I swear, I’m not looking at the readers’ comments on my New Republic piece on the unnecessary death of Canadian child Makayla Sault. But reader Diane G. just had to let me know that one of the doctors who wrote an article in the Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ) asking for sensitivity to aboriginal methods of healing, has made some comments on my piece. That doctor, Matthew Stanbroke (an editor of CMAJ), was clearly upset that I criticized his article, and tried repeatedly to defend himself. (He has a chronic case of Maru’s syndrome.) Go see how he justifies his and his co-author’s claim that we need to understand and show sensitivity to those faith-ridden parents who advocate other ways of healing—ways that ultimately kill their kids.
Violating my own rules, I had to go over and pwn him, but I hardly needed to: the readers themselves did a good job. You should have a look at that article in CMAJ, though: it’s a sickening defense of “respect” for “alternative” (i.e. ineffectual) medicine. Among other things, it says this:
Medical science poses no inherent conflict with Aboriginal ways of thinking. Medical science is not specific to a single culture, but is shared by Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people alike. Most Aboriginal people seek care from health professionals — but nearly half also use traditional medicines. Aboriginal healing traditions are deeply valued ancestral practices that emphasize plant-based medicines, culture and ceremony, multiple dimensions of health (physical, mental, emotional and spiritual), and relationships between healer, patient, community and environment. These beliefs create expectations that Aboriginal patients bring to their health care encounters; these must be respected.
Why? It goes on:
. . .Had the court forced J.J. to undergo such treatment, the mistrust, anger and resistance that might have ensued within her community could have greatly compromised any future ability to provide optimal care not only to her, but to all Aboriginal people. For the state to remove a child from her parents and enforce medical treatment would pose serious, possibly lifelong, repercussions for any family, but such action holds a unique horror for Aboriginal people given the legacy of residential schools
In otherwords, Stanbroke and his coauthor Lisa Richardson see no conflict between science and “aboriginal ways of thinking” about medicine (what have they been smoking?), and they argue, in effect, to let children die while we try to persuade aboriginals to also have respect for science-based medicine. Don’t you dare take mortally ill aboriginal kids from their home: let them go to crank clinics like the Hippocrates Health Institute and have their cold-laser treatments, getting sicker and sicker while Stranbroke and Richardson promote “mutual understanding.” Hogwash, I say. Remove the kids from their homes, make them undergo proper treatment, and save their lives.
Fortunately, the Globe and Mail, which has reported extensively on the case of the late Makayla Sault, as well as of another aboriginal child, “J. J.”, who is still alive but undergoing the same crank treatment for leukemia, published an editorial by Leah Maclaren that comes out strongly in favor of government intervention. Maclaren’s piece, “Mackayla Sault: Whose interests are served when a little girl dies?” restores my faith in the sanity of Canadians. Stanbroke and Richardson should read it carefully.
Just a couple of excerpts:
But little about this story seems reasonable or fair. It is the strange tale of how the rights of the state can come into conflict with – and ultimately be trumped by – the hard-won rights of a specific minority. It is also the story of how superstition and magical thinking can dangerously masquerade as “cultural tradition” to dupe the sick, the young and the desperate. And finally it’s the story of how powerful people are sometimes willing to sacrifice the lives of innocents to protect the rights of a historically wronged community.
. . .Makayla’s rarer cancer had a 75-per-cent cure rate if conventionally treated; for J.J., that rate was 90 to 95 per cent. But without chemo, J.J. faces the same fate as Makayla – no one, according to doctors, has ever survived this form of cancer without chemotherapy.
. . . If Makayla had continued her chemo, she would likely have gone on to live a full and healthy life. Despite this, Brant Children and Family Services did not contest Makayla’s request to stop treatment. Why did it do this when the state has a long history of intervening in similar cases involving, for example, the children of Jehovah’s Witnesses who refuse blood transfusions?
The difference is that Makayla is aboriginal, and for her the option to refuse “western medicine” in favour of “traditional” treatment is seen as an essential right as opposed to the flat-out death sentence it ended up being. In other words, Makayla’s indigenous rights trumped the right of the state to intervene and save her life. So they let her die as a matter of cultural sensitivity, so that other aboriginal rights would not be eroded in the future.
