Forced Medical Treatment

Thought you owned the rights to determine how your children would be medically treated for an illness or disease? Guess again! It appears that the government owns your children and that they alone get to determine which medical treatments they receive, how they receive them and when.

www.newstarget.com...

I am so fed up with Big government, big business, big pharma and big brother. What ever happened to the days when it was the governments responsibility to STAY OUT of our personal lives? How did all of this happen and why was it allowed to happen? Is it the big pharma poisoning us into complacency?

I'll tell you right now that what this world needs is a total collapse of society and government. We need to start over without all of the corruption and control. If the government keeps this crap up, they can rest assured that this will be the unintended consequence!

Does anyone know of any other examples where the government has done this - taken freedom and control away from an ordinary citizen when it comes to their healthcare?

I just thought of another form of forced medicinal treatment mandated by the government - Flouridation of the drinking water! DUH! How could I forget that one?

I'm wondering how many examples we could really come up with here?

Hello friends:

I do know that forsed secret sterilizations happend in Puerto Rico
and that at that time 40% of the women of child birth age were
steriyl.

What's the alternative for the docs in this specific case? You either do conventional treatment or you let a 13-year old die because her parents want to send her for vitamin C treatment.

Which doesn't work.

www.quackwatch.org...

I guess the situation would be a different if the patient was an adult and able to make medico-legal decisions for herself. However, I guess as her parents were regarded as withholding consent to life-saving treatment, it went to court.

Cheers

TD

Originally posted by warriorwolfpr
Hello friends:

I do know that forsed secret sterilizations happend in Puerto Rico
and that at that time 40% of the women of child birth age were
steriyl.

Forced sterilization, I believe, also happened to "mentally incapcitated" people in NC during the 50's. What a sad state of affairs, when not even your own body is yours to control.

I agree with Taupe. The doctors aren't trying to kill the girl in any way. The only viable treatment for Hodgkins is radiation therapy/chemotherapy. Her parents are trying to deny her the only treatment available due to crazy things they had heard about chemotherapy. Yes, it does pose risks, they are radioactive chemicals. But would you rather A)have your daughter survive, but with a few non-life threatening side effects, or B) Let your daughter die a painful and avoidable death?

Ciao,
~MFP

Originally posted by TaupeDragon
What's the alternative for the docs in this specific case? You either do conventional treatment or you let a 13-year old die because her parents want to send her for vitamin C treatment.

Which doesn't work.

www.quackwatch.org...

I guess the situation would be a different if the patient was an adult and able to make medico-legal decisions for herself. However, I guess as her parents were regarded as withholding consent to life-saving treatment, it went to court.

Cheers
TD

I never cease to be amazed at how people quote "quackwatch," when it is a totally discredited organization. It is even more amazing that big phama depends upon charlatans such as this.

Another zinger is that the term "quack," refers to dentists who use quicksilver, as "quacksalvers." That pollution is endorsed by quackwatch, which likes to give us warning about tuna, but when you get 100 times as much in vaccines, and dental fillings, you just gotta go "coo-coo," about this mainstream looney tunes.

Another thing is Vitamin C, which is recognized as building the immune system, as discredited by these people. But if that were not enough ask any doctors who have cancer if they would undergo so called chemo therapy and radiation. You would be surprised at how few of these professionals will do such. If you need proofs search Google on the key terms.

The inflexibility for second opinions is reprehensible.

Another thing is Vitamin C, which is recognized as building the immune system, as discredited by these people. But if that were not enough ask any doctors who have cancer if they would undergo so called chemo therapy and radiation. You would be surprised at how few of these professionals will do such. If you need proofs search Google on the key terms.

Never a good idea to tell anyone on here to google anything. If you want them to see the info provide it, but I am right with you on this Skip. Heavy doses of Vitamin C, Lysine, and Proline have been proven to help cure some cancers. probably 99.9% of human beings are deficient in Vitamin C right now and don't know it. It's called scurvy and it causes all sorts of problems including cancer, heart disease, etc. I'm not saying it's the only cause, but it IS a cause.

And you are correct, most doctors with any clue would NOT go through Chemo or Radiation. They would have whatever lump, cancer, tumor, etc. removed and then go on a massive Vitamin C, Lysine and Proline protocol. Of course, if your cancer is found too late and it is thorughout your body or brain or whatever, then it is too late, but if caught in time and the cancerous cells are removed, this protocol has been proven to work.

Vitamin C is AMAZING! I take 2000 mg a day!

All chemo does is poison your body and make you sicker. Radiation might kill cancer cells, but what else does it kill?

And Quackwatch is a joke. It's probably funded by major pharmaceutical companies and the AMA! Remember: There's more money in maintenance than cures!!

Hmm, I can't seem to find any scientific articles that show scurvy causes cancer...I found a few supporting the idea that cancer can lead to scurvy, but not the other way around as you suggest. Can you support your claim with some evidence? Or is this just your opinion again?

