Quackery is a Religion

[McDoctor]

http://www.dailytidings.com/2007/0210/stories/0210_cancer.php

Looks like the DHS is Oregon is respecting the parents decision to trust a psychic healer over conventional medicine on the basis of religious freedom. Maybe I'm way off here, but magical thinking in and of itself, does not constitute a religion. If there was ever an instance where the parent was too emotionally invested in a false premise to make a reasonable decision for her child, this is it. WTF is the purpose of even having a child welfare agency if you are going to allow a child with a brain tumor go to a psychic healer over a doctor?

I do feel for the parents in this case, but I have no respect for the "psychic" con man here. To me, this clown is exactly the type of person for whom we should reserve the death penalty. There is no explanation for the behavior of a person who preys on the hopes of a mother of a dying child for fame or money (or, in this case, probably both) other than to conclude he/she is a sociopath.

Why doesn't our society do more to demonize these charlatans like this guy Levashov, or Sylvia Browne, and others of their ilk? Is it political correctness? Mass Stupidity? Or maybe the mainstream media is just too busy broadcasting the intellectual pornography that is the Anna Nicole Smith non-story to give a story like this a wider audience and more public awareness.

The whole thing just makes me want to puke on a number of different levels.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[typeB-md]

http://www.dailytidings.com/2007/0210/stories/0210_cancer.php

Looks like the DHS is Oregon is respecting the parents decision to trust a psychic healer over conventional medicine on the basis of religious freedom. Maybe I'm way off here, but magical thinking in and of itself, does not constitute a religion. If there was ever an instance where the parent was too emotionally invested in a false premise to make a reasonable decision for her child, this is it. WTF is the purpose of even having a child welfare agency if you are going to allow a child with a brain tumor go to a psychic healer over a doctor?

I do feel for the parents in this case, but I have no respect for the "psychic" con man here. To me, this clown is exactly the type of person for whom we should reserve the death penalty. There is no explanation for the behavior of a person who preys on the hopes of a mother of a dying child for fame or money (or, in this case, probably both) other than to conclude he/she is a sociopath.

Why doesn't our society do more to demonize these charlatans like this guy Levashov, or Sylvia Browne, and others of their ilk? Is it political correctness? Mass Stupidity? Or maybe the mainstream media is just too busy broadcasting the intellectual pornography that is the Anna Nicole Smith non-story to give a story like this a wider audience and more public awareness.

The whole thing just makes me want to puke on a number of different levels.

it's not your child. mind your own business.

 

[docB]

it's not your child. mind your own business.

Yeesh! Let the games begin.

 

[DropkickMurphy]

Mass Stupidity?

I vote for this one.

 

[McDoctor]

it's not your child. mind your own business.

Yeah, this is what members of NAMBLA say too.

 

[Faebinder]

Yeah, this is what members of NAMBLA say too.

 

[Miami_med]

http://www.dailytidings.com/2007/0210/stories/0210_cancer.php

Looks like the DHS is Oregon is respecting the parents decision to trust a psychic healer over conventional medicine on the basis of religious freedom. Maybe I'm way off here, but magical thinking in and of itself, does not constitute a religion. If there was ever an instance where the parent was too emotionally invested in a false premise to make a reasonable decision for her child, this is it. WTF is the purpose of even having a child welfare agency if you are going to allow a child with a brain tumor go to a psychic healer over a doctor?

I do feel for the parents in this case, but I have no respect for the "psychic" con man here. To me, this clown is exactly the type of person for whom we should reserve the death penalty. There is no explanation for the behavior of a person who preys on the hopes of a mother of a dying child for fame or money (or, in this case, probably both) other than to conclude he/she is a sociopath.

Why doesn't our society do more to demonize these charlatans like this guy Levashov, or Sylvia Browne, and others of their ilk? Is it political correctness? Mass Stupidity? Or maybe the mainstream media is just too busy broadcasting the intellectual pornography that is the Anna Nicole Smith non-story to give a story like this a wider audience and more public awareness.

The whole thing just makes me want to puke on a number of different levels.

Why do we even have informed consent? I think that in this particular case, the decision is right but the premise is wrong. It shouldn't matter if it is a religion. Parents should have some rights regarding treatment for their children, regarldless of whether we think it's smart or not. There's a big difference between NAMBLA and deciding that your not sure that the quarter million dollar proposal by the hospital is going to work for you. People make life and death decisions over a lot less.

 

[Jack Daniel]

I agree with the decision of the Oregon DHS. While I think the parent's spirituality is misplaced, DHS can't right every wrong. It has to pick its battles. At least the child is probably loved and cared for...better to have DHS spend it's limited resources on kids who are destitute.

 

[McDoctor]

I agree with the decision of the Oregon DHS. While I think the parent's spirituality is misplaced, DHS can't right every wrong. It has to pick its battles. At least the child is probably loved and cared for...better to have DHS spend it's limited resources on kids who are destitute.

