Happy Atheist Forum

I just saw something on the Today show that broke my heart. An American 16-year old boy (with apparently the same type of cancer as my son), has opted to stop his chemo and go to Mexico to a special clinic for all-natural herbal treatment of his lymphoma.

This is tough, because while I am for the right of the individual to choose his own destiny, including medical treatment, I'm against the obvious fallacy of these sham treatments and those who practice them. The US Government, naturally, has gotten involved and is trying to force the boy to undergo chemo (he already had three cycles and it made him sick and weak, thus his decision to do herbs). His parents support his decision because they all visited "the clinic" and were inpressed by the people there who claimed to have been healed by this. Don't get me started on that! These clinics have been known to employ "plants" to give sob stories in support of them to entice people to join.

Anyway, here is a kid who has an excellent chance to live a long life by going back to chemo and/or radiation, even though it will make him wiped out for six months or so, and chooses a method proven to be a sham, but because of anecdotal stories, goes with it. There's more to it, but the parent's  and the boy's arguments for it are so weak that it's sad. They just don't know any better, but no one is telling them.

Ann Curry, who did the interview, tried to point out that all the studies have shown the herbal treatment to NOT work, and that traditional chemo CURES 85% of patients with this lymphoma. They just argued that they had been to the clinic and talked to people who had been healed, so that was good enough for them.

It's their right, and the government shouldn't have a say, but it's so tragic. This kid will die, and he doesn't need to.

That's terrible.  I've always found it odd how many people will take pseudoscience based on such things as anecdotes but will demand great rigor from actual science to "prove" itself.

Best wishes for your son's full and quick recovery.

The situation with that boy from the Today show is heart breaking.  It's really sad that people will take advantage of those in need by offering false hope of an easier solution.  Hopefully the boy and his parents will realize that it's a scam before his health or life is compromised.

Quote from: "Squid"That's terrible.  I've always found it odd how many people will take pseudoscience based on such things as anecdotes but will demand great rigor from actual science to "prove" itself.

Because Science, like Reality, is not as great at sensationalism as Fantasy/Psuedoscience. While science is reserved like a PBS documentary, psueod-science is like an Oprah segment: sensationalism. People don't like to be bored. Even if it means throwing their life away needlessly.

I think they should outright ban Herbal Medicine. It doesn't work. And just because Native Americans use to do it doesn't make it a valid reason. I wonder if they realize people lie to get money? I feel real bad for this kid. Having been said before, modern medicine can help him conquer his ailment, holistic medicines or whatever are a crock of shit.

I saw the Cherrix family on Fox News Channel last night, and their story is tragic.  Not only do they have a sick child, but because they seek alternative medical treatments they may lose custody of the boy.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,203133,00.html (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,203133,00.html)

If Abraham Cherrix were 18 none of this would have made the news.  But because he is still a minor, the state of Virginia is sticking its collective nose into what should be a private matter.

I doubt that I would be strong enough to go through multiple rounds of chemotherapy, so I understand why they want to try a less disruptive herbal treatment.  

It's a very sad situation.

Yes but none the less Herbal Medicine is a sham. It's worse than chemo. Sure chemo takes it toll on a patient, and I hope I NEVER have to go through with it but if it came down to it: I'd rather have that than throw my life away taking ginseng or some crap. They're letting their child die, that's disgusting. A parent should help their children, regardless of how painful it might be if it allows them to survive.

Quote from: "Big Mac"A parent should help their children, regardless of how painful it might be if it allows them to survive.

I don't think they know that they are diminishing their son's chance of survival. If only we didn't have any of the media supporting this kind of thing by giving stupid people a chance to broadcast things like "the doctors and pharmaceutical companies don't want you to know about herbal medicine because they would lose money!" and other unsupported bullshit claims.

BigMac and Jassman. Good points. And Jassman, that Kevin Trudeau ought to be in jail...again. For good this time.

I love that South Park with Miss Information: "Western medicine is so quick to cut and remove when it takes merely the right herbs!" "Thanks Miss Information!"

or the one part "Stanly, Native Americans were raped of their land and brutalized!" "And that has what to do with their medical abilities?"

To me if you manipulate people who are dying or on their last leg, something is wrong with you. I could never take advantage of someone in that condition. No offense if anyone is from Cali but dammit we just need to nuke that state, nothing good has come out of it. I'm assuming Herbal Medicine had a huge boom there because anything that is for Hippies thrives there.

Question: is the state ever justified in removing custody in a case like this?  

And if not in this case, what about if the teenager was younger? or if there was a 100% success rate with proper but still painfull treatment?  

Does the state have the obligation to protect children from incompetent parents?  In a case where the father was continually raping his child, my guess would be that everyone, even the most diehard libertarian, would say yes.  But rape isn't usually lethal, cancer is.  So if the actions of the raping Dad warrant state removal because of the harm it causes, why wouldn't it also be justified here? Maybe even more justified than the raping father?

Quote from: "Amor Fati"Question: is the state ever justified in removing custody in a case like this?  

And if not in this case, what about if the teenager was younger? or if there was a 100% success rate with proper but still painfull treatment?  

Does the state have the obligation to protect children from incompetent parents?  In a case where the father was continually raping his child, my guess would be that everyone, even the most diehard libertarian, would say yes.  But rape isn't usually lethal, cancer is.  So if the actions of the raping Dad warrant state removal because of the harm it causes, why wouldn't it also be justified here? Maybe even more justified than the raping father?

