Tragedy and Conflict Between Medicine and Scientology in the Death of Jett Travolta

Millions and millions of people, both in America and across the globe, love John Travolta, myself included.

Despite what some view to be shortcomings of other people's beliefs that we differ with; I think it is highly distasteful to discuss this matter at all.

The Travolta family is suffering tremendously. We should remember that in our foremost thoughts and send them all the good energy we can right now so that they can overcome their awful grief.

Lay down the discussions about whether or not this or that religious practice comports to our sensitivities. It is a matter that one does not discuss at times like these.

If we are EVER to progress in our understanding of each other's side in this and other religious differences, we must desist from bringing up the arguments while one party or the other is grieving.

Lastly, for those who don't get my point: Talking about Scientology and it's merits at a time like this is just like entering a hospital room, finding a car accident patient in traction and KICKING him out of bed and stomping on him. NOT COOL.

I am not a religious person. With that said, I have to say that I am sort of angered at the finger pointing towards the Church of Scientology and even towards the Travolta's for "causing Jett's death". I realize that that church has some strong opinions which some disagree about - myself included. I don't know what role the church may have played in the death of Jett, if any. However, the church and it's values obviously are important to the Travolta family. With that said, I think we should off back off, respect their grief and stop passing judgment on their beliefs. Our forefathers made Freedom of Religion one of the keystones when forming this nation. We may not agree with the beliefs of all religions, but we should at least respect those who choose to follow them - as difficult as it may be.

I'm sorry it takes a tragegy to highight the conflict between Scientology and medicine but I'm glad someone, a doctor, has the compassion and courage to comment on this. As he/she says, perhaps another death will be prevented.

Just an FYI, I read (and where I can't recall) that the Travlotas took Jett off the meds because they were not working any longer. He was still having seizures, and the side effects were such that they thought he was better off without ineffective meds. Who knows, perhaps they were in the process of finding a different one. We do not know. We cannot judge... I am no fan of Scientology; I think it's a cult, and hope that it did not influence the Travolta's thinking on their care of their son. Nonetheless, they are all hurting, and we don't know the whole story, so we should not judge. We should simply hope they find peace and comfort.

How people can debase themselves by pledging allegiance to some silly twaddle posing as a "philosophy", and purported to be "divinely" inspired.? It's bad enough that ADULTS follow a credo with no more grounding in reality than Bugs Bunny. It's doubly so when they shove this crap down their children's throats, or allow their delusions to affect their children, even unto death. That's where the state has to step in to interdict potentially harmful actions on parents' parts or PUNISH them after the fact.

If your car breaks down, you proceed to the mechanic, not church. If your body or mind breaks down, you proceed to the MD, not the clergy, period, end of statement.

Many years ago I had to work with a scientologist. After several months of bugging me to go to their meetings I finally relented just to get him off my back. Of course I was already familiar with their reputation, since I was living in LA when a reporter there found a rattlesnake in her mailbox after writing an article critical of the "church." I spent two weeks in their "trainings" (forgot what they called them) and found them totally bizarre. First of all, they tried to immediately isolate me from the rest of the world by trying to get me to commit every spare moment there. All I wanted was to get laid a few times. No such luck in that regard, but the movie they played the day I left was quite startling. It was one in which they portrayed a scientologist as your best friend and a psychologist as a rat torturer, literally. The bad guy/psychologist was covered in blood at the end. I looked around and all the other people who would appear totally normal on the street were nodding their heads in robotic approval. It was a very strange scene. I didn't realize how weak the human mind was until then. I bet some of those people would have committed the Manson murders if told to do so. These days those same mental weaknesses are exploited all the time in the guise of "fighting terrorism there instead of here" or that friggin bailout package for the multinational banking interests.

The interesting thing about L. Ron Hubbard is that he was diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic by several psychiatrists. He was extremely paranoid and was an extremely violent man. In the last years of his life he was a raving lunatic and was on heavy psychotropic medications. He was kept out of the public eye. His stance on psychiatry was an expression of his denial about his own psychiatric illness.

The author claims to be a medical physician but declines to give his name. At this price, I too can claim to be a medical physician, but let's assume that he really is.

Unfortunately, though claiming to be an MD, he does not succeed to substantiate his claim that Jett Travolta's death was "very preventable"

I agree with his assertion that "it is easy to see how an anti-medication culture might develop within Scientology". Obviously, Scientologists, like anybody else, need to have a pragmatic approach to their religion, and I think the Travoltas have beautifully illustrated that pragmatism.

