Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Is it ultimately a question as to how much profit is denied or proffered to the health industrial complex or merely perceived sinfulness involved when demanding what people ought not do?
For those with a terminal diagnosis, I think that's ALL it is if they choose not to cooperate, as in AMA ... against medical advice. It's a denial of profits to the ominous medical industry.
Cannabis oil was removed from pharmacies in 1937, when cancer was rare. Now, cancer is an epidemic in US. 60% get it & half of those (30% of people) die from it. 13% worldwide die from it. Our higher cancer death rates may be caused by the roughly 85,000 toxins the corps got the govt to approve. Toxins in our air, soil, food & water.
So little about cancer was known back then and few diagnostics were available.
Life expectancy at the turn of the century was around 40 years.
Heart disease remains the #1 killer over time.
These toxins are everywhere, not just the U.S.
Lifestyle choices play a huge role in cancers and heart disease.
If only all cancers could be cured by cannabis oil. Thus far, there is only anecdotal reports.
Seriously, one sees these TV shows talking about perfect health to no end. People are largely pre-programmed with their longevity, I think. I have relatives who smoked, or smoke, living into their 80s.
The difference is that, if one does all those things they are told to do, they die at 83 instead of 79. Too many "shoulds." Do what you want, and go at 79.
I don't think this believes in grief and mourning. This is about defining a fine line. This is a debate.
Some people, via their addictions, are mapping their own way to their graves. Cases in point are the current rash of famous entertainment people who have died due to persistent substance abuse.
Furthermore, some people have chronic health conditions for which they don't do what it takes to keep them in check, or will not undergo the appropriate treatments. I know of a person who had cancer and, due to an unfulfilled life, chose to be lax about her treatments and perished in 5 months.
Their death certificates will say "accident" for the overdoses and "cancer" for what could have been a prolonged life. Do you consider such deaths to effectively be suicides?
I absolutely do not see any of the above mentioned deaths as suicides....when people get addicted to a substance it's not because they want to be, when people make a choice about cancer treatments their choice is as good as the next, there's no guarantees with cancer.
So little about cancer was known back then and few diagnostics were available.
Life expectancy at the turn of the century was around 40 years.
Heart disease remains the #1 killer over time.
These toxins are everywhere, not just the U.S.
Lifestyle choices play a huge role in cancers and heart disease.
If only all cancers could be cured by cannabis oil. Thus far, there is only anecdotal reports.
Our first 10 presidents died at ages 67 to 90, did they get better health care?
1937 little cancer knowledge & few diagnostics: Researchers in 1920s noticed a rise in lung cancer. X-ray machines existed & are still used. But they involve potentially cancer-causing radiation & can only see cancer as small as 1 centimeter, which would probably mean it has already spread. Now it seems few Drs. use machines to test for cancer during an annual physical. X-rays & mammograms & CT scans are the most likely used, all involving radiation. Now we have ultrasounds, MRIs & thermograms that don't give out radiation, but still not used as much.
In 1/3 of states, cancer has surpassed heart disease as #1 killer, & cancer deaths are still going up. The US is the 2nd most polluted country in the world (after China) & we will likely be last place in controlling
pollution soon, as govt told many polluters they don't have do anything before 2020.
We have 85,000 toxins approved for our air soil, water & food. Besides cars, refineries & some factories, there are less obvious sources. In USA, about 3 companies provide farmers with fertilizers, herbicides, & insecticides for their plants. And seeds could be dipped in cancer-causing stuff before farmers get them.
We have big corporate farms. In low income countries, they probably can't afford the cancer-causing products & the makers of these things probably don't advertise there.
Govt-corp alliance has more to harm: a new herbicide will be available that contains one of the two ingredients in Agent Orange. And Big Pharma will have pill 10 times as addicting as Oxycontin or heroin.
Should people be blamed for their own death by drugs so addicting that quitting isn't possible?
Food now killing 400,000 a year?! Half as bad as tobacco. Similar poisons used, but inhaling makes the bad stuff present longer than swallowing. But swallowing tobacco might be instant death. One drop of nicotine (60-80mg) is fatal, but when smoking tobacco, most nicotine is burned up before inhaled.
Cannabis ("marijuana") doesn't cause deaths, but govt says it is a very dangerous drug with no medical value. Thousands of studies disprove this. 60+ studies show MJ has cancer-fighting abilities. Studies on Granny Storm Crow's list. Dr. Lester Grinspoon retired f/Harvard Med. Sch. lists 120+ conditions where MJ often works better than pills at rxmarijuana.com/ If we have to suffer needlessly & die prematurely so the special interest groups maximize profits, does anyone want to vote for a person that's part of this?
