Another way Religion sets back the human race

[Garrdor]

Wow

My dad had hodgkins. We're very lucky he's alive today. They caught it early enough. Now he has to suffer the after-effect damages of chemo/radiation. He's still alive and living a semi-normal life. This struck a nerve with me, because my dad's church told him he was doing the wrong thing by getting his stem cell treatments last year.

Fucking barbarians.

[Harlowe]

Oh man, that is so sick, that poor kid.....

The judge has said Daniel, who has a learning disability and cannot read, did not understand the risks and benefits of chemotherapy and didn't believe he was ill.

[Sinaiel]

There was a recent Law and Order:SVU where a mother is prosecuted for the death of a neighbor's child when her own unvaccinated child gave the neighbor a deadly case of measles. I think these cases are very difficult to prosecute. Patients have the right to refuse any medical treatment, except under very specific circumstances - such as being a harm to one's self or others. Parents get to make decisions on the behalf of their children, and generally the parents in these cases are acting in what they genuinely believe to be the best interests of their children.

Personally I think these people are bad parents, but I don't think there should be legal repercussions for the parents. Withholding medical treatment that the parents do not think is necessary is their right, and, in my opinion, in and of itself should not be grounds for charges of neglect. Some people unfortunately are disadvantaged from birth. Be that in the form of religion, socioeconomic status, or genetics.

[Ariannda Kusanagi]

There was a recent Law and Order:SVU where a mother is prosecuted for the death of a neighbor's child when her own unvaccinated child gave the neighbor a deadly case of measles. I think these cases are very difficult to prosecute. Patients have the right to refuse any medical treatment, except under very specific circumstances - such as being a harm to one's self or others. Parents get to make decisions on the behalf of their children, and generally the parents in these cases are acting in what they genuinely believe to be the best interests of their children.

Personally I think these people are bad parents, but I don't think there should be legal repercussions for the parents. Withholding medical treatment that the parents do not think is necessary is their right, and, in my opinion, in and of itself should not be grounds for charges of neglect. Some people unfortunately are disadvantaged from birth. Be that in the form of religion, socioeconomic status, or genetics.

I'm in agreement, The parents of the child have every single right to refuse medical treatment, for ANY reason, and that is THEIR right. Perhaps later they could be held accountable for manslaughter, or even 3rd degree murder or something, but they should not be punished for what they believe in.

In the case of the TV show the child with measles wouldn't have affected the neighbor child, who WAS vaccinated. A good story line, but thats the point of the vaccinations. I think vaccinations are important, I think it's good for not only your child but those around them, and for the population in general, it's how things like polio have been virtually eradicated, and i think any parent who decides NOT to vaccinate is risking the life of their child and is a moron, but i don't think they should be punished. The parents have come to terms with the fact their child WILL die, if he was 80 then no one would care, and his family would have every right to refuse any medical treatments, the child has no say so, but thats life and death.

I'd choose to receive treatments for my children, my CHILDREN, but i can't say i'd do the same if i had tumors all over my body, and 3 months to live, maybe 6 with terribly invasive, painfull treatments, but who's to say until i'm put into that position.

When my oldest son was born he received antibiotics at birth, IV no less, for the first 24 hours of his life, simply because he had a high white blood cell count (although nothing was wrong), a week later we went to the ER and he had a temp of 104. We all had colds, with a fever lasting 3 days, spiking at 104. I was told my child needed x-rays and a spinal tap, and i refused the spinal tap, as the x-rays came back clear, and i was point blank told i WOULD allow the spinal tap to rule out meningitis, or the hospital would get an emergency court order and would take my child and admit him for 3 days worth of antibiotics.I don't know if they can do that or not, but i allowed the procedure. We were sent home an hour later with Tylenol and the diagnosis of a cold. They would TAKE my child if i did NOT allow a HIGHLY invasive procedure to be performed on my infant ?

It's their choice, no matter how stupid. Abortions are legal, refusing consent for any medical procedure is allowed, as is a DNR and not wanting to be put on life support, it may be stupid, but it shouldn't be illegal.

