Created by digimonfan4eva
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
if the cure for cancer was illegal, would you break the law to save a loved one?
37731 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 4/11/15 , edited 4/11/15
Look, the fact is that the empirical record on marijuana's clinical applications is limited and growing slowly because of its status as a Schedule I substance (which it honestly has no business being). At present the most significant and known clinical contributions made by THC are (as far as cancer patients are concerned) relieving nausea and restoring appetite, and it may also be useful for easing pain and inflammation. Very recent research (which is to say the matter is not yet settled) has suggested that THC and CBD extracts may facilitate cancer treatment, either by slowing tumor development or improving the efficacy of radiation therapy.

Even assuming the research goes in a very positive direction and THC or CBD is determined to be a valuable drug (or drugs) for cancer treatment regimens beyond appetite enhancement, nausea relief, and pain relief, there's still a number of reasons to not let people just grow it and self-medicate. There is evidence suggesting that marijuana can be a trigger for schizophrenia in people predisposed toward developing the disorder, different lines of marijuana have been bred to have different relative THC and CBD content (and so dosage control is a sticky widget for homegrown marijuana), hash oil is both flammable and explosive, this isn't some magical apple growing on a tree that the mean old government just won't let people plant.
825 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / Sweden
Offline
Posted 4/11/15 , edited 4/13/15
Yes, without doubt.
28498 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 4/11/15 , edited 4/13/15

eightcar wrote:


digimonfan4eva wrote:

Let's say the cure was a magical fruit you could grow in your backyard for free


Hmm

1) Illegal
2) Can grow it
3) Cancer

I wonder where you are really trying to go with this :rolleyes:


lol
9494 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / lost in thought p...
Offline
Posted 4/12/15 , edited 4/13/15
heck yeah
7023 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/13/15 , edited 4/15/15
what if the reason why it's illegal is because a big evil corporation is profiting from the cure being illegal? And the cure itself has no negative repercussions to the patient. It just painlessly cures the cancer away and makes the person healthy again.

It's more of a financial thing. Would you break the law to save your loved one?

Wow! Most of you are law breakers! I love it You guys are awesome.

What if the government was not stupid, but greedy? If they made money by giving patients an alternative medicine for cancer patients that didn't help them, made them more sick, increased pain while prolonging their life just a little bit so that they could charge the patients' families their life savings.

Would you break the law then to save your loved one's life?

Or go with that expensive alternative medicine that would just give your loved one, say 2-5 years more, in obedience to the government's laws?

I wasn't talking about marijuana, but... that leads to an interesting new question!
which is more appealing to you?

having a slight chance of schizophrenia eating a plant coming from nature...

or being microwaved alive while being injected with carcinogenic toxins and having your body cut up?

37731 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 4/13/15 , edited 4/14/15

digimonfan4eva wrote:

What if the government was not stupid, but greedy? If they made money by giving patients an alternative medicine for cancer patients that didn't help them, made them more sick, increased pain while prolonging their life just a little bit so that they could charge the patients' families their life savings.

Would you break the law then to save your loved one's life?

Or go with that expensive alternative medicine that would just give your loved one, say 2-5 years more, in obedience to the government's laws?


Technically no government or private firm would want to do that either. We're talking about a Nobel-prize winning, name your price kind of discovery once the active component was isolated. The world would be that government or private firm's oyster. Also, knowingly and intentionally providing sub-par medical treatment for the sake of extracting greater profits technically violates medical ethics' call to do no harm. Professionals who were found to be engaging in such practices would be at serious risk of losing their membership in major professional groups, and perhaps even their licenses to practice if what they were doing turned out to be illegal.

Anyway, the ethical thing to do given these conditions is to administer the fruit. It's not the legal thing to do, but it is the ethical thing to do.
4689 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Everything slowly...
Offline
Posted 4/14/15
Yes, Unless the cure was taking anothers life... then no
mdmrn 
25591 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / Baltimore, MD
Offline
Posted 4/15/15

MakotoKamui wrote:

Why would it be illegal? I mean, after all, scientists test all kinds of currently illegal to possess things in attempts to treat cancer. Doctors put years of their lives and tons of money into being able to help people. You'd think they'd lobby to make sure those cures were available.

