Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Ashotep

Family who chose prayer over medicine

86 posts in this topic

They should be allowed to choose prayer instead of medicine for themselves. And hey, placebo even works sometimes. But they don´t have the right to make that murderous decision for their toddler. Prison for murder.

They did not set out to commit murder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

They should be allowed to choose prayer instead of medicine for themselves. And hey, placebo even works sometimes. But they don´t have the right to make that murderous decision for their toddler. Prison for murder.

They may be able to get charged with "Man Slaughter"(accidental killing), but as there's no way to prove weather or not they had malice intent they can't be charged with "murder"(deliberate Killing) without storing up a whirlwind of controversy over religious rights and freedoms.

The courts may be able to toss on "Criminal neglect" and "endangerment of a minor" to puff the sentencing up a little more though...

In my Personal Opinion, it was murder. The same thing happen to their last child, so either these to are both suffering from some form of Learning Disability, or they knew what the outcome would be...

How many times do you have to drop a brick on your toe before you realize it hurts? A fully functional human brain figures it out after the first try. Even children understand "cause and effect" enough to learn from it...

That says to me that they are either Saddest, or mentally incompetent...

Edited by Midyin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is an old joke that pertains to this story of the man on his rooftop praying for salvation from the flood raging abound him. A boat comes up, and they holler to him to climb in, but he says he has faith in God to save him and doesn't need the boat. A little later as the flood gets even worse another boat comes, and the same thing happens. Even as the waves are overtopping the man's house, he still prays, and another boat just barely is able to get there, but he again waves them off saying he has faith in his prayers.

The flood comes and washes him away, and he drowns. When he gets to heaven, he asks the Lord why he abandoned him to the flood in spite of all his fervent and faithful praying. The Lord answers, "What do you expect, I sent you three boats."

7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is an old joke that pertains to this story of the man on his rooftop praying for salvation from the flood raging abound him. A boat comes up, and they holler to him to climb in, but he says he has faith in God to save him and doesn't need the boat. A little later as the flood gets even worse another boat comes, and the same thing happens. Even as the waves are overtopping the man's house, he still prays, and another boat just barely is able to get there, but he again waves them off saying he has faith in his prayers.

The flood comes and washes him away, and he drowns. When he gets to heaven, he asks the Lord why he abandoned him to the flood in spite of all his fervent and faithful praying. The Lord answers, "What do you expect, I sent you three boats."

I'll have to remember that one... LOL!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They may be able to get charged with "Man Slaughter"(accidental killing), but as there's no way to prove weather or not they had malice intent they can't be charged with "murder"(deliberate Killing) without storing up a whirlwind of controversy over religious rights and freedoms.

The courts may be able to toss on "Criminal neglect" and "endangerment of a minor" to puff the sentencing up a little more though...

In my Personal Opinion, it was murder. The same thing happen to their last child, so either these to are both suffering from some form of Learning Disability, or they knew what the outcome would be...

How many times do you have to drop a brick on your toe before you realize it hurts? A fully functional human brain figures it out after the first try. Even children understand "cause and effect" enough to learn from it...

That says to me that they are either Saddest, or mentally incompetent...

I think in their world view, they may believe the second time around they were "clearly being tested" by God and probably prayed even more fervently than the first time around. It is a state of delusion and fascination with the manifestion of God's power in one's own life, these people are tragically mistaken in their understanding of the tenets of faith. Jesus Christ himself was tempted by the devil to show his faith in God by jumping from a high tower, Jesus answered him, "It is also written: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'" Matthew 4.7.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.org/wiki/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses_and_blood_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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 the past terrroists and murderers have killed others because they thought they were doig 'god's will' much like this family did. They didn't get a free pass from justice just because they thought they were doing the right thing. If we start giving free passes to people because they thought they 'didn't want to conform to our way' where does it end exactly?

The key thing here is this. A child died and that death was unecessary. One death could be ruled accidental, but this is the second one this family have commmitted. Now if you take the religious component out of this, if this family had instead just let their child die knowing it could be saved, would there really be any issue saying they should recieve some form of punishment or sanction?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

very true, but as yet, humans has not been able to draw a line which everyone has chosen not to cross, maybe religion has a part in this!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

My father's family are Jehovah's Witnesses, yet my cousin - son of his sister, who is sadly now passed away was a heart surgeon. Common sense seemed to prevail and the request to abstain from blood was kept in it's correct context ie: do not gratuitously drink/eat of the blood of another creature. He would have said giving and receiving blood for the purpose of keeping the body alive was not "imbibing" I'm pretty sure of that.

As to myself and christianity. Well, I believe that we are given the gift of healing ourselves via the intelligence of our minds to understand our bodies and what will keep them alive aka: medicine and the medical profession. That in itself is miraculous, this great intellect of ours which we can use to help others and heal. Of course, we can squander it by falling into judgements and fears that prevent us from making the best use of the gifts we were born with too. In every instance that is legal and moral I will choose life above all else for others, there is always a prayer and a deep gratitude to those who give their time and effort to saving another's life through modern medicine, it is a calling to serve humanity for those whose heart rather than wallet sent them into these career paths, they are true heros and amongst the best of humanity imo.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the past terrroists and murderers have killed others because they thought they were doig 'god's will' much like this family did. They didn't get a free pass from justice just because they thought they were doing the right thing. If we start giving free passes to people because they thought they 'didn't want to conform to our way' where does it end exactly?

The key thing here is this. A child died and that death was unecessary. One death could be ruled accidental, but this is the second one this family have commmitted. Now if you take the religious component out of this, if this family had instead just let their child die knowing it could be saved, would there really be any issue saying they should recieve some form of punishment or sanction?

In the past??

Terrorists and murderers generally use something to KILL their intended victim/s, be it their hands or a bomb, the reason why they kill is not quite the same as what these parents have done, they truly believed god will save their child, the terrorists generally believe that its god will to kill other men and they will sacrifice their own lives, murderers deliberately go out to kill because "god told them to".....many different reasons, but not the same as why these parents lost their children.

But do not get me wrong, i do not condone what they have done, purely for one reason only, because I believe in medicines and the work of the nurses and doctors.

What do you say about all the Jehovah Witnesses, should they be put a stop to NOW just incase?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the past??

Terrorists and murderers generally use something to KILL their intended victim/s, be it their hands or a bomb, the reason why they kill is not quite the same as what these parents have done, they truly believed god will save their child, the terrorists generally believe that its god will to kill other men and they will sacrifice their own lives, murderers deliberately go out to kill because "god told them to".....many different reasons, but not the same as why these parents lost their children.

But do not get me wrong, i do not condone what they have done, purely for one reason only, because I believe in medicines and the work of the nurses and doctors.

What do you say about all the Jehovah Witnesses, should they be put a stop to NOW just incase?

Well, I meant not just in the past obviously. But there have been cases where people have killed and said they did it because of a religious belief. The point in brining that up is the reason doesn't matter all that much for those people, they still killed and that's what matters. Yet here, where an innocent chiuld dies because of their parent's inaction all that seems to matter is why they did it and, worse, it becomes completely excusable.

I think if you have a family member (especially a child) and you'd rather use religion to save them instead of something that has a chance of working, then yes something should be done against them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.