PDA

View Full Version : My Own Private Cause


Gene L
21st May 2008, 09:05 AM
And it's kind of a soft-shoe cause at that.

Anyway, this one has to do with homeopathic medicine.

In 1995, my wife died of kidney cancer, a disease she'd had for two years or so, and which went away after each previous operation, to only appear again somewhere else. You know how cancer is.

My wife was an extremely healthy woman, other wise. She ate "right" for her, meaning mostly vegetables and almost no red meat, never smoked, drank a beer or two a year, and rode her bicycle 20 miles or so during her lunch break. This before her diagnosis, and after her two operations. The third diagnosis was the fatal one.

After diagnosis two, and before surgery to remove a lobe of her lung, she became interested in homeopathic cures. She read a lot on the subject and made contact with the local homeopathic (HM hereafter for convenience's sake) folks in the area, which was mostly in Durham, NC, where we lived. We went to Belieze so she could try to find some HM of note, and we got the literature.

As a person who thought her chances of survival very slim (she was told this by a medical doctor) she looked for other ways. And, of course, started a "macrobiotic" diet, if I'm spelling it that way. Lots of fresh organic grain foods, no meat, I can't remember the details. This put her in touch with the HM groups in the area. She also received prayer from neighbors and from friends of hers. Although she wasn't particularly religious and seldom went to church, she wasn't an atheist, either.

So far, so good. Here's my rant: the HM medicine folks assured her if she followed their recommendations she'd be well. The MD told her what her chances were, and they were very grim. The religious folks said, "God's will be done" and prayed for her recovery.

I should stress that the HM folks did not charge her for their advice. I suppose there were costs for the recipes and literature, and one had to pay a nominal fee for the pot-luck dinners, but generally it seemed they were not out to make a buck. The believed in their cause with the same zeal as any fundamentalist in any religion.

My main rant is that the HM people did something neither the medical establishment nor the religous establishment did, which is to guarantee her a full recovery. This built up false hope in her for a time, and caused a lot of emotional problems, leading her to believe that somehow she'd failed and was a contributor to her own death. Not good.

My wife had an uncurable disease. The HM folks did not contribute to that, and if they made her life shorter by weakening her immune system, it was an unforseen blessing, as her last days were not pleasant.

No, my problem is the absolute assurance they dispersed. While this did not negatively affect my wife's medical condition, I'm pretty sure it did affect a woman she met at those meetings and became friends with. This woman had breast cancer, which is generally very treatable. But this woman opted instead for the Holistic Approach. The last time I saw her she looked ghastly.

The Christian prayer groups were nice people, brining food to my house when I needed it during the last days. They asked nothing, and gave freely of their time, and were realistic about the odds of survival.

These HM people with whom my wife was associated were not charletans of snake-oil salesmen. They were folks who believed in HM, and apparently who had never had a serious illness themselves. They were good folks, so far as I could tell, but they were WRONG.

And that wrongness mentally affected my wife. As I said earlier, she felt she'd somehow failed the resolve it took to observe a "macrobiotic" lifestyle. She didn't think she'd failed as a Christian, nor as a medical patient, because she wasn't given unrealistic promises by either of those.

So, there is a basic dishonesty inherit to HM. Those who make a buck at it should be exposed and punished. Those who preach it and don't make money should at least know they are causing harm to sick people.

I'm tolerant of what people believe so long as it doesn't exploit others who don't want to be exploited, as I said earlier. Especially if it doesn't affect me in a significant way. So, Christians, Wiccans, whatever, some people get a benefit from it (as in a spiritual benefit, which I guess important, although I don't myself know that benefit).

Atheists who rant against religion in general astound me, as they are squandering a good argument for a dumb purpose. Many of them are spiritualists in another way, and yet call themselves "atheists." But strongly championing a casue without purpose and by the method of loudly dismissing the other side is "ranting." And ranting is not the method of a mature skeptic, IMO.

So, you've heard my cause, and may even think it a rant.

JoeTheJuggler
21st May 2008, 09:32 AM
Gene, I'm very sorry for your loss.

I agree with every word you said. Maybe this should be included in the wall of harm (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=103101)?

Even giving false hope is unethical, and these guys actually guaranteed or promised recovery!

Hawthorne
21st May 2008, 09:32 AM
I'm sorry to hear of your loss.

