Parents choose prayer over medicine: daughter dies

Should government force people to seek medical attention even though it's against the

  • Yes under all circumstances

    Votes: 10 11.5%

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

    Votes: 69 79.3%

  • No under no circumstances, religious freedom prevents governement from interfering

    Votes: 6 6.9%

  • no opinion

    Votes: 2 2.3%
  • Total voters
    87
  • Poll closed .
If the government is the protective body of the people it's sometimes got to protect them and not let them die.

Did the kid have any choice in the matter? No? Then the parents killed. They might as well have murdered. Why does their parental responsibility give them the right to a total, fatal, abrogation of responsibility?
 
ffs _Z_Ryuken why the hell would the government give them money for their medical expenses if THEY DONT WANT MEDICAL TREATMENT? that's the point of this thread ..you're either being purposefully obtuse or havent read a word of the OP
 
Sulkdodds said:
If the government is the protective body of the people it's sometimes got to protect them and not let them die.

Did the kid have any choice in the matter? No? Then the parents killed. They might as well have murdered. Why does their parental responsibility give them the right to a total, fatal, abrogation of responsibility?
Click to expand...

So if the government really is a protective body and not looking out for itself why didn't they step in? It's not their job to go around interfering in private matters of people.

Did the parents kill? I don't think they did. To me they are victims of religious brainwashing. I don't think they should be held responsible. How about the aunt? They seemed pretty worried but did nothing. Maybe they should be guilty as well.
It's the families duty to care for their children. That didn't happen. Oh well. It doesn't mean the government needs to step in and more closely regulate our lives.

Stern, why are you hung up on something I said in passing? It's certainly not the only solution I can come up with.
 
As stupid as they are, no parent should have to go to jail right after their daughter died.
 
hopefully that'll be something for the courts to decide:

Vergin said his agency's final report will make no recommendations on possible charges against the parents, leaving that up to the district attorney
Click to expand...

negligent homicide god willing
 
_Z_Ryuken said:
So if the government really is a protective body and not looking out for itself why didn't they step in? It's not their job to go around interfering in private matters of people.

Did the parents kill? I don't think they did. To me they are victims of religious brainwashing. I don't think they should be held responsible. How about the aunt? They seemed pretty worried but did nothing. Maybe they should be guilty as well.
It's the families duty to care for their children. That didn't happen. Oh well. It doesn't mean the government needs to step in and more closely regulate our lives.
Click to expand...
It's not exactly an oppressive state of regulation to safeguard citizens until they are deemed able enough (ie of age) to make their own decisions fully, to kill themselves at that point if they wish, or vote or drink or smoke or fist each other. Ultimately, if sections of the population are going to be judged incapable - children, the insane - then they have to be looked after; the buck has to stop somewhere when it comes to their protection. With children, it's sensible for that to be the parents.

You claim the parents were brainwashed, and weren't responsible for their own actions, but where does that end? We are all brainwashed in a very similar fashion; we live our lives based on assumptions about the structure of the universe that are linguistic, and almost entirely conventional. Our parents, our DNA, our teachers - when we start saying people aren't in control of their own beliefs and actions, where do we draw any line?

If you accept that, the entire libertarian ideology on which your beliefs about government hinge must collapse. Alternatively, you can do what we all do: reasonable abstraction. We must act in the context of law as if people can be held responsible for what they do. We must act as if we can act. In that case there are boundaries that can be drawn as to what is and what isn't reasonable behaviour. A rational adult is responsible for themselves; a child is not. That the rational adult chooses to believe in religion cannot be any excuse for the patently dangerous behaviour that kills those the parents have a duty to protect.

Or perhaps you should explain where you would decide to draw a line between religion, which one is a participant in, and asylum-worthy delusion, of which one is a victim.
 
^Hardly.

