Faith Healing Parents Charged In Death of Infant Son

Originally posted by (C2C)
Leave the parents alone, its not like they wanted the kid to die! Too much government interfearence here.

Or maybe not enough.

A child is dead of a treatable illness.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


It's not the same.
Why?

Because if you are religious, you believe that prayer WILL work.
You may believe that going to medical care damns you in some way, and/or damns your child. You believe there is more to life than the here and there, and eternal damnation is a fate worse than a physical death.

"arguing with someone LIKE YOU"

Like me? I am a person just like you are at least on the basic levels. You don't know me, but once again, it's just proof that one will never gain popularity arguing that parents should be responsible for their own children - that will get a person shunned - which is why we have DFCS and CPS problems galore, why Texas CPS was so quick to jerk the LDS kids.

You gotta love babies and Jesus, otherwise, you just ain't 'merican. Or maybe it is science and babies. Maybe these days it's just babies.

I have a friend that they put in jail for kidnapping her baby. She kidnapped it from the govt. because she believed the child was going to die in govt care. She took it for medical tests. Tests proved she was right - and enabled the child to get the care it deserved. She still got put in a cage like an animal for it.

You can't win against Big Brother turned Big Nanny. "What about the children" will just keep convincing her she has a role in our lives.

In the UK you've got the government putting cameras in people's houses to make sure they get their kids to bed on time.

As for "people like me" I've got a science degree, and no way I'd not take my child to the doctor if he got more than 2 ZITS at the same time. That said, I do at least TRY to understand where others are coming from.

I understand wanting to defend children, but I also understand there is a cost when we let the govt. assume that role.

Originally posted by hadriana
I do not believe medical care should be forced on anyone.

I see it's not a particularly popular opinion, but I agree with you.

And as oneclickaway mentioned, some of these same people would and will refuse the flu shot for their children... Does anyone think there will be deaths among children whose parents refused the swine flu shot? Would you toss the parents in jail for refusing the swine flu shot??? If not, you're being hypocritical here.

I don't care if it's for religion or not, no one should have medical treatment FORCED on them or their children. You can't have it both ways!

Originally posted by hadriana
It's not the same.
Why?

Because if you are religious, you believe that prayer WILL work.

As i stated if the person that is in trouble themself decides then i have no problem with it, let them pray and die. My issue is that a child doesn't have that option the parents decide for them and the parents have no right to decide if their child lives or dies when they havea very easily curable illness.

Originally posted by hadriana

"arguing with someone LIKE YOU"

Like me? I am a person just like you are at least on the basic levels. You don't know me, but once again, it's just proof that one will never gain popularity arguing that parents should be responsible for their own children - that will get a person shunned

No parents are responsible for many things but when their decisions directly endanger their children then they are usually not allowed to do this and they shouldn't be allowed to do this.

Furthermore where did i ever say "people LIKE YOU"? Please quote me as i can't find that in any of my posts.

Originally posted by hadriana
I have a friend that they put in jail for kidnapping her baby. She kidnapped it from the govt. because she believed the child was going to die in govt care. She took it for medical tests. Tests proved she was right - and enabled the child to get the care it deserved. She still got put in a cage like an animal for it.

Well that is a shame but it has no bearing on this situation, the parents in this case were at best negligent. Their decisions led to the death of a two year old child when that death was completely preventable. Are you truly saying you support the death of a child just to protect someones feeling over their religion?

Honestly you're fine for the child to die when it was absolutely and easily preventable?

Originally posted by hadriana
In the UK you've got the government putting cameras in people's houses to make sure they get their kids to bed on time.

Yes and i'm absolutely against this, it is a rather big difference between an early bed time and the death of a child.

Originally posted by hadriana
As for "people like me" I've got a science degree, and no way I'd not take my child to the doctor if he got more than 2 ZITS at the same time. That said, I do at least TRY to understand where others are coming from.

