NationStates Jolt Archive

(Sorry, couldn't find the original thread, or I would have bumped it up instead.)

If anyone's curious, this just came across my Google News: That judge in Virginia lifted the court order forcing the kid with Hodgkins to undergo chemo. He also lifted the order taking away partial custody from his parents.

http://www.fox21.com/Global/story.asp?S=5195620&nav=2KPp

Now the kid can go to Mexico, eat nuts and fruit, and die of cancer in peace. The fittest survive.

What does Darwin have to do with this?

Maybe it's the kid's name...

What does Darwin have to do with this?
Survival of the fittest. Rather than undergo chemo, which will destroy his quality of life for a few months, but give him an 85% chance of surviving another 60-80 years, he and his parents are undergoing a sugar-free diet therapy to "cleanse his body of the cancer cells."

Excellent. The other judge was an arse.

What does Darwin have to do with this?

From what i understand, the guy is saying that because the person in the article got cancer, he is not fit enough to survive and so, under the laws of natural selection, must die and not pass on 'inferior' genes.

Maybe it's the kid's name...
Nope. His name is Starchild Abraham Cherrix, but he goes by Abraham.

From what i understand, the guy is saying that because the person in the article got cancer, he is not fit enough to survive and so, under the laws of natural selection, must die and not pass on 'inferior' genes.

You are wrong.

You are wrong.

Mind pointing me in the right direction?

Mind pointing me in the right direction?
The original story.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/21/ap/national/mainD8J0MGOO1.shtml

Mind pointing me in the right direction?

The Darwin comment is a reference to the Darwin Awards, presented to those who kill themselves through an act of stupidity.

Sorry I was abrupt, coming out of a more aggressive thread and didn't adjust.

The kid is old enough to make his own decisions if he thinks he can be better of under an alternative treatment then that is what he shall have

And I would rather die after accepting the risks than be forced to undergo a different treatment because some asshat thinks he knows best so score 2 for Darwin eh?

The Darwin comment is a reference to the Darwin Awards, presented to those who kill themselves through an act of stupidity.

Sorry I was abrupt, coming out of a more aggressive thread and didn't adjust.

LOL

On one hand, it's so wrong to make fun of them, but on the other hand, it's really funny. :D

From what i understand, the guy is saying that because the person in the article got cancer, he is not fit enough to survive and so, under the laws of natural selection, must die and not pass on 'inferior' genes.
Actually, I was saying that because the person in the article ignored a proven treatment for Hodgkins Lymphoma because he felt sick to his stomach and tired (a known side effect), he's going to die. And death seriously hurts his chances for procreation.

The original story.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/21/ap/national/mainD8J0MGOO1.shtml

Oops, my bad! *looks sheepish*

The kid is old enough to make his own decisions if he thinks he can be better of under an alternative treatment then that is what he shall have
Yep. Doesn't mean his decision is good or not completely retarded. It's just his decision.

And I would rather die after accepting the risks than be forced to undergo a different treatment because some asshat thinks he knows best so score 2 for Darwin eh?
Sad to lose you in that case, but in the end... yeah...

Oops, my bad! *looks sheepish*
:) It's all good. Like I said, I'd have bumped the original post, but I got tired of looking.

Well, stupid decision, but it's his choice.

Sad to lose you in that case, but in the end... yeah...

what if the government used this to lets say implant brain chips that turn people into mindless drooling zombies and increase the risk of dieing of cancer now some doctor with a big bundle of cash in his hand then says that it cures cancer with obviously fudged evidence

so lets say your kid got cancer and would be required by law to have this chip would you support the decision?

good on that judge. :)

what if the government used this to lets say implant brain chips that turn people into mindless drooling zombies and increase the risk of dieing of cancer now some doctor with a big bundle of cash in his hand then says that it cures cancer with obviously fudged evidence

so lets say your kid got cancer and would be required by law to have this chip would you support the decision?
How long is the person going to be a drooling zombie? For the rest of their life? No. Obviously fudged evidence? No, I don't support this.

Hodgkins Lymphoma has an 85% survival rate if the full course of therapy is completed. That's a proven track record. And the side-effects only last as long as you're undergoing chemo, until your red-blood cell count comes up.

How long is the person going to be a drooling zombie? For the rest of their life? No. Obviously fudged evidence? No, I don't support this.

Hodgkins Lymphoma has an 85% survival rate if the full course of therapy is completed. That's a proven track record. And the side-effects only last as long as you're undergoing chemo, until your red-blood cell count comes up.

The control of your own body is the most basic of human rights. No judge can reverse it.

The control of your own body is the most basic of human rights. No judge can reverse it.
Pfft. Maybe in the UK. :) But the U.S. government has never been known as the ultimate protector of human rights, not even for its own citizenry.

Survival of the fittest.

that's social dawinism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_darwinism).
So economists win!

(Sorry, couldn't find the original thread, or I would have bumped it up instead.)

If anyone's curious, this just came across my Google News: That judge in Virginia lifted the court order forcing the kid with Hodgkins to undergo chemo. He also lifted the order taking away partial custody from his parents.

http://www.fox21.com/Global/story.asp?S=5195620&nav=2KPp

Now the kid can go to Mexico, eat nuts and fruit, and die of cancer in peace. The fittest survive.

YAY! :D
I hope the kid's cancer gets cured by this wacky treatment. Not only because I have a soft spot in my heart for sick kids(I still entertain at the children's hospital twice a month), but because I love bewildered doctors. :)

From what i understand, the guy is saying that because the person in the article got cancer, he is not fit enough to survive and so, under the laws of natural selection, must die and not pass on 'inferior' genes.

Among the traits that determine a species fitness for survival is the ability to be a good parent. What some biologists refer to ironicly as "genes for having a good mother."

Parents who have a tendency towards reason and use medicine will produce children that survive long enough to reproduce with greater regularity than parents who don't take care of their kids. It's like how the cycle of child abuse can end in one of two ways. The abused kid gets therapy, or foster care, and doesn't grow up in an abusive environment and go on to be an abusive parent, or the parent kills the kid and he doesn't grow up to be an abusive parent.