Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

When the courts become "Big Brother"

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Religious beliefs?

    Christianity?

    Wasnt Jesus' disciple Luke a physician?

    Isn't not seeking treatment testing God?

    Didn't God say not to "put the Lord your God to the test"?

    Don't these parents buy and eat food?

    Where's their faith in doing that?

    Why don't they stop eating and test God to see if He'll give them nourishment telepathically or something?

    Often when people were healed in the Bible, they'd be required to do something besides have faith (i.e., dip 7 times in the river, put mud on their eyes, etc.).

    If they had it back then, getting chemo treatments would've been right in there with those.

    Maybe that's what God provided to answer your prayer.

    Oh wretched man that I am, who will save me from this body of death?
    The fool has said...there is no God. Psa 14

    Comment


    • #32
      Jack,

      Two situations...tell me if your ideology wins out...

      1. Your ex-wife has full custody of your child. The ex denies your child this treatment due to her and your child's religious beliefs that you do not share. Do you allow your child the right to die?

      2. Your child refuses treatment for this condition due to his own religious beliefs that the parents do not share. Does his right to personal freedom trump your responsibility to care for your child?

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by TrackDaddy
        If they had it back then, getting chemo treatments would've been right in there with those. Maybe that's what God provided to answer your prayer.
        Zackly. Would it not be religiously fundamentally sound to see that God gave man a mind to use it to glorify Him and that medicine is literally a god-send?!

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Cooter Brown
          Jack,

          Two situations...tell me if your ideology wins out...

          1. Your ex-wife has full custody of your child. The ex denies your child this treatment due to her and your child's religious beliefs that you do not share. Do you allow your child the right to die?

          2. Your child refuses treatment for this condition due to his own religious beliefs that the parents do not share. Does his right to personal freedom trump your responsibility to care for your child?
          1. Now we have an advisorial situation and the courts settle the dispute.

          2. Depends on the age and maturity of the child.

          My ideology always wins out for me. I'm sure yours does the same for you.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Jack Slocombe
            My ideology always wins out for me.
            My ideology says to preserve human life first; dogma comes later.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Marlow
              Originally posted by Jack Slocombe
              My ideology always wins out for me.
              My ideology says to preserve human life first; dogma comes later.
              Works for me.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Marlow
                Originally posted by Jack Slocombe
                My ideology always wins out for me.
                My ideology says to preserve human life first; dogma comes later.
                Just for the sake of arguement I'll point out that some people believe that their spiritual life has the potential to endure far beyond the length of their physical life. Should they be required to preserve their physical life if in doing so they may be jeopardizing the preservation of their spiritual life? Is it our government's job to decide that the physical life should take precidence over the spiritual life?

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Grasshopper
                  Originally posted by Marlow
                  Originally posted by Jack Slocombe
                  My ideology always wins out for me.
                  My ideology says to preserve human life first; dogma comes later.
                  Just for the sake of arguement I'll point out that some people believe that their spiritual life has the potential to endure far beyond the length of their physical life. Should they be required to preserve their physical life if in doing so they may be jeopardizing the preservation of their spiritual life? Is it our government's job to decide that the physical life should take precidence over the spiritual life?
                  I think everyone here wants adults to enjoy all their religious rights, including choosing a long and horrible death over medical treatment.
                  phsstt!

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Grasshopper
                    Originally posted by Marlow
                    Originally posted by Jack Slocombe
                    My ideology always wins out for me.
                    My ideology says to preserve human life first; dogma comes later.
                    Just for the sake of arguement I'll point out that some people believe that their spiritual life has the potential to endure far beyond the length of their physical life. Should they be required to preserve their physical life if in doing so they may be jeopardizing the preservation of their spiritual life? Is it our government's job to decide that the physical life should take precidence over the spiritual life?
                    I am not aware of a religion that demands total withholding of medical services from an adult, let alone a child. An exeption is Jehovah's Witnesses proscription of blood products. Even they use medical services for everything else. Of course, you can cherry pick the Bible to find support for just about any notion, as those people we are talking about here do.
                    "A beautiful theory killed by an ugly fact."
                    by Thomas Henry Huxley

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      You dont own your children, they have rights which a parent can not take away, like their right to life for instance.
                      phsstt!

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Marlow
                        Originally posted by TrackDaddy
                        If they had it back then, getting chemo treatments would've been right in there with those. Maybe that's what God provided to answer your prayer.
                        Zackly. Would it not be religiously fundamentally sound to see that God gave man a mind to use it to glorify Him and that medicine is literally a god-send?!
                        Absolutely.

                        We use that ideology all the time in regard to relgion.
                        The fool has said...there is no God. Psa 14

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Marlow
                          Originally posted by Jack Slocombe
                          My ideology always wins out for me.
                          My ideology says to preserve human life first; dogma comes later.
                          I agree. And it sounds great. But if I (or any MD) give a blood transfusion to a Jehovah's Witness or render medical care without informed consent from the patient, or the patient's parents, we can be charged with felonious assault and battery (and of course malpractice). The only exceptions in most states are where we cannot get that permission in a timely fashion and must interact to save the patient's life. The lawyers rule on this one - as they always do.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Pego
                            I am not aware of a religion that demands total withholding of medical services from an adult, let alone a child.
                            I knew a Christian Scientist who I believe had a treatable condition but who died because she would not seek medical help.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by bambam
                              if I (or any MD) give a blood transfusion to a Jehovah's Witness or render medical care without informed consent from the patient, or the patient's parents, we can be charged with felonious assault and battery (and of course malpractice).
                              And if you don't. won't the family sue for neglect (at the very least you won't be able to live with yourself)? Isn't there a Good Samaritan Law or something in the Hippocratic Oath that compels you to save lives?

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                In California, since 1988, this would be child endangerment (bh was right) and ultimately manslaughter. See Walker v. Superior Court, 47 Cal.3d 112; Cal.Penal Code ยงยง 192(b), 270, 273a(1).

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X