Pharyngula

Posted by: DGKnipfer | May 15, 2009 2:20 PM

I always hate when these ignorant idiots cling to their stupidity. Go Judge Rodenberg. It's good to know there's some reason and mental capability in our courts.

Posted by: littlejohn | May 15, 2009 2:21 PM

I hate to see coercion on what is partly a religious matter, but the judge did the right thing. But five bucks sez the whackjob parents defy the order. They'll say they're obeying a "higher authority," or some similar claptrap.

Posted by: MScott | May 15, 2009 2:25 PM

Could still turn out to be an ugly situation. From all I've read, the kid has been saying that he will physically resist any attempt to treat him, and the doctors have been talking about having to strap him down, forcibly anesthetize him, the ethics of doing so, etc.

If the kid actually carries through on those threats, it won't be pleasant, and they'll probably be a lot of nastiness and accusations directed at the people trying to help him if he aggressively resists being treated.

Posted by: Jody | May 15, 2009 2:29 PM

I only hope the decision has been made in time. I lost a friend to the same illness because treatment was delayed, tho in his case it was a misdiagnosis because the doctors didn't want to perform the more expensive test.

Posted by: Brownian, OM | May 15, 2009 2:34 PM

Good thing religious beliefs are harmless and atheists are just cranky assholes, or this might be happening in real life.

Posted by: jrock | May 15, 2009 2:41 PM

Government agencies have been taking kids from neglectful or abusive parents for years. Hell, even kids whose sole problem is being "extremely obese". At least this kid gets to stay with his family if he goes to treatment. As far as the kid being a "medicine man" and "eldar" in some religious nonsense...a crock of shit dressed up in religious terms shouldn't influence the courts. Good job to the judge.

One question though, does anybody else think that if this family said they were Christian Scientists that they wouldn't have even been a story, much less gone to court?

Posted by: stompsfrogs | May 15, 2009 2:45 PM

"Court filings also indicated Daniel has a learning disability and can't read."

:'-(

Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | May 15, 2009 2:47 PM

You too can become an elder and medicine man in the Nehenhah Band

Simply fill out this convenient application:

http://www.nemenhah.org/internal/spiitual_adoption.html

Through this application I declare that (1) Natural Healing comprises part of my Spiritual Orientation; (2) I will First Do No Harm; (3) I will diligently study the Sahaptan Healing Way and strive to become a Sahaptan Guide, Carrier and Shirt in due course, understanding that I shall receive my training from Chief Cloudpiler, or by whomever he assigns to assist for purposes of my training as a Medicine Man or Woman of the Nemenhah Band; (4) in accordance with the Constitution of the Band, which I have read and to which I subscribe, I covenant to generously donate out of my surplus so that my gift may help to support my Mentor and my Band, beginning with the suggested donation of $250.00 which accompanies this application and going forward each month thereafter as the Spirit dictates.

Oh, and don't forget to send your $250.

Posted by: James Cook | May 15, 2009 2:48 PM

To be honest guys, whats the big deal? If the kid die we have a better future to look forward to, if he lives he can indoctrinate and destroy His or Others children as well.

Religious people are like a virus, it needs to be stomped out. The death of religious people is something good, and the death of this kid would make the world a better place as he can not infect others with his defective genes.

A better world if he dies, thats all. Thats just my logical view atleast. I Want to live in a good world, not a violent self-centered one. This is an american kid, right? Then its even more obvious whats good for the world.

Posted by: stompsfrogs | May 15, 2009 2:54 PM

What would obviously be the absolute best thing for the world would be for there to be less James Cook in it.

Please tell me you're a Poe.

Posted by: jenl | May 15, 2009 3:03 PM

But five bucks sez the whackjob parents defy the order.

and on a side-note... the parents' claim that their son is an "elder" in their made-up tribe is painful. does that word not mean anything anymore?!

Posted by: Anonymous | May 15, 2009 3:06 PM

@James Cook

That has to be one of the nastiest sentiments I've read here. And that takes some doing given the trolls that sometimes happen by.

You're talking about a kid with cancer. Have a heart.

Posted by: Phillycook | May 15, 2009 3:08 PM

Sometimes the law is not an ass. This is one of those times.

Posted by: violet | May 15, 2009 3:11 PM

Regarding “the deluded pseudo-Indian religious kooks he has for parents,” I've occasionally wondered (typically when some friends are going on about the wonkier diet-focused bits of Ayurvedic or Traditional Chinese Medicine) what sort of bullshit I, as a brown person, could spew, and still have sorta-newage-hippyish white people believe it.

(It's also immensely irritating and more than a little racist that view of traditional Indian medicine that's popularized in the west just so happens to be the bits that align with a sort of vague nom-these-herbs-and-align-these-chakras new-ageyness. As opposed to, for example, traditional Ayurveic surgery.)

Posted by: stompsfrogs | May 15, 2009 3:13 PM

The state protecting a living child from his parents and himself is somewhat different from the state protecting a clump of cells. The establishment clause of the second amendment is trumped by the child abuse that is happening here. You can't say that you are a priest in "the church of killing dudes for fun" and get away with murder.

Posted by: Noadi | May 15, 2009 3:14 PM

Charles: So by your logic the court that removed my mother from her family when she was 3 for being neglected and given liquor in her bottle to shut up her crying was wrong? Foster care was rough but she's now a great special education teacher and did a good job raising he and my brother. Compared to the 3 siblings of hers who were left in her biological parent's care who are all alcoholics and one is spending a good long stretch in prison for molesting his daughters.

Sorry, I don't see much difference between a parent neglecting and abusing their child because God tells them to and the parent who does it because they're an uncaring bastard. Both harm the child and should have repercussions.

Posted by: amphiox | May 15, 2009 3:17 PM

Raven #23:
Sadly, by the time his cancer gets so advanced and painful as to compel him to change his mind, it will most likely be too late to do anything about it.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | May 15, 2009 3:19 PM

charles, religious adults can off themselves in droves; it's their right. however, children do not have the ability to discern these things for themselves yet, especially when those controlling their lives won't let them form an opinion; neither are children property, to be discarded at will. nobody has the right to kill another individual; the same goes for parents and their children: they. too, do not have the right to murder.

abortion is a completely different animal, if only because the fetus cannot be "taken away"; if it can't physically survive without its host, it's not an individual.

Posted by: Matt | May 15, 2009 3:22 PM

A better world if he dies, thats all. Thats just my logical view atleast. I Want to live in a good world, not a violent self-centered one.

You're an asshole. You say you don't want to live in a self-centered world, but you advocate the death of a 13-year-old as a means of improving your own life? How does that work?

(Is it just kind of assumed that James Cook is an Xtian who spouts horrible things here in an attempt to get atheists to agree with him so he can feel morally superior? Seems that way. Or he actually believes this stuff and should be pushed down a flight of stairs.)

I can't say what I would do if I were closer to the situation, but I can't shake the idea that the child should be an unfortunate and tragic casualty of religious idiocy.

So, Charles, you're volunteering a cancer-stricken 13-year-old kid to be a martyr to your own cause? Sweet of you.

Posted by: Shoggoth | May 15, 2009 3:27 PM

"One question though, does anybody else think that if this family said they were Christian Scientists that they wouldn't have even been a story, much less gone to court? (jrock)"

That worries me, too. How much did the "pseudo-Indian" nature of the parents' kookery contribute to this decision? Were they 'authentic' Indians or a more established religious type (like Christian Scientists) would the judge have found differently even though their kid was in just as much danger?

Posted by: raven | May 15, 2009 3:30 PM

It said in the article that this kid has a "learning disability and can't read." WTF!!!

Kids with learning disabilities learn to read all the time. It may take them longer and they may always have a bit of trouble but most do so.

Can't tell from the article but he might be "mentally slow" (I'm being polite) or just as likely, his parents "home schooled" him which might be "no schooled" him.

Hmmmm, looks llike another case of Xian morality in nonaction. This happens a lot.

PS And yes, the longer he waits for treatment, the lower the success rate. Hard to say where the point of no return is. We may find that out.

Posted by: Epinephrine | May 15, 2009 3:36 PM

So, my bet is that James Cook is another one of these religious folk who impersonate atheists to discredit them. Like that pastor a while back?

On the off chance that he's serious:
James Cook ludicrously opined:

To be honest guys, whats the big deal? If the kid die we have a better future to look forward to, if he lives he can indoctrinate and destroy His or Others children as well.

Dead children don't make a better future. You have no reason to assume that he'll indoctrinate others; while that's a possibility, it's a possibility for anyone. Even if religion were correlated with shooting people randomly, we don't live in a society in which one can opt to punish people for crimes they might someday be predisposed to commiting.

Religious people are like a virus, it needs to be stomped out. The death of religious people is something good, and the death of this kid would make the world a better place...

There is some accuracy in viewing religion as a virus (of the mind), but the people are simply carriers. The death of people isn't a good thing. I'd like to see the virus itself disappear, though.

as he can not infect others with his defective genes.

Religion is decidedly non-genetic, moron. And you don't "infect" people with your genes. "Ack! Stay back, you have blue eyes, and I like mine hazel!" Idiot.

A better world if he dies, thats all. Thats just my logical view atleast.

Define logical. I see no trace of logic in your babble.

I Want to live in a good world, not a violent self-centered one. This is an american kid, right? Then its even more obvious whats good for the world.

Umm, what now? I fail to grasp what you are saying here. You want the death of others, but want a good, non-violent world? And are you suggesting that Americans are particularly deserving of the fate you would wish on others?

I call reverse-Poe. Nice try, cretin.

Posted by: Jud | May 15, 2009 3:40 PM

Were they 'authentic' Indians or a more established religious type (like Christian Scientists) would the judge have found differently even though their kid was in just as much danger?

Nope. In fact, testimony regarding the authenticity of the child's religious belief was offered and the judge refused to hear it. Smart judge. The precedents are clear and he is on solid ground with his ruling. Inquiries into the authenticity of belief would just have got him into entirely unnecessary trouble.

Posted by: Adam | May 15, 2009 3:44 PM

If they find a doc to administer the chemo, I hope he has his insurance paid up. Live or die, these kooks will find a reason to bury him in lawsuits. What a horrible situation all around.

Posted by: Matt | May 15, 2009 3:50 PM

@ Benjamin Franklin #16
I'm a little confused...

[Colleen Hauser] also testified that Daniel is a medicine man and elder in the Nemenhah Band.

Posted by: Emmet, OM | May 15, 2009 3:54 PM

Just a note to express agreement with those who think James Cook's #18 is beneath contempt.

That is all.

Posted by: Shoggoth | May 15, 2009 4:07 PM

"Maybe there's more to life than what appears in peer-reviewed academic journals."

If you have proof for the efficacy of an alternative treatment, I'm keen to see it - as, in fact, are the medical scholars and scientists who publish those journals.

Posted by: kamaka | May 15, 2009 4:22 PM

Wow, this site is a whack job.

3...2...1...

Posted by: stompsfrogs | May 15, 2009 4:25 PM

Charles.

He's a kid. He can't chose to smoke. He can't chose to drink. He's not allowed to enter into any legally binding contracts. He's just hit the age where he's allowed to have a MySpace page. His well-being is entrusted to his parents. If they don't do a good job, the state steps in.

If you swallow a gallon of bleach and someone calls an ambulance, they'll pump your stomach even if you carve a suicide note onto your chest. We don't even let adults commit suicide, and children are allowed to do less than adults because we have agreed that they don't know any damn better. It's pretty black and white: chance of survival with chemo = 95%. chance of survival with naturopathy = 5%. When asked, the child expressed a desire to survive. So he's not so good at math and he got the equation wrong - he should die for it?

A fetus is not a child. It doesn't get a social security number until birth. Upon birth, it is a child until it is recognized as an adult at age 18 or 21. There are different laws that apply to individuals in these three distinct stages of life. line. sand.

Posted by: Epinephrine | May 15, 2009 4:29 PM

Carlie, she capitalized it - she clearly means that a gigantic crab made of stars hasn't ever killed anyone. Or perhaps that astrology never killed anyone. After all, nobody is THAT stupid.

Please tell me that nobody is that stupid.

Posted by: Brownian, OM | May 15, 2009 4:32 PM

As someone who works in cancer surveillance, I'll rejoin with a resounding go fuck yourself, Anna, you vile piece of filth.

There's a type of extremely common cancer known as non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC). Incidence rates of this cancer are so high and mortality rates are so low that it's generally not included in reports of 'all cancer' rates. Yet, people do die from it, almost exclusively as a result of their not seeking treatment (most instances of this cancer can be surgically excised by a dermatologist with local anesthetic). Unfortunately, many of these cases occur among the homeless and others without the means to procure (or the tendency to seek out, in Canada) basic health services.

This is just one example of why you're a dangerously deluded idiot.

I call reverse-Poe. Nice try, cretin.

I named this Brownian's Corollary to Poe's Law sometime back: "A fundamentalist theist is generally incapable of producing a convincing parody of an atheist."

Posted by: JJR | May 15, 2009 4:33 PM

"...when the alternative is taking on crushing financial debt that will cripple the other kids' chances for an education and a decent life. Maybe there's more to life than what appears in peer-reviewed academic journals."

The other kids' chances for an education and decent life are *already* fairly crippled, considering the belief system being imparted by the parents. Yes, crushing debt sucks but you can't squeeze blood from a turnip, there aren't debtor's prisons anymore (thank goodness), and there is still bankruptcy protection(s) available, as well as gov't aid programs, not to mention religious charities & food pantries, etc. The American social safety net isn't great, but it's not non-existent.

The remaining kids could all join the Armed Forces at 18 if they were desperate enough.

"Sorry, kids, we had to let your brother die so that we could afford to send at least some of you to State U. (or more likely, Bible College X.)"

I just don't buy the economic argument for alternative woo, not even in our ruthlessly for-profit medical care system.

Posted by: notam | May 15, 2009 4:39 PM

@55 & @56 ...

...Cancer is a fungus that invades the body and mutates - clings on to the DNA - it is fed with white sugar, white potatoes, and white flour...

WTF?

Posted by: Dianne | May 15, 2009 4:41 PM

I just don't buy the economic argument for alternative woo, not even in our ruthlessly for-profit medical care system.

I agree. For one thing, woo's not free: it's a strictly for profit institution and woo providers are far less likely to offer financial aid to customers than drug companies. (Who, even if they are evil money-grubbing corporations, have to put up with implicit blackmail from doctors: "Ok, I won't prescribe your drug for my patient who can't afford it...I'll prescribe drug X instead. Of course, then I'll get familiar with how to use that drug, its side effect, etc. Which means I'll probably prescribe it for my insured patients as well...")

Second, any college worth its accreditation is going to have financial aid for kids who can't pay or whose parents can't pay.

Finally, all children who are not insured and whose parents make less than a certain amount are covered by SCHIP. So I seriously doubt that finances really enter into the equation.

Posted by: stompsfrogs | May 15, 2009 4:43 PM

"cow butter?"

"parastroika?" what is that, Russian? Or is it teh stupid?

Does she really think that cancer isn't fatal? Really really? My grandfather received no treatment for his lung cancer. His lungs filled with fluid and he died of apnea. I would really call that dying of cancer. Can we kill her? Is that allowed?

Posted by: NoAstronomer | May 15, 2009 4:45 PM

"parastroika"

A Troika of Parrots?! Even if you hadn't mistyped it, it would make no sense.

Posted by: JustaTech | May 15, 2009 4:46 PM

I think Orac had a pretty good read on these people when he suggested that what really happened is that the first round of chemo scared the crap out of them, and *that* was when they decided to use the "New age psuedo-religion" excuse to not treat.

Right now he's not visibly *as* sick, so his parents feel like they're helping. They're wrong, and chances are good that he will die, but I think this is a case of using religion as a CYA in court, rather than being the defining reason to not treat.

That doesn't make it any more acceptable, but it does change the dynamics slightly.

What they all really need is some very heavy-duty counseling so that they finally understand why they should have treated him in the first place.

Posted by: Hypocee | May 15, 2009 4:48 PM

Don't worry, I know better than to reply in substance to an entity that can't pass the Turing Test - but I can't resist entirely.

"Perestroika"? "Perestroika"?!

Posted by: Rob | May 15, 2009 4:52 PM

I'm not a big fan of letting kids die, but natural selection is screaming for this kids head.

Posted by: GP | May 15, 2009 4:57 PM

It doesn't matter who's right. It should be the families right to make decisions for their own family no matter what other opinions are. I have no idea what alternative methods they are following. But I have seen alternative healing such as Traditional Chinese Medicine and such be far more effective over time than Chemo. Chemo definitely kills cancer in the short term but typically in the end it weakens the patients immune system even further. This leaves the cancer with good odds of coming back even more violent than the original on-set. If we have gotten to the point where government can force certain medical treatments on people that is very scary.

