Casualty of faith healing - Madeline Neumann

And before that, your parents make decisions for you. Yeah, because when you turn 18 years old, you magically gain the competence for decision making Yes, the government protects the children but they also protect people’s right to religious freedom. But don’t they believe that receiving the medical treatment is a sin? Waiting until they’re 18 is not the only consequence in their eyes. If the kid wants treatment and the parents refuse, then you've got a case against the parents. How do you know that people even have a right to life? How do you know that everyone’s right is equal? A person who is born unable to sustain their own life has a right to live? How do they have that right? If it hasn’t been invented yet then you can’t show its effective I guess I could have wrote “the invention of an effective treatment”... Before that, the parents make those decisions for her. And they have their right to religious freedom. And legally, their praying was a legitimate effort, not matter how ineffective. So what? Parents press their decisions upon their children all the time. And as you said:

quote:

---

We don't have to ensure that our lives last as long as medically possible.

Of course not, I'd never argue such a silly thing.

---

Children aren’t idiots. They can make decisions and their parents are there to guide them. You can’t have everybody raise their children the way that you want them to be raised. People have the right to raise their own children. I don’t like the government stepping in. I think people should be free to live their life as the want. I can understand protecting children from neglect, but I don’t think you should force people to conform to your worldview and methods of sustaining life for as long as you believe it should be sustained. Except for the children. They are to stupid to make their own decisions and we can’t rely on parents who disagree with you so the government has to step in and make sure that the parents do things that you think they should be doing them.Meh, no thanks.

I don't know. That's the whole point. Because we don't know, our only rational solution is to treat all people equally. If you come up with a way to show how any particular race or whatever is actually "superior" in their right to life, please provide it. Governemnts worldwide are awaiting your answer. It certainly would make their job easier.Without being able to show a particular superiority, we have to accept that all people have an equal right to life. If your point was to ask if I'd argue my position if the effective treatment wasn't a proven method. Then my answer is that I would not. Even if the treatment is known it's not enough. Only if the treatment can be shown to be effective, is it worthy of governmental enforced support.Without that, it's just as useless as anyone else's personal whim. Parents certainly do not press their decisions upon their children "with the result of ending their child's life" all the time without the government interfering. That's why child molesting parents go to jail. That's why child killing parents go to jail. Child molestors and killers cannot show that the reasons they molested or killed the child is valid. Same for these parents. That's why these parents should go to jail. But I don't want people to raise their children the way I want them to be raised. I want people to raise their children by standards that are shown to be effective caring methods until they are no longer children. This isn't "my way", it's any way they can show that is effective. All the parents have to do is show that prayer-healing is effective, then I'll have no problems with it.Of course I have a problem with parents using any method that isn't shown to be effective. Especially if it results in that child's death. This is the same reasoning why I have a problem with child molesting parents, or child killing parents. We can show that it's not proper care for the child. We can show alternative methods that are proper. The molestors and killers cannot show that their method has any validity or positive results. We can show alternative methods that do have validity and positive results."Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins".
"Your right to raise your child any way you see fit ends where you kill your child". But I do not want anyone to conform to my worldview. I only want people to conform to standards that we can show to be real. That's not "my worldview". That's "reality". I don't want anyone to do anything because I think they should be doing them. I only want people to recognize that we all have the same right to life (earthly and religious). If you can show otherwise, please identify the fault in that idea.Using this as a guide, it is obvious that parents do not get to raise their children any way they'ed like.They are allowed to raise their children any way they'ed like as long as they don't remove their children's right to life, or any other individual right.

