Medical tyranny (for your own good)

by **Mentalgongfu** » Sun Jul 23, 2006 12:23 pm

I heard about this battle a while ago. It seems it has taken another turn, once again illustrating that the authorities always know best how you should live your life. Regardless how wise the alternative treatments may or may not be in this case, I think we should all be wary of this invasion of state authority. I'm having horrible visions of where this precedent will lead. <blockquote>Quote:<hr> Judge orders teen to cancer treatment By SONJA BARISIC, Associated Press WriterSat Jul 22, 11:13 PM ET  A judge has ruled that a 16-year-old boy fighting to use alternative treatment for his cancer must report to a hospital by Tuesday and accept treatment that doctors deem necessary, the family's attorney said. The judge on Friday also found Starchild Abraham Cherrix's parents were neglectful for allowing him to pursue alternative treatment of a sugar-free, organic diet and herbal supplements supervised by a clinic in Mexico, lawyer John Stepanovich said. Jay and Rose Cherrix of Chincoteague on Virginia's Eastern Shore must continue to share custody of their son with the Accomack County Department of Social Services, as the judge had previously ordered, Stepanovich said. The parents were devastated by the new order and planned to appeal, the lawyer said. Stepanovich said he will ask a higher court on Monday to stay enforcement of the order, which requires the parents to take Abraham to Children's Hospital of the King's Daughters in Norfolk and to give the oncologist their written legal consent to treat their son for Hodgkin's disease. "I want to caution all parents of Virginia: Look out, because Social Services may be pounding on your door next when they disagree with the decision you've made about the health care of your child," Stepanovich said. Phone calls to the Cherrix home went unanswered. The lawyer declined to release the ruling, saying juvenile court Judge Jesse E. Demps has sealed much of the case. Social Services officials have declined to comment, citing privacy laws. After three months of chemotherapy last year made him nauseated and weak, Abraham rejected doctors' recommendations to go through a second round when he learned early this year that his Hodgkin's disease, a cancer of the lymph nodes, was active again. A social worker then asked a judge to require the teen to continue conventional treatment. In May, the judge issued a temporary order finding Abraham's parents neglectful and awarding partial custody to the county, with Abraham continuing to live at home with his four siblings.<hr></blockquote>

by **slimmouse** » Sun Jul 23, 2006 5:37 pm

I wonder if theyve ever seen this ? The link by Cortez in the data dump - see below "Im telling the truth Goddammit, and a man who tells the truth needs a very fast horse" I'll bet neither the judge nor the patient have. I wonder why not ? <a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm9.showMessage?topicID=99.topic">p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm9.showMessage?topicID=99.topic</a> Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=slimmouse@rigorousintuition>slimmouse</A> at: 7/25/06 5:07 am