And please remember, there's no "cure" for cancer. They kill cancer, mostly by poisoning the patient. Cancer cells metabolize everything faster (thus why PT scans work, the radioactive sugars are absorbed by the cancer cells first. It's why they have you close your eyes and relax as much as possible while your body absorbs them), so they eat poison faster as well. My treatment was basically monitored heavy metal poisoning, when you get down to it, but one of my chemo buddies was getting a form of arsenic. Different sets of drugs are used to kill off different cancers, but they're pretty much all poisons.

I know I keep hearing about things like marijuana "cures", natural diet "cures", and so on.. but when you dig into them, they tend to be full of hot air, with no actual research to back the claims up.

This. All of this.

Cancer at it's most basic is uncontrollable abnormal cells. But they're still your own cells and since there's any number of reasons which can lead to the various varieties of cancers and locations where they can form, there is not and never can really be a cure for cancer.
482 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
40 / M
Offline
Posted 4/14/15 , edited 4/14/15
this reply for makoto kamui.
not only medical research.real.most Indonesian people use.local Indonesian called jamu..or herbal drink.tasted suck..but heal you slow but sure.there is recipe about it all over internet.somehow medical world still on arguing.
37731 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 4/15/15 , edited 4/15/15

Gundam_Phantom wrote:

Obviously you have never heard of some of the sh*t the FDA pulls...


Which particular instance would you like to discuss?


Companies do not want a cure, they want treatments, treatments cost money. Treatments bring in big revenue. Finding a cure would drastically reduce that revenue.


Suppose I were to open a cancer clinic whose treatment program boasted an unprecedented (indeed, universal or nearly universal) success rate, induced none of the nasty side effects of radiation or chemical therapy in the process of treatment, and offered an affordable (that is, income adjusted) payment plan for patients whose insurance (whether through an NHS or a private insurer) wouldn't don the whole expense. What do you think my visitorship would look like? How many patients do you think I'd have? How far out would my appointments be booked?

Every person in the world who discovered they had cancer would want to be referred to my clinic. Every. Single. One.

Now, suppose I were an insurer or an administrator for an NHS. Would I prefer to be directing funds toward unnecessary treatment, or the most clinically and cost-effective treatment? Would I want lots of payouts for treatment on my end, or only a few? Would I want people, on the whole, to be healthier or sicker? It wouldn't make sense for a private health insurance company to keep people sick. That would mean they would be paying out more for treatment, and eventually a patient would hit his or her cap for eligible care. That cap is a cost-cutting measure. They don't want to pay out for treatment. Likewise, an NHS doesn't want people to be sicker, because that would mean less of the overall budget would be available for things other than treatment.

This means insurers and/or an NHS would be positively delighted to see a cancer treatment with minimal, insignificant side-effects and a 90% recovery rate in virtually no time at all. They'd be elated, because it would mean fewer payouts and bigger shares of their budgets for other activities or treatments which might have otherwise faced neglect.

Now, suppose I run a pharmaceutical company. I have an interest in having the "best" drug on the market, and put out literally millions of dollars on development of each drug. In order to effectively compete I need to have a drug whose efficacy is comparable to or better than the alternatives, whose administration makes it as widely and easily usable as possible, and whose dosage and pharmacokinetics (particularly the rate of absorption and inactivation) are well in hand. Ideally its dosage curve produces an enormous therapeutic index, meaning not only is my drug very efficacious (does what it's supposed to do), but it's also very "safe" (fatalities from overdosing aren't a serious problem). To that end it is in my best interest to continue producing drugs which are ever more effective at selectively targeting the cause of a disease or disorder, making it either manageable or (ideally) restoring a normal state entirely even in the drug's absence. The former (but especially the latter) is what insurers want, it's what doctors want, it's what the NHS (if there is one) wants, and it's definitely what patients want. Since those are the people whose continued patronage is my very life's blood it's in my best interest to give them exactly what they want, because if I do that I'll get more of that patronage (just like the clinic with the super-effective cancer treatment from earlier).

A cure for cancer could land me a government contract worth billions for its manufacture. Everyone would want it (and for any price), so I've every incentive to make it a reality. You'd better believe that if my hypothetical pharmaceutical firm ever did discover a clinically effective cancer cure with no noteworthy side-effects and a tiny treatment duration absolutely a single penny of government grant money would be enough to prompt state lawyers to rifle through every clause to lay a patent on it in the name of the state. It would be that valuable.

Doctors, insurers, state health providers, pharmaceuticals, patients, everyone would stand to gain from such a treatment being developed.


