to enforce that you'll need a pretty serious censorship machine, which is arguably even worse
-
-
Replying to @whitequark
If censorship = prior restraint, no. Just prosecuting ppl who go around promoting quackery.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RichFelker
not prior restraint, but criminalizing nonviolent behavior like that doesn't sit too well with me
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @whitequark
I don't see convincing cancer patients they'll get better if they refuse treatment and take some vitamins as "nonviolent".
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RichFelker
many of our treatment for cancer result in severe suffering without significant or even any prolonging of life
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @whitequark @RichFelker
so yes, I think it is reasonable in many cases to go and convince cancer patients that they should do nothing about their cancer
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @whitequark
There's a difference in choosing hospice care possibly with herbal supplements and being lied to that a miracle herb will cure your cancer.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RichFelker
let me rephrase: the current practice of advocating aggressive treatment is being lied to that a miracle drug will cure your cancer
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @whitequark
That's not been my experience with relatives who were treated. Doctors were very open about likely outcomes.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RichFelker
you're from DE, right? I think this problem is the worst in the US
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
No, US. My ancestors were mostly from DE & AT tho as you might have guessed. :-P
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.