Wisconsin parents go on trial in daughter's death

Tiger1 wrote:

Withholding tortuous medical treatment just might give him a better quality of the time he has left.

How in the world can you hold a view like this when you so passionately advocated forcing Terry Schiavo to remain in a vegetative state rather than being allowed to die with dignity?

Tiger1 wrote:

Heretic, when the full story first broke, the article on MSN qouted the doctor, who said he would have a real problem forcing treatment on this 13 year old boy.

Naturally you have no link to support your claim,as usual

Now here's what actually happened....

Quote :

Dr. Bruce Bostrom, a pediatric oncologist, diagnosed Daniel Hauser with Hodgkin's lymphoma in January and recommended he undergo chemotherapy treatments once a month for six months, followed by radiation. Daniel became gravely ill about a week later and was taken to an emergency room, Bostrom said, and the family consented to the first chemotherapy treatment.

After that, Bostrom said, the family said they wanted a second opinion. They later informed him that Daniel would not undergo any more chemotherapy. Bostrom said Daniel's tumor shrank after the first chemotherapy session, but X-rays show it has grown since he stopped the chemotherapy.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,520318,00.html

Heretic wrote:

Wait... what? So it's perfectly acceptable to withhold life saving care from the handicapped: children suffering from down syndrome, quadriplegics, coma patients, learning disabled...? That's a dark, dangerous road I don't want to go down. Abuse should be abuse, regardless of the mental acuity or handicap of the abused.

Besides, we're talking recovery vs. dead, a difference that even a mentally handicapped 13 yr old can recognize.

And let's make something perfectly clear: These are not kind and concerned parents attempting to spare their son the ravaging effects of a treatment that has little chance of curing his fatal condition (which would be reasonable). These are full-on delusional f**kwits who believe their magic voodoo vitamin water will cure their son's cancer. They are not heroes. The rest of us, existing in a rational, evidence based universe, know their hippie cure will not work and understand that the child will die as sure as a bullet to the face.

Sorry, that's abuse, whatever the reason the parents are peddling for justification.

I don't think it's acceptable to withhold care from someone who wants it. As for the parents they are fools if they really believe in their cure.

paul87920 wrote:

I don't think it's acceptable to withhold care from someone who wants it. As for the parents they are fools if they really believe in their cure.

Me too. But I also don't think it's acceptable to withhold care from people who don't know any better, i.e. children. Parents and caretakers are legally responsible for the child. That makes them legal responsible for their health as well. Until that kid is 18, they have a legal responsibility to provide him with adequate food, shelter, clothing, and healthcare. If they fail to do so, willingly or not and regardless of the child's belief, they've proven they are unfit and too irresponsible to care for the child.

Like I said, these are not cases where parents are sparing their child suffering from the treatment. None of them are. These are fools who are letting their children die based on some foolish, nonexistent, supernatural cure.

Artie60438 wrote:

Tiger1 wrote:

Heretic, when the full story first broke, the article on MSN qouted the doctor, who said he would have a real problem forcing treatment on this 13 year old boy.

Naturally you have no link to support your claim,as usual

I thought as much. I'd kept a pretty close eye on this story and didn't remember anything close to that. It was his doctor that sought the injunction anyway, right?

Heretic wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Tiger1 wrote:

Heretic, when the full story first broke, the article on MSN qouted the doctor, who said he would have a real problem forcing treatment on this 13 year old boy.

Naturally you have no link to support your claim,as usual

I thought as much. I'd kept a pretty close eye on this story and didn't remember anything close to that. It was his doctor that sought the injunction anyway, right?

I don't know,but if there was actually a Dr that said what she claimed I'm sure he would have been subpoenaed to testify.

Scorpion wrote:

Tiger1 wrote:

Withholding tortuous medical treatment just might give him a better quality of the time he has left.

How in the world can you hold a view like this when you so passionately advocated forcing Terry Schiavo to remain in a vegetative state rather than being allowed to die with dignity?

Witholding medical treatment is a lot differant that forcing someone to die slowly from thirst and starvation.

So slowly dying from cancer is ok... but you draw the line at thirst and starvation.

Dying from a disease is entirely differant than being FORCED to die of thirst and starvation. There is no cure for some diseases, but there is always a cure for thirst and starvation, give them something to eat and drink. Thirst and starvation are always a 100% curable.

tiger1 wrote:

Dying from a disease is entirely differant than being FORCED to die of thirst and starvation.

It isn't if you're being forced to die from the disease.

Heretic wrote:

tiger1 wrote:

Dying from a disease is entirely differant than being FORCED to die of thirst and starvation.

