freedom of choice to accept or refuse treatments..

by Guest Tue Mar 04, 2014 10:19 pm

should it be our human rights to accept or refuse any treatment offered and should we be made aware of any alternative treatments..

by veya_victaous Tue Mar 04, 2014 10:38 pm

IF they are under go Clinical trials and are Proven effective, yes. IF they are not then NO and the people pushing for things that fail clinical trials should be help responsible if they persist after the evidence has been acquired. they should be sent to jail like the scamming snake oil salesmen they are.

I know you hate anything that is Proven Correct HF but for the rest of us that is the KEY POINT. People Pushing Lies should be held responsible.

by Guest Tue Mar 04, 2014 11:17 pm

I think.....that within limits I actually agree with HF on this ...

those limits however are strict

Firstly though...it should be made QUITE clear that indeed it IS an inviolable human right to refuse or accept any treatment IF you (the person needing the treatment) is of age, and of sound mind. For children there is a problem, parents can at times have wierd ideas, and these do not necessarily coincide with the childs best interests. HOWEVER it should also be noted that the intent/interests of those advocating a particular "official" treatment plan are not always "benign". the medical oath is at times "variable" in its application, especially where money becomes involved.

that said, those "alternative treatments SHOULD be made "visible" to those wishing to try them, What SHOULD NOT be allowed is for those supporting these alternatives to be able to suggest/intimate or openly say that they are a "better" replacement, they should be made to demonstrate t0o a "reasonable degree" the effectiveness, even if this isnt to the level of a full clinical trial. there is NO doubt that in some cases some of these things HAVE worked a little magic and given people relief and even cures. One that is now, only after years of pressure, being properly investigated is I believe THC...thats right tetra-hydroxy-canabinol, the ACTIVE (and most interesting) component of "weed", which has long been reputed to be anti cancer active....

there can be No doubt that big Pharma are NOT interested in letting any "natural" remedy through....It would cripple their cash flow, so even IF something was found natural that worked it would be fought tooth and nail by big Pharma...

So, overall...yes we SHOULD have the right to take whatever treatment we choose, conventional OR otherwise, BUT it needs to be on the basis of sensible open knowlege, NOT the "miracle cure" snake oil nonsense we so often see.

@HF...you have been in the past guilty of this "snake oil approach" with that patent nonsense about an "alkaline diet", which I seriously hope you now understand is rubbish, simply because you CANNOT make the body alkaline...it is incompatible with life..
I can forgive you that past indiscretion because it is clear that your knowlege of physiology is sketchy (and to be fair why should it be otherwise, unless you have studied biology to beyond A level). But having seen the consequences of failed chemo personally, I have to say that there is a grain of humanity in what you say.

by Guest Tue Mar 04, 2014 11:18 pm

heavenly father wrote:should it be our human rights to accept or refuse any treatment offered and should we be made aware of any alternative treatments..

Absolutely...but the best choice with the best outcome should be offered first...amd if folk want chemo then should be allowed without having to feel bad about it along with feeling physically crap.

by veya_victaous Wed Mar 05, 2014 12:24 am

victorismyhero wrote:I think.....that within limits I actually agree with HF on this ...

those limits however are strict

Firstly though...it should be made QUITE clear that indeed it IS an inviolable human right to refuse or accept any treatment IF you (the person needing the treatment) is of age, and of sound mind. For children there is a problem, parents can at times have wierd ideas, and these do not necessarily coincide with the childs best interests. HOWEVER it should also be noted that the intent/interests of those advocating a particular "official" treatment plan are not always "benign". the medical oath is at times "variable" in its application, especially where money becomes involved.

that said, those "alternative treatments SHOULD be made "visible" to those wishing to try them, What SHOULD NOT be allowed is for those supporting these alternatives to be able to suggest/intimate or openly say that they are a "better" replacement, they should be made to demonstrate t0o a "reasonable degree" the effectiveness, even if this isnt to the level of a full clinical trial. there is NO doubt that in some cases some of these things HAVE worked a little magic and given people relief and even cures. One that is now, only after years of pressure, being properly investigated is I believe THC...thats right tetra-hydroxy-canabinol, the ACTIVE (and most interesting) component of "weed", which has long been reputed to be anti cancer active....

there can be No doubt that big Pharma are NOT interested in letting any "natural" remedy through....It would cripple their cash flow, so even IF something was found natural that worked it would be fought tooth and nail by big Pharma...