Hey

If Quackwatch is discredited, someone had better tell the moderator, because it's in his 'recommended links' at the top of the medical topic page!

Don't get me started on Amalgam!! See the links (several of which are non-quackwatch) on an article which has dropped down the medical threads, ('Is our dental work poisoning us?') and frankly, I hope it stays there! Dude, I *am* a dentist and the only 'quacks' I see, are the guys who charge a small fortune to put in 'white fillings' and rip out perfectly good silver ones!

I *have* heard of the use of low-dose vitamin C in the 'treatment' of leukoplakia and low grade dysplasia (no protocols recommended yet) - there is probably a link between poor nutrition and pre-malignant lesions in the mouth. I have *never* heard of any reputable organisation recommending the treatment of cancer by anything other than surgery/ chemo/radiotherapy.

I don't object to second opinions - I *do* object to second opinions without any firm evidence, especially in a life and death situation.

If the child was an adult, I would let her take whatever treatment she saw fit. As a minor, I think *someone* has to stand up for her to prevent her parents' misconceptions killing her.


Cheers
TD

Originally posted by SkipShipman

Originally posted by TaupeDragon
What's the alternative for the docs in this specific case? You either do conventional treatment or you let a 13-year old die because her parents want to send her for vitamin C treatment.

Which doesn't work.

www.quackwatch.org...

I guess the situation would be a different if the patient was an adult and able to make medico-legal decisions for herself. However, I guess as her parents were regarded as withholding consent to life-saving treatment, it went to court.

I never cease to be amazed at how people quote "quackwatch," when it is a totally discredited organization. It is even more amazing that big phama depends upon charlatans such as this.

Another zinger is that the term "quack," refers to dentists who use quicksilver, as "quacksalvers." That pollution is endorsed by quackwatch, which likes to give us warning about tuna, but when you get 100 times as much in vaccines, and dental fillings, you just gotta go "coo-coo," about this mainstream looney tunes.

Another thing is Vitamin C, which is recognized as building the immune system, as discredited by these people. But if that were not enough ask any doctors who have cancer if they would undergo so called chemo therapy and radiation. You would be surprised at how few of these professionals will do such. If you need proofs search Google on the key terms.

The inflexibility for second opinions is reprehensible.

Hey

Quackwatch is funded thusly:

quackwatch.org...

I have no link to them, but they are really useful in refuting dangerous and ridiculous claims. They don't make claims unless they are backed up in reputable, referenced sources.

I've not made any claims about websites selling 'alternative' products and the prices they charge for their products, so quid pro quo and all that!

If you really can prove what you've said about Quackwatch, you need to contact FredT asap and get him to take to link down as 'recommended'. If you can't, I would really appreciate it if you didn't cast aspersions on it.

Cheers

TD

Originally posted by Excitable_Boy

Vitamin C is AMAZING! I take 2000 mg a day!

All chemo does is poison your body and make you sicker. Radiation might kill cancer cells, but what else does it kill?

And Quackwatch is a joke. It's probably funded by major pharmaceutical companies and the AMA! Remember: There's more money in maintenance than cures!!

The article posted about the child... That IS a form of neglect. Do the parent's have any medical background? Have they gone's to medical school? There are law's in this country that protect children against neglectful parent's like this. While their concern's are valid, they still can't make a valid choice of NOT treating their kid unless they have the medical background to make such a decision. That's like how some religion's won't accept blood transfusion's that could save their kids like or their own. It's neglect.

(BTW- Your right of consent has two interpretations. 1) That it is irrevocable at All Times. OR That 2) Your right is Forfeited When your life is endangered. Each is used in Various “Ways”. And if She was Elderly, Her POA would Have the Right to state “No”. As a Child on the other Hand, Her Parents Have no Right to state “No”. (Since it could be argued her “survival” rates are way Higher, And that her productive Years of Life are still A head of Her.)

I support Her parents in their Decision. Even Though, I think its suicide.

But the State. Not Me. Decides Right and Wrong.

Edit: (Not to Wrong)

[edit on 10-1-2006 by msnevil]

(BTW- Your right of consent has two interpretations. 1) That it is irrevocable at All Times. OR That 2) Your right is Forfeited When your life is endangered. Each is used in Various “Ways”. And if She was Elderly, Her POA would Have the Right to state “No”. As a Child on the other Hand, Her Parents Have no Right to state “No”. (Since it could be argued her “survival” rates are way Higher, And that her productive Years of Life are still A head of Her.)

I support Her parents in their Decision. Even Though, I think its suicide.

But the State. Not Me. Decides Right and Not.

Damn common decency should tell the parent's what's right or wrong. What they're doing is ensuring the kid will die quicker without treatment over a fear they don't have the medical background to make any desicion from. I haven't see any news article's stating they're medical experts. All I see is nothing different then those idiot religous people who refuse treatment becuase it "goes against" what they believe. It neglect plain and simple as that. Plus it a KID for crying outloud. She DOES have many many years ahead of her if treated early enough. Maybe the damn parent's should think about that before their fear's. Put the kid first!