Then they should just come out and say that. Don't hide behind this "religious freedom" line of bull****. Its insulting to legitimate religions and gives way too much credence to "psychic healers".

 

[McDoctor]

Why do we even have informed consent? I think that in this particular case, the decision is right but the premise is wrong. It shouldn't matter if it is a religion. Parents should have some rights regarding treatment for their children, regarldless of whether we think it's smart or not. There's a big difference between NAMBLA and deciding that your not sure that the quarter million dollar proposal by the hospital is going to work for you. People make life and death decisions over a lot less.

The problem here is that mom is not even acknowledging the presence of the brain tumor, choosing instead to believe this quack who has told her that the mass represents healthy brain tissue that is "re-growing" (or something to that effect). If mom said "look we realize the tumor is back, but we choose not to undergo chemotherapy and radiation out of concern for our daughter", then I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with it. But that's not whats happening here. The parent is acting delusional, whether out of grief or naive or both, and thus the situation is more complicated than it appears on the surface.

My comment about NAMBLA was flippant, but it was in response to an equally flippant and vapid post. Of course I don't equate this case to child molestation. I was just making a point about people who take libertarianism to ludicrous extremes.

 

[typeB-md]

The problem here is that mom is not even acknowledging the presence of the brain tumor, choosing instead to believe this quack who has told her that the mass represents healthy brain tissue that is "re-growing" (or something to that effect). If mom said "look we realize the tumor is back, but we choose not to undergo chemotherapy and radiation out of concern for our daughter", then I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with it. But that's not whats happening here. The parent is acting delusional, whether out of grief or naive or both, and thus the situation is more complicated than it appears on the surface.

My comment about NAMBLA was flippant, but it was in response to an equally flippant and vapid post. Of course I don't equate this case to child molestation. I was just making a point about people who take libertarianism to ludicrous extremes.

I meant to say: "You're so much smarter than everyone else, you obviously know what's best for some woman's child even though you have no idea about their lifestyle choices and are intolerant of any ideologies which differ from your own."

Who are you that people need YOUR approval? You are a smug and arrogant busybody who ostensibly cares about other people but really just thinks they know more and can better make decisions about other people's lives than the people themselves.

The fact of the matter is that nothing you have said is objective, and in fact, it is very SUBjective (aka your own personal opinion); YET, you sit here and condemn some woman for doing the very same thing that you are doing--acting in accordance with personal standards. You are an intolerant hypocrite who is so focused on pushing your own opinion that you can't see how your own words are in stark disagreement with your own actions.

So what if a mother abstains from forcing her child into undergoing a highly invasive, very dangerous, painful, and potentially debilitating procedure? Maybe she would rather have her child live a shorter but better quality life. Why does it concern you? It's not as if she is intentionally hurting her child; in fact, some could make a good argument that she is trying to avoid harm.

The problem is NOT the mom failing to acknowledge the tumor; the problem is that people like YOU judge people by YOUR standards and then push an agenda to force people into adhering to your subjective idea of what is proper. Screw your standards.

 

[Jack Daniel]

Good Jebus, McCain. Did you get sick at a McDonalds, or something? You're really socking it to him.

 

[Faebinder]

I meant to say: "You're so much smarter than everyone else, you obviously know what's best for some woman's child even though you have no idea about their lifestyle choices and are intolerant of any ideologies which differ from your own."

Who are you that people need YOUR approval? You are a smug and arrogant busybody who ostensibly cares about other people but really just thinks they know more and can better make decisions about other people's lives than the people themselves.

The fact of the matter is that nothing you have said is objective, and in fact, it is very SUBjective (aka your own personal opinion); YET, you sit here and condemn some woman for doing the very same thing that you are doing--acting in accordance with personal standards. You are an intolerant hypocrite who is so focused on pushing your own opinion that you can't see how your own words are in stark disagreement with your own actions.

So what if a mother abstains from forcing her child into undergoing a highly invasive, very dangerous, painful, and potentially debilitating procedure? Maybe she would rather have her child live a shorter but better quality life. Why does it concern you? It's not as if she is intentionally hurting her child; in fact, some could make a good argument that she is trying to avoid harm.

The problem is NOT the mom failing to acknowledge the tumor; the problem is that people like YOU judge people by YOUR standards and then push an agenda to force people into adhering to your subjective idea of what is proper. Screw your standards.

Denial is the first stage of grief... and when a child is involved.. the parent should not have the right to make decisions for others in Denial because that is not necessarily what the child would have done if she/he was over age. If the mother had a tumor herself.. then by all mean.. continue denial.

 

[typeB-md]

Denial is the first stage of grief... and when a child is involved.. the parent should not have the right to make decisions for others in Denial because that is not necessarily what the child would have done if she/he was over age. If the mother had a tumor herself.. then by all mean.. continue denial.

If she didn't choose what you would've, she must be in denial and completely in the wrong. Any sane person would unequivocally want their child's skull cut into and brain irradiated to the point where the child can't even move because she's in so much pain. I mean, it's obvious; unless you're in denial.

