being happy and content

[LivingInTheMoment]

Yes... and outcome studies show that the best results are achieved with a combination of medication and therapy, not just therapy.

In the case of SEVERE depression, even more drastic measures might be indicated, e.g. electroshock, deep-brain stimulation, et al.

Anti-depressants don't simply change your mood...

>a combination of medication and therapy, not just therapy.

I thought that comes through my post don't you think? I find your response in that sense unnecessary!

>even more drastic measures might be indicated, e.g. electroshock

I'd be damned if I refer anyone to anyone who will give this Nazi version of dehumanizing method to someone. We have dealt with severe depression with humane contact and has worked wonders!

PS I wonder how you didn't offer 3 of those treatments (electroshock) as a gift to your girlfriend....but wait....perhaps I am speaking too soon! Either way, she might need it by the end if she stays in the relationship!

 

[LivingInTheMoment]

^ mmm, I think optimism can be learned, actually. Ilovetorelax, you might want to check out some books by Martin Seligman, who is a leading proponent of that view (and a very well respected one in the scientific community).

Tread with care though. Significant others don't always welcome gifts that suggest there's something about themselves that they can improve. Man, I remember that one time I decided to get my girlfriend three free sessions with a psychiatrist rather than her requested three free spa sessions...

If you notice the op used the word EMOTIONS, to which I responded to correct him.
Optimism I agree is learned! Emotions as he described as being learned-No!

Geez, you know, you rub me the wrong way, that even when you say something at times, that may make sense and I may agree, I react negatively to you-though I would accept it from someone else whom I like and respect! Your ways agitate me!

 

[Heuristic]

I was joking about purchasing a girlfriend three free sessions with a psychiatrist, Living. Fear not.

Electroshock is still a used, and approved, treatment for severely depressed individuals, as a last resort. Obviously the individual is sedated to avoid pain; and they more often than not experience some relief as a result of the treatment.

 

[LivingInTheMoment]

I was joking about purchasing a girlfriend three free sessions with a psychiatrist, Living. Fear not.

Electroshock is still a used, and approved, treatment for severely depressed individuals, as a last resort. Obviously the individual is sedated to avoid pain; and they more often than not experience some relief as a result of the treatment.

Ahhh, thank god for that! I have to get used to your jokes!...but I am glad you have a sense of humor, you got to use it a bit more often here and there! It's nice to joke, keeps things lighter!

 

[Enlitx]

Ah, thanks but this >but still carry some risk of harm. ...is always the case, since depression is something to be dealt with and not changed over to another mood by antidepressant's the way I see it, ofcourse I understand that they may have to do at start of therapy, but more then pills is needed. Depression is a state, where it is necessary for self healing, if one uses it as a tool and not view it as a malice to do away with-but used when there is danger of suicide as a temporary meassure, until dealt properly!

I agree that depression needs to be dealt with using CBT therapy and personal growth. I think Heuristic has the right idea as well, since medication in conjunction with therapy has proven to be the most effective route.

 

[Enlitx]

I saw something in the news today that made me think of this thread. The parents of a child with cancer wanted to stop chemotherapy and use "alternative" medicine. They wanted to use herbs, diet, spiritual practices, and sweat lodges to heal their son. A court ordered them to turn over medical care to the oncologist.

Just thought it was interesting that when someone's life is on the line, Western Medicine is considered so far superior that a court can force parents to use it. Those parents wouldn't happen to be posters in this forum would they?

 

[MynameisnotDeja]

I also read that article and I'm sure it won't surprise you that I support the parents.

I think the ruling in that case is disgusting. Chemotherapy should be forced on no one.

Btw what the courts do means little to me. Courts also put people in jail for smoking marijuana.

 

[Enlitx]

I also read that article and I'm sure it won't surprise you that I support the parents.

I think the ruling in that case is disgusting. Chemotherapy should be forced on no one.

Btw what the courts do means little to me. Courts also put people in jail for smoking marijuana.

I think that your position is disgusting. I don't really care too much what you do with your body, but to suggest that the parents should be able to put their child in serious risk of death is an absolutely horrible and amoral position to take.

