Parents choose prayer over medicine: daughter dies

[CptStern]

Police are investigating an 11-year-old girl's death from an undiagnosed, treatable form of diabetes after her parents chose to pray for her rather than take her to a doctor

An autopsy showed Madeline Neumann died Sunday of diabetic ketoacidosis, a condition that left too little insulin in her body, Everest Metro Police Chief Dan Vergin said.

She had probably been ill for about a month, suffering symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, excessive thirst, loss of appetite and weakness

The girl's mother, Leilani Neumann, said that she and her family believe in the Bible and that healing comes from God, but that they do not belong to an organized religion or faith, are not fanatics and have nothing against doctors. [stern note: are not fanatics? suuure you'e not]

****ing idiots ..what gets me is that they're completely hypocritical:

The girl's father, Dale Neumann, a former police officer, said he started CPR "as soon as the breath of life left" his daughter's body

why didnt they continue to trust in the lord? why do mouth to mouth?

"oh shit god isnt doing anything, we should do it ourselves!"

Family members elsewhere called authorities to seek help for the girl.

"My sister-in-law, she's very religious, she believes in faith instead of doctors ...," the girl's aunt told a sheriff's dispatcher Sunday afternoon in a call from California

"Please," the woman replied. "I mean, she's refusing. She's going to fight it. ... We've been trying to get her to take her to the hospital for a week, a few days now."

The aunt called back with more information on the family's location, emergency logs show. Family friends also made a 911 call from the home. Police and paramedics arrived within minutes and immediately called for an ambulance that took her to a hospital.

they should be charged with neglect causing death at the very least ..at best we can hope for is premeditated murder because that's just what it was


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080328...eath_prayer;_ylt=AviK74K0A38sNyBq.jIRrQus0NUE

 

[Cormeh]

"Yes but only in the case of those who cant decide for themselves (children)"

If you're older and more aware of what you're actually putting your faith forward for, then by all means refuse medical attention.

In this case though...... jeez. They just wouldn't or just couldn't see what pain their daughter was in? I'm a bit disturbed, truth be told.

EDIT: Source? :/

 

[Remus]

Should government force people to seek medical attention?

No, the government shouldn't force people to seek medical attention, even if it really would be for their own good in some cases. It's our right to be dumbasses and die with the hospital right next door, if we want to.

they should be charged with neglect causing death at the very least ..at best we can hope for is premeditated murder because that's just what it was

Completely agree with this.

 

[CptStern]

"Yes but only in the case of those who cant decide for themselves (children)"

If you're older and more aware of what you're actually putting your faith forward for, then by all means refuse medical attention.

In this case though...... jeez. They just wouldn't or just couldn't see what pain their daughter was in? I'm a bit disturbed, truth be told.

EDIT: Source? :/

the thing is that it isnt as clear cut as that in many cases ..for example the elderly or the mentally ahndicapped ..there's usually no time to determine whether they are capable of FULLY understanding their choice, or their religion for that matter ..same goes for people who choose religion over prayer ..obviously they're not capable of making the right choice because they're relying on the equivilent of the tooth fairy to save them ..we wouldnt allow them to go through with it if it were the tooth fairy she was praying to so why does religion get an automatic pass? the two scenarios are exactly the same


source added btw

 

[repiV]

the thing is that it isnt as clear cut as that in many cases ..for example the elderly or the mentally ahndicapped ..there's usually no time to determine whether they are capable of FULLY understanding their choice, or their religion for that matter ..same goes for people who choose religion over prayer ..obviously they're not capable of making the right choice because they're relying on the equivilent of the tooth fairy to save them ..we wouldnt allow them to go through with it if it were the tooth fairy she was praying to so why does religion get an automatic pass? the two scenarios are exactly the same


source added btw

It is not the job of the government to interfere in people's personal affairs. If people die due to their stupidity, that's their problem. We do not live in a nursery.