Far as I'm concerned, the parents did not make the kid sick. They have their own belief system and if they don't want to use medicine that they believe defies their existence, so be it. If you have a problem with that, do something about it and accept the consequences. The rest of the world is uninvolved and would prefer to remain as such.
 
Basically, children are only property (not human life) and it doesn't matter what parents do with them.
 
_Z_Ryuken said:
The rest of the world is uninvolved and would prefer to remain as such.
Click to expand...

Oh shit I didn't realise you speak for the rest of the world. Funny that, going by the results of the poll here I would have thought the majority of people would rather have prevented the parents from letting their child die.
 
Oh so I can't speak for the rest of the world but 62 other HL2netters can because you think they agree with you? Also I don't think your interpretation of what they want is correct. Sure people would like to prevent kids from from dying, but it asks for action from the government, not the world, and thus your statement makes no sense.

If you polled the entire world on the matter, I can assure you the great majority 1) does not want to be personally involved in this family's matter 2) does not want the government telling them what to do concerning their own children.

It's quite a double standard we have today where we want to force people who are not like us to adapt to out traditions which cannot be changed, but when someone has different beliefs that are not compatible with these traditions it's ok to force them to change even if it only affects them and not you.

If you want something as ridiculous as mandatory action from the government concerning how your children are raised, you had better be prepared to give up your private life because it is impossible for a state body to handle a matter such as this without constant analytical supervision. What an incredible WASTE of resource.
It is my belief the only reasonable, the only feasible alternative is to trust families to handle their own business. If you want to get adventurous, let schools or medical personnel intervene if they happen upon a situation requiring intervention on a solely independent basis.
If your kid gets sick, if you do nothing about it, if your family and local kid lovers don't get involved and your kid dies, TOO BAD. I'm not giving the government more power, I'm not having my taxes increased to handle a TINY problem that VERY few people will ever have.

Think about it...
 
Do you honestly think that preventing what is essentially manslaughter would be the government "telling you how to raise your kid"?
The point is that these parents weren't raising their kid. They just let her die.

Different beliefs are fine until they lead to the deaths of minors...
 
Eejit said:
preventing what is essentially manslaughter...
Click to expand...

Pfffft hahhahhahaha.

You are a budding spinster.

If you have such a bleeding heart then go sponsor a child in Africa. There is supposedly millions of manslaughters a year due to hunger and other natural forms of death that can be cured by simple procedures such as eating bread and water.
Hell why go all the way to Africa. There's plenty of homeless kids in your country I bet. Their parents can't afford to buy food but they aren't out hunting for it so maybe it's manslaughter because they aren't caring for or raising them, right?

MY point is they weren't raising THEIR kid YOUR way, and it's none of your business. It's their loss. I don't want to have to deal with or reap the consequences of it.
 
Who's spinning now? Clearly two different situations.
The "starving kids in africa" aren't starving because their parents are willfully witholding food...

Those parents intentionally let a child die when they could easily have prevented it. By your line of reasoning extremeist parents should be allowed to take disobedient children outside the town to be stoned to death, or sold into slavery - because it's their child, right? So they can kill her if they like, government can't stop them!
It's not RAISING a kid when you KILL them, can't you see the line there?
 
_Z_Ryuken said:
It's quite a double standard we have today where we want to force people who are not like us to adapt to out traditions which cannot be changed, but when someone has different beliefs that are not compatible with these traditions it's ok to force them to change even if it only affects them and not you.
Click to expand...

I'm sure this is because a lot of people value human life more than archaic, stupid traditions and superstitions.

You could boil your testicles in water as a matter of tradition and I wouldn't care. That would be your own adult decision and it only affects you. But if it comes at the harm of another another individual, then it has overstepped its bounds. And we should consider it especially horrid if it takes advantage of children; those who are ignorant and depend on trusting their parents' actions regardless of how stupid they may actually be.