Seriously, there is a difference between having outlandish ideas yourself and pushing bad medicine on a child. I really, really hope you don't have children who are seriously ill. At least the state would step in to correct your very warped thinking.

Sorry to get a little mean, but it is a child's life we are talking about here.

And if you really believe your ideas of medicine are good enough to treat a dying child, then this would be a perfect time to actually demonstrate their efficacy. Just don't expect caring, rational people to "respect" your ideas without evidence if a child's life is on the line.

 

[MynameisnotDeja]

The fact that you think my thinking is warped is meaningless. I don't understand the way you think either. However you don't see me calling your ideas outlandish or your thinking warped. Just be respectful of other people if you don't want to come across like a troll.

I don't actually know enough about that case to comment further about whether or not that particular child needs chemo/etc. What I should have said is that it disgusts me for courts to take away parents rights over how to treat their child. Should we have no choice? Is it one particular type of medicine or NOTHING? I don't understand, I mean if you believe we should have no choice over how we live and how we raise our children, fine, but I feel that it's up to the parents.

You do realize that there are plenty of people out there who choose to fight cancer without using chemotherapy, right? It's not as if they were just ignoring the cancer, they just chose a different route to treating their son. How is that wrong? I don't get it.

You should read about Kris Carr, she is my idol and she has been fighting cancer for 5-6 years now using diet, herbs, exercise, etc. In her case, they basically told her it was too late and chemo wasn't going to do anything anyway. Instead of giving up she turned to alternative medicine and has had incredible success and is in thriving health. She is a good example of what holistic health care can do. She's amazing and very inspirational. They made a movie about her called Crazy Sexy Cancer, you should give it a watch sometime. Here is a bit about her:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbRM2RAjgh0

I don't know the parents reasoning in the case you mentioned, so I really shouldn't have commented on it (I only saw a snippet about it on the news and was half paying attention). All I know is that there are many treatment options for cancer, and I think parents should have the right to choose what they think is best for their children. There are always cases of abuse or neglect where the courts might step in and maybe that applies here, I don't know, but just in general that is what I believe.

I really, really hope you don't have children who are seriously ill. At least the state would step in to correct your very warped thinking.

^Please don't make these sort of personal knocks on me anymore. It's uncalled for. You don't know me and you don't need to be saying anything about my parenting skills. It's one thing to have a discussion, making it personal is quite another. Kindly knock it off, thanks.

 

[Heuristic]

^ for those interested, here was the final court findings and order: http://www.courts.state.mn.us/Documents/0/Public/Other/Hauser/Final_Order.pdf

Now, a few things:

1. According to every doctor who testified, and who was consulted by the parents, the child had a 90-95% surviving with chemotherapy---and a 5% chance of surviving without it. In other words, to deny their child chemotherapy would be the equivalent of killing him.

2. Parents have the duty, under Minnesota law, to render necessary medical treatment. They are free to render alternative treatments as well, but they cannot shirk from that duty. If their child were choking, for example, and the parents did not administer appropriate care, we would hold them negligent. If their child were malnourished, we would hold them in negligent. The situation is no different in this case. The child requires a medical treatment, or he will almost certainly die.

3. The mother in this case not only refused to allow follow up x-rays to determine if the tumor was growing--previous x-rays, conducted after chemotherapy was stopped at the insistence of the parents, had indicated that the tumor had resumed its growth.

4. The "naturopath" whom the mother claimed was the child's alternative doctor had never seen the child, had never examined the child, and said she would recommend chemotherapy.

Bottom line is that the child will die without this treatment. The parents in this case do not have the right to sacrifice the life of their child in the pursuit of their religious beliefs.

Deja, I think even you would agree that, in this instance, the courts did the right thing.

 

[MynameisnotDeja]

What were their religious beliefs?

After reading everything you wrote, I no longer really have an opinion either way.