 

[CptStern]

and when it's children? do they not have a responsibility? what about the mentally handicapped? the sick? the dying? those who cannot through mental defininciancy see through the malarky that is their religion? it is the government's duty to insure the safety of their citizens or else there wouldnt be things like regulatory bodies that prevent people from buying products that could kill them


it's not as absolute as you make it out to be repiv ..the governemnt has some responsibility whether you like it or not

 

[repiV]

and when it's children? do they not have a responsibility?

That's different. Nonetheless I'm not sure why the government is supposed to assume responsibility for children in need, that's what neighbours, concerned citizens and, if necessary, the police are for.

what about the mentally handicapped? the sick? the dying? those who cannot through mental defininciancy see through the malarky that is their religion? it is the government's duty to insure the safety of their citizens or else there wouldnt be things like regulatory bodies that prevent people from buying products that could kill them

It's pretty arrogant to suggest that highly religious people need to be restrained by the government from a course of action that's harmful to themselves, "for their own good". That's verging on totalitarianism. What next? Counselling for people who partake in dangerous sports or activities, because they're obviously crazy for not sharing mainstream values?
No it is not the government's duty to ensure the safety of their citizens, that duty only extends insofar as ensuring the security of law-abiding citizens from external and internal threats (foreign aggression/crime). It's precisely that kind of attitude - that people must be protected from the consequences of their own decisions - that is turning the world into a depressing, fatalistic place.
If you're stupid, you die. Having suffered a long-term disability as a result of my own stupidity, I remain more than happy with that status quo - why does individual responsibility pose such a problem for you?

it's not as absolute as you make it out to be repiv ..the governemnt has some responsibility whether you like it or not

A purely modern trend.

 

[CptStern]

That's different. Nonetheless I'm not sure why the government is supposed to assume responsibility for children in need, that's what neighbours, concerned citizens and, if necessary, the police are for.

why is it different? obviously these people were too stupid to decide for themselves ..it's no different had they been mentally handicapped (which they are in the strictest sense of the word)

and the government is responsible, why else would they table laws that protect children etc ..you cannot say that the government has wiped it's hands of responsibility of it's citizens welfare when it's obviously not the case ..from putting chlorine in ur drinking warter to preventing us from purchasing gas with lead additives

 

[repiV]

why is it different? obviously these people were too stupid to decide for themselves ..it's no different had they been mentally handicapped (which they are in the strictest sense of the word)

That's life. You don't have the right to sit there and pass judgement on who is and who is not smart enough to run their own lives, and nor does anyone else. Hell, many so-called "intellectuals" have zero common sense and live miserable, lonely, unsuccessful lives. Do we give them all free life coaching and assertiveness training?
Freedom is often mistaken these days to mean having a free ride, reaping all the benefits but being insulated from the consequences. Hell no. You take responsibility for your own life. We are not children to be herded and lectured.

and the government is responsible, why else would they table laws that protect children etc ..you cannot say that the government has wiped it's hands of responsibility of it's citizens welfare when it's obviously not the case ..from putting chlorine in ur drinking warter to preventing us from purchasing gas with lead additives

The purpose of government is not to manage the lives of its citizens.

 

[Gray Fox]

It should be noted that the police are not part of the government, they are a private enterprise.
they certainly aren't paid by our taxes and it doesn't follow guidelines set by the other branches of government.

 

[repiV]

It should be noted that the police are not part of the government, they are a private enterprise.
they certainly aren't paid by our taxes and it doesn't follow guidelines set by the other branches of government.

In the spirit of your dull and pointless pedantry, sentences have to start with a capital letter, you can't refer to a collective as "it" and your use of the verb "to pay" is gramatically incorrect.

Now that the discussion has been elevated to such a level, perhaps we can have an enthralling debate on the merits of Latin vs. Greek?

 

[CptStern]

It should be noted that the police are not part of the government, they are a private enterprise.
they certainly aren't paid by our taxes and it doesn't follow guidelines set by the other branches of government.

maybe in your neck of the woods but law enforcement is solely paid through by municiple taxes ..how do they raise money to run their operations? do they have bake sales?