You've brought up a very important and difficult topic. There is just no easy answer, is there? This is such a huge issue for debate. Lots of gray areas. I wish I had a solid opinion on it, but I don't. My immediate answer is that the state (and by that I'm assuming we're both talking about "the government") has no right to butt in, but your examples make it hard to say that. It's a really touchy area, for certain. I don't know if I'll ever figure it out.

It's very hard for me because I'm dealing with my own son, who is of age to refuse further treatment for his cancer, if he chooses. That would be incerdibly difficult to deal with if he chose that option.

My mother chose to stop treatment for peritoneal cancer after three cycles of chemo. Her case was incurable, and she felt that the benefit of an extra few months of life weren't worth it, if she was going to be so sick the whole time. It was tough for us to hear her make the decision, but we understood why. With a child, it's much more difficult.

Quote from: "Amor Fati"Does the state have the obligation to protect children from incompetent parents?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the kid want alternative medicine instead of chemo as well?

What about his right to make his own decisions regarding his life? He's 16 years old -- easily mature enough to make his own life decisions. The focus should be on educating him about the dangers of his decision, not about forcing him to accept the government preferred method.

More "We suggest you reconsider. Here's why." and less "What the hell are you doing? You're getting more chemotherapy whether you like it or not!"

Yeah it's definitely a gray area.  I understand and have no problem at all with adults that chose to end their own pain, though I honestly have trouble imagining that level of suffering since I've only seen it in others.

 As you said, with a child it's more complex, especially since those boundaries between childhood and adulthood are being pushed younger by teenagers being tried as adults for capital crimes.  Presumably, children aren't fully responsible for their actions because they have yet to reach some mental threshold for adult rationality.  So we protect them from entering into legal contracts with credit card companties, from police interrogation, and a whole host of things that adults are responsible for (and think of compulsory education).  These protections seem pretty obvious, but a lot of people become squeamish when it comes to issues of parental rights and custody.  I dunno, just a thought.


Edit:  Theoretically, age shouldn't matter at all, though it does in our laws.  Imagine if a 30 year old with severe autism refuses painfull yet successfull treatment.  Since our laws require specific boundaries these issues of legal and moral responsibility are almost impossible to resolve, and the effect of the polarizing nature of politics.

I think it is ridiculous to think that all of a sudden someone magically turns into an adult on their eighteenth birthday. Biologically, every human is an adult at a much younger age...

There may not be too much of a problem with signing contracts regarding credit cards and all of that other icing on the cake that comes with being a "legal adult" but it is utterly insane to deprive a 16 year old the right to make his/her own decisions.

Quote from: "Amor Fati"Edit:  Theoretically, age shouldn't matter at all, though it does in our laws.  Imagine if a 30 year old with severe autism refuses painfull yet successfull treatment.  Since our laws require specific boundaries these issues of legal and moral responsibility are almost impossible to resolve, and the effect of the polarizing nature of politics.

You are right about that. Perhaps people should have to take an aptitude test to obtain adult rights? Then if you are a particularly mature 15 year old, you could be considered an adult upon passing the exam?

Quote from: "Jassman"I think it is ridiculous to think that all of a sudden someone magically turns into an adult on their eighteenth birthday. Biologically, every human is an adult at a much younger age...

There may not be too much of a problem with not allowing them to sign contracts regarding credit cards and all of that other icing on the cake that comes with being a "legal adult" but it is utterly insane to deprive a 16 year old the right to make his/her own decisions.

You're right that there is no moment in time when a child becomes an adult, but the age of reason happens, presumably, sometime in the late teens.  

So, according to your reasoning, the state should protect teens from getting bad credit but not from making a bad (provably bad) medical decision?  Is this what you mean?

Quote from: "Amor Fati"So, according to your reasoning, the state should protect teens from getting bad credit but not from making a bad (provably bad) medical decision?  Is this what you mean?

No, I just don't think that credit is a real urgent and extremely life affecting issue for anyone. I don't think it really matters if someone has to wait 18 years to be approved for a credit card nearly as much as it matters to be allowed to make your own decisions.

So the credit thing and other minor age related issues are open to debate, but I'm much more focussed on the human right to decide on your own course of action. The way you live and the way you die. That is something that has much larger consequences for the individual.

Quote from: "Jassman"You are right about that. Perhaps people should have to take an aptitude test to obtain adult rights? Then if you are a particularly mature 15 year old, you could be considered an adult upon passing the exam?

I agree, but we have problems with aptitude tests in the US.  They were once used to prevent african americans from voting, so since 1965 we have had laws preventing them. (http://www.votingrights.org/more.php)

And most recently there have been renewed movements to print official government documents only in english, and other shit like that.

Quote from: "Jassman"[I'm much more focussed on the human right to decide on your own course of action. The way you live and the way you die. That is something that has much larger consequences for the individual.

Right, the consequences are the largest concern here.  My thought is that the larger the possible and likely (and in this particular case, highly likely) consequences to a person who may not be fully rational, the more interest the state should have in protectiong that person from themselves.  This case is especially troublesome because the guy is 16, and not, say, 13 or 11.  

I hate state babysitters, but moving back to my earlier hypothetical.  Imagine if a 16 year old girl is being raped by her father since she was 12 and has come to enjoy it.  As disturbing as that thought is, it's possible.  Sex and death are two incredibly personal rights that western governments have been loath to intrude upon (recently), but what to do?  Has her father somehow brainwashed her in this case, and if so, does this warrant government action against her will?  

Compare this to the chemo case and what we know about it.  The parents and the 16 year old have the knowledge that alternative treatments do not work, so have they proven their irrationality by seeking those treatments?

