Judge says forcing aboriginal girl to stay in chemo is to ‘impose our world view on First Nation culture’

504 posts / 0 new
Last post
rhubarb

Timebandit wrote:

In post #338, you make the implication here (italics mine):

Quote:
  The mother states she was told by the doctors, the same doctors you rely on for your quotes and expertise,  that her daughter would be dead right now if she halted chemotherapy, she halted chemotherapy, employed diet and other modalities, and not only is her daughter alive but apparently cancer free.

I'm not sure how else I'm supposed to understand the above other than a promotion of the vegan diet and a denial of the value of chemotherapy. 

I stand by my opinion that such implications are not only ill-considered but irresponsible.

I said she employed diet and other modalities, I said nothing about a vegan diet.  Do you understand that you lied about what I said and then accused me of being irresponsible for saying something that you made up. 

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

No, it was very clear earlier on in the thread that the "diet and modalities" were a vegan diet and dietary supplements.  It's not unreasonable for me to assume that you meant the vegan diet she was on.

Perhaps you should be the one doing some reading?

Bacchus

*puts a little more butter  on his popcorn as he watches*

rhubarb

Timebandit wrote:

No, it was very clear earlier on in the thread that the "diet and modalities" were a vegan diet and dietary supplements.  It's not unreasonable for me to assume that you meant the vegan diet she was on.

Perhaps you should be the one doing some reading?

Yes, it is unreasonable because it is not what I said, I have no idea what other modalities the family are employing and neither do you and nowhere have I suggested that a vegan diet is a solution, narrowing my words from diet to vegan diet is an example of you putting words in my mouth and then dismissing me for those words.  What it says to me is that your bias is such that you are at ease bolstering your view by lying. 

I think we can accept the fact that the medical doctors used the legal system in their efforts to enforce chemotherapy and when that didn't work  they used bullying and threats of imminent death to terrify the family, I think we can accept the fact that the girl is alive and at this time cancer free without chemotherapy.

You know what they say about making assumptions....

 

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Quote:

Both girls sought treatment at an American alternative health centre that is registered as a massage establishment and run by a nutrition counsellor. It promotes a positive attitude, eating a raw-plant-based organic diet and ridding your life of contaminants to heal cancer.

Sault went to the Hippocrates Health Institute in West Palm Beach, Florida, which believes in curing cancer with a positive attitude as well as eating a raw plant-based organic diet and clearing your life of contaminants. The other girl refusing chemotherapy — the subject of Friday’s ruling — sought similar treatment.

The institute’s co-director, Brian Clement, has come to Ontario — including the Six Nations reserve — at least twice in the past six months. A talk he gave in October was on the nutritional benefits of eating raw food, and the one in May was titled “All About Cancer and Conquering Disease with Living Foods.”

“Eat a raw plant-based organic diet,” Clement tells cancer patients in a promotional video for the institute. “This is how we’ve seen thousands and thousands of people reverse stage-four ‘catastrophic’ cancer.”

He also tells patients: “Change your lifestyle first with your attitude. Be positive.” In addition, patients are advised to make sure they don’t do things that “contaminate you and pollute you.”

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/11/14/ontario_girl_can_rely_on_trad...

http://rabble.ca/comment/1468200#comment-1468200

This was upthread, #80.  Perhaps you should re-read.  If, indeed, you read it in the first place.

There was also mention of cold laser therapy and foot baths.  These are the "modalities" they're using, FYI.  I highly doubt they brought about the current remission.

And yes, the assumption that you've taken the time to read the thread so that you know what you're talking about is probably misguided.  I will henceforth not assume that you know what you're on about at any point in the future.  You have my word on that.

rhubarb

Timebandit wrote:

....

And yes, the assumption that you've taken the time to read the thread so that you know what you're talking about is probably misguided.  I will henceforth not assume that you know what you're on about at any point in the future.  You have my word on that.

As you seem incapable of distinguishing between my words, what other people have posted and your assumptions I can only say I am not surprised.  What a predictable strategy!  I have been dismissed by Timebandit.  lol 

The topic of this thread is: Judge says forcing aboriginal girl to stay in chemo is to "impose our world view on First Nations Culture" and here we are in the aboriginal issues and culture forum and you have no respect for that.  You don't seem to get it, it doesn't matter if you are right, it doesn't matter if I am wrong, when you have respect you allow others to find their own way.  Your point of view, which you are happy to spend hours posting over and over and over again is that you and the doctors who attempted to disempower the family are right and your rightness entitles you to force people into situations they don't want to be. 

