When faith healing fails....... - Page 4

Rev. · 03-28-08, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatuey

Sure they do. As long as they don't endanger the lives of their kids.

You can feed your obese child a diet of total junk food.

You can smoke in the same room as your asthmatic child.

You have the right to endanger the life of your child...but not for religious reasons.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatuey

I have the right to raise my kid as I see fit. Do I have the right to deny her medical treatment when she clearly needs it and I can more then afford it? No. Do I have the right to let her drive my car when she turns 5? No. Do I have the right to let her do stupid sh!t that can endanger her life? No.

"Do you have the right to deny medical treatment?" Actually, yes. You can deny a child vaccinations, even though that may result in your child dying of a disease. And it is totally within your right.

You may serve your child wine at a family gathering, regardless of the under 18 drinking laws.

You may take your 7 year old for airplane flying lessons.

You allow your child to do things that endanger her life ALL THE TIME...snow sledding, snow mobiling, skiing, bike riding, skateboarding, riding a scooters, trampolene jumping, swimming, climbing trees.......And it's your right. You have the right to decide "acceptable risk" and LOSE.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatuey

Are you f'n kidding me? These are people aren't being accused of abuse & negligence. They're GUILTY of abuse & negligence. Or do you think that there is any doubt on whether they stupidly deny their kid medical treatment she needed?

There is no doubt that they denied their child medical care that would have saved her life. What IS in doubt is whether they did so "stupidly." With their experience (the child in question was the youngest of four, so they had SOME experience with sick children) and what they observed about their daughters illness, was it reasonable that they conclude she'd get better? I think it's possible (based on the 2 news articles I've read)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatuey

Ridiculous non-sequitur trying to hide the fact that what these people did clearly led to their kid's death. Me taking my healthy kid to McDonalds won't kill her.

What is the difference between an action that leads to a child's death in 20 minutes and an action that leads to a child's death in 20 years? BOTH actions lead to death. Why are they not BOTH wrong?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatuey

However if she had an illness that specifically told me that she should not eat ****ty food like that from McDonalds and I took her anyways and that led to her death then yes. I would be guilty of child abuse.

And if you didn't know she had that illness?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatuey

UMMM THIS KIDS ILLNESS WAS EASILY TREATABLE. Are you f'n trying to justify not taking your kid to the doctor for 8 years? Are you serious?

1. It is unlikely this illness would have been discovered at a well-child check.

2. There are no laws requiring me to take my child to the doctors for well-child checks. Such laws would infringe on my rights as a parent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatuey

Wtf does any of this have to do with the OP?

I question whether this is a religious issue or a parent's rights issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatuey

Do you even know what doctors are for?

Yes

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatuey

They're qualified medical personnel who's job it is to tell you whether your kid is sick or not.

When my kid is not sick, I shouldn't be required to pay a doctor to tell me that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatuey

Are you f'n serious? Are you comparing ACCIDENTS to voluntarily denying your kid medical treatment because you think standing around chanting magical spells will save them?

Strawman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatuey

These people hadn't taken their kid to a doctor for 8 F.V.CKING YEARS. Thats 2922 DAYS.

Is that against the law?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatuey

Are you saying that what they did was accidental? EVERYTHING about this story points to the deliberate endangerment of a child. Your attempt to justify what these people did is grounded in the fact that they're religious fantatics "Rev" and nothing else.

Everything points to a tragic error in judgement. The parents didn't know how sick she was, they did not think she would die, and they believed she was getting better.

They were not part of an "anti-medicine" church group, they had no organization standing over them demanding they refuse medical care or anything like that. "Religious fanatic" overstates the situation.

rivrrat · 03-28-08, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ikari

While there isn't any real reason I can see behind circumcision, it doesn't exactly result in death. Nor does it have any real adverse side effects that other forms of actual genitalia mutilation might actually have. I don't think we can properly make analogies between circumcisions and watching your daughter slowly die due to very treatable diabetes.

All she had were flu like symptoms. I wouldn't take a kid to the fricken doctor for the flu.

Secondly... so the genital mutilation doesn't result in death so it's okay?

Lachean · 03-28-08, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rivrrat

Actually, it certainly *can*. It's been proven time and again that the body can heal itself, and that positive thinking can and does facilitate that healing.

Let us be explicit here, it was not the "wish thinking" or prayer that healed you, it was the reduced stress level.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rivrrat

It's been proven time and again that negative thinking can have detrimental physical affects, while positive attitudes have the opposite. It's been proven time and again that we can think ourselves sick as well as think ourselves well.

You can induce a psychosomatic sickness, however you cannot "think yourself well." No amount of thinking can effect the bacteria in your system, or attack a virus; However a positive disposition could "help," just as well as a negative one could exacerbate it.

For example, a stress induced panic attack could further complications, and a reduced stress level could effect your blood pressure.