I'm not sure who has the right, however, to protect them from themselves, Amor. Of course, with this case, your mind may reel at the irrationality of the parents and the teenager, but who has the right to decide who's rational and who's not? And as long as the irrational behavior of the teenager is not harming anyone else, on what grounds does the government, or anyone who is not the parents, have the right to force his hand?

Quote from: "Amor Fati"Imagine if a 16 year old girl is being raped by her father since she was 12 and has come to enjoy it.  As disturbing as that thought is, it's possible.

Interesting. I'm going to have to think about this for awhile.

Court, that's an interesting point as well. Setting aside the issue of "separation of church and state" for a second, what if in the future the government concluded that atheists raising their kids as atheists was abuse because they are (supposedly) damning their kids to an eternity of hellfire?

I don't think it's up to the government to tell us what is right in situations like this.

Also, maybe this 16 year old places quality of life far above quantity of life. Who are we to step in and force him to take the "right" course of action? After all, the choice in how to live his life is ultimately up to him (or at least should be).

Quote from: "Court"I'm not sure who has the right, however, to protect them from themselves, Amor. Of course, with this case, your mind may reel at the irrationality of the parents and the teenager, but who has the right to decide who's rational and who's not? And as long as the irrational behavior of the teenager is not harming anyone else, on what grounds does the government, or anyone who is not the parents, have the right to force his hand?

Kinda knew this would be a can of worms. LOL! Court, I don't claim to have many of the answers here, but one of the reasons we have government (and I'm a Libertarian, so I hate anything but small government) is to protect people, even from themselves.

First of all, I didn't say these people were being irrational. I'm not sure anyone did, although you may think it was implied. (EDIT: Ok, I see where Amor fati asked that! LOL!)They are definitely uninformed on this whole topic though, and are being given not only bad advice, but bogus advice from the clinic in Mexico. That's my main issue. As to who can say who is rational and irrational, you have to look at societies as whole populations first, and go with what the society says. Besides, what would we do without all those psychologists and psychiatrists? (heh-heh!) That prevents anarchy, which, although it may sound fashionable and cool to some people, really isn't such a good idea.

I don't have an argument with people choosing their own destinies either, although I will argue with Jassman that 16 is old enough in most cases. There are plenty of good reasons to set some kind of age for being a legal adult. I agree that not everyone is mentally or emotionally competent at their legal adult age. Amor Fati has already made excellent points in this regard.

As a personal example, my 20 year old son is not as mentally mature as my 17 year old son. I'm not knocking him, but that's the way it is. There's nothing wrong with that, other than it leads me back to one of the reasons that this has so many gray areas. Just because maybe you personally (I mean people in general) are a mature 18 or 19, doesn't mean someone else is. That argues both for AND against a set legal adault age limit. But experience and time shows that a legal adult age limit is necessary for a stable society. It's just different in different societies.

Like I said, this is a tough issue. It's also a highly emotional issue, as we can see from the posts already. But it isn't so simple that we here can answer it with blanket statements based on our limited knowledge and experience. I sure won't try!  

Quote from: "Court"I'm not sure who has the right, however, to protect them from themselves, Amor. Of course, with this case, your mind may reel at the irrationality of the parents and the teenager, but who has the right to decide who's rational and who's not? And as long as the irrational behavior of the teenager is not harming anyone else, on what grounds does the government, or anyone who is not the parents, have the right to force his hand?

We do, all the time, decide what's rational and what's not.  And if there is a significant agreement in a democracy that the government should have some paternalistic power, then we give it that power.  

I general, there are two principles that are used to justify government coercion (though there are more)

Principle of paternalism:  this principle states that the government is justified in outlawing action X if X is harmful to the actor (individual acting).  

Principle of harm:  the government is justified in outlawing action X if X is harmful to others (the non-actors).

The harm principle is usually seen as self-evident, but John Stewart Mill (http://www.iep.utm.edu/m/milljs.htm) gives it the best defense.  



The Principle of Paternalism has a variety of defenses, the chief of which is as follows.  I, as a rational being, know that there are going to be times in my life when my rationality will fail me and i will act against my own best self-interest.  Knowing this, it would be rational for me to give some other person or organization of people control over my decisions when I am not capable of action in my own best self-interest (and assuming they are capable of rationality and knowing what's in my best interest, etc).  Presumably, we would give the government this right, since it is the only organization that is, collectively, ours.  

What counts as rational?  Well, actions against your own best self-interest
are usually considered irrational.

Quote from: "Amor Fati"

Quote from: "Court"I'm not sure who has the right, however, to protect them from themselves, Amor. Of course, with this case, your mind may reel at the irrationality of the parents and the teenager, but who has the right to decide who's rational and who's not? And as long as the irrational behavior of the teenager is not harming anyone else, on what grounds does the government, or anyone who is not the parents, have the right to force his hand?

We do, all the time, decide what's rational and what's not.  And if there is a significant agreement in a democracy that the government should have some paternalistic power, then we give it that power.  

I general, there are two principles that are used to justify government coercion (though there are more)

Principle of paternalism:  this principle statest that the government is justified in outlawing action X if X is harmful to the actor (individual acting).  

Principle of harm:  the government is justified in outlawing action X if X is harmful to others (the non-actors).

The harm principle is usually seen as self-evident, but John Stewart Mill (http://www.iep.utm.edu/m/milljs.htm) gives it the best defense.  