So, overall...yes we SHOULD have the right to take whatever treatment we choose, conventional OR otherwise, BUT it needs to be on the basis of sensible open knowlege, NOT the "miracle cure" snake oil nonsense we so often see.

@HF...you have been in the past guilty of this "snake oil approach" with that patent nonsense about an "alkaline diet", which I seriously hope you now understand is rubbish, simply because you CANNOT make the body alkaline...it is incompatible with life..
I can forgive you that past indiscretion because it is clear that your knowlege of physiology is sketchy (and to be fair why should it be otherwise, unless you have studied biology to beyond A level). But having seen the consequences of failed chemo personally, I have to say that there is a grain of humanity in what you say.

Does the right to refuse treatment extend to ones Children? what about the non-responsive? should we be listening to a relative if we are unsure? and what about Suicide victims we try and save them even though be definition they did it to themselves by choice.

Also Should we the taxpayer be funding quackery? that is the big issue if the gov't allocates 100 million to cancer treatments and 10 million is wasted on quackery like the "alkaline diet" we just lost 10% of the resources that COULD have been used on treatments that have been shown effective in clinical trials. because we are looking it on mass scale (though NHS or Medicare) the cost of a clinical trial is minimal when compare with the potential wastage of investing in an Alternative treatment that is ineffective.

You would not invest in a company that failed comparative reviews of it's profitability, SO why invest in a cure that also fails reviews of its effectiveness?

by eddie Wed Mar 05, 2014 9:14 am

veya_victaous wrote:IF they are under go Clinical trials and are Proven effective, yes. IF they are not then NO and the people pushing for things that fail clinical trials should be help responsible if they persist after the evidence has been acquired. they should be sent to jail like the scamming snake oil salesmen they are.

I know you hate anything that is Proven Correct HF but for the rest of us that is the KEY POINT. People Pushing Lies should be held responsible.

I think the point is though, that HF may be making (correct me if I'm wrong), can we trust clinical trials?

That's the point he is always trying to make?

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 9:17 am

We should be offered whatever the NHS can provide.

It should be up to us to go and find alternatives, if we want to.

And yes, we should have the choice to pick what we want.

The NHS shouldn't have to tell you that there's a church down the road which offers a bit of hocus pocus.

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 9:35 am

I have looked on the NHS website and it does have a section where it talks about alternative treatment , i think it is clear that more and more people are losing faith in conventional treatments , so the NHS need to address this option too .

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 9:41 am

eddie wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:IF they are under go Clinical trials and are Proven effective, yes. IF they are not then NO and the people pushing for things that fail clinical trials should be help responsible if they persist after the evidence has been acquired. they should be sent to jail like the scamming snake oil salesmen they are.

I know you hate anything that is Proven Correct HF but for the rest of us that is the KEY POINT. People Pushing Lies should be held responsible.

I think the point is though, that HF may be making (correct me if I'm wrong), can we trust clinical trials?

That's the point he is always trying to make?

Not really Eddie as that is a contradiction, to on the one had say not trust clinical trials which by the way are extensive taking a few years to then as he is claiming trust crackpot claims of remedies which have little testing before being allowed unto the market, is hypocritical to claim trust . To me no parent should refuse expert advise to treat their children, to do so in my book is tantamount to child abuse, because again parents with little understanding of a condition are placing themselves more knowledgeable than people who actually are, that is dangerous and not placing the interest of the child first but the views of the parents themselves first.
So I advocate taking away control from the parents if they are irresponsible and placing the child's health at risk

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 9:48 am

PhilDidge wrote:
eddie wrote:

I think the point is though, that HF may be making (correct me if I'm wrong), can we trust clinical trials?

That's the point he is always trying to make?

Not really Eddie as that is a contradiction, to on the one had say not trust clinical trials which by the way are extensive taking a few years to then as he is claiming trust crackpot claims of remedies which have little testing before being allowed unto the market, is hypocritical to claim trust . To me no parent should refuse expert advise to treat their children, to do so in my book is tantamount to child abuse, because again parents with little understanding of a condition are placing themselves more knowledgeable than people who actually are, that is dangerous and not placing the interest of the child first but the views of the parents themselves first.
So I advocate taking away control from the parents if they are irresponsible and placing the child's health at risk

But if you truly believe your "treatment" is better than the one on the NHS, surely you are doing the right thing?

Legally, it's all about the word "believe".

Almost clicked send there - it's also about "reasonable".