The CoS demonstrated that they have this practical approach too. The best proof that Scientology does not forbid the use of drugs for the treatment of seizure is the affidavit of Tory Christman, that can easily be found by googling - "Tory Christman" affidavit 2003. Though this affidavit was initially made for accusing Scientology of putting people off from their medication, it ends up proving the exact contrary. Christman spent 30 years online and on staff, doing almost the complete Scientology "Bridge", while taking her anti-seizure medicine in full view and knowledge of all. Requests by unqualified staff that she stops taking them have been systematically over-ruled by proper Church of Scientology authorities, and by L. Ron Hubbard himself!

The author is speculating as to what method have been followed to stop medications. We may never know, and the parents have a right to keep whatever medical information private. As for his allegation that he would keep the patient in the hospital, I doubt this is very practical or a common practice. The seizures are only occasional, and what would a teenager who is otherwise healthy, and who loves outdoor activities, do in an hospital all day long for weeks on end just waiting for a seizure to come?

By all means, this is irrelevant to the point the author wants to make about Scientology. What does it have to do with Scientology? We could spend months speculating as to what the parents should have done or not, it does not seem very productive.

The question as to whether Jett's supposed autism was improperly treated as a result of the couple's adherence to Scientology is irrelevant. As an MD, the author should know that there are no treatment able to cure autism, that there are no medicine for it, and that it also is not deadly by itself.

His speculation that if jett did not talk then "it would be highly likely that Jett had autism" does not strike me as very professional either. The process for diagnosing autism is complex and generally requires not just one professional, but often multiple professionals. Almost all of the symptoms of autism which must be established also occur in other, similar disorders, so all these other possible diagnoses need to be eliminated as well. There are also many marginal cases where something could be autism or something else, and it isn't easy to decide even after gathering all appropriate diagnostic information. A diagnosis of autism is something which follows someone for life. No competent medical professional would just look at someone and make a snap diagnosis.

This being said, I agree with the author that the defiance of Scientology practitioners towards psychiatry would preclude them from getting a psychiatry opinion. However, given the fact that there are no medicine for autism, nor test to detect it, I doubt this is very relevant. Treatments are at best aimed to improve the patient quality of life, and in that respect we can safely assume that Jett had the best there could be had on this planet.

I also agree with him that so far the Church of Scientology has failed to explicitly pronounced itself on autism. This may reflect indeed some ambiguity. But again, given the above, it really has no importance. The key point are the seizure, and there was no failing on the Travolta/Preston family to at least acknowledge these.

"Scientology has a reputation for aggressively and personally attacking its critics, which is probably why the major anti-Scientology internet group goes by the name of 'Anonymous.'"

This is false. The group known as Anonymous were already known by that name long before their encounter with Scientology.

"But in examining Jett's story from a medical perspective, it certainly appears that for some reason Jett did not receive the medical care he needed and the results were indeed tragic."

I disagree with the assertion that the author as showed anything the like in this article. He pointed out to the possible lack of medical care a Scientologist may be guilty of for distrust towards drugs that would treat seizure, but it appears the travoltas did use them for Jett. He speculated as to whether these were properly stopped, and we know nothing about that. He engaged in a pop psychological armchair diagnostic of autism when no competent MD would do such a thing, suggesting that treatment of the condition may have avoided the drama, when in fact there is no treatment for the condition as such, and the real problem were the seizures.

I don't see where in the least he engaged in an valid examination of Jett'story from a medical perspective. Quite on the contrary, I have reasons to think that this author is as much a MD as I am the Queen of England, and that he may simply be a Scientology critic just posing as such.

His assertion that "Jett did not receive the medical care he needed and the results were indeed tragic" is completely unwarranted and unproven.

This being said, I must admit the article is well-written and each point is nicely developed. The content, however, appears to be influenced by a strong bias, leading the author to draw unwarranted conclusions based on weak arguments.

Finally:

"Sadly, Jett Travolta may have been the innocent victim of a decades old conflict between the ideas of Scientology and medicine."

This too, the author failed to prove. Simply asserting that Scientologists are cautious towards psychiatrists is hardly enough to prove that point. To date, it has not been proven conclusively that Scientology had anything to do with this tragic event at all.

