CBS on Scientology and ‘psychiatric drugs’
p2pnet news view | Off Topic:- It’s a shame this had to happen.
I posted several stories on the death of Jett, son of Kelly Preston and John Travolta who, like fellow actor Tom Cruise, is a well-known Scientology follower.
Unlike Cruise, Travolta doesn’t spout on the wonders of the cult at any and every opportunity.
I believe Scientology is dark and unwholesome and people who embrace it are victims, not followers. But when I posted on the death of his son, it was a straight news story on a tragedy affecting a famous film star.
I deliberately made no mention of Travolta’s beliefs, deleting several Readers’ Writes which brought it up in a way which, to me, didn’t seem to have anything to do with the story.
Parents who’d lost their children left comment posts expressing sympathy for the Travolta family.
Now, “Even as John Travolta and his wife mourn their son, Jett, some critics of the Church of Scientology are pointing to what they say is a negative church position on medications and medicine,” says CBS.
One wonders if the ‘critics’ were approached by CBS, or the other way around.
Don’t answer that.
“National Correspondent Hattie Kauffman reports that, since an autopsy showed Jett, 16, died of a seizure, his family now acknowledges Jett’s been suffering seizures for many years,” says the story.
So what?
“John Travolta’s friends who are lawyers indicated Jett had been on a psychiatric pharmaceutical drug that specifically intends to address issues about seizures, says University of Alberta Alternative Religions Prof. Stephen Kent. They also went on to claim Jett was removed from that drug because it was causing organ damage.”
A “psychiatric pharmaceutical drug,” eh? Gosh! And ‘organ damage’!
Does Kent know the Travoltas or have any connection to them? If he doesn’t, how come he’s being quoted.
CBS goes on, “Scientology’s most famous member, Tom Cruise, has made it very clear the church is against psychiatric drugs. ‘It sees psychiatrists as being enemies — not only enemies on this earth, but also cosmic enemies,’ says the University of Alberta’s Kent.”
So? Does CBS dredge up a story every time someone who’s taking Prozac, say, or any other ‘psychiatric pharmaceutical drug’ dies?
Our daughter, Emma, has never been vaccinated. We researched the subject at length and in detail and decided the cons far outweighed the pros. We made our decision accordingly, and we believe we were right.
Jehova’s Witnesses also have very definite beliefs when it comes to medicine and medical treatments, as do people who adhere to other beliefs.
Bottom line, Jett’s illness and how it was treated is the Travolta’s business, and no one else’s, and if they don’t want to talk about it in public, that too is their business.
The CBS post served no purpose whatsoever beyond generating yet another mainstream media headline we didn’t, and don’t, need.
Jon Newton – p2pnet
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
January 7th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
anybody else asking themselves… What would Jett have wanted? I mean would he have liked to live or die? would he have have chosen medication if it weren’t for his parents religion? CBS is just doing real journalistic work. This is obviously a debatable topic theirs the “i know whats right for my child” and the opposing side who says “medical science knows whats best for your child” . I can see this from both perspectives and I believe it all comes down to choice. Does a child have a choice in his/her health? this debate could stem all the way to euthanasia if you really wanted to go their jon. I dont think picking sides in this debate is a good idea especially when the debate is over someone who is no longer with us. Take religion out of the debate and you have a logical question of choice.
1 question jon: Did you ask Emma if she wanted to be vaccinated or not? Was she old enough to make an informed decision?
is “16″ old enough to make an informed decision on your health?
January 7th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
^^ Emma was a babe in arms. But we asked her when she was old enough to understand the question (11) and No way! – was her response.
And Yes, she does understand what vaccination is, and its purpose. She’s also more than capabable of researching on- and offline, and reaching her own conclusions.
Cheers!
(PS – I just checked with her again – she’s now 12 – and she hasn’t changed her mind.)
January 7th, 2009 at 9:12 pm
I knew a kid in high school who was a Jehovah’s Witness and had a serious medical condition that required surgery. Of course his parents would not allow this. He was hoping to stay alive long enough to reach the age of majority so he could have the life saving operation. I don’t know if he made it or not.
As far as children not being vaccinated I guess that is you choice. Of course if everybody else gets vaccinated I guess you really don’t have to. Emma’s career choices will be limited by this as many occupations require an updated vaccinated record as is the case with my son who is a youth worker.
January 7th, 2009 at 10:38 pm
“Whether to vaccinate” is one subject.
I won’t get into its debates here.
“Whether to take (or avoid) certain medications” is a completely different animal.
Neurologic conditions such as Epilepsy are quite often extremely problematic, dangerous, or even fatal for some without an anti-convulsive drug. Seizures should not be allowed to recur continally, should there be a way to reduce or stop them. Everything humanly possible should be done to curb them. I could write a book on this (and may just!).
Now, I’m not saying that I know what Jett suffered from, but by the description his own family offered about his symptoms, he very well could have been suffering from Epilepsy or a related disorder. And, if he did die as a result of deliberate and unnecessary denial of a fitting seizure medication, he wouldn’t be the first such victim in the realms of Scientology – this FARCE being pushed by its very sick proponents as a fucking “religion”.
Having said that, don’t get me wrong!…
The point I’m making is not completely centered on Scientology. Scientology is one example of how proponents of a cult or religion play their own “God” with others’ health and welfare, as they write their own rules, completely without any factual basis or justification. Many religions seem to be full of such willing ignorance. (Scientology is definitely at the top of my list, however. It has the most documented cases, and has the added “value” of being an obvious cult that is far from any meaningful definition of a “religion”.)
I personally knew 3 young girls who also died as a direct result of “religious interference” by their parents. One was a child of Jesuits, one was a Jehovah’s Witness, the other had parents that were very active with the “Children of God”. (I find the last especially ironic.)
All 3 young girls died unnecessarily, either by being denied a relatively safe but crucial drug or a blood tranfusion. And, the Children of God apparently wouldn’t consent to a simple test that would have pointed out the child’s allergy to peanuts!! (Yes, the child died of anaphylactic shock from the peanuts they were always feeding her.)
When innocents needlessly die in the name of a religion, there’s no explanation in the world you can give me as to why I should accept that, or understand such a religion, or regard the matter as only “the family’s business”. What some people seem to forget, surprisingly, is that charges are usually filed when “neglect” results in death (or injury). Why do some people think that inserting “religion” into the equation effectively changes that?
Should that ever be the case, you can be sure a shitload of “new religions” will emerge overnight!
Think of all the possible applications!…
1) “Those drugs may be illegal for you, but MY religion says I MUST use them.”
2) “It was (insert God of Worship here)’s Supreme Order that I push that woman in front of the train.”
3) “That is not a dog! It is a messenger of (insert omnipotent name) sent to kill my neighbour, that I’ve been ordained to feed these last years.”
All I’m saying here is, how much lunacy should we allow to be “protected” by religious status, before we allow our brains to kick in and recognize it simply as “lunacy”??
January 7th, 2009 at 10:48 pm
Jon,
I tried again anyway, and that post also vanished, though my inquiry about the first one appeared (as I expect this one will).
Is it because the word “Scientology” was in there?