Parents who believed prayer would save daughter charged with reckless homicide - Page 2

TankRizzo · 06-12-2008, 05:11 PM

I'm w/ thewise1 here, I'm still on the fence.

Another side question, would we be having this discussion if she were Amish?

motivez · 06-12-2008, 05:13 PM

Originally Posted by TankRizzo

I'm w/ thewise1 here, I'm still on the fence.

Another side question, would we be having this discussion if she were Amish?

When someone gets sick in an Amish community, do they provide no care whatsoever?

I know they've rejected modern life, but I thought they'd do more than stand over a sick person and wish them to get better.

thewise1 · 06-12-2008, 05:13 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Wow

Have you ever tried to debate them on any of their more zany beliefs?

No, I just bailed and never went back and have spoken with them about 2 times in the past 10 years, once because grandma died and the other time because I wanted them to know they were grandparents. I want nothing to do with them

thewise1 · 06-12-2008, 05:17 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

If they can't provide basic care for their children to the point where the child's life is at risk? Yes. You disagree?

I'm not talking about not being able to afford an xbox360, I'm talking about food, shelter, and basic medical care.. If your child has diabetes, you have a responsibility as a parent to ensure they're getting what they need to survive, through purchasing it yourself or some program that makes it more affordable or whatever.

In washington state, being homeless is not considered child abuse. I'm not sure that it should be either. Failure? yeah I'll give you that. But child abuse... I dunno about that. This has been upheld by our court system too.

JaJae · 06-12-2008, 05:18 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

So would you force a blood transfusion on a Jehovah's Witness who needed it to live after a car accident?

Depends on the age. Adults would be one thing, but children should be protected despite parental religious beliefs.

thewise1 · 06-12-2008, 05:24 PM

I guess the way I see it is like this.

Much like immigration - The only, only way to get rid of the illegal immigrants is going to be to give the people who ARE here legally a counterfeit proof national ID card and pass a law allowing police to detain you at will to determine whether or not you are a citizen. If you aren't - or can't prove it, you will be tossed out.

Nothing else can possibly do the job. Everything else is a bunch of feel good crap that might make even a dent, but can't end it. I don't want illegals here, but at the same time I don't want to give up those rights because I'm not doing anything wrong and I shouldn't have to prove that I'm not.

The same concept applies to this. What they did was, by my moral compass, wrong. But my morals cannot be used to shape the laws of this nation on their own, and again the only way to make sure stuff like this doesn't happen is to have state oversight over parents. Random welfare checks, more scrutiny with people of differing beliefs, people like the FLDS people would catch a lot of flack just for their beliefs, even if they weren't doing anything wrong at all.

So while I don't agree with what they did, the only solution to really prevent it is unacceptable to me. So put them in front of a jury and let reasonable people decide.

thewise1 · 06-12-2008, 05:25 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Depends on the age. Adults would be one thing, but children should be protected despite parental religious beliefs.

This would require that parents not be able to bring up their child in their own belief system, if said belief system prevented medical intervention.

I'm not saying this is right or wrong, but it's something to consider.

motivez · 06-12-2008, 05:34 PM

Originally Posted by thewise1

In washington state, being homeless is not considered child abuse. I'm not sure that it should be either. Failure? yeah I'll give you that. But child abuse... I dunno about that. This has been upheld by our court system too.

Really? That's hard to believe

You think parents should be allowed to retain custody of their kids if they're forcing the to live under a bridge and eat out of dumpsters, begging for change on the side of the road?

I dunno man.

thewise1 · 06-12-2008, 05:37 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Really? That's hard to believe

You think parents should be allowed to retain custody of their kids if they're forcing the to live under a bridge and eat out of dumpsters, begging for change on the side of the road?

I dunno man.

In the great depression the state would have taken most of the kids from their families in your scenario.

motivez · 06-12-2008, 05:37 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Depends on the age. Adults would be one thing, but children should be protected despite parental religious beliefs.

What thewise1 said. That would require the parents abandon their religious beliefs and not bring their child up in the religion

They think it goes against the Bible: Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Phantom · 06-12-2008, 05:40 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

What thewise1 said. That would require the parents abandon their religious beliefs and not bring their child up in the religion

They think it goes against the Bible: Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Obviously the two conflict here, religion and life. Which do you think should trump?

