I'm very uncomfortable with the government having the power to tell people what medical treatments they must have. That's a lot of power to have and it will be abused. The kid went through chemo, did not like it. He may be dumb, but I'll trust a 16 year old to make his own medical decisions. Especially when he has tried chemo first.

Sorry, Amy, but you couldn't be further off base with this one. You're a firm believer in the fact that the government doesn't have the right to tell us what to put in our bodies, so it seems incredibly ironic to me that you're now advocating for government control as to what we put IN our bodies!

If this sixteen year old were an adult (which he will be in less than two years), he'd have every right to refuse treatments. Since he is not, his parents have the right to make that decision for him. There is no law on the books that orders parents to seek medical treatment for a child, to date. So, let's keep it that way.

And yes, although the medical community will never in a million years admit this, cancer has been overcome through non-"scientific" means.

I wouldn't take chemo, either. If there was ever a case of the cure being worse than the disease, chemotherapy is it. Quite frankly, it looks to me like the medical community has sentenced this child to die anyway. The chemo is simply a means of prolonging his terrestrial existence and making him as miserable and sick as humanly possible in the meantime.

Mo, Patrick, Amy's question was not: "What's your opinion on faith-based 'medicine'?", it was more like: "As a kid, should you get the death penalty if your parents can't tell the difference between evidence-based medicine and faith-based medicine?"

Granted, a couple of years from now, the kid could make his own choices about which therapy or witch doctor to choose. If he were alive, that is.

Amy, the article you quoted shows the main problem with "alternative" therapy: It doesn't really hurt, as it doesn't really help, but you miss the boat on something that might actually work.

Not to speak of the problems kids tend to run into if their parents are not very smart.

Rainer,
Where did I say anything about faith based medicine? I said giving the government the power to order treatments is a dangerous power to give them. I think the kid, who has undergone chemotherapy before, has the right to decide if he wants the treatment or not.

There may be unfortunate side effects, however this is the price we pay for giving people freedom to choose and make their own decisions. Just like there will likely be unfortunate side effects to allow people to use drugs. The right to control what goes in ones body is absolute.

Also, if the 16 year old wishes to live a shorter life with less pain than a longer painful life, it is his decision. I don't know about you, but when I was 16, I didn't take anything my parents said at face value. In fact, I would wager that MOST 16 year olds don't take what their parents say at face value.

I assume he could go through a second round of chemo and still die, right? Would it be okay for the teen to forgo any treatment whatsoever, because he preferred certain death to the chemo?

Amongst adults, of course, there's the right to refuse any medical treatment, no matter how benign the treatment and no matter how harsh the consequences of forgoing that treatment. So the question is, who has the right of choice when the patient is under age 18? The parents, the government, or the patient himself? Yes, the alternative medicine aspect of it is stupid, as it's likely to have the same effect as doing nothing at all, but isn't doing nothing at all a legitimate choice here?

The survival rate in the last five years for Hodgkin's is 83%. That's a far cry from a death sentence, if the child does chemo. I think that makes it a far cry from many other types of cancer, so I don't think that the idea of a "shorter life with less pain" is really at stake. If the child is among the 83%, then he will have to deal with short-term discomfort, not really "living out the days he has left to the fullest." He's probably not terminal, so he can have a long, quality life.

I'm not saying whether the government should or shouldn't. I don't care, but I think the kid is being a brat and needs to take care of himself, because he's probably going to live if he does. I can't believe the courts actually have to get involved.

Rainer has it right, this is exactly what I'm asking: "As a kid, should you get the death penalty if your parents can't tell the difference between evidence-based medicine and faith-based medicine?"

Unfortunately, many people in this country believe in "magic" (and I can't help but think it's connected to the nonthink that allows people to believe in god).

What's sad is, the adults in his life are morons. It would be one thing if he had all the facts and made a decision based on that. Clearly, he doesn't, and his parents haven't explained to him the difference between evidence-based medicine and crap like homeopathy (see quackwatch.com if you think homeopathy makes sense). Who goes for a treatment with no apparent success if it's going to kill you? Yes, chemo is pretty terrible, but if it's the difference between life and death, I think you'd do it. If he made a reasoned decision, "Chemo is too terrible, so I'm willing to die, that's one thing." If he's just an idiot because he was born to people who are willful idiots as adults, well, that's why I asked the question. I believe in self-determination, but how sad that the kid would die because he's caught a virus of stupid from Mommy and Daddy.

Nooooooooooo!

Well, I knew the time would come eventually when we would disagree. I heard an interview with this kid yesterday on the radio (his first name is actually "Starchild." Hasn't he suffered enough?!) and read another article about him in today's local paper. I am from VA, by the way. From what I heard in his interview, he doesn't want to go through chemotherapy again because the side effects of chemo were more awful than living with the disease, and he truly believes that it wasn't benefitting him. Whether or not I agree with his decision is immaterial. I still think he should have the right to make it, and if it's a stupid one, hey. Chlorine in the gene pool, right?
This reminds me of something that happened in Florida a few years ago...a thirteen-year-old ward of the state became pregnant and wanted an abortion. Jeb "Tard" Bush, in his genius, decided that he needed to have the state step in. The decision was that apparently she wasn't old enough to decide *not* to have a baby, but by the state's reckoning, old enough to have one. Can you imagine the hell pregnancy would be on a thirteen year old's body?
To my mind, it's kind of similar. I would think it stupid of this girl to decide to have a child at 13, and I think it was cruel of the state to force her to, just as I don't know if Starchild Abraham is making the right decision either. But it should his decision to make. If he wants the chemo and the parents are refusing to let him have it, he can go ahead and stop fighting the state in taking him into partial custody, but this kid genuinely doesn't want it.
I don't think it's the state's responsibility to keep every idiot teenager from killing themself. This kid is fighting-fighting! tooth and nail not to have to go through chemo again. Personally, if I were given the option of 6 months to live, or 8 months to live with the side effects and sickness of chemo, hey. Bring on the morphine...I'll stay drugged to the gills and enjoy my 6 months. I don't want Nanny Government telling me what to do.

Again, if he's making a reasoned decision, fine. Same with a girl having an abortion. I believe your life is your own, but I also think it's a shame to die at 16 if you don't understand the difference between evidence-based medicine and witchdoctory.

I agree with every point Amy has made. At what point is a child legally responsible for himself? If, at 16, the kid is still the responsibility of his parents, and his parents are being negelectful by allowing the kid to choose death over life, then it is the state's responsibility to step in and consider the welfare of the child. It is the same as forcing children to wear seatbelts. It is the parents' responsibility to ensure that their children make it to an age where they are considered mature enough to be responsible for their own lives. People can't do whatever they want with their children. They don't own them, but they are primarily responsible for them.

Sorry but i have to agree with the kid on this one. If the kid and the parents agree that the side effects of chemo are not worth it, then i really don't think the govt has the right to intervene. i have know several people who have gone through chemo and all of them say that if they ever have to go through it again, they'll opt for death rather than going through that again.

No one is saying that the herb alternative is going to work and no one is saying the kid is going to die if he doesn't have chemo....let the kid AND HIS PARENTS make the decision. This isn't the same thing as those religious nuts who don't believe in doctors and leave it in "gods hands" if a kid gets the flu....

Why isn't it the same thing? And in such a case, would a parent then be arrested for child endangerment? Or would the child be taken away in order to get them the help they need? I was in a hurry when I posted last time, but I've been thinking about it, and seriously, it's not like the parents let the kid eat candy corn instead of real corn for dinner, they're letting him choose to die. How is that okay, when the possibilities for recovery are so huge? If the cancer goes untreated, what is going to happen? If the child has the Hoxsey or whatever treatment, which seems to be, from the evidence, the same as nothing, what's going to happen? The cancer is not just going to go away. And it's not a person who has lived out their whole lives and has a 10% chance of survival, either. It's a kid with Hodgkins. The parents are being grossly irresponsible, and the kid really is being a brat. He didn't like chemo...and? I don't know any cancer survivor who did. They need to take responsibility for their child's life. If he is forced by the State to go through chemo, I bet he'll look back at 30 and be grateful.

I don't blame the young man for his ideas, but I think his parents are making a huge mistake. Of course, we're all entitled to make huge mistakes.

"If there was ever a case of the cure being worse than the disease, chemotherapy is it."

Patrick -- The process of chemo is rough, but people generally bounce back after it's over. I have several friends who're glad they did it. Unfortunately, cancer also sometimes "bounces back." I know a 29-year-old woman (a brilliant MD trained at Harvard and UCLA) who's been through thyroid cancer twice now. She had some diagnostic tests a few weeks ago, and I haven't heard from her since. I don't know the test results, but I'm afraid I know the test results.

