Boy flees Mexico to avoid chemo due in part to religious beliefs.

[Pippy]

Hey all,

Wow. I try my best here, but I seem to be a huge flame magnet. I felt silly for adding my opinion to a long over discussion, but it seemed very important for me to disagree. Now this thread is screaming along again. I will try to not let this dissolve into the last experiance. I maintain that I want to healthily and honestly disscus things with you guys, it's fun. I don't want to convince, nor be convinced, remember?

I don't know where to start, but it seems like most of you had about the same complaints of my post. I admit too, and apologize for it being not as concise and polite as I would have liked. I fired it out in a blur because it is very saddening and frightening to me to see what you all were saying about this situation in question.

My irony meter just shit itself.
Where on earth did you get the quaint notion we "should not" dissent,from YOUR values or those of the rest of the world? Or "should" have different values. Funny,I don't remember the news announcing you'd been made dictator.
I don't give a flying fuck what adults believe,or if they die off in their thousands due to their personal superstitions. BUT,I DO care about children under the age of legal majority being protected from the fatally stupid decisions of their parents

Hello again Padraic. I like you name, it makes me think we could have more in common than you would like to think. I am quite amused and apologetic that you think I sounded like a dictator in my musings. I guess in a sense I am secretly pleased to make your irony meter do that. I'm not saying that you guys shouldn't dissent from my point of view. If you thought so, you must have misunderstood. Or, just may be, I mean things that I don't even know, and you guys (with your monopoly on logical thought) should keep me well aware of my unknown intentions.

I make a distinction that you guys were all agreeing with the point of 'this kid should be taken away from his parents and irradiated against his will because everyone knows that that is obviously the right choice'. To me that is bitching in the highest, because although you are kind of allowed to have an opinion, it is very much none of you business. Before you read about it in the papers, you most likely had never heard of said child. I can almost assure myself none of you even know him. How dare you make declarations about he best choices for people you know nothing about? It is a matter of degrees, but I don't think you should talk and act like that, so I have to disagree (which is a cousin to, but removed from bitching).

I hear your point Padraic, but it is silly, and dangerous to me. I mean, think about it... You care about people under the age of majority, but not above (a strange and unhealthy distinction methinks). So as of now, you care deeply that this child be put through something he does not want to be put through, that can be described as not pleasant, because of his human potential? Would you campaign to help the poor kid until the eve of his 17th birthday, and than simply say, 'oh, your choice now'? I care about the child in question, and feel for his situation, but reserve his right to do what he wishes. Regardless of what I think he should do. That is why I don't feel like a dictator, and to me it is you all that are imposing your will on the situation. You argument involves taking children from their parents for fucks sake. All my disagreement was that it is none of your business, and fully the child and his parents choice. You can disagree, but no one has to care.

I can completley understand how you guys feel, but it is a hard and honest fact that kids die. We shouldn't try to fight kids dying. We should try to fight what makes kids sick. We should fight for the best quality of life, no matter how long for these people. Don't fear death, it impinges greatly on how much you appreciate and enjoy life.

Yes we are. If you are willing to let your kid unnecessarily get eaten alive by cancer because some unproven magical being might object you are an immoral sack of shit. If this is the best of the theistic value, than my values are a lot better than that of their god.

And hello again Leo. You guys are champions of putting words in other peoples mouths (I'm not sure how that works digitally). I hear what you think, but I surely didn't intend to say what you heard at all. My point had nothing to do with unproven magical beings. In fact I did not mention god at all. Said only I, not to fear death. My morality that you think unwell of is not to tell other people to live that way I live. That leads me to make the moral descision not to try to think that this child (hypothetically) should do whatever I want. So it's funny when you guys see it as me being absurd, because believe me, it looks similar from over here too!

Hi also Adrian. I enjoy your points, and am happy to hear from you again.

Have a nice funeral.

Thank you. I am sure to attend, and looking forward to it. (the double entendres hurt)

Well yes, that's because it is extremely silly.

I again ask not to be treated like you have a monopoly on rational thought. We have free will in this adventure, and although you can think I am being silly, you cannot declare with certainty that I am. You might just be incorrect in your assumption. It is Socrates, the first great thinker (what does that mean?) that reminds us to always readily admit what we don't know for sure, as it is true wisdom.
To my question about whether or not I have the right to choose (in my own case) what to do about cancer, you said "Of course you do,". Thank you, that is all I ask for. You can belittle my point of view all day, as long as you don't try to say I can't have one (but you can).