I'm against chemotherapy, and it disturbs me that it could be forced on someone. At the same time, the child has rights too, and it's difficult to determine what the child wants for himself when we don't really consider children mature enough to make those sorts of decisions in society. Yeah.. after thinking about it more I think it's too complicated for me to bother trying to form an opinion. I can see both sides. (a usual problem of mine)

 

[LivingInTheMoment]

Many have died from chemotherapy, where as others who followed alternatives made it!

doctors don't have power, it is the law that runs them, so it is expectant that the law followed that decision.

Unfortunately, they have made it so, that alternative methods do not account, and that is very sad!

But if that child dies under chemo, why is it not that they do not pay the consequences, but get out of the responsibility by saying the child was dying anyway? It is not the only choice!
The law in many areas stink! We have criminals who have killed and the law lets them out even in two to three years time and while the parents of the victims have not outgrown their pain of the loss, yet the law still remains illogically staying as is-not changing! Does it make the law fair? Most deffinately not. When you become a parent yourself, lets see what decisions you make.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

That story smacks heavily of sensationalist journalism, first off.

What was this family's insurance situation? Did she and her child have coverage of any sort? Was the family perfectly eligible for coverage through work or Medicaid, but refused it? If they were covered, was it a sort of coverage that heavily restricted, or dictated, what doctor (especially specialists) they'd cover? Medical ethics is very complicated in the US, because of the confounding factor of a multi-payer system that's essentially a protection racket.

Yes, it's messed up when a parent withholds care from their child that could almost certainly save their life. It's just as messed up, in a different way, that a court could hold a law-abiding, taxpaying citizen criminally liable for refusing to seek out treatment for their child that they'd have no way of paying for. It's kind of like when broke homeless people, who are bothering absolutely no one, get ticketed by the cops for vagrancy.

I didn't read this story and can't really pass any more judgement unless I know a lot more details about it.

 

[Heuristic]

^ actually it's not surprising to me. In this case, costs were not an issue.

From time to time parents with religious beliefs we might consider strange forbid doctors from instituting life-saving measures for their children---blood transfusions, for example---and the courts then have to weigh the state's compelling interest in the life of the child, the best interests of the child, and the parents' fundamental rights to free exercise of religion, and to raise their child.

Ultimately, of course, the child's safety trumps everything else in a life or death situation, which is what this is.

Deja, in this instance the child, a 13 year old, suffers from various learning disabilities; he was appointed a guardian ad litem, however, whose job it is to represent the interests of the child. The court found that the child could not understand what chemotherapy was, or do more than repeat the religious beliefs of his parents (the child was told he was a "medicine man" and an "elder" who needed alternative treatments---the child could not explain these concepts to the judge).

 

[Enlitx]

The fact that you think my thinking is warped is meaningless. I don't understand the way you think either. However you don't see me calling your ideas outlandish or your thinking warped. Just be respectful of other people if you don't want to come across like a troll.

How is me calling your ideas outlandish any different than you saying I just don't understand and don't have the capacity to understand your ideas? I guess I could have said you don't have the capacity to understand scientific questions, but either way it is the same thing. I really don't care if I come across as a troll to you, I think that you hide behind the idea that anyone who disagrees with your ideas and strongly challenges them must be a troll. That is probably why you gravitate towards spirituality topics, since there is less concrete data to prove or disprove your ideas, so you take it to the extreme and claim no one could challenge your views. I admitted I was a little mean with my last post, but I get upset when people try and force bad ideas of medicine on a helpless child who doesen't know any better.

I don't actually know enough about that case to comment further about whether or not that particular child needs chemo/etc. What I should have said is that it disgusts me for courts to take away parents rights over how to treat their child. Should we have no choice? Is it one particular type of medicine or NOTHING? I don't understand, I mean if you believe we should have no choice over how we live and how we raise our children, fine, but I feel that it's up to the parents.

I believe that if parents are making choices that risk their child's life, they should be stopped.

You do realize that there are plenty of people out there who choose to fight cancer without using chemotherapy, right? It's not as if they were just ignoring the cancer, they just chose a different route to treating their son. How is that wrong? I don't get it.

Yep, and I also realize the success rates with these people. It is wrong to give your child a 10% chance when a 90% chance is available.

