Parents who believed prayer would save daughter charged with reckless homicide

[7960]

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?

I was thinkiing the exact same thing after reading this

I don't really think that the vaccine thing is the same. the level of risk is different, the potential benefit/cost is not the same. IN this case the child was going to die, period. The child could have been saved easily by a routine medical procedure......

JW would refuse a blood tranfusion and the child would die. Is it different?

[7960]

Originally Posted by JaJae

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 belief is that the child won't go to (their) "heaven" if they get a transfusion, or a vaccine, or medical treatment, then they ARE being responsible for their children.

[7960]

Originally Posted by JaJae

They can't bring their kid up in the religion if they're dead anyway.

And they can't bring the kid up in the religion if you can take him away and violate their core beliefs.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by 7960

And they can't bring the kid up in the religion if you can take him away and violate their core beliefs.

There was a case in Canada about this recently.

Children's health rights trump parent beliefs in Canada


I particularly agree with:

While it is difficult to conceive of any limitations on religious beliefs, the same cannot be said of religious practices, notably when they impact on the fundamental rights and freedoms of others

Otherwise religion could justify almost anything, murder included.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by 7960

And they can't bring the kid up in the religion if you can take him away and violate their core beliefs.

To me this is no different than if their core beliefs included sacrificing their child in the name of religion. This is essentially what they did.

It's nice that they have religion, but they shouldn't be allowed to use their religion to neglect the health of their child. It's a tough position to be in, but in the end the welfare of the child should trump any religious beliefs until they are of legal age.

[Dylith]

Originally Posted by 7960

If their belief is that the child won't go to (their) "heaven" if they get a transfusion, or a vaccine, or medical treatment, then they ARE being responsible for their children.

I agree, and if that is what they truely believe then that is what they should do, afterall God's law, if true, most certainly trumps man made law. The parents should allow the kid to die, but they should also be willing to face the earthly consequences of that act which would be jail time due to reckless homicide.

I think that minors should recieve life saving medical care regardless of their parents religious beliefs.

[lew]

I really don't know how to feel about this.


I do believe parents have a right to raise their kids however they see fit.


But I also believe that the right of individuality begins at birth, not at 18. Therefore, I think that if she truly didn't want to partake in her parents religion and believed she was a slave to their beliefs, she should have escaped from that environment.

If she never even attempted to escape, then I would think that it was her will of that which happened, so her parents should not be prosecuted for anything.

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by lew

I really don't know how to feel about this.


I do believe parents have a right to raise their kids however they see fit.


But I also believe that the right of individuality begins at birth, not at 18. Therefore, I think that if she truly didn't want to partake in her parents religion and believed she was a slave to their beliefs, she should have escaped from that environment.

If she never even attempted to escape, then I would think that it was her will of that which happened, so her parents should not be prosecuted for anything.

That's an interesting take but I'm not sure that I wholeheartedly agree this time.

If I could have entered into a contract and been 'legal' before 18, I would have bailed on my parents at like 14 years of age. But between their indoctrination and my perception that I couldn't survive earlier than 18 on my own, I don't think I really had that right yet.

Also, it was many years after that, even, before I was able to work through the majority of my beliefs and question them, reshaping them according to what I believe and what I can see.

[lew]

Also, I am one of those "crazies" that not only believes in crazy political theories, but I also believe that God can heal bodies, cars, ipods, whatever.

I don't believe everything that their website propagates, but I am one of those "crazies."

[lew]

Originally Posted by Dylith

I agree, and if that is what they truely believe then that is what they should do, afterall God's law, if true, most certainly trumps man made law. The parents should allow the kid to die, but they should also be willing to face the earthly consequences of that act which would be jail time due to reckless homicide.

I think that minors should recieve life saving medical care regardless of their parents religious beliefs.

huh?

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by lew

Also, I am one of those "crazies" that not only believes in crazy political theories, but I also believe that God can heal bodies, cars, ipods, whatever.

I don't believe everything that their website propagates, but I am one of those "crazies."

I believe that as well, although I have to admit I'm skeptical of their claims

[lew]

Originally Posted by thewise1

That's an interesting take but I'm not sure that I wholeheartedly agree this time.

If I could have entered into a contract and been 'legal' before 18, I would have bailed on my parents at like 14 years of age. But between their indoctrination and my perception that I couldn't survive earlier than 18 on my own, I don't think I really had that right yet.

Also, it was many years after that, even, before I was able to work through the majority of my beliefs and question them, reshaping them according to what I believe and what I can see.

Well, obviously, all of us are constantly evolving and changing our beliefs, to one degree or another. I just think that you have the right to pursue whatever beliefs you may believe at the time.


For example, perhaps what you assume is correct, and she would have become an atheist when she turned 18 if she would have lived, for example. And let's assume that once she became an atheist, she probably would never have allowed herself be put into that "abusive" situation, of course. But the problem is, when she's 50, she could change her mind again, and then believe that what her parents were doing was correct.

My point is that regardless of why she believed the way she did, the fact remains that she did believe that - so that was the sum of her individualism and she (and her parents) had every right to let her die.


Unless of course, like I said, she thought she was a slave to their beliefs and attempted to escape. In that case, she is no longer free, and if her parents forced her to die, then they should be charged.

[lew]

Originally Posted by thewise1

I believe that as well, although I have to admit I'm skeptical of their claims

I'm skeptical of most peoples' claims as well.


But I still believe God can do whatever He likes.


For example, you may have heard of this before, maybe not, but there have been people that have testified that they needed fillings in their teeth and God miraculously filled their teeth with gold, so that they were good to go. I believe this can happen, since I believe God can do whatever He wants, but I always wondered why God wouldn't just heal their teeth completely where they wouldn't need fillings...at all.

[Dylith]

Originally Posted by lew

huh?

Well obviously the parents in question didn't inform the state that they were going to let their child die. In there eyes they were doing the right thing and were being responsible. Given the set of assumptions that they were operating under they were doing the right thing. I do not really think that they are bad people for following something that they truely believed to be the best thing for their child.

I feel that the state though should put the child's physical safety before their family's religious beliefs. I support the notion that these parents should be brought up on charges and that hospitals should give life saving treatment to minors even if their parent's religious wishes contradict it.

[7960]

Originally Posted by lew

huh?

he wants to take your kids if he doesn't think they're getting proper medical treatment.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by lew

Also, I am one of those "crazies" that not only believes in crazy political theories, but I also believe that God can heal bodies, cars, ipods, whatever.

But god won't heal your bank account after the liberals tax you?

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by 7960

he wants to take your kids if he doesn't think they're getting proper medical treatment.

Crazy nanny-state people.

They threatened to come and take my kid if I didn't start feeding him.
I told them god would provide him all nutrients he needs if he preys hard enough, but they just laughed at me.

[lew]

Originally Posted by Scrum

But god won't heal your bank account after the liberals tax you?

Actually, He will.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by lew

Actually, He will.

Then why hate taxes silly?