Posted by: Brownian, OM | May 15, 2009 4:59 PM

In case it's not clear, the blockquoted batshittery was from The Independent's article, not the peer-reviewed journal article in Cancer by Dr. Mac Manus and his colleagues.

Posted by: BlueIndependent | May 15, 2009 5:04 PM

"To be honest guys, whats the big deal? If the kid die we have a better future to look forward to, if he lives he can indoctrinate and destroy His or Others children as well.

Religious people are like a virus, it needs to be stomped out. The death of religious people is something good, and the death of this kid would make the world a better place as he can not infect others with his defective genes.

A better world if he dies, thats all. Thats just my logical view atleast. I Want to live in a good world, not a violent self-centered one. This is an american kid, right? Then its even more obvious whats good for the world."

While we vehemently disagree with religion on this site, we do not advocate for a "better world" by hoping the children of idiot parents are allowed to die just so we can get our rocks off. I too think you are a Poe posing as an atheist in a transparent attempt to get us to agree with you, so you can bring your theist buddies in here and splash us all over Glenn Beck's or Hannity's show. If you're not a Poe, atheist or not your immoral comment isn't welcome here, as you can see from the replies you are getting.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | May 15, 2009 5:04 PM

GP, cite the literature citations backing up your claims. That separates real evidence from anecdotes.

Posted by: Sastra | May 15, 2009 5:11 PM

GP #80 wrote:

But I have seen alternative healing such as Traditional Chinese Medicine and such be far more effective over time than Chemo.

You "have seen" this? Really? You? Seen it? For yourself?

Well, then, screw science. To hell with rigorous and rational methods, peer-review, experiment, and replication. Fuck consistency and caution. We've got an eye-witness, folks, and, as we skeptics know, eye-witness testimony is the STRONGEST evidence there can ever be!!!11!eleventy-one!!1!

GP, people cannot make responsible decisions for themselves unless they are well-informed. The parents and child have been lied to, and misunderstand their situation. Choice involves having two viable options.

Posted by: 3balhorangi | May 15, 2009 5:15 PM

RE: #54
I don't question the efficacy of modern scientific medicine, and I don't for a minute believe the new-age malarkey. I believe you when you say only modern scientific medicine will save the boy's life.

Getting and paying for modern scientific medicine, however, is another question. There are people in the USA at this moment who have to decide whether they can afford the miracles of modern medicine or can take a chance and do without(I'm one of them, having been laid-off in January). That is not an academic question. Working people with families have to make this kind of cost/benefit calculation. I personally would never choose crack-pot alternative medicine over scientific medicine, but I would have to think long and hard about what to do if I needed seven or eight hundred thousand dollars' worth of treatment to save my life. The reason for my original posting was annoyance with the "ivory tower" outlook I found here. Yeah, as scientists you guys are absolutely right. Now, are any of you going to chip in to pay the bills for Daniel's court-ordered chemotherapy?

Posted by: Marcus Ranum | May 15, 2009 5:23 PM

If he dies, then he's less likely to carry on his parents' genetic legacy. Win.

Posted by: Brownian, OM | May 15, 2009 5:24 PM

Now, are any of you going to chip in to pay the bills for Daniel's court-ordered chemotherapy?

Don't look at me; I live in Canada, where we've had socialised medicine for quite some time. If Daniel were living here, then yes, I'd have already been chipping in with the chunk they take off my paycheck, and I wouldn't have it any other way.

Nonetheless, you make a valid point, or at least, one that would be valid were the parents have claimed inability to pay as the reason for refusing care. Besides, Anonymous at #61 pointed out that treatment would be paid for by SCHIP.

Sorry to hear about your job loss, however. All the best in getting back on your feet.

Posted by: Dead Guy Kai | May 15, 2009 5:25 PM

So, if the kid dies can the parents be tried for Voluntary Manslaughter, or does Minnesota have one of those disgusting "Religious get out of jail free" laws?

As usual, "religion poisons everything."

Posted by: Brownian, OM | May 15, 2009 5:27 PM

Oh, I know what Perestroika is/was. (I am old enough to remember the fall of the Berlin wall.)

What I don't know (and I suspect Anna doesn't either, given her use of the term), is what the hell 'parastroika' is, and why we're in such violation of it.

Posted by: brian | May 15, 2009 5:32 PM

Brownian,
You wouldn't change your socialized medicine for the world? Even with all the long lines, terrible waiting periods, and poor care that we are constantly being told exist by xenophobes who have only ever left the US to have sex with underaged prostitutes?

Posted by: Jeanette | May 15, 2009 5:36 PM

Hodgkins Lymphoma is almost always fatal without medical treatment. And the development of effective treatment for it is very recent, and should be appreciated. I had Hodgkins back in 1993, and the doctors told me that if I had gotten it ten years earlier, it would have been an almost certain death sentence.

That kid not only needs parents (or legal guardians) who recognize that he needs real medical treatment, but he needs ones who can be extremely supportive for him throughout his treatment. Hodgkins requires very aggressive treatment, much tougher courses of chemotherapy than for many other cancers, and there's no way for me to convey what he's about to go through in the next few months.

Posted by: strangebrew | May 15, 2009 5:47 PM

51#

Thanks kamaka ...You confirmed my feeling about this nonsense...
I know little about the spirituality of American Indians...I do know that they had a damn sight more morality and depth then is ever shown by an xian cult...although that is not hard.
I looked at the lodges page and was struck by the fact that all the names appeared as Caucasian or variations thereof...at odds with the rest of the text!
Not a smoking gun for sure but odd considering they liked the metaphysical and symbolism of 'principle stone carriers' etc

But it seemed a white man's version and not totally convincing.
In fact is reminded me of a Christian cult gone native!
For affect or because Christianity gets boring I know not...But the one 'Creator'...surely not a Native term...!

Being for the most part Polytheism incarnate.

But they mentioned WAKAN TANKA which as far as I can suss is the nearest to a single deity...certainly the nearest to an xian deity anyway.
There might well be other single deities...this was difficult to quantify seeing as beliefs even diversified between the same tribe...!

"In Dakota mythology, Wakan Tanka was a creator. He existed alone in the void before existence where he was lonely, so he decided to make company for himself by dividing into four. He made earth, and mated with her to create the sky, then he mated with earth and sky to make the sun. Afterwards creation continued to grow as the leaves and twigs grow on a tree."

Bit incestuous...and in the very best of Christian character.

I bet the genuine tribal council are not best pleased!

Read their forum if anybody gets bored...they are being right royally spanked over this nonsense.

http://www.nemenhahforum.info/

Posted by: Brownian, OM | May 15, 2009 5:49 PM

You wouldn't change your socialized medicine for the world? Even with all the long lines, terrible waiting periods, and poor care that we are constantly being told exist by xenophobes who have only ever left the US to have sex with underaged prostitutes?

I stand by my statement, though it's of course made under duress as I'm monitored by jack-booted communist thugs who ensure I never say anything against the motherland.

But a long wait for service is better than no service at all, and fucktons of peer-reviewed evidence shows that privatisation of health care decreases health outcomes and increases per capita costs overall.

We have the same fuckwads make the same arguments here. (I do live in Alberta, after all, home of the high school drop-out politician.) Funny thing is, everytime they try to privatise, everyone freaks out. Now, why would we do that if we're all actually self-interested rational actors who want what's best for us, as the Libbys like to say?

Further, everytime some MD comes out in favour of privatisation, it's inevitably because they've just secured the final investor for their for-profit hospital.

Posted by: Marcus Ranum | May 15, 2009 5:51 PM

Emmet writes:
I fail to see how the avoidable death of a child can be termed “win”.

Who gives a shit, really? You don't know the kid and neither do I. There are loads and loads of unwanted kids on the planet and - apparently - his parents don't want him all that much. Life sucks and sometimes you die early.

Posted by: Michael W Simpson | May 15, 2009 5:57 PM

Traditional Chinese Medicine is neither traditional or medicine. There's even an argument that it's not even Chinese. Why do we think that there's some lost medical practices somewhere amongst ancient civilizations that no longer exist. I'd argue if these wacko pseudoscientific medical cures actually existed, so would the civilizations.

Back on topic. I'm worried that it might be too late for Daniel, and even if it isn't, he's been brainwashed, and he may refuse treatment. I don't think many doctors would be comfortable with forcing it on him, though I argue that once he's a ward of the state, the state becomes the parents, and the physician must respect the wishes of the legal guardians.

The parents should be arrested and imprisoned for life for attempted murder. I have no proof, but I'll bet if Daniel were a dog, they would be. That pisses me off.

Posted by: kamaka | May 15, 2009 6:00 PM

Some of the shit I have read on this thread is just unbelievable.

To all of you who think this kid dying just might be OK...fuck off, like go away and just fucking die yourselves. That you would say such things about a sick, scared kid is reprehensible, even if you think you're only proving some kind of point.

Anna, you go fuck off, too.

Dammit, I just puked on my keyboard.

Posted by: Brownian, OM | May 15, 2009 6:03 PM

Nice summary Merkin Muffley, including the freedom vs. efficacy bit.

If you can convince a big part of society that we should allow parents to do with their children as they please without answering to society in case of, say the avoidable death of the child, then you can be successful. I, for one, will be betting against you.

We had that. It was called the Industrial Revolution. Kids died in factories by the truckloads. Not everyone thinks their kids are little darlings. Some think they're an excellent source of second or third incomes.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 15, 2009 6:03 PM

@ 108
Sad how you fail to see how it matters. or maybe, and stop me if I´m wrong (how could you), defense. Who other would say it like that? I belive that alot of thinking people give someting.. if not shit...

Asshole.

Posted by: Jim B | May 15, 2009 6:07 PM

This got me to thinking about the Terri Schiavo case. President Bush took an unplanned trip to DC, and congress held an emergency session to save Mrs. Schiavo's "life."

I doubt they would have exerted themselves to save Daniel Hauser's life.

Posted by: Chrystal K. | May 15, 2009 6:09 PM

This is actually a very difficult situation. Obviously, if he were a legal adult, he would be able to make his own decision, but since he is so young and may not have a complete understanding of each side it becomes hard to call.

I don't think the parents are purposely "neglecting" their child. In fact, they probably feel like they are protecting him from harmful chemicals and increasing his chances of a healthy recovery.

I wonder if there are any statistics of how effective these natural remedies are on these types of illnesses. They may be effective and just unknown. Regardless, I hope Daniel is cured soon and I pray that he can be happy and healthy.

Posted by: Walton | May 15, 2009 6:16 PM

You wouldn't change your socialized medicine for the world? Even with all the long lines, terrible waiting periods, and poor care that we are constantly being told exist by xenophobes who have only ever left the US to have sex with underaged prostitutes?

Speaking as a UK resident, I can't comment on Canada's socialised healthcare, but ours is notoriously poor. (Thankfully I've had little occasion to use it myself.) It's also financially unsustainable; many of the NHS trusts over here are on the verge of insolvency. Privatisation of some services is likely to be the only realistic option in the long run.

Brownian: as I understand it (and I'll defer to your knowledge on this, since I've never been to Canada), is it not the case that a large part of the problem in Canada is due to the fact that private insurers are banned from covering treatments which are covered by Medicare? Meaning that waiting lists are needlessly long, and some are forced to travel to the US to seek private treatment? That seems like an entirely insane policy to me. I'm not saying that government shouldn't assist with healthcare costs - it does in all Western countries - but it is, IMO, immoral to deny people the right to buy private treatment, separate from anything provided by the state, if they have the money and the will to do so.

All that said, I vehemently disagree with whoever described the prospect of this child's death as "win"; and I think that, whatever one's political leaning, basic human decency requires that we provide life-saving treatment to children, at least, regardless of their family circumstances. I realise that this child declined the treatment, but I don't think that someone of his age, with the level of indoctrination he's likely to have received from his parents, can really make an informed decision. As much as I hate to endorse government intrusion, the judge was, IMO, right in this case.

Posted by: D'oh! | May 15, 2009 6:26 PM

Cancer is a fungus that ... clings on to the DNA

I'd have to say that almost as funny as Barb's claim that that the heart beats for a lifetime without an energy source.

Posted by: Kim | May 15, 2009 6:28 PM

He, can we nominate him for a Darwin Award?

Posted by: Brownian, OM | May 15, 2009 6:29 PM

Brownian: as I understand it (and I'll defer to your knowledge on this, since I've never been to Canada), is it not the case that a large part of the problem in Canada is due to the fact that private insurers are banned from covering treatments which are covered by Medicare? Meaning that waiting lists are needlessly long, and some are forced to travel to the US to seek private treatment? That seems like an entirely insane policy to me. I'm not saying that government shouldn't assist with healthcare costs - it does in all Western countries - but it is, IMO, immoral to deny people the right to buy private treatment, separate from anything provided by the state, if they have the money and the will to do so.

Since that inevitably leads to increased prices and the inability of the poor to pay for necessary treatments, wouldn't that be even more immoral?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | May 15, 2009 6:37 PM

I can't be the only Babylon 5 fan here...

Posted by: Emmet, OM | May 15, 2009 6:41 PM

Speaking as a UK resident, I can't comment on Canada's socialised healthcare, but ours is notoriously poor.

[citation needed]

“Notoriously poor” by what standard? To the best of my knowledge, every international comparison of metrics of public health places countries with “socialised healthcare” way ahead of countries without, both in absolute terms and in terms of value-for-money.

Posted by: brian | May 15, 2009 6:42 PM

According to the yahoo news article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ap_on_he_me/us_med_forced_chemo;_ylt=AmGtxVF8CfbzHrJo_ocfoX8azJV4

The guy who founded this "tribe" once served four months in prison in Idaho for fraud related to advocating natural remedies.

Oh, and this family is apparently just catholic. I wonder if the "altrnative treatments" include cannibalism and vampirism.

Posted by: Brownian, OM | May 15, 2009 6:46 PM

“Notoriously poor” by what standard? To the best of my knowledge, every international comparison of metrics of public health places countries with “socialised healthcare” way ahead of countries without, both in absolute terms and in terms of value-for-money.

Oh, we keep hearing about how 'notoriously poor' our system is too, by the fucking illiterates in the Alberta legislature.

Here's pubmed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez

Type in 'health outcomes privatization' and read a few abstracts. Emmet's right.

Posted by: Qwerty | May 15, 2009 6:47 PM

I was wondering the other day how the religious right (and especially James Dobson) can get so worked up over Teri Shiavo who was considered brain-dead, but not get worked up over this young child who has the potential for a much longer life.

I guess it's that conservative thinking in which a higher authority (god, zeus, jebus) overrules the state's authority.

Posted by: Brownian, OM | May 15, 2009 6:57 PM

'Kay, gotta run, so I won't be able to keep up the privatisation discussion for awhile.

Posted by: mh | May 15, 2009 7:03 PM

Walton, I live in the UK too and I have been lucky enough to use our healthcare system many times. Each time I received polite, friendly and knowledgable service. OK so it is not the most speedy system but it is fair for everyone. I am also comforted by the idea that should I be unwell, need surgery or otherwise rushed to the A&E, I and my family would not need to worry about insurance forms/costs/etc. Can you even imagine not being able to go to your GP because you could not afford to do so? I can't. And I am proud of the NHS. You should be too.

Posted by: T_U_T | May 15, 2009 7:47 PM

I might feel differently about this if the kid had been well informed and was consciously making a decision to die

Well. I would not. Letting suicidal teenagers die is as evil as letting anyone else die.

Posted by: Right Winger | May 15, 2009 8:29 PM

This is interesting indeed. LIberals are shouting about this incident ( and it is bad) but they virtually allowed Terri Schiavo to die at the hands of her husband rather than get medical help that would indeed help her. He tried to kill her and failed. That's why he never allowed her treatment. He didn't want her to talk.

Terri Schiavo still lives in our hearts and memeories and her brutal murder will always be in our thoughts.

If you could let Terri's husband murder her by starvation, then you should let this go too!

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | May 15, 2009 8:32 PM

but they virtually allowed Terri Schiavo to die at the hands of her husband rather than get medical help that would indeed help her.

Terri Schiavo was brain dead, as are you, you stupid fuck. There was nothing, that's NOT A THING, that could bring her back to life. Sorry if reality doesn't fit your ideology, but that's too bad. Reality has a liberal bias.

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 15, 2009 8:34 PM

they virtually allowed Terri Schiavo to die at the hands of her husband rather than get medical help that would indeed help her.

red herring.

fuck off.

Posted by: Right Winger | May 15, 2009 8:50 PM

Terri Schiavo was not brain dead. Autopsy reports did show that her brain was damaged beyond repair. That is becuase she was denied treatment for so long that her brain kept deteriroating. Of course she could have evntually went into a coma and died anyway later. She could have been possibly okay if she would have recieved proper medical treatment when she first collapsed. Instead she was denied treatment.

