Date: 3/27/2008 8:44:00 AM
From Authorid: 29532
You must understand that the parents did not know she had this disease nor that she would die from it. People have this huge dilution of faith that God will get us through ANYTHING and heal all, when that is not the case. It's another side of religious freaks in my book. I don't mean to offend anyone by that statement but when you believe that God will heal your 11 year old daughter without ever seeking ANY medical help at all to see what is causing it, well......  |
|
Date: 3/27/2008 8:44:00 AM
From Authorid: 29532
Ok, as far as I believe, they should be found negligent. |
Date: 3/27/2008 8:59:00 AM
From Authorid: 63241
I don't understand how these parents could watch their child suffering in pain without seeking medical help. I believe in the power of prayer as well, but I also believe God gave us a brain to use and medical advances to ease the suffering of individuals is a blessing. This is a shame. NEGLIGENCE is what they should be charged with.  |
Date: 3/27/2008 9:05:00 AM
From Authorid: 28848
It is negelect when you deny your child of proper medical care that would save their life. I dont care what your religion may be; that's sheer stupidity. By law, they will most likely be charged. And yes, if the other children are at risk due to lack of medical care, then they should be removed from the home.  |
Date: 3/27/2008 9:18:00 AM
From Authorid: 4887
Oh goodness... I personally say that they should get charged for neglect.  |
Date: 3/27/2008 9:35:00 AM
From Authorid: 24673
WoodElf pretty much said what I believe. Very sad story.  |
Date: 3/27/2008 9:35:00 AM
From Authorid: 62100
They were definitely negligent and this is why..in times past, long ago..religious devotion and faith MAY have been enough to get them off because there was not alot of medical knowledge available to the mainstream people..nowadays there are "healthwatch" programs on television, the internet, and publications...medical care is readily available..I'm sure they knew people within their community who may have encouraged them to see a doctor...unless you live in a sheltered hut in the backwoods or on an isolated island people have access to information..and despite their thoughts that God would heal their child there HAS to come a time when you question that and feel that perhaps you should take your child to a professional...  |
|
Date: 3/27/2008 9:39:00 AM
From Authorid: 62100
Oh as for your other questions..I don't know that the other children should be removed..this experience may well have opened their eys..perhaps make them see counselors and be interviewed as to their propensity to act in such a manner in the future if another child becomes ill, and I DO think that they DO deserve comfort..they were negligent to be sure, but I am sure they are hurting..and yes..they SHOULD be charged with negligent manslaughter or whatever it's called...I guess in that case if they end up seving time the other kids WOULD be removed.. |
Date: 3/27/2008 9:49:00 AM
From Authorid: 62146
I am not the most christian person these days. But dosent the bible say that you gotta pray but also work to making that prayer come true yourself? I mean god is not all mircals run intirly on faith. Beause if god gave everyone miricals and answered prayers who had faith, more people would be christian. And thats not the case. Because god can't baby us through life. You see if that were the case that is not living if you catch my drift? BTW I kinda consider these parents neglectifull. If not they are just not mentaly able to raise kids. What they did obviously would have gotten the child killed, even if you look at it religiously. I would not trust them with children.  |
Date: 3/27/2008 10:16:00 AM
From Authorid: 11240
Well, God Did Get her through ANYTHING, that anything is "death" in this case. We can sit and judge these parents as neglectful all we want -- I myself am not a proponent of taking my kids to a doctor every time they complain of this ailment or that ache. I am a big believer that our bodies do heal themselves with proper care. Is the medical profession more interested in getting proper care these days or getting proper payment, especially if that payment is for unnecessary prescriptions, tests, and treatment that are just prolonging the inevitable that we all must face -- that of dying? God Bless.  |
|
Date: 3/27/2008 10:28:00 AM
From Authorid: 62100
I can see your point there Deb..I myself won't go to a doctor unless I'm absolutely sure that I can't fight it off myself first..I tend to act quicker in regards to my daughter though, luckily it's not often that she gets ill...as an LPN though I can tell you that in my job..I'll usually monitor the residents in my care initially to get a better judgement of just how sick they seem, and compare it to what I know about them and check recent documentation for signs that something is TRULY going on before I just call the MD...I'll put the person in question on vital signs and do data collection (LPN's don't "assess"), make sure that they shown no signs of distress or clinical deterioration.. then weigh it all together..if I'm unsure I'll call my direct supervisor and get their opinion.. |
Date: 3/27/2008 10:32:00 AM
From Authorid: 16671
I too not only believe prayer works but KNOW that it works, however God also gave men the knowledge to be doctors, and this girl was 11 years old, accountable for her own faith. Many things can stop the answer to the prayers from coming through. That we know by reading in the book of Daniel "Then said he unto me, Fear not, Daniel: for from the first day that thou didst set thine heart to understand, and to chasten thyself before thy God, thy words were heard, and I am come for thy words.