Fact #1: Life is hard.

"If the kid and the parents agree that the side effects of chemo are not worth it, then i really don't think the govt has the right to intervene."

We ask if a person is "of sound mind and sound body" to make decisions about their will (last will and testament, I mean), their health care, etc. Some 16-year-olds are, sure.

Agreeing that the side effects "aren't worth it" implies that they're making a fact-based decision. We only have news reports to go on, but it doesn't sound like they are. Like many people, it sounds like they operate according to wishful thinking, not evidence-based belief. There's a prejudice against modern medicine. I always have to laugh when I hear people saying they hate "traditional medicine." Yeah, well you have yourself some polio, and I'll be over at the doctor's office getting vaccinated.

No, medicine isn't always right or perfect, and yes, chemo can be terrible. But if you're likely choosing death over chemo, you'd better be making an informed decision. I hope whatever judge is assigned to this case sees that the kid gets the facts. I'm not for forcing anybody to have care if they make an informed decision.

The questions remain: is he "of sound mind" at 16 to do so... being born of and influenced by obvious idiots?

Since he's under the age of majority, his parents should decide. That's their responsibility. But they should be liable for their decision. If they decide something stupid, they should be open to a homicide charge.

I've been toying with the idea lately that children in fact owe nothing to their parents: it's the other way round entirely. I think the idea that the created ones are indebted to their creators is the cause of much suffering, whether it's earthly parents or our father who art in heaven. How about that: we don't owe god shit! He made us - it's his job to look after us, not vice versa.

I absolutely agree with you there, Norman about parents owing children. You bring something into this world, you're responsible for it. Does it become a bank robber? Is it hungry? Come in and sweep up after it and yourself.

I wonder if any of the "pro-life" people will come out on this. Somehow, I doubt it. I suspect that as much as they say they want to promote a "culture of life," they really want to promote a culture of submissive, 1950s housewives.

Ugh. My opinions on this are probably colored by the fact that I watched my step-mother go through a couple of years of "alternative" treatments (including some koo koo bananas spinning metal rods over her head) for breast cancer because she didn't want a mastectomy or chemo. By the time she relented and had both, the cancer had spread to her spine and she lived only a few (and very miserable) months after that. Now maybe the outcome would have been no different had she immediately undergone conventional treatment, but I hate seeing people get sucked into this shit.

Does a 16 year old kid have the information he needs to make an infomed decision? Maybe. Should the government step in? I don't know. There are cases where I'd wholeheartedly support it, such as a 5-year old with treatable pneumonia who would die without medical intervention.

"I've been toying with the idea lately that children in fact owe nothing to their parents."

You can stop "toying" with that idea. Just completely accept it -- because the alternative belief has been a great source of misery and abuse. I am not advocating that everyone should abandon or disrespect their parents. It's the "lifelong, bottomless debt of gratitude" that I think is a complete crock.

Well the cure for treatable pneumonia isn't the same thing as having ones body pumped full of chemicals that destroys cancer cells as well as ones body. i'm sure there'd be a lot more folks keeling over from pneumonia if that were the case. This is not the same thing as the nut balls who get bitten by poisonous snakes and state that it's gods will whether they live or die.

The kid is making an informed decision. If the parents choose to back him up on that then so be it. It's not the Commonwealths business to tell the kid OR the parents what sort of medical treatment to administer me thinks.

Well the cure for treatable pneumonia isn't the same thing as having ones body pumped full of chemicals that destroys cancer cells as well as ones body.

Exactly my point. In the first case, I'd have no problem with Childen's Services stepping in to get the kid some medical care; in the case of the 16 year old, it's not as clear cut and hard to know how much of this is his own determination and how much is his parents'.

He wasn't "sentenced to death because he's stupid," he's sentenced to death because he's got aggressive cancer. It's cruel, arrogant and stupid to make the state try to give everyone a sunny, hopeful disposition and the will to live.

Basically, it's a bunch of uptight people insisting that everyone else be as terrified of death as they are. Medicine rarely gives such clearly delineated choices about right and wrong. Norman, how the fuck are you going to prosecute this homicide charge of yours? It's the same bad impulse, presuming that all the horrors of the natural world can be answered with policy or legal procedure.

Right: Mo, Patrick, Meep, amh18057, Rob, Lena, Norman (partial)

Less Right/Wrong: Brenda, Amy, Fox, Norman (partial)

PS Lena - Phone your mother. http://tinyurl.com/hhb57

'Nother PS- What if the kid hates chemo? I mean really, really, really hates chemo? With a passion that dwarfs every other feeling he ever had, so that one hour of chemo is more powerful than a year of good livin'? Do you want Jeb Bush to tell him he's wrong?

Raise a hand if you've watched a love die slowly from cancer and its treatments.

!

If the kid wants to kill himself, or says, I just can't take chemo again, and I'll take my chances, fine. It is his life and it's his decision if he wants to die instead of enduring the torture of chemo. If, on the other hand, he's doing this because Mommy and Daddy are letting him believe Hoxsey is a cure, that's where I have a problem.

Cancer is increasingly survivable -- with wise treatment. Eating vitamin paste probably isn't a survival tactic.

I'm very much for informed consent. Maybe the parents should do research on the effectiveness of chemo and the survival rate of people that have taken it. Then they should research other forms of cancer treatment offered by conventional medicine such as radiation therapy, or anything else offered both in the US & the rest of world (such as Europe perhaps?) There is a lot of excellent groundbreaking medicine going on & it is up to the parents to get out of their US-centric mind-set to find it.

Interesting that you can be so "pro-life" on behalf of this young lad's life declaring that he might not have all the facts or be in his right mind in deciding to refuse further chemotherapy.

Did you have all the facts? were you in your right mind? when you had the abortion which you now have gone so public about? Perhaps your pronounciations about the parents is mispalced guilt on your part?

WHO are you to comment with credibility on this story, really my dear? You are clearly out of your league here.

Shaming Amy on her abortion is a cheap shot, don't you think? And it is not exactly on topic.

> If, on the other hand, he's doing
> this because Mommy and Daddy
> are...

These are the angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin questions that make socialists and liberals seem impractical. How are you ever going to know why he's doing this? How will you ever craft a law to intervene only in necessary cases? I realize you spoke of "having a problem" with this, not as a crisis requiring National Guard deployment. Still, "survival tactics" isn't get-out-of-jail free rhetoric. No fair fucking with people... Especially if it's for their own good.

If we're going to be coercive about things, I propose a twenty year ban on chatter about household mores of 1950s as perceived by those who experienced them chiefly though sitcoms.

I must say I'm totally with the kid on this one. I was 16 not too long ago, and while I made some really stupid decisions, I definitely knew enough to be able to decide something serious like this. Maybe the kid is brainwashed by his parents. If that's the case then they should be evaluating whether he's informed enough to make this decision. If he's not, they should try hard to educate him about it. If that fails, then let him do what he wants. I've seen firsthand (my stepdad who I live with just had his second cancer surgery) the effects of chemo, radiation and cancer and general and if someone doesn't want to do all that, I completely understand. What's so bad about dying? As long as he realizes there's a good chance he might die, then he should be allowed to do what he pleases.

It sucks, but at some point we have to make the arbitrary decision to accept X as the "age of majority" for these kinds of decisions and hand off responsibility for life to the one leading it. I don't know what the laws are in this kid's state, but if he's serious about this, he should petition for emancipated minor status so that he can go ahead and make his own decisions.

Of course, then the parents would have to cede control over the boy's life. I suspect they'd object, which essentially makes them responsible for his decisions. So its extraordinarily reasonable for the state to step in and save him from his parents' stupidity.

Webutante, if you don't understand the difference between a 16-year-old kid and a penpoint-sized scraping of cells, you're too big a moron for me to be of assistance.

Yes, I had an abortion. No, I'm not ashamed.

As Michael Gazzaniga writes in The Ethical Brain, which I happen to have right next to me:

"...a fertilized egg, a clump of cells with no brain, is hardly deserving of the same moral status we confer on the newborn child or the functioning adult. Mere possession of the genetic material for a future human being does not make a human being."

And, as Canada puts it, I'm for "informed consent." The question here is whether anybody involved is informed. Perhaps the judge's job here is to see that the kid is presented with all the facts so he can then decide.

I don't think we should have an arbitrary age of majority. I believe, at 13, I was capable of making many or most life decisions for myself, because I already had strong values and standards, developed from years of reading and thinking. Of course, some kids have yet to hit the age of reason at 55.