This is our history, this is colonialism, this is racism, once it was residential schools, now it is chemotherapy.   This insistence on being right is the rot at the root of our misery and until people such as yourself can accept that it is not for you to say, moving ahead is challenging. 

Fortunately, the First Nations are moving ahead and there are some, such as the judge who made this ruling, who respect that it is not our right to impose our views.  Sadly, many individuals like yourself who undoubtedly do not view themselves as racist are blind to the violence they do and the racism they perpetuate.

 

rhubarb

Bacchus wrote:

*puts a little more butter  on his popcorn as he watches*

May I have some of that popcorn please?

TeeHee

Sineed

rhubarb wrote:
I think we can accept the fact that the girl is alive and at this time cancer free without chemotherapy.

Um. No. She is cancer-free because of chemotherapy. The first phase of her treatment is called, "remission induction," and it worked as its name suggests. It takes two years of treatment in total to maintain the remission and achieve what we might cautiously call a cure. She only received two weeks.

Quote:
The typical course of treatment for lymphoblastic leukemia involves four weeks of intensive chemotherapy which puts “99.9 per cent” of people into remission, pediatric hematologist and oncologist Dr. David Dix said. That is normally followed by about six months of heavy chemotherapy, then about two years of maintenance chemotherapy.

“It is quite possible that she went into remission after the first two weeks of chemotherapy,” he said.

<snip>

“Achieving remission, even with a short duration of chemotherapy, is expected,” said Dr. Kirk Schultz, professor of pediatrics at the University of British Columbia. “The whole focus of chemotherapy in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia is to get a curative outcome, that they cure the disease and it never comes back.”

<snip>

“Any pediatric oncologist would tell you that the likelihood of her disease recurring or relapsing is 100 per cent, that she’s at very high risk of recurrence for her disease,” said Dix. “When she does relapse it becomes more difficult then to get her back into remission. It’s very much better to get her back into chemotherapy as soon as possible.”

Sineed

rhubarb

Sineed wrote:

rhubarb wrote:
I think we can accept the fact that the girl is alive and at this time cancer free without chemotherapy.

Um. No. She is cancer-free because of chemotherapy. The first phase of her treatment is called, "remission induction," and it worked as its name suggests. It takes two years of treatment in total to maintain the remission and achieve what we might cautiously call a cure. She only received two weeks.......

As I said, it doesn't matter if I am wrong, it doesn't matter if you are right, the fact that you continue to post your evidence that you are right is at the heart of what is offensive here in the aboriginal culture and issues forum.

But since you insist, please tell me why the mother was told that her daughter would be dead by now if she didn't continue the chemotherapy? And is it standard practice to send biopsies to the United States for further analysis?  I think not, I think it is a strategy to frame the conversation with the parents, one that allows them to continue to terrorize them for refusing chemotherapy.

Thanks for the popcorn.  Smile

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Quote:

This is our history, this is colonialism, this is racism, once it was residential schools, now it is chemotherapy.   This insistence on being right is the rot at the root of our misery and until people such as yourself can accept that it is not for you to say, moving ahead is challenging. 

Fortunately, the First Nations are moving ahead and there are some, such as the judge who made this ruling, who respect that it is not our right to impose our views.  Sadly, many individuals like yourself who undoubtedly do not view themselves as racist are blind to the violence they do and the racism they perpetuate.

I just want to see the kid live.

The big difference between residential schools and chemotherapy is this:  Residential schools were meant to eradicate the First Nations.  Chemotherapy is meant to keep sick kids alive to grow up.  It doesn't have to eradicate their culture or infringe on their personhood. 

But hey, better dead than a victim of colonial medicine, amirite?  Moving forward is paramount, even if a few kids have to die to make the point. 