Once again where did i ever say people like you? This post of yours is a reply to me and yet i have not uttered these words in this thread.

Originally posted by hadriana
I understand wanting to defend children, but I also understand there is a cost when we let the govt. assume that role.

I am with you with the idea that the government goes to far in protecting children, however when it comes to the clear endangerment of a child like this then it is an easy situation to rectify.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I see it's not a particularly popular opinion, but I agree with you.

No medical should not be forced on any ADULT. Children are a whole other story.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
And as oneclickaway mentioned, some of these same people would and will refuse the flu shot for their children... Does anyone think there will be deaths among children whose parents refused the swine flu shot? Would you toss the parents in jail for refusing the swine flu shot??? If not, you're being hypocritical here.

When the flu shot originally came out and was not very well tested i would have supported parents not giving it to their children because the danger was not clear. If any of those children died i would say the parents could be excused because the evidence just wasn't there for the safety of the jab. Now however the safety is pretty well documented so yes it would be the parents fault.

However once again there is a clear difference. The child in this case was already ill and needed medical attention, whereas the unvaccinated children are simply at risk of becoming ill. Furthermore i am willing to bet that any child who caught the flu would be taken to hospital and treated.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I don't care if it's for religion or not, no one should have medical treatment FORCED on them or their children. You can't have it both ways!

Medical treatment, as long as it will be life saving should be forced on children as children, espeicially at the age of 2 cannot possibly make the right choice. The parents of the child were directly endangering him, negligent at best.

I will say it again as i did in my original post. I am all for religious freedoms, i am not religious but i will protect those freedoms. I will not however protect those freedoms if they directly endanger the life of a child. An adult is a different matter because an adult can decide for themselves.

Instead of talking about medical treatment why don't we reverse that? Why should a child have medical treatment that coudl save their lives forceably witheld by their parents and the child has no say at all? Surely then the best thing would be for a neutral party to decide what is best for the childs survival.

Originally posted by Angus123
reply to post by hadriana

 

Debating someone like you is a waste of time. If you truly don't see the absurdity of the things you just said then I wish you well and have a nice life.

There ya go. It was Angus 123, btw.
"Debating someone like you is a waste of time. "

Because I don't agree with you?
For thousands of years, we pretty much had it down pat that if the kids were not old enough to decide for themselves, it was the role of the parents. Now we, as a country, don't think this is good enough to protect the kids, so we want the government to do it.

KNow how many THEY get killed? A lot of studies show that kids are MORE at risk when under government care, especially of being put on neuroleptic drugs and antidepressants galore - being overmedicated. Then there's the foster parents that abuse, rape, neglect, KILL.

WHO do we then turn to, to protect all the kids? God?
Wow, that will get you put in jail for sure.

I don't really want a neutral party deciding my child's fate. I'd rather someone who loves him do it.

In any event, I can understand a charge of negligence, but not murder.

[edit on 11-10-2009 by hadriana]

Originally posted by hadriana
There ya go. It was Angus 123, btw.

So it wasn't me basically even though you replied to my post as if it were me, so yeah if you want to sound indignant then go for it but don't drag the names of people not involved into it thank you very much.

Originally posted by hadriana
Because I don't agree with you?
For thousands of years, we pretty much had it down pat that if the kids were not old enough to decide for themselves, it was the role of the parents. Now we, as a country, don't think this is good enough to protect the kids, so we want the government to do it.

The parents are free to decide many things just not allowed to put their childs life in danger. I fail to see why you're so upset about saving a childs life.

Originally posted by hadriana
KNow how many THEY get killed? A lot of studies show that kids are MORE at risk when under government care, especially of being put on neuroleptic drugs and antidepressants galore - being overmedicated. Then there's the foster parents that abuse, rape, neglect, KILL.

We're not talking about foster parents, we're not talking about government staking the children away from parents, we are simply talking about healthcare decisions. Stop derailing the thread with pointless comparisons.

