Jett Travolta died today......

Post Reply New Topic

There was a big thing on the radio about this earlier. The announcer complained that, because of $cientology, Jett was denied medical care. Then, he went into a lecture on how it's not just $cientology that imposes it's skewed ideology on innocent children, it's several religions and the announcer started attacking those.
Do children have the right to not be indoctrinated?

but everything is an ideology, it's not just religions, in the case of secular parents they would be possibly be indoctrinated into secular ideologies, like consumerism, science worship, vanity. there's no escape from ideology, but at least you can recognise when you're in one.

Indeed



As he never took any medication because of the cult, the second one sounds right.

The question though is how far should the government step in on matters? A lot of the religious thing is about parenting...how you parent, where your kid goes to church, etc. For any law to step in on that COULD infringe the freedom of religion. Even then, I wouldn't want those idiots in Washington tell me how to raise my kids. I'd sooner leave the country.

I personally don't treat my kids for everything a doctor thinks I should. You can't trust someone just because they are a doctor. I've had a doctor tell me to give my baby under the age of one some "infant benadryl drops" for an ant bite where the only problem was a little red bump on the skin and my question was related to what signs I should be looking for regarding an allergic reaction (which was never answered). They don't make infant benadryl drops, and the FDA doesn't recommend Benadryl for children under 4 at all, and from 4-6 under doctor supervision, and then 6 over OTC children's formula. After learning that, I still have had doctors tell me to give my kids benadryl for stupid reasons, and both my kids are under the age of 4. Even then, why would I treat something in case there is a reaction as opposed to learning an allergy?

A lot of times, all you can do is trust your motherly instinct. Too much malpractice goes on, and you can't sue everytime unless something goes wrong (like your child dies), and even then, all it does is increase the price of healthcare rather than decreasing the idiots that claim to be doctors...and no lawsuit will bring your child back to you. It's just that doctors are greedy no different than any politician, CEO, or bank robber. The only way to know for sure if you or your kid is getting the right diagnosis and right treatment is to look it up and learn and make your own judgement calls. Doctors only give you ideas, advice, and handle the paperwork necessary to get what you think you need. They should never be an authority on your health.

Just because the Travoltas are scientologists doesn't mean they weren't researching the crap out of Jett's health. If my child had siezures, I'd be all over it looking for what was causing it and what I could do to make it go away or manage them. I don't know too much about anti seizure medication, but if it's like any other medication out there, I'm sure it has some side effects, and as a mom, I would have to weigh out the cost benefit ratio as some medications make what they are treating worse. You wouldn't know if the Travolta's were treating those seizures or not unless they say so in a public press conference because that information would compromise HIPPA. Even then, no matter what they did, whether it was following advice from a doctor, following advice from their religion, or following their own instincts...no matter what they did, I'm sure someone could argue all their options.

It is a good question on children's rights, but you can't base laws on theory. We have too many stupid laws out there based on just that. You really need some empirical evidence on religion and it's correlation to children's deaths or health.

I was told today by a neighbor as we discussed this that the Kawasaki Disease was so bad when he was little that it caused long term effects such as siezures. That makes sense to me since kids at that age are still developing their anti-seizure mechanisms. Even something like Phenergen can harm that growth causing siezures in kids for a lifetime.

I, personally, wouldn't buy into Scientology. It's profit oriented and it's centered around psychiatry in L.Ron's lifetime and it was much worse back then. I doubt if Scientologists even believe autism exists. It's a creepy religion and L.Ron was kinda psycho, wasn't he?

It's pretty much like any other 'organized' type of deal.

It's more like a evil cult that believes in aliens and kills it's members after taking all their money than a religion.

One of my neighbors died from one when I was 12.


I am not sure if you heard this story but in 1990, Terry Schivo (sp) had a seizure and it left her with brain damage and she was left brain dead. She lived the next 15 years on a feeding tube until they removed it and it too her 13 days to die. I was very upset about it but then found out later on she was a vegetable and her cells in her brain were dead so she wasn't really there. Her body was alive but not her. Back when her whole brain was working, she said to her husband she wouldn't want to live that way. I wouldn't want to live that way either and eat away people's money just to keep my body alive.

L.Ron Hubbard is NOT that old!



In other words, he created the basis for scientology only about a decade before I was born, and he died only about 23 years ago. His psychology was NEVER really based on the psychology of the time.

Actually, L Ron Hubbard was apparently just a jerk that lacked morals, and managed to convince people that he had a way to make them feel better. You should hear Kirstie Alley(probably best known for her part in a TV show called cheers) talk about how it made HER feel better.

Modern Psychiatry isn't that old, either. L.Ron might have been subjected to ECT. It was standard practice in his day, wasn't it? Insulin therapy, maybe? I can see why he didn't have much faith in it.
Thorazine, even, isn't the most ideal drug, but it was better than nothing.

L Ron Hubbard based Dianetics and later Scientology on psychiatric theories and a collection of spiritual beliefs he read about.

The problem arose because he never really understood all the sources he copied his works from. It's a mish-mash of misunderstood and poorly expressed religious theory, philosophy and untested psychological ideas of the 1940's.

The reason Hubbard hated psychiatry and psychology comes from the fact that he presented his theories and techniques to the psychiatric associations expecting them to be blown away and accept him as some revolutionary figure or prodigy. Unfortunately for him, they saw it for what it was - drivel. Uneducated rehashing of already existing material that was being disproved anyway.

Hubbard was laughed at, and rightly so, by the psychiatric community. Hubbard took this very personally.

He integrated a new conspiratorial history of psychiatry into his works and told his friends and those who got in on the ground level of Scientology to destroy psychiatry and psychology, thinking that Dianetics would replace these sciences as the new fore runner for mental health world wide.

The idea of making it a religion came later.

So basically, this dude used the same tactics from the very people he hated to talk other people into hating the people he hated too.