 

[Gray Fox]

I could type in pig latin, and I would still make more sense then you.
In fact a pig typing would probably achieve the same.

maybe in your neck of the woods but law enforcement is solely paid through by municiple taxes ..how do they raise money to run their operations? do they have bake sales?

That's different. Nonetheless I'm not sure why the government is supposed to assume responsibility for children in need, that's what neighbours, concerned citizens and, if necessary, the police are for.

 

[CptStern]

That's life. You don't have the right to sit there and pass judgement on who is and who is not smart enough to run their own lives, and nor does anyone else.

but the government does, that's who we're talking about, not me personally

Hell, many so-called "intellectuals" have zero common sense and live miserable, lonely, unsuccessful lives. Do we give them all free life coaching and assertiveness training?

why not offer it to everyone? of right they already do

Freedom is often mistaken these days to mean having a free ride, reaping all the benefits but being insulated from the consequences. Hell no. You take responsibility for your own life. We are not children to be herded and lectured.

sigh ..you're an enigma to me ..I mean you make it sound like you've had a hard life but at times I cant help but picture saying these things at the country club sipping lime cordials with Chauncy and Biff while you wait for pedro to bring around the golf cart ..it sounds like second hand experience learned from a book rather than first hand experience from having lived it yourself

again you cannot take responsibility for your own life when you dont have the capacity to do so ..which is why we put people in prison, which is why people are committed to hospitals with mental problems, which is why we have lunch programs for kids in school, which is why we have stop signs at intersections, which is why we have warning labels on over the counter medication ..it's all nice and dandy to make a snap judgement saying that people can take care of themselves ..when in reality that isnt remotely true ..hence all of the above

The purpose of government is not to manage the lives of its citizens.

yes it is, through legislation, whether directly or indirectly everything they do is about managing people's lives

 

[repiV]

I could type in pig latin, and I would still make more sense then you.
In fact a pig typing would probably achieve the same.

You're a childish twat and a troll, you manage to appear in every other thread I post in for no apparent purpose other than to make snide, pointless comments about me which have absolutely zero benefit to the discussion at hand.

Intelligent people have the capacity to make the distinction between a difference of opinion and a case of stupidity. Clearly, you are not that bright. Perhaps CptStern has a point after all...I say we ban you from the internet, or from conversing with anyone over the age of fifteen - all for your own good.

 

[Mr Stabby]

The Police aren't really apart of the government as they are not a legislative body.

 

[CptStern]

The Police aren't really apart of the government .

sure they are, they're run by municiple government; therefore they are run by the government ..and even run by the federal goverment in some cases (FBI, RCMP)

the only other alternative is that they're a private company which isnt possible as they'd have absolutely no jurisdiction to enforce law

 

[Mr Stabby]

run by the government =/= part of the government.

Is your Dentist a government agent?

 

[repiV]

but the government does, that's who we're talking about, not me personally

What gives the government that right? Does the fact that they're the government give them the right to do anything they feel like?
Hell, most of them are incapable of managing their own lives, let alone anyone else's. Arguably, that's why they became politicians or civil servants in the first place. The level of incompetence and ignorance displayed by government on a daily basis would be absolutely unthinkable in the private sector.

why not offer it to everyone? of right they already do

News to me. Hardly a good use of taxpayer money, anyway. And in most cases, government generosity has the opposite effect to that which was intended - prime example being a generous welfare state trapping people in a cycle of poverty through dependence.

sigh ..you're an enigma to me ..I mean you make it sound like you've had a hard life but at times I cant help but picture saying these things at the country club sipping lime cordials with Chauncy and Biff while you wait for pedro to bring around the golf cart ..it sounds like second hand experience learned from a book rather than first hand experience from having lived it yourself

Why on earth would you think that? Socialism in the West is the stronghold of "intellectuals" who haven't had to live in the real world, academic institutions and those born with a silver spoon in their mouth. The working-class socialist is a myth.

