to all GN's living in France 4 year old boy missing

Is any religion a rational belief if you really think about it?

Could be ja! You never know!

The only rational belief would be that a religion exists for the purpose of imposing control, by fear of retribution and hope for an unlikely 'afterlife'...

No, they are not rational Rosequartz, they are based on faith, but that does not mean that people who hold those beliefs sincerely are not capable of rational thought, which is why I thought it would have been better if Joan Smith had not made those references to the Kings being JWs.

However, I do agree with her that if someone holds a patently absurd belief that is shared by very few others, religious or not, then that must cast some doubt about their ability to make rational decisions.

That must put the whole of social change in the realms of irrationality, jane. Women's rights were considered patently absurd in the 1800s. Very few women even wanted those rights. It tended to be only the wealthy who wanted divorce, or could even afford it. Did that make it absurd or irrational?

Social change which evolves over decades is not at all the same thing as the clinical decision-making process for a single patient, jen.
But if you must persist in the analogy, perhaps the use of leeches in the 18th century would be a better comparison.

What do you mean, Jane? Was the use of leeches irrational? What do you mean, if you must persist in the analogy? I've only mentioned it once. Hardly persisting.
When I was in the Freeman hospital last year, the woman in the next bed to me had maggots to treat her leg. The doctors would do a ward round at breakfast and discuss her treatment in loud voices. She used to have terrible nightmares, even during the day, and was often screaming.

In the news today is a report that cancer services have been weakened by the NHS revamp. I wonder if that could have any bearing on what happenned in the Southampton case. The amount of money spent on cancer has been reduced by 0.2 billion pounds while the number of people being investigated has risen by 50% since 2009-10.

Leeches still have a useful role today. My father successfully used them on a bride the night before her wedding to reduce the swelling of her eye. Caused by grooms fist in a premarital tiff

And she still married him?

ja However, I do agree with her that if someone holds a patently absurd belief that is shared by very few others, religious or not, then that must cast some doubt about their ability to make rational decisions.

How do we know that they are not right and the rest of us wrong? We won't know until we die. Just because we think it is patently absurd does not mean that it could not be true.
A sect is called that until it grows and becomes a mainstream religion, then when it becomes huge beliefs begin to diverge and 'sects' begin again under that umbrella.

Do you mean like Christianity was for centuries, rose?

Precisely djen. It was a Jewish sect for a long time.

I heard a doctor from Southampton state that the 'gold standard treatment' was being offered for this little boy.

Gold standard treatment is not always the best and not usually cutting edge. I have had 'gold standard treatment' which was changed to a newer treatment by a consultant who presumably went against the NHS protocol to do so.

rosequartz I do not think the end of the world is imminent. I think that most people don't think the end of the world is imminent. That sort of thing, not mainstream religious belief, is what I meant by a patently absurd belief.

As far as gold standard vs cutting edge is concerned, perhaps you would like to define the two. I would suggest that 'gold standard' has a solid evidence-base behind it, whereas cutting edge has some evidence, but not enough to make it 'gold standard'.
It follows that it is logical to try gold standard first, if there is more evidence to support its use. As soon as cutting edge has enough evidence to confirm its efficacy is equal to gold standard, it becomes gold standard and stops being cutting edge. Or, alternatively, the evidence shows that after all it is not as effective as the current gold standard, and it falls from use.

jen I meant that in the 18th century, leeches were in common use for numerous medical conditions, even though they were of no proven value. Now their use is largely discontinued, but as Galen has pointed out, there remain a few indications.
In the same way, as you say, Women's Rights was considered a completely barmy concept in the 18th century. Nowadays, in this country at any rate, far fewer people take that view.
My point was that it takes decades, or centuries, for opinion to change from unacceptable to acceptable and vice versa.

ja My view, which is not a definition and my opinion only, is that gold standard is the tried and tested treatment used by health services and known to work in the main on many patients, but perhaps with unpleasant side effects.
Perhaps 'cutting edge' was not the exact term I meant to use; rather the term 'the newer treatments'. I would define these as treatments which are the result of years of research, have passed rigorous clinical trials with excellent results, have fewer side effects, but are not available because NICE has not passed them, or the LHA has deemed that they are too expensive.

Rose I don't quite agree with your definition, but I certainly think it would be nice (pun intended) to know exactly how many, and which, therapies are currently banned or restricted by the NICE guidelines. Personally I have no idea.

NICE do not ban anything (pedantic) They produce guidance based on current research on the efficacy of a treatment vs cost.

I accept that, pen, nevertheless it is hard for doctors to go against guidelines without being accused of malpractice in the event of an unfavourable outcome for the patient, or financial repercussions for the practice if they are seen as outliers in their prescribing profiles.
Guidelines too quickly become rules.

Guidance? Why then are consultants not allowed to prescribe breakthrough treatments which they know from trials on their own patients work better than anything before, because NICE says no?
NICE have had to do a U turn on at least one occasion that I know about because of an outcry from consultants, patients' groups and patients.

Money rose money! If medicine A costs £20 and will definitely cure 100 people and medicine B costs £20 and might cure 1 and you only have £20 what do you do?? You have to provide guidelines to help the front line workers make the decisions.

We have all come to expect cures /medicines etc. for everything and rightly or wrongly have become more demanding, health wise, as a society.

That is the difficulty, the catch 22 with the NHS. It is an excellent principle, medical care free at the point of delivery & I support that NHS principle to the hilt but how to preserve it I don't know!

Medical technology/science /pharmaceuticals has developed so many treatments and is big business and that costs money!

You are right. It is the research that costs the money and they need to recoup that and more to fund further research.

However, if the expensive drug keeps people alive and in reasonable health for longer, they will need less hospital treatment and could go back to work if they are able, which costs the State less in the long run.

There are very few brilliant new drugs these days. Much of the argument about expensive new ones centres on ones that do not cure but keep people with specific diseases alive for a little longer. The drug companies have to demonstrate not that they have an effect but they are measurably better than the current best treatment i.e. the gold standard. They tend to recruit charities to help them promote their new treatment. there was something on the radio last week about this - big donations made to various health charities but in return the charities end up campaigning that everyone should have access to the latest expensive, and maybe only marginally better, drug.
It's important that there is a research-based "gold standard" in diseases like cancer. Otherwise we would be back to a situation where each consultant had their pet ideas about what worked e.g. what kind of combination of chemotherapy and radiotherapy works best on a specific cancer.
Lord Saatchi is trying to push a bill through parliament (the equivalent of a private members bill in the Lords) that will give carte blanche to doctors who want to deviate from the gold standard and try anything that takes their fancy. There are grave fears that this will be (quite literally) a get out of jail free card for doctors who deviate irresponsibly from tried and tested profiles. And quacks working privately.

I'm hoping there are or there will be sufficient safeguards against quacks Jess as I can see many good things in the Saatchi bill. I signed up for those email updates following it's progress.

Short article about the Saatchi bill, by Lord Saatchi.
www.telegraph.co.uk/health/11054104/If-it-works-for-Ebola-it-can-work-for-cancer.html

I can't read that article because I have reached the end of my "20 free articles a month". And I'm not paying £5. Hate the Telegraph. And not for it's content.