Please donate to help this Swedish guy to save his daughter.

Apparently, even in Sweden not all medical treatments are free.

MB STFU!

Cancer treatment in Mexico is cheap but generally a con. The Amish are permitted to resort to such alternative treatments, i see them traveling down to the border on the trolley. Tijuana is one of the major places in the world due to its close proximity to San Diego. All sorts of rackets down there, from horse urine to peach pits.

Madbolter strikes me as an angry, sad person who seems to be lacking something essential in his life.

Richard, isn't your God the one of love ? All gods seem to be, but the followers tend to mix up love with policy.

SHOULD Sweden have paid for experimental treatments? If such treatments offer even a SHRED of hope, isn't the grand-collective RESPONSIBLE to take care of this family???

Irrationality is a delusional state. Another opinion, sure. Reasonable. Even another.

Who are you to decide? Who is this or that particular society to decide?

CLEARLY the parents do not agree with you, as they are soliciting money from people who do NOT agree with your blithe assessment. So, I guess that (from afar, and, again, quite blithely), YOU are qualified to call them "irrational" and "delusional."

Good on ya! Wowwwww

is "no". You would not believe the belief in the bizarre. I can't tell you how many people with terminal illnesses, facing the shutdown of their brain, ask if they could not get a "brain transplant". Has there ever been a brain transplant in the history of the world? No. And yet, they have a SHRED of hope, even though irrational.

Irrationality is a delusional state. Another opinion, sure. Reasonable. Even another.

Matt's, have you read a description of this treatment?
You just need to scroll down to English vershion.
It seemed legitimate to me. However I have almost zero knowledge of cancer genetics.

A few of my friends know this guy.

...I'm gunna die and I'm good with that. :)

I didn't decide, you must have misread the appeal. Who is a society to decide?

Who would you have decide? Your favorite neighborhood Death Panel?

Someone who is knowledgeable, professional, dispassionate, open to any arguments? Who?

Are you going to force a physician who has NO experience in doing something, to do something highly risky? Are you going to force a hospital, who has no experience in doing something, to do something?

I can't speak for Sweden, but in the US, such an issue would probably be reviewed by an ethics committee, made up of people who are not involved in the care, including physician ethicists, nurses, non-healthcare professionals (lay public), clergy. They make recommendations to the Administrator of the Hospital and the treating team, as to the ethics of the situation.

Who would you have decide? Answer the question!

Has there ever been a brain transplant in the history of the world? No. And yet, they have a SHRED of hope, even though irrational.

madbolter1, you need to abandon socialist terminology and right propaganda BS if you want to get your message understood.

Please stop talking about society as a whole and start talking about government bureaucrats and apparatchiks of the rulling party. These people make all decisions.

Anyway, often there is no need to make such life and death decision.
A person can be placed on a waiting list and wait, and wait, and wait ... (like in Canada).

madbolter1, you were brainwashed by socialist propaganda.

In real socialist society some animals are more equal than the other. Specifically, high ranked government bureaucrats and party apparatchiks enjoy higher standard of life including a higher standard of health care.

Real socialism delivers equality to most members of a society except the rulling class.

The 1%ers own the government more or less thru campaign contributions aka bribes.. Make sure you assign blame where it belongs...

So I give up...

Who pays the freight for your largesse, Richard ?

How about the parents? Novel thought... you know, the person desiring something, anything with some chance of saving their daughter.

You see, it's precisely these sorts of cases that press on the bang-for-buck foundation of the socialistic contract. Would these parents have "signed up" in the knowledge of how this was going to play out? Oh, wait, like all socialistic "contracts," there IS no "signing up." There is only force.

Using the plight of a little girl, legit or otherwise, to make political and sociological commentary is a sad, wet sack of brown bagged sh#t.

Btw, if you're paying 50% of your revenue in taxes, and you're paying your tax acct $10K fire him and let your kids fill out the forms.

This tragic family is not "getting what they paid for" in their little socialist utopia, and I for one have no interest in seeing the USA head down this same path.

**Canadians strongly support the health system's public rather than for-profit private basis, and a 2009 poll by Nanos Research found 86.2% of Canadians surveyed supported or strongly supported "public solutions to make our public health care stronger."[20][21] A Strategic Counsel survey found 91% of Canadians prefer their healthcare system instead of a U.S. style system.[22][23]

A 2009 Harris-Decima poll found 82% of Canadians preferred their healthcare system to the one in the United States.[24]**

The current corporate tax rate is 35% max. Why would you pay 50?

