 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Prostate Cancer / November 2004too late for surgery, now what
I tested 179 on my PSA test last May (that is, almost two hundred, not missing a decimal point.) I just underwent surgery to remove a cancer from a kidney last week!! They discovered this during the prostate CAT scans. While doing this surgery they also sampled me and found some prostate cancer in a lymph node. I have been asking for months what was going to happen, etc. I was told they didn't have anything to tell me until the surgery was complete (at least that is what the urologist and oncologist said, or wouldn't say.) My general MD was a bit more honest and said my long term outlook was pretty bad, but that was before they found it had made it to my lymph system (but perhaps not too much, I hope.) Most of what I read discusses things at an earlier stage and I don't find too much about more advanced stages. This not knowing is really stressing me bad. A few years ago my dot com job went dot gone, and I haven't worked or had medical insurance since then. I had started using anti-depression medicine in 2000 and had it quite well under control, but nothing like not having a job, insurance, and cancer to up your depression and anxiety levels so no I am pretty depressed. :-( At this point I don't know if I will be in a position to seek work again, health wise, or if I have any chance of a job given my age (50) and that lack of recent work history. While maybe they can't officially deny you work due to cancer, it is very hard to explain multi-year absences from the work force. How do you get some answers out of the doctors? When last I asked the oncologist wouldn't return my calls, and his staff said there was no point in talking to me. My urologist who just did my surgery just said the operation went well, and he didn't have anything to say past that. > I tested 179 on my PSA test last May (that is, almost two hundred, not > missing a decimal point.) [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > point in talking to me. My urologist who just did my surgery just said > the operation went well, and he didn't have anything to say past that. I am not a doctor and not an expert on any of this, so what I say is purely a layman's uneducated opinion. It is my understanding that a PSA reading as high as yours can only occur if the cancer has spread to many places in the body. If that is so, there is no known cure, but there are treatments that can control the cancer for some time, possibly for years. The standard treatment is called hormone deprivation therapy (HT). Drugs are used to cause the testicles to stop producing testosterone, one form of which feeds the prostate cancer and enables it to grow. How successful those drugs will be in your case may be impossible to say until you've tried them. Some people have cancers that are more hormone dependent than others. Some people get one to two years of benefit from these drugs, but others have gotten 10 or more. Beyond HT, the next therapy that can be tried is chemotherapy. Chemo can knock back the cancer for some additional period of time - generally not as long as HT, and with more side effects. When the HT and chemo cease to be effective, the cancer grows and all that is left are palliative treatments, basically ways to control pain, until the end. I don't know what your situation is with respect to getting medical help. Ideally, it would be best if you could find a "medical oncologist" who specializes in prostate cancer. Ideally, you'd want someone who has kept up with the latest developments in HT and chemotherapy, who will monitor your situation closely, and plan aggressive treatment. But it's hard to find help like that even if you have money. Real experts aren't very common. I wish I could give you better news than this. I am sorry about your situation. You are a young man to have this happen to you. I wish you the best. Alan "The standard treatment is called hormone deprivation therapy (HT). Drugs are used to cause the testicles to stop producing testosterone, one form of which feeds the prostate cancer and enables it to grow." Alan, in another post he says he took Lupron months ago, so we aren't getting whole story here. Bill Denton RP 2/12/02 Memphis > "The standard treatment is called hormone deprivation therapy (HT). > Drugs are used to cause the testicles to stop producing testosterone, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > RP 2/12/02 > Memphis Yes. I responded to the first post then went on and saw the second. So he probably already knew pretty much everything I told him. Alan Actually, I posted something about the Lupron at the same time, different message. I seem to be having lots of side effects from it. They warned me of a few, like host-flashes, but after a few months I finally looked up the fine print in the prescribing information for doctors, and I have most every symptom. I asked my general MD and the urologist if there was anything I could do to ease the side-effects and they basically both said no. The radiation oncologist is supposed to look back on my case as soon as he gets the results from my surgery (which was 2 weeks ago Tuesday and included removing cancerous tumour from a kidney, but the doc also looked around and did find some cancer in a lymph node) but they only review cases (some kind of board where all the facility experts get together) on Tuesdays, so I probably will have to wait another week for a professional opinion. However, in my reading I notice so many conflicting treatments, I don't know where to begin. I do not see much info for treatment when the condition is non-operable. >"The standard treatment is called hormone deprivation therapy (HT). >Drugs are used to cause the testicles to stop producing testosterone, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >RP 2/12/02 >Memphis "Actually, I posted something about the Lupron at the same time, different message." That's my point - in one post you are asking us what you should do, what your treatment options are - as if you have not received any treatment but in another post you disclose that you are on Lupron, which is a PCa treatment. You have to give us all the relevant info if you want meaningful responses. Bill Denton RP 2/12/02 Memphis On November 15, nospam@please.com wrote, in pertinent part: > Actually, I posted something about the Lupron at the same time, > different message. I seem to be having lots of side effects from it. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > urologist if there was anything I could do to ease the side-effects > and they basically both said no. No so, at least regarding hot flashes. For hot flashes, the following have been used successfully: Megace (megestrol acetate), Effexor, Paxil. The last two are antidepressants; a side effect is control of hot flashes. Regarding Megace, there is a 1999 report that it MAY have been associated with a PSA rise in a castrated patient. See the PSA Rising website at http://www.psa-rising.com/med/hormonal/hotflash_SSRI_mayo1004.htm And other SE's being experienced are....? Regards. Steve J __ "Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.'' --Sir Winston L. S. Churchill | I tested 179 on my PSA test last May (that is, almost two hundred, not | missing a decimal point.) [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] | point in talking to me. My urologist who just did my surgery just said | the operation went well, and he didn't have anything to say past that. I was diagnosed with locally advanced prostate cancer in August 2000. Blader neck, seminal vesicles, local and iliac nodes wrapped up. T4N2M0, psa 72, gleason 3+3. I didn't have option to surgery. They applied complete hormonal blockade (Zodalex and Casodex), from the beginning. Dos months later, they applied radioterapy. At the moment, I continue with hormonal blockade. Starting from the second year, they put me in Zometa, a bisphospohonate. The treatments have been effective. After four years, I am still alive and without symptoms. However, the treatment begins to fail and psa, slowly, is growing. I have gathered information in some places. However, I remember a friendly site, Rober Young page, a comrade from Cincinnati, http://www.phoenix5.org / Other several good places are: http://www.phphpqc.org/quickclk.htm http://www.hormonerefractorypca.org/index.html http://www.prostatecancerfoundation.org/site/pp.asp?c=itIWK2OSG&bF403 Good luck > I was diagnosed with locally advanced prostate cancer in August 2000. > Blader neck, seminal vesicles, local and iliac nodes wrapped up. