don't know about the "self-correcting" aspect of it. Their "cures" are as real as their failures. My great aunt recovered from "wasting sickness" (leukemia) after being given up on by the doctors of her day (about 1890), then seeing a Christian Science "practitioner". Her baby brother, my grandfather, was carted off to the hospital in 1941 with cancer of practically everything and died 2 weeks later - his mother had a fit and basically said the doctors killed him. I don't know that I don't agree with her, even though I doubt a "practitioner" could have saved him.

People die. That's life. Given a choice, "death with dignity" is mine, as it was my mother's. We aren't always given that choice, but we sure don't have it with medical science practices on cancer.

Barbara Fitzpatrick wrote:Nobody seems inclined to put the numbers right up there of kids who died from medical procedures.

Because then they'd have to include numbers of kids/people saved or helped by medical procedures, and that would nullify their argument in a heartbeat...

Hogeye wrote:Darrel wrote:
Those folks don't believe in drugs. I don't think they believe in atoms or matter either. You can't even have an aspirin, or a back rub (if you call it theraputic massage).

So what's the problem?

DAR
No problem at all, unless they are grossly negligent and impose their religious insanity on minor children. See my example where the child died because he couldn't take a poo. This they treated with prayer. That's an attempt to have one form of shit have an affect on another form and it just doesn't work. It's gross negligence.

D.

Barbara Fitzpatrick wrote:If my choices by law are chemo, radiation, or surgery, I'd leave that legal jurisdiction.

DAR
No, your choices as an adult are certainly to do as you wish.

A kid of 16 is old enough to be tried as an adult if he commits a crime. In my book, that makes him old enough to decide whether he wants to die by chemo or cancer.

DAR
You say that as if chemo has not been shown to improve ones odds of not dying from cancer. Surely you are not suggesting that? We have spent enough billons on this for enough decades to know the numbers quite well. As my good friend and radiologist Dr. Jim Cherry has told (he deals with this daily) if you have X cancer and it has spread X distance you can treat it with chemo and have X odds of survival. Or you can pray and have X odds. Or you can take this medicine and have X odds. The cancer I had (melanoma) is very lethal if it spreads. My odds would have been about 5% or less. Fortunately it was caught before it got very deep so my odds are more like 90%+ for 5 year survival. Chemo doesn't work on it so they don't even try. It does improve survival rates on many other cancers and this is extremely well documented. This is why people choose it.

Check the stats on over-drugged, improperly drugged, and otherwise mis-treated people and you can understand why the kid might want to take his chances elsewhere (I sure would).

DAR
Yes, hospital accidents, uncleanliness and general incompetence is under reported and far worse than many people realize. But that doesn't mean I want to use homeopathy, prayer, witchdoctors or vitamins in place of good medicine.
Incompetence is rampant. I have the same thing with car mechanics which are considerably better understood than the human body. I don't trust anyone to even change my oil anymore. Twice I have had them put an extra quart in and this is very hard on an engine. It wrecked one. This was at Nelms, then Fletcher, now called something else I think, not some little fly by night.

Funny how you hear about the kid who dies because they didn't have medical procedures. Nobody seems inclined to put the numbers right up there of kids who died from medical procedures.

DAR
I am inclined. When I came across a report showing how many people die from medical screw ups I sent it all around. Especially to nurses.

Christian Science has been around for over 100 years, so I don't know about the "self-correcting" aspect of it.

DAR
It's self-correcting because their religion is dying. It's dying because it is profoundly absurd and doesn't work. In contrast actual medical science is eating their lunch. No one wants to convert to a religion that has the potential for such great and unnecessary personal suffering. Besides, the babblings of the 19th century mentally ill person who started this religion are all but unreadable. Twain called it "chlorophorm in print." But they are very nice people. Just clueless in this one area.

Their "cures" are as real as their failures. My great aunt recovered from "wasting sickness" (leukemia) after being given up on by the doctors of her day (about 1890), then seeing a Christian Science "practitioner".

DAR
Why do you invest in such anecdotes? You think someone was cured by a Christian Science practitioner? I assure you that their failures or more real than their "cures." I thought you taught science classes in school? If science has taught us anything with regard to medicine it's that we cannot trust anecdotal evidence or, "just so" stories.

People die. That's life. Given a choice, "death with dignity" is mine, as it was my mother's. We aren't always given that choice, but we sure don't have it with medical science practices on cancer.

DAR
Unless you are referring to the fact that we don't have a euthanasia program in this country (or does Oregon now?) I don't understand. What choice would you like to have in cancer medical science that is being withheld from you, or forced upon, you?

D.

I don't know about "cures" - I think the potential of the human mind to do stuff normally considered impossible is still being explored, including correcting health problems. Unfortunately, that's why "faith healing" still gets a big rave from religious groups. I don't believe some "god" heals, but the human mind on the body it inhabits - that's something else again. I bring up anecdotes that have occurred in my personal family because they happened - I know or knew the people involved - and yet they don't "fit" the mold. (My great aunt, her mother, siblings, and nieces all attributed the cure to Christian Science, which doesn't mean I do.) Because I taught science I don't blow off things that don't fit.

My mother was strongly pressured to have one or more of the "big three" (radiation, chemo, or surgery) once they finally got around to correctly diagnosing her problem. They hassled her for the last 3 months of her life. Her comment at the time was the only thing worse than their hassling would be to let them do what they wanted. Your situation was different - and your choice was different - and it's wonderful to live in a place where you can make that decision.

The young man/kid/teenager whose situation started this post has received a stay on the order to submit to standard treatment and has been returned to his family. I don't know where I'd draw the line - I'd probably do it in a case by case basis - but a 16-year-old is definitely old enough to decide whether or not he wants to go through with medical treatments that make life hell on the chance - and we don't know what his chances are - that it will "cure" him.

What I am saying is the individual - and again, I don't know where I'd draw the line at age or situation (the one you cite - the child, the implication is small child, who needed surgery due to a blocked colon - I'd definitely come down on your side on this - Heck, Jean Harlow died because her appendix ruptured and her mother, having just joined one of those extreme religions - I think it was Christian Science - refused to allow the appendectomy, and Jean wasn't a minor - just unconscious at the time) - should be the one to make the decision, after receiving the best medical advice out there. Medical advice should be just that, not medical orders.

(And ALL religions are facing overall decreases in numbers, not just Christian Science, which is one of the more rigid of the "new thought" religions that started in the last quarter of the 19th century. War and the fear of environmental and economy disasters has slowed the movement away from religion, but hasn't reversed it.)

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

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

DOUG
The parents won on appeal. The kid can go get coffee enemas in Mexico and die of cancer.

If they did make it a court order to go to chemo, the boy could break the law and not go. What can they threaten him with, capital munishment, maybe?