This Roman Catholic Woman Got My Respect

[RezaMikhaeil]

I'd thought most of my lfe that Roman Catholics are a group of the most hardcore believers on the planet, that won't hesitate to obey their own convictions over the secular laws of the land but this lady took it to another leve, which I respect.

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyUzhfcajMw"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyUzhfcajMw[/url]

Note: Fox News got it wrong, the family is Roman Catholic. Maybe some of you know where better articles on it are. The News paper in the state of Minnesota and Wisconsin is much better but this will get the discussion going.

Reza

[Seven77]

Say what!? I knew nothing of this until now. It doesn't strike me as 'Catholic' but rather as insane. I don't understand the action of this woman... Reza please explain.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Seven77' post='1874095' date='May 23 2009, 07:21 PM']Say what!? I knew nothing of this until now. It doesn't strike me as 'Catholic' but rather as insane. I don't understand the action of this woman... Reza please explain.[/quote]

...from what I'd read is what I can tell you.

Her son has hodgkins limphoma. Went through one round of Chemo, it didn't end his cancer and he felt horrible, so he decided to try other alternative methods that have worked for other people, particularlly a case of a boy that lived in [kentucy I think?...maybe it was Mossurai?] that had success with alternative methods [vitamines, sunlight therapy, etc]. Minnesota is a state that doesn't allow alternative methods to be used legally with children, so it was rejected and the parents were taken to court.

They lost the court case and the mother took the son on the run to Mexico.

This reminded of a case in Washington in which a child that was 16 also was against Chemo, was taken to court and won the right to not have chemo. After that his parents were taken to court again for the radiation part of the battle.

Thou I doesn't necessarily, directly involve their faith, I thought it would get everyone's attention, because I know alot of Roman Catholics are strong in their faith of being against contraceptives and I know that the state pushes them pretty heavy too.

Reza

[CatherineM]

All I saw on the news bite on our news is that the mom didn't want her son having more chemo. Sometimes when it is hopeless, teenagers especially, don't want more chemo. I assumed that was the case with this one. From this news bite it looks like he has something very treatable. That's child neglect/abuse in my book. I hope they find them while he still has a chance at life.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1874102' date='May 23 2009, 07:33 PM']All I saw on the news bite on our news is that the mom didn't want her son having more chemo. Sometimes when it is hopeless, teenagers especially, don't want more chemo. I assumed that was the case with this one. From this news bite it looks like he has something very treatable. That's child neglect/abuse in my book. I hope they find them while he still has a chance at life.[/quote]

It is treatable but there is no guarentee, also alternative treatements have worked too.

Reza

[Seven77]

I see.

Alternative medicine may help but chemo seems to be more of a sure bet in saving the boy. Chemo won't be hopeless... Morally the choice is clear. I agree with CatherineM.

[MissScripture]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1874100' date='May 23 2009, 09:28 PM']...from what I'd read is what I can tell you.

Her son has hodgkins limphoma. Went through one round of Chemo, it didn't end his cancer and he felt horrible, so he decided to try other alternative methods that have worked for other people, particularlly a case of a boy that lived in [kentucy I think?...maybe it was Mossurai?] that had success with alternative methods [vitamines, sunlight therapy, etc]. Minnesota is a state that doesn't allow alternative methods to be used legally with children, so it was rejected and the parents were taken to court.

They lost the court case and the mother took the son on the run to Mexico.

This reminded of a case in Washington in which a child that was 16 also was against Chemo, was taken to court and won the right to not have chemo. After that his parents were taken to court again for the radiation part of the battle.

Thou I doesn't necessarily, directly involve their faith, I thought it would get everyone's attention, because I know alot of Roman Catholics are strong in their faith of being against contraceptives and I know that the state pushes them pretty heavy too.

Reza[/quote]
Correction: He took one DOSE of chemo. That will not get rid of cancer in anyone. And the reasons for doing what they are doing have pretty much nothing to do with being Roman Catholic. Moreover, from the articles I've read, the boy doesn't really understand what is going on, and pretty much is doing what his parents want him to --in other words, HE is not informed about the pros and cons of chemo, just the cons.

