Save Daniel Hauser

Calsailor,
The standard of care that we would like to have and insist on having is paid for by ridiculous sums of debt and economic oppression of the 2/3 world.

I guess what I am saying is that we are not actually paying for this standard of care we are stealing it. We don't deserve it any more than others and if receiving healthcare is a moral issue than are we suggesting that the wealthiest 1 percent of the world(Westerners) must have a standard of care vastly above the rest of the world.

I do have to say that I am not in a personal situation such as your family, and I do realize that what I am asking about healthcare is not an issue of abstract details but personal situations with lives and faces. We want to live longer and we want our families to live longer and better as well, I am not suggesting that this desire is unnatural, just that we often turn this pursuit into a sort of idolatry where the only thing of value is extending life.

When we than as a society insist that procedures that are by far NOT universally accessible (and shouldn't be universally accessible) be mandatory, we are duping ourselves into following this worship of modern medicine.

I think your point about this particular case, that the family could afford the treatment since they had already done one round, is first of all an assumption, but I guess what I am interested in is not just what standard of care the government insists is neglect, but at what point are we going to sacrifice our desire for medical care with the reality that we just cannot pay for it (and what we are paying for now we do so unethically), and it is not going to get any cheaper.

Why does the state have to intervene over the family’s decision? I mean, if the family believes in “whatever” and they take the wrong decision with their child, why should the state go so far as to judge what they are doing and resolve otherwise?
Isn’t it false idealism to assume things have only one way to be and then force others into this ideology?

CCNL/Shark2 is not exactly what you'd call creative. It is difficult for me to believe that any actual person could be as foolish as Shark2, except for a died in the wool racist like CCNL. In the past, this same "Shark2," was taken on by a Hindu quite successfully: Deb Chatterjee. CCNL/Shark2 was, quite simply, outleagued. Wasn't the first time.

At the time, "Shark2" was posting under another name. This time, however, CCNL/Shark2 has gone much, much too far.

It is one thing to misrepresent sources, make false accusations, set people up and then claim THEY are using different monikers, be antisemitic, obsessively abuse one blogger because she is Jewish-the real reason- etc. It is quite another to post the Protocols on a Washingto Post web site.

Nunivek

I've forgotten in detail my initial post...the one that went to never-never land. It basically responded to the following quote you made:

How in the world is Chemo treatment, something that may be accessible to what less than 5 percent of the world population, a necessary treatment to insure that you are not neglecting your children? Tell that to the families who just cannot afford it.

I basically agreed with you that most of the world cannot afford the treatment that Daniel is supposed to be going through. But in this particular case, affordability is not the issue, since he apparently went through one round of treatment and refused any more.

However, yes, most of the world cannot begin to afford the care that we take as basic standards of care in this country. The failure of Daniel's parents to get him care has to be evaluated on the standards of care in the US...not in, say, Ethiopia, where he (and most of whatever number of) and his siblings would probably have died, their parents have mourned them and then gone on.

AS we begin to have a national discussion of health care in this country, we need to ask a series of questions:

1. Is having some citizens get gold plated medical care while others have access only to emergency room care, where diseases may have advanced so far that treatment would be futile to be preferred over all citizens getting access to basic (non-catastrophic, ie., transplants, for example) health care? If all citizens are entitled to health care as a moral issue, at what level? Is everyone with heart disease, for example, entitled to a heart transplant? Should there be an upper age limit? Or other diseases, say diabetes?

What health care is effective? Different parts of our country have different standards of care, with non-statistically differnt outcomes, and yet, those opposed to single payer or governmental plan health care are already speaking out against any attempt to evaluate outcomes, with the intent of a standard of care, are accusing the government of "ratooning"

I have severely mentally disabled brother in his mid 50s who is on a high fat, low protein diet that has, for the first time in his life, ended the many seizures per day that he experienced for 50+ years. And he is also on Lipitor for the resulting high cholestoral. Do we d/c the Lipitor and return him to a life of seizures? Do we simply code his file DNR and wait for the heart attack that will finally end his life. What is the family's and the state's obligation to him?

