John Travolta's 16-year old son dies

[fredcarr]

Travolta Remains a Scientologist

I guess not.

 

[fredcarr]

http://news-briefs.ew.com/2009/07/john-travolta-still-a-scientologist-says-rep.html

Looks like the celebrations will have to be put off:

"John Travolta remains a member of the Church of Scientology "now and forever," the actor's rep tells People. A July 25 story in a British paper purported that Travolta had become disillusioned with Scientology after the death of his son Jett in January. But Travolta's publicist Paul Bloch says, "There's no change in the relationship between the Church of Scientology and John.""

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Fine. Then I still can't watch his movies or have an ounce of respect for him or people like T. Cruise. Not that my opinion matters at all. Not that they care if I watch their movies either. But still. Hmph.

 

[Prometheus]

So Jett really was autistic, after all.

 

[Seanette]

OK, so the kid was autistic. Autism =/= seizures (admittedly, I'm a layperson, but I can find no credible source that lists a linkage between the two). It's still not proven, IMO, that autism (treated or otherwise) had anything to do with his death. It's a side issue.

The seizure disorder (which, it would appear, DID contribute to if not cause Jett Travolta's death) would be worth focusing on if we're trying to figure out if his medical needs were being neglected due to his parents' religion (not sure it's really anyone's business outside their family, TBH), but the autism looks to be irrelevant.

 

[Prometheus]

OK, so the kid was autistic. Autism =/= seizures (admittedly, I'm a layperson, but I can find no credible source that lists a linkage between the two). It's still not proven, IMO, that autism (treated or otherwise) had anything to do with his death. It's a side issue.

The seizure disorder (which, it would appear, DID contribute to if not cause Jett Travolta's death) would be worth focusing on if we're trying to figure out if his medical needs were being neglected due to his parents' religion (not sure it's really anyone's business outside their family, TBH), but the autism looks to be irrelevant.

Seizures are one of several recognized symptoms of autism. They occur in around 39% of autistics. It seems now that the Travoltas were cognizant of their son's condition, yet they apparently were not seeking proper treatment. How is that irrelevant?

 

[truethat]

Who says they weren't seeking proper treatment. I don't see why so many people think that Travolta was supposed to ADMIT to the world anything about his son's condition. It's no one's damn business. Just because the rest of Hollywood pimps out their kids doesn't mean he does.

You hear all these accusations about him as a parent, like he was ashamed of Jett, like he hid him away. Yet I don't really even know what either of his kids look like aside from the pictures after Jett's death. He seemed devoted to his son and handled him with love and anyone who can't see that is just being dumb.

The man was loaded, he cared for his son. He could get a pharamcist to make a drug concoction and call it VITAMINS if he wanted. It's ridiculous to suggest that he didn't care for his son.

 

[Whiplash]

I just want to say, with regards to people wanting to boycott movies or projects by people they disagree with.. As a conservative, if you try to live your life that way, you'll never be able to enjoy anything. Most musicians, entertainers and actors are on the left. That's pretty much undeniable. For 8 years I've watched people like George Clooney and Alec Baldwin badmouth the president, and too a lesser extent, America. But I still think they are both fine actors, and enjoy them in some of their roles. I refuse to let my political disagreement with them interfere with my ability to enjoy their works.

Because I'm not so outrageously bigoted about my own ideology that I can't even accept the existence of the other.

Seriously, you should try taking in virtually any programming from a Conservative point of view. I was a fan of Family Guy, yet right from the start they were attacking conservatives (scene of Peter on an Elephant saying "Look at me, I'm the mascot of the Republican party! A fat man who is afraid of change!".

How about Larry David? I'm a huge Seinfeld fan. While it's hard to say for sure regarding Jerry himself, it's 100% clear that David is a strong liberal. Just watch some Curb your Enthusiasm. I'll never forget the episode where he was about to have sex with a lovely co-star on his broadway musical, and he couldn't pull the trigger because she had a picture of Bush in her dressing room. To quote (cleanly) his agent "I'd have done her with a Bush mask on".