. . . “Makayla was a wonderful loving child who eloquently exercised her indigenous rights as a First Nations person,” Brant Children and Family Services director Andrew Koster said this week when he heard the news of her death. (Translation: A child died, but it wasn’t my fault). He added, unnecessarily, that “The parents are a loving couple who loved their daughter deeply.”
I have no doubt that is true, but I fail to see how Makayla’s death is either rational or fair. What is the point of granting a child a right if will only ensure she ends up with no rights at all?
I can’t believe that the Children and Family Services director said this and didn’t decry the use of quack treatments or the government’s failure to intervene to save Makayla’s life. What is going on with these people?
Shame on you, Mr. Koster, and shame on you too, Drs. Richardson and Stanbroke. Either implicitly or explicitly, you’re asking us to let children die lest we offend the sensibility of Canadian aboriginals. How did your priorities get so screwed up?
It breaks my heart to know that before too long, I’ll be publishing an obituary of J. J. in these pages.
h/t: Diane G., Taskin, Quaxo
sub
What he seems to be saying is that the death now and then of someone we don’t care about anyway is a small price to pay to preserve our feeling of superiority that we get from being culturally sensitive.
IOW the only good indian is one we’re being culturally sensitive about.
That is so well said!
FTFY
And where do they find cold laser therapy in the aboriginal traditions medicine? They are so deluded they can’t even figure out what they are protecting.
That is also something I’ve been wondering about. The parents did not go for ‘traditional medicine’, but to modern quackery.
The ‘right’ to tradition allows for modern quacks? It does not appear to make any sense.
Do non-aboriginal Canadian parents have the right to withhold evidence based medicine from their children and go to snake oil pedlars?
If so it is a scandalous shame, if not, it comes close to blatant racism, immo.
The ‘right’ to tradition allows for modern quacks? It does not appear to make any sense.
The main difference between tradition and modern quackery is simply how old they are.
Primum non nocere – first, do no harm.
The guiding principle of medical training and practice.
Part of doing no harm is to oppose the wrong-headed perceptions that patients sometimes have. Being a physician isn’t about providing a cafeteria plan to a patient and hoping for the best. It’s being a guide through the intricacies of decision-making and a guardian against ignorance, quackery, or indecision.
Sometimes that requires you to tell patients things they don’t want to hear, including the limits of their cultural perspective with respect to physiology.
Concurring as a veterinary practitioner of another lifetime ago, “True this is. O so head – bangingly T R U E all of your statement above, Ms / Mr Pliny the in Between, .always.always. is.”
“Being admitted to the profession of veterinary medicine, I solemnly swear to use my scientific knowledge and skills for the benefit of society through the protection of animal health and welfare, the prevention and relief of animal suffering, the conservation of animal resources, the promotion of public health and the advancement of medical knowledge.
I will practice my profession conscientiously, with dignity, and in keeping with the principles of veterinary medical ethics. I ACCEPT AS A LIFELONG OBLIGATION the continual improvement of my professional knowledge and competence.”
Thus so affirmed I in y1978, but does this promise not mean ‘same’ to these humans’ physicians? I define in none of those phrases an oath at where I can countenance, promote and advance dying as … … “cultural sensitivity” … … to the animal – patients or to their staffs.
Of course I do not know what will be. But. I, too, am blisteringly angered over what IS, in y2015 for crikey’s sake, TO BE Ms JJ’s “future” / of her / of her parents’ “right” to “let” her die. THAT is, now, a “LIFE”LONG – pronouncing onto her of .NO. future, not?
Blue
For me in addition to the ridiculousness of religions and faith which I find its hugest: the consummate non – veracity of THAT which IS, that is, i) The purposeful, determined ignoring of reality for, instead, the imaginary, … … there are from and with religions and faith two other matters which are so annihilating that these just downright hurt me. ii) How is it that in this day and age there can be any at all justification and RATIONALization for all of the time, all of the efforts and all of the $ put in to this ridiculousness / this “industry”, that all of these things are so wasted and so taken away from being used for and placed into the actualities of the medicines and agricultures, that all of these resources are taken away from the sciences that could truly help so very many living beings? and iii) With so much evidence in front of and inside folks’ brains, how is it that in this day and age there can be any at all ‘idea(s)’ that there is a place “elsewhere” that, once one is not breathing any longer, is in even one way, let alone, is in “multitudinously glorious” ways .better than. at where one is at any other moment of her breathing – existence?
