By Edgar Kieu
With reference to an article on MyPaper on Friday:
Dear Mr. Nanayakara,
I object to your insinuations in your article dated July 11 2008, especially your paragraph, quoted below:
“Mercury, which by itself is a highly poisonous metal, makes up almost half of an amalgam filling, which also contains silver and a small amount of copper and tin. When introduced to the body via such amalgams, mercury can have neurotoxic effects on growing children and foetuses.”
This is a very damning and highly scientifically inaccurate statement to make.
Two very good studies published in the Journal of the American Medical Association have shown no neuropsychological, renal or neurobehavioural effects of dental amalgam in children. Moreover, elemental mercury itself has a different toxicity profile in the form of vapour, liquid or as part of a restoration.
Neuropsychological and Renal Effects of Dental Amalgam in Children, A Randomized Clinical Trial JAMA.2006;295:1775-1783. David C. Bellinger, PhD, MSc; Felicia Trachtenberg, PhD; Lars Barregard, MD, PhD;Mary Tavares, DMD, MPH; Elsa Cernichiari, MS; David Daniel, PhD; Sonja McKinlay, PhD
Neurobehavioral Effects of Dental Amalgam in Children, A Randomized Clinical Trial JAMA.2006;295:1784-1792. Timothy A. DeRouen, PhD; Michael D. Martin, DMD, PhD; Brian G. Leroux, PhD;Brenda D. Townes, PhD; James S. Woods, PhD, MPH; Jorge Leitão, MD, MS;Alexandre Castro-Caldas, MD, PhD; Henrique Luis, MS; Mario Bernardo, DMD, PhD; Gail Rosenbaum, MS;Isabel P. Martins, MD, PhD
Your article is unduly alarmist, badly researched, irresponsible and potentially misleading to dental patients.
There are many indications to use other types of restorative materials such as composites, glass ionomers or ceramics but there are still very good reasons to use dental amalgams.
It is indeed disappointing and sad that a newspaper such as yours with a broad public reach would have such poorly researched information thinly veiled as news.
I look forward to either an explaination, retraction or clarification of your article, preferably quoting good research to substantiate your claims.
Kind regards,
Edgar Kieu
Showing posts with label news. Show all posts
Showing posts with label news. Show all posts
Saturday, July 12, 2008
It Still Isn't An Exorcism, Stupid
By Angry Doc
More on the "exorcism" trial.
(emphasis mine)
Lawyer questions priest’s logic
Plaintiff’s lawyer accuses priest in Novena trial of evading question
Ansley Ng
IF A political party held a rally without a police permit and were quizzed about it, would the party be right to argue no rally had taken place because no permit was issued?
That was the analogy lawyer R S Bajwa made to explain that a “prayer session” two Catholic priests had carried out for his client Amutha Valli Krishnan four years ago was a violent exorcism rite that lacked authorisation from the archbishop and the church.
Calling the hypothetical reasoning “stupid”, the lawyer added: “I said you did all these acts; you said no. I asked why; you said you did not get permission from the bishop.”
Father Jacob Ong, the priest in the witness box on Friday, reiterated what another priest, Father Simon Tan, had said earlier — that no exorcism was carried out on Madam Amutha Valli. “The whole package must be followed. It cannot be set as an exorcism,” Father Ong said.
For an exorcism to be performed, the archbishop — the faith’s head in Singapore — has to give permission and appoint a priest to carry out the rites. An investigation also has to be carried out before the ritual.
Father Ong is among nine parties being sued by Mdm Amutha Valli over an alleged botched exorcism attempt at the Novena hurch in 2004. She claims the incident left her traumatised and unable to work.
“It doesn’t help you,” Mr Bajwa said in reply to Father Ong. “The substance is what we are interested in, not the form.”
As Mdm Amutha Valli — who at times spoke in a voice that sounded like a low male voice — struggled harder during the alleged exorcism, the group prayed harder, the lawyer said. At one “momentous” point in time, Father Tan “engaged” the spirit by talking to it, said Mr Bajwa.
Using the same line of questioning he served on Father Tan, the lawyer asserted that Father Ong and his co-defendants had pinned Mdm Amutha Valli onto the floor in a room at the church and strangled her, thinking she had been possessed.
Father Ong disagreed, saying the group merely held a “gentle” prayer session to “protect” her even as the 52-year-old woman was screaming and writhing on the floor.
Mr Bajwa also asked the priest if he had seen people who had been possessed. The priest said he had seen instances where people displayed signs of possession and cited four examples, including people who spoke in voices that don’t sound like their own while trembling.