Now, as non-believers we could laugh at anything they say and point out nothing they say is reasonable. But if you believe in letting people have their faith, I suppose you shouldn't stand in their way.

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 9:52 am

BigAndy9 wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Not really Eddie as that is a contradiction, to on the one had say not trust clinical trials which by the way are extensive taking a few years to then as he is claiming trust crackpot claims of remedies which have little testing before being allowed unto the market, is hypocritical to claim trust . To me no parent should refuse expert advise to treat their children, to do so in my book is tantamount to child abuse, because again parents with little understanding of a condition are placing themselves more knowledgeable than people who actually are, that is dangerous and not placing the interest of the child first but the views of the parents themselves first.
So I advocate taking away control from the parents if they are irresponsible and placing the child's health at risk

But if you truly believe your "treatment" is better than the one on the NHS, surely you are doing the right thing?
Based on what, stupidity Andy and no evidence?
Legally, it's all about the word "believe".
Yes to people who put stock in faith without evidence they place not only themselves at risks but others like children, faith has no scientific evidence to back

Almost clicked send there - it's also about "reasonable".
Yes being reasonable is not placing faith in untested claims

Now, as non-believers we could laugh at anything they say and point out nothing they say is reasonable. But if you believe in letting people have their faith, I suppose you shouldn't stand in their way.

Not when it places lives at risk, because in other aspects of life if a person ceases to act responsible and places other lives at risk, what do we do?
Pat them on the back?

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 9:54 am

PhilDidge wrote:
BigAndy9 wrote:

But if you truly believe your "treatment" is better than the one on the NHS, surely you are doing the right thing?
Based on what, stupidity Andy and no evidence?
Legally, it's all about the word "believe".
Yes to people who put stock in faith without evidence they place not only themselves at risks but others like children, faith has no scientific evidence to back

Almost clicked send there - it's also about "reasonable".
Yes being reasonable is not placing faith in untested claims

Now, as non-believers we could laugh at anything they say and point out nothing they say is reasonable. But if you believe in letting people have their faith, I suppose you shouldn't stand in their way.

Not when it places lives at risk, because in other aspects of life if a person ceases to act responsible and places other lives at risk, what do we do?
Pat them on the back?

Now, I'm not giving my view here - I'm giving what I believe are a lot of the views of other posters on here:

You've got to let people have their faith and follow it. I actually thought you were in that group didge.

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 9:55 am

In fact does anyone here think a child being neglected by a parent with being fed inadequately for example is fit to parent?

If not, why do they also then back a parent to choose untested claims of medical hocus-pocus to treat their children?
Again it is neglect, they are not helping their child but neglecting them just as when parent like above does not feed their child properly, because they selfishly think they know better not by evidence but faith

That is neglect

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 10:01 am

PhilDidge wrote:In fact does anyone here think a child being neglected by a parent with being fed inadequately for example is fit to parent?

If not, why do they also then back a parent to choose untested claims of medical hocus-pocus to treat their children?
Again it is neglect, they are not helping their child but neglecting them just as when parent like above does not feed their child properly, because they selfishly think they know better not by evidence but faith

That is neglect

didge - you can not, ever, talk science to somebody who is religious.

Why do you think so many Westerners are against muslims living with them?

You do see your hypocrisy now don't you?

You see where I'm coming from?

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 10:04 am

BigAndy9 wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:In fact does anyone here think a child being neglected by a parent with being fed inadequately for example is fit to parent?

If not, why do they also then back a parent to choose untested claims of medical hocus-pocus to treat their children?
Again it is neglect, they are not helping their child but neglecting them just as when parent like above does not feed their child properly, because they selfishly think they know better not by evidence but faith

That is neglect

didge - you can not, ever, talk science to somebody who is religious.

Why do you think so many Westerners are against muslims living with them?

You do see your hypocrisy now don't you?

You see where I'm coming from?

Yes you can talk science and take the responsibility off them to decide if they as seen would neglect life saving help for their children, it is as simple as that because they are thus irresponsible to make a sound decision on that child's health.

No I do not see any hypocrisy as many religious people do not reject science, in fact many scientists are actually religious, so you are talking out of your arse Andy, the only danger is when people place faith over science, so no I do not see any sense in your babble

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 10:16 am

Yes...God heals serious illnesses and conditions better than the hospitals and medical staff. Rolling Eyes

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 10:20 am

PhilDidge wrote:
BigAndy9 wrote:

didge - you can not, ever, talk science to somebody who is religious.