If the kid wants to kill himself, or says, I just can't take chemo again, and I'll take my chances, fine. It is his life and it's his decision if he wants to die instead of enduring the torture of chemo. If, on the other hand, he's doing this because Mommy and Daddy are letting him believe Hoxsey is a cure, that's where I have a problem.

I think this statement is the argument that most people are missing. For children, the word of one's parents is more trustworthy than a well-reasoned argument. Thus, this case is not so much a matter of choice as it is a matter of trust. And in this case, the source of that trust is wrong. Should Abraham die because of his parents' stupidity?

I'm going to say yes. Despite all the arguments against this being a truly "informed" choice, we must weigh that the right (including the deluded right) to self-determination. If I were the judge, I'd probably order Abraham to write an essay about the scientific method, the failures of the Hoxsey treatment, and the success rates of chemotherapy. But if he still decided to be an idiot, I'd allow it.

Mind you, I think it's interesting that at 16, if Abraham murdered someone, the government would be arguing that he's an adult.

Oh, and please don't feed the pro-life trolls, everyone!

I saw Abraham and his father on Hannity and Colmes last night. It sounded like he looked into the Hoxsey treatment after he decided that he didn't want to undergo more chemo. So it seems he views Hoxsey as a preferable alternative to more chemo rather than as some kind of magic cure.

I like your solution, Andrew. And you're right, that's what people were missing. I'm all for letting the kid accept death if that's what he decides, being in possession of all the facts.

The question still remains: what is the cut-off age? Would we allow a 9 year old to make the same decision? But it doesn't really matter what _we_ think is the right age. What matters is what the government thinks is the right age. The government steps in to protect minors in countless cases. How is this any different? Whether the boy is mature enough to make this decision or not, the government has to enforce its own rules.

When the boy is deemed old enough to decide to kill himself, then I feel he is entitled to do so. But when it is his parents handing him the gun and telling him to pull the trigger, that is a different story.

Amy,

If a pre-adolescent girl can now get an abortion without her parents consent, why can't a teenage boy make such a decision with his parents' consent? The point is there is no consistency here. And the more we ask the government into out private lives, the slicker the slope.

I am not picking on you per se; however I think you want your cake and eat it too. To wit:

When we women say we want the government to give us the right to choose, what we are really saying is we want to do exactly what we want all the time, including not choosing before the fact of having sex.

But then, Oops! suddenly the choice is there and we're pregnant. So then we want "mommy government" to step in to give us the right to re-choose because we just couldn't be bothered on the front end.

Then we want this governmental parent figure to step in and take more and more responsibility for things we don't like or agree with; BUT THEN we get offended when the government censores our colorful language. Well you/we can't have it both ways. So the least we can do, Amy, is realize we helped empower "mommy government" in the first place, if we're honest. And it only keeps us from maturing into more responsible citizens who learn more and more to choose on the front end rather on the back.

This young man may never have all the facts and may choose wrongly. I pray not. But bring mommy judges in too far, is treading on very shakey ground for a free people.

For fucks sake....no one is handing anyone a gun!
There is no trigger! Every time the govt is allowed to step into a case like this, they bugger it up for everyone. Why don't they spend the taxpayers resources on some kid in the custody of REAL abusive parents? How do you think the parents would feel if they force the kid to do chemo and does a dirt nap because of it? If the govt does make him do it and he dies, is his blood on thier hands?

Um, pre-adolescent girls can't get pregnant, because they haven't had their periods yet, which means they aren't releasing eggs to be fertilized. I have no problem with teenagers having self-determination -- well, except, if, like you, they have a hard time recognizing the difference between a fully-formed human being and a tiny dot of cells. See the Gazzaniga point above. A collection of cells is not a person. Vitamin paste is not a cancer cure.

"So then we want "mommy government" to step in to give us the right to re-choose because we just couldn't be bothered on the front end."

You write like you've been to a bunch of right wing and libertarian Web sites and collected type in a basket to throw around on other sites you visit without engaging any logic.

I want the government to keep its hands out of my pants.

PS It's "the nanny state."

In replying to your posts, I'm reminded of something I once wrote about Susan Spano's: There's shooting fish in a barrel and then there's just blowing the damn thing up with plastic explosive.

Why should Abraham have to write an essay on the success rate of chemotherapy? He has already undergone one round of treatment, and his doctors wanted him to undergo another round since his relapse. Wouldn't he have already been informed of what his chances are with the therapy? And if he isn't aware of that, then wouldn't it be more reasonable to question the competence of his doctors rather than labeling him an idiot for not being completely rational when faced with the possibility of a painful death?

Whatever you say, Amy. After all you're the goddess. But in the end, it isn't what either of us says or thinks, or what books we use to justifiy our choices: Higher Law will ultimately prevail and we shall be accountable for our choices, like it or not. This applies, even if we've made our government into our relative, liberal mommy god.

It's been fun, deary, but now if you'll excuse me, I have to get my nails done.

Who's paying the kid's medical bills? The commonwealth of Virginia?

> Higher Law will ultimately prevail

This person has so come to the wrong columnist's blog.

> Why should Abraham have to write an essay
> on the success rate of chemotherapy?

Exactly. "Do you understand, Abraham? Do you really, really understand?"

Listen, everybody hates current marriage laws because we know our courts are clogged with bitter divorcees fighting over coffee-table knick-knacks while their children are out in the hall with their spirits dying. It's more than nannyhood, and it's less than ineffective: It's hokey. This is one of those cases where there's no standard for how these things should work that society will ever agree on, so government should stay out of it.

Ever go to Digg.com? I want a comment system like that, where we can throw thumbs up and thumbs down at each other. At a certain threshold of thumbdowns, only the comment title remains and you have to click on it to read it, so it's not censorship. It shows what a consensus would look like without demanding that you make one.

Crid-
It's not my homicide charge!

Seriously, I think there's an argument to be made for it. I'd add culpability for parents who recklessly produce children with serious genetic defects. It's not "presuming that all the horrors of the natural world can be answered with policy or legal procedure." Some of these horrors are now well understood and avoidable, so to not avoid them could be seen as negligent.

Who would press a charge if parents murdered their child? It happens all the time; why should murder by medical negligence be different to any other kind?

Because the horrors of chemo are often as tragic as those of the condition they treat. This isn't simple math.

PS: Not so long ago a deaf couple produced a child that was, by their deliberate choice, also deaf. The parents' argument (IIRC) was that being deaf was not so bad, and they wanted to be able to relate to the child. It's a fair point - but what if the child disagreed? I'd have the argument weighed in a court of law, with the child able to sue for damages.

Hey, it's the kid's move and and for my money an improvement on the gene pool . Hard and rough I know, but you can't fix stupid.

"How are you ever going to know why he's doing this? How will you ever craft a law to intervene only in necessary cases?"

Crid, when you're good, you're really good. I love these questions.

PS: I very much honor my father and mother, and I behave toward them in ways that help them understand that.

What is "hard and rough" about mocking a kid with cancer?

"Higher Law will ultimately prevail and we shall be accountable for our choices, like it or not. This applies, even if we've made our government into our relative, liberal mommy god.

It's been fun, deary, but now if you'll excuse me, I have to get my nails done."

"Higher Law"? Sigh. No surprise that you believe, without evidence, in god. That discussion is down a few items. Oh, but isn't it true that if Hitler accepted Jesus as his savior, he got to go to heaven? If so, how are "we" held accountable? And what evidence do you have of this great accounting system in the sky? Hint: actual evidence of the existence of heaven, not just the fact that you're gullible enough to believe what you've read and been told.

Polish your brain, not just your nails, and start using it.

Keep wondering if Kathy Seipp has checked in on this yet. I'd be interested in her take on it.

At the same time I do not wish anyone to suffer, I must point out that the way to remove cancer from the gene pool is to let it kill its hosts as quickly as possible - before they reproduce and pass the genetic tendency on.

Raddy, no. That's the essence of Third Reich's response to Darwin. Out here in reality, once you've got a human being (and many other species), it's too late to talk about genetic refinement.

Amy,

Your understanding of getting god as a quick fix for someone like a Hitler, say, who in your understanding then suddenly bypasses all consequences/accountability for his actions and goes straight to some mythical heaven is ludicrous and so puerile that I am hard-pressed to even respond.

No, that is not the way it goes. There are no quick fixes here, there or in eternity with the God I know and serve. And in fact, the life of a true believer and follower of Christ, not just a social believer, becomes much harder, rather than easier in most cases.