13 But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me;" Many praying people do not understand some of the spiritual concepts that may stop the answer to their prayers from coming through. I know that some religions do not believe in doctors but only prayer,some will not even allow their people to have blood given to them. The thing that concerns me, besides of course this little girls death, is that IF the courts do anything, then they are interferring with their religion, what they believe. BUT if they don't do anything this too can open up a whole can of worms. I feel they need to be charged with something. What if another child gets sick? Is this child also going to be allow to die? If they believed that they apparently didn't have enough faith and called for others to pray, then instead they should have taken her to the doctor. I'm sorry but I detest religions that wont use a doctor. Yes I have faith too, I have faith in Gods healing Power but I also know that differernt things can stop the prayer from being answered, not by God, but because of the demonic fallen angels that wish to stop anything coming from God. NOW that of course would open up another discussion about "Isn't God all Powerfull" Yes He is, but He too has to abide by his own spiritual laws and its too long to try and explain here on this post.  |
|
Date: 3/27/2008 10:50:00 AM
From Authorid: 16671
I too don't go to the doctor for little things, its major things, and lordy there is enough of them, BUT I know and this is my personal feelings, I Know God can heal me, but I also know that because I personally do not feel worthy of his healing, that I'm not allowing it to come through. God knows my heart, God knows I trust him with my life, but because God is all knowing, He knows that while I have faith to know when I pray for others God is there, I lack the ability to apply that faith to myself. And this is one of the problems of people and God knew this, and that is why he opened the eyes of mankind and gave them knowledge to heal us, to take care of us. Even when my kids were little and my faith was totally over flowing and still is, I would ask them what they wanted to do? Did they want prayer only or did they want prayer and a doctor. I left this choice up to them, I did not with hold a Doctors care just because I believed that God does and will heal. The thing is we don't know if this little girl agreed with her mama and dad and only wanted Prayer, we just don't know and while I think they do need to be charged with neglect simply because this has happened many times, I don't believe that they should be charged with murder. Our government does not interfer in other religions that are in our country. They should NOT interfer in this families religious beliefs as they dont with other religions, I mean really it makes me sick to see how our government bends over backwards to make sure other religions then Chrisitanity are made dang comfortable, they need not interfer with a person religion, unless it causes harm like this has done |
|
Date: 3/27/2008 10:56:00 AM
From Authorid: 16671
anyway got to go, be back later on today or this evening. :) |
Date: 3/27/2008 11:01:00 AM
From Authorid: 48809
This is a very sad story . I can only partially blame the parents for what happened. I believe they meant well and intended no harm to their child. However, they have apparently gotten in with some kind of strange cult who does not know what they are talking about. I hear so many people say that Jesus or God will do this or that if we have enough faith or if we pray hard enough. God will never go against His own Laws nor will He go against our free will. If this child has signed a contract with God , as we all do before coming to the earth and she has stated that when she is 11 years old and that is when she wants to return to heaven again at that time... then there is nothing in heaven or on earth that will prevent her from doing what she has told God that she wants. You ask if the parents should be charged? I don't believe that they were negligent... only ignorant. I do believe though that they should not be allowed to do this to the other children that they have.  |
Date: 3/27/2008 11:06:00 AM
From Authorid: 53284
If your child is that sick and you don't seek professional help then you as the parent failed not only the child but also yourself. They allowed their child to die because they wouldn't take her to a doctor. Her death is entirely their fault. I don't think that they should be allowed to keep their other children  |
Date: 3/27/2008 11:24:00 AM
From Authorid: 14909
They needed to pray for some common sense.  |
Date: 3/27/2008 11:25:00 AM
From Authorid: 3125
When Timothy had a stomach ailment, he didn't rely on faith to be healed, but Paul told Timothy "Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake"..Col 4:14 says Luke was a beloved physician, so he would have been acquainted with the science of medicine. Undoubtly Luke treated many during his time. Just as they had doctors back then to help those who were ill, we have doctors now for the same reason. It wasn't wrong to seek medical attention then and it is not wrong to seek medical attention now. I think the parents should be found guilty of causing the death of their daughter through negligence.  |
Date: 3/27/2008 11:28:00 AM
From Authorid: 19613
This reminds me about a story I read once. It went something like this: There was a town that was flooded and this guy ends up stranded on his roof. So he prays to God to help him out. And along comes a boat, and they offer to take the man to safety, but the guy says no thanks, he’s praying to God and God will save him. So a little while passes and the waters rise and a helicopter comes along, and they offer to take him to safety, but still the man says no, that God will save him. Eventually the water rises even higher and drowns the man. The man gets to heaven where he meets God and asks him “why didn’t you help me when I prayed to you?” to which God replies “I sent you a boat and a helicopter, what more did you want me to do?”  |
Date: 3/27/2008 12:19:00 PM
From Authorid: 16376
