Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Yogizuna who wrote (31626)	4/3/2005 11:50:39 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

the first thing I would do is keep the person away from chemotherapy, which is highly toxic and kills a lot of people. What's the mortality rate of untreated cancer? Suppose the cancer has metastasized to the point where surgical removal is impossible. What do you suggest be done then? Nothing and just let them die when a method exists which sometimes prevents that outcome? Chemotherapy, as it presently exists, IS toxic. The idea is the agents, while poisonous, are more poisonous to the cancer cells than to the normal cells. If the difference is large enough and enough time is available, the agents can wipe out the cancerous cells and still leave the person alive. Do you suggest that not be done? >>> And may this sort of death happen only to those who prevent such situations from being humanely terminated. <<< And what is this, some sort of "prayer threat"? Take it as you wish. Those preventing others from having a painless humane death do not deserve one themselves. This ain't funny, Yogi. Believe me. I've been there. It isn't funny at all.