You should read about Kris Carr, she is my idol and she has been fighting cancer for 5-6 years now using diet, herbs, exercise, etc. In her case, they basically told her it was too late and chemo wasn't going to do anything anyway. Instead of giving up she turned to alternative medicine and has had incredible success and is in thriving health. She is a good example of what holistic health care can do. She's amazing and very inspirational. They made a movie about her called Crazy Sexy Cancer, you should give it a watch sometime. Here is a bit about her:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbRM2RAjgh0

That would be part of the 5% success rate without chemo. It still doesen't make it a good option.

I don't know the parents reasoning in the case you mentioned, so I really shouldn't have commented on it (I only saw a snippet about it on the news and was half paying attention). All I know is that there are many treatment options for cancer, and I think parents should have the right to choose what they think is best for their children. There are always cases of abuse or neglect where the courts might step in and maybe that applies here, I don't know, but just in general that is what I believe.

Again, if there is a serious risk to the child's health, courts should step in.

^Please don't make these sort of personal knocks on me anymore. It's uncalled for. You don't know me and you don't need to be saying anything about my parenting skills. It's one thing to have a discussion, making it personal is quite another. Kindly knock it off, thanks.

I am sure this won't happen again, but a child's life is something that stirs my emotions.

 

[Enlitx]

Many have died from chemotherapy, where as others who followed alternatives made it!

It all comes down to percentages. A small percentage of people will live without any treatment at all (which is comparable to alternative medicine), but when you have a 90% success rate with chemo, it is negligent and downright immoral to not treat a child with chemo.

 

[Heuristic]

Entlix, I'm pretty sure anyone here would get their child chemo if they knew that without it there was a 95% chance that child would be dead in less than 5 years---and it wouldn't be a pleasant death either.

I think Deja has a bias towards individual liberty, which is good; but I really suspect that anyone who reads the court's findings will come out the same way.

MyDoors, keep in mind that the parents, after being told by their initial oncologist that chemo was needed, went to the Mayo Clinic to get a second opinion, and the University of Rochester to get a third opinion. This really isn't a cost of healthcare case.

 

[Enlitx]

Entlix, I'm pretty sure anyone here would get their child chemo if they knew that without it there was a 95% chance that child would be dead in less than 5 years---and it wouldn't be a pleasant death either.

Judging by previous posts, I am not sure some of these people would even believe those statistics. They would probably go on and on about how alternative medicine is just as effectual, Western Medicine is only about money, etc...

I do hope people would do it though, for the sake of the child.

 

[MynameisnotDeja]

How is me calling your ideas outlandish any different than you saying I just don't understand and don't have the capacity to understand your ideas? I guess I could have said you don't have the capacity to understand scientific questions, but either way it is the same thing. I really don't care if I come across as a troll to you, I think that you hide behind the idea that anyone who disagrees with your ideas and strongly challenges them must be a troll. That is probably why you gravitate towards spirituality topics, since there is less concrete data to prove or disprove your ideas, so you take it to the extreme and claim no one could challenge your views. I admitted I was a little mean with my last post, but I get upset when people try and force bad ideas of medicine on a helpless child who doesen't know any better.

Whatever. Try and twist things however you want. I've made it clear a number of times now that it's the WAY you say things that is rude, and plenty of others agree with me. I have no problem whatsoever with people having a different view than myself. Plenty of my friends see things in a very similar way as you do, but we don't get into fights because they know how to be RESPECTFUL of other people, which you clearly don't get.

so you take it to the extreme and claim no one could challenge your views.

No one can challenge my views? LOL.. God.. you really are amazing.

 

[Heuristic]

Judging by previous posts, I am not sure some of these people would even believe those statistics. They would probably go on and on about how alternative medicine is just as effectual, Western Medicine is only about money, etc...

I do hope people would do it though, for the sake of the child.

Yeah, but keep in mind that we're all reading these posts in the abstract as it were, from anonymous strangers over the internet. I think a sit-down consultation with an oncologist would carry a lot more weight.

Then again, there clearly are people who think that some kind of Native American traditional medicine will work and chemo won't, as in this case, so who knows. And the parents here got opinions from some of the best medical authorities in the world.