Medicine vs. Faith

Discussion in 'Opinions, Beliefs, & Points of View' started by shades, May 21, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. shades

    shades Staff Alumni

    I can't link at the moment but the article can be found on Associated Press,
    "Minnesota mother flees with cancer stricken son".

    I will state the facts to the best of my ability and memory, as well as my question!

    A mother fled with her cancer stricken son (he has a form of Hodgkins Lymphoma) after a court ruled that the 13 year old boy be placed in foster care while a pediatric oncologist determine whether chemo and radiation can save his life.

    It has already been "resolved" by the courts before but the parents appealed based on religious beliefs, stating that their religion prohibits the administration of any type of medical treatment.

    According to the medical "experts", the boy has a very good chance of full recovery if he receives the treatment.

    My question to all is: should the courts force a minor (states have different ages, but the common age is 17) and the parents to allow life-saving treatment, regardless of religious beliefs.

    My own opinion is that since the existence of god, or higher power, can neither be proven or disproven, it should be left to the courts to decide, in the case of a minor, whether or not the medical community should step in.

    What is your opinion?
  2. Bob26003

    Bob26003 Well-Known Member

    yes they should make him get the treatment he deserves

    frigging LUNATICS!

    anyway, this has happened before many times.

    I just read about a kid who died from untreated diabetes because the goofy parents were waiting on the Lord to heal him.

    I think they got charged with negligent homicide and deservedly so.

    I believe in right of Religion to practice freely. However not when you are hurting others!
  3. fromthatshow

    fromthatshow Staff Alumni SF Supporter

    I believe that holistic medicine is much more healthy for the body so I think it should be the parents' right to choose.
  4. Zurkhardo

    Zurkhardo Well-Known Member

    There is some connection to the thread on Female Pedophilia here. Most people have been arguing that--regardless of the consent of parents or the child--a minor has no right to engage in sexual relations with an adult. The logic is that they're simply too young and, to put it colloqially, don't know any better (that's the simple explanation anyway).

    Could not the same be argued here? That poor boy has no idea whats going on nor does he have a say. Like children exploited by sexual predators, he is vulnerable, impressionable, and powerless. Whatever one's faith, nothing in Bible (or in its kin) suggests medicine should be utterly neglected: yet the Bible does implore us to care for others, especially our own family.

    These parents could easily compromise by seeking treatment and praying for the Lord to help. It's what a lot of people do and it's obviously people like this are, thankfully, a lunatic fringe.
  5. aoeu

    aoeu Well-Known Member

    Uh, this is murder. Murder is illegal. This is illegal.

    This is actually a classic dispute between Christianity and medicine, stretching back a thousand years... One monk put this forward: asking God for healing without using medicine is asking for a miracle, which is pretty presumptuous.


    Edit: Oh, this isn't Christianity, like I thought it would be. "Colleen Hauser favors healing methods of an American Indian religious group known as the Nemenhah Band."

    Further, iloveyou, what proof do you have? Holistic medicine has not been shown, except anecdotally, to do much.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 21, 2009
  6. fromthatshow

    fromthatshow Staff Alumni SF Supporter - here's one link out of a thousand that you can find online about the benefits of holistic healing over traditional medicine such as chemotherapy which can potentially do more harm than good.
  7. aoeu

    aoeu Well-Known Member

    Lacks proof and has a basic misunderstanding of cancer. It's not fought by the immune system for a very specific reason, and that's why it's so deadly.

    Edit: Oh, and I do accept that chemotherapy is disastrous for the body... You have to balance the risks (chemo itself) vs. the benefits (you know, not dying...)
    Last edited by a moderator: May 22, 2009
  8. Zurkhardo

    Zurkhardo Well-Known Member

    I always viewed holistic healing--that which includes both faith-based and medicine-based care--as the ideal catch-all that both parties can respect and accept. Why not believe God will heal through making the medicine work? Or, from the secular perspective, that prayer has a psychological affect that can calm the body and facilite the healing process (though this is still debated hotly through several conflicting studies, it still doesn't hurt to have a placebo).
  9. shades

    shades Staff Alumni

    Zurk: The problem with that approach though, is, would you try a placebo with say a 2-year old boy with pneumonia (which I had at that age), instead of antibiotic? Waiting even one day could be the difference between life and death.
  10. Zurkhardo

    Zurkhardo Well-Known Member

    Well I had meant to administer both prayer and medicine cocurrently. Most people get prayed for during chemo, check-ups, and other such treatments. My point is that it doens't have to be one or the other (though if there were a chocie obviously, as per your example, I'd go with what is more guaraunteed to work).
  11. zzz

    zzz Well-Known Member

    You made your body ill and only you can make your body well.