And i'm guessing you didn't read the article where they talk about the THIRTEEN year old daughter who wants to go to the spiritual healer. And maybe you also didn't read the part where she had CONVENTIONAL treatment in the past as a child and ALSO had "alternative" healing that she attributes her remission to. She now has a tumor again but would prefer to remain with the spiritual healer. The only reason this is even an issue is because some busybody know-it-all (not unlike some people in this thread) in the school reported the family to DHS.

So lets recap: Conventional doctors didn't give her more than 1 year to live as an infant. Spiritual healer talks with her and "cures" her until she is 13. Now SHE wants the spiritual healer instead of conventional medicine because history has led her to have more faith in alternative medicine. Then an "enlightened" school administrator calls DHS for negligence. DHS finds no negligence because the girl is THIRTEEN years old and making her own decision.

OH MY GOD!!! How dare we let a 13 year old girl have input on her own medical decisionmaking!!! She must be in DENIAL!!!

This entire thread is as stupid as the pseudointellectual *****s who condemn the teenager and her family.

 

[typeB-md]

I would never have believed people would jump to conclusions, use their own values to judge others by, and then adamantly defend their ignorant positions without taking a moment to gather facts. Keep up the good work! Only you know what is best for everyone else. Never believe that other people have different life experiences that shape their belief system; because anyone who has opinions that are incongruent with yours is obviously misguided and in denial.

 

[Faebinder]

I would never have believed people would jump to conclusions, use their own values to judge others by, and then adamantly defend their ignorant positions without taking a moment to gather facts. Keep up the good work! Only you know what is best for everyone else. Never believe that other people have different life experiences that shape their belief system; because anyone who has opinions that are incongruent with yours is obviously misguided and in denial.

You are acting like the therapy will not give the kid a chance to live... do you think the oncologist/pediatricians would be freaking out over this if the therapy did not improve survival?

At what point did you believe oncologists lose their souls to the devil? At a certain point you need to look yourself in the mirror and know... I okayed someone reducing their chance of their kid to live because they could have undergone a treatment that increases their chance to live.

No one said you should NOT go to a spiritual healer for heaven's sake... Why can't you go to BOTH! The oncologist to get therapy and a spiritual healer... and for anyone really cares... go to a Santeria Shaman in Africa... but take your chemo with you.

Whatever, why do I even bother typing to make people understand why they need to try and live longer... let natural selection unselect them.. go ahead.. go to the spiritual healer, less money from medicare/medicaid.

 

[typeB-md]

You are acting like the therapy will not give the kid a chance to live... do you think the oncologist/pediatricians would be freaking out over this if the therapy did not improve survival?

At what point did you believe oncologists lose their souls to the devil? At a certain point you need to look yourself in the mirror and know... I okayed someone reducing their chance of their kid to live because they could have undergone a treatment that increases their chance to live.

No one said you should NOT go to a spiritual healer for heaven's sake... Why can't you go to BOTH! The oncologist to get therapy and a spiritual healer... and for anyone really cares... go to a Santeria Shaman in Africa... but take your chemo with you.

Whatever, why do I even bother typing to make people understand why they need to try and live longer... let natural selection unselect them.. go ahead.. go to the spiritual healer, less money from medicare/medicaid.

You act like oncology is a walk in the park and completely free. And as for your bolded statement, this is exactly the ignorance I am trying to point out. Not everyone believes life is measured in years lived, some believe it should be measured in quality lived. It's not for you to "make" people understand. That's like someone saying "I'm just trying to make them understand that ******s shouldn't live because they have poor quality of life." It's up to the individual and his/her support system, not some arm chair warrior like yourself popping away on your keyboard without ever having lived on day in these people's shoes.

 

[resxn]

You act like oncology is a walk in the park and completely free. And as for your bolded statement, this is exactly the ignorance I am trying to point out. Not everyone believes life is measured in years lived, some believe it should be measured in quality lived. It's not for you to "make" people understand. That's like someone saying "I'm just trying to make them understand that ******s shouldn't live because they have poor quality of life." It's up to the individual and his/her support system, not some arm chair warrior like yourself popping away on your keyboard without ever having lived on day in these people's shoes.

Then the only question I have is where do you draw the line? I mean if it's ok for a 13yo and her parents to go AMA, then at what age would you say it's not ok? What if a 3yo comes to the peds clinic with a lateral rectus palsy and an MRI shows a meningioma.? If the parents don't want to go with best medical evidence for treatment, is it right for someone to step in and say that is tantamount to abuse?

When, exactly, do you think it would be ok? Or do you think it's always the parents option to decide?

 

[typeB-md]

Then the only question I have is where do you draw the line? I mean if it's ok for a 13yo and her parents to go AMA, then at what age would you say it's not ok? What if a 3yo comes to the peds clinic with a lateral rectus palsy and an MRI shows a meningioma.? If the parents don't want to go with best medical evidence for treatment, is it right for someone to step in and say that is tantamount to abuse?

When, exactly, do you think it would be ok? Or do you think it's always the parents option to decide?