She was never brain dead! EVER!

The only person brain dead in this case was Micheal Schiavo. It's not too late for the family to file a crminal investigation into the relationship between Micheal Schiavo and the judge in this case.

A court battle is still going on.

What makes him so suspicious is the fact that he would not let her parents take care of Terri. Her own parents did not have a say in the whole thing. They agreed to take care of everything.

If that's the case, then if I were her parents I would surely let Mr. SChivao take care of ALL of the medical bills by himself.

I wonder if one day he will ever be in the hopital. i wonder if his new bride will pull his plug and make him starve to death while he lays back and helplessly tries to communicate but can't? I bet the media changes their tune then.

Posted by: Kseniya | May 15, 2009 8:52 PM

Right Winger

You're doing a spectacular job of living up to your name.

Posted by: BlueIndependent | May 15, 2009 8:57 PM

"Terri Schiavo was NOT brain dead. She knew everything that was going on in that room. She attempted to speak when her evil murderous husband would occassionaly let her parents into the room. She moved her eyes and head when someone brought flowers and balloons. Is that brain-dead?..."

You're an idiot. And man do you have alow standard for determining the consciousness and brain capacity of individuals. Face facts: the brain scans are irrefutable. Schiavo was brain dead. That you refer to her husband as "murderous" is annihilated by the fact that Schiavo had been in her state for many many years. It was her parents, in their display of self-righteous religiosity, who kept an already gone woman alive, against her wishes.

"...I wonder how much her husband paid that judge to make such a ruling. I wonder what was in it for him?"

People like you who relied on the *video diagnosis* by a doctor senator unskilled in the particular disorder, who had never met nor treated Mrs. Schiavo once in her life, have no credibility on this issue. Maybe it was the husband's need to not continue seeing his wife suffer needlessly, unknowingly, and expensively, ad infinitum for years and years and years. I think a better question is how much more pain you idiot conservatives caused by turning the choice of one married couple into a national issue. I thought you guys were for families and traditional marriage, BUT as usual, when it's not exactly what you morons want, it's time for government to intervene. You guys love the government when it means taking physical action against someone you don't like.

Posted by: BlueIndependent | May 15, 2009 9:01 PM

Right Winger, it's over. You lost, and for damn good reason: Because you're so blinded by your own fealty to your political group that you are incapable of challenging anything you hear or see that doesn't fall within their world frame, and are incapable of operating and understanding the world. Put succinctly, you need help to get through life. Good job abdicating your brain to the group.

I guess conservatives are kinda right: Groupthink is dangerous. Too bad its your own groupthink that's dragging you down.

Posted by: Right Winger | May 15, 2009 9:06 PM

Anna,

My mother died of cancer. You are right though. She was doing much better before thye chemo. Afterwards, she got worse.

There are other alternatives to state funded medical treatments that people view as a joke. EDTA Chelation therapy is one of them. Don't knoc it till you try it!

I made up my mind already. If I have to undergo open heart surgery or chem, I'll take my chnaces with alternatives. At least I'll die quicker and with less suffering if the alternative fails. I have already seen what open heart surgery and chemo can do to a person. I refuse to go through that and if the state says I'll have to, then they'll have to fight me to the death. I hope they bring enough ammo when they come for me cause I have enough to fight a small war. I could last a two months in that house with my food/medical/ammo stock. No government has the right to force medicine on anyone. And if they do claim that right, then dammit they should pay every dime and pay me labor for missing work and pay for my suffering. Government, that will be $10,000,000 please. I'll take mine in cash - tax free. Otherwise, stay the hell out of my business!

Posted by: Right Winger | May 15, 2009 9:14 PM

"Maybe it was the husband's need to not continue seeing his wife suffer needlessly, unknowingly, and expensively, ad infinitum for years and years and years"

----------

HMMM! I bet's that's what Mr. Schiavo told his NEW WIFE!

She was not brain dead - again!

If she were, she would not have been able to look around at people when they spoke to her. Good grief people.

--------------

Similar cases to Terri Schiavo:

Haleigh Poutre. An American child beaten into a coma by a foster parent whom the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is attempting to remove from life support.

Jessie Ramirez. An American man who suffered severe head trauma during a car accident, and was diagnosed as being a "Persistent Vegetative State". Based on this diagnosis, his wife requested that life support be removed only 1 week after the accident. His parents fought to keep him on life support despite his wife's interference and an Arizona judge ordered his feeding tube replaced. He recovered 3 weeks after the accident.

Posted by: dean | May 15, 2009 9:18 PM

"At least I'll die quicker"

That's the only correct thing you've said.

You may need to read this slowly, so your flapping lips don't block your eyes: you are old enough to choose your own care, so if you are ever in a life/death situation, you can choose the quacks you seem to favor, and not worry about the big bad government stepping in.
The case that is the subject of this set of posts isn't about the state stopping adults from choosing their own treatment: it's about the state protecting the weakest among us, a child, from people who are apparently hell-bent on keeping him from receiving the treatment he needs - abuse that could lead to his death. You can be as big an ass as you want to yourself (I'm guessing you are a pro at this), but you shouldn't be able to extend that to a child.

Posted by: skepsci | May 15, 2009 9:22 PM

This seems like the best of all possible solutions. I hope that the kid lives, grows up, and rejects his parents delusions.

Posted by: Kseniya | May 15, 2009 9:28 PM

Similar cases to Terri Schiavo:

Yes, because three weeks is "similar" to fifteen years.

Why don't you cut and paste your talking points all at once, so we can get this over with?

Posted by: Marcus Ranum | May 15, 2009 9:36 PM

Mrs Tilton writes:
failure to give a shit about the avoidable death of a child one doesn't know -- now, I can understand that, actually. It is evidence of a shallow and impoverished personality, to be sure, but it does have a certain logic.

Oh, excuse me for being honest. Perhaps you mistook that for shallow and impoverished. Whatever those are. The truth is that I don't give a shit about the kid and neither does probably anyone here. Wringing your hands on a blog is about as effective as praying for him. Is making lip-service the opposite of "shallow and impoverished"? Then save me a seat on the insincerity bus next to you, OK?

So some kids dumbass parents are trying to talk him into dying, and it (apparently) mostly worked. Until the state had to save his life - time probably better spent fixing a pothole in some road. Why protect the stupid from themselves?

That's evidence of shallow, impoverished personality stuck for ever at the level of a sixteen year old reading Atlas Shrugged and imagining it to be profound.

It put me to sleep; I never finished it. Did you?

I guess I needed to cloak my original comment in some nice-sounding social bullshit. But, seriously, this got me thinking what do we actually mean when we say we "care" about a complete stranger's fate? Do we do anything? Generally, no. Are we just concerned with appearing to be polite? Are we afraid of being called "shallow" and "impoverished" so we say the right thing in order to live up to social expectations?? I wonder if what we're doing is pretending to care in hopes that, you know, someday if we're lying by the side of the road in need of help, someone will actually be socialized enough with the idea of "caring about strangers" to stop. If only to relieve us of our wallet.

Posted by: Right Winger | May 15, 2009 9:38 PM

"The case that is the subject of this set of posts isn't about the state stopping adults from choosing their own treatment: it's about the state protecting the weakest among us, a child"

----

That's not the tune you are singing when it comes to an unborn child now is it? Where is the protection from the weakest of all - the unborn?

Posted by: Blue Fielder | May 15, 2009 9:42 PM

Folks.

Right Winger.

Poe.

Don't be gullible.

Also, Marcus? Lemme guess, you're one of those guys who regularly gets rejected by other internet communities because you're "not PC", right? Yeah, do yourself and the rest of us a favor: grow the fuck up.

Posted by: Right Winger | May 15, 2009 9:44 PM

"Chelation therapy for cancer? No, that's quackery?

-----

I did not state that Chelation was for cancer. it's for clogged arteries and artery related problems - blood pressure, high cholsterol (eat some Cherios, oh yeah, the FDA says we can't)etc.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | May 15, 2009 9:48 PM

As for the case of Terri Schiavo, for the last fifteen years of her existence, she was the ideal christian.

Posted by: Jack McCullough | May 15, 2009 9:56 PM

This is great news.

http://rationalresistance.blogspot.com/2009/05/judge-to-parents-i-wont-let-you-kill.html

Posted by: C | May 15, 2009 9:57 PM

There are no words for how enraged the alternative medicine frauds make me. I just saw a kindly old man die a horrible, nasty death because he bought into the crap lies he received in the mail: Chelation therapy, "What Your Dr. Isn't Telling You", why you should only eat beet sugar and not cane sugar if you are diabetic, drink herbal tea every day and you'll never get sick. You name it, he bought it, hook line and sinker. He'd never had any formal education, grew up on a reservation (real Native American in his case), but although uneducated he wasn't stupid. He'd learned to read and write both English and Spanish, he could tear a diesel engine apart and put it back together blindfolded - but he was without any education and had been prepared for the woo by his earlier indoctrination into the Jehovah's Witnesses. Nevertheless, he loved a beer, would give someone the shirt off his back, literally, and was in all ways an interesting and funny old guy who never once preached at me or attempted to sway me from my atheistic doom.

But he developed penile cancer. Always a killer, the only cure is early and radical surgery (penectomy), unless it's caught early enough to excise it. Well, long story short, he first treated the sore with aloe vera, then he moved on to some kind of fucking mushroom powder, mitake or something like that. Wouldn't have surgery once he was diagnosed. It got worse and worse until, when he finally went to the hospital, the penis was completely gone and most of the testicles, and he had a gigantic gaping hole where all that used to be. Really, you could see intestines. Mushroom powder indeed.

The doctors at the ER at U of Iowa hospitals were white-faced with shock when they saw it. Of course, by that time there was nothing for it but hospice. And a couple of months later, he died.

Right up until the day he died, he was taking various herbal stuff along with the pain meds. No reason not to, as far as hospice is concerned, the guy was a goner anyway, and if it made him feel better, cool. He'd lie there, all 75 pounds of him, watching the birds at the feeder outside his window, and talk about how he was getting better, his meds were working, he was going to show us all.

But as sad as this is, he was an adult. He put his son through hell, watching him die, but as he was an adult it was his own damned life and he had the right to do what he wanted with it. But it had a profound effect on me; I'd always sneered at the people who wanted to "pray it away", and thought they were stupid, but had never really thought about just how evil the purveyors of quackery like this are. They prey on the credulous, the ignorant, and the poor old man had spent a fortune on their herbs and powders and "medical books" by the time he died. We're still getting these ads and pamphlets in the mail. Something really needs to be done about this, via the law. This stuff should be regulated by the FDA. However, we seem to be going in the opposite direction as a country. Insurance actually covers chiropractic now. FFS. And I worked with intelligent, well-educated people who actually think the Chinese and Indian folk remedies are magical cures, and that vaccines cause autism. I don't really know what can be done about it, but something needs to be done. It really does.

Sorry so long. This subject hits close to home.

Posted by: Sastra | May 15, 2009 10:01 PM

Right Winger #176 wrote:

I did not state that Chelation was for cancer. it's for clogged arteries and artery related problems - blood pressure, high cholsterol (eat some Cherios, oh yeah, the FDA says we can't)etc.

No, that's wrong.

You might find this relevant, and interesting, because it goes into some of the details on why:

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/08/your_friday_dose_of_woo_gonna_wash_those.php

Conclusion:
"To this day, no properly randomized, double-blind study has ever shown any benefit from chelation therapy for symptoms of cardiac disease or peripheral vascular disease."

(By the way, where does the FDA say we can't eat Cheerios?? I must be misunderstanding you here.)

Posted by: Right Winger | May 15, 2009 10:08 PM

"(By the way, where does the FDA say we can't eat Cheerios?? I must be misunderstanding you here.)"

Earlier this week the FDA was getting onto Cherios becuase of their statements about lowering Cholesterol in television advertisements. The FDA told them that they could not advetise like this and that they aere advertising a "drug" since their product claimed to lower Cholesterol.

I don;t know how Cherios responed, but it should have been something along the lines of "MIND YOU OWN DAMNED BUSINESS!"

The government is trying to control ceral now. We need this government downsized tremendously. We need to take away about 75% of their powers and priviledges and money - and then make them eat Cherios

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | May 15, 2009 10:10 PM

Still nothing but paranoia Right winger. False advertising is a crime. Get a real argument or go home.

Posted by: wistah | May 15, 2009 10:12 PM

Okay, there's a whole new crop of nutz, idiotz, and wackos posting on this site. PZ, you need an apocalyptic purge, stat.

The State has an obligation, indeed, a vested interest, in rescuing this child from its nutbag parents as surely as it has a vested interest in protecting a child from abuse. The presumption is that a child has a right to a long and healthy life. If parents are unable to provide a setting in which such development can occur, the state can and will provide an alternative setting. It has ever been thus.

Intervene, strap the freakin' kid down, give him his goddamned chemo, save his life, and let him get on with his miserable fucking existence. And so it goes.

Posted by: anonymouroboros | May 15, 2009 10:18 PM

"Earlier this week the FDA was getting onto Cherios becuase of their statements about lowering Cholesterol in television advertisements. The FDA told them that they could not advetise like this and that they aere advertising a "drug" since their product claimed to lower Cholesterol.

I don;t know how Cherios responed, but it should have been something along the lines of "MIND YOU OWN DAMNED BUSINESS!"
The government is trying to control ceral now. We need this government downsized tremendously. We need to take away about 75% of their powers and priviledges and money - and then make them eat Cherios"

Your conspiracy theory is a bit silly; the FDA isn't trying to control cereal so much as it is trying to minimize potentially misleading advertising, as it has always done. The "lower cholesterol by half" claim was what they targeted because it had not been proven (to the FDA at least), not the cereal itself. Nonetheless, the company can still sell Cheerios, making your first claim false.

Posted by: C | May 15, 2009 10:21 PM

Thanks, Sastra. It was, indeed, very sad.

At least he had a long, full life. This poor kid is going to be very, very lucky to even get a shot at life. It makes me crazy!

Posted by: Sastra | May 15, 2009 10:28 PM

Right Winger #186 wrote:

Earlier this week the FDA was getting onto Cherios becuase of their statements about lowering Cholesterol in television advertisements. The FDA told them that they could not advetise like this and that they aere advertising a "drug" since their product claimed to lower Cholesterol.
I don;t know how Cherios responed, but it should have been something along the lines of "MIND YOU OWN DAMNED BUSINESS!"

Your explanation seems to be missing something here: anything that indicates that Cheerios really does lower cholesterol, as they claim.

If they don't have the studies and evidence to back up what they're saying, then no, they shouldn't be able to say it. There are some rather high criteria that have to be met if a product is making a specific medical claims. DSHEA ought to be repealed, because it allows supplements too much leeway.

Are you trying to imply that no, any ad should be able to say whatever it wants, and let the buyer beware?

Posted by: Dr. Dredd | May 15, 2009 10:40 PM

I'm glad that the judge came to the conclusion he did. I read the transcript of the in-chambers interview with the kid, and he really doesn't seem to get what's going on.

http://www.courts.state.mn.us/Documents/0/Public/Other/Hauser/Hauser_Transcript.pdf

Unfortunately, though, it's still going to be a horrible situation for all concerned. Daniel basically said he's going to punch and kick anyone who tries to treat him. I feel bad for the physicians, nurses, etc. who try to take this case on.

I also feel bad for Daniel himself. How DO you force chemo on someone who doesn't want it? Sedate him for months? Keep him restrained? Not pretty.

Posted by: Krystalline Apostate | May 15, 2009 11:04 PM

tight zinger @ 160:

I made up my mind already. If I have to undergo open heart surgery or chem, I'll take my chnaces with alternatives. At least I'll die quicker and with less suffering if the alternative fails. I have already seen what open heart surgery and chemo can do to a person.

I refuse to go through that and if the state says I'll have to, then they'll have to fight me to the death.

I hope they bring enough ammo when they come for me cause I have enough to fight a small war. I could last a two months in that house with my food/medical/ammo stock.

No government has the right to force medicine on anyone. And if they do claim that right, then dammit they should pay every dime and pay me labor for missing work and pay for my suffering.

Posted by: Laura | May 15, 2009 11:24 PM

First off people that use explicatives to try and make a point appear ignorant to me. I dont think I need curse words to understand passion or zealous. I think I just see a small person with little to say, at least not in an intelligent way. Why would I listen to someone who tells me to F*** off?

Secondly, I have cancer. Breast cancer. I use supplements, ALOT of supplements.

I take Taxol, 9 months of Taxol.

It wasnt until I started taking supplements and eating certain types of food that my cancer began to diminish. In fact I HAD a spot in my liver, HAD.

