Casualty of faith healing - Madeline Neumann

Hello again,You are now attempting to engage in personal insults. And you are taking as insults, something which is not.A "hidden premise" is not an indication that you are hiding something. There is no innuendo in it at all. It is from logic. When an argument is constructed it involves a number of premises leading to a conclusion.Sometimes a premise actually requires other premises for support, which have not been stated. They may not have been included within the argument because the author did not realize the premise does not stand on its own, or felt that the supporting premises were so obvious that they were not required. These are called "hidden premises".The point in trying to find them is to discover where misunderstandings are occurring, or perhaps where problems exist within a line of argument. This is why detailing an argument is useful. One often finds the use of a hidden premise within one's own position, which requires being addressed. Sometimes it strengthens ones position. This is a sad way to avoid proper debate. That some are agreeing with me, against you, does not allow me to say anything like this to you.I am currently not experiencing the level of miscommunication with anyone else, so I am uncertain who you could claim is having the "same issue" with me. If they were claiming the same issue, then you'd find me throwing up my hands all over this thread claiming all of us are talking past each other. This has not occurred at all.As a rather strong counter-point, I seem to have very strong communication success with Modulous, who would best be described as on your "side". What you are now engaging in is called a semantics argument. I apologize for saying "is" instead of "should". I said "is" with the assumption of the actualizing of your position. I read message 152 and have reread the passage. There is not one concrete, practical definition of what enforcing equality means to be found in that post.This is where I am left with the impression that you use words and phrases which have great detail in your head, but have no inherent detail in and of themselves. This is when unpacking one's argument becomes helpful to everyone involved. This is a fantastic example of exactly what I am talking about. First you claim concrete, practical descriptions have been given, and then here admit that a "simple thought exercise" will reveal concrete, practical meanings.To this particular statement, I would note that you are still not done unpacking your suitcase. Parents remove the rights of children all the time, and they are not punished for doing so. Teachers remove the rights of children all the time, and they are not punished for doing so, etc etc. Sounds fine by me. In the mean time, I might recommend a course on elementary logic. This is not to be insulting. It is very useful in learning how to analyze the arguments on both sides of an issue.Thank you, and success...

---

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

You’ve misunderstood me. Their action, praying, did not kill her. Her diabetes did. They could have prevented the death with insulin, but they chose to not give her insulin (inaction), so she died. My position is consistent. You’ve just misunderstood me. What about their right to religious freedom? No, not anything, but some things, sure. Praying is not a legally legitimate method for flying a plane like it is for treating a disease. A person who “cannot live” is someone who is unable to sustain their own life because there is something wrong with them. This girl “couldn’t live” without an insulin shot.

That makes sense. Like you said, its about their right to religious freedom. As a Catholic, I was allowed to consume alcohol before I was 21, as long as it was done during mass... I see what your saying and it makes sense. It just not so cut and dry that we can easily say that these people were certainly wrong, and they should be punished for what they did. I agree that the government should have that ability. I just don't think they should be stopping this practice specifically.I think these people should be allowed to let their child die naturally if they feel that undergoing some medical treatment will taint their child's soul.

I already have and you ignored it. Nobody should be allowed to kill the person. But if the person will die without interference, then people should not forced to do everything possible to keep the person alive. The people who are not able to pursue their happiness are the people who cannot keep themselves alive. Wow, you couldn't be farther from the truth, the opposite of what you said is true.The same logic is the one that says that until you disprove that gravity is caused by angels dancing on our shoulders, I'm safe in assuming that they are there.The logic that shows the force of gravity comes from our evidence that gravity exists. We don't assume gravity exists until someone proves that it doesn't.Your saying that we must assume that everyone's right to life is equal until someone can show that it isn't. How about, like science, you show me some evidence that the right to everyone's life is equal.

How much more concrete would you like to get? Do you want me to explain the body physiology that is used when a police officer reaches out his arm to cuff someone in order to bring them to court? But we're not talking about parents simply removing any right of their child. We're talking about parents removing rights from their child which then result in the child's death. And parents certainly are punished for this. I apologize for not re-quoting the entire OP for clarification. Again, I'll leave it to the reader to decide which one of us needs to work on their logic.