I am sure you know that all of Christ's apostles (but one, John) were brutally murdered for their beliefs. And each one was given the chance to renounce their stand and choose to die rather than recant on what they had seen with their own eyes and knew to be Truth.

Whatever you think, and I was once where you are today, no real believer believes in quick fixes.

It is much easier in the short run to remain an aetheist and deride God. It's much, much easier to set yourself up as a goddess than to step down on terra firma as a sinner and begin the daily often painful walk of repentance and redemption.

So take it from me....stay where you are. Cause the real thing would be way too hard for you right now. It's much easier to over-simplify and dismiss it all as foolishness.

That way you get to keep your job high up on your perch.

I wish you well, Amy.

Maybe I will sound like a jerk, but I do believe that the state of Virginia should let the kid follow that quack cure. Yes, I know that it will means the death of the 16 years-old teen but I believe the example made by this foolish crusade will be more therapeutic on the long run.

You see, as evolved beings, I believe that removing from the genepool unfit specimens is a blessing. Currently, with our performing society and our advance in the medical field, even the extremely handicaped can live a fufilling life. Our current problem for now is the idiots. Those are the ones who want to pet the bear cubs, smoke six packs a day or believe that riding a motorcycle without an helmet is a great idea. We can't keep them always in check. These persons want to be right at all cost, including their own demise. If this is the case, why should be in their way? Let's let them pull themselves out of the genepool, it will be for the greater good.

Maybe you will say that 16 is quite young but here in Canada, it's young enough to join the army. As tragic as it might sound, if the kid want to be the main character in the modern folk tale of "Why it's good to follow a doctor's advice", let him do so.

webutante:

i've never met god. if he's got a higher law, it'd be nice for him to let me know about it. you can comfort yourself with all the judging you want. when you die, you're going to turn into dirt, just like me.

at least i don't tell you how to live your life. you and your kind stay the hell out of mine.

amy:

some people who have been through chemo, after completing it, would have preferred not to. of course, they're usually older than 16.

a lot of people would rather not go through the effort to exercise on a regular basis or maintain a decent diet. they're killing themselves too, and more deliberately than ignoring cancer.

it's his life, if he wants to kill himself, fine. maybe he won't die, maybe he will. no 16 year old i've ever met takes orders from his parents.

> I was once where you are today

The need to look down on other people has got to be the second most powerful social urge.

Even so, Webutante, Baby Jesus hates it when you cluck! It makes him cry!

> removing from the genepool unfit
> specimens is a blessing.

What is this, Eugenicist's Day at Alkon's?

The kid doesn't want to die. He just doesn't think he can take another round of chemotherapy.

What is this, Eugenicist's Day at Alkon's?

I was wondering that as well, Crid. And Toubrouk doesn't have to worry about sounding like a jerk. When you make remarks about it being a blessing for unfit people to die, "jerk" just doesn't quite cover it.

"i've never met god. if he's got a higher law, it'd be nice for him to let me know about it."

g*mart, I just came down from the mountain with a tablet handed to me by god. here's what it says:

"It's disrespectful to leave the dead by the side of the road, because their bodies will get picked over by the vultures. Please bury them."

Hope this helps!

sorry lena. god didn't give me the tablet. and i'm not going to take any tablet you give me.

The fact that the first treatment he went for already was chemo, I sorta doubt he and his parents are complete idiots that don't have any faith in medicine. If they were we would be talking about why doesn't he try 1 round of chemo at least. He's done it before, he knows the agony. I'm going to give the person with first hand experience and the one who has researched his condition the benefit of the doubt when it comes to informed consent. Especially compared to some judges and child protective services.

Webutante: "It is much easier in the short run to remain an aetheist and deride God."

No, it's much easier to believe in what you're told without questioning it. Being an atheist takes work to think. You might try it sometime.

Do you believe everything in the bible or just what suits you? There are some really wacky stories in the thing. Incidentally, how often do you stone your neighbors for adultery?

Check this out, a story by a "news" reporter on the kid's treatment:

http://www.wtkr.com/Global/story.asp?S=4977741

Dr. Allen Chips researched the Hoxsey Treatment Abraham's been on for weeks, in fact he's taking it too and as in Abraham's case he says it's working.

"The diet is an anti-cancer diet which further enhances the immune system so the three factors, the supplement, the diet and the herbs allow your body to kill off it's own cancer," said Dr. Chips.

Doctor Chips, huh? "Reporter" Giovanna Bechard forgot to ask what kind of doctor Chips is, exactly.

http://www.edgarcayce.org/conferences/HQ060702/index.asp?view=speakers

Allen S. Chips D.C.H., is the managing editor of the Bridge newsletter, official publication of the National Association of Transpersonal Hypnotherapists, where he serves as president. An internationally renowned hypnotherapist and instructor of suggestive and regressive hypnotherapy, he is the author of Clinical Hypnotherapy: A Transpersonal Approach (second edition) and Script Magic: A Hypnotherapist’s Desk Reference (second edition). His third book is Killing Your Cancer Without Killing Yourself.

Ohhh...Doctor of Clinical Hypnotherapy.

Kind of like getting your medical advice from Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman.

"sorry lena. i'm not going to take any tablet you give me."

Oh, come on. One tablet won't kill you. Take it!

Here's a logical observation: If chemo works, why isn't the cancer gone? If it didn't work the first time, why should it work the second time? Also, how are scientific studies done in the 1940 relevant today? What was the sample size of the group studied? What was the dosage of the herb used? Was it consistent? There is Linus Pauling's work with high dose Vitamen C which was done in a very rigorous scientific manner as just one example of a non-orthodox treatment, and he is definitely a ligitimate scientist.
Christianity as practiced by some people today seems to be a masochistic death cult (anyone see South Park's take on Mel Gibson & the Passion?) Oh well, whatever turns you on is your business, but don't tell me that I have to share your interest in your particular kink! I've got my own preferences!

Chemo kills cancer cells or slows down their duplication. I'm no doctor, but it seems reasonable that they might not all be killed the first time around. Same as with treatments for other diseases, a second course or more may be required.

Linus Pauling's vitamin C work was discredited:

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/c.html

Here's more from Quackwatch on questionable cancer therapies. Hoxsey is mentioned:

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/cancer.html

Thanks for the website. Properly conducted double blind studies can't be argued with! I love science! (one of my kinks!) Keep up the good work.

Mr. Grouchypants,

Looks like I touched a nerve on my last post. Let me clarify my statement; I definite my position as one of "Self-Eugenism". I do believe that every being has his right to self-terminate hitself by all means nescessary, including stupidity.

Humans are the only animal who was able to punch evolution in the throat and get away with it. Pesky things like diabetes, heart diseases or a premature birth used to mean death 200 years ago. These days, you don't need to hunt for food or to search for water to drink, you just need to go to the market or open the tap. In my corner of the world a century ago, a third of the newborn dint survive to see adulthood. Today, childhood death is a rarity.

This bring me to the point I wanted to make; the only sector where evolution still got a grip is, in my oh so humble opinion, over common sense. There's a lot of people who do the stupidest things these days. One example? Smoking. You really need to live somewhere far away to not know that tobacco products are adictive and can cause cancer.If you want to kill yourself that way, it's your choice. In my mind the same thing goes for parachuting, excessive piercings, swimming with sharks or putting yourself into fire to do a "Jackass".

I believe in personnal responsibility. You own your life and it's your task to act with it as you see fit. If the kid really want that quack cure, why should we be on his way? Why should we force upon him a treatment he don't want? If we really care so much about somebody else health, why tobacco and alcool are still on sale everywhere?

Yup, common sense is the key to survival right now. The sad part is, this teen and his parents got none. It's their choice to stop the treatment, not us.

Sorry about the triple posting here. I had a problem with my computer.

The teen in question doesn't think he can survive another round of chemo, Toubrouk. If he really lacked any common sense, he would have turned to quackery at the outset. He didn't. He underwent chemo and had a really bad time of it.

I don't know how hard the chemo was on him since I didn't experience it myself. So I'm going to give him at least some benefit of the doubt. Making bad decisions in a crisis can be the result of factors other than lack of common sense.

Sorry about the multiple posting. I was getting a server error. Either that or I was really enthusiastic about my post.

Wow. I grabbed a quick look at Amy's blog before work yesterday, I came back that evening and found that the number of responses had jumped to 63. Quite the hot topic. I don't think I've seen any thread explode like that on this blog. Not even the gay marriage debates did that.