So I'm for Gary Johnson "the pot candidate". He used it 3 years after falling 50': broken bones in back, leg, & rib. No operation, no highly addicting opiates. One researcher guesstimated if people replaced the daily use of tobacco & alcohol with cannabis, over half would live 8 to 20 years longer. But as long as pot is illegal, most will use the approved poisons instead. So Govt/corps encourage self-destructive behavior.
Well, according to the CDC smoking causes 448,000 deaths per year in America. On average smokers die 13 to 14 years earlier than non-smokers. Are all those people trying to commit suicide?
Every smoker knows they are radically increasing their chances of getting and dying from lung cancer, throat cancer and emphysema, and other illnesses --- but it doesn't stop at least 18 % of adult Americans from smoking.
So my answer is I don't know the answer to the OP's interesting question. People do a lot of things that they know are risky and could lead to death, like take drugs, drive fast, have unsafe sex --- but they do them anyway. I guess everyone thinks 'IT won't happen to me', ---until it does.
See.. this is an example of cancer "non-treatment" that I agree with. Were I your grandfather's age, in his situation, even today, I'm pretty sure I'd opt to do nothing but accept pain medication.
I've seen so many bad side effects from chemo.. and if it just "extends" your life for a few months, it just doesn't seem beneficial for anyone but the medical 'professionals' profiting from it.
They (the medical community) should feel both ashamed and guilty for profiting financially from a patient's eminent death, imho.
I've worked in oncology and very few oncologists nowadays, in fact none that I know, would insist on rigorous treatment for a patient who had perhaps a few months to live and no chance of remission. Like one of the MDs I worked with said: "there comes a point where we'd be doing things to the patient instead of for them."
In Canada, where treatment is government -controlled there is no way that the government would pay for treatment that might extend a patient's life a few weeks. They won't even pay for certain treatments in patients over age 80 because the risks of the treatment sometimes outweigh potential years left.
I would put anyone who eats poorly and does not exercise on the same level.
In fact, obesity-related illnesses just passed SMOKING in number of deaths per year worldwide.
So as you (general you) are eating your cheetos and guzzling that coke, don't think you are all that different from a smoker or alcoholic.
Even skinny people are having more strokes and heart attacks at younger ages because of our toxic food supply.
Knowing about hormones, HFCS, GMOs, etc, like we do now, how can anyone continue to ingest this stuff and not be considered to be slowly killing themselves? On purpose.
I don't think this believes in grief and mourning. This is about defining a fine line. This is a debate.
Some people, via their addictions, are mapping their own way to their graves. Cases in point are the current rash of famous entertainment people who have died due to persistent substance abuse.
Furthermore, some people have chronic health conditions for which they don't do what it takes to keep them in check, or will not undergo the appropriate treatments. I know of a person who had cancer and, due to an unfulfilled life, chose to be lax about her treatments and perished in 5 months.
Their death certificates will say "accident" for the overdoses and "cancer" for what could have been a prolonged life. Do you consider such deaths to effectively be suicides?
Suicide is when someone is doing something on purpose to end their life.
I don't think that destructive behavior qualifies. Destructive behavior happens because people cannot control their actions.
If they COULD control their behavior and thus prolong their lives, most people would choose to stop the destructive behaviours. But most of the time it takes too much will power to do that, and most people just don't have enough. So from this perspective, it's the body not functioning propery (not being able to overcome addictions) which leads them to death, NOT willingless to die (which is what suicide is)
Cancer... most people don't choose the treatments only because they would have to go through hell (that's how treatments make you feel) just to survive a few more months, or sometimes they don't know how much longer they will live after these treatments. So it's a matter of risk: do you want to suffer like crazy for a result that is unknown? or do you want to take the easier way out and just let it happen?
Cancer... most people don't choose the treatments only because they would have to go through hell (that's how treatments make you feel) just to survive a few more months, or sometimes they don't know how much longer they will live after these treatments. So it's a matter of risk: do you want to suffer like crazy for a result that is unknown? or do you want to take the easier way out and just let it happen?
I agree with everything you said. However, with regard to cancer, do they dope up people who don't want to go the chemo route pretty well to mitigate pain?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I can agree with part of this