You wouldn't want the particulars factored out of policies. I only wanted them factored out in the way I expressed the goal. I'd leave it to others to decide the details of where to draw the lines.If this is truly a tug of war between a child's right to life and the parents' right to religious freedom, I'm confident of the choice most people would make.--Percy

This is a ridiculous argument. You're really just playing semantics here. I can do the same thing buy defining "action" however I see fit. Praying is an action that they deemed adequate. Not giving insulin is an action they deemed unnecessary. They acted and she died. Why should they not be held responsible? Their religious freedom did not give them the right to kill their daughter (the Supreme Court decided as such way back in the late 1800s). A "new" law did. We simply want that law repealed. Some? Pretty weak argument. Why not "anything"? I mean, killing you kid is about as extreme as you can get. Why not? Seems rather short-sided of them...no? Hell, if it can apparently be a viable option to cure diabetes, or to treat cancer, why can't we use this wonderful tool to fly airplanes for us...or drive our cars? Why are we so limiting ourselves access to this wonderful mechanism of solving real problems to just the medical establishment? While you may be able to argue that currently it is "legal" (and I am not necessarily agreeing with you), you certainly cannot make any reasonable argument that it is legitimate. That's why we want it changed.To be honest, I'm a bit pressed for time right now so I cannot look for the actual Law used in Wisconsin. Does it specifically say praying is only a viable option when treating an ill child? Honestly, I don't know. But that does not take away from her (or "their") Constitutionally granted right to life.

I most certainly did not. You just replied to it and we haven't finished discussing it yet.You said: I said: You said: And I totally agree with you.When we're talking about adults. But we're not talking about adults, we're talking about minors. And besides, I'm not advocating that people should be forced to do "everything possible" to keep the person alive. I'm simply advocating that people should be forced to do those things have been proven to care for minors when they are caring for minors.Like not feeding a minor. A parent should be forced to feed a minor in their care. A minor is too weak and immature to feed themself. Therefore, as long as feeding a minor is a proven and available method for caring for them, parents should be forced to feed the minors in their care.Same for medical treatment. A parent should be forced to provide medical treatment for a minor in their care. A minor is too weak and immature to provide medical treatment for themself. Therefore, as long as providing medical treatment for a minor is a proven and available method for caring for them, parents should be forced to provide medical treatment for the minors in their care.This is the "why do anything for minors?" arguement. Obviously, we protect minors because they are too weak and/or immature to protect themselves. Again, I totally agree with you.When we're talking about adults, that is.But we're not talking about adults, we're talking about minors. And we're back to: "we protect minors because they are too weak and/or immature to protect themselves." Fair enough, it was a poor analogy with only a similar slant at best. I won't use any gravity or science analogy. Of course, this doesn't remove the argument: The evidence is, as far as we're capable of telling, we all have the same drive/desire/want(need?) for happiness/life.When you can show this is mistaken, or incorrect, or not the best available option, we'll move on to the next best option.

