| Jan Drew 2006-08-01, 2:28 am |
| Bottom line. Organized and conventional has a *huge* control problem.
FORCING--their methods on people and children.
"PeterB" <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1154378093.494166.55590@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> 0:-> wrote:
>
> I was very clear in that. And it wasn't the question.
>
>
> Just wanted you on record saying it's your belief that chemo should be
> forced on a patient against his will. This is your chance to clarify
> if you so choose.
>
>
> So, you don't believe the parents have jurisdiction over a child, even
> when prognosis using a given treatment is poor, or when such treatment
> may be fatal?
>
>
> I have seen what you believe passes for evidence: Observational
> studies, anecdotal references, drugs compared to other drugs, a glaring
> lack of randomized and controlled studies in cancer prognosis in both
> treated and untreated patients. Is that what you mean?
>
>
> If it is, it can't rest on the lack of clinical data supporting Hoxey
> alone. It should rest primarily on the proven value (and safety) of
> chemotherapy. So far, you've provided links to marketing and
> promotional material, but nothing more.
>
>
> Your total premise, then, is your belief that chemo might cure this
> boy. What if it kills him, instead? What will your apology to the
> parents be worth then?
>
>
> I'm obviously trying to figure out why you believe so much in chemo.
>
>
> Do you mean, your position?
>
>
> "Facts" are a matter of interpretation, sir. You haven't done better
> than provide links to promotional material and invitations to
> participate in clinical trials. Those are hardly facts.
>
>
> So, you believe chemo is Abraham's best option, therefore the state
> should usurp the parents' jurisdiction over their own child and force
> medicate him. Just checking.
>
>
> I have not lied, sir. I have merely asked you to be absolutely clear.
>
>
>
> The state has already indicated that, given Abraham's refusal to accept
> chemo, he will not be force medicated, but rather be incarcerated like
> a common criminal. If the US courts decline to force medicate, who am
> I to advocate (as you have) something so obviously heinous? No, I
> would not. Nor do I believe the state has the right to restrain
> Abraham against his will, or to prevent his choice of treatment.
>
>
> I gave you a chance to flesh out your position, and your response was
> to reiterate links to promotional material for chemotherapy. How
> telling.
>
>
> It was a question.
>
>
> I hardly need to prove that state jurisdiction usurping parental
> authority over children is injurious to individual rights. It
> represents a clear breach of contract with the American people.
> Polling efforts over the years have certainly confirmed this view, and
> the Constitution must be, above all, a document representing the will
> of the people. Remember the Schiavo case.
>
>
> Prove it.
>
>
> Prove it.
>
>
> But the state will not force chemo on Abraham. Therefore, what
> Constitutional premise is served in putting him in restraints?
>
>
> As I said, I wanted to give you a chance to flesh it out. You declined
> to do so.
>
>
> Are you?
>
>
> I rest my case. Your premise is clear. Clearly dangerous.
>
>
> I haven't obfuscated, I've helped you clarify your own position.
>
>
> No, but I can make that very claim about your own comments. Are you in
> favor of majority rule? Answer that.
>
>
> You haven't proven that with promotional links to chemo drugs.
>
>
> So you say.
>
>
> I've been quite clear in stating my argument.
>
>
> See my comments below your first 4 links. You call this evidence? I
> call it quackery.
>
> PeterB
>
>
>
|