For those of you that want to trash someone for their food beliefs, you probably need to step back. I watch a guy eat food from McDonalds every week. Would you like to guess what kind of cancer he has? (Give you a gastric guess)

What we eat does affect how our bodies process and deal with illness. Anyone that has cancer should educate themselves on what they think is their best treatment. It may not be standard western medicine, it may be.

When a person has cancer all they have are choices. The people looking on need to support that. Dieing is a choice, not one that is very popular, but it is a choice. Alternative therapies are choices. Choices can change as well.

I love my oncologist, I think he has saved my life in many ways, but I also think that my food and supplement choices have done more for me and my health than any treatment offered to me so far. I am fortunate that I can continue with both, but at this juncture if I had to choose, I would choose the food and supplement path.

What disturbs me most about this story is how the government wants to tell the parents' and their child what to do. Although I feel that chemo in this case is a life saver (this cancer is understood) and combined with food could lead to an even better life, on principal it is wrong. Parents should have a right to parent in the way they feel is best for their child and nothing I have read indicates this family is SEEKING harm for their child.

We may not agree, you may think that a diet of McDonalds and Taco Bell is A-OK. You may think the food pyramid is actually good for you. None of that is the point. The point is, a family has made a medical decision and an outside party has decided that it isnt the right decision and has played God externally. Yes, the family is playing God too, but they are internal. The judge is no more qualified than the parent(s). The doctor is probably the most qualified, but still does he get to pick the child's path, JUST because he is a doctor?

To me this is very frightening. As a positive recipient of chemo, I hate to think that someday I would be faced with an external person that told me that the only choice I had was to treat my illness their way and that if I balked I would be forced.

Maybe though thats what we want. Sounds like a lot of folks want to believe that medicine and doctors know it all. That they are the only ones that can lead us to the path of healing and we should put our complete and total trust in the medical degree they have earned. Maybe so, but as long as I live and breathe, I am determined to pave my way and to kill every last cancer cell in my body. If I have to step over every medical professional in existence to do it, so be it.

For those of you that would rather someone else handle it for you, by all means have lunch at McDonalds, I hear Dairy Queen is good too.

Posted by: Blue Fielder | May 15, 2009 11:46 PM

Laura typed:

Sounds like a lot of folks want to believe that medicine and doctors know it all.

I saw:

WOO WOO WOO WOO WOO WOO WOO WOO WOO WOO WOO

By the way, woohead, it's "expletives", not "explicatives". I'd wager dollars to dogshit you're an outright troll, probably a Poe, but you've earned the first wave of my endless ire.

Posted by: Russell Blackford | May 15, 2009 11:51 PM

Yes, Laura, the point is that this kid is a minor. That doesn't automatically mean he can't make any decisions of consequence. If he has a good understanding of what he's doing and is capable of rational reflection on it, then he has the same rights as an adult to refuse medical treatment. That's the "mature minor" doctrine. But do we really think that the courts should just presume that he has that kind of maturity when he's only 13 and it's a matter of life and death? No.

And why should parents have the right to decide such questions of life and death for their children? Sure, as a society we delegate to parents the responsibility to bring up children and to make a lot of decisions about shaping their values, etc. But why should the parents' wishes prevail in a case like this where yielding to the parents' wishes means that the child will die? Parents don't have a right from some transcendental source to make any decision whatsoever on behalf of a child. Their rights are circumscribed. They are there to make decisions that could reasonably be thought to be in the child's interests, admittedly with quite a lot of discretion given to them, but not the discretion to make any decision whatsoever on behalf of the child, no matter how irrational or destructive to the child's interests. A point comes when society as a whole must step in, through the courts.

Where the decision being made is to refuse life-saving medical treatment, only the individual concerned should have the right to make that choice. And state paternalism is justified unless the individual is either an actual adult or a minor who, as an individual, is sufficiently mature to make an informed choice about something so momentous. That's what the law says, and I don't see why we'd want to change it.

I sometimes get into trouble with fellow atheists when I insist that some minors really are mature enough to make that decision. But we always need to be cautious about that, when a young life is at stake. It looks to me as if this was a judge who understood all this and acted wisely.

Posted by: raven | May 16, 2009 12:24 AM

Right Winger is simply lying. Terry S. had a severely and irreversibly damaged brain of 615 g. This is half human normal and not much bigger than a chimpanzee.

But a chimpanzee is orders of magnitude more functional, a smart, self aware autonomous entitity. Even a cat would be more functional.

The damage was severe in the cerebral cortex, the thinking part of the brain that makes us us.

The usual, a combination of toxic religion, lack of education, mental illness and a low IQ. He says he will reject modern medicine for alternatives. People do this and many of them die each year because of it. Not smart but we already know that.

wikipedia:

Examination of Schiavo’s nervous system by neuropathologist Stephen J. Nelson, M.D., revealed extensive injury. The brain itself weighed only 615 g, only half the weight expected for a female of her age, height, and weight, an effect caused by the loss of a massive amount of neurons. Microscopic examination revealed extensive damage to nearly all brain regions, including the cerebral cortex, the thalami, the basal ganglia, the hippocampus, the cerebellum, and the midbrain. The neuropathologic changes in her brain were precisely of the type seen in patients who enter a PVS following cardiac arrest. Throughout the cerebral cortex, the large pyramidal neurons that comprise some 70% of cortical cells – critical to the functioning of the cortex – were completely lost. The pattern of damage to the cortex, with injury tending to worsen from the front of the cortex to the back, is also typical. There was marked damage to important relay circuits deep in the brain (the thalami) – another common pathologic finding in cases of PVS. The damage was, in the words of Thogmartin, "irreversible, and no amount of therapy or treatment would have regenerated the massive loss of neurons."[69]

Posted by: raven | May 16, 2009 12:34 AM

I presume child services have techniques for this sort of situation.

Guess again. They don't. The number of cases where this happens runs around zero. If a 13 year old violently resists, it probably isn't possible to treat him for this type of cancer. He needs months of chemo, and supportive care to withstand the side effects of same. He also could just flee beyond the state of Minnesota jurisdiction and/or disappear.

The big problem in medicine isn't people rejecting it. It is that demand is far greater than money to pay for it or infrastructure to provide it.

Posted by: raven | May 16, 2009 1:03 AM

Laura:

And I disagree that I dont have the right to make decisions for my child, whether some doctor likes it or not.

So you are OK with medical neglect of kids leading to death?

How about withholding food and water from your kids?

Or making them sleep outside during the winter?

Our society considers children human beings, not property. And there are a lot of lousy parents who never wanted kids and never should have had them. Child abuse is all too common and frequently horrendous and occasionally fatal for the kids. Happens constantly and we've all seen or heard of cases.

BTW, I saw a woman diagnosed at 33 with stage 1, >90% curable breast cancer. She went alternative and died of metastatic breast cancer 18 months later. Basically she turned down a near certain cure for certain death. You do what many people do, mistake correlation with causation. " I prayed and consumed massive amounts of supplements and oh yeah, was treated with state of the art chemo by an oncologist. God and vitacost saved me."

.

Posted by: luna1580 | May 16, 2009 2:19 AM

wow, so i just checked back the comments at the last link i gave above, they are worth a read:

http://www.computernewbie.info/wheatdogg/2009/05/11/a-sad-curious-tale-of-rampant-duplicity-and-stupidity/

look what i found (i think it is legitimate):

galigo:

May 15th, 2009 at 4:55 pm

My mother died because she followed his healing advice instead of receiving medical treatment. Here is a copy of an email I sent the chief. cloudpiler@nemenhah.org

Phil Landis (AKA Cloudpiler),

Thanks to all the publicity you’re receiving from this Daniel Hauser case, I finally caught up to you. I’m sure you’ve wanted to know how things ended up with my mother, Richelle, your neighbor at Parks Place, Hideaway Valley, UT.

If your memory needs refreshed, she had uterine cancer, which is 75% to 95% survivable with appropriate (medical) treatment.

However, you advised her to use your alternative healing methods, which she did.
As you were aware, she became sicker and sicker, as she continued to do what you advised her to do. When I came to visit her, you would disappear.

When she became so sick that she needed 24 hour care, my wife and I brought her to our home in Idaho. Here, we cared for her and loved her until she died.
Then, I saw your mugshot on the local TV news, convicted of fraud.
Now, I see you’re using religion to cover your multi-level marketing scam to distribute the same healing methods that lead to my mother’s death.

To top it off, I understand you claim to have discovered and translated some ancient plates which prove you’re the chief of some lost tribe of Native Americans!

Do you have any idea how ridiculous that is? Sadly, there are people who innocently fall for your deceit. Like my mom did.

I wonder how many other people have died because of what you do.
Does it bother you?

Here’s something you should know: My wife and my dad both had cancer at the same time as my mother. Weird, huh. The thing is, my wife and my dad are still here. Cured by surgery. Perfectly healthy now. I miss my mom, and every time I think of her slow, painful, rotting, stinking death my heart breaks all over again.

You are not only a fraud, chief, you’re a killer.

I’m going to post a copy of this letter to the blogs that come up on the first search page when your name is googled.

Posted by: Kel | May 16, 2009 3:51 AM

There is a really interesting article in this week's New Scientist (I know, those creationism enablers) about the Nocebo effect. I wonder just how much effectiveness of chemo will be lost based on the boy's negativity towards the treatment?

Posted by: Walton | May 16, 2009 4:16 AM

Since that inevitably leads to increased prices and the inability of the poor to pay for necessary treatments, wouldn't that be even more immoral?

Absolutely not.

As a libertarian, I believe that mutually-beneficial voluntary transactions are inherently superior to state coercion. If A wants healthcare and can pay for it, and B is willing to provide it and needs the money, then who is harmed by their entering into a mutually beneficial transaction? Furthermore, this benefits not only A and B, but also the general public, since it takes some of the strain off the state healthcare system.

The only reason to oppose private healthcare is a dogged commitment to "equality at all costs". But is it really worth sacrificing good healthcare in favour of equality?

Note that I'm not saying that there should be no state healthcare. Some forms of healthcare are best provided by the state. For example, ambulance and emergency room care; since ambulances and ERs tend to treat anyone in need without regard to ability to pay (and, in most countries, are legally required to do so), it would be very hard to run them at a profit. (As I understand it, since the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, many US hospitals are losing money - and since many of them are run or funded by local governments, the taxpayer ends up absorbing the cost anyhow.) It seems more efficient, therefore, to have it provided directly by the state. I also think that, on moral grounds, it is right that we provide health treatment to children at public expense; after all, they didn't choose the family to be born into, and shouldn't suffer as a result of their parents' choices. Similarly, the elderly, many of whom have worked all their lives (and would be uninsurable in a private market due to their higher susceptibility to health problems), ought to get state-funded medical care; as should war veterans. And, of course, vaccinations and epidemic control must also be provided by the state, since the spread of contagious diseases is bad for everyone. So I'm not opposing all state involvement in healthcare; I'm just saying that there should, at minimum, be a parallel private market.

Posted by: Kel | May 16, 2009 4:29 AM

and as for the economic aspect... DO keep in mind that while every unnecessary appointment costs some money, every untreated or undiagnosed broken bone/festering wound/abscessed tooth/pneumonia/diabetes/cancer/etc costs a HELL of a lot more in the late stages then in the early stages... but diseases are never discovered in the early stages when people try to minimise their visits to the doctor to an absolute minimum.

Posted by: Brownian, OM | May 16, 2009 4:44 AM

As a libertarian, I believe that mutually-beneficial voluntary transactions are inherently superior to state coercion.

Yes, we know what your default position is. We don't need the state=FASCISM!!!!one!!!! argument. It's hardly compelling, given the 180 or so non-fascist non-libertarian states around the world. Try to find an existent boogeyman to shit your pants about.

If A wants healthcare and can pay for it, and B is willing to provide it and needs the money, then who is harmed by their entering into a mutually beneficial transaction?

I told you. Pubmed will tell you. Costs go up, inefficiency often goes up (read the literature) and overall quality of care goes down. Fucking ditch every political theory text you're wasting your time with and look at some empirical evidence.

Furthermore, this benefits not only A and B, but also the general public, since it takes some of the strain off the state healthcare system.

Except it doesn't. Don't fucking tell me A=B when I've already told you and pointed you to the literature that says A doesn't equal B, but C.

Yes, Some fees-for-services arrangements can take the strain off. Some outsourcing to private providers can be well-integrated within a public system. But these are all specific instances within specific systems. The only generalisable take-away message is that privatisation leads to worse care, not better.

You think that's unfair to rich people? I couldn't care less if you paid me to. The alternative is way worse and way less fair for a much larger group. If those with money are so concerned about their health prospects, they're free to hire personal trainers and chefs to ensure they eat healthily and exercise, which will have a vastly greater effect than any specialist's care. (If you doubt that, you have no business even discussing health care.)

So far all you've done is repeated rumours of 'notoriously bad care' and made some Pol Phil 201-level Intro to Libertarianism arguments. Read the lit. That's the world we're living in. You want some alternate reality? Too fucking bad. Take it up with whatever god you may or may not believe in.

Posted by: Mrs Tilton | May 16, 2009 4:59 AM

Marcus @170,

Perhaps you mistook that for shallow and impoverished. Whatever those are

It would be impossible to come up with a better rejoinder than the one you yourself provide here.

But really, you're not fooling anybody with your "Oh nobody here cares about this kid, I am simply the only one being honest". You do care about him. You care about him enough to account his death a "win". That's special.

Posted by: Faithless | May 16, 2009 5:39 AM

Parastroika:

This (for the uninitiated) is a sled which soldiers of the British Parachute Regiment use for transport within the Arctic circle.

Posted by: Kel | May 16, 2009 5:46 AM

That way I'll still be paying in the taxes when you, whoever you are, need the treatment!

Posted by: Kel | May 16, 2009 6:00 AM

Walton, your success as an individual is almost wholly contingent on the society you are in. Taxes are a means to ensure prosperity. Sure, some people pay more than their fair share and others get more than they deserve, but that's how life is. Would you really be so heartless as to give medical care as an afterthought to someone who doesn't have the ability to pay for treatment?

Humans are social creatures and no one individual can function completely without the help of others. Healthcare, alongside education and welfare are basics that any society needs in order to flourish. Yes, there are some scenarios where resources are wasted, where money is going towards paying for unnecessary treatments. But that's how it goes, you aren't going to get 100% efficiency no matter what you do. And when it comes to what are considered fundamental aspects of society, then surely you can appreciate that paying to maintain another's health is mutually beneficial. If you were incapacitated, who would pay for your medication? Should they just let you die, or keep you at a quality of life that meets the bare minimum of human needs because it is more cost effective? Are you so withdrawn from human contact that you have lost all empathy for the suffering of your fellow man?

Posted by: Kel | May 16, 2009 6:16 AM

In my defence: I regularly give money to homeless people. And, as I noted on another thread, I have also been campaigning against my college's plan to make some of the housekeeping staff redundant in order to cut costs. I care about other human beings.

I just have moral qualms about being generous with other people's money.

Posted by: windy | May 16, 2009 6:38 AM

Nobody in history has ever died of Cancer - they've all died of the treatment...

Courageous Man Refuses To Believe He Has Cancer

Posted by: Walton | May 16, 2009 6:45 AM

Yet despite all this, I'm more than happy to pay for taxes because in doing so it provides vital services regardless of gender, nationality or religion.

I'm sure you are. But your neighbour might not be. And by voting, you don't just vote to spend your own money - you vote to spend your neighbour's money, without giving him a choice in the matter.

I happily contribute to the cost of your medical care as part of a perfectly good bargain between individuals which also ensures mine.

But it isn't a bargain. It's a coercive imposition. If someone wants to opt out of it, he or she can't. Yes, in theory you can leave the country and go elsewhere; but immigration restrictions limit that, and all countries impose some form of taxation on their citizens.

The fact is that the "social contract" is complete bunk. A person simply does not have the chance to opt out of state control. If every person were completely entitled to opt out of his home nation and establish his or her own micro-state - creating, essentially, a competitive market in government - then there would be some justification for the notion of a social bargain. As it is, that isn't the case.

Democracy does nothing whatsoever to address this problem - because it still means that other people can forcibly prevent me from following my own desires.

That said, I personally don't object to paying for other people's healthcare. I do, however - to provide a better example - strongly object to paying the television licence fee. As it is, I would quite like to have a TV and could easily afford to buy one; but I choose not to, because I don't want to pay the licence fee. The licence fee is a particularly iniquitous form of state coercion, forcing citizens to fund a (fairly worthless and politically skewed) media outlet against their will. (It's also a regressive tax, hurting the poor more than the rich, which begs the question of why socialists nevertheless seem to be so keen on it. But I digress.)

Now, this problem could, on its face, be solved by privatising the BBC and abolishing the licence fee (which will probably be done after 2012 anyway, when everything goes digital). But it doesn't solve the fundamental problem - the state forces people to give over a proportion of their hard-earned wealth to fund things which they may not personally support.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | May 16, 2009 6:53 AM

Goodness gracious, Walton, you mean that you might actually have to pay money that might help other people? What a self-centered, egotistical, selfish arsehole you are!

