What is Digg?Sponsored by Threadless
358 Comments
- grinsy, on 05/26/2009, -8/+89@macman2K - Daniel has Hodgkins Lymphoma. It is one of the few curable cancers. It has a 90% survival rate with chemo, even if it's detected in late stages.
- inactive, on 05/26/2009, -11/+90How can someone really have a problem with forcing a parent to do her job?
When you have a 90% chance of saving someone's life, religous quackery about not believing in modern medicine just doesn't cut it. Frankly, I'm surprised the mother hasn't been charged with endangering the welfare of a child, but at least this story looks likely (90% chance) to have a happy ending. - dizavin, on 05/26/2009, -17/+83don't get me wrong... I'm completely fine with someone refusing treatment and choosing to die in a ditch, but only if that person is of age and of sound mind to make that choice.
that kid is THIRTEEN and without treatment, medical experts are saying that the kid will die. there's only one logical conclusion that you can take away from the fact that his "guardian" cut and ran when she learned that she'd have to compromise on her religious beliefs to keep her son alive:
*that woman is unfit to care after a child!* - hawk0168, on 05/26/2009, -8/+63You fail. His cancer is 90% treatable.
- nikki2300dk, on 05/26/2009, -6/+57I'm so sick of this "natural remedy" crap. Where to these people think most medicines originate from? Is something suddenly not "natural" because it's been purified, undergone clinical trials and sold in a pharmacy instead of a health food store? Just sounds safer to me. It seems like these people define natural based on where they get the product, not the product itself.
- xXGrimreapaXx, on 05/26/2009, -7/+53"His family has said they prefer natural healing methods". Yeah his tumor is going to go away with green tea and some leaves.
- hawk0168, on 05/26/2009, -6/+46They're Roman Catholic - yet they also believe in Native American healing powers.
WTF. This stuff isn't supposed to happen in Minnesota. Take that crazy ***** back to NoDak. - ratnacage, on 05/26/2009, -5/+44kids are ***** idiots, thats why they are not allowed to make important decisions.
- igyigyigy, on 05/26/2009, -1/+36As far as I know Catholics believe in medicine, so this is just regular idiocy, not religious idiocy, despite what they say
- 8FoldPath, on 05/26/2009, -23/+58If you can't perform as a parent and take proper care of your children, society will do it for you. It's really quite simple.
People like to blame the government usually when they are doing something stupid that needs government intervention. - wontstoptalking, on 05/26/2009, -6/+41Or maybe the mother is just an idiot.
- TheMachine1, on 05/26/2009, -7/+40When I hear "natural" the first thing that comes to mind is the reality of dying at a young age on average with out technology. I hope these people are not drinking unnatural water that has been sterilized with chlorine. Chlorine is Satan's evil magic. God intended you to prove your faith by taking on a microbiological attack every time you take a drink.
- MrBogard, on 05/26/2009, -11/+41Has anyone bothered to ask what the kid thinks? Maybe he didn't just say, "*****." I know bashing religious conviction comes first on digg, but maybe this should be a personal choice for him and his family. Medical treatment is in no way required by the law.
Oh, and I'm an atheist. - Leezus, on 05/26/2009, -10/+37I'd like to direct anyone proclaiming alternatives to "modern medicine" to watch some Penn and Teller's *****.
Take your new age, witch doctor ***** and go tend your herb garden. - ricker2005, on 05/26/2009, -1/+26I think your natural remedies have damaged your brain.
- TruthKid, on 05/26/2009, -0/+24Goddamn I love green tea
- ryan850, on 05/26/2009, -3/+27@macman... show me your proof.... this kid has a skin cancer that, 95% of the time (the figure I've heard from doctors), is treatable.. I for one will take "modern medicine" over ancient pre-science medicine or unproven alternative medicines.
- RungeKutta, on 05/26/2009, -3/+27@macman2k
"Statistically, people whom receive chemo die faster than those who do not receive any treatment."
Please provide this data.
"Further, there are valid alternatives to "modern medicine" that are safer."
First of all, why did you put modern medicine in quotes? Secondly, what do you mean by safer? Third, are there (credible) statistics that show these alternatives have a higher survival rate?
"Blind faith in "modern medicine" is just as bad as blind faith in any other religion."
Medicine isn't a religion, it's an application of science somewhat similar to engineering. Religion is based off of the hope that even though you can't detect something, that it's there. Science is pretty much the exact opposite, however that's not to say the two are mutually exclusive. For instance there could be a god similar to what Christians believe which we can't detect, and science is merely discovering the rules that god defined for the universe. - joot2112, on 05/26/2009, -2/+25It wasn't even their religion. They're Catholic. They only joined Nemenhah Band after they got scared about chemo.
On another note, the kid has been ruled incompetent to make decisions about his treatment. He's not just indoctrinated and suffering cancer, he's 13 years old and can't read. They told the kid he's an "elder" and a "medicine man" in the Nemenhah Band, but he couldn't explain to a judge what that meant. So it's not like he was making an informed decision.