The Principle of Paternalism has a variety of defenses, the chief of which is as follows.  I, as a rational being, know that there are going to be times in my life when my rationality will fail me and i will act against my own best self-interest.  Knowing this, it would be rational for me to give some other person or organization of people control over my decisions when I am not capable of action in my own best self-interest (and assuming they are capable of rationality and knowing what's in my best interest, etc).  Presumably, we would give the government this right, since it is the only organization that is, collectively, ours.  

What counts as rational?  Well, actions against your own best self-interest
are usually considered irrational.

Yeah, what he said.  

Quote from: "McQ"

Quote from: "Amor Fati"

Quote from: "Court"I'm not sure who has the right, however, to protect them from themselves, Amor. Of course, with this case, your mind may reel at the irrationality of the parents and the teenager, but who has the right to decide who's rational and who's not? And as long as the irrational behavior of the teenager is not harming anyone else, on what grounds does the government, or anyone who is not the parents, have the right to force his hand?

We do, all the time, decide what's rational and what's not.  And if there is a significant agreement in a democracy that the government should have some paternalistic power, then we give it that power.  

I general, there are two principles that are used to justify government coercion (though there are more)

Principle of paternalism:  this principle statest that the government is justified in outlawing action X if X is harmful to the actor (individual acting).  

Principle of harm:  the government is justified in outlawing action X if X is harmful to others (the non-actors).

The harm principle is usually seen as self-evident, but John Stewart Mill (http://www.iep.utm.edu/m/milljs.htm) gives it the best defense.  



The Principle of Paternalism has a variety of defenses, the chief of which is as follows.  I, as a rational being, know that there are going to be times in my life when my rationality will fail me and i will act against my own best self-interest.  Knowing this, it would be rational for me to give some other person or organization of people control over my decisions when I am not capable of action in my own best self-interest (and assuming they are capable of rationality and knowing what's in my best interest, etc).  Presumably, we would give the government this right, since it is the only organization that is, collectively, ours.  

What counts as rational?  Well, actions against your own best self-interest
are usually considered irrational.

Yeah, what he said.  lol, this is one of my hobby horses, so i get carried away sometimes (not that support state babysitters, it's nice to have one now and then).

Quote from: "Jassman"Court, that's an interesting point as well. Setting aside the issue of "separation of church and state" for a second, what if in the future the government concluded that atheists raising their kids as atheists was abuse because they are (supposedly) damning their kids to an eternity of hellfire?

This is exactly what I meant. Thank you, Jassman.

Quote from: "McQ"Kinda knew this would be a can of worms. LOL! Court, I don't claim to have many of the answers here, but one of the reasons we have government (and I'm a Libertarian, so I hate anything but small government) is to protect people

McQ, you had me nodding right up until:

Quote from: "McQ"even from themselves.

Whoa. I consider myself a libertarian and yet strongly disagree with that statement. I know there are a lot of points of contention between libertarians on a multitude of issues but I didn't believe this to be one of them. In fact the first sentence in the Wikipedia article on libertarianism states

"Libertarianism is a political philosophy advocating that individuals should be free to do whatever they wish with their person or property, as long as they do not infringe on the same liberty of others."

I think it's fairly safe to say that "protecting someone from themself" violates their freedom to act and make choices. Maybe I just interpreted what you said wrong. Hopefully. Please set me straight if that is the case.

--------------------------------------

QuoteThe Principle of Paternalism has a variety of defenses, the chief of which is as follows.  I, as a rational being, know that there are going to be times in my life when my rationality will fail me and i will act against my own best self-interest.  Knowing this, it would be rational for me to give some other person or organization of people control over my decisions when I am not capable of action in my own best self-interest (and assuming they are capable of rationality and knowing what's in my best interest, etc).  Presumably, we would give the government this right, since it is the only organization that is, collectively, ours.

How is it possible for the government to know whether that person is not acting in their own best self-interest? Is this an argument against a person's right to suicide? This looks like a very slippery slope. It seems like a very easy thing for the government to abuse. In the end, every decision made by a person could potentially have to be approved by the government,  under the guise of "looking out for your best interest".

Although, I completely see where everyone else is coming from. It is complicated and sticky, and impossible to sum up in one stance. I find myself nodding in agreement with everyone on this one, even though we're saying different things.

I think a legal adult age is necessary, if not perfect. But I don't really see a better solution...

EDIT: I agree with Jassman's stance above, though. I don't really think that anyone has the right to involve themselves in your personal decisions that don't harm others. I don't think anyone has the right to protect me from myself. The issue with this post, however, is that the person involved is a minor, which complicates things.

Quote from: "Jassman"

Quote from: "McQ"Kinda knew this would be a can of worms. LOL! Court, I don't claim to have many of the answers here, but one of the reasons we have government (and I'm a Libertarian, so I hate anything but small government) is to protect people

McQ, you had me nodding right up until:

Quote from: "McQ"even from themselves.

Whoa. I consider myself a libertarian and yet strongly disagree with that statement. I know there are a lot of points of contention between libertarians on a multitude of issues but I didn't believe this to be one of them. In fact the first sentence in the Wikipedia article on libertarianism states

"Libertarianism is a political philosophy advocating that individuals should be free to do whatever they wish with their person or property, as long as they do not infringe on the same liberty of others."

I think it's fairly safe to say that "protecting someone from themself" violates their freedom to act and make choices. Maybe I just interpreted what you said wrong. Hopefully. Please set me straight if that is the case.