Originally posted by hadriana
WHO do we then turn to, to protect all the kids? God?
Wow, that will get you put in jail for sure.

Oh dear me you're really losing it here. We turn to a neutral third party, a dcotor to decide what is best for the child in regards to medical treatment. That's all, just the medical side so stop talking about foster parents and other inconsequential things.

Originally posted by hadriana
I don't really want a neutral party deciding my child's fate. I'd rather someone who loves him do it.

That's the problem though, these parents loved their child and yet they couldn't do the sensible thing and take that child to hospital. Their belief in their faith trumped their good sense and now a child is dead.

Originally posted by hadriana
In any event, I can understand a charge of negligence, but not murder.

Negligence resulting in death is often seen as manslughter. The parents need to be made examples of, not to punish them but to warn others more clearly.

[edit on 11-10-2009 by ImaginaryReality1984]

The number one killer in the USA is the medical establishment. While these people may be off the deep end, the real lesson here is don't talk to the police. Never explain or justify just stick to your right to remain silent and let the police build a case themselves then try and prove it in court. Whatever these people did or didn't do wrong this punish, punish, punish control mentality is a much greater problem. No one ever gets away with anything, they will be held accountable in higher courts. It's beyond sick and selfish for a society and it's people to be looking for people to punish. Trying to meddle in the fate of these people is just bad karma building. Just let "God" sort out their issues and try compassion and tolerance instead.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
No medical should not be forced on any ADULT. Children are a whole other story.

Then who decides what treatment that children get? Do you want the government deciding what medical treatment your child gets? It comes down to that. The government having the authority to override your decisions on your child's health care. Is that what you're advocating here?

Only if the child is sick? So, if your child had a cancerous tumor removed and the doctor felt chemo was necessary but they got clear margins on the tumor so you didn't want chemo for your child, do you want the authority? Or do you want the government to have that?

Sure, it's easy for you to see how you feel in this clear cut (to you) example. But there are many cases where it's not going to be so clear cut. And many people would say that THIS case isn't clear cut. That's why YOU and you alone should have the authority to decide, not the government.

When the flu shot originally came out and was not very well tested i would have supported parents not giving it to their children because the danger was not clear.

But that's YOUR judgment. What you're advocating in this thread is giving the government the authority to override a parent's judgment.

Now however the safety is pretty well documented so yes it would be the parents fault.

Again, your judgment. As a parent, we HAVE to have the freedom to make those judgments for our children.

The child in this case was already ill and needed medical attention,

So, this is where you draw your line. Should all parents draw their lines at the same place? Should all people share your judgment?

I will say it again as i did in my original post. I am all for religious freedoms, i am not religious but i will protect those freedoms. I will not however protect those freedoms if they directly endanger the life of a child

So, you protect those freedoms as long as you agree with them? See, that's not what protecting freedoms is about to me. Protecting those freedoms means protecting them, even when I disagree with them.

Why should a child have medical treatment that coudl save their lives forceably witheld by their parents and the child has no say at all?

In this case, it's because of their religion. Just because you don't agree with their religious beliefs, you no longer support their right to it.

Surely then the best thing would be for a neutral party to decide what is best for the childs survival.

The best thing, by your judgment. Not by the parents'. It a matter of who has the authority.

My neice had rhybdomysarcoma - she got it when she was 7. At that time, NO kids lived with it, but there was experimental treatments. The MEDICAL team wanted her arm amputated and her put on the new drugs. They insisted if her arm was not amputated, there would be no hope for her.
She, even at 7, pleaded for her mom to NOT let them cut her arm off, said she'd rather die. My sister told them NO, you cannot amputate her arm.

She's in her late 20's today with 2 kids, and an ARM.

You can't say, leave DFCS out of it, CPS out of it, because that is who steps in when you won't let the doctors do what they want. They jerk custody from you, and then the medical team gets their way.

I'm just glad that wasn't so common some 20 years ago as it is today.