|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Casualty of faith healing - Madeline Neumann | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4032 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
Their right to believe is just as valid as anyone else's. The problem is that various fundamentalists believe that their right to believe also covers being able to force others to go through the dictates of their religion, whether that means refusing blood for Jehova's Witnesses children, refusing medical treatment for "faith healers," or even having their specific beliefs presented in a science classroom. When secular laws try to prevent such people from forcing their beliefs onto others (yes, even their children in cases like this), they accuse secular society of violating their rights.
It's just a misguided opinion on what the right to freely express your religion actually covers...and unfortunately in this case, kids can die from it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3292 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
http://www.wqow.com/Global/story.asp?S=10407988
quote:Let's keep our fingers crossed. The mother is certainly in my prayers... to burn in hell.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Thanks Taz, I'm very interested to find out how this one goes forward. I hate how I can just forget about such cases and never find out about their conclusions.
The updating article writes: Defense lawyer Gene Linehan says he didn't need to call witnesses after prosecutors agreed to tell the jury that to a "casual observer" Madeline Neumann appeared healthy three days before she died on Easter Sunday last year. He says prosecutors didn't prove their case on the charge of second-degree reckless homicide. Sounds to me like reaching. I hope the jury sees it as such.I'm sure that all the victims of suicide cults appeared healthy three days before the comet came, too. The observer need not even be casual. Taz writes: Let's keep our fingers crossed. The mother is certainly in my prayers... to burn in hell. I'm in.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3292 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Stile writes:
Yeah, unlike most people when I get obsessed with a case or an event I never forget about it. Several veins have popped in my head as a result...
I hate how I can just forget about such cases and never find out about their conclusions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Guilty as charged.
quote: Liar.That may be a priority, but when push came to shove they certainly showed that "doing right" was not their highest priority. If you have to skew your moral compass of "doing right" to include allowing a child to die, then you're not being honest. And you're certainly not doing anything right.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
There's a poll on their site about whether or not you agree with the jury's conviction:
Do you agree? After over 5000 polled, 85% agree with the verdict.Hopefully this may help pave the way for some changes in legislature on child protection.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3292 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Thanks for that update. I don't know how I missed it. Must be too much booze on my part.
Edited by Taz, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Religious extremism can be dangerous," Falstad said. "In this case, it was fatal. Basic medical care would have saved Kara's life - fluids and insulin. There was plenty of time to save Kara's life." "Religious extremism is a Muslim terrorist," Linehan said. "We definitely are not terrorists," he said. "We are Bible-believing, God-believing, Holy Ghost-filled people who want to do right and be right." Where to start? First is the presumption that religious extremism is limited to Muslims and only people who commit violent acts for political ends, which is tellingly the level of blindness one expects from a religious extremist. To compound the error - the father said that they believe in a holy book, believe in a god, and feel inspired by a spiritual force that drives them to doing the right thing. After all, Muslim extremists don't have any holy books, beliefs in a god, and they don't feel driven to do the right thing. Anyway, I think they are being honest but I think many crimes have been in the name of 'doing the right thing' - extreme beliefs have a tendency to pervert moral judgement. If, for example, you completely believed that your child will be tortured for eternity if it receives medical attention it would seem like a moral imperative to withold medical attention. And yet society still considers this kind of faith (as in certainty in the necessarily uncertain) a virtue and there is outcry when people question this...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
I've just been reading through some of the original posts in this thread. By that I mean that I was reading my original posts and the people that posted to me, and ignored all others. 'Cause I'm just that conceited.
But, regardless of my narcissism, I'd like to re-state the main focus behind every post I made in this thread:
Modulous writes: If, for example, you completely believed that your child will be tortured for eternity if it receives medical attention it would seem like a moral imperative to withold medical attention. My position is that once someone uncovers the information that they do indeed completely believe such a thing, they should immediately investigate the basis of the information their beliefs are based upon. If the belief has no verifiable basis, then any resulting actions are equally unverifiable. A child's life is a very imortant, verifiable entity. It is not something to be removed so whimsically by an unverifiable belief. Those who do not understand this are as dangerous to society as any other psychopath and should be equally restrained. That is, it's not the logic after the belief that is in question. I agree that the logic after the belief seems very morally imperative. The problem is the belief itself that leads to such drastic actions. The idea that an unverifiable belief is good enough to justify the neglect towards such an important, valuable, verifiable entity as a child's life is completely insane. Mom isn't going to jail because she did what she thought was right.Mom's going to jail because she didn't think her daughter's life was important enough to attempt a search for verification of what she thought was right.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Teapots&unicorns Member (Idle past 4888 days) Posts: 178 Joined: |
Hi Everybody!
This is one of the problems I have with religion. Parents and adults can follow their religion/faith all they want; I don't care. But once they step over the boundary and not only indoctrinate their children, but also force them to blindly follow beliefs that could harm them (like this), then I have an issue with it. Minors are not their parents' religion. They are their own people and can make their own faith-related decisions.
