Parents choose prayer over medicine: daughter dies

[theotherguy]

Another reason why the indoctrination of innocent children into dangerous, irrational beliefs. The parents should be tried for child abuse or even negligent manslaughter.

 

[Sulkdodds]

By the way, see that exchange between repiV and Greyfox back there? See how they both stooped to making posts that were comprised entirely of insults? Yeah, next time I see that happening, BETWEEN ANYONE, both participants get three-day bans.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Ahhh sulkdodds is back. Good times.

 

[Mr Stabby]

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

No I'm not. They are neither private sector or apart of the government just like the police. Emergency services are not apart of the government either, they operate independently of the government.

 

[highlander]

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

Made me lol

But in all seriousness, This is just f*cking sick.

 

[Absinthe]

We can't stop idiots from refusing medical treatment. Short of a legitimate mental handicap, there is no place for intervention. The separation of church and state goes both ways, and interfering with somebody's personal health because you think they're being dumb not only goes against it, but is even hypocritical since we allow religious people to do what they wish in most other areas of life. If they want to let religion end their lives, so be it.

But sending children to their deaths according to your own stupid beliefs is unacceptable.

 

[repiV]

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).

The child support agency or whatever getting involved after a verdict has been passed and overseeing the welfare of the children after that point is a little different from being involved from the outset, don't you think?

Oh I hope you didn't mean that. Private health care is the biggest ****ing joke ever.

I don't know anyone who would rather rely on the NHS than on private health insurance. If you go private you get treated when you want and not according to a waiting list, you get better care and access to treatments not available on the NHS. I'm really not seeing any compelling reasons here to believe that private healthcare is any kind of joke, let alone the biggest ****ing joke.

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.

Maybe they're incapable of operating efficiently, after decades of living off government money and exclusivity. Which would explain why the other companies offer a better deal.
I don't see what this has to do with private services being worse, all you're saying is that the companies who have a history of operating in the free market are providing cheaper services than the company which doesn't have that experience.
Sounds to me like Telstra just plain aren't competitive, and now you have the choice to use someone else.

Bullshit.

Based on what?

 

[Eejit]

The child support agency or whatever getting involved after a verdict has been passed and overseeing the welfare of the children after that point is a little different from being involved from the outset, don't you think?

Possibly to some degree. It doesn't matter anyway, it would be immensely impractical to burden the police with all the work social workers do.

 

[Adabiviak]

...artificial selection against fanaticism enacted by the members being selected against? I'm down.

 

[Eejit]

...artificial selection against fanaticism enacted by the members being selected against? I'm down.

Yeah because it's a proven genetic trait -.-

 

[DEATHMASTER]

The girl should've been given a choice. But if she said no, I don't think they should force it.

 

[Solaris]

The girl should've been given a choice. But if she said no, I don't think they should force it.

And what if she decides not to eat?

Should we allow children to starve themselves? Or not eat vegetables?

 

[Eejit]

The girl should've been given a choice. But if she said no, I don't think they should force it.

Yeah she can make an informed decision to kill herself at that age, but can't vote, drink, have sex or drive? Makes sense. -.-

 

[iizbl4ck]

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.

same with me

 

[Iron Kat]

I chose 'yes under all circumstances' but I don't agree with the use of the word 'force'. You can't force people to do anything so I think 'advise' would be a better word to use there.

 

[CptStern]

November 18, 1978

Jim Jones called a meeting under the pavilion in the early evening. Before the meeting, aides prepared a metal vat with grape Flavor Aid, poisoned with Valium, chloral hydrate, and presumably (though not certainly) cyanide. When the assembled gathered, Jones told the gathering "one of the people on that plane, is gonna shoot the pilot, I know that. I didn't plan it but I know it's going to happen. They're gonna shoot that pilot and down comes the plane into the jungle and we had better not have any of our children left when it's over, because they'll parachute in here on us..." He went on to remark "they'll torture our children, they'll torture some of our people here, they'll torture our seniors. We cannot have this." He explained their actions thusly, "All it is, is taking a drink to take... to go to sleep. That's what death is, sleep.

Approximately nine hundred men, women and children perished, along with Jones, who shot himself.

for many it was their choice to drink the poisoned koolaid


if we had prior knowledge should we have let them do it? it was their choice (at least for most of the adults) or stormed the compound arrested Jim Jones and then crucified him to the nearest flagpole as a warning to all the ****ing religious crazies?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonestown#Mass_murder-suicide

 

[LackingSaint]

Religion has caused more pain than joy.



FACT.