I do believe that people are entitled to their beliefs, however, I do see this as being negligent. There is nothing wrong with believing in prayer and all of that, but there is no way that these people should have relied on prayer to treat their daughter. This may have been acceptable 100 years ago, but in this day and age we should rely on actual medical treatment for the ill. These people should have known better.  |
Date: 3/27/2008 12:53:00 PM
From Authorid: 63191
Ignorance is NOT bliss...I knew a woman who watched her beautiful baby girl die of something that was completely treatable because her religion did not believe in doctors. The kicker is she was a pediatric nurse and knew surgery would have allowed her daughter a long, full life. Personally, if I belonged to a church that dictated that my child should die rather than be treated and be able to live their life, I'd switch religions.  |
|
Date: 3/27/2008 1:59:00 PM
From Authorid: 11240
I see a lot of people here would press charges for not allowing medical treatment to keep this person alive. Doesn't that extend to "pulling the plug"? Shouldn't Terri Schiavo's husband be charged for allowing her to die? Doesn't that extend to abortion? Shouldn't women who have abortions be charged for allowing a death? Why do we as a society allow for "some" deaths regarding decision re: medical treatment, but not others? God Bless. |
Date: 3/27/2008 2:19:00 PM
From Authorid: 30747
If all our parents had choosen to pray rather than take us to doctors when we were sick, chances are none of us would have seen the age of 12. They watched her suffer for 30 days and did nothing but pray? I have a feeling they learned a huge lesson from that, like maybe it's time to change churches. It's so senseless and so wrong but my gut instinct tells me they have suffered and shouldn't be pursecuted anymore than what God will really say when they meet him. I can only "pray" their other children don't meet the same fate.  |
|
Date: 3/27/2008 2:41:00 PM
From Authorid: 63241
I think the key word in this tragedy is "treatable". |
Date: 3/27/2008 3:41:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 15070
My Grandpa had a Brother who was a Doctor. His Brother became a Christian Scientist (I think that's what that Sect is called), and switched to being a Dentist instead. My Mother had told me they don't believe in Doctors, and refuse blood transfusions. (Like Jehovah's Witnesses)  |
Date: 3/27/2008 3:45:00 PM
From Authorid: 62841
All I have to say about this is that the parents were negligent and to say "faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead." James 2:17  |
|
Date: 3/27/2008 3:52:00 PM
From Authorid: 64604
religious or not, these parents neglected the needs of their poor child. medical attention is there when someone you love is suffering. get the girl some professional help, and THEN pray that it works. i think their way of thinking is very warped to the point of not seeing the reality and dangerousness of such a situation, therefore, i think the other children, as tragic as it may be, should be taken into foster care until the parents have spent some time with professional psychologists and have taken part in some type of mental care. as for that girl..... how sad.... =( !!!!! |
|
Date: 3/27/2008 4:51:00 PM
From Authorid: 11240
I would have lived past the age of 12, SD, because as I recall that was about the age I first went to a doctor. My mother had eight kids and she was pretty adept at keeping us "treated"; treated with healthy food, clean water, and plenty of exercise, both body and mind. Should a body be treated with those things and still fail, then isn't it a parent's choice to treat? I really don't know how anyone can reconcile "treating" pregnancy with abortion as a choice, but this is negligence. The same with Ms. Shaivo. She was being treated and,m then, treatment was withheld. I find that far more cruel than not getting treated in the first place, thus having no expectations of staying alive sans a Miracle From God, if that is what you're being told. JMHO. God Bless. |
Date: 3/27/2008 5:16:00 PM
From Authorid: 4995
I just now read this story at Yahoo. These two dumb jackasses as parents need to be punched in the mouth till their TEETH fall out. Its DISGUSTING they didnt even TRY to help their poor little girl. I have a five year old daughter and THAT is my take on it. Period.  |
|
Date: 3/27/2008 5:53:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 15070
Here are the details from FOXNEWS.com::WESTON, WISC. An 11-yr old girl died after her parents prayed for healing rather than seek medical help for a treatable form of diabetes, police said Tuesday.
Everest Metro Police Chief Dan Vergin said Madeline Neumann died Sunday.
"She got sicker and sicker until she was dead," he said.
Vergin said an autopsy determined the girl died from diabetic ketoacidosis, an ailment that left her with too little insulin in her body, and she had probably been ill for about 30 days, suffering symptoms like nausea, vomiting, excessive thirst, loss of appetite and weakness.
The girl's parents, Dale and Leilani Neumann, attributed the death to "apparently they didn't have enough faith," the police chief said.
They believed the key to healing "was it was better to keep praying. Call more people to help pray," he said.
The mother believes the girl could still be resurrected, the police chief said.
Telephone messages left at the Neumann home by The Associated Press were not immediately returned.
The family does not attend an organized church or participate in an organized religion, Vergin said. "They have a little Bible study of a few people."
The parents told investigators their daughter last saw a doctor when she was 3 to get some shots, Vergin said. The girl had attended public school during the first semester but didn't return for the second semester.
Officers went to the home after one of the girl's relatives in California called police to check on her, Vergin said. She was taken to a hospital where she was pronounced dead.
The relative was fearful the girl was "extremely ill, dire," Vergin said.
The girl has three siblings, ranging in age from 13 to 16, the police chief said.
"They are still in the home," he said. "There is no reason to remove them. There is no abuse or signs of abuse that we can see."
The girl's death remains under investigation and the findings will be forwarded to the district attorney to review for possible charges, the chief said.