I think shows do make a mistake when they come out, on either side, and express a political view, because you are potentially turning off as much as half of your audience. That makes little sense to me. It seems, however, that many on the left share the view "like I give a damn, I wouldn't watch those bible thumping, evil, mysoginistic scum to watch my show to begin with".

This is one place I'll give Seinfeld credit again. In 9 years, they managed to do great comedic shows that never betrayed the feelings of anyone involved, in terms of politics. The closest I can think of is the episode where Elaine wouldn't continue to see a moving man when she found out he was pro-life. And frankly, that doesn't shock me at all.. it's not that distanced from reality. If you have certain positions in this world, many look on you as such a pathetic, idiotic and worthless person that they aren't even going to hold you in basic respect anymore.

Hurray for shows that go out of their way to not invoke touchy subjects. And for those that do, you only have yourself to blame if it comes back to bite you in the arse.

But to write off someone because of their personal views, and not even be able to enjoy movies or features with them, even is said features have nothing to do with their views.. That's plain old fashioned bigotry folks. Please learn to accept that.

 

[Roadtoad]

I'm looking for the word where Jett wasn't being properly treated by his parents. I'm not saying it didn't happen; I'm saying I don't see it yet.

At present, we still don't know much. What I'd like to see, though, is if Scientology played a role in this child's death, and if it did, what the Travolta family will do.

 

[jimtron]

Who says they weren't seeking proper treatment. I don't see why so many people think that Travolta was supposed to ADMIT to the world anything about his son's condition. It's no one's damn business. Just because the rest of Hollywood pimps out their kids doesn't mean he does.

You hear all these accusations about him as a parent, like he was ashamed of Jett, like he hid him away. Yet I don't really even know what either of his kids look like aside from the pictures after Jett's death. He seemed devoted to his son and handled him with love and anyone who can't see that is just being dumb.

The man was loaded, he cared for his son. He could get a pharamcist to make a drug concoction and call it VITAMINS if he wanted. It's ridiculous to suggest that he didn't care for his son.

I'm sure that Jett's parents sincerely loved and cared for him and wanted the best for him--I haven't seen a shred of evidence to suggest otherwise. What some are suggesting is not that John and Kelly were uncaring, but that despite best intentions, they may have been following church practices that kept Jett from getting the most effective care.

Here's an interesting article from today's Daily Beast--I'm curious to hear what you all think of it. http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-09-27/travoltas-scientology-turning-point/full/

When Jett died after suffering a seizure, some former Scientologists pointed the finger at the church. Until now, his parents had said their son’s illness was a syndrome caused by exposure to chemicals. Some ex-Scientologists—apostates, as the church would have it—believe Jett may have been deprived of appropriate treatment for years because of the church’s teachings.

Davis has said repeatedly that Scientology accepts treatment of and medication for physical illnesses. But Christman, who is epileptic, says the institution has little tolerance for chronic conditions. In Scientology, she says, such illnesses are seen as the product of “covert hostility” and a failure to follow church procedures. Christman says she kept her epilepsy as much to herself as possible when she was still in the church because otherwise she would have been “considered degraded.”
Christman says Scientology pushed her to stop her medication and use vitamins and supplements instead. The first time she cut back on her medications, she had a grand mal seizure in her bathroom and knocked out her front teeth. She says she resumed her medication but tried to stop again in the face of continued objections from the church—and again faced disastrous results.