It isn't if you're being forced to die from the disease.

Let me try this again. Some diseases kill people, many are not curable, only treatable.

Hunger and thirst are 100% curable.

Tiger1 wrote:

Let me try this again. Some diseases kill people, many are not curable, only treatable.

Hunger and thirst are 100% curable.

I don't care. Being forced to die of a disease is just as dead as being forced to die from starvation and thirst. Dead = dead. Easy enough, no? I'd certainly consider the health of a fully functional and conscious 13 yr old boy a bigger concern than a brain dead, unconscious, shell of a woman. Daniel will be fully awake and aware when he's slowly dying of cancer. Schiavo wasn't.

Heretic wrote:

Tiger1 wrote:

Let me try this again. Some diseases kill people, many are not curable, only treatable.

Hunger and thirst are 100% curable.

I don't care. Being forced to die of a disease is just as dead as being forced to die from starvation and thirst. Dead = dead. Easy enough, no? I'd certainly consider the health of a fully functional and conscious 13 yr old boy a bigger concern than a brain dead, unconscious, shell of a woman. Daniel will be fully awake and aware when he's slowly dying of cancer. Schiavo wasn't.

Exactly. That's why I brought it up. I honestly don't see how those who advocated that Schiavo should be kept alive as a vegetable (with absolutely no chance of recovery) can turn around and argue that medical treatment (with a 90% chance of success) should be withheld from a child.

Scorpion wrote:

Heretic wrote:

Tiger1 wrote:

Let me try this again. Some diseases kill people, many are not curable, only treatable.

Hunger and thirst are 100% curable.

I don't care. Being forced to die of a disease is just as dead as being forced to die from starvation and thirst. Dead = dead. Easy enough, no? I'd certainly consider the health of a fully functional and conscious 13 yr old boy a bigger concern than a brain dead, unconscious, shell of a woman. Daniel will be fully awake and aware when he's slowly dying of cancer. Schiavo wasn't.

Exactly. That's why I brought it up. I honestly don't see how those who advocated that Schiavo should be kept alive as a vegetable (with absolutely no chance of recovery) can turn around and argue that medical treatment (with a 90% chance of success) should be withheld from a child.

The differance is that one is being forced to undergo medical treatment that is questionably curable, and the other is being forced to die of thirst and starvation, which is 100% curable by letting them eat and drink.

She couldn't eat and drink.

Tiger1 wrote:

The differance is that one is being forced to undergo medical treatment that is questionably curable, and the other is being forced to die of thirst and starvation, which is 100% curable by letting them eat and drink.

I don't care. Withholding medical treatment is 100% fatal, which ironically doesn't seem to bother a "pro-lifer" like yourself. And again, we're talking about a living 13 year old boy and not an already dead woman. Though one has to wonder what your kid's father's prognosis was; less than 100%? Did you encourage him to get treatment or did you just tell him give up and die because anything less than 100% is "too big a risk"?

And I reiterate:

Heretic wrote:

These are not kind and concerned parents attempting to spare their son the ravaging effects of a treatment that has little chance of curing his fatal condition (which would be reasonable). These are full-on delusional f**kwits who believe their magic voodoo vitamin water will cure their son's cancer. They are not heroes. The rest of us, existing in a rational, evidence based universe, know their hippie cure will not work and understand that the child will die as sure as a bullet to the face.

10% chance of death vs. a 100% chance. Easy enough even pro-lifer can understand.

100% chance of death by thirst and starvation.

Tiger1 wrote:

100% chance of death by thirst and starvation.

Which somehow justifies condemning a 13 yr old to death. Pro-lifers are just so confusing...

Food and water are the neccessities of life, not medical treatment.

Alternative treatments for cancer sometimes do work. I have a friend who was given 6 months tops, to live, WITH chemo and radiation. They have been using alternative medicine, instead of the chemo and radiation, and have managed to survive several months past what the doctors said they would, WITH radiation and chemo.

Tiger1 wrote:

Food and water are the neccessities of life, not medical treatment.

That's one of the most ignorant statements I've ever heard.

Tell that to someone suffering from a life threatening illness,injury,or a progressive disease like diabetes or COPD,and see what kind of a reaction you get.

Quote :

Alternative treatments for cancer sometimes do work. I have a friend who was given 6 months tops, to live, WITH chemo and radiation. They have been using alternative medicine, instead of the chemo and radiation, and have managed to survive several months past what the doctors said they would, WITH radiation and chemo.

Another one of your conveniently,invented anecdotes.

Artie60438 wrote:

Tiger1 wrote:

Food and water are the neccessities of life, not medical treatment.