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > 03 > Good luck Curt's PSA was 865. he was on "WHAT WE THOUGHT" was COMPLETE hormonal blockade, but even with a testosterone of 14 he is still able to get an erection anytime he takes Viagra, and often doesn't need it. OF course, tghe doc we've been seeing for nearly a year hasn't asked in months if Curt was functional so he obviously wasn't "COMPLETELY" blocked. The part of Testosterone that converts, converts into dihydroxytestosterone(very dangerous) so the Specialist at MRMC (Zion, IL)added Avodart to stop that chemical reaction from occuring. I'd ask my doc about that if I were you. HTH Lori > I tested 179 on my PSA test last May (that is, almost two hundred, not > missing a decimal point.) [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Most of what I read discusses things at an earlier stage and I don't > find too much about more advanced stages. As someone else pointed out, at present, your best bet is hormone therapy. That can control the disease for an indeterminate amount of time. In some men it works for ten years or more before failing. But there is a lot of work being done on new methods to treat prostate cancer, so there is a reasonable prospect of a real cure for advanced prostate cancer in five years or so. You should also look into the prospect of clinical trials. Ask your urologist about it or try a google search. > This not knowing is really > stressing me bad. A few years ago my dot com job went dot gone, and I [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > but nothing like not having a job, insurance, and cancer to up your > depression and anxiety levels so no I am pretty depressed. :-( The US is the only advanced industrial nation without universal health insurance. It is hard to see why we put up with it, but there seems no political will to do anything about it at present. If anything, we are moving backwards. I hope you do get access to adequate medical care one way or another. Meanwhile try to keep your spirits up. You are not beaten yet. Best of luck. > At this point I don't know if I will be in a position to seek work > again, health wise, or if I have any chance of a job given my age (50) [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > point in talking to me. My urologist who just did my surgery just said > the operation went well, and he didn't have anything to say past that. Doctors should be straight with their patients and give them answers. My urologist answers any questions I ask. It seems strange that no one has brought up the possibility of hormone therapy. (HT is very expensive and that may be a factor.) Normally, if you don't like what your doctor is doing, you choose a different doctor. Given your circumstances, you may not have much choice in that area, but you might give it a try. > ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- > http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups > ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- > ... > You should also look into the prospect of clinical trials. Ask your > urologist about it or try a google search. > ... An excellent suggestion. I entered a clinical trial for my treatment and got very advanced treatment from very knowledgeable scientists and doctors, and the treatment was 100% free - entirely paid for by research funds. You can search for clinical trials here: http://www.cancer.gov/search/clinicaltrials/ Alan >Subject: Re: too late for surgery, now what >From: Leonard Evens len@math.northwestern.edu [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] >insurance. It is hard to see why we put up with it, but there seems no >political will to do anything about it at present. If you are in a country with universal health care, or are with an HMO in the States, they don't want to spend the money to do the work you need. > If anything, we are >moving backwards. I hope you do get access to adequate medical care one [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >circumstances, you may not have much choice in that area, but you might >give it a try. Hi, Sorry to hear about the situation you are in, as someone said the US is the only civilised {can I call it} Country where there isn't Universal Heath Care, seems to me that should be changed. No magic wands to offer, but Celebrex did help me, 2 nodes, gleason 3+4, PSA 4.6 etc... After 3 months on Celebrex the 2 tumours that I had were reduced by 30%, helped me psychologically {at least}, and may have made the Cryo treatment that I've just had bit easier. One thing to bear in mind is, and this may be a tad Radical, but anyone in the US {or anywhere else} that can trace their ancestry back and find ANY Grand Parent who came from England {or most anywhere in Europe-EEC, Spain, Italy, Germany, Portugal, France, Scotland, Holland etc etc etc} is actually a European Citizen {or has the right to claim it} and as such could come over here to reside, work or get free health care in a Country of their choice {well, almost}. Nice to have dual citizenship at times... even if you've never see the land of your ancestors. Wish I could offer more, but the Celebrex is worth checking out, I was on 800 mg a day, 400 in the a.m. and 400 mg 12 hours later, since my Cryo I'm on half that now. Good Luck, for what it's worth you'll be mentioned in my prayers tonight, over here in Manchester, England, "I care because I've been there"... Bob. > Sorry to hear about the situation you are in, as someone said the US > is the only civilised {can I call it} Country where there isn't > Universal Heath Care, seems to me that should be changed. Many would like it to be changed, and many would not. The opponents claim that a universal health care system would result in rationed care, it doesn't give freedom of choice, and it's socialism. Calling something "socialism" is really bad, in the US, despite the fact that the US Social Security system and the US Medicare system that exists for senior citizens is also "socialism". (snipped comment on Celebrex) > One thing to bear in mind is, and this may be a tad Radical, but > anyone in the US {or anywhere else} that can trace their ancestry back [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > come over here to reside, work or get free health care in a Country of > their choice {well, almost}. Whoa there. you're over generalizing. In particular, the United Kingdom (England, Scotand, Wales, and Northern Ireland) will usually NOT give an entitlement to citizenship based on having a grandparent from that country. They do have allowances when a parent is from the UK (and even then the laws have tended to favor only the children of British men, not women). Having an entitlement to citizenship via a grandparent normally requires that a registration was performed prior to your first birthday, etc (ie. you'd probably know already if you were a citizen via a British grandparent). Some of the other countries in Europe (Ireland, for one) will allow a claim to citizenship based on a grandparent. > Nice to have dual citizenship at times... even if you've never see the > land of your ancestors. Yes, it does have its advantages. Stephen Gallagher Hi Stephen.....see inline > Many would like it to be changed, and many would not. > The opponents claim that a universal health care system [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > fact that the US Social Security system and the US Medicare system > that exists for senior citizens is also "socialism". Thank you.....I was going to comment but you made a good case. I do not like our Canadian Health Care System being referred to as *socialism* to be honest. And as you know, we do have choices on everything. In the US, it seems that the insurance companies make their choices for them. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think so. And no.....we don't wait all that much longer....and more importantly, we don't pay for hospitalization, medical services or in my case (over 65) prescriptions. It breaks my heart when I see what Americans have to pay for medical care!! Not to mention the horrific monthly payments for insurance. I was going to look up the requirements re dual citizenship because I didn't think Bob was right....thanks for doing that. I am a 5th generation Canadian of Scottish and English ancestry and I sure don't have any claim on dual citizenship!! My husband could have had dual British and Canadian thru his Dad, but never thought to take it because he was living and working here in Canada. Just my 2 Cdn. cents worth.....grin. Heather > Whoa there. you're over generalizing. In particular, the United Kingdom > (England, Scotand, Wales, and Northern Ireland) will usually NOT [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Stephen Gallagher > Hi Stephen.....see inline > Thank you.....I was going to comment but you made a good case. I do not > like our Canadian Health Care System being referred to as *socialism* to be > honest. And as you know, we do have choices on everything. In the US, it > seems that the insurance companies make their choices for them. Correct me > if I am wrong, but I don't think so. So far, I have chosen my own doctors and my own treatments and the treatments of all my children. And, so far, my insurance company has paid almost all of it. In the near future, I see that I will have to pay more directly. But, I have always paid indirectly. And, if the government takes it over, I will continue to do so. Except, then, I will be one of 51% of the people paying for the same level of medical care as the other 49%. And therein lies the real problem. > > Hi Stephen.....see inline > > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > for the same level of medical care as the other 49%. And therein lies the > real problem. And yet you still don't see big movements in the rest of the world to adopt a US style health care system. >> > Hi Stephen.....see inline >> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > And yet you still don't see big movements in the rest of the world to > adopt a US style health care system. Can they afford it? I'm pretty sure the per capita spending for medical care is higher in the USA than anywhere else in the world. Just for the record... > > And yet you still don't see big movements in the rest of the world to > > adopt a US style health care system. > Can they afford it? I'm pretty sure the per capita spending for medical > care is higher in the USA than anywhere else in the world. According to the OECD {Organisation for Economic Cooperation & Development} The US Government spends 6% of its GDP on Heath care, Orhers rank as follows... Switzerland 10.9 Germany 10.7 Canada 9.7 France 9.5 In the US 35% of the money spent on health care comes from private health insurance and 15% comes directly from the persons receiving the care. Now here's something to think on... In the US the latest figures {year 2000} for "Premature Mortality" {aka dropping off our perch before we should do} is }when compared to Europe, in general} 21% higher for men and 34% for women, I find that stat a bit unnerving ! {worse to come}... If you live in the US you are 4x more likely to be a victim of homicide than someone living in Europe ! 31% of Americans are Obese, rates are much lower in Europe {I'd put that down to folks in the US having more to spend than many in Europe}, but having said that I feel we'll be making a race of it before long. That's my 2 pence worth... Canada Bob. > And yet you still don't see big movements in the rest of the world to > adopt a US style health care system. Actually, many have adopted a US-style healh care system: the US health care system! I don't think a month goes by that I haven't heard of a child being flown to our Children's Hospital from another country for a transplant; or serious burn victims making an international trek to our Burns Institute; or conjoined twins being flown to the US for separation. I cannot recall the last time one of my neighbors flew out of the US for surgery. Maybe 20 years ago, when it was difficult getting trans-gender surgery in the US, but that was about it. > I cannot recall the last time one of my neighbors flew out of the US for > surgery. Maybe 20 years ago, when it was difficult getting trans-gender > surgery in the US, but that was about it. Might not be any of your neghbours Steve, but lots of folks do fly out of the US to get treated in the UK, even though it's a LONG way to come. Having said that, lots of folks fly to Cuba {very socialist there, grin}, also to Dominican Republic {treated there by US Dr's and Nurses with treatments not yet approved by the FDA}, then there's Mexico and more. Not to mention Canada, {Heather will love this one}, where over 60,000 folks who were US Citizens living in Maine were {somehow or other} holders of MSI Cards {cards issued in Nova Scotia, Canada} ! Thousands a year nip over the border to partake in what Canada offers, many of them fraudulently. I don't think any system is perfect, and I think that if any of us can help someone in our country {as we all do} when they can't find that treatment at home, then this is something we all should promote and be proud of. Canada Bob. > > I cannot recall the last time one of my neighbors flew out of the US for > > surgery. Maybe 20 years ago, when it was difficult getting trans-gender [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > also to Dominican Republic {treated there by US Dr's and Nurses with > treatments not yet approved by the FDA}, then there's Mexico and more. Yeah, I forgot those. I'll put them into the transgender operations in Norway category. > Not to mention Canada, {Heather will love this one}, where over 60,000 > folks who were US Citizens living in Maine were {somehow or other} > holders of MSI Cards {cards issued in Nova Scotia, Canada} ! Thousands > a year nip over the border to partake in what Canada offers, many of > them fraudulently. "Fraudulently" is the word for it. While I do not support socialized medicine, it is ultimately paid for by the people of Canada and it should not be stolen by American citizens. > I don't think any system is perfect, and I think that if any of us can > help someone in our country {as we all do} when they can't find that > treatment at home, then this is something we all should promote and be > proud of. I concur. And, I'm all for helping people.... at my discretion. Did it for my brother in law Monday. Did it for a lady out of gas and money last night. But, at my discretion. > > Might not be any of your neghbours Steve, but lots of folks do fly out > > of the US to get treated in the UK, even though it's a LONG way to > > come. > > > > Having said that, lots of folks fly to Cuba {very socialist there, > > grin}, also to Dominican Republic {treated there by US Dr's and Nurses with treatments not yet approved by the FDA}, then there's Mexico and more. > Yeah, I forgot those. I'll put them into the transgender operations in > Norway category. I don't count Cuban, Dominican or Mexican as proper medical treatments.....might as well go to Brazil and have a *psychic surgeon* do it. But I think we do more transgender operations here in Toronto, Steve....than you see in the US. I used to work for the law firm that did all the necessary documentation changes. Plus a friend (Henry) became Monica many years ago. And don't think for one minute that it is an easy thing. Years of psychiatric counselling, many procedures and then the final removal of the genitalia. > > Not to mention Canada, {Heather will love this one}, where over 60,000 > > folks who were US Citizens living in Maine were {somehow or other} [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > "Fraudulently" is the word for it. While I do not support socialized > medicine, it is ultimately paid for by the people of Canada and it should not be stolen by American citizens. I don't think Bob is right on this one. We have been seeing busloads of people coming up here from the US......they PAY to see a doctor to get their prescriptions, PAY their money for them and then go back to Florida, etc. They still save a large amount of money on Lipitor, blood pressure pills, etc. which are manufactured by American companies for the most part. The flu vaccines are manufactured here. The only crime involved is that your Customs Officers are supposed to relieve them of those drugs....they turn a blind eye (thank God). We are giving flu shots to Americans......but they pay for them and they do not come out of our Government-sponsored free program. They are private stock. And btw.....there is no more vaccine. Plus the Government is starting to clamp down on all of the above. We get first crack and any leftovers are for others. > > I don't think any system is perfect, and I think that if any of us can > > help someone in our country {as we all do} when they can't find that > > treatment at home, then this is something we all should promote and be proud of. > I concur. And, I'm all for helping people.... at my discretion. Did it > for my brother in law Monday. Did it for a lady out of gas and money last night. But, at my discretion. I agree also. I am ambivalent on the sale of cross-border drugs. But only because Pfizer, for example, threatened to stop exporting drugs to our Government drug wholesalers unless we stop those pharmacies. Care to guess how many are run by Americans?? OTOH....I feel deeply sorry for Americans who just can't afford to pay for their prescriptions. Where is a US Gov't. program to cover that? We have them. In Ontario, it is called the Trillium Program. For those who can't afford even our low prices. It is a sad thing, really. And I do know American senior citizens personally who were cutting up their Lipitor and taking it every other day.....simply because it was too costly otherwise. I wished I could have helped them, but I am not about to break the law. Cheers......Heather > I don't think Bob is right on this one. We have been seeing busloads of > people coming up here from the US......they PAY to see a doctor to get their > prescriptions, PAY their money for them and then go back to Florida, etc. Ha! Okay, Heather. Take a picture of one of those busses for me, willya? :) > OTOH....I feel deeply sorry for Americans who just can't afford to pay for > their prescriptions. Where is a US Gov't. program to cover that? We have > them. In Ontario, it is called the Trillium Program. For those who can't > afford even our low prices. It is a sad thing, really. That, my dear Heather, is a political question that has been debated since the founding of our country. If you would take a half hour or so and read the U.S. Constitution, you will find there is no provision for taking taxes from me to pay for another person's Lipitor. Whether or not there should be is moot.  