Another Child Sacrifices Himself On the Alter Of His Parents Irrationality

Daniel Hauser has what doctors consider one of the most curable types of cancer, Hodgkin's lymphoma.

But the 13-year-old and his parents don't want him to have chemotherapy and radiation, the standard treatments. For the past three months, they have ignored the advice of his cancer specialists and turned to natural therapies, such as herbs and vitamins, instead.

Daniel, one of eight children, has asserted that treatment would violate his religious beliefs. The teenager filed an affidavit saying that he is a medicine man and church elder (at 13) in the Nemenhah, an American Indian religious organization that his parents joined 18 years ago.

James Olson, the Brown County attorney, has filed a petition accusing Daniel's parents, Colleen and Anthony Hauser, of child neglect and endangerment, and he has asked a judge in New Ulm to order the boy into treatment.

His parents shouldn't be allowed to look after a dog, let a lone a sick child. they should be shamed of themselves and what their primitive beliefs and brainwashing have done to their son.

 

stOx- While this and the numerous other things you have posted do debunk the idea that all religious people are perfect and are going to heaven (pretending it exists), and that their religion leads to good things, I wonder if you have ever come against such anecdotes about atheists, and if not, if you have ever seriously looked.

I'm not going to drink their kool-aid, though, and in fact I ultimately may reject more of the bible than you do.

 

I don't recall an atheist ever doing something ridiculous, damaging or costing the life of their child in the name of atheism. They have done them i'm sure, but not because of their atheism.

If i do at some point hear about someone not giving their child lifesaving treatment because of their atheism then i would be against it as much as i'm against these parents actions (or inaction), but that sort of behaviour seems to limited to those who believe a god exists and are sure of what he wants.

I mean what, other than religion, could possibly justify this kind of insanity? Crazy shit can only be justified by a wacky belief. Take circumcision for example. What, other than the belief that it's what god wants, could justify taking a week old baby and cutting the end of his penis off for no good reason? Or, arguably worse, a nine year old girl and cutting her clitoris off? Only religion could make a secular society turn a blind eye to something which, in any other circumstance, would be an absolutely disgusting form of abuse worthy of prison time and extensive psychological assessment.

 

You see it as religion makes people whacko while I believe many times it's a case of whackos finding religion.

Now whether or not these people would cause as much trouble if they weren't religious I dunno. Maybe there would be more alien possessions vs. demonic possessions without religion.

But think about it, for every whacko that does something crazy in the name of religion, how many have turned away from thoughts and desires of crime and murder in fear of going to hell?

I'm trying to keep any personal thought out of it and be completely neutral and logical. It's easy to say look at the huge wars and mass killings in the name of religion, but it's impossible to identify the wars and massive killings that never happened due to someone or a group's beliefs? Who knows, maybe if Israel wasn't so religious, they woulda nuked and killed millions by now they find a threat without giving it a second thought.

 

Like stereotyping the views off all Christians? Seems I know of someone who has done something that ridiculous.

 

Keep on topic.

 

Lol. Just responding to your post dear.

 

That may be the case, But there is definitely a correlation.

 

On this we can agree. Atheism, for instance, has it's share of whack jobs as well.

On topic, your example is horrible, as usual. Cancer treatment kills as many patients as the cancer itself, usually faster and in a more painful way. Any individual, or parent/guardian should be able turn down the current protocol of cancer treatment, whether their choice be motivated by religion or intelligence.

 

Nothing but made up, ill-educated misinformation.

From the wikipedia page on Hodgkin's Lymphoma; "Most patients who are able to be successfully treated (and thus enter remission) generally go on and live long and normal lives, due to a remission success rate of 90% to 95%."

If the boys parents let him have the treatment there is around a 10-5% chance that he will die of the cancer and a minuscule chance that he will die as a result of the treatment. As it stands though, with no treatment, it's almost certain that he will die from the cancer.

lets stick to the facts shall we and ignore the alternate version of reality which exists only in your head.

 

Yeh, I know, you drink the kool aide of science. If it is in a scientific journal, it is fact. You ignore that radiologist is the highest paying medical profession. You ignore the billion dollar business that is chemo therapy sales. At your age, you probably don't even know anyone who has been through the standard cancer treatment protocol, or the alternatives (yes there are legitimate alternatives, regardless of what western doctors would like to tell you). Well let me tell you from personal experience. In most cases, current western cancer treatments are worse than the disease itself. I'll drop one link here, but there are hundreds I could supply.

http://www.mnwelldir.org/docs/fraud/chemo.htm

If you are going to stereotype all religious people as nutjobs for turning down medical care, you'd think you could at least come up with an example of medical care that is not disputed by a large number of people with education in medicine.

