Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

Family who chose prayer over medicine


  • Please log in to reply
85 replies to this topic

#31    White Crane Feather

White Crane Feather

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,160 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Potter: " is this real or is this in my mind?"

    Dumbledore: " Of course it's in your mind....., but that dosn't mean it's not real."

Posted 25 April 2013 - 01:38 AM

View PostArbenol68, on 24 April 2013 - 06:15 AM, said:



All fair comments.......except one.

They absolutely should be in jail. Stupidity is no defence. They failed to provide the necessities of life to someone who relies on them totally for their wellbeing. And they did it twice. That goes a bit beyond 'misguided'.
It's not. It's just a belief that you THINK is stupid. They probably happen to THINK your way is evil. You THINK they are misguided, they THINK you are. The point in government takeing action is to prevent the unnecessary death of Somone else punishing them for their beliefs is misguided. They were not actively seeking to harm their child. If I kill Somone in a car accident because I made a mistake, I don not go to jail. I get sued but the government does not step in if it were an honest mistake. Even if it happens twice.

"I wish neither to possess, Nor to be possessed. I no longer covet paradise, more important, I no longer fear hell. The medicine for my suffering I had within me from the very beginning, but I did not take it. My ailment came from within myself, But I did not observe it until this moment. Now I see that I will never find the light.  Unless, like the candle, I am my own fuel, Consuming myself. "
Bruce Lee-

#32    Arbenol68

Arbenol68

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,433 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Zealand

Posted 25 April 2013 - 04:15 AM

View PostSeeker79, on 25 April 2013 - 01:38 AM, said:


It's not. It's just a belief that you THINK is stupid. They probably happen to THINK your way is evil. You THINK they are misguided, they THINK you are. The point in government takeing action is to prevent the unnecessary death of Somone else punishing them for their beliefs is misguided. They were not actively seeking to harm their child. If I kill Somone in a car accident because I made a mistake, I don not go to jail. I get sued but the government does not step in if it were an honest mistake. Even if it happens twice.

I disagree. To use your car accident analogy, this is the equivalent of someone driving 100 in a 50 zone because they believe that it's safer to drive for the shortest possible time than to drive slower, but for a longer time. Have a crash as a direct result, kill their child......... and then go and do it again.

The first time could (at a stretch) be considered an accident. Making the same mistake again is criminal negligence - at best.

The inability to learn from a prior mistake, and lack of malicious intent, is not a defence.

And the purpose of the criminal justice system is not just to prevent further harm.


#33    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 10,383 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • I dunno --

Posted 25 April 2013 - 04:20 AM

I am curious what a typical Christian thinks of parents who refuse to allow their children a blood transfusion the doctor thinks is needed (but not critically needed) because they are Jehovah's Witnesses and the Bible (I think in Acts) clearly says Christians must abstain from blood.

What about if it was an elderly parent unable to speak for him or herself?

What if the doctor says its medically critical?


#34    Timonthy

Timonthy

    Placid

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,724 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Melbourne, Aust.

Posted 25 April 2013 - 04:37 AM

View PostFrank Merton, on 25 April 2013 - 04:20 AM, said:

I am curious what a typical Christian thinks of parents who refuse to allow their children a blood transfusion the doctor thinks is needed (but not critically needed) because they are Jehovah's Witnesses and the Bible (I think in Acts) clearly says Christians must abstain from blood.

What about if it was an elderly parent unable to speak for him or herself?

What if the doctor says its medically critical?
From Wiki:

-------------------------------------------
Rejection of blood transfusions

Main article: http://en.wikipedia....od_transfusions
Jehovah's Witnesses refuse blood transfusions, which they consider a violation of God's law based on their interpretation of Acts 15:28, 29 and other scriptures.[255][256][257] Since 1961 the willing acceptance of a blood transfusion by an unrepentant member has been grounds for expulsion from the religion.[258][259] Watch Tower Society literature directs Witnesses to refuse blood transfusions, even in "a life-or-death situation".[260][261][262] Jehovah's Witnesses accept non-blood alternatives and other medical procedures in lieu of blood transfusions, and the Watch Tower Society provides information about current non-blood medical procedures.[263]
Though Jehovah's Witnesses do not accept blood transfusions of whole blood, they may accept some blood plasma fractions at their own discretion.[264][265][266] The Watch Tower Society provides pre-formatted Power of Attorney documents prohibiting major blood components, in which members can specify which allowable fractions and treatments they will personally accept.[267][268] Jehovah's Witnesses have established Hospital Liaison Committees as a cooperative arrangement between individual Jehovah's Witnesses and medical professionals and hospitals.[269][270]
-------------------------------------------

Eg. Fun times to be had by all involved! A pain in the ass for anyone trying to help them. And more death.