The family operates a coffee shop in Weston, which is a suburb of Wausau, Vergin said.
|
Date: 3/27/2008 11:02:00 PM
From Authorid: 42945
How can any parent sit and watch their child suffer for 30 days???so they were praying in what they believed would help, but for 30 days?? OMGosh!!I cannot believe that any decent parent could let their child suffer and she must have been suffering for all that time, it makes me sick to the stomach to even think about it...they killed her IMO!!!  |
Date: 3/28/2008 7:10:00 AM
From Authorid: 62823
There is no doubt in my mind that prayer is extremely powerful. The problem I see is that people do not know how to pray. Prayer has to be said in a certain way to have an effect. To begin with, prayer must be said from the heart. The love inside of you has to co-join the focus of the petition when you sent it to Heaven. Many prayers go unanswered because people chant and recite words and words with no feeling or thought thinking that some miracle is going to happen. When it does not happen they think God abandoned them. Not so! It does not work that way. Prayer is similar to a radio signal going to a direct source. When you eliminate the feeling of love and direct focus on what you are asking for, the signal will fade and get lost. This is why many hundreds of thousands of people go to Fatima and places where healings have occurred for some but many return unhealed. The other thing is....what we call miracles or think are miracles are not brought about through magic. Science, nature and laws of nature are at work while at the same time the energies and light of God within us become one with those forces to bring about healing. Jesus tried to teach us but man would not allow it. The other thing is...and I know some disagree with me on this is that sometimes unanswered prayers is our answer. When that happens it is our duty to trust in the wisdom of God and use conventional methods here on earth for our healings. Of course, they take longer, they are expensive, they may not fit into our religious beliefs, etc. but maybe that is the sacrifice we must make. God gave our doctors, nurses and health care workers the necessary gifts in his life to help us. The common sense God gave us should guide us to use these gifted people as we need them. Stubborness, refusal to trust in God's love for us because of some certain belief is nothing but a hindrance to our soul and to the well-being of others. It is all about love and trust. Love and trust in God and love and respect for neighbor.  |
|
Date: 3/28/2008 7:39:00 AM
From Authorid: 62823
I do not want to criticize anybody for their beliefs, especially this couple who loved their daughter, but this is an example for all faiths to learn from. The problem is...people trust in God but they do not trust people...especially people who are not a clone of them. Certain people in certain religions have built a barrier between God and neighbor. What they do not realize is that God loves everyone regarding of status, position, faith, etc. Therefore, our love and respect should be the same as God's. Did Jesus not wash the feet of all His Apostles? We are here to serve others and not to be served. |
|
Date: 3/28/2008 10:08:00 AM
From Authorid: 62100
With all due respect Deb..the Schiavo case was an entirely different matter- Mrs Schiavo was treated for years because her family fought to keep the plug from being pulled...her husband, who was her POA was fighting to let her go BECAUSE she was clinically alive, but brain dead..had it not been for the machines she would have died long before she had..there are many documents that are a matter of public record that prove this to be so...the reason that there was so much controversy associated with that, and the reason that just as many supported her plug being pulled was because it was morally wrong to keep her alive when she had #1 expressed her wish not to be kept alive like that (although that WAS a matter of dispute which was what prolonged the case)..and secondly because her body was suffering, her brain was dead..and she needed to be allowed to end her suffering. |
Date: 3/28/2008 10:51:00 AM
From Authorid: 57995
GOD created doctors to help keep us healthy.  |
Date: 3/28/2008 1:57:00 PM
From Authorid: 62118
People chose to be doctors.  |
|
Date: 3/28/2008 3:43:00 PM
From Authorid: 11240
She starved to death, Xy. Whether it happened earlier or later, there was an absence of medical treatment FOR Mrs. Schiavo and she died. Same with an aborted baby, there is an absence of medical treatment FOR the aborted baby and they died. Same with this Wisconsin girl, there was an absence of medical treatment FOR this girl and she died. You find it wrong for these people to absent this girl from medical treatment, what is the reconciliation with the other examples. That they wouldn't have died? Or that it is the guardian's choice in those two but not in this one? God Bless. |
Date: 3/28/2008 5:49:00 PM
From Authorid: 4309
""When you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, who love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on street corners so that others may see them. Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward.
6
But when you pray, go to your inner room, close the door, and pray to your Father in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will repay you.
7
3 4 In praying, do not babble like the pagans, who think that they will be heard because of their many words.
8
Do not be like them. Your Father knows what you need before you ask him.
9
5 6 "This is how you are to pray: Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name,
10
your kingdom come, 7 your will be done, on earth as in heaven.
