tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post115336499216748855..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: Rational Choice in Medical Treatment: Part IIAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1153484575448618892006-07-21T06:22:00.000-06:002006-07-21T06:22:00.000-06:00Looking at the BC Cancer Agency information on the...Looking at the BC Cancer Agency information on the Hoxsey treatment, I'm not convinced that there is sufficient evidence to discount it as a viable therapy option. My instinct as a scientist is to proclaim it utter crap, but the fact seems to be that there have been no placebo-controlled, doubleblind clinical trials in humans. If that be the case, than you can't truthfully equate "no evidence that it works" in scientific parlance to "doesn't work" in layman's terms. Your argument that the giving the Hoxsey treatment rather than chemo has the same effect as poisoning a child does not hold because there exists (according to my reading of the BCCA compilation) no evidence to support it--not evidence to support a null hypothesis, but NO clinical evidence at all. (The sources CA 1990 and CA 1993 are particularly weaselly; it is interesting that they are anonymous!)<BR/><BR/>Given that some (many?) placebo treatments improve outcome over no treatment, especially if the patient believes in the treatment's efficacy, I think the kid should be allowed to follow through with Hoxsey...I myself wouldn't do it, nor would I pay for it for my child, but as I understand your system (and given the above), there isn't a moral argument against it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1153442814792983052006-07-20T18:46:00.000-06:002006-07-20T18:46:00.000-06:00Well you could say that they decided that the chem...Well you could say that they decided that the chemo wasn't worth it... and then decided to try any other treatment that doesn't cause that kind of suffering, even if it is most likely a crock of crap.<BR/><BR/>As long as they didn't base their decision on giving each treatment an equal chance of success...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1153405609461114702006-07-20T08:26:00.000-06:002006-07-20T08:26:00.000-06:00Yep. Thanks.Yep. Thanks.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1153405093825049272006-07-20T08:18:00.000-06:002006-07-20T08:18:00.000-06:00"He is acting like a person who has come to believ..."He is acting like a person who has come to believe that 10% (chance of survival for those who use this quack treatment) is greater than 10% (chance of survival for those who obtain no treatment) which is greater than 85% (chance of survival for those who get <B>no</B> treatment)."<BR/><BR/>?? Typo ??Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com