Why do you think so many Westerners are against muslims living with them?

You do see your hypocrisy now don't you?

You see where I'm coming from?

Yes you can talk science and take the responsibility off them to decide if they as seen would neglect life saving help for their children, it is as simple as that because they are thus irresponsible to make a sound decision on that child's health.

No I do not see any hypocrisy as many religious people do not reject science, in fact many scientists are actually religious, so you are talking out of your arse Andy, the only danger is when people place faith over science, so no I do not see any sense in your babble

So you are for taking the children off parents and treating them without consent?

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 10:39 am

BigAndy9 wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Yes you can talk science and take the responsibility off them to decide if they as seen would neglect life saving help for their children, it is as simple as that because they are thus irresponsible to make a sound decision on that child's health.

No I do not see any hypocrisy as many religious people do not reject science, in fact many scientists are actually religious, so you are talking out of your arse Andy, the only danger is when people place faith over science, so no I do not see any sense in your babble

So you are for taking the children off parents and treating them without consent?

Why would you need to take them away in this instance, only that they have to abide by a court decision that the child receives the best medical care, how hard is that for you to understand, or would you rather allow parents to pray over their children, denying them life saving treatment as other neglecting parents have done have done and then the child dies?

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 10:43 am

PhilDidge wrote:
BigAndy9 wrote:

So you are for taking the children off parents and treating them without consent?

Why would you need to take them away in this instance, only that they have to abide by a court decision that the child receives the best medical care, how hard is that for you to understand, or would you rather allow parents to pray over their children, denying them life saving treatment as other neglecting parents have done have done and then the child dies?

But I'm in full agreement with you didge - where did you get any other idea from?

I'm the one who believes in tough laws, tough policing.

I thought you were for freedom of practicing religion?

What about education? Should people be able to teach that religion comes above medical science, therefore causing us these problems later in life?

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 10:50 am

BigAndy9 wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Why would you need to take them away in this instance, only that they have to abide by a court decision that the child receives the best medical care, how hard is that for you to understand, or would you rather allow parents to pray over their children, denying them life saving treatment as other neglecting parents have done have done and then the child dies?

But I'm in full agreement with you didge - where did you get any other idea from?

I'm the one who believes in tough laws, tough policing.

I thought you were for freedom of practicing religion?

What about education? Should people be able to teach that religion comes above medical science, therefore causing us these problems later in life?

Practising religion is fine as long as it does not supersede the law, it is as simple as that

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 10:57 am

PhilDidge wrote:
BigAndy9 wrote:

But I'm in full agreement with you didge - where did you get any other idea from?

I'm the one who believes in tough laws, tough policing.

I thought you were for freedom of practicing religion?

What about education? Should people be able to teach that religion comes above medical science, therefore causing us these problems later in life?

Practising religion is fine as long as it does not supersede the law, it is as simple as that

Should we force religious schools to teach that right the way through school?

Some may be told not to seek medical help.

Should religious schools be banned outright, to make sure they are taught according to the law?

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 11:00 am

BigAndy9 wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Practising religion is fine as long as it does not supersede the law, it is as simple as that

Should we force religious schools to teach that right the way through school?

Some may be told not to seek medical help.

Should religious schools be banned outright, to make sure they are taught according to the law?

If I had my way there would be no religious Schools, as religion should be taught as a study but the school should not be driven be religion, as again religious schools are biased.
If we do keep religious schools, then they should stick to the curriculum, if not close them down

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 11:02 am

PhilDidge wrote:
BigAndy9 wrote:

Should we force religious schools to teach that right the way through school?

Some may be told not to seek medical help.

Should religious schools be banned outright, to make sure they are taught according to the law?

If I had my way there would be no religious Schools, as religion should be taught as a study but the school should not be driven be religion, as again religious schools are biased.
If we do keep religious schools, then they should stick to the curriculum, if not close them down

I'd do it the same Didgey poops, good call chief ::D::

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 11:06 am

PhilDidge wrote:
BigAndy9 wrote:

Should we force religious schools to teach that right the way through school?

Some may be told not to seek medical help.

Should religious schools be banned outright, to make sure they are taught according to the law?

If I had my way there would be no religious Schools, as religion should be taught as a study but the school should not be driven be religion, as again religious schools are biased.
If we do keep religious schools, then they should stick to the curriculum, if not close them down

Well I totally agree didge.

What about other laws - no knives to be carried in public?