--------------------------------------

QuoteThe Principle of Paternalism has a variety of defenses, the chief of which is as follows.  I, as a rational being, know that there are going to be times in my life when my rationality will fail me and i will act against my own best self-interest.  Knowing this, it would be rational for me to give some other person or organization of people control over my decisions when I am not capable of action in my own best self-interest (and assuming they are capable of rationality and knowing what's in my best interest, etc).  Presumably, we would give the government this right, since it is the only organization that is, collectively, ours.

How is it possible for the government to know whether that person is not acting in their own best self-interest? Is this an argument against a person's right to suicide? This looks like a very slippery slope. It seems like a very easy thing for the government to abuse. In the end, every decision made by a person could potentially have to be approved by the government,  under the guise of "looking out for your best interest".

It's your right to disagree with anything I say, but I think you misunderstand my meaning. I won't reiterate what Amor Fati already stated so well. And I can certainly consider myself a Libertarian even if I disagreed with one aspect of the platform.

Quote from: "Jassman""Libertarianism is a political philosophy advocating that individuals should be free to do whatever they wish with their person or property, as long as they do not infringe on the same liberty of others."

I think it's fairly safe to say that "protecting someone from themself" violates their freedom to act and make choices.

Absolutely.  

I've been trying to draft a post to discuss my position that doesn't make me sound totally paranoid over government intrusion.  I can't do it, so I'll just sit this one out.

Quote from: "Court"Although, I completely see where everyone else is coming from. It is complicated and sticky, and impossible to sum up in one stance. I find myself nodding in agreement with everyone on this one, even though we're saying different things.

I think a legal adult age is necessary, if not perfect. But I don't really see a better solution...

EDIT: I agree with Jassman's stance above, though. I don't really think that anyone has the right to involve themselves in your personal decisions that don't harm others. I don't think anyone has the right to protect me from myself. The issue with this post, however, is that the person involved is a minor, which complicates things.

Another thought on this, because people get so outraged at the idea of someone else, especially the government, intruding on their rights to do whatever they wish with themselves.

Often times, as in the case of sucide (out of depression or some other circumstance OTHER than someone taking their life who is terminally ill), people will think that the sucidee (nice word, huh?) is only "hurting" himself. If you've ever had a loved one commit suicide (and I mean an immediate family member for instance) you'll realize that they are hurting and ruining the lives of the people around them. It's not so simple as you've made it out to be. This requires more though and less emotional outrage.

That said, I still disagree with the government's intrusion into the lives of people to the extent of making them go through chemo, or forcing a woman to go through an unwanted pregnancy, etc. And I want the right to die of my own accord if I am terminally ill, rather than become a drooling vegetable for the last portion of my life.

People forget that chronic depression is the cause of many sucides. If the person is prevented from committing sucide and is properly treated for the depression, it is possible (and does happen) for her to have a totally functional, valuable, productive life.

So do you just not bother trying to prevent someone who is depressed from killing himself? As I said, this is full of gray areas and requires a lot more thought than may be being given to it in this forum.

Quote from: "Jassman"How is it possible for the government to know whether that person is not acting in their own best self-interest? Is this an argument against a person's right to suicide? This looks like a very slippery slope. It seems like a very easy thing for the government to abuse. In the end, every decision made by a person could potentially have to be approved by the government,  under the guise of "looking out for your best interest".

Yes, this principle of reasoning can be used to justify legislation criminalizing suicide.  It's also used to justify drug laws, drinking age, social security (and socialized medicine in canada), welfare, compulsory education, taxes for libraries, anti-pornography laws, and a whole host of social programs.
 
Of course, every possible private action also has potential, yet unlikely, public consequences as well.  So even the very basic harm principle can be used for evil.  

As far as self-interest goes, given the universality of human nature usually people can agree on at least some minimal set of actions that are almost always against one's self-interest.  And there are times in one's life (ages 0 until whenever) when it's just not likely that we'll know what's in our best interest.  These instances are completely possible to occur during adulthood, so those that support paternalism will want a government that will occasionally protect them from themselves.

Edit
My point here is only that 1) at least some paternalism is not at all unreasonable if you have the right people in government; and 2) almost all modern governments already practice a little paternalism.

I found an article about the boy mentioned on the today show:

http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/st ... &ran=36452 (http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=105062&ran=36452)

Basically it says he is refusing chemo because it made him feel the worse and the possible long term side effects:

"Dr. Biral Amin, a radiation oncologist who practices with Oncology Associates of Virginia in Hampton Roads, said conventional cancer treatments can have severe side effects and carry long-term risks, including heart ailments, bone-growth problems and other types of cancer."

How possible these side effects are, I don't know.  The courts are currently involved in trying to force conventional treatment, he may be taken into state custody.  During the time he was undergoing alternative treatment his cancer has progressed.  The parents claim this is because natural cures take longer than conventional cures. The natural clinic he is using claims to have an 80% success rate (where are the studies?...people can claim anything).  One of the doctors interviewed said that most will combine conventional and alternative methods, if they even bother with the natural methods at all...this is probably why the clinic is able to report a good success rate, assuming they aren't just lying.

-------

In my view, this is a case of unintentional neglect on account of the parents and the clinic (who may be intentionally neglecting to promote a good treatment).  The parents have allowed their emotions to take hold and in doing so researched alternative methods, took the claims at face value, and now see it as some sort of miracle cure.

When we think while letting our emotions take hold our decisions typically aren't very rational. (After all, emotionally based beliefs are why we have so many religious people.)  But, baring fanatics, irrational religious beliefs don't kill or hurt people physically.  So, the question remains, on what grounds does government have the right to step in and protect people, especially those viewed as minors, from themselves?

