http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/09/health/main1786821.shtml
<http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/09/health/main1786821.shtml>
Dear Mike A,
Just another example of the "State" declaring it knows better and using the resources of the "State" ( taxpayers) to come down on the family. As far as the Doctors who are involved what ever happened to "first do no harm" and watchful waiting? If for some reason the herbal therapy does not pan out you are going to find out real quickly. It smells like the doctors involved just trying to do CYA.
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian
The Hoxsey treatment that Starchild wanted to use was discovered in 1840
by an Illinois farmer who noticed that a horse of his with cancer kept
returning to a particular corner of the pasture, and his cancer
eventually healed. The farmer developed an extract of the plants that
the horse had been eating. Legal battles started when Hoxsey's grandson
refused to sign over rights to the AMA in the 1930s; the Hoxsey Clinic
was eventually forced to move to Tijuana in the 1950s.
You are quite right that the free market would pretty quickly eliminate
useless cancer remedies. Forcing them underground (to Mexico) makes it
much harder to discriminate useful from worthless remedies--a problem
that is already difficult enough because different treatment appear to
work differently for different people.
Dear Mike;
It's like when the AMA tried to get homeopathy banned when it first got started because it wasn't done by "real" doctors who had not completed the required curricula as mandated by AMA annointed medical colleges. It is nothing more than stopping competition through laws paid for by lobbyists to politicians.
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian
[ Attachment content not displayed ]
I totally agree. I see little evidence that Christian Scientists or other religious fanatics are going to give up their absurd beliefs because of the free market, of all things.
Jeremy
I hope this message isn't a duplicate; I received a notice that my
original submission bounced:
Jeremy and Derek:
You're right that the free market will hardly force those who believe in
the healing power of prayer to give up their beliefs. But it's odd that
you should expect it to fail uniquely in the area of medicine. It's
true that judging which treatments will help us is difficult, given that
medical research focuses on average effects on large numbers of
individuals, and ignores the fact that different people respond
differently to the same treatment. But the current legal environment
also drastically impairs both research and the dissemination of
information. It is virtually impossible to do research on the effects
of marijuana on cancer--or of laetrile, or the Hoxsey treatment, or any
of a dozen others. That leaves just anecdotal reports from people who
can make it to Tijuana and are willing to admit to having used illegal
treatments--a pretty spotty database. Under these conditions, worthless
treatments can survive for much longer than they would in a free market.
With no legal restrictions on research, or dissemination of information,
I wouldn't expect people to continue paying thousands of dollars for
useless treatments, decade after decade, any more than they continue
paying $50 for Stossel's solar-powered clothes dryers.
That's being quite optimistic. Scientologists are still around after a few decades, as are fortune tellers, and many other "herbal remedies" that we've known for years and years don't work. The human mind often displays a profound unwillingness to be confused by the facts.
Jeremy
You are correct. No free market is ever going to convince Jehovah's
Witnesses to accept blood transfusions or consent to be treated with gamma
globulin derived from blood and plasma donations, no matter how much
scientific evidence is provided that such treatments are effective.
Terry Floyd
Jeremy:
Your reference to Scientology (did you mean Christian Science?)--and
Terry's to Jehovah's Witnesses--raise the interesting issue of the free
market in ideas, or in ideology. A free market, permitting the
unhampered development and dissemination of ideas, will still be the
most efficient at getting people what they want; but it would be a
mistake to assume that what most people want is the truth. Having spent
a lifetime in academentia, I can assure you that that's a minor
criterion for many people who call themselves scientists. The situation
is hardly better when we look at what people want from religion. So we
needn't be too surprised at the persistence of belief systems like
Scientology.
But the topic was alternative cancer treatments rather than religion.
You are right that some religious sects don't believe in medical
treatment, but their beliefs are irrelevant to the choice of cancer
treatment for the rest of us. With respect to medical treatments,
unlike ideologies, I believe that most people really are looking for
things that work. The situation is unfortunately complicated by the
fact that we invest far too much authority in doctors, a reliance that
is almost necessitated by the fact that our basic education curriculum
includes very little about medicine or health. But, to the extent that
we have a choice, we tend not to keep paying for treatments that don't
work; we move on to something else. We also often tell our friends
about what worked or not--though judgments, again, are difficult because
what worked for me may well not work for you.
The more relevant part of your response is your rather glib reference to
"worthless herbal remedies." The evidence on most of these is pretty
mixed, in part because legal regulations have distorted the information
market. (For a sampling of horror stories on what politics has done to
medicine, and to our health, see Daniel Haley's Politics in Healing: The
Suppression and Manipulation of American Medicine.) But many
prescription drugs, from digitalis to Taxol, were developed from herbs.
Although a few, like Reminyl, are identical to the herbal product,
pharmaceutical companies usually put a twist on the molecule so they can
patent it, making it more powerful and more dangerous. If you put your
trust in prescription drugs rather than herbal remedies, that's fine
with me. And we surely don't have much of a political difference,
either. My points were only (a) that I didn't see the persistence of
religion as much of an argument against the free market, in general or
in medicine in particular, and (b) that we are very far from having a
free market either in medicine or in medical information.
