Effective non-toxic treatments for cancer...
By Rev. Barbara Clearbridge
Back to Table Of Contents
WHAT YOU CAN DO: THE PATIENTS’ BILL OF RIGHTS
Unlike so many other countries, the U.S. supports only one kind of medicine. Because of this, Americans have been denied many vital aspects of the science and art of healing.
“Your family doctor is NO LONGER FREE to choose the treatment he or she feels is best for you but must follow the dictates established by physicians whose motives and alliances are such that their decisions may not be in your best interests,” says Dr. Alan Levin. 121
Patients’ most fundamental right – medical freedom of choice – has been lost. The medical monopoly’s right to make money comes before your right to decide – in consultation with your doctor – which cancer therapy would be best for your particular condition. Protecting cancer patients from quacks who sell worthless treatments is certainly a legitimate concern. But this has been used as a pretext to suppress alternative therapeutic approaches and to deny patients – and doctors – the fundamental right to choose the treatments they think are the best.
What Americans call “alternative medicine” is simply part of the legal medical system in many European countries. For instance, in England, Germany and Switzerland – countries with high-quality medical care – doctors and therapists who use nondrug approaches to healing are practicing freely in lively competition with conventional doctors. British citizens have a legal right to choose their own treatment. We do not have this right in the U.S – certain therapies are prohibited by law even when patients attribute cures to them. In Poland, if enough people attest to a provider’s effectiveness, she or he is considered a legal medical practitioner no matter what modality they use.
In many places a variety of treatments are integrated into the practices of medical providers. Dr. David K. Owen, a homeopathic physician from England, states that almost 40 percent of general practices in England offer some form of complementary therapy for their National Health Service patients. Fran Wiewel of People Against Cancer, says, 122
“To deny someone freedom to seek a therapy which they believe would save their life is a denial of every moral principle. The U.S. government, in suppressing alternative cancer therapies, is in direct violation of the international Helsinki Accords to which this country is signatory.” 123
The Helsinki Declaration, approved by Congress in 1964, states that “the doctor must be free to use a new therapeutic measure, if in his judgment it offers hope of saving life, reestablishing health, or alleviating suffering.”
Another example of an integrated practice is the Klinik Winnerhof, in Bavaria, Germany. Its full name in English is the Winnerhof Medical Center and Clinic for Internal Medicine and Oncological Alternative Medicine Hyperthermia Center. Here is a quote from its brochure:
“At Bavarian Klinik Winnerhof, we conquer cancer. Tailored to each cancer patient’s particular need, the staff at Klinik Winnerhof selects from 135 alternative medicine modalities which furnish true anticancer effects. Taken together, choices from these natural and nontoxic therapies bring about remissions for most forms of malignancy, and often such remissions remain permanently.”
(See the August/September, 1999, “Townsend Letter for Doctors & Patients” for more details.)The Paracelsus Clinic in Lustmühle, Switzerland offers “biological medicine.” Standard modalities used are, among others, holistic gynecology, energy work, homeopathy, and biological dentistry; they have found – and cured – cancer caused by tooth problems including damage to underlying meridians (caused by various factors including root canals), and toxicity from mercury amalgam (silver) fillings.
To obtain the right to have the treatment of one’s choice, several versions of an amendment to the U.S. Constitution have been up before Congress over the past several years. The most recent, supported by the AMA, is called the Patients’ Bill of Rights. Until recently, Congress has not had much interest in it, but now, it is a hot topic of debate. However, the most recent version I have seen does not include patients’ rights to freedom of choice regarding the kind of treatment they want – it is mostly about rights regarding insurance. To find out more about it, or contribute to efforts to get it changed or passed, check out these websites:
www.AMA-Assn.org/AMA/pub/article/4110-4371.html www.npaf.org/provisions.htm. There may be information about it at the People’s Medical Society site: www.peoplesmed.org.
“Why do doctors teach us to say, ‘in remission’? After someone gets cured of the flu, or after surgery for an ulcer, for example, we don’t say they’re ‘in remission.’ We say they’re well, they’re over it, it’s cured, gone. But after cancer, we say ‘in remission.’ Why? Are doctors expecting us to have a recurrence? Does that mean they know their treatment doesn’t work? Otherwise, why would they tell us to be tested for cancer periodically for the rest of our lives?” anonymous, 2001
ACS: American Cancer Society NCI: National Cancer Institute
FDA: U.S. Food & Drug Administration
Go To Next Page
Back to Table Of Contents