Parents convicted in faith healing death

Okay, every single fibre of my being screams at those parents and hates them for their stupidity, but I’d just like to play devil’s advocate if I may?

Do we, as a society, get to tell parents what medical treatment they must give their child?

(Bear in mind I do NOT agree with their decision or actions)

eddie wrote:Okay, every single fibre of my being screams at those parents and hates them for their stupidity, but I’d just like to play devil’s advocate if I may?

Do we, as a society, get to tell parents what medical treatment they must give their child?

(Bear in mind I do NOT agree with their decision or actions)

Well what matters here Eddie?

Does the uneducated medical religious beliefs of the parents trump the right of that child to medical intervention that can save its life and maintain its well being?

What matters is the well being of the child and as we already do in many situations of neglect. The state rightly steps in to safeguard the well being of that child. Or in this case, they should have done.

If we do not decide what is best medically for all children, the as seen the consequences are dire indeed.

This is not a case of different medical methods being argued over what is better.

The child was denied medical help, based on beliefs

Okay. But what if they hadn’t used religion as their “defence” but instead, said they were “naturists” who didn’t believe in medicine?

Would we have a right then?

eddie wrote:Okay. But what if they hadn’t used religion as their “defence” but instead, said they were “naturists” who didn’t believe in medicine?

Would we have a right then?

Same reasoning, naturism is yet abother belief.

It does not trump the well being and right to live of that child.

Okay, so what if it was cancer and the parents strongly believed that chemo was going to kill their child / give them a poor quality of life so they refused it?

Adults are allowed to choose this option for themselves.

eddie wrote:Okay, so what if it was cancer and the parents strongly believed that chemo was going to kill their child / give them a poor quality of life so they refused it?

Adults are allowed to choose this option for themselves.

Is the child terminal?

Again the state has the right to intervene

No adult is allowed to trump the best medical options for a child and they never should do.

They do not own children like property, as in slaves, that they can place children at risk.

They may hate the idea of chemo, which is horrible, but at present its the best option and how and why many people have survived cancer

I would suggest those parents are being selfish and not thinking of the best chances of survival for that child.

I’m not disputing what you’re saying isn’t what I feel too, but there’s a part of me that wonders if anyone has the right to interfere with a parent’s decision and if that law will somehow turn on itself and cause mayhem.

Somehow, in some way, this sort of thing will come up again and we will all be questioning whether it’s better to let parents decide. I don’t know what it will be, but it will happen.

eddie wrote:I’m not disputing what you’re saying isn’t what I feel too, but there’s a part of me that wonders if anyone has the right to interfere with a parent’s decision and if that law will somehow turn on itself and cause mayhem.

Somehow, in some way, this sort of thing will come up again and we will all be questioning whether it’s better to let parents decide. I don’t know what it will be, but it will happen.

Well there is a simple solution for those parents.

Become rich and buy their own Island to live on.

Whilst they live within a nation, they have to abide by those laws, which are there, to safeguard children.

Anyway, have to go Eddie

Night

eddie wrote:Okay, every single fibre of my being screams at those parents and hates them for their stupidity, but I’d just like to play devil’s advocate if I may?

Do we, as a society, get to tell parents what medical treatment they must give their child?

(Bear in mind I do NOT agree with their decision or actions)

Cause Parents Don't own their kids their not dolls.
their Kids are PEOPLE and afforded rights like the expectations for those with a duty of care to meet it.

It's a terrible Idea to let parents decide because Parents DO NOT know what's best.
there is Zero Evidence parents know what's best and plenty of evidence of fatality shit parents.

eddie wrote:Okay, every single fibre of my being screams at those parents and hates them for their stupidity, but I’d just like to play devil’s advocate if I may?

Do we, as a society, get to tell parents what medical treatment they must give their child?

(Bear in mind I do NOT agree with their decision or actions)

Yes, eddie...

Society has every right to override parental "rights" over their children, when deliberate and wilful neglect of those children by ignorant, stupid or plain bad parents will lead to preventable harm to those children..

Or in this case, the neglectful and avoidable behaviour by those stupid parents led to their childs unnecessary death.

Didge wrote:

eddie wrote:Okay, every single fibre of my being screams at those parents and hates them for their stupidity, but I’d just like to play devil’s advocate if I may?