    As far as I was aware, the medical profession never cures the cause but only deals with the effect.
  12. aoeu

    aoeu Well-Known Member

    It's damn hard to control random molecular mutations, as it happens. Statistical processes are what cause cancer.
  13. me1

    me1 Well-Known Member

    Haha, that's a bit rich. Where is the 'proof' that orthodox cancer 'therapy' works? One study, from a few years back, showed that chemotherapy didn't work in 96% to 98% of cancers. Another study showed it wasn't working in the main remaining type of cancer either. Leaving just a few isolated forms of cancer that are so rare there isn't even enough evidence or information pertaining to them to draw any meaningful conclusions about them!

    Chemo drugs aren't even tested for their capacity to 'cure' or even extend life. They, like all drugs, are tested against something called 'surrogate end-points'. The ability to perform a possibly irrelevant function, in their case, the ability to shrink a tumour by 50% over 28 days. There is no documented relationship between tumour shrinkage and 'cure' or even merely with survival-rate extension. Quite the opposite in fact. It has been known since the sixties that the untreated OUTLIVE the treated. No studies have since been performed to refute this position. When questioned about it you are greeted with the usual response from the adherants "you dont honestly think this still applies today do you?" Well without evidence to the contrary, then yes I do. The 'side-effects', besides being killed outright by it (chemo), are shocking and include severe brain-damage.

    There is absolutely no evidence of 'progress' in the field of 'cancer research'. The statistics produced to con a credulous public that there has, or ever could be, are based upon the early-detection/misdiagnosis swindle and the five-year survival barrier interpreted as 'cure'. Most early detections are false-positives, they do not have cancer and consequently are very likely to still be alive 5 years after being treated for a disease they didn't have to begin with, albeit with an increased risk of developing cancer for real in the future thanks to the treatment.

    If you juxtaposed two statistically significant groups of people with the same types of cancer, cancers of the same level of severity, taking into account that effects different lifestyle habits have on the disease's progress, that are at the same stage of progression, and all other things that can be equal, being equal, you would find that the untreated still outlive the treated and that is why there is no mad rush to perform these studies, just an evidence-less assurance that 'things have changed'.

    Here is an interesting summary of the general shittiness of orthodox treatment:
  14. aoeu

    aoeu Well-Known Member

    Chemotherapy didn't CURE the cancer in 96-98% of cases. That does not surprise me in the least. Don't misread their misrepresented facts.

    I'm going to do some research, I'll be back in a while.

    Oh. That explains a lot, I think - they completely misused Dr. Ulrich Abel's research. He did research on LATE STAGE cancers... i.e. the ones that are past the point of reasonable survival. I would assume there's an extremely small survival rate of anyone in that situation... And chemotherapy can't do it.

    There's a reason you're told to catch cancers early. When chemotherapy CAN help.

    Indeed, my uncle was at a very late stage cancer, and he was told by the doctors: "we can't help you, and chances are very good the chemotherapy will be worse than death." He declined, per their advice.

    And I've e-mailed a health researcher about this, so I should get some hard proof shortly.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 22, 2009
  15. Issaccs

    Issaccs Well-Known Member

    If God created you, he created Doctors and Medicines.

    Why do they exist if he doesnt intend them to be used.
  16. aoeu

    aoeu Well-Known Member

    Yeah, God can only heal through two means - medicine and miracles.

    Do you deserve a miracle?
  17. fromthatshow

    fromthatshow Staff Alumni SF Supporter

    Everyone does.
  18. Random

    Random Well-Known Member

    Regardless of whether or not you believe a minor can legally make this sort of decision for his/herself, does anyone here believe this kid would have these particular beliefs of his own accord?

    It is because his parents indoctrinated him into this screwball stuff before he was ever anywhere near old enough to evaluate it rationally that he actually believes it.

    It simply doesn't matter. Minors are not legally entitled to make such decisions. Why would any parent withhold treatment with such a high probability of success and let their child die? They're crazy! Unfit to be parents.
  19. me1

    me1 Well-Known Member

    The early detection hoax has shockingly high false-positives, hence why the stats look better. Most dont have cancer.

    There is NO evidence that chemotherapy works on either early or advanced cancer. That evidence would constitute the juxtaposition of both treated and untreated cancer patients, at the same stage of progression. No such studies showing a benefit exist. The only studies ever conducted showed the untreated did better. They have never been refuted, just scoffed at.
  20. Issaccs

    Issaccs Well-Known Member

    My Exes Grandfather died of cancer last year.

    Not treating the cancer seemed to do him wonders! Oh wait, he died, very quickly.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 22, 2009
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.