Judge rules family can't refuse chemo for boy

Source: AP

MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — A Minnesota judge has ruled that a 13-year-old boy with a highly treatable form of cancer must seek conventional medical treatment over his parents' objections.

In a 58-page ruling Friday, Brown County District Judge John Rodenberg found that Daniel Hauser has been "medically neglected" and is in need of child protection services.

Rodenberg said Daniel will stay in the custody of his parents, but Colleen and Anthony Hauser have until May 19 to get an updated chest X-ray for their son and select an oncologist

The judge wrote that Daniel has only a "rudimentary understanding at best of the risks and benefits of chemotherapy. ... he does not believe he is ill currently. The fact is that he is very ill currently."

Daniel's court-appointed attorney, Philip Elbert, called the decision unfortunate.




Read more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hEYZV56pCa-jEce4SqgGInTCiwGwD986Q82G1

What happens with families where the parents want to do the right thing but don't have the necessary money or insurance?

care. There's no such thing as "can't afford" for kids with cancer.

Plus we have some great children's hospitals and cancer hospitals that take the indigent.

Adults with cancer are pretty much screwed, however, if they have any assets like a home or car or business and can't afford insurance or care.

It's called Cover TN.

http://www.covertn.gov/

Yep, Mr. Steroid Junky himself is threatening all kinds of massive budget cuts if he doesn't get his way on Tuesday!

for low income people.

He's planning on cutting a lot of it.

Unfortunate for who?


or is it "whom"?

I have the same question, Z, and will read the story for further info.

Having done so, I can't say I'm pleased with the attorney. He got the result, tho.

'Daniel's court-appointed attorney, Philip Elbert, called the decision unfortunate.

"I feel it's a blow to families," he said. "It marginalizes the decisions that parents face every day in regard to their children's medical care. It really affirms the role that big government is better at making our decisions for us."

Elbert said he hadn't spoken to his client yet. The phone line at the Hauser home in Sleepy Eye in southwestern Minnesota had a busy signal Friday. The parents' attorney had no immediate comment but planned to issue a statement.

Daniel was diagnosed with Hodgkin's lymphoma and stopped chemotherapy in February after a single treatment. He and his parents opted instead for "alternative medicines" based on their religious beliefs.'

and other lifelong things. however, I would never rule out a treatment for my kids. they are however only just now understanding how chemo affects kids. damned if you do, damned if you don't. I hope he gets well.

Is a life of low quality better than letting it end more quickly?

Isn't this the same issue everyone was up in arms about over Terry Schiavo?

I remember one case in Chicago - this Jehovah's Witness family wasn't letting their 4 yr old daughter have a blood transfusion.
The headlines were all bat shit crazy about folks who love their religion more than their kids.

Like you are saying, there should be consideration of quality of life. And that was what the parents were wrestling with - those quality of life issues.

The parents came out and spoke to some indie reporters, and in that interview they revealed that they loved their daughter so much that if it were true that a single blood transfusion would save her, they would oppose their faith and have her under go the transfusion.

But that wasn't the case. The case was that she would need weekly transfusions, for years, and even then, she only had a 16% chance of beating her disease. The family felt their child just had had enough in terms of what procedures she should undergo.

Maybe some of us would make a different decision - but don't parents have rights about when enough is enough?

wrong place

Terry Shiavo was *brain dead*. She was gone. She was no more. The essence that was her had ceased to be.

Someone stop me before this turns into the parrot sketch.

Withholding treatment because it *may* have consequences that lead to quality of life issues is in no way, shape or form the "same issue" as the tragedy that befell Terry Schiavo.

Who year in and year out see parents insist that their dying kids have yet another treatment, and another, and another, with the kids hanging in there because the parents will not let them go, and finally in the end all the treatments did was cause agony upon agony. The kids still die.

Major illnesses are not like what you see on the Hallmark channel. If you want to, when you get a terminal illness, you can live your last three years throwing up, going blind, having operation after operation, including your chin and mouth mostly amputated, with headaches, bone crushing pain etc for every moment 24/7 and never knowing a moment free from pain, but that would not be my choice for me. Or if I had a child, for that child.

We put our animals down when the vet says "Chances are slim, and they will never have a pain free moment." But we have this fucked up idealogy that says that humans should suffer and suffer for the heroics of fighting a disease.

There's at least a 90% chance this child would get better with treatment.

Believe me, the media is all about stroking a situation into controversy, as they need to sell the newspapers.

This is just wrong.

However, the reality would be the kid dies...So, I guess if this was allowed to go on that it would eventually solve itself by thining the gene pool of stupidity.

doesn't make it so. We put a lot of store in their bags of poison.

In a court, medical science trumps voodoo.

you assert the superiority of your faith to the faith of the parents.

Since you are obviously hostile to "religion," put it in the context of another First Amendment Freedom. "You can be as liberal as you want. But because your voodoo beliefs are inimical to the interests of a free state, you can't hold office or vote."

Anyone of any religious belief can hold office or vote. In fact, they are welcome, as representatives of people who elected them, to propose law on that basis.

Under our law, medical science is not a "faith". You can work to change that through the democratic process, and you can get as many voodoo believers as you want to change the law.

However, in a contest between a child's medical necessity - as determined by testimony of those the state has licensed to exercise medical judgment - and that of the parent's religion, then the child's medical necessity wins. That's the law.

I have no issue with changing the law through the democratic process. The way things stand, the argument that medical science is a "faith" is a non-starter.

By the way, you severely misunderstand the law's position here. The parent's religious belief is not at all "inimical to the interests of a free state." It is within the very context of a free state that this matter came before a court and their position was heard. The free state provides a court system which is populated in some states by direct election, and in other states by appointment of elected officials. The free state provides a court system which operates by rules determined by elected officials. The parents here had a voice in the system which not only determined the forum and the rules by which it operates, but they were also given a full opportunity to have their claim adjudicated and heard in that forum. They further retain the right to appeal that judgment within the appellate system provided by the free state in which they are full participants.

I have no opinion on the underlying case here, but due process has been served and there is yet further process available to the parents. That is their right, and they are getting it. I personally have absolutely no idea on the subject of whether the doctors or parents were "right" in any sense, as I do not know the facts, have not taken testimony and other evidence, and would not be qualified or able to form an independent professional medical opinion. What I said is "in a court, medical science trumps voodoo". Apparently what you need to do is to get more shamans elected to office. That is your right.

In fact the state is not taking custody of the child away or interfering with any other parental right or obligation. All that has happened is that after due consideration of the parents' position, a court has ruled that it is medical negligence as defined under the relevant state law to deny this child what the court has determined to be in the child's best interests as a matter of medical necessity.

If medical science were some kind of supervening "faith", then quite frankly there would have been nothing to hear in a court. But that is not what happened here.

And interfering with a constitutionally protected right to prevent mere "medical negligence" is statist authoritarianism. Exercised to prevent what is likely a bad result, to be sure, but that becomes an argument that the nature of the ends justifies the means.

Children have a right to support and protection by their parents, and this includes a right against neglect including medical neglect.

The situation here involves a balancing of competing rights and interests.