That's a difficult question without a clear answer. In my opinion (again, this is my own standard) you should try and respect the parent's wishes as much as possible to the extent that 1) a case could me made (whether you agree with it or not) that the child might agree 2) it isn't designed specifically to cause the child pain

Also keep in mind that 'AMA' is only a fairly recent term. Before it was just "letting nature take its course." In my own view, I don't see how you can penalize someone for respecting the natural course of human life. Just because we have developed artificial means of prolonging life doesn't necessarily mean that everyone wants to use these means. And because healthcare is not free, if you mandate that people must subject themselves to medical treatment, you are more or less enslaving them.

 

[resxn]

That's a difficult question without a clear answer. In my opinion (again, this is my own standard) you should try and respect the parent's wishes as much as possible to the extent that 1) a case could me made (whether you agree with it or not) that the child might agree 2) it isn't designed specifically to cause the child pain

I would agree with #1. However, with #2, that's not really a common situation. Anyone would agree to step in when a care plan is specifically designed to cause harm. That's simply illegal. The problem arises when a failure to treat WILL cause harm but not necessarily life-threatening.

Suppose I have a 5yo with adenotonsillar hypertrophy and who has documented OSA on a sleep study. The literature indicates that for this patient there is a 90% chance of cure with a T&A, yet the parents deny consent for this procedure and any other intervention. This child WILL suffer. He will be tired, most likely will not do as well in school as he would if disease free, may be given a dx of ADHD, may have enuresis, and could develop early HTN, pulmonary HTN with resulting right ventricular hypertrophy that could lead to early MI's and or CHF. What should I do as an ENT in that situation? Fortunately, I have not yet had parents that deny consent after I explain the potential ramifications, but what if I did?

Also keep in mind that 'AMA' is only a fairly recent term. Before it was just "letting nature take its course." In my own view, I don't see how you can penalize someone for respecting the natural course of human life. Just because we have developed artificial means of prolonging life doesn't necessarily mean that everyone wants to use these means. And because healthcare is not free, if you mandate that people must subject themselves to medical treatment, you are more or less enslaving them.

The way I see it, someone who has reached the age of consent has a total right to everything you said above. The problem is for those who have not yet reached this age (whatever objective or subjective amount that may be in any given case). I would argue that for those clearly under the age of consent (say those kids under 10, IMO) parents should be penalized for "letting nature takes it's course" because the best metric we have is what the legal system uses--what would a "reasonable" person most likely want done in this situation. It's not perfect, but it's important to use without having another system that's better.

Just because a parent wants to pursue a spiritual course, doesn't mean that the kid would want that as well. It's hard to say a kid would want to avoid medical treatment and potentially die (or even be constantly tired for that matter) simply because his relatives feel that way.

 

[Faebinder]

You act like oncology is a walk in the park and completely free. And as for your bolded statement, this is exactly the ignorance I am trying to point out. Not everyone believes life is measured in years lived, some believe it should be measured in quality lived. It's not for you to "make" people understand. That's like someone saying "I'm just trying to make them understand that ******s shouldn't live because they have poor quality of life." It's up to the individual and his/her support system, not some arm chair warrior like yourself popping away on your keyboard without ever having lived on day in these people's shoes.

On the other hand you are acting like Oncology is useless and wont do crap.

But now we are talking apples and oranges. Who gets to make the choice of what is best is the TRUE question here. Parents or Doctors? Should doctors respect parent's decision and try their best to get to a middle ground? Yes. Should doctors let savable lives of kids go down the drain when the parent makes a wrong choice? No.

It's the same reason we argue against doctors treating their own families and for lawyers representing themselves in court. Emotional investment against what is best.

 

[McDoctor]

If she didn't choose what you would've, she must be in denial and completely in the wrong. Any sane person would unequivocally want their child's skull cut into and brain irradiated to the point where the child can't even move because she's in so much pain. I mean, it's obvious; unless you're in denial.

And i'm guessing you didn't read the article where they talk about the THIRTEEN year old daughter who wants to go to the spiritual healer. And maybe you also didn't read the part where she had CONVENTIONAL treatment in the past as a child and ALSO had "alternative" healing that she attributes her remission to. She now has a tumor again but would prefer to remain with the spiritual healer. The only reason this is even an issue is because some busybody know-it-all (not unlike some people in this thread) in the school reported the family to DHS.

So lets recap: Conventional doctors didn't give her more than 1 year to live as an infant. Spiritual healer talks with her and "cures" her until she is 13. Now SHE wants the spiritual healer instead of conventional medicine because history has led her to have more faith in alternative medicine. Then an "enlightened" school administrator calls DHS for negligence. DHS finds no negligence because the girl is THIRTEEN years old and making her own decision.

OH MY GOD!!! How dare we let a 13 year old girl have input on her own medical decisionmaking!!! She must be in DENIAL!!!