Except for minors, because they’re not able to make their own decisions Or whatever? How about specific individuals? People who are unable to sustain their own life are inferior in their right to life, so therefore everyone who is able, is superior to them in their right. We have to? No we don’t. We don’t have to accept anything. Show me that everyone has an equal right to life without just saying that without knowing that they don't, we must assume that they do. No, the point was that people are advocating that this girl should have been forced to receive insulin because she has a right to life, however, if this took place before insulin was invented, they wouldn’t be able to advocate that. So does she really have that right to life if the insulin isn’t available? I don’t think the government should be able to force anyone to take anything. People get to decide what treatment they receive or don’t, not the government. The girl’s life was going to end at that time by default. She died when she did because the parents chose to not accept the medical treatment, not because they prayed for her. Their action didn’t end her life, their inaction did.Parents can decide that their children will live by power lines, which results in shorter lives for the children but the government doesn’t have to step in and tell them that they can’t live there. The parents chose prayer as the treatment for their child, which was legally a legitimate effort, so the government doesn’t have to step and say that she must receive insulin. Your way is: by standards that are shown to be effective caring methods until they are no longer children That is totally, “your way”. But molesters and killers are doing an action, these parents did an inaction. They didn’t kill their child, they allowed their child to die naturally. People who cannot live have no “right” to live. We don’t have to do everything we possible can to make people live as long as possible. I’m still not so sure what this “right to life” is. How does a person who cannot live have a “right to live”?

Catholic Scientist writes

quote:

---

Except for minors, because they’re not able to make their own decisions

---

Are you implying that minors should be able to drive, drink, smoke, have sex, etc.?

quote:

---

No, the point was that people are advocating that this girl should have been forced to receive insulin because she has a right to life, however, if this took place before insulin was invented, they wouldn’t be able to advocate that. So does she really have that right to life if the insulin isn’t available?

---

I don't think this is a fair argument from your side. As far as I can see, noone is making the argument that she had the specific right to the insulin... specifically. People are saying that she had the right to a proven-to-work treatment available, and if that treatment is insulin shot then it's insulin shot she should have gotten.

quote:

---

I don’t think the government should be able to force anyone to take anything. People get to decide what treatment they receive or don’t, not the government.

---

But we have already established that children don't have the right to make that kind of decision for themselves. This is why parents are able to make the decision for them. In other sectors, we have also established that if the parents are unable to fulfill the needs of the children then the next people in line to make the decision are the social workers. Unless, of course, you are advocating that social workers have no right to take children away from abusive households.

quote:

---

The parents chose prayer as the treatment for their child, which was legally a legitimate effort, so the government doesn’t have to step and say that she must receive insulin.

---

I think this is main part of the issue. Some people here are arguing that prayer ought not to be a legally legitimate method of treatment.

quote:

---

But molesters and killers are doing an action, these parents did an inaction. They didn’t kill their child, they allowed their child to die naturally.

---

Abuse does not always involve active physical abuse. Negligence is a form of abuse. There is also a thing called negligent homicide.

quote:

---

We don’t have to do everything we possible can to make people live as long as possible.

---

I think this all boils down to where we draw the line between when we must act to save a person's life and when we call it a night. Some people here clearly see the line drawn a little beyond faith healing while others advocate the line being drawn before faith healing.

quote:

---

How does a person who cannot live have a “right to live”?

---

Technically, none of us can live without certain intervention of some sort to keep us alive.

Yes. For the same reasoning that they're not allowed to vote until they grow up a bit. I have no problems with lowering the legal age of being an adult, if that's what you want to offer. We have to, if we're to remain rational.And it's simple to show that everyone has an equal right to life. All we have to do is think of 1 single reason why they shouldn't have an equal right to life. Anything from you? No? Well, then it's still good.All it takes is 1 reason to blow my arguement out of the water. Of course, I have 5000 years of human history where no one can come up with a reason why any human should be thought as "superior" in their right to life on my side. But that doesn't really matter. The fact remains that if you can identify a rational reason, that you can show, that specifies why certain people should be allowed to live over others, then I will quickly stand down. Why? People born with no arms is a good reason why those people should live a life that doesn't require the use of arms. Say, phone-directory work they can operate with their toes or something. It's not a good reason that they should die.Show that a certain class of people is inferior or superior in regrards to why they should live or die. Otherwise, equality is our only rational option. I don't know and I don't really care. If you want to argue with "people", go and argue with them. If you want to argue with me, then reply to my arguement. My arguement is that we can show proper care, and since the girls life is equally valid as anyone elses, it's up to the governemnt to enforce proper care for her if her parents refuse to provide such.If we take the scenario where we are unaware that insulin would save this girl, then I would not be arguing. I'm not arguing that this is the way things are. I'm arguing that this is the way things should be. If we accept the value that all human life has the equal right to live. So are killers who kill their children by not feeding them. Even current law is on my side with this. A person who cannot live does not have a "right to live". Only people who can live. Like this girl. She could live just fine with a simple shot.If you do not understand what this "right to life" is, how are you arguing that it should not be equal for everyone? No, not quite. This is a simple, objective rationalization after agreeing that everyone has the same right to life.So, "My way" is: Everyone has the same right to life.If you'd like to argue that, go right ahead, all you need is one single reason why it shouldn't be. I do feel safe with the entirety of human history on my side, though.