As this is in a state court, I will admit ignorance of the relevant state constitution.

Again, there is a right to appeal this ruling.

Your problem is not with "statist authoritarianism". Your problem is with judicial authority in a democratic system.

Incidentally, this was not about "religion" at all. The reason for the parent's refusal to consent to the procedure is irrelevant. If their refusal to consent was simply based on "I don't feel like it", the result would be the same. The application of law here is completely neutral to whether the reason was a religious or non-religious one.

You don't get to break a neutral law merely on the basis of a "religion excuse". My religion says I must drive 75 on the interstate, but that didn't help me in traffic court.

Like Jehovah's Witnesses not having to pledge allegiance to the flag.

We'll have to disagree about whether children are entitled to any "additional rights."

This is child abuse...End of story! Religion is not a free ticket to killing your child.

Now, although I would never want this to happen, the darwinian in me says let stupidity run its course thus reducing the chance of such an insane religious virus spreading.

nt

The JW's pursued the pivotal case on that, but it is not correct that JW's get some kind of "pass" on that. No student can be compelled to say the pledge for whatever reason or no reason. That was the outcome, and it applies to everybody.

Most state statutes on liquor, for example, will include a blanket religious exemption so that minors can take communion (in those faiths where the wine is taken by all), but again those statutes are neutral as to any sort of religious ceremony.

I would add that this is another of those cases that shows the extreme distrust, even hostility, that americans have against "experts". This notion that someone might know more about some subject than oneself, and even, shudder at the thought, have his opinion count for more than one's own when action is needed, seems to be totally apalling to americans. As if it were some sort of undemocratic thing. It is an aspect of the extreme anti-intellectualism in the US which I find particularly offensive at times.

Unlike religion, it actually proves itself reliable.

in the Terri Schiavo case?

"On October 15, 2003, Schiavo's feeding tube was removed. Within a week, when the Schindlers' final appeal was exhausted, the Florida Legislature hastily passed "Terri's Law," giving Governor Jeb Bush the authority to intervene in the case. Bush immediately ordered the feeding tube reinserted. Bush sent the Florida Department of Law Enforcement to remove Schiavo from the hospice. She was taken to Morton Plant Rehabilitation Hospital in Clearwater, where her feeding tube was surgically reinserted."

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

No, I did not, and do not agree with Jeb Bush, nor do I believe that particular statute would survive challenge.

Going a long way back to such cases as Quinlan and its federal progeny, it has long been determined that the individual right to refuse medical care is a fundamental right. This statute assigns the governor of Florida plenary power to abridge that right. The statute will not survive Constitutional scrutiny.

Can the legislature pass a statute? Sure. But this was a showboating piece of clearly unconstitutional legislation.

But thank you for attributing to me an opinion which I do not have. It is a required feature of discussion on DU to do that.

So, I take it that you do not believe that statutes are subject to Constitutional challenge or in the rule of law? You see how fun that is?

But I perceive that you are of a particularly legalistic bent.

In Schiavo's case, you had the parents asserting their religious beliefs against what the court had determined was Terri Schiavo's right of self determination.

Same here.

In both instances the subject could not provide competent testimony as to their decision to accept or refuse medical treatment, so the relevant legal standard applied.

In Schiavo's case, since she was an adult, if there is no living will or medical directive, the court will take testimony from those close to her on what, if anything, she may have previously expressed on the subject. There, the court found that her husband's testimony and other evidence was credible on the subject of her intent.

In this case, we have a minor child, so the court applies a "bests interests" standard - taking the testimony and evidence of the parents, assessment of the child,and testimony and evidence of medical professionals.

It is in fact the position of "the court done wrong" contingent here that is more aligned with the position of Jeb Bush in the Schiavo imbroglio.

The mis-impression here is that the State stepped in and imposed its will on the parties. The state was not involved in this case - it was between the parents and the child, and the case turned on the right of self determination as determined by a "best interests" standard.

Ditto in the Schiavo case - it was about her right of self determination.

Both cases resulted in a court deciding that the patients right of self determination trumped the parents' religiously driven wishes to impose their standards on someone else.

Hence, it is profoundly odd that there would be a question about my "agreement" with Jeb Bush. It is those who object to the court's decision, or its authority to do so, who are in the posture of the "Save Terri" bunch.

If you agreed with the legal process and standards applied to the Schiavo situation, then you should agree with the legal process and standards applied here. I don't see a difference, and further do not agree with the state arrogating the decisionmaking power to itself. I do agree with a state interest in the health of its citizens and youth in particular, which is well within the ordinary general set of state interests. The authority of, for example, S-Chip derives from the same long-recognized state interest.

Then we are in agreement.

...it just seems that some people think that when a court decides between party A and party B, that the "state" has "asserted power", instead of recognizing that the court has merely applied the law to a conflict among private parties.

what I perceive to be the core value of the debate: Who has the power to decide? In my view, the issue is entirely a parental decision because the First Amendment says "No law abridging." A phrase I read to mean "No law abridging." You see a justification for a balancing act and I do not. Not when the constitution clearly says No. Law. Abridging. A balancing act means, maybe a little law abridging.

Furthermore, Schiavo was incapable of expressing an opinion in her brain dead vegetative state. This kid would be a competent witness in any court and has expressed an opinion-he doesn't want the treatment. Sure, he is parroting the religious values of his parents, but I'm ok with that.

That is an absolutely simple question to answer. ONLY the individual in question has the right to decide.

In my view, the issue is entirely a parental decision because the First Amendment says "No law abridging."

That's insane. The parents are free to practice any religion they like. It is not an abridgement of the parents' right of free exercise to deny someone else a right of self determination.

The right to accept or refuse medical treatment belongs solely to the patient, and nobody else.

When the patient is incompetent, the relevant legal standard applies. It has nothing to do with religion.


Furthermore, Schiavo was incapable of expressing an opinion in her brain dead vegetative state. This kid would be a competent witness in any court and has expressed an opinion-he doesn't want the treatment.


You did not read, or did not understand what I wrote.

Neither Schiavo nor this child were presently-competent during either proceeding. The Schiavo case turned on evidence of her expressed views when she was a competent adult.

This child was evaluated as to competence by this court. The child expressed the view that he did not have the illness in question. Hence, the child was deemed incompetent to make the decision.

When the child is determined to be incompetent to make the decision, the decisionmaking power does not "default" to some other individual. The decision is then made on a "best interests" standard, in view of evidence and testimony by all concerned, including medical professionals and the parents.

There is absolutely no abridgement of free exercise here. If the child was found competent to make the decision, then he could refuse treatment or accept treatment.

You are missing the point that whether to accept or refuse medical treatment is a fundamental individual right, which does not belong to some other person to make on your behalf - whether they are your parents, spouse, best friends, or whatever.

This child was every bit as incompetent as Schiavo was in regard to making an informed present decision on the question of refusing treatment. Accordingly, the relevant legal standard was applied in both cases, and it is a standard that is neutrally applied. The fact that the parents were motivated by a religion is absolutely irrelevant because the "bests interests" standard has nothing to do with religion. It is a religiously neutral standard, and thus not an infringement of free exercise.

but I have enjoyed the exchange.