Former Scientologists say autism would have created issues in Scientology not only because it’s chronic and not obviously “physical” but because it is often assessed by psychologists and treated with the types of mood-stabilizing drugs that Scientology opposes. Jett’s mother, Kelly Preston, has acted as a spokeswoman for the Citizens Commission on Human Rights, a Scientology offshoot dedicated to waging war on psychiatry and the use of psychiatric drugs. (The group’s homepage is illustrated with a cell door labeled “Psychiatry… An Industry of Death.” While the group’s Web site refers to autism as a “physical handicap,” Scientology has battled the use of medications for conditions like schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. (Davis does not acknowledge that these conditions exist.)
Travolta and his wife long said publicly that their son suffered from Kawasaki disease, a rare condition that causes arterial inflammation. “With my son I was obsessive about cleaning—his space being clean, so we constantly had the carpets cleaned,” Travolta told CNN in 2001. “And I think, between him, the fumes and walking around, maybe picking up pieces or something, he got...Kawasaki syndrome.”
A couple of years later, Preston recounted a similar story to Montel Williams, adding, “We don’t have any chemicals in the house. We’re 90 percent organic, though there’s some canned foods, a little bit of junk food here and there.” She credited a Scientology detoxification program with improving Jett’s condition.

But to many observers, Jett’s autism seemed obvious. And John Travolta’s brother, Joey, has worked with autistic children and produced a documentary about the syndrome. Joey Travolta has never indicated that his involvement with autism was linked to his nephew’s condition, but soon after Jett’s death, the London Mirror reported that Joey frequently argued with his brother about Jett’s diagnosis. (Joey Travolta did not respond to an inquiry from The Daily Beast.)
It does not appear that Jett received the early intervention recommended for autistic children.

Apparently the COS does not believe in schizophrenia and bipolar disorder (as mentioned in the above-linked article). I'm reminded of Elli and Jeremy Perkins:

Elli Perkins née Present (1949 – March 13, 2003) was a mother of two, a professional glass artist, and a Scientologist who lived in Western New York. She was a senior auditor at the Church of Scientology in Buffalo, New York. Her son, Jeremy, started showing signs of strange and disturbing behavior. She attempted to correct this with treatment by non-psychiatric means consistent with her Scientology beliefs, but his schizophrenia progressed to the point where he felt Elli was poisoning him, prompting an unsuccessful suicide attempt. When this failed, Jeremy instead murdered his mother.

Again, I have no doubt that John and Kelly had the best intentions for Jett, and loved him very dearly, just as I'm sure Elli Perkins wanted the best for her son Jeremy. I don't know if Jett was autistic or not, and I don't know if he would still be alive today if it weren't for the COS. But I do think it's fair to discuss these issues and ask questions in a polite and respectful way.

 

[pakeha]

Thanks, JimTron, for that excellent post.

 

[fredcarr]

Jimtron -

What some are suggesting is not that John and Kelly were uncaring, but that despite best intentions, they may have been following church practices that kept Jett from getting the most effective care.

Yep some keep suggesting that they may have been following church practices that keep Jett from getting the most effective care. No doubt about that. Probably the only thing we can prove for sure is that some people keep suggesting such a thing.

I don't have a clue as to what was done or not done for Jett. I don't know of any church policy that would prevent me from seeking the best care for my child if he/she was autistic and had seizures. As I have said on numerous occasions the church doesn't interfere in such things in any way. If anything I would be in trouble with my church if I DIDN'T seek medical care for my child depending on the laws of the land and such.

 

[Prometheus]

There's probably no way to determine absolutely that Jett was being denied proper care, of course. But at least one of the Travoltas' neighbors claims to know that they were not treating Jett well, and Scientology has a well-documented history of denying autism and other chronic psychological/neurological conditions. At the very least, I consider the Travoltas to be somewhat less than praiseworthy if only because they refused to use their wealth and influence to raise public awareness of autism--something they could easily have done if their religion didn't forbid it. To my mind, there's enough circumstantial evidence that I'm unwilling to give them any benefit of the doubt. They're obviously not required to publicly disclose evidence that they sough proper care for Jett, but as long as they don't, I will continue to assume that they failed to do so.

