Parents pick prayer over docs; girl dies

[snuffy65 1]

Actually, insurance protects both. If you don't like the analogy, what about seat belt laws?

Insurance does protect both. However the law was put in place to protect other drivers on the street, why should otehr drivers pay anything or their insurance if it wasn't their fault?

[anonemouse 1]

Insurance does protect both. However the law was put in place to protect other drivers on the street, why should otehr drivers pay anything or their insurance if it wasn't their fault?

Now you've got it! The insurance law is there to protect OTHER PEOPLE. The medical intervention law is also there to protect OTHER PEOPLE. The only difference is that the insurance law protects your passengers and other drivers, while the medical intervention law would protect your children. Why should a child pay with his life because of a decision he wasn't allowed to make?

[snuffy65 1]

Their belief didn't kill the girl. Their LACK OF ACTION killed her.

They acted, they prayed. For some people that is enough. I just can't see telling someone else that their religion is not what I beleive and then force their children to follow a path that they believe is wrong.

I just wish some of the church goers here could actually put themselves in the shoes of the parents and really think about what faith vs law vs life means to them.

Of course like Gadget, most will just think of it from their perspective and think that their religion wouldn't put me in that situation.

But what if your religion did put you in that situation? Sure keep saying your religion wouldn't, but WHAT IF IT DID?

It's all a matter of perspective. Try to imagine what they are perceiving.

[gadgetlady 4]

It's all a matter of perspective. Try to imagine what they are perceiving.

I can't imagine what they're perceiving. They have a DEAD CHILD because of their poor decisions.

I want to reiterate: I do not have a problem with the practice of religion. But if that practice kills an innocent child who had no say in the decision, then it's negligence at the least.

There's a difference between reasonable and unreasonable government intrusion. If your practice of your religion causes you to have a poorly dressed or unfashionable child, intrusion on the part of the government would be unreasonable. If your practice of your religion causes a child's death, the government has a right to intrude.

[luluc 6]

They acted, they prayed. For some people that is enough. I just can't see telling someone else that their religion is not what I beleive and then force their children to follow a path that they believe is wrong.

I just wish some of the church goers here could actually put themselves in the shoes of the parents and really think about what faith vs law vs life means to them.

Of course like Gadget, most will just think of it from their perspective and think that their religion wouldn't put me in that situation.

But what if your religion did put you in that situation? Sure keep saying your religion wouldn't, but WHAT IF IT DID?

It's all a matter of perspective. Try to imagine what they are perceiving.

I'll answer!!! Cause Gadget and I SOOOOOO agree on the abortion issue. I'm a church go'er & I'm challenged DAILY by it. I got LOTS of issues w/the faith I was raised in: Catholic, but I have a Priest that loves my dialogue and questions from the Right to Choose / Rights of Gays / .. Fill in the blank.

I look outside the box - I like other intepretations, but that doesn't mean I'll make them my own. I'm well over the age of influence to change the spots I have. I try hard to be "respectful" of other Faiths / Non Faiths.

This clearly is Neglect - Sure Diabetes killed her, but Modern medicine could have SAVED her. Her parents failed her.

This may not be a popular opinion - but not everyone should have the right to have a family. I have to have liscenses for certain animals on my ranch & liscenses for my guns - And if the Gov't wants to check those - .... So be it, I have nothing to hide.

There ARE laws in place to protect children from neglect...Therefore What's so wrong w/the parents going thru the court system? Let their faith carry them thru to judgement....but my guess, their living a silent hell right now....

[gadgetlady 4]

Now you've got it! The insurance law is there to protect OTHER PEOPLE. The medical intervention law is also there to protect OTHER PEOPLE. The only difference is that the insurance law protects your passengers and other drivers, while the medical intervention law would protect your children. Why should a child pay with his life because of a decision he wasn't allowed to make?

laurend, I'm sure people don't often say this to you, but AMEN!

I've said it before and I'll say it again: we do not OWN our children and we do not have unlimited power to do with them what we wish, even to the point of death. They are in our care but they are not our property. Death is irreversible.

[anonemouse 1]

I can't imagine what they're perceiving. They have a DEAD CHILD because of their poor decisions.

I want to reiterate: I do not have a problem with the practice of religion. But if that practice kills an innocent child who had no say in the decision, then it's negligence at the least.

There's a difference between reasonable and unreasonable government intrusion. If your practice of your religion causes you to have a poorly dressed or unfashionable child, intrusion on the part of the government would be unreasonable. If your practice of your religion causes a child's death, the government has a right to intrude.

