Boy forced to undergo chemotherapy

[charter.rights]

I certainly understand the point you are making, however some woman on TV is hardly an educated counter to the accumulated knowledge of the world wide medical community.

For instance, how much of the process of cellular fusion and conjugation did this woman understand (actually, cellular conjugation occurs only in bacteria but does help illustrate the exchage of genetic material in cellular replication)? To state that the cure kills is an emotional response to a complex issue. Given that what she says is actually factual the implication would be that the cure kills and cancer saves.

Herbal treatments may offer an effect that offsets the negative effects of treatment but hard proven evidence that it is of itself a cure is just not present. In other words, herbal treatments may help but are not confirmed as a cure. I would certainly place more stock in what the medical community says than an unidentified woman on TV offering up her untrained opinion.

This bleeds over into what I was saying about "children's rights". The state dismisses the child as not being capable of deciding (or party contributing to the discussion) on his own treatment. Instead the doctor made the decision for him, for his parents and then used the state to enforce that decision. What political ideology would you call that? It certainly isn't a democracy nor does it enforce that we are supposed to be a democratic state.

This is about the right to refuse a harmful treatment and choose one with lesser effects, albeit perhaps less effective. When that right to choose is removed we devolve socially. Even if the state decides to enforce the procedure AFTER discussion, it has at least afforded those who know the child best - including himself. I know some pretty mature 11 year olds that would be capable of making a rational decision where it concerns their lives (and others).

I have studied herbal medicines for about 16 years now and while I certainly do not have all there is to know, I have had enough anecdotal evidence to establish to my satisfaction that they work. Naturopathy is a legitimate alternative medical practice and the advice of a naturopath can be as valuable as a medical doctor. The difference is in the treatment regimen. Pharmaceutical treatment is often aggressive and invasive imposing chemicals on the body that are often treated as foreign substances, to which our bodies turn on itself and cause all kinds of violent and sometimes fatal side effects, many of which cannot be predicted. On the other hand the philosophy behind naturopathy and herbology is that the medicine is introduced as an enhancer of the body's natural mechanisms and promotes and enhances the body's natural ability to heal itself. In most cases it requires not only a knowledge of the effects of different medicines but also the patient's emotional and mental state. To effect a total and lasting cure these emotional and the mental conditions must be treated simultaneously. That is why it is often referred to as "holistic medicine".

In pharmaceutical treatment the base assumption is the body is always in failure mode and must be constantly propped up with missing components. In naturopathy and herbology, the assumption is that the body in its natural state is completely healthy and capable of maintaining its base state. When a sickness occurs there must be interference with the natural state and so the emphasis is placed on using effects to help the body return to its natural state. Having a good understanding of both pharmaceutical and natural methods I would suggest that both have some value depending on the ailment. However, excluding one or the other simply because one is biased against it (as most medical practitioners are) does no one any good- especially where the state interferes with the well-informed decision of the patient, or the caregiver.

[AngusThermopyle]

You'll probably be surprised to know that I agree with your above statement almost 100%.

The approach of using Herbal treatments as a supplement strikes me as being the most sensible and practical approach. Where I disagree however is the use of Herbal treatments as a substitute for what is known to work, albeit not perfectly, but they do work. Of course some ailments are beyond the scope of Herbal treatment, in fact many are beyond the scope of organized traditional medical procedures.

Once more research and data is accumulated we may come up with a hybrid treatment more effective than either is alone.

[segnosaur]

I can't believe how many here support the State.

Unflippenbelievable...

There is far more to this case than meets the eye. It is about rights - the rights of parents...

Just out of curiosity, just how far are you willing to extend the idea of "Parent's rights"?

What if the parents believed in snake handling? Should they be allowed to get their pre-school kids involved in that? After all, if you believe the parent's rights are absolute then they would have the right to allow their children to handle poisonous snakes to promote their spiritual growth.

What about if the parents decided to become breatharians (http://skepdic.com/inedia.html)? Should they be allowed to let their children go without food because they somehow believe you can be healthier if you don't eat food?

Where do you draw the line?

[gc1765]

There will always be controversy about this, especially when the state takes the medical community's position on treatment.

I would certainly place more stock in what the medical community says than an unidentified woman on TV offering up her untrained opinion.