That's one of the most ignorant statements I've ever heard.

Then, tell me what is food and water???

Tell that to someone suffering from a life threatening illness,injury,or a progressive disease like diabetes or COPD,and see what kind of a reaction you get.

Don't go there, as I have personal experience on this.

Quote :

Alternative treatments for cancer sometimes do work. I have a friend who was given 6 months tops, to live, WITH chemo and radiation. They have been using alternative medicine, instead of the chemo and radiation, and have managed to survive several months past what the doctors said they would, WITH radiation and chemo.

Another one of your conveniently,invented anecdotes.

It's the truth. I too take alternative treatments for my medical conditions, and they work.

Tiger1 wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Tiger1 wrote:

Food and water are the neccessities of life, not medical treatment.

That's one of the most ignorant statements I've ever heard.

Then, tell me what is food and water???

Tell that to someone suffering from a life threatening illness,injury,or a progressive disease like diabetes or COPD,and see what kind of a reaction you get.

Don't go there, as I have personal experience on this.

Quote :

Alternative treatments for cancer sometimes do work. I have a friend who was given 6 months tops, to live, WITH chemo and radiation. They have been using alternative medicine, instead of the chemo and radiation, and have managed to survive several months past what the doctors said they would, WITH radiation and chemo.

Another one of your conveniently,invented anecdotes.

It's the truth. I too take alternative treatments for my medical conditions, and they work.

I'm sure you believe they do work. The truth is most "alternative" medicines are nothing more than scams that dupe sick people out of their money and harm their health by delaying treatment with modern methods that have been proven to work.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2002/nov/26/science.highereducation

Quote :

First, the ancient "natural" world was somehow a better place, less polluted and with less stress. Second, ancient peoples knew how to care for themselves with natural remedies that "restore balance" by channelling unseen energy forces in the universe. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Life was much harder as little as 100 years ago. Children died. Disease wiped out entire cities. For most of humanity, indoor air was filled with soot and faeces. Families constantly stressed over where the next meal would come from. No herbal medicine or incantation routinely worked to cure disease. Few lived past the age of 50, no matter if they practiced yoga and thought happy thoughts, as Deepak Chopra and Andrew Weil teach us.

Surprisingly, many in this modern world subscribe to the idea that disease is not caused by pathogens but rather an "unbalance" or "negative energy". They take untested herbs, much like medieval Europeans, to restore this balance. Or they practice qigong to move so-called qi (chi) energy through the body to initiate some mystic healing practice.

Only people in the wealthiest of nations are subscribing to ancient practices, often banned in developing countries.

Tiger1 wrote:

Food and water are the neccessities of life, not medical treatment.

So? What difference does it make what you call it? And if it saves your life, isn't it just as much a necessity as food and water?

Tiger1 wrote:

Alternative treatments for cancer sometimes do work. I have a friend who was given 6 months tops, to live, WITH chemo and radiation. They have been using alternative medicine, instead of the chemo and radiation, and have managed to survive several months past what the doctors said they would, WITH radiation and chemo.

Well, first... what was the "alternative treatment"? You aren't honestly suggesting that each and every alt treatment/cure for cancer are equal and successful, are you? Besides, if it wasn't the same magic voodoo vitamin water they're giving Daniel, your point is irrelevant.

Secondly, what was the probability of the treatment? As you put it, "'MIGHT' is the key word here." Nothing's 100%; not even your alternative woo. And again, if it was less than 90 or 100%, I can't understand why you're so adamantly in favor of Daniel's death while being so hypocritically willing to do whatever is less probable (though necessary) when the life of someone you know personally is at stake.

Thirdly, I am awfully surprised you consider "several months" as having worked successfully, considering you'd rather see Daniel die of a curable form of cancer instead of getting the necessary treatment that will give him years. Doctors cannot predict the future; they make educated projections based on mountains of evidence through multiple scientific disciplines. I'm willing to bet that when your friend passed, he had his affairs in order thanks to the prognosis from those Evil Big Pharma doctors. He wasn't caught unawares surfing off the shores of Maui leaving his family completely unprepared.

And lastly, anecdotes aren't evidence. People sometimes walk away from horrific car accidents unscathed sans a seatbelt, but I'm willing to bet you still put yours on when you get into a vehicle. That's why all the late night infomercials that offer anecdotes as evidence have the universal quack warning "Results not typical". If they did work, the results would be typical. Wikipedia has more on such a poor argument.

sparks wrote:

The truth is most "alternative" medicines are nothing more than scams that dupe sick people out of their money and harm their health by delaying treatment with modern methods that have been proven to work.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2002/nov/26/science.highereducation

Here's a better one:

Quote :

Quack remedies spread by virtue of being useless

Eating a vulture won't clear a bad case of syphilis nor will a drink made of rotting snakes treat leprosy, but these and other bogus medical treatments spread precisely because they don't work. That's the counterintuitive finding of a mathematical model of medical quackery.