Posted Image


#35    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 10,383 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • I dunno --

Posted 25 April 2013 - 04:49 AM

Thanks for the info, I'm sure many will learn something.  You don't however address my question (which is of course your right) except in the last line.  I'm trying to see if there is a difference here between those who reject only certain medical treatments and those who reject all medical treatments.

I might say that I am not aware of there being any of this group in Vietnam.  I ran into them many, many years ago in the States, and often use them as an example of a heterodox form of Christianity.


#36    White Crane Feather

White Crane Feather

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,160 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Potter: " is this real or is this in my mind?"

    Dumbledore: " Of course it's in your mind....., but that dosn't mean it's not real."

Posted 25 April 2013 - 05:08 AM

View PostArbenol68, on 25 April 2013 - 04:15 AM, said:



I disagree. To use your car accident analogy, this is the equivalent of someone driving 100 in a 50 zone because they believe that it's safer to drive for the shortest possible time than to drive slower, but for a longer time. Have a crash as a direct result, kill their child......... and then go and do it again.

The first time could (at a stretch) be considered an accident. Making the same mistake again is criminal negligence - at best.

The inability to learn from a prior mistake, and lack of malicious intent, is not a defence.

And the purpose of the criminal justice system is not just to prevent further harm.
We're talking about someone's religious faith and their lifestyle choices. It's not so easy to take that away from people even if our knowledge and beliefs severely contradict. You end up deciding reality for Somone else because you 'know better'. I agree they should not have access to children but throwing them into prison for their passive spiritual choices is ludacress, and a slippery slope. I don't trust chemo therepy. If one of my kids developed a bad cancer, it would take some severe convincing to let them fry my kids brain. Putting me in jail because I cannot believe that it's helpful would be tragic.

The religouse fundamentalists that do these things are concerned with the child's soul. They are doing what they think is right for good or I'll. In most criminal law Malice has to exist for a criminal act against another to stick. I suppose you could invoke "diliberate blindness" but still you have to proove that they are diliberatly blinding themselves as opposed to just not believing in modern medacine.

The bottom line, is that if you are going to throw parents in jail for not providing life saveing technology to their children based on faith, then you are going to have to do the same to doctors and other decision makers for not providing life saveing technology to children based on economics.

"I wish neither to possess, Nor to be possessed. I no longer covet paradise, more important, I no longer fear hell. The medicine for my suffering I had within me from the very beginning, but I did not take it. My ailment came from within myself, But I did not observe it until this moment. Now I see that I will never find the light.  Unless, like the candle, I am my own fuel, Consuming myself. "
Bruce Lee-

#37    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 10,383 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • I dunno --

Posted 25 April 2013 - 05:23 AM

I think I would oppose sending the parents to jail, but I would support getting a court order (after an appropriate hearing to be sure it is medically necessary) taking temporary custody of the child until the treatment is completed.


#38    Irrelevant

Irrelevant

    Apparition

  • Closed
  • PipPip
  • 357 posts
  • Joined:24 Apr 2013
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 25 April 2013 - 06:20 AM

A sad story for all involved but  proof there is no god? . Its  the belief in miracles and wonders and signs in nature that have often  clouded people's understanding in either believing , or on that basis choosing not too.





#39    Irrelevant

Irrelevant

    Apparition

  • Closed
  • PipPip
  • 357 posts
  • Joined:24 Apr 2013
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 25 April 2013 - 06:35 AM

View PostFrank Merton, on 25 April 2013 - 05:23 AM, said:

I think I would oppose sending the parents to jail, but I would support getting a court order (after an appropriate hearing to be sure it is medically necessary) taking temporary custody of the child until the treatment is completed.

The purpose of Jail or to incarcerate in its essence is to rehabilitate. This is why parole is not granted " not yet rehabilitated" . I liked your comment.


#40    Arbenol68

Arbenol68

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,433 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Zealand

Posted 25 April 2013 - 06:57 AM

View PostSeeker79, on 25 April 2013 - 05:08 AM, said:

In most criminal law Malice has to exist for a criminal act against another to stick. I suppose you could invoke "diliberate blindness" but still you have to proove that they are diliberatly blinding themselves as opposed to just not believing in modern medacine.

The law does not just legislate against malicious intent (not here, at least). In New Zealand, the failure to provide the necessities of life is a criminal offence. This law applies to parents and care givers, health professionals, etc.....

This is clause 152 of the Crimes Act:


152Duty of parent or guardian to provide necessaries and protect from injury
  • Every one who is a parent, or is a person in place of a parent, who has actual care or charge of a child under the age of 18 years is under a legal duty—
    • (a)to provide that child with necessaries; and
    • (to take reasonable steps to protect that child from injury.


Edited by Arbenol68, 25 April 2013 - 06:58 AM.


