Freedom, responsibility, cancer, and rightwingprof
In response to this and this, rightwingprof writes:
Now, I'm going to piss a lot of people off. Please explain, in detail, how parents are somehow exempt from taking responsibility for their freedom? Remember, there is no freedom without responsibility. Why is it, then, that conservatives conveniently forget this basic precept when it comes to parents?
Certainly, it is the parents' decision. However, if their child dies as a result of that decision, they should be imprisoned for manslaughter. Period. The end. It's the same with religious freedom and doctors. Certainly, you have the right not to take your baby to the doctor, but if your baby dies as a result, you go to prison where you belong.
There is no freedom without responsibility, and parents are not exempt from responsibility.
OK, he's not going to piss me off, since he's not a libertarian; as a self-described right-winger, of course he will defer to authority outside himself, and his first response will be to want to throw somebody in jail. There's no point in expecting otherwise from him, though it would certainly surprise and delight me. But he raises a good question here, and it's too much to do in the context of a blog comment.
First, "There is no freedom without responsibility." That statement is true in an almost mathematical sense. To be free is to make choices, to respond to one's environment, to be a moral actor, setting chains of causation in motion. When one is not free, one is also not responsible for the acts one was coerced into.So there is no responsibility without freedom. For practical purposes, the formula could be: f=r. One can no more be exempt from responsibility for freedom than to be exempt from the laws of gravity. That's why freedom is such a hard sell: people don't want to be responsible. They don't trust themselves to make decisions.
The important thing to note is that responsibility is inherent in the exercise of freedom; it does not need to be imposed by government. Government actually limits the consequences of actions. In ancient times, if I killed your kin, your kin would kill me, which often meant that my kin would kill the killer, whose killer would in turn be killed, ad infinitum. Now, government kills the killer, and it ends.
Now, the Cherrix' are not being irresponsible. They are treating Abraham's cancer. The child is not being neglected in any way. They are exercising the freedom to choose a cancer therapy besides the one previously tried, which did not work (and the definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results). With that freedom comes responsibility: the child could die. But the child could die anyway. If Abraham took the government-approved treatment and died, would RWP prosecute them for manslaughter? Why not? Would they not be choosing a cancer treatment and be equally as culpable as if they had chosen an alternative? Or does government approval of a treatment mean that, since the patient has no choice and no freedom, he also has no responsibility?
So, let us say that Abraham dies. The parents have the burden of their choice, no matter what they chose. The child whom they loved got the wrong treatment in spite of their best intentions. They'll be second-guessing that decision for the rest of their lives. And on top of that, RWP wants to throw them in jail. How Christian is that, to kick somebody while they're down?
Now, there's the matter of a child being involved. To some degree this is a red herring, as the Hoxsey treatment is basically illegal in the US; per the US government, we are all children. But if Abraham were 18 instead of 16, the courts would have no jurisdiction in this. We treat children differently than adults because they have less life-experience on which to base decisions. But since most people are not doctors, they have limited information anyways; why not just institute Hillarycare and let the doctors decide what we need? In life and death decisions, we are all somewhat incompetent to choose, as none of us (barring possible reincarnational memories) have experienced death. Not that Abraham is choosing death, though if he were, there is little a jack-booted thug could do to stop him; many teens choose it every year, and it's a rare adolescent who hasn't given a little thought to how it might be done. In any case, this is a family decision, with all members of the family seeking information and drawing conclusions. I thought conservatives were pro-family.
An ironic side-note: if this were an abortion, involving a life besides the child's, the child would be considered competent to choose for that life, but not for her own. RWP and I would resolve that contradiction in different directions. I simply note that the law is not consistent here.
Finally, I note that there is another licenced profession with government-established methods, which minors are subject to: education. If children must be subject to government medicine, why not government schools? Yet RWP "applaud[s] parents who homeschool their children", and says "you should homeschool your children or send them to a private school". It may be argued that education is not a matter of life and death, but an educator who would argue that the training of young minds is not precisely that important would be a poor educator and a poor conservative. The nature of medicine as a science insulates it from some of the worst abuses found in the education field, but medical schools are also prone to political abuse and discouragement of open-mindedness. If there's more than one way to educate, why is there not more than one way to cure?
I have recently seen Jerry Brunetti's video, in which he describes the protocol by which he cured himself of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. (it's 7.5 years now, btw...I saw him earlier this month, and he's one healthy-looking hunk.) It can be done nutritionally, through a broad-spectrum approach of nutriceuticals and detoxification. Part of Jerry's protocol is illegal though: the consumption of raw milk (or at least purchase for consumption). Governments just can't keep from practicing medicine, it seems.
Comments
Posted by: Acai Berry Fruit
Posted on: April 29, 2007 05:31 AM
Study Suggests Açai Berries May Help Fight Cancer
By ALEX TIEGEN
Alligator Contributing Writer
University of Florida scientists discovered that Brazilian açai berries, native to the Amazon floodplains, have shown an ability to combat cancerous cells in lab tests.
These scientists are beginning to test the berry's effect on human subjects.
Stephen Talcott, an assistant professor in the Food Science & Human Nutrition department, and a team of researchers revealed in a report published Thursday that chemical compounds extracted from the acai berry could battle human-cultured leukemia cells.
Acai berries, which grow on palm trees and have been eaten by indigenous communities for hundreds of years, have been used for pulp in many health drinks, but few researchers had tested the berry's effect on cancer since it became available for use outside of Brazil five years ago.
"We try not to assume that a plant used in food or health drinks has medical use," Talcott said. "In this type of experiment we look for two things. We try to see if the cancerous cells are dying, and we try to see if the cells release an enzyme known as caspase-3."
Caspase-3 is an enzyme released by cancerous cells as they die.
Talcott's team selected five samples from an acai berry and introduced them to a leukemia cell, according to Talcott's summary report of the experiment.
Depending on their concentration, the chemical compounds from the acai berry caused a fatal response in 25 percent to 84 percent of the collected leukemia cells, according to Talcott's report.
But Talcott and his team are hesitant to say that acai berries can combat or cure cancer in human subjects. Testing on humans began in November, but Talcott will not reveal the results until after the experiments end later this month or in February.
"What we're looking for is whether the test subjects have lower blood pressure or lower cholesterol and whether the berries are absorbed into the blood stream," Talcott said.
If the acai berry study reveals more benefits for human subjects, Talcott and his team may recommend adding them to peoples' diets.
"We're always reluctant to say a fruit can cure or prevent cancer," he said.
GAINESVILLE, Fla. — A Brazilian berry popular in health food contains antioxidants that destroyed cultured human cancer cells in a recent University of Florida study, one of the first to investigate the fruit’s purported benefits.
Published today in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, the study showed extracts from acai (ah-SAH’-ee) berries triggered a self-destruct response in up to 86 percent of leukemia cells tested, said Stephen Talcott, an assistant professor with UF’s Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences.
“Acai berries are already considered one of the richest fruit sources of antioxidants,” Talcott said. “This study was an important step toward learning what people may gain from using beverages, dietary supplements or other products made with the berries.”
He cautioned that the study, funded by UF sources, was not intended to show whether compounds found in acai berries could prevent leukemia in people.
“This was only a cell-culture model and we don’t want to give anyone false hope,” Talcott said. “We are encouraged by the findings, however. Compounds that show good activity against cancer cells in a model system are most likely to have beneficial effects in our bodies.”
Other fruits, including grapes, guavas and mangoes, contain antioxidants shown to kill cancer cells in similar studies, he said. Experts are uncertain how much effect antioxidants have on cancer cells in the human body, because factors such as nutrient absorption, metabolism and the influence of other biochemical processes may influence the antioxidants’ chemical activity.
Another UF study, slated to conclude in 2006, will investigate the effects of acai’s antioxidants on healthy human subjects, Talcott said. The study will determine how well the compounds are absorbed into the blood, and how they may affect blood pressure, cholesterol levels and related health indicators. So far, only fundamental research has been done on acai berries, which contain at least 50 to 75 as-yet unidentified compounds. http://www.amazonthunder.com/cancer.html
“One reason so little is known about acai berries is that they’re perishable and are traditionally used immediately after picking,” he said. “Products made with processed acai berries have only been available for about five years, so researchers in many parts of the world have had little or no opportunity to study them.”
Talcott said UF is one of the first institutions outside Brazil with personnel studying acai berries. Besides Talcott, UF’s acai research team includes Susan Percival, a professor with the food science and human nutrition department, David Del Pozo-Insfran, a doctoral student with the department and Susanne Mertens-Talcott, a postdoctoral associate with the pharmaceutics department of UF’s College of Pharmacy.
Acai berries are produced by a palm tree known scientifically as Euterpe oleracea, common in floodplain areas of the Amazon River, Talcott said. When ripe, the berries are dark purple and about the size of a blueberry. They contain a thin layer of edible pulp surrounding a large seed.
Historically, Brazilians have used acai berries to treat digestive disorders and skin conditions, he said. Current marketing efforts by retail merchants and Internet businesses suggest acai products can help consumers lose weight, lower cholesterol and gain energy.
“A lot of claims are being made, but most of them haven’t been tested scientifically,” Talcott said. “We are just beginning to understand the complexity of the acai berry and its health-promoting effects.”
In the current UF study, six different chemical extracts were made from acai fruit pulp, and each extract was prepared in seven concentrations.
Four of the extracts were shown to kill significant numbers of leukemia cells when applied for 24 hours. Depending on the extract and concentration, anywhere from about 35 percent to 86 percent of the cells died.
The UF study demonstrates that research on foods not commonly consumed in the United States is important, because it may lead to unexpected discoveries, said Joshua Bomser, an assistant professor of molecular nutrition and functional foods at The Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio.
But familiar produce items have plenty of health-giving qualities, he said.
“Increased consumption of fruits and vegetables is associated with decreased risk for many diseases, including heart disease and cancer,” said Bomser, who researches the effects of diet on chronic diseases. “Getting at least five servings a day of these items is still a good recommendation for promoting optimal health.”
Historically, Brazilians have used acai berries to treat digestive disorders and skin conditions, he said. Current marketing efforts by retail merchants and Internet businesses suggest acai products can help consumers lose weight, lower cholesterol and gain energy.
“A lot of claims are being made, but most of them haven’t been tested scientifically,” Talcott said. “We are just beginning to understand the complexity of the acai berry and its health-promoting effects.”
In the current UF study, six different chemical extracts were made from acai fruit pulp, and each extract was prepared in seven concentrations.
Four of the extracts were shown to kill significant numbers of leukemia cells when applied for 24 hours. Depending on the extract and concentration, anywhere from about 35 percent to 86 percent of the cells died.
The UF study demonstrates that research on foods not commonly consumed in the United States is important, because it may lead to unexpected discoveries, said Joshua Bomser, an assistant professor of molecular nutrition and functional foods at The Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio.
But familiar produce items have plenty of health-giving qualities, he said.
“Increased consumption of fruits and vegetables is associated with decreased risk for many diseases, including heart disease and cancer,” said Bomser, who researches the effects of diet on chronic diseases. “Getting at least five servings a day of these items is still a good recommendation for promoting optimal health.”
http://www.amazonthunder.com/cancer.html