There can be large room for debate over what rights a child should or shouldn't have. But surely affording them safety and healthiness should be mandatory as a bare minimum? If the government were to step in and rescue a child from a senseless death about to be brought on by his parents, it would most certainly be with the intent of saving a life, not regulating yours for shits and giggles. And what is seriously so objectionable about that?

This is precisely why we have systems in place where children are taken away from their abusive, shit-stupid parents, and precisely why we hold them legally accountable if even accidental deaths of minors are seen with a history of negligence.
 
where do we draw the line at allowing people's religious beliefs dictate whether they may harm themselves ..either directly or indirectly



most of you are opposed to preventing someone from harming themselves (boiled testicles) ..however what would you have done in the case of Jim Jones(assuming you were in a position to do something)? would you have sat by idly while 900+ people ingested poison with nothing more than the conviction that these people are/were adults and could choose for themselves their own destiny?

well I dont agree with that sentiment ..Jim Jones (900 dead), Heaven's gate(37 dead) the Solar temple (74 dead), the Movement (1000 dead) etc

..sometimes we must save people from their own stupidity
 
If they're adults I'm not sure we have the right to stop them - unless they're suffering from temporary mental instability (like post-partum depression or something).
 
There's a difference between being legally insane and just convincing yourself of your own stupid bullshit.

The former, if deemed necessary, should receive intervention. But I don't see the point if the people in question are just being willingly stupid. It's a question of how in control of your actions you are. Jim Jones and the rest of the retards who followed did so out of their own volition and their own unwillingness to be rational, without any mental handicap.

So **** 'em. If they have to be rescued it should be so for other reasons. I don't care a whit about their own personal well-being in such a case.
 
so in other words you're saying that since they're ignorant then they deserve their fate? ...so what's the difference if the person is insane? they too ignorantly believe whatever the hell they want, why do they get special treatment? people who are that far gone into their religion are without question insane ..no sane person pre-meditatedly commits an obviously irrational act without calling into question their own sanity ..you're also opening the door for the mentally challeged to act according to the same set of rules; why should they get special consideration and not the hopelessly religious? ...when you get right down to it, the only separating line between those that deserve help and those that dont is religion, at least that's what it seems you're saying
 
Well it's not what I'm saying. For me the dividing line is the treatability/duration of insanity. I don't believe we should keep incurably insane people alive if they're trying to kill themselves to escape a world which scares them that much.
 
_Z_Ryuken said:
MY point is they weren't raising THEIR kid YOUR way, and it's none of your business. It's their loss. I don't want to have to deal with or reap the consequences of it.
Click to expand...

It is the government's business to protect its citizens. If an adult wants to waive that right, then fine. A minor should not be able to waive that right. And even if it wasn't the government's business to protect our youth, wtf is wrong with a community caring about a child who has abusive parents and no way to get away from it?

_Z_Ryuken said:
It's their loss.
Click to expand...

No. Ultimately the child is the biggest loser, not the parents.

Your argument is based on the ridiculous idea that parents should be able to raise their kids however they want. Should you be able to burn your kid's face on a hot stovetop every time he forgets to clean up his toys? Should you be able to quietly marry off your 7 year old girl to your cousin (who fully intends to have his way with her)? What if this is part of your religious practice?

In case you are unsure, the answer is absolutely not an f'ing chance. The government SHOULD step in to make sure that this shit doesn't happen. Parents do not have the right to do whatever they want with their families. If you think so, you're have serious moral issues.
 
Eejit said:
Well it's not what I'm saying. For me the dividing line is the treatability/duration of insanity. I don't believe we should keep incurably insane people alive if they're trying to kill themselves to escape a world which scares them that much.
Click to expand...