The current corporate tax rate is 35% max. Why would you pay 50?

A 2009 Harris-Decima poll found 82% of Canadians preferred their healthcare system to the one in the United States.

Attitudes make for expensive health care? Never saw that coefficient in any economic formula in this earthly plane.

Many of you seem to want the federal government to become all-powerful and all-invasive. You'll embrace the thought-crime BS, and you'll embrace waist-size laws, fat-vouchers, and any other ways the feds decide they need to invade the tiniest details of our lives in order to make "healthcare affordable."

I want nothing to do with that insanity, nor the waiting lists and death-panels that go along with it.

The court said the decision was meticulous, noting that they spoke with Charlie's health care providers, independent experts, experts recommended by the family, and Charlie's parents to inform the ruling. In the end, the press released said they determined, "it was most likely Charlie was being exposed to continued pain, suffering and distress and that undergoing experimental treatment with no prospects of success would offer no benefit, and continue to cause him significant harm."

GOP Health Bill Could Let Insurers Cap Spending On Expensive Patients

Jon Beck: If we really looked to economics we would be going with single payer.

Craig Fry: "Money sometimes trumps life"

Ken, would you pay a couple of million dollars to extend a life of a person for a couple of years?
Would the same approach be used in Canada and Sweden?

Why is your cancer so different ? 

Tell us how long you wait for treatment based on the care you can afford for yourself and compare it to how long others more eligible wait.

Several years ago, my older cousin Torch (born at home by the light of a flashlight—or torch) had a seizure that turned out to be the result of lung cancer that had gone to his brain. I arranged for him to see various specialists, and we learned that with aggressive treatment of his condition, including three to five hospital visits a week for chemotherapy, he would live perhaps four months. Ultimately, Torch decided against any treatment and simply took pills for brain swelling. He moved in with me.

We spent the next eight months doing a bunch of things that he enjoyed, having fun together like we hadn’t had in decades. We went to Disneyland, his first time. We hung out at home. Torch was a sports nut, and he was very happy to watch sports and eat my cooking. He even gained a bit of weight, eating his favorite foods rather than hospital foods. He had no serious pain, and he remained high-spirited. One day, he didn’t wake up. He spent the next three days in a coma-like sleep and then died. The cost of his medical care for those eight months, for the one drug he was taking, was about $20.

Torch was no doctor, but he knew he wanted a life of quality, not just quantity. Don’t most of us? If there is a state of the art of end-of-life care, it is this: death with dignity.

Ken M: Particularly very aggressive experimental chemotherapy can be BRUTAL. 

No. This surgery worked as expected.
This guy has died 2.5 years after surgery because of metastasis.

enlighten me if you will... can't say i've heard of any "thoughts" being made crimes...

He's going on again about someone fomenting violence against someone else, that leads to influencing actual violence, being a freedom of speech issue instead of an actual crime.

Katherine Martin says that the term switched from primarily positive to overwhelmingly negative around 2011, when it was first used as an insult on Twitter.[1] The same year an Urban Dictionary entry for the term also appeared.[1] The term's negative use became mainstream due to the Gamergate controversy,[10] emerging as the favoured term of Gamergate proponents to describe their ideological opponents.[1] In Internet and video game culture the phrase is broadly associated with the Gamergate controversy and wider culture war fallout, including the 2015 Sad Puppies campaign that affected the Hugo Awards.[2][5][11][12][13] Usage of the term as a pejorative was popularized on websites Reddit and 4chan.[14]

Use of the term has been described as attempting to degrade the motivations of the person accused of being an SJW, implying that their motives are "for personal validation rather than out of any deep-seated conviction."[4]

The negative connotation was particularly aimed at those espousing views adhering to social progressivism, cultural inclusiveness, or feminism.[1][2] According to Vice, the accusation of being an SJW implies that a person is engaging in disingenuous social justice arguments or activism to raise his or her personal reputation.[5] Vice observed: "It's awfully convenient to have a term at the ready to dismiss women who bring up sexism."[5] The magazine assessed the use of the term: "The problem is, that's not a real category of people. It's simply a way to dismiss anyone who brings up social justice—and often those people are feminists."[5] According to David French, the aims of social justice warriors are opposed to those of Christian conservatives.[15]

"the 'social justice warrior,' i.e., the stereotype of the feminist as unreasonable, sanctimonious, biased, and self-aggrandizing."