 

[Eejit]

November 18, 1978



for many it was their choice to drink the poisoned koolaid


if we had prior knowledge should we have let them do it? it was their choice (at least for most of the adults) or stormed the compound arrested Jim Jones and then crucified him to the nearest flagpole as a warning to all the ****ing religious crazies?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonestown#Mass_murder-suicide

The children should have been saved if there had been prior knowledge (or at least, attempted to). A child cannot make the decision to end their own life if they can't be trusted to vote, drive, drink or ****.

 

[CptStern]

suicide is illegal in most jurisdictions, law enforcement would have a duty to prevent them from killing themselves ..refusing medical help could be suicidal

 

[Godron]

I put yes under all circumstances, but now I've read some of the thread I think I misunderstood it. People should be allowed to refuse treatment if they want to die, or if they just don't want it, but they should never refuse treatment on behalf of someone else.

 

[CptStern]

it's funny how society will allow someone to kill themselves by refusing any medical treatment whatsoever , relying solely on the magic guy up in the clouds to save them ..but the minute they try to give themselves a lethal injection they're prevented from doing so ..man that god is one powerful hombre: not only does he fool the easily duped but he also convinces the smart ones that mercy killing not in the name of the lord is a no no

 

[Eejit]

suicide is illegal in most jurisdictions, law enforcement would have a duty to prevent them from killing themselves ..refusing medical help could be suicidal

It's become legal in more places than not since the '60s though.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Lets not turn into an euthanasia debate eh?

 

[Eejit]

wat av da yoof in asia got to do wit it?

 

[Kyorisu]

I don't know anyone who would rather rely on the NHS than on private health insurance. If you go private you get treated when you want and not according to a waiting list, you get better care and access to treatments not available on the NHS. I'm really not seeing any compelling reasons here to believe that private healthcare is any kind of joke, let alone the biggest ****ing joke.

Tell met that when your private group refuses to cover you for something that is in no way your fault.

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

Should government force people to-

NO.

:angry:

 

[Eejit]

So the government shouldn't force people to do anything...?

****in anarchists.

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

It's not the governments job to force people to do things and I am far from anarchist.

 

[CptStern]

It's not the governments job to force people to do things .

sure it is, they force you to pay taxes ..they force you to get an education, immunised, liscenced, get permits, certificates, affid davits etc etc etc

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

Nobody has to do any of those things.

Sure if you WANT things you don't NEED, like a car, you need to APPLY for a liscence. Nobody is forcing you to get a car. You don't even have to pay taxes. You might get put in jail depending onhow much you make, but if you want to make a lot of money you need to pay taxes, but again, nobody can force you to do that.

I didn't even submit my 2002 taxes and guess what? They forced themselves to find out my financial info for the year and did it themselves. I didn't have to do shit.

 

[CptStern]

bullshit ..cant go to school if you're not immunised, will go to jail if you dont pay taxes, keep your kids from getting an education will get you arrested, cant drive without a permit, cant get married without a certificate etc etc etc

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

Watch for the edit numbnuts, and once again those are all CHOICES you CAN make. You don't have to go to school. You don't have to pay taxes. You don't even have to get a job that makes you "eligible" for taxation. You don't NEED to drive and yes you can drive without a permit, you just better not get caught. Nobody NEEDS to get married.

They can't FORCE you to do anything! Holy ****.

---
The ONLY time the gov can force you to do something, is if you commit a federal FELONY and get arrested. This is in the U.S. If you are being "forced" to do something you probably chose to have or do something that requires special attention and procedure.

 

[Mr Stabby]

Are you one of those survivalists in Montana?

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

I live in Alaska, which is basically a northern version of California with more rural towns and shitty roads. I was born into a military family so I have lived in a lot of places.
I'm not a damn survivalist, I live the good life with lots of material possesssions and contact with law enforcement. If people are forcing you to do things you are one dumb son of a bitch. It's called free will, you have it.

 

[CptStern]

Watch for the edit numbnuts, and once again those are all CHOICES you CAN make. You don't have to go to school. You don't have to pay taxes. You don't even have to get a job that makes you "eligible" for taxation. You don't NEED to drive and yes you can drive without a permit, you just better not get caught. Nobody NEEDS to get married.

They can't FORCE you to do anything! Holy ****.

---
The ONLY time the gov can force you to do something, is if you commit a federal FELONY and get arrested. This is in the U.S. If you are being "forced" to do something you probably chose to have or do something that requires special attention and procedure.

your argument is retarded because you assume force equates putting a gun to your head ..when it's obvious it means that if you want to do any of these things (get married, go to public school, get a job) you are forced to live by government imposed rules

and relax ..numbnuts

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

your argument is retarded because you assume force equates putting a gun to your head

Negative, Rampart.

