These principles are what we term collectively as morality.

 

Is it right and not wrong to make someone very ill with chemicals in the name of treatment?  In this case with what has become known as ‘chemotherapy’, where therapy is a treatment intended to relieve or heal a disorder. Where the chemicals concerned are all very well known to be toxic to the human body in general, whilst they go about their business of dealing - in most cases not very well -  with clusters of rogue cancer cells or tumours, found in various parts of an unfortunate patients anatomy.  Chemicals indeed, which are known to destroy normal healthy human cells in various other, normally operational organs, in order  simply to reduce the size of the tumour - as if that is going to make any difference - by itself -  to the long term prognosis of the patient.

 

These are not “side effects” of this toxic poison being administered in the name of patient care - these are direct effects of taking the poison and one of the biggest direct effects of this poison, in many cases, is that it causes further cancer growth.

 

So why is it considered the right thing to do?

Are there any other options available?

Yes, there are another two options - one of these is radiation.

 

And what is right about trying to burn these clusters out with the resultant direct effects of   this ‘treatment’ and the well known fact that radiation actually causes cancer?  

Yet radiation is still considered by cancer care teams to be an option that is used every day in modern hospitals all round the world.

 

So we have  chemo ”therapy” and radio ”therapy” - and most patients believe they are doing the right thing, because their cancer care team have told them these are the only options they have available to them.  Available to the doctors that is.

 

And then we have the scalpel - the, mostly first, and third option in the cancer fighting arsenal, available to all cancer care teams working in a modern hospital envitonment.

 

Following exactly the same disease development pathway of dealing with a tumour -  you can always have it cut out and while you are there - in the operative envioronment - you can have some of your other organs removed, just in case.  Just in case what?  Well - just in case the cancer comes back again.  

 

And just to make sure it doesn’t, when you have recovered from the operation,  they will follow that up with a dose of chemo and a blast of radiation, which is a known cause of cancer too. This is a quite common procedure.

 

Is that your definitive opinion Doctor?  Only these three options available to me as a cancer patient?  Really ?  Why is it that my deepest of deep gut feelings is telling me that this is not right?

 

Lets assume we are all in a court of law trying desperately, using deductive logic, to ascertain the correct procedure that would provide the patient as judge, with the greatest chance of recovery or quality of life, using only these three methods. Well, you can’t call them treatments can you?  No, you can’t.

 

Try mixing these three options as disease pathway choices in every way you can and you will find it is impossible to believe anything other than what is  happening to the cancer patient is wrong and ergo, not right.

 

You would deduce that these three options are the only ones that cancer care teams everywhere are allowed to use. That is why they use them and to be seen to use them, and not any others that may be known  to them which, implicitly, are not allowed.

 

And yet we all know that there are other options out there - options that could just work with our immune systems and not compromise them - options that could provide us with a higher quality of life - options that just don’t work on the symptoms only but the causes and that could lead to a full recovery from cancer.

 

A 52 year old friend of mine died last year of sepsis or what used to be called septicemia.

Nine months earlier, he was diagnosed with cancer of the liver.  He spent long bouts in hospital recovering from the horrendous direct effects of drugs and radiation administered to him.  Eventually his cancer care team told him he was cancer free.  Much joy all round.

 

A few months later he was admitted to hospital. He could’t produce his own bile, because his body had been ravaged by his “treatment”. Whilst there, he picked up an infection his body was too weak to fight.

He was dead in just 3 days.

 

Where is the morality in that ?

Home

What are the principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong with regard to conventional cancer care?

morality-2