We desperately need a discussion in the next months as to what is a reasonable health care system. I hope that discussion happens, and not that everyone with a stake in the status quo paralyzes the situation, so in the end, nothing happens, and nearly 50 million people go on without coverage. The costs in lives and quality of lives under this situation are truly horrendous.

Pr Chris

Farnaz, Farnaz, Farnaz,

Hmmm, I see you are still playing the straw-man games. For the record, I am not Shark2 now or ever however he/she does show up on a list of your "friends" i.e.

Observer12, Observer31, Yael1, ivri5678, Billy8, nadinebatra, stadtbear, Spark1, Shark2, Spidermean3, DOUG_WHITE, FTH123 MANSOUR112, hsnkhwj ?

You need to be more careful in selecting your friends!!!

Calsalior, I actually had that problem with the post that you were trying to reply to actually, I luckily was able to push the back button and for some reason it was not deleted thankfully. It is kind of strange, I have no idea why...
I am curious what your response was though.

CCNL,

If you are posting as Shark2, then you just pasted from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, on Younis's site.

I believe you are he. Your antisemism is identical. Happily, web sites are monitored, especially newspaper web sites.

Arguably, you will not be troubling any one anymore, at least, not on US soil.

Farnaz, Farnaz, Farnaz,

We see reality still escapes you. You might want to consult with what appears to be some of your on-line relatives about the subject??

i.e. Hmmm, could other relatives be DOUG_WHITE, Observer12, Observer31, Yael1, ivri5678, Billy8, nadinebatra, stadtbear, Spark1, Shark2, Spidermean3, FTH123, MANSOUR112, hsnkhwj ???

All cousins maybe??

And as ccnl's remaining brain cell struggles vainly for self-obsessed life, it thinks not of Daniel Hauser, of all the Daniel Hausers in this world, but, rather, asks:

WWHD?

What Would Hitler Do?

Calsailor:

"A question: Have any others been having the same experiences that I have of some posts going into never-never land recently? I just wrote a post discussing what Nunivek posted, and it got sent...somewhere. This has happened a number of times recently, and none of my posts violate any terms of use. This is highly annoying!"

This hasn't happened to me, but I've noticed that, sometimes, I don't see posts until many hours after they've been submitted.

Farnaz

Information regarding the ketogenic diet for pediatric epilepsy is available on hundreds of web sites.

I'd recommend CCNL go directly to the Johns Hopkins web site, if he is in need of finding treatment for a relative.

http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/neurology_neurosurgery/specialty_areas/epilepsy/about_us/ketogenic_diet.html

Johns Hopkins will provide additional information upon request.

**************************
FINALLY, CCNL, DO NOT POST DIRECTLY TO ME AGAIN, SINCE I WILL NOT REPLY. I posted on this since, unlike you, at least in the light of what your posts indicate, I am a human being.

Your posts are defamatory, racist, sexist, xenophobic, fascistic. They indicate an obsessional schizoid personality, wholly devoid of compassion for anyone.

One needs no degrees to recognize evil. Your comments, as has continually been pointed out, suggest you are a viscious, antisemitic, anti-Islamic, liar.

Even seeing my moniker in your posts is repugnant to me.

Stop masturbating when you see my comments. And stop drinking. Neither has done you much good.

A question: Have any others been having the same experiences that I have of some posts going into never-never land recently? I just wrote a post discussing what Nunivek posted, and it got sent...somewhere. This has happened a number of times recently, and none of my posts violate any terms of use. This is highly annoying!

Nunivek:

You, of course are right, in that we have access to medical care which is, on the one hand, hugely expensive, and on the other, something which most of the world does not have access. For most of the world, this whole discussion would be in a (really!) foreign language.