When ideology becomes more important than the life of your child, you need to give your head a shake.  Not that I think that's what's going on in this case, exactly.  I think the parents were afraid and taken advantage of, just like parents of a variety of racial backgrounds are when they have a desperately ill child.  But I do think that grand anti-colonial statements on the backs of this family takes further advantage of them.

Sineed

Breaking: Makayla Sault has died

http://www.cbc.ca/news/aboriginal/makayla-sault-girl-who-refused-chemo-f...

Quote:

Makayla Sault, the 11-year-old girl who refused chemotherapy to pursue traditional indigenous medicine and other alternative treatments, has died.

She died Monday after suffering a stroke Sunday.

The girl’s case made national headlines and ignited a debate about the validity of indigenous medicine and the rights of children to choose their own treatment.

Makayla was given a 75 per cent chance of survival when she was diagnosed with acute lymphoblastic leukemia in March. She underwent 11 weeks of chemotherapy at McMaster Children’s hospital in Hamilton.

Sineed

rhubarb

We can weep for Makayla Sault who died of a stroke, she received 12 weeks of chemotherapy, which according to her family was the cause of irreversible damage to her heart and major organs resulting in the stroke that killed her today.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

<\3

 

Ghislaine

This is just so sad. There needs to be an inquiry into why Child Services and the legal system let this girl down! 

 

rhubarb

Timebandit wrote:

Quote:

.....

I just want to see the kid live.

The big difference between residential schools and chemotherapy is this:  Residential schools were meant to eradicate the First Nations.  Chemotherapy is meant to keep sick kids alive to grow up.  It doesn't have to eradicate their culture or infringe on their personhood. 

But hey, better dead than a victim of colonial medicine, amirite?  Moving forward is paramount, even if a few kids have to die to make the point. 

When ideology becomes more important than the life of your child, you need to give your head a shake.  Not that I think that's what's going on in this case, exactly.  I think the parents were afraid and taken advantage of, just like parents of a variety of racial backgrounds are when they have a desperately ill child.  But I do think that grand anti-colonial statements on the backs of this family takes further advantage of them.

Do you think being a First Nations person is some kind of ideology?

 

 

rhubarb

Ghislaine wrote:

This is just so sad. There needs to be an inquiry into why Child Services and the legal system let this girl down! 

 

 

How did they let her down?

 

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

rhubarb wrote:

Do you think being a First Nations person is some kind of ideology?

Of course not.  However, FN people have their idealogues, just as we have ours.  Anybody claiming this strikes a blow for the validation of FN people's culture is using a sick child for political points and that's kind of sick, don't you think?

pookie

What a tragic ending.

Is stroke a known risk of this kind of chemo?  I'm asking honestly.

rhubarb

Timebandit wrote:

rhubarb wrote:

Do you think being a First Nations person is some kind of ideology?

Of course not.  However, FN people have their idealogues, just as we have ours.  Anybody claiming this strikes a blow for the validation of FN people's culture is using a sick child for political points and that's kind of sick, don't you think?

You said, "When ideology becomes more important than the life of your child, you need to give your head a shake".

This statement directly attacks the family by inferring that they put ideology before the health of their child.  That is insulting and abusive and entirely consistent with a racist and colonialist view.

This family trusted the medical system and as a consequence Makayla received chemotherapy, chemotherapy they say that damaged her heart and organs and resulted in the stroke that killed her.  I cannot help but think that the parents of the other child are grateful that their daughter received only two weeks of chemotherapy.

So much for your insistence that chemotherapy would save her.  Are you incapable, even now, of admitting that perhaps you were wrong, perhaps the doctors were wrong?

 

 

 

rhubarb

pookie wrote:

What a tragic ending.

Is stroke a known risk of this kind of chemo?  I'm asking honestly.

According to the article in the Two Row Times, the chemotherapy damaged her heart and left her with a heartrate twice that of a normal child.

I suggest reading the articles there.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

rhubarb wrote:

Timebandit wrote:

rhubarb wrote:

Do you think being a First Nations person is some kind of ideology?

Of course not.  However, FN people have their idealogues, just as we have ours.  Anybody claiming this strikes a blow for the validation of FN people's culture is using a sick child for political points and that's kind of sick, don't you think?

You said, "When ideology becomes more important than the life of your child, you need to give your head a shake".