But next time you are at a busy crossing, remember you have given up on science, and don't look both ways before crossing. Take a leap of faith.

That seems like part of a very strange definition of science. I don't know if 'look both ways before you cross the street' is a law of nature, or even a very good theory paper. All I can do at this sentence is shake my head and move on.

We are claiming that when a person is brainwashed and thinks that natural remedies will keep them alive when instead they will kill them, they should be treated with medicine that will save them.

Another jewel! I can say that that is a beautiful turn of phrase to justify hurting a child that you don't even know. I can almost not bring myself to disagree with what you said, except what I realize (within a second) what it means.

Thank you for your time Adrian.

And Samson, greetings. I loved your post as well, you guys sure are good at this. I kind of jokingly agree with you second statement against the people governing us. But that first sentence! All I can say, is if we have to learn about the stupid "capital H holocaust" every year on repeat in school, we should at least learn not to talk like Nazis. I understand the want to sterilize some people, but we would never agree on who. But from a distance, any one who says others should be sterilized (or irradiated) because its your will is entertaining about the worst evil you can do from the comfort of your living room (aside from carrying it out). Not just stupid and rude, but dangerous and illogical. May I nominate people that think other should be sterilized for forced sterilization themselves? It was nice meeting you, though Samson.

There... God damn. I like talking to you guys, but it is like slogging through the mud. Now you all have permission (from dictator pip) to go off screaming and yelling about how I am an idiot. Please be sure to take everything I said as wrongly as possible. It helps to read my posts in a voice of a mental handicap, try it out loud if you must.

Thanks all, I am an asshole, but I am on the side of eternal love. Take care all, I mean it.
-Pip

[Darwinian]

You didn't quote me Am I invisible again?

[Tiberius]

I again ask not to be treated like you have a monopoly on rational thought. We have free will in this adventure, and although you can think I am being silly, you cannot declare with certainty that I am. You might just be incorrect in your assumption.

Certainty is relative, so yes, I can be certain of something and still be wrong. I was certain that after a weekend of rain and dreary weather, the week would be the same, but we're having a BBQ tomorrow. I was wrong. I'm still certain that you are being silly.

To my question about whether or not I have the right to choose (in my own case) what to do about cancer, you said "Of course you do,". Thank you, that is all I ask for. You can belittle my point of view all day, as long as you don't try to say I can't have one (but you can).

You have a choice, but I don't have to agree with it or even support it. However this wasn't about you, this was about a boy who was dying. He wanted to live, this is evident. He believed that the only way he could live was through natural remedies. These natural remedies would have done nothing. Ergo, the doctors (who also wanted him to live) decided to intervene and grant his wish, even though the method went against his desires.

Let me try and make a (bad) analogy. Say you have a child who really wants to fly like a bird. She just wants to run off the edge of a cliff and fly. There is nothing wrong with wanting to do this, but she cannot fly, and she will fall to her death. Now which is the better option? Let the girl fall to her death, or get her some hand-gliding lessons so she can run off the edge of a cliff and fly (almost) like a bird? The outcome is what she wanted, but the method is quite different.

That seems like part of a very strange definition of science. I don't know if 'look both ways before you cross the street' is a law of nature, or even a very good theory paper. All I can do at this sentence is shake my head and move on.

Science is about experimentation and acquired knowledge through observation. If you have given up on science, I suggest that you forget all about safety, forget all about car speeds, forget all about the frailness of the human body (all of which have been revealed to us through science) and just run across a road. You will soon see how we need science every day.

Another jewel! I can say that that is a beautiful turn of phrase to justify hurting a child that you don't even know. I can almost not bring myself to disagree with what you said, except what I realize (within a second) what it means.

I'm not advocating hurting the child, I am advocating giving the child the only treatment that will save them. Chemo can be painful, yes, but dying of cancer can be even more so as it spreads through your body and kills off your organs. I saw it happen to my grandmother; I was in the room as she moaned in pain, waiting for the doctors to authorize morphine doses. Don't you dare say I am justifying hurting children. That is a LIE and you know it. You disgust me by even suggesting it.

I don't know what I find more disturbing; that you would refuse life-saving treatment to a child who wants to live, or say that the only reason people like me would is that we want to harm the child.

