Court Ordered Chemotherapy....v. You can't make this stuff up

[James81]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ap_on_he_me/us_med_forced_chemo

All I can say is read it. A court has found the boy's parents in neglect and ordered him into child protective services after they discovered that he stopped treatment to pursue natural remedies.

I..don't know what to think.

On the one hand, I think it's disgusting that the natural remedy group they are in (Neheman sp?) exists, on the other hand I'm not too keen about a court ordering a specific form of medicine either.

[Zoombie]

I hate charlatans, so I want the book thrown at these "natural remedy" idiots.

See, here's the thing...homeopathic medicine is GREAT for PREVENTION.

Let me say that again.

PREVENTION

It can help you live heathier and it can help avoid some health complications.

But when something is actually WRONG with you, you should seek actual medical assistance.

Anyone who tells you otherwise is scamming you.

And if a child's parents are keeping them the medication they need, then damn right they're negligent.

[Seaclusion]

on the other hand I'm not too keen about a court ordering a specific form of medicine either.


Why not? It's the American way. The government, along with the courts have banned many forms of medical treatment.

Richard

[Zoombie]

the courts have banned many forms of medical treatment.

Richard

Such as?

I'm not being snarky, I am actually curious.

[Seaclusion]

Medical uses of marijuana, Peyote, abortions in some circumstances. I'll have to think a bit for some more.

ETA: MDMA, better known as ecstacy, originally developed as an anti-depressant and still useful for that under a trained doctor's supervision. Cocaine, used as an anesthetic.

Richard

[Kitty Pryde]

There's more to the story than just that. Here's a really good long blog post (http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/05/another_child_sacrificing_himself_on_the.php) about all the factors in play.

1. The court didn't order him to have chemo! The court ordered him to consult with a pediatric oncologist and follow the best course of treatment, instead of some mumbly nonsense bullcrap his parents were going to have him do and thus kill him.

2. The kid had a round of chemo, got scared because chemo is horrible and he's a little boy, and then refused any more. So it's looking like the parents caved to his reluctance to have further treatments. Parenting fail. Apparently the kid also has some sort of cognitive impairment, so may be functionally at the level of an even younger kid. Parents don't have a right to kill their kids. His type of cancer is highly survivable.

[Zoombie]

Medical uses of marijuana, Peyote, abortions in some circumstances. I'll have to think a bit for some more.

Richard


Ah that stuff.

Yeah, that's brick-on-face stupid.

[Kitty Pryde]

I hate charlatans, so I want the book thrown at these "natural remedy" idiots.

See, here's the thing...homeopathic medicine is GREAT for PREVENTION.

Let me say that again.

PREVENTION

It can help you live heathier and it can help avoid some health complications.

But when something is actually WRONG with you, you should seek actual medical assistance.

Anyone who tells you otherwise is scamming you.

And if a child's parents are keeping them the medication they need, then damn right they're negligent.


Homeopathy is water. Look it up. (http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/05/homeopathy_kills_a_child.php)

[Zoombie]

"Maybe you can take some homeopathic medicine, like some zink or St. John's wart!"

"Or you could take a big fat placebo, its all the same CRAP."

[James81]

Homeopathy is water. Look it up. (http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/05/homeopathy_kills_a_child.php)

Even if it IS water, water is great for PREVENTION, which was Zoombie's point.

[Zoombie]

Actually, I was speaking more of general alternative medication, like herbs.

Strip away the mysticism bullshit, and there is actually some good stuff in there.

But its still not going to cure cancer.

Though don't get me wrong...clean water is rather good for you last time I checked.

[Devil Ledbetter]

Even if it IS water, water is great for PREVENTION, which was Zoombie's point.Yes, water will prevent dehydration. That is a fact.

The homeopathic whizdumb of "the less of something there, is the more powerful it is" puts it in the same category as all the other mystery-based belief systems.

[dgrintalis]

I can't believe the parents. I'm sorry, I think the court has the right to step in when there is serious neglect and this, IMO is neglect. Hodgkin's Lymphoma has a very high survivability rate, when caught early enough. My husband is a Hodgkin's survivor and the treatment for it is very horrible, but as my husband put it, "Nine months of misery so I can live? Easy choice.". If the boy's tumor shrank after the first treatment, that meant the cancer was responding to the chemo. My husband's largest tumor shrank almost halfway after his first.

[Devil Ledbetter]

Actually, I was speaking more of general alternative medication, like herbs.
Herbal medicine and homeopathy are different animals. Homeopathy may use some herbs, but it's not herbal medicine.

[Zoombie]

Guh.

I never studied it beyond the whole, "This part is bullshit, and this part is all right, but still go see your goddamn doctor."

[Kitty Pryde]

Herbal medicine and homeopathy are different animals. Homeopathy may use some herbs, but it's not herbal medicine.

QFT!

[dclary]

I've seen honey destroy MRSA when full antibiotic treatments couldn't.

[James81]

Herbal medicine and homeopathy are different animals. Homeopathy may use some herbs, but it's not herbal medicine.

You've tried all this stuff, right?

[Zoombie]

I've seen honey destroy MRSA when full antibiotic treatments couldn't.

I doubt that for some reason.

Give me a case study, reports, or ANY actual scientific evidence.

See, there is this thing called anecdotal evidence and scientist frown on it, cause according to anecdotal evidence, Bigfoot is real.

[Seaclusion]

ISee, there is this thing called anecdotal evidence and scientist frown on it, cause according to anecdotal evidence, Bigfoot is real.


Are you saying he's not. I'm so bummed.

Richard

[James81]

I saw them unloading crates of bigfoots up near Niagra falls once. Swear to god.

[Devil Ledbetter]

Herbal medicine involves the use of various medicinal herbs, at least some of which have been scientifically proven effective.

Homeopathy involves diluting a substance until there is essentially no clinically measurable amount left, and the belief that the water used in the dilution water has a "memory" that will somehow magically serve to address the medical problem at hand.

James81, I have not tried any homeopathic "remedies." If they appear to work for some people, I would posit that it is the placebo effect.

I do drink plenty of fresh water, though.

I have used certain herbs, with mixed results. For example, I found that for me, fenugreek is great enhancing breastmilk supply. But the herbal "thyriod boost" tincture didnt' do a damned thing for me. So while I think herbals have merit, it's still pretty iffy.

[Zoombie]

Are you saying he's not. I'm so bummed.

Richard

I'm sorry...

But...Santa Clause isn't real either.

[Seaclusion]

I'm sorry...

But...Santa Clause isn't real either.


I'm going to bed and curl up in a fetal position.

Richard

[James81]

James81, I have not tried any homeopathic "remedies." If they appear to work for some people, I would posit that it is the placebo effect.



If a placebo works, why knock it?

BTW, I'm not a homeopath by any stretch of the imagination here. I just think that when it comes to health and wellness, the differences in our bodies are so vast that it's hard to completely debunk anything.

Personally, I would assert that the health and healing process is almost entirely in our minds anyway. That's why you see so much conflicting information out there.

[Zoombie]

Its the Barnum effect, James.

People. Want. To. Believe.

[Don]

Thanks, Zoombie. I finally understand voting. :roll:

[Lyv]

Well, the parents get to choose the oncologist, and if the oncologist says no additional treatment will help, he won't order it. So it seems the judge is being fair and reasonable. But I am always conflicted about questions of choice when it comes to refusing medical care.

I'm a 32-year survivor of the cancer this boy has (I was 16 when I had it). I was also an oncology nurse for many years. Treatments have gotten so so much easier to tolerate and Hodgkin's is so curable. Still no walk in the park, but most side effects can be managed pretty well. I was in the first wave of kids to get the early version of the now-standard treatment. So most of me wants this kid to just have the damn treatments (and all of me wants him to survive). He'll have some lingering effects and eventually some long-term ones will surface (it's fact), but each generation will have fewer and less severe. Even two years after my treatments, the advancements were almost unbelievable. I wish this boy and his family the best.

[Devil Ledbetter]

If a placebo works, why knock it?

BTW, I'm not a homeopath by any stretch of the imagination here. I just think that when it comes to health and wellness, the differences in our bodies are so vast that it's hard to completely debunk anything.

Personally, I would assert that the health and healing process is almost entirely in our minds anyway. That's why you see so much conflicting information out there.James, do you have a passing familiarity with the scientific method? When things are studied scientifically, the only "conflicting" information usually comes from charlatans trying to sell little bottles of water homeopathic "remedies."

If medicine was completely different for everybody, the medical community would have no basis from which to operate. And you will believe illness is "all in your mind" right up until the time you come down with some vile disease and you need real, scientifically proven medicine, treatments or surgical procedures rather than a simple attitude adjustment.

[James81]

James, do you have a passing familiarity with the scientific method? When things are studied scientifically, the only "conflicting" information usually comes from charlatans trying to sell little bottles of water homeopathic "remedies."

If medicine was completely different for everybody, the medical community would have no basis from which to operate. And you will believe illness is "all in your mind" right up until the time you come down with some vile disease and you need real, scientifically proven medicine, treatments or surgical procedures rather than a simple attitude adjustment.

I'm not knocking modern medicine. I go to the doctor when I get sick enough.

I'm just saying, don't discount the power of the mind either.

[Devil Ledbetter]

I'm not knocking modern medicine. I go to the doctor when I get sick enough.

I'm just saying, don't discount the power of the mind either.I didn't discount the power of the mind. I do discount BS snake oil remedies that have no scientific foundation whatsoever.

The danger with them is that people who believe in them will use these ineffective remedies rather than getting real help. Kind of like what this child's idiot parents did. There exists highly effective treatment for his cancer, yet they allowed themselves to be duped by charlatans and now his life is in danger.

For someone so staunchly pro-life, I would think you could absorb this.