 

[fredcarr]

There's probably no way to determine absolutely that Jett was being denied proper care, of course. But at least one of the Travoltas' neighbors claims to know that they were not treating Jett well, and Scientology has a well-documented history of denying autism and other chronic psychological/neurological conditions. At the very least, I consider the Travoltas to be somewhat less than praiseworthy if only because they refused to use their wealth and influence to raise public awareness of autism--something they could easily have done if their religion didn't forbid it. To my mind, there's enough circumstantial evidence that I'm unwilling to give them any benefit of the doubt. They're obviously not required to publicly disclose evidence that they sough proper care for Jett, but as long as they don't, I will continue to assume that they failed to do so.

Shouldn't your post state something more along the line of "Ocala, Florida restaurant manager Tim Kenny tells Hollywood, Interrupted. Kenny claims he met Travolta at his restaurant in February..."

No mention if they are neighbors in the article. You also say "at least..." as if there are other neighbors making a similar claim but we don't know who they are.

Scientology doesn't have a well documented history of denying Autism. (Personally I can't find a single mention of Autism in any of the scriptures that I have studied.)

If I want to donate funds to a public awareness campaign to raise awareness of Autism I can. I don't currently know any policy forbidding me to do so. I'm not going to as there are other charities I support but if I were to I would check to make sure the organization in question wasn't a front group for the psycho-pharmaceutical industry with the purpose of getting more medications pushed onto our youth.

So your stance is guilty until proven innocent. Amply demonstrated by these comments "To my mind, there's enough circumstantial evidence that I'm unwilling to give them any benefit of the doubt. They're obviously not required to publicly disclose evidence that they sough proper care for Jett, but as long as they don't, I will continue to assume that they failed to do so."

In your opinion the Travolta's are guilty of not seeking proper care for their children because they haven't provided evidence to you that they did.

 

[Prometheus]

Shouldn't your post state something more along the line of "Ocala, Florida restaurant manager Tim Kenny tells Hollywood, Interrupted. Kenny claims he met Travolta at his restaurant in February..."

No mention if they are neighbors in the article.

I originally came across that article via a link which identifies the Kenny's as neighbors of the Travoltas.

You also say "at least..." as if there are other neighbors making a similar claim but we don't know who they are.

That you make an improper inference from my words is not my responsibility.

Scientology doesn't have a well documented history of denying Autism. (Personally I can't find a single mention of Autism in any of the scriptures that I have studied.)

My mistake then. If you're right, then COS has a PR problem surrounding this issue. Perhaps you might like to impress upon your fellows that they ought to make it a point to publicize their efforts to have members affected by autism seek proper medical care.

If I want to donate funds to a public awareness campaign to raise awareness of Autism I can. I don't currently know any policy forbidding me to do so. I'm not going to as there are other charities I support but if I were to I would check to make sure the organization in question wasn't a front group for the psycho-pharmaceutical industry with the purpose of getting more medications pushed onto our youth.

Assuming you were wealthy enough to have your own private jet, would you refuse to support an organization dedicated to helping those afflicted with the same disorder as your own son?

So your stance is guilty until proven innocent. Amply demonstrated by these comments "To my mind, there's enough circumstantial evidence that I'm unwilling to give them any benefit of the doubt. They're obviously not required to publicly disclose evidence that they sough proper care for Jett, but as long as they don't, I will continue to assume that they failed to do so."

In your opinion the Travolta's are guilty of not seeking proper care for their children because they haven't provided evidence to you that they did.

In a word, yes. In cases where children are harmed, I personally hold their caregivers to a higher moral standard than the justice system allows for. I don't see a problem with this at all. I do not hold that the legal system should conform to my personal views.

 

[fredcarr]

Prometheus -

"I originally came across that article via a link which identifies the Kenny's as neighbors of the Travoltas."

I looked at that and noticed it references the same link you posted earlier - Hollywood Interrupted. (I won't bother getting into a discussion about that particular site.)