I can certainly see this point of view, but I think that the medical community is (quite rightly) focused on saving lives. I'm just not sure that the medical community is in the best position to make a judgment on the quality of life.

[segnosaur]

Maybe you should get an education.

Actually, I'm quite well educated... with an M.Sc., and with an undergrad education that included courses in a wide range of fields (much wider than was actually required for my degree.

More importantly, I've also been involved in the James Randi Educational Foundation, a group that promotes skepticism.

Here's a good start: Alternative Cancer Treatments

Ummm... do you even know what the term "peer review" means? How about "double blind study"?

I had asked specifically for peer reviewed material as evidence. You have not provided that. (Seems in that regard I'm more educated than you, since I actually seem to understand what peer review is.)

Having something published in a book is not convincing evidence. If it were, then we'd be sure that aliens had visited earth, that bigfoot was alive, and that people have psychic ability. A writer can make pretty much any claim in a book, and I'm sure that they can find some publisher somewhere who will print their works.

In science, we need peer review... journals where articles are reviewed for flaws by experts familiar with the subject area.... in this case, journals like the New England Journal of Medicine, or the Lancet. (Granted, peer review is not perfect; for example, flaws are sometimes found after publication.) But, it is the best method that real scientists have for advancing knowledge. (And the term 'peer review' means true experts. A bunch of idiots may be peers, but even if they check over each others work doesn't really help.)

We also need double blind studies... anecdotes are worthless. After all, the body DOES have a habit of healing itself from many diseases (even with no intervention). There is also a very wide range of survival or cure rates for any disease (even without treatment). If someone takes some bonus supplement and survives, its quite possible that they would have survived anyways because of the body healing itself. Of course, they could have also died because their treatment was worthless. But if they take it and survive, they may mistakenly praise the treatment even though it played no part in their recovery.

There was a lady on CHCH TV at 5:30 that was in the exact position as this family, three years ago. She wanted to use natural medicines in addition to chemo, ...The doctors at McMaster threatened her with taking her daughter away if she interfered in anyway with their treatment. The one difference here is that she was able to quickly transfer her daughter from McMaster to Sick Kids in Toronto. The doctors there encouraged her to use herbal medicines (prescribed by a naturopath) as a counter to the effects of chemotherapy. Her daughter survived.

The McMaster doctors were right... if she interfered the daughter should have been taken away. In fact, I rather suspect Sick Kids hospital would have taken similar action had she interfered with the treatment there.

As for "encouraging" her to use herbal medicines... Given the fact that the kid was actually getting the proper treatment, getting a bogus herbal placebo would have helped put the person's mind at ease, even if it actually did nothing to actually help the daughter.

When asked if she thought that the chemo helped her daughter survive, her answer was a flat "no!" She said that most people die from the effects of chemo, not from the the leukemia during the treatment stage and she believed that the herbal medicines had more to do with the recovery, than the chemical cocktails forced into her daughter's system.

You see, this is why double blind studies are your friend. This woman (with absolutely no medical training, from what you've described) has made some sort of claim about the effects of chemotherapy, based on exactly ONE case (her daugther's).... a daughter who survived AFTER chemo (even if the mother doesn't recognize the benefits of it.)

I have studied herbal medicines for about 16 years now and while I certainly do not have all there is to know, I have had enough anecdotal evidence to establish to my satisfaction that they work.

As the saying goes:

The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.

If you truly believe that anecdotes provide proof, then you must believe in:

- The miracle of the healing power of the water in Lourdes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lourdes_water)

- That a person can survive with no food, only by breathing air (breatharians)

- That evangalists like Peter Popoff can actually cure the sick (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Popoff)

After all, all of these have anecdotes associated with them.

Other treatments have been equally effective against various cancers...

I'm still waiting to see evidence of this, in the form of a proper double blind study, published in a proper peer reviewed journal.

[gc1765]

I had asked specifically for peer reviewed material as evidence.

I don't know specifically about the herbs that this boy was using, but certainly some herbs are just as effective against cancer as pharmaceutical drugs (where do you think most drugs come from?).

If you want a peer-reviewed article, I'd suggest reading this reference: Newman DJ, Cragg GM Natural products as sources of new drugs over the last 25 years. Journal of Natural Products 70, 461-477 (2007)

as well as the references in that article.

[segnosaur]

...but certainly some herbs are just as effective against cancer as pharmaceutical drugs (where do you think most drugs come from?).