Do we let the religious nutters carry theirs in the name of religion - you did see my thread?

You see what appeasement of religion does didge?

You want to agree with me, but you don't.

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 11:11 am

BigAndy9 wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

If I had my way there would be no religious Schools, as religion should be taught as a study but the school should not be driven be religion, as again religious schools are biased.
If we do keep religious schools, then they should stick to the curriculum, if not close them down

Well I totally agree didge.

What about other laws - no knives to be carried in public?

Do we let the religious nutters carry theirs in the name of religion - you did see my thread?

You see what appeasement of religion does didge?

You want to agree with me, but you don't.

Where have I not agreed with you?

You just make poor accusations.

As to the ability to carry a knife, no I do not agree

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 11:38 am

PhilDidge wrote:
BigAndy9 wrote:

Should we force religious schools to teach that right the way through school?

Some may be told not to seek medical help.

Should religious schools be banned outright, to make sure they are taught according to the law?

If I had my way there would be no religious Schools, as religion should be taught as a study but the school should not be driven be religion, as again religious schools are biased.
If we do keep religious schools, then they should stick to the curriculum, if not close them down

cool still supporting freedom of choice and equality... Smile

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 11:39 am

testing herbal and alternative medicines would prove nearly impossible as the pharma companies already have the monopoly on cancer treatments.

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 11:40 am

heavenly father wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

If I had my way there would be no religious Schools, as religion should be taught as a study but the school should not be driven be religion, as again religious schools are biased.
If we do keep religious schools, then they should stick to the curriculum, if not close them down

cool still supporting freedom of choice and equality...

yes freedom of choice is negated for irresponsible parents, always has been the case in this country, hence why we have laws to protect society from loons like yourself

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 11:46 am

PhilDidge wrote:
heavenly father wrote:

cool still supporting freedom of choice and equality...

yes freedom of choice is negated for irresponsible parents, always has been the case in this country, hence why we have laws to protect society from loons like yourself

or anyone for that matter, you would ban religious schools and force people to take cancer poisons, you are a right little nazi aren't you, should the disabled be lined up and shot...

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 11:51 am

heavenly father wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

yes freedom of choice is negated for irresponsible parents, always has been the case in this country, hence why we have laws to protect society from loons like yourself

or anyone for that matter, you would ban religious schools and force people to take cancer poisons, you are a right little nazi aren't you, should the disabled be lined up and shot...

yes i would ban religious schools and yes i would have court of laws ensure irresponsible parents do not deny their children the best medical help, because such parents are causing child abuse by denying the best care for them
I had a disabled little sister that died after being 1 years old, was said to only be able to live 1 month, love and medical help ensured she lived longer.

So what Nazism am I advocating?

None, it is a pathetic attempt on your part to attack the poster and not the debate, hence why you have the intellect of a 3 year old

by Raggamuffin Wed Mar 05, 2014 11:53 am

heavenly father wrote:testing herbal and alternative medicines would prove nearly impossible as the pharma companies already have the monopoly on cancer treatments.

Don't forget that anyone testing a new herbal drug would need a lot of volunteers to test it on. I think that only people who had tried other conventional treatments would go for it. That wouldn't be such a bad thing though as they have nothing to lose.

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 11:55 am

PhilDidge wrote:
heavenly father wrote:

or anyone for that matter, you would ban religious schools and force people to take cancer poisons, you are a right little nazi aren't you, should the disabled be lined up and shot...

yes i would ban religious schools and yes i would have court of laws ensure irresponsible parents to not deny their children the best medical help, because such parents are causing child abuse but denying the best care for them
I had a disabled little sister that died at 1 year old, was said to only be able to live 1 month, love and medical help ensured she lived longer.

So what Nazism am I advocating?

None, it is a pathetic attempt on your part to attack the poster and not the debate, hence why you have the intellect of a 3 year old

twisting as usual nazi boy... :::hitler: :::hitler: you said you would force everyone to take the cancer treatment so why are you trying to make out you meant kids...lol

you talk about equality for certain, groups and freedom of choice while saying religious schools should be banned and people should have no choice in their health...

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 11:57 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
heavenly father wrote:testing herbal and alternative medicines would prove nearly impossible as the pharma companies already have the monopoly on cancer treatments.

Don't forget that anyone testing a new herbal drug would need a lot of volunteers to test it on. I think that only people who had tried other conventional treatments would go for it. That wouldn't be such a bad thing though as they have nothing to lose.

that's a good point but if didge had is way no one would get the choice anyway...

i don't see any chance for alternative medicine to get a foot in..