Bingo. I have to say I feel extreme empathy for the child that died. I feel absolutely nothing for the parents, though. People will say, "They've been punished enough, they have a dead child." Well, hell, they're the REASON their child died.

[snuffy65 1]

Now you've got it! The insurance law is there to protect OTHER PEOPLE. The medical intervention law is also there to protect OTHER PEOPLE. The only difference is that the insurance law protects your passengers and other drivers, while the medical intervention law would protect your children. Why should a child pay with his life because of a decision he wasn't allowed to make?

Actually the law is was put in for OTHER PEOPLE IN OTHER CARS NOT other people in your car.

However I do get your point. We force parents to buckle their kids up. So why not force parents to get medical care for their kids as well. I get it.

Because parents needs to make choices for their kids. They chose prayer. Some people choose, herbal doctors, some choose witchdoctors, some choose modern medicine. We start to say one choice isn't as good as the other then where do we stop?

Let me give you an example that pertains to just about everyone here:

I see stories of 15 year olds that get lap bands on this site. Now I know 15 years have Good idea and can make decisions on their own. But it is the parent that needs to make the ultimate decision.

Now lets say they decide to do the surgery and God forbid she dies on the operating room table.

Now to me and most the folks on here, that would be tragic and we would feel remorse for the parents. However this is LBT. Any idea how many religions, secularists, people of all walks of life, think WLS is ridiculous and "wacky"? These people see the article about the 15yr old WLS patient who died and want to arrest the parents for "killing" their child over a "wacky" belief?

I know WLS and a religion is two different things. But I really just trying to get you people look at it form other people's shoes.

Edited April 1, 2008 by snuffy65

[luluc 6]

Snuffy - I think there has been a good representation of faiths / non faiths represented here...& for the most part coming to a similar conclusion that some "form" of neglect has taken place.

Since your off to the "Who Supports the Right to Choose" thread now - I'll let Gadget play w/ya - To my end, I'm still anxious to see how this legally plays out.

Lulu~

[anonemouse 1]

Actually the law is was put in for OTHER PEOPLE IN OTHER CARS NOT other people in your car.

However I do get your point. We force parents to buckle their kids up. So why not force parents to get medical care for their kids as well. I get it.

Because parents needs to make choices for their kids. They chose prayer. Some people choose, herbal doctors, some choose witchdoctors, some choose modern medicine. We start to say one choice isn't as good as the other then where do we stop?

Let me give you an example that pertains to just about everyone here:

I see stories of 15 year olds that get lap bands on this site. Now I know 15 years have Good idea and can make decisions on their own. But it is the parent that needs to make the ultimate decision.

Now lets say they decide to do the surgery and God forbid she dies on the operating room table.

Now to me and most the folks on here, that would be tragic and we would feel remorse for the parents. However this is LBT. Any idea how many religions, secularists, people of all walks of life, think WLS is ridiculous and "wacky"? These people see the article about the 15yr old WLS patient who died and want to arrest the parents for "killing" their child over a "wacky" belief?

I know WLS and a religion is two different things. But I really just trying to get you people look at it form other people's shoes.

But it STILL protects the other people in YOUR car. They aren't exempted just because they're in your car.

If the parent forced the 15 year old to go through with the surgery when the child didn't want it? You bet they should be charged. The point is, the child with diabetes didn't have a choice about whether she could go to the doctor. People make bad choices all the time. Our society DOES differentiate bad choices from good ones. And if your child dies as a result of a choice you made, that's a pretty good indicator that you made a bad choice. It's not like choosing whether you want a red car or a blue one. Choosing whether or not your child lives or dies should not BE a choice.

And to further complicate the issue (or maybe simplify it, I don't know), there are already exceptions to the "religious rights trump all" thing. People belonging to religions that mandate that they keep their face covered have to remove that covering to get driver's licenses. If they refuse, they are not allowed to get a license. Why? Because it's seen as protection for other people. Now, if the ability to easily identify someone is more important than their religious belief that they must remain covered, I don't see why the well-being of their children CAN'T trump a couple's religious belief that doctors are bad.

[snuffy65 1]

But it STILL protects the other people in YOUR car. They aren't exempted just because they're in your car.

I said that already. However THE LAW WAS ONLY PUT IN TO PROTECT OTHER PEOPLE IN OTHER CARS!