In this particular case, the boy definitely wants to survive.  He just happens to think that this can be done by completely replacing chemo with alternative methods.  What the family is doing with alternative medicine has a parallels with the Christian Science church and their use of prayer as an alternative method to proper medical care.  Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Science#Christian_Science_and_American_Law)

How much influence do parents have on the way teenagers come to their own decisions?  This is an important question, as it determines if teenagers who are still under the care of adults really are capable of making independent rational decisions. I would say that since many teenagers, whether thy admit to it or not, look up to their parents that parents do have quite a bit of influence over the decisions made by teenagers.  So, it could easily be said that it's not a case of protecting the teenager from himself but protecting him from the misguided influence of his parents.

Still, regardless of if what I've said is true or not, how should such situations be handled?  Removing the teenager from his parent's care isn't going to solve the problem and will only cause additional emotional strain on the patient.  Even under state care the teenager is still very capable of refusing treatment and we shouldn't force them into medical care as if they are prisoners.  My solution would be better education on how these alternative treatments are not sufficient in helping someone get better.  Although, some alternative treatments may be helpful compliments to proper medical care...even if it is just a placebo affect.  Maybe if someone was sent by the government to simply sit down with the family and discuss why their decisions may cause a lot more harm then good, they would go back to the proven method.  By using my solution, we would have to accept that there would still be some people who would use the alternative methods, but I think in most cases it would change their minds.  Education is the key, once people are properly educated they will be less likely to make, what I would call, a stupid decision.

Quote from: "Amor Fati"Edit:  Theoretically, age shouldn't matter at all, though it does in our laws.  Imagine if a 30 year old with severe autism refuses painfull yet successfull treatment.  Since our laws require specific boundaries these issues of legal and moral responsibility are almost impossible to resolve, and the effect of the polarizing nature of politics.

Actually, I think most state laws are written to reflect the concept of "competancy", rather than age, when it comes to decision-making.  Hence, anyone at any age, judged to be incompetent in making decisions may have it assigned to someone else by court order.  In some cases, the courts may decide that the parents are not making decisions in the child's best interests, and assign that aurhority to someone else.  In the example of the 30 year old, that would be fairly easy to decide.  Although not perfect, I think this is probably the best system available, when utilized properly.

Quote from: "Chris"

Quote from: "Amor Fati"Edit:  Theoretically, age shouldn't matter at all, though it does in our laws.  Imagine if a 30 year old with severe autism refuses painfull yet successfull treatment.  Since our laws require specific boundaries these issues of legal and moral responsibility are almost impossible to resolve, and the effect of the polarizing nature of politics.

Actually, I think most state laws are written to reflect the concept of "competancy", rather than age, when it comes to decision-making.  Hence, anyone at any age, judged to be incompetent in making decisions may have it assigned to someone else by court order.  In some cases, the courts may decide that the parents are not making decisions in the child's best interests, and assign that aurhority to someone else.  In the example of the 30 year old, that would be fairly easy to decide.  Although not perfect, I think this is probably the best system available, when utilized properly.

Maybe i watch too much Law and Order, but you're right, the result of many levels of state laws is exactly as you describe.  

The examples of disorders that could possibly effect our rationality are much larger than we've been talking about here.  Everything from seeminly random and rare brain tumors to an hyper-active thyriod can cause serious changes in the way we make decisions.

Hmmm. I hate to sound callous but maybe this is nature's way of removing another foolish genetic strain from us? I'm sorry to be cruel but I was thinking about it at work. This kid is either really desperate (which I don't blame him) or really stupid. Maybe if he goes with herbal treatment and dies, it may be for the good of mankind to remove him from breeding. And maybe it will bring more negative light toward Herbal medicine to eventually have it banned outright.

I know I sound rather evil and cruel right now but honestly think about it. If you honestly fall for this shit you're probably too dumb to realize what you're doing with your life. Yes Chemo sucks and is painful, as most other surgical procedures tend to be. I'd rather have those POSSIBLE side effects than die from the preventable one that is going on here and now.

And I wish the state could go back to sterilizing dumb people, but then again, who would make my fries piping hot? Sorry if I sound mean but I had to deal with an idiot at work and I've lost whatever little sympathy I had for Mankind's dumber specimens.

Quote from: "Big Mac"And maybe it will bring more negative light toward Herbal medicine to eventually have it banned outright.

Banning herbal medicine is not the answer. I believe it should be legal to put whatever you want into your own body. However, strong emphasis should be placed on educating people about the fact that herbal medicine never yields results.

Quote from: "Big Mac"If you honestly fall for this shit you're probably too dumb to realize what you're doing with your life.

Had I been raised somewhere else by different parents, maybe I would have believed in this shit. Who knows? How do you know whether it's nature or nurture that is causing this kid to make this bad choice?

Quote from: "Jassman"

Quote from: "Big Mac"And maybe it will bring more negative light toward Herbal medicine to eventually have it banned outright.

Banning herbal medicine is not the answer. I believe it should be legal to put whatever you want into your own body. However, strong emphasis should be placed on educating people about the fact that herbal medicine never yields results.

Hence it is an invalid field and should be classified as Malpractice. I don't see why not banning it along the lines of back alley surgeons. Nothing good comes from them and letting them around (like Scientologists) is just detrimental to society. Herbalists should face strict laws and regulations to the point of their bankruptcy.

Quote from: "Jassman"

Quote from: "Big Mac"If you honestly fall for this shit you're probably too dumb to realize what you're doing with your life.