Dogmatic people believe they're always right; scientists make sure they're not doing the wrong thing.

I was thinking about teaching Sagan's Demon-Haunted World next year, and this thread may have pushed me over the limit.

NT!

J

I'd love to say that it helped them. Of the dozen, ten died, and two lived.

As time goes by, the doctors are learning how to use their potions to directly target the cancer cells. But it still is a tricky business.

right-

When you get sick next time just go eat some bark off a live oak and rub your shoulders with squirrel piss. Trust me, you'll get better :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

He can't make decisions for himself, so giving that power to parents who are obviously not fit and endangering the child's life seems like the wrong call to me.

and now the kid (with family) on tv, 'agreeing' with family DR saying 'boy doesn't want it, will refuse it.' HATE that we play this out in public. Its REALLY NOT OUR business.

I always wish I could collapse so much into few words.

You have it utterly correct. Where a patient is deemed incompetent to make a decision, the procedure then is not to go shopping for some other person to make the decision on that person's behalf, but a court has to apply the relevant legal standard to the decision.

The boy is an "elder" in the "religion" at age 13 and is also learning disabled and cannot read.

Who decides what is a legitimate religion?

Just because you think a religion is not legitimate does not make it so. The state deciding which religion is legitimate and which isn't would itself cross the boundary of the establishment clause.

If memory serves there was a rather widely publicized case in the '70s concerning a newly formed religion's rite of consuming peyote as a sacrament.
The ruling went against the church but allowed the rite to continue in the N/A church on the nearby rez.


I'm not calling you on that, as my recollections could very well be wrong. I am not in the legal profession.

that violated the establishment clause.

The act itself was more a policy statement, and it acknowledged prior infringement on the right of freedom of religion for American Indians by denying them their First Amendment right of "free exercise" of religion.<4><5> President Jimmy Carter said, in a statement about the AIRFA, a very similar thing:

In the past, Government agencies and departments have on occasion denied Native Americans access to particular sites and interfered with religious practices and customs where such use conflicted with Federal regulations. In many instances, the Federal officials responsible for the enforcement of these regulations were unaware of the nature of traditional native religious practices and, consequently, of the degree to which their agencies interfered with such practices.

This legislation seeks to remedy this situation.<6>
Section 2 of the AIRFA directs federal agencies to consult with American Indian spiritual leaders to determine appropriate procedures to protect the inherent rights of American Indians, as laid out it the act.<7>
Effects

The 1994 amendment to the act made it legal for peyote to be used for ceremonial purposes in connection with the practice of traditional American Indian religion.<8>

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

Excellent!

my faith demands that I deflower an under aged virgin.
my faith demands I drink the blood of a freshly killed animal.
my faith demands I sell crystal meth to children.
my faith demands I keep women as chattel.
my faith demands I be a pedophile.
my faith demands I let my sick child die.

In other words, my faith demands that I impose my faith on others.

And don't even try to tell me about apples and oranges.

causing them to impose that faith on this family.

:rofl:

The doctors didn't decide this case. A court did.

One can argue about religious freedom and constitutional rights; but access to modern medicine is, next to access to food and sanitation, one of the most important BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS that there is.

Protecting that right is one of the few things that I would be prepared to die for. I would certainly die without it!

I believe that in 1990, during the Smith case, the Court read the Free Exercise Clause as protecting religious beliefs, not religious practices that run counter to neutrally enforced criminal and civil laws.

An adult can decide not to take chemo for religious reasons but cannot impose that decision on the child who has a separate right protected by the judicial process which weighs the medical evidence. A person who believes in being bit by snakes to prove his/her spirituality does not have the right to have his/her child bit to prove the same. When the child is older, the child can make that decision. I respectfully disagree and believe this is the right decision.

At his age, I was spiritually mature enough to make that decision - in fact I was by age 11. My core religious beliefs have changed very little since then. I first challenged the school rules based on my religious beliefs at age 12 (on my own initiative, with my parents' support, in connection with the Vietnam war). I did so again at age 14. The teacher tried to call my bluff, and her lack of recognition that I had serious faith based objections to the manner in which she used dissections in biology probably cost me the valedictorian slot 3 years later. I took the grade hit that she felt duty bound to impose once she had made the threat (we've talked about it since then, so that is not just my biased perception). I am not saying that these are as serious decisions as medical v. spiritual treatment - just that chronological age should not be the determining factor as to whether a child has sincerely held religious beliefs of his own regarding a particular treatment.

Explore with him what the basis for those beliefs is. Explore how deep they are. Explore how the spiritual reasoning that leads him to this decision would play out in other scenarios. It should be fairly clear whether the parents are imposing that position, or whether it is a sincerely held belief of the child.

It is in fact why the child had an appointed attorney to argue the child's position.

The court ruled the way it did only upon full hearing of all parties.

I was responding to the poster who suggested that the child should not have the right to make faith based decisions until he was older.

I don't comment on court decisions until I read them (which I haven't in this case), since I rarely see a court decision correctly reported/interpreted by the media. As a general matter, however, having a appointed attorney does not necessarily mean the child's interests are protected - or even heard by the court.

When my (same gender) spouse tried to adopt our daughter (with full support of all relatives, our faith community, and our neighbors), she had a court appointed attorney ostensibly to protect her interests. Even though the role of a guardian ad litem is to protect the interests of the child, in our case she never determined whether it was in our daughter's best interests to have a legal relationship to both of us or not. Her role (as she perceived it) was solely to provide a counter-argument to our legal argument that state law permitted the adoption. Without reading the opinion in this case (and potentially the court records), I don't know whether this particular attorney served a true guardian ad litem role, or solely to argue the side the court that appointed him wanted argued.

Courts regularly deal with the question of whether a minor is otherwise capable of making various decisions, particularly in the context of emancipated minors. So, yes, a court is competent to determine whether this child had capacity to make the decision in question.

On the second point, a judgment based on one side of any argument is not a sound judgment. So, yes, I can see where a guardian ad litem will take "the other side" of a proposition for the purpose of ensuring that the judgment reflects a full and fair hearing of the issue.

what they are competent to do.

Again, my response had nothing to do with whether this particular court handled the matter properly. My response was to the suggestion by the poster that the right to make faith based decisions should be age based.

I have not read this opinion, so I have no idea how well this court handled the matter. However as someone who has reviewed, and drafted opinions reversing, lower courts that have acted improperly I can tell you that for a variety of reasons they do not always get it right. That is why appellate courts exist.

As to our case, a guardian ad litem's role is to act as the advocate for the child's best interests - not as the advocate of a well argued case.

IF the guardian ad litem first determines that the parents are not acting in the best interest then it is that GAL's duty to oppose the parents.

On the other hand, if the guardian ad litem determines that the parents are acting in the best interest of the child it is similarly the GAL's duty to argue in support of the parents.

In an adoption by heterosexual parents in which a GAL was appointed, no one would seriously suggest that the child's GAL should oppose the adoptive parents just to make sure there is a full and fair hearing of the issues. It was equally inappropriate here.