Panache · 03-28-08, 01:58 PM

Quote:

You can induce a psychosomatic sickness, however you cannot "think yourself well." No amount of thinking can effect the bacteria in your system, or attack a virus;

You don't believe that your brain has any effect on your immunodefenses?

Hatuey · 03-28-08, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rivrrat

It's amusing to me that people in this country think that mutilation of a baby's penis is "just like getting shots". That's quite telling, actually, about how accepting we have become to such mutilation.

What LOGICAL reason do you have for cutting off part of a child's penis?

As always rivrrat shows her ignorance of anything that doesn't involve World of Warcraft. Circumcision is not only about hygiene but also about prevention.

As a prevention method for balanitis :

An argument for circumcision. Prevention of balani...[Arch Dermatol. 1990] - PubMed Result

Quote:

Balanitis was diagnosed in 2.3% of circumcised men and in 12.5% of uncircumcised men. In patients with diabetes mellitus, balanitis occurred with a prevalence of 34.8% in the uncircumcised population, compared with 0% in the circumcised population. Balanitis did occur with increased frequency in the diabetic population (16%), regardless of circumcision status, compared with the nondiabetic population (5.8%). Of 63 circumcisions performed at our institution between 1987 and 1989, 28.6% were for the treatment of balanitis; 44.4%, for phimosis (which was probably induced by chronic balanitis); 19% in preparation for placement of penile prostheses; and 8% for miscellaneous reasons. No complications of circumcision were reported. In this group of patients, balanitis was more frequent in diabetic than in nondiabetic uncircumcised men (50% vs 15.4%).

From Wikipedia :

Circumcision - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

Studies have found that boys with foreskins tend to have higher rates of various infections and inflammations of the penis than those who are circumcised.[85][86][87] The foreskin may harbor bacteria and become infected if it is not cleaned properly,[88] but may become inflamed if it is cleaned too often with soap.[89] Also, the forcible retraction of the foreskin in boys can lead to infections.[70]

Circumcision is one treatment for balanitis. The usual treatment for balanoposthitis is to use topical antibiotics (metronidazole cream) and antifungals (clotrimazole cream) or low-potency steroid creams.[90]

Several studies have shown that uncircumcised men are at greater risk of human papilloma virus (HPV) infection.[91][92] One study found no statistically significant difference in the incidence of HPV infection between circumcised and uncircumcised men, but did note a higher prevalence of urethritis in the uncircumcised.[93] Twelve studies have indicated that neonatal circumcision reduces the rate of Urinary tract infections (UTI's) in male infants by a factor of about 10.[94] Some UTI studies have been criticized for not taking into account a high rate of UTI's among premature infants, who are usually not circumcised because of their fragile health status.[40] The AMA stated that “depending on the model employed, approximately 100 to 200 circumcisions would need to be performed to prevent 1 UTI," and noted one decision analysis model that concluded that circumcision was not justified as a preventative measure against UTI.[36]

Lachean · 03-28-08, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Panache

You don't believe that your brain has any effect on your immunodefenses?

When did I say anything so foolish?

I said "thinking," and when I said that I was referring to conscious thoughts, not "involuntary neurological function."

Just because your brain controls something does not mean that you (your consciousness) can, some things are outside your will.

rivrrat · 03-28-08, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatuey

As always rivrrat shows her ignorance of anything that doesn't involve World of Warcraft. Circumcision is not only about hygiene but also about prevention.

Actually, I play EQ2 now since it's part of my job.

Anywho... so, lemme see here. It's okay to cut off part of a baby's penis because they might get a little infection under the foreskin if the parents don't bother to clean him well enough.

What else could we cut off of a child's body to help prevent possible infections? Oh wait! Let's just take the tonsils and appendix out at birth, they *could* get infected. Anything else we could just whack off for the sake of "just in case"? I mean, it's just like getting a shot.

You know, if you castrated the boys, it would decrease their chances of getting STDs astronomically!

Hatuey · 03-28-08, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rev.

You can feed your obese child a diet of total junk food.

You can smoke in the same room as your asthmatic child.

You have the right to endanger the life of your child...but not for religious reasons.

Uh huh and if your child dies as a result of these you can best bet you'll be sent to jail specially if they have a medical condition that prohibits them from engaging in these activities and yet you as a religiously trained non-medical personnel think you know better then a doctor. This child was sick and these people voluntarily refused to bring her to a doctor.

Quote:

"Do you have the right to deny medical treatment?" Actually, yes.

WHERE DO YOU HAVE THIS RIGHT? Please tell me. If people actually had this right then we wouldn't even be having this argument. IF this ficticious right you have concocted was written anywhere we wouldn't be arguing about whether or not this people were in the wrong.

Quote:

You can deny a child vaccinations, even though that may result in your child dying of a disease. And it is totally within your right.

You may serve your child wine at a family gathering, regardless of the under 18 drinking laws.

You may take your 7 year old for airplane flying lessons.