again you cannot take responsibility for your own life when you dont have the capacity to do so ..which is why we put people in prison, which is why people are committed to hospitals with mental problems, which is why we have lunch programs for kids in school, which is why we have stop signs at intersections, which is why we have warning labels on over the counter medication ..it's all nice and dandy to make a snap judgement saying that people can take care of themselves ..when in reality that isnt remotely true ..hence all of the above

People get put in prison because they are a threat to other people, that's irrelevant. In any case, career criminals are perfectly capable of managing their lives. The good ones are extremely successful people - within their own personal contexts. We disapprove, of course, but they get what they want - and prison is an occupational hazard to them.
If people aren't capable of managing their own lives, then they can suffer the consequences. It's that simple. Ironically, you're not helping. If you take responsibility away from people, they won't exercise it. By making the world idiot-proof, you create a society of idiots. I doubt that's what you intended but that's what you will accomplish.

yes it is, through legislation, whether directly or indirectly everything they do is about managing people's lives

No it isn't. That's what 21st century big government does, and it's what totalitarian regimes do. The two are becoming increasingly hard to tell apart.

 

[CptStern]

run by the government =/= part of the government.

Is your Dentist a government agent?

how is a dentist run by the government? or even remotely a part of the government in any way shape or form? please explain


you're splitting hairs

 

[Mr Stabby]

how is a dentist run by the government? or even remotely a part of the government in any way shape or form? please explain


you're splitting hairs

Universal health care, the NHS is run by the government in the UK. So an NHS dentist works for the government but is not part of the government.

 

[AtomicSpark]

I believe since she was so young, this would fall under neglect/child endangerment (whatever the US law is called). I mean for all we know, the parents could of chosen prayer to safe a few bucks.

This prayer over medicine thing seems to happen often. Maybe one day they'll figure out that medicine does not mean playing God or whatever their excuse is. I mean if they believe that if "He made us in His image", maybe he made us f*cking smart enough to take care of ourselves.

 

[Gray Fox]

You're a childish twat and a troll, you manage to appear in every other thread I post in for no apparent purpose other than to make snide, pointless comments about me which have absolutely zero benefit to the discussion at hand.

Intelligent people have the capacity to make the distinction between a difference of opinion and a case of stupidity. Clearly, you are not that bright. Perhaps CptStern has a point after all...I say we ban you from the internet, or from conversing with anyone over the age of fifteen - all for your own good.

Your a degenerate insult to all creation. The stupidity, hypocrisy and outright malevolent
dishonesty you have brought to this forums is the single biggest deterrent to any form of
argument or retention of sanity it has ever faced. Not only is your poisonous political stance a
danger, your driving has proved to be a direct danger for other citizens of your country.
You should be executed as quickly as possible.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

This is horrific. Seriously. I honestly believe those parents should be locked up for manslaughter at least.

Also, where was God when a little girl was dying?

EDIT: Also, that was a little harsh grey fox. I mean, RepiVs not that bad. And hes actually discussing. You however, are simply trolling.

 

[Mr Stabby]

Also, where was God when a little girl was dying?

Smiting gays

 

[repiV]

This is horrific. Seriously. I honestly believe those parents should be locked up for manslaughter at least.

Also, where was God when a little girl was dying?

EDIT: Also, that was a little harsh grey fox. I mean, RepiVs not that bad. And hes actually discussing. You however, are simply trolling.

I'd love to know where the "malevolent dishonesty" part came from. I'm the most brutally honest person here, that's why I have eight infraction points.

Your a degenerate insult to all creation. The stupidity, hypocrisy and outright malevolent
dishonesty you have brought to this forums is the single biggest deterrent to any form of
argument or retention of sanity it has ever faced. Not only is your poisonous political stance a
danger, your driving has proved to be a direct danger for other citizens of your country.
You should be executed as quickly as possible.

What the ****? You need to get your schizophrenia checked out.

