Home » Controversial Topics » Current Issues » Should the state be allowed to force a cancer treatment?
Should the state be allowed to force a cancer treatment?
Poll
5 votes (62.5%) | |||
1 vote (12.5%) | |||
2 votes (25%) |
8 members have voted
January 9th, 2015 at 9:48:53 AM permalink | |
Wizard Administrator Member since: Oct 23, 2012 Threads: 239 Posts: 6095 | I voted that the state should stay out of it. Knowledge is Good -- Emil Faber |
January 9th, 2015 at 11:34:28 AM permalink | |
TheCesspit Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 23 Posts: 1929 |
Doesn't your insurance cover chemo treatments? It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die.... it's called Life |
January 9th, 2015 at 12:30:31 PM permalink | |
AZDuffman Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 135 Posts: 18136 |
Not a matter if it does or does not. Some cost would fall on me, and the loss of work would be impossible to overcome. All so I could sit in the house too sick to even play online poker? No thank you. The President is a fink. |
January 9th, 2015 at 2:24:53 PM permalink | |
petroglyph Member since: Aug 3, 2014 Threads: 25 Posts: 6227 |
The cost in dollars for alternative cancer treatment is prohibitive. Being diagnosed is a life altering event. It is easier to have opinions about what a person will do when they still have an unknown distance from that determination. Insurance only covers "treatment" that is AMA approved and Vice Versa in a constant feedback loop. The treatment [radiation] for H&N SCC is a primary cause of thyroid and salivary cancer. So the treatment causes cancer, albeit a different "kind". Ala, " the surgery was a success", but the patient died. The suffering from cancer or cancer treatments is so horrific that almost no one who doesn't have it, or closely related to someone that does or makes their income from it even wants to know very much about it. I attribute much of the current method of treatment as controlled by fear induced by doctors. It also takes a particular type of person to be an oncologist or other cancer treatment physician. I can imagine why they would mostly prefer to remain unattached to the patient as they lose so many of them. To have a god like, narcissistic personality would certainly be the easiest as well as being sadistic [not saying they are, only that it would make it easier]. It is an entire reality that most are unfamiliar with. In the article you posted, the mother said the daughter was very intelligent. I have been self supporting since age 17, as personal and intimate as the decisions that will be needed are to this young woman, my vote is to have her and those that will be with her until the end if necessary make the health choices with her. Not some impersonal state which is immune from the outcome. No matter what, each person will face at least part of it, alone. Somewhere in the article it said that not treating her disease would be suicide and that is illegal. So the state feels they have the authority to make these life and death decisions for us and how to go about treating [or if] them. That to me is a definition of people being the property of the state. We if this is the case, are indeed chattel. They own us, and all that we think we are. They would be gods. I have had several near death experiences, and was able to deal with them very quickly, because the threats had already passed. When diagnosed with a life threatening cancer that has the ability to create fear on a round the clock basis, it takes a special kind of belief or courage to take control over your own treatment protocol, we should all be applauding her bravery. Often we are lucky if we are not just put on a fifteen minute health care treatment plan. We are assigned blocks [15 minutes] each, of the Dr's time. Medicine has changed. Health care, isn't health care, it is sick care. These Dr's mostly will pass a patient down the line callously according to a treatment plan, statistically designed to produce the "best" results overall. That is not individual care. It is not care at all. It is a means to extract money from a system full of ceo's and lawyers and insurance company's that only treat us as a means to an end. Like George Carlin said "it's a big club and you ain't in it". IMO, the choices the state [would be gods] would make are truly not about the welfare of the child, the choices are about complete control over the lives of their subjects. If we are able to ask the victim "whats the worst that could happen", we would like to assume her answer would be "I could die". But by her desired choice, her answer seems more like the worst that could happen is the rest of her life she would be in AMA approved cut, burn, and poison treatments and die a horrible death anyway. The last official act of any government is to loot the treasury. GW |
January 9th, 2015 at 2:34:45 PM permalink | |
rxwine Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 188 Posts: 18633 | What would the preference here be, if the 17yo were trying to get treatment (in agreement with the State) but against the wishes of her mother? Seems to be three parties here, but it just so happens two agree with each other in this particular issue. Would you still be for the 17yo to do as she wishes? You believe in an invisible god, and dismiss people who say they are trans? Really? |
January 9th, 2015 at 4:23:45 PM permalink | |
petroglyph Member since: Aug 3, 2014 Threads: 25 Posts: 6227 |
That is a good question Rx. If you are referencing the cancer at her young age I would give her the greatest decision making power. We let them acquire driver licenses and turn them loose on the road with multi ton high speed wmd's. So they have the power in their hands at 16 to make life and death decisions every day while at the wheel, providing they have insurance. Let's not forget the money. How many teens head off to school and do what the parents want them to at that age already if it is against their wishes? Not many, I'll wager. You can't make them do anything unless you are willing to physically overpower them and make them do it. If a parent was to do so, say forcefully make a child take a pill they didn't want, the parent could go to jail. Damned if you do/don't. How about some sliding scale of relevance to opinion? If we trust them to drive and make those choices we should let them have some say in their own healthcare. The last official act of any government is to loot the treasury. GW |
January 9th, 2015 at 6:20:11 PM permalink | |
AZDuffman Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 135 Posts: 18136 |
My preference here would be that she petition the state for emancipation. The state could decide if she was competent to be emancipated but make no decision on treatment. The President is a fink. |
January 10th, 2015 at 1:20:37 PM permalink | |
TheCesspit Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 23 Posts: 1929 |
Not all chemo treatments knock you back that far. Not all chemo treatments are cures, either... but do result in a far better end of life experience. I know this from experience with close friends and family. I also know that end of life suffering with out treatment for some forms of cancer (pancreatic springs to mind) is incredibly painful and drawn out. Of course, the alternative can a rapid infusion of lead. You takes your choices... It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die.... it's called Life |
January 10th, 2015 at 1:41:30 PM permalink | |
petroglyph Member since: Aug 3, 2014 Threads: 25 Posts: 6227 | Which chemo treatments are cures? I wasn't aware they had discovered a cure yet. These are 5 year survival rates for pancreatic cancer;http://www.cancer.org/cancer/pancreaticcancer/overviewguide/pancreatic-cancer-overview-survival-rates The last official act of any government is to loot the treasury. GW |
January 10th, 2015 at 1:50:26 PM permalink | |
AZDuffman Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 135 Posts: 18136 |
I would choose a quick one to the back of the head, yes. The President is a fink. |