Cancer is a terrible disease.

I feel that there has got to be something better than Chemo. It's a poison. You are poisoning the very system that needs to fight the cancer.

Wouldn't it make more sense to strengthen the system that needs to fight the cancer? I say this at the risk of sounding logical of course.

I have heard of cancer going into remission with supplementation.

Troy

Originally posted by bsl4doc
I agree with Taupe. The doctors aren't trying to kill the girl in any way. The only viable treatment for Hodgkins is radiation therapy/chemotherapy. Her parents are trying to deny her the only treatment available due to crazy things they had heard about chemotherapy. Yes, it does pose risks, they are radioactive chemicals. But would you rather A)have your daughter survive, but with a few non-life threatening side effects, or B) Let your daughter die a painful and avoidable death?

Ciao,
~MFP

You should see what happens when radiation therapy and chemotherapy goes wrong. My brother went through both in his fight versus cancer, by the end he wasn't the same person in the slightest. Let's just think about this: you're subjecting somebody to RADIATION. Yes that's radiation, where else do we see radiation? After the radiation steroids are used to counteract some of the effects -- atleast in my brothers case -- which multiplied his weight by 2x. It (radiation/chemo)may not be too harmful if it is only used 1-2 times, but repeated subjection to that sort of treatment is unnatural and the side-effects can be worse than death. By the end my brother was an obese vegetable, he had lost all his memories once, and slowly regained them, but had the mental capacity of a tomato. Do not interfere with nature! People were never meant to live forever, and to avoid such diseases.

It is important to have the right to die. Put yourself in the patients position. You're getting zapped by radiation, god forbid they use it on your head. You could wake up like Terry Schaivo, we saw her before and after pictures, NOBODY on earth wants to be alive when they're that changed. And when you're like that, a vegetable, you can make the decision to live or die. We need to respect the closest relationship to the patient and allow their decisions weight.

Sorry, I got a little riled up and perhaps a little off-topic, but the scenarios are related.

- Attero

[edit on 11-1-2006 by Attero Auctorita]

Originally posted by Attero Auctorita


You should see what happens when radiation therapy and chemotherapy goes wrong. My brother went through both in his fight versus cancer, by the end he wasn't the same person in the slightest. Let's just think about this: you're subjecting somebody to RADIATION. Yes that's radiation, where else do we see radiation? After the radiation steroids are used to counteract some of the effects -- atleast in my brothers case -- which multiplied his weight by 2x. It (radiation/chemo)may not be too harmful if it is only used 1-2 times, but repeated subjection to that sort of treatment is unnatural and the side-effects can be worse than death. By the end my brother was an obese vegetable, he had lost all his memories once, and slowly regained them, but had the mental capacity of a tomato. Do not interfere with nature! People were never meant to live forever, and to avoid such diseases.

You have my deepest sympathies over your brother. Cancers are terrible diseases, and the drugs and therapies used to fight them aren't nice, but they are the most effective things that we have.

Here is a link to childhood leukemia, survival rates of which have rocketed in the past 20 years - because of chemo, radio and other therapies. Not multivitamins.

www.cancer.org...

The 'right to die' isn't a problem for me. The problem in this case is that the parents are choosing it for their child, rather than an adult choosing it for themselves. In a situation like this, the docs are going to *have* to take the part of the child because the parents seem to have abdicated the responsibility. From what I can make out, conventional treatment gives a good chance of recovery in a child, the alternatives have little evidence (to put it charitably), so frankly the medics would probably be regarded as negligent if they didn't fight it.

'Do not interfere with nature?' - we'd all be dying at 30 on average, and childhood mortality would be through the roof!

That's not to say that docs would attempt to prolong life - here's a court case from the opposite end of this argument:

news.bbc.co.uk...

My grandmother was diagnosed with advanced breast cancer in the '70s (days before screening in the UK), and she was treated with a mastectomy and radiotherapy. It bought her another 10 years, and what got her in the end was a heart attack. I appreciate that this is just another anecdote, but the overall evidence backs conventional therapy and *not* the stuff the parents want to do for their child. She's going go be a sick young lady for a while, but hopefully at the end of the treatment, she might be a living young lady.

Cheers

TD

It is important to have the right to die. Put yourself in the patients position. You're getting zapped by radiation, god forbid they use it on your head. You could wake up like Terry Schaivo, we saw her before and after pictures, NOBODY on earth wants to be alive when they're that changed. And when you're like that, a vegetable, you can make the decision to live or die. We need to respect the closest relationship to the patient and allow their decisions weight.

Sorry, I got a little riled up and perhaps a little off-topic, but the scenarios are related.

- Attero

[edit on 11-1-2006 by Attero Auctorita]