When a person dies of cancer, it is sad...

I'm feeling half-sorry, half-angry at the woman. Clearly, having a homeopathician homeopathicist homeo quack for a husband, it would have been a hard choice for her to switch to conventional treatment, but if test after test confirms that the disease is progressing, then "darling I really, really, love you and I don't mean to be disrespectful of your beliefs or anything, but I'm going to the clinic".

My father's having an episode of wildfire (herpes zoster). After a week on acyclovir, he went to a 'healer' to get 'signed' on the basis that "what hurt can it do?"
What hurt can it do? The healer told him to discontinue the antiviral and he did, she charged him €15 per sitting and he paid. Thank goodness healers are not supposed to get paid lest they lose their powers. He's been sick as a dog for a month and now he's afraid of restarting the antiviral and disrupting the mystic magic placebo effect. At least, it's not life-threatening... unless you count the risk that my mother gets tired of his being cranky and puts rat poison in his soup.

Jesus. wrote:

The eczema case wrote:

The judge said that, while Sam's wife deferred to her husband, she had "failed the child in her most important duty, with fatal results".

Tell me how this pissed me off more than the actual story. If the wife deferred to the husband constantly even in a situation as preventable and fucked up as that, it's for either a damn good or damn terrible reason.

'Cause her husband is arrogant and domineering and part of a culture that gives him the right to express those qualities, even over the wishes of the only other caretaker of the child. This is what you get when you expect one half of a relationship to not abuse the power it's been given, but don't actually go to the trouble of requiring it.

Sutremaine wrote:

Jesus. wrote:

The eczema case wrote:

The judge said that, while Sam's wife deferred to her husband, she had "failed the child in her most important duty, with fatal results".

Tell me how this pissed me off more than the actual story. If the wife deferred to the husband constantly even in a situation as preventable and fucked up as that, it's for either a damn good or damn terrible reason.

'Cause her husband is arrogant and domineering and part of a culture that gives him the right to express those qualities, even over the wishes of the only other caretaker of the child. This is what you get when you expect one half of a relationship to not abuse the power it's been given, but don't actually go to the trouble of requiring it.

Not even that. He actually publicized the misplaced and borderline offensive guilting of the mother, saying that only a mother is responsible for a child and is therefore 99.9% culpable. Did the father not fail his child? Hello? And even though many may disagree with me, something about the wording of "she failed in her most important duty" pisses me off. What the hell did you want her to do? What if being that mother was put second by her family or culture or whatever? What if its not about her failing to save her daughter, but about failing to have a choice?

Jesus. wrote:

The cancer case wrote:

This included a strict diet, mineral supplements, and lifestyle and attitude changes.

"I've got aggressive cancer and I'm in excruciating pain. Let me think HAPPY THOUGHTS and that'll make it all better instead of that nasty poo-poo surgery."

Oy.

Yeah, sounds a lot like Scientology there.

Fuck Scientology and the spaceship it rode in on.