This first: no one said anything about faith-based medicine, least of all me. So, dispense with the straw men. I abhor dishonest debaters. People who use that tactic only do so because they already know they lost.

Next: "No scientific evidence." What can that mean? It means exactly what it says it means. It means no "approved" authority has ever taken a particular system, and evaluated the results using the scientific method. Does this mean it doesn't work? No, it just means that the "approved" authorities haven't taken the time to find out whether it works or not.

Now, suppose someone had just received a diagnosis of virulent cancer and was told they would need an aggressive round of chemotherapy. The person thanks the doctor for their concern and never schedules their appointment for chemo. A few months later, the same patient breezes into the office for an exam. The physician, with considerable amazement, finds no trace of the cancer and the patient explains she followed a microbiotic diet and nutritional supplementation, meditation and creative visualization, etc. (insert whatever unorthodox approach you care to here). Now, do you suppose the doctor is going to say, "Wow. You overcame cancer with diet, exercise and supplementation? We have to find out more about this! Let's go over your regimen and test it using the scientific method!"

If you actually believe that ANY doctor would do such a thing, you need get your head out of the clouds and take up residence here on good ol' earth. Doctors love their fees too much.

Food is not subject to prescription and despite the efforts of one noted organization, supplementation doesn't need a doctor's supervision. The medical community could not be less interested in the effects of diet and supplementation on the body. If they thought it could even prevent anything, much less cure it, they wouldn't be able to silence the information fast enough to suit them.

They want nothing, nothing, but nothing touted as a curative except something they can administer, prescribe or perform on a patient and collect their lordly fees for. You need to realize that western medicine is nothing if not political and accept at least the POSSIBILITY that something is out there that they just don't want to know, and don't want YOU to know.

sorry lena, i've already woken up once before with a man in my lap. don't need that to happen again.

i agree with grouchypants though. he's done it once, he knows the costs of chemo. only an idiot wouldn't know the costs of leaving the cancer go.

in the end, we're all dead men.

Forgive me for making the assumptions, but I don't think I'll be a dead man in the end.

Raddy, no. That's the essence of Third Reich's response to Darwin. Out here in reality, once you've got a human being (and many other species), it's too late to talk about genetic refinement.

Your mistake. I'm not advocating intervention to advocate "weeding out sub-optimal humans" or any such thing. My comment is the cold, stark truth that if you prolong the life of a person with a heritable disease, they will have offspring with that disease. Period.

----

Patrick, I don't know where you've been lately, but my personal as well as my company medical center hawks the importance of diet everywhere you look. They have more work than they can take on, now, because of American diet!

By the way, you are misrepresenting the term, "scientific". There is no prerequisite that a particular institution demonstrate the efficacy of a particular treatment. The burden of proof still lies with the affiant, and the makers of quack medicines do everything in their power to avoid mention of this.

Yes, g*, but does he know the costs of non-chemo?

Thank you, Radwaste, for making my case for me. If the medical institution were truly interested in the effects of a particular type of diet, program of supplementation, etc., then logic dictates they would try it out, using the scientific method. However, since you cannot prescribe food or supplementation, they aren't anxious to do that. They don't want what's good for you. They want what's good for THEM.

And furthermore, the "diet" that your insurance company touts is simply information approved by the government. Ask them what a microbiotic diet is. I guarantee you they won't know. Ask them about protein intake for a powerlifter. Now ask them what it is for a marathon runner. I guarantee you they will be the same thing. Which should tell you how interested they truly are in diet.

> they will have offspring with
> that disease. Period.

Well golly, mister, I guess we're left to our own conclusions, aren't we?

"I am sure you know that all of Christ's apostles (but one, John) were brutally murdered for their beliefs. And each one was given the chance to renounce their stand and choose to die rather than recant on what they had seen with their own eyes and knew to be Truth." - Webutante

People have chosen to die for their beliefs all through history, including, lately, suicide bombers. But taken all together, their beiefs are mutually contradictory. I conclude that this is not a reliable method to determine the truth of an idea.

"My comment is the cold, stark truth that if you prolong the life of a person with a heritable disease, they will have offspring with that disease."

Not all diseases are inherited, and there are such things as dominant and recessive genes. Whether a disease is transmitted depends on how it's carried -- genetically, or by virus, etc. -- and whether both parents have the gene, and by many other factors. Genes are always switched on by the environment. See Matt Ridley, The Red Queen, for info: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect?link_code=as2&path=ASIN/0060556579&tag=advicegoddess-20&camp=1789&creative=9325

I know the family personally. They live fifteen minutes from my house and I have watched Abraham grow up. This family knows what's going on and has the best interests for Abraham. He's only been given 25% chance to live if he goes through chemo so what kind of odds is that that chemo is the answer? I don't think it's the answer in this case. While the FDA doesn't approve his alternative method of treating his cancer, you would be amazed at how much power one has if you just believe. I think the state of Virginia should leave the boy alone and let him heal the way he knows best.

Don't you think 25% is better than "no proven effectiveness"?

This family is operating without sense. They may think they're doing a good thing, going for wishful thinking over evidence-based medicine, but they aren't.

There are benefits to optimistic thinking. The fact that you apparently believe thinking good thoughts eradicates cancer says much about you, very little of it positive.

You, like the nitwit parents, have the capacity for rational thought. Why not take it out for a spin?

Okay, so now we have more info about Abraham and his medical status.

I am amazed how fast someone can discard a 25% chance of survival. Anybody had seen the odds of winning at the state lottery? In my corner of the world, the odds are of 1 over 14 000 000! It never stopped no-one of buying a ticket. What was the odds of Lance Armstrong? In Wikipedia, it is written that:

"His doctors told him that he had less than a 40 percent chance of survival. After his recovery, one of his doctors told him that his actual odds of survival had been considerably smaller (one even went as far as to say three percent), and that he had been given the estimate primarily to give him hope."

So I think it's a huge mistake to discard chemotherapy right now.

Another thing; Yes, it is possible to heal from a cancer without any treatments. The human body is a wonderfull machine. A quick search on the net can find some cases of documented "Medical Miracle". I just caution to not believe it will happend every time.

Possible and probable are two different things.

"My comment is the cold, stark truth that if you prolong the life of a person with a heritable disease, they will have offspring with that disease." The corollary to this, of course is, "If you prolong the life of a person with no heritable disease, they will not have offspring with that disease."

But of course there are mutations. Play the odds if you wish, but be aware of them. Yes, Crid, it is up to us. It always has been, except in those cases when we band together to keep somebody else from doing something stupid, never realizing that the same laws applied to us.

I love when people post links to Quackwatch, a site that still says acupuncture is "junk" despite the fact that the American Cancer Society says it works as a treatment for pain. I love how people post links to Quackwatch, a site that is run by Stephen Barrett, MD ... he's a former psychiatrist and knows nothing about medicine. In fact, he lost his medical license.

You are all a bunch of retards if you think that chemotherapy is his best option. First off, 85% of doctors polled said THEY would never do chemo. Hmm ... yet all of you think it's the best thing since sliced bread and that this kid should absolutely be forced to do it. What are they going to do, tie him down and do it? Is this a hospital or Auschwitz?

You also know nothing about the Hoxsey Treatment. Posting a link to Quackwatch does NOT count. That site is full of false information. Why don't you all go do some research, write the paper you suggested this kid do, and get back to me when you have some facts.

Anybody who quotes Quackwatch doesn't know how to do actual research, so I'm not hopeful you all can figure out how to find facts on chemo and the Hoxsey treatment, but you ought to.

Also, remember Michael Landon? He wanted to do the Gerson Therapy, which WORKS much of the time, but his doctor convinced him to go the traditional route. On his deathbed he said, "I should've stayed with Gerson."

So who will be responsible when chemo doesn't work and kills this kid? The judge?

And finally, it doesn't even MATTER what any of you think of alternative treatments. This is about a family's right to make health care decisions without government interference.

Morons.

How creepy that you feel the need to slander Barrett. I see no evidence he "lost his license." He's old. He says he let it expire.

We go by data here. Much as you respect the medical opinion of TV stars, you should pull your head out of your ass before it works its way into your esophagus.

PS Regarding "You are all a bunch of retards," perhaps you got lost on the way to some seventh grader's MySpace page and ended up here?

And regarding the Sloan-Kettering cancer researcher who wrote the piece that appeared on Quackwatch - what, pray tell, is wrong with him or with that piece.

FYI, I don't do research myself, but I use a great deal of it in my column. This week, for example, I'm using a study by Martie Haselton and David Buss on Error Management Theory. Sadly, they only used good data to come up with their conclusions, not divining rods, vitamin paste, or their horoscopes.