You allow your child to do things that endanger her life ALL THE TIME...snow sledding, snow mobiling, skiing, bike riding, skateboarding, riding a scooters, trampolene jumping, swimming, climbing trees.......And it's your right. You have the right to decide "acceptable risk" and LOSE.

Uh huh and if your child is injured or becomes sick as a result and you refuse to give her medical attention then you are guilty of child abuse and negligent homicide if she dies. Get a ****ing clue.

Quote:

There is no doubt that they denied their child medical care that would have saved her life. What IS in doubt is whether they did so "stupidly." With their experience (the child in question was the youngest of four, so they had SOME experience with sick children) and what they observed about their daughters illness, was it reasonable that they conclude she'd get better? I think it's possible (based on the 2 news articles I've read)

Uh huh. When their experience amounts to that of a DOCTOR or even so much of as a NURSE then please. Tell me. Because as of right now this is one more case of religious wackos thinking they know better then doctors.

Quote:

What is the difference between an action that leads to a child's death in 20 minutes and an action that leads to a child's death in 20 years? BOTH actions lead to death. Why are they not BOTH wrong?

Can you prove that my actions from 20 years ago lead to a person's death today? Obviously not. Can I prove that the actions of these people led to the death of this child? Yes.

Quote:

And if you didn't know she had that illness?

Are you f'n kidding me? These people didn't give this kid a checkup for 8 YEARS.

Quote:

1. It is unlikely this illness would have been discovered at a well-child check.

Really? According to the article her condition was perfectly treatable. Doctors would have diagnosed her within days had her parents just taken her to a hospital instead of deciding to engage in religious bullsh!t.

Quote:

2. There are no laws requiring me to take my child to the doctors for well-child checks. Such laws would infringe on my rights as a parent.

And if your actions lead to the child's death then you're guilty of child abuse and negligent homicide.

Quote:

I question whether this is a religious issue or a parent's rights issue.

And it's obvious that there is no right that gives you the ability to endanger the life of your child.

Quote:

Yes

Obviously not considering you obviously believe these parents are at what is essentially no fault even though the consequences of their actions prove the very opposite.

Quote:

When my kid is not sick, I shouldn't be required to pay a doctor to tell me that.

THIS KID WAS SICK YOU F.V.CKING RETARD. THEY KNEW SHE WAS SICK AND YET THE REFUSED TO TAKE HER TO A DOCTOR.

Quote:

Strawman

Bullsh!t you compared accidents like a kid getting hurt while climbing a tree or playing around to a parent being negligent.

Quote:

Is that against the law?

If it contributes to the death of their child like it did in this case? Yes.

Quote:

Everything points to a tragic error in judgement. The parents didn't know how sick she was, they did not think she would die, and they believed she was getting better.

They were not part of an "anti-medicine" church group, they had no organization standing over them demanding they refuse medical care or anything like that. "Religious fanatic" overstates the situation.

They don't bring their kid to a doctor for 8 years and they believe in the power of prayer but yet they're not anti-medicine? ROFL you're a joke. If they weren't anti-medecine they'd do what normal people in the 21st century do when their kids get sick. Take them to a f'king doctor. Not stand around chanting magical spells.

Ikari · 03-28-08, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rivrrat

All she had were flu like symptoms. I wouldn't take a kid to the fricken doctor for the flu.

Secondly... so the genital mutilation doesn't result in death so it's okay?

It wasn't like she just had flu symptoms. It starts out looking like that, but it's not like it looked like she had the flu and then up and died. This wasn't something that took place on the order of days either. This was a long term deterioration of health until the girl lapsed into a coma and died. Now I don't know about you, but I've never had a flu that lasted more than several days tops and never was I put into a coma. While maybe this would happen, I would also bet dollars to donuts that when people get that sick, they go see a doctor. It's the reasonable thing to do, doctors tend to know about sicknesses and how to alleviate them well more than the general public. They also have access to the knowledge and tools to do so, it's obvious that if you're sick for a long time you should go to the hospital and see a doctor. Had that been done, this little girl would be ok.

And I'm not saying that genitalia mutilation is in general ok because it doesn't result in death. I'm saying that because in this case a child, an actual human being, did die that it's on a much higher level than something like circumcision.

Ikari · 03-28-08, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rivrrat

What else could we cut off of a child's body to help prevent possible infections? Oh wait! Let's just take the tonsils and appendix out at birth, they *could* get infected. Anything else we could just whack off for the sake of "just in case"? I mean, it's just like getting a shot.

Appendectomy and tonsillectomy are rather invasive procedures, you tend not to do that on newborns. Though I am sure you could get both of those procedures done a bit later in the child's life even if there wasn't a problem. Though not advised since there are always risks which accompany these types of surgeries, which is why they aren't usually done less there is a problem. You can say the same about circumcision, and I'm not really going to argue against that. I'm not defending the act or claiming it to be some godsend. It's just that particular practice has relatively little side effects, and thus I wouldn't really place it at the same level as murder.