Girl dies of stupid parents

[Jacob(smooth)]

Jesus told her nothing because Jesus doesn't exist.

According to the article she had over a seventy percent chance to live so she wouldn't have been on chemo her entire life. It sounded as if she and her parents wanted her to live but believed alternative medicine would have helped her survive

Do you have evidence to support you claim?

Also As I pointed out with an artical from the American cancer soceity that artical's numbers were misleading

ARTICLE!!!!!

[Darkstar]

[Jacob(smooth)]

[Thackerie]

Jesus told her nothing because Jesus doesn't exist.

According to the article she had over a seventy percent chance to live so she wouldn't have been on chemo her entire life. It sounded as if she and her parents wanted her to live but believed alternative medicine would have helped her survive

Do you have evidence to support you claim?

Also As I pointed out with an artical from the American cancer soceity that artical's numbers were misleading

Goddammit. The word is spelled a-r-t-i-c-l-e. Maybe he can't help being a nasty, immoral wad of hate, but he could at least learn how to spell simple, common words.

(I'm not usually a grammar nazi, but I hate mean people and think they deserve ridicule whenever they present the opportunity.)

[Whateverist]

So, are the christians in this thread really going to persist with this claim that the girl wished to die to be with Jesus sooner, ..

.. and if so, what if your kid wished to jump off a bridge to hasten her rendezvous with Jesus? Still okay?

[Esquilax]

Jesus told her nothing because Jesus doesn't exist.

According to the article she had over a seventy percent chance to live so she wouldn't have been on chemo her entire life. It sounded as if she and her parents wanted her to live but believed alternative medicine would have helped her survive

Do you have evidence to support you claim?

Literally the first sentence of the article you claim to have read enough to know is wrong. This isn't the first time I've heard about this case, Drich; the child went off of chemo in favor of a course of alternative treatments with no proven record at all, run by conmen out of massage parlors. Even if your claims were true, she went from a course of treatment with a positive number as her chance of survival, to one with a zero as her chance of survival, or at the very least no method by which we could possibly calculate a chance. You keep defending this choice as though what she ended up choosing was preferable, but objectively speaking she had a better chance of success, according to her aim of surviving, on the chemo, than she did on the other thing. Once again, you're defending the indefensible, unaware of your own ignorance on the subject yet still assuming you know everything there is to know on the case.

Then again, you're also still persisting with this narrative that she just stopped all treatment in order to die faster and be with Jesus, and it's been pointed out to you that that's wrong, so maybe you aren't ignorant, maybe you're just lying.

Which is it, Drich? Are you making this argument because you didn't know the relevant facts that we've been telling you now? Or are you just lying and pretending we haven't pointed all this out to you? Either way, why on earth should we trust your assessments of this issue, given that those two things are the only choice available to you?

[Drich]

You think the long-term survival rate is not longer now than it was 50 years ago, Doctor (I presume?)?

Today's 5 years survival rate is over 90% she was given a survival rate of 75% that was the same as 50 years ago. Why? should have been you next question. what was she give the 50 year old survival rate? If you read the web page I provided survival rates go down when reoccurance rates go up. It is a ratio that is used to access a patient's survivablity coupled with quality of life. Since the artical did not mention this, it means her long term survival/quality of life was very low.

Again you people are idots for pinning everything on some crooked writters pen, and just assuming that this girl's parents hear the jesus dream and loose their minds.. The ironic thing is this is exactly what the crooked writter of that artical wanted for you people, and guess what not one of you looked any of this up you just saw dead kid with 75% survival rate and filled in the blanks with your own predjuice.

How is it that you all not see how blind you really are how you have been conditioned/indoctrinated to think when you see trigger words like this artical is full of?

Neither is dying.

We'll see when push comes to shove in your own life. It is always so easy to push your morality off on others, but when you are facing a life of misery for yourself the justifications then become more viable somehow.

They nuke your bone marrow and that means you have no amune system, (among a bunch of other blood related problems) so you have to live in a cancer ward till you recover (months.) Months of extreme pain and sickness may be too much if your just putting it off till later where there is only more pain and sickness..

So you think trading years for months is the smart bet, Doctor?

with cancer it is not quanity of life it is quality.[/quote]

---

Do you have evidence to support you claim?

Also As I pointed out with an artical from the American cancer soceity that artical's numbers were misleading

ARTICLE!!!!!

I've seen it both ways

[Thumpalumpacus]

So, Jesus appears to 11 year olds in hospitals, but somehow doesn't care about dying children in Africa? They sure would like to know that life will be better after they die.

Maybe that's why christianity has spread so widely in Africa.

True story, people. I even found a picture online of a Christian missionary at work:

[Norman Humann]

ARTICLE!!!!!

I've seen it both ways

Yeah, in your own post maybe. At least admit to THAT mistake.

[robvalue]

Wow Drich, you just can't admit when you are wrong huh. I don't know how you ever expect anyone to take you seriously when you make a hideous blunder and then refuse to back down once it is pointed out over and over. Let alone your repulsive take on morality. I sincerely hope you are putting all this on to wind us up.