Yes, I do recognize that many modern treatments are based on natural compounds. (Asprin is based on chemicals taken from the willow tree, penecillan from moulds, etc.) And I'm sure we'll be getting many other cures from other plant sources.

The problem is, many of these 'natural' cures either 1) don't actually work against the disease they are supposed to, or 2) don't have the potency required. (Even if a pharmaceutical drug has a natural origin, it will still have undergone proper tests and processing to ensure consistency, and to ensure it actually works against the disease.)

If I had an infection, I'll take some pharmaceutical-grade penicillian. I won't take some natural 'extract of bread-mould', even if both chemicals had the same origin. And if I ever get cancer, I'll take the chemotherapy (where all the materials have been tested for their effects to ensure they work, even if some of the chemicals had a biological origin.)

Edited May 14, 2008 by segnosaur

[chess123mate]

I'm not going to comment on all your arguing/discussing/insulting of proofs, I'm just going to give my bit (and my family's view) on the boy based on the personal experiences of my parents.

I haven't studied much in this area.

I don't have any proof.

I have logic. Here's what I see:

--A family who had taken chemo before and failed decided that it wasn't worth the pain for the slight chance of minor success

--The family decided to take other actions that they believed would (or might) do something to help.

--The state/government/whoever's involved overruled it.

So the thing is basically a question of what's better -- pain, or life?

It's down to the question, would you rather go through a year of feeling terrible pain, or die?

Some stories my parents know of from real life. I just hope they don't mind me sharing them.

Of course, I won't be mentioning any major details. XD

A friend spent his whole life active; eventually was forced to take this chemo at a fairly older age (like 50 to 60 some area). Not asked, he was forced. He didn't want it. He was going to die in roughly a week from the cancer. 2 (and a half?) years later, he finally died. 2 years.

What was better? 2 years of survival (in pain), or a week or two in peace?

If you choose 2 years of survival... what type of person are you? Someone who must enjoy burning themselves ( ) I doubt this is true, so why would you want to survive with terrible pain (like keeping your hand on a burning hot stove for 2 years).

Anyways, who says the father's decision was soley based on his child's decision? Were YOU the father?

Even if it was, wasn't that HIS choice to make? It wasn't like he was killing his child, or refusing a treatment...

When it comes right down to it, your arguments are saying "The father was wrong because the child is stupid".

I don't care who you are, but 99.9% (not an official number) + of the world's people DON'T LIKE PAIN. Most would prefer death. I included. Who is ANYONE to say that they must endure it if they'd prefer to take their chances with something that might work? (Even if scientifically there is no evidence supporting that).

[segnosaur]

I'm not going to comment on all your arguing/discussing/insulting of proofs, I'm just going to give my bit (and my family's view) on the boy based on the personal experiences of my parents.

I haven't studied much in this area.

I don't have any proof.

So, what you're saying is that you can't prove that I'm wrong, but you're going to ignore everything anyways in favor of your own personal dogma. (I find it very ironic that in an earlier post, I was told to 'educate myself'... now you're saying that you "haven't studied much in this area".)

I have logic. Here's what I see:

--A family who had taken chemo before and failed decided that it wasn't worth the pain for the slight chance of minor success

--The family decided to take other actions that they believed would (or might) do something to help.

--The state/government/whoever's involved overruled it.

Your 'logic' is faulty....

- You claim that there was only a 'slight chance' of success. Yet the original article pointed out that the chance of success was something like 85%. That's not a 'slight chance'... that's actually pretty good.

- Perhaps the family really did believe that 'alternative' treatments might work. But the family were not experts in the field.

So the thing is basically a question of what's better -- pain, or life?

False dichotomy. Those were not the 2 options.

The 2 options were: pain for a short period of time followed by years of no pain, or death.

A friend spent his whole life active; eventually was forced to take this chemo at a fairly older age (like 50 to 60 some area). Not asked, he was forced. He didn't want it. He was going to die in roughly a week from the cancer. 2 (and a half?) years later, he finally died. 2 years.

This is not an equivalent example. At 50 years old, a patient will have the ability to make informed decisions. A child does not. (Not to mention who actually 'forced' him to take the treatments.)

Anyways, who says the father's decision was soley based on his child's decision? Were YOU the father?