SignatureProstate Cancer Survivor (so far), not a doctor PSA 16 10/17/2000 @ 46 Biopsy 11/01/2000 G7 (3+4), T2c RRP 12/15/2000 G7 (3+4), T3bN0M0 PSA .1 .1 .1 .27 .37 .75 EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47 PSA .34 .22 .15 .21 .32 Lupron (1 mo) 07/21/2003 @ 48 PSA .07 .05 .06 Lupron (3 mo) 8/03 (48), 12/03, 4/04 (49), 09/04 (50) non illegitimi carborundum > > I don't think Bob is right on this one. We have been seeing busloads of > > people coming up here from the US......they PAY to see a doctor to get their prescriptions, PAY their money for them and then go back to Florida, etc. > Ha! Okay, Heather. Take a picture of one of those busses for me, willya? :) Spent quite some time researching the various newspaper articles on the hundreds of Americans who hop on a bus for $15 and come up here from Ohio (for instance) to buy their prescriptions at a more than 50% saving.....but no pictures. Sorry. But just hit Google and read 'em and weep, grin. Cleveland Plain Dealer......oddly, it backs up what I am saying about cost savings up here, people cutting pills in half, etc. 8-)) http://www.cleveland.com/retirement/plaindealer/index.ssf?/retirement/more/10865 14478122242.html > > OTOH....I feel deeply sorry for Americans who just can't afford to pay for their prescriptions. Where is a US Gov't. program to cover that? We have them. In Ontario, it is called the Trillium Program. For those who can't afford even our low prices. It is a sad thing, really. >>>>>>> That, my dear Heather, is a political question that has been debated since the founding of our country. If you would take a half hour or so and read the U.S. Constitution, you will find there is no provision for taking taxes from me to pay for another person's Lipitor. Whether or not there should be is moot.<<<<<<<< OK......you asked and I did. I just had a look at your Constitution for a bit and see that it dates back to 1791!! I am looking at your Amendments such as Freedom of Religion & Speech, Right to Bear Arms, etc.......all ratified 15 December 1791. But your Income Taxes did not come into being until 1913.......so of course there are no provisions in 1791 for taking your taxes for medical care. Not to mention that there were no prescription drugs, buses, or a country called Canada. We were British then. So to my way of thinking.....the US Constitution has nothing to do with providing health care for Americans. Anymore than our 1867 Canadian Confederation has to do with our present laws and social programs. But I didn't read the whole thing.....just the parts that applied to our discussion. OK....the *prosecution rests*. But we will probably bore the heck out of the rest of the folks with this discussion, grin. Side Note: The pharmaceutical company in Liverpool, England that screwed up your flu shots is owned by Chiron of Emeryville, California. It was an older lab that they bought and the safety standards were not good enough. (courtesy of the Washington Post) Cheers.....and thanks for the history lesson.....interesting. My genealogy research in the US is more to do with the Civil War and ensuing law changes. I transcribe early 1800 legal documents for a West Indian website. And British ones from the 1700's for my own List. I paid a rather large sum of money in England in June to get copies of letters from a private collection which were about my ancestor. Be thankful that we now have anaesthetics, because you would cringe reading the doctor's reports on the abdominal operation he did on my man in 1823.......without any anaesthetic. (shudder) Heather Okay, you're getting close to the answer. For tonight's homework, read the 9th and 10th Amendments. Since it is not in the Constitution, it falls to those amendments. SignatureProstate Cancer Survivor (so far), not a doctor PSA 16 10/17/2000 @ 46 Biopsy 11/01/2000 G7 (3+4), T2c RRP 12/15/2000 G7 (3+4), T3bN0M0 PSA .1 .1 .1 .27 .37 .75 EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47 PSA .34 .22 .15 .21 .32 Lupron (1 mo) 07/21/2003 @ 48 PSA .07 .05 .06 Lupron (3 mo) 8/03 (48), 12/03, 4/04 (49), 09/04 (50) non illegitimi carborundum > > > I don't think Bob is right on this one. We have been seeing busloads of > > > people coming up here from the US......they PAY to see a doctor to get [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Cleveland Plain Dealer......oddly, it backs up what I am saying about cost > savings up here, people cutting pills in half, etc. 8-)) http://www.cleveland.com/retirement/plaindealer/index.ssf?/retirement/more/10865 14478122242.html > > > OTOH....I feel deeply sorry for Americans who just can't afford to pay > for their prescriptions. Where is a US Gov't. program to cover that? We [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > Heather The bus (and/or internet) traffic to buy drugs in Canada from northern U.S. states is getting commonplace. It's legitimate, well documented, and often pays off handsomely . . . except when the drugs turn out to be weak or flat out counterfeit. Such problems are not common, but are too frequent to be ignored with vital meds and explain why the administration is not yet blessing or promoting this or bringing these same drugs into the U.S. directly. It's a real shame, because Canadian pharmaceutical standards are at least as robust as ours, sometimes exceeding ours. They just aren't as picky as we try to be when it comes to vetting sources and products. Our constitution was never intended to plan or allow for all future possibilities or to micromanage the nation or its citizens' lives. It's primarily about national defense, our general welfare, and the mechanics and structure of government, not the details of our everyday lives. Our taxes are first and foremost intended to fund activities only a government CAN do (and many of those are debatable), from running our sorry public school system to building freeways to overseeing huge interstate programs. Very few U.S.citizens resent having to pay for basic public services. The debates get big and loud, however, when our politicians start taking money from us, literally under the threat of imprisonment, for programs that increasing numbers of citizens resent. Whether it's sheer votes-getting pork like a six-lane beltway around a town of 10,000 people or welfare programs paying bums (including thousands who choose this lifestyle over working for a living) to live (and pee and defecate) in the streets of San Francisco, millions of people world rather determine for themselves who deserve their charity. The legions of hungry children, seniors who can't buy medicines, people who are homeless for reasons beyond their control, kids who can't afford college, citizens who can't find jobs, families who can't get medical care, etc., are HUGELY overstated even our press, let alone virtually ALL foreign presses. The "hungry children" estimate of 20%, for example, came from a public opinion poll in which pollsters asked thousands of kids, "Do you ever get hungry?" Hell, I'm hungry right now. I'm going to go to the kitchen and resolve my problem. Please send me $3 to cover its cost. I.P. >> > I don't think Bob is right on this one. We have been seeing busloads >> > of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> Ha! Okay, Heather. Take a picture of one of those busses for me, >> willya? Hello Heather... > I don't count Cuban, Dominican or Mexican as proper medical > treatments.....might as well go to Brazil and have a *psychic surgeon* do > it. Hmmm, don't know how to say this, but... Some of the Hospitals, and the Dr's and Nurses in Cuba are well up there in what you might call world ranking, it's not quackery there anymore. As for the Dominican Republic many highly thought of US Dr's, Nurses and technicians are working there in University Hospitals, don't know quite so much about Mexico, but I do know that hundreds of folks {if not thousands} go to Mexico {from the US} every year to be treated again by US trained folks who are there