The word "competent" in this context means that the court is given the legal capacity to make a determination. I did not mean it in the colloquial sense. Courts indeed are fallible, but the role we have assigned them is in the context of a democratic society.

Secondly, the determination of "the child's best interest" is the court's, not the GAL. It is assumed the child and parents have competing interests. Otherwise, we could dispense with the court and just go with whatever the GAL says.

"The role of guardian ad litem is to investigate the ward's situation and then to ask the court to do what the guardian feels is in the ward's best interest." In re Baby Girl Baxter (1985), 17 Ohio St.3d 229, 232 (emphasis added). (Supreme Court of Ohio articulating the roles of attorney and GAL as part of deciding a case in which it was alleged that that the attorney's obligation to zealously advocate for his client (a mentally incompetent mother) conflicted with his role as GAL for that same mentally incompetent mother.)

In cases involving juvenile v. parental rights, a GAL is appointed because the child's interests MAY differ from the parents. It is not assumed they are different, nor it it assumed they are the same. The GAL is to advocate for whatever the GAL, after investigation, believes to be in the best interests of the child. Even when all parties are in agreement as to what is in the best interests of the child, the court still makes the final call.

Other states may have slight variations, since the role is a creature of state law - but I am unaware of any state in which the GAL's role is provide a counter-argument to the parents' attorneys without first investigating and determining that the child's interest are adverse to the parents' interests.

wrong spot

In fact, the boy's testimony is that he does not believe he is ill.

That alone is sufficient to determine that he is not competent to make this decision, and that a "best interests" standard must be applied.

The boy's decision to refuse treatment is based upon his objectively incorrect belief that he is not ill.

on others. For example, human sacrifice. You can believe all you want in human sacrifice, you just cannot practice it. Likewise you, as an adult, can refuse medical treatment for any reason you want. However if you attempt to impose your beliefs on your minor child, the state has a legitimate interest in protecting that child, who is not a consenting adult, from the harm that your religious beliefs will cause.

You do not have the right to murder by neglect. Murder by superstition.

If the parents can prove that their god wants this to happen, or is gonna save the boy, or that saving his life is somehow going to undermine their religion, fine. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. All those who have used the treatment before haven't harmed the parents' religion. The extraordinary cure has proven itself. Has the parents' claim?

You are just wrong.

The parents have a belief, based in their own religious practice. In order to say that they must prove something, you demand an impossibility-that they prove the "truth" of their religion. No one is capable of doing that. Religions depend on faith.

In the meantime, the State is taking the position that it knows better than the parents and that it's interest in doing what it believes to be in the best interests of the child is more important than the right of the parents to follow their own faith. I agree with you that the parental belief is more likely than not going to result in the death of this child. But I am not willing to supplant their wishes and beliefs in thae name of state interest. That, to me, violates the Establishment Clause.

The State is balancing the parents rights to practice their religion against the child's right to receive competent medical treatment in the best professional judgment of a qualified medical professional.

The State has ruled in favor of the child in this case.

And, quite frankly, the way this whole dance works is that the parents WANT the State to do that, so they will not have "sinned" by making the decision themselves. It is something of a common hypocrisy among Jehovah's Witnesses when it comes to blood transfusions and other medical procedures to which they object.

Parents do not have a right to harm their children in the course of practicing their religion and indeed raising their children in that religion. Parents do have a lot of control over children, but parents also have certain legal responsibilities for the care of those children.

In this case, the State has determined that the parents were being medically negligent according to the relevant standard, and on the evidence presented has enjoined the parents from preventing treatment that has been determined to be medically necessary on the testimony of qualified medical professionals.

You seem to misunderstand both the role of the court and the meaning of the decision.

Facts are going to beat mythology every time, in a rational world. And thank goodness for that.

This case, as the Schiavo case, was about a right of self determination. Both cases involved a subject not presently capable of making that determination.

It is not the "state" versus anyone. It is simply the court applying the relevant legal standard to a conflict among private parties over the right of self determination.

If the boy were found competent to make his own health care decisions, he could indeed refuse the treatment, just as any adult may voluntarily refuse medical treatment. The court here found that the boy did not in fact believe he was ill, and hence was not competent. In that case, the court must apply a "best interests" standard independent of what the parents wanted.

I wouldn't make it out to be any more than that.

Child preotective services is notified by the doc. They, in turn notify the County Attorney who brings the petition. Looks, sounds and smells a hell of a lot like the State of Minnesota to me.

The parents were not in court for violating some kind of mandate imposed by the state. It is the court which imposed the order.

NT!

No law abridging means none in my language.

There are a lot of legal precedents for this, for example requiring JW parents to get kids needed blood transfusions or Christian Scientists to take sick kids to the doctor. When kids die as a result of religiously mandated medical neglect most jurisdictions prosecute.

Religion does not give you the right to neglect or abuse a child. Sorry.

Medical ethics, and the laws of most countries, generally accept that an adult has the right to refuse medical treatment, even if this will mean their death, if they think their God demands this; but they don't have the same right to refuse treatment for a child.

Hodgkins is cured in most cases if appropriate treatment is given, so it's particularly awful to deny a child this chance.

just not right. Adults can do whatever legal stupidity they want in name of above mentioned voodoo.

and with any good fortune, so can this boy.

says "no law abridging." So you support that except when you might not like the result?

The court ruled. The parents can appeal. It is the Constitutional system.

This was a "right to refuse treatment" case involving an incompetent patient.

Religion had utterly nothing to do with it.

The result, by the way, would be the same even if the parent's refusal was based on the fact that they simply do not believe that chemotherapy works.

Removing religion as a factor here does not change the result.

That's how you know that no free exercise right was infringed.

This species of case is as old as the hills, and I get a distinct impression the general subject of "right of refusal" cases is new to you.

is certainly not new territory. Never been involved in one of them, but it's not new territory.

....that you had to starve you kids? Would that be acceptable?

....you must beat your children daily with a belt for no other reason than you religion demands it? Would that be acceptable?

....that you must force your child to drink a fifth of vodka everyday? Would this be acceptable?

....that you must lock your child in a 3x3 box for 18 hours a day? Would that be acceptable?


There are certain things that parents can do that gets the state involved. Neglect is one of them. This is a simple case of the parents neglecting their ill child.

believers. It would also be none of the state's business. I read "no law abridiging" to mean "no law abridging."

on an internet board anywhere must send me $100 immediately!

Please PM me for my home address so that you can mail cash, check, or money order.

Thank you, and thank you for supporting the completely unbridled intrusion of my religion into your life!

anything having anything to do with Texas.

unlike many of the carpetbaggers who have made their way here in recent years.

So I have no choice but to baptize you into....TEXAS HEAVEN!

(Whether you want it or not. It's for your own good.)

Good thing about Texas Heaven - no special underwear required!

;)

The decision isn't wrong at all -- it' a good one that protects minors.

That does not mean that their child will embrace these same beliefs after attaining the age of reason.

The child should not die simply FOR THEIR PARENT's beliefs, no more than parents should die because of their children's beliefs.

