Cancer Doc Who Gave Healthy People Chemo Gets 45 Years.

Photo Source: Flickr Creative Commons by Nicki Dugan Pogue

Photo Source: Flickr Creative Commons by Nicki Dugan Pogue

What happens when you cannot trust your doctor?

Dr Farid Fata is an example.

Dr Fata lied to patients who were not sick and told them they had cancer. Then, he subjected them to the horrors of cancer therapy. He also gave patients who actually did have cancer many more chemotherapy treatments than they should have had. All of his patients were subjected to the terror of cancer and were harmed by these treatments. Dr Fata also murdered some of these people, since they died from his unnecessary treatments.

Dr Fata was backed up by other doctors and by the hospital where he practiced. I would imagine that he also was aided in getting away with this crime by the abject terror with which people greet a diagnosis of cancer.

There are several things we can take away from this situation.

First, get a second opinion. Doctors often fight you on this. I’ve experienced this medical resistance to patients seeking second opinions myself, as have friends of mine. If you want to avoid being Dr Fata-d, you might also consider getting this second opinion in a different medical circle than the doctor who originally gave you the diagnosis. By that I mean go to a different state. If you’re in Oklahoma, go to MD Anderson. If you’re in Texas, go to UCLA. But do not go for a second opinion from a doctor who is either enthralled with your original doc or who is in debt to him or her.

Second, current medical practice gives us many reasons to mistrust our doctors. Commercial medicine is predatory by its nature. Consider doctors who make designer babies and sell them on the internet. Consider doctors who harvest the bodies of healthy women for eggs that they sell on the internet. These women are not sick, but the doctors pay them money to undergo dangerous amounts to hormones and unnecessary surgery which punctures their ovaries repeatedly in order for the docs to make money in the manufacture and sale of human beings. These procedures endanger women’s lives, health and future fertility, but they are marketed to callow college girls as safe.

Consider the trendy new medical barbarity of gender reassignment surgery. This ghastly procedure mutilates people who are suffering a mental illness. It also subjects them to massive, life-long dosages of unnecessary hormones that further mutilate them and endanger their health. The push right now is to extend this procedure to minor children, even without parental consent.

Third, consider the barbaric practices of euthanasia and abortion. When we give doctors a legal right to kill at will, do we seriously expect that they will not become junior Mengeles who murder babies who survive abortions and euthanize people for no reason and without their consent?

Dr Fata was, due to the courage of a whistle-blowing employee, exposed and brought to judgement in our courts. He did not get the sentence he should have gotten, and he was not charged with the crime he committed, which was torture and murder. But hopefully, he will never walk free again.

However, if what he had been doing was legal, how difficult would it have been to mount a prosecution against him in court? Egg harvesting doctors who exploit young women are often respected members of their communities. They are, like the original Mengele, considered scientists and physicians. They are highly educated, smooth, and wealthy. They can easily schmooze their way past a tearful coed who has been harmed, or her distraught family when she dies.

Doctors who murder outright through abortion and euthanasia have a whole socio-political movement behind them which lionizes them and characterizes them as heroes of compassion. The same goes for doctors who practice the quackery of gender reassignment surgery.

Dr Fata’s crimes will probably lead to more government regulation and oversight of medical practice. The same thing will eventually happen with each of these legal crimes of euthanasia, egg harvesting, abortion on demand, the quackery of “gender reassignment” surgery, and creating and selling human beings.

Government intrusion into anything is always heavy-handed and destructive. In medicine, it creates timid doctors who put compliance with regulations created by hand-picked committees of bureaucrats with agendas ahead of the needs of their patients. It makes doctors reluctant to prescribe and act on what their training and experience has taught them is their patients’ best interest.

The irony is that no amount of regulation can control the legal practice of medical barbarity and make it into something other than the barbarity it is. There are no laws that will ensure controlled killing and exploitation of innocents once other laws have made such things acceptable. You can’t kill, mutilate and exploit people for a living and, as Himmler said of the SS, “remain decent.” Himmler was self-deluded in this pretense, just as those who histrionically jump up and down and defend these barbarities today are self-deluded.

The only way to stop medical exploitation of patients and the barbarities that come with it is to make such things illegal in the first place. Certain medical practices, among them elective abortion, and the commercial harvesting and selling of human body parts to the detriment of living patients, as well as the creation and selling of human beings, should be illegal.

At the very least, doctors who pay women to harvest their bodies, who sell babies, who murder their patients, either born or unborn, should lose their license to practice medicine and be subject to civil suit. It would be preferable if they went to prison for these crimes against humanity, but given that the medical associations support these practices, that is impracticable right now.

I think increased government regulation and oversight of medical practice will harm patients, as well as doctors. But when the medical profession throws its weight behind exploitative practices such as egg harvesting, creating and selling babies and what is nothing more than trendy, politically-correct abuse of the mentally ill, it makes the case that medicine cannot police its own house. The failure to stop Dr Fata just puts the cherry on top.

It is ironic that the political power of the medical associations, which has always been used to protect medical practice from government intrusion, will end up being the cause of greater government regulation and surveillance of medicine. If the medical associations continue down this path of defending barbarity, their behavior will inevitably lead to heavy-handed government intrusion into medical practice. It will also lead to the loss of public trust and faith in doctors.