by * » Mon Jul 24, 2006 3:38 pm

from an email: <blockquote>Quote:<hr> BL Fisher Note: And so it begins. The medical profession's obession with forced drug and vaccine use has resulted in a 16 year old boy with cancer being ordered to present himself to medical doctors and be injected with toxic chemicals that could make him sicker or kill him without his voluntary, informed consent. Like the judges in collusion with government officials and medical doctors in the Third Reich or the Gulag, this judge is violating the human right to autonomy and self determination when engaging in medical risk taking. Prostrating himself before MD/Ph.D. hospital officials and self professed "biotethicists" like a supplicant before infallible dieties, this "judge" is violating the human right to voluntary, informed consent to medical interventions that can kill or injure. When Abraham Cherrix, who has cancer, decided he wanted to pursue an alternative to a second round of chemotherapy and his parents backed his decision up, the medical doctors the family had hired to treat their son complained to government officials in the state's Social Services department. In addition to ordering that Abraham be made a ward of the State and forced to submit to another round of chemotherapy, the judge charged Abraham's parents with neglect for allowing him to pursue an organic food diet and take herbal supplements under the supervision of other doctors using an alternative cancer therapy approach. A USA Today poll on July 13, 2006 revealed that an overwhelming majority of respondents supported the right of 16 year old Abraham and his parents to make an informed, voluntary decision to choose the kind of health care they want. Now, the majority of respondents to an AOL poll on July 22 say the judge is wrong to force the boy to undergo toxic chemotherapy against his and his parents' will. Increasingly, medical doctors are inappropriately assuming positions of power within the State and, together with government officials, forcing children and adults to obey their orders even when that order could kill. Abraham's lawyer is right: parents had better think twice before they take their sick children to medical doctors who could take their children from them and harm or kill them with toxic medical therapies. The child could die but the doctors and the judge who gave the order will never spend one hour in prison. ______________________ NVIC E-News is a free service of the National Vaccine Information Center and is supported through membership donations. NVIC is funded through the financial support of its members and does not receive any government subsidies. Barbara Loe Fisher, President and Co- founder. Learn more about vaccines, diseases and how to protect your informed consent rights <a href="http://www.nvic.org">www.nvic.org</a> <hr></blockquote> <a href="http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/health/1500AP_Cancer_Drug_Heart_Disease.html?source=mypi">Study: Cancer drug may pose heart danger</a> By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID AP SCIENCE WRITER WASHINGTON -- A successful cancer-fighting drug may also damage the heart, although a researcher says leukemia patients who need Gleevec should not abandon it. While effectively treating cancer, Gleevec can lead to heart failure in some patients, said Dr. Thomas Force, who teaches medicine at Jefferson Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia. His study, published Sunday in the online edition of the journal Nature Medicine, was prompted by reports that 10 patients taking Gleevec for chronic myelogenous leukemia developed severe congestive heart failure. Gleevec, sold under the Glivec in some countries, had worldwide sales of $1.2 billion in the first six months of this year, according to the manufacturer, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. "Gleevec is a wonderful drug and patients with these diseases need to be on it. It's a lifesaving drug for sure," Force said in a telephone interview. "This is not a Vioxx situation," Force added, referring to Merck & Co.'s painkiller that was pulled from the market because of heart side effects. Force said he is trying to call attention to the fact that Gleevec and other similar drugs coming along could have significant effects on the heart and that doctors need to be aware of this and watch for symptoms. These patients can be helped with heart treatment, he said. Novartis cited the limited data and said further research was needed to better understand the relationship between such studies and their potential impact on monitoring patients who are on the drug. The company said in a written statement that the prescribing information with the drug includes data on heart problems. In addition, the drug maker said clinical trials and postmarketing safety data have shown that the incidence of heart failures among people taking drug is "extremely rare." Novartis said Force's work does not change "the positive benefit/risk ratio of Glivec for thousands of patients being treated for cancer and other life-threatening diseases." Force said the 10 patients with heart failure were taking Gleevec at the University of Texas' M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston and had no heart problems before going on the drug. He said doctors took baseline measures of the patients' left ventricular heart function and determined that heart failure developed in these patients between two months and 14 months after they began Gleevec. Dr. Jean-Bernard Durand of M.D. Anderson discussed these cases with Force at a meeting and suggested they try to determine the cause of this problem, Force said. Gleevec targets three specific proteins, including one called ABL. In chronic myelogenous leukemia, genes known as ABL and BCR become fused and produce a hybrid BCR-ABL enzyme that is always active. The overactive BCR-ABL, in turn, drives the excessive proliferation of white blood cells that is the hallmark of leukemia. Using viruses that produced for normal ABL and a Gleevec-resistant mutant in laboratory studies and in mice, the researchers found that Gleevec inhibited the normal enzyme but not the mutant, and the mutant ABL "rescued" heart cells from the toxic effects of Gleevec. The research was supported by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, the Finnish Heart Foundation and the Paavo Nurmi Foundation. ---

by **Mentalgongfu** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 10:18 pm

slim - FYI, that link you posted brings up a "page not found" message for me.

by **stickdog99** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 3:56 am

Wow. That is really fucked up. State forced poison treatments. Oh right, just like vaccines, fluoridated water and chloramine.

by **Sepka** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 5:26 am

I think the courts have always held that parents have a responsibility to seek modern medical treatment for a minor, even if it violates their own beliefs. They're not really ruling on the validity of any medical practice here, but just saying that the parents have a responsibility to follow the advice of licensed professionals when making life or death decisions for someone that the law holds to be unable to make such decisions for himself. IMHO, the doctrine is a correct one when applied to children too young to judge for themselves. A sixteen year old, I think, is old enough to examine the evidence and weigh the risks for himself, and should be considered competent. Were the court to have held that the boy was competent at 16 to make decisions about his own medical treatment, it would have made an interesting precedent in the matter of 'parental notification' laws regarding abortion and birth control. -Sepka the Space Weasel

by **stickdog99** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 6:00 am

Sorry, but when the proscribed treatment is poison, anybody should be allowed to refuse it.