In fact, NO ONE should have to die simply because of SOMEONE ELSE's religious or superstitious beliefs.

You have your individual freedom of religion right up to the point that your "freedom" results in the death of another individual.

And then you don't.

Fuck the religion argument, thrice.

can this boy catch a break, somewhere?

it's chief offers spiritual adoption for a $250 fee and ongoing donations monthly.

Then there there are the book and DVD courses on becoming a medicine man that he sells.

groups to discredit these "new age" flim-flam artists who take advantage of stupid people while commodifying phony Indian spiritual healing practices.

http://www.startribune.com/local/44755337.html?elr=KArksUUUU

If a child severs an artery are the parents allowed to refuse and not seek medical attention and simply pray? How about breaking a leg? Hit by a car? Cannot breathe?

I can remember a classmate in grade school in the early 60s who had a simple cut and died from tetanus because his parents were JWs and refused medical attention for the boy. I wonder now about his rights and if he knew his chances of dying and how easy it would have been to save his life.

It is a fact-specific situation in which a court may consider a variety of factors.

Parents can obtain or refuse all manner of medical treatments for their child. When you get into a question of grave risk of life or permanent impairment, then things go to court.

The line is drawn at medical necessity in view of a probable grave result. In the example you gave, death was not a certain result of the parent's decision. Yes, it worked out that way, and a medical professional may have advised a given procedure, but would not have said "this kid is going to die if you don't".

I could give two blanks about the parents' religious rights in cases like this. Given the choice between a dead child because of their religious-backed neglect and the child living because the state forced them to allow medical treatments, well, damn, I think I'd be happier with the child alive, and then I can complain all I want.

Sorry to be harsh, but this rubs me the same way as deaf parents who won't allow their children to have cochlear implants because they want them to be a part of "deaf culture". No remorse when I say those parents should be smacked. They're using their own selfish beliefs to keep their kids from being able to experience all aspects of the wonder and joy of this world and being able to participate in ways they could never because of their deafness.

Damn.

These kinds of people should not be allowed to take care of children. They selfishly think of their own needs first. There is no such thing as a cultural issue that trumps a child's right to life. Same for religion. Any culture or religion that says he ought to die hates children.

In the WI case the parents let their 11 year old daughter die. She was in a diabetic coma and they never got her care. She had not been to a doctor since she was three years old. That little girl suffered before she died. I am sure the parents will get off because they will be found "to have suffered enough."

I thought the BOY said he did not want the treatment, but since he is only 13 and it was his parents who made the decision to not allow him to be treated then I fully agree with the Judge. So, what kind of religious nuts are these people?

-In the early 1900s an astute Indiana physician, Dr. W.B. Clarke, stated "Cancer was practically unknown until compulsory vaccination with cowpox vaccine began to be introduced. I have had to deal with two hundred cases of cancer, and I never saw a case of cancer in an unvaccinated person."-

Now they want to inject more poisons into him. Poor kid.

does not mean that "A" caused "B"

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=19211300

And in Italy in the 1400's:

http://www.biomedexperts.com/Abstract.bme/11640164/Malignant_tumor_in_the_mummy_of_Ferrante_Ist_of_Aragon_King_of_Naples_1431-1494

And boy, those Egyptians must have been vaccinating the hell out of themselves:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/xu35qg942m367329/

The ancient Persians, Greeks, Egyptians, etc. were known to prescribe, for medical purposes, substances to be taken internally such as Mercury, Arsenic, Sulfur and Antimony.

How is the mercury the Ancients took any less dangerous than the mercury and other toxins being given in recent years to babies in the form of vaccines?

The doctor I quoted, was speaking from his own experiences with his own patients at the beginning of the 19th century. I believe him. If the Ancients also injested such things as mercury and arsenic, then it would not surprise me to learn they also had cancer.

This doctor you quote stated "Cancer was practically unknown until compulsory vaccination with cowpox vaccine began to be introduced. I have had to deal with two hundred cases of cancer, and I never saw a case of cancer in an unvaccinated person."

When I pointed out numerous cases of ancient tumors, you create a vague hypothesis that ancient tumors were due to chemical poisoning.

What is funny is that the doctor you quoted made no mention of chemicals causing tumors, despite the widespread applications of some of the very chemicals you mentioned during his time. Mercury, arsenic and sulfur were common treatments for diseases, especially STD's, well into the late 19th century. This doctor would have been aware of these chemicals, yet makes no mention of them.

Furthermore, chemicals such as mercury and sulfur are NOT carcinogenic. You don't get tumors from mercury.

Your excuses for a 100-year old doctor are just sad.

Do your research. There were two schools of Medicine in the USA at one point. They both had their teaching colleges and were both respected. People could choose the type of medical care they wanted. One school, the one that believed in such woo woo things as osteopaths and chiropractors and natural healers was forcibly driven out by the allopathic. They managed to plant their members in politics and gain the edge. It is not about one doctor. There are books of statistics that show shameful manipulations of the truth by these early allopathic doctors. Most of these facts have been supressed to the point that anyone who dares question the chemical medicine of today is considered a quack. Read some of the old literature written by very distinguished medical people around that time and you will start to see that a great crime has been committed by only offering one brand of medicine.

No, you may not get cancer directly from mercury or sulfur, etc. The problem is that these things offer a quick fix to a certain problem, and then leave the body vulnerable to slow-moving diseases like cancer and other long-term illnesses. There is a lot of documentation of this in these books - scientific documentation by the leading doctors of both schools of medicine from the time.

The Germans also long, long ago -- when we had many fewer cases of cancer --

gave information on it. I'll see if I can find the info on it later.

I think it's in "Rise of the Fourth Reich" . . . !!!

Cancer has been around for a very long time. Smallpox vaccine didn't "start" cancer. Seriously and sincerely: educate yiurself, because this is just foolish. What utter hogwash.

Researchers have been investigating the links between vaccines and other diseases for decades. Most of the time any investigations are buried by the medical establishment. Some very greatest minds of the past century, after having seen the literature, have come out against vaccines. Perhaps YOU need to do YOUR research.

Just one incident I quickly found on-line:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/07/15/MN193825.DTL

"A growing number of medical researchers fear that a monkey virus that contaminated polio vaccine given to tens of millions of Americans in the 1950s and '60s may be causing rare human cancers."

"First discovery, 1988

In Boston, two researchers stumbled onto something disturbing.

Dr. Robert Garcea and his assistant, Dr. John Bergsagel, were using a powerful new tool called polymerase chain reaction, or PCR, to look for a pair of common human viruses in children's brain tumors.

The findings were troubling. The researchers noted in their published report that the children were too young to have received the contaminated vaccine. But somehow the virus had infected them and embedded itself in their tumors."

from the San Francisco Chronicle
July 2001

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/simian-virs-40

"Those exposed to SV40 had a lower overall cancer risk than those not exposed. Furthermore, they did not have an increased incidence of mesothelioma, brain tumors (including ependymoma and choroid plexus tumors), osteosarcoma and other bone tumors, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, or testicular cancer, compared to those not exposed to the virus."

"Some very greatest minds of the past century, after having seen the literature, have come out against vaccines."