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 11:58 am

heavenly father wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

yes i would ban religious schools and yes i would have court of laws ensure irresponsible parents to not deny their children the best medical help, because such parents are causing child abuse but denying the best care for them
I had a disabled little sister that died at 1 year old, was said to only be able to live 1 month, love and medical help ensured she lived longer.

So what Nazism am I advocating?

None, it is a pathetic attempt on your part to attack the poster and not the debate, hence why you have the intellect of a 3 year old

twisting as usual nazi boy... :::hitler: :::hitler: you said you would force everyone to take the cancer treatment so why are you trying to make out you meant kids...lol

you talk about equality for certain, groups and freedom of choice while saying religious schools should be banned and people should have no choice in their health...

Not what I said and again where people are irresponsible like you and a danger to society, action is required

So claiming you do not insult has been exposed again as a lie, that was easy.

So you are saying we should always allow abusing parents to continue to sexually abuse or neglect their children and never take action against this then?

Take your time, I know it is hard for your brain to compute anything

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 12:04 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
heavenly father wrote:

twisting as usual nazi boy... :::hitler: :::hitler: you said you would force everyone to take the cancer treatment so why are you trying to make out you meant kids...lol

you talk about equality for certain, groups and freedom of choice while saying religious schools should be banned and people should have no choice in their health...

Not what I said and again where people are irresponsible like you and a danger to society, action is required

So claiming you do not insult has been exposed again as a lie, that was easy.

So you are saying we should always allow abusing parents to continue to sexually abuse or neglect their children and never take action against this then?

Take your time, I know it is hard for your brain to compute anything

it was exactly what you said we were discussing cancer treatments and you said you would force people to take chemo etc, you also said you would make sure no info on alternative medicine would be available...

so you are a little nazi... so to prove your nazi ways you would ban religious schools...

no fredom of choice, no freedom of speech, no freedom of information... :::hitler: :::hitler:

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 12:06 pm

heavenly father wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Not what I said and again where people are irresponsible like you and a danger to society, action is required

So claiming you do not insult has been exposed again as a lie, that was easy.

So you are saying we should always allow abusing parents to continue to sexually abuse or neglect their children and never take action against this then?

Take your time, I know it is hard for your brain to compute anything

it was exactly what you said we were discussing cancer treatments and you said you would force people to take chemo etc, you also said you would make sure no info on alternative medicine would be available...

so you are a little nazi... so to prove your nazi ways you would ban religious schools...

no fredom of choice, no freedom of speech, no freedom of information... :::hitler: :::hitler:

Find the post where i said I would force "everyone"

never said that, poor twist on my words..

Yes i would ban religious schools, what is wrong with that, education is vastly fact based not faith based

I see you would allow abusive and paedo parents to keep their children, thus making you culpable to to allowing paedophilia

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 12:09 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
heavenly father wrote:

it was exactly what you said we were discussing cancer treatments and you said you would force people to take chemo etc, you also said you would make sure no info on alternative medicine would be available...

so you are a little nazi... so to prove your nazi ways you would ban religious schools...

no fredom of choice, no freedom of speech, no freedom of information... :::hitler: :::hitler:

Find the post where i said I would force "everyone"

never said that, poor twist on my words

I see you would allow abusive and paedo parents to keep their children, thus making you culpable to to allowing paedophilia

it was there for everyone to see twisty nazi.. :::hitler: I also referred to it in another thread...

so you would force treatment on terrified patients and deny them the right to even know there were alternatives...

so you do not believe in equality or even basic human rights... :::hitler: :::hitler:

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 12:12 pm

heavenly father wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Find the post where i said I would force "everyone"

never said that, poor twist on my words

I see you would allow abusive and paedo parents to keep their children, thus making you culpable to to allowing paedophilia

it was there for everyone to see twisty nazi.. :::hitler: I also referred to it in another thread...

so you would force treatment on terrified patients and deny them the right to even know there were alternatives...

so you do not believe in equality or even basic human rights... :::hitler: :::hitler:

So you have no evidence for your claim, busted proving you are a liar yet again.

So now you cannot answer a question, would you allow children to stay in the care of abusive parents

take your time

by Raggamuffin Wed Mar 05, 2014 12:13 pm

Anyone has the right to accept or refuse treatment, although they don't have the right to insist on a certain treatment if it's not available in their area.