 

[CptStern]

What gives the government that right? Does the fact that they're the government give them the right to do anything they feel like?
Hell, most of them are incapable of managing their own lives, let alone anyone else's. Arguably, that's why they became politicians or civil servants in the first place. The level of incompetence and ignorance displayed by government on a daily basis would be absolutely unthinkable in the private sector.

the private sector is concerned with profit, you do not run services based on profit ..again you're being too broad and ignoring my points ..whether we like it or not government has some ontrol over our lives ..this is nothing new

News to me. Hardly a good use of taxpayer money, anyway. And in most cases, government generosity has the opposite effect to that which was intended - prime example being a generous welfare state trapping people in a cycle of poverty through dependence.

so they should just cut programs for kids such as sswimming, or skating ..or perhaps they'll stop running public parks and recreational areas, stop funding adult schooling for ESL, art classes or ****ing macrome ..again you're loverlooking the obvious, the government CAN make a difference in people's lives by running these programs ..would you rather that headed-for-troble-Kenny's library be closed because "government shouldnt interfere with the lives of it's citizens"? you might as well throw kenny in prison now because you've just taken away all good that government can do and all that's left is the bad ...you're only seeing what you want to see and ignoring the far bigger picture

Why on earth would you think that? Socialism in the West is the stronghold of "intellectuals" who haven't had to live in the real world, academic institutions and those born with a silver spoon in their mouth. The working-class socialist is a myth.

why would I think that? because the rich are overwhelmingly conservative, not socialists .conservatism appeals to them out of self-interest; it supports their lifestyle ..and I have never in my life met a rich "socialist" activist

People get put in prison because they are a threat to other people, that's irrelevant.

so if I get caught smoking pot, I'm a danger to others? is that why they'd throw me in jail?

In any case, career criminals are perfectly capable of managing their lives.

agreed: rob bank A, kill Person B, rape woman C etc ..but is that what we want? somebody's gotta step in to prevent that ..hey guess what? it's government who does that for us commoners

The good ones are extremely successful people - within their own personal contexts. We disapprove, of course, but they get what they want - and prison is an occupational hazard to them.
If people aren't capable of managing their own lives, then they can suffer the consequences.

so we should do away with laws that prevent drunk driving because we'd be contributing to managing people's lives for them ...**** it, on the way home I'm driving through every single stop light because HEY! the government has no right to interfere with my life

again, this is why I said it sounds like you have second hand experience: your theories sound great on paper but are not practical when put into reality

No it isn't. That's what 21st century big government does, and it's what totalitarian regimes do. The two are becoming increasingly hard to tell apart.

they didnt have stop signs in the 20th century? they didnt have warning labels on medication? government funding didnt develop vaccines against major illnesses in the 20th century? like it or not from regulating speed on roads to making sure you dont take a lethal dose of lead linfused corn flakes the government has a hand in many aspects of your life ..you've just chosen to forget that fact

 

[Cormeh]

the thing is that it isnt as clear cut as that in many cases ..for example the elderly or the mentally ahndicapped ..there's usually no time to determine whether they are capable of FULLY understanding their choice, or their religion for that matter ..same goes for people who choose religion over prayer ..obviously they're not capable of making the right choice because they're relying on the equivilent of the tooth fairy to save them ..we wouldnt allow them to go through with it if it were the tooth fairy she was praying to so why does religion get an automatic pass? the two scenarios are exactly the same


source added btw

Yeah, my mind was working toward less cloudy issues, I'll be honest.

I was thinking of people you could at least consult about receiving medical care, people who still have their right mind (in a sense). I think force is probably too strong a word for people who do wish to conciously make a choice as important as this, even if it is lunacy.

However, in this case it's just wrong. It would be the same if it was someone mentally handicapped, who do need other people to rely on.