Do we, as a society, get to tell parents what medical treatment they must give their child?

(Bear in mind I do NOT agree with their decision or actions)

Well what matters here Eddie?

Does the uneducated medical religious beliefs of the parents trump the right of that child to medical intervention that can save its life and maintain its well being?

What matters is the well being of the child and as we already do in many situations of neglect. The state rightly steps in to safeguard the well being of that child. Or in this case, they should have done.

If we do not decide what is best medically for all children, the as seen the consequences are dire indeed.

This is not a case of different medical methods being argued over what is better.

The child was denied medical help, based on beliefs

What is the basis for your deep faith in the state?

In this country we have just witnessed a government that denies climate change, and many other tenets of science.  These anti-science doctrines are politically motivated.

How do we know that the medical decisions of the state are not politically motivated?  Are such uneducated policies of the state better than the "uneducated medical religious beliefs" of parents?

There is a lot of room for doubt.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:


Well what matters here Eddie?

Does the uneducated medical religious beliefs of the parents trump the right of that child to medical intervention that can save its life and maintain its well being?

What matters is the well being of the child and as we already do in many situations of neglect. The state rightly steps in to safeguard the well being of that child. Or in this case, they should have done.

If we do not decide what is best medically for all children, the as seen the consequences are dire indeed.

This is not a case of different medical methods being argued over what is better.

The child was denied medical help, based on beliefs

What is the basis for your deep faith in the state?

In this country we have just witnessed a government that denies climate change, and many other tenets of science.  These anti-science doctrines are politically motivated.

How do we know that the medical decisions of the state are not politically motivated?  Are such uneducated policies of the state better than the "uneducated medical religious beliefs" of parents?

There is a lot of room for doubt.

Why would they be politically motivated in regards to saving a childs life, when they are ill?

Well in this country we try to safeguard the well being of children

Sadly at times its flawded, due to idiots like in social care and the Police

I am though talking about the fact we do have laws that safeguard children or should do, but humans let those children down

How do we know? Well that is very straight forward, normally a concensus of doctors would agree on what is best, espcially through a court action

There is little to no room for doubt, on what is the best medical procedures available today

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

What is the basis for your deep faith in the state?

In this country we have just witnessed a government that denies climate change, and many other tenets of science.  These anti-science doctrines are politically motivated.

How do we know that the medical decisions of the state are not politically motivated?  Are such uneducated policies of the state better than the "uneducated medical religious beliefs" of parents?

There is a lot of room for doubt.

Why would they be politically motivated in regards to saving a childs life, when they are ill?

Well in this country we try to safeguard the well being of children

Sadly at times its flawded, due to idiots like in social care and the Police

I am though talking about the fact we do have laws that safeguard children or should do, but humans let those children down

How do we know? Well that is very straight forward, normally a concensus of doctors would agree on what is best, espcially through a court action

There is little to no room for doubt, on what is the best medical procedures available today

I think you are basing your opinion on Britain, a country with over a thousand years of moral normalcy and consistency. Look at the US. It flips this way and that like a hooked fish, and has no normalcy whatsoever.

The Trump administration is in the process of dismantling the Department of Health and Human Services, which includes the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is one source of the dreaded Regulations Trump hates, and therein lies your motive.

The very agency that is responsible for treatment and disease control is being demobilized for political reasons. One child's life, more-or-less, is of no consequence if it means more profit for the pharmas and health insurance industry.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:

Why would they be politically motivated in regards to saving a childs life, when they are ill?

Well in this country we try to safeguard the well being of children

Sadly at times its flawded, due to idiots like in social care and the Police

I am though talking about the fact we do have laws that safeguard children or should do, but humans let those children down

How do we know? Well that is very straight forward, normally a concensus of doctors would agree on what is best, espcially through a court action

There is little to no room for doubt, on what is the best medical procedures available today

I think you are basing your opinion on Britain, a country with over a thousand years of moral normalcy and consistency.  Look at the US.  It flips this way and that like a hooked fish, and has no normalcy whatsoever.

The Trump administration is in the process of dismantling the Department of Health and Human Services, which includes the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is one source of the dreaded Regulations Trump hates, and therein lies your motive.

The very agency that is responsible for treatment and disease control is being demobilized for political reasons.  One child's life, more-or-less, is of no consequence if it means more profit for the pharmas and health insurance industry.