Freedom of religion does not include freedom to let your kids die. This is right up there with the idiots who tried to pray away their daughter's type 1 diabetes. "Thank God" for doctors, people. - priegog, on 05/26/2009, -2/+24Listen, I know where you're coming from, but this seems like a pretty clear-cut case to me.
Hodgkins' disease is EXTREMELY curable, specially in children. The kid is scared of treatment, possibly mostly by his mom telling him horrible things. But he doesn't grasp that WHATEVER suffering you have to go through (and in this case it wouldn't even be THAT bad), if it'll allow you to live a happy, long, NORMAL life after such treatment, he can later remember it as something that was worth it.
And his mother is clearly unfit to asses the situation, even if religious beliefs are involved. I don't know where the father is in this situation, but this is an example of how having 2 parents in the picture would be better than one. He would (hopefully) see things for what they were and keep her wife's insanity at bay.
I definitely get religion, but if my religion told me to kill my son (which is almost what this would be, being it so curable and easy) I'd seriously tell my religion to go screw itself. - Whackly, on 05/26/2009, -0/+21This guy is the kind of idiot involved in this case. It's not about religion. 100 percent cure rate. LOL.
- ryan850, on 05/26/2009, -2/+23What will the parents say when their son is dead? God needed him, or it was his time?
- xXGrimreapaXx, on 05/26/2009, -1/+22It is good but I don't see it curing cancer.
- fucknuggets, on 05/26/2009, -1/+21please continue using your natural remedies. we need you gone from the gene pool.
- insertAliasHere, on 05/26/2009, -0/+18I'm pretty sure I'd be glad to get another 27 years of life instead of dying at 13 or 14.
- xXGrimreapaXx, on 05/26/2009, -0/+16Are you ***** stupid? Natural remedies don't have a 100 percent cure rate.
Stop smoking weed you *****. - vtron, on 05/26/2009, -11/+26It doesn't matter what the kid thinks. He's a ***** child.
- ApokalypseNow, on 05/26/2009, -0/+14There are no "natural remedies" for cancer dumbass. Your own immune system won't even fight it, since it looks just like the rest of you to it. If you can't get your own body to tell the difference, how do you expect a random plant to be able to do anything?
- mlvassallo, on 05/26/2009, -0/+13Having to go through Chemo is one of the worst experiences anybody with the disease will go through- but with Hodgkins Lymphoma it is proven to save life.
- ryan850, on 05/26/2009, -0/+13I just have a hard time with the "it was his time" argument. If there is a reason for someones death, and their death occurs when it occurs because of pre-destined time set in stone, then it is incredibly coincidental that people's "time" was dramatically increased with the dawn of modern medicine.
- Moralogic, on 05/26/2009, -4/+17@macman - Besides the fact that your "statistics" are *****. You can't generalize all cancers into one group like a dumbass. Different cancers have different success rates for modern medicine treatment. ALSO, you can't generalize kids of this age in the same group as adults or elderly.
So, unless you statistics are about this specific kind of cancer, with a children around this kids age, and within the last 5 years. I could really give a crap less about what you are saying, and same goes for the rest of Digg.
As for an illness like this there is NO alternative medicine that has any respectable success rate, especially compared to modern medicine. Blindly supporting something you OBVIOUSLY know nothing about, shows that you blindly believe in this BS. When you come back with a medical degree and tell me this stuff, with statistics from studies you have linked to, and explained what the alternative is and it's success rate and how it works. Then I will give you the time of day. Otherwise go rot in a hole and die. We don't need dumbasses slowing down the progress of man kind. - inactive, on 05/26/2009, -2/+15@1x253:
My father had cancer, caught it early, received chemo, the tumor is gone and has been for years. Had he not had chemo, he'd probably be dead now. Chemo might not be an ideal treatment in regard to what it does to your body, but the alternative is dying.
I'd rather trust my life with a proven treatment in the medical field, than trust some witch doctor telling me to drink some herbal tea or whatever these "natural" remedies are. - docbob84, on 05/26/2009, -3/+15Nope, sorry. We limit religious beliefs all the time when they are detrimental to society. You can't perform animal sacrifices legally, for example. You can't perform cannibalistic rituals either. In this case there were two choices. You treat him and almost certainly cure him. Or you pray, and he almost certainly dies. If this lady wanted to refuse treatment for herself, that's fine as far as I know. She's an adult and (legally) "competent" to make that choice. But at some point your right to free religion is trumped by what's better for the greater society, and if that means not being able to kill your child, so be it.
- Suricou, on 05/26/2009, -2/+14If I had a child, would I be allowed to lock him up in a cage and feed him nothing but a can of dogfood all day? Legal guardianship or parential status does not mean someone is free to do whatever they want with a child - they can still be judged by a court to be an incompetant carer. That's what happened in this case.