[Pippy]

Hey,

Darwinian, I am sorry not to let the 'light of ignorance' shine upon you. I only passed on your comment because there is little I can say to it. If you think my way of thought is archaic, and I should come out of the dark ages, then I disagree. The modern world is full of examples of very, very bad ideas and states-of-mind, so modernity and correctness are not exclusive. I think administering chemo to a child against his will is pretty medieval myself. Feel better?

Adrian, I am glad you are fired up, but am apologetic for insulting you, as you made clear. Please try not make bad analogies, they are beyond useless. In fact, you can get wires crossed in your reasoning with them. Science (as i stated long ago) is a process. A type of methodical thought. It is nothing more or less than that. I don't dislike the scientific method, but am at odds with many of it's practitioners faulty conclusions. I am not saying you are directly advocating hurting children, and I hope not to anger you by seeming such. I only mean that your wish or intent is to help this child, but you are acting very much against what I see as his best interests in doing so. You are not evil on purpose by your stance, just a little turned around. You are not in a position to tell any of us the chemo is the "only treatment that will save him". I hear that you think so, but I disagree. And in the end, it is solely his opinion of that fact that matters. Pain is not to be avoided too much. Don't leave your hand over a flame, but don't try to make life as soft as possible, you'll never learn or earn anything.

I am sorry to disturb you as well. I would only deny 'life-saving' treatment to anyone if he made a clear and concise wish not to be treated. It is more cold hearted in my book to force people to do things they don't want too. That, along side untruth is the root of all evil. He may be wrong in choosing homeopathy, but it's his choice. That is freedom, I thought we were s'posed to be all about the jive. Again, don't please be too offended. I don't mean to be mean. Just honest.

How about a good analogy? You are a child, and unfortunately have a cancer. You would like to do chemo, but everyone around you thinks it is the stupidest thing possible. Your doctors and health insurance providers and government and media all say loudly that naturalism is the only option. "Everyone knows that homeopathy is the only thing that cures cancer, and chemotherapy is all just poppycock,". Even if it seemed you were the only one who thought what you did, don't you have the right to it? That might be a decent way for someone in you shoes to try to understand how this child may feel. Although, to be fair he is a teen now. So that soon Padraic has to stop caring about him.

Thank you again for your time. I maintain that I am much more human than you all seem to think.
'fear not',
-Pip

[Edwardo Piet]

Pip, I think they key point is that the child is brainwashed. What he wants he can get...but he is going it about the wrong way because he's been brainswashed by nonsense. People being brainwashed by nonsense is a problem anyway - and children are generally more vulnerable to it. The kid doesn't want to die, he wants to live - but he doesn't realize that the way he's going about it is wrong because he's brainwashed. It seems to me that's the problem here, Pip.

EvF

[Tiberius]

Please try not make bad analogies, they are beyond useless. In fact, you can get wires crossed in your reasoning with them.

It was only bad as in the situation here is much more serious. The same rational applies though.

Science (as i stated long ago) is a process. A type of methodical thought. It is nothing more or less than that.

Precisely why I said you should forget it when you cross the road, seeing as you seem to have given up on science telling us how to look after ourselves.

I don't dislike the scientific method, but am at odds with many of it's practitioners faulty conclusions.

Then you do dislike the scientific method. Only a fool is at odds with the conclusions of scientists. Conclusions may be wrong, but they get corrected as time goes on. If science concludes something, it means that there is a vast amount of evidence that is explained by the theory. The theory may not be perfect, but it is the best shot at the time of writing. If you are at odds with the scientists over this, then you are foolish.

I am not saying you are directly advocating hurting children, and I hope not to anger you by seeming such. I only mean that your wish or intent is to help this child, but you are acting very much against what I see as his best interests in doing so.

What you see as his best interests is irrelevant. What science says are his best interests is how people should look at this situation. You are just proving once again that you do dislike the scientific method...at least when it disagrees with your views on chemotherapy.

You are not evil on purpose by your stance, just a little turned around. You are not in a position to tell any of us the chemo is the "only treatment that will save him".

No, but science says it is the best. Q.E.D.

I am sorry to disturb you as well. I would only deny 'life-saving' treatment to anyone if he made a clear and concise wish not to be treated. It is more cold hearted in my book to force people to do things they don't want too. That, along side untruth is the root of all evil. He may be wrong in choosing homeopathy, but it's his choice. That is freedom, I thought we were s'posed to be all about the jive. Again, don't please be too offended. I don't mean to be mean. Just honest.

