Travolta might have seen the light....

[Ladewig]

yes, fredcarr, what about these serious illnesses?
or is this a glib quetion?

It took me a moment to recognize why you used the word glib. I am, however, very interested in fredcarr's answer.

 

[Lothario]

That sure isn't the Church of Scientology. We have very strict policy about sending parishioners to medical doctors for treatment.

If the CoS cannot cure them, it's because they didn't believe enough. Or they were blocking the energy.

 

[fredcarr]

Really? You only go to the doctor if your church tells you to?

Not at all. In thirty years I've only been told once or twice to go see the doctor by someone at a church. All the other times I have gone to see the doctor is because I decided to go. (Or my wife made me!)

And we take our kids to the doctor at the first sign of any trouble. No one needs to tell us to do this as its just good common sense. (It also helps to have good health insurance.)

 

[fredcarr]

Even for illnesses such as depression, schizophrenia, and bipolar disorder?

Usually people coming in our doors with those types of diagnosis's have already been treated by a psychologist or psychiatrist and are still being treated by them. We refer them to a medical doctor as well if they ask us to help them get off the treatments they've been put on.

I've had many people ask me for help that were on medications for those types of diagnosis's. I just tell them to go see a doctor. Sometimes they get upset with me because I refuse to help them. I tell them I didn't screw them up with all the crap they've been prescribed. I tell them to go see a doctor if they want help. If they are really upset then they should bitch the person out who betrayed them by making them worse by putting them on that stuff.

If they really insist I tell them some books they can read. (Usually Dr. Breggins books.)

 

[Rrose Selavy]

Usually people coming in our doors with those types of diagnosis's have already been treated by a psychologist or psychiatrist and are still being treated by them. We refer them to a medical doctor as well if they ask us to help them get off the treatments they've been put on.

So you consider depression, schizophrenia, and bipolar disorder merely to to be "diagnosis" not illnesses?


-

 

[Ladewig]

Usually people coming in our doors with those types of diagnosis's have already been treated by a psychologist or psychiatrist and are still being treated by them. We refer them to a medical doctor as well if they ask us to help them get off the treatments they've been put on.

I've had many people ask me for help that were on medications for those types of diagnosis's. I just tell them to go see a doctor.

I'm confused here. If a person is under the treatment of a doctor (i.e. a psychiatrist), then you tell them to see a doctor. What exactly do you expect this second doctor to do?

Sometimes they get upset with me because I refuse to help them. I tell them I didn't screw them up with all the crap they've been prescribed. I tell them to go see a doctor if they want help. If they are really upset then they should bitch the person out who betrayed them by making them worse by putting them on that stuff.

Is it your position that some people with mental illnesses are "betrayed" and "made worse" with medications or that all people with mental illnesses are "betrayed" and "made worse" with medications?

 

[fredcarr]

I'm confused here. If a person is under the treatment of a doctor (i.e. a psychiatrist), then you tell them to see a doctor. What exactly do you expect this second doctor to do?



Is it your position that some people with mental illnesses are "betrayed" and "made worse" with medications or that all people with mental illnesses are "betrayed" and "made worse" with medications?

Point #1 - If a person is under psychiatric treatment currently I (personally) have a strict policy of not interfering. I don't care if they go back to their original doctor, another doctor or no doctor. Not my business. If they are desperate I usually recommend a book or two and leave it at that. It's just not something I deal with. (I'm painting this with some pretty broad strokes.)

Like I said if they want helping coming off of their medications I tell them to go see a doctor. I don't really care who they go see as I'm not going to work with the person in any case.

Point #2 Some. I find absolute statements to be generally untenable.

 

[Ladewig]

Point #2 Some. I find absolute statements to be generally untenable.

O.K. Then which of the following (if any) best describes your viewpoint of using medications to treat mental illness:

1) the majority of patients are helped
2) perhaps half the patients are helped
3) only a minority patients are helped
4) only a very small minority of patients are helped
5) so few patients are helped that twenty-first century psychiatry should not be a considered a branch of medicine.


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ETA: if your response differs from the official teaching of the church, then please give the church's viewpoint as well.

