Scientology News from an Independent Perspective
>What better proof is there that the CoS is NOT against people getting the necessary medication to deal with their seizures?<How about the fact that the CCHR website list Depakote as a "pysch" drug, which they (and by extension, the church they front for) are against?It's an anti-seizure medication.The Scis are trying to dig their way out of this mess by claiming they're only against pysch meds and not real meds. Apologists such as yourself are splitting hairs to claim L. Ron espoused real medicine and not quackery.Wrong. L. Ron wasn't a doctor. Hell, he wasn't even a very good sci fi writer.Oh, and by the way, your blog sucks.That is all.
Actually Depakote is not an anti-seizure medication per se. Seizure is only one of three FDA-approved "indications" for Depakote. The other two are migraine and bipolar disorder (to control the manic episodes). I think it is false to claim that the Scis are claiming they are only against psych meds and not real meds. They seem to say that even a psych med would be acceptable if used for medical reason and if this is what the doctor feels is what is required.By all means, as I wrote, the best proof that the CoS is not against anti-seizure medication, even if these are also considered psych drugs, is the story of Magoo itself. For 30 years she was allowed online and on staff, going all the way up to OT7 while on her medications. Orders by unqualified staff that she quit these were over-turned by higher authorities, including LRH himself!So, whatever hair splitting arguments critics may come up with, it seems quite sure that the CoS indeed, just as it says, does not disapprove of people taking their anti-seizure medications.
I think it's pretty simple. Either COS is against people taking the specific drugs they've designated as "psych" meds or they're not.LRH allowing Tory to take her medications does not equal policy. LRH's clear and specific statements on the subject do. So I would interpret his stance on her situation as allowing for an exception to the rule.We do know that LRH was fond of allowing exceptions such as these, since his autopsy revealed the presence of the psych medicine Vistaril.There's also the question of why Tory would need medication at OT level 7, since, presumably being at total cause over MEST by this point, she wouldn't need it.Since LRH knew this to be complete quackery, of course he would logically allow her to take meds for her condition.All this shows is that COS has no business trying to tell people which meds they should and shouldn't take.
"LRH allowing Tory to take her medications does not equal policy."But, being the founder of Scientology, it certainly is very significant.The fact that she was allowed to go online and take her medication at the same time for 30 years is certainly very significant as well.I have also read quite a few other examples.According to Tory's affidavit, if we believe any of it, there also seems to be a C/S bulletin that addresses the question:"and they wrote a Senior C/S International bulletin, and I'm the first example. It basically says if someone has tried to get off of medication and they cannot, and they have an OK from their Doctor, they should not be stopped from getting auditing.""LRH's clear and specific statements on the subject do. "Reference?
Reference his April 1972 lecture given Flag Dianetics Auditors which can be found here (along with some other quotes on epilepsy):http://www.omgili.com/newsgroups/alt/religion/scientology/ea8786d0-60c1-4cc0-a774-c7f11aa95edcz28g2000prdgooglegroupscom.htmlHe dismisses epilepsy drugs as "just" being tranquilizers and says that auditors would need to get their subjects off the drug.
And you call this a policy? These are just comments in a lecture. Not every words Hubbard ever said count as policy.Besides, I don't see that it really said anything one way or the other. It didn't say "you must tell him to come off drugs", it said, "And then you come along as an auditor and you try to audit the pc and you tell the pc that he'll have to go off that drug". That's a comment about what another person might do, not a directive of what action to take.The fact that he actually and effectively, if we believe Magoo, told her to continue up the bridge while taking her medication is considerably more significant than the interpretation made of that lecture.
Post a Comment