I'm not sure about the children thing. A child can't really make a decision like that, depending on their age of course.

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 12:17 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:Anyone has the right to accept or refuse treatment, although they don't have the right to insist on a certain treatment if it's not available in their area.

I'm not sure about the children thing. A child can't really make a decision like that, depending on their age of course.

Exactly and no parent should make the decision for that child, if it places the child life at risk, because many parents would not have the medically expertise to help know what was best for that child.

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 12:28 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
heavenly father wrote:

it was there for everyone to see twisty nazi.. :::hitler: I also referred to it in another thread...

so you would force treatment on terrified patients and deny them the right to even know there were alternatives...

so you do not believe in equality or even basic human rights... :::hitler: :::hitler:

So you have no evidence for your claim, busted proving you are a liar yet again.

So now you cannot answer a question, would you allow children to stay in the care of abusive parents

take your time

lol i can't be arsed to go through the whole tread right now i will do later though.. Smile

i referred to it several times and on other threads so everyone knows you made no comment about children, you are just a sad little nazi, who would give no freedom of choice, and would force poison treatment on everyone, you would ban religious schools and freedom of speech concerning alternative medicine...lol

and make out you believe in equality... :::hitler: :::hitler:

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 12:39 pm

heavenly father wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

So you have no evidence for your claim, busted proving you are a liar yet again.

So now you cannot answer a question, would you allow children to stay in the care of abusive parents

take your time

lol i can't be arsed to go through the whole tread right now i will do later though..

i referred to it several times and on other threads so everyone knows you made no comment about children, you are just a sad little nazi, who would give no freedom of choice, and would force poison treatment on everyone, you would ban religious schools and freedom of speech concerning alternative medicine...lol

and make out you believe in equality... :::hitler: :::hitler:

So no evidence again, busted

So answer the the question which you again refuse to knowing it will fuck up your argument again

Would you allow children to stay in the care of abusive neglecting parents

If you say no, then you are denying them freedom of choice, if you say yes you advocate child abuse

hence why you are fucked

Ha ha Ha ha ha ha

Dummy, go back to school it is so easy to show why you are an utter imbecile

:-:cawg:-:

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 12:46 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
heavenly father wrote:

lol i can't be arsed to go through the whole tread right now i will do later though..

i referred to it several times and on other threads so everyone knows you made no comment about children, you are just a sad little nazi, who would give no freedom of choice, and would force poison treatment on everyone, you would ban religious schools and freedom of speech concerning alternative medicine...lol

and make out you believe in equality... :::hitler: :::hitler:

So no evidence again, busted

So answer the the question which you again refuse to knowing it will fuck up your argument again

Would you allow children to stay in the care of abusive neglecting parents

If you say no, then you are denying them freedom of choice, if you say yes you advocate child abuse

hence why you are fucked

Ha ha Ha ha ha ha

Dummy, go back to school it is so easy to show why you are an utter imbecile

:-:cawg:-:

lol don't worry nazi boy I will find it....so still no freedom of choice, or freedom of information and you would ban religious schools... :::hitler: :::hitler:

you are big on equality but only if they agree with you... :::hitler:

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 12:48 pm

heavenly father wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

So no evidence again, busted

So answer the the question which you again refuse to knowing it will fuck up your argument again

Would you allow children to stay in the care of abusive neglecting parents

If you say no, then you are denying them freedom of choice, if you say yes you advocate child abuse

hence why you are fucked

Ha ha Ha ha ha ha

Dummy, go back to school it is so easy to show why you are an utter imbecile

:-:cawg:-:

lol don't worry nazi boy I will find it....so still no freedom of choice, or freedom of information and you would ban religious schools... :::hitler: :::hitler:

you are big on equality but only if they agree with you... :::hitler:

Hilarious, so again the imbicille cannot answer a simple question, knowing it will show up how flawed his view on freedoms are, being as there is restrictions to many freedoms we come to expect in life, what a wally ha ha

So again

Would you allow children to stay in the care of abusive neglecting parents

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 12:52 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
heavenly father wrote:

lol don't worry nazi boy I will find it....so still no freedom of choice, or freedom of information and you would ban religious schools... :::hitler: :::hitler:

you are big on equality but only if they agree with you... :::hitler:

Hilarious, so again the imbicille cannot answer a simple question, knowing it will show up how flawed his view on freedoms are, being as there is restrictions to many freedoms we come to expect in life, what a wally ha ha