However, in this case, we have certain facts that are in play:

1. Apparently access to treatment is not the issue; Daniel went through one round and then refused to go through another.

2. Our standards of acceptability for parenting reflect our national standards. In Ethiopia, this case would not even be part of reality; the parents would already have mourned Daniel (and, probably, most of whatever siblings he had) and moved on. In THIS country, though, providing care that is available is expected. It is something like refusing to have your child attend school. In our society, we expect that parents either home school their kids, enroll them in private school, or send them to public school. Not sending kids to school is unacceptable, even if the kid doesn't want to go...

3. Part of the national health care debate we need to engage in over the next few years (or months) is what SHOULD the standards of care be? In my opinion, as one who researched extensively the Canadian system, and who has military TRICARE coverage, there must be both a discussion of the nature of the system in terms of standards of care, and a frank discussions of what is going to be considered financially doable. The Canadian system, AS A MEDICAL SYSTEM, is generally accepted by Canadians as simple to access, and entitles them to the providers of their choice. The dissatisfaction comes with such things as wait times for MRIs and elective surgery. The Canadian system has (in effect) said we don't consider a two month wait for knee replacement surgery excessive. However, those Canadians who don't want the wait, are coming here for procedures, knowing that their system will pay for it. BUT, there is a trade off between having MRIs available on 24 hours notice, or one in the next two weeks: It may mean double the number of pieces of equipment, and therefore higher costs, not only for the equipment, but for medical personnel, etc.

As we begin the debate in the US, we need to be frank about what we are willing to tolerate in terms of standards of availability. And, although "rationing" is a scare word already being used in the national health care debate, it will have to be a fact of life. Is everyone who has heart trouble a candidate for a transplant? If not, who not? Over 60? Over 80? With lung cancer? Other cancers? With diabetes? Those sorts of discussions need to happen, or we are going to demand rolls royce medical coverage. As the debate continues, and we look at other countries' medical systems, we need to weigh whether giving everyone coverage to at least non-catastrophic (ie, for example, heart transplants) care is a higher priority than ensuring that some continue to get gold-plated medical care, while others get nothing? And what is the priority between lifestyle, and prevention, and maintenance, or no care except emergency rooms, when disease has progressed so that treatment is either futile or hugely expensive. Should their be a correlation between diet, exercise and qualification for medical care? How about the disabled (especially the severely disabled)? My 54 year old profoundly mentally disabled brother is on the one hand, on a high fat/low protein diet which has finally almost completely ended his many, many seizures, and on the other hand, on Lipitor. I'm really torn on this. What is his quality of life? Where do we say "enough"? In Jimmy's case, do we doom him to life for whoeve much longer wracked by seizures, or do we do what we are doing...or stop the Lipitor, code his medical chart DNR, and wait for the heart attack?

We also need to look at all kinds of treatment, and develop a research methodology that evaluates multiple treatments for the same diseases, and determines truly what is best. This is what has been talked about as "best practices" based treatment. But again, those with a vested interest in the status quo have been saying this means "rationing" health care. But until we compare treatments, and then disseminate clear modalities of what works and what does not, we will NEVER get health care to a level where we can fund truly universal coverage. And I believe anything less is a moral issue...and besides, which one of us wants to take the chance we will be one of the left out ones? As it stands now, the standards of health care vary widely in different parts of the country, and there is no necessary corollary to outcomes. Some treatments ARE less effective, even less cost-effective than others.

The debate on medical care goes far beyond Daniel and his parents; perhaps it will be the beginning of a debate we should have had decades ago.

Pr Chris

Farnaz, Farnaz, Farnaz,

Again, with your previous honesty issues, please give references to support your claims.

I find these two articles to be somewhat fascinating as they reveal the strong bias our society has against natural death. We literally waste tens of thousands of dollars on treatments that extend lives for months to be spent in excruciating pain and strapped to machines and isolated from the world around us. It is a deep reflection of the pathetic and selfish hyper-individualism of our society.