The boy was dying of a curable disease. The mother said she would refuse to let him be treated. A court ruled that she was not fit to be a parent. Seems simple enough for me. Any parent who would willfully prevent their child from recieving life-saving medical care in favor of some quack cure is not competant to care for said child. - uberduger, on 05/26/2009, -0/+12To be fair, if you are religious, surely dying is fantastic? You get to go and be with God...
Not trolling, I have just never got a straight answer on that. - Diefree, on 05/26/2009, -3/+15If SHE wanted to refuse chemo for herself fine but you DON'T have a right to endanger a child's life for you backwater beliefs. She is irresponsible and willing to let a child die, her rights end when it comes to the life of another. By your flawed logic she should be allowed to let the kid play in traffic if she wanted.
- Angostura, on 05/26/2009, -1/+13The patient's right of choice depends on the patient being able to make an informed choice, That is what is at issue here.
- Moralogic, on 05/26/2009, -6/+18I can't believe how many idiots believe in this natural medicine *****, especially for something like this. There is a reason these "age old remedies" are age old. We have advanced past them. Though there are a few things here and there that can help, that is only for minor problems, not major or life threatening ones.
- JoeMondo, on 05/26/2009, -1/+12When he's an adult he'll be free to choose to let himself die rather than use effective treatment.
Until then, he's a minor and must be cared for. - Diefree, on 05/26/2009, -9/+20This woman should be arrested for child abuse and endangerment. If she wants to die then fine go die in the woods but you do NOT have a right to let a child die from something that has a 95% cure. Her other children should be removed from her home before they die of the flu or other highly treatable illness.
- Diefree, on 05/26/2009, -2/+13Because he obviously doesn't have the capability to make the decision. Read the story, he is barely able to read or write and been home schooled by this evil bitch so likely lied to about what chemo is.
- ApokalypseNow, on 05/26/2009, -1/+12"...she should be allowed to make her OWN decision regarding her son."
...except when that decision will result in the child's death, as in this case. - iamnotcreative, on 05/26/2009, -1/+11The kid, from what I've read, doesn't really understand what's going on; he either has some sort of learning disability or the homeschooling he's received from his parents has been very bad. He apparently did not recognize the word "The" on a state exam, so there is some question if he understood the statement he signed refusing chemo.
- vtron, on 05/26/2009, -5/+15The problem is, she's not making a decision that endangers HER life. If she thinks that religion will save her and she dies, good for her. The same doesn't apply when you're making a choice for a child.
This is not freedom of choice, it's reckless endangerment of a child. Also, the big bureaucratic machine that you're bitching about is getting its information from the kid's doctors. And they know a hell of a lot more than you or I or the dumb bitch mother. - inactive, on 05/26/2009, -3/+13I don't see what the problem is here. If the mother was starving him, no one would have any problem with the kid being removed from the home. Yet, the mother denies him treatment which has an incredibly high success rate and will almost certainly let him live, and suddenly her religious freedom is being challenged. WTF!? It's child neglect, plain and simple. There is no philosophical grey area here, she's denying him something he needs in order to live.
- frode!, on 05/26/2009, -1/+10Hey guys. I'm a survivor of Hodgkins' disease (stage 3A to be exact) and I had a course of ABVD once every 2 weeks for 6 months, and then 14 session of radiation over 3 weeks.
And while yes it isn't pleasant it's not the horror some are describing.
When diagnosed my Doc told me said "I'm going to tell you two things. The first you're not going to like the second you're not going to believe". The first thing was I had cancer the second thing was I had the cancer people with other cancers wish they had.
This boy is going to experience some unpleasantness for the better part of a year but there's an overwhelming likelihood that for this he'll live a long and healthy life. I can pretty much guarantee without treatment he'll never marry, love a woman, travel the world, in short have the chance to live a life all because he's scared and his Mother isn't doing her job.
I'm not a big fan of government but in this case the Mother is harming her child. It's very similar if she stopped a lifeguard from saving her drowning child because he might get bruised while being saved and water is natural.
I understand the libertarian concerns but I think there are reasonable limits to the power parents should be able to exert over scared children. - Solkre, on 05/26/2009, -0/+9Go 2 Doctor
- inactive, on 05/26/2009, -3/+12No one is arguing that you can't make your own decision in regards to your care, but to what extent are you able to extend your religious nuttiness to your child.
Let me put it this way - if the religion stated that all men over 65 years of age would have sexually intercourse with all children 12 and under - would you support that belief? What about if the "alternative medicine" was just such a thing? Do you have the government come in and stop that treatment? - uberduger, on 05/26/2009, -5/+14@macman2k: "Statistically, people whom receive chemo die faster than those who do not receive any treatment"
<blue>
[Citation Needed]
</blue> - ryan850, on 05/26/2009, -5/+14except the indoctrinated son agrees with the mom.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 368 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is