This entire thread is as stupid as the pseudointellectual *****s who condemn the teenager and her family.

typeB-MD, your hysterics are typical of most Complementary and Alternative Medicine wonks. I'll look for you on the sunday afternoon infomercials.

You certainly seem to think a thirteen year old girl should be treated as an adult, when it comes to medical decisions. As someone whose avatar pays homage to a prominent conservative republican, I wonder if you think a thirteen year old girl is enlightened enough to seek out birth control without parental consent? What about sexual education in general? What if a thirteen year girl wants an abortion without parental consent? Or, like most family values driven conservatives I know, do you think the thirteen year old intellect spans wide enough to encompass life and death medical treatment but stops just short of grasping the concept of sex.

 

[typeB-md]

On the other hand you are acting like Oncology is useless and wont do crap.

But now we are talking apples and oranges. Who gets to make the choice of what is best is the TRUE question here. Parents or Doctors? Should doctors respect parent's decision and try their best to get to a middle ground? Yes. Should doctors let savable lives of kids go down the drain when the parent makes a wrong choice? No.

It's the same reason we argue against doctors treating their own families and for lawyers representing themselves in court. Emotional investment against what is best.

The fact remains that oncology is not painless and surgery is not without complication. This is not a cut and dry situation of completely harmless "conventional" medicine; the procedures involved would be very painful, very invasive, and potential very complicated. And just because a life is savable [sic] doesn't necessary imply anything about quality of life. You seem to value life regardless of quality. Some people very much disagree with this. Neither view point is "incorrect."

But this is really moot because the patient at hand is 13 and has enough insight to make her own choices.

 

[McDoctor]

The fact remains that oncology is not painless and surgery is not without complication. This is not a cut and dry situation of completely harmless "conventional" medicine; the procedures involved would be very painful, very invasive, and potential very complicated. And just because a life is savable [sic] doesn't necessary imply anything about quality of life. You seem to value life regardless of quality. Some people very much disagree with this. Neither view point is "incorrect."

But this is really moot because the patient at hand is 13 and has enough insight to make her own choices.

Again these comments make me curious about your views on abortion in general and specifically about your views on abortion for a minor without parental consent. Something tells me that Senator McCain would not approve.

You're missing the point that neither this parent nor the child is making an informed decision. The mom contends that the tumor is not there, and that the child was healed by a psychic. This clearly is divergent with reality. I don't see how you can ignore that, as a doctor. Mom is not rejecting treatment. She is rejecting the diagnosis of a brain mass that is clearly present by all empiric and objective scientific standards. This is far from making an informed decision.

 

[Miami_med]

The problem here is that mom is not even acknowledging the presence of the brain tumor, choosing instead to believe this quack who has told her that the mass represents healthy brain tissue that is "re-growing" (or something to that effect). If mom said "look we realize the tumor is back, but we choose not to undergo chemotherapy and radiation out of concern for our daughter", then I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with it. But that's not whats happening here. The parent is acting delusional, whether out of grief or naive or both, and thus the situation is more complicated than it appears on the surface.

My comment about NAMBLA was flippant, but it was in response to an equally flippant and vapid post. Of course I don't equate this case to child molestation. I was just making a point about people who take libertarianism to ludicrous extremes.

considering that 1/2 the posts on this thread are in agreement with the decisions and that the decision itself was made by a court in left-leaning Oregon, I think you'd be hard pressed to call it a ludicrous extreme.

 

[McDoctor]

considering that 1/2 the posts on this thread are in agreement with the decisions and that the decision itself was made by a court in left-leaning Oregon, I think you'd be hard pressed to call it a ludicrous extreme.

The case never went to a court, as far as I can tell from this article. The politics of the court in Oregon have nothing to do with it. The DHS in Oregon is either too understaffed or too lazy to press the issue. The statement about religious freedom is a lame cop-out. Pretty much everyone has agreed with that. If somebody thinks reliance on a self proclaimed psychic healer constitutes a religious belief, I'd like to hear their arguments.

If the person who claimed to heal the child proclaimed himself to be a Scientologist, then the outrage would be widespread. It would be all over the news. I'm baffled why calling oneself a "psychic healer" or a "faith healer" does not generate an equal amount of outrage in a case like this, when the implausibility of psychic healer versus a scientologist "auditing" (or whatever they call their therapies) are pretty much on par with one another. I'm also baffled by the apathy, the lack of outrage, and the lack of news coverage regarding the system in Oregon that puts the credibility of "psychics" on par with the credibility of physicians.

Miami med, do you really think that this mother is displaying informed consent when she refuses to allow her to see medical doctors for her brain tumor? Keep in mind that mom contends that the child has been healed by a psychic. Does that really sit well with you? If the child had a knife in its back and it was spurting blood, yet the parent said "No, that's just ketchup", should we really respect her point of view in that scenario? How is this scenario any different? How is this mother in Oregon demonstrating "informed" consent?

 

[McDoctor]

considering that 1/2 the posts on this thread are in agreement with the decisions and that the decision itself was made by a court in left-leaning Oregon, I think you'd be hard pressed to call it a ludicrous extreme.

