Showing posts with label Health. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Health. Show all posts
Monday, March 16, 2015
Sunday, March 15, 2015
False Hope Is Quack Docs’ Go-To Medicine - The Daily Beast
False Hope Is Quack Docs’ Go-To Medicine - The Daily Beast
"The fact is, we live in a real world with real problems and real diseases, not a fantasyland where ultra-diluted water or high-dose vitamin C or an alkaline diet can cure any disease or stimulate the body to do so. In this world, real scientists work tirelessly researching innovative treatments for everything from benign diseases like eczema to the most hideous rare cancers. That is how new treatments are developed—not by doing coffee enemas and crossing your fingers.
The Saatchi bill, despite the proponents’ arguments to the contrary, would have been a charlatan’s dream. It would have unfettered unscrupulous doctors to use unproven and/or expensive treatments like antineoplastons, radionics, the pH miracle cure, Gerson therapy, and the like with impunity. None of these has any proven benefit, but quacks could have used any of them under the protection of the bill to defraud ailing people who are already at their most desperate and susceptible."
Apparently, this real-world non-quack doctor is justified in giving death sentences, with no obligation to provide successful treatment. Though he is well-paid, he treats with impunity, inasmuch as the treatment may utterly fail, with the patient subsequently dying from complications. The complications of treatment are often attributed to the disease being treated. But as he said, he is brutally honest, declaring that death is most likely imminent and his treatment is for naught - yet he should be respected and revered, because he is valid and legitimate. He is free to fail, at the patient's expense and his own financial enrichment, unlike those he mentions whom he should not even think of as competitors due to their inferior and non-professional status.
Hope is vital. If someone finds hope in using alternative treatments, it could well translate into remission or recovery. Then again, such a person could die. And according to this doctor, those providing or assisting in the embrace of such hope should be held accountable, or better yet, prevented from giving the hope or alternatives in the first place. I see something wrong with this.
Yes, real treatments are continually being developed - and the only thing that can be counted on is that the development and use of them will be profitable to those dispensing them. In the interest of justice, accountability should not only apply to those who reveal alternative treatments that hold appeal to the person needing hope and healing. It seems more than a bit backward to be harsh and disciplinary to non-professionals who embrace alternatives to the medical system, while letting true professionals off the hook and without responsibility for results. When the doctor tells you there is little or no hope, in spite of his offer of continued treatment, please stop and think. Why would one accept such a statement?
"The fact is, we live in a real world with real problems and real diseases, not a fantasyland where ultra-diluted water or high-dose vitamin C or an alkaline diet can cure any disease or stimulate the body to do so. In this world, real scientists work tirelessly researching innovative treatments for everything from benign diseases like eczema to the most hideous rare cancers. That is how new treatments are developed—not by doing coffee enemas and crossing your fingers.
The Saatchi bill, despite the proponents’ arguments to the contrary, would have been a charlatan’s dream. It would have unfettered unscrupulous doctors to use unproven and/or expensive treatments like antineoplastons, radionics, the pH miracle cure, Gerson therapy, and the like with impunity. None of these has any proven benefit, but quacks could have used any of them under the protection of the bill to defraud ailing people who are already at their most desperate and susceptible."
Apparently, this real-world non-quack doctor is justified in giving death sentences, with no obligation to provide successful treatment. Though he is well-paid, he treats with impunity, inasmuch as the treatment may utterly fail, with the patient subsequently dying from complications. The complications of treatment are often attributed to the disease being treated. But as he said, he is brutally honest, declaring that death is most likely imminent and his treatment is for naught - yet he should be respected and revered, because he is valid and legitimate. He is free to fail, at the patient's expense and his own financial enrichment, unlike those he mentions whom he should not even think of as competitors due to their inferior and non-professional status.
Hope is vital. If someone finds hope in using alternative treatments, it could well translate into remission or recovery. Then again, such a person could die. And according to this doctor, those providing or assisting in the embrace of such hope should be held accountable, or better yet, prevented from giving the hope or alternatives in the first place. I see something wrong with this.
Yes, real treatments are continually being developed - and the only thing that can be counted on is that the development and use of them will be profitable to those dispensing them. In the interest of justice, accountability should not only apply to those who reveal alternative treatments that hold appeal to the person needing hope and healing. It seems more than a bit backward to be harsh and disciplinary to non-professionals who embrace alternatives to the medical system, while letting true professionals off the hook and without responsibility for results. When the doctor tells you there is little or no hope, in spite of his offer of continued treatment, please stop and think. Why would one accept such a statement?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)