A Parent's Worst Nightmare

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Mary Rose

"Not making any sense?" It's not difficult to grasp. Supporting parents who withhold treatment of easily treatable diseases that result in the death of a child because it's their "right" is morally abhorrent.

But that is NOT whats happened in THIS case, is it!!!
The parents in THIS case are actively seeking advanced medical treatment!!!
Those PARENTS have every right to do so!

The topic you are discussing does not belong in this thread, please take it to another thread!

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Mary Rose

This is why socialized health care is bad. The state determines what care you will get, and unless you have your own insurance that you can afford, you take what care the state will give you when and where they say they will give it to you no matter what treatments may be available elsewhere.

Better that than NO care at all.


Anyway the British government have admitted its a cock-up this is a exception not the rule here in the UK

Im sure I can find horror storys in the USA.

Absolutely

Free for everyone, nobody turned away, same treatment for all, and no worries about huge bills or extortionate insurance

We love our NHS

originally posted by: VoidHawk

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Mary Rose

"Not making any sense?" It's not difficult to grasp. Supporting parents who withhold treatment of easily treatable diseases that result in the death of a child because it's their "right" is morally abhorrent.

But that is NOT whats happened in THIS case, is it!!!
The parents in THIS case are actively seeking advanced medical treatment!!!
Those PARENTS have every right to do so!

These parents did not inform the authorities that that was there intent at that time.

These parents took their child out of hospital under "stealth" conditions.

These parents remained "incognito" right up to the point of being found in Spain.

As I said earlier, now all the facts are known, I cant see any charges being brought. But the response from the UK authorities without hindsight was bang on.

a reply to: idmonster

Parents have a right to remove their child from a hospital that was hostile to the care they chose for their child.

originally posted by: idmonster

originally posted by: VoidHawk

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Mary Rose

"Not making any sense?" It's not difficult to grasp. Supporting parents who withhold treatment of easily treatable diseases that result in the death of a child because it's their "right" is morally abhorrent.

But that is NOT whats happened in THIS case, is it!!!
The parents in THIS case are actively seeking advanced medical treatment!!!
Those PARENTS have every right to do so!

These parents did not inform the authorities that that was there intent at that time.

These parents took their child out of hospital under "stealth" conditions.

These parents remained "incognito" right up to the point of being found in Spain.

As I said earlier, now all the facts are known, I cant see any charges being brought. But the response from the UK authorities without hindsight was bang on.

So why did the parents feel the need to remove their child by "stealth"? something must have made them believe it was necessary.

a reply to: Mary Rose

Agreed, on the understanding that the parents actions would not be more harmful. In this particular case, the parents had taken every action to ensure the safety of their child while seeking supplemental treatment, and while the efficacy of proton beam treatment may still be in question, my understanding is that it would not have been detrimental. Kudos to them for exploring every potential treatment for their sick child, and I'm not knocking them for doing so, however, the method by which they approached this is exactly why the UK authorities responded the way they did. They caused themselves to spend a few nights in prison by their actions, they have caused the separation from their child by their actions.

(Although from your previous post. I believe that you would allow a parent to cut off a child's nose with a rusty knife as long as the parent believed it would cure the ingrowing toenail. And before you start, no I do not believe the "authorities" are know everything, but it is a fact that a doctor has more knowledge about medicine and medical treatments than Joe Bloggs from the estate who left school at 16 and has never worked a day in their life. And it is my opinion that 6 years of medical training trumps religious superstition.)

originally posted by: idmonster
a reply to: Mary Rose

Agreed, on the understanding that the parents actions would not be more harmful.

More harmful according to whom?

Perhaps one has to have children to get it regarding this topic.

a reply to: VoidHawk

As to why they felt the need to "stealth", only they can answer that. My speculation based on the limited information to hand.

The parents had approached the NHS over the possibility of proton treatment for their child and been informed that it was not cleared for use in the UK, and probably would not be effective as a treatment in their case. They were probably not aware that in order to remove their child from hospital and travel, all they had to do was demonstrate that they were able to exercise duty of care to the child. While they appear to have been fully prepared from a dietary amd medicine point of view. I'm not sure driving 1000's of miles in a van could be considered beneficial to a child in that condition. I also have no idea of the laws of the countries they passed through, in regard to this.

All of the above could have contributed to their eventual actions, either way, I am not condemning them for what they did. If It were my child, and I thought it would help, I would have done it too.

What I am condemning, is all of those people who are criticizing the UK authorities for their response.

Regardless of why the parents chose that particular course of action, the fact is that a very poorly child was taken out of an intensive care unit, by parents who belong to a religious cult that is well known for it active opposition to certain medical procedures, and known to withhold certain medical treatments from family members.

Had the police sat back with an attitude of "it'll be okay, the parents have him" (cos' parents have never hurt, injured or killed their own child have they?) there would have been uproar.

a reply to: Mary Rose

I have Two.

Twin boys.

And over the years, there have been times where they have been very poorly, and there have been tubes into their little bodies keeping them hydrated, and they've been crying due to the pain.

I get it, you want to be able to transfer the pain from them to you, you want to be able to hold them and cuddle the pain away.

It doesn't work, wishing the pain away, (some people call this praying) doesn't work.