"That you make an improper inference from my words is not my responsibility."

Then what inference were you trying to make?

"My mistake then. If you're right, then COS has a PR problem surrounding this issue. Perhaps you might like to impress upon your fellows that they ought to make it a point to publicize their efforts to have members affected by autism seek proper medical care."

Doesn't take too much searching to find that Scientology spokespersons do say that we seek medical care, etc. Also anyone walking into a church will see a notice on the wall saying we don't diagnose or treat illnesses, Etc. etc. Of course there isn't a specific list of ailments in that notice.

Are you suggesting we should take out ads saying we tell members affected by Autism to seek proper medical care? (I actually don't know any members affected by Autism off the top of my head.) Do you mean that the church should tell its members that have Autistic children they should seek proper medical care? And I guess should publicize it as well to counter all the false reports in the media? Maybe a list of every Scientologist that has a child who is Autistic and a complete affidavit of all the actions they have taken to care for their progeny is what your looking for. Probably should have a list of all non-Scientologists with autistic children and what they do as well so we have a good comparison to make a judgment with.

What about all the other medical issues that unlucky children can and do have to endure.

While we are at it lets get the data on how third world countries deal with these issues.

Seems like a mammoth undertaking.

"Assuming you were wealthy enough to have your own private jet, would you refuse to support an organization dedicated to helping those afflicted with the same disorder as your own son?"

Not sure what a private jet has to do with anything. Not supporting an organization doesn't equate to refusing to support an organization. There are many organizations I don't support by donating to. Doesn't mean I refuse to support them.

If I had enough money to own my own private jet and my son had some ailment, that there was an organization dedicated to helping others afflicted with the same or similar ailment, then I guess I would decide based on many factors as to whether to support said organization with my money and time. Not supporting such an organization would not mean that I refuse to support it. Even if I did refuse to do so then this would be my right as much as it is your right to think the Travolta's are guilty of not seeking proper care for their children.

I sure wish I could refuse to support my local public school system with my tax dollars. (I pay for my child to go to a private school.)

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Shouldn't your post state something more along the line of "Ocala, Florida restaurant manager Tim Kenny tells Hollywood, Interrupted. Kenny claims he met Travolta at his restaurant in February..."

No mention if they are neighbors in the article. You also say "at least..." as if there are other neighbors making a similar claim but we don't know who they are.

Scientology doesn't have a well documented history of denying Autism. (Personally I can't find a single mention of Autism in any of the scriptures that I have studied.)

If I want to donate funds to a public awareness campaign to raise awareness of Autism I can. I don't currently know any policy forbidding me to do so. I'm not going to as there are other charities I support but if I were to I would check to make sure the organization in question wasn't a front group for the psycho-pharmaceutical industry with the purpose of getting more medications pushed onto our youth.

So your stance is guilty until proven innocent. Amply demonstrated by these comments "To my mind, there's enough circumstantial evidence that I'm unwilling to give them any benefit of the doubt. They're obviously not required to publicly disclose evidence that they sough proper care for Jett, but as long as they don't, I will continue to assume that they failed to do so."

In your opinion the Travolta's are guilty of not seeking proper care for their children because they haven't provided evidence to you that they did.

Fred, you really should search harder. Or is Dianetics - A Very Poor Sci Fi Story no longer part of the $cientology canon?

paranoid-schizophrenic: (psychiatry) of or concerning a mental condition resembling paranoia (form of psychosis in which a person imagines that he is being persecuted or that he is very great or important) but also characterized by autistic (concerning a state of mind characterized by daydreaming, hallucinations and disregard of external reality) behavior and gradual deterioration of the personality. —DMSMH Glossary

Hubbard, L. Ron. Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health. May, 1950. 1992 ed. Los Angeles: Bridge Publications, Inc., 1950.

Red highlighting mine.