Hello Stile, you state the following... Unfortunately you have not described why. Or rather your description is to reassert the same position as a defense to the problems I raised with the original position. In logic this is a circular argument. It might also be called begging the question, except that I did ask the question and you either don't understand what I am asking, or believe restating the original premise is sufficient (which leads to the circularity).Again, I do not believe this is intentional, I just think there is a miscommunication, or you are not sufficiently analyzing your premises.To perhaps pry up a plank so you can see what I was trying to get at, you keep stating how gov't is enforcing equality. That is as vague as stating gov't is enforcing freedom. What does that word mean in concrete... practical... terms? And what does that actually mean in how the policy is carried out?If you can create a more defined argument, without the use of so many hidden premises, my thought is the issues I raised might become more apparent to you. Or perhaps the defenses you might have (but consistently leave hidden in rebuttals) will become clear to me.In that case, I will reply.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Thank you, Percy.Your argument is simple and to-the-point. As always.

Hello, I don't see how one can factor such things out, if the goal... which you state must not be forgotten... is what we are constructing policy to address. Well they do concern me. Again, I do not understand how concrete policy is developed to attain a goal, without dealing with a priori limits we set on gov't.If this thread is simply meant to ask "Do we all agree that the gov't ought to create policies to minimize child mortality?" then my answer is yes. It is when there is an appearance that the methods of such policies cross established lines where gov't cannot go, I am raising questions on the particulars. Why should we allow crossing that limit? And how do we prevent the gov't from moving beyond our intended targets within the overall goal, once the limits are removed?These are legitimate questions, if the discussion moves from the vague point, to the particulars. I'm sorry about that, I should have written "For sake of argument, assuming...". I did not mean that you assumed something, or that I assumed you held some position. Then using that same methodology, why can't someone sweep religious beliefs into the same category of things being equal? Other than your desire that some issues be treated as irrelevant for discussion, I am not finding the logic supporting such divisions.And I have already stated the practical reasons such divisions are counter-intuitive to the goal you claim is so important. Fair enough. But I tend to think you might have arguments when said wonks deliver a solution you would not like. True, except for one... freedom. "Give me liberty or give me death" and "live free or die" are two rather old expression stating this position rather clearly.A crucial aspect of freedom is autonomy, personal sovereignty. A crucial aspect of sovereignty is the right to personal beliefs, which includes religious beliefs... which usually define concepts such as life, and children, and desirable ways to live and die. Another crucial aspect of sovereignty is the right to create a family, within which one is able to continue those beliefs. There is a very strong psychological factor in the freedom to do this without gov't stepping inside from on high. Within the diverse population which we had at the time, having experienced such and hoping to avoid these things in the future, they placed a priori bounds on gov't activity.It is the duty of all those that wish to lift such bonds from the gov't, to explain why it is so important that it must be done, and how the gov't will actualize the results you state and not move on to other things we would not wish. That, unfortunately, involves particulars.You state the goal is to reduce mortality in children. The reality is that most such cases are not related to faith based denials of medical care. Many more, avoiding poverty issues, are denials of such care based on financial calculations for profit of medical companies.It seems to me that in such a situation, discussions of lifting the long held limits of gov't are not relevant (or practical) if one is looking to devise policies to reduce mortality. We can start in many more places, and once those are achieved we'd at least have a consistent argument about what role our gov't actually is taking vis a vis child mortality.To be honest, no one advocating such broadened powers by the gov't has explained how child mortality will in fact be reduced. Unless it is a proactive policy of monitoring, it can only be a reactive policy which means children will die all the same. What's worse, it may push faith parents underground leading to perhaps more situations, or at least less likelihood that they will be influenced by modern concepts.The laws against female circumcision in Africa would be a very good model. It has not resulted in vast decreases of the procedure. Instead there have not only been increases in some areas, but the activity has become still more dangerous.These are particulars I think need to be addressed.Edited by Silent H, : fixin' quotes

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

The only way you can “show” that people have an equal right to life is to assume that it is so in the absence of counter evidence.And I’ve already shown why everyone doesn’t have an equal right to life:

quote:

---

I’m still not so sure what this “right to life” is. How does a person who cannot live have a “right to live”?