[James81]

I didn't discount the power of the mind. I do discount BS snake oil remedies that have no scientific foundation whatsoever.

The danger with them is that people who believe in them will use these ineffective remedies rather than getting real help. Kind of like what this child's idiot parents did. There exists highly effective treatment for his cancer, yet they allowed themselves to be duped by charlatans and now his life is in danger.

For someone so staunchly pro-life, I would think you could absorb this.

I'm not staunchly pro-life. (I could get on board with pro-choice they just stopped deluding themselves about what is happening)

And I am absorbing it. I'm just making a point, that if placebo's work on some people, then so be it. I'll take whatever cure we can get.

[Zoombie]

Well, it should be easy!

Just believe that the medication will work. Then you get the medication AND the placebo effect!

Tada, problem solved, lets go home

[Lyv]

Just a thought--a fair amount of the accepted cancer drugs come from natural sources. Breast cancer drugs from the yew tree, for example. So there's some crossover with natural remedies.

[princessvessna]

Here's one study of honey and MRSA
http://bio.waikato.ac.nz/pdfs/honeyresearch/potential.pdf

[scarletpeaches]

The Ancient Egyptians used honey in a lot of their remedies.

Plus, I tried it when my skin flared up really bad a few years back - eczema, allergies and so on. Even on a rather unpleasant abscess. So it's not as crazy as it sounds.

I used to wrap my legs in honeyed bandages every night.

[Contemplative]

I'm with the courts on this one. Adults should be able to choose whatever form of medicine they say is best. Children are not old enough to choose, and the scientific consensus should guide what's best for them, not the superstitions of their parents.

[Lyv]

scarletpeaches, were you using local honey? I'm told that local honey helps most with allergies (makes sense, if you think of the process). Glad it helped you!

[scarletpeaches]

I'm with the courts on this one. Adults should be able to choose whatever form of medicine they say is best. Children are not old enough to choose, and the scientific consensus should guide what's best for them, not the superstitions of their parents.

Some children are able to choose.

Some adults are not.

We cannot judge someone's ability to make their own decisions purely on their age. I know many twelve-year-olds who are more clued-in than a number of people in their forties and fifties.

It's a matter of having the right information and being able to use it, not how many birthdays you've had.

[Devil Ledbetter]

Just a thought--a fair amount of the accepted cancer drugs come from natural sources. Breast cancer drugs from the yew tree, for example. So there's some crossover with natural remedies.Oh, absolutely. I just hate to see baseless, ineffective homeopathy get confused with natural or herbal medicine.

[scarletpeaches]

scarletpeaches, were you using local honey? I'm told that local honey helps most with allergies (makes sense, if you think of the process). Glad it helped you!

Never heard the phrase local honey before!

Shop bought (but one of the higher-end brands), kept in the fridge and slathered on. It cooled the burning itch and stopped the infection in its tracks.

Course, I still have scars, but my legs are much better now. And once the worst of it had tailed off, I went for photobiology treatment so I didn't rely solely on honey; more like a two-pronged attack.

Honey for the flare-ups (zinc remedies given to me at the hospital had no effect whatsoever) and light treatment for the scarring that remained.

[Zoombie]

Peachies method is the best, imo.

Cause, as I've said, alt medication has just enough truth to it to be worth it...but don't sole rely on it.

[ColoradoGuy]

I
See, here's the thing...homeopathic medicine is GREAT for PREVENTION.

Let me say that again.

PREVENTION

It can help you live heathier and it can help avoid some health complications.

Sorry, no.

Anyone who tells you otherwise is scamming you.
Anyone who tells you it works at all is scamming you.

[TerzaRima]

The kid had a round of chemo, got scared because chemo is horrible and he's a little boy, and then refused any more. So it's looking like the parents caved to his reluctance to have further treatments. Parenting fail.

Huge fail. During my residency I cared for lots of kids getting chemotherapy, and the children that are this boy's age tend to take their cues from their parents. Some of the kids that struggled the most with hospitalization and treatment were the ones whose parents struggled most with it. If the family was consistently and visibly angry and upset about the hospital experience, the child was much more likely to complain about problems with chemo. This poor little boy doesn't want any more treatment because he's been told that he doesn't.

And white people who co-opt Native American spirituality bug my ass.

[Magdalen]

It's not fucking gov't business to interfere in private family decisions. Period. This is obscene.

[Kitty Pryde]

It's not fucking gov't business to interfere in private family decisions. Period. This is obscene.

If, when I was a child, my parents had some fruitcake plan to withhold life-saving chemotherapy from me because they were dumb, I would hope to god that the government would step in to rescue me. The government does have a duty to protect its helpless citizens.

[Lyv]

TerzaRima, that's interesting. I first refused treatment briefly, but it was because (I've come to understand) the doctors were presenting it as my parents' choice (and they were all for it). I was 16, so in a way that was a form of rebellion and a way to slow down the runaway train and make them actually start talking to me and giving me a voice in my own treatment.

I suspect in this kid's case you're on the mark.

[Zoombie]

Sorry, no.

Anyone who tells you it works at all is scamming you.

Well, it all depends on what you are talking about.

Alternative medication is such a huge and ill defined and poorly policed field that
you can't say an ultra generlized comment about it.

For example, some herbs and other "natural" medications actually DO have a chemical effect. Just like, ya know, medicine...but its wrapped up in a bullshitty mystical "healing force" thing.

Course, other herbs don't do a whitt.

But IF you get alternative medicine that actually DOES do something, the MOST it will do is keep you healthier and happier, which DOES increase your ability to prevent bad things like bacterial infections and so on.

But when something DOES bad happen, then you go to real medicine.

Also, Mag, murder-through-negligence is against the law, last time I checked.

The kid. Had. CANCER.

CANCER

CANCER

They were using herbs and alternative medicine to cure CANCER!

If that's not illegal negligence, nothing is illegal negligence. No one should be free to do that, no one.

[Lyv]

They were using herbs and alternative medicine to cure CANCER!

A cancer that has a greater than 90% rate of remission with chemo and radiation.

The article says the tumor, which chemo had shrunk, grew after the chemo stopped.

I'm all for considering alternate approaches, but in this case, the child's best chance is, I believe, conventional medical treatment.

[icerose]

It's not fucking gov't business to interfere in private family decisions. Period. This is obscene.

I'm sorry, I have to disagree.

Slapping around your children and beating your wife to a pulp could be considered a private family decision. On the books it's called abuse.

Having sex with your little kids and telling them it's daddy's little secret could be considered a private family decision. On the books it's called molestation.

Starving your kids and not bathing them because you have decided you don't have time after five to deal with your kids could be considered a private family decisions. On the books it's called neglect.

Denying your little kids medical treatment because of whatever reason that will make them healthy is also neglect.

Sometimes private family decisions need to be damned.

[ColoradoGuy]

In an amazing coincidence, I just did a blog post here (http://www.chrisjohnsonmd.com/blog/2009/05/15/adolescents-and-autonomy-the-ethics-of-children-making-their-own-choices-for-medical-care/) about the ethics of children making their own life and death decisions. It has some interesting links. [/blogwhoring]

[Magdalen]

I don't think that refusal of medical treatment is comparable to murder, even if the end result is the same. I spell Choice with a capital C. My family, my choice, not yours or the gov't. That is my opinion.

[Lyv]

In an amazing coincidence, I just did a blog post here (http://www.chrisjohnsonmd.com/blog/2009/05/15/adolescents-and-autonomy-the-ethics-of-children-making-their-own-choices-for-medical-care/) about the ethics of children making their own life and death decisions. It has some interesting links. [/blogwhoring]
Ooh, good stuff. Thanks for sharing (reading now).

[Zoombie]

Choice ends when you harm others.

Withholding medical treatment is HARM with capital H.

[ColoradoGuy]

It's not fucking gov't business to interfere in private family decisions. Period. This is obscene.
Oh but it is the government's business if a parent makes a decision that allows their child to die, and another choice would have allowed the child to live.

[icerose]

Choice ends when you harm others.

Withholding medical treatment is HARM with capital H.

Agreed. I don't understand why a parent would even want to allow harm to come to their children.

[Zoombie]

Murder by negligence is still murder.

[Kitty Pryde]

I don't think that refusal of medical treatment is comparable to murder, even if the end result is the same. I spell Choice with a capital C. My family, my choice, not yours or the gov't. That is my opinion.

Really? So those parents who refuse to take their diabetic children to the doctor, because they'd rather pray for them, and allow them a slow and agonizingly painful death are in the right?

And the parents who let their toddlers with infections lay around at home because it's their choice not to take them to a doctor, until they slip into a coma and die, those parents are free to make that choice? Sorry, no.

Adults can be idiots all day long and refuse life-saving treatment for themselves. But kids shouldn't have to suffer because their parents are idiots.

This isn't a case of parents disagreeing with doctors over the best course of treatment. It's a case of the parents refusing any helpful treatment, so that their kid can die.

[Zoombie]

Agreed. I don't understand why a parent would even want to allow harm to come to their children.

People with faith in weird things DO weird things. If you believe that God will damn your child to hell for taking medical assistance, then in your head, its better that the child goes to heaven after dying now, then going to hell after dying later.

If you believe that medicine is evil and you have the one true and natural way to health and wellbeing, then you will keep trying alternative medication till you're blue in the face. And the kid will still die.

And if you're like me and believe that a medical system that eradicated almost all the major killer diseases before I was even born, then you'll go to a damn doctor and the baby will LIVE.

[James81]

Really? So those parents who refuse to take their diabetic children to the doctor, because they'd rather pray for them, and allow them a slow and agonizingly painful death are in the right?

And the parents who let their toddlers with infections lay around at home because it's their choice not to take them to a doctor, until they slip into a coma and die, those parents are free to make that choice? Sorry, no.