 

[fredcarr]

O.K. Then which of the following (if any) best describes your viewpoint of using medications to treat mental illness:

1) the majority of patients are helped
2) perhaps half the patients are helped
3) only a minority patients are helped
4) only a very small minority of patients are helped
5) so few patients are helped that twenty-first century psychiatry should not be a considered a branch of medicine.

Somehow I knew this question was coming next

There is no doubt in my mind that symptoms are eased, nullified, hidden or what have you for some. I have no idea of the percentages just as I have no idea of the percentages of those made worse by lets say Effexor.

I suppose this would have to be broken done by each medication and each and every combination of medications, etc, etc, etc. Then there would have to be a definition for helped as well as harmed. I simply don't know enough to even make an educated guess.

If by helped we mean whatever condition the person is complaining of bothers them less and we don't consider new conditions brought on as a result of taking said medications then I'd think the percentage would be pretty high.

Of course this is an over simplistic look at this involved issue. I'll leave it up to people much smarter than me to figure this out. I simply don't have the time anymore to keep up with every thing in this area. (I have kids now!)

 

[fredcarr]

Ladewig - Sorry didn't see your last line tell after I posted. I wonder why it didn't come across when I quoted your post?

"ETA: if your response differs from the official teaching of the church, then please give the church's viewpoint as well."

I don't know what the church's offical viewpoint on this question is. I'm not sure it has one. There are a lot of places where Ron mentions psychiatric treatments and that they haven't one single cure on their books. But that's hardly noteworthy as many a psychiatrist will agree they don't cure anything as well.

 

[fredcarr]

Written by Harriet Hall There are hints that John Travolta may be reconsidering his relationship with the Church of Scientology after his son's death.
The boy was taken off his seizure medication because it was no longer working. Standard practice would be to try a different medication or a combination of medications, but apparently this was not done. Instead, he was treated with saunas, food supplements, Vitamin B and vegetable oils. He died of a seizure.
Travolta is allegedly disappointed that the church couldn't help his child more. He is also said to be "upset that senior members of the sect have instructed him to undergo intensive sessions with one of Scientology's 'ethics officers', trained to question the actor and other grieving family members to establish whether their 'negative influences' might have contributed to the tragedy." Gee, I'd be pretty upset about that; wouldn't you?
It is thought that Travolta's son was autistic, a diagnosis that is rejected by Scientology. Instead, Travolta claims he had Kawasaki syndrome, but it doesn't sound to me like his symptoms fit with that diagnosis.
There are rumors that if Travolta tries to break with the church, they will release embarrassing information about him, such as allegations of homosexuality.
These are just unconfirmed rumors at this point, but they may provide some hints about the workings of Scientology. Wouldn't it be interesting if one of Scientology's biggest celebrity representatives defected?

Just to get back on topic for a moment. (The above quote came from the blog section of randi.org)

As an aside, It's very strange that such a rumor laden article would be allowed on a board devoted to skeptical thinking.


Point #1 Where are the so called "hints" coming from?
Point #2 Where is this person getting the data that after he was taking off of his seizure medication he was put on a "Instead, he was treated with saunas, food supplements, Vitamin B and vegetable oils."
Point #3 Why bother commenting about an alleged rumor - "Travolta is allegedly disappointed that the church couldn't help his child more."
Point #4 "It is thought that Travolta's son was autistic, a diagnosis that is rejected by Scientology." Pure BS. The church doesn't "reject" or "not reject" a diagnosis.
Point #5 Sounds like the person writing the article is doing the diagnosis. "Instead, Travolta claims he had Kawasaki syndrome, but it doesn't sound to me like his symptoms fit with that diagnosis."

The rest is of such tripe that it offends the sensibilities.

 

[desertgal]

And we take our kids to the doctor at the first sign of any trouble. No one needs to tell us to do this as its just good common sense. (It also helps to have good health insurance.)

Please show me where I said otherwise.

For that matter, you avoided the first question I asked - please show me where I indulged in 'wild speculation'. Since you were willing to make the accusation, you are willing to back it up, right? (I'm guessing not, since you avoided answering.)