11
8 Give us today our daily bread;
12
and forgive us our debts, 9 as we forgive our debtors;
13
and do not subject us to the final test, 10 but deliver us from the evil one."  |
|
Date: 3/28/2008 7:51:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
If you’ll forgive me for playing my usual role Deb, I’ll attempt to differentiate between the cases you mention. In the case of Terry Schiavo, (correct me if I’m wrong, it’s been a while since it was in the headlines) there’s no reasonable chance of recovery and (if I remember rightly) it was argued that Schiavo would not have wanted to remain in such a state. In the case of abortion I’m assuming either A: you would have to believe that what’s being aborted isn’t a baby or B: you would believe that the woman’s right to choose supersedes the loss of life. If it’s the latter, I can see some potential difficulty in explaining why the woman has the right to choose in one case, but the parents don’t have such a right in another (though I’m not sure how big of a difficulty this would be). While I’m personally undecided on abortion, that is how I would differentiate the different examples. |
|
Date: 3/28/2008 8:36:00 PM
From Authorid: 62100
Thanks DP you put it much better than I did..you're correct in the Schiavo case..there was no reasonable hope for recovery..and the care that was keeping her body alive was basically a moot point..and she was given comfort care until she passed on...with an abortion..I really can't differentiate much better than to agree with DP's statement that it depends upon each woman's personal viewpoint and morality because the laws have stipulated a time frame at which an embryo is termed a viable life..but in this particular case it was an already living and breathing child with a clearly medically treatable disease and that treatment was willfully and knowingly withheld...that's still negligent regardless of the religious factor.. |
|
Date: 3/28/2008 9:32:00 PM
From Authorid: 4309
^^ Um . LoL. Terry Schaivo had every possibility of recovery that every other "Miraculous" recovery had when they "Miraculously" recovered from much more dire conditions than she was in. This was a very good chance for that "Moral" "King Solomon" like "Justice" to possibly step in when it came about. The family who loved her obviously wanted to keep her going for any chance, and they probably should have been given that chance since they did not have questionable morals in the situation. The Husband who got to make the decision was already "cheating" on her and made it clear that he just wanted the money that went with her death so he could move on with a "Happier" life of his own, with the money. There was nothing that said that Terry would have wanted to die if she could speak for herself right then. The lady is more likely to have let her family have their hope of keeping her even if she knew for a fact she would never have recovered just so her family would not have to go through what they obviously went through. "King Solomon" like "Justice" might have proved to be the better "Justice" in that situation. Letting the family keep their Daughter and ignoring the man who didn't hide it very well that he most likely wanted the money that came with her death and wanted it quickly. Of course I speak of everything in the Most Likely because everything is Subjective. For all I know the Man was in the right and the Family where demons trying to keep the Daughters soul trapped on Earth. I would not say that is a likely possibility though. |
|
Date: 3/28/2008 10:01:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
Wiley, I am not a doctor. Perhaps you are, in which case I bow to your superior judgment. Xylanthia used the phrase “reasonable hope for recovery”. (Reasonable being the key word.) As far as I am aware, there was no *reasonable* hope for recovery in the Schiavo case. As for what counts as “reasonable”, I leave that to the experts who examined the lady in question. |
|
Date: 3/29/2008 1:56:00 AM
From Authorid: 4309
Since there are no "experts". Since nobody actually understands it. There is nothing you can do but just finally stop commenting on yet another thing you yourself have no clue about. I know it is hard but lets see if you can actually do it. Heck there where no "Experts" that examined her to know anything about anything. |
|
Date: 3/29/2008 10:20:00 AM
From Authorid: 11240
Recovery from what, Xy, death? The medical treatment she WAS getting kept her from death. Medical treatment for unborn human babies (what else are they going to become -- chimpanzees?) can keep them from death. (BTW, I've read some of the responses here from some of you same commentators on a recent post about this very same subject -- why haven't one of you went there and demanded that medical treatment not be withheld, if that is really your principle?) What any of this boils down to is NOT allowing human beings to be equal on the basis of being human beings. Since there is opportunity afforded EVERY HUMAN BEING in these three examples to LIVE, but that you would only condemn ONE of their guardians, absolutely illustrates the INEQUALITY of human life as "judged" by other humans. Oh, yes, ALL HUMANS DESERVE TO BE TREATED EQUALLY in opportunities afforded them. You can say that 'til the cows come home, but until and unless you put that in practice, all that bovine gas is gagging. God bless. |
|
Date: 3/29/2008 10:27:00 AM
From Authorid: 19613
You’ve hit the nail on the head there I think Deb - at the end of the day it’s all going to come down to how exactly we judge human life. As I said, if you don’t think an unborn foetus is morally equivalent to a human baby, then you presumably won’t have a problem with abortion. If you don’t judge your own life worth living (as was the case recently with a French woman who suffered from a horrible incurable tumour) then you will probably believe in assisted suicide. These are all “ifs” though, so it’s obvious that problems will arise. That said, the Schiavo case is more complex than the others I’ll grant you. I think we can agree that there needs to be consistency across the board on these kinds of issues (though I presume we would differ in our conclusions with regard to the specific cases.) |
|
Date: 3/29/2008 11:30:00 AM
From Authorid: 11240
So, DP, if we can "judge" human life, and in that judgment we don't equate a human life to a human life, aren't we "supposed" to, at the very least, be making equal the opportunity afforded every human? I'm pretty sure that's what your position is, otherwise your consistency DIFFERS from post to post. Please, go take some math classes instead of all the philosophy that you come here and spew out as the Holy Grail. You have absolutely no concept of Equality, Consistency, Differ, More, Better Than, etc., as such concepts are applied in REALITY. God Bless. |
Date: 3/29/2008 12:39:00 PM
From Authorid: 16865