Hi, just to let you know please feel free to abbreviate my name. I feel a bit guilty every time I see you've written the whole thing out. That's an interesting question. I do not view at legalizing any such healthcare. This is the continued legality to choose which medical treatments are valid for one's life. I have described this before with Modulous as the same concept as "death with dignity", though I might also call it "living and dying with dignity".Of some ironic note, Hippocrates of oath fame, would not have approved of many medical procedures today, whether they were effective or not. His original oath had to be rewritten by physicians who decided that effectiveness was better than moral ideology. No, this is why I would like to stay away from particulars of that case, which might change with time. If a police investigation found out that they were just making shit up, and didn't believe in prayer, or take measures to figure out what they ought to do in prayer (i.e. take that seriously) then they ought to be hit with neglect charges.If one wants to take on the role of doctor, even witch-doctor, you better be serious about it or face the charges for malpractice. Actually I believe she also showed cases where Xians were prosecuted. My question, however, was more specific. I asked if such cases were the norm up until the exemptions were enacted. Such evidence would constitute support for your position (and I believe Mod's) that exemptions were an unusual idea brought in by religious types to gain a measure of freedom they did not have before.Molbi's cites were not of that nature, and instead constituted evidence that such exemptions were not finding favor or consistent application in law. The argument emerging from that would be that modern courts are creating a trend (precedent) that such exemptions are not valid to modern interpretations of law.You have made a good choice by appealing to Reynolds. Though it does not make the case you had wanted, and for which I was asking evidence, it is the same idea as the rest of Molbio's cases (and I imagine Reynolds was in there).Unfortunately, this still falls under the problems I stated within my "from scratch" post. SCOTUS and other case law examples do not in any way provide evidence that something is the case or should be the case, except for exhibiting trends.I would agree to some degree with the Reynolds decision, but not completely. I understand the limit on practices which involve infliction of harm to others. This would include children in most cases. There is a difference between that sort of activity and choosing not to use certain methods which are deemed harmful or repellent to religious belief. I have answered this question numerous times, most explicitly in my "from scratch" post. I will answer this only one more time. Right here. If I see that question raised again, I will be forced to assume you are simply baiting me along for fun.You are right that people do not have the right to harm another based on their personal belief system. I think the saying goes that my right to swing my fists around ends at the point of some other person's nose. We are all on the same page with regard to this point and so there is absolutely no way that you can beat your wife for burning anything, except perhaps one of your body parts... and that only if you did not ask her to do so first.The only exception to the rule above is children. Minors do not have the same rights as those of the age of majority. This is an accepted fact and has been so from the beginning of our nation. Someone must make decisions for them, and can make decisions which they do not like (against their will) as well as those which can present physical risk to their lives. The question is regarding who is given this authority, or at least in which cases and why.So no more taking your wife... please. I apologize for not making my point clearly enough, and for using some rather loaded language. I was not trying to switch topics or force any particular position on you. I was trying to provoke a realization that something was errant with your position.The topic started with a recognition that some tragedies are occurring because some people are denying their children modern medicine, due to their faith. Exemptions in law protected them from prosecution. It was thought they should be repealed.I challenged this, to which I heard across the board replies that it is the duty or mission or obligation of the gov't to protect the lives of the weakest members of our society. It was that mandate which allowed for gov't to disregard religious beliefs of parents, and prosecute them from an angle that they should accept a different view of modern medicine.What I have raised, is a serious question to that assertion of role, obligation, and mandate. There really is a serious inconsistency in making that claim, and having as the first order of business taking on people that are well meaning, but of a different belief system (which we would regard as ignorant). And a much greater inconsistency when the argument is that we should go after such people, while giving full pass to people who are not well meaning at all when they make the exact same decision.I decided to raise this inconsistency based on a bizarre passage within one of molbio's cites where faith in profit was overtly given a free pass by the article writers. I think that would not make any sense. It would be almost by definition backwards, if the express intent is to reduce child mortality. The threat of faith based denials of service, and so deaths, is not significant compared to the other cases. So why start there? Also, there has been no explanation of how such efforts would stop such deaths from occurring in the first place.It also starts from an inconsistency of a claim that the gov't has interest X which would mean Y should be addressed, yet the proof that the gov't has interest X is not proven (or made with any consistent evidence) until after Y is addressed.Further, and more important, the other cases can be addressed without granting powers to the gov't which could lead to further intrusions many would not want. I cannot draw a line from provision of service and making sure people get their money's worth of service, to denial of things such as abortions or stem cell research. I can draw a line from allowing gov't to reduce child mortality over the belief systems of the parents, to those later cases.Why start with the least effective case, that would save the least number of lives, and introduce the most problematic policy shift for gov't?Thank you, and again I am sorry for using language which distracted from the point I had been trying to make.

---

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

Hello again, Not as concrete as you just offered. How about you start by defining what life is, what a child is, and from this what a gov't would define as enforcing "equality" with regard to medical choices for children.In making this concrete you have to move beyond simply asserting your own definitions as if factual when delivering a premise.This would be a good start. This happens all the time, and parents are not punished for this. I would begin to discuss this reality more fully, but your position is patently false. If what you said was true, then this thread would not exist. It is your side which is arguing for a change in law to make the above argument true. Again? In any case, I think the last point alone provides stark clarity on where logical error is occurring. That is if a reader was unable to discern such a truth from your mistaking "hidden premise" as innuendo that you are confused or hiding something.My recommendation of a course in elementary logic was not mean-spirited and I would recommend it once again. Frankly I think it ought to be a part of regular educational curriculum.Thank you, and see you around some 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