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1874102' date='May 23 2009, 09:33 PM']All I saw on the news bite on our news is that the mom didn't want her son having more chemo. Sometimes when it is hopeless, teenagers especially, don't want more chemo. I assumed that was the case with this one. From this news bite it looks like he has something very treatable. That's child neglect/abuse in my book. I hope they find them while he still has a chance at life.[/quote]
From the articles I've read, and what I know, it is very treatable, or was when he was first diagnosed, though, since then it has progressed.

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1874105' date='May 23 2009, 09:39 PM']It is treatable but there is no guarentee, also alternative treatements have worked too.

Reza[/quote]
From my understanding, there is a much higher chance of survival with chemo than with the alternative treatments...I've also not heard any evidence that they ARE treating him with alternative treatments, but I could be wrong.

[quote name='Seven77' post='1874109' date='May 23 2009, 09:47 PM']I see.

Alternative medicine may help but chemo seems to be more of a sure bet in saving the boy. Chemo won't be hopeless... Morally the choice is clear. I agree with CatherineM.[/quote]
While I agree with you and CatherineM, I also have a hard time with the gov't ordering treatment to be done...it just makes me uneasy...

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='MissScripture' post='1874117' date='May 23 2009, 06:58 PM']Correction: He took one DOSE of chemo. That will not get rid of cancer in anyone. And the reasons for doing what they are doing have pretty much nothing to do with being Roman Catholic. Moreover, from the articles I've read, the boy doesn't really understand what is going on, and pretty much is doing what his parents want him to --in other words, HE is not informed about the pros and cons of chemo, just the cons.[/quote]

That's what I said, he took one dose. I also was clear that it had nothing to do with being Roman Catholic.

In terms of the media, the media has portrayed him as illiterate, etc. That isn't necessarily the truth.


[quote]From the articles I've read, and what I know, it is very treatable, or was when he was first diagnosed, though, since then it has progressed.[/quote]

It is treatable, which the parents and the boy didn't deny, what they opposed was the state telling them what treatment plan to take.


[quote]From my understanding, there is a much higher chance of survival with chemo than with the alternative treatments...I've also not heard any evidence that they ARE treating him with alternative treatments, but I could be wrong.[/quote]

Here's what I have a problem. My wife was a nurse on an oncology floor for a long time and of course people say that Chemo is the best option for survival but pay attention to whos saying it. Chemo is very expensive, and so its those that stand to profit from it saying it. Alternative treatements have evidence of highly success also, infact it's often higher then Chemo, but those treatment plans cost less and generally speaking the drug corportations don't have "lock" on that industry.

The drug companies and some doctors [often that get paid from it] are pushing Chemo. Doctors aren't scientists thou, doctors also claimed that electro shock therapy was "proven" to help the mentally ill, yet we found out years later that it didnt. We know the motivations of the drug companies [such as getting Guardacil signed into the Texas State Laws], and the doctors.


[quote]While I agree with you and CatherineM, I also have a hard time with the gov't ordering treatment to be done...it just makes me uneasy...[/quote]

Here is where we agree.

Reza

[CatherineM]

[quote name='MissScripture' post='1874117' date='May 23 2009, 08:58 PM']While I agree with you and CatherineM, I also have a hard time with the gov't ordering treatment to be done...it just makes me uneasy...[/quote]

My first court case was representing a child who needed heart surgery, and her parents were Jehovah Witnesses. I argued that they have a complete right to their religious beliefs, but their right to practice their religion ends where their daughter's right to life begins. Children aren't our possessions, they are our responsibility. When we fail in our responsibility, someone has to step in. If we allow a parent to endanger a child's life because of their religious beliefs, how is that different from allowing them to practice human sacrifice under the guise of religious freedom. Life should always come first.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1874128' date='May 23 2009, 11:08 PM']My first court case was representing a child who needed heart surgery, and her parents were Jehovah Witnesses. I argued that they have a complete right to their religious beliefs, but their right to practice their religion ends where their daughter's right to life begins. Children aren't our possessions, they are our responsibility. When we fail in our responsibility, someone has to step in. If we allow a parent to endanger a child's life because of their religious beliefs, how is that different from allowing them to practice human sacrifice under the guise of religious freedom. Life should always come first.[/quote]
AMEN!

[Lil Red]

+J.M.J.+
i am uneasy also. where does it end?

what if, many years into the future, ESCR is proven effective at treating a deadly disease. what if Catholic parents don't want their children treated with ESCs?

[MissScripture]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1874126' date='May 23 2009, 10:07 PM']That's what I said, he took one dose. I also was clear that it had nothing to do with being Roman Catholic.