—New Literary History[16]
The term is commonly used by participants in online discussion in criticism of feminism.[16] An article in New Literary History described their behavior patterns on the Internet: "they often make personal criticisms of what they see as a type: the 'social justice warrior,' i.e., the stereotype of the feminist as unreasonable, sanctimonious, biased, and self-aggrandizing."[16]

In August 2015, the derogatory term "Social Justice Warrior" was one of several new words and phrases added to Oxford Dictionaries.[1][17][18] In discussing the term's origin, Martin outlined the similarity with the pejorative use of "political correctness" to denigrate something, stating that "the perceived orthodoxy [of progressive politics] has prompted a backlash among people who feel their speech is being policed."[1]

Some conservative outlets have described Donald Trump's actions and policies as social justice of the right. Stephen L. Miller, in an article for the National Review, wrote that Donald Trump is in fact the most politically correct candidate running for the presidency in 2016 and that his followers are "neo-nationalist culture warriors."[19] Daniel Payne writing for The Federalist website listed three general attributes of a social justice warrior and noted that they are attributes of Donald Trump, who has proven to be "the platonic social justice warrior candidate".[20] In an article for Reason magazine, Elizabeth Nolan Brown compared social justice on the left and right and found many similarities such as victimhood, outrage and portraying the other side as bullying and evil and their side as the truly oppressed.[21] Rod Dreher wrote in The American Conservative about Trump being the first social justice warrior presidential candidate: "Trump is also a man who constantly paints himself as a victim...So I wonder: Is Trump the first Social Justice Warrior presidential candidate, in the sense of weaponizing grievance in a way similar to that done by left-wing campus protesters?"[22] Jay Caruso wrote an article for Redstate on the "good little social justice warriors" who responded to a vague discussion of how difficult it would be to remove Trump from office if elected with a Republican-controlled Congress with outraged accusations that Trump was being threatened with assassination.[23]

Cancer Tutor is one of the more popular websites which promote a range of unproven and disproven alternative cancer treatments[1]: it allegedly has “more than 7 million visitors yearly”.[2][3]

Cancer Tutor is the website of an organisation called "Independent Cancer Research Foundation, Inc.(ICRF)",[4] founded by Robert Webster Kehr.[5] Mr. Kehr is a fervent Christian of the Mormon variety[6] an evolution denialist,[7] and a conspiracy theorist.[8][9] He even denies the existence of photons,[10] (if that was the case, the LEDWikipedia's W.svg technology generating the computer-display you are looking at now, would not exist). I.e., Webster Kehr is a classic-case of crank magnetism.

According to Mr. Kehr "cancer is caused by microbes inside the cancer cells",[11] which is untrue. He continues "We depend on cancer patients to contact us if the [treatment] protocol is not working",[12] (I wonder how his dead-customers manage to get in-touch to tell him his sh#t don't work?).

Mr Kehr, (born 1946), retired in 2015, and received a lifetime-achievement-award from Ty Bollinger.[13] Since his retirement his Cancer Tutor website has received a make-over, so no longer has the eyesore web-design, which is often an immediate giveaway-sign the content is the work of a crank.

Mr. Teal[edit]
After the founder of Cancer Tutor retired, his associate Gary Edward Teal, ("acupuncturist / naturopath"), took control of ICRF/CancerTutor.[14] Mr. Teal's specialist-subject is RifeWikipedia's W.svg machines[15][16] which allegedly cure cancer and infectious diseases, although he is honest enough obliged to say his devices "… are sold as electronic test instruments. No suitability or claims for any other purpose is stated or implied … We make absolutely no claims of any cure for any disease".[17]

Kickbacks[edit]
The Cancer Tutor website makes thousands of dollars by referring their readers to purveyors of quackery, e.g. data leaked from Delta Institute, who make the BX Protocol cure-all, show CancerTutor/Webster Kehr received 15% commission on fourteen sales of BX Protocol,[18][19] the current retail-price of BX Protocol is $16,995, (and it's just distilled-water).

Take 5 deep breaths slowly. Bill C-16 is about sanctioning people for criminal behavior based on targeting an individual or group, because of their gender and how they express their self accordingly.