either for tax reasons or to treat folks from the US with treatments not yet approved by the US FDA, like Dr Suarez doing HIFU in both Dominican Republic and Mexico, MANY of his patients are health professionals from the US. I know where you're coming from, because I had the same concerns about taking HIFU in the D.R. but after speaking to Dr Suarez and some of his patients I had little if any concern, yet having said that I chose to head back to the Untidy Kingdom with the intention of having HIFU here {less than 20 miles from where we have a home here}, just because I felt closer to home, not for any disrespect for the Dr's Nurses and the University Hospital in D.R. > But I think we do more transgender operations here in Toronto, I'll leave that topic alone, grin... > > > Not to mention Canada, where over 60,000 folks who were US Citizens > > > living in Maine were {somehow or other} holders of MSI Cards {cards > > > issued in Nova Scotia, Canada} ! Thousands > > > a year nip over the border to partake in what Canada offers, many of > > > them fraudulently. > I don't think Bob is right on this one. Cor Blimey... don't bet against this horse Heather, grin... It aint just Nova Scotia with this problem, it near every Province, starting with PQ {aka Quebec south of the border}... Last i heard New Brunswick had issued 32,000 more health cards than the total population, worse by far in Alberta where they have around 2 Million more cards issued than folks living there ! and on it goes Province to Province. Check out these links... http://www.cbc.ca/story/news/national/1999/11/11/med991111.html http://montreal.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=qc_healthcard20030611 http://edmonton.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=ed_healthcards20041005 http://www.pnhp.org/news/2004/october/healthcare_fraud_ala.php http://www.woodalls.com/forums/index.cfm/fuseaction/thread/tid/14446645/srt/pa/p ging/1/page/1.cfm the CEN-TA PEDE david ingram's U.S./Canadian Newsletter INTENT TO LIVE IN A PROVINCE New Brunswick has discovered that there are some 32,000 more medical cards in existence than there are people in the province. This is because people have slipped across the border from Maine or Vermont or New York and obtained New Brunswick Medical cards or they have just kept them active when they have moved to the United States or a jurisdiction with no coverage. To be qualified for a Canadian provincial medical plan's coverage, an individual must: 1. Be lawfully admitted as a resident of Canada, AND 2. Make his or her home in the province, AND 3. Be physically present in the province for at least 183 days. I can't find the report done in Nova Scotia, but I did hear the figures they reported on the radio, believe me just about every Province has this problem, and in a BIG way. Canada Bob. PS... Heather, where are you located ? (snip) > My husband could have had dual British and Canadian thru > his Dad, but never thought to take it because he was living and working here > in Canada. As far as Britain is concerned, you usually don't have to "take" dual citizenship. Are you saying that your husband's father was British? If so, it's very possible that your husband IS a dual citizen. I can't remark further without knowing who's from where and when, unfortunately. Stephen > (snip) > > My husband could have had dual British and Canadian thru [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > a dual citizen. I can't remark further without knowing who's > from where and when, unfortunately. Hi Stephen...... It is a tad complicated, but I believe he could have had both Canadian and British......or a choice of which one. He was born in Toronto, Ontario.....moved to Jamaica, West Indies at age 11 months. His father is Jamaican and his mother Canadian. And of course, at that time, Jamaica was British. He commented a couple of times that he could have taken either nationality on his passport....so not entirely sure it would have been dual. Had he been born in Jamaica, he would have been a British subject. I was on the Mormon Ellis Island website a week ago rechecking some of my documentation (I am a genealogist).......and all of his family were British according to the original ship manifests.......they often travelled up to New York in the early 1900's for visits with other relatives. Cheers......Heather Hi Heather When Jamaica became independent in 1962 one was forced to opt for either British or Jamaican status, but not British and Jamaican. Having selected one you presumably lost access to the other. However, because of the Jamaican constitution, once you were born in Jamaica, or have a Jamaican parent, you have to go to extraordinary lengths to give up Jamaican citizenship. If a Jamaican becomes a citizen of another country, notwithstanding the oaths of allegiance etc. sworn during that process, that Jamaican can still, at any time, reclaim Jamaican citizenship and, for example, go get a Jamaican passport just by showing his/her birth certificate. So the British effectively dumped the Jamaicans that opted to stay Jamaican, no dual citizenship there, but the guys that opted to be British unwittingly kept their Jamaican status. Vernon > > (snip) > > > My husband could have had dual British and Canadian thru [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Cheers......Heather Thanks, Vernon. That is interesting. Ron came up here in 1951 and at that time, he seems to remember being able to choose between British or Canadian due to being born here. But I didn't realize it was so hard to drop a Jamaican citizenship after independence. I just remembered that his mother never dropped her Canadian citizenship and we had tried to get her back up here when she became ill. Too much red tape unfortunately. But she would have then qualified for our Health Care, which was infinitely better than Jamaican. She was looked after by relatives in Kingston, which seems to be the only option. Cheers.....Heather > Hi Heather > [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > > > > Cheers......Heather > Hi Heather > > When Jamaica became independent in 1962 one was forced to opt for either > British or Jamaican status, but not British and Jamaican. Having selected > one you presumably lost access to the other. Acquiring Jamaican citizenship may have operated by force of law, not a matter of choice. The normal practise when a colony like Jamaica became independent was that those becoming citizens on Independence Day lost their British nationality *unless* they had ties with the UK or a place which remained a colony. > So the British effectively dumped the Jamaicans that opted to stay Jamaican, > no dual citizenship there, but the guys that opted to be British unwittingly > kept their Jamaican status. Britain should not have been expected to let people in a newly independent country keep British nationality as well as local nationality. I do not think the Jamaica independence legislation gave people a choice as to whether they acquired Jamaican citizenship or not. Jeremy Hello Heather... This plot thickens... > He was born in Toronto, Ontario..... So, for starters he's Canadian. > moved to Jamaica, West Indies at age 11 months. His father is Jamaican and > his mother Canadian. Right, so he's Jamaican aswell... {we're on a roll here Heather}. > And of course, at that time, Jamaica was British. Which makes him a British Commonwealth Citizen. > He commented a couple of times that he could have taken either nationality > on his passport.... Looks to me like he could have 3 passports ! > so not entirely sure it would have been dual. I'd say he was a Triplet... > Had he been born in Jamaica, he would have been a British subject. Still is via his Fathers status {being born in Jamaica}. Hang on... his dad wasn't Bob Marley ? was it ??? Canada Bob. >Subject: Re: too late for surgery, now what >From: sgallagher@rogers.com (Stephen Gallagher) [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >Stephen Hmmm. Both of my wife's parents had British (Hong Kong) passports, and buried them in the garden in Thailand during the Japanese occupation. Does she have British citizenship? > >Subject: Re: too late for surgery, now what > >From: sgallagher@rogers.com (Stephen Gallagher) [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > them in the garden in Thailand during the Japanese occupation. Does she have > British citizenship? Good question, Danny. But was she born there? I did a bit of a Google search and came up with the following.....see if any of it fits. I went cross-eyed trying to figure it out. (G) http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1997/1997020.htm It is the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act 1997. Cheers......Heather > > >Subject: Re: too late for surgery, now what > > >From: sgallagher@rogers.com (Stephen