How in the world is Chemo treatment, something that may be accessible to what less than 5 percent of the world population, a necessary treatment to insure that you are not neglecting your children? Tell that to the families who just cannot afford it. We are not able or willing to treat the world and it would just be silly to try. So to equate not extending chemotherapy with something like not feeding your children or abandoning them, is ridiculous! Its no surprise that in our society we are headed towards 50 percent of our GDP being spent on healthcare, we pretend that healthcare allows us to be immortal and we could care less that the gains that we receive are minuscule compared to the societal, economic, and relational costs.

Pr. Chris,

I agree with you for the most part. My concern here is with the Cash Chemo business, as well as with the failure of many physicians to ameliorate the devastating effects of Chemo to the extent possible.

As is the case with childhood epilepsy for which there are more than 100 drugs on the market, there may be alternatives to Cash Cow catastrophic illness approaches. My hope is that this case may bring some attention to this distinct possibilty.

Childhood epilepsy is one hundred per cent curable with the approach taken at Johns Hopkins. (See my previous post.) Yet, anti-seizure medication, significantly, less effective, often carrying side effects, continues to be the overwhelmingly prescribed treatment.

As a result, many childhood epileptics grow up to be adult epileptics.

The importance of nutrition in cancer treatment is well known by oncologists, yet they receive next to no nutrition-related education.

There is every reason to believe that excellent alternatives to chemo could be found, sparing the Daniels of this world, their parents, and hundreds of thousands, if not millions of others, a treatment that, for some, is worse than the disease.

Calsailor - you make an excellent point. A cancer diagnosis has to be approached on an individual case-by-case basis. Cancer happens to run in my family, generation by generation on my mother's side - starting with her own mother.

Over the last 50 years, I've lost a number of family members to cancer of various types. In one case, a female cousin exactly my age was diagnosed with non-Hodgkins lymphoma and was kept alive for about 8 years with periodic bouts of chemo infusion therapy - I know she investigated alternative therapies, however, this cancer is generally fatal in the end. Her brother died of bladder cancer 3 months after his diagnosis.

Both my daughter and her mother have both survived breast cancer - thus far. If breast cancer returns, it is generally metastatic - and with a very poor prognosis. My granddaughter has a potentially ominous future ahead of her. My own mother died of lung cancer 6 weeks after the diagnosis.

I halted radiation therapy (over her doctor's protests) when it was clearly making her life a living hell...and completely beside the point at that. He refused to admit that her cancer was terminal.

I've been around cancer, and I am certain that we have no idea what we might do as regards treatment, until we have to make that decision for ourselves. I must agree that a 13 year-old boy is not capable of reasonably making the decision not to pursue conventional medical treatment for what will otherwise be a death sentence.

The issues of allopathic vs homeopathic medicine are worthy of discussion, but when time is of the essence as it is with this boy, the state has little choice but to order conventional medical treatment on his behalf. They would be remiss to do otherwise.

Calsailor - you make an excellent point. A cancer diagnosis has to be approached on an individual case-by-case basis. Cancer happens to run in my family, generation by generation on my mother's side - starting with her own mother.

Over the last 50 years, I've lost a number of family members to cancer of various types. In one case, a female cousin exactly my age was diagnosed with non-Hodgkins lymphoma and was kept alive for about 8 years with periodic bouts of chemo infusion therapy - I know she investigated alternative therapies, however, this cancer is generally fatal in the end. Her brother died of bladder cancer 3 months after his diagnosis.

Both my daughter and her mother have both survived breast cancer - thus far. If breast cancer returns, it is generally metastatic - and with a very poor prognosis. My granddaughter has a potentially ominous future ahead of her. My own mother died of lung cancer 6 weeks after the diagnosis.

I halted radiation therapy (over her doctor's protests) when it was clearly making her life a living hell...and completely beside the point at that. He refused to admit that her cancer was terminal.