I wasn't making that claim. If I remember, the original article made the suggestion that the son had a big part in the decision. But overall, its irrelevant whether the father was making the decision, or simply allowing the son to make his own choice. In both cases decisions were being made which negatively affected the health of the child.

Even if it was, wasn't that HIS choice to make? It wasn't like he was killing his child, or refusing a treatment...

Getting treatment with something that does not work is refusing treatment.

I'm still waiting for actual proof that your 'alternatives' can provide an equivalent success rate to chemo. I know I won't get that, because you've admitted you don't really know much about science or medicine, but that's not going to stop me from pointing that out.

When it comes right down to it, your arguments are saying "The father was wrong because the child is stupid".

I don't care who you are, but 99.9% (not an official number) + of the world's people DON'T LIKE PAIN. Most would prefer death. I included.

A statement which is too broad or general to be of any use.

Yes, people don't like pain. But they will be willing to put up with a certain amount of pain or discomfort NOW if it means they may survive longer in the future. A child in pain may not be able to grasp that concept. The father, while he may want to end the child's discomfort, is misguided when it comes to the ability of 'alternatives' to provide a cure.

If you're saying you would prefer death to pain... does that mean that if you ever get a headache you will commit suicide? What if you stub your toe, will you want to kill yourself? After all, if pain is to be so strongly avoided, you wouldn't want to live with either situation, would you?

[Oleg Bach]

So, what you're saying is that you can't prove that I'm wrong, but you're going to ignore everything anyways in favor of your own personal dogma. (I find it very ironic that in an earlier post, I was told to 'educate myself'... now you're saying that you "haven't studied much in this area".)

Your 'logic' is faulty....

- You claim that there was only a 'slight chance' of success. Yet the original article pointed out that the chance of success was something like 85%. That's not a 'slight chance'... that's actually pretty good.

- Perhaps the family really did believe that 'alternative' treatments might work. But the family were not experts in the field.

False dichotomy. Those were not the 2 options.

The 2 options were: pain for a short period of time followed by years of no pain, or death.

This is not an equivalent example. At 50 years old, a patient will have the ability to make informed decisions. A child does not. (Not to mention who actually 'forced' him to take the treatments.)

I wasn't making that claim. If I remember, the original article made the suggestion that the son had a big part in the decision. But overall, its irrelevant whether the father was making the decision, or simply allowing the son to make his own choice. In both cases decisions were being made which negatively affected the health of the child.

Getting treatment with something that does not work is refusing treatment.

I'm still waiting for actual proof that your 'alternatives' can provide an equivalent success rate to chemo. I know I won't get that, because you've admitted you don't really know much about science or medicine, but that's not going to stop me from pointing that out.

A statement which is too broad or general to be of any use.

Yes, people don't like pain. But they will be willing to put up with a certain amount of pain or discomfort NOW if it means they may survive longer in the future. A child in pain may not be able to grasp that concept. The father, while he may want to end the child's discomfort, is misguided when it comes to the ability of 'alternatives' to provide a cure.

If you're saying you would prefer death to pain... does that mean that if you ever get a headache you will commit suicide? What if you stub your toe, will you want to kill yourself? After all, if pain is to be so strongly avoided, you wouldn't want to live with either situation, would you?

No one should be force to take medical treatment against their will...reminds me of the "assumed concent" - where the medical industry basically says we own your corpse - apparently they want to own you alive as well as dead...all medical science can do at best is offer some life extention - and not neccesarily quality. Yes they do their best but they are not God..some think they are but thinking something does not always make it so - I own my body - not the state and not some creep that went to medical school or some judge that orders a person to be forced - no matter how young that person is....I spent time at Sick Kids - and I can tell you that the kids know what's going on - most of the adults are terrified and reactionary.

[jdobbin]

I can certainly see this point of view, but I think that the medical community is (quite rightly) focused on saving lives. I'm just not sure that the medical community is in the best position to make a judgment on the quality of life.

The first part of the quote is from me. The second part is not. I don't know who said that other part.

[gc1765]

The first part of the quote is from me. The second part is not. I don't know who said that other part.

Yes, I know. The quote is from a post by AngusThermopyle. I quoted both quotes because they were both about the views of the medical community vs. the views of the boy and his father, so I was addressing both at once. Sorry if that caused any confusion.

[AngusThermopyle]

I was wondering about that myself, thanks for the clarification.