Ineffective treatments don't cure an illness, so sufferers demonstrate them to more people than those who recovery quickly after taking real medicines.

"The assumption is that when people pick up treatments to try, they're basically observing other people," says Mark Tanaka, a mathematical biologist at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, who led the study. "People don't necessarily know that what somebody is trying is going to work."

The World Health Organization is demanding better proof that folk medicines work before they can be approved. And the Malaysian government has rejected more than a third of the 25,000 applications to register traditional medicines it has received because the treatments are ineffective or dangerous.

Despite these efforts, quack medicine persists around the world. Some Nigerians treat malaria with witchcraft, a South African health minister recently claimed that garlic and beetroot treat HIV, and western health stores brim with unproven treatments for almost any disease imaginable. For instance St John's wort does nothing for attention deficit hyperactive disorder in children, a recent placebo-controlled trial concluded.

Heretic wrote:

sparks wrote:

The truth is most "alternative" medicines are nothing more than scams that dupe sick people out of their money and harm their health by delaying treatment with modern methods that have been proven to work.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2002/nov/26/science.highereducation

Here's a better one:

Quote :

Quack remedies spread by virtue of being useless

Eating a vulture won't clear a bad case of syphilis nor will a drink made of rotting snakes treat leprosy, but these and other bogus medical treatments spread precisely because they don't work. That's the counterintuitive finding of a mathematical model of medical quackery.

Ineffective treatments don't cure an illness, so sufferers demonstrate them to more people than those who recovery quickly after taking real medicines.

"The assumption is that when people pick up treatments to try, they're basically observing other people," says Mark Tanaka, a mathematical biologist at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, who led the study. "People don't necessarily know that what somebody is trying is going to work."

The World Health Organization is demanding better proof that folk medicines work before they can be approved. And the Malaysian government has rejected more than a third of the 25,000 applications to register traditional medicines it has received because the treatments are ineffective or dangerous.

Despite these efforts, quack medicine persists around the world. Some Nigerians treat malaria with witchcraft, a South African health minister recently claimed that garlic and beetroot treat HIV, and western health stores brim with unproven treatments for almost any disease imaginable. For instance St John's wort does nothing for attention deficit hyperactive disorder in children, a recent placebo-controlled trial concluded.

The source of some of today's medicines originally came from plants, such as a type of tree bark that is made into asprin. Oatmeal lowers cholestrol. Pennicillin was first developed from moldy bread. They used compresses of moldy bread during the civil war, to stymie infections.Quinine, which treats malaria is from tree bark.

Not everything is going to help all people, the same with prescription medicines. I have found that alternative medicines work the best for me, but everyone has to make their own choice as to how to treat their own medical conditions.

BTW, my friend is still alive. Alternative medicine prolonged their life.

Tiger1 wrote:

The source of some of today's medicines originally came from plants, such as a type of tree bark that is made into asprin. Oatmeal lowers cholestrol. Pennicillin was first developed from moldy bread. They used compresses of moldy bread during the civil war, to stymie infections.Quinine, which treats malaria is from tree bark.

Evidence based medicine is really, really cool like that.

Tiger1 wrote:

Not everything is going to help all people, the same with prescription medicines.

Which remains just as poor an argument against evidence based medicine as my scenario above was against seatbelts.

Tiger1 wrote:

I have found that alternative medicines work the best for me...

Curious. How exactly does that work? Do your cells have "alternative medicine" receptors on them? How do they know what's woo and what isn't so they're able to respond appropriately?

Tiger1 wrote:

BTW, my friend is still alive. Alternative medicine prolonged their life.

And since that remains an anecdote, you don't know that for certain anymore than I. I can't offer any specifics, because you once again failed to answer any of my questions:

Quote :

Well, first... what was the "alternative treatment"? You aren't honestly suggesting that each and every alt treatment/cure for cancer are equal and successful, are you? Besides, if it wasn't the same magic voodoo vitamin water they're giving Daniel, your point is irrelevant.

Secondly, what was the probability of the treatment? As you put it, "'MIGHT' is the key word here." Nothing's 100%; not even your alternative woo. And again, if it was less than 90 or 100%, I can't understand why you're so adamantly in favor of Daniel's death while being so hypocritically willing to do whatever is less probable (though necessary) when the life of someone you know personally is at stake.