I was referring to absinthe's post ....on the insane issue ..committing suicide because you cant cope isnt a legit excuse imho ..things change, situations in life change ..simply giving them the right meds could change their entire outlook on life ..people suffering manic depession for example could be treated, schizophrenia too can be at least managed to some extent etc etc
 
I dont think there's such a thing as incurable insanity ..even then it can be managed through therapy. medication


ok I'm correcting myself: incurable insanity is synonymous to religious fanatic ..yet even that is "cureable" ..nothing a frontal lobotomy wouldnt fix
 
I bet if Ryuken had died because his parents were retards he wouldn't support the ludicrious libertarian bullshit that any sane person should disagree with.

:rolleyes:
 
What morons. I think for sure that if they lack the ability to think for themselves they should be sent in for treatment instead of sucumbing to the will of their parents.
 
CptStern said:
so in other words you're saying that since they're ignorant then they deserve their fate?
Click to expand...

I'm saying there is a whole world of information out there that is easily available and accessible in western cultures. We have more than enough data to sufficiently and critically analyze our own thoughts and actions. If some people choose to willingly forsake this ability, either because they're too proud or too enamored with whatever brain fart they're wrapped up in, then yeah. They made their own fates.

Being compelled to suicide because of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or some other psychological disorder beyond a person's control, is very different from willingly leading yourself down a path of craziness. Jim Jones' followers were not all raving psychotics, or at least weren't always. They ignored reason and convinced themselves of their rightness, much like many many religious people do today. That people who actually take their faiths seriously are insane is questionable. They simply operate on a different set of standards mandated by God. Or in their case, Jim Jones.
But let's say that we could unequivocally label them as insane the moment they put the kool-aid to their lips. They very well might have been. So what? They were not coerced into this position by any person or psychological force. They dived into extremism and should have been aware of the possible consequences. They're responsible for their actions and therefore responsible for their predicaments. You and I don't see eye to eye on this probably because, unlike you, I fundamentally don't care what other people do to themselves. I don't think the government should bother rescuing people from their own self-inflicted ****ups unless they want help, and I certainly don't want to see tax dollars wasted on saving people who are more than happy to act like idiots, even if it comes at their demise.

The mentally challenged deserve exception because they are mentally challenged. Since when is "hopelessly religious" a medical term? Sounds to me another way of saying somebody's a sucker.
 
Madeline Neumann died March 23 -- Easter Sunday -- at her family's rural Weston home. Her parents were told the body would be taken to Madison for an autopsy the next day.

"They responded, 'You won't need to do that. She will be alive by then,"' the medical examiner wrote in a report.
Click to expand...

Wow... thats... urgh.
 
Madeline Neumann died March 23 -- Easter Sunday -- at her family's rural Weston home. Her parents were told the body would be taken to Madison for an autopsy the next day.

"They responded, 'You won't need to do that. She will be alive by then,"' the medical examiner wrote in a report.
Click to expand...

well then there's no need for charges to be laid as she respawned back at the home base



what do you say to someone like that? "you're an idiot" doesnt quite cut it .. "omg you're insane" would probably come back as "insane for the lord!" or some other nonsense ..no I think forcing them to permanently wear a dunce cap iwould be fitting
 
I would start touching the person's forehead in a probing manner. When they ask why I'd say "I'm trying to find the scars from your lobotomy, who was your surgeon, they do excellent work"
 
"I prayed my frontal lobe away, the good lord giveth and the good lord taketh away"



'riiight"

<puts dunce cap on crazy guy>
 
I swear, if they were in front of me now I could probably stab them in the ear. A child paid for the parents unwillingness to think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MFL
Fascinating look at the ongoing psychological evolution of flat hieirarchies.
Replies
2
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
Pikminiman
New Steam Feature: Family Sharing
Replies
3
Views
6K
ríomhaire
ríomhaire
mechanicallizard
Parents hide childs gender for 5 years
2
Replies
46
Views
4K
Maestro
Maestro
Stylo
Amy Winehouse. Dead at 27.
2
Replies
62
Views
4K
Dynasty
Dynasty
Tollbooth Willie
Act 2: The Father of Valvetime
Replies
20
Views
2K
Shem
Shem
Back
Top