So again

Would you allow children to stay in the care of abusive neglecting parents

so suddenly herr hitler didge is interested in kids, kids he would order to be poisoned...lol

you are hilarious herr didge..no freedom of choice, no freedom of speech, ban religious schools you are a bigot herr didge.. :::hitler: :::hitler:

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 1:01 pm

heavenly father wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Hilarious, so again the imbicille cannot answer a simple question, knowing it will show up how flawed his view on freedoms are, being as there is restrictions to many freedoms we come to expect in life, what a wally ha ha

So again

Would you allow children to stay in the care of abusive neglecting parents

so suddenly herr hitler didge is interested in kids, kids he would order to be poisoned...lol

you are hilarious herr didge..no freedom of choice, no freedom of speech, ban religious schools you are a bigot herr didge.. :::hitler: :::hitler:

Hilarious, so again the imbicille cannot answer a simple question, knowing it will show up how flawed his view on freedoms are, being as there is restrictions to many freedoms we come to expect in life, what a wally ha ha

So again

Would you allow children to stay in the care of abusive neglecting parents?

Do you have the right to kill someone?

Do you have the right to steal from someone?

Take your time dummy, as it will show you have no idea what you are talking about

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 1:07 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
heavenly father wrote:

so suddenly herr hitler didge is interested in kids, kids he would order to be poisoned...lol

you are hilarious herr didge..no freedom of choice, no freedom of speech, ban religious schools you are a bigot herr didge.. :::hitler: :::hitler:

Hilarious, so again the imbicille cannot answer a simple question, knowing it will show up how flawed his view on freedoms are, being as there is restrictions to many freedoms we come to expect in life, what a wally ha ha

So again

Would you allow children to stay in the care of abusive neglecting parents?

Do you have the right to kill someone?

Do you have the right to steal from someone?

Take your time dummy, as it will show you have no idea what you are talking about

lol herr didge do you have the right to steal freedom from patients..

herr didge do you have the right to steal 9 years of someones life for what you believe is right..

herr didge do you have the right to stop information for people..

herr didge do you have the right to ban religious schools...

my equality for all is full of BS.. that is for sure... :::hitler: :::hitler: :::hitler: :::hitler:

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 1:14 pm

heavenly father wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Hilarious, so again the imbicille cannot answer a simple question, knowing it will show up how flawed his view on freedoms are, being as there is restrictions to many freedoms we come to expect in life, what a wally ha ha

So again

Would you allow children to stay in the care of abusive neglecting parents?

Do you have the right to kill someone?

Do you have the right to steal from someone?

Take your time dummy, as it will show you have no idea what you are talking about

didge do you have the right to steal freedom from patients..
Illogical question, what freedom is being stolen, when the best care is offered?
,,
herr didge do you have the right to steal 9 years of someones life for what you believe is right..
illogical again, based upon pseudo claims on chemo by unhinged loons, people chose to have chemo, in the case of children, parents have no right to deny their children the best chances of survival, to do so would be child abuse

didge do you have the right to stop information for people..
Yes we can censur things like child abuse porn, or do you want this to be allowed?

didge do you have the right to ban religious schools...
Very much so, there is no need to have a religious schools as we have non-religious schools, what you need to argue is why there is a need for one, when religion is nothing more than faith and should play no part in shaping the education of young children

my equality for all is full of BS.. that is for sure... :::hitler: :::hitler: :::hitler: :::hitler:

Hilarious, so I answered your questions, answer my dummy

Would you allow children to stay in the care of abusive neglecting parents?

Do you have the right to kill someone?

Do you have the right to steal from someone?

Take your time dummy, as it will show you have no idea what you are talking about

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 1:18 pm

Should doctors/surgeons be empowered to make life-saving decisions even if the parents object for religious reasons?

At the moment I think they have to go through the courts.

The way things stand with religion in this country, I fear a doctor may be very wary of making a decision if the parents were there and said "we're muslim, you can't do that".

by Guest Wed Mar 05, 2014 1:20 pm

lol...so herr didge thinks it is illogical when it has been shown people refusing cancer treatment have lived 9 years longer than those accepting it...

is that like condoning murder ...herr didge would have made them take the treatment...

so no freedom of choice, no freedom of speech and no freedom of religious rights... welcome to didge's nazi state the fourth reich... :::hitler: :::hitler: :::hitler: :::hitler: :::hitler:

by Sponsored content