If the parent forced the 15 year old to go through with the surgery when the child didn't want it?

this is off topic but whether a MINOR wanted it or not the parents have the last say and are responsible for the decision

The point is, the child with diabetes didn't have a choice about whether she could go to the doctor. People make bad choices all the time. Our society DOES differentiate bad choices from good ones. And if your child dies as a result of a choice you made, that's a pretty good indicator that you made a bad choice.

Exactly why I typed up the WLS scenario. Everyone on here thinks that WLS might be a viable option for a 15yr old and if the child and parent agree on doing it they should do it. However there would be people who think WLS is wacky and would want to arrest them. What if they had the power to put them in jail?

And to further complicate the issue (or maybe simplify it, I don't know), there are already exceptions to the "religious rights trump all" thing. People belonging to religions that mandate that they keep their face covered have to remove that covering to get driver's licenses. If they refuse, they are not allowed to get a license. Why? Because it's seen as protection for other people. Now, if the ability to easily identify someone is more important than their religious belief that they must remain covered, I don't see why the well-being of their children CAN'T trump a couple's religious belief that doctors are bad.

Because the difference between the article and the license scenario is that licenses are there to protect other families where the article dealt with how families deal within each other.

Theres a big difference and I ain't the best person to put thoughts on paper so maybe I ain't explaining it right?

Edited April 1, 2008 by snuffy65

[Marimaru 7]

If I had to choose between my religion and my child, I would, without hesitation, choose my child. Why on Earth would I follow a God who would not allow me to save my child from a disease as treatable as a bottle of antibiotics, or insulin shots (or whatever form of help she needed for her diabetes). Watching my child be ill would make me re-think my belief system, because no Creator in my mind would want me to sit by and do nothing while my child died.

I don't follow their belief system obviously, so it is impossible for me to "actually" try to see it from their point of view, because I would have to know how it felt to believe the things they believe. But what I have said above is how I would act as the person that I am.

[plain 12]

What if the child, having been raised in the belief system, refused treatment (I know that she couldn't have legally refused, being a minor)? Then you'd have a situation where the parents are refusing treatment and the minor is refusing. I believe there was a case similar to the above scenario with a 15-16 yr old boy and chemotherapy.

Sure, the cases are different. But the point is, if you hold that the government should intervene, then what age should the child have a say?

Also, seems like people are starting to take this debate a lil' personally. I think if you read back, both snuffy and I agree that this child's death was needless and tragic. I was just making the point that if you are of any faith, then maybe you could empathize with the decision of choosing between religion and the realities of secular life. To argue that "my religion makes exceptions for...." or "God would never...." is not the point, because then you're implying that your religion is more correct, and that's a whole 'nother thread.

[Gone4Now 4]

Except diabetes wouldn't have killed the girl if their beliefs hadn't interfered. It's like debating results of an autopsy. Yes, all people die because of coronary failure. Their hearts stop. Why did their hearts stop, though? Did they get shot or did they die of old age? Yes, diabetes was the tool that caused this girl's death. But her death could have been prevented if the parents had taken action. Their belief didn't kill the girl. Their LACK OF ACTION killed her.

Excellent point, Lauren!

[BJean 16]

Excellent point, plain!

One thing that you all may be missing about the law and what we were discussing earlier about how we can SAVE children, rather than focusing on just the punishment itself is the idea that punishment may be a deterrent. I figured someone would pick up on it but I guess I'm the only one who thinks in my own peculiar way.

The primary reason to punish the parents in this case, as far as I'm concerned, (because they are living in torment right now which should be enough punishment because, for goodness sake, their faith caused the death of their child!) is for the pumishment to serve as a deterrent to others who might find themselves in a similar situation in the future. I can think of no other reason to punish parents who have faithfully put their child in the hands of their God only to have their child die anyway.

Do we just want revenge because we're angry that a child died? Do we feel that we have the right to retribution because we disagree with the parents' strong faith in a particular religion? Do we want to punish them because we believe that they are unbelievably stupid and therefore deserve to be punished for being so stupid? What exactly are our motives for punishing these parents?

I can see no other logical and sane reason for punishing them but for the punishment to be used as a deterrent in the future.

By the way, I'm surprised to read here that someone with strong religiious beliefs could say that, "death is irreversible". If you believe in God, Jesus and the afterlife, death is only a part of everlasting life. We may miss loved ones who have died, but if you are a true believer, you know that they were promised everlasting life and they are not really gone, they aer just away.