Had I been raised somewhere else by different parents, maybe I would have believed in this shit. Who knows? How do you know whether it's nature or nurture that is causing this kid to make this bad choice?

Either way, it's Herbalists who are killing the kid willing. They are evil for this very reason and for helping perpetuate stupidity in our society. For this, they deserve very very bad things to happen to them.

Quote from: "Jassman"Banning herbal medicine is not the answer. I believe it should be legal to put whatever you want into your own body. However, strong emphasis should be placed on educating people about the fact that herbal medicine never yields results.

Does it really never yield results? Sure, you won't get anything out of it if you use herbal medicine to treat cancer, but you can certainly use herbalism for small things. I mean, I take a few daily herbal supplements for various things, and I certainly see results from taking them.

Or maybe it's all psychosomatic? Maybe it's like prayer: it's true effect is in the mind of the prayer.

Anyway, my $2x10^-2.

It depends on what supplement is being used and what they are trying to treat.  For instance, Green Tea can help with energy and maybe help a little bit with weight loss (definately not a miracle treatment for being over weight).  Things like lavendar (the smell) can help clam a patient who is undergoing stressful medical treatment.

The biggest problem with herbal and other supplements is that they are unregulated by the FDA and too many of them claim to be able to do something yet are actually harmful.

Quote from: "laetusatheos"The biggest problem with herbal and other supplements is that they are unregulated by the FDA and too many of them claim to be able to do something yet are actually harmful.

You are right about that. I think I would be extremely outnumbered in my opinion of something like the FDA though. I don't think an "FDA" or any other country's equivalent should be allowed to tell anyone what they can and can't take into their own bodies. The goal of the FDA should be, again, to educate the people and make them aware of potential consequences to certain substances. But they should not be able to stop anyone.

I think that if the FDA were to regulate supplements and force those companies to use realistic lables and warning labels for side affects, then the majority of people would not take anything that would only hurt them.  Thus, putting the company out of business or forcing the company to create quality safe products...there would be no need to say what could or couldn't be on the market.

You know, this isn't really related, but in China, there are a lot of fake medicines out there. they put some official looking pills in a bottle and stick a famous name brand on, then mass produce it until the police find out. By then lots of people would have already become sick or died. So sad, but people will do anything for money. and right now there are too many of these kinds of people for the police to catch them all. So, helpful hint of the day-don't buy medicine in China except from the hospital, or a certified pharmacy!

Across the street from me is a "Traditional Chinese Medicine College". Right there tells you it's about herbs and shit.

Quote from: "Jassman"Banning herbal medicine is not the answer. I believe it should be legal to put whatever you want into your own body. However, strong emphasis should be placed on educating people about the fact that herbal medicine never yields results.

You can't really make that statement. Ever been to the opthamologist and had your eyes dilated? That would be belladonna. Atropine also comes from belladonna, which is used as a nerve agent antidote.

I drink mint tea when I have bad indigestion. Tastes a whole lot better than Tums or Rolaids, and at least as effective.

I have several Aloe Vera plants around my home. They help soothe the pain from minor burns.

Marijuana can relieve the nausea from chemotherapy. It is also used as an appetite stimulant for chemo and AIDS patients, as well as relieving intra occular pressure from glaucoma.

I think many people have elevated expectations for the efficacy of herbal remedies, but that does not mean that none of them work.

I am by no stretch of the imagination an herbal remedy advocate. I still see chiropractors as barely a step above witch doctors, and don't get me started on homeopaths. But to completely dismiss herbals out of hand cuts you off from some pretty effective cures.

Yeah, not all herbs are shit. Sometimes it's better for your immune system if you use herbs, instead of overloading on man-made chemicals. Not as many side effects.

Quote from: "silviakjell"Yeah, not all herbs are shit. Sometimes it's better for your immune system if you use herbs, instead of overloading on man-made chemicals. Not as many side effects.

Not always true. There is a need for clarification in this whole thread as to definitions of herbs, chemicals, natural vs. synthetic. "All-natural" doesn't mean "no side effects" or necessarily that something is safe. Arsenic is all-natural. Herbs can do things for the body, but there's nothing miraculous or paranormal about that. They do contain chemicals. Man-made chemicals often are simply derivitives of plants or animal "chemicals" (hormones, proteins, etc.).

So while some herbs can do things for your body that are good, they can also cause harm. Eat some belladonna, or drink some hemlock and find out (no, please don't actually do that! Just an example of killer plants).

Not to mention you could also have an "all-natural" allergic reaction to it.

mmm hemlock. my favorite. tastes best with some salt.

I never said that all herbs are safe. I'm just saying that some herbs can cure minor health problems. I'm not saying use herbs to treat cancer,  HIV or some type of lethal disease. That would be stupid.

Eh, they could have a minor role in boosting the immune system for those ailments, but nothing beats Western Medicine.

Isn't it a little late for you, kid? Well I suppose it's still summer.

Late for what?

Quote from: "silviakjell"Late for what?

Late at night, it's almost 1 AM over here, I'm just surprised because you've stated you're 13.

Ohhh. Right now I'm in China. reverse time thingy you know? and i don't know the GMT time or whatever in NJ so i just picked a random one. right now in NJ it is opposite the time in ShangHai. Which one should it be?

My mistake, I also assumed you were a male. Again I must have mistaken you for someone else.

Quote from: "silviakjell"mmm hemlock. my favorite. tastes best with some salt.

