Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[kaijyuu]

Self harm shouldn't be illegal. To me it's on the same level as drug legalization; I have no problem with people harming themselves like that so long as they know what they're doing.

If you're worried about people doing stupid things, push education. If they do it anyway, that's their right.

but there are other alternative methods that are not.

No.

Clearly there might be treatments here or there have have remained unfound by science, I think someone mentioned them before, but they are exceptions, not normal. The reason that generally all alternative medicine is bullshit is because if it works, then it is no longer alternative medicine. It becomes just medicine.

1) Extremely out of context quote. Please don't do that.
2) Nothing you said disagrees with me. The point of contention isn't whether it's "real" medicine but whether it's known and available. If it's not profitable, or if it's not as effective (but still effective), it currently isn't. "Alternative" isn't analogous to "bullshit"; it's exactly what it says it is: alternative.

[Nadaka]

Seems to me that their position is "stop pushing treatments based on profitability and instead offer multiple treatments that suit the patient best." And of course, the patient would be able to choose the treatment that suits them best.

MSH, you seem to be implying that there is One True Medicine (tm) and that all other options are inherently bullshit. Now, we can agree that homeopathy is an example of bullshit, but there are other alternative methods that are not. RedKing gave some examples. The Green Party's position to me reads as supporting those alternative methods, and while pointing out their supporting homeopathy is a valid criticism, it doesn't undermine their entire position on the issue (not nearly).

There is only one true medicine. Medicine with effectiveness backed by properly performed scientific trials. Everything else is superstition.

[Criptfeind]

1) Extremely out of context quote. Please don't do that.
2) Nothing you said disagrees with me.

1) No. It's not. There is one medcine (tm) and what you said was bullshit.
2) Alternative is analogous to bullshit.

[Karlito]

There is only one true medicine. Medicine with effectiveness backed by properly performed scientific trials. Everything else is superstition.

Of course, with that definition a lot of modern pharmaceuticals might fall into the superstition category, but perhaps that's a different issue.

[darkrider2]

When alternate medicine works, its called medicine.

[kaijyuu]

Seems to me that their position is "stop pushing treatments based on profitability and instead offer multiple treatments that suit the patient best." And of course, the patient would be able to choose the treatment that suits them best.

MSH, you seem to be implying that there is One True Medicine (tm) and that all other options are inherently bullshit. Now, we can agree that homeopathy is an example of bullshit, but there are other alternative methods that are not. RedKing gave some examples. The Green Party's position to me reads as supporting those alternative methods, and while pointing out their supporting homeopathy is a valid criticism, it doesn't undermine their entire position on the issue (not nearly).

There is only one true medicine. Medicine with effectiveness backed by properly performed scientific trials. Everything else is superstition.

I do not see how this disagrees with anything I said, barring semantic pedantry. Of course medicine should be backed with properly performed scientific trials, and if you're claiming I'm saying differently then you're strawmanning me. My position is that there is more than one method to tackle any particular problem, and not all options are being provided.

Well actually that isn't my position; that's the Green Party's position. I'm just arguing it as a devil's advocate type of thing, since I'm not educated on the matter enough to have a real opinion. I'm absolutely making an assumption that not all valid methods are being provided, and if you can prove differently, then there's no further debate here.

1) Extremely out of context quote. Please don't do that.
2) Nothing you said disagrees with me.

1) No. It's not. There is one medcine (tm) and what you said was bullshit.
2) Alternative is analogous to bullshit.

If you're going to continue to cut out portions of my posts so you can ignore them, I'm not going to argue with you.

[Darvi]

That would infer that the other, not provided methods were actually effective. Which kinda goes against the point you're trying to advocate for.

[Nadaka]

The problem is that the alternatives that are not being offered are the ones that have either not been through proper scientific trials, have been and failed.

[kaijyuu]

That would infer that the other, not provided methods were actually effective. Which kinda goes against the point you're trying to advocate for.

Or they're not as profitable.

The problem is that the alternatives that are not being offered are the ones that have either not been through proper scientific trials, have been and failed.

A much better rebuttal, and one I agree with if so.

[Criptfeind]

I'm not ignoring parts of your posts. I am just flatly saying that everything you said was bullshit.