..when it's obvious it means that if you want to do any of these things (get married, go to public school, get a job) you are forced to live by government imposed rules

and relax ..numbnuts

Also, negatory. If you decide to impose a rule of tradition and/or current societal standard upon yourself then you agree to willfully abide by certain conditions.

That's called compliance.

comply:
1. to act or be in accordance with wishes, requests, demands, requirements, conditions, etc.; agree (sometimes fol. by with): They asked him to leave and he complied. She has complied with the requirements.

force: verb,
18. to compel, constrain, or oblige (oneself or someone) to do something: to force a suspect to confess.

We are arguing petty semantics here, but I believe the government does not have the right to compel, constrain, or oblige anyone to do anything against their will. If this thing they wish that person to do is not against their will, they are not forcing that person for that person complies.

These parents in this article did not comply with a modern societal standard of seeking a doctor when necessary. Ok, that is a shame. Someone died. Even so, it is not the governments duty to interfere with the private matters of people. If big G or someone wanted to help the kid, they should have wrote a check to the family to pay for the medical expenses.

 

[Eejit]

Wrong Ryuken.

Ever heard of conscription?

 

[CptStern]

Negative, Rampart.


Also, negatory. If you decide to impose a rule of tradition and/or current societal standard upon yourself then you agree to willfully abide by certain conditions.

That's called compliance.

comply:
1. to act or be in accordance with wishes, requests, demands, requirements, conditions, etc.; agree (sometimes fol. by with): They asked him to leave and he complied. She has complied with the requirements.

force: verb,
18. to compel, constrain, or oblige (oneself or someone) to do something: to force a suspect to confess.

We are arguing petty semantics here, but I believe the government does not have the right to compel, constrain, or oblige anyone to do anything against their will. If this thing they wish that person to do is not against their will, they are not forcing that person for that person complies.

These parents in this article did not comply with a modern societal standard of seeking a doctor when necessary. Ok, that is a shame. Someone died. Even so, it is not the governments duty to interfere with the private matters of people. If big G or someone wanted to help the kid, they should have wrote a check to the family to pay for the medical expenses.

they should" have wrote a big cheque" ..for what? prayer robes? jewel encrusted halo? they wouldnt seek medical help that's the point of the entire thread, throwing them money wouldnt do anything ...and yes we're arguing semantics because you're still using "forced" in the wrong context (your meaning is synonomous with torture: they force you under duress to comply, to use a loose example. the proverbial gun to your head) the government enforces certain aspects of our lives it's unavoidable ..from needing a permit to get married (the legal definition of getting married ..not a bride, a reluctant groom and a shotgun, or whatever ..if you want to be married in the tradional meaning you MUST comply with government enforced rules, there is no way of getting around this) to FORCED immunisation if you want to attend a public school (home school is not school, it's opinionated people giving opinions on education) ...again, there are certain things the government forces you do whether you like it or not ..ask the survivors of waco ..oh wait

 

[Sulkdodds]

Stern, I think Z's arguing 'should' rather than 'will'. It is not the duty of government to do x even though government currently does x anyway.

We are arguing petty semantics here, but I believe the government does not have the right to compel, constrain, or oblige anyone to do anything against their will. If this thing they wish that person to do is not against their will, they are not forcing that person for that person complies.

Problem: a minor isn't a person.

Legally speaking, young people aren't entitled to the full rights - or rather freedoms-from - that adults are. Wrong or right, they are not full citizens. I would argue that it is for the best. Five year olds can't drink or smoke or fuck, and it's for the same reason that I don't think they should have the right, or that they have the capacity, to commit suicide-by-abstinence.

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

they should" have wrote a big cheque" ..for what? prayer robes? jewel encrusted halo?

to pay for the medical expenses

the government enforces certain aspects of our lives it's unavoidable

No. These "forced aspects of our lives" only apply to certain people. They don't apply to everyone, therefore you are wrong.


Sulk: I agree, but you can't take control of someone's kid without undermining the responsibility of the parents. Sure, they may be stupidly wrong in their belief, but who's problem is it, really? The state? The gov? Other people? No, it's that families problem. While I do think it's a shame to just let the kid waste away I do not think anyone has the right to impose their will upon her even if the intentions are good.
It's not something I would do, or approve of, but say if someone random kidnapped the kid to give her medical help I really wouldn't care, mostly because it's not my problem/responsibility/right to get involved.
I just believe the government, as a protective body of the people, doesn't have the right to enforce it's will upon people whom do not agree to have this will enforced upon them.

This does not include shit like getting married or getting a car because when you get those things you agree to abide by certain conditions.