How many more times in these lifetimes of ours must we hear from anyone, let alone, hear from a relative or friend or parent of a child killed that those parents are buoyed up at their hour of grief by “the fact” that “they just know” that “she is in a better place.” Think parents of Ms Rachel Scott killed at Colorado’s Columbine High School ( parents who “began” after her dying some frickin’ “foundation” in her “honor”). Those parents “taught” Ms Scott to NOT hide or to NOT run as far and as fast away as she possibly could get herself from the ensuing destruction. That girl’s parents “taught” her to sit staunchly and steadfastly at her school’s library table ( whilst others, of course, sought escape ) and to then, when pointblank asked by her killer if she believed in god, to … … at all cost obviously … … NOT DENY her lord jebus christ who was going to save her.
Incredible … … these parents. Prosecute and then lock them up.
Blue
In general I’m quite blunt to patients. “It will not be restored” kind of talk. Of course we can pray, but your condition is not really likely to be responded to.
Most patients appreciate the honesty, if some only after a while.
I always try to be honest without crushing sll hope. Nevertheless, God does miracles, but not really miracles of this (the kind you want here) kind.
Something very different, Pliny, are you based among the Belgae? Your cartoons, well they are not really cartoons, but what should we call them? appear on a .be address?
No, I’m firmly snugly rooted in N America.
What to call those things? I don’t know either.
Socio-political cartoons?
I find it incredibly condescending and racist that people like Dr. Stanbroke think that First Nations people are such superstitious idiots that they’d kill their own children for the privilege of “traditionally” lasering their sick kids.
Yes, Makayla’s parents are such idiots, but they’re hardly representative of all First Nations people. And I’m sure the overwhelming majority of First Nations people are as horrified at the thought of quacks killing their children as the rest of us. And to do it in the name of their traditions! Just how insulting can one possibly get?
“Aboriginal” doesn’t mean, “primitive simpleton.” Shame on Dr. Stanbroke for treating them as if it does.
b&
I argued the same on a couple of Canadian Atheists posts. I felt these institutions infantalize First Nations people by assuming they cannot handle a challenge to their beliefs.
Sure, this escalated to a political fight fast but there are plenty of Aboriginals that think Makalya’s parents (fundamentalist Christians so not practicing native belief systems themselves) are off their rockers.
A very pertinent observation. Kudos to Ben.
Do we have any stats on that?
Here in SA the ones that go first to traditional medicine have often an inflated sense of what modern medicine can do when they finally come to realise that the snake oil doesn’t work.
But mirroring that, there are also legions that resort to the Sangoma, if modern medicine does not deliver to satisfaction.
I’ve seen no stats about the numbers involved here in SA, but both are definitely substantial. I presume the same goes for Canada?
“…condescending and racist…”
Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Stanbrook.
(It is Stanbrook, not Stanbroke.)
“Makayla was a wonderful loving child who, by dying, eloquently exercised her indigenous rights as a First Nations person,”.
Koster’s definition of eloquent.
I have to wonder whether any of these accomodationists have children. Would they allow their own 11-year-old children to make life-or-death decisions? If they do have children, then they know that an 11-year-old is not making a well-informed, competent, or “eloquent” decision. I’d wager they veto their young children’s decisions all the time because they know that pre-teen minds aren’t mature enough to make serious decisions.
That’s the nub, right there: all kinds of things kids areas where don’t have control or even a vote in their parents’ or government’s decisions, versus this particular life or death situation – NOW they have the final say. Outrageous.
And forget life-or-death, my generation of parents – the “helicopter” ones – are bubblewrapping their own kids against every challenge, threat, injury, and disappointment, real o imagined. I would rather an 11-year-old have the freedom to walk to the park without a grownup, and not have the right to forego the most effective lifesaving treatment available. I think, at a minimum, that right should be reserved to people above the age of sexual consent, or better, at or above the age of majority.
That is just so sick, Did Koster, or anybody else, really say that?
It reminds one of these dead children that are paraded as icons of the faith (see earlier posts).How indoctrinated these parents were? Would these religious pedlars not deserve to burn in their self made imaginary hell?