Just being a parent does not make you doctor, and wanting the best for your child, does not mean that what you want, is the best for your child.

originally posted by: Mary Rose

originally posted by: idmonster
a reply to: Mary Rose

Agreed, on the understanding that the parents actions would not be more harmful.

More harmful according to whom?

Harmful is not an opinion.

Something is either harmful or it isn't.

Sometimes harm needs to be caused in order to prevent a greater harm.

One of my lads had to have his arm sliced open from wrist to elbow in order to repair the shattered bones within. It made me feel sick to my stomach to think of my child, on the operating table, under anesthetic (a potential killer), being mutilated in this way. Should I have the right to prevent that treatment because of my squeamishness?

a reply to: VoidHawk

Read the thread before getting on your high horse. I was responding directly to a statement made my Mary Rose. Children have a right to get the proper medical help they need for treatable illnesses instead of senselessly suffering or even dying.

British authorities have made no apology for the warrant and travelled to Spain to question the couple. Assistant Chief Constable Chris Shead, of Hampshire Constabulary, has said he would rather be criticized for "being proactive" than "potentially having to explain why a child has lost his life."

The British state chasing down these parents in Spain on the rationale that they are protecting the child's life is highly suspect.

What is much more likely is that the state is interested in protecting their power over the individual - their absolute power.

If one is following what is going on in the world in general, one understands this incident in context.

originally posted by: Mary Rose
If one is following what is going on in the world in general, one understands this incident in context.

What am I talking about?

The game plan of those who propose a New World Order, of course: The push toward one government with a new religion and a central bank.

originally posted by: Mary Rose
The game plan of those who propose a New World Order . . . The push toward one government with a new religion and a central bank.

originally posted by: Mary Rose
The British state chasing down these parents in Spain on the rationale that they are protecting the child's life . . .

Do you see a connection?

originally posted by: GetHyped

A Pennsylvania mother and father who believe in faith-healing were sent to jail Wednesday for causing the death of their young, sick child by refusing to take him to the doctor. It was the second of Herbert and Catherine Schaible’s children to die under their care.

time.com...

Do you think these parents had a right to kill their child through their ignorance and negligence, Mary?

They have more of a Right than any random third party (aka government agent aka government THUG).

Is what happened in the above example sad and tragic? Yes.

But the fact is, governmental authority in the form of jack booted 'Child Protective Services' thugs does far more damage - emotional trauma to the children and parents, physical trauma when the children are abused (physically, sexually, and mentally) while in the custody of 'the state', etc - and arguably even causes more deaths - than the occasional lunatic fringe parent that wants to rely solely on faith healing.

So, the best solution is to just leave parents (and their children) alone, and if it can be proven that their negligence caused the death of their child, then prosecute them in court *afterwards*.

We should never, ever have allowed these kinds of laws to be passed that give government the authority to come into your home and take your children based solely on their personal opinions, or even some anonymous tip, without any proof required, and without any substantial recourse.

The exact same court proceedings that are required to convict someone of murder should be required to take someone's children away.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Mary Rose

So you think it's ok that a mother be allowed to "protect" their child sick with pnemonia through faith healing instead of seeking medical treatment? What about the child's right not to be killed by their parent's stupidity?

I'll answer it.

YES. It is 'OK' that a parent should be able to choose to NOT treat their child with whatever YOU think they should do.

To take away *all* parents Rights to control their lives and the lives of their children just because a few loonies do stupid things is the kind of thinking that has gotten us to this ridiculous nanny state we find ourselves in now.

What about the child's Right to not be stolen from their Parents, and stuck in some foster home where they then get physically and mentally abused, raped, and worse?

The sad fact is, there is NO WAY to guarantee 100% safety of anyone, anywhere, at any time, so you need to stop thinking like that.

This whole 'anything to save the life of a child' INSANITY HAS TO STOP.

The end of that road leads to the state taking possession of your baby at birth, and sticking them in a state home, where they will then be 'protected' from day one. Is that what you want??

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Mary Rose

Wow. You really believe that a parent's right to believe in nonsense and put their children in danger trumps the child's right not to be killed due to their parent's negligence and ignorance. That's sickening.

What is sickening is your belief that it is OK to give up essential liberty in order to (try to) achieve a little temporary (imaginary) safety, just because we are talking about 'the precious children'.

What you seem to fail to understand is that the damage done by isolated cases where people who believe in fairy tales make decisions that result in the death of their child are FAR LESS than the very real, well documented cases where children are traumatized by the forcible - sometimes VIOLENT - removal (by government THUGS) from their homes and their families who love them, stuck in some locked office or even a jail cell for some indeterminate amount of time, then placed into the 'custody' of some unknown (to them) third party, many of whom are child abusers and some even worse (sexual molesters, etc). The cases of children raped and otherwise abused in foster homes are very well documented, and far outnumber the cases of Jehovahs Witnesses whose children die through failure to get medical treatment).

So, yes, I am 100% AGAINST giving government this kind of power over myself and my children.

If my child dies while in my care, and negligence is suspected, then prosecute me. If it is proven in court, then convict and punish me. Otherwise, mind your own business.

dp

a reply to: tanstaafl

What? Let the child die first *then* act? Screw the child's rights. Let them die a slow, painful and easily preventable death, THEN we'll wag our finger at the parents and their ignorant, idiotic beliefs. Madness.