Grow up, boy (notice that's "boy" with a small "b"). You need to do some maturing.

Posted by: Tom | May 16, 2009 6:57 AM

"Sorry, I don't see much difference between a parent neglecting and abusing their child because God tells them to and the parent who does it because they're an uncaring bastard. Both harm the child and should have repercussions."

I rather feel that a properly secular state should draw no such distinction either. A state that refuses to directly follow the instructions of a religion but actively attempts to avoid offending it is still ultimately under almost the same degree of religious control - all the religious have to do is define the opposite of what they want as offensive and it will have much the same effect as asking a compliant state to directly enforce it, if only they make indignant noises loudly enough. Secularism shouldn't actively oppose a religion, but it shouldn't "respect" it in any way either; it should make its decisions entirely rationally and enact them without any regard at all for whether they conflict with religion or not. It should, basically, act as if religion did not exist at all - in this case, this would mean it would perceive no difference between a religiously motivated demand to refuse medical treatment without any rational justification, and an equally irrational demand motivated by something other than religion.

Posted by: Walton | May 16, 2009 7:07 AM

Well of course there isn't choice, it's part of the social contract you are born into.

You can't be "born into" a contract. I repeat what I said above:

But it isn't a bargain. It's a coercive imposition. If someone wants to opt out of it, he or she can't. Yes, in theory you can leave the country and go elsewhere; but immigration restrictions limit that, and all countries impose some form of taxation on their citizens.

The fact is that the "social contract" is complete bunk. A person simply does not have the chance to opt out of state control. If every person were completely entitled to opt out of his home nation and establish his or her own micro-state - creating, essentially, a competitive market in government - then there would be some justification for the notion of a social bargain. As it is, that isn't the case.

The fact is that so many people in our society are all too willing to accept the notion that we have to be bound by society's rules, and to subjugate our own desires to the will of the majority. We're all coerced every day of our lives - not just by the state through penal sanctions, but by social pressure, by our peers, employers and family. I dream of a society in which each individual is free to fulfil his or her own wishes and desires, regardless of what anyone else thinks about it - subject only to the rider that one must not interfere with the autonomy of another.

Posted by: Rorschach | May 16, 2009 7:13 AM

Fuck you can be a heartless cunt Walton.

I think he sometimes doesnt compute the consequences his lofty ideals would have for real people in hard cold reality.I dont think he does try to be a heartless .....person(Kel,that there c word is taboo....) intentionally.

Posted by: Kel | May 16, 2009 7:19 AM

If you don't like that you are born into society, you can always leave. But like it or not, your very existence and propserity is because of the society you are born into. If you don't like it, leave. That's it, if you think society is such a bad influence to be forced into social contract, then cease to be in society. This isn't a love it or leave option, if you don't want to be part of a social contract then you have no other choice.

Humans are social creatures, I can't stress this enough. Our success has come from working together and affording the ability for specialisation. Farmers work long hours so you don't have to grow your own food, truck drivers transport it to you so you don't have to live rurally. Scientists and engineers develop technology and infrastructure to make this process easier. Builders make the house you reside in, electricians wire it up for you. Thanks to companies on the other side of the world you have the ability to store food for long periods of time, provided those working at the power plants keep it up and running.

You benefit from having a working society, your rich neighbour benefits from having a working society, and individuals at all levels benefit from having a working society. There are many animals who live in collectives, and while they only work to feed their own child, being in a collective is the very mechanism for survival. Because the group can delegate responsibilities that mean the individual doesn't have to do everything.

Posted by: Carlie | May 16, 2009 7:20 AM

Why is it that every fucking thread that has even a whiff of social commentary eventually devolves into a discussion of libertarianism?

Posted by: Kel | May 16, 2009 7:25 AM

I think he sometimes doesnt compute the consequences his lofty ideals would have for real people in hard cold reality.I dont think he does try to be a heartless .....person(Kel,that there c word is taboo....) intentionally.

Posted by: Kel | May 16, 2009 7:28 AM

Before this becomes another libertarian wankfest, I'm withdrawing. Besides, it's probably better for my blood pressure.

Posted by: Rorschach | May 16, 2009 7:31 AM

@ 249,

Isn't it a sacred right to refuse treatment?

As has been ponted out on the first "Hauser" thread a million times,its not sacred right for a scared 13yo teen,who would also refuse to have his head stitched,a bone straightened etc,coz all these things would freak him out and he'd rather mum take him home.
Just not an option.
Had a 77yo JW bleeding to death at work today,I said after advising transfusion could save her life and she,her family and her "advisor" refused,ok,go right ahead....Not the same as a 13yo.
But I agree,by now the boy has been so traumatized and misinformed that it will be a nightmare to get him to comply.

Posted by: Carlie | May 16, 2009 7:35 AM

I suspect that the reason most people simply accept ethical altruism without questioning it is due to our society's religious heritage

No, the general consensus is that religion co-opted the altruism that had already evolved. Well-functioning collectives outcompete individualistic groups. In an inbred, fairly small group, kin selection = group altruism, providing benefit for both the individual and the group. It's pretty simple selection.

Posted by: Walton | May 16, 2009 7:41 AM

No, the general consensus is that religion co-opted the altruism that had already evolved. Well-functioning collectives outcompete individualistic groups. In an inbred, fairly small group, kin selection = group altruism, providing benefit for both the individual and the group. It's pretty simple selection.

So you're suggesting that Randian Objectivism and ethical egoism are fundamentally inconsistent with evolved human nature, and that this is why ethical altruism has never been seriously challenged? I think that's a bit of a stretch. I would suggest that the reason Rand's moral philosophy has not really caught on in the mainstream of society is because the educational establishment, being left-leaning and set in its ways, has largely ignored it (most philosophy faculties don't teach Rand, and I personally know philosophy students who've never even heard of her), and so her work has never been adequately publicised.

Addendum: I'm not a Randian myself. But I think that, by challenging some of Western society's unexamined assumptions, she did a great service to philosophy as a whole.

Posted by: DJ | May 16, 2009 7:41 AM

Think of the worst, most vacuous, soulless pop music you can think of, and make it ten times worse. And then have some of it sung in a language you don't understand.

But I can't look away. It really is a theatre of the grotesque.

eww, and I thought American Idol was horrible. Good luck with that show, hope your brain doesn't melt.

Posted by: Walton | May 16, 2009 7:47 AM

Humans are social creatures, I can't stress this enough. Our success has come from working together and affording the ability for specialisation. Farmers work long hours so you don't have to grow your own food, truck drivers transport it to you so you don't have to live rurally. Scientists and engineers develop technology and infrastructure to make this process easier. Builders make the house you reside in, electricians wire it up for you. Thanks to companies on the other side of the world you have the ability to store food for long periods of time, provided those working at the power plants keep it up and running.

Exactly - and they do this not because the state forces them to, but because they benefit from it through mutually beneficial transactions. They engage in their economic activities, providing goods and services to others, and others provide money or other goods and services in exchange. We are all interdependent through global trade - and this is a good thing. But the last thing it requires is state control.

Posted by: JeffreyD | May 16, 2009 7:58 AM

Walton, you give to the homeless and hope to have a good job in the future so you can give more to charity. In the US we call that type of person a limousine liberal - "Stop the cah, Chaarles, I wish to distribute pennies to the poor."

Have you ever been hungry, truly hungry Walton? Ever had the choice of paying rent or eating or seeking treatment? Yeah, I know, this rolls off your back. Forget it.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | May 16, 2009 8:00 AM

Walton, the libertarian philosophy is morally bankrupt because it doesn't take into account the common good. It is so tied up in "freedom" for the individual, it forgets that the individual lives in a very interconnected society, and that individual must pay their fair share of the common good, as decided by the people. Small things like roads, schools, medical care, welfare/unemployment, or student stipends. Things we all use or might use. By sharing the costs, we make sure these things are there when needed by an individual. You keep acting like you have control over everything. You don't. I've worked at my place for twenty years, but I could be out of a job if, say my company was sold and the new owners do a housecleaning of old farts. These days, everybody can be made redundant.

Walton, you show signs of getting the bigger picture, but you need to take a hard look at the libertarian philosophy, and why it can't work to form a stable society. Look at history, from say 1850-1920, and the lot of the common worker. And compare that to the present day.

Posted by: Rorschach | May 16, 2009 8:19 AM

Walton manages to argumentatively wipe the floor with stupid religionists these days,but this libertard BS,its just not going away....

Walton,
more JeffreyD,less Viscount Monckton man

Posted by: Tassie Devil | May 16, 2009 8:29 AM

Walton - say we live in the ideal 'free' society you describe. And you are still earning the same wage you make now.

In June you will be diagnosed with leukaemia.

Clearly you couldn't afford treatment. Is your death OK as a consequence of your 'free' society? Especially when compared to that of the son of a wealthy landowner - his father pays without blinking and still has enough leftover to buy him a flat overlooking Hyde Park.

You die, he doesn't. Is your society still 'free'?

Posted by: amhovgaard | May 16, 2009 8:37 AM

Reading about this case has made me wonder about how good doctors are at explaining the (side)effects of chemotherapy
- and what happens when you don't get proper treatment - to people who are, to put it politely, not quite as bright as they are.

Posted by: Laurel | May 16, 2009 8:54 AM

I'm glad this case--horrible as it is--has brought attention to the fake shamans and Native American wannabes infesting the internet and RL.

For Strangebrew and others who might be interested, the New Age Frauds and Plastic Shamans forum is a great place to check out this sort of thing.

http://www.newagefraud.org/smf/index.php

If you don't see the person you're looking for, you can request s/he be investigated in the "Research Needed" section.

Fake Native Americans/"shamans" seem very often to be guru types--controlling personalities, some with a criminal record, who don't care who they hurt or kill as long as they get to play Big Chief Snow Job for money instead of getting an actual job.

Another site on the New Age-yet-supposedly "oldest and once-universal religion of 'shamanism'" and why Native Americans don't like it here:

http://www.geocities.com/ourredearth/index.html

Posted by: John Scanlon, FCD | May 16, 2009 9:20 AM

The worst trolls have been given a swift kicking, but PsychedCT doesn't seem to have got responses to:

No, not even a well informed 13 year old is competent to make life-or-death decisions for himself or herself. No matter how intelligent the kid may be, at 13, the reasoning and planning areas of the brain are not fully developed (this doesn't occur until the early 20's in females, an as late as 25 in males).

Posted by: JeffreyD | May 16, 2009 9:44 AM

Walton at #271, I live in Birmingham part of the year and have the typical American's view that the UK is quite small. If you seriously wish to meet, you tell me when. My weekends and quite a few weeknights are usually free and trains are cheap. From Birmingham to Oxford takes a little over an hour by train so I have no qualms about popping over for a drink or two and then returning. My wife will be here end of May, first two weeks of June, but free before and after that. Ball in your court.

Ciao

Posted by: shonny | May 16, 2009 9:51 AM

For more cases like this, check out: http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/baby-suffered-third-world-malnutrition-20090515-b5h6.html

Fortunately no images, but it is very grim reading.

If religion and other woo stopped being a shield from prosecution for the loonies when they mistreat those in their cair, maybe they would smarten up somewhat. And no lenient sentencing either!

Posted by: shonny | May 16, 2009 10:08 AM

Posted by: Matt Author Profile Page | May 15, 2009 3:50 PM @ Benjamin Franklin #16 I'm a little confused... [Colleen Hauser] also testified that Daniel is a medicine man and elder in the Nemenhah Band.
-- Okay, so you can fill out the form and become a medicine man/woman... but how does a child receive elder status?

Maybe it has something to do with mental age, as most of these people are just past the embryo stage in mental development, and anyone beyond that is an elder in this tribe.
I.e. he is marginally less dim than his parents.

Posted by: Kseniya | May 16, 2009 11:11 AM

Laura:

So why have kids? Why have a family? Why even have a thought? or make any kind of decision?

Oh, please. That is SO dishonest. You equate mundane decisions with life-or-death decisions? Do you think that parents should be allowed to starve their children to death because they believe food is evil? Should they be allowed to thrash their children to within an inch of their lives because they believe that's the only effective form of discipline? Do you believe parents should be able to deny their children any kind of formal, systematic education?

I'm guessing you'd say "No" to one or more of those, and yet you're advocating that parents have the right to withhold effective medical treatments from their children in favor of quackery that will almost certainly lead them directly to their premature and unnecessary deaths?

Posted by: Kel | May 16, 2009 12:07 PM

Kel's off to watching "Kill Bill"This is about the 4th time I've seen the film, and my opinion is that it still kicks arse. I haven't sat down to watch the film in about 3 years (last time I made my brother watch it with me, both films back to back) and now I remember why I loved that film so much. It's the great dialogue, the plot-driven story, the action so beautifully stylised and engaging. I'm not one who has seen any of the films Tarantino has so shamefully ripped off, but damn does that man know how to write an engaging story.

Also, a rusty nail with a single malt scotch is pure sex. Only ever tried it with a blended scotch before.

Posted by: Kitty | May 16, 2009 12:19 PM

Sorry Kel but the single malt deserves better.
Try it with just a teaspoon of water, at room temperature - no ice. The water takes away the 'burn', enhances the flavour and makes the scotch sing in your mouth.

Oh but I agree about Kill Bill!

Posted by: Hamster | May 16, 2009 12:36 PM

I am divided in this . One side says that forcing medical treatment when its clear the kid doesnt understand the issues is the correct thing to do , the other says why bother saving a 13 kid who cant read because of some "learning disability". Is he ever going to be able to lead a life without constant support. He has expressed his wishes in the matter , let him have them . I really dont know which will give the better outcome. I do wonder if the parents are thinking the same .

Posted by: mh | May 16, 2009 12:41 PM

Thank you Brownian/Kel/Maureen Brian for replying to Walton with more finesse and knowledge than I have.

And yes, Walton. The NHS is fair. It is fair for my nextdoor neighbours who struggle by on one wage and can just about clothe their kids; and it is fair to me, whose parents could afford to provide me with private healthcare if they wanted to. Material wealth should not equal better healthcare.

Posted by: BlueIndependent | May 16, 2009 12:46 PM

I think we found the universal epicenter of worthless strawman arguments in Laura.

"...So why have kids? Why have a family? Why even have a thought? or make any kind of decision? Maybe I should call into my elected official every night and make sure everything I discussed or led my child to do is ok with them and meets their standard. Or maybe they will just give me a check list or a manual for tomorrow. Heck I am off scott free because according to that train of thought, I dont have to think or care about anything my kid does, learns, or experiences. Whew, thats a relief I thought I was actually responsible for my child?..."

Total strawman, and a typical right-wing obfuscation of what we are saying. Nobody implied at all that the government should be the parent. You are making a meaningless and foolish abstraction.

But put another way, what if a parent is neglecting their child? Beating them? Would you seriously argue the CPS shouldn't come and take the child away? Is that too much government for you? I used to date someone who worked for CPS, and they have a very heavy and nasty plate of so-called "parent" to deal with, all of whom at the very least are summarily neglecting their children. So unfortunately yes, government has to step in where there is a vacuum of parenting or extended family to take the child in.

The parents in young Hauser's case, religion or not, are displaying criminal neglect vis a vis their child. If I was part of a religion that said that my young son, at 7 years old, must go out into the wilderness alone for a week as a right of passage and return with some divined special knowledge that allows him to be considered a man, I should be carted off for some jail time at the very least. I don't care if there's a history of it with the sub-group, allowing something like that would be stupid beyond comprehension. And I don't give a shit if these peoples' religion tells them that chemo is evil; the fact is they're wrong, and will be personally responsible for their child's death. Oh but in this country we give more of a shit about peoples' little superstitions, so it's unlikely the parents will get the punishment they deserve for not listening to trained experts.

My wife is a nurse and deals on a daily basis with patients of all ages 18 to 118 that come in thinking every little thing they find on the internet that's different from what their doctor said is the right treatment to go with. They think some food will cure their hepatitis, cancer, or whatever else they have. And you know what happens? The hospital doesn't listen to them, and they end up getting sent home in better shape than when they came in (after taking their hocus pocus remedies). Gee Laura, there's a perfectly provable example of a private industry telling patients what's good for them. How is that *not* similar to the government telling them what to do? And I do think that is the point you are missing altogether: This whole thing started with a *private doctor* - one of the things conservatives hold dear with regard to health care - giving sound advice to parents that are rejecting it because of religious crap. The government only got involved when the proper treatment was rejected, thus endangering the child's life. So Hauser's parents brought this on themselves. Here we have a perfect example of private AND public expertise telling the parents to move the hell aside and let sane, qualified people help them.