Well I think it is more than just the parents' right to religious freedom. The right to family integrity is part of this, which is part and parcel of personal liberty. I think it is a bit odd to assume the religious right of child is also not at stake, as it certainly would be viewed as such by the parents.What's interesting is that I would yet again agree with your generally stated position. I am also confident of the choice most people would make with regard to whether they should stick with any personal religious reservations, and the life of their child. Hence we do not need a gov't getting involved.What I do not have confidence in, is when a mandate is given to the gov't that it may interfere in the sovereignty of the family, and judging the decisions of parents by the community's belief system, that we have a way of putting the cork back on that genie.I will note that you have not answered how removal of such exemptions would actually reduce child mortality. I gave what I thought was a rather good model of such changes in other nations on a similar issue. If the goal is what you say, and I agree, I am not seeing it with the recommended course of action.Thank you again for your time.Edited by Silent H, : clarity

---

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

My cousin had a terminal and progressive illness. My aunt was given a choice of exteme measures to extend his life or letting him go peacefully and she had a very short window to make the decision. She chose to let him go with dignity and I support that decision. I myself would rather die in many of the variety of terrible medical conditions I could find myself in rather than suffering the indignity and pain of gradual decline.The reason I didn't go into this in any detail is because I don't think it is particularly pertinent. I have no problem with parents making these kinds of decisions - other than the ideal world in which no parent should have to.This kind of decision is seperate from the issue of neglect though. This isn't about a child that is almost certainly going to die being allowed to go peacefully versus a protracted and degrading few weeks. This is about getting a sick child looked at by a doctor. If a doctor has been consulted it is about deciding if a simple injection or pill is in the best interests of the child's welfare or if a method which has very little efficacy - if any - should be on the legal cards.I'm not sure a case can be built to deny a child food or water on religious grounds (for a limited, but often lethal amount of time) and I don't see how medical intervention is any different than food or water. Yes, I believe that was the case until 1995 when there was a (surprisingly very close) Referendum.

Catholic Scientist writes

quote:

---

No. But, well, they are capable of those things.

---

I don't think anyone is arguing with you on this one. The issue is whether society as a whole should allow children to do these things or not.

quote:

---

But if someone doesn't want the insulin shot, you don't have the right to force them to take it.

---

Some children want to smoke, drive, drink, etc. We as a society have already established that children are not capable of making sound decisions on those things and therefore should not be allowed to make those decisions on their own. How is deciding to die any different?

quote:

---

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.

---

First of all, I don't think we may ever know if not receiving proper treatment was this girl's first choice at all.Second, you are implying that faith healing is as effective as modern medicine and therefore should be held in the same light.With regard to the legal obligation part, that is exactly what some people are debating about, whether or not the law that shields these parents from legal accountability for this girl's death is constitutional or not.

quote:

---

What about these people's right to religious freedom?

---

Are you arguing that one's reilgious freedom should supercede someone else's right to live?

quote:

---

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.

---

You are making a strawman argument. Nobody is saying that we should force people from not relying on faith healing. What some people are arguing is that religious people ought not to have the right to force faith healing, which I think is pretty clear that it is an ineffective method of treatment, upon others, especially the youngest members of our society.

quote:

---

Performing those certain interventions means you can live. If you cannot, then you don't really have a "right" to live.

---

You are playing a game with semantics. People here have been using the word "right" to mean legal right.

In the case of minors, we leave it up to the parents to make the decisions for their children. The government steps in when laws are broken. If by someone's religion, they want to opt out of some specific medical treatments, then they have the religious freedom to do so. We don't all have same drive/desire/want(need?) for happiness/life. What makes you think we do?Some people will go so far as to canibalilize their dead friend to stay alive while other will burn themselves to death as a simple protest.What are you talking about?

Fair enough, for anyone who wasn't able to identify the usage of the following terms:Life: Posessing the potential to pursue happiness
Child: A minor, the current governmental defintion would suffice
Government: The proper authorities (police, judges, social workers...)
How a government would enforce equality with regard to the situation given in the OP: Yeah, I thought so too. That's why I started with it in Message 152Are you saying parents aren't punished for not feeding their kids? Children are removed from their parent's care every day (in the US and Canada and Europe at least) for not feeding them, not clothing them, not providing them with proper shelter, not providing proper medical care...Of course this single case is currently allowed under some unique laws in the US. But that's why we're discussing it, because it's an anomaly. Again, I'll leave such recommendations up to the reader. I'm confident they can decide which of us requires education.