Care to tell us the names of a few of these "greatest minds" that have come out against vaccinations?

Buried by the medical establishment? Are YOU being paid to post this bullshit?

I could give you many, many names of people famous in their day in medical circles, but I doubt most people today would know not who they were. I CAN give you some names of more famous people who joined with the anti-vaccination campaigns of the time. Clarence Darrow, while not strictly anti-vaccine, would not take them himself. He believed that if someone wanted a vaccine, let them have it, but others must never be forced to take them. George Bernard Shaw, who learned about vaccines while working as a member of a Health Committee in London discovered that disastrous results from vaccines were being suppressed. He said, "I have no doubt whatever that vaccination is an unscientific abomination and should be made a criminal practice" Others include British Prime Ministers Gladstone and Asquith; Bismarck of Germany; Voltaire; Victor Hugo; C.K. Chesterton; Henry Ford; Luther Burbank; Thos. A. Edison; and Mark Twain.

As for being buried by the medical establishment...have YOU ever heard about these men coming out about vaccines before? Are you really so naive to believe that the medical establishment does not play dirty? Are you following the Merck trial in Australia going happening right now? Merck was caught creating phony medical journals that they distributed to physician's offices, claiming that their drugs were superior - based on (fake) peer studies - than other drugs. Lies, lies and more lies. Believe what you want. Take any drugs you want. Just don't expect everyone to buy into all the medical b.s.

And how many decades ago did he form this opinion? For that matter, did you have any names that were, I don't know, from people who didn't die decades ago?

And here I thought I might have an intelligent discussion. I can see I'd just be wasting my breath. Good day.

and if one is to take their expertise in their own fields as implying expertise in others, then one could end up endorsing some very strange views - e.g. Henry Ford was pro-Nazi.

I really doubt that Voltaire was involved in anti-vaccination campaigns, as he died in 1778, and Jenner introduced the smallpox vaccination in 1796.

Merck didn't originate vaccinations. Just because there is corruption in the Pharma industry, doesn't mean that all modern medicine is bad. That is like saying that because most democracies have corruption, one should go back to the (far more corrupt) days of monarchy and feudalism.

'(Darrow) believed that if someone wanted a vaccine, let them have it, but others must never be forced to take them'

I actually agree with this in most circumstances and think that compulsory vaccination is only justified in serious public health emergencies. Instead, vaccination should be universally available, recommended and free. If not universally available and free - then one is not letting poorer people have it. But if anyone tries to deny me or my family access to any form of modern medicine, then they might at least be preventing themselves from getting cancer, as I just might murder them with my bare hands!

...which happened around the same time.

You have provided no basis to believe that cowpox vaccine is any more of a cause than the automobile.

I doubt that occurred to either one of you.

Americans in the 1800's who went to China, discovered that the Chinese were inoculating people against smallpox by placing a tiny amount of the pox on the tip of a needle and placing the needle gently into the skin of the healthy patient. The patient was then put to bed, and in a day or two smallpox would appear on the patient's body. A few days after that, their immune system would have prevailed and the pox would begin to disappear. This was a popular thing, and many people from other countries would go to China to have this done - much like going to a spa and having a health procedure done today. The patient would recover quickly, he would be immune from further smallpox, and he would have no long term left-over effects from toxic medications of the sort that modern medicine can carry.

This procedure was used in the USA for a while, until certain powerful medical groups took control of the vaccination process. Their resulting toxic soup was meant to keep a person from ever getting smallpox at all. People at one time had a CHOICE as to which method they could use. Now, we are only offered (forced) to go the chemical vaccine route.

Because vaccination has eradicated smallpox. So no one is forced to have the vaccine - indeed it would be very difficult to get it, unless one is in certain very rare medical research or military groups.

It's not only in China that the form of inoculation that you mention was used; it was used in a number of places before cowpox vaccination was devised. Usually they used a small amount of pus from people who had had a mild case of smallpox. It was safer than just risking exposure to full-blown smallpox, but less safe than the later form of vaccination. It did sometimes cause the full-blown disease.

I do not see how cowpox vaccination is a 'toxic soup' while inoculation with pus from people with smallpox is not!

ETA: Far fewer people died of old age before modern medicine than now. In Britain 100 years ago, one in six babies never reached their first birthday.

than cancer does.

In particular, for this case, which appears to be highly responsive to treatment, do you have any evidence that 'chemotherapy kills more people than cancer does'?

Here I'll help you out: it is Hodgkin's lymphoma and with aggressive treatment positive outcomes are on the order of 90% while no treatment results in around almost certain fatality.

and had chemo is now alive and well and the mother of two healthy children.

I'm glad that people with views like yours, and that of this poor kid's parents, did not prevail in her case.

Hodgkins is cured about 90% of the time with appropriate medical treatment, and is almost invariably fatal without it.

are not toxic to the system. You may not believe it but that does not mean it is not true.

Details please.

a 90% success rate?

I believe good nutrition and good mental outlook definitely helps, but traditional medicine is the only that that can either cure or retard cancer.

We all know plenty more who died within a year or two (or less) of chemo treatment. It all comes down, IMHO, to the soil. If the individual's immune system (soil) is able to overcome the effects of the chemo drugs, then that person might survive better than someone with a weaker immune system. It is not the chemo that "cures" the patient, but the patient's immune system. I knew a Romanian woman whose father was diagnosed with cancer. His Romanian DR. told him to only eat vegetables for one year. He did, and his cancer went into remission. Every body is different. To say that chemo is the only answer is false. And for the medical establishment to say that everyone MUST take their chemo drugs, as in the case of this boy, is misguided.

:rofl:

And, ONLY eating vegetables for a year would either kill you or destroy your health, including your immune system.

Tell that to my husband who had cancer at age 25, and is doing great at age 50.

After three rounds of chemo and three months of radiation.

with an alternative treatment? Oncologists will tell you that we all have cancer cells in our bodies and usually the immune system can control them.

and woo woo snake oil doesn't.

but the woo woo snake oil promoters won't subject their mystery oils to rigorous testing to see if they work. Do instead we just get assertions and blusters.

There certainly have been examples of traditional herbal remedies that would qualify as 'woo woo snake oil' that ended up as effective medicines. But they went through the process of proving their merits.

My point is that 'woo woo snake oils' could be valid traditional medicine - and some have proven themselves out - but they have to go through the same testing process we use for proving any new drug. When the snake oil proponents won't subject their treatments to testing - run away.

Double blind tests and replicated results are the only way to know if any treatment works.

Once you have clinically recognizable cancer, there is very little chance of recovery without treatment. On the other hand, many people are cured of cancer with treatment.

If someone has a form of cancer with a very low survival rate, then it might be more of a dilemma whether to go with the chemo; but Hodgkins is not in that category.

If you get it, you will die, whether it's six months or 16 years. It will kill you.

And, everyone doesn't have cancer in them, they have cells which CAN become cancerous.

Good post.

His body immediately responded to the chemo, and the football-size tumor in his abdomen shrank to half its size during the first round of chemo. The results were immediate. The pain stopped the first day, he could eat anything he wanted the second day. The tumor was gone after the second round.