A person who cannot live does not have a "right to live".

---

This girl could not live (without the insulin shot). 500 years ago, before the invention of insulin, this girl would not have had this supposed “right” to live. However, now that insulin has been invented, she has somehow gained this right? Rights are in and of themselves. They don’t fluctuate with inventions. No, equality is your assumption. You have not shown the equality. And I’m not talking about classes of people, but individual people. Some individuals have less of a “right” to live because they cannot sustain their own life. But they have the freedom to have their religious beliefs that includes not seeking medical treatment. You’re trying to force them to conform to “your way” by making them seek medical treatment. That is criminal negligence. The law says that praying is not negligence. The law is on my side.

No, this is not the problem. The problem is you keep raising "issues" that are already answered, and already described, in detail, or they are issues that do not pertain to the concept being discussed in any way.But don't take my word for it, it seems to me that everyone you discuss with in this thread has the exact same issue with you. If you'd like to view the factual evidence that everyone has an identical issue with you as an indication that you have a unique issue with me, that's your perogative. Personally, I'd take the fact that everyone has a similar issue with you to mean that your debate style in this thread may need some examining.Again, you've tried to say I haven't done something that is trivial to show that I have:

quote:

---

you keep stating how gov't is enforcing equality. That is as vague as stating gov't is enforcing freedom. What does that word mean in concrete... practical... terms?

---

First, I don't say the government is enforcing equality. I say they should be, obviously with the current laws they are not. And I've already explained what this means, in concrete, practical terms, and how it should be done: Also from that message, the very first message I wrote when you started replying to me: A very simple thought exercise will show that the concrete, practical implementation of this policy would be the same implementation of all governmental policies. That when someone removes the rights of others, they are punished by having their rights removed (restrictions from society, or jail time.) I'll leave it to the reader to decide which one of us is being confusing and hiding things.

Well in this Country at least, the Fourteenth Amendment. So before the availability of insulin, praying was the only viable alternative?Like I feel the Silent H is doing (although I'm sure he'd disagree)...you are just pushing this to the level of absurdity. I mean, why have any laws whatsoever? Why not just let every person live by their own personal "Worldview" and be done with it. Or is that what your purposing? But aren't you arguing that their inaction is, indeed, a legal form of action? And even Madeline's parents would argue that they did do something. They prayed. Did you forget that little part of this discussion? Even her parents don't agree with your defense of them. Wait, didn't you just say that they did nothing? Make up your mind here.Nonetheless, what we're saying is that religious groups should not have a legal loophole available to kill their kids. Prayer should not be a legal, legitimate effort, since it's so easy to demonstrate that it shows no evidence of being legitimate.I will never understand your argument if it truly is that religious individuals should have the right to do whatever the hell they want. That is what your advocating...correct? The religion be given a pass on anything they want. Here we go again with the "you can't prosecute them, cuz they didn't do anything" defense. What a pathetic defense...especially when you realize that to them...they did so something...they prayed. So your defense of them doesn't really hold. Nor, I believe, does it work in a Court of Law. If I were a pilot and half way through a flight, I just decided to "fly by prayer", could/should I be held responsible for the inevitable plane crash and death of my passengers? After all, it wasn't my actions that killed them, it was my inaction. What is a person who "cannot live"? I mean, you can play stupid semantic philosophical word games and live in some fantasy World all you want. The rest of us out here in the real World simply want to stop religious parents from being allowed to kill their kids.