You seem to be forgetting that this is a child we are dealing with. We don't let children have the vote because of a reason: they aren't mature enough to make rational decisions for the country. They are susceptible to being led astray, much more so than adults. The issue isn't about allowing people to give up treatment (I'm pro-euthanasia btw), but about stopping a brainwashed child from dying because of his parents. He is not to blame, he does not know any better. A child needs to be cared for, and when the parents make decisions that danger his life, we call it child abuse. There is no difference here.

How about a good analogy? You are a child, and unfortunately have a cancer. You would like to do chemo, but everyone around you thinks it is the stupidest thing possible. Your doctors and health insurance providers and government and media all say loudly that naturalism is the only option. "Everyone knows that homeopathy is the only thing that cures cancer, and chemotherapy is all just poppycock,". Even if it seemed you were the only one who thought what you did, don't you have the right to it? That might be a decent way for someone in you shoes to try to understand how this child may feel. Although, to be fair he is a teen now. So that soon Padraic has to stop caring about him.

The one problem with this analogy is that it just doesn't reflect reality. The decisions made by the doctors are based on sound science, not pseudo-science. Reversing the roles simply doesn't work in this case. It was a very bad analogy. If we are in bizarro world where chemo doesn't work and natural remedies do, then this situation would be one where I am on the side of the doctors still. What other reason do we have for doctors other than to keep us healthy?

[Samson]

And Samson, greetings. I loved your post as well, you guys sure are good at this. I kind of jokingly agree with you second statement against the people governing us. But that first sentence! All I can say, is if we have to learn about the stupid "capital H holocaust" every year on repeat in school, we should at least learn not to talk like Nazis. I understand the want to sterilize some people, but we would never agree on who. But from a distance, any one who says others should be sterilized (or irradiated) because its your will is entertaining about the worst evil you can do from the comfort of your living room (aside from carrying it out). Not just stupid and rude, but dangerous and illogical. May I nominate people that think other should be sterilized for forced sterilization themselves? It was nice meeting you, though Samson.

Pip, you are correct, in that we would never be able to agree on a standard of who and why etc. etc.

I wish something could be done (Maybe not Sterilization), when it comes to Abortion being used as Birth control, (Keep in mind, I am Pro-Choice), Men Who have been found guilty of raping children or adults, and so called mothers who already have children in foster care because of her actions, but she keeps having baby after baby which gets taken away from her each time.

Those scenario's above are a ones in which I believe Sterilization would be a good idea...But it would never happen, and I don't exactly disagree with that because of all the gray areas between each issue.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

@Pippy

we have each stated our views. I've stated mine as clearly as I can,I feel no need to defend or justify or try to explain them further them to you. I'm perfectly willing to agree to differ,without prejudice.

00000000000000000000000000-----------------------------000000000000000000000000000

My name: I use "Padraic" because my actual [middle name] "Patrick" was taken.

It was my paternal grandfather's first name my fathers middle name and my mother's maiden name.

I'm Australian by birth and Irish by ethnicity,with both families leaving Ireland in the C19th. Mum's from Galway in about 1850,to Canada, Dad's people from Clare in 1870 to the free colony of South Australia.

Yes,I've been to Ireland, a couple of times.The last time I was over 50,and backpacked,mainly around the South.It was wonderful.


AN IRISH WEDDING PROPOSAL:

"How would you like to be buried with my people?"

[Matt85]

heres a good analogy. Your child believes eating grass will cure him of cancer so you let him die a painful death because you don't want to "force him" into taking actual medicine.

[Pippy]

That one is even worse! Just because you don't believe in homeopathy, or naturalism, or something other than allopathic medicine, doesn't mean non-modern remedies are useless. You might, in fact, be wrong. Until you can convince me that modern medicine is absolutely better, than do we have a right to choose what medicine we want?

What if you change the stupid simile so the kid doesn't want to eat radioactive material, because he thinks it is foolish and dangerous. But everyone around him knows that you have too fecking eat radio fecking active materials... That is still a shiny piece of make-no-sense though.

Death and pain are not things to be avoided. I have said that every time. To treat pain and death as you guys are is the beginning of an unhealthy and unrealistic view on life. I am humble for my pain, and looking forward to dying. They are

absolutely necessary

, otherwise I would have never arrived on this planet anyways. I love the system of life for who she is.

Chemo is a horrible experience, and most likely far worse than just dying.

Anyways, need coffee now... Just wanted to say, as a poet I love a good metaphor, but you guys are terrible.
Thanks,
-Pip