They were following their first amendment rights. I totally back them, even though I do not agree with them, simply because they were following their beliefs. There was no malicious intent. I don't think they should be charged. They were wrong in societies eyes, but not in their religion. I feel for the child who died, but I would rather stand behind their right to practice their religion than stand back and have mine taken away as well.  |
|
Date: 3/29/2008 12:54:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
Dotchi, what if it was someone’s religion to carry out ritual mutilation of their children? An extreme case certainly, but there can be no case more extreme than when a parent’s religious fervour causes the death of their child. There has to be a line drawn somewhere surely. |
|
Date: 3/29/2008 1:05:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
Ignoring that unnecessary barb at the end Deb, I don’t know what you mean by not “equating a human life to a human life”. If you mean not equating the value of an unborn foetus to an infant human, then I don’t think I can make it any clearer than my earlier comments. Some people may not believe that the unborn foetus (unborn child? I don’t mind using such language since I’ve not made up my mind) is equivalent to an infant (or they may feel other factors come into play). I’m not arguing one way or the other, you seem pretty set in your opinion, and I haven’t decided on mine as far as abortion is concerned. I’m just trying to explain how exactly people can hold what appear to you to be inconsistent beliefs - in their minds they are not being inconsistent since they are convinced by arguments which reach different conclusions than yours. Thus both you and the person who has no problem with abortion may in fact be pursuing the same goals (of equality or whatever). One or both of you may be incorrect in your interpretation of how best to achieve this, who should qualify and a host of other factors, but this does not mean that the goal itself becomes invalid. |
|
Date: 3/29/2008 1:10:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
Ideally I suppose, the solution would be dialogue and rational debate. A persuasive argument to convince people that abortion = murder should in theory have the desired effect - the majority would come to hold this opinion, and the life of the unborn child would be given the weight it apparently deserves. In reality of course, this seems highly unlikely, so we have to make do with what consensus we have on the issues in question (not to say that you shouldn’t stop trying to convince people that abortion = murder.) |
|
Date: 3/30/2008 3:45:00 AM
From Authorid: 4309
"Every "Expert" that examined her, after they let her die horribly, said they could not conclude that she was even in the bad state they had claimed she was in going off OLD JUNK DATA that wasn't even up to date" And of course even if she was in that particular bad state, especially going by what they considered that bad state to be when that OLD JUNK DATA they went off of was collected, her condition wasn't as bad as some made it out to be. It would be like using a 1930's Diagnostic for Polio and the extent of Polio damage if any in the year 2008, and then even witholding 2008 treatment if there really was Polio. |
|
Date: 3/30/2008 9:13:00 AM
From Authorid: 11240
DP, your position as stated in "print" is that "it is possible to achieve equality while acknowledging that people fall into different categories". Now, just answer these questions, so we can all understand how your position WORKS in REALITY: 1) What equality among the three examples of human beings (this dead girl, the now-deceased Terri Schiavo, aborted human fetuses) are you attempting to achieve? 2) What opportunity are you wanting to afford each of these categories of people to level the playing field in the inequalities we've been discussing, i.e., available medical treatment or death? 3) What equality are you attempting to achieve for the guardians as far as legal responsibility (the calls are to charge this girl's parents, but not one person here has called for charges in the other two scenerios) for all these types of deaths which came about as the result of withholding medical treatment? 4) Which life have you put a premium on (i.e., judged to be MORE worthy), thus NOT EQUAL to the other classifications of human beings? My aside on human fetuses: they are human (they certainly can't be chimpanzee's, now can they?) and they are beings (def. "existent"). Once you've answered those questions "consistently", then perhaps we can further discuss how it is, in reality, this philosophy of yours, i.e., achieving a "measure of equality" that is consistent with "respecting everybody's rights and promote diversity", all pans out. God Bless. |
Date: 3/30/2008 9:18:00 AM
From Authorid: 64365
what so many charismatic christians don't understand is that God gave us the ability to heal through faith, AND through medicine and doctors. It's not turning away from one's faith in God to utilize medical help. They should be charged with negligent homicide and their other children should be placed in the care of those who will make sure all of their needs are met.  |
|
Date: 3/30/2008 11:57:00 AM
From Authorid: 19613
Before attempting an answer to your comment Deb, allow me to compliment you on the structure of your questions. Clarity and structure is hugely important to smooth discussion in my opinion, (I admit I’ve been guilty of a lack of just such clarity on more than one occasion) and I’m only too happy to try and give you a clearer picture of my position and how it would hopefully work in reality. Anyway, to the questions themselves: 1. Forgive me if I’m not able to be more precise, there may be additional factors I should include here but to answer the question as best I can - everyone ( Schiavo and this girl, possibly the foetus if it counts as equal) should have equal access to medical treatment (being wealthy should not mean you live where a poorer person dies) equal access to unbiased doctors and information ( if the hospital has a particular religious ethos, the patient should not be kept in ignorance of other potential treatments which the hospital might consider unethical on religious grounds. This is not to say a hospital with a religious ethos should be required to actually provide the patient with such services.) Schiavo and the girl in question (again, feel free to include the foetus here if you believe it belongs) also deserve protection from family members who might have ulterior motives - if it is the case that Schiavo’s husband wanted her dead for his own gain, such allegations merit investigation, if the girl’s parents refuse treatment on religious grounds which will clearly damage a child the state should step in (this is certainly a tricky scenario which would have to be defined carefully to allow as much religious freedom as possible while protecting the child).
