Fiery_penguin_of_doom wrote...
Now, a deeper question for everybody: What extent should the government be able to control somebody to seek not only medical treatment but, a specific type?
1.) Malpractitioners should be stamped out without mercy. "Alternative" healers should not be allowed to claim that their treatment methods work; no false advertising. Not sure how well-publicized the Ryke Geerd Hamer affair is in the U.S. (a psychopathic MD who roamed all over Europe, alleging that cancer was a "good" thing and should be left untreated); in my view he's exemplary of quacks that need to be weeded out.
2.) Methods that have been scientifically shown to be without merit should not be allowed to substitute scientific medical treatment in minors or non-consenting adults.
3.) Methods that have been scientifically shown to have adverse effects should be barred completely.
4.) Adults should not be forced to subject themselves to any kind of treatment against their will.
5.) Legal minors should not be subjected to contraindicated non-conservative non-reversible therapy (earlobe correction, circumcision, ...), even if their legal guardians demand such. They can seek out such treatment voluntarily once they are of age, in which case rule 4 will apply.
edibleghost wrote...
Sticks and stones but words will never hurt you.
This works in reverse too.
To some extent that's plain false, as psychosomatic effects (be it additional stressors or stress reduction) can very well be brought about by words. And boy, should one never underestimate the impact of psychosomatic factors.