#41    Zaphod222

Zaphod222

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,594 posts
  • Joined:05 Sep 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tokyo

  • When the gods wish to punish us, they answer our prayers.
    (Oscar Wilde)

Posted 25 April 2013 - 07:34 AM

View Postfreetoroam, on 24 April 2013 - 12:11 PM, said:

They did not set out to commit murder.

Yes they did, even if in their muddled minds, they were doing the work of god.

The "My religion told me" excuse should be as inacceptable here as it is in the case of the Bostom bombers. They too only acted on behalf of their religion
.
A sane society does not accept this.

Edited by Zaphod222, 25 April 2013 - 07:35 AM.

"The moment you declare a set of ideas to be immune from criticism, satire, derision, or contempt, freedom of thought becomes impossible." (Salman Rushdie)

#42    Zaphod222

Zaphod222

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,594 posts
  • Joined:05 Sep 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tokyo

  • When the gods wish to punish us, they answer our prayers.
    (Oscar Wilde)

Posted 25 April 2013 - 07:37 AM

View PostSeeker79, on 25 April 2013 - 05:08 AM, said:

We're talking about someone's religious faith and their lifestyle choices. It's not so easy to take that away from people even if our knowledge and beliefs severely contradict. You end up deciding reality for Somone else because you 'know better'. I agree they should not have access to children but throwing them into prison for their passive spiritual choices is ludacress, and a slippery slope. I don't trust chemo therepy. If one of my kids developed a bad cancer, it would take some severe convincing to let them fry my kids brain. Putting me in jail because I cannot believe that it's helpful would be tragic.

The religouse fundamentalists that do these things are concerned with the child's soul. They are doing what they think is right for good or I'll. In most criminal law Malice has to exist for a criminal act against another to stick. I suppose you could invoke "diliberate blindness" but still you have to proove that they are diliberatly blinding themselves as opposed to just not believing in modern medacine.

The bottom line, is that if you are going to throw parents in jail for not providing life saveing technology to their children based on faith, then you are going to have to do the same to doctors and other decision makers for not providing life saveing technology to children based on economics.

No. Non sequitur. Superstition and economic reality are not the same thing AT ALL.
Fail. No banana.

"The moment you declare a set of ideas to be immune from criticism, satire, derision, or contempt, freedom of thought becomes impossible." (Salman Rushdie)

#43    freetoroam

freetoroam

    Honourary member of the UM asylum

  • Member
  • 5,685 posts
  • Joined:11 Nov 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:rivers and canals of England and Wales.

Posted 25 April 2013 - 09:09 AM

View PostZaphod222, on 25 April 2013 - 07:34 AM, said:

Yes they did, even if in their muddled minds, they were doing the work of god.

The "My religion told me" excuse should be as inacceptable here as it is in the case of the Bostom bombers. They too only acted on behalf of their religion
.
A sane society does not accept this.
Deliberately set out to commit murder?  Not quite the same as the Bostons bombers though, they DID set out to commit murder, the parents did not. The fact that both made choices because of their religious belief is where the similarity ends.
As for a sane society?  The parents did not want to conform to our way of society, does that make them wrong? yes in OUR minds.
Personally, I think what they done was a seriously unacceptable in our world today when there is help out there, but if they choice not to live like some of us, then who are we to change them?
A sane society or more like a society that is struggling to hold on to sanity must not allow this to happen to children, but how far do we go to tell people they must change their ways and beliefs because WE do not agree with them?

In an ideal World a law would be passed were NO guns were allowed and all those out there destroyed, trouble is the law makers are not going to take a risk of trying to pass that without making sure they are armed first.

#44    Arbenol68

Arbenol68

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,433 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Zealand

Posted 25 April 2013 - 09:10 AM

View PostZaphod222, on 25 April 2013 - 07:34 AM, said:

Yes they did, even if in their muddled minds, they were doing the work of god.

The "My religion told me" excuse should be as inacceptable here as it is in the case of the Bostom bombers. They too only acted on behalf of their religion
.
A sane society does not accept this.

Mostly I agree with you. Religious belief should not get a free pass when it causes harm such as this. The parents are 100% responsible and, notwithstanding the obvious distress the death of their child has caused them, they should be held to account.

As for it being murder - probably not. And I say probably because a fairly decent argument can be constructed to say that despite not wishing any harm on their child, they acted in such a way that any reasonable person would expect the child to come to harm. Although, I doubt that will happen.


#45    Arbenol68

Arbenol68

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,433 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Zealand

Posted 25 April 2013 - 09:12 AM

View Postfreetoroam, on 25 April 2013 - 09:09 AM, said:

A sane society or more like a society that is struggling to hold on to sanity must not allow this to happen to children, but how far do we go to tell people they must change their ways and beliefs because WE do not agree with them?

The line is simply where harm to others is likely to occur.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users