BTW, telling a child with a brain tumor not to worry, that she has actually been healed by a psychic, and people being OK with that, Well that is definitely a ludicrous extreme of something. Whether it be political correctness run amok, or religious freedom run amok, or libertarianism run amok, or whatever.

There is definitely a ludicrous extreme of apathy on the part of the state of Oregon, the media, and those people on these boards who think the welfare of a child is none of a school teacher's or a doctor's business.

 

[typeB-md]

BTW, telling a child with a brain tumor not to worry, that she has actually been healed by a psychic, and people being OK with that, Well that is definitely a ludicrous extreme of something. Whether it be political correctness run amok, or religious freedom run amok, or libertarianism run amok, or whatever.

There is definitely a ludicrous extreme of apathy on the part of the state of Oregon, the media, and those people on these boards who think the welfare of a child is none of a school teacher's or a doctor's business.

It's not apathy you silly-acting myopic fool. It's the fact that you can't respect people's wishes. You are like some 1950's paternalistic physician that thinks he knows whats best for the patient.

A 13 year old is old enough to know what she wants. Her life experiences have led her to believe in spiritual healing instead of conventional medicine; i think she has made the wrong decision but I'm not in her shoes.

What I have the hardest time accepting is how upset YOU get about this teenager's decision and her family's support of her decision. Why do you even care? This has not a single effect on your life or anyone else. It is a girl who feels she is acting in her best interest. The girl is fine with it; her family is fine with it. I don't think anyone else needs to give a seal of approval. The problem with people like you is you have little tolerance or respect for values that differ greatly from your own. Regardless of what you think (and who even cares what you think), this child is much more loved by her parents than you and they think all agree this is the best decision for her.

Also, here's a challenge: prove that spiritual healing doesn't exist. I agree that it is quackery (this is my opinion), but why don't you go ahead unequivocally prove it doesn't exist since you're obviously the expert on ruling everyone else's life and putting in your $.02 wherever they are not needed.

 

[typeB-md]

typeB-MD, your hysterics are typical of most Complementary and Alternative Medicine wonks. I'll look for you on the sunday afternoon infomercials.

You certainly seem to think a thirteen year old girl should be treated as an adult, when it comes to medical decisions. As someone whose avatar pays homage to a prominent conservative republican, I wonder if you think a thirteen year old girl is enlightened enough to seek out birth control without parental consent? What about sexual education in general? What if a thirteen year girl wants an abortion without parental consent? Or, like most family values driven conservatives I know, do you think the thirteen year old intellect spans wide enough to encompass life and death medical treatment but stops just short of grasping the concept of sex.

Because I support a individual's right to choose how to live her life, that automatically makes me a proponent of quack medicine? I 100% disagree with this kids decision but so what? The people that matter most in her life, her parents, are fine with her decision and the family (girl included) thinks this is the most appropriate decision. When all people (that matter) agree, there is no issue that needs to be resolved.

And regarding you question, I believe a 13 year old is very much enlightened enough to skee out birth control without parental consent. I think any physician who sees a 13 year old without a parent's consent should encourage the teen to talk with their parents, but sometimes there are reasons why the teen has come alone. I'm a realist and as such I can see that not everyone lives a "Leave-it-to-beaver" life. If you come from a broken home, many times the parents don't care about or have no interest in acting in the teen's best interest. Same thing applies to abortion. If you speak with most 13 year olds you will likely understand that most of them already know about sex and are usually pretty sociall adept young adults. Today's 13 year old are not the 13 year olds of the 50's.

I really appreciate you throwing around political labels, too. Everything is obviously a black and white issue and your point is made best by avoiding sensible response and instead just throwing mud.

 

[McDoctor]

It's not apathy you silly-acting myopic fool. It's the fact that you can't respect people's wishes. You are like some 1950's paternalistic physician that thinks he knows whats best for the patient.

A 13 year old is old enough to know what she wants. Her life experiences have led her to believe in spiritual healing instead of conventional medicine; i think she has made the wrong decision but I'm not in her shoes.

What I have the hardest time accepting is how upset YOU get about this teenager's decision and her family's support of her decision. Why do you even care? This has not a single effect on your life or anyone else. It is a girl who feels she is acting in her best interest. The girl is fine with it; her family is fine with it. I don't think anyone else needs to give a seal of approval. The problem with people like you is you have little tolerance or respect for values that differ greatly from your own. Regardless of what you think (and who even cares what you think), this child is much more loved by her parents than you and they think all agree this is the best decision for her.

Also, here's a challenge: prove that spiritual healing doesn't exist. I agree that it is quackery (this is my opinion), but why don't you go ahead unequivocally prove it doesn't exist since you're obviously the expert on ruling everyone else's life and putting in your $.02 wherever they are not needed.

Clearly, you care what I think. You've been hurling assaults at me since I started this thread. Thanks for contributing. Now kindly go back to placing your head in the sand.