 

[Rrose Selavy]

Scientology doesn't have a well documented history of denying Autism. (Personally I can't find a single mention of Autism in any of the scriptures that I have studied.)

.

Erm....am I the only one who sees the possible connection between the above two sentences?

-

 

[Prometheus]

Prometheus -

"I originally came across that article via a link which identifies the Kenny's as neighbors of the Travoltas."

I looked at that and noticed it references the same link you posted earlier - Hollywood Interrupted. (I won't bother getting into a discussion about that particular site.)

I know. I told you that that link connects to the Hollywood Interrupted site in the very sentence which you quoted from me here.

"That you make an improper inference from my words is not my responsibility."

Then what inference were you trying to make?

Why should I need to infer anything at all from my own words? My implication, on the other hand, is exactly what I wrote, with no hidden meaning at all: I know of one, it's possible (but unknown to me) that there are more.

"My mistake then. If you're right, then COS has a PR problem surrounding this issue. Perhaps you might like to impress upon your fellows that they ought to make it a point to publicize their efforts to have members affected by autism seek proper medical care."

Doesn't take too much searching to find that Scientology spokespersons do say that we seek medical care, etc. Also anyone walking into a church will see a notice on the wall saying we don't diagnose or treat illnesses, Etc. etc. Of course there isn't a specific list of ailments in that notice.

It also doesn't take too much searching to discover that a sizable portion of the general public (rightfully, in my opinion) does not trust what Scientology spokespersons say. If COS is genuinely interested in solving their PR problems they might want to consider highlighting what ordinary members do instead.

Are you suggesting we should take out ads saying we tell members affected by Autism to seek proper medical care? (I actually don't know any members affected by Autism off the top of my head.) Do you mean that the church should tell its members that have Autistic children they should seek proper medical care? And I guess should publicize it as well to counter all the false reports in the media?

These sound like good ideas to me, but I'd run them by a professional PR/Marketing expert or two first.

Maybe a list of every Scientologist that has a child who is Autistic and a complete affidavit of all the actions they have taken to care for their progeny is what your looking for. Probably should have a list of all non-Scientologists with autistic children and what they do as well so we have a good comparison to make a judgment with.

These seem unnecessary to me.

What about all the other medical issues that unlucky children can and do have to endure.

Does COS have similar PR difficulties involving the general public's perception of their teachings on other medical conditions? If so, then, yes, by all means include them in your efforts to make the rest of us understand you.

While we are at it lets get the data on how third world countries deal with these issues.

There are already organizations that keep track of various governments' records on dealing with various health problems, and report their findings to the public, but if COS wants to help out and replicate their efforts for the sake of providing added scrutiny, then I think that could only help you.

Seems like a mammoth undertaking.

Indeed. I wonder how COS aquired such a difficult to address problem in the first place.

"Assuming you were wealthy enough to have your own private jet, would you refuse to support an organization dedicated to helping those afflicted with the same disorder as your own son?"

Not sure what a private jet has to do with anything. Not supporting an organization doesn't equate to refusing to support an organization. There are many organizations I don't support by donating to. Doesn't mean I refuse to support them.

The jet is an example of obvious extreme wealth. According to the Kenny's, the Travoltas were asked outright to support the organization, and they refused outright.

If I had enough money to own my own private jet and my son had some ailment, that there was an organization dedicated to helping others afflicted with the same or similar ailment, then I guess I would decide based on many factors as to whether to support said organization with my money and time. Not supporting such an organization would not mean that I refuse to support it. Even if I did refuse to do so then this would be my right as much as it is your right to think the Travolta's are guilty of not seeking proper care for their children.

Absolutely. And at no point in any of my posts have I ever suggested that any of the Travoltas' rights were any less. I'm not discussing their rights. I'm discussing their moral character.

I sure wish I could refuse to support my local public school system with my tax dollars. (I pay for my child to go to a private school.)

I sure wish I could refuse to subsidize COS by not allowing them to be tax-exempt.