"...For those of you that would rather someone else handle it for you, by all means have lunch at McDonald's, I hear Dairy Queen is good too."

Again, another total and complete strawman. Just because people tell you it's not your diet that saved you means they eat McDonald's every day? WTF? Yes diet is important when you have cancer, but it is NOT the only thing, and to assume it is what's saving you is absurd. Personally, I'd take the example of people like Lance Armstrong, who did about as much as any person can to beat his cancer. He didn't just focus on diet; he also took and dealt with the medical treatments necessary to win his battle.

Taxol is a chemotherapy drug. Obviously in your case it, along with chemotherapy, worked. But you seem to attribute the disappearance of the cancer to your supplements. Congratulations on being "smarter" than your doctor, who likely has a very advanced degree and years of experience with hundreds of patients. You would be sorely mistaken, since chemotherapy is used expressly to kill the cancer. As for the spot on your liver, which you seem to again be attributing to the power of your supplements, means nothing. There are people that have spots that appear and disappear all the time, and whose to say your liver "spot" would've developed into malignant cancer anyway? There are people out there that have had large benign tumors removed from their bodies; having a spot doesn't mean anything until it's deemed - by doctors' expertise - to be malignant an spreading. This is not to say a patient is always wrong about what they are doing or what they feel. But in the information age far too many patients think they can go online and diagnose themselves better than a trained professional can. Oddly enough, I thought this was what a major part of the argument about keeping privatized health care was all about.

But that gets to the other problem with those discussing the healthcare system in Canada and the UK, among other places. Getting away from Laura's craziness for a bit, people here need to keep in mind that the only proposal being offered was to give American citizens a government run health care PLAN, not government-run doctors and hospitals. In fact, the UK is the only country in the world left with truly "socialized" elements of their health system. All other countries that many ignorant Americans label as having a "socialized health system" actually don't have one in the classic sense of the term at all, and simply have a government-run health insurance plan. But this is *on top of the fact* that Obama's plan doesn't force you onto the government plans. Why people can't understand or grasp this I don't know. Perhaps they're so caught up in their right-wing fantasy world armageddon scenario that they have no time to really think about what's been proposed.

I also hasten to point out that while Canadians, for example, may come to the US for specific surgical procedures, we "Amurkans" go to Canada and Mexico for drugs that are intentionally kept highly priced here. My wife knows people that go to Mexico to get cheap drugs (and I'm not talking recreational). How odd that the "free marketers" out there will talk out of one side of their mouth when it comes to keeping the current system, and then try to take advantage of other countries' "socialized" systems when it suits them.

The US's health care system is not going to be government-run. This is a red herring charge made by people who are intentionally not listening to the plans that have been proposed. It is government-run insurance, not government-run doctors, hospitals, and specialist facilities. It's also worth truly reflecting and considering why we, the richest country in the world (well, up until recently perhaps) refuses to make sure everyone can remain as healthy as possible. Denying children health care because you want to keep things highly priced and private? Not a good enough answer IMO. Not letting tax paying adults, some of whom have fragile states of health due to some bad genetics (but otherwise can be performing members of society), have health care? How is this logical? the truth is, it isn't.

Posted by: mh | May 16, 2009 1:03 PM

No Walton, what would happen is that drug companies would more likely look at developing drugs for the majority of people on the planet - the poor. Instead of developing expensive drugs that few rich can afford, they will make drugs that cost less that more can afford.

Posted by: Watchman | May 16, 2009 1:11 PM

Walton:

If prices are driven down in the US market, pharmaceutical companies will simply stop putting money into medical innovation

I disagree. Pharma companies will do whatever they think will give them an edge in the marketplace. You, of all people, should recognize and acknowledge this, even if it fails to support your government-is-the-problem point of the moment.

On a personal note, I concur with JeffreyD and Kseniya. FWIW.

Cheers.

Posted by: Brownian, OM | May 16, 2009 1:21 PM

Yes - but because Americans pay much higher prices for their drugs than other nations, it's currently the American market which essentially pays the drug companies' R&D costs. If prices are driven down in the US market, pharmaceutical companies will simply stop putting money into medical innovation - meaning fewer lifesaving new drugs in the future. And, of course, no one will even notice, because it's impossible to produce statistics on drugs which would have been developed if history had taken a different path.

That's such a bad slippery slope argument. What about all the research that doesn't get done because Richie Rich doesn't find it profitable to build his own lab for abstract mathematics and staff it with Nobel Laureates? What about all the future Nobel Laureates that don't grow up to be Laureates because their parents' income levels don't provide for adequate college or life-saving medicine under a privatised system? What about, what about?

Do you really want to play that stupid thought experiment about everything?

As you said, we wouldn't even notice. We do notice the deleterious effects of huge income inequity in the really-existing world in which you refuse to acknowledge for your wrong-headed utopianism.

And if you think you'll ever have enough money to pay the security and police forces to keep the poor from overrunning your private property when their livelihoods are threatened, I invite you to move to Nairobi, where the rich are far richer than you can even imagine, and the poor are far poorer than you can even imagine, and the prospect of meeting a panga in your sleep if you're the former are very real.

As I said before, drop the political theories. All you're left with are whines of "it's not fair to me", because libertarianism--particularly the economic aspect--has absolutely lousy predictive value.

And with that, I'm off to hit the links. (I know; so bourgeoisie!)

Posted by: Walton | May 16, 2009 1:57 PM

No Walton, what would happen is that drug companies would more likely look at developing drugs for the majority of people on the planet - the poor. Instead of developing expensive drugs that few rich can afford, they will make drugs that cost less that more can afford.

And they will afford to do this how? If you cut down their profit margins by making them charge lower prices, then they will have less money to put into R&D. It's simple common sense.

As I understand it, generic drugs are very cheap. Most of the cost of proprietary drugs doesn't come from manufacture, but from the fact that the developing company has to recoup its R&D costs before its proprietary rights expire. If you stop them from doing that, then how will they be able to afford to channel money into research?

Posted by: Walton | May 16, 2009 2:12 PM

Free Market-ism is usually introduced at gunpoint (either literally, or through financial pressure from those "foreign aid" agencies), AGAINST the will of the people, usually sparking mass protests that either succeed in stopping the excesses of the Free Marketeers, or are bloodily and violently squashed.

Not true. Thatcher was voted in several times with overwhelming parliamentary majorities. It was after she was forced out (by traitors in the party ranks) that the Conservative Party started falling apart. There was, and still is, a strong popular support in Britain for individual responsibility, low taxes and minimal government interference.

And you can't even say that this is a form of "bad tasting medicine" because every time such "reforms" have been introduced, the result was a handful of people who got super-rich, and an entire society that was suddenly poorer and worse off than before. In some cases, FAR worse off.

I would dispute this. Modern Chile is one of the most economically stable and prosperous countries in Latin America. Under Allende, by contrast, inflation was running in the thousands of percent, foreign trade was diminishing and people were getting poorer. The economic changes introduced by the Pinochet regime - at the point of a gun, certainly, and I would be the first to condemn his despicable methods - did, in the long run, improve the Chilean economy.

What you're saying is strongly reminiscent of Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine - a notoriously inaccurate book by a notorious leftist wingnut.

(That said, I would say that Thatcher and Reagan were entirely wrong to give the support that they gave to Pinochet. He was a brutal dictator, and despite the fact that some of his reforms were hugely beneficial in the long run, the ends do not justify the means. But that's irrelevant here.)

Posted by: Tulse | May 16, 2009 2:14 PM

If you cut down their profit margins by making them charge lower prices, then they will have less money to put into R&D. It's simple common sense.

Pharmaceutical companies spend less than 1 dollar in five of their revenue on R&D. According to the Congressional Budget Office, pharmaceutical companies are higher than the average for corporations. Last year Pfizer's profit margin was 37%.

Yeah, clearly if they didn't make all that money we wouldn't get lifesaving drugs.

Posted by: Hypocee | May 16, 2009 2:35 PM

Walton, you have a couple fingers' more grasp on things than the typical libertarianarchist and you spell in complete sentences and paragraphs so thanks for that. for you. However, this - from a college student! With housekeeping staff!

Democracy does nothing whatsoever to address this problem - because it still means that other people can forcibly prevent me from following my own desires.

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | May 16, 2009 2:44 PM

@ Anna #55

As someone who recently watched a loved one die from cancer I want to say: I hope you die a long, agonizing death while your body slowly shuts down. It's not a pretty sentiment and I'll admit I'm not living up to my own ideals here, but you disgust me.

Also, you're an idiot.

Posted by: strange gods before me | May 16, 2009 3:00 PM

I just have moral qualms about being generous with other people's money. I don't currently pay income tax, as I have never earned enough to take me above the tax threshold. Do I, then, have a moral right to say that those who do earn money and pay taxes should be forced to pay for my healthcare?

Yes. Yes, you do. Again, the relevant question is not whether people should have to "fund things which they may not personally support." The only question is whether their objections to those things are correct or not. We still have evaluate to all these moral claims through public critique.

Last time I asked this, you gave the simple and incorrect answer that police protection, for instance, is non-excludable. That's false. It's perfectly possible to ensure that homophobes do not have to pay for police that protect gay people, either by denying protection to gay people and not taxing them, or by denying protection to homophobes and not taxing them.

You haven't come up with a valid answer yet. Here's one: the homophobes are wrong, so their so-called moral objections can rightfully be ignored.

Posted by: bastion of sass | May 16, 2009 3:09 PM

Kel @ 286 wrote:

Kel's off to watching "Kill Bill"This is about the 4th time I've seen the film, and my opinion is that it still kicks arse. I haven't sat down to watch the film in about 3 years (last time I made my brother watch it with me, both films back to back) and now I remember why I loved that film so much. It's the great dialogue, the plot-driven story, the action so beautifully stylised and engaging.

It's just a shame there's not more blood.

Posted by: strange gods before me | May 16, 2009 3:19 PM

So you're suggesting that Randian Objectivism and ethical egoism are fundamentally inconsistent with evolved human nature, and that this is why ethical altruism has never been seriously challenged? I think that's a bit of a stretch. I would suggest that the reason Rand's moral philosophy has not really caught on in the mainstream of society is because the educational establishment, being left-leaning and set in its ways, has largely ignored it (most philosophy faculties don't teach Rand, and I personally know philosophy students who've never even heard of her), and so her work has never been adequately publicised.

Everything Kel said at http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/05/daniel_hauser_might_live_now.php#comment-1637107

But also, yes, Rand is contra human nature. You are the one arguing in ignorance of biological fact. Kin selection is real. Kin selection is one of the biological sources of altruism.

You might plausibly argue that this effect is not powerful enough to account for people tending to praise altruism over self-centeredness. But you can't throw out the biological fact; you have to factor it in. Yelling "damn leftists!" is not enough.

Anyway, haven't you ever wondered why Nietzsche is taught and Rand is not, even though Nietzsche also comes to some conclusions that chafe leftists?

It's because Nietzsche was a real philosopher.

Pity you can't tell the difference.

Posted by: Kevin | May 16, 2009 3:31 PM

Ok first off, if you haven't experienced Hodgkins lymphoma, or at least cancer, personally.... then you need to stop shut up and read this. 2nd, if you have cancer and are feeling lost and scared by your doctor, and haven't done any realistic and practical research into "alternative" treatment, then you ,REALLY need to read this.

Now, for those still reading:

First of all, Daniel's parents may not be making all the "right" decisions, but they are truly making the BEST decisions when it comes to the HEALTH of their child. The irony, sadly, is that they will be condemned for it. Now why am I saying this... because I've invested hundreds and hundreds of hours into researching Hodgkins lymphoma clinically and alternatively. Why? Because my wife HAD it. Long story short, we refused chemo and radiation (at the time our reasons were for the fact that chemo often results in infertility) and ended up finding ourselves on a nonstop journey of education towards other methods, techniques and information. What we found, was MIND-BLOWING, shocking, challenging to the core, angering, scary, but ultimately exciting. Thanks to what we have learned, we are now healthier than ever, and expecting our first child in November. Oh, and did I mention, the cancer is G-O-N-E (we have 2 oncologists). To really begin, let me just say this: It is a FACT that cancer can be EASILY cured with "alternative" means -- i.e. without the use of toxic poison. As a matter of fact, you cannot HEAL any-thing with poison! (Why is that common sense in the real world, but in the doctor's office it's common practice???) Some interesting facts (from my own research, not copy and pasted):

More people are now employed to treat cancer than there are people who are diagnosed with cancer each year (that's over 500,000!).

Each cancer patient generates ~$1.2 million for the cancer INDUSTRY.

Out of the ~$300 BILLION cancer profit, ~$64 billion goes back out for marketing and conventional R&D (more drugs). Only $10 million is spent annually to research alternative treatments, and that's b/c the AMA was embarassed into admitting they actually work thanks to irrefutable evidence.

Every American doctor only receives 0-3hrs. of nutritional education during their ENTIRE medical education!! On the flip side, they are extremely educated in drugs and other toxic chemicals. HOWEVER, NO ONE knows the negative synergy of these drugs and chemicals. You are the guinea pig.

When it comes to bacteria, a doctor will collect a sample, develop it in a lab, and then administer the appropriate antibiotic. This is STANDARD procedure; EVERY doc does this for bacteria infections! There are only 2 places that do this in the US. Rational Therapeutics in CA, and Impath in NY. WHY IS THIS NOT DONE WITH CHEMOTHERAPY?! (think about it.)

One thing I've noticed, CT/PET scans are the main resource used for determing cancer growth and progression. There are 3 HUGE problems with this. 1) Cancer is fed by glucose. Modern medicine knows this. That's why CT/PET scans work. Yet, when you drink they're radioactive glucose, you have just given the cancer a steroid shot of the food it needs to grow! 2) Each CT/PET scan emits a TON of radiation into the patient. Radiation is cumulative throughtout your lifetime. Your body doesn't excrete it. One CT/PET scan is the rough equivalent of 16yrs. of mammograms or 400 chest xrays. The public is just starting to become aware of this. Did anyone see the April '09 cover of Reader's Digest (http://www.zinio.com/browse/issues/index.jsp;jsessionid=202D2570AD6965BC9D34B92B71862949.ns101a?skuId=395943526) It's a reality that radiation from CT/PET scans can CAUSE CANCER! 3) Aside from actually feeding the cancer and giving you extreme amounts of carcinogenic radiation, the main problem with the CT/PET scans is the tool used to view the cancer...... THE NAKED EYE!!!! Now, we all know that cancer operates at the cellular level.. That's just common sense... right? Sooo,... when is the last time anyone was ever able to see a cell with the naked eye????..... Yet this is the tool the radiologist and oncologist uses to proudly declare "You're cancer free!" -- Reeeaalllyy.... --- HOWEVER, other tests, infinitely more accurate than a CT/PET scan do exist. How are they more accurate? Because they provide data at the CELLULAR LEVEL. Yet they are not given or even recognized in the U.S. Why? Hmm... did I mention the average CT/PET scan costs the patient $8000+ dollars. My wife and I are still paying for ours. Quick, what's 500,000 cancer patients x $8,000 x multiple scans annually?... I'll let you do the math. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. (Each chemo treatment bag alone is average $30,000! Wonder what it looks like if you spill it on your hand... http://www.polymvasurvivors.com/images/chemo_spill.jpg) --- Wanna know how much the other tests are? One is a blood test (the blood AMAS test) at $160, and one is a urine test at $50 (the urine HCG test). And of the 2, the urine test is more accurate! I would explain how they all work, but this is getting pretty darn long as it is. I'll just say this, the urine test works b/c it indicates the amount of rapidly replicating cells in your body by measuring the amount of a certain hormone in your body. The test is so accurate, it can tell you if you have cancer up to 2yrs. before a CT/PET scan could ever see it!! That's b/c by the time the naked eye can actually "see" a tumor, it's already made up of over 5 billion cancer cells (about the size of the tip of a pencil eraser). You can read all about it in Bill Henderson's book, Cancer-Free. I hate saying that b/c it looks like I'm selling something, but it's the truth. Read the book if you wanna know more (or just type in "hcg cancer test" in google and read the first link -- Bill Henderson will give you explicit instructions on how to do the test, google will provide some background info).