If you contend that the post about Hoxsey had falsedhoods in it, do tell us what they are. Of course, since we're "all a bunch of retards," I suggest you use short paragraphs and very simple language so it won't take us too long to sound out the words.

Here's Barrett on accupuncture.

http://www.quackwatch.org/10Bio/biography.html

Biography: How about acupuncture?

Barrett: There are two separate issues here. One is the theory and practice. And the other is what actually happens when you go to see a practitioner. The acupuncture universe is divided into two groups. One thinks of acupuncture in terms of a physical process that causes the body to produce pain-relief compounds like endorphins, or that works by distracting a person so that when you pinch one part of the body, another might relax. And the other is the Chinese way. Practitioners talk about putting the needle in the skin to manipulate the flow of nonmaterial energy called chi. Supposedly, your chi has to be balanced. And disease is caused by imbalance. All that stuff is totally nutty. And the people who do it are not medically trained. They're trained in Chinese medicine, which involves pulse diagnosis, where they feel the pulse for 6 or 12 or 24 characteristics, on the basis of which they tell you what's wrong with your "chi" and what herbs and what type of acupuncture you should have. It is complete insanity.

Biography: Did you ever consult an acupuncturist?

Barrett: I did, following a lecture in my local community. After listening to my pulse, he looked at my tongue and told me I had "congestion of the blood" and "stress." I don't have congestion of the blood, and he had no concept of whether or not I'm under stress. As for the lady standing in line behind me, he said she had premature ventricular contractions, which is an irregular heartbeat. I then took her pulse, which was completely normal. This guy was a medical lunatic. But he represents the acupuncturist majority. The bottom line is that acupuncture may have some usefulness in relieving certain kinds of discomfort. For instance, acupuncture may be able to relieve postoperative nausea, but it may not be cost-effective. I don't want to spend $90 and get a needle when I can take a pill for a fraction of the price that would do the same thing.

Sounds very sensible to me. Where's the problem in that?

I see a whole lot of opinions and not many people who have or are actually going through chemo. I sympathize with the kid, I was diagnosed with Stage II Hodgkin's in June of this year. Since it was first suspected in May 06, I have done a tremendous amount of research on the topic. Four points I want to make
1. Hodgkin's has a very high cure rate; here is what hasn't been asked, the kids has Hodgkin’s in two places on one side of the diaphragm; which means he is a stage II.
Treatment for stage II (depending on if he also presents with symptoms or not) is 6 rounds (12 treatments, one every two weeks) and radiation; or just involved field radiation if Chemo is not tolerated. Since it is localized in his neck, he can get just radiation without risking damage to his lung, heart, so on and so forth. WHY THE HECK was he only given 3 rounds (6 treatments) of Chemo?!?!?!?!?! The lowest I have researched being given for this stage of Hodgkin's in 4 rounds,.. I am NOT a medical professional, but LOGIC says THIS MAYBE WHY HE RELAPSED!!!!!!!!!!
2. Chemo effects everyone DIFFERENTLY, AND IT SUCKS!!!!!!
3. WHY ARE WE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION,.. oh yeah sorry I FORGOT we now officially live in a country were the COURTS have control over our kids. How about the courts ORDERING him and his parents to research ALL possible treatments and then,... HELLO its HIS BODY,....it is up to him and his parents!!!!!!
4. What about going to the cancer research centers of america, they mix both conventional treatment with alternative (but even they tell you that chemo and radiation is the only way to get rid of this cancer,.. the alternative stuff is to help deal with chemo)
As a 34 yr old mother of five with Hodgkin's, I think the kids should have a bone marrow transplant, ... he doesn't have the cancer in his bones so he can be his own donor. BUT that is just what I THINK,... I also FIRMLY believe the choice is NOT up to the courts!!!!!!!!!
Okay done venting,.....

As for the 25% survival rate, who was he given that rate by the same people who only gave him the 3 rounds of chemo???

After reading the vast majority of postings on this blog, I can't believe all the hostility and mudslinging going on. Name calling? Honestly.

The state has no right to step in and tell a parent that he (or she) must accept treatments for a child of any age if the treatment is going to reduce the life remaining to a series of violent chemically-induced reactions. And anyone who calls these parents "morons" or "idiots" evidently has not had to do the extensive research required to make this sort of decision in the face of a life threatening illness.

I noticed that the majority of responders to the original comments are not cancer patients or survivors. Currently, I am in my third year of recurrent colon cancer. Supposedly a very curable type of cancer, according to my doctor. So far, no chemo (and I have had them all for this type of cancer) has made any improvement in my health or quality of life. In fact, after three years, I have finally had the COURAGE to try something beyond what the government tells us is the only course of treatment. Do you know what chemo is? It's poison! The doctors just hope to kill the cancer before the human dies from the side effects.

I finally said "NO more." I'm on a natural diet with supplements, and and this point no one knows if I will survive. But I feel better than I have in years, and if I do have to die from this diet-and-chemical induced disease, I would rather feel good for my last months than spend it hanging over the toilet feeling like I'd rather die!

Having gone the conventional route, and having done all the research, no one can tell me how to suffer cancer-and if my child had it, no one better tell me I'm an idiot for choosing what I deem to be the most effective route to healing.

I support the boy, and his parents, and it makes me sad to see our government pushing its misguided values on the people. There are a lot of politics involved in the drug industry, and I can't help but believe that those politics are affecting the judgement of the American people. These parents love their son. The government needs to get out of the way and let them make an informed decision regarding the best way to save his life.

Sandi, you may not have noticed, but it's the 21st century, and we practice evidence-based medicine these days. I've watched a friend going through chemo, and I have some sense of how horrible it is. If chemo offers the best hope, according to evidence, not wishful thinking, it's the smartest course of action. The problem is I don't think this kid understands that there's no evidence that Hoxsey is anything more than a death sentence. If he does understand that, and chooses to die, fine. I think this is yet another case of parents believing in woo-woo bullshit instead of science. Our country is filled with people like them. Let's hope some of them eventually set their alarm clocks for the Age of Enlightenment -- especially those with minor children in their care. You shouldn't die because your parents are idiots. And yes, idiots are people who use unproven herbal remedies as a cancer cure thinking they're giving their child anything more than a death sentence.

Ever just want to say "who gives a flying fuck in a rat's ass on a dim litted highway?????"

Is the Commonwealth of Virginia gonna pick up the tab for this chemo they are demanding?

And, crid: What the hell does Jeb Bush have to do with Starchild and/or Virginia???

Cancer has no cure and probably never will, maybe because it is not a disease but a symptom of a disease. We all have cancer cells in our body. Those of us who are lucky or healthy have an immune system that can eliminate the cancer cells. By healthy I don't just mean physically but also nutritionally. If you want to call nutritional health hocus pocus then there is alot missed. What is the the difference between someone whose body (immune system) can eliminate the cancer cells and someone whose body cannot? That is where the research needs to be done.

Double blind studies on most things or most diseases are an appropriate approach to a disease that may have a single deficiency such as Vitamin C for Scurvy but what if cancer is a symptom for a disease that has multiple deficiencies? A new methodology for determining a treatment needs to be established.

I have not been diagnosed with the symptom of cancer, however my mother-in-law was diagnosed with breast cancer in 1982 by the Mayo Clinic. They performed the normal orthodox treatments but informed her she only had 6 month to live. She sought an alternative method adjusting her nutritional intake and some FDA outlawed vitamins and she is alive and healthy today without any further orthodox treatment. She adjusted her immune system by improving her health through nutrition.

Sorry, but anecdotal accounts, posted on a Web site don't cut it for me. We don't know whether she was misdiagnosed, etc. If treatments work, it should be easy to prove. The lack of proof suggests they're bullshit - and when they are tested in a rigorous way, that's what's discovered. I'm pretty sure there is no evidence in most of these cases because there's no reason for there to be any evidence.

Amy,

For the record, I am this man's brother. I also have a BS and MBA. I can speak with some authority on whether 'idiot' or 'moron' applies to him and his wife, Rose.

I can also tell that when we speak of toxic parenting, it is apparent that some of it visited your household. Mama and Daddy did not do a very good job of training you in being diplomatic or polite, apparently.

From your remote pedestal, you apparently have all the information you need to make moral assessments of people without actually having spoken with them regarding the reasoning process they may have gone through.

You know, it is entirely possible that a quality of life decision is being made. I'll remind you that one course of chemo has been tried. Does that sound like a decision from a moron?