Adults can be idiots all day long and refuse life-saving treatment for themselves. But kids shouldn't have to suffer because their parents are idiots.

This isn't a case of parents disagreeing with doctors over the best course of treatment. It's a case of the parents refusing any helpful treatment, so that their kid can die.

Let me play devil's advocate here....

You call it neglect....some people call it natural selection.

Thoughts? :D

[TerzaRima]

I was 16, so in a way that was a form of rebellion and a way to slow down the runaway train

I can see this. I remember the adolescent oncology patients from my residency so fondly. They were admitted repeatedly, so we got to know them well.

It must be absolutely wrenching to have a hospitalized child, much less one with a murky prognosis, and people get understandably crazy. That said, I remember this one family as an example of how kids get messages about how to feel about the process. We had a teenage boy with bone cancer whose parents expressed displeasure at maximum volume every step of the way. I think that was how they dealt with the loss of control.

Everything was a big deal. That blood was supposed to be here twenty minutes ago! Why didn't we get the room we got last time! I think my son's incision looks like crap!

They were also completely uncensored in front of him and, at one point after an extensive amputation, mother ripped back the sheet and said to us on rounds, "Look! They mutilated him." And, you know, this kid was awake and could hear her.

Unsurprisingly, this kid complained all. the. time. Much, much more than any other adolescent patient. Nausea, pain that was hard to control, vague symptoms that no one could pinpoint. More than that, he was dispirited and irritable, even early in his illness, and couldn't take any pleasure from any child life activities or make friends with the other kids. He was sick, yes, but I also thought he had learned this way of coping.

/end reminiscence

[cethklein]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ap_on_he_me/us_med_forced_chemo

All I can say is read it. A court has found the boy's parents in neglect and ordered him into child protective services after they discovered that he stopped treatment to pursue natural remedies.

I..don't know what to think.

On the one hand, I think it's disgusting that the natural remedy group they are in (Neheman sp?) exists, on the other hand I'm not too keen about a court ordering a specific form of medicine either.

I'm sure. Trust me, there are more of these bat-shit crazy cults out there than you think. If these creeps want to avoid using medicine because some nutjob cult leader tells them to, more power to them. But don't drag innocent kids down. They can't make their own choice. Yes they'll CLAIM the boy is a "medicine man" but that's only because said nutjob cult members or leeader convinced him of such.

I'm not a huge fan of courts ordering stuff like this either, but the well-being of these kids has to coem first. At least in this case the court stepped in. If we were talknig about a larger destructive cult like Scientology, they'd have just paid off the court and nothing would have been done (even after the kdi died.)

Sadly, the courts really have no choice. And trust me, avoiding modern medicine is the tip of the iceberg. There are some cults who force young girls to sew up their vaginas to avoid sex and other sadistic practices. Children need advocates when their parents are too lazy and/or stupid to advocate for them.

[Zoombie]

Cults are a menace, they really are...

[Magdalen]

Really? So those parents who refuse to take their diabetic children to the doctor, because they'd rather pray for them, and allow them a slow and agonizingly painful death are in the right?

And the parents who let their toddlers with infections lay around at home because it's their choice not to take them to a doctor, until they slip into a coma and die, those parents are free to make that choice? Sorry, no.

Adults can be idiots all day long and refuse life-saving treatment for themselves. But kids shouldn't have to suffer because their parents are idiots.

This isn't a case of parents disagreeing with doctors over the best course of treatment. It's a case of the parents refusing any helpful treatment, so that their kid can die.

I strongly support your right to disapprove of parents who choose not to enlist the aid of medical technology.

[dgiharris]

Let me play devil's advocate here....

You call it neglect....some people call it natural selection.

Thoughts? :D

James,
I don't know who is the bigger A-hole, you for saying this, or me for agreeing with you.

I don't think that refusal of medical treatment is comparable to murder, even if the end result is the same. I spell Choice with a capital C. My family, my choice, not yours or the gov't. That is my opinion.

I strongly support your right to disapprove of parents who choose not to enlist the aid of medical technology.

If you will allow me to read in between the lines of your statements and views. I am not trying to be condescending, but this is a very immature perspective. Basically, you are saying "I want to be able to do whatever the hell I want, when I want, how I want". Do you see how childish this is.

In a modern society, we fall under the 'social contract'. You see, in the beginning, we were monkeys running around raping and pillaging as we saw fit. Unfortunately, this creates an EXTREMELY dangerous and unstable environment. Being intelligent beings, we evolved into clans, tribes, villages, provinces, states, and nation states to avoid all that and have some security.

As we came together, we recognized that we have to give up some of our 'freedoms'. For instance, just because I see a hot blonde walking down the street I don't have the freedom to club her in the back of the head and drag her to my cave.

In short. You don't get to do what you want when you want how you want. At least, not in a modern society. That is the trade-off. That is the social contract and that is why your views are 100% dead wrong.

Mel...

P.S. I will add the cavaet, you can do whatever you like as long as it falls within the social contract, but Withholding life saving care from your child is not on your list of options.

[benbradley]

Even if it IS water, water is great for PREVENTION, which was Zoombie's point.
How much water/medicine does homeopathy have you drink? Not a lot, and probably not enough to make a difference, from what I gather. The vials I've seen of homeopathic remedies are at most a shot glass' worth, about one or two fluid ounces. That's about a one or two second sip from a water fountain. The recommendations I've read for drinking water are about eight glasses a day. Excuse me while I get up to get a (8+ ounce) glass of water.
Actually, I was speaking more of general alternative medication, like herbs.

Strip away the mysticism bullshit, and there is actually some good stuff in there.
Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while. Sick people feel better and get better for a lot of reasons that may have nothing to do with any medicine they take. It takes rigorous testing and good knowledge of statistics to determine what the likely causes are.
Herbal medicine and homeopathy are different animals. Homeopathy may use some herbs, but it's not herbal medicine.
They both have in common that the substances and methods used were not developed from rigorous testing to see what they do. I just read where homeopathy was developed by one guy mostly experimenting on himself, and even if I didn't know these were extremely diluted substances, I'd question the results.
Herbal medicine involves the use of various medicinal herbs, at least some of which have been scientifically proven effective.
And some have been scientifically shown to have no effect, and some have been scientifically shown to be harmful. But none have been scientifically tested by the purveyors of alternative medicines.
I have used certain herbs, with mixed results. For example, I found that for me, fenugreek is great enhancing breastmilk supply. But the herbal "thyriod boost" tincture didnt' do a damned thing for me. So while I think herbals have merit, it's still pretty iffy.It sounds about like something I did in college - hit a bong in the dorm room next door about a dozen times, and it didn't do a thing to me. The next night I took a couple of hits (I have no idea if it was the same stuff as the night before or what, but I presume it was), and I was flying like a kite. I went to the soft drink machine and barely made it back to my room.

It was actually a "good" experience in that it scared me that it was so inconsistent, and it kept me from using a lot of drugs in later years.

I feel much more strongly against it now - I won't "experiment" on myself with substances whose effects aren't well documented, whether it's illegal recreational drugs or perfectly legal herbs and other alternative medicines.

If you really want to do preventative medicine (actually one needs to do a preventative lifestyle rather than just "preventative medicine"), read "Beyond the 120 Year Diet" or for an easier read, "The Ten Percent Solution For a Healthy Life."
Just a thought--a fair amount of the accepted cancer drugs come from natural sources. Breast cancer drugs from the yew tree, for example. So there's some crossover with natural remedies.
No, that's not a "crossover." The difference is not whether a drug comes from a "natural source," it's whether it has been methodically and rigorously tested to determine if it works, how well it works and what the side effects are, and what a "safe and efffective" dose is. I don't see such testing being done by anyone selling things as "natural" or "alternative" medicines.
Oh, absolutely. I just hate to see baseless, ineffective homeopathy get confused with natural or herbal medicine.
What these two have in common is the lack of methodical testing I was just talking about.
It's not fucking gov't business to interfere in private family decisions. Period. This is obscene.
I dunno, should I remember that if I ever see an adult putting welts on a child's butt?
Well, it all depends on what you are talking about.

Alternative medication is such a huge and ill defined and poorly policed field that
you can't say an ultra generlized comment about it.

For example, some herbs and other "natural" medications actually DO have a chemical effect. Just like, ya know, medicine...but its wrapped up in a bullshitty mystical "healing force" thing.

Course, other herbs don't do a whitt.

But IF you get alternative medicine that actually DOES do something, the MOST it will do is keep you healthier and happier, which DOES increase your ability to prevent bad things like bacterial infections and so on.
So, how do you know WHICH alternative medicines actually do something? I'm sure there are innumerable people willing to tell you, either as a 'consultant' or by selling you their book (Kevin Trudeau immediately comes to mind), but how would you know who to trust? How do THEY know?
Agreed. I don't understand why a parent would even want to allow harm to come to their children.
I'm sure these parent's don't, they just believe more strongly that alternative medicine is a better choice for their child than conventional medicine.
Let me play devil's advocate here....

You call it neglect....some people call it natural selection.

Thoughts? :D
From "Oath of Fealty" there's "Think of it as evolution in action."
Cults are a menace, they really are...
That gets into a whole nother topic...

[Zoombie]

Those points you raise, Ben, are exactly why I ignore 99.99999999999999% of all alternative medicine.

But if you're willing to slog through the BS and find the few floating nuggets of factish stuff, then...well...power to you?

[Lyv]

No, that's not a "crossover."
Well, it is in the sense I used the word. I merely meant that even some chemotherapy comes from natural sources. Sometimes people who insist on natural remedies forget that and sometimes people who dismiss all natural remedies forget that.

I should have been clearer.

[backslashbaby]

There is a large amount of research done on herbs, actually. That doesn't really speak to accepting claims from herb companies or 99% of the stuff on the net.