His cancer was very fatal until a doctor discovered the combo of meds he got two years before he developed the disease. A 95% death rate turned around to a 95% cure rate.

He had lost 75 pounds in four months while the doctors dicked around treating him for tapeworm, lactose intolerance, etc. Don't think I totally trust doctors, but having seen what happened with my own eyes I would not for one second NOT try conventional cancer treatments first.

He also gained back all the weight and then some on chemo. Of course, part of that was the eating program I put him on, but it was the chemo that made it possible.

(Hodgkin's survivor since 1980. Chemo and radiation.)

I had chemo for non-Hodgkins lymphoma - similar to what this boy will have. It wasn't that bad. And I've been free of cancer for 10 years.

nt

Please tell it to my sister, who beat osteosarcoma with 6 rounds of chemo and major surgery. When they tested the tumor, they found 99% necrosis. 30 years ago, before chemotherapy, osteosarcoma was a death sentence.

1.In January of this year I lost my 9 year old son to cancer

2.1st amendment religious freedoms, Article VI prohibitions on religious tests, and Jefferson's push for the separation of Church and State are my defining political motivations. In my opinion, our country's tolerance for religious diversity is one of the top issues that define us, and set us apart from other governments.

3.I am decidedly religious, though not at all Christian

I can tell you only this - I fought tooth and nail to get every bit of help, treatment, and therapy for my child that was humanly possible. If there were a chance to save the life of my child, I took it. I prayed with my child every day, and drove him diligently-and often aggressively-in his physical therapy. Near the end, when a doctor questioned my faith, and told me she didn't deal in the realm of prayer and the power of hope, I told her that I didn't expect her too. Those were my duties, and as she was paid to specialize in Oncology, I expected her to do everything within her training to save my son. I didn't interfere with her work, and I would not let her interfere with mine.

Anyone who could watch their son or daughter slowly waste away, stand by while they suffered constant pain, sat still through frightening weight loss, and refused medical help of any kind while their helpless child slowly but inexorably withered toward certain death, does not, in my eyes, deserve to be a parent. It is cruelty beyond belief.

The child I see in the photograph looks reasonably healthy, for the moment. But when worse days come, and they will, and the child looks as if they had been prisoner in a concentration camp, the parents may change their minds and seek help. By then, unfortunately, it will probably be too late.

You are a wonderful parent. Thank you for all you did for your child.

:hug:

The judge should also order those parents to report for daily kicks-in-the-asses. Morons, nothing is more important then your children!

God entirely out of it.

the Grand No Party will spin this as the government getting between a patient and their medical provider.

You, too, can be spiritually adopted into the Nemenhah Band and Native American Traditional Organization. All you need to do is fill out the following form and mail a check for $250: http://www.nemenhah.org/images/pdf/NemenhahIndividualAdoptionForm.pdf

You may need to send in monthly dues.

Seriously, if this isn't a scam, I am not an old coot.....

at what point do we consider the percentage of people cured by whatever methodology to be the determinative factor? Does a family have the right to refuse torturous treatment for it's children when the chance of recovery is less than 50%? If so, then what is the exact percentage needed before we mandate treatment of minors?

Medical "science" is not always as clear cut as in this case. And hard cases make bad law.

Nobody was alone in the court. The testimony and evidence of both sides is considered.

Courts do not decide the type of questions you are asking. Courts decide the controversy before them.

and especially if this case is appealed, the decision will be used to defend a situation that is lesser "clear cut", and so on down the line.

Is not some "rule" that says "medicate the child".

What you typically have from the appellate court is a list of "factors" that a court is to weigh in a given fact-specific situation. Appeals decisions are also frequently expressly confined to their own facts.

Ultimately, the way the system works is that if there is some sort of perceived problem with the direction the courts are going, then the legislature is to provide a clearer and more mechanical rule, or assign weights to the factors.

Clearly, this case does raise some qualms. We want to let people raise their families in those families' traditions, but we also don't want to see harm come to children as a result of slavish obedience to those traditions.

Doing it by the book is not "slavish obedience to traditions". Law does change, and typically faster than traditions.

The longer "tradition" here, really, is that children are chattel of their parents, who may do as they please with and to them, and that is the tradition which dominates in much of the world, and has dominated in much of this country's history. The notion that children have independent rights and interests worthy of legal respect is, in fact, the more modern and progressive idea in play in this case.

It is unfortunate, because I can no longer credibly threaten to sell my children to the gypsies, but that sort of parental threat has a historical basis.

Could a judge, for instance, order a minor to undergo a heart transplant?

This particular case seems pretty clear to me: there's an excellent chance the kid will live with medical treatment and an excellent chance he'll die without it. The judge did the right thing.

One involved my grandmother, who was about 70, the other involved my best friend's sister, who was 17 at the time.

My grandmother went in for conventional cancer treatment, but only got worse and she died after about 4 years of treatment, spending the last several months of her life in the hospital. My best friend's sister went to Mexico for alternative treatment and survived at least into her 40s (she may still be alive, for all I know).

There are so many variables involved-- the stage of growth of a person, their past history, their physical strength, the foods they eat, the environment they live in. Conventional cancer treatment is not a one-size-fits-all.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

:crazy:

Having been through vicious rounds of chemo, I know what it does to you. If I had to do it again, I would probably refuse.

But Hodgkins Disease is curable and this boy deserves a chance. Hopefully his parents will get him the therapy as well as investigate homeopathic and natural treatments that help protect his little body from damage.

Poor little guy.

and has no proven benefits --

You sound like the people who oppose stem cell research on religious grounds; or those who say that abortion is a cause of breast cancer; because that suits their ideology.

There ARE some forms of cancer which still cannot be cured, and where chemo can only buy time, and then it is a much more difficult decision as to whether it is worth it. But this is not such a case.

Want to try another unlikely guess?

Quite faulty insight into what's actually going on, I'd say . . . !!!

I'll look later for the info on cancer from the Germans . . .

However, WE have continued to invent cancers -- our environment and lifestyles obviously

have a great deal to do with it, but our "medicine" is failing everywhere -- including

our drugs which have more side effects than lepards have spots.

If you listen to the medical profession itself, it is telling you that chemo and radiation

are of no value in cancer treatment.

Mainly, our medicine is based on "slash and burn" procedures.

We have a worse record with cancer today than we did 30 years ago!


And you don't know if any treatment "buys time" or if it is simply a slow moving cancer.

Some are very rapid, some slow.

modern medicine on religious grounds.


My point was rather that I consider that ALL ideological opposition to modern medicine is in fundamentally the same category. Whether it is because it's seen as against the will of God, or against nature, or because anything that profits Big Pharma must be intrinsically bad - it is still putting ideology above the health needs of those who depend on modern medicine.

The medical profession certainly DOES NOT think that chemo and radiation are of no value in cancer treatment. There are some forms of cancer that don't respond to them - that is true. But Hodgkins is NOT in that category.

Chemo and radiation are not perfect and doctors are seeking better solutoons; but that doesn't mean that people should be prepared to lie down and die now -or let their children die - rather than accept what may be imperfect, while awaiting better solutions.

