A lawyer's perspective

[KateM234]

As a previous law student and someone who worked in the health insurance industry for many years, I feel like the two worlds are almost completely intertwined. Politics change the way health care operates on such a frequent basis it's a wonder that everyone can keep up! I enjoyed the legal perspective given to the conversation not only because this is an area of which I have some experience, but because in reality I don't think you can have a true conversation about healthcare without understanding the legal involvements around it and for those who weren't aware of those legal implications this novel can be very enlightening!

[Rangerkay]

I think having a lawyer's perspective can be very helpful when reading a book that discusses this. While they are persuasive (it's their job), I also feel like they can peer behind the mask and understand the legal issues more than untrained eyes can. More than one perspective is great when discussing the differences between natural and synthetic processes to cure cancer. Is it a trap to keep us sick and dependent on our government for medical assistance or is it our country working to better our lives against a disease no one fully understands?

[Cristina Chifane]

A lawyer's perspective could only shed more light on how difficult it is to make alternative means of treatment available to the general public. My personal opinion is that it is nothing more degrading than playing with people's health and hopes to get better just to make profit, as the big pharmaceutical companies do.

[KSaxer]

Knowing the explanation of the chemistry behind the supplements and how they worked came from a non-scientist affected my perspective. I honestly was glad her father had a lawyer for a daughter so she would know her legal options for fighting for his wish. I would be able to recognize it wasn't right, but not necessarily know the next steps or even the right person to go to get help.

[BelleReadsNietzsche]

Anyone can write a book on any topic. One of the first things I do when reading a book, especially nonfiction, is find out about the author. What are their qualifications? What are their biases? I’m this instance, we have an author who studied law, not medicine. She has a bias against the government, who tried to discredit her father. She has a bias against traditional medicine, again because of what happened to her father. When I read the book with these things in mind, it gives me a different outlook. It’s important to try to get a full picture, and I think this could be considered one part of the puzzle, but I certainly don’t think it’s the authority on every case of cancer and the associated “cures.”

I too find this compelling. I don't think that having a scientist father makes you credible as a scientist, and I am sure there are some who would find her father's science to be poorly done or to have flaws that are not necessarily obvious to a non-scientist reader (or to the non-scientist daughter who loves her father). It may be that elements of her father's research that we as readers are unaware of contributed to the government crackdown against his research for more valid reasons than are painted here.

That's not to disagree that there aren't shady aspects to big pharma, imperfect issues with government regulation and health, or that legal perspectives aren't useful in understanding the health industry. But I'm not 100% persuaded by this author's credentials nor do I think its necessarily her place to be prescribing healthcare protocols...

[Bluebird03]

I agree that a lawyer's perspective is warranted. It adds another voice and layer of interest to the book or storyline.

[a9436]

I would like to say that a lawyer will always have a critical eye on things, and look at the tiny details, which is vital when considering the pharmaceutical industry. However, I may be being very naiive here!

[Zora C Penter]

I would like to say that a lawyer will always have a critical eye on things, and look at the tiny details, which is vital when considering the pharmaceutical industry. However, I may be being very naiive here!

I wouldn't say naive. You make a good point! The war on cancer is also an interdisciplinary issue and will need interdisciplinary solutions.

[NuelUkah]

Sylvie Beljanski sued the French government for arresting her father, shortly after his lab was seized and he was arrested. Sylvie also worked to patent the name of the Beljanski Foundation. Sylvie also wrote about how pharmaceutical companies are threatened by natural extracts, because they cannot be legally patented like a synthetic drug. It was clear that Sylvie brought a legal perspective into the conversation of natural cures for cancer. What was your opinion reading about natural cures for cancer through the voice of a lawyer? Do you think that Sylvie's perspective as a lawyer helped enhance the story behind the Beljanski Foundation and Mr. Beljanski's work? Do we need a legal perspective when we are looking at the history of natural cures for cancer? Why or why not?

Reading about natural cures from the perspective of a lawyer enhanced the story. And Sylvie did the right thing to go legal about it. That gives her work credibility. No one doing something illegal won't dare confront the powers that be. It really enhance the story behind the Beljanski Foundation and Mr. Beljanski's work. And we really need a legal perspective when we are looking at the history of natural cures for cancer because people are desperate, anybody could bring up some concoctions and introduce them to the people. The legal perspective educates the people on which cures to trust.

[Tester013]

I believe the lawyer's perspective added much to the discussion. Often times, the headlines we see on cancer research stem from medical advances and the struggles of familes like Sylvie are less often seen. The legal perspective here offers fresh insights into the world of cancer cures which I think greatly enhances the value of the book.

[Morgan Jones]

A legal perspective was very necessary for this book given that it added that realistic touch. Especially when Sylvie went to court and fought for her claims.

[elivia05]

Yes we need a legal perspective when we're looking at the history of natural cures for cancer. It would give it a legal voice in the society.

I completely agree!

[labibliofile]

I believe a lawyer's perspective has only added value, most of the times, despite being related a lawyer would tend to remain neutral and will definitely observe and analyze more than what others could on the basis of facts and past experiences.

[Ms_Bookworm]

I agree with many who have already responded to this post. I think that the author's experiences as a lawyer definitely give another perspective to her argument, and not necessarily to positive effect. As someone who did not wholly agree with the author on all points, I feel that her bias keeps her from exploring all counterpoints.

[DC Brown]

I read this when it was the book of the month. A couple of months have passed. Interestingly, when I live medical marijuana is available. It is a patented pill that only one company is producing. If that company could patent their extract why couldn't Sylvie? She has a specialized process also. Was it just the clinical trials that were missing? And why were they missing exactly?