Page 1 of 2

Re: cancer?

Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2005 6:22 am
by Shannon Nelson
Does anyone know what the situation is in the US--if a patient is
diagnosed with cancer but opts *not* to have surgery, radiation or
chemo, what are their options? I recall that only an MD is allowed to
"treat cancer", and MDs are allowed to treat it only with "approved"
methods, those being surgery, radiation and chemo. So is a patient in
the US still "allowed" to not choose those, even tho no non-MD is
"allowed" to treat their cancer?
Shannon

Re: cancer?

Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2005 7:12 am
by Rosemary C Hyde
Hi, Shannon.

Patients may choose not to accept medical treatments. This is often difficult, with a lot of pressure not to make this decision from doctors, friends, and family members -- but it's a choice that can be made. There are literally hundreds of alternative remedies supposed to "cure cancer" that people use, generally without consulting their medical doctors. The most anxious patients may be using dozens of these at the same time. Actually, chemo and radiation are less counterproductive for homeopathic treatment -- less suppressive of the vital force -- than a multitude of competing herbal/ energetic/ nutritional treatments all mixed together.

When I'm working with cancer patients, I generally advise them about the kinds of questions to ask their doctors and the kinds of answers to insist on getting so that they can make genuinely informed decisions about the risk/ benefit ratio of chemo and radiation for them individually. Sometimes this ratio is terrible, and sometimes it's actually somewhat positive.

I would never tell anyone I was "treating cancer" -- obviously homeopathy helps the whole individual but doesn't focus on a single disease state or symptom. If people choose to undergo radiation or chemotherapy or both, homeopathic remedies can often help them to suffer less from the side effects. I also treat them constitutionally regardless of their decision in regard to medical treatments.

Not very many patients are courageous enough to forego standard treatments, but some indeed do. Medical doctors also seem, by and large, to respect a patient's choice not to be treated medically, especially when they know that they have little or no chance to prolong the person's life or quality of living. I've also seen them exercise great respect for the patient's wishes even in cases where the chemo or radiation offers a good chance of remission for a significant number of years. Most of them are compassionate people who really want to do the best they can for their patients.

Rosemary
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: cancer?

Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2005 10:49 am
by Ellen Madono
Dear Rosemary,
I seem to remember that you said you were specializing in treating cancer patients. If you do not say you are treating their cancer, how do those patients know to come to you?
Blessings,
Ellen

Re: cancer?

Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2005 11:04 am
by Tanya Marquette
why would anyone tell an allopath of their choices!
from what little experience i have had, i have seen
people refuse allopathic treatment and make their
own life/death choices. i think the situation would
be different with children because the medical profession
can intercede legally. i would imagine the situation would
also be different by state and by locale. NYC, Chicago,
and San Francisco would be a lot more open/lax than small
area hospitals in Florida or Kansas.

tanya
and educational benefit of its members. It makes no representations
regarding the individual suitability of the information contained in any
document read or advice or recommendation offered which appears on this
website and/or email postings for any purpose. The entire risk arising out
of their use remains with the recipient. In no event shall the minutus site
or its individual members be liable for any direct, consequential,
incidental, special, punitive or other damages whatsoever and howsoever
caused.
your setting at http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/minutus to receive a
single daily digest.

Re: cancer?

Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2005 2:03 pm
by Shannon Nelson
Thanks Rosemary and Tanya!
I guess the situation with children is what made me suddenly wonder
what the situation with *adults* would be. There are been several
well-publicized cases where a child was taken away because of the
parents' insistence on using non-mainstream methods for their child's
serious illness. I'm glad to hear that at least we (still) have the
right to make such decisions for ourselves, if not necessarily for our
children (sigh...).

Tanya, re places apt to be more receptive to alternative choices,
sometimes one can be surprised...
We used to live in Berkeley, CA (near San Francisco), and when my
non-vaccinated first was starting school, I assumed that her status
might raise a few eyebrows, but not be a big deal. Actually, tho, when
our local school staff (nurse and office workers) heard of it, they
pretty much treated me like the lowest of child molesters. There were
signs all over the school stating that "Your Child Must Be Fully
Vaccinated before entering school", and when at a pre-registration
parent meeting I raised my hand and said that, "Actually, if you choose
not to vaccinate, you just need to get that form from your doctor, to
submit instead of vaccination record"... Well, some major dirty looks
shot my way from the front. Nothing life-threatening, and they *did*
have to take on my kid, but it was really unpleasant... So when we
moved to the little village where we now live, in Wisconsin, and went
to register our second child at school, I was a bit nervous! But by
contrast, at the pre-registration parent meeting *that* school nurse
announced, in very matter-of-fact tones, that anyone who chose to not
have their child vaccinated, need only sign the other form,
conveniently printed on the reverse of the vaccination record. Go
figure... Yes it was six years later, but still!
:-)
Shannon

Re: cancer?

Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2005 2:19 pm
by Dr. Jeff Feinman
Hi Rosemary-
I'm curious about this statement. Chemo and (whole body) radiation
is designed to turn off the biochemical signals leading to cellular
proliferation. By doing so they are effectively also turning off the
healing ability of the Vital Force. I agree 100% that you can still
treat a patient undergoing or after chemo (which is usually worse
than radiation). I also agree that multi and mega supplementation
can be harmful but worse than chemo??

Out of curiosity, what's your opinion of corticosteroids as VF
inhibitors?

Jeff

Re: cancer?

Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2005 3:50 pm
by Shannon Nelson
I also would love to hear more about this--without wanting to put you
on the spot, Rosemary! Can you share any more specifics? I'd think
that herbal and nutritional treatments are very, very often combined,
aren't they? Are there specific issues you've noticed--and what are
you referring to as "energetic" treatments?
Thanks!
Shannon

Re: cancer?

Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2005 4:01 pm
by Joy Lucas
If I may offer a thought or two I would say that in no way can chemo
and radiation have 'healing' qualities and thus the body/mind react
very differently to these noxious substances revealing yet more sx that
can be addressed homeopathically, whereas good nutrition and herbal
treatment set out, from the very start to aid healing. I am sure
Rosemary will offer wonderful insights :-)

Best wishes, Joy
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.blogspot.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: cancer?

Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2005 1:26 am
by Ellen Madono
Hi Rosemary,
Yes, I was thinking about the same thing. Are you noticing certain disease states, individual types, or treatment types that are worse, better or ok with the homeopathic treatment? Could you explain more about what happens in combination with the herbal/nutritional treatments? If this is still at the speculative state, I would not be surprised.
Blessings,
Ellen

Re: cancer?

Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2005 2:38 am
by Sue Boyle
Hi Shannon,

As far as I know adults are allowed to do what they wish in regards to Rx, unless they are incompetent. They may seek homeopathic care but we must not treat them for "cancer" or we will be in big trouble.
Sue