You are still free to use any epithet or pronoun you choose in addressing another human.

If you use moral outrage to harass, injure or murder someone based on their appearance and point of view, you're going to be of interest to the police.

Do you have a comparable approval rate of any governor/president in the US?

However living in modern society requires we follow the rules.

The bakery in Oregon made a business decision that their religious beliefs were more important than making money.

A smart business man could have easily figured out how to get around the 130k fine without "sinning".

I am sure he could have baked the cake and then called someone else to have them decorate the cake.

But no, he wanted to be a martyr on Fox news.

Like the repubs, you don't know when you've won. You GOT gay marriage. But, not content with that, you grasp for more and more, stupidly burying yourselves because you refuse to moderate. ALL you had to do was say, "Okay, so it's unreasonable to expect that everybody should be FORCED to be complicit in this behavior. It's enough that now they can't outright stop it." That would have been enough and plenty. But noooo, you had to DEMAND that everybody HELP gay marriages to occur. And THAT gets you a fight you didn't need to fight. And it is a fight that you will ultimately lose.

The Gov't chose to follow the Constitution ...

The baker wanted an official gov't business license. In so doing, he promised to obey all relevant laws. One of those laws was non-discrimination.

Your reference to the Constitution is misguided as separation of Church and State, to which you seem to be referencing, is not found therein. References to religion in the Constitution are written to prevent government establishing a religion and to shield those of religious faith from harm.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

I agree that intentions of ruling liberals are good.

By any chance, do you know a direction of a road paved with these good intentions?

Blacks, Hispanics, gay, transgender and other minorities are the way they are because of Nature, they did not make it a choice to be who they are.

Gays are OK as long as they keep to themselves and don't try to marry.

Please explain to me what a black person DOES that is specifically BLACK (as opposed to just HUMAN). Is there specifically BLACK behavior (that is not just HUMAN behavior) that is "protected"?

Ken M, according to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_road_to_hell_is_paved_with_good_intentions "good intentions, when acted upon, may have unintended consequences".

I advocate to pay attention to history of building utopia by the left.
I advocate to use sociology and history (e.g. Peter Turchin) instead of using ideological slogans as main planning tools.
I beg you not to believe that you are intellectually superior to all people prior to you and all current people with opposite political views.
I advocate to question the promis that this would work just fine this time regardless of all the failures of the previous attempts.
I advocate for Western democracy and human rights and against left wing totalitarian state.

I apologize that this was not clear because of the use of Socratic method by me.

The cake shops are not discriminating on the basis of any particular BEING. They are simply declining to PARTICIPATE in gay BEHAVIORS.

This was Racial Profiling, which is illegal.

REALLY? What behaviors?

As Gunsmoke explained, the gay couple DEMANDED of a Christian baker: "You'll make a cake to our specifications, decorated with gay verbiage, a man-and-man statue on top, etc., and then you'll come TO the wedding site, attend the nuptials at least long enough to assemble the cake on-site, and then return at least long enough to collect your platters, etc."

In other words: "We DEMAND on force of law that you PARTICIPATE in our behaviors qua gay behaviors."

Sweet Cakes by Melissa was a cake shop in Gresham, Oregon, in the United States. It gained widespread press attention in January 2013 when it turned away customers who wanted cakes for a same-sex wedding, who then made a complaint to the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, claiming their civil rights under the Oregon Equality Act had been infringed.[1][2][3]

Under Oregon law, businesses cannot discriminate or refuse service based on sexual orientation, just as they cannot turn customers away because of race, sex, disability, age or religion.

"You'll make a cake to our specifications, decorated with gay verbiage, a man-and-man statue on top, etc., and then you'll come TO the wedding site, attend the nuptials at least long enough to assemble the cake on-site, and then return at least long enough to collect your platters, etc."
MB1

The right to REQUIRE that anybody you select MUST HELP YOU (gay) get married.

they didn't demand anything other than a cake, period

such total crap, you have to sell them a cake, not a damn thing else

Under Oregon law, businesses cannot discriminate or refuse service based on sexual orientation, just as they cannot turn customers away because of race, sex, disability, age or religion.

Sure, you pretend that they're not "yours", but we all know better.

What's so hard about posting a "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" sign in the front window ? That way everyone is equally worthless.