A friend of mine has some sort of stomach cancer and is also opting for a holistic approach to treatment. We tried to convince him to blend both types of treatment: chemo (which he didn't want b/c he was sure it would make him worse, not better) and holistic medicine (like acupuncture to help with the side effects of chemo, and the organic, healthy diet) but we haven't gotten through to him yet - hopefully he'll change his mind!

Gene L
21st May 2008, 10:13 AM
I'm sorry to hear of your loss.

A friend of mine has some sort of stomach cancer and is also opting for a holistic approach to treatment. We tried to convince him to blend both types of treatment: chemo (which he didn't want b/c he was sure it would make him worse, not better) and holistic medicine (like acupuncture to help with the side effects of chemo, and the organic, healthy diet) but we haven't gotten through to him yet - hopefully he'll change his mind!


Well, so long as your friend knows the odds of survival without medical treatment, it's his choice. Generally, they're not good, although a VERY small percentage respond to any treatment, including non-treatment and placebos. Unexplained, but there it is...may 2% overall, I can't remember.

However, organic foods won't do it. Healthy they may be, but curative? Nah. and they're also expensive.

My wife suffered so much under chemotherapy that she opted to withdraw from the therapy after three awful, debilitaing sessions each lasting a week, with no positive results. She'd long withdrawn from HM before that. The oncologist concurred with her option, since he could see no sign of the tumor diminshing.

Get it early before the cells spread, and the chances are very good, with most forms of the disease.

Dogdoctor
21st May 2008, 12:10 PM
Not only are they wrong but they argue that others are wrong and convince people to forgo good judgment and follow their credulity.

Soapy Sam
21st May 2008, 05:59 PM
Gene- If all promoters of woo were obvious charlatans or frauds , in it solely for the money, organisations like JREF would scarcely be needed.

The biggest problem very often is with genuine, honestly convinced people- perfectly fine folks in every other way, but who have got hold of a wrong headed notion and are unable to see their error. Without ever wishing to, such people may do incalculable harm.

Some atheists see religion that way and feel they need to speak out against it.
I don't know whether they are more right than wrong in that, but I understand their feeling that they are obligated to speak out. Maybe that feeling is common to both sides.

It's certainly possible sceptics do more harm than good sometimes too, however well intentioned we may be.
Screwing up seems to be part of the human condition.

I'm truly sorry about what happened to your wife. Sometimes there are no easy answers.

Gene L
22nd May 2008, 09:52 AM
Sam, yes, these people were well-intentioned and worse, convinced. Someone who is convinced in anything closes his mind to all other alternatives, and cuts himself off from a universe of other possibilities. It's not a state of mind for a skeptic or a thinking person, IMO.

I don't get along well with those who are totall convinced about anything. That's the narrow view, I think, and it's as easy to be a fundamentalist Christian ("The Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it") as it is to be a convinced atheist. (Like Madeline Murry Hair). On both sides these people not only want to believe what they believe, they want to lead others to their philosophy. It's that for lack of a better word, "evangelicism" that burns me. Religious or atheist, doesn't matter, the modus operendi are the same, and so are the motives behind them...power.

Darth Rotor
22nd May 2008, 10:23 AM
Gene, I am sorry you lost the love of your life. My condolences.
I don't get along well with those who are totally convinced about anything. That's the narrow view, I think, and it's as easy to be a fundamentalist Christian ("The Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it") as it is to be a convinced atheist. (Like Madeline Murry Hair). On both sides these people not only want to believe what they believe, they want to lead others to their philosophy. It's that for lack of a better word, "evangelicism" that burns me. Religious or atheist, doesn't matter, the modus operendi are the same, and so are the motives behind them...power.
At the risk of sounding glib, Gene, after pure eloquence on your part: it's a people thing, stronger in some than in others, the need to be right, or to feel that way. (How would I know that, I wonder. :cool: )

As to people totally convinced about anything, I am totally convinced that Guinness is the next best thing to mothers milk, and beg your indulgence as I raise a glass to you, and to your wife.

DR

Gene L
22nd May 2008, 11:03 AM
I think everone feels the need to be right. I have that need, and love to argue.

And while those who are convinced are annoying, they're also essential.

I'm convinced that Scotch is the only drink suitable for mankind, but I'm glad there are enough people out there who don't like it to keep the price down! :D

Soapy Sam
22nd May 2008, 04:19 PM
It's always worth remembering that some of those who are convinced, may also be right.

The trick is in knowing which ones.

I , too, raise my glass to you and yours, Gene. Ten year old Macallan.