[Leafsnail]

Well actually that isn't my position; that's the Green Party's position. I'm just arguing it as a devil's advocate type of thing, since I'm not educated on the matter enough to have a real opinion. I'm absolutely making an assumption that not all valid methods are being provided, and if you can prove differently, then there's no further debate here.

If there are valid methods not being provided then the problem is that doctors are not supplying all available medicine.  It has nothing to do with alternative medicines which are by their nature not proved to be valid methods.  Again: alternative medicine that works is medicine.

I'm not convinced it's possible to give informed consent in this case.  Maybe if you have studied medicine for years and read all the literature on the treatment you are going to reject and all the literature on the not-proven-to-work or proven-not-to-work treatment you are about to receive then that could qualify as informed consent.  But regular members of the public are not likely to achieve that level of knowledge about the matter - more likely some quack told them that chemotherapy is evil and homeopathy works way better, look at my mail order degree I can't be lying.

Thus I can see an argument for allowing patients to choose between different alternatives that have an actual scientific basis, and maybe for offering a euthanasia option, but including shady alternative medicines that don't work is likely to confuse an average citizen.

Lastly I have no idea what you mean by not as profitable.  I guess something would be less profitable if it didn't work?

[GlyphGryph]

The biggest problem (for me) is that every alternative medicine I've ever had the displeasure to be exposed to hasn't just been "alternative", which I'm actually fine with, but downright fraudulent. There is no regulation of truth or veracity in claims, no standards, no way to tell who to trust. The "medicines" that succeed are the ones that can best extract money from their "patients" with the least possible cost: thus, the prevalence of homeopathy.

Throw the 90% of alternative "doctors" (that are really just new agey con men) in prison, and the alternative medicine that remains might actually be worth a damn, but my experience with the field (coming from New Hampshire, where homeopaths seem to outnumber regular doctors) is that they are, at best, grossly negligent, and are more commonly outright malicious for person gain. But they lie, constantly. About pretty much everything. Regular doctors don't have much of a reputation for honesty, but they are leagues and bounds beyond your standard homeopath or naturopath. Probably because of all that legal stuff that requires them to make certain disclosures and label in certain ways and answer certain questions, regulations the alt.med. fraudsters do not need to operate under.

I know there are many effective natural medicines - it would be nice if those were offered, but they don't make money. And with the industry in the state it's in, supporting it is either stupidity or conspiracy.

[lorb]

Throw the 90% of alternative "doctors" (that are really just new agey con men) in prison, and the alternative medicine that remains might actually be worth a damn, but my experience with the field (coming from New Hampshire, where homeopaths seem to outnumber regular doctors) is that they are, at best, grossly negligent, and are more commonly outright malicious for person gain. But they lie, constantly. About pretty much everything. Regular doctors don't have much of a reputation for honesty, but they are leagues and bounds beyond your standard homeopath or naturopath. Probably because of all that legal stuff that requires them to make certain disclosures and label in certain ways and answer certain questions, regulations the alt.med. fraudsters do not need to operate under.

But that can't be a reason to disagree with the green party because what they support is exactly the opposite of dishonesty and lies. They absolutely are against any kind of fraudulent or deceiving behaviour in either medicine or alternative medicine.

[GlyphGryph]

But that can't be a reason to disagree with the green party because what they support is exactly the opposite of dishonesty and lies. They absolutely are against any kind of fraudulent or deceiving behaviour in either medicine or alternative medicine.

It's hard to claim that when they make specious claims in their platform about them. Calling homeopath "medicine", a "healing approach", or talking about how "Chronic conditions are often best cured" by these kinds of treatments? Those are lies. Fraudulent is most likely, but deceptive at best.

(In the UK, at least, they've even made public policy a desire to eliminate regulation making homeopathy claims require evidence of truth or require it to be honest with its customers about composition and effect - so they not only lie about it, publicly, but they seek to make it impossible for the government to prosecute such fraudulent behaviour.

I know this last bit doesn't really reflect on the US green party, but this is an international thread, after all.)

[penguinofhonor]

This discussion was started from someone wanting to vote for the US Green Party candidate, though. How closely is the US Green Party tied with the parties in other nations?