Be Excellent To Each Other

Meanwhile, at the very extreme right of the argument, faith has crated a singularity and consumed the science entirely:

http://www.oregonlive.com/clackamascoun ... _fait.html

Jesus: He can make you watch your children die. I think whatever our views we can all agree that in the medical world no worse than a 51:49 science:faith ratio is ever to be tolerated. In the case of these two, cut his knob off and fill her gash with concrete, just to be on the safe side.

Good grief. There's more on this trial here. In particular, the Church they belonged to has made a statement defending the parent's actions. This is apparently the first case brought to trial under a law change in 1999 that removed legal protections for parents who withhold medical treatment on religious grounds.

(mods: possible thread split?)

Feel free to change the title, GY.

This shit happens all the time. My friend's mother died because she was not allowed by her religion to take a blood transfusion. Jehovas. That's em.

I think I read about this case ages ago. Fucking mental tbh.

There's a world of difference, though, between declining medical treatment for yourself and withholding it from an infant.

Sorry I should have posted more detail. She was in a car wreck and was unconscious so she didn't make the final decision. That was the similarity (fuck these pills I'm on lol).

I know she's an adult and it's what she would have wanted* but someone still made the decision for her.

*until you're actually given a real choice in the matter it's all well and good to say you'd die. But being conscious and saying "NP ! I'll just die, thanks" would be a whole world apart than saying it when you're perfectly healthy and not about to die if that makes sense

Although I don't agree with parents withholding medical treatment from their children, I do reject the idea of forced medication and certainly forced blood transfusions. I have given blood in the past in the hope that it will help those who need it, but personally I'd rather die early than be subjected to a contamiated blood suply.

Thing is though surely allowing someone to die is no different to assisted suicide?

I mean let's say I was unconscious and someone made the decision not to let me have a transfusion and die. Isn't that the same as giving someone too many pills so they can die?

You're basically playing god either way, why should assisted suicide be an arrestable offense?

The reason why assisted suicide exists in law is to prevent unlawful killing - as in "Doddery old rich aunt Agatha suddenly took her life, with the assistance of family, and left her fortune to..."

Indeed. I'm pretty sure DNRs are valid under UK law.

Ah I see.

Thing is man, even when someone basically says "I want to die" they're not allowed to. That's what I don't get.

Just to open a can of worms though..

What if you hated your spouse and he/she was in a coma and you said he/she was a jehova just to get rid of them?

not really, you ae just not doing anything, so no action is taken. To forceable give meds requires an action.

I think you can get in trouble for medical inaction unless there is a good reason (This might need confirming)

I wonder if they turn to faith healing when they get a bug in their eye. Or do they just poke it out with a finger like everyone else.



Load them into the trebuchet and aim it at the big wall.

Taking this one step further.

Let's say that Patient X' is 10 years old, and her parents do not agree with Stem Cell research, but there is a treatment that will help Patient X that has benefited from Stem Cell research. Should the parents be allowed to decide if their child can have that treatment?

What about if they are Vegetarian/Vegan and some treatment is based on animal research?

Malc

When you go through the article, it makes the illness sound like something that would have claimed her life anyway... but then at the end, a doctor goes through the procedure which could have saved her! It sounds so straight forward and would mean that she'd still be alive today.

Although, probably taken into care and away from her prehistoric parents.

'Wanting to die' should be subject to the same level of psychiatric assessment that wanting gender reassignment surgery is. At the very least.

You don't need to aim, just guide it by faith.

These people are clearly under the influence of something, but you don't suddenly believe you don't believe in doctors. They must have been raised and indoctrinated with this from an early age, as such I would say that the church which they are members of is at least partially culpable.

I was at a party yesterday, and met a hippy who didn't believe in hospitals, so only found out she was pregnant with parasitic twins, or whatever it is (where only one of them is linked up to the placenta and the other's connected to the first twin) when she got really ill and had to be taken off in an ambulance. She also doesn't believe in bathing her children, as it destroys their natural oils.

I think "forced" medical treatment is spot-on correct where you have adults refusing treatment for children. Children are not old enough to consent to medical treatment, so it's a responsible adult that's supposed to do the consenting. As these parents clearly aren't responsible, it's the state's duty to override the fucking morons and make a decision that is in the child's best interests, not that of the parents' faith or stupid fucking hippy beliefs.

While all the talk of "forcing" treatment on the kids of these twerps is interesting, surely a line such as that would encourage even more of them to do exactly what these two have. I.e. not even call a doctor.

A quick check reveals that's what we do in this country - social workers will remove the child from the parents care and get it to hospital.
However, they have to be aware that the child is in danger to be able to do that. If no-one tells them, then they can't do anything about it.