 

How on earth can you possibly tell me "from personal experience" about what happens in "most case"?

Cancer treatments have been scientifically proven to be effective in increasing a patients chance of recovery. With Hodgkin's Lymphoma a patient who receives treatment can expect up to a 95% chance of beating it, Which is considerably more than they could expect with no treatment.

Well that looks like a reputable source of scientific information.

 

I see you didn't even read the article. Everything in there is quoted from legitimate and credible sources. I know reading doesn't sit well with you, but it really would really help you to sound more educated.

Regarding personal experience providing knowledge about most cases, when you have a close relative dying of cancer, you tend to study. You study, about treatments, side effects, probability of survival of the disease, probability of survival of the treatment, probability of survival 5 years out, 10 years out, 15 years out, quality of life during those years, costs associated with the treatments, etc. In other words, you learn a bit more than what some moron can pick up reading a Wikipedia link.

http://www.naturalnews.com/012727.html

"If cancer specialists were to admit publicly that chemotherapy is of limited usefulness and is often dangerous, the public might demand a radical change in direction—possibly toward unorthodox and nontoxic methods, and toward cancer prevention. ...The use of chemotherapy is even advocated by those members of the establishment who realize how ineffective and dangerous it can be." - Ralph W. Moss, author, The Cancer Industry

The more interesting read out of the first link I provided is how the incorrect numbers you are throwing around are manipulated by the drug and medical industries.

Have another cup of Koolaide.

 

yeah they must be credible sources... that's why you chose to reference a site that looks like it was made by a 7 year old. The nutjob done what every conspiracy theorist does, chop bits out of context from a variety of equally unscientific sites, surrounds it with rhetoric about the "big pharma" and waits for someone like you to turn up and swallow it hook, line and sinker.

Did you study anything even remotely credible? or did you mostly look for obscure sites written by conspiracy theorists?

I think what you have done it look for someone to blame for your relative getting cancer and decided it must be the health organisations and/or the companies that manufacture cancer treatments - "big pharma" as you no doubt call them. it's understandable, but it hardly makes for a convincing case.

ooh, another link. is this from a reputable scientific journal? oh, no... it's a site peddling "natural remedies". Hardly surprising that a site which displays a cartoon suggesting mammograms cause breast cancer, something which is not only disgustingly dishonest but also socially irresponsible, would be against effective science based treatments. They are at best cretins, or at worst deliberately deceitful.

The fact remains, hodgkins lymphoma can be effectively treated and can give the patient up to a 95% chance of beating it completely.

 

Lol. Web design makes the information less credible? The real humor is watching you talk about nutjob conspiracy theorists when your views on the religious are about as out there as they come.

Is that a trick question? Are you asking if I went to Wikipedia? Is that where you would go if a member of your immediate family were dying of cancer? Heres a heads up for your Wiki education. The first line of information about the side effects and risks associated with Chemo and Radiation comes from the doctors themselves, or at least that is the way it is here in America. After that, you sign round after round of liability waivers stating you release the doctors, the hospital, and "Big Pharma" of any and all liability if you die or are suffer major organ damage from the treatment. This doesn't come from some "Conspiracy Theorist" website, it comes from the people who are selling this crap to you.

What is really funny is watching you talk about this stuff like only a nut job would believe the medical industry would sell you a treatment that can kill you, or that might not help you. If you truly put your faith that blindly in the medical industry, you are crazier than any "Religious fanatic" you claim to hate.

Is there anyone you don't speak for?

This from Wikipedia right? The final arbiter? Hey man, I'm ok with you believing whatever it is you need to believe. When you get cancer one day (1 out of every 2 men get cancer, usually prostate cancer at an older age), you should go with chemo, radiation, and hormone therapy. When they are done with you, if you survive the treatment, you will be impotent and unable to hold your urine. After a few years of limp dick, pissing your pants misery, after the initial year of misery for the treatment, your cancer will come out of remission, only stronger, and you die anyway.