 

[repiV]

the private sector is concerned with profit, you do not run services based on profit ..again you're being too broad and ignoring my points ..whether we like it or not government has some ontrol over our lives ..this is nothing new

The best services are those run based on profit. That's why people who can afford it take out private health insurance and invest in private education.
Government is fundamentally incapable of running anything. Every time a new government initiative is announced, the usual response is "WTF? What kind of moron came up with that?!?!" It's like they're on a completely different planet to the rest of humanity.
Government departments are, by and large, staffed by incompetent halfwits with no work ethic.
I mean, Jesus, our policing is based on arrest targets. The more arrests you make, the more points you get. The force has to achieve a certain number of arrests in order for the boss to get his bonus. What kind of ****wit would come up with such a ridiculously stupid idea? The primary objective of the police is supposed to be to prevent crime, now the police force are essentially licensed bandits. Persecute ordinary citizens for insignificant offences to get arrest numbers. Incite people to commit crimes so you can then arrest them for those crimes. If you've suffered a burglary, don't even bother calling the police because they probably won't even pay you a visit.
Such colossal ineptitude would be the scandal of the century in anything else but government. Even a retard can see how stupid it is. It absolutely defies belief, but this is nothing unusual for our government.

One of the cornerstones of democracy is a limit to the powers of government. "Managing people's lives" is not the purpose of government in a free and democratic society, it is the hallmark of authoritarianism.

so they should just cut programs for kids such as sswimming, or skating ..or perhaps they'll stop running public parks and recreational areas, stop funding adult schooling for ESL, art classes or ****ing macrome ..again you're loverlooking the obvious, the government CAN make a difference in people's lives by running these programs ..would you rather that Kenny the chav library be closed because "government should interfere with the lives of it's citizens"? you're only seeing what you want to see and ignoring the far bigger picture

Why should government "make a difference in people's lives"? That's what charities are for. I'm not overlooking the obvious, I'm going back to basics. People now rely on government for every little thing, only because government has assumed the role of the provider. A role which it is usually incapable of fulfilling, whilst being extraordinarily wasteful of taxpayer's money in the process.

why would I think that? because lthe rich are overwhelmingly conservative, not socialists .conservatism appeals to them out of self-interest; it supports their lifestyle ..and I have never in my life met a rich "socialist" activist

Who do you think writes for the Guardian, the BBC, and all the other left-leaning publications out there? Local carpenters?
Have you never heard the term "champagne socialism"? Jeez, take a look around. We live in a socialist world, led and funded by rich socialists and supported largely by white middle-class people.

so if I get caught smoking pot, I'm a danger to others? is that why they'd throw me in jail?

Now you're just being obtuse. The purpose of prison is to protect society from offenders, not to protect offenders from themselves. The usefulness of certain laws is irrelevant.

agreed: rob bank A, kill Person B, rape woman C etc ..but is that what we want? somebody's gotta step in to prevent that ..hey guess what? it's government who does that for us commoners

Again, who is being protected - the criminal, or society?

so we should do away with laws that prevent drunk driving because we'd be contributing to managing people's lives for them ...**** it, on the way home I'm driving through every single stop light because HEY! the government has no right to interfere with my life

Once again, that's to do with protecting the public at large. Road traffic laws exist both to ensure traffic flow and to protect innocent people from bad driving. They do not exist to mitigate the danger an individual poses to themselves, which would be a largely illogical gesture anyway as a highly skilled and experienced cyclist or motorcyclist is far more likely to die on the roads than an average driver.

again, this is why I said it sounds like you have second hand experience: your theories sound great on paper but are not practical when put into reality

Only because you're misinterpreting them. I said government has no business protecting people from themselves, you've gone and generalised that into government not being responsible for protecting people at all. That's different.

they didnt have stop signs in the 20th century? they didnt have warning labels on medication? government funding didnt develop vaccines against major illnesses in the 20th century? like it or not from regulating speed on roads to making sure you dont take a lethal dose of lead linfused corn flakes the government has a hand in many aspects of your life ..you've just chosen to forget that fact

Ok, late 20th century/early 21st century. You know what I mean.

 

[Sulkdodds]

The kid's under the age where she can legally consent to vote, drink or fuck. She doesn't get the right, nor does she in all likelihood have the capacity, to refuse treatment. I believe anybody should have that right who is deemed a full citizen (ie, voters).