Similarly, he suggests, a phrase such as "Catholic child" or "Muslim child" should be considered just as socially absurd as, for instance, "Marxist child": children should not be classified based on their parents' ideological beliefs.[81] According to Dawkins, there is no such thing as a Christian child or a Muslim child. Richard Dawkins - Wikipedia Sorry it's Wiki......... I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. - Stephen Roberts I'm a polyatheist - there are many gods I don't believe in- Dan Foutes "In the beginning, the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has widely been considered as a bad move."- Douglas Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
I worked at a hospital a few years back where they brought in this boy who desperately needed open heart surgery or he would surely die. Problem was that Mom and Dad were Jehova's Witnesses' who are virulently opposed to any kind of blood transfusion.
Well, the boy would have lost too much blood without donated blood of his type on hand. They refused, citing some obscure, completely misinterpreted passage of the bible and thus following some invented rule for God's sake in the absence of God. The boy died and rage spread throughout the hospital because it wasn't that the doctors did the best for him and he simply died anyway, it was that it was totally preventable in the first place. That boy could have easily lived. Anger also spread because in the eyes of the law, religion is an almost untouchable thing, so sacred that no single human may usurp its authority. I believe in the establishment clause advocating the separation of church and state, but clearly some people do not understand what it means. All that thing says is that they will not infringe upon the other and that no special status will be given to any religion. That's the gist. The simplified, layman's version isn't much more simple than defining it legally. What it sure as shit doesn't mean is that radical Muslims can "practice" their Jihad on thousands of unsuspecting civilians. It doesn't mean that Navajo's can take a shitload of Peyote off their reservation. It doesn't mean that practitioners of Santa Ria can decapitate chickens and sprinkle its blood all over your doorstep to either ward off or summon evil spirits. And it doesn't mean that because little Jimmy's parents are Jehova's Witnesses that the doctors can't actually help him. Guess what??? Did you know that it has nothing to do with the freedom of religion, either this case or the one stated in the OP? It has to do with the fact that the child was a minor. No one can legally do a thing to child without the expressed permission of their parents. That is only negated when the parents are abusive and so lose their custodial or guardianship rights to the minor. The best and most appropriate question for this thread is: What constitutes abuse and where should the line begin and end with parental rights versus government welfare rights? "The problem with Socialism is you eventually run out of other people's money." --Margaret Thatcher--
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
It has been decided, as I understand it, that if the parents try to deny necessary medical attention then the state can step in and gain temporary custody to make the necessary decisions. Exactly this situation has arisen here more than once and the parents were not allowed to stop the medical attention needed.
What seems to be a gray area is when can the minor child make a decision for themselves. Obviously, it they are adult they can commit suicide by turning down the needed surgery. When they are very young they aren't allowed to make that choice. There has been considerable argument in the years between.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
It has been decided, as I understand it, that if the parents try to deny necessary medical attention then the state can step in and gain temporary custody to make the necessary decisions. Exactly this situation has arisen here more than once and the parents were not allowed to stop the medical attention needed. This is a tough situation for me because both sides have pro's and con's. On the one hand it is a dangerous thing for the State to decide what is best for someone else's child. It's also a dangerous thing for the child not to have the State step in. I fear the day that parental rights are stripped in a one-size-fits-all form of government. But at the same time, no one can deny the fact that some parents are horrible and for the sake of the welfare of that child, (s)he needs to be rescued. The story in the OP or my own personal experience are not isolated incidents. As you said, exactly this situation has arisen here more than once. Touche'
What seems to be a gray area is when can the minor child make a decision for themselves. Obviously, it they are adult they can commit suicide by turning down the needed surgery. When they are very young they aren't allowed to make that choice. There has been considerable argument in the years between. That's another tough one where pro's and con's exist. Children often times make bad decisions. If they had their way, they'd eat nothing but ice cream and candy because they couldn't possibly begin to understand the danger in it. Any child would reasonably be scared of surgery. They may not have the wherewithal to fully comprehend that if they don't have the surgery, they could die. But children are their own people with their own mind and they do have a right to be heard and to express their own fears and concerns. It's one of those damned if you, damned if don't conundrums. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given. "The problem with Socialism is you eventually run out of other people's money." --Margaret Thatcher--
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Teapots&unicorns Member (Idle past 4888 days) Posts: 178 Joined: |
It has been decided, as I understand it, that if the parents try to deny necessary medical attention then the state can step in and gain temporary custody to make the necessary decisions. Exactly this situation has arisen here more than once and the parents were not allowed to stop the medical attention needed.
This is a tough situation for me because both sides have pro's and con's. On the one hand it is a dangerous thing for the State to decide what is best for someone else's child. It's also a dangerous thing for the child not to have the State step in. In my opinion, parents should have the final say unless their choice would harm the child in any way, whether mentally, psychologically, or (especially) physically, as in this case. Any parent who would put religion ahead of their child's welfare does not deserve to be a parent.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
In my opinion, parents should have the final say unless their choice would harm the child in any way Sounds like a reasonable solution in theory. "The problem with Socialism is you eventually run out of other people's money." --Margaret Thatcher--
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024