Dear Everyone;
News Flash from AP re Virginia boy seeking alternative cancer
treatment - the might state wins again without even attempting to
verify if the alternative treatment actually works.
Rah Rah Rah big brother!!! You The Man!!! Stomp the stuffings out of
people with impunity because you knows better!!!
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian
http://www.dailypress.com/news/local/virginia/dp-sou--
sickteen0721jul21,0,2454935.story?coll=dp-headlines-virginia
Judge Orders Teen to Cancer Treatment
Jul 21, 6:43 PM (ET) By SONJA BARISIC
NORFOLK, Va. (AP) - A judge ruled Friday that a 16-year-old boy
fighting to use alternative treatment for his cancer must report to
a hospital by Tuesday and accept treatment that doctors deem
necessary, the family's attorney said.
The judge also found Starchild Abraham Cherrix's parents were
neglectful for allowing him to pursue alternative treatment of a
sugar-free, organic diet and herbal supplements supervised by a
clinic in Mexico, lawyer John Stepanovich said.
Jay and Rose Cherrix of Chincoteague on Virginia's Eastern Shore
must continue to share custody of their son with the Accomack County
Department of Social Services, as the judge had previously ordered,
Stepanovich said.
The parents were devastated by the new order and planned to appeal,
the lawyer said.
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Acree, Michael" <acreem@...>
wrote:
Jeremy:
Your reference to Scientology (did you mean Christian Science?)--
and
Terry's to Jehovah's Witnesses--raise the interesting issue of the
free
market in ideas, or in ideology. A free market, permitting the
unhampered development and dissemination of ideas, will still be
the
most efficient at getting people what they want; but it would be a
mistake to assume that what most people want is the truth. Having
spent
a lifetime in academentia, I can assure you that that's a minor
criterion for many people who call themselves scientists. The
situation
is hardly better when we look at what people want from religion.
So we
needn't be too surprised at the persistence of belief systems like
Scientology.But the topic was alternative cancer treatments rather than
religion.
You are right that some religious sects don't believe in medical
treatment, but their beliefs are irrelevant to the choice of cancer
treatment for the rest of us. With respect to medical treatments,
unlike ideologies, I believe that most people really are looking
for
things that work. The situation is unfortunately complicated by
the
fact that we invest far too much authority in doctors, a reliance
that
is almost necessitated by the fact that our basic education
curriculum
includes very little about medicine or health. But, to the extent
that
we have a choice, we tend not to keep paying for treatments that
don't
work; we move on to something else. We also often tell our friends
about what worked or not--though judgments, again, are difficult
because
what worked for me may well not work for you.
The more relevant part of your response is your rather glib
reference to
"worthless herbal remedies." The evidence on most of these is
pretty
mixed, in part because legal regulations have distorted the
information
market. (For a sampling of horror stories on what politics has
done to
medicine, and to our health, see Daniel Haley's Politics in
Healing: The
Suppression and Manipulation of American Medicine.) But many
prescription drugs, from digitalis to Taxol, were developed from
herbs.
Although a few, like Reminyl, are identical to the herbal product,
pharmaceutical companies usually put a twist on the molecule so
they can
patent it, making it more powerful and more dangerous. If you put
your
trust in prescription drugs rather than herbal remedies, that's
fine
with me. And we surely don't have much of a political difference,
either. My points were only (a) that I didn't see the persistence
of
religion as much of an argument against the free market, in
general or
in medicine in particular, and (b) that we are very far from
having a
free market either in medicine or in medical information.
________________________________
From: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com [mailto:lpsf-
discuss@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Jeremy Linden
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 5:26 PM
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [lpsf-discuss] "Teen fights to treat cancer his own
way"
> You're right that the free market will hardly force those who
believe
in
> the healing power of prayer to give up their beliefs. But it's
odd
that
> you should expect it to fail uniquely in the area of medicine.
It's
> true that judging which treatments will help us is difficult,
given
that
> medical research focuses on average effects on large numbers of
> individuals, and ignores the fact that different people respond
> differently to the same treatment. But the current legal
environment
> also drastically impairs both research and the dissemination of
> information. It is virtually impossible to do research on the
effects
> of marijuana on cancer--or of laetrile, or the Hoxsey treatment,
or
any
> of a dozen others. That leaves just anecdotal reports from
people who
> can make it to Tijuana and are willing to admit to having used
illegal
> treatments--a pretty spotty database. Under these conditions,
worthless
> treatments can survive for much longer than they would in a free
market.
> With no legal restrictions on research, or dissemination of
information,
> I wouldn't expect people to continue paying thousands of dollars
for
> useless treatments, decade after decade, any more than they
continue
> paying $50 for Stossel's solar-powered clothes dryers.
That's being quite optimistic. Scientologists are still around
after a
few decades, as are fortune tellers, and many other "herbal
remedies"
Thanks for the update, Ron.