I've been around cancer, and I am certain that we have no idea what we might do as regards treatment, until we have to make that decision for ourselves. I must agree that a 13 year-old boy is not capable of reasonably making the decision not to pursue conventional medical treatment for what will otherwise be a death sentence.

The issues of allopathic vs homeopathic medicine are worthy of discussion, but when time is of the essence as it is with this boy, the state has little choice but to order conventional medical treatment on his behalf. They would be remiss to do otherwise.

I can understand Daniel's fear of treatments and his desire not to have to go through any more (he's been through 1 round). I've been through two bouts of chemo, for a total of 15 rounds of chemo. It is not pleasant..at times it is painful, debilitating and just plain awful. Of course he doesn't want to go through this any more.

But Daniel is 13, an age when kids still don't fully understand the finality of death; they still engage in "magical" thinking at times (If you don't think so, try gounding your 13 year old kid for a week and see what the protests are), and don't have the life experience to understand what he is giving up by his attitude. How can he measure his 13 years against perhaps 60 or 70 more years of life and all the expriences that come in a long life?

If Daniel's cancer was something like pancreatic cancer, which has an extremely low cure rate, then perhaps disavowal of treatment might be understandable. But his course of treatment is likely to produce decades of life. That is not something to dismiss lightly.

How he was prepared to undergo treatment, how his concerns and his side effects were alleviated (or not) had a major impact on his attitude. But Daniel is simply reacting to his emtional needs of the moment, and his lack of understanding of the risks and benefits, as shown by his statements to date, indicate that he is not able to make a competent decision. Since his mother is (perhaps) responding to the suffering he experienced, has not been looking out for his own interests. The whole family needs a strong advocate, but ultimately, Daniel's needs to overcome this disease, which will be fatal if not treated, have to take precedence. If you see a youngster playing with a loaded gun, or playing near an energized power line, do you not step in? Because it is a disease, and not an immediate safety issue, such as the power line, does not matter. Since the family will not intervene, the state must. Otherwise, Daniel will die. And he is not competent to evaluate it (after all, isn't that the argument against the "death with dignity laws" that allow terminal adults to administer lethal meds...that people who are chronically ill, or severely depressed are not capable not make such a decision?) Daniel is less capable than an adult of several decades of life to make such a decision. Minnesota is acting to protect a minor child in danger of death. What higher obligation could it have?

Pr Chris

Corrections, in caps, to previous post:

When his primary care physician, who had seen the boy suffer for years with seizures and medical side effects, was asked if he knew about JOHNS HOPKINS, he admitted he did. What stopped him from referring the family?

"Well," he said, "somebody's going to HAVE TO sell it to the drug companies."

This is not to defend Mrs. Hauser. However, again, more needs to know more about the effects of chemo on the child, how the medical staff behaved toward him, etc.

Of course, alternative therapies work. We'd know more about how well, how to make them more effective, if we weren't handcuffed by Big Bucks Chemo.

Money, along with the conservatism it brings, has long been a villian in medicine--Not News! One area worth considering now, in light of the Hauser case, concerns childhood epilepsy.

Since the 1940s, Johns Hopkins has run a dietary program with nearly a 100% success rate for children so diagnosed. A couple of years ago, I saw a mini-documentary that followed a desperate family seeking help for their under-ten boy. At the point, where he had exhausted almost all medical options, his father discovered the Johns Hopkins clinic, to chich he brought his son, now free of epilepsy.

When his primary care physician, who had seen the boy suffer for years with seizures and medical side effects, was asked if he knew about the problem, he admitted he did. What stopped him from referring the family?

"Well," he said, "somebody's going to sell it to the drug companies."

Those were his exact words. I wrote them down. The other doctors who had treated the boy were not so forthcoming.

Charlier1955's link to the Boston Herald is worth a click.

I wish young Daniel a long and healthy life. I hope that this case brings the Chemo Cash Cow the attention it has so long merited.

Chemo isn't always the best possible treatment for cancer.