Hitler, Scientology, and Me - I hate psychiatry too - not all psychiatry - I hate that part of psychiatry that is BS. I hate that part of psychiatry which sometimes causes people to DIE, because of a culture that praises psychiatric drugs. Both Psychiatry and Scientology have their roots in Hypnosis, and they have both turned away from it, deny it, ridicule it, treat it like a parlor trick. Psychiatry with its horrible past, questionable present, and its ever-present do-gooders working insdide the system - no different - just like anything else.

There is good and bad in Psychiatry. There is good and bad in Scientology. Questioning whether to keep taking the pills the psychiatrist says you have to take forever, may be a good thing or a bad thing, for alot of people.

I'll take your word that you are an MD (although in my experience they usually refrain from commenting on patients they haven't examined) but there are a number of factors I'd like to address. It is not only Scientologists who believes people are over medicated. In fact most people knew nothing about the so called church's platform on the subject. I certainly didn't. (Though apparently lethal to their adherents, from what I can tell, they're a relatively small group, albeit a small group of racketeers.) However in recent times they have provided rigidly orthodox practitioners a good platform. For the record, many well educated people I know opt for other treatments as first resorts, before taking conventional pharmaceuticals. You know where many learn about them? From their own board certified, peer reviewed MDs, sometimes affiliated with the best learning institutions. If you want to argue the point, scream at Colombia Presbyterian Hospital. They have a whole acupuncture division-- you know the quack stuff we were warned against when we were kids.... "they've tested it, it doesn't work". Some of their Drs. with private practices stray even further. In fact Drs. in various specialties -- including cardiologists -- are increasingly advising their patients to use those "quack" remedies in lieu of pharmaceuticals and yes in some cases, surgeries. Such is the case with a well-heeled landlord I know and his esteemed Park Avenue specialist. Yeah I know, go after the guy, except after 20 years the landlord is still alive. Go figure. You know who else told me they avoid drugs as their first resort? My local pharmacist, in business for 15 years, and a friend of mine who was a recent grad from St. Johns School of Pharmacy. (btw I nearly lost my life twice on drugs, the 1st time I was on erythromycin.) I got similar advise from a pal who gave radiology exams at Bethesda. And I've another friend who is an ND, a Bastyr grad, and guess who refers many, many patients to her? Physicians from some of the best learning institutions in the east. Go after all of them. It's also interesting to note several posters on HBO's IN TREATMENT boards, were joking that Weston's patients must be rich, because nowadays insurance companies would rather pay for a drug, than pay for therapy because it's cheaper. They were NOT Scientologists who are no doubt more alarmed at the prospect of therapy than they are by drugs. In other words in the Non-Scientology/Rabidly-Anti-Scientology universe, it's widely considered a poor man's replacement for therapy; hack healing. At least in many cases, tho certainly NOT all. But hey, what do patients know? Ad I understand it, in this case Depakote was used for the boy's seizure, NOT mood disorder, unless you know otherwise. So that doesn't sound directly relevant. If it's not and you want to attack the church's stand on mood disorders, don't use this kids misfortune to do it. If people were concerned about his believed undiagnosed Autism, the time to voice concern was when he was alive. Unless you know different he died of a seizure NOT Autism, even though Autistic patients often HAVE seizures, but it's not a necessary condition for them (I know the "church" doesn't recognise the disorder) There have been other accounts of this particular drug being damaging to the liver, and at least one account of someone being hospitalized due to intense seizures, rendering her unconscious, which escalated to deleterious consequences when the dosage was subsequently increased. Why no other drug regimens were implemented in Jett's case, what if any other "conditions" he had, I don't know. Maybe you ought to wait for his complete autopsy report before speculating. However it may be appropriate to surmise he was under-supervised, I'm willing to cut some slack there. I can't tell if you're just inordinately chained to the system you were trained in, or if you're being disingenuous, or just very inexperienced (or not really a Dr. -- sorry it's hard to tell on the net.) But the world of medicine is not so black and white as you might imagine. I'm not saying drugs are never valuable. In fact they can be invaluable, and life saving when in the right hands in emergencies. Sometimes they ARE the best option. But they can also be harmful and ineffective. I hope you will explore the world more broadly and question why, despite resistence from large organizations, the trend moves steadily in the other direction. Who are these Drs and what does not make it into the journals? Regardless, many of us -- Drs and patients -- will move on to whatever works best and does least harm. Without the knowledge or consent of extreme-orthodox-adherents or $cientologists.

...nobody wants to hear or read about Ravolta or his family.