(I noted that the ‘traditional’ parents were somewhat fundamentalist Christians too, or was that an external take?)
Yes, he really said that. The title article quotes thus:
“Makayla was a wonderful loving child who eloquently exercised her indigenous rights as a First Nations person,” Brant Children and Family Services director Andrew Koster said this week when he heard the news of her death. (Translation: A child died, but it wasn’t my fault). He added, unnecessarily, that “The parents are a loving couple who loved their daughter deeply.”
If he said that, and I take your word for it, it is deeply disgusting, slime….no words for it. Below the gutter?
Sorry, I ought to have followed editing convention and used [] in the Koster quote:
“Makayla was a wonderful loving child who [by dying] eloquently exercised her indigenous rights as a First Nations person,”.
The words within the [] are implicit in the result of Makayla’s action.
I’m sure Ike Turner loved Tina. What’s love got to do with it?
Bottom line, the life and potential death of a child is less important if they’re a First Nations person. The standard of care no longer applies.
Anything otherwise is racist.
/sarcasm
You say you’re being sarcastic but I think what you said is actually very much sincere and an accurate observation of the situation.
The sarcastic part was defining the stance as the opposite of racism.
It’s a Little People Argument applied to alternative medicine as opposed to religion. Under the guise of concern (even a sincere concern) people of a particular race are being gently marginalized from reality.
Yes,I’m think it infantalizes a whole group of people.
Stanbroke:
Well this is a heap of nonsense.
“We had to let Makayla die because not allowing her to die would’ve compromised our future ability to provide her with optimal care.”
“We had to let her die because not allowing her to die would’ve imposed serious, possibly lifelong repercussions (and we are of course not counting being dead as a serious, lifelong repercussion).”
I suspect they got their fingers burned over residential schools and didn’t want to reopen the can of worms. (To boldly mix metaphors).
What that means is “We let her die because she wasn’t worth making a fuss over.” She was sacrificed because they didn’t want to look bad among other Aboriginal people.
I’m glad your article annoyed the CMAJ. That part of the article was my favourite and I pointed to it in my update to these girls’ stories on Canadian Atheist.
Why is western quackery more ethnically appropriate than western, mainstream medicine? I just don’t get it”
#10 Yes, I think characterising it as culturally sensitive to aboriginal culture doesn’t seem right – I read a lot in this case about Jesus and a lot about Western-style quackery, not too much about anything I could recognise as being from a First Nations culture. Doesn’t make the argument different.
Well said!
Yeah, there seems to be very little ‘traditional’ in Makayla’s parents’ belief, unless their tribe got a revelation from Jesus before 1492. Or from ancient aliens with cold lasers.
Human sacrifice is alive and thriving in Canada. It’s shocking that a doctor would advocate the sacrifice of young girl out of respect for a stone age, pre-science culture. This cultural relativism and ultitarianism taken to a demented extreme. I can understand an irrational, sub-human tribal group advocating this but a doctor??
“Stone age”? “Sub-human”? These terms strike me as… inappropriate.
I’m less concerned with “stone age” than “sub-human.” If the commenter means a hypothetical “sub-human” tribe rather than Mikayla’s family’s tribe, that’s less offensive. If on the other hand he deems any cult that permits the withholding of proper medical care, I might choose a different description, but it’s not an entirely unsupported opinion as far as the one tenet goes. “Inhuman” might be more apt though.
I think the intent of the commenter was to suggest that the medical knowledge is one akin to stone age peoples and the ethics akin to sub-human thinking (perhaps inhumane is a choicer word). The context and juxtaposition is unfortunate but that it is noticed highlights how delicate a situation this culture clash can be.
Well-said and I hope you are right. I’d be shocked and disappointed to find an otherwise rational commenter thinks Native Americans are “sub-human” by my definition of the term – and like you I am assuming he does not!
I think Carl might need to do more research on Aboriginals. They are not Originals, as in stone-age people. As far as these two recent cases go, they are desperate and mis-guided and it ought to stop.
Even more insidious because it occurs on a massive scale is a religious exemption which has historically relied on pseudo-scientific claims for justification and continues to do so to this very day: Male Genital Mutilation.