This statement directly attacks the family by inferring that they put ideology before the health of their child.  That is insulting and abusive and entirely consistent with a racist and colonialist view.

Actually, the entirety of what I said was this:

"When ideology becomes more important than the life of your child, you need to give your head a shake.  Not that I think that's what's going on in this case, exactly.  I think the parents were afraid and taken advantage of, just like parents of a variety of racial backgrounds are when they have a desperately ill child.  But I do think that grand anti-colonial statements on the backs of this family takes further advantage of them."

So no, the inference only works if you take out the context.  Nice try, though.

Quote:
This family trusted the medical system and as a consequence Makayla received chemotherapy, chemotherapy they say that damaged her heart and organs and resulted in the stroke that killed her.  I cannot help but think that the parents of the other child are grateful that their daughter received only two weeks of chemotherapy.

So much for your insistence that chemotherapy would save her.  Are you incapable, even now, of admitting that perhaps you were wrong, perhaps the doctors were wrong?

We don't know for sure if that's the case.  Her parents may believe that, but they are dealing with something I wouldn't want to be wrestling with.  My heart breaks for them, but I don't necessarily accept their version as entirely conclusive.

Sineed

pookie wrote:

Is stroke a known risk of this kind of chemo?  I'm asking honestly.

She stopped chemo months ago, so no; the chemo wasn't likely to have caused her stroke. I emailed Dr. Gorski earlier, when I last posted, and he replied that strokes are not an infrequent way for people with leukemia to die of the disease.

Sineed

Published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal the same day as Makayla's death:

Caring for aboriginal patients requires trust and respect, not courtrooms

http://www.cmaj.ca/content/early/2015/01/19/cmaj.141613

Quote:
Media coverage has fueled a narrative of polarized paradigms that is unhelpful and misleading, implying false choices. Medical science poses no inherent conflict with Aboriginal ways of thinking. Medical science is not specific to a single culture, but is shared by Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people alike. Most Aboriginal people seek care from health professionals — but nearly half also use traditional medicines. Aboriginal healing traditions are deeply valued ancestral practices that emphasize plant-based medicines, culture and ceremony, multiple dimensions of health (physical, mental, emotional and spiritual), and relationships between healer, patient, community and environment. These beliefs create expectations that Aboriginal patients bring to their health care encounters; these must be respected. Doing so is not political correctness — it is patient-centred care.

To make medical treatment acceptable to our Aboriginal patients, the health care system must earn their trust by delivering respect. We must ensure that our Aboriginal patients, their families and communities feel welcome, are comfortable self-identifying as Aboriginal and do not fear judgment based on stereotypes. They must feel safe sharing their wishes to perform ceremonies or pursue traditional healing practices in conjunction with treatment, and these wishes should be accommodated as readily as we would spiritual counselling from a chaplain. All health professionals must know about the ongoing health inequities affecting Aboriginal people and strive to address their collective repercussions. Evaluating quality of care must include the experiences and relationships of our Aboriginal patients with the health care system in addition to disease outcomes.

Bacchus

Sineed wrote:

pookie wrote:

Is stroke a known risk of this kind of chemo?  I'm asking honestly.

She stopped chemo months ago, so no; the chemo wasn't likely to have caused her stroke. I emailed Dr. Gorski earlier, when I last posted, and he replied that strokes are not an infrequent way for people with leukemia to die of the disease.

 

So the family just doesnt want to believe their efforts killed her and the idealogues are just using them?

jas

Sineed wrote:
She stopped chemo months ago, so no; the chemo wasn't likely to have caused her stroke.

A brief perusal of some of the literature online suggests stroke and heart disease are a known risk during, after, and long after chemotherapy, including for leukemia, so I'm not sure how you could state this with any confidence.

Aristotleded24

It's very unfortunate that Makayla has died, and condolences to the family. I would think that this is a horrible thing to go through and that the argument between "chemo works/no it doesn't" is not only a moot point, but I actually think it's in pretty bad taste under the circumstances.

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

Aristotleded24 wrote:

It's very unfortunate that Makayla has died, and condolences to the family. I would think that this is a horrible thing to go through and that the argument between "chemo works/no it doesn't" is not only a moot point, but I actually think it's in pretty bad taste under the circumstances.