BTW, I don't have to prove that psychic healing doesn't exist. Psychics have the burden of proving that it does, since they are the ones making the fantastic claims. But why worry about logic at this point?

 

[McDoctor]

Because I support a individual's right to choose how to live her life, that automatically makes me a proponent of quack medicine? I 100% disagree with this kids decision but so what? The people that matter most in her life, her parents, are fine with her decision and the family (girl included) thinks this is the most appropriate decision. When all people (that matter) agree, there is no issue that needs to be resolved.

And regarding you question, I believe a 13 year old is very much enlightened enough to skee out birth control without parental consent. I think any physician who sees a 13 year old without a parent's consent should encourage the teen to talk with their parents, but sometimes there are reasons why the teen has come alone. I'm a realist and as such I can see that not everyone lives a "Leave-it-to-beaver" life. If you come from a broken home, many times the parents don't care about or have no interest in acting in the teen's best interest. Same thing applies to abortion. If you speak with most 13 year olds you will likely understand that most of them already know about sex and are usually pretty sociall adept young adults. Today's 13 year old are not the 13 year olds of the 50's.

I really appreciate you throwing around political labels, too. Everything is obviously a black and white issue and your point is made best by avoiding sensible response and instead just throwing mud.

Your avatar is a picture of John McCain, and written below it is "Be more like McCain!". Why would I not assume you are a conservative republican? You even threw in an exclamation point for emphasis. With that kind of enthusiasm, one might even think that you ARE John McCain, himself.

And how do you know what 13 year olds were like in the 1950's?

These questions are rhetorical. Don't feel inclined to respond. Please, don't.

 

[typeB-md]

Clearly, you care what I think. You've been hurling assaults at me since I started this thread. Thanks for contributing. Now kindly go back to placing your head in the sand.

BTW, I don't have to prove that psychic healing doesn't exist. Psychics have the burden of proving that it does, since they are the ones making the fantastic claims. But why worry about logic at this point?

Funny how you don't have to prove fake the thing you are claiming to be fake.

You would've been right at home back in the day with witches. Afterall, the burden of proof was on them to prove that their witchery would keep them afloat with cement sandals.

 

[McDoctor]

Funny how you don't have to prove fake the thing you are claiming to be fake.
.

Exactly. This is how the world of science operates.

 

[typeB-md]

Your avatar is a picture of John McCain, and written below it is "Be more like McCain!". Why would I not assume you are a conservative republican? You even threw in an exclamation point for emphasis. With that kind of enthusiasm, one might even think that you ARE John McCain, himself.

And how do you know what 13 year olds were like in the 1950's?

These questions are rhetorical. Don't feel inclined to respond. Please, don't.

So you're admitting you judged me right off the bat by appearance and didn't gather any facts but rather used your own impression and values to form assumptions and then criticize me based on your preconceived ideas? Hmmm. Where have we seen this type of behavior before? It's on the tip of my tongue, gimme a sec.

And you're really grabbing at thin air here with your attempt to question my knowledge of 13 year olds 50 years ago. Are you really insinuating that there is not a huge difference in the level of social awareness of teenagers today as compared to 1957?

Oh, and since we're jumping to conclusions based on avatars, tell Hamburglar his head's too big for his body.

 

[typeB-md]

Exactly. This is how the world of science operates.

Everyone must believe in science!!! The only way to enjoy ourselves is through science and devout belief in the scientific word. Read your science bibles and sing out with praise. For science is the way to truth and only through it can you be saved.

Just admit you are a bigot who holds other people to your personal standards while disregarding the possibility that other standards could ever exist.

Did you not get enough authority as a child? Was safety patrol not rewarding enough? Are you mad at the world that you weren't voted school president because you lacked the charisma necessary to win the popular vote? We can only hope you stay out of politics, we don't need anymore my-way-or-the-highway hacks.

 

[McDoctor]

And you're really grabbing at thin air here with your attempt to question my knowledge of 13 year olds 50 years ago. Are you really insinuating that there is not a huge difference in the level of social awareness of teenagers today as compared to 1957?

Oh, and since we're jumping to conclusions based on avatars, tell Hamburglar his head's too big for his body.

You made the claim that 13 year olds are considerably different today compared to the 1950's, not me. I'm just asking (rhetorically, I don't really care) where you get that information from. Are you in your seventies, yourself? Do you have a particular interest in history pertaining to the social norms of adolescents in the mid 20th century in America? Are you just a big Happy Days fan? My point, again, is that it is up to you to back up this claim, since you are making it.

But things have gone way off topic. Your shrill, mind-numbing rants are no match for my patience and logic. You win.

I won't be responding to any more posts unless they pertain to the original topic.

 

[typeB-md]

You made the claim that 13 year olds are considerably different today compared to the 1950's, not me. I'm just asking (rhetorically, I don't really care) where you get that information from. Are you in your seventies, yourself? Do you have a particular interest in history pertaining to the social norms of adolescents in the mid 20th century in America? Are you just a big Happy Days fan? My point, again, is that it is up to you to back up this claim, since you are making it.