Not to mention all the people who were dependent on said treatments would lose their jobs (researching, developing, manufacturing, application, distributors). I also remember a documentary where a doctor discovered a substance to cure some cancers, did all the research, testing and whatnot, but when submitted to the FDA his findings and the findings of independent studies and research, was denied outright...now in order to get this substance you have to go to Mexico....if I can find it again i'll post the title.


I found a documentary where a "researcher" insisted that aliens were responsible for the construction of ancient wonders of the world such as the pyramids of Egypt. It aired on the History Channel. I also recently read that an infrared "sauna" does everything from curing cancer to reducing the effects of aging, and I found one for a steal online for only $21,795.00 plus $1,200 in shipping. Better grab it quick! Oh, and if you can't afford it there's something or other about taking baking soda. That works, too. Apparently.

Edit: I'm not kidding. Look at this insanity.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/PHOTON-GENIUS-by-the-Skilling-Institute-/221714239612?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item339f32d07c

Nearly 22 grand for a hoax. I mean, get a load of this disclaimer:


* Disclaimer Statement: These statements have not been evaluated by the FDA. The products offered here are not claimed to diagnose, treat, or cure any disease.


LOL. All you should need to know.


here is a site with some nice statistics on it:
http://www.cancertutor.com/


I especially loved the comparison of scientific medicine to Stalinism, and the comparison of empiricism to Soviet propaganda. That really set the tone for what I was looking at, though it's the reference to the Photon Genius which sealed the deal.
25994 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / M / one mile from a d...
Offline
Posted 4/14/15 , edited 4/14/15

BlueOni wrote:


digimonfan4eva wrote:

What if the government was not stupid, but greedy? If they made money by giving patients an alternative medicine for cancer patients that didn't help them, made them more sick, increased pain while prolonging their life just a little bit so that they could charge the patients' families their life savings.

Would you break the law then to save your loved one's life?

Or go with that expensive alternative medicine that would just give your loved one, say 2-5 years more, in obedience to the government's laws?


Technically no government or private firm would want to do that either. We're talking about a Nobel-prize winning, name your price kind of discovery once the active component was isolated. The world would be that government or private firm's oyster. Also, knowingly and intentionally providing sub-par medical treatment for the sake of extracting greater profits technically violates medical ethics' call to do no harm. Professionals who were found to be engaging in such practices would be at serious risk of losing their membership in major professional groups, and perhaps even their licenses to practice if what they were doing turned out to be illegal.

Anyway, the ethical thing to do given these conditions is to administer the fruit. It's not the legal thing to do, but it is the ethical thing to do.




Obviously you have never heard of some of the sh*t the FDA pulls... Companies do not want a cure, they want treatments, treatments cost money. Treatments bring in big revenue. Finding a cure would drastically reduce that revenue. Not to mention all the people who were dependent on said treatments would lose their jobs (researching, developing, manufacturing, application, distributors). I also remember a documentary where a doctor discovered a substance to cure some cancers, did all the research, testing and whatnot, but when submitted to the FDA his findings and the findings of independent studies and research, was denied outright...now in order to get this substance you have to go to Mexico....if I can find it again i'll post the title.

here is a site with some nice statistics on it:
http://www.cancertutor.com/
30228 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Tokyo/Seoul Bound
Offline
Posted 4/15/15
I'd do almost anything to save a loved one... maybe
482 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
40 / M
Offline
Posted 4/16/15
real world item.fruit or vegetable can heal cancer.even medical on ok.some are bit skeptic.sorry.I drive bit on this forum to more scientific Doctoral stuff...

1.dragon fruit.
2.berry.any berry.some berry are poison.so forgot that berry.
3.fig fruit or in Indonesia called tin fruit.like guava.but mini version.check on internet.I check first already.
4.mangosteen.hope right on writing.
5.broccoli.what ?!..go check by yourself.I check already before.

sorry..that's what I knew.beside soursop / sirsak in Indonesian name.
3452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
17 / M / Ente Isla
Offline
Posted 4/17/15
I can't say I'd do it without a doubt but I would do so none the less. I would never let someone I love and cherish die simply to follow the whims of politicians who more often then not care about little more than their own personal gain.

Of course, I'd need more details to make an informed decision in reality.
42551 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
DE4D
Offline
Posted 8/2/15
Obviously, duh, I'd grab that cure, regardless of the law.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.