So basically you are turning this into another thread about Trump

The reality is this and its not based on faith, but an element of luck and how well a body reacts to treatment

Hence the balance of risk, when it comes to severe illnesses.

Now a body can even slowly heel, but this becomes further difficult, when someone contracts conditions like pnumonia, espcially in a child, the elderly or who suffer things like breathing conditions.

Thus the best medical methods will vastly increase the chances of that patient becomming better.

The chances of the patient recovering relying on faith alone in prayers, as seen, can lead to that patient dying

Now this is what we are talking about.

Not your views on Trump and the US

I'm not arguing faith. I'm simply saying the answer is not to be found in a government that doesn't want to maintain standards in accordance with scientific awareness.

yeah, but Quill......our opinion is bound to differ considerably, whilst britain may not be so great as she once was, at least she aint broken like the US.

Lord Foul wrote:yeah, but Quill......our opinion is bound to differ considerably, whilst britain may not be so great as she once was, at least she aint broken like the US.

Absolutely right.     You can be intuitively rational when you want to be.  This story is about Reading Pennsylvania, not somewhere in the UK.  We have some deep-south convictions that do not encumber you Brits, one of which is hatred of health and industrial standards.

A European would look at regulations and see them as public protections; a certain kind of American looks at regulations and sees them as unnecessary obstructions to profit-making enterprises.  Trump is such an American:

Politico wrote:What Trump has actually done is something else: Rather than repealing old rules, he has put a cork in the federal regulatory process, slow-playing rulemaking and in many cases stopping it entirely.

So, in America, we are fraught with conflicting motives regarding regulation.  Of course, that affects everything...significantly, for purposes of this discussion...the healthcare and pharma industry.

The Department of Health and Human Services is the battlegrounds for such standards.  Its subordinate agency, the Center for Disease Control, is tasked with testing and coming up with the medicines and vaccines to implement those standards.  If the CDC is prevented from conducting the necessary tests to study those medicines and vaccines, either because of costs, or because of legislative manipulation by the pharmas and healthcare enterprises, then medical science leaves something to be desired in the US.

Do we want to enforce standards on our children that are put out by a fractional, and even corrupt agency?  So there's something to be said for those who hold back.  I don't particularly countenance the religious purposes, but you have to admit that a corrupt healthcare system is worth restraining regardless of purpose.

to convince me that they had the right of this on the basis of what you have just posted, you would have to show me that "doing nothing" was better than seeking whatever help is available, in fact you would have to convince me that seeking whatever help is available would in fact cause more harm to the individual than doing nothing.....

Lord Foul wrote:to convince me that they had the right of this on the basis of what you have just posted, you would have to show me that "doing nothing" was better than seeking whatever help is available, in fact you would have to convince me that seeking whatever help is available would in fact cause more harm to the individual than doing nothing.....

The point is that the state of medical standards is so dismal in America, due to lack of regulation, that you could probably find someone who still "blood-lets" as a cure. Why not...if it makes money, and is not illegal...

its kinda getting away from the point of the o/p, even if the actions of those in the o/p were in some way generated by the situation over there. However I dont think their actions were as they put it " the actions of the ""reasonable man""....rather blinkered, backward and frankly wrongful actions of religiosity"

The problems you describe within the system have long been a cancer in the american body, how you deal with it however is somewhat beyond me, short of a revolution

Victor wrote:However I dont think their actions were as they put it " the actions of the ""reasonable man""....rather blinkered, backward and frankly wrongful actions of religiosity"

Under the choices available, the outcome is the only thing that can be reasonable. You've got a system that doesn't abide by any public protections; what's next, mandatory leeches and tape worms?

Victor wrote:The problems you describe within the system have long been a cancer in the american body, how you deal with it however is somewhat beyond me, short of a revolution.

California--along with Oregon, Washington, Alaska, Arizona and Hawai'i--would make a wonderful nation on its own.  We have everything we need, including one of our number already being the 6th largest economy in the world.

We don't want to punish anyone.  We just want to shed elements of our existence that are unhealthy.  I'm sure those elements will be much happier with their white-nationalism and police shooting of black males.  So far from a match that is made in heaven, it could be seen as a divorce made in heaven.