Hello, Yes, and simple arguments are usually the ones that lead to the most number of errors when one is dealing with reality.Again, "right to life is an overarching principle that overwhelms almost all others" is the same argument... identical... used to create and implement the Patriot Act, and a repeal of Habeas Corpus.Freedom is more important than the claim of "right to life". That is a founding principle, and it has proved the test of time.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

No. But, well, they are capable of those things. But if someone doesn't want the insulin shot, you don't have the right to force them to take it. The parents made the decision for the girl to receive prayer as treatment for her illness. They fulfilled their legal obligation. Being morally opposed to that as a method doesn't mean that you can force another method on them. What about these people's right to religious freedom? Sure, but you shouldn't force other people to put the line where you think it should go. If they want to rely on faith healing, then they should be free to do that. Performing those certain interventions means you can live. If you cannot, then you don't really have a "right" to live.

When we have defined certain rights, then we can reason as to the best methods to protect those rights and to deal with conflicts between them. We might not have clearcut obvious ways to determine which argument is the best, but we can be clear that not all 'opinions' are equal in the discussion. And yet you are perfectly intent to force other people to receive medical treatments just because some opinion things they should? Does that sound fair or consistent?And remember, nobody is forcing anybody to receive medical treatment. We're not even forcing people to seek medical treatment for sick people in their care. We're just saying that if you have responsibility over someone's welfare you should face the consequences of any action you take with regards to that person's welfare. I'm getting some mixed signals from your position. On the one hand you think we^* should have these laws and on the other hand you think they are wacky. Is it your position that a country should have wacky laws? Obviously you don't think that 'religion' should exempt you from following certain laws. I'm not sure of the wisdom of having a system which treats religious people in one way, and expects more of non-religious people.I'm all for allowing certain leniences, but I'm not sure that we should be drawing a line which will allow child abuse to go unpunished (it is classed as child abuse in certain states, with certain religious people potentially immune from prosecution based only on the fact that they were abusing the child from a religious perspective). Considered as legitimate a form of treatment as medical intervention is. Nothing. That's why I am arguing that the law is not a good one, and that it should be changed. I am a human being, that's who. And if it is not my state, I can still do the stuff I mention above. That is because the stuff I mentioned was a causal chain. It started with the spread of ideas which includes spreading the ideas to people who live in one of the many states that have this exemption with the hope that people in those states will then essentially lobby
to have the exemption removed or modified. So I'll continue to spread ideas, discuss them, and continue to hope that this leads to increased pressure on the relevant parties to review the law. Well obviously it is nothing but expressing my opinion. I have already said that simply stating my opinion doesn't change the law. However, all laws, rights and exemptions that your country has is there as a pragmatic solution to a thorny moral issue. They have their basis on moral arguments. Take the legal rights you and I take for granted today: their basis lies in the moral arguments of John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine amongst others. Yes, some people want to exempt some people's practices from what would otherwise be regarded as a criminal offence. That's fine, nobody is demanding you feel such a need. What we are suggesting is that the government can and should be able to limit the extent of your ability to freely practice your religion; especially where the rights of others may be infringed. That includes legally obliging families to have their children vaccinated regardless of a family's religious convictions.There is a legal argument to be made, and some states of repealed these laws after it was agreed it was unconstitutional and the like.There is a moral argument to be made too, as we've discussed.

---

^* Shorthand for ease of communication.

The equality exists because their is no rational reason, no way to show, anyone's superiority with respect to a right to live.You can show superior abilities, this is true. But because one person can do something better than another does not mean that the same person should live while the other should die.In order to show that someone should live while another should die, you need to show how a person is useless, and that they do not deserve to pursue happiness.Let's take a human that is armless, legless, only flesh and bone and brain that is just barely above what we'ed call legally "alive".As long as their is potential for this human to have any amount of happiness at all in any way, can you rationally show why anyone should be able to remove the potential of this happiness from this human?Are you telling me that you can actually show why some people should be able to pursue their happiness while other people should not?Ending someone's life obviously ends their pursuit of happiness.If you think you have the right to decide this, I'd really like to hear your rationality. Funny? It's the exact same logic that shows the force of gravity. And any other scientific explanation. All it takes is one single repeatable observation to overturn the theory of gravity. All it takes to overturn my theory of equality is one single repeatable observation of why someone doesn't deserve to pursue happiness.And, like science, if you are able to show this to be incorrect, or provide a better idea to strive for, I'll switch.