I'm going with life...

thewise1 · 06-12-2008, 05:46 PM

Originally Posted by Phantom

Obviously the two conflict here, religion and life. Which do you think should trump?

I'm going with life...

I'm always really dubious of other people telling parents how to handle a situation though because I've experienced a little of that myself. My wife and I still experience people telling us we are heartless and cruel for allowing a child into the world with a missing arm, and that we should lose her to the state because we allowed religion (or principle, as I prefer to call it) to get in the way of just aborting her.

Everyone has their little opinion and while I personally think the situation with the insulin is much more clear cut and simple - and that the parents were in the wrong, I'm a little gun-shy of forcing my parental views on others nonetheless.

Smull · 06-12-2008, 05:48 PM

I don't know, we pretty much have the tradition in this country that parents can do whatever they want with they're kids so long as they don't cause them harm. But this and tons of other perfectly legal things that parents do I find morally wrong and deeply disturbing. But I'm hesitant to really demand a law because it also bothers me to have the state have more authority over raising children than the parents.

As much as I hate religious zealotry I still love the concept of freedom of religion.

JaJae · 06-12-2008, 06:02 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

What thewise1 said. That would require the parents abandon their religious beliefs and not bring their child up in the religion

They think it goes against the Bible: Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They can't bring their kid up in the religion if they're dead anyway. Ultimately the state needs to protect children from outside sources that wish to do them harm even if its their own parents and even if their intentions are good. The children are the innocent, the parents are not the victims.

thewise1 · 06-12-2008, 06:08 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

They can't bring their kid up in the religion if they're dead anyway. Ultimately the state needs to protect children from outside sources that wish to do them harm even if its their own parents and even if their intentions are good. The children are the innocent, the parents are not the victims.

Do you see what I meant about the only way to make this work is have random welfare checks for all parents, etc?

You can't 'protect kids' without it. Which is why I don't want the government protecting me or mine. All you can do is avenge the dead if you don't have this.

Rhianann · 06-14-2008, 01:55 AM

Statistically, .01 % (notice the decimal point) of all prayers are answered. I'll take the meds

JaJae · 06-14-2008, 02:15 AM

Originally Posted by thewise1

Do you see what I meant about the only way to make this work is have random welfare checks for all parents, etc?

You can't 'protect kids' without it. Which is why I don't want the government protecting me or mine. All you can do is avenge the dead if you don't have this.

Why not just treat it like any other child abuse/neglect case? If a complaint is issued it should be investigated. If after the fact it is determined the parents may have done something bring them in. They may not have meant any harm, but they were still grossly negligent and it resulted in the death of a minor.

Parents should be responsible for their children. If their children are in need of medical attention it is up to the parents to make an effort to provide it for them regardless of spiritual, moral beliefs or competence level.

To me this would be like a child bleeding to death on the bedroom floor and the parent just leaves them there refusing to call an ambulance for spiritual, moral or competence reasons. Whatever reason they have and no matter how well intentioned they may have been, they were grossly negligent in raising their child and they are directly responsible for the death.

You can raise a kid however you want as long as you don't directly endanger their welfare or commit gross neglect. I don't think people should be able to hide behind their religion when they commit acts that directly result in the death of the innocent children in their care. They are more than welcome to practice whatever religion they desire... so long as it doesn't directly cause negative harm someone else.

motivez · 06-14-2008, 02:28 AM

Where do you draw the line though?

I mean, I understand where the apprehension comes from. If you honestly believe that getting a blood transfusion will send you to hell, should the state really be allowed to force it on your child?

I tend to think when it's a matter of life and death, yes for a minor, no for an adult. But I can completely understand why some people might feel differently if they hold their beliefs strongly.

JaJae · 06-14-2008, 02:32 AM

Originally Posted by motivez

Where do you draw the line though?

I mean, I understand where the apprehension comes from. If you honestly believe that getting a blood transfusion will send you to hell, should the state really be allowed to force it on your child?

I tend to think when it's a matter of life and death, yes for a minor, no for an adult. But I can completely understand why some people might feel differently if they hold their beliefs strongly.

I agree. Adults can make whatever medical decisions they want about their own bodies so long as they are mentally fit. Children need to be protected until they are an adult if their lives are on the line. They shouldn't be punished for the beliefs of their parents.

I respect religion, but I don't think it's fair to project religious views onto the medical well being of children. I don't think the state should honor that as a reason for allowing a child to die.