Still, go to pubmed and research herbs you are interested in, by scientific name.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19188016?ordinalpos=13&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

This was just the first one related to cancer, by pub date, from search results for 'herb'.

The potential dangerousness of herbs is also often studied and listed here when you don't hear it on the news, alternative sites, etc.

[History_Chick]

I read in some article that the boy didnt want chemo. If thats true and his parents support his choice then how can the court order him to do it. Its his body. I dunno, as a woman this makes me uppity.

Now if the article I read was wrong and the parents are forcing this on their child and the child has no voice to make his own choice then I think the courts should step in.

[Zoombie]

The child has a mental handicap, History. He is not mentally equipped to deal on his own yet. A parent should help and support a child till he is old enough to operate independently.

[bettielee]

Has no one jumped on the fact the mother says the child is a medicine man? And that he can't read?

Discuss....

skips away... skips away...

[backslashbaby]

Yeah, that whole band thing, and their interpretation of what little they know about "Native American Religion" has been seriously criticized by most real Native groups.

I find it pretty offensive, actually, and an obvious scam.

Edit: I don't care how crazily and disrespectfully they want to mix things - that's their right for their life. But they try to use laws based on being a true indian religion. That's a bit far, if you ask me.

[History_Chick]

The child has a mental handicap, History. He is not mentally equipped to deal on his own yet. A parent should help and support a child till he is old enough to operate independently.


Ok. The article I read did not make mention of this, they just said he became violently ill after his first chemo session.

I did read the part about medicine man, and I thought it odd.

This is a little different. I suppose since the child is underage then its different than an adult making the decision. I still get nervous though when government steps in and tells us what to do with our bodies.

[icerose]

I read in some article that the boy didnt want chemo. If thats true and his parents support his choice then how can the court order him to do it. Its his body. I dunno, as a woman this makes me uppity.

Now if the article I read was wrong and the parents are forcing this on their child and the child has no voice to make his own choice then I think the courts should step in.

I'm sorry but this still doesn't cut it.

My babies don't want shots to prevent infectious disease. Should I support them in their decision?

My babies want lots and lots of candy before dinner. Should I support them in their decision?

What about dentists? How many kids don't want to go to the dentist?

What if my daughter had a broken bone and she didn't want doctors to touch her because they'll hurt her. Should I support her in her decisions?

Children are kept under the protective care of adults for a reason. They can't make important decisions, they don't have the decision making skills. They don't have the deep complex cause and effect.

On the broken bone, all they see is, it hurts, don't touch me or it'll hurt more. They can't think about tomorrow or next week or next month, especially not the rest of their life, that their bone will not set right and they'll lose use of that arm forever. They don't get that.

Heck, some adults can't handle the concept. As long as my kids are under my care, I'm going to be a pretty mean mommy and make sure my kids get the best care I can get them whether it means saying no to that candy they really want or taking them to the doctor when they're sick but don't want help.

[Magdalen]

[quote=dgiharris;3593205]<snip>If you will allow me to read in between the lines of your statements and views. I am not trying to be condescending, but this is a very immature perspective. Basically, you are saying "I want to be able to do whatever the hell I want, when I want, how I want". Do you see how childish this is.

In a modern society, we fall under the 'social contract'. You see, in the beginning, we were monkeys running around raping and pillaging as we saw fit. Unfortunately, this creates an EXTREMELY dangerous and unstable environment. Being intelligent beings, we evolved into clans, tribes, villages, provinces, states, and nation states to avoid all that and have some security.

As we came together, we recognized that we have to give up some of our 'freedoms'. For instance, just because I see a hot blonde walking down the street I don't have the freedom to club her in the back of the head and drag her to my cave.

In short. You don't get to do what you want when you want how you want. At least, not in a modern society. That is the trade-off. That is the social contract and that is why your views are 100% dead wrong.

Mel...

P.S. I will add the cavaet, you can do whatever you like as long as it falls within the social contract, but Withholding life saving care from your child is not on your list of options.


I found your response to be extremly condescending. You are welcome to read between the lines of what I write; I assume your comprehension skills are excellent and you will grasp not only the meaning of my reply but also its context.

I did not intend to imply the following. Perhaps you inferred it.

Originally posted by dgiharris "I want to be able to do whatever the hell I want, when I want, how I want".

Origianlly posted by Magdalen My family, my choice, not yours or the gov't. That is my opinion.

I phrased my responses using "my" as an attributive adjective "my family, my choice" so I guess that's where you decided that I personally think it's OK to refuse medical treatment for my own child (or the child of another member of society or possibly (not) the government's child?) I gave an opinion on whether the gov't should be able to make a citizen receive (chemo) treatment. I don't think they should.

My comment was in reference to gov't authority insisting that someone receive medical care -- life saving, potentially, in this case. There seems to be some disagreement among other posts as to whether a parent has full authority over their own offspring or whether the immature child has some or no say in their own care or if the gov't has authority, especially in special cases when the parents' decision is deemed questionable. In fact many posts seem mostly concerned with whether refusing medical treatment should be (or is) considered abusive treatment. I can think of a number of reasons why someone might choose not to receive treatment, and most of them do not have anything to do with lack of respect for life. (or even a sans joyeux de vive) Since I think that adults should be able to make this choice for themselves, I naturally extend that responsibility to them as regards their own child, until the child is of legal age, and has all the legal rights of a US citizen.

Also, medical care is expensive. If they don't want it, don't waste it on them. Also note that this topic does not encompass the idea of other medical treatments such as innoculations that protect not only the individual, but other members of society. The gov't mandated polio shots for all fall into a different discussion.


That is the trade-off. That is the social contract and that is why your views are 100% dead wrong.


I'm repeating this particular gem, because I can't believe you actually think it's ok to judge me like that, especially when you seem to have mis-interpreted my point. Apparently you have a very low tolerance for broken things and require that they be fixed whenever possible. If your version of the "social contract" is that everybody must avail themselves of all the latest medical technology, then I disagree. When you clear away the clutter of your sentimental views on the specific subject in question, dry your eyes from the tears you've shed over another person's business that you consider to involve a neglected, abused and potentially dead child, perhaps you will pat yourself on the back for having told Mags how wrong she is. I would disagree with that type of smug self-congratulatory behavior, but I certainly wouldn't call it wrong.

[History_Chick]

I'm sorry but this still doesn't cut it.

My babies don't want shots to prevent infectious disease. Should I support them in their decision?

My babies want lots and lots of candy before dinner. Should I support them in their decision?

What about dentists? How many kids don't want to go to the dentist?

What if my daughter had a broken bone and she didn't want doctors to touch her because they'll hurt her. Should I support her in her decisions?

Children are kept under the protective care of adults for a reason. They can't make important decisions, they don't have the decision making skills. They don't have the deep complex cause and effect.

On the broken bone, all they see is, it hurts, don't touch me or it'll hurt more. They can't think about tomorrow or next week or next month, especially not the rest of their life, that their bone will not set right and they'll lose use of that arm forever. They don't get that.

Heck, some adults can't handle the concept. As long as my kids are under my care, I'm going to be a pretty mean mommy and make sure my kids get the best care I can get them whether it means saying no to that candy they really want or taking them to the doctor when they're sick but don't want help.


I disagree, depending on the "childs" age. If the person is 16 then yes they can make their own choice. Hell, I might even say 14 +. I think it depends on the child. But I dont remember the age of this boy, though I believe he is younger. So if he is younger and the parents are forcing this on him and he is mentally disabled (as someone posted) then yes I think the courts shoudl take over.

[Robert Toy]

A bit of a drift, but if the government orders medical treatment…who pays for it?

Can you be held legally responsible for the debt incurred?

[Cassiopeia]

I disagree with the court stepping in. How is this any different than Christian Scientists who refuse medical treatment due to religious beliefs?

I helped my mother through the first set of Chemo treatments, it's brutal at best. I can understand why a child would not want to do it. I wouldn't have stopped the Chemo if I was his mother but I won't tell these parents they have to continue it.

On another note, "homeopathic" has become a catch phrase for natural remedies. It isn't just the original treatment of watered down chemical compounds.

Having said that, I would like to add that my mother was supposed to have died within 3 weeks to 3 months of her ovarian cancer being discovered. They told us there was no hope but they decided to try one course of Chemo, they said it wouldn't work though.
I questioned the doctors as to why they'd put her through that. (yes I have a point) They told me that they had to try something. Well it worked and to this day if you ask the doctors who first treated my mother they will tell you it was her faith that worked because there was no medical reason her cancer should have responded at its advanced stage.

So whether its herbs, water, or actual pharmaceutical chemicals, there is more to the healing process than that sort of treatment. Like dclary, I've seen natural remedies take care of infections that antibiotics didn't. Why did they work? Because the methodology was to strengthen the body's own immune system to fight off the infection.

So all you naysayers who want to mock the natural route go right on ahead. There are as many who mock medical methods as well. In the end, the results are what matters.

[Andrew]

It's Statism straight up.

[SHBueche]

Doctors have said Daniel's cancer had up to a 90 percent chance of being cured with chemotherapy and radiation. Without those treatments, doctors said his chances of survival are 5 percent.

Above is taken from the article, yes, I think it's critical that the courts intervene on behalf of the parents AND the boy.

[icerose]

Doctors have said Daniel's cancer had up to a 90 percent chance of being cured with chemotherapy and radiation. Without those treatments, doctors said his chances of survival are 5 percent.

Above is taken from the article, yes, I think it's critical that the courts intervene on behalf of the parents AND the boy.

Exactly. Now if the boy had a low chance of survival, and it involved rigorous and painful and expensive treatments and this boy and his parents chose not to go through with that, I completely understand.

But a 90% chance? It's outright negligence to not go for it. It's just like refusing diabetic medicine to a diabetic child as without it the child will eventually die and probably lose some limbs along the way.