I buried my first wife 8 years ago after she tried both conventional and alternative therapies for colon cancer. Neither worked. I desparately wanted her to continue chemo, but it was her decision not to. She had a BA, MA and MBA from UNC. WOuld you like to all her a moron, too, Amy?

I challenge you to rise above your obvious social and intellectual limitations and debate ME on this, little girl, and I will show you who is an intellectual lighweight.

I loved computers back when you had to be smart to use them...

$20 you don't have the balls to write back.

Forrest

I place no special stock in college degrees. Wendy McElroy doesn't have one, and she's smarter than most people I read or speak to. But, FYI, since college is such a big deal to you, I took courses at a local college when I was in 11th grade; ie, still in high school, two years before I trotted off to the University of Michigan. Big whoop.The fact that you expect a college degree to mean something says a lot about you, and not a lot to make me respect you.

I almost didn't finish actual college, because I saw no need. I've read and studied all my life without anybody cracking a whip over me. Just yesterday, I read about 25 studies on marital satisfaction and spousal cost-infliction, and not because anybody's giving me a grade, but because it means a lot to be to base my column on solid data (ie, evidence) rather than just pulling an opinion out of my ass.

You attack me but fail to provide any data that says Hoxsey is successful in saving people who have been provent to actually have cancer. Also, if you're trying to set an example for civil discourse, calling me "little girl," and "I loved computers back when you had to be smart to use them..." probably isn't a good start.

My intellectual limitations are mainly in the math department, but I have a bookkeeper and three calculators, and an extremely patient accountant.

It's fine if a person decides to end their life, but it's best that they make that decision knowingly. Hoxsey has not been proven to work. If the kid understands that he's unlikely to live if he uses that treatment, that's one thing.

Send your $20 to:

Amy Alkon
171 Pier Ave #280
Santa Monica CA 90405

You can also just click the Paypal button to the left. I prefer that -- assuming that, in addition to being a man with two degrees and and a computer, you have the integrity to stand behind your $20 bet.

PS I've had a computer since 1984, but I was smart enough to buy an Apple even then, so using a computer has never taken much brainpower for me.

And, for a doctor's words on this, here's a quote from an excellent source, Respectful Insolence, decrying "magical thinking" as a cancer "cure":

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/06/magical_thinking_versus_lympho.php

Notice that the Cherrixes quickly abandoned conventional therapy when one regimen of chemotherapy failed to completely eradicate his lymphoma, necessitating more chemotherapy and the addition of radiation. In contrast, in this case, not only did his tumors fail to shrink, but they continued to grow while he was on the Hoxsey treatment. So, when confronted with unequivocal evidence that the Hoxsey treatment is not eradicating his tumors and that they are continuing to grow, what does Abraham do? He makes excuses for the treatment's utter failure thus far and sticks with it. Only magical thinking can explain this. Certainly no hard-headed rational evaluation of the facts could. And, indeed, his statement that if he follows the treatment and "has faith," everything will turn out all right is surely as magical as anything I've yet heard. (Whatever happened to "God helps those who help themselves"?) Clearly, he gets it from his parents, as his father Jay Cherrix makes similar excuses:

Jay Cherrix said the doctors gave the family copies of the X-rays so they can take them to Abraham's doctor in Tijuana. Jay Cherrix said that visit will include blood tests and an exam that should tell them more about the cancer. He said he still believes in the route Abraham has chosen for himself.

"Cancer is a serious disease, and it takes time to rid yourself of it," Jay Cherrix said. "It can go either way."

What that it were so! Unfortunately, unless rationality overcomes this magical thinking, there is really only one way this can go.

Amy,

To declare one's self equipped for discussing scientific issues, without a math background, doesn't even rise to the level of deceptive marketing. It's just evidence of what I suspected... another lightweight and noisy journalist. Thanks for clearing up your shortcomings.

College degrees do mean something.

Unfortunately, one in soft little studies like journalism only prepares you for a life as a meat puppet.

Degrees aside, perhaps you'll list your recognized qualifications in medical ethics? Or oncology? End of life issues? Publications? Memberships in professional societies? Editorial board memberships on peer-reviewed publications?

Are you, in fact, certified in anything other than self-certified in cheap, sideline advice from the standpoint of omnipotent intelligence?

Using an Apple computer in 1984 only suggests to me that you automated your typing; it says nothing about your reasoning skills, or your intellectual CONTENT.

Again, the salient (look it up) point in my earlier missive is that you are uninformed (as am I) as to the decision making process that these people are making, taking only what you read in the papers as FACT. It's kind of like 'faith based reasoning' to steal a phrase from The Onion. You haven't spoken with them. You obviously have read no court records. You've got a few sound bites frtom TV and some newspapers and you consider yourself informed enough to use the words idiot and moron?

For your info, dear, these are quantitative, somewhat outdated thresholds of IQ for specific categories. Were I you, I'd haul out that dusty Webster's and and look up 'slander' and 'libel', then chat with the legal folks in your world.

$20? Indeed. I'll happily send it if you buy a book and promise to read it. Might I suggest Euclid's Elements? It's a good starting point for a long overdue completion of the studies you started in 11th grade.

Unlike a newspaper article, each paragraph after the first one has something important in it. It might take a while to get used to that mode of study. Perserve though.

I've never taken a journalism class. I consider journalism school a waste of time. You make a lot of assumptions.

And you bet $20 I wouldn't answer your question and you lost. Pay up. Whether I use it for Charmin or to buy more books on statistics is none of your affair.

I don't brag about college degrees because they don't mean a lot. Look at all the people who went to college who believe in god and magical thinking over evidence-based thinking.

FYI, because I'm self-deprecating doesn't mean I'm a moron. It sometimes takes me a little longer than somebody who was trained in statistics to understand them, but I work my ass off until I do understand them -- or I ask a friend who teaches statistics to doctors if I'm not sure about something in a study. I spent this past weekend reading a whole bunch of studies for one tiny paragraph in a column.

An example of my ability to read studies: I was going to do a column on the stat I heard or read about that one in four fathers isn't the father of the child he thinks is his. I got the studies, painstakingly read the studies, and it turned out that paternity fraud is high mainly for (and this is from memory) inner city men who aren't married to their partners and have a high level of paternity uncertainty. The middle class married guy who doesn't have a high level of paternity uncertainty has a very small risk - not that one in four number -- nowhere near that. I spent an entire weekend reading studies and never did a column on it, because contrary to what others said or wrote (can't remember if I read it or heard about it), there was no story.

Furthermore, I get plenty of fan mail from people in the sciences -- most recently, an e-mail from a professor at Penn saying nobody in the press gets their data and studies right like I do.

Once again, you're just pussyishly attacking me (very fourth-grade girl of you) and not getting to the point; the point being, there is zero evidence that Hoxsey works, and these moron parents of this kid are most likely giving him a death sentence.

What becomes clear, however, is that you lack integrity. You wrote:

$20 you don't have the balls to write back.

Where's my $20? I'm waiting. For my $20, and for evidence that anybody using Hoxsey isn't an idiot. Well, anybody who doesn't have a death wish.

"For your info, dear, these are quantitative, somewhat outdated thresholds of IQ for specific categories. Were I you, I'd haul out that dusty Webster's and and look up 'slander' and 'libel', then chat with the legal folks in your world."

Sigh. You can't libel somebody with your opinion, you tiresome twat. Furthermore, the truth is always a defense against libel. If Hoxsey is a cure for anything but life, bring on the proof.

Clearly, your persuasive powers are no greater than what you've displayed here, or you might have had some influence with the magical thinkers "parenting" this child. Here's the money quote (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/SOU_SICK_TEEN_VAOL-?SITE=WDUN&SECTION=US&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT):

"I've got nothing to lose by what I'm doing," Abraham said. "I truly do believe that this (alternative treatment) is going to cure me."

Sad.

As for professional organizations I belong to, here's one:

http://www.advicegoddess.com/mt/mt-search.cgi?IncludeBlogs=2&search=HBES

I don't normally talk about this stuff because my work speaks for itself. But, I believe there are posts up from the last three HBES conferences I went to -- this year, in Philly, and last year, Austin, and the year before in Berlin. On my dime.

Why waste your time here? Is it too late to persuade the Cherrix family that magical thinking isn't going to save their kid?

The $20 is on the way. You did at least write back.

I forgot...

John Maynard Keynes has an excellent paper called "The Application of Probability to Conduct". It contains a fair amount of examination of decision making and the risk of taking a single expected value (probability x outcome) and using it as the only criteria for decision making. It's rather involved and cites D'Alembert in French, so you'll want to bone up on your French before attempting to read it.