When the district court of Cologne in Germany ruled circumcision “for the purpose of religious upbringing constitutes a violation of
physical integrity” adding “The child’s body is permanently and irreparably changed by the circumcision. This change conflicts with the child’s interest of later being able to make his own decision on his religious affiliation.”
Rabbis and imams were falling all over each other howling while frenetically waving their well worn antisemitism and islamophobia cards.
I’d like to make issue there.
‘Male genital mutilation’ as analogue to ‘Female genital mutilation’ is inappropriate.
Male circumcision only removes some skin, and does not impede sexual functioning (or any other functioning, for that matter). There are -arguably- even some health benefits.
Female Genital Mutilartin is a different d*ggy.
Most forms of ‘Female genital mutilation’ includes the excision of the clitoris (anatomically equivalent to amputation of the penis), cutting labia and even stitching all up (infibulation). It greatly impedes sexual functioning, which is the aim, I guess.
Your term ‘Male genital mutilation, infects the real horrors of FGM,
It is like comparing the clipping of s nail to amputating a hand.
Shame on you!
Note, I agree that Imams and Mohels should not have the right to cut foreskins, but ‘mutilation’ is neither here nor there.
take issue, not make issue hw did that happen?
Thanks, nicky, well said.
This is also pretty far off-topic; I wouldn’t compare the death of children to male circumcision.
The underlying topic of the above piece and professor Coyne’s article in the New Republic appears to be about the “kowtowing to false beliefs for fear of offending an ethnic minority” which is also what happens with circumcision.
Since the violation of the rights of children appears not sufficiently on-topic for you unless it involves their death, you might want to review the cases of infant deaths as a result of Ultra-Orthodox Jewish “ritual circumcision with oral suction”, known in Hebrew as metzitzah b’peh.
To better exercise your concern about posts going “pretty far off-topic” you might wish to review the numerous posts on “slut shaming” which you happily contributed to without noticing how far those went off-topic.
The term Male Genital Mutilation (which yields 73,200 search results, so, no, not “my” term) was not used as an analogue nor to diminish the unspeakable horror of Female Genital Mutilation. This is an assumption you made unsupported by facts.
I used it to qualify what happens to the penis – the forcible involuntary removal of highly sensitive functional part of a defenseless infant’s intact body, on religious, also backed up with trumped up medical, grounds.
Dismissing and diminishing Male Genital Mutilation, however, in blatant disregard of fact, is what you clearly engage in: “only removes some skin”; “does not impede sexual functioning”; has “health benefits”; “infects the real horrors (as opposed to the false of MGM?)of FGM”; “but ‘mutilation’ is neither here nor there”; “comparing the clipping of s nail to amputating a hand.”
Except clipping fingernails 1.Is not permanent 2.Is painless. 3. Does not reduce the sensitivity of your fingertip. 4. Does not deprive sensitive tissue of a protective sheath. 5. Does not result in possible infections and death. 6. Has not been condemned as a human rights violation by the EC.
YOUR analogy is as inept as it is insensitive and offensive.
One thing the Stanbroke (and others) find so terrible is the thought of “removing a child from her parents” – which is no doubt a terrible thing, and a reminder of ugly events in the past, but it’s a bit misleading as a description here – given that all that will happen in even the most serious medical procedures, is that the child may be temporarily in a separate room. The parents aren’t really absent, unless they choose to be.
One thing’s for sure: Makayla has been removed from her parents well and truly now.
If the parents were beating their child then they she would be removed from their care PDQ but withholding medical treatment which leads to death is somehow seen as acceptably “cultural”?
No child should die when they could/would have lived with medical treatment. If their parents
wanted to make such a decision for themselves,
go for it. But, whether Aboriginal/First Nations or not,the child needed protection. Parents, medical profession and government, all should be ashamed of themselves for killing this child.
Another thought: if the energy and dollars being devoted to anti-abortion for protection of foetal life from sperm/egg “ensoulment” through to birth, could be devoted to the care and protection of existing children, maybe Markayla and JJ could still be with us. Much more attention must be paid to the children we’ve given birth to. Why are they less important than a foetus?
You’ve identified one of the key points of abortion-related cognitive dissonance, and it’s wasted on anti-choicers. Their objective, whether they are aware of it or not, is the shaming and punishment of women for having sex.