These are what I consider to be the major areas of equality needed in terms of medicine. There may be more I should include. |
|
Date: 3/30/2008 12:02:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
2. Apologies if I misinterpret, but this question seems to do with assisted suicide. I would have a system similar to those used in certain European countries, which allow patients to end their own lives, provided a set of criteria are met (the patient would need to be of sound mind and have the consent of impartial doctors.) In the case of those who are unable to consent, I would ideally suggest that citizens be forced (or at least strongly encouraged) to declare whether or not they wished to be kept on life support if there was no reasonable chance of recovery. Failing this, the next of kin should have the choice. If there’s disagreement among the family members, as in the Schiavo case, then I think it’s fair that the wishes of the next of kin be allowed to be called into question. |
|
Date: 3/30/2008 12:12:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
3. I’m reluctant to flat-out say that the girl’s parents should be charged. They genuinely believed they were doing what was best for their daughter. Unlike someone who thinks that they are doing the best for their child, who is simply ignorant of medicine, a court can hardly find that a person’s faith in God is unreasonable (whatever I may think myself). At the same time, if abortion is murder, why on earth would you not charge the woman who gets an abortion? But assuming the woman who gets the abortion doesn’t believe she is murdering a child, and the parents of the girl really believe they are doing what is in her best interest, there is no more sense in punishing either person, than there is punishing a mentally ill person who commit’s a crime. (This is *not* to equate mental illness with women who have abortions or those with faith) Given the above, I would be in favour for the state stepping in if it could be shown that a life was at risk, but I would be hesitant to suggest harsh punishments for people who were genuinely only doing what they thought was right. (not to say this excuses the action completely, but each case must take this into account I should think) |
|
Date: 3/30/2008 12:14:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
4. I’m not sure what you mean by this question, unless you’re talking about the life of the mother vs. the life of the unborn child. I cannot answer the question until I make up my mind on the issue of abortion, which continues to confound me to this day. |
|
Date: 3/30/2008 12:17:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
The best I can give you on the abortion front is a hypothetical - *If* I was convinced that the life of the unborn is roughly equal to the life of an adult human being, then I would probably suggest the following - 1: if it’s a 50/50 case of the mother’s life vs. the child’s I would side with the mother’s. If the mother is not in danger, then her discomfort, while unfortunate, is not equal to the loss of a human life, thus the mother ought to have the baby (and perhaps put it up for adoption or whatever) . |
|
Date: 3/30/2008 3:08:00 PM
From Authorid: 16671
DEB you said, " I see a lot of people here would press charges for not allowing medical treatment to keep this person alive. Doesn't that extend to "pulling the plug"? Shouldn't Terri Schiavo's husband be charged for allowing her to die? Doesn't that extend to abortion? Shouldn't women who have abortions be charged for allowing a death? Why do we as a society allow for "some" deaths regarding decision re: medical treatment, but not others? God Bless"" I AGREE WITH YOU 100 PERCENT |
|
Date: 3/30/2008 3:12:00 PM
From Authorid: 16671
Just recently there was a case so close if not the same as the Schiavo, no hope was for that person either, like the Schiavo case, they pulled the plug, this girl woke up and was fine. They said the same with the girl that woke up, that even if she woke up, she would still be brain dead, so tell me people, HOW long are we suppose to give a person that is declared brain dead? GEE what if in the case of this other girl they are NOT brain dead. I'm sorry but doctors do not know all there is about the brain. They would like to think they do but they dont'. And I felt then and still feel now, that her husband was with another woman, having children, so the rights of Terri should have reverted back to her PARENTS. |
|
Date: 3/30/2008 3:14:00 PM
From Authorid: 16671
anyway said my two cents worth, off to bed again so I can start feeling better.. Ya'll fight the right to life. |
|
Date: 3/30/2008 3:15:00 PM
From Authorid: 62100
Sorry Deb I just got back here..but I meant recovery in the sense that it was used in the case, and that is recovery to a quality of life such that she had prior to her accident..and that is how I would equate any of these examples..for instance I KNOW that *I* could never have an abortion, however..I feel that the choice should exist for those who would for various reasons..IE a prgnancy resulting from a rape..the rape victim may not feel that she could love or care for, or even bring to term that said pregnancy as it would be an every day reminder of what happened to her..and even if she were to give birth to the baby she may give the child up for adoption and though the child may be raised in a loving home the quality of life will still be different because he/she was adopted...in the sense of a decision made to end a life related to a medical issue..many people base decisions upon the quality of life that this person would have were their body to remain alive..so they make a decision based upon their own, or the patient's professed and/or documented beliefs as to the quality of their life...in the case of this child..she could have led a perfectly normal life other than she would have had to monitor her blood sugars and perhaps take medication daily..other than that the reality of a good quality of life IF she had beeen treated by an MD early was a good bet..however, I will not argue the religous rights of the parents..I *believe* that I did state near the beginning something to the effect that I was sure they felt awful but that they had still been negligent..regardless of their religious beliefs *I* personbally, still feel that they were negligent |