I have petit-mal epilepsy, and take medication for it. One thing I did early on was to find out what the medication I am taking does. Everywhere I looked, I saw warnings to be very careful with seizure controlling medications because making sudden changes in either direction (increasing or decreasing their dosage) can cause serious, and potentially lethal consequences. The process of changing medications, especially discontinuing them suddenly is especially serious because by doing a "cold turkey" cut-off, you are asking for a "drug rebound".

In the case of seizure control medications, a sudden "cold turkey" discontinuation of that medication is quite likely to INDUCE seizures. This appears to be what happened to Jett. If his medication had been gradually withdrawn over a period of several months, there would have been less likelihood of triggering "drug rebound" seizures, but if the medication actually was controlling his seizures, removing the medication would allow his seizures to return with their original frequency.

Looked at another way, grand mal seizures may be one consequence of a real brain injury, and denying that a brain injury causes epilepsy is roughly equivalent to telling someone experiencing a myocardial infarction (heart attack) that all they need to do is take some antacid pills to take care of their chest pains.

There are many years of real science (as opposed to "Scientology") regarding the subject of traumatic brain injuries. If Jett Trevolta died from a "drug rebound" (the result of ignorance or ill founded "religious" beliefs), his death would have been especially tragic, because it was completely preventable.

With regards to banjobailey's comment, I would have to (respectfully) disagree. Freedom of religion in America is not absolute. If a person's religion seeks to honor the 'gods' by poisoning children, does that mean that they are immune from prosecution when they commit these acts? Of course not. When the tenets of a religion encourage its adherents to engage in behaviors that are harmful to either individuals or society at large, then the freedom to practice that religion can and should be curbed. Scientology literature states that the 'auditing' process is an infallible cure for diseases such as cancer, arthritis, aids, etc. Given these claims, it is not at all difficult to believe that a Scientologist parent might forgo proper medical care for their child in a time of illness, and instead embrace the methods of the church. Combine this perspective on medical treatment with church policies such as 'disconnection' and 'fair game' ('Google' the terms if you are not familiar with them), and it becomes plainly evident that Scientology is very dangerous not only to its followers, but to society at large.

While I certainly carry NO water for Scientology in any way, shape, or form, this family, as Americans has EVERY right to believe what they believe and act accordingly. THEY, after all, are the ones who must pay the price for their beliefs. If their religious beliefs have cost them the life of their son then THEY, and not us, are the ones who must live with it. Furthermore, WE, the collective, have NO idea whatever what was really going on in these people's lives and, therefore, have no right to render judgment on them for the choices THEY made in THEIR lives.

Anonymiaow: Increasingly I believe that this is a conflict which will be won with the written word. As fast as the Scientology organisation is removing information from the public domain concerned members of the public are archiving it. To have opinion from the medical community added to the weight on our side of the seesaw is invaluable, and I echo the thanks and respect for your courage. This is a bully boy collective who have, thus far, intimidated on-screen media from peeping behind the curtain. But things are changing, and people are waking up. Thanks to the Internet the whole world has access to recordings of Scientology's founder and messiah denying and belittling epilepsy, while in stark contrast a son of the church is dead with "seizure" listed as the cause. It is going to take a thousand more of these steps before the war is won, but thousands of pairs of feet are already marching and our numbers grow every day.

As a mental health professional practicing from a differing perspective, I am all too keenly aware of both the advantages and the limitations of my skills absent the use of the broad range of psychopharmaceutical medication available when my clients work in concert with psychiatrists to deal with their challenges. I too feel the understandable necessity of remaining "Anonymous" in order to avoid being a direct target of Scientology's professional hate machine, and while it may seem cowardly the historic capacity of this organization to ruin and destroy lives cannot be denied. "Anonymity" in this case, is simply enlightened self-interest and professional self-care.

Welcome to what is by default the "war" between Scientology and basically all authority figures, not only the medical profession. You're alas in for an ugly "treat" I fear, and I urge you to spread the word amongst your peers as I have myself chosen to do.

Again, thank you for this sensible and objective contribution to the body of "what is known" about Scientology.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMom3y1zyZU ok, so that is the voice of the founder of scientology, L Ron Hubbard. he is saying point blank that medical treatment for epilepsy is not completable with scientology. in fact just about a minute in he says specificly that if someone is on epilepsy medication they have to go off it to be audited (which is the central practice). so this whole physical/psychiatric distinction is irrelevant, the subject of epilepsy is tackled directly by the man himself. no two ways about it the Church of scientology is against the medical treatment of epilepsy.