Word

Sineed

jas wrote:

Sineed wrote:
She stopped chemo months ago, so no; the chemo wasn't likely to have caused her stroke.

A brief perusal of some of the literature online suggests stroke and heart disease are a known risk during, after, and long after chemotherapy, including for leukemia, so I'm not sure how you could state this with any confidence.

It's a matter of what is most probable. Chemotherapy has many long-term risks, but it is less likely to have caused the stroke compared with leukemia itself. And I consulted with an oncologist before making this statement.

As for this discussion being in "bad taste," I certainly would think so if talking to family members, who deserve nothing but sympathy and support. But their message, that chemotherapy ultimately killed their child, must be vigorously opposed, for the sake of those children who are still alive.

rhubarb

Sineed wrote:

jas wrote:

Sineed wrote:
She stopped chemo months ago, so no; the chemo wasn't likely to have caused her stroke.

A brief perusal of some of the literature online suggests stroke and heart disease are a known risk during, after, and long after chemotherapy, including for leukemia, so I'm not sure how you could state this with any confidence.

It's a matter of what is most probable. Chemotherapy has many long-term risks, but it is less likely to have caused the stroke compared with leukemia itself. And I consulted with an oncologist before making this statement.

As for this discussion being in "bad taste," I certainly would think so if talking to family members, who deserve nothing but sympathy and support. But their message, that chemotherapy ultimately killed their child, must be vigorously opposed, for the sake of those children who are still alive.

I find it fascinating that you have an oncologist in your back pocket.

Oppose away, the First Nations are not here, they do not care what is said here and nothing you say, which is just more of the same, will have any impact on their lives, so tout the virtues of chemotherapy all you want, deny Makayla's experience that the chemotherapy was killing her.

You and your ilk are irrelevent to these families.  Thankfully.

 

 

pookie

Sineed wrote:

pookie wrote:

Is stroke a known risk of this kind of chemo?  I'm asking honestly.

She stopped chemo months ago, so no; the chemo wasn't likely to have caused her stroke. I emailed Dr. Gorski earlier, when I last posted, and he replied that strokes are not an infrequent way for people with leukemia to die of the disease.

Thank you.

pookie

Aristotleded24 wrote:

It's very unfortunate that Makayla has died, and condolences to the family. I would think that this is a horrible thing to go through and that the argument between "chemo works/no it doesn't" is not only a moot point, but I actually think it's in pretty bad taste under the circumstances.

We could take the discussion out of the Aboriginal issues forum, then.  I must disagree that the medical issues ought no longer to be discussed.  This case will no doubt be used to fuel all kinds of narratives about medicine and the medical establishment.  

pookie

rhubarb wrote:

Sineed wrote:

jas wrote:

Sineed wrote:
She stopped chemo months ago, so no; the chemo wasn't likely to have caused her stroke.

A brief perusal of some of the literature online suggests stroke and heart disease are a known risk during, after, and long after chemotherapy, including for leukemia, so I'm not sure how you could state this with any confidence.

It's a matter of what is most probable. Chemotherapy has many long-term risks, but it is less likely to have caused the stroke compared with leukemia itself. And I consulted with an oncologist before making this statement.

As for this discussion being in "bad taste," I certainly would think so if talking to family members, who deserve nothing but sympathy and support. But their message, that chemotherapy ultimately killed their child, must be vigorously opposed, for the sake of those children who are still alive.

I find it fascinating that you have an oncologist in your back pocket.

Oppose away, the First Nations are not here, they do not care what is said here and nothing you say, which is just more of the same, will have any impact on their lives, so tout the virtues of chemotherapy all you want, deny Makayla's experience that the chemotherapy was killing her.

You and your ilk are irrelevent to these families.  Thankfully.

 

 

???

What purpose is served by this kind of hostility to Sineed, someone who has always posted with both sensitivity as well  knowledge and experience that many of us simpy lack?

 

Slumberjack

My mom went through a year of chemo, and for the following year once the treatments had ceased, she underwent regular heart and stroke related tests of an exploratory and preventative nature.  Apparently certain types of chemo drugs do increase the risks of heart attacks and strokes.