It's math heavy, but not particularly inaccessible for determined lay folks, so you might see how it relates to the present discussion if you give it a read. Allocate a few days, plus whatever pre-requisites you need.

Bertrand Russell called Keynes 'the smartest man I ever met.' Coming from Russell, that is a powerful compliment.

I guess you'll want to call them morons and idiots,too?

That's why I now own AmyAlkon.net, .biz, .info, .org, nd .us.

What an unpleasant fellow. Despite his education he obviously can't take part in a discussion without resorting to physical action against those he disagrees with. I expect he'd have punched you by now, Amy, if he could.

He's a huffy eighth grader who calls himself a man. I'm not surprised that he'd be so lacking integrity (and brains) that he'd try to steal my name and use it.

I sent him this in an e-mail:

http://arbiter.wipo.int/processes/process2/rfc/rfc3/report.html

The Emerging Law of Personality Rights

145. The personality right, also known as the "right of publicity" in certain jurisdictions, has been defined as "the inherent right of every human being to control the commercial use of his or her identity." 93 According to the modern view, the legal right is said to be infringed by an unauthorized use of a person’s identity which is likely to damage the commercial value of the identity and which is not immunized by principles of free speech or free press. 94 The legal right reflects a view that human identity, in certain instances, constitutes an intellectual property right with measurable commercial value. One needs only to consider, for example, a certain young golfer who has emerged to dominate the professional golf tour in recent years to understand the potential value that can be assigned to one’s personal identity by the forces of supply and demand in the marketplace.

He might read the story about my stolen car. Do I really seem like a good person to fuck with? Hmmm, real genius there, Forrest. Forrest, so I'm a big meanie. Don't you have a life or anything? Don't you have anything better to do?

Education? Forrest, you should go back to the college and tell them you were cheated of one, and that you want your money back.

I say this because your major argument is based on multiple versions of that simple fallacy, "appeal to authority". Your insistence that Amy must have this or that registered achievement to be correct is merely noise. Please correct that.

I would just like to ask that in your advice-giving world you refrain from giving legal advice or interpretation.

Forrest wasn't saying that you were libeling the Hoxsey method. He said you were libeling his brother and sister-in-law by calling them "idiots" and "morons". According to my Black's law dictionary, Libel is "a defamatory statement expressed in a permament medium."

I'll let you do the legal interpretation.

I'd be an ass if I didn't have an understanding of libel law, and I do. I got out my autographed copy of the law textbook, The First Amendment, Problems, Cases And Policy Arguments, by Eugene Volokh, and started to look up the pertinent passages, but you know what...I'm not going to waste my time on this.

P.S. I suggest you read The First Amendment. Expressions of opinion are protected by it, dear.

Here's what conventional, proven medicine has a good chance of preventing:

http://www.healthwatcher.net/Quackerywatch/Cancer/Dueck/tstar990702dueckdeath.html

And PS, this was e-mailed to me by somebody who knows the law in response to the woman's comment above about libel:

People say all sort of stupid things on blogs without knowing what they're saying. You're statement was obviously opinion, so cannot be libelous.

Amy,

I am a lawyer, actually. And I've already studied the First Amendment, thank you.

First, I never said you libeled anyone.

Second, I do want to note that you are not just some crazy, anonymous blogger. You are a syndicated advice columnist. There is a big difference there. Furthermore, I'm not sure you "obviously" stated your opinion. As you responded to Forrest: the truth is always a defense against libel.

So, which is it? Are you saying that you were telling the truth, that Forrest's brother is a certified idiot?

At this point in time, we have passports to officially certify a person as a citizen, and driver's licenses to officially certify a person as a driver, but I don't believe we yet have certification for whether a person is an idiot or not. It is, however, my opinion that anybody who bets their child's life on an unproven cure is an idiot, and an unfit parent to boot. Whether I'm a girl with zero traffic on her blog or Oprah doesn't change my right, under the First Amendment, to state that opinion.

Here's a tragic tale for you:

http://www.healthwatcher.net/Quackerywatch/Cancer/Dueck/tstar990702dueckdeath.html

I read your piece on "Stupidity can be fatal", and I have mixed thoughts, particularly on the way in which you concluded it. If you are questioning the efficacy of a particular herb that was questionable in and of itself, then perhaps just using an herb is not a good idea, BUT, if you're questioning the simple act of taking "natural pills, liquids, etc" of one kind or another (as opposed to getting "heavy duty chemo"), then I have some reservations. Eg. There are cases where people who had cancer took a cruciferous compound supplement (compounds from broccoli and other cruciferous vegetables), of course, in higher doses (as much as 10 times the regular dose) and it destroyed the cancer, and they recovered.

By the way, I'm talking about a supplement that was pioneered by a 49 year old company that has achieved an EXTRAORDINARY amount of respect by the nutritional industry and the world class scientific community. Stanford University, New York Academy of Sciences, the American Society of Clinical Nutrition, the American College of Nutrition, the Centers for Disease Control, and many others--all are VERY respectful of this company.

Additionally, I recently read a scientific article stating that scientists (not the ones from this company's scientific advisory board) have discovered that compounds in cruciferous vegetables have a POWERFUL effect on killing cancer, to the extent that these cancer-killing compounds are being considered for use in future tomorrow's Chemotherapy formulae. The reason I said "not the ones from this company's scientific advisory board" was because the company's scientific advisory board had this information since 1996 (when they came out with the supplement), and it took 10 years for everyone else to make the same discovery. I love it when a supplement manufacturer leads the industry in its knowledge by 10-15 years, don't you?



Anyway, back to my point: Let's not confuse "simplicity" with "inefficacy", as this could have dangerous consequences.



Finally, I wonder, with all of the worldwide respect this company has, how well their products would be received were they to be presented to mainstream medicine. You MUST remember that honest, ethical and genuine products are just as threatening/damaging to the medical doctor's pocketbook as are the fraudulant ones. That's why we have idiots with quack expose' websites, who are promoting mainstream medicine, but themselves don't know certain parts of their anatomy from a whole in the ground.



Your reply/opinion is welcome.



Sincerely,

Steve Weber

I read your piece on "Stupidity can be fatal", and I have mixed thoughts, particularly on the way in which you concluded it. If you are questioning the efficacy of a particular herb that was questionable in and of itself, then perhaps just using an herb is not a good idea, BUT, if you're questioning the simple act of taking "natural pills, liquids, etc" of one kind or another (as opposed to getting "heavy duty chemo"), then I have some reservations. Eg. There are cases where people who had cancer took a cruciferous compound supplement (compounds from broccoli and other cruciferous vegetables), of course, in higher doses (as much as 10 times the regular dose) and it destroyed the cancer, and they recovered.

By the way, I'm talking about a supplement that was pioneered by a 49 year old company that has achieved an EXTRAORDINARY amount of respect by the nutritional industry and the world class scientific community. Stanford University, New York Academy of Sciences, the American Society of Clinical Nutrition, the American College of Nutrition, the Centers for Disease Control, and many others--all are VERY respectful of this company.

Additionally, I recently read a scientific article stating that scientists (not the ones from this company's scientific advisory board) have discovered that compounds in cruciferous vegetables have a POWERFUL effect on killing cancer, to the extent that these cancer-killing compounds are being considered for use in future tomorrow's Chemotherapy formulae. The reason I said "not the ones from this company's scientific advisory board" was because the company's scientific advisory board had this information since 1996 (when they came out with the supplement), and it took 10 years for everyone else to make the same discovery. I love it when a supplement manufacturer leads the industry in its knowledge by 10-15 years, don't you?



Anyway, back to my point: Let's not confuse "simplicity" with "inefficacy", as this could have dangerous consequences.



Finally, I wonder, with all of the worldwide respect this company has, how well their products would be received were they to be presented to mainstream medicine. You MUST remember that honest, ethical and genuine products are just as threatening/damaging to the medical doctor's pocketbook as are the fraudulant ones. That's why we have idiots with quack expose' websites, who are promoting mainstream medicine, but themselves don't know certain parts of their anatomy from a whole in the ground.



Your reply/opinion is welcome.



Sincerely,

Steve Weber

Please. You don't think the health food people are a huge, money-making industry? The naivete of the average person never ceases to amaze me. You don't know that cancer was "cured" by broccoli. If it were, wouldn't it be used by all the doctors whose relatives are dying of cancer, at the very least. How silly and infuriating.

A drug used to prevent bones from thinning also offers millions of older women a powerful way to protect themselves against breast cancer, a large government-sponsored study has found. WBR LeoP