Dr Fata is, in many ways, the tip of the iceberg of true medical malpractice in this post-Christian world of ours. The difference between him and his brothers in blood is that he fell over the tripwire of illegality, while they are protected by nihilistic trendiness that pushes the poisonous philosophy of social deconstruction at all costs, including, sadly, human life.

From The Detroit News:

Detroit — The notorious oncologist who gave chemotherapy to cancer-free patients, and overmedicated others, as part of an expansive insurance fraud scheme cried and apologized Friday before being sentenced to 45 years in prison.

Dr. Farid Fata will be behind bars until he’s 95, but tearful, grief-stricken victims and their family members who attended the sentencing — many wearing yellow to symbolize their hopes for healing and closure — insisted that’s not long enough. They and prosecutors hoped Fata would get up to 175 years.

… Fata’s conspiracy ensnared several hundred patients across Metro Detroit. He was accused of giving cancer patients overly aggressive doses of chemotherapy while treating others with the powerful drug for cancers they did not have.

The once sought-after oncologist was silent during sentencing hearings this week, refusing to glance at his victims as they recounted how he deceived them and left them with chronic pain and suffering. Friday, his stoicism crumbled as he pleaded, with tears in his eyes, for leniency.

“I stand before you ashamed of my actions … it all went wrong,” Fata said. “I cannot bring back the past. My quest for power is self-destructive.

“I pray for redemption … I ask the court for mercy,” Fata said. “They (patients) came to me seeking compassion and care … I failed them.”


YouTube Preview Image YouTube Preview Image YouTube Preview Image

Like Patheos Catholic on Facebook!


What Causes Homosexuality?

A recent discussion in one of this blog’s comboxes veered off into the old nature-or-nurture/chicken-or-egg question about homosexuality.

The question: Is same-sex attraction the result of the individual’s genetic make-up, or it is the result of the environment in which they were raised?

Based entirely on a crude anthropology, I would guess that there must be a genetic component to homosexuality. Why else would same-sex attraction show up in most, if not all, societies and epochs of recorded history? The ways in which children are raised vary quite a bit from one time in history — and one culture or society — to the next.

So far as I know there is no way of ascertaining if certain cultures or methods of child-rearing have historically resulted in a higher proportion of homosexuals among their citizens. But it does seem — again, this is crude anthropology — to be pretty much ubiquitous.

That raises the question: Is there a “gay” gene somewhere on our chromosomes, like the brca genes that predispose people to breast cancer? The answer, at least for now, is that no one knows.

What we do know is — like my “anthropological” assessment — guesswork based on derivation. Perhaps the most interesting guesswork in this field comes from the so-called “twin studies.”

When I did a quick google, I found that there is more than one study attempting to correlate same-sex attraction with heredity by looking at identical/fraternal/non-twins . It turns out that these studies seem to indicate that there may be a genetic component in same-sex attraction, but it does not appear to be definitive.

Of course, there’s no way to know what this genetic component might be. Is it one gene, or two, or a combination of genes? It’s possible, say, that identical twins who are both homosexual might have inherited a combination of genes that made this outcome certain for them, while other pairs of identical twins where one is homosexual and the other is not might only have inherited one or two genes of this same combination, thus injecting the factor of environment into their sexual fates.

On the other hand, it made be that there is a set of inheritable factors that predispose a person toward homosexuality, but that same sex attraction develops only when this genetic make-up coincides with an environment that pushes the individual in this direction.

Another factor that some of the scientists who did these studies have raised is the environment in the womb. How did the hormonal input to the baby from the mother affect its development? Perhaps the “environment” in question is not so much psycho-social as it is biological.

All this is to say that we don’t know what conditions or factors lead people to experience same-sex attraction as a definitive sexual orientation.

I have seen, based entirely on being around gay men, that there are individuals who, though they experience same-sex attraction and define themselves (at least internally) as homosexual, are quite capable of functioning sexually as heterosexuals. They can and do marry women and hide their homosexuality. On the other hand, I have known gay men who simply could not do this. Their same-sex attraction was so profound that it precluded them even attempting to marry and “pass” as heterosexual.

I only mention this because it raises, at least to me, the thought that same-sex attraction may not be an all or nothing orientation for many people. It may, in fact, be more a matter of degree, at least for some.

None of the things I’ve mentioned here affect the arguments for preserving traditional marriage. I don’t see supporting traditional marriage as a denial of either the reality or the humanity of gay people.

It is just simply that men and women together are the people who create other people. No matter how much sympathy I have for gay people, no matter how completely I agree with many of their concerns, the fact is that homosexual unions are sterile. They do not make other people.

I am well aware that many homosexuals have resorted to manipulations of biology to have children. But these manipulations lead directly to the exploitation and commodification of both women and human life. They are, in themselves, misogynistic and evil.

Gay sex does not make people. Traditional marriage between a man and woman produces children and is the best cradle for nurturing those children to responsible and productive adults who can have children of their own and nurture them. Redefining marriage in strictly social terms that ignore this basic function of marriage is destructive to society as a whole. I am certain that gay marriage is the road to nowhere for our society.

On the other hand, I am equally certain that homosexuality is a fact of human existence. I do not think that we can set aside the reality of homosexuality, or the just claims for civil and human rights of gay people.

You can find one of the studies Gay is Not All in the Genes which was published in Science in 2008. I chose it because of the reputation of the publication and its relatively recent origin. There are many other studies out there, if you want to look.

Like Patheos Catholic on Facebook!