To me this debate has served to reinforce the suspicion that when it comes down to it, certain socially progressive points of view are not so far removed from totalitarian impluses after all, no matter what they might think they're trying to accomplish.  Health care, as benign an instrument of political power as some are led to believe, or would have others believe, is an arm of government and thus of the dominant society.  It doesn't matter which bureau of government one contemplates imposing upon others, as benevolent an intervention as it may seem.  The fact of the matter is that it needn't be limited to health care.  Similar justifications on behalf of the other departments of government become available in a variety of circumstances.  It's always for someone's own good or for the protection of the general public.  In this case the argument being stated is that the magnificence of our sciences trumps the rights of individual appeals to not be subjected to it.  It's from that type of seed that all kinds of nefarious schemes are derived, such as R2P, humanitarian interventions, the plight of women and children as the fig leaf for imperialism, etc.  Just because the case involves a situation in Canada and we're talking about the 'responsibility' of the health care system vs. the decision making of individuals and parents in particular, it doesn't mean broader implications have not been present all along in this debate.

rhubarb

pookie wrote:

....

???

What purpose is served by this kind of hostility to Sineed, someone who has always posted with both sensitivity as well  knowledge and experience that many of us simpy lack?

 

The framing of this discussion by claiming an oncologist's expertise is offensive to me, the denial that chemotherapy may have contributed to her death is offensive to me and the relentless promotion of chemotherapy as the only choice is offensive to me.

Where is Sineed's respect for the right of the First Nations right to choose their own way?

 Edited to add:

Perhaps a new thread could be started as there very is little discussion pertinent to the stated thread title nor respect for the forum it is in.

 

 

Mr.Tea

Sineed wrote:

Breaking: Makayla Sault has died

http://www.cbc.ca/news/aboriginal/makayla-sault-girl-who-refused-chemo-f...

Quote:

Heartbreaking.

6079_Smith_W

@ SJ.

I agree with you about that reading of motive . THing is, it can also  be directed at those whose mistrust means they automatically assume that a person was killed by chemo.

The fact is, that information hasn't been released. More imporantly, the legalities around this, racism, mistrust, the question of swindlers, and the actual medical science are all separate things.

None of these things (other than possibly the last) actually tell us what the cause of death was.

And from the looks of this, none of this is actually going to change anyone's mind. All it is likely to do is promote even louder shouting, except now we have a coffin to pound.

Do need another thread? Why, so everyone can continue to think there are right and everyone else is wrong and we can keep shouting in stereo?

 

 

Slumberjack

6079_Smith_W wrote:
I agree with you about that reading of motive . THing is, it can also  be directed at those whose mistrust means they automatically assume that a person was killed by chemo.

I believe that this and the religious/cultural aspect are not very pertinent to the issue of individual sovereignty.  Once the government states emphatically that in the area of health care, individual choice and parental consent are to be removed and taken on by government, then this would have broad implications, including circumcisions and assisted suicide - except in that case the government can favourably weigh in perhaps if the cost of continuing to sustain a terminal individual becomes a factor.  It's not just FN communities and individuals who are at risk of having certain decisions made for them.  And what if this were the order of things, that the court clears the way for health departments to impose treatments?  Obviously in the event of non-compliance with an order, other departments would have to be brought in to force the situation, such as community services, the police, the courts, etc.  One hand washing the other does not rinse away what kind of society this would be.

6079_Smith_W

But the government didn't do that, SJ. They did exactly the opposite, at the CFS level, and in the courts. And in the first case they based it on Ontario's laws around underage consent.

It's a compelling narrative, I agree. But this case is not an example of it.

 

 

Slumberjack

6079_Smith_W wrote:
But the government didn't do that, SJ. They did exactly the opposite, at the CFS level, and in the courts. And in the first case they based it on Ontario's laws around underage consent. It's a compelling narrative, I agree. But this case is not an example of it. 

No they didn't.  Apparently the wider ramifications of doing so based on the circumstances of one case couldn't have been more obvious.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

rhubarb wrote:

 

I find it fascinating that you have an oncologist in your back pocket.

I think your superpower must be hyperbole.

Dr David Gorski is a well-known blogger.  Anybody can email him via the two blogs he posts on.  You can also find him on twitter.  I don't think that constitutes Sineed having him in her back pocket.