But things have gone way off topic. Your mind-numbing rants are no match for my logic. You win.

I won't be responding to any more posts unless they pertain to the original topic.

You are really pulling here. I admire your tenacity.

Social norms for teenagers are not the same now as they were in the 50's. If you pull up anything about birth control usage, sexual education polling, age at first act of intercourse, etc. it's pretty obvious that things are different with todays youth.

But you're not going to respond to this anway. You leave as closed minded as you arrived. Just remember that you should never keep any type of open mind, that type of stuff is for crazy people. Also, be sure and interject your opinion into every conversation you can; let others know the importance of intolerance. We can all sleep better at night knowing that we're doing our part to force adherence by other people to our own subjective standards. And if all else fails, start questioning widely accepted facts by requiring actual experience of events, seeing as historical account is not acceptable.

This entire thread is a laughing stock.

 

[McDoctor]

This entire thread is a laughing stock.

For once, we agree.

 

[Miami_med]

BTW, telling a child with a brain tumor not to worry, that she has actually been healed by a psychic, and people being OK with that, Well that is definitely a ludicrous extreme of something. Whether it be political correctness run amok, or religious freedom run amok, or libertarianism run amok, or whatever.

There is definitely a ludicrous extreme of apathy on the part of the state of Oregon, the media, and those people on these boards who think the welfare of a child is none of a school teacher's or a doctor's business.

Yes, the mother was informed. You'll just have to think I'm extreme.

 

[McDoctor]

I agree with the decision of the Oregon DHS. While I think the parent's spirituality is misplaced, DHS can't right every wrong. It has to pick its battles. At least the child is probably loved and cared for...better to have DHS spend it's limited resources on kids who are destitute.

Being "loved and cared for" does not mean neglect is not occuring. In general terms, a child who on the surface is "loved and cared for" can certainly still be the victim of abuse, be it physical or sexual. So that can not be the precedent we set for when child protective services steps in to protect a child.

I also don't see why we have to direct child protective services to just worry about the "destitute". Are you suggesting that well to do children don't get neglected or abused, or that children of well to do families should not get the benefit of child protective services?

Also, you agree with the DHS that belief in psychic healing constitutes a religious belief? This is quite a slippery slope. (I hate to use that phrase to bolster my arguments, but here it applies).

 

[typeB-md]

Being "loved and cared for" does not mean neglect is not occuring. In general terms, a child who on the surface is "loved and cared for" can still be the victim of abuse, be it physical or sexual. So that can not be the precedent we set for when child protective services steps in to protect a child.

I also don't see why we have to direct child protective services to just worry about the "destitute". Are you suggesting that well to do children don't get neglected or abused, or that children of well to do families should not get the benefit of child protective services?

Also, you agree with the DHS that belief in psychic healing constitutes a religious belief, and therefore should be granted exemption on par with a Jehovah's Witness right to refuse blood products? What does that say about Jehovah's Witness beliefs?

Get a hobby other than minding other people's business. Perhaps a soloist activity like crocheting would be appropriate; I think it wise you stay away from group activity with your unwillingness to tolerate different ideologies.

Whether you agree or not, this DHS decision was the right decision. It respected the autonomy of a family and a teenager. Unless the story is incomplete and leaving out a past history of abuse (etc.), this is the best course of action seeing as only the family's and patient's input should matter (and not some arm chair politician's).

And your scenario of hypotheticals is just that--hypothetical. You could be a pedophile trying to become a pediatrician so you can touch little children. Should we go overboard with specialty monitoring of you because the "potential" for unprofessional behavior exists?

The DHS exists to make judgment calls. They made the proper call in this scenario, placing individual autonomy over outside opinion.

 

[McDoctor]

Get a hobby other than minding other people's business. Perhaps a soloist activity like crocheting would be appropriate; I think it wise you stay away from group activity with your unwillingness to tolerate different ideologies.

Whether you agree or not, this DHS decision was the right decision. It respected the autonomy of a family and a teenager. Unless the story is incomplete and leaving out a past history of abuse (etc.), this is the best course of action seeing as only the family's and patient's input should matter (and not some arm chair politician's).

And your scenario of hypotheticals is just that--hypothetical. You could be a pedophile trying to become a pediatrician so you can touch little children. Should we go overboard with specialty monitoring of you because the "potential" for unprofessional behavior exists?

The DHS exists to make judgment calls. They made the proper call in this scenario, placing individual autonomy over outside opinion.

I edited out the hypothetical, because I agree that they get things sidetracked. (Though I don't see where you are going with the whole pedophile accusations ).

I tolerate plenty of different ideologies, just not ones that advocate telling children with brain tumors that they have been healed by psychics.

We both have dominated this thread. Its clear where both of us stand, and that we disagree. There is plenty of reason to be interested in this scenario, and the purpose of these forums is to express different opinions on healthcare related topics. Some of your personal attacks have lacked professionalism. I don't necessarily respect your opinions based on those attacks, so I am not really soliciting any more of them.