[Robert Toy]

Exactly. Now if the boy had a low chance of survival, and it involved rigorous and painful and expensive treatments and this boy and his parents chose not to go through with that, I completely understand.

But a 90% chance? It's outright negligence to not go for it. It's just like refusing diabetic medicine to a diabetic child as without it the child will eventually die and probably lose some limbs along the way.
and if the boy does not survive?

[James81]

and if the boy does not survive?

The doctors who said he had a 90% survival chance still get their money.

[icerose]

The doctors who said he had a 90% survival chance still get their money.

Pretty much.

[Robert Toy]

So much for patient’s rights

[icerose]

So then when would you support the government interveining for the sake of a child who is incapable of making their own big decisions. (The child in this article is very incapable of making his own big decisions, he can't read, he's mentally disabled...)

Would you support the intervention of say a kid has appendicitis and his appendix bursts at school but his parents refuse any help?

Would you support the intervention of a kid getting the crap beat out of him by his parents?

Would you support the intervention of kids who are not getting fed and bathed?

Would you support the intervention of an extremely obese child who's parents are literally feeding them to death?

Would you support the intervention of kids who are getting molested by a relative?

Would you support intervention if a kid has such a diseased mouth from lack of dental care that he was going to die from heart failure because of it? (It has happened.)

Please answer, because I want to know where you stand. Should the government protect these children and help these parents to take better care of their kids? I strongly believe that they should because the community has obviously failed at stepping in.

[Robert Toy]

So then when would you support the government interveining for the sake of a child who is incapable of making their own big decisions. (The child in this article is very incapable of making his own big decisions, he can't read, he's mentally disabled...)

Would you support the intervention of say a kid has appendicitis and his appendix bursts at school but his parents refuse any help?

Would you support the intervention of a kid getting the crap beat out of him by his parents?

Would you support the intervention of kids who are not getting fed and bathed?

Would you support the intervention of an extremely obese child who's parents are literally feeding them to death?

Would you support the intervention of kids who are getting molested by a relative?

Would you support intervention if a kid has such a diseased mouth from lack of dental care that he was going to die from heart failure because of it? (It has happened.)

Please answer, because I want to know where you stand. Should the government protect these children and help these parents to take better care of their kids? I strongly believe that they should because the community has obviously failed at stepping in.
I am not comparing criminal parental neglect or obvious and immediate emergency medical treatment, and elective treatment that a patient, parent or guardian chooses not to take.

I state elective because there is no guarantee that the treatment will be successful, it may only prolong life and suffering, and I will bring it up once again…costs.

[icerose]

I am not comparing criminal parental neglect or obvious and immediate emergency medical treatment, and elective treatment that a patient, parent or guardian chooses not to take.

I state elective because there is no guarantee that the treatment will be successful, it may only prolong life and suffering, and I will bring it up once again…costs.

Is there ever a guarantee with a medical treatment? There's always a chance it won't work, with everything. There's always a small chance every surgery could be fatal. There's always a small chance the patient could react badly or not respond. But 90% is pretty damn good odds when it comes to cancer.

[Robert Toy]

Is there ever a guarantee with a medical treatment? There's always a chance it won't work, with everything. There's always a small chance every surgery could be fatal. There's always a small chance the patient could react badly or not respond. But 90% is pretty damn good odds when it comes to cancer.
Hence it should be left up to people involved...not the courts

[icerose]

Hence it should be left up to people involved...not the courts

I guess this is the part where we agree to disagree. My niece might have gotten over her tonsillitis on her own without it cutting off her windpipe, but I felt the social workers were right to demand the parents take her to the doctor as she had never been to a doctor before in her life and her throat was so swollen she couldn't swallow anything anymore.

[Robert Toy]

Look at the other side of the equation, why do the courts not intervene when someone needs lifesaving medical services but does not have the money to pay for it?

[icerose]

Look at the other side of the equation, why do the courts not intervene when someone needs lifesaving medical services but does not have the money to pay for it?

Because that's what the medical (though very sadly lacking) support via the government is supposed to cover.

[Robert Toy]

Because that's what the medical (though very sadly lacking) support via the government is supposed to cover.
When and IF we ever have a government universal medical coverage, I believe the list of "not covered" procedures and/or medications will shock us all.

[icerose]

When and IF we ever have a government universal medical coverage, I believe the list of "not covered" procedures and/or medications will shock us all.

That would not shock me. What would shock me is if the government actually got something big right. So far I haven't seen much evidence to attribute to that.

[Robert Toy]

That would not shock me. What would shock me is if the government actually got something big right. So far I haven't seen much evidence to attribute to that.
*sigh*
too true

[Cassiopeia]

Is there ever a guarantee with a medical treatment? There's always a chance it won't work, with everything. There's always a small chance every surgery could be fatal. There's always a small chance the patient could react badly or not respond. But 90% is pretty damn good odds when it comes to cancer.They gave my mom a 97% chance the chemo wouldn't work. She survived 14 years (though she had repeated relapses over the years) Doctor's can't say for certain with cancer. However, statistically leukemia has a better success rate.

I think the issue here is not if it would work, not if the parents are negligent but if the state has the right to take over like that with the medical care of a child. Will we next let them decide if parents should be pre-screened for genetic defects that would increase the chances of children with severe disabilities, so they can prohibit their birth in the first place on the basis it is parental neglect to knowingly conceive a child with the understanding it would suffer such birth defects?

[Zoombie]

Ah, the slippery slope argument...the reason why that falls apart is that the courts deciding this sort of thing only happens very very rarely.

Why? Cause this is a very VERY specific case:

The child is incapable of making judgment calls for himself.

The parents are clearly negligent.

The medical technology that will save the child has a 90% chance to work, as opposed to the 5% chance that the kid has otherwise.


Really, the only issue is payment...

I think the parents should be stuck with the bill, the morons.

[Don]

They gave my mom a 97% chance the chemo wouldn't work. She survived 14 years (though she had repeated relapses over the years) Doctor's can't say for certain with cancer. However, statistically leukemia has a better success rate.

I think the issue here is not if it would work, not if the parents are negligent but if the state has the right to take over like that with the medical care of a child. Will we next let them decide if parents should be pre-screened for genetic defects that would increase the chances of children with severe disabilities, so they can prohibit their birth in the first place on the basis it is parental neglect to knowingly conceive a child with the understanding it would suffer such birth defects?
This makes me very nervous when it comes to national healthcare. What tests will be required to qualify for childbirth coverage under NHC in say, 2025?

[Cassiopeia]

The parents aren't clearly negligent.

What bothers me the most is that people seem to be forgetting just how dangerous Chemo is. In of itself it can kill a person. It's poison. It's not like the possible cure is an antibiotic. We are talking about loading up this child with dangerous chemicals which can leave him permanently disabled as well.

My mother suffered permanent nerve damage to her hands and feet from it.

With all due respect, when we say that we have to make our children do things they don't want to, it's not even in the same ball park here. Who here has actually had chemotherapy? I watched my mother suffer horribly with it. I can only imagine what its like for the child. My father, also had cancer. His was mesotheleoma. He chose not to have treatment. He died within 3 months of diagnosis. I don't know his reasoning, we were estranged but many people choose alternative methods or none at all.

So let's be succinct here: Chemotherapy is not the equivalent to antibiotics. Any person, parent or otherwise has a very difficult decision to make when it comes to accepting treatment.

[Zoombie]

They're trying to cure cancer with WATER.

[Cassiopeia]

They're trying to cure cancer with WATER. Is it water? Or is it something else that falls under the heading of homeopathic?

And even if it's water...that is no different than someone relying on only their faith in God for a cure.

The point is; Chemotherapy is no walk in the park and it's no guarantee either. They could put their son through all that suffering just to end up shortening his life. Remember, it weakens the immune system leaving the patient vulnerable to secondary illness. In short, it could kill him.

I'm not advocating the use of homeopathic to cure him. I'm simply saying one can not base an argument of neglect based on their faith in it.

[GeorgeK]

I'm sorry...

But...Santa Clause isn't real either.

Hey wow, they left! there were these little sqealy people wearing red parkas and thick striped socks with toes sewn in to them so they were like gloves for feet. They dragged me away from my other resonsibilities and made me sit here at 2 in the morning and run the computer for them. I got the impression that they were afraid to touch the keys. One rode on my back with this gold rope with bells tied to it and it was wrapped around my neck. He was ready to garrot me. There were 2 more, one each on a shoulder pointing at things with chopsticks and squealling like pigs getting porked when they tried to tell me to do something. They read the post to which I am replying in Thanks to Zoombie, but I fear that these three little dudes mean to take some vengeance, Of sort, having issues apparently with the wording of the post.

They slept in my shoes, using a sock as a blanket. You might try placing a thumtack in your shoes at night to keep them away.

[Zoombie]

Cass, the way I see it, is that this chemo has a 90% chance to work.

Homeopathic has a 0% chance to work.

By himself, he has a 5% chance to survive. (its not changed at all by homeopathic BS)


In my eye, not taking him to chemo is negligence, pure and simple.

[Cyia]

I've seen honey destroy MRSA when full antibiotic treatments couldn't.

I doubt that for some reason.

Give me a case study, reports, or ANY actual scientific evidence.

See, there is this thing called anecdotal evidence and scientist frown on it, cause according to anecdotal evidence, Bigfoot is real.

Raw, wild honey - so long as it's alkaline and not the super sweetened (acidic) store version, could actually help with MRSA infections because Staph thrives in an acidic environment. If you deprive the bacteria of what it needs to live, you kill it - just like planting a flower in concrete.

[Zoombie]

Cool!

See, that's the kind of alternative medicine that I actually like...it has real science behind it, not some mystical "the honey will purify your chockra and purge the toxins from your cellular memory" BS.

Also, isn't that how they killed the Andromeda Strain?

[GeorgeK]

Raw, wild honey - so long as it's alkaline and not the super sweetened (acidic) store version, could actually help with MRSA infections because Staph thrives in an acidic environment. If you deprive the bacteria of what it needs to live, you kill it - just like planting a flower in concrete.

It also will suck the water out of the bacteria (assuming you can coat them with it like a surface wound. It's analogous to putting salt on a slug.

[regdog]

There was a case in Massachusetts recently in which a mother did not get her son the cancer treatments he needed. She repeatedly canceled doctors appointments, never filled prescriptions, etc. He had a curable form of cancer. His parents were divorced and the father sued for custody of the boy and won. It was too late however, the boy's cancer came back with a vengence and sadly he died.

The mother is now facing criminal charges for withholding medical care

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2009/03/boy_9_dies_whil.html

[Twizzle]

I'm not advocating the use of homeopathic to cure him. I'm simply saying one can not base an argument of neglect based on their faith in it.

You're right. It should be based not on their faith in homeopathics, but in their refusal to make decisions in their child's best interest. The law is specific. You, as parents (guardians), are allowed to want whatever you want. Like homeopathy over chemo. You're also allowed (and req'd) to make decisions for your child because (by law) they aren't considered able to make informed decisions. But you are not allowed to force your wants and decisions (substituted judgment) on your child if it (by legal definition) impedes w/ their "best interest" (certain rights. civil liberties etc).

Yeah, this is where it gets sticky with religion.

Anyway, what it all means is you can't do certain things, like not educate them or feed them or let them ride on the roof of your truck down the highway or refuse to get them life-saving medical care just because you're the parent and it's what YOU want. Not if it squashes (some of ) their rights or (certain) civil liberties. And your child's wants and decisions are completely legally irrelevant, because they aren't of age and the law says they are incapable of making informed decisions. So, if the gov't has reason to believe you're not acting in the child's best interest, they'll step in.

Let me add, my son has a neuro disorder. He's about to turn 18, and we've been involved in transition planning for a while. Anyway, part of that planning involves applying (or not) for guardianship, and what kind. So we've spent way too much time with lawyers, and I know way too much about this crap. Esp the medical angle of it all.

[Cassiopeia]

You're right. It should be based not on their faith in homeopathics, but in their refusal to make decisions in their child's best interest. The law is specific. You, as parents (guardians), are allowed to want whatever you want. Like homeopathy over chemo. You're also allowed (and req'd) to make decisions for your child because (by law) they aren't considered able to make informed decisions. But you are not allowed to force your wants and decisions (substituted judgment) on your child if it (by legal definition) impedes w/ their "best interest" (certain rights. civil liberties etc).

Yeah, this is where it gets sticky with religion.

That was not the intent of my post. I'm saying that you were basing your premise for neglect on their faith homeopathics. That's not neglect. That's faith, belief. It falls under that umbrella of religious belief for many people.

In order for a charge of neglect to stick it's going to require proof in intent and/or insufficient ability as a parent. The parent might argue they have done all the research, and that they as informed citizens have the right to make this decision.

[Twizzle]

That was not the intent of my post. I'm saying that you were basing your premise for neglect on their faith homeopathics. That's not neglect. That's faith, belief. It falls under that umbrella of religious belief for many people.

In order for a charge of neglect to stick it's going to require proof in intent and/or insufficient ability as a parent. The parent might argue they have done all the research, and that they as informed citizens have the right to make this decision.

Um, I think you mean someone else. :) I said you were right. And that was my first post on the topic, so I wasn't basing anything on anything--and I didn't say whether I personally thought they should or shouldn't be charged with neglect. I merely said the law is specific. Like you said, they had to argue they were upholding the best interest of their child. Apparently, they tried to argue the religious freedom thing. (From the sounds of it, their primary religion is actually Catholicism, though-and they are cool with traditional medicine, so.) It seems, however, they failed. The court didn't rule in their favor.

[Zoombie]

I think that you're free to believe, ingest, or do anything that you want, unless it harms someone else.

If that harm is being visited on someone you are supposed to be "in care of", then you are negligent!

That's my world view and I am sticking too it.

[Cassiopeia]

I think that you're free to believe, ingest, or do anything that you want, unless it harms someone else.

If that harm is being visited on someone you are supposed to be "in care of", then you are negligent!

That's my world view and I am sticking too it.I think what is missing here is the point that Chemotherapy harms a person. Can it cure them of cancer? Hopefully. But it's not as simple as a side effect like from an antibiotic...they are pouring poison into that little boy's body. The decision is not a light one to make.

I can argue just as much that it is negligent to force your wishes to hang on to that person by poisoning them and putting them through a lot of physical and emotional trauma.

We can postulate and pontificate all we want but we aren't faced with their decision. My family could have pressure my mother to keep her chemotherapy going but after 14 years it wasn't working as well. We could have insisted she extend her life which would have been reasonably good for US another six months but that would have cause her unknown suffering.

So come on...I don't think they are being negligent. They are faced with one of the most difficult decisions a parent will ever make.

[veinglory]

If they decided to let him die rather than suffer that would still be negligence, I think. But deciding to replace a medicine that causes suffering but saves lives in most cases with magical water... well, however is selling them the magic water should be charged with negligent homicide. That isn't making a brave decision, but a cowardly one. They are choosing to believe the situation is simpler than it is with a win/win option (that does not really exist).

[Cassiopeia]

Is that what they are using for sure? The water version of a homeopathic remedy? Rather than herbal approaches? Some people are so desperate they will believe in anything.

[Kitty Pryde]

Is that what they are using for sure? The water version of a homeopathic remedy? Rather than herbal approaches? Some people are so desperate they will believe in anything.


The phrase "magical water" is being tossed around because homeopathy is water. In some cases, water combined with sugar. Homeopathic 'remedies' do not consist of anything BUT water and sugar.

[veinglory]

Indeed. Anything called "homeopathy" is a medicine diluted on water so extremely that not a single molecule of it exists in the dose. Homeopthay *is* water.

Herbal medicine is alt or complimentary medicine, but it is not homeopathy. I also do not know of any herbal remedy that could be responsibly used as the sole treatment in this case. However several would be very useful in controlling the side-effects of chemo.

[Twizzle]

If that harm is being visited on someone you are supposed to be "in care of", then you are negligent!



Actually. Sometimes, as parents, we do indeed need to make medical decisions that may also harm (hurt, injure, damage) our children. My son's brain surgery harmed him. Saved his life, but harmed him. He's on four different medications that keep him alive, all with harmful side effects. I find it hard to believe we are negligent, however. ;)

ETA: I will say, I've always believed it was our responsibility to pick the most effective (proven) medical treatment for our sons. Even if it was more potentially harmful than something less effective. And no, we don't have any religious qualms. BUT. The issue of experimental studies and treatments has come up. And we've passed. So, was I negligent then? Passing up the chance? I don't know. Now there, you could argue maybe...

[Cassiopeia]

i sure wish someone would explain to certain content sites them that think homeopathic means natural or holistic. We might know it's meaning but not everyone thinks homeopathic is only sugar water.

[Robert Toy]

UPDATE

Minnesota boy who refuses chemo says he’ll fight doctors

Restraints might be used on 13-year-old

http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id/241084/

[Kitty Pryde]

He stated that he would kick and punch doctors who tried to treat him in his testimony last week. And last week ethicists predicted that the boy could be restrained if necessary, though no one would be happy about it.

The real new news (http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=718924&catid=2) is that the kid and his evil mom disappeared! They didn't come to the hearing they were required to come to, where they were supposed to report to the judge what the doctor said. Apparently the kid's lawyer is now recommending he be taken into custody. If they can find him.

[Kitty Pryde]

And now (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iISW_W3JkutTOpf0wHA1OvO8fLGw) there's a warrant out for the mom's arrest, and the judge has ordered the boy placed in foster care and taken to an oncologist as soon as they find him.

And from this news column (http://www.startribune.com/yourvoices/45486137.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD 3aPc:_Yyc:aUdcOy9cP3DieyckcUsI),

However, the patient in question is 13 years old. According to a very troubling column by Jon Tevlin in the Star Tribune this week, Daniel was homeschooled, but when applying to a charter school, was found to not even be able to read the word "the." According to today's Strib, Daniel was taken to his court-ordered x-ray, where it was found the tumor had grown, but when the doctor started to explain the situation to Daniel, his mother cut the visit short.

So what we appear to have is a 13-year-old boy who may or may not be able to read and a parent who actively discourages him from learning more about his condition. This is the 13-year-old that, according to the mother, has "made up his mind."

Poor kid. I hope he turns up safe soon.

[icerose]

I agree, poor kid. I can't even imagine trying to control my kids' lives like that. I WANT them to learn and grow and expand. This lady just outright scares me.

[Sheryl Nantus]

considering the kid's basically illiterate, I'd yank the other children in the home out for testing...

it's one thing to say you're going to home-school - another to have not even the simplest standards to get your kid ready to function in society.

having him be unable to read AND write is not going to help him if he did survive this "holistic" silliness they're pushing on him.

I hope when the mom's found they toss her butt into jail for a good, long time. Child neglect should be the least of the charges she faces.

[Andreya]

I wish people weren't so split between 'either' alternative 'or' conventional - it would be great to see actually conventional doctors work hand in hand with complementary medicine!

Now just to clarify, I don't know much about homeopathy & am very sceptical of it. However, I do not think it's necessarily (or at all) just 'sugar water' - as far as I know there are some very toxic chemicals used in homeopathy too, vastly dilluted of course..