Let's talk about statistics for a moment. You know, the kind the judge used to reach his "oh-so-smart" verdict. If you have HIV, AIDS, heart disease, diabetes, or any other major health challenge, you would only be considered cured when the virus/ disease is permanently gone, never to return. With cancer, you are considered "cured" if you SURVIVE 5 years from the date of your DIAGNOSIS, NOT from the date of your last chemotherapy treatment... That means, the sec. a doc says "You have cancer." the clock starts ticking and if you are breathing 5 yrs. to the day after that point, you are a STATISTICAL CANCER SURVIVOR. How disgusting and disingenuous is that?! Oh, AND, if you die BEFORE the 5 yr. mark of pneumonia, b/c the chemo scorched your immune system (1 of its many side effects), then you didn't die from chemotherapy, you died of pneumonia! Thus, you are left out of the statistics. Additionally, people who supplement with alternative care and actually do well, are lumped in with the rest so as to make chemo/ radiation look even more effective. Lastly, if you die before treatment concludes and you are over something like 65 or 70, then you are excluded from statistics b/c you are considered to have died naturally, of old age (I forget the b.s. term given to this justification). Here's an interesting article on another way statistics are manipulated: http://www.naturalnews.com/019368.html

Today's youth is the first generation in history to be SICKER THAN THEIR PARENTS!!!! WHAT?!?! Movies and documentaries like The Beautiful Truth, Food Inc., We are What We Eat, Healing Cancer from the Inside Out, Crazy-Sexy Cancer, and many others are coming out more and more. There's a reason for that! People are waking up! A health revolution is coming. Heck, there's already a book called The Self-Health Revolution. It's incredible. I recommend it.

--- Thousands of people know this stuff. And if you don't "know" it, chances are you can sense it. You know, like when you can tell someone isn't telling you the whole truth.. instinctively. Yet no one who has actually done it is given the respected attention they deserve, and no major media network is allowed to truly and unbiasedly cover it (who do you think are the networks' biggest sponsors?... have you noticed ~1 in every 3-4 commercials is a DRUG COMMERCIAL?! Same with magazine ads). Try to create a business around helping people eliminate cancer without poison and you go to JAIL (see Jason Vale). If a doctor even MENTIONS that you should seek alternative means PRIOR to chemo and/ or radiation and surgery, they risk losing their license, their job, their reputation, they're fined, AND they may also go to prison! OPEN YOUR EYES PEOPLE! It's not rocket-science. Something is WRONG. These are published, corroborated facts. Stop swallowing the lie that "modern medicine" is shoving down your throat that your own instinct is telling you is "off." Do your own research, talk to people who have been there, outside the conventional box, and GET EDUCATED!

A great place to start, and possibly the best summation on the topic I've seen, is from a guy who cured himself of stage III non-hodgkins lymphoma - Jerry Brunetti. Watch both videos.

http://www.nuganics.com.au/2007/07/06/jerry-brunetti-food-as-medicine/

_Kevin
Atlanta, GA

Posted by: strange gods before me | May 16, 2009 3:55 PM

By contrast, providing a person with medical treatment is not a pre-requisite of individual freedom.

Death is a tyrant. Even a slave can kill his master. But the dead are remarkably unfree.

The difficulty is this: would it not be rather arrogant for me (or you) to state, in absolute terms, that I am (for instance) right about contraception and that all the Catholics are wrong,

Empirical fact is arrogant now? What are you, a New Ager?

But just as Catholics do not have the moral right to ban everyone else from using contraception, I do not have the moral right to force them to pay for other people's contraception. Isn't that fairly obvious?

Are the Catholics' claims in accordant with reality? Are mine? Is it more wrong for me to be forced to live in a fantasy world, or more wrong for the Catholics to be forced to live in reality?

Your dilemmas are not nearly so insoluble as you think.

Posted by: Carlie | May 16, 2009 4:06 PM

Don't know about England, but here in the US, there are social skills classes that are taught in schools as part of the educational plans for children who have autism, asperger's syndrome, ADHD, nonverbal learning disabilities, and other disorders which often impair social skills.

Very interesting example, because I'm still thinking about the school vouchers (which is a total derail, but like we don't do that all the time here). Walton still hasn't addressed the issue brought up there about how private schools skim off the best and cheapest students, and I was thinking about it in terms of my son. If a private school were to look at his grades, they'd be salivating over him. Kid is almost entirely self-directed and gets everything right the first time. Everything. He'd thrive in a private school environment, right? All that good learnin' going on? But then they'd look a little closer and see that he only achieves that when he's in a class of fewer than 10 students that also has an aide for him, and that he needs anger management and social skills sessions along with constant access to a psychologist/social worker in case of a frustration meltdown along with a multi-year behavior plan geared towards weaning him towards self-control and positive societal interactions. His application would go right into the reject pile. Too expensive. The big bad state, however, is obligated to provide that support for him. And it does. For which, I have to say, I am amazingly thankful, because I'm solidly middle-class and there is no way in hell I could afford to pay for it all on my own.
And what's the benefit to all the poor childless people who have to pay extra taxes for it? Well, they get a next-door neighbor who will end up being a successful, functioning member of society rather than someone who is prone to violent outbursts, treats people strangely, and can't hold down a job. Sounds like a win-win to me.

Posted by: strange gods before me | May 16, 2009 4:09 PM

The reality is, I don't have a really coherent, well-thought-out justification for drawing the line where I draw it. It just seems morally right that there should be some provision of basic welfare so that the poor and unfortunate don't starve to death.

And that much is morally right, because freedom means nothing without opportunities to make use of that freedom. There's a coherent justification for you. Keep it, no charge.

All I've ever been trying to tell you is that the opportunities you'd offer are not sufficient to meaningful freedom. Most of progressivism is a pragmatic response to the empirical facts on the ground.

Posted by: bastion of sass | May 16, 2009 4:11 PM

Die Anyway @207 wrote:

I'm not thrilled about the government deciding what the appropriate treatment should be. How would any of us feel if the government decided that chemo and radiation were too expensive and a judge orders that we should try Reiki and acupuncture first?

A judge is legally required to base any decision on relevant evidence presented in court.

In cases involving scientific or medical knowledge such as this one, one type of important evidence would be expert witness testimony.

In Daniel's case, were I the judge, I'd want to hear from witnesses with expertise in treating Hodgkin lymphoma in children.

Only persons who can show to the court that they have sufficient education, training, knowledge, and skill can testify as an expert witness and offer an expert opinion to the court.

Even then, the expert must provide the court with the basis for his/her opinion. Although the rules of evidence vary by jurisdiction in the US, generally, an expert witness must show his/her opinion is scientifically valid, and that his/her opinion is both relevant and reliable.

I really doubt that any qualified expert would recommend to the court that the first choice of treatment for a child with Hodgkin lymphoma would be with Reiki or acupuncture.

Medicare is running out of money.

Several commenters here have suggested that Medicare would pay for Daniel's treatments.

It is highly unlikely that Daniel meets the eligibility requirements for Medicare: he's not 65; it's highly unlikely that he's worked long enough to qualify for social security disability benefits and that he's been getting those benefits for two years; or that he has end-stage renal disease.

Depending on his family's income and resources, he might qualify for medical assistance under Medicaid or Minnesota's SCHIP.

Would you still want to abide by the government's decisions for you? I doubt it. Watch out for that slippery slope.

Um, you do realize that this part of your argument is fallacious, and that the particular fallacy, is, coincidentally called the "slippery slope fallacy?"

Posted by: Alex Deam | May 16, 2009 4:27 PM

Rather, what I was really trying to point out is this. Suppose a well-meaning liberal, secular, democratically-elected government in Country X introduces a state health service, which includes free contraception and abortion at taxpayer expense. (Let's assume for the sake of argument that Country X, like the UK, is a democracy without an entrenched Bill of Rights, so there are no substantive constraints on the power of a majority government.) So far, so good, as far as you're concerned...

...but then there's a major political shift in Country X, and a reactionary religious party comes to power. They immediately alter the state health service, banning contraception and abortion, and instead providing religious chaplaincy services and "faith healing" to all patients at taxpayer expense. They insert political and religious interference into medical resourcing at all levels, funding only those medical procedures which match their religious beliefs, and forcing everyone - regardless of personal convictions - to pay for it through their taxes.

The point I'm trying to make is that just as government power can be used for good, it can also be used for harm. And if you believe in the legitimising effect of democracy, then you cannot say that the second government in Country X was acting outside its legitimate powers any more than the first was; both purported to implement the will of the people.

Which is why the only fair and consistent solution is to keep government power and interference to a minimum - meaning that no one can inflict their values on anyone else. I can't inflict my values on the Catholics or the JWs or the Mormons, and, in exchange, they can't inflict their values on me. That's what libertarianism is all about.

Or, you could still reject libertarianism, and campaign for an entrenched constitution!

I'm from the UK. I reject the religious interference in the state we have from the C of E. I believe in separation of church and state. This can be "guaranteed" via an entrenched constitution. It doesn't require libertarianism to stop your hypothetical reactionary religious party.

As far as I can tell, this is what liberalism and progressivism is all about.

Posted by: maureen Brian | May 16, 2009 4:39 PM

Look, Walton, I don't think that you are a horrible person. You clearly find much which happened under Pinochet distasteful and unpardonable, as do I, and I applaud you for that.

I do urge you, though, if you plan to be any sort of political thinker to develop the ability to see the whole picture and to see that in this case the installation of someone with little regard for individual freedom was part of the plan - possibly from day one. It was not Pinochet's plan - by all accounts he was not very bright - but probably Henry Kissinger's.

At the risk of repeating myself - economics is not the whole of life. Far too many people suffered far too much to bring about some benefit in that sphere. It is hardly surprising that some of the economic plans worked. They were being written for him in Chicago and though I tend to disagree with the denizens of that city on this topic I would not suggest that they were stupid.

I am still puzzled that at one moment you can be promoting a central government trimmed down to the bare minimum and at the next accepting - coming close to praising - the massive investment of one country in the destabilisation of another country and the installation of a brutal military dictatorship - a dictatorship which managed just a few benefits and from which the people of Chile escaped promptly the moment they were given the chance to say a word on their own future.

The fact that Thatcher appears to have fancied the old demon is not an excuse. It should be a cause of shame.

Posted by: strange gods before me | May 16, 2009 5:09 PM

...but then there's a major political shift in Country X, and a reactionary religious party comes to power. They immediately alter the state health service, banning contraception and abortion, and instead providing religious chaplaincy services and "faith healing" to all patients at taxpayer expense. They insert political and religious interference into medical resourcing at all levels, funding only those medical procedures which match their religious beliefs, and forcing everyone - regardless of personal convictions - to pay for it through their taxes.

The point I'm trying to make is that just as government power can be used for good, it can also be used for harm.

If you're going to turn on the record player, I'm just going to cut and paste:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/04/what_are_you_doing_alberta.php#comment-1616486

the libertarian critique of strong governments as being uniquely vulnerable to manipulation is unrealistic. There is no government that cannot be made violently powerful under manipulation of [some group]. ...

You would have us give up all the accumulated work that was done to create a government that can protect freedom, for some experiment to see what happens when the government is as weak as possible. We already know what happens. Feudalism happens. And it takes hundreds of years to get back from there to a system that protects freedom.

And if you believe in the legitimising effect of democracy, then you cannot say that the second government in Country X was acting outside its legitimate powers any more than the first was; both purported to implement the will of the people.

And if you believe in the legitimizing effect of a Constitution, then you have the same problem.

There is no transcendent truth that can come down to humanity and tell us what should be legitimizing and what should not. Even this question is discernible only through public debate. We don't have any other options than to argue about this; from argument and persuasion is civil society made.

You do not have an inherently better answer than I do.

Which is why the only fair and consistent solution is to keep government power and interference to a minimum - meaning that no one can inflict their values on anyone else. I can't inflict my values on the Catholics or the JWs or the Mormons, and, in exchange, they can't inflict their values on me. That's what libertarianism is all about.

Then libertarianism is a denial of reality. Empirically, publicly subsidized contraception results in more economic freedom and opportunity for more people. If concern for Catholics' bankrupt morality prevents me from maximizing freedom and opportunity, then the Catholics are already inflicting their values upon me.

If libertarianism tells you there are sidelines, then libertarianism is false. There are no sidelines.

Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | May 16, 2009 5:58 PM

While Walton was merrily driving this train wreck of a thread directly to RandLand, I read Judge Rodenberg's decision, his interview with Daniel Hauser, and more information about Stage IIB Hodgkins lymphoma, the Nemenhah Band, and "Cloudpiler (of shit) Landis than I ought to have in my brain.

I have come to the following conclusions and observations-

- The judge ruled correctly in law and in fact.

- The concern here was for the safety and best interest of the child, which is mandated by Minnesota law. Not religion, and not money or economic issues. (How the fuck did this thread become about Pinochet?)

- Daniel Hauser is a moron. Apparently there were complications before his birth, but the result is that at the age of 13 he can't read or write, and he thinks he isn't sick, and he wrongly thinks the chemo would kill him, not save his life, which obviously was indoctrination by his mom.. He doesn't know the name of the Catholic church he attends every other week, nor the name of his priest. He doesn't know what "elder" means, nor does he have a clue what Nemenhah is about. He was told a bunch of crap by his mom, and he believes it. He is not capable of making proper medical decisions for himself.

- Ma Hauser is an ignorant idiot, and if she keeps going, she will be a criminal as well. She really lost the case when on May 7th, she refused to let her son have an x-ray taken, as recommended by her doctor to see the status of the mass in Daniel's lung.

She refused to let her son, diagnosed with cancer have an xray taken!

This is the point where the state child agency really nailed her. This is where her neglect really shows. She's living in her La La land, a combination of Catholicism and internet con-man crap, while her son will almost definitely die within 5 years if she doesn't follow the advice of every one of the 5 doctors she has taken her son to, as well as every one of the alternative health doctors at the trial, all of whom said that Daniels' best course is the chemo.

She is just one more stupid Catholic, with her 8 kids, at least one of which is retarded, and at least one of which is home-schooled (probably all), who, along with her two eldest daughters (aged 14 & 16) milk the 100 cows and take care of the farm, while the other kids babysat the youngest ones (down to 16 months old), while praying their rosary every night.

- The Nemenhah band is complete bullshit, set up as a religion to avoid persecution for their peddling of bullshit remedies that they claim will cure aids and cancer, and gullible idiots such as Ma Hauser buy into afementioned bullshit. They have been reamed not only by legitimate practitioners of medicine, by also by alternative practitioners, as well as real Native Americans. In fact, the organizer, "Cloudpiler" Landis has been found guilty of fraud in 2 states already.

What is the first thing the court has ordered? That Daniel have an xray taken, so the status of his cancer can be re-determined.

I personally don't give a rat's ass whether the moron kid lives or dies, (or his woo-flated mom, for that matter), but the legal implications intrigue me.

Posted by: strange gods before me | May 16, 2009 6:40 PM

(How the fuck did this thread become about Pinochet?)

strange gods' law wins: As a blog discussion with libertarians grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Pinochet approaches 1.

Posted by: Walton | May 16, 2009 7:01 PM

There is no transcendent truth that can come down to humanity and tell us what should be legitimizing and what should not.

Exactly - which is why each individual should decide for himself, or herself, how to live, without undue interference from others. If X wants to spend all his time and money on beer, prostitutes and cigarettes; Y wants to donate all his time and money to the Catholic Church; and Z wants to devote all his time and money to the advancement of the biological sciences, then let them all do so. We might think that Z has taken the better path in life. But, as you say, there is no transcendental truth - and Z cannot dictate his path to X or Y, just as they cannot dictate their paths to him.

Posted by: strange gods before me | May 16, 2009 7:55 PM

Exactly - which is why each individual should decide for himself, or herself, how to live, without undue interference from others.

Yet there is no transcendent truth which comes down and says that even this is so. What gives you the right to insist that another libertarian should have to pay taxes for a child's basic welfare? It's undue influence according to them, and all you have to back you up is empirical argument backed by the power of democracy.

But, as you say, there is no transcendental truth - and Z cannot dictate his path to X or Y, just as they cannot dictate their paths to him.

I've already answered this, so don't ignore my answers:

"Are the Catholics' claims in accordance with reality? Are mine? Is it more wrong for me to be forced to live in a fantasy world, or more wrong for the Catholics to be forced to live in reality?

Empirically, publicly subsidized contraception results in more economic freedom and opportunity for more people. If concern for Catholics' bankrupt morality prevents me from maximizing freedom and opportunity, then the Catholics are already inflicting their values upon me."

And in the current stalemate, I am inflicting my values upon Catholics. (Aside, it's unfair to rhetorically target Catholics like this; statistically they're no more in favor of abortion and contraception restrictions than the average American. http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/strategist/2009/05/notre_dame_and_the_intracathol.php )

These ultra-conservative Catholics who are against contraception, they are not moral relativists. They do not merely believe that contraception is wrong for themselves. They believe it is wrong for everyone. By preventing them from outlawing contraception, or outlawing abortion, or firebombing abortion clinics in "just war" or "defense" of fetuses, I am inflicting my values upon them. And I am using state force to do so.

Someone is going to have their values stepped on. What's relevant is that my views are empirically defensible, and theirs are not. I am advocating maximizing opportunity for more people. You are advocating limiting women's opportunities, for the sake of a few ultra-conservative Catholics' cruel and false beliefs.