[Kulaf]

Yeah we should just go back to the old days of locking people away until they die or submit to treatment.

Do you know how contagious bacterial menegitus can be?

The problem with your end examples is......they only affect YOU. When you live in a community you give up some of your personal freedoms that impact the well being of others in the community.

[Sinaiel]

Do you know how contagious bacterial menegitus can be?

In a newborn, not very. The chance of the child dying, however, is pretty high. Even with early treatment about 25% of newborns with meningitis will die.

I do agree that there need to be rules that protect communities, which is why I think children need to be vaccinated to attend public school. If a parent listens to the advice of Jenny McCarthy over her physician and doesn't want to vaccinate her child, then that is her poor decision to make. That child, however, shouldn't be able to attend a public school, and I wouldn't send my child to a private school or daycare that didn't require vaccinations for all the children attending. Even if I have my children vaccinated, there is a chance that they will not develop immunity. I personally had to receive the Hep B series twice, because I did not become immune after the first series of immunizations.

Health departments also track a variety of infectious diseases like certain STDs. All health care facilities are required to report things like chlamydia and gonorrhea. Patients are obligated to provide the names and contact information for sexual partners from the last 60 days, so that those people can be informed that they have possibly been exposed. Honestly, I'm not sure what the legal repercussions are for refusing to provide information on sexual partners. If there is any, it is probably rarely enforced as public health services are trying to get as many people to come forward as possible. The health department, however, cannot force someone to receive treatment for an STD. Antibiotics are provided for free, but the patient can refuse the treatment.

[Fobbon Lazyfoot]

I'm in agreement, The parents of the child have every single right to refuse medical treatment, for ANY reason, and that is THEIR right. Perhaps later they could be held accountable for manslaughter, or even 3rd degree murder or something, but they should not be punished for what they believe in.

Thats the flaw in the mess, in my opinion. Refusing treatment because of risks, or because of pain, or because theres only a .01% chance it will work - those are valid reasons. Refusing treatment because your world views are in conflict with the vast majority of your community is not a valid reason. The first article I read on that story said the reason they were refusing the treatment was something to the effect of the former, but this one is suggesting the latter - I havn't heard religion mentioned before this one. People who kill their children because they ignore sensible medical advice for the sake of their extremist beliefs are no less guilty than people who kill their children with cyanide-laced Kool-aid - one is just more dramatic.

I'm getting confused on where exactly the chemo kid's parents fall on the extremism scale, but maybe I'm just tired. The diabetic kid's parents have no excuse, but cancer could go either way.

Some people unfortunately are disadvantaged from birth. Be that in the form of religion, socioeconomic status, or genetics.

Yeah, like women, jews, and black people!

[Sinaiel]

There are groups of people who regularly refuse medical treatment based upon religious reasons. Jehovah's Witnesses will not receive blood products, even if said blood would be life saving. I don't know of anyone prosecuting them for letting their children die due to hypovolemia. A quick google didn't turn up anything. Informed consent is the basis of our medical treatment system (something for which I am quite thankful) and what greater harm is there than damage to one's soul. In the perception of some people death is preferable.

[Garrdor]

One of my good friends back in highschool (Jehova witness) got in a really horrific car accident when she was 19. Her family told the ER doc that they refuse her to have a blood transfusion. She denounced her religion that day. She's alive, married, and has a newborn son at the moment

[Ariannda Kusanagi]

Yeah we should just go back to the old days of locking people away until they die or submit to treatment.

Do you know how contagious bacterial menegitus can be?

The problem with your end examples is......they only affect YOU. When you live in a community you give up some of your personal freedoms that impact the well being of others in the community.

And what does this one childs case have to do with that exactly ? Nothing, it affects no one but the child, and his family.

In the case of my son thats a different story, they weren't talking bacterial, they were talking viral i, i wasn't even looked at even though i had informed everyone the ENTIRE rest of the family had the same symptoms several days earlier, AND my son had been on IV antibiotics less then 7 days prior to this incident. If he had anything, and died, then who is responsible ? How does his death affect anyone but me ?

In the case of a community being involved thats a different story, but again every example cited has all been personal and having nothing to do with a community. In the case of Garr's friend she was age of majority and able to make her own choices.

[Harlowe]

Personally I find what they are doing (not treating a treatable disease that is going to kill the child) no different than neglect or even child abuse. The child had no say in what religion their parent's chose. Parents are guardians, not gods.

[Embar Angylwrath]

I'm in agreement, The parents of the child have every single right to refuse medical treatment, for ANY reason, and that is THEIR right. Perhaps later they could be held accountable for manslaughter, or even 3rd degree murder or something, but they should not be punished for what they believe in.

Thats the flaw in the mess, in my opinion. Refusing treatment because of risks, or because of pain, or because theres only a .01% chance it will work - those are valid reasons. Refusing treatment because your world views are in conflict with the vast majority of your community is not a valid reason. The first article I read on that story said the reason they were refusing the treatment was something to the effect of the former, but this one is suggesting the latter - I havn't heard religion mentioned before this one. People who kill their children because they ignore sensible medical advice for the sake of their extremist beliefs are no less guilty than people who kill their children with cyanide-laced Kool-aid - one is just more dramatic.

I'm getting confused on where exactly the chemo kid's parents fall on the extremism scale, but maybe I'm just tired. The diabetic kid's parents have no excuse, but cancer could go either way.

Some people unfortunately are disadvantaged from birth. Be that in the form of religion, socioeconomic status, or genetics.

Yeah, like women, jews, and black people!

You are imposing your standards of "reasonableness" on others... would you like others to impose their standards on you?

[Kulaf]

Yeah we should just go back to the old days of locking people away until they die or submit to treatment.

Do you know how contagious bacterial menegitus can be?

The problem with your end examples is......they only affect YOU. When you live in a community you give up some of your personal freedoms that impact the well being of others in the community.

And what does this one childs case have to do with that exactly ? Nothing, it affects no one but the child, and his family.

Ok I am confused here. You quoted a person talking about an episode of Law and Order which I watched in which a mother chose not to vacinate her child which then infected another child not of age to receive the vacination yet who then died. That certainly does affect others.

If you were responding regarding the OP why quote Sinaiel's post in its entirety? Why even quote it at all?

[Saevrok]

Let Darwin have his way, these people dont need to reproduce.

[Fobbon Lazyfoot]

You are imposing your standards of "reasonableness" on others... would you like others to impose their standards on you?

I expressed my opinion on where that standard lies, but I think that's a far cry from forcing it upon other people.

Now get back in your cage and repent, you horrible horrible human being.

[Ariannda Kusanagi]

Yeah we should just go back to the old days of locking people away until they die or submit to treatment.

Do you know how contagious bacterial menegitus can be?

The problem with your end examples is......they only affect YOU. When you live in a community you give up some of your personal freedoms that impact the well being of others in the community.

And what does this one childs case have to do with that exactly ? Nothing, it affects no one but the child, and his family.

Ok I am confused here. You quoted a person talking about an episode of Law and Order which I watched in which a mother chose not to vacinate her child which then infected another child not of age to receive the vacination yet who then died. That certainly does affect others.

If you were responding regarding the OP why quote Sinaiel's post in its entirety? Why even quote it at all?

First of all you didn't say the child who died wasn't old enough to receive the vaccine, you simply said infected another child who died, second of all the vaccine is given almost immediately after birth, so the child would have been protected by the mothers antibodies until receiving the vaccination itself (the one who died). Third of all if a child has not received a vaccination, then they aren't (generally speaking) a danger to other people, except those who are ALSO not vaccinated, for whatever reason, as those who have received the vaccine will be protected from the child with the dise4ase. Ergo i stand corrected, but generally speaking a non vaccinated child is only a threat to themself, not those around them... sorry