6079_Smith_W

I'm afraid you will have to spell out the connection for me, because as I understand it CFS decided there were not grounds to step in, and when the hospital tried to overrule that in the courts they lost.

(edit)

Though if you think states should never have the power to step in in cases of abuse, or inability to give informed consent, I disagree. Both CFS and the court had that power. That is a good thing, IMO.

 

jas

rhubarb wrote:

The framing of this discussion by claiming an oncologist's expertise is offensive to me, the denial that chemotherapy may have contributed to her death is offensive to me and the relentless promotion of chemotherapy as the only choice is offensive to me.

And notice which oncologist she chose to consult: a professional "skeptic" who has made a secondary career out of attacking alternative modes of health care. That's whose opinion she wanted.

Not to mention that pseudoskeptics are often happy to find any scrap of doubt they can throw into an issue. But when you throw it back into their laps, they don't seem to recognize it. Only when it suits their argument.

jas

pookie wrote:

Thank you.

Got the answer you wanted, did ya?

Misfit Misfit's picture

Here's my question. If 100% of people with leukemia are given chemotherapy, and there is a high incidence of heart attack and stroke both with chemotherapy and leukemia patients, how does one attribute the stroke to leukemia if 100% are given chemo? And how can a lawyer be satisfied so easily with such a glib response and no known empirical evidence to isolate leukemia on its own?

rhubarb

Timebandit wrote:

rhubarb wrote:

 

I find it fascinating that you have an oncologist in your back pocket.

I think your superpower must be hyperbole.

Dr David Gorski is a well-known blogger.  Anybody can email him via the two blogs he posts on.  You can also find him on twitter.  I don't think that constitutes Sineed having him in her back pocket.

"You think my superpower must be hyperbole."

Did I let my cape slip?  lol  

I did not address you, I addressed Sineed, is she not capable of responding for herself?  

What would make you happy?  Would you like me to go away?  Do you think sniping at me will succeed in pushing me off babble? Do you understand that your behavior reveals you as a person incapable of allowing another person to have a different point of view? 

I can only say that I am grateful to live in a world I experience as multi-dimensional, where I understand and appreciate that sometimes the treatment for cancer is most appropriately chemotherapy and radiation but that in other circumstances not appropriate at all.  You and Sineed have made this thread about chemotherapy as the only treatment, ignoring that the issue isn't whether it is or isn't but that the First Nations people will decide for themselves. Perhaps that is the real focus, perhaps it is all about framing the argument to supercede the rights of the First Nations and using a child who is ill is an easy way to stir up people's emotions and justify ignoring those rights.

As for Dr.Gorski, he freely acknowledges that chemotherapy can kill, how is that you can't?

pookie

jas wrote:

pookie wrote:

Thank you.

Got the answer you wanted, did ya?

Yes, from someone whose opinion I have come over many years to know as reasonable, and well-informed.

Unlike, um, other persons.

jas

pookie wrote:

Yes, from someone whose opinion I have come over many years to know as reasonable, and well-informed.

You said you were asking honestly, and I mentioned that much of the literature online recognizes heart disease and stroke as known risks for chemotherapy, but that didn't interest you? Okay.

swallow swallow's picture

I've been avoiding the thread as it heads downhill, but so sad about Mikayla Sault's death. I don't think I'll join in parsing her death right now. 

The exact forum is probably an issue. I really appreciate the posts from Timebandit and Sineed even when disagreeing with some of the perspective brought. (On that, by the way: I'd say residential schools were meant to eradicate, but they were also an expression of the "compassion" of the dominant society of the day for "dying" cultures, which the dominant society knew bbetter than. They were established to save the children and bring them into mainstream, healthier, better-educated society, for the sake it was claimed of those chidlren themselves. In other words they were justified in language similar to the language used by positivist boosters of science up to today. This is not making an equivalancy, it is trying to see and make visible the common threads of knowing and control that are present in the lnaguage of both residential schools then, and medical science today. And again, I don't by that mean medical science is wrong or aims at extermination, jsut that the assumptions and langauges used sound similar to me at times.) But if the discussion is supposed to be grounded in pro-First Nations perspectives, then we are definitely haviong the conversation in the wrong place. 

Pages

Topic locked