In terms of the media, the media has portrayed him as illiterate, etc. That isn't necessarily the truth.




It is treatable, which the parents and the boy didn't deny, what they opposed was the state telling them what treatment plan to take.




Here's what I have a problem. My wife was a nurse on an oncology floor for a long time and of course people say that Chemo is the best option for survival but pay attention to whos saying it. Chemo is very expensive, and so its those that stand to profit from it saying it. Alternative treatements have evidence of highly success also, infact it's often higher then Chemo, but those treatment plans cost less and generally speaking the drug corportations don't have "lock" on that industry.

The drug companies and some doctors [often that get paid from it] are pushing Chemo. Doctors aren't scientists thou, doctors also claimed that electro shock therapy was "proven" to help the mentally ill, yet we found out years later that it didnt. We know the motivations of the drug companies [such as getting Guardacil signed into the Texas State Laws], and the doctors.




Here is where we agree.

Reza[/quote]
You said one ROUND of chemo, which makes it sound like one entire treatment course.
I never said or read that he was illiterate; I read that he had a learning disability and that when asked, he was not able to explain why he did not want chemo.

Again, I have not heard that they ARE using alternative treatments. And I have also not seen /read/heard evidence of these treatments being effective other than anecdotal.

Also, chemo is the current standard of practice, so yes, a doctor is going to recommend that, to recommend anything less would actually probably be leaving themselves open to a malpractice lawsuit, especially at the early stages. While the patient should have the right to refuse treatment, from what I have read, it is not the patient refusing, but the parents refusing.

[CatherineM]

[quote name='Lil Red' post='1874137' date='May 23 2009, 09:16 PM']+J.M.J.+
i am uneasy also. where does it end?

what if, many years into the future, ESCR is proven effective at treating a deadly disease. what if Catholic parents don't want their children treated with ESCs?[/quote]

I don't know. I don't know what I would do. I will tell you what happened after I won the case against the JW parents. They thanked me. They didn't want their daughter to die, but they also didn't want to be excommunicated from their church. Being forced by the court allowed them to save their daughter, and save their soul, I guess.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='MissScripture' post='1874143' date='May 23 2009, 07:26 PM']You said one ROUND of chemo, which makes it sound like one entire treatment course.
I never said or read that he was illiterate; I read that he had a learning disability and that when asked, he was not able to explain why he did not want chemo.[/quote]

This is according to the media, but yeah the media was saying that he was illiterate, etc.

[quote]Again, I have not heard that they ARE using alternative treatments. And I have also not seen /read/heard evidence of these treatments being effective other than anecdotal.[/quote]

You should research further but yeah they were trying to use alternative treatements. This is not a federal issue, it's a state to state issue. It was state law that forbid alternative medicine, not federal. Many states allow alternative medicine, Minnesota sadly does not.

However, Texas, by state law forces girls at the age of 9 to have a guardacil shot, many Roman Catholics are against it and fighting it.

[quote]Also, chemo is the current standard of practice, so yes, a doctor is going to recommend that, to recommend anything less would actually probably be leaving themselves open to a malpractice lawsuit, especially at the early stages. While the patient should have the right to refuse treatment, from what I have read, it is not the patient refusing, but the parents refusing.[/quote]

Contraceptives are also the current standard of public health, yet we as citizens have a right to challenge it. Guardacil is the standard in Texas, yet many Roman Catholics are challenging it.

Don't forget that not all doctors recommend Chemo, many doctors also encourage alternative medicine. The standard right now in vaccines is to give many vaccines that are proven to have worse side affects then what is being supposedly "prevented", yet it's still the standard and people are still opposing it.

Don't forget that electro shock therapy and lobotomies were once the standard too.

Reza

[BG45]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1874128' date='May 23 2009, 11:08 PM']My first court case was representing a child who needed heart surgery, and her parents were Jehovah Witnesses. I argued that they have a complete right to their religious beliefs, but their right to practice their religion ends where their daughter's right to life begins. Children aren't our possessions, they are our responsibility. When we fail in our responsibility, someone has to step in. If we allow a parent to endanger a child's life because of their religious beliefs, how is that different from allowing them to practice human sacrifice under the guise of religious freedom. Life should always come first.[/quote]

This perfectly sums up my views on the issue at hand.