 |
 |
Marco wrote: > How did you arrive at such a conclusion? Who's to say your husband would > even had had PD and died in his 38th year? My husband would have died of appendicitis - he never would have gotten PD. A hundred years ago, there were no antibiotics to deal with a ruptured appendix - people just died. > Who's to say the rest of you would have had a serious illness. -------------- The rest of us would have died in childbirth, or would have never been born because of a difficult or early birth. One hundred years ago, the major cause of death in women was childbirth. -------------- > It is true that Science and Technology will develop the answers but it is > also true that they are responsible for many of the causes too. ----------- Agreed. Bleeding a person was a medical practice that caused many deaths. Insisting that women should be on hormone replacement therapy over the past 50 years is another example of how medical practice can cause harm. Doctors aren't always as careful as they should be in accepting 'common medical practices.' > > You say'humankind' is fighting(my word) mother nature with science. -------------- I said that science has 'intervened' in halting death in the face of genetic weaknesses. Diabetes and Cystic Fibrosis are excellent examples of that. I never suggested that science can or should 'control' nature. That is certainly an illusion. -------- God bless Mary Ann (CG Jamie 66/26 with PD) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn