US of A, the world's last Superpower

[Sportsman]

Agree 100% with Cory on this.

I am quite happy that the parents can believe and practice any religion or superstition that takes their fancy but this should not interfere with their responsibility to seek basic medical aid for their children.

When I was nursing we had to seek court orders on more than one occasion to protect children from their Jehova's Witness parents.

It would be interesting to see how far the courts credibility and belief in religious freedom would stretch. What if the parents were Pagans or Devil Worshipers, or is it only Christian belief that allows you to kill your children, and make no mistake, by depriving this little girl of the treatment she needed they killed her just as if they put a gun to her head and pulled the trigger?

When you decide to have children you accept responsibility for their welfare until they are able to care for themselves. No argument

Edited May 16, 2008 by Sportsman

[corydoras]

Agree 100% with Cory on this.

I am quite happy that the parents can believe and practice any religion or superstition that takes their fancy but this should not interfere with their responsibility to seek basic medical aid for their children.

When I was nursing we had to seek court orders on more than one occasion to protect children from their Jehova's Witness parents.

It would be interesting to see how far the courts credibility and belief in religious freedom would stretch. What if the parents were Pagans or Devil Worshipers, or is it only Christian belief that allows you to kill your children, and make no mistake, by depriving this little girl of the treatment she needed they killed her just as if they put a gun to her head and pulled the trigger?

When you decide to have children you accept responsibility for their welfare until they are able to care for themselves. No argument

Thank Amun Ra on High I was beginning to think that I was alone in the wilderness.

[Jeff S]

That's where we differ, I don't give a fig for the belief of the parents, the childs right to live take precedence over the parents' belief in imaginery friends.

You seem to be of the opinion that the parents had a right to let their daughter die, my opinion is different.

 

Please don't assume Cory. I agree entirely with you- minus the imaginary friend part.

 

I don't think it is right that any child, incapable of making the decision for themselves, should be kept to the same by their 'trusted' parent or guardian. I find it irresponsible of the parents, however misguided they and their religion might be. It may very well have been an unfortunate accident but still irresponsible.

 

The system failed. Plain and simple.

 

http://www.religionnewsblog.com/20974/madeline-kara-neumann

 

http://www.religionnewsblog.com/21316/madeline-kara-neuman

 

More to come next week and the second week of June. Maybe the outcome of the case will change the laws. I certainly hope so.

[Lid]

I quite agree that children have rights over the wants of their parents. However where and how do you draw the line and how do we decide who is right when it comes to certain types of treatment?

 

If a doctor wants to give your child a certain kind of treatment or vaccination and you not want to, when are you right and when are they right? What happens if your decision results in harm coming to the child which may have been prevented by the treatment or vaccination that you withheld in good faith.

[corydoras]

I quite agree that children have rights over the wants of their parents. However where and how do you draw the line and how do we decide who is right when it comes to certain types of treatment?

 

If a doctor wants to give your child a certain kind of treatment or vaccination and you not want to, when are you right and when are they right? What happens if your decision results in harm coming to the child which may have been prevented by the treatment or vaccination that you withheld in good faith.

I'd make vaccination compulsory, or have a system like they have in France. In France if you DON'T vaccinate your kids then parents like me who have our kids vaccinated will NOT ALLOW them into a PUBLIC school, and you'll be lucky to find a fee paying school that will accept un-vaccinated children either.

 

Being a parent does not turn you into some medical genuis.

[Guest Rabbit]

I

Being a parent does not turn you into some medical genuis.

No, and nor should it a smug bigot

Yes I agree that a childs life should come before any religious belief, but the way you condemn folk who may differ from your point of view is startling. To describe those that do believe as having ''Imaginary Friends'' is not a good starting point for anyone who may want to debate with you.

Jeff said he should chose his replies carefully, and yet he has actually lived in Winconsin, so I for one was interested in hearing a 'balanced' opinion. perhaps you to also should consider before replying ?

Yes I do agree with you, and I am a parent, but please chill out!!

[Ken L]

I've been in the process of replying to this thread a couple of times but just found myself going of at ranting tangents and pulled the plug. In the end though, I don't beieve that there should be any (or a least none that I can thibk of) opt outs from the law of the land on the basis of religion.

That applies whether it's the withholding of medical treatment from kids, the open carrying of knives (Kirpan) in public or the use of barbaric means of slaughtering your animals.

 

RIP Madeline

 

This would kind of imply that there is some state after death in which Madeline might enjoy a "rest". You haven't gone all soft on your athiest sensibilities have you Cory ?

[Lid]

I'd make vaccination compulsory, or have a system like they have in France. In France if you DON'T vaccinate your kids then parents like me who have our kids vaccinated will NOT ALLOW them into a PUBLIC school, and you'll be lucky to find a fee paying school that will accept un-vaccinated children either.

 

Being a parent does not turn you into some medical genius.

 

No but just as equally the medical profession is by no means infallible. It is not just vaccinations (which are not properly understood anyway) I am talking about, there is lots of other examples where the doctors may suggest or recommend a treatment that an informed parent may quite rightfully choose to decline on behalf of their child. In fact other doctors may have a different opinions anyway. How can we legislate for all this? Indeed should we?

 

See here.

Edited May 17, 2008 by Lid

[chesters1]

"Hair dyes: They do cause cancer, experts conclude

15 May 2008

 

Hair dyes may cause cancer – and hairdressers and barbers could especially be at risk because of their daily contact with the colourants.

 

Hairdressers face “a small but consistent risk of bladder cancer”, and the dyes may also be responsible for an increased risk of lymphoma and leukaemia. Researchers aren’t sure if people who dye their hair at home are also at risk.

 

Hair dyes were supposed to be safe after known carcinogens were removed in the 1970s, but the latest review from the International Agency for Research on Cancer suggests that hairdressers are still at risk. The dyes, they concluded, were “probably carcinogenic to humans”.

 

Dark hair dyes are believed to come with the greatest cancer risk."

 

no proof needed just alarmist statements

 

"

High fluid diet helps reduce risk of bladder cancer

01 August 1999

 

Men who drink plenty of fluids every day have a far lower risk of developing bladder cancer, the fourth most common cancer in men.

 

Drinking more than 2.4 litres of fluid every day halves your risk of developing the cancer, compared with men who daily drink less than 1.4 litres, researchers have found.

Acceptable fluids include milk, water, carbonated drinks, fruit juice, coffee, tea and even alcohol. Neither coffee nor alcohol were found to increase the risk of bladder cancer, researchers from the US Health Professionals Follow up Study found. *

 

A total of 252 cases of bladder cancer were diagnosed among the 51,529 participants aged between 40 and 75, with age and smoking being closely associated with the disease. Fluid intake was inversely associated with the cancer. The risk of developing bladder cancer decreased by 7 per cent for every increment of 240 ml of fluid drunk every day.

 

Men who are smokers would particularly benefit from introducing more fluids into their diet, particularly as cigarettes are the only accepted cause of the cancer. Overall, the study found that smokers were three to five times more likely to develop bladder cancer (N Eng J Med, 1999; 340: 1390-7)."

 

so only men who smoke should take more fluids ?,is this the site of sweeping statements? and ofcourse looking closer recommend drinking alcohol ,2.4ltrs of scotch a day perhaps are more harmfull than smoking?

 

* what other fluids are there ,petrol ? meths ? in other words drink the normal quantity of fluid a day and youl be half the risk anyway

it seems this site that tells you what docs dont dont tell you anything of use anyway.

so if you dont smoke you can drink less fluids? and never get bladder cancer?

 

doing anything gives you a higher risk of something ,if you drive you have a greater risk of a car crash ,if you cross a road you have a higher risk of being knocked down ,the more you do it the higher the risk ,no bull from chesters1 just logic and reversing it is also true ,the more you cross the road without looking the higher the risk of being knocked down the less you wash the higher the risk of BO

risk comes from frequency not much more!

Edited May 17, 2008 by chesters1

[Sportsman]

No but just as equally the medical profession is by no means infallible. It is not just vaccinations (which are not properly understood anyway) I am talking about, there is lots of other examples where the doctors may suggest or recommend a treatment that an informed parent may quite rightfully choose to decline on behalf of their child. In fact other doctors may have a different opinions anyway. How can we legislate for all this? Indeed should we?

 

See here.

 

You make a good point, particularly with reference to vaccinations. I would be happy to debate the rights and wrongs of say the MMR jab. But it is not germane to this particular;lar case.

This little girl had diabetes. This is not a condition that will put you into a coma and kill you rapidly, her condition would have deteriorated over a period of time. It seems that the parent were aware of this deterioration and took her out of school to avoid others questioning their treatment of her. They would have watched her deteriorate and die over a protracted period of time and could have sought medical intervention at any time, but did not do so, instead they watched her die. Diabetes is well understood and easily treated and the treatment would undoubtedly have saved her life, but she was never given the option.

In this country it is an offence not to seek treatment for a sick animal.

The medical profession may not always agree, and may not always get it right, but at least they try.

An informed(key word that) parent may decline a particular treatment but I think that if they declined all forms of treatment for the "power" of prayer the child would rapidly be made a ward of court and treated anyway, at least in the UK.