[segnosaur]

Yes they do their best but they are not God..some think they are but thinking something does not always make it so

Doctors may not be god, but they ARE the most likely to be knowledgeable about the risks associated with various forms of treatment. As such, if the doctor says "doing X gives a high chance of being cured, doing Y will cause you to die", there is a better chance of their statements being correct than some layperson.

- I own my body - not the state and not some creep that went to medical school or some judge that orders a person to be forced - no matter how young that person is....

So, just how far does your idea of 'free choice' go? I asked this of someone else but they never answered... what if a child is convinced by their parent that handling poisonous snakes is the best option? Think a preschool kid will be able to separate what he's taught by his (deluded) parents and what the real risks are?

I spent time at Sick Kids - and I can tell you that the kids know what's going on - most of the adults are terrified and reactionary.

I see... and your basing your assessment on what exactly? Are you a mind reader? How exactly can you tell that a child understands that if he stops treatment he will be dead? Have most kids that age ever even SEEN a dead body?

And did you ever think that perhaps being terrified may actually be the right reaction in certain circumstances (as long as it doesn't cause someone to make unwise decisions)? If I'm told I have cancer, I WILL be scared, because I know what exactly that could mean if its not handled properly.

[segnosaur]

I can certainly see this point of view, but I think that the medical community is (quite rightly) focused on saving lives. I'm just not sure that the medical community is in the best position to make a judgment on the quality of life.

What makes you think that?

After all, doctors DO have to study the side effects of various treatments. And they've likely seen multiple people in the same circumstances. I'd expect them to have a better idea of what the quality of life will be than someone who's only experience with cancer is a second had story from someone who didn't even have the same type of cancer.

[Oleg Bach]

What makes you think that?

After all, doctors DO have to study the side effects of various treatments. And they've likely seen multiple people in the same circumstances. I'd expect them to have a better idea of what the quality of life will be than someone who's only experience with cancer is a second had story from someone who didn't even have the same type of cancer.

People do not realize what chemo is any more that what the insidious drug Ritalin is. Most assume that chemo is a medicine..and most assume that kiddy cocaine or Ritalin is a sedative..Chemo is deadly poison..how it works in some cases is to bring the person close to death by injecting poision - in effect having the cancer abandon the host thinking the patient is dead...Then at that point - after fooling the cancer they desperately attempt to revive the patient..but the side effects of severe posioning leave a scare to the whole body - There was a time when they used to bleed people with animia..thinking that letting out the blood was good for the patient...IN time they will look back on chemo therapy as horrendous..it's a hit and miss brutal affair with no guarentees that you will survive the poison not to mention the cancer.

[charter.rights]

What makes you think that?

After all, doctors DO have to study the side effects of various treatments. And they've likely seen multiple people in the same circumstances. I'd expect them to have a better idea of what the quality of life will be than someone who's only experience with cancer is a second had story from someone who didn't even have the same type of cancer.

Doctors are not gods. In fact over 50% of the graduated in the lower half of their class. They know nothing about quality of life except what they may experience - often from rich and sheltered families. That isn't quality of life. It is quantity.

I do know a few doctors personally that have had life altering experiences. Once they had their change of mind...so to speak...they got rid of their contempt for humans as nothing more than a bunch of organs covered in ex-foliating skin and replaced it with an understanding that we are more compassionate and complex thgan they could ever imagine. They not only fully understand the use (and consent to the use ) of herbal medicines, but often recommend them as part of their overall treatment.

[AngusThermopyle]

In fact over 50% of the graduated in the lower half of their class.

How does that work?

[Wild Bill]

How does that work?

Well, duh! And the other half was in the top half of the class!

It's like the old socialistic definition of the lowest 20% of the population being poor. There will ALWAYS be people in the bottom 20%! So what? The poorest of us in Canada may have a living standard higher than a king of 500 years ago.

It hasn't been that long since a dry roof, a warm bed and a full stomach was an idle dream for most of the population.

Under the socialist definition, the bottom 20% could have golden toilet seats and they would still be poor if 80% had seats of diamond.

Which of course would mean a perpetual need for socialists...

[Oleg Bach]

Well, duh! And the other half was in the top half of the class!

It's like the old socialistic definition of the lowest 20% of the population being poor. There will ALWAYS be people in the bottom 20%! So what? The poorest of us in Canada may have a living standard higher than a king of 500 years ago.