 

[fredcarr]

Please show me where I said otherwise.

For that matter, you avoided the first question I asked - please show me where I indulged in 'wild speculation'. Since you were willing to make the accusation, you are willing to back it up, right? (I'm guessing not, since you avoided answering.)

Upon reviewing all your posts on this thread and comparing them to the others and the article I mentioned from the blog section I agree that you haven't been wildly speculating at all. So sorry to get you confused with other posters. I apologize.

Re, the doctor answer I wasn't implying you said otherwise. I only said that to make it clear to any poster that wanted to continue down the track of we don't seek medical treatment, etc.

"And we take our kids to the doctor at the first sign of any trouble. No one needs to tell us to do this as its just good common sense. (It also helps to have good health insurance.)"

 

[geni]

That sure isn't the Church of Scientology. We have very strict policy about sending parishioners to medical doctors for treatment

The case of Lisa McPherson proves otherwise. I don't think you can credibily claim that the Flag Service Organization is not scientology.

 

[desertgal]

Upon reviewing all your posts on this thread and comparing them to the others and the article I mentioned from the blog section I agree that you haven't been wildly speculating at all. So sorry to get you confused with other posters. I apologize.

Thank you.

Re, the doctor answer I wasn't implying you said otherwise. I only said that to make it clear to any poster that wanted to continue down the track of we don't seek medical treatment, etc.

Fair enough.

As to this:

Point #1 Where are the so called "hints" coming from?
Point #2 Where is this person getting the data that after he was taking off of his seizure medication he was put on a "Instead, he was treated with saunas, food supplements, Vitamin B and vegetable oils."
Point #3 Why bother commenting about an alleged rumor - "Travolta is allegedly disappointed that the church couldn't help his child more."
Point #4 "It is thought that Travolta's son was autistic, a diagnosis that is rejected by Scientology." Pure BS. The church doesn't "reject" or "not reject" a diagnosis.

It reads as if much of this is taken from the Daily Mail article-and I have to agree with you: not to slam the blog author or the JREF, but using the DM as a source doesn't quite cut it as responsible journalism. Sorry, not meaning to offend, but the only verified fact in the DM article appears to be the date.

Point #5 Sounds like the person writing the article is doing the diagnosis. "Instead, Travolta claims he had Kawasaki syndrome, but it doesn't sound to me like his symptoms fit with that diagnosis."

Don't know much about Kawasaki syndrome, so can't say, but if you mean that Travolta didn't claim that Jett suffered from KS, that is incorrect. Kelly Preston was candid about that issue when Jett was a small child. But, again, since we don't know what all of Jett's symptoms were as he grew older, saying that those symptoms didn't fit Kawasaki Syndrome IS speculation...and unworthy of the JREF.

Obviously, I don't agree with much of CoS doctrine-and, as I said before, if the church failed Jett Travolta in some manner, then it would be understandable if his parents were questioning their faith. BUT, the ultimate responsibility for his care belonged with his parents, not the CoS-and, reportedly, the Travoltas are devoted parents who have been devastated by this (the loss of a child-it doesn't get worse than that). There is no solid evidence that they didn't make every effort to help their son, or that his death could have been prevented. Choosing not to make his conditions public knowledge isn't negligence-the young man had the right to the same privacy as the rest of us.

People need to let this one go. There's certainly enough out there already to debate about Scientology-but shouldn't that debate be based on factual information about CoS doctrine-not tabloid speculation concerning Jett Travolta's life and death?

 

[fredcarr]

Thank you.
People need to let this one go. There's certainly enough out there already to debate about Scientology-but shouldn't that debate be based on factual information about CoS doctrine-not tabloid speculation concerning Jett Travolta's death?

I agree. If only that would occur I would be contented. The Travolta story (and the horrible things that are being said) hits close to home as I have two boys. My experience as a Scientologist and caring for them and their issues is so misrepresented by things said about the Travolta story, my church and by extension what I do or do not do.