I never said that all herbs are safe. I'm just saying that some herbs can cure minor health problems. I'm not saying use herbs to treat cancer,  HIV or some type of lethal disease. That would be stupid.

Not necessarily. This is where we get into trouble, when we don't define the terms we're talking about. Herbs are plants. Plants, like all life, have chemicals in them. Some chemicals do things for the body, others, not so much.
The European and Pacific Yew Trees are used to make a drug called Taxol (in the U.S.). It is in the Taxane class of drugs used to treat various types of cancer. So, some plants, you see, can treat cancer. Things are not always so simple as they seem. :-)

Alright, alright!

but still, what time region should i pick? i think i chose the wrong one.

There's a Traditional College of Chinese Medicine (Acupunture and Herbal Pharmacy) right outside my apartment complex. I'm tempted to go in there and be "amazed" by it.....

There are many problems with herbal therapies.  In a NCCAM-funded study of ginseng products, they found  most contained less than 1/2 the amount of ginseng listed on the labels.

One study analyzed 59 preparations of echinacea, half did not contain the species listed on the label.

It might work, but not in the way thought. i.e. side effects.
Ginseng can increase caffeine effects, lower blood sugar levels, interact  with the diabetic medication glyburide & several others?
Ginkgo, taken with anticoagulant or antiplatelet drugs, can potentiate bleeding.
St. John’s Wort may cause increased sensitivity to sunlight, anxiety, dry mouth, dizziness, GI upset, fatigue, Heachache, and/or sexual dysfunction.

The worst example of "healthy herbs"?!?  Echinacea.  It is the number 1 selling herbal remedy in America and people really don't know about it.  Originally thought to be beneficial for the immune system because test subjects' white blood cell counts went up after they took it.  However, later research showed that these white blood cells (WBCs) were malformed.  Were these WBCs still effective?
No.  Studies indicate that echinacea does not appear to prevent colds or other infections and does not shorten course of colds or flu.

It has been shown to DECREASE WBCs when taken long term.
Echinacea is ACTIVELY HARMFUL and not beneficial!!!!!

I did a research proposal about a year ago for a study of ginkgo biloba.  Many of the studies I referenced for my literature review had found that store bought supplements did not have the amount of the ingredient it said it did.  Most people are getting ripped off for a placebo effect.

Furthermore, there are a lot of people who go into National Parks and Forests and raid the landscape for products to sell.  Example:  Slippery Elms are being DESTROYED as people rip their bark off to sell to naturalists.  There's this illusion that natural herbs are better for the environment... but enthusiasts are proving the opposite.

Idiocy at possibly its highest level of refinement. I love how these people will also rip on Western Medicine saying how barbaric it is. I wish these morons would be sterilized.

Update on Starchild Abraham Cherrix:

ACCOMAC, Va. (AP) â€" A 16-year-old cancer patient's legal fight ended in victory Wednesday when his family's attorneys and social services officials reached an agreement that would allow him to forgo chemotherapy.

At the start of what was scheduled to be a two-day hearing, Accomack County Circuit Judge Glen A. Tyler announced that both sides had reached a consent decree, which Tyler approved.

Under the decree, Starchild Abraham Cherrix, who is battling Hodgkin's disease, will be treated by an oncologist of his choice who is board-certified in radiation therapy and interested in alternative treatments. The family must provide the court updates on Abraham's treatment and condition every three months until he's cured or turns 18.

Tyler emphasized that the decree states that the parents weren't medically neglectful.

Full Article (http://www.11alive.com/news/health/health_article.aspx?storyid=83418)

Quote from: "imrational"There are many problems with herbal therapies.  In a NCCAM-funded study of ginseng products, they found  most contained less than 1/2 the amount of ginseng listed on the labels.

One study analyzed 59 preparations of echinacea, half did not contain the species listed on the label.

It might work, but not in the way thought. i.e. side effects.
Ginseng can increase caffeine effects, lower blood sugar levels, interact  with the diabetic medication glyburide & several others?
Ginkgo, taken with anticoagulant or antiplatelet drugs, can potentiate bleeding.
St. John’s Wort may cause increased sensitivity to sunlight, anxiety, dry mouth, dizziness, GI upset, fatigue, Heachache, and/or sexual dysfunction.

The worst example of "healthy herbs"?!?  Echinacea.  It is the number 1 selling herbal remedy in America and people really don't know about it.  Originally thought to be beneficial for the immune system because test subjects' white blood cell counts went up after they took it.  However, later research showed that these white blood cells (WBCs) were malformed.  Were these WBCs still effective?
No.  Studies indicate that echinacea does not appear to prevent colds or other infections and does not shorten course of colds or flu.

It has been shown to DECREASE WBCs when taken long term.
Echinacea is ACTIVELY HARMFUL and not beneficial!!!!!

Oh no, Oh No, OH NO!!!(!!!!!!) We have a bottle of Enchinacea at home and I used to eat a pill or two whenever I felt a cold coming on! Although it didn't really help that much, I basically just trusted the back of the container. At least it tells you not to take it for extended periods of time.

Malformed white blood cells?!?! You can give me the scariest nuclear bomb movie and I won'd give a dam, but if it talks about some evil mastermind creating a cell mutating gas or whatever, it scares the shit out of me! Ah! I know I'm over-reacting but I really, really hate things that change the natural process of your body. I'm going to call home as soon as it gets to 8:00 and my family wakes up to tell them to throw the enchinacea away.

One good thing to do if you want to try out supplements - do some research.  It can be as simple as typing the product name into a PubMed search and you can see the most recent research on it and not the crap new age or supplement websites give you.