It hasn't been that long since a dry roof, a warm bed and a full stomach was an idle dream for most of the population.

Under the socialist definition, the bottom 20% could have golden toilet seats and they would still be poor if 80% had seats of diamond.

Which of course would mean a perpetual need for socialists...

Diamond seats? Ouch!

[AngusThermopyle]

Well, duh! tongue.gif And the other half was in the top half of the class!

Ah I see, and I thought I was pretty good when it comes to Mathematics.

It was my mistaken impression that half is equal to, not greater than 50%, and vice versa.

Its very interesting to note that half does not equal 50% anymore. What does half represent now?

[segnosaur]

People do not realize what chemo is any more that what the insidious drug Ritalin is. Most assume that chemo is a medicine..and most assume that kiddy cocaine or Ritalin is a sedative.

You know, I think you may actually be arguing against your own point...

You're right in that most non-medical people probably don't know what chemo or Ritalin does... that's why the advice of doctors should be weighed more heavily than the advice of non-medical people who heard about some friend of a relative who had roughly the same disease (but different) and treated it in some other way... (Pointing out the lack of knowledge of non-medical people doesn't really help your "doctors are not gods/people should take control of their own treatment" arguments.)

.Chemo is deadly poison..how it works in some cases is to bring the person close to death by injecting poision - in effect having the cancer abandon the host thinking the patient is dead...Then at that point - after fooling the cancer they desperately attempt to revive the patient.

Uhh... no. that's not the way chemotherapy works. The cancer doesn't "think". It doesn't do anything to "abandon" the body.

Cancer is, for the most part, uncontrolled growth of a person's own cells. (Your body naturally replaces cells which die. But in cancer, the mechanism that tells the body "we only need to replace certain cells" becomes damaged, and as a result it starts generating more cells than are needed for replacement.) Cancer chemotherapy tries to target the fastest reproducing cells, although the drugs used can't always perfectly identify the cancerous growth from the body's required cell reproduction.

Chemotherapy is not meant to "bring a person closer to death". The negative side effects of the drugs are basically a side effect, due to the current inability to perfectly identify the cancerous cells from the non-cancerous.

There was a time when they used to bleed people with animia..thinking that letting out the blood was good for the patient...IN time they will look back on chemo therapy as horrendous..it's a hit and miss brutal affair with no guarentees that you will survive the poison not to mention the cancer.

Not exactly a good analogy. Hundreds of years ago (when they were bleeding patients) we weren't really using the scientific method... our medical treatments were wrapped up in various superstitions. Its only been in the past hundred years or so that we've actually been using things like double blind studies and proper statistics to actually determine the effectiveness of certain treatments.

You're right, there are no guarantees. But, medicine, in a large part comes down to numbers. Through actual real studies we know that certain treatments have a high probability of working, and other treatments have no chance of working. But given a chance, something with an 85% chance of working (resulting in a long term, pain free survival) should be tried, if the alternative is death (even if you can't be sure you'll be in the 85% that get cured or the 15% that don't get cured). Its certainly not the random "hit and miss" that you seem to make it out to be.

And you're right... in the future, as medical technology advances (and we come up with better cures) we may look at chemo as horrendous. But that doesn't mean that using chemo today is wrong... it is (in many cases) the best course of cancer treatment that we have today. (If they find a way in the future that will cure 99% of cancer that the boy had in the opening post, that doesn't mean that our treatments that cure 85% of the cancer are wrong, when they're compared to the 0% cure rate of the alternatives.)

[segnosaur]

Doctors are not gods. In fact over 50% of the graduated in the lower half of their class.

What a retarded statement. Really, it is.

Even a doctor in the lower half of his class has to know a lot more about medicine than your average non-medical person. And even if there were a 'god glass', being in the lower half of the 'god class' still makes a person a god.

They know nothing about quality of life except what they may experience

Again, another retarded (and in this case arrogant) assumption.

What makes you think that you're any better at judging a person's quality of life? After all, all you can judge is what you've experienced. And since you are unable to predict the future, you have absolutely no way to determine how you (or anyone else) will react in the future. At least the doctor will have likely been exposed to people who have experienced various diseases and treatments.