“Would you agree that the signs displayed by the plaintiff were more severe than these examples?” asked Mr Bajwa.
The priest replied he could not tell, prompting the lawyer to accuse him of avoiding the question.
The hearing continues on Monday
At least now someone has stated the obvious: it doesn't matter whether it was an exorcism or a "prayer of deliverance" - what matters is what happened and whether what happened caused the plaintiff to become ill. (Then again, maybe even that will not matter if the defendants can prove that the plaintiff is not actually ill.)
angry doc wonders if the persons involved in the trial would have spent so much time over terminology if one of the parties involved was not a religious organisation with an organised belief system on the existence of spirits and demons, possession by such entities, and on how to cast them out. Had the trial involved alleged alien mind-control and an attempt to break the control, the judge would perhaps not have been so indulgent.
The priests seem to be caught in a no-win situaion. To prove that they did nothing wrong, they need to show that what they did for the plaintiff was appropriate, and that means proving possession by spirit or demon, something which they cannot do. On the other hand, their argument is that the plaintiff is actually faking her illness, which if they manage to prove, will mean admission that their assessment of her condition on that day was wrong, and that the subsequent intervention (be it an exorcism or a "prayer of deliverance") was also wrong.
More on the "exorcism" trial.
(emphasis mine)
Lawyer questions priest’s logic
Plaintiff’s lawyer accuses priest in Novena trial of evading question
Ansley Ng
IF A political party held a rally without a police permit and were quizzed about it, would the party be right to argue no rally had taken place because no permit was issued?
That was the analogy lawyer R S Bajwa made to explain that a “prayer session” two Catholic priests had carried out for his client Amutha Valli Krishnan four years ago was a violent exorcism rite that lacked authorisation from the archbishop and the church.
Calling the hypothetical reasoning “stupid”, the lawyer added: “I said you did all these acts; you said no. I asked why; you said you did not get permission from the bishop.”
Father Jacob Ong, the priest in the witness box on Friday, reiterated what another priest, Father Simon Tan, had said earlier — that no exorcism was carried out on Madam Amutha Valli. “The whole package must be followed. It cannot be set as an exorcism,” Father Ong said.
For an exorcism to be performed, the archbishop — the faith’s head in Singapore — has to give permission and appoint a priest to carry out the rites. An investigation also has to be carried out before the ritual.
Father Ong is among nine parties being sued by Mdm Amutha Valli over an alleged botched exorcism attempt at the Novena hurch in 2004. She claims the incident left her traumatised and unable to work.
“It doesn’t help you,” Mr Bajwa said in reply to Father Ong. “The substance is what we are interested in, not the form.”
As Mdm Amutha Valli — who at times spoke in a voice that sounded like a low male voice — struggled harder during the alleged exorcism, the group prayed harder, the lawyer said. At one “momentous” point in time, Father Tan “engaged” the spirit by talking to it, said Mr Bajwa.
Using the same line of questioning he served on Father Tan, the lawyer asserted that Father Ong and his co-defendants had pinned Mdm Amutha Valli onto the floor in a room at the church and strangled her, thinking she had been possessed.
Father Ong disagreed, saying the group merely held a “gentle” prayer session to “protect” her even as the 52-year-old woman was screaming and writhing on the floor.
Mr Bajwa also asked the priest if he had seen people who had been possessed. The priest said he had seen instances where people displayed signs of possession and cited four examples, including people who spoke in voices that don’t sound like their own while trembling.
“Would you agree that the signs displayed by the plaintiff were more severe than these examples?” asked Mr Bajwa.
The priest replied he could not tell, prompting the lawyer to accuse him of avoiding the question.
The hearing continues on Monday
At least now someone has stated the obvious: it doesn't matter whether it was an exorcism or a "prayer of deliverance" - what matters is what happened and whether what happened caused the plaintiff to become ill. (Then again, maybe even that will not matter if the defendants can prove that the plaintiff is not actually ill.)
angry doc wonders if the persons involved in the trial would have spent so much time over terminology if one of the parties involved was not a religious organisation with an organised belief system on the existence of spirits and demons, possession by such entities, and on how to cast them out. Had the trial involved alleged alien mind-control and an attempt to break the control, the judge would perhaps not have been so indulgent.