There is nothing fundamentally different between you forcing other libertarians to pay for a poor child's meal, and me forcing an ultra-conservative Catholic to pay for a poor woman's pills. Nothing. We're both trying to maximize opportunity for people who would otherwise be functionally less free.

Blink twice if you can hear me.

Posted by: Kel | May 16, 2009 8:56 PM

Sorry Kel, didn't mean to sound OTT but I'm a bit of a single malt nerd! Currently into a rather fine Strathisla I bought on a recent visit to Speyside. Yum! All those whiskies and not enough time - or money! Still try it my way some time - it's worth it even for a 12 year old!

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | May 16, 2009 9:09 PM

Walton,

I'm not gonna bother responding to the Naomi Klein is a lying propagandist BS in detail, since 'Tis Himself took care of that, but I will say that you can't just label something inaccurate just because it disagrees with you. show data that contradicts her, and then maybe you'll have a point.

anyway: have you ever heard the phase "like herding cats"? do you know what it means, and WHY it means that? What you're suggesting is for humans to live like cats, which are individualist to the core and only create "societies" temporarily and inefficiently. Human societies couldn't survive as the loose associations that cat-society forms, since they're far more interdependent than that, to the point where a single human, unlike a single cat, cannot provide for itself anything resembling a decent standard of living. society IS a compromise, and you ARE born into it, if only because we've effectively run out of space to send the individualists off to. incidentally, this also means that the more crowded this planet becomes, the more freedoms people will have to compromise, or see their society collapse into bloody mayhem. libertarian society might be possible on Asimov's Solaria, but it's not on Earth

also, on your claim that governments can be used for good and for bad... how exacly does that make governments any more different than anything else? Corporations, religious organizations etc. ALL tend to grow to absorb all available power when left unchecked. the libertarian POW however only sees danger in government power, but none of the others. without a strong government to counteract the other two (in our current society) most powerful entities, you lave too much power in too few hands. in order to prevent power accumulation, power needs to be 1)spread among as many people/entities as possible 2)prevented from accumulating (which is the natural instinct of people with some power: combine it with the power of others, to become more powerful) 3)play any and all concentrations of power against each other.

this is why we have religious freedom; anti-monopoly laws; "one person one vote" laws; anti-discrimination laws; laws that forbid private entities to extort people in need; etc.

we can actually already see what would happen if we scaled down on government. just look at the international scale, where the obnly governmental agency is the UN, which is pretty much toothless. at this level, corporations rule supreme: they can blackmail whole nations into subserviency (well, if YOU don't let us abuse your workers, then we'll take our factory somewhere else, and then there won't be any jobs at all!); they can pollute, poison and destroy wherever the governments aren't powerful or rich enough to stop them; etc.

and when you're not allowing people to band together for decisions of mutual benefit, but letting people band together for profit, then the profiteers will soon rule the rest. you're creating an imbalance

Posted by: Walton | May 16, 2009 9:34 PM

Walton, are you an only child?

No. I have a younger brother. Why?

Posted by: Anton Mates | May 17, 2009 12:09 AM

But for all the cold, hard rationality in the world, I can't advocate letting poor children starve. However compelling the ideological justification.

Not really sure why there's a conflict with rationality here.

PREMISE #1: I don't like to see children suffer.
PREMISE #2: Starvation is a form of suffering, and the starvation of my country's children can be prevented by a government expenditure of X million dollars.
PREMISE #3: Depriving my fellow citizens of X million dollars bothers me less than having children starve.

CONCLUSION: Tax away!

Quod erat demonstrandum, post hoc ergo propter hoc, semper ubi sub ubi, malo malo malo malo, et cetera.

Posted by: nothing's sacred | May 17, 2009 1:23 AM

But for all the cold, hard rationality in the world, I can't advocate letting poor children starve. However compelling the ideological justification.

Ahem. Ideologies are not rational. Ideological justifications are not rational justifications, they are the opposite. Rationally, it's a bad idea to let children starve. There are many reasons why it is bad but, specifically for you, it makes you feel bad, and if there's one thing above all else that is irrational, it is self harm.

Posted by: Alan Kellogg | May 17, 2009 2:11 AM

Brownian,

Out here in California the state consistently underpays for medical care. The Medi-Cal program for example has set fees it pays, which do not cover the cost of the treatment. So private insurance and private individuals have to cover the rest. Now add in the cost of keeping up with all the mandatory paperwork.

It comes down to this; you're not only paying through your taxes, you're paying through increased private medical fees and higher insurance premiums.

In addition, when you insist on letting insurance handle all health care payments, you're divorcing yourself from the costs. It becomes somebody else's money, not yours, and that makes it easier to spend it. It's not real money, so why fret about it?

And that leads to the big problem with free things; free things are worthless. We put a greater value on things we earned than on things we didn't.

But when you get right down to it, the worth of medical care lies not in how it is paid for, but in the doctor who provides it. Bad doctors are not exclusive to private clinics, nor good doctors to public. Both types can be found in both fields, and the patient had best beware lest he be hurt.

Posted by: Isabel | May 17, 2009 3:37 AM

"Thanks to modern medicine, lifespans have increased 30 years in the last century. "

this is bullshit.

citation, Raven?

Actually, when you look at the lifespans of people who reached adulthood (and don't average in all the infant and early childhood deaths) it's more like 18 months.

If you include infant and early childhood mortality, and ignore improvements in housing and sanitation and then credit modern medicine, you have the makings of a great, self-serving myth...my great and great-great and great-great-great grandparents did not keel over at 40, or even 50 (many lived very active lives into their 80's and 90's) and most of yours probably didn't either, unless they lived in a crowded slum or had other problems that had nothing to do with modern medicine.
Time to put that myth to rest.

Posted by: windy | May 17, 2009 4:07 AM

Oh, and did I mention, the cancer is G-O-N-E (we have 2 oncologists). To really begin, let me just say this: It is a FACT that cancer can be EASILY cured with "alternative" means -- i.e. without the use of toxic poison. As a matter of fact, you cannot HEAL any-thing with poison!

It's great that your wife's cancer is gone, but actually you can heal a lot of things with poison. Foxglove is a very toxic plant and it can be used to treat heart failure. Scorpion venom can be used to treat cancer. And most medicines are toxic in sufficiently large quantities, like aspirin.

When it comes to bacteria, a doctor will collect a sample, develop it in a lab, and then administer the appropriate antibiotic. This is STANDARD procedure; EVERY doc does this for bacteria infections! There are only 2 places that do this in the US. Rational Therapeutics in CA, and Impath in NY. WHY IS THIS NOT DONE WITH CHEMOTHERAPY?! (think about it.)

Because cancer consists of the body's own cells, it's not an infection by bacteria or other parasites, so it can't be treated the same way.

And I seriously doubt that US doctors always do a culture before prescribing antibiotics...

Posted by: Rorschach | May 17, 2009 5:24 AM

When it comes to bacteria, a doctor will collect a sample, develop it in a lab, and then administer the appropriate antibiotic.This is STANDARD procedure; EVERY doc does this for bacteria infections!

Wrong.Most of the time we know which bacteria cause what illness and treat accordingly without culturing the organism first.Takes 1-4 days,and a lot of patients dont have that much time to wait for treatment to commence.

WHY IS THIS NOT DONE WITH CHEMOTHERAPY?! (think about it.)

If I think about that line too much,I might get dizzy,its so...reveiling.
Actually,we have started doing this for some cancers in some centers,say,for certain kinds of melanomas,where we try to determine the cell properties and then either try to "vaccinate" the body against those properties,or tailor our treatment to certain properties of the cancer cells.
Its called science,we learn,and improve our treatments,all the time.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2009 8:58 AM

I've thought long and hard before posting this. Whether he'll take any notice remains to be seen.

Posted by: Walton | May 16, 2009 7:59 AM [kill]​[hide comment]

I'm sorry for driving everyone away from the thread.

I wish I had better social skills. :-(

So if you're so sorry why do you keep coming back and doing it again and again? You declare "as a libertarian" at every opportunity. You hijack the thread with ideology irrelevant to the topic. You repeat yourself ad nauseam. You don't address the considered replies you receive. You ignore advice. You reject proffered help.

In order to acquire social skills you actually have to go out and start socialising. You're a university student go out to the bar, join a club, do voluntary work, hell you're in Oxford hold a sherry party for your tutorial group - I'm sure you can afford it!
But here you are on Saturday night churning out the same old stuff when you should be out with your mates.

You constantly tell us you are physically unattractive, as if this explains everything, yet you don't seem to take on board that your real problem might lie in your superior attitude and dogmatic adherence to an odious ideology which compounds any physical problems you may have. An attractive mind is far superior, and more durable, than mere physical beauty.

I have a friend who is really physically unattractive - more than half of his face is taken up with a crusty, raised, livid birth mark. He'd been bullied in school, spent most of his time alone, took refuge in books and attained high academic qualifications. In university he blossomed, people were not so cruel, he learned to express himself, his mind was attractive, his conversation became witty and informed. Within a short time his disfigurement became irrelevant. He became popular. He married, had two lovely daughters and a successful career. He is a beautiful human being. He could have stayed a lonely recluse - it's easy in academe - but worked at being sociable and reaped the rewards.

I repeat "grow up" Walton. You have a lively mind, use it to improve your lot. Make the effort to get some friends, join in their conversations, embrace their criticism and their praise, laugh with them, cry with them, share with them, care for them, learn about real life and put the ideology of Rand in the bin where it belongs with the rest of the trash. You'll be happier for it.

Posted by: Walton | May 17, 2009 9:13 AM

Kitty: I think you've formed a slightly skewed impression (which is my fault entirely, not yours) of what I'm like in RL; when I'm in the grip of a bad mood I tend to exaggerate how bad things actually are.

I do go out and socialise (though, admittedly, not as often as the average student), and I do have plenty of friends. I'm a cadet in the OTC (Officers Training Corps) and meet people through that, and I'm also active in my university's Conservative Association. So don't get the impression that I'm some sort of social recluse who spends all his time in his room arguing with people on the internet. I do spend a lot of time doing that, but I do other things as well.

yet you don't seem to take on board that your real problem might lie in your superior attitude and dogmatic adherence to an odious ideology which compounds any physical problems you may have.

I have plenty of friends and acquaintances who share my ideology entirely - to an even more extreme degree, in some cases - and have normal, happy social lives. So it's nothing to do with that whatsoever.

I appreciate that you're trying to help, but as I said, I think my comments have somewhat exaggerated how bad my problems are, and as a result of this you've misunderstood the nature of those problems.

Posted by: Bachalon | May 17, 2009 9:21 AM

Walton,

Didn't I try and tell you that they're not your allies?

Did you say anything to them?

Posted by: strange gods before me | May 17, 2009 9:47 AM

Fair enough. That's true. I can't rationally justify it.

But for all the cold, hard rationality in the world, I can't advocate letting poor children starve. However compelling the ideological justification. On a visceral level, I know and you know that giving a child a meal - whether his parents have earned it or not - is the right thing to do.

What do you mean you can't rationally justify it? What's wrong with the justification I gave you? Really, it's free of charge, you don't even have to thank me: freedom means nothing without opportunities to make use of that freedom; starvation is profoundly limiting of opportunity. At least give this justification a test drive before you dismiss it, or tell me what you find lacking.

And who told you rationality must be cold and hard? That's a platitude reminiscent of "this hurts me more than it hurts you." A phrase most often administered just before a beating, or some other abuse that undoubtedly hurts you far more than the speaker. "Cold, hard rationality" is a post hoc rationalization, that you may more placidly assent to a dominator's morality which was pressed upon you. If it shocks your conscience, then cast that rationalization away. And keep your conscience for yourself; it is one of those precious few things that can guide you to freedom from behind enemy lines.

I reiterate that there are good reasons why reason and conscience are not to be understood as opposing one another: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/04/right_wing_inanity.php#comment-1590484 And nothing's sacred has offered you a worthy answer in this thread as well, though if you are still suffering from depression, you will probably (wrongly) believe that you don't deserve to feel good.

Posted by: Walton | May 17, 2009 10:32 AM

As Kel says, we cannot avoid being born into a society. We can only try to make our societies worth being born into. Here John Rawls has something to offer

As I'm studying jurisprudence/legal philosophy this term, I'll be reading Rawls anyway in a couple of weeks (A Theory of Justice is considered one of the seminal works).

If we're going to have inequality of outcome, as we currently do, then for this to be even in principle defensible, we must be striving for equality of opportunity. That much at least is necessary for any semblance of fairness.

Is it? A person may inherit two categories of advantages from his or her parents: genetic advantages (such as intelligence, physical health, good looks) and environmental/social advantages (money, property, family connections, a stable upbringing, a good education). Societies based on "equality of opportunity" and a "level playing field" accept that the first category of advantages will generate inequality, while attempting to account and compensate for the second category of advantages.

But why is the first category of advantage more "deserved" than the other? Why does the person who inherits intelligence or good looks from his parents "deserve" those advantages any more than the person who inherits money or family connections from his parents?

This isn't to say that the distinction has no force; it has a profound importance when it comes to efficiency, since a society which had no social mobility whatsoever, and thereby wasted the talent of those who happened to be born into more straitened socio-economic circumstances, would inevitably be profoundly inefficient and economically weak. But I see it as a practical, not a moral, imperative to facilitate social mobility.

freedom means nothing without opportunities to make use of that freedom; starvation is profoundly limiting of opportunity. At least give this justification a test drive before you dismiss it, or tell me what you find lacking.

I think we're relying on different definitions of "freedom". The libertarian concept of "freedom" essentially boils down to self-ownership. The idea is that you own your body and your mind and all fruits thereof, and that no one else has any right to use these things without your consent. Thus, if you starve to death, your "freedom" has not been infringed, because no one has interfered with your sovereignty over your body; just as your car running out of fuel, or breaking down, does not mean that anyone has interfered with your ownership of your car. By contrast, if some or all of the fruits of your labour are confiscated for the benefit of others, then your "freedom" -that is, your ownership of your body and mind and everything which proceeds from the use thereof - has been violated. Just as, if you own an apple tree and someone else takes the apples from it, your property rights have been violated.

I put "freedom" in scare quotes here because I realise that this is a heavily contestable definition of freedom; and it would be better described as "self-ownership" than as "freedom". I'm not saying that this is the right definition of freedom; I'm just trying to isolate the core philosophical reasons for our disagreement.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | May 17, 2009 11:50 AM

Annie, you miss the point frequently. For example, on the FDA and Cheerios for example, the FDA rules are clear. Food makers cannot claim specific health improvements, like saying eating BrandX will reduce your serum gobbletygook by 10 units (versus non-specific claims like better health with varied diet) in advertising and labeling without doing the proper controlled testing and submitting those tests for prior approval, just like they were a drug. General Mills just went over the line.

Posted by: Isabel | May 17, 2009 12:03 PM

Sorry, that was "gift" of old age. :)

Anyway, enjoy your Sunday, Maureen, and your team members too!

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | May 17, 2009 12:37 PM

I think we're relying on different definitions of "freedom". The libertarian concept of "freedom" essentially boils down to self-ownership. The idea is that you own your body and your mind and all fruits thereof, and that no one else has any right to use these things without your consent. Thus, if you starve to death, your "freedom" has not been infringed, because no one has interfered with your sovereignty over your body; just as your car running out of fuel, or breaking down, does not mean that anyone has interfered with your ownership of your car. By contrast, if some or all of the fruits of your labour are confiscated for the benefit of others, then your "freedom" -that is, your ownership of your body and mind and everything which proceeds from the use thereof - has been violated. Just as, if you own an apple tree and someone else takes the apples from it, your property rights have been violated.

that's the most useless definition of freedom I've ever seen (And I'm certainly glad you realize it isn't optimal). Not only is it begging the question, it has completely removed itself from freedom as it is understood generally (i.e. the ability to do what you want, when you want it, however you want it, with whomever you want) and thus is actually often diametrically opposed to actual freedom (as you've said, a starving person might be "free" but he or she is certainly not free; on the other hand, a person in a social democracy is quite free [as compared to the rest of the world], but never "free"). The only time a person is neither free nor "free" is in actual slavery.

Posted by: Brownian, OM | May 17, 2009 1:11 PM

If you include infant and early childhood mortality, and ignore improvements in housing and sanitation and then credit modern medicine, you have the makings of a great, self-serving myth...my great and great-great and great-great-great grandparents did not keel over at 40, or even 50 (many lived very active lives into their 80's and 90's) and most of yours probably didn't either, unless they lived in a crowded slum or had other problems that had nothing to do with modern medicine. Time to put that myth to rest.

There's something to this claim, although I don't think it supports Isabel's apparently anti-modern medicine position as strongly as she thinks.

As a measure of general population health, life expectancy tends to be highly sensitive to high infant mortality rates. For this reason, cross-cultural or cross-historical comparisons are often made using life e