I do know a few doctors personally that have had life altering experiences. Once they had their change of mind...so to speak...they got rid of their contempt for humans as nothing more than a bunch of organs covered in ex-foliating skin and replaced it with an understanding that we are more compassionate and complex thgan they could ever imagine. They not only fully understand the use (and consent to the use ) of herbal medicines, but often recommend them as part of their overall treatment.

Keep in mind that they may consent to the use of herbal medicines, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they think they will actually work. I have a friend who's a doctor... they were taught in class not to talk negatively about any alternative treatment. Not necessarily because those alternative treatments actually do anything to heal the body, but because they keep the patient happy and content while the doctor administers the REAL cure.

[Wild Bill]

Ah I see, and I thought I was pretty good when it comes to Mathematics.

It was my mistaken impression that half is equal to, not greater than 50%, and vice versa.

Its very interesting to note that half does not equal 50% anymore. What does half represent now?

Now you're being logical! Mathematically, of course you're quite correct. 'Over 50%' cannot fit into less than half.

Still, you have to remember, you were quoting a half-baked Marxist who would never feel himself limited by crass mathematics. After all, as we have been lectured before, reality is a mere perception that can only be understood from his own viewpoint.

We should all strive to believe at least 6 impossible things before breakfast.

"How many fingers, Winston?"

Or for a more contemporary allusion: "There were FOUR lights!" - Jean Luc P.

Live long and prosper, Angus!

Edited May 15, 2008 by Wild Bill

[chess123mate]

So, what you're saying is that you can't prove that I'm wrong, but you're going to ignore everything anyways in favor of your own personal dogma. (I find it very ironic that in an earlier post, I was told to 'educate myself'... now you're saying that you "haven't studied much in this area".)

No! You are simply trying to use my points for your own personal gain! This alone should prove how you are twisting what people say!

This is my last post here, by the way. Not because I'm losing this argument, as you seem to be indicating, but because I have a life to spend doing more constructive things than wasting it discussing it with people who refuse to listen.

I HAVEN'T studied much in this area. All I've heard is pieces from the media and what you guys have said.

Very ironic indeed. My whole point from that was that 'I don't know enough to give you proofs that you are wrong, but I do have logic and a little knowledge to present.'

You can't be proven wrong. You can't prove the other side (the point of view I'm on) wrong either. We can argue it for eternity and get nowhere. That's the thing with such issues, is that different points of views indicate different answers.

Your 'logic' is faulty....

- You claim that there was only a 'slight chance' of success. Yet the original article pointed out that the chance of success was something like 85%. That's not a 'slight chance'... that's actually pretty good.

- Perhaps the family really did believe that 'alternative' treatments might work. But the family were not experts in the field.

False dichotomy. Those were not the 2 options.

The 2 options were: pain for a short period of time followed by years of no pain, or death.

This is not an equivalent example. At 50 years old, a patient will have the ability to make informed decisions. A child does not. (Not to mention who actually 'forced' him to take the treatments.)

I wasn't making that claim. If I remember, the original article made the suggestion that the son had a big part in the decision. But overall, its irrelevant whether the father was making the decision, or simply allowing the son to make his own choice. In both cases decisions were being made which negatively affected the health of the child.

Getting treatment with something that does not work is refusing treatment.

Yes... I can't believe I messed that up... the 2 options part. I basically said "A" or "A"... oops... I should've said "pain" or "death". That's what I think I meant.

You're wrong. I said A treatment. Not "treatment". In other words, I was saying that: "they weren't refusing A treatment, just chemotherapy, since they already tried that and want to try other methods".

You might have an 85% chance of survival, but for how long? Give it a few years and it comes back. Do it again? Great! Another 85% chance. Comes back again? Who cares if you have to do this for the rest of your life if you're alive! Chemotherapy doesn't do as good as you're indicating.

I'm still waiting for actual proof that your 'alternatives' can provide an equivalent success rate to chemo. I know I won't get that, because you've admitted you don't really know much about science or medicine, but that's not going to stop me from pointing that out.

A statement which is too broad or general to be of any use.

Yes, people don't like pain. But they will be willing to put up with a certain amount of pain or discomfort NOW if it means they may survive longer in the future. A child in pain may not be able to grasp that concept. The father, while he may want to end the child's discomfort, is misguided when it comes to the ability of 'alternatives' to provide a cure.