by **slimmouse** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 7:09 am

Mentalgonfu. Link now corrected <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)">

by **Seamus OBlimey** » Wed Jul 26, 2006 6:11 pm

Can't say we weren't warned... <a href="http://www.sausagenet.com/program.asp?mode=view&progid=803&progname=Pig+Heart+Boy">Pig Heart Boy</a> "13yr old Cameron has a failing heart and urgently needs a transplant if he is to survive. With rapidly, worsening health and no foreseeable chance of a human heart being found in time, Cameron grudgingly agrees to accept a pig’s heart in pioneering medical trails. Marlon, the one friend who Cameron trusts to tell about the origin of his new heart, betrays him and soon the press and animal rights activists are hounding the family. The story of Cameron and his family, covers a range of traditionally adult topics such as terminal illness, impending death, pregnancy, childbirth, ostracism and medical ethics. However, the BBC TV adaptation of Malorie Blackman’s book, made a successful childrens series and in fact won a BAFTA award for the best children’s tv drama in 2000." Get used to it!

by **slimmouse** » Wed Jul 26, 2006 6:46 pm

Did anyone ever wonder exactly HOW it is that all the major transplant stuff comes from a pig, not an Ape from which we supposedly descend ? The domesticated pig. The only animal that requires suncream for its skin like we do. The animal who's insulin may be used for human diabetics. Strange No ? Im not saying that we are direct descendants of a pig BTW. I would argue something else. Darwinists ?

by **Mentalgongfu** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 12:51 am

Remember that old anti-drug advertisement? "you got the right to say no." to cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana and other illicit substances. but not to chemotherapy. Sepka said "I think the courts have always held that parents have a responsibility to seek modern medical treatment for a minor, even if it violates their own beliefs." You're probably right that U.S. courts have upheld this idea, and in some cases it makes sense, such as cases of child abuse, child endangerment and neglect. I've come across parents who might let a child's sore fester for months and months, leading to horrible problems, and those parents were heavily and rightfully prosecuted for neglect, while the child was afforded medical care which was both needed and wanted. However, in this case, the child and the parents, both making informed decisions, do not want to continue chemotherapy. I hardly consider it medical "care" when a procedure is forced upon someone by doctors and lawyers presenting themselves as benevolent authorities. Regardless the intentions of the State in the matter (ostensibly for the welfare of the 16-year-old now scheduled for forced cancer treatment), this is a severe invasion of privacy rights and civil liberties. Especially if iin forcing a procedure as extreme as chemotherapy, which always has horrible effects on the body and mind and sometimes kills cancer. (note: IMO, no such thing as "side effects." they're all effects.whichever effect is primary is mostly an arbitrary matter. If a pill thins the blood AND causes diarrhea, it's marketed as a blood thinner. But whose to say it isn't a diarrhea pill that also happens to thin blood . . . I digress) I don't know how many other cases there are like this in the country, but to me it is a dark foreshadowing, if not a legal precedent. I frankly don't trust a lot of other people to make life or death decisions for me, and certainly not some pencil pushing beaurocrat who is sure to legislate the "Freedom in Medical Choice Act" and give doctors and judges (more) godlike authority to dictate medical treatment for everyone, maybe as part of some universal health care package .

by **Mentalgongfu** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 1:04 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Did anyone ever wonder exactly HOW it is that all the major transplant stuff comes from a pig, not an Ape from which we supposedly descend ?<hr></blockquote> I hadn't wondered that specifically, but now I am (wondering). I think I'll ask a biologist the next time I see one. The pig connections are interesting. And pigs have been a focus of certain religious dogmas - unclean and all. I would suppose the heart thing may be that because pigs are domesticated and readily available. it's much easier and acceptable to get a pig heart for experimentation and use than a gorilla heart. And don't even think about harvesting a bonobo heart.

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 2:00 pm

Could the body fat ratio of pigs and humans have something to do with this? Perhaps being in a similar body fat relationship produces a biochemical similarity. Just guessing. Sorry, no movie to go with that, y'all. lol.<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/tongue.gif ALT=":p">

Medical tyranny (for your own good)

Medical tyranny (for your own good)

I wonder if hes ever seen this ?

Re: Medical tyranny (for your own good)

bad link

Re: bad link

Re: Medical tyranny (for your own good)

Re: Medical tyranny (for your own good)

Re: bad link

Re: Medical tyranny (for your own good)

Did anyone ever wonder ?

"You got the right to say no"

Re: pigs

Re: pigs, insulin, hearts

Who is online