One of my grandmothers was diagnosed with ovarian cancer, and after taking one chemo treatment, decided that she would rather die of cancer than take more chemo.

My other grandmother died of breast cancer after a year of chemo - in fact, she died in the middle of a treatment.

A good friend of ours was diagnosed with prostate cancer, and decided that he wanted no part of any of the conventional treatments. He set about treating himself with diet changes, and in a year, was cancer-free.

Why are alternative treatments ok for Farrah Fawcett but not for Daniel?

Why is ok to force any medical treatment on anybody?

Why wasn't this matter decided by a trial by Jury fully informed of its duty to judge the law and the fact? See FIJA.org

Would a jury of 12 moms after hearing the full story from both sides convict Daniel's Mom and issue the arrest warrant?

Would a jury of 12 cancer victims who benefited from alternative treatments convict her? see http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1173736

Who's love for Daniel is greater: The judge? The doctor that turned Daniel in to Childrens Services? The sheriff? or Daniels Mom?

Are Daniel and his Mom escaped slaves or free Americans? Is government our master?

If you do not protect Daniel and his Mom now, what will you do when they force you to take medical treatment you know is not good for you, or something worse?

Please google "alternative cancer treatments". Spend a few hours reading, and draw you own conclusions.

As for me I am writing a letter of support to the Hauser family, I will send as much money as I can to help with medical and legal expenses.

Address is here:
http://www.whitepages.com/search/FindPerson?extra_listing=mixed&form_mode=opt_b&post_back=1&firstname_begins_with=1&firstname=Anthony+&name=+Hauser&street=&city_zip=sleepy+eye&state_id=MN&localtime=survey

I wish I lived in Minnesota. I would work to recall the judge.

The ideal of treatment is to save the life of the child, but not at the cost of his health in the meantime. I have witnessed the effects of chemotherapy firsthand, having worked in a hospital and other facilities. While the principle of doing no harm has always been a part of the oath that doctors take upon appointment, they have become purveyors of the worst forms of poison and pain imaginable. Without the amelioration of complementary medicine, many more people will die and be forgotten in the race to enhance the prestige of the 'Western' medical profession.
Chemotherapy is among the worst offenders of the western medical 'songbook.' It slowly saps the life from those who receive
it and they cannot get the only thing that will help them overcome the effects of this horrible poison, marijuana.
I stand firmly with the child and his mother in this issue. The child has the right to determine his own future and the parental rights unless severed cannot be overcome for one reason only. The Minnesota
legislature in making one provision for the
treatment of children has opened a 'Pandora's box,' of legal questions and illegalities.

See below a professional article examining the issue of a minor child's legal right of refusal to participate in prescribed conventional medical treatments/protocols. This continues to be a gray area legally speaking.

See in particular the section above the Conclusion, regarding privacy issues and parental rights - they are superceded by the interests of the state and the child, especially where religious beliefs/prohibitions run counter to prescribed standards of medical care.

I agree that great sensitivity and honesty are called for, especially when introducing a potentially painful and lengthy treatment protocol with a minor child.

These days, very few of us are without the direct experience of knowing someone close that has undergone cancer treatments, and that may include surgery, chemo, bone marrow transplants, and radiation.

We see celebrities going half way around the world for exotic, expensive (and inevitably unsuccessful) last ditch cancer cures when all else fails.

On the other hand, this cancer is very curable.....

What would you do if this was your child?

http://www.nursingcenter.com/prodev/cearticleprint.asp?CE_ID=739795

With respect to the medical profession and those who have strong feelings about the issue, isn't it the mother's right to decide what kind of medical care she wants for her son? This IS the land of the free. I haven't visited any other country which offers so much power to any profession as this one does to Medicine. Chemotherapy is a painful,destructive treatment and people fear it for good reason. Yes,it sometimes heals. I have also witnessed negative results. Forcing this family into something they are not required to do by law is a slippery slope legally.