If their mission really were a cult of life, they would be anti-capital-punishment and anti-in-vitro-conception as well – but I’m pretty sure, being overwhelmingly fundie, the majority is supportive of both.
If their mission were not about slutshaming, they would be fine with birth control, but they are not, even for married women – and have been fighting access to birth control with increasing ferocity.
If their mission were simply about ending abortion, they would not support “rape exceptions” at all; I’d wager those exceptions are not favored by the majority of activists, but I’d also wager it’s a slim majority and the support that exists is proof that female agency in sexual activity is the target not simply saving fetuses. And just to add I suspect that rape exceptions are a sugar coating tolerated as a means to limiting access to abortion – similar to the draconian demands on abortion clinic operations such as requiring “hospital floor privileges” for obgyns who perform abortions – and a stepping stone to outright banning of reproductive health maintenance for women and their partners.
So, yes, the contradiction makes no sense, but then it’s a pretty nonsensical (and in my view terrorist) movement.
Well said! I agree that shaming women for having sex is a big part of this – shaming men too but mostly the women.
If there is maleslutshaming I haven’t seen it; as I’ve always said that would be just as offensive to me but would at least be consistent. As a father of five girls I sympathize with parents who freak out over their children’s sexuality but I don’t share their angst: two of my girls are above the age of consent and I tell them it’s not up to me to tell them what they do, but I do counsel them to exercise caution and situational awareness, and to feel empowered to control their own destinies and self-esteem. I was seventeen once, too, and so was their mother. It’s a major loss of credibility to assert “for me, not for thee” except as it regards breaking the law and destructive behavior – of which “careful” intercourse is not an example.
Not slut shaming for men but making them ashamed for having pleasure sex. Sex is for babies!
Oh, yes, EVERYTHING is for making babies to hear the funnies tell it, especially sex and marriage. Super bad news for my mother-in-law and her second husband, who married at 68 and 70, respectively! They’d better get on it!
I was also thinking, seeing as I’m middle aged now, how women can still get pregnant until post menopause. Such pregnancies can be dangerous. I recall a literary figure (can’t remember) who, who had a late pregnancy (not late by our standards) and of course it was because she was having pleasure sex and wasn’t even married – I imagine it would be quite scandalous as it was in the 1800s I believe. It reminds me a lot of the Loretta Lynn song, The Pill, that was so controversial when it came out. I can’t stand the music to this because the cursed “Hawaiian Guitar” features prominently. Lyrics here.
If sex is just for making babies, then eating must be purely for nutrition, reading purely for obtaining information, horseback riding and swimming are just for transportation, and architecture is just for keeping people out of the rain. I am officially even less interested in visiting any heaven dreamed up by people who think that way – who knew that was even possible?! 🙏
Well put and I somehow read your reply in the voice of Star Trek’s McCoy
Funny! I will take that as a compliment since Bones is my favorite. In my head I sound like Jimmy Stewart as George Bailey telling off Mr. Potter – but I worry my tortured prose reads more like Dr. Smith lecturing Will Roninson.
“…who married at 68 and 70, respectively!”
I don’t know these particular people, MooT, but in general–don’t be so surprised.
If you mean having babies, I’d be floored as well as dismayed (since, being a loyal and protective husband, I think my mother-in-law is a terrible parent); if you mean having sex, again, I would be floored if the Ice Queen is “doing it” – but for both their sakes I sincerely hope I am wrong.
I meant the latter. 😉
Well, some people age better than others…
Something tells me you are speaking from experience. Either way, thanks for the good news! Since I hit 50, I have been reminded daily how little I understood about the experience of aging, and am continually tickled by how much older my definition of “old” gets with every passing day. Also fun to experience: Susan Sarandon, Diane Keaton and Dame Helen Mirren are WAY sexier to me than any flavor-of-the-month 20-something “sex symbol.” I have to say, I’m relieved! I never wanted to be one of “those guys” who can’t accept and relish their age. I met Diane Keaton in Beverly Hills once – I like to think she was flattered that I blushed like a schoolgirl when she looked me in the eye!
You’re saying all the right things, MooT.
😀
I really can’t remember any male-shaming. I think the attitude is usually “boys will be boys” and women have to be virtuous.