About how effective these very minute amounts can be - hmm, have any of you read anything about nano particles and such? apparently stuff can have effects (some say really bad & some say good) even at very very tiny levels.. so in this context, perhaps it could be possible that tiniest amounts could have some efffect too?

About the boy. I feel sorry for him & the whole situation. And am glad I don't have kids myself, cause it really would be a tough decision.
I believe strongly in prevention & healthy living, it may be hard due to environmental toxics & stuff in our food etc.

When my Granny had cancer, we 'split teams' - Mum bossed the doctors to take good care of Gran & cooked lots of broccolli & made fresh vegetable juice, Sis took over the conventional side, I read stuff online (such as stay away from sugar etc) & gave her foot massage & such.. Gran is mostly allright now, she was given some conventional treatment & some TLC.
I truly believe both nutrition & lifestyle & such things can hugely help..

Just homeopathy without nutrition or lifestyle changes - I am hugely sceptical..
We know a guy who cured his leukemia with vegetable juicing after doctors said it was untreatable. He even bought a farm & started eco farming!

It may not work in all cases, it's something I'd try personally before other options.. It'd probably need to be discussed with doctors in the 'how much time we have' or such manner.. & ideally it could be supervised by experts who'd know what they're doing :) both medical doctors & complementary..

I've talked to a woman who was recommended carrot juice by a conventional oncologist (!)

[Dommo]

I'm against homeopathic medicine, because it hasn't been proven effective scientifically.

Medicine is about results, safety, and repeatability. In other words it's a science. That scientific aspect is absolutely important in order to make sure that treatments are both effective and safe. The last thing that should EVER make its way into medicine is faith. All that does is open the doors up to any whackjob with claim.

Suppose that the airplane you're planning on flying in was constructed by some random person. The plane has never been flight tested before, and the guy in the cockpit has only flown kites in his backyard. That's the current situation with homeopathic medicine. It's a wildwest that currently allows anyone to make claims about anything.

[Andreya]

hmm.. but faith is THE essential thing in it all, ain't it? ;)

patients must have faith in their doctors, & procedures, etc.

clearly, if that is absent, will you rely on the doctor & the treatment? (& as someone who has had bad (& good) experiences with doctors as a kiddie, & my family members too - eg my Dad cured his rheumatism with nutrition & change of lifestyle after all the doctors could do was prescribe him painkillers & told him 'get used to it'!! - I have fair scepticism into conventional medicine too)

There are LOTS of deaths from medically prescribed drugs/medicines too.. so it's not something to be taken lightly either..

Currently, it sometimes seems like 'conventional' medicine (in some areas) seems a bit 'wildwest' too..!! (just say 'Tamiflu' anyone?)

[Diana Hignutt]

The last thing that should EVER make its way into medicine is faith. .

And, yet new research has shown that placebo's can have almost the same effect as actual medicines.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/120094

[dgiharris]

hmm.. but faith is THE essential thing in it all, ain't it? ;)

patients must have faith in their doctors, & procedures, etc....
There are LOTS of deaths from medically prescribed drugs/medicines too.. so it's not something to be taken lightly either..

Currently, it sometimes seems like 'conventional' medicine (in some areas) seems a bit 'wildwest' too..!! (just say 'Tamiflu' anyone?)

Andreya, do you have a car or do you ride a horse to work?
Do you have electricity in your house or do you rely on candles?

My point is that modern medicine is based on SCIENCE, alternative medicine is not.

Alternative medicine is based on the word "could" and most laymen such as yourselves do not understand how evil the word "could" is.

Could apricot seeds cure cancer? Sure. Is it probable? No.

Or put another way. If you have cancer, and there is a small window of opportunity to save your life. Are you going to trust your life to medical professionals who have spent 12 - 20 yrs of their lives studying Science. Or are you going to trust your life to some health guru whose principles means of education is reading non verifiable ancedotes, meditation, and myths.

There is a place for alternative medicine. When every single Scientific treatment has failed, then I'm 100% for alternative medicine. Similarly, when an alternative medicine technique (i.e. taking Vitamin C) has been determined by modern medicine to be harmless, than as long as those alternative techniques DO NOT REPLACE modern medicine than fine.

But it is negligence of the highest order to put alternative medicine in the same category as modern medicine. They aren't even in the same league. It's like comparing a house cat with a Bengal Tiger. THere is no comparison.

And, yet new research has shown that placebo's can have almost the same effect as actual medicines.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/120094

semi-misleading article. In regards to research upon which not all is understood (like anything dealing with the human brain) then yes, the Placebo effect will be more prominent. The Placebo effect is basically our own brains fixing ourselves and we just don't understand that area yet.

But in terms of areas we DO understand, the placebo effect is not as profound.

Mel...

[Fran]

Anyone who cares to read this article will see why I can't actually comment on this. I'm poor.

http://network.nature.com/groups/naturenewsandopinion/forum/topics/4667?page=3

[benbradley]

I'm surely repeating things that have already been said in this thread, but I'd rather write this post than read back through this whole thread to see what has already been said.
I wish people weren't so split between 'either' alternative 'or' conventional - it would be great to see actually conventional doctors work hand in hand with complementary medicine!
Doctors are more and more asking patients what "complementary medicines" they are taking, not because they agree with it, but because they know many will continue to do to these alternative things regardless. They ask what other substances they're talking so the doctor can avoid prescribing things that will have an adverse interaction with the other substances. It's about doing "what's best for the patient" - doctors have learned that if they outright dismiss alternative medicine, patients will drop conventional medicine altogether, with sometimes disasterous results.
Now just to clarify, I don't know much about homeopathy
You're typing on the Internet, The Land Of A Million Encyclopedias, and it's really easy to read up on a topic. Put homeopathy into Google. You'll get lots of results both "pro" and "con," but if you read several of both (never rely on one article or one point of view) you can get both an idea of what it is (everyone agrees it involves diluting things with water, and there's enough detail to show exactly how much dilution is done for dofferent doses), and what different people think about it.
& am very sceptical of it. However, I do not think it's necessarily (or at all) just 'sugar water' - as far as I know there are some very toxic chemicals used in homeopathy too, vastly dilluted of course..
After going through many of the higher levels of dilutions used in homeopathy, there's unlikely to be even one molecule of the original substance in the water. Of course, that presumes one uses pure (as in distilled) water, rather than tap water in which there may be more of the chemical in the original tap water than the dilution procedure is designed to dilute it to.
About how effective these very minute amounts can be - hmm, have any of you read anything about nano particles and such?
Yep, I sure have. The whole idea starts with an article named "There's plenty of room at the bottom:"
http://www.zyvex.com/nanotech/feynman.html
The seminal book in the field is from 1987, "Engines of Creation," you can buy on Amazon or read online for free here:
http://e-drexler.com/p/06/00/EOC_Cover.html
The ability to move atoms around one at a time was demonstrated in 1980:
http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/vintage/vintage_4506VV1003.html
We can't move every kind of atom around, and can't yet build up arbitrary molecules one atom at a time (whether for making medicines or super-strong substances), but that's the ultimate goal.
apparently stuff can have effects (some say really bad & some say good) even at very very tiny levels.. so in this context, perhaps it could be possible that tiniest amounts could have some efffect too?
Okay, maybe it could. How would you test it? How was homeopathy originally developed?

I read some about it, it was developed by one man who made the different dilutions, tested the doses on himself, and recorded his impressions of what each did. There may have been more research done, but as far as I know little if anything has changed in homeopathy since his original findings.

Presuming any of these highly diluted substances DO do anything, I'd want to have a lot more testing, meticulously done on a significant number of people, as is done for any new medicine.

When it is pointed out that many of these doses are so diluted that there is no longer even ONE molecule of the original substance in the water, advocates respond that the water has a "memory" of the substance, and this is what makes the dose effective. If such a memory in water could be shown, it would be quite an interesting development, but I've heard of no claim or evidence for this outside of homeopathy's claims.
About the boy. I feel sorry for him & the whole situation. And am glad I don't have kids myself, cause it really would be a tough decision.
I believe strongly in prevention & healthy living, it may be hard due to environmental toxics & stuff in our food etc.
I do too, and I know how tough it is to stick to a good diet (such as CRON). No doubt environmental toxics DO have negative effects, but the effects of eating various amounts of different macronutrients (fat, sugar and other carbs, protein, and fiber which technically isn't a nutrient) are large and well known.

I think like most people, diet is somthing I don't do as well with as I'd like or "should." When I get my diet to be 80 or 90 percent of what it should be, I'll worry more about toxins and pay the extra for organic-only. Of course on CRON I'lll eat less to begin with, making organic more affordable.

At least "organic" has a soecific legal definition, unlike "natural" which can mean any damn thing the food company wants it to be. I'm surprised I don't see more "natural" potato chips.
When my Granny had cancer, we 'split teams' - Mum bossed the doctors to take good care of Gran & cooked lots of broccolli & made fresh vegetable juice, Sis took over the conventional side, I read stuff online (such as stay away from sugar etc) & gave her foot massage & such.. Gran is mostly allright now, she was given some conventional treatment & some TLC.
I truly believe both nutrition & lifestyle & such things can hugely help..
I wholeheartedly agree...
Just homeopathy without nutrition or lifestyle changes - I am hugely sceptical..
I'm "hugely sceptical" of homeopathy regardless of what else is done. You make it sound like might be more "effective" when combined with these other things, but these other things easily explain 100 percent of any improvement one might have.

One might as well say "Voodoo found more effective when combined with diet change."
We know a guy who cured his leukemia with vegetable juicing after doctors said it was untreatable. He even bought a farm & started eco farming!
Doctors know lots of things other than that they're taught in medical school. One thing they know is how few people people will drastically change their diet, stop eating junk, ahd change to a diet that will greatly help when one develops a health problem.

Not only can such a diet help after health problems develop, but if one goes on a good diet while healthy it will greatly reduce reduce the chances of developing such health problems.

