Parental rights versus the State
wbbanjo at YAHOO.COM
Fri May 22 09:09:08 MDT 2009
Said with style, tact, and sweet reason, John.
--- On Thu, 5/21/09, John A. Quayle <blueoval57 at VERIZON.NET> wrote:
From: John A. Quayle <blueoval57 at VERIZON.NET>
Subject: Re: Parental rights versus the State
To: RUSHTALK at CSDCO.COM
Date: Thursday, May 21, 2009, 7:20 PM
At 11:38 AM 5/21/2009, Jack Tomsky wrote:
This is a case of life or death.
With all due respect, Mrs. Tomsky, I don't think that point changes anything. The parents honestly believe that they are acting in their son's best interests.
While medical miracles sometimes happen and nature heals itself - in the majority of cases this is not true.
I'd highly recommend that you start reading the daily postings of Drs. Russell Blaylock < http://www.blaylockreport.com/> and William Campbell Douglass < http://www.douglassreport.com/> - both of whom STRONGLY encourage and endorse homeopathic treatment over standard "accepted wisdom." They each have written some compelling columns on the benefits of homeopathology.
This child has a chance for life with professional medical help vs homeopathic treatment - which can be hit or miss.
I don't think it's as random as you/we all are led to believe it is. Perhaps you might want to reserve final judgement until reading some thoughts from each of the aforementioned doctors. I recently went through a very terse series of similar discussions with my wife - an RN, stricken in December with breast cancer. I argued most passionately for her to try homeopathic methods, but she wouldn't even consider them. Furthermore, she would neither read what the above doctors had written, nor would she some much as inquire about their potential as a means of treatment. Having a closed mind in this case, isn't always good. However, my wife is over the age of 21 and therefore, I could not have any say in her ultimate decision. What disturbs me is that chemotherapy involves injection of poison substances into the body, killing the live tissue, so that there's nothing for the cancer to advance into. It cannot occupy dead tissue.
Cancer runs in my mother's bloodlines and I have a one-in-four chance of contracting colon cancer, personally. I've read everything I could come in contact with on the subject of cancer, since losing my uncle (Mom's brother) in 2001. While I will get myself meticulously screened, if necessary, I plan on bugging my doctor(s) until I get an on-the-level dialog on ulternative treatment - perhaps even using althernative methods before resorting to standard ones. BTW, my wife has completed chemo treatments and is in the middle of her radiation treatment phase. So far, so good. Early detection is ALWAYS the key to treating cancer, no matter the method of treatment. Denise's nodule was roughly the circumference of a dime.
It is not so much the parental rights but what is best for the child.
I doubt that some governmental entity has more of the child's interests at heart than his own parental flesh and blood. We've come to allow and even expect the government to micro-manage our lives and so just about all government entities act with impugnity in areas where they have absolutely no business being.
The more scientific treatment has the better percentage chance of succeeding.
Keep an open mind until you read the scientific data that caused both of the above doctors to reject today's accepted medical "wisdom".......
Meanwhile the parents are wasting time in getting him that treatment and risking his life, because of their religious beliefs.
It may not boil down to religious beliefs, but rather certain health issues. There are a wealth of things to consider in this situation.
The cancer is is growing and may be spreading to the point where it is too late to really save him. Saving a life is sometimes more important than religion. You want to save your child not risk his life with an unproven treatment.
Dr. Douglass writes with supporting evidence on alternative cancer treatment options. < http://www.douglassreport.com/newsletter.html>
This is not facing reality.
Nor is being close-minded, actually.
What rights does the child have to understand the difference and make some kind of choice? It is the child's life at risk and he seems old enough to have a voice.
He has no basis for comparison at his tender age. That'd be as silly as allowing him to vote.
He needs to learn not merely from his parents with religious bias and emotional hysteria, but from the scientific community, as to the truth of the problem. He needs to know what is happening to him and the odds of success of each treatment - established science and homeopathic.
More than anything else, he needs to know the truth and hopefully, possesses the maturity to be able to process the information as presented to him.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Rushtalk