Just the face to face conversations I have had with people who have gotten their story from the net makes it a bit annoying to say the least. Its funny when someone is visiting us as I'm giving one of my kids something for his fever and they go "gosh! I thought you didn't "believe" in meds." I want to reply "yep we worship at the altar of medications and drugs every day." But I don't as my wife would be pissed at me

Almost as funny as being accused of not "believing" in calculus! (I make the sign of the cross every time I walk by my math books on the shelf at home. j/k!)

 

[AgeGap]

The woman’s parents had allegedly denied her access to psychiatric medication due to their Scientology beliefs.

Psychiatry kills

 

[Ladewig]

Ladewig - Sorry didn't see your last line tell after I posted. I wonder why it didn't come across when I quoted your post?

I added it later. The acronym ETA indicates that the post was "edited to add" the following information

 

[desertgal]

I agree. If only that would occur I would be contented. The Travolta story (and the horrible things that are being said) hits close to home as I have two boys. My experience as a Scientologist and caring for them and their issues is so misrepresented by things said about the Travolta story, my church and by extension what I do or do not do.

Just the face to face conversations I have had with people who have gotten their story from the net makes it a bit annoying to say the least. <snipped for brevity>

Well, I think, and I'm sure you already know this, you have to keep two things in mind: first, the death of a young man like Jett Travolta is one of life's greater injustices, so it's a natural human reaction to want to blame someone. I'm just not sure there is anyone or anything to be blamed when it comes to Jett Travolta. And, again, the ultimate responsibility belonged to his parents. Even if CoS doctrine preaches against, say, medication for seizure disorders (and I'm not saying it does, because I don't know), his parents were still responsible for putting Jett's best interests before the doctrine of their church (and I'm not saying they didn't, because I don't know.) That wouldn't make the CoS right, in my opinion, but it also wouldn't make them solely responsible.

That's not to say that I wouldn't be among those to consider the CoS responsible to a large degree if it came to light that Scientology doctrine may have influenced the Travoltas to the detriment of their son. I just prefer verified facts over speculation.

Secondly, you know, it doesn't help the wider public separate the myths from the facts about the CoS when one of your biggest celebrity members goes after Brooke Shields with unprovoked criticism and then rants to Matt Lauer about the evils of psychiatry and psychotropic medications. People don't just get their information and misconceptions from the net-when someone like Tom Cruise decides to publicly spaz out, it has a ripple effect.

 

[fredcarr]

Well, I think, and I'm sure you already know this, you have to keep two things in mind: first, the death of a young man like Jett Travolta is one of life's greater injustices, so it's a natural human reaction to want to blame someone. I'm just not sure there is anyone or anything to be blamed when it comes to Jett Travolta. And, again, the ultimate responsibility belonged to his parents. Even if CoS doctrine preaches against, say, medication for seizure disorders (and I'm not saying it does, because I don't know), his parents were still responsible for putting Jett's best interests before the doctrine of their church (and I'm not saying they didn't, because I don't know.) That wouldn't make the CoS right, in my opinion, but it also wouldn't make them solely responsible.

That's not to say that I wouldn't be among those to consider the CoS responsible to a large degree if it came to light that Scientology doctrine may have influenced the Travoltas to the detriment of their son. I just prefer verified facts over speculation.

Secondly, you know, it doesn't help the wider public separate the myths from the facts about the CoS when one of your biggest celebrity members goes after Brooke Shields with unprovoked criticism and then rants to Matt Lauer about the evils of psychiatry and psychotropic medications. People don't just get their information and misconceptions from the net-when someone like Tom Cruise decides to publicly spaz out, it has a ripple effect.

I hear ya. A relatively minor examination of some of our more beginning texts should make it clear what our doctrines are in regards to seeking out the best care for our progeny. That is what makes the whole thing ridiculous with the media reports (and I'm being generous when using the term 'media') re. Scientology' supposed and alleged interference with the Travolta's care for their son due to our doctrines. Never once are the most basic and fundamental of "our" beliefs ever quoted. They aren't brought up, of course, as that would defeat the purpose of creating controversy, etc.

(I'll pass on commenting about the Tom Cruise issue as I don't want to derail this thread too much. Besides I think there is another thread on that already.)