Gallagher) [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > It is the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act 1997. The last item I'll add is that British nationality law is very complicated especially in the cases of former possessions, etc. People who think they might be British or who want to find out should send a letter to the nearest British consulate outlining the details of the birth, marriage, citizenship(s) of themselves, their parents and grandparents. They should be able to reply officially as to whether the person in question is, or may have an entitlement to claim, British citizenship (or citizenship in the possession or former possession). Stephen Gallagher >Subject: Re: too late for surgery, now what >From: "Heather" casey@nospam.ca.invalid [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >Good question, Danny. But was she born there? Nope- she was born in Bangkok, and she is now a naturalized US citizen. She has been in the States for 33 years- 4 years as a student, 29 years as my wife... Just curious. > I did a bit of a Google >search and came up with the following.....see if any of it fits. I went [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Cheers......Heather >"Heather" <casey@nospam.ca.invalid> wrote in message >news:<2vt5etF2pf46jU1@uni-berlin.de>... > > Hmmm. Both of my wife's parents had British (Hong Kong) passports, and [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Cheers......Heather The British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act 1997 was put in place to give a small number of people (about 7000 in total) access to British citizenship. These people came from non-Chinese ethnic minorities in Hong Kong and had no other nationality. Those born in HK before 1983 with UK born parents or grandparents would likely be full British citizens under separate legislation, in most cases. But it is a complex area. Writing to a British consulate with *full* details of family places of birth and naturalisation, going back to grandparents, would be the first step in finding out what form of British nationality, if any, was held. Jeremy > Hmmm. Both of my wife's parents had British (Hong Kong) passports, and > buried them in the garden in Thailand during the Japanese occupation. Does > she have British citizenship? Hang on... please clarify "who/what" was buried in the garden ! Back to being serious now... The Hong Kong thing is a peculiar one, when it reverted back to China some while ago, it seemed like the Untidy Kingdom might be flooded with millions of "Chinese" all waving British Passports... So, the law was changes {good old England hey}, and to the best of my recall it went like this... They were still British Citzens, BUT, without the right to reside in Britain, that's a laugh aint it... not sure if they could freely move to another Commonwealth Country, but MANY of them did, thousands of them to British Columbia {somewhere near Canada, I think}. My "guess" is she does have British Citizenship, but without the "automatic" rights to live in the UK. Canada Bob. Hello Heather... > I do not like our Canadian Health Care System being referred to as > *socialism* to be honest. I guess you don't vote CCF then, grin... > And no.....we don't wait all that much longer....and more importantly, we > don't pay for hospitalization, medical services or in my case (over 65) > prescriptions. It breaks my heart when I see what Americans have to pay for > medical care!! Not to mention the horrific monthly payments for insurance. I originate from the Untidy Kingdom Heather {Manchester area, Wigan Actually} lived there for 35 years, then did 22 years in Canada, and believe me althought I have a respect for America and it's people, with many friends there and much to respect them for, I have no greater regard for Canada and the folks who live there, for my money they are the most considerate, sympathetic, charitable and easy to live amongst people anywhere in the World. I'm not buttering you up, I just owe Canada that for the quality of life it gave me in the 22 years I lived there {Ontario, PQ and 14 years in Nova Scotia}. > I was going to look up the requirements re dual citizenship because I didn't > think Bob was right.... For Gawds sake "never think that" Heather, Bob is a real stickler, grin, after 35 years in Engineering Quality Assurance, I've learned never to afford myself the luxury of "opinions" but to always rely on verifiable facts. >thanks for doing that. What was it you were Thanking Stephen for, {grin}, no offence menat here Stephen, I'm being humourous... > I am a 5th generation Canadian of Scottish and English ancestry Well, you can't come then, grin, not based on that... > and I sure don't have any claim on dual citizenship!! Sure about "what" Heather ??? never say "sure", lets see... > My husband could have had dual British and Canadian thru his Dad, but never > thought to take it because he was living and working here in Canada. Right ! here we go then... check out... http://www.ukimmigration.com/family/uk_commonwealth_ancestry.htm Then book a ticket to come to live here, grin... > Just my 2 Cdn. cents worth.....grin. Looks like yer 2 cents has been devalued Heather, grin... Seriously though, if ANY of you folks want to persue a claim for Citizenship to the UK or any country in the EEC aka {most of} Europe, then contact me and I'll get you the forms or point you in the right direction. Canada Bob. "Stephen Gallagher" <sgallagher@rogers.com> wrote in message > Calling something "socialism" is really bad, in the US, despite the > fact that the US Social Security system and the US Medicare system > that exists for senior citizens is also "socialism". And note that these and other socialistic programs are where we have the larger problems in the U.S. It has been shown from time eternal that man will not give up the rewards of his toil so that another might benefit unless that other is providing that man some serious benefit, usually security. We will pay dearly to our fighting armies and less so for our standing armies. We never want our police and fire underpaid and underequipped. Serfs paid dearly to their protecting kings and knights. The Roman Empire was built on the protection it provided paid for by the taxes it collected (or extorted). Conversely, slowly at times and quickly at other times, since Moses left Egypt, bolstering a community or an empire on the backs of another man's toil for indefinite periods or generations has led to the end of that system. So has Socialism whether of the USSR type or the Plymouth Rock type. And so has nearly all the socialistic plans attempted in our 'civilized' nations. We tried Welfare and we created a few generations of illiterate criminals with no sense of the future. We tried Social Security and it was a tremendous success until it was bastardized into a socialist program. Having seen all this, we want socialized medicine? That is the definition of insanity. And so has nearly all the socialistic plans attempted in our > 'civilized' nations. We tried Welfare and we created a few generations of > illiterate criminals with no sense of the future. We tried Social Security and it was a tremendous success until it was bastardized into a socialist program. > Having seen all this, we want socialized medicine? That is the definition of insanity. And what is your definition of *socialized medicine*?? I had a long reply to this, but due to the hour and 3 glasses of an excellent Shiraz, I figure I better hold off on it till the morning. (G) Our system is NOT socialist.....period. It is called *sensible*. Night......Heather > Our system is NOT socialist.....period. It is called *sensible*. I sure have missed you, Heather. SOCIALISM - n: Any of various soctial systems based on shared or government ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods or services. >Whoa there. you're over generalizing. In particular, the United Kingdom >(England, Scotand, Wales, and Northern Ireland) will usually NOT [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >was performed prior to your first birthday, etc (ie. you'd probably >know already if you were a citizen via a British grandparent). Alas, all my grandparents were born in the USA, Before that, most were from England, with some Scotish and Dutch in there as well. For now, I am on state welfare insurance because I was diagnosed with a fatal condition (if untreated, Gleason 4+3 at age 50 is pretty fatal.) If I made any money, I would get to pay some of the bill, but with just a wife working minimum wage, I alone qualify for medical assistance, but nothing else. I used to have good insurance and a good paying job, but they were self-insured and when they went bankrupt, there was no chance to pick up the insurance. I doubt I could have afforded it without a job anyway. I guess I