People WANT to continue eat their steak, cheeseburgers (but only with cheese and meat from free-range cows :D), french freedom fries and ice cream, drink their Coca-Cola and sweet tea, and then go to the doctor who prescribes pills to lower their cholesterol and treat their diabetes rather than change their diet. That's what most people end up doing even when counseled about diet change.

So it not surprising doctors try to treat everything with prescription medications. It's not just the pharmaceutical companies pushing them, many people expect the doctor to give them pills to fix what's wrong with them. It's the mentality of "If I can't eat a good steak then life just isn't worth living."
It may not work in all cases, it's something I'd try personally before other options.. It'd probably need to be discussed with doctors in the 'how much time we have' or such manner.. & ideally it could be supervised by experts who'd know what they're doing both medical doctors & complementary..
Are there ant "complementary practicioners" who know what they are doing?
I've talked to a woman who was recommended carrot juice by a conventional oncologist (!)
You're surprised at that? Oncologists know as well as anyone else the connection between diet and cancer. Diet change is NOT "alternative medicine." I'm taking four niacin pills a day for cholesterol at the recommendation of my doctor. Despite the pharmaceutical mentality in both the industry and the public, "conventional medicine" doctors do indeed do other things than give out prescriptions.

[benbradley]

I'm already regretting spending so much time on my previous post. I'm remembering that biblical verse about pearls...
Andreya, do you have a car or do you ride a horse to work?
Do you have electricity in your house or do you rely on candles?
Technically, these are techology, but they have come about as DIRECT RESULTS of scientific investigations.
My point is that modern medicine is based on SCIENCE, alternative medicine is not.
Too many people see science as just another priesthood, and don't see how it is any different from other areas of human activity. Much of the general public see "Science" much like Christianity and the Bible were before Gutenberg when only clergy and others in charge could read and write, and all interpretations and pronouncement are given to the people from "on high."

We really need not just a Gutenberg (as the holy texts and ideas are already available to all, if people were interested in learning) but perhaps a Martin Luther to evangelize the idea that science, at at least its most basic level, is accessible to all.

I remember my high school science classes (I was already devouring Asimov's book collections of his science essays from SF&F Magazine), it seemed I was the only student in the class who knew anything, and looking back, that was often true. Some teachers recognized my knowledge from the few times I spoke up, other teachers didn't have a clue about science themselves.
Alternative medicine is based on the word "could" and most laymen such as yourselves do not understand how evil the word "could" is.

Could apricot seeds cure cancer? Sure. Is it probable? No.
Could seven angels dance on the head of a pin?

More importantly (at least to the point I'm trying to make in this post), how is this question different from the one about apricot seeds?

One of the worst things about alternative medicines is they do nothing to answer the basic questions of effectiveness (or safety). How many people have been given apricot seeds as a treatment for cancer? What dose, and what types of cancers were treated, and how many people with each type? What other medical conditions (type 1 or 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, blood clots, etc) did each patient have? What were the results over time - how fast did the cancer grow or recede in each patient (and for each type of cancer, and for each patient with diabetes, and ...), and how does this compare with other treatments, or the untreated growths of the same types of cancer?

I'm not a "real scientist," just an undegreed engineer and wannabee, but these are some of the questons I would ask. I know there ARE some real, degreed scientists on AW, and I hope I'm not asking the wrong questions, or too far misrepresenting experimental protocols.

But apparently those using apricot seeds to treat cancer are too busy counting their money to record any statistics on patients or do any studies on those stats.
Or put another way. If you have cancer, and there is a small window of opportunity to save your life. Are you going to trust your life to medical professionals who have spent 12 - 20 yrs of their lives studying Science. Or are you going to trust your life to some health guru whose principles means of education is reading non verifiable ancedotes, meditation, and myths.
Oh, but these health gurus have ALSO spent 12-20 years of their lives reading all those alternative books about all those alternative medicines! How can you dismiss all that! <yeah, I'm playing devil's advocate here>
There is a place for alternative medicine.
... must not be tempted to say where I think that place is ...
When every single Scientific treatment has failed, then I'm 100% for alternative medicine.
I'd be in favor of a methodically and carefully recorded study of some "radical" treatment that might help doctors learn a new way to treat and save others, even if it ends up hastening my own death. No doubt chemotherapy and radiation therapy started out that way.
Similarly, when an alternative medicine technique (i.e. taking Vitamin C) has been determined by modern medicine to be harmless, than as long as those alternative techniques DO NOT REPLACE modern medicine than fine.

But it is negligence of the highest order to put alternative medicine in the same category as modern medicine. They aren't even in the same league. It's like comparing a stuffed house cat with a Bengal Tiger. THere is no comparison.
Added by Ben, your friendly science editor. :)

[benbradley]

Anyone who cares to read this article will see why I can't actually comment on this. I'm poor.

http://network.nature.com/groups/naturenewsandopinion/forum/topics/4667?page=3
Oh, quite the contrary! I also know something about the law (though a lot less than I know about science, and probably only enough to be dangerous!), but if someone wants to sue you for monetary damages and (their lawyer finds out that) you're poor, they can't. Well, they could, but it would be fruitless. The lawyerly term is that you are "judgement proof." They could sue you and win a settlement, but if you have no money or other assetts, there's no point, and the lawyer would have to get his fees from the person suing you instead of you. The truly technical legal phrase for this is "you can't squeeze blood from a turnip."

So, hey, Fran, bring it on...:)

I read Singh's "The Code Book" recently and found it excellent. Checking his site (where this lawsuit is prominent on the front page along with his recent book that prompted it, "Trick or Treatment: The Undeniable Facts about Alternative Medicine"), I see has a free download of it, and lists of his other books:
http://www.simonsingh.net/
I'll have to buy that "Trick or Treatment" book for several reasons, one being to support him financially in this lawsuit.

[Lyv]

I'm already regretting spending so much time on my previous post. I'm remembering that biblical verse about pearls...
Uh oh. At the risk of being thought a swine....

I'd be in favor of a methodically and carefully recorded study of some "radical" treatment that might help doctors learn a new way to treat and save others, even if it ends up hastening my own death. No doubt chemotherapy and radiation therapy started out that way.


Sure did. Those studies continue. The medical community is constantly evaluating and improving treatments. At age 16, I was part of a study that helped refine the chemo regimen I believe this child is getting. Kids who went before me helped test the treatment I got, and it saved my life. Every time I went back for follow up, my chemo doc and radiation therapist told me of improvements to treatment. As a nurse, I worked in a facility that gave experimental chemo. Now as I deal with "late effects" from those treatments, I participate in studies geared at both improving the original treatments and developing therapies for the (in many cases unanticipated) long-term effects of treatment.

You're right that we/they should do the same for unconventional treatments.

Lyv, obviously not a science editor

[Fran]

Um, okay. But if you get a call from a guy in a funny wig summoning you to the Royal Courts of Justice as a defence witness don't blame me ;)

I'm not in any remote shape or form a scientist. But if homeopathy works, why don't they PROVE it works, instead of suing people who say it doesn't? To me, it detracts from their credibility to sue eminent scientists when they could run proper studies and show the great results they'll have scientifically. Unless they wouldn't HAVE great results, and they know they wouldn't. I've always thought the basis of science was testing and proving hypotheses, not anecdotes and court cases. I don't blame anyone for seeking alternative treatments or complementary therapies, what I DO have a problem with is people being given sugar water and false hope and being charged a fortune for it.

Got to go - the polis are coming ;)

[Dommo]

I agree Fran. I don't understand how it's legal for snake oil salesman to get away with what they do given the strict regulations over most of the medical industry.

[Andreya]

Hmm, maybe I didn't express myself well..

I can Google homeopathy as well as anyone, but I'm just not interested in homeopathy.. ;)
Some of us also have deadlines we were avoiding on internet.. :)

I totally believe in healthy nutrition & healthy lifestyle, & not so long ago (or even now, at times) even nutrition was considered as an 'alternative' or 'complementary' therapy here in Slovenia too.. My Dad couldn't be helped by doctors, but an 'alternative' iridiologist told him what he had was rheumatism (after 'real tests' came out suspicious & the doctors weren't 'sure' what was wrong with him, but just prescribed lots of pills for it!!) & the same iridiologist said that a specific book on nutrition could be very helpful - & it was!! It set him on the path to health..

So forgive me for not bowing to science & 'conventional' 'proven' methods.. & remaining fairly sceptical & open-minded..

As for homeopathy, that is all I am, slightly open-minded & allowing for the fact that more research may be needed.. And I don't like the unnecessary lawsuits either..
I merely wanted to point out I don't think any treatment could be effective without nutrition & lifestyle change..

I do know many people really rebel a nutrition or lifestyle change, & that some doctors have given up on telling people & just prescribe drugs..
It's also probably different over there in US, as many complementary therapies are recognized & paid-for there by insurance, here they are not.. we also have really bad legislation regarding the complementary therapies here, it's a 'wild west', pretty much.. I wish it were regulated better & yes, I wish too more would be 'scientifically' proven..

I do believe in science too, & am very happy if good things are discovered that help everyone, or at least some people.. I am also sceptical of science as a 'cure all'.. As some 'scientific' cures have proved to be not-so-scientific or effective at all (or with terrible side effects - remember Thalidomide anyone?)

so not sure if the 'pearls' comment was really necessary...? (or was someone having a grouchy day? ;))

aren't good scientists supposed to doubt everything, even science (& doubt) itself?

Oh, & wanted to add, there is some very conflicting science(?) about nano particles being able to both cure or cause cancer.. & factories marketing stuff that will have who knows what effects? (nobody knows cause effects aren't researched enough yet..)

Too sleepy to make much more sense, & sorry if I didn't express myself well, I'm not a native speaker..