There is a problem whereby if a criminal stabs someone, and that person later refuses treatment, the criminal gets done for murder - which is absurd, clearly, but rather away from the topic.

The parents, meanwhile, are surely guilty of criminal neglect?

EDIT: I'd like to respond to all this "we live in a socialist world" stuff but it would seem best to make a new thread some time this weekend. Suffice it for now to say that I've met too many working or lower-class socialists and anarchists to believe them mythical.

snip

Far too far. Six-point infraction.

In future, try not to make posts that are composed entirely (or even mostly) of vitriolic personal attacks. This goes for everyone - such assaults should not be dignified with any response, and in future I expect to see politics posters simply ignore any such diatribes, rather than rising to meet them.

 

[Eejit]

That's different. Nonetheless I'm not sure why the government is supposed to assume responsibility for children in need, that's what neighbours, concerned citizens and, if necessary, the police are for.

So are you we shouldn't have Social Services or Child Protection? I guess charities like the NSPCC will have to handle all of it by themselves?

 

[repiV]

So are you we shouldn't have Social Services or Child Protection? I guess charities like the NSPCC will have to handle all of it by themselves?

Isn't it a whole lot simpler and far less open to interpretation and abuse to stick to enforcing the law?
As has already been mentioned, we have child neglect laws in place, which the police should be quite capable of investigating and enforcing. Laws have oversight, and allow prosecution to be brought under specific, well-defined circumstances.

Social services and the family courts (which operate on the balance of probability) have as much of a reputation for destroying families as they have for protecting children. Relying on authority and discretion above and beyond simple enforcement of the law from government and its agencies places far too much faith in their infallibility.

 

[Eejit]

You can't separate enforcement of child neglect laws etc. from care of the children who were neglected.
Who is meant to look after the minor after their abusive parent or guardian is prosecuted and jailed? Relatives are not always an option, and we've seen how effective orphanages without government oversight are too (some run by religious orders for example).

 

[Ennui]

She should have been given treatment and her parents deserve to go to jail to cool their heels for a while for being dangerously stupid morons.

God will save her! We may have ZERO proof that he even exists but he'll save her!

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

I voted: Yes but only in the case of those who cant decide for themselves (children) however this also applies to the mentally ill and the like, not just children.

 

[99.vikram]

More proof that when retards reproduce, it's innocent people who suffer.

 

[CptStern]

Universal health care, the NHS is run by the government in the UK. So an NHS dentist works for the government but is not part of the government.

not sure how it is there but in canada they just cut them a cheque, they are not government employees ..emergency services are another cup of tea entirely as every single resource is provided by municipal government paid for by taxes ..you're still splitting hairs and offering up anologies that dont fit

 

[Kyorisu]

The best services are those run based on profit. That's why people who can afford it take out private health insurance and invest in private education.

Oh I hope you didn't mean that. Private health care is the biggest ****ing joke ever. How about telecommunications? The Australian government sold Telstra to some dumb arse Americans and Telstra now offer the worst value for money plans on everything they sell. One of Telstra's main competitors for the next big arse network roll out is Opel lead by Optus who is owned by and wait for it...the Singapore government.
Why is it Telstra the group that owns or at least owns the access rights to all the Australian network cannot offer services and plans at or cheaper than competitors that lease the use of lines from Telstra?

Basically we have a case of greed. The profit motive DOES NOT always provide a better quality service.

Government is fundamentally incapable of running anything.

Bullshit.

 

[Krynn72]

I only read the first few posts, but I think the government should protect the innocent, meaning those who cannot decide for themselves. If a person wants to let themselves believe jeebus will save them and not a doctor, then by all means. We could do with less of their kind. However, if a parent or other adult is the one preventing proper medical treatment of another person, then they should have no legal right to do so, and the sick person should be given the appropriate attention from a professional.

 

[MJ12]

This is good that they prayed, she will go to Haven now, it's the way the Lord Christ wanted it, it was er time to go.