should be thankful that the doctors are willing to help at all. Hi, > Alas, all my grandparents were born in the USA, Before that, most were > from England, with some Scotish and Dutch in there as well. I guess we all have got off the beam in this thread, maybe that's my fault, apologies for that. > For now, I am on state welfare insurance because I was diagnosed with > a fatal condition (if untreated, Gleason 4+3 at age 50 is pretty > fatal.) If I made any money, I would get to pay some of the bill, but > with just a wife working minimum wage, I alone qualify for medical > assistance, but nothing else. I don't know what the hell to say, no one should be in the situation that you face, and if what's seen by Steve {and I respect his views} as "socialist systems" for the want of better words could help you then I'd be only too pleased to contribute. Do you have any thoughts on Celebrex ? if you could get it do you think it would help, to be honest I can't see the downside in your situation. Let me know, if you can get a prescription for it, then I will get it filled for you, at my expense. I don't know Steve {Kramer} do we brand ourselves as socialists when we care for one another ? I'm NOT trying to wind you up Steve, but wouldn't / shouldn't we care for {and if need be pay for} folks less fortunate than ourselves ? I know some folks will rip off a "free for all" system, we see that here in the UK ever day, but I'd put up with their ignorance and abuse rather than let go of folks in desperate need... Canada Bob. Hello Stephen... > > someone said the US is the only civilised {can I call it} Country where > >there isn't Universal Heath Care, seems to me that should be changed. > Many would like it to be changed, and many would not. > The opponents claim that a universal health care system > would result in rationed care, it doesn't give freedom of choice, > and it's socialism. I guess Canada is a Socialist Country then ? and specifically the UK, do US Citizens have a problem with that, we {both} are often called you greatest allies ! > Calling something "socialism" is really bad, in the US, despite the > fact that the US Social Security system and the US Medicare system > that exists for senior citizens is also "socialism". I understand that, rose by another name maybe, sigh... > (snipped comment on Celebrex) > > One thing to bear in mind is, and this may be a tad Radical, but > > anyone in the US {or anywhere else} that can trace their ancestry back > > and find ANY Grand Parent who came from England {or most anywhere in > > Europe-EEC, Spain, Italy,Germany, Portugal, France, Scotland, Holland etc > > etc etc} is actually a European Citizen {or has the right to claim it} and > > as such could come over here to reside, work or get free health care in a > > Country of their choice {well, almost}. > Whoa there. Yep, I'm whoaing Stephen... > you're over generalizing. > In particular, the United Kingdom (England, Scotand, Wales, and Northern > Ireland) will usually NOT give an entitlement to citizenship based on having > a grandparent from that country. You might want to check with UK Immigration then on "Rights of Ancestry". > They do have allowances when a parent is from the UK (and even then the laws > have tended to favor onlythe children of British men, not women). You're kiding !!! so you're saying that {in this day and age} the children of MEN have more rights than WOMEN, get out of here... > Having an entitlement to citizenship via a grandparent normally requires > that a registration was performed prior to your first birthday, etc (ie. > you'd probably know already if you were a citizen via a British grandparent). What does "normally" mean, and where the heck are you getting your info from ? > Some of the other countries in Europe (Ireland, for one) will allow > a claim to citizenship based on a grandparent. Let's get this one right then, as you mentioned Ireland recognises "Rights of Ancestry" as do "other countries" in Europe {all of them being in the EEC} so you think that the Rights of one person to "Ancestry" in one European Country would differ from the rights in another ??? Remember that we are ALL Europeans now, we don't even have British Passports {as such now}, what's Law for one is Law for all, whether we like it or not. Be an odd situation if, lets say, someone from Italian or Irish {or nor Polish} Ancestry, would get a European Pasport/Citizenship and then be free to reside in the Untidy Kingdom, whilst someone who's grandfather/mother came from the UK but was denied rsidency ? how would that work ? or stand up in {European} Law ??? > > Nice to have dual citizenship at times... even if you've never see the > > land of your ancestors. > Yes, it does have its advantages. Certainly does... Canada {and also} UK Bob. > Hello Stephen... > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > You might want to check with UK Immigration then on "Rights of > Ancestry". An Ancestry Visa is not British citizenship. It is possible for an ancestry visa holder to become a naturalised British citizen, but this requires 5 years residence in the UK (plus other requirements). Citizens of non-Commonwealth countries (eg the US) cannot apply for ancestry visas, even with British grandparents. > > They do have allowances when a parent is from the UK (and even then the laws > have tended to favor onlythe children of British men, not women). > > You're kiding !!! so you're saying that {in this day and age} the > children of MEN have more rights than WOMEN, get out of here... It depends on circumstances. Historically, in many countries (including the UK), both mothers and *unmarried* fathers were restricted in whether they could pass on nationality to their children. Some of these anomalies have been legislated away (although usually not retrospectively), some of them have not. > > Having an entitlement to citizenship via a grandparent normally requires > > that a registration was performed prior to your first birthday, etc (ie. > > you'd probably know already if you were a citizen via a British grandparent). > > What does "normally" mean, and where the heck are you getting your > info from ? 'Normally' means in most circumstances. Source of information - http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk is a good place to start. > > > Some of the other countries in Europe (Ireland, for one) will allow [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > "Ancestry" in one European Country > would differ from the rights in another ??? It's not a question of 'thinking' that such rights vary from country to country. They do. As to citizenship rights based on birth in the country, for that matter. > Remember that we are ALL Europeans now, we don't even have British > Passports {as such now} They are still British passports, even if they are issued in a common format with other EU states. If someone has dual nationality (eg British and French) they can have two passports. > what's Law for one is Law for all, whether we > like it or not. Not in the area of nationality. Laws differ greatly from one EU state to another. > Be an odd situation if, lets say, someone from Italian or Irish {or > nor Polish} Ancestry, would get a European Pasport/Citizenship and > then be free to reside in the Untidy Kingdom, whilst someone who's > grandfather/mother came from the UK but was denied rsidency ? how > would that work ? or stand up in {European} Law ??? That happens all the time. Jeremy Although we are getting way off beam here, I'll indulge myself again. > An Ancestry Visa is not British citizenship. It is possible for an > ancestry visa holder to become a naturalised British citizen, but this > requires 5 years residence in the UK (plus other requirements). I wasn't talking of Ancesty Visa's {althought that's a route many take}, I'm talking of the rights to British {and other EEC} Citizenship {full rights that is}. >Citizens of non-Commonwealth countries (eg the US) cannot apply for >ancestry visas, even with British grandparents. People presently living outside of the EEC who have a grandparent who lived in any of the Countries now in the EEC have the right to EEC Citizenship. >>>They do have allowances when a parent is from the UK (and even then the >>>laws have tended to favor onlythe children of British men, not women). >> You're kiding !!! so you're saying that {in this day and age} the >> children of MEN have more rights than WOMEN, get out of here... >It depends on circumstances. Such a Law {anywhere in Europe, at least would be Unconstitutional}, simple as that, it is not possible to discriminate between men & women in this day and age. > Historically, in many countries (including the UK), both mothers and > *unmarried* fathers were restricted in whether they could pass on > nationality to their children. Some of these anomalies have been > legislated away (although usually not retrospectively), some of them > have not. Long as we are talking Historically, then we're not talking of present circumstances, that went out with the Ark in 1981 under the British Nationality Act, an Act that never held as it was {even then} as being Unconstitutional. >>>Having an entitlement to citizenship via a grandparent normally requires >>>that a registration was performed prior to your first birthday, etc (ie. >>>you'd probably know already if you were a citizen via a British >>>grandparent). >> What does "normally" mean, and where the heck are you getting your >> info from ? > 'Normally' means in most circumstances. Let me clarify my comment on the above, it's bollocks... >>> Some of the other countries in Europe (Ireland, for one) will allow >>> a claim to citizenship based on a grandparent. >> Let's get this one right then, as you mentioned Ireland recognises >> "Rights of Ancestry" as do "other countries" in Europe {all of them >> being in the EEC} so you think that the Rights of one person to >> "Ancestry" in one European Country would differ from the rights in >> another ??? > It's not a question of 'thinking' that such rights vary from country > to country. They do. As to citizenship rights based on birth in the > country, for that matter. Wrong again, Every Citizen of the EEC has the same rights {Treaty of Amsterdam}as every other citizen {that's what it's all about}. You might recall that the British Government {et-al, in their turn} have been hauled up infront of the ECJ {European Court of Justice}, like it or not all of us in the EEC have the same rights and are {at the end of the day} subject to ECJ Laws which hold sway over and member states laws. >> Remember that we are ALL Europeans now, we don't even have British >> Passports {as such now} > They are still British passports, even if they are issued in a common > format with other EU states. If someone has dual nationality (eg > British and French) they can have two passports. I'm well aware that even though we are all {in the EEC} many of us still can claim to be dual citizens on member states, for whatever purpose that gives us, again the bottom line is at the end of the day we are governed by and protected by EEC legislation, not by our country of abobe. >> what's Law for one is Law for all, whether we like it or not. > Not in the area of nationality. Laws differ greatly from one EU state > to another. I have no doubt they do, but they are all subject to compliance with the Treaties of Rome, Maastrict & Amsterdam. We can still hang on to quaint little laws or even more {seemingly} important laws, but the Constitution of the EEC over rules the lot... > > Be an odd situation if, lets say, someone from Italian or Irish {or > > nor Polish} Ancestry, would get a European Pasport/Citizenship and > > then be free to reside in the Untidy Kingdom, whilst someone who's > > grandfather/mother came from the UK but was denied rsidency ? how > > would that work ? or stand up in {European} Law ??? > That happens all the time. Look what happens though, they appeal to the EEC and we all finish up with equal rights. Although a Limey, I am Governed by the EEC, not Tony Blurr. > >Citizens of non-Commonwealth countries (eg the US) cannot apply for > >ancestry visas, even with British grandparents. > > People presently living outside of the EEC who have a grandparent who > lived in any of the Countries now in the EEC have the right to EEC > Citizenship. Absolute rubbish (together with the rest of your post, for that matter). If you look in the European Treaties (which obviously you haven't) you see that so-called 'EU citizenship' is entirely contingent on holding the citizenship of a member state. Those on this group who want an informed view on nationality matters might want to visit one of the groups dedicated to immigration. Jeremy > Absolute rubbish (together with the rest of your post, for that > matter). I'll rest my case/comments to quieten your noise. YAWN... >> People presently living outside of the EEC who have a grandparent who >> lived in any of the Countries now in the EEC have the right to EEC >> Citizenship. > Absolute rubbish (together with the rest of your post, for that > matter). Immigration & Nationality Directorate These pages explain what the Immigration Rules say about Commonwealth citizens with a grandparent who was born in the United Kingdom and Islands (the Islands include the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man). They are only a guide and aim to answer frequently asked questions. If this page does not answer your questions, please telephone or write to us for further information. As a Commonwealth citizen with a grandparent born in the United Kingdom and Islands, can I come to the United Kingdom to work? You can come to the United Kingdom to work as long as you can show that: you are a Commonwealth citizen; you are 17 or over; you have a grandparent who was born in the United Kingdom and Islands; you are able to work and you plan to do so in the United Kingdom; and you can support and accommodate yourself and any dependants adequately without help from public funds. How do I apply if I am already in the United Kingdom? You will need to complete an application form. Applications (except those for asylum and work permits or under European Community law) will not be valid unless they are made on the appropriate application form. You can get copies of application forms from this website. If you want to apply for further leave to remain, get form FLR(O). If you want to apply for indefinite leave to remain, get form SET(O). If you are in any doubt as to which form you should use please telephone the Immigration and Nationality Enquiry Bureau on 0870 606 7766. You should send the completed form, by post to IND, before your permission to stay ends. The application form will give you details of all the documents you will need to send with your application and where you should send it. If you need to travel urgently, you can apply in person at one of our public enquiry offices. All documents should be originals unless you have a good reason why you cannot produce them with your application. We will not normally accept photocopies. Do I need a work permit? No, you do not need a work permit. How long can I stay? If you arrive with a United Kingdom ancestry entry clearance you will be allowed to stay for four years. If you apply after you arrive and we approve your application, we will give you permission to stay in the United Kingdom for four years. What happens after four years? After four years, you will be eligible to apply to live here permanently as long as you continue to meet the requirements of the Immigration Rules for United Kingdom ancestry and you have worked for four years continuously in the United Kingdom. I am sorry to hear of your plight(s), Chris. You are correct that it is like pulling teeth to get a doctor to tell you the truth. I think that they think they are doing you a favor. My uro is one of the best in this city (as annually ranked by Cincinnati Magazine), but he flat out lied to me when we first explored my disease. It was not too bad of a problem for me, because I knew he was lying. Whenever he said, 1 out of 3, I assumed 2 out of 3, etc. We have since come to an understanding and have fair and accurate discussions now. Your doctor did not need to know about your lymph and kidney cancer to tell you that PSA 179 and T3c for a 50-year-old was bad for long-term survivability. If you have done your research, then you did not need for him to tell you either. However, I have been on this site for 3 years or so and no one with an initial PSA of less than 1000 has died yet (except one who treated himself with urine). The facts are, I am 50 with 2 strikes against me (failed RRP, failed RT). In this game, you get 4 strikes. During July 2003, I hit my HT pitch and it is currently headed straight down the foul line. If it goes foul and if I swing at and miss the chemo pitch, I'm out. Unfortunately, you got two strikes in on your before you even got a change to take the bat off your shoulder. I fear neither one of us is going to make it to the 7th inning. But, hell, when I played softball, that was a complete game! SignatureProstate Cancer Survivor (so far), not a doctor PSA 16 10/17/2000 @ 46 Biopsy 11/01/2000 G7 (3+4), T2c RRP 12/15/2000 G7 (3+4), T3bN0M0 PSA .1 .1 .1 .27 .37 .75 EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47 PSA .34 .22 .15 .21 .32 Lupron (1 mo) 07/21/2003 @ 48 PSA .07 .05 .06 Lupron (3 mo) 8/03 (48), 12/03, 4/04 (49), 09/04 (50) non illegitimi carborundum > I tested 179 on my PSA test last May (that is, almost two hundred, not > missing a decimal point.) [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups > ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.