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: MovingPictures07 wrote: 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. f**k that. I want to live.

I love how you addressed my points.

I'm extremely skeptical when it comes to cancer treatment at this stage in the game, and I'm skeptical in the idea of going to someone else to figure out what's wrong with your own body. Manipulation and misdiagnoses happen all the time, unfortunately.

Not all doctors are like that, and I'm glad some actually know what they're doing, but I think the reliance on medical treatment that people are being raised on in this society is bordering on ridiculous.

"Let's go to the doctor every time something appears to be wrong with me and have everyone else pay for it!"

"If the evaluation shows the cancer had advanced to a point where chemotherapy and radiation would no longer help, the judge said, he would not order the boy to undergo treatment."

MovingPictures07 wrote: Epignosis wrote: MovingPictures07 wrote: 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. f**k that. I want to live. I love how you addressed my points. I'm extremely skeptical when it comes to cancer treatment at this stage in the game, and I'm skeptical in the idea of going to someone else to figure out what's wrong with your own body. Manipulation and misdiagnoses happen all the time, unfortunately. Not all doctors are like that, and I'm glad some actually know what they're doing, but I think the reliance on medical treatment that people are being raised on in this society is bordering on ridiculous. "Let's go to the doctor every time something appears to be wrong with me and have everyone else pay for it!"

I don't go to the doctor often at all.  But I'm smart enough to know that years of experience and medical school makes most physicians more qualified to tell me about what's going on with me.

You act like you know more about the inner-workings of your body than someone else because it's yours.  That's simply not true.

KoS wrote: "If the evaluation shows the cancer had advanced to a point where chemotherapy and radiation would no longer help, the judge said, he would not order the boy to undergo treatment."

That's purely subjective though, and it's still on grounds of forcing someone to make a decision for their own children.

MovingPictures07 wrote: Epignosis wrote: MovingPictures07 wrote: 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. I do believe you are severely overestimating the side effects of chemotherapy. I do believe you are severely underestimating the sheer will power of the human mind.

Okay, Professor X.  I'll go will my hemorrhoids away now. 


Edited by Epignosis - May 15 2009 at 15:32

Epignosis wrote: MovingPictures07 wrote: Epignosis wrote: MovingPictures07 wrote: 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. f**k that. I want to live. I love how you addressed my points. I'm extremely skeptical when it comes to cancer treatment at this stage in the game, and I'm skeptical in the idea of going to someone else to figure out what's wrong with your own body. Manipulation and misdiagnoses happen all the time, unfortunately. Not all doctors are like that, and I'm glad some actually know what they're doing, but I think the reliance on medical treatment that people are being raised on in this society is bordering on ridiculous. "Let's go to the doctor every time something appears to be wrong with me and have everyone else pay for it!" I don't go to the doctor often at all.  But I'm smart enough to know that years of experience and medical school makes most physicians more qualified to tell me about what's going on with me. You act like you know more about the inner-workings of your body than someone else because it's yours.  That's simply not true.

I never said I know more. Now with the internet and tons of books, there are endless possibilities to find out medical information. What's wrong with self-diagnosis? Then you have the advantage of knowing exactly what you are feeling, and you can have the opinions of many different people rather than just one.

rushfan4 wrote: And as the article said, chemotherapy has a 90% success rate with the form of cancer that the boy has.  That sounds pretty effective to me.

Those statistics are so easily manipulated.

Fortunately, it does sound like his form of cancer isn't as deadly as others could be, but still the 90% success rate could have internal bias and it doesn't include all the deaths that result from people who had the cancer and chemo because they say it wasn't from the cancer itself.

MovingPictures07 wrote: Epignosis wrote: MovingPictures07 wrote: Epignosis wrote: MovingPictures07 wrote: 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. f**k that. I want to live. I love how you addressed my points. I'm extremely skeptical when it comes to cancer treatment at this stage in the game, and I'm skeptical in the idea of going to someone else to figure out what's wrong with your own body. Manipulation and misdiagnoses happen all the time, unfortunately. Not all doctors are like that, and I'm glad some actually know what they're doing, but I think the reliance on medical treatment that people are being raised on in this society is bordering on ridiculous. "Let's go to the doctor every time something appears to be wrong with me and have everyone else pay for it!" I don't go to the doctor often at all.  But I'm smart enough to know that years of experience and medical school makes most physicians more qualified to tell me about what's going on with me. You act like you know more about the inner-workings of your body than someone else because it's yours.  That's simply not true. I never said I know more. Now with the internet and tons of books, there are endless possibilities to find out medical information. What's wrong with self-diagnosis? Then you have the advantage of knowing exactly what you are feeling, and you can have the opinions of many different people rather than just one.

I do it all the time.  And I've been wrong about half the time.  The Internet is full of opinions of morons.  If I think my doctor is a moron, I will seek a second opinion.  And I've done that before.

Plus, the Internet can't write prescriptions.

MovingPictures07 wrote: Epignosis wrote: MovingPictures07 wrote: Epignosis wrote: MovingPictures07 wrote: 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. I do believe you are severely overestimating the side effects of chemotherapy. I do believe you are severely underestimating the sheer will power of the human mind. Okay, Professor X.  I'll go will my hemorrhoids away now. That's real logical. I never said he could CURE his own disease anywhere in there, did I?

You're right.  You didn't.

I'll go make my hemorrhoids a little better with my mind then.