SR V: To boldly go where no room has gone before

KoS wrote: MovingPictures07 wrote: When chemotherapy is as ineffective as it is now, no. When it becomes better in the future, perhaps. It's one of the only options left for cancer patients. Two of my friends have had family members that have survived cancer because of chemo. Yes, it's not efficient, but doing nothing is not an option.

Why not?

People probably died of cancer all the time before we knew what it was, and I bet you tons of people lived much longer NOT KNOWING it was there than if they knew it was there---you'd be surprised at how much power the mind really has.

It certainly is an option, in my opinion. And forcing someone to provide that for their children is another step in the wrong direction that this country is taking.

Once the treatment actually becomes effective in not destroying the mental and physical state of a person, then we'll talk.

Epignosis wrote: Denying a child life-saving medical care is evil. What if religious parents said, "Well, food is evil.  We don't need any of that.  The Spirit of Cthulu will sustain us."

Again, not an apt comparison.

Chemotherapy BREAKS DOWN a person; ineffective medical care is NOT the same as basic survival needs, I'm sorry, that's just common sense.

It is innate in our survival skills that food is necessary for people to live, and that would qualify as starving a child. I would agree then that the parents are being stupid and something needs to be done---when something as essential as that is purposefully being taken away.

Cancer is unfortunate, but because it seems to be caused by just about ANYTHING and because our treatment methods are not effective, I believe that is not denying someone a survival right.

In fact, I would much rather live on not knowing I had cancer than find out I have cancer and get tons of half-assed treatments for it. Part of the reason people die from cancer is because of the treatments, another part is because of a mental loss (loss of a will to fight, depression, etc.), and another part is the actual disease.

It's stupid that the parents won't try to treat their son's illness through chemotherapy, but no one has the right to tell them what to do or what not to do. At least that's my feeling on it.

MovingPictures07 wrote: rushfan4 wrote: To an extent I agree, but sometimes when parents are being so blatently stupid in the care of their children the government needs to step in.  They may be making a decision which isn't entirely informed, but I still entirely disagree with it. You can't force someone to take chemotherapy. If I had cancer, I would rather die.

You can't force someone who is an adult.

KoS wrote: MovingPictures07 wrote: Epignosis wrote: MovingPictures07 wrote: Epignosis wrote: KoS wrote: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ap_on_he_me/us_med_forced_chemo 58 page ruling?  Who the hell was the judge?  The Hon. Stephen King? What a bunch of bullsh*t. What is, the judge's decision, or the parent's belief that hibiscus leaves cure cancer? The decision. I innately oppose nearly any decision that involves force like that. If a child is denied treatment by the parents, doesn't that fall under child abuse or child endangerment?

When chemotherapy is as ineffective as it is now, no.

When it becomes better in the future, perhaps.

rushfan4 wrote: To an extent I agree, but sometimes when parents are being so blatently stupid in the care of their children the government needs to step in.

They may be making a decision which isn't entirely informed, but I still entirely disagree with it. You can't force someone to take chemotherapy.

If I had cancer, I would rather die.

MovingPictures07 wrote: Epignosis wrote: MovingPictures07 wrote: Epignosis wrote: KoS wrote: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ap_on_he_me/us_med_forced_chemo 58 page ruling?  Who the hell was the judge?  The Hon. Stephen King? What a bunch of bullsh*t. What is, the judge's decision, or the parent's belief that hibiscus leaves cure cancer? The decision. I innately oppose nearly any decision that involves force like that.

If a child is denied treatment by the parents, doesn't that fall under child abuse or child endangerment?

Epignosis wrote: MovingPictures07 wrote: Epignosis wrote: KoS wrote: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ap_on_he_me/us_med_forced_chemo 58 page ruling?  Who the hell was the judge?  The Hon. Stephen King? What a bunch of bullsh*t. What is, the judge's decision, or the parent's belief that hibiscus leaves cure cancer?

The decision.

I innately oppose nearly any decision that involves force like that.

MovingPictures07 wrote: Epignosis wrote: KoS wrote: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ap_on_he_me/us_med_forced_chemo 58 page ruling?  Who the hell was the judge?  The Hon. Stephen King? What a bunch of bullsh*t.

What is, the judge's decision, or the parent's belief that hibiscus leaves cure cancer?

Phallus Dei was pretty good, but not OMG AMAZING good. I can definitely see myself listening to it again.

Time for Mike Oldfield now.