The priests seem to be caught in a no-win situaion. To prove that they did nothing wrong, they need to show that what they did for the plaintiff was appropriate, and that means proving possession by spirit or demon, something which they cannot do. On the other hand, their argument is that the plaintiff is actually faking her illness, which if they manage to prove, will mean admission that their assessment of her condition on that day was wrong, and that the subsequent intervention (be it an exorcism or a "prayer of deliverance") was also wrong.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
It's Not An Exorcism, Stupid
By Angry Doc
More on the court case which we first looked at almost a year ago:
Was it exorcism?
Priest denies accusation, says it was salvation
Leong Wee Keat
IN THE witness box, he sang hymns and showed how she had apparently slithered like a snake.
Yesterday, one of the two priests accused of performing a forced exorcism at the Novena Church about four years ago — gave his version of what transpired — the first time the High Court was hearing the defence’s story.
Father Simon Tan denied that the incident on Aug 10, 2004, was an exorcism. Instead, he called it a prayer of deliverance for plaintiff Amutha Valli Krishnan.
Cross-examined by her lawyer, Mr R S Bajwa, Father Tan also said the archbishop’s permission must be sought and a thorough investigation conducted before any exorcism could be carried out.
While he did not think she was crazy, what this Catholic priest saw that night was definitely “not usual behaviour”. Father Tan, 44, claimed it “never occurred to him” that Madam Amutha Valli was possessed or was a mental patient, and that he was “just answering the family’s request to pray over her”.
Father Tan is among nine parties — including the church, Father Jacob Ong and six church helpers — being sued by Mdm Amutha Valli over an alleged forced exorcism attempt. She claims the incident left her traumatised and unable to work.
Father Tan, who was ordained in 1998, testified that exorcism is “hardly practised” and has “never heard” of it in his ministry.
But, Mr Bajwa asked: Couldn’t the priest have stopped the prayer session as Mdm Amutha Valli was strangling herself and assuming the voice of a dead soldier?
Father Tan said he did not understand why she had manifested violent behaviour, but there were at least three occasions she snapped out of her trance.
Her family had brought her to the church to be prayed over so that she could get some comfort, added the priest.
While he did not advise the family of any risks involved, Father Tan disagreed with Mr Bajwa’s question if “safeguards” should have been in place. The priest said there were cancer sufferers, for example, who turned to the church and religion for prayers and comfort.
But wouldn’t he stop to think if a devotee had prior medical history?
Father Tan disagreed, saying the incident arose from “a simple request from her family to pray”.
He added: “If I start using my mind, be self-conscious of the risks, a lot of Catholics would suffer. I would become neurotic if I’m afraid of being sued.”
The hearing continues.
angry doc wonders if the presiding judge even cares whether what happened on the day was an exorcism or a "prayer of deliverance"; what matters more would be what exactly did the priests and other church staff do for or to the plaintiff that day, and whether those things led to the illness that the plaintiff claims to be suffering from.
Whether it was an exorcism (which it technically was not) or a "prayer of deliverance", there is probably no doubt in anyone's mind that Father Tan acted out of good faith and in good faith (and had assumed the same of the plaintiff that day!). However, under the law (the Penal Code to be precise, which presumably does not strictly apply to this case), "[n]othing is said to be done or believed in good faith which is done or believed without due care and attention".
What that means, angry doc believes, is that while the law recognises that we may help someone in need with good intentions, the person being helped may sometimes actually suffer harm from our intervention. The law seeks to protect those whom we help by requiring that the person rendering the help has good reasons to believe that his actions will help that person, and at the same time not cause harm to that person.
So does Father Tan have good reasons to believe that a "prayer of deliverance" was the correct thing to administer to the plaintiff for the state which she was in on that day?
Of course, to even decide whether or not a "prayer of deliverance" was the right thing to administer, one would have had to decide what the plaintiff was suffering from.
It seems that the Father had provisionally excluded "possession" and "mental illness", and that working diagnosis was "not usual behaviour".
Was that a reasonable conclusion to make?
Is a "prayer of deliverance" a reasonable intervention for "not usual behaviour"? How often does it work? What are the risks and benefits of a "prayer of deliverance" for "not usual behaviour"? Surely that is relevant, because the plaintiff is claiming that she suffered harm from the process.
Unfortunately it doesn't seem that the lawyers pursued that line of questioning. angry doc doubts that if the lawyers had asked Father Tan those questions he would have been able to answer with figures and statistics, because it is likely that those questions never crossed the good Father's mind - or as Father Tan put it himself:
“If I start using my mind, be self-conscious of the risks, a lot of Catholics would suffer. I would become neurotic if I’m afraid of being sued.”
Poor Father Tan. Maybe that was the problem to begin with.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