MOF, I really like your take there, I think you are spot on (apparently the latter term ‘spot on’ is annoying some of the readers here, but they did not provide an alternative).
However, why would they (anti-choicers) probably be ‘anti- in vitro fertilisation’? I cannot really follow the logic there (if there is any, one never knows with anti-choicers).
I think the RCC is technically against in vitro, but I doubt if most pro-lifers are.
They might be if they believe that life starts at conception because in-vitro produces spare embryos. The RCC stance on contraception and life in general (exactly at which stage is the soul inserted?)reminds me of the Monty Python spoof song:
ha ha, that’s so often appropriate here. 🙂
I believe you meant to say “pro” in-vitro fertilization, since most fundies and certainly official Catholicism is already anti invitro fertilization. (Because no penis in vagina — the main consideration of all things about procreation — no penis in vagina – without a condom? then though shalt not!)
My comment was meant to be in reply to ManOutofTime at number 15, before I saw the other replies questioning anti/pro invitro. But why prolifers (Catholic church) are against invitro is, I kid you not, because there was no penis in vagina. Of course they don’t put it this way, but you can look that up. They use euphemisms like “the conjugal act”,”open to life” (no condom, no pill), numerous times to describe why invitro, masturbation, condom use, non-vaginal sex, — you name it. — The decision chart goes like this: Is the penis in the vagina? YES – continue, NO — stop; If YES, Is there a condom on the penis/or is the woman on the pill or IUD or sponge or etc? NO — continue, YES — stop. You can determine with approaching 100% accuracy whether the Catlick church is pro or anti any issue, act, or category of anything having to do with sex and procreation by using this simple decision tree.
Thanks for the correction. If I thought about it, I may have recalled that about the Catholic Church, but I don’t think I could have told you that fundies were anti-in-vitro. And of course, the anti-stemcell brouhaha.
I’ll have to google it and see, but I wonder how often fertility clinics are picketed – to the extent one can distinguish a fertility clinic from an obgyn. Of course, a Planned Parenthood clinic is more an obgyn, by volume, than it is an abortion provider, but anti-choicers make sure the general public is misinformed about that.
Also, is there an active legislative agenda to frustrate fertility treatments? Also worth a Google, but is be surprised if there were.
I imagine a busy specialist destroys a not-insignificant number of embryos – and a couple of friends who went through in-vivo have had to “reduce” when they’ve had multiple embryos.
Perhaps the fundie rationalization is that fertility treatment is meant to result in a child, so, while offensive to them, the patients are on the “right” side. Still, a large number of embryos are destroyed – so the lack of a prominent and vicious campaign against fertility treatments demonstrates a certain hypocrisy.
“Other ways of healing” are not other ways of healing if they result in death. The phrase is highly redolent of “other ways of knowing” – both are bullshit terms.
Good analogy!
I checked out the Hippocrates Health Institute website the other day. Part of their comprehensive cancer wellness program is “OndaMed BioFeedback Sessions for Stabilizing the Emotional Energy Field.”
Apparently “other ways of healing” include for profit BS quackery. I’m so annoyed by this nonsense I may have to call in sick Monday with an unstable emotional energy field.
I sure hope JJ’s parents smarten up. I sure hope all the powers that be smarten up, otherwise we’ll have another dead aboriginal child on our hands!
So are we going to allow the casting out of demons as a form of treatment for those who take the Bible at face value? Is that not being “culturally sensitive” to a civilisation which lived 2,000+ years ago?
Unfortunately I don’t think I’d be able to find a bookie to take that bet. They seem to have scruples about losing money, as well as PR departments.
(Actuall,y I wouldn’t even know how to lay a bet in a bookie – I went into one once looking for a summer job, under the delusion that a year of Statistics at university would be an appropriate qualification. According to the manager (or lead hand) it made me ridiculously and dangerously overqualified, and there’s no way that they’d employ a person who might make decisions on their own instead of referring them to head office. So I got a job shovelling shit instead.
A pragmatic question, who pays for all this quackery? Since the HHI bloke seems to travel to Canada to spruik his wares to First Nation people, he must be getting something out of it. Am I being too cynical if I suggest that that something is $$$?
Where do these $$$ come from?
Desperate people?