And that's why these parents need to be made an example of; to sow the seeds of doubt in the minds of future parents in the same position. Reading more of the articles on that news site, it seems the mother's belief was somewhat shakier than the father's. She was asked "if you knew the child was going to die, would you have taken her to a hospital?" and she answered "I don't know", whereas the father was adamant he had done nothing wrong. Furthermore, there were dozens of people from the church in on it! Fear of a serious prosecution might have been enough to tip one of those over the edge into telling the authorities.

The problem with this is, in the US, there's whole *states* of people who would just love the suggestion of the government "snatching" babies off honest, god-fearing families, so it would only reinforce the gun/god/survivalist nutcases worldview.

Shame for the kids in question like. I suppose theoretically they stand a small chance of growing up not to be brainwashed loons themselves, when they get the chance to grow up at all, but it's probably a slim one.

Grabbing a cup of Satan's Advocaat for a second - my Mundando has airbags in the back designed to work with my baby seat, and a load of other shit to weigh down the car and keep Junior safe.
Should parents be treated in a similar manner if they put Junior in a 1980 Fiesta, have a crash and he dies?

I guess that the difference is that an expensive car with multiple safety features is often out of a family's budget - a course of antibiotics and a drained cyst is not.

In 'merica it often is.

I think even over there sick kids always get treated don't they?

Do you have to pay for medical care for children in America?

I think they do, but still have to be paid for afterwards.
We need Jon Coffey to tell us.

Not without insurance. Sicko has a harrowing story of a woman who's daughter had to be ambulanced to the hospital with an infection. Her insurance company refused to pay if they treated her at that particular hospital, and it took 9 hours to transfer her to one which would treat her. By that time she was dead.

See also: vegan couple who gave their kid soy milk instead of breast milk. Grrrrr.

Or was that an episode of House?

No, I remember that.

Yeah, I know. There was an episode of House where something similar happened though.

I don't think the car comparison stands up as (I think Craster already said) it's down to cost. Of course, in America, you know you've got to pay for medical treatment so maybe they should think about that before popping them out, and so it's not so different from putting your kids in an F reg Metro. Hmm.

What about someone who chooses to drive something expensive but old and really uncrashworthy, like a Mini or an old VW Camper?

That's not the same thing at all though.




I suspect quite a few babies die due to mistakes / stupidity / neglect on the part of the parents and it doesn't make world-wide news.

I think the analogy stands up a bit better if you talk about a bloke driving his car in a reckless fashion with a child in the back, rather than what car he has.

Chuck Boring.

They were really crap vegans then.



Actually, no. I don't think the analogy works well however you look at it. The OP is a case of parents and their beliefs, not parents and their lifestyles/driving habits/choice of boyfriends/income.

They were really crap vegans then.



Actually, no. I don't think the analogy works well however you look at it. The OP is a case of parents and their beliefs, not parents and their lifestyles/driving habits/choice of boyfriends/income.

I thought hospitals in America had to treat life-threatening conditions/injuries even if the patient couldn't afford it?

They do, but then they get to repossess your house, I think.

Yeah. They never get around to showing that bit on Grey's Anatomy, do they?

I thought this, but a relative went on holiday to Las Vegas last year, she was pregnant and had some problem whilst out there (risk of miscarriage apparently) and was ambulanced to hospital, given various medication and kept in overnight and the next day.
No charge. Minimal paperwork. No insurance claim. Shrug.

Maybe they just do that in Las Vegas to keep the tourists happy.

Did she give them some oil?

I took the original post to be about (a) stupid parents, and (b) the powers to tell people how to look after their children.

Ah, I see. Well, there's already a law against dangerous driving, which was myp's example, so re: parents not spending enough money to keep their kids as safe as possible, the government's welcome to subsidise LR Discoveries if it wants. And that'd kill two birds with one stone, too, and help the motor industry.

Actually I think it's a bad analogy because withholding medical treatment in that case was certain to harm the child and this usually isn't acceptable. However we accept that in the course of day to day life that children will be exposed to a certain level of risk, we don't expect parents to spend every available pound they have on minimising those risks. So driving an old car might pose a greater risk but not an unacceptable one.

Not unacceptable or abnormal, either.

That's rubbish. For all they knew the child would make a full recovery. I certainly don't take the Grimlet to the doctors every time he sneezes, even though it could be swine flu.

But if he just kept on getting more and more ill I should hope you would seek medical internvention. The kid didn't just sneeze and then die.

Yes, but if I seek medical help too late, am I not (nearly) just as bad as these people?