It is not in general true that the prognosis for cancer is worse than 30 years ago; far from it. If this is true in the USA, which I doubt, it would be because the system denies many people access to adequate medical care.

however, many people do not understand the pathway we've followed to male dominated
medicine, based on cures rather than prevention --- and in the overturning of
women who were our natural doctors.

And basically very few understand that all plants are our medicines!!!!

Much of them have already been destroyed before we've even come to know what they could
do for us.

You might sometime note on a program about animals that animals treat their own conditions
in the wild and have some familiarity with plants and what they can do for them.

You might also be interested to know that RU-486 is based on ....

mifepristone (MIH-feh-PRIS-tone) A drug used to end early pregnancies. It is also being studied in the treatment of some types of cancer and other conditions. Mifepristone blocks the action of progesterone, a hormone that helps some cancers grow. It is a type of antiprogesterone. Also called Mifeprex and RU 486.

What it does in the case of an unwanted pregnancy is block progesterone which is necessary
to help the egg adhere to the wall of the womb. The implantation stage.

Nature created many, many ways for females to block conception -- to terminate conception --
and to terminate pregnancies. Even to permanently end fertility if they wished.'

As I recall it, it's Papaya which was used in the South Seas Islands by women to do what
RU-486 does now. I think they ate it for 7 days in a row.

Much of this information -- and pretty much all of the plants -- were destroyed.

So even those who believe in a "god" would have to understand that "god" was pro-choice!!!

:)


I'm checking a book for the info on Germany and cancer...

AND, let's not get confused . . .

These were "virulent anti-Semites and supporters of euthanasia . . .
an example of how social idealism can be subverted for tyrannical purposes."
“Germany's leading anti-tobacco activists were also war criminals."

*************************************************************************

However, also keep in mind that much of their very sickening experiments in concentration
camps was also brought to America -- tho long denied!

Meanwhile, here's the part of the info that concerns the explanation for cancer .. .
There is a fuller report in the book which I'll pass on to you in a private message
because you can't print more than about four paragraphs -- you can paraphrase but I haven't
had time to do thatwith all of it . . .

One of the only Jewish cancer researchers allowed to continue working during the Nazi regime was Nobel laureate, biochemist Dr. Otto Warburg, a relative of the banking family and director of Berlin's Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Cell Physisiology. Warburg's institute was founded in 1931, following a substantial donation by the Rockefeller Foundation to the KW Gesellschaft, today known as the Max Planck Institute.

More than forty years ago, Dr. Warburg gave a lecture describing both the cause and cure for cancer:
"Sumarized in a few words, the prime cause of cancer is the replacement of the respiration of
oxygen in normal body cells by a fermentation of sugar. All normal body cells meet their
energy needs in great part by fermentation. All normal body cells are thus obligate acrobes, whereas all cancer cells are partial anaerobes....
Oxygen gas, the donor of energy in plants and animals, is dethroned in the cancer cells and replaced by an energy-yielding reaction of the lowest living forms, namely a fermentation of glucose."

In other words, while most living cells require oxygen to live, cancer cells can do well without
oxygen, instead drawing energy from the fermentation of sugars. To maintain normal health, humans require a minimum of 22% oxygen inthe air they breathe. Most American cities regularly fall below this minimum, and on so-called ozone-alert days, the oxygen level often drops to 18% or lower. {Poster comments: Less air in our air}!
And the less said about the amount of sugar in the American diet the better. Obesity is quickly becoming a major national health problem. If Dr. Warburg is correct, and he stated that
"on the basis of anaerobiosis there is now a real chance to get rid of this terrible disease."
It is astounding that nothing has been done to cure cancer in the intervening four decades.
Perhaps this is because, as has been pointed out by suspicious researchers, more people are making a living off cancer than dying from it.

and also this . . .


Meanwhile in America, Rockefeller executive Frank Howard, after convincing Alfred Sloan and Charles Kettering of General Motors to fun a cancer institute, was named chairman of the new Sloan-Kettering Institute. Howard chose Cornelius "Dusty" Rhoads, former chief of research for the medical division of the US Chemical Warfare Service, to direct the Institute’s experimentation with chemotherapy.
Later, Howard represented Rockefeller interests in the drug company Rohm and Haas.

In that case you are probably right.

the medical profession itself has told America that these treatments --

chemo and radiation -- have no benefit.

The NY Times has published a lot on that going back a few years.

This goes totally against what I have seen in medical journals.

It may be true of SOME forms of cancer, but certainly not most.

conspiracy involved in the assassiantion of Pres. Kennedy -- !!!

Vaccinations are linked to Gulf War Syndrome among other problems --

Most of our medicines have more side effects than dogs have fleas --

As for a link -- I READ it in the NY Times quite a few years back -- pre-link.

However, I don't see how anyone could look at our system of medicine -- especially

understanding that we rank 37th in the world in health care -- which is below Cuba

and not question our system.

Especially the "slash and burn" parts!!!

I have a cousin who would be DEAD right now were it not for Chemo. Just go fuck yourself.

Within two weeks of my first chemo treatment, I could SEE the tumor shrinking. This is preposterous.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

NT!

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

a child who is a victim of obvious abuse, but fail to think that this child would be better off if the child were given the treatment of modern medicine.

I have seen children yanked from homes where parents beat on a child, leaving lifelong scars, or denied adequate nutrition, no problem for most DUer's here to agree that there is a better place for THOSE children than with an abusive or neglectful parent, but when we bring in "RELIGION" somehow science goes out the window, is challenged as "not perfect", or that modern chemotherapy does not cure ALL victims of Cancer........hmmmmmmmmm!

Amazing how the concept of "religious freedom" clouds a rational viewpoint.

Chances of this child surviving with no modern medical treatment......ZERO!

The "Science is a religion" BS seems to come directly from Postmodernist garbage.

sentence, unless we are talking about "what is an example of polar opposites?"

Then the mighty Carnac, can state.... "Science and Religion"

It's usually an ideological opposition to the medical establishment. Partly perhaps because medical organizations and Big Pharma have helped to prevent the establishment of universal health care in the USA, so it's assumed that EVERYTHING they support must be wrong. Partly because governments have lied many times, so some people think that anything that governments recommend, such as vaccination, must also be based on a lie. And partly because the damage that humans have done to our environment can lead to all that is associated with nature being seen as good, and all modern inventions being seen as suspect.

Also, modern medicine *is* imperfect and *doesn't* cure everything and sometimes exaggerated claims *have* been made for it, and many people have had bad experiences. But to me the remedy is more scientific progress, not a return to a time when modern medicine was not available, and far more people died young. This was of course partly due to poverty, but even among royalty and aristocrats, a very high proportion died young.

People have the right to choose for themselves whether to use modern medicine, but that children need to be protected. And the *right* to access to modern medicine needs to be protected from those who oppose it, either from a profit motive that restricts access to those who can afford it, or those who favour the exclusive use of alternative medicine.

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

It looks like the mother is voting with her feet.

you lose 'em.

But I'm sure a bible verse will help him. No doctors are needed.