My relative turned down traditional treatment over 10 years ago, and sent the cancer into remission with homeopathic treatment and Immunotherapy. Not bad for someone the doctors originally said would die within a year without radiation and chemo. There are lots of stories like this out there, but by all means, keep chugging the Kool aide. By the way, religion was not involved in the decision making process at any point.

It just occurred to me that perhaps you should set up a shrine to the doctors you worship. It would be more honest.

 

@stox
here is a trick question foryou.
if there is no god then religion is man made
if it is man made then it is made to provide for a need[like any otherinvention]
so it s similar to a gun.
do you blame gun for kiling or the man that inventd the gun or the guy that pulls the trigger?
if youi d not belive in religion you need to look for the real cause of the ills that you talk about
the way you talk it sems that you actually do belive in god and just trying to convince yourself.

 

you fucked it up completely here

 

Generally yes. I have never found a credible site to be poorly designed. The site you referenced wasn't just poorly designed, it was vulgar.

oh noes, not the doctors! What do they know about medicine!
You are sounding paranoid now.

Of course you sign liability waivers. medical treatments do come with some risk, all of them do. From having a tooth extracted to having a heart transplant. What we have to do is weigh up the risks involved with the treatment compared to the risks associated with leaving the condition untreated.

I think you should forfeit your right to receive any medical treatment. You have a particularly distasteful attitude towards people who dedicate their lives to helping people.

I will because it's proven to greatly increase someone chance of beating the disease. Just like the treatment of Hodgkin's lymphoma will give patients 90-95% chance of overcoming it fully.

They were very lucky, if this isolated, anecdotal story is true. And even if it is true, it's still an isolated anecdotal story and certainly doesn't trump the mountains of statistical analysis and medical trials which contradict your claims entirely.

what makes me laugh about you is that you write off proven medication which has gone through years of trials and testing and instead opt for homeopathy, which is some shyster literally selling you bottles of water with absolutely nothing in it. LITTEARALY bottles of water with nothing in it.

Do you understand the principle of homeopathy? read up on it and then try to defend it against proven medication with a straight face. it's a con-mans dream. Selling the sick small bottles of tap water for 100s of dollars.

And maybe you should be a bit more grateful for the people who dedicate their lives to preventing yours from ending prematurely. The ironic thing is, without medicine, vaccinations and trained professionals you would have died long ago. So already you owe your life to them many times over.

sorry i don't answer trick questions... next time have the sense to conceal your deceit.

 

what deceit. i was being sarcastic. the weakness of our argument is as bad as any religion. your belief in the power of the religion is stronger than any other religious person in this forum. could it be you that is deciving you

 

Lol, I forgot. I'm talking to the guy who cant read. I'll summarize your argument for you.

1) You didn't read anything from the website you supplied because I didnt like the design (I have no doubt the drug industry has much nicer web work ). You reiterated bad web design = false information.

2) Doctors are the first to present the risks and side effects of chemo and radiation (What were you getting at here, that was my point. )

3) You sign medical waivers to have a tooth extracted, so chemo must not have any more risk than having your tooth extracted.

4) I should not be able to receive medical treatment because I disparage chemo and radiation as a valid treatment protocol for cancer.

5) You will go with Chemo/Radiation because you saw it has a 90-95% chance of curing cancer on Wikipedia. The idiots from the medical industry telling us there is no cure for cancer have their heads up their asses... oh wait, arent these the people you worship who disagree with you?

6) Any story I present in defense of alternative treatment is either false or isolated because you say so and because of the mountains of statistical evidence which you have neither read, know about, or presented.

6) The choice to go with homeopathic medicine is shyster based, even though you haven't a clue what treatment regiment was used, what board certified doctors were promoting it over chemo and radiation, or the science behind it. Beyond that, you can even describe specifically the regiment was used because.... you say you can.

7) I am ungrateful to doctors because I disparage the standard protocol for cancer treatment.

Dude, you are worse than any bible banging, god is on my side, telling you how it is preacher on the face of the planet. It amazes me how you can talk about things you don't know anything about, fabricate reality in your own mind, and be completely convinced of it. If you truly hate the religious as much as you claim, I have a hard time figuring out how you deal with yourself.

One day, when either you or someone in your family gets cancer, you might just go do real research and find out western medicine doesn't have all the answers and that there are real alternatives out there. Given the state of the NHS, this advice is doubly applicable to you.