If you're saying you would prefer death to pain... does that mean that if you ever get a headache you will commit suicide? What if you stub your toe, will you want to kill yourself? After all, if pain is to be so strongly avoided, you wouldn't want to live with either situation, would you?

Ha ha.

My point was "if you have to endure a longer period of intense pain, some people would prefer to die" depending on the circumstances. Some people would be scared to die, but others aren't.

Segnosaur, you are under the illusion that doctors know what they're doing. Only some are like what you've said. I know from family experience.

Oh, and you are also under the impression that people can't understand children. Children do know if they're dying. They might not believe what you do about an 'afterlife', but they will have at least a limited understanding. Some more than others. But they understand that they're sick and may not live.

Back to doctors. Are they God? No. Are they smart? Of course. They've studied. At least from 50 years ago, if not earlier, but at least they've got that...

There is something I want to introduce to you. Two things, actually:

1. Internet. Heard of it? It's where "tons" of medical information is stored among even more "tons" of information, games, sites, discussions, and forums like this.

2. Books. Books that talk about medicine. They happen to talk about other things.

Especially #1, though. With the Internet, the average person, when they are compelled to (say they are sick or a family member is dying from cancer...), they can research the subject from a variety of authors (to make sure one of them isn't lying or something). They can gather a very good understanding of what's happening.

Now to tell you my family's information when dealing with doctors. If you get a good doctor, they know what's happening with you (ie. sickness, etc.), and are willing to do something about it. If you get an OK doctor, they might look at you and do what a good doctor does, or maybe what a bad doctor does. If you get a bad doctor, they can look you straight in the eye and say "You're fine! Why are you in here?" and you could have infection in your ears, throat, and anywhere else. You could be feeling nauseous, dizzy, and they wouldn't do anything. Why? Who knows? They don't know why or just aren't good doctors.

My source? Myself. I've gone through this. My family's gone through this.

You tell me doctors are so smart, etc. Yah right. Only some.

Oh, I forgot. Bad doctors often think they're giving you the right medicine, the right treatment, etc. Want to know what? They're not only wrong, they may also be hindering your health. Not often does this happen, but it happens. My mom is smarter than some of these doctors. She might not know some complex names for diseases, but she's smarter than they are. No, she hasn't studied medicine.

"Uhh... no. that's not the way chemotherapy works. The cancer doesn't "think". It doesn't do anything to "abandon" the body"

I don't think the point was that the cancer "thinks". This is called imagery. It's how some people communicate when they aren't into science. Just to let you know.

"Not exactly a good analogy. Hundreds of years ago (when they were bleeding patients) we weren't really using the scientific method... our medical treatments were wrapped up in various superstitions. Its only been in the past hundred years or so that we've actually been using things like double blind studies and proper statistics to actually determine the effectiveness of certain treatments."

You think we're so smart. Pathetic.

We have "scientific method". Do you think back then you could say this...

"Hey, you know you're really wrong because you haven't done anything to prove what you're talking about?!"

and they would say this?

"Yah, you're right. Too bad we don't have SCIENTIFIC METHOD... that'd be so much better." or if you want to be realistic, saying "Yah, I know, but we don't have the intelligence to do better".

They'd be more likely to say "Are you crazy? Of course this is true!"

"But that doesn't mean that using chemo today is wrong... it is (in many cases) the best course of cancer treatment that we have today."

WRONG!!!!!!!!! They have better treatments in the US. Ones that work a lot better. Only problem is that either Canada refuses to look at it, or the US refuses to give it out. I think it's the first one, though. After all, "us doctors are smarter than everybody else, so go take a hike with your new meds and treatments".

You know, you think you're picking apart everybody's arguments by pointing out grammar mistakes.

"Doctors are not gods. In fact over 50% of the graduated in the lower half of their class. They know nothing about quality of life except what they may experience - often from rich and sheltered families. That isn't quality of life. It is quantity."

I don't know about the math, I agree, but the rest of it I agree with. They only know what THEY know. They don't necessarily understand what other people want.

I could go on and on. But I'm tired of this. We aren't slaves, we shouldn't be able to control other people, or vice versa. They have. Period.

Is it right to be able to control other people?

Of course it is right to intervene if someone is hurting another person.

But is it right to rip a child from the parent saying "You are too stupid to know what you're doing, let us deal with it you bad decision-maker", given the very understandable possibility that they DONT' want to go through more pain?