First, a cult established in 1990, trying to revive ancient beliefs, is amateurish and has definitely not gathered enough wisdom to even try to "heal" anything.

But most important is that Daniel has the right to treatment, and he is obviously not equipped to make an informed decision by himself. He doesn't realize he will most likely die without it. And even if he were informed and wanted to decline treatment on religious grounds, a 13 year-old is not mature enough to grasp the consequences - and often has periods of strong religious devotion that do not last.

I think the poster talking of neglect to give patients adequate pain relief has a point. Give him what it takes - including marijuana, which seems to be helpful in those circumstances. (No, I am not using any drugs myself and not in favour of free access to drugs.)

From Google:

"Nemenhah Band

Founded in the 1990s by Philip "Cloudpiler" Landis, the Nemenhah Band is a religious group that bases their teachings and practices on those of the ancient Native Americans. Tenets of the Nemenhah Band include a belief in spiritual adoption, as well as a belief in forgoing traditional medical treatments in favor of natural healing."

Add Philip "Cloudpiler" Landis to the list of crazy cult leaders like Jim Jones, Joe Smith, David Koresh and the Great "Babs" (strange founder of the Baha'ist cult).

From what I understand, the child complained bitterly about the harshness of his one treatment.

The father has asked that treatment less devastating be provided.

I hate to say this, but I have seen phycians completely indifferent to the suffering that cancer treatments cause, unknowledgeable about how to ameliorate it, and there are ways.

From what I can gather, and much of this is blurred by spin, the mother reacted to the child's pain. Although that doesn't justify her conduct, I would like to know more about the child's therapy, his response to it, and how the latter was managed by his physicians.

What!!! Take away the "mother's" right to choose?????

While conventional medicine doesn't have all the answers, it does have great success on many fronts - the treatment for Hodgkins Lymphona is well established and with a high success rate among children.

The reluctance of some representatives of obsessively religious sects to participate in traditional medical treatment is based on a suspicion of medicine that is severely lacking in reasonable and well-studied considerations - instead, decisions are based on pure emotion, conditioned by skewed religious conditioning....powerful beyond all reasoning.

I have seen several children cured of Hodgkins Lymphoma via bone marrow transplants and following chemotherapy.

It's truly unfortunate that an intelligent child is complicit in their inevitable death without treatment - subborned by a mother that has total emotional control over her son, in this case.

Catholicism is not known for supporting such a bizarre mentality - although famous for supporting other unreasonable positions.

The mother is clearly under the sway of a novel cultish thinking - one should ask what an expert in the original holistic medical tradition known as Ayurveda might do in such acase...or Christian Science, for that matter. The truth of the matter - Mary Baker Eddy founded Christian Science on Vedanta and Ayurveda.....with a Christian twist.

The cure is very simple, but the will to participate is undermined by religion without insight......happens all the time.

While conventional medicine doesn't have all the answers, it does have great success on many fronts - the treatment for Hodgkins Lymphona is well established and with a high success rate among children.

The reluctance of some representatives of obsessively religious sects to participate in traditional medical treatment is based on a suspicion of medicine that is severely lacking in reasonable and well-studied considerations - instead, decisions are based on pure emotion, conditioned by skewed religious conditioning....powerful beyond all reasoning.

I have seen several children cured of Hodgkins Lymphoma via bone marrow transplants and following chemotherapy.

It's truly unfortunate that an intelligent child is complicit in their inevitable death without treatment - subborned by a mother that has total emotional control over her son, in this case.

Catholicism is not known for supporting such a bizarre mentality - although famous for supporting other unreasonable positions.

The mother is clearly under the sway of a novel cultish thinking - one should ask what an expert in the original holistic medical tradition known as Ayurveda might do in such acase...or Christian Science, for that matter. The truth of the matter - Mary Baker Eddy founded Christian Science on Vedanta and Ayurveda.....with a Christian twist.

The cure is very simple, but the will to participate is undermined by religion without insight......happens all the time.