Awesome. A former community college level Christian philosophy teacher now working as an IT guy, is again trying to pretend he has the education, training and acumen of a licensed lawyer.

Start with the fact that any judge from any level of court started as a licensed lawyer. They then spent many years proving their worth in legal logic through either working for, or running a law practice. Along the way, they were under unrelenting peer observation and competition before being considered for an entry level post in the judiciary.

There is a very good reason why doctors, scientists, engineers and lawyers are regarded more highly than the followers of the Humanities. Their education is more rigorous and intentionally harder to achieve.

Of course, arguing about how people behave and what your imaginary friend in the sky thinks about it all, is just as important.

I’ll sell anyone any cake I’ve got,” he wrote. “But I won’t design a cake that promotes something that conflicts with the Bible’s teachings. And that rule applies to far more than cakes celebrating same-sex marriages. I also won’t use my talents to celebrate Halloween, anti-American or anti-family themes, atheism, racism, or indecency.”

ps. hiring the ones that cost the least may save your money but not your ass.

they wouldn't design a cake for them, period

no one asked for more than that

so all the pyschobabble was ill spent

Your BEING of gay is just fine. But when you choose to engage in gay BEHAVIORS, we will not engage with you in those BEHAVIORS."

This may make semantic sense, but it is very clearly code for "BEING gay is unacceptable."

All the logical arguing in the world, all the philosophical hairsplitting, does not change the reality that this is a religious belief being being passed off as grounds for law.

How can you look someone in the eye and say "You can't do what I do, you cant have what everyone else can have" when what the person you're looking at is asking for harms no one?

I try to stay away from the political and religious shouting matches on ST, but this one is worth being involved in. It wasn't so long ago that my marriage would have been illegal, or that the baker could have cited his religious belief that miscegenation was against God's law and denied us the same cake he would cheerfully have made for you.

Edit: Is the love you share with your wife somehow different from what I share with mine just because the two of you are of the same race?

Is the love you share with your wife somehow different from the love shared by two people of the same sex? Why is your love more acceptable than mine? More acceptable than that of a gay or lesbian?

Oh no, now you have upset MB

My condolences to the family & friends (if any) of madbolter1, who may have to actually listen to his rants.
I'm thankful I can simply scroll past them.

there is a fundamental flaw at the very basis of all his logical argument

I'd cheerfully sit down for an evening of beer and bullshit with both of you.

Sad as what ?

I've suffered through un-social evenings with folks that just want to push their own agenda, & won't just enjoy new friends & share their stories.

You seem to have no consideration before SAYING the other OPINION has no MERIT.

Poor Richard['s] ... use of the ad hominem

But, you know, if "sharing stories" is what these threads are about, then my mistake. I thought that people were having a politard discussion. Silly me.

Here's a site that might help you out, since you seem SO uninformed:

http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/doctoral-degrees-ranked-by-legitimacy-1661697049

There are many others that tell the same story. JD... not such-a-much.

I agree that "right wing totalitarian states ... are just as bad".

However, I believe that a risk of a left wing totalitarian state is much higher according to my observations of the trends in the last 20 years.

Again, I never said that "ALL intentions when acted upon may have unintended consequences".

My point was that there were quite a few attempts to build a left-wing state and that all of them produced totalitarian regimes and brought a lot of suffering to people.

Providing better life to certain groups of people at the expense of other people and at the expense of freedom and democracy have been already attempted quite a few times and an outcome was about the same in Russia, China, Cuba, North Korea, Cambodia etc.

You seem to ignore that the places that you mentioned started out as attempts at democratic places, but were subverted by strong arm tactics, and turned into dictatorships

I posted an original story as a corner case showing that regardless of the system, some people would have access to inferior health care as compared to other people.

The only way to limit health care expenses and keep your integrity is to honestly tell people that some expensive procedures can't be paid by the government and should be paid by people or private add-on insurance plans

Kinda harshing on France, n'est ce pas?

MB1: But, you know, if "sharing stories" is what these threads are about, then my mistake. I thought that people were having a politard discussion. Silly me.

France is about as democratic as you'll find.

that's fine. i believe i have understood your position. to be clear though, by this same logic a black person has no right to be OFFENDED and it should not be ILLEGAL to call them a N*ER... it is, after all, only their PREFERENCE that they not be called this.