gargantua wrote:If that were true, that the state wants to poison someone, I would agree with you.
But they don't. The issue is the availability of a life-saving treatment, that may have very unpleasant side effects. Claiming that the issue is that he doesn't want to be poisoned adds nothing to the debate, because it's inflammatory and simply not true.
Do you know what chemo-therapy even is? Let me explain...
it is the poisoning of the body. Creating a toxic environment within the body so as to kill the cancer cells, the weak ones at least, and by doing so causing the body to be so toxic the cancer cannot attack healthy cells. Poisoning. It is not hyperbole. Unpleasant side effects? puking for hours on end...unable to eat...constant headaches...on the verge of death there G.
I don't claim he doesn't want to be poisoned HE did. The kid had already been through chemo and doesn't want to suffer that way again. There are alternatives. Remember how medicine cured headaches in years past? drilling into the cranium and letting out some of the blood/pressure and demons! More recently enemas were believed to cure pretty much every affliction know to man...at least there is some basis for that. I agree some can handle the chemo but until you have watched someone suffer from it's "unpleasant side effects" I say let the poor kid find an alternative. It is not a death wish but a search for a better path to conquering this horrible killer disease.