|
Date: 3/30/2008 3:21:00 PM
From Authorid: 62100
and btw I don't mean to imply this is a negative thing if a child were adopted..but it is still a change in the quality of life.. |
|
Date: 3/30/2008 4:06:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
And round and round we go. I’m not interested in what you think of me Wiley, or what you think of my discussions with other people about other topics. I’m sure you’re not interested in what I think of you. And I’m pretty sure nobody else is either. I asked you to find a single statement I made which requires medical knowledge (or which is in fact false). You haven’t found either. All you’ve done is wasted my time with another rant. If you want to actually debate the topic, then explain what I’ve said that you disagree with. Not what you *think* I’ve said or *why* you think I’m saying it. Give me a quotation, and then I’ll defend my position or concede to your point. This is generally how adults debate. If you don’t want to debate, then ignore me. I’m not interested in discussing anything with you beyond the issue at hand. |
|
Date: 3/30/2008 4:54:00 PM
From Authorid: 11240
Xy, "negligent" means "failure to exercise due care". We are ALL guilty of that in all sorts of incidences, but that is beside the point. The point is, however: Wouldn't both the Terri Schiavo case and aborted babies have SOMEONE who failed to exercise due care with regard to THOSE human beings? Why can anyone justify charging these Wisconsin parents (or, actually, more to the point, I believe there is a couple from Oregon who were taken into custody after their 18 month old baby died of pneumonia just yesterday), but not those in the other two instances? ANSWER: Because human beings are not equal at all. That is exactly the answer both you and DP (through his claim of not understanding the question #4 above) are coming up with. Oh, I see you word it as a "quality of life" issue, but it is the same thing as saying in the Schiavo case that this person's quality of life will never be equal to what is available to the rest of us, so she is disposable. With the abortion cases, you allude it also as a "quality of life" issue also, but you neatly refocused the quality of LIFE to that of the mother, not the human being she is guardian of. These human beings WERE neglected, also, and to not treat ALL the guardians involved EQUALLY (i.e., charge them ALL with negligence, or don't charge any of them) is inconsistent with the principle that we should ALL be TREATED EQUALLY. And the standard of "quality of life" needs to be examined also. Schiavo's quality of life is not to be compared with how she was previous to this brain damage -- it is to be compared with OTHER brain damaged people! An aborted baby's quality of life is not to be compared with their mother's quality of life -- it is to be compared with other aborted babies. In the latter case, yes, all those babies have an "equal" quality of life, and the standard is pretty hellish if you ask me. In the Schiavo case, just because someone's brain is unable to effectively communicate with its body, doesn't mean that people in this category are not leading a quality life for people in that condition! Terri Schiavo could have been having a very excellent life in the category of brain damaged people as far as any of us know! Yet, all these EXCUSES are offered up for Mr. Schiavo and women who abort, not on any basis of equality as human beings, but on the basis of what YOU as a human being THINK everyone's quality of life should consist of. You're judging one person's life as inferior to another's, or as I stated up there as an ANSWER to why you treat these situations differently is, "Because human beings are not equal at all." O.K. to get back to the answers you gave to my questions, DP, what I hear you saying in response to Question 1, is that ALL HUMAN BEINGS should have "equal access to medical treatment" (in these three scenerios, each guardian had such access to medical treatment). What is being argued here, though, is not that the access wasn't available, but that access was NOT SOUGHT. Which is why I asked Question 2 which, yes, you entirley misinterpreted -- all three scenerios result in medical access that went unsought (prenatal care, staying hooked up to feeding tubes, managing diabetes with diet and medication), so your answer to Question 1 was your own standard of equal opportunity for ALL human beings, but that is why I asked Question 2, specifically referencing these three scenerios. To which you have backpedaled in coming up with another scenerio (not one of the three being discussed) re: assisted suicide where the wishes of the person are KNOWN, which is not comparable with these three scenerios: Again, the comparison is in these three like situations, in which a guardian makes a decision which results in the death of a human being whose care they are under the auspices of providing for, and we cannot possibly construe that as a right to LIFE, right? So it must be death. Isn't that the standard we are arguing? You're either FOR Human LIFE (or Being, if you prefer), or AGAINST Human Life. All the people calling that they are against human life ending in the way this girl had hers ended are making excuses for why they are not AGAINST human life ending in Schiavo's case or aborted babies cases, based not on being FOR Human Life, but for being AGAINST Human Life that doesn't meet a particular "quality standard". And you seem to want to give these people (the Wisconsin parents) an excuse, DP, but then BACKPEDAL (yes, I suppose you will tell me I am making ad hominen arguments too) and give some sort of convoluted reason as to why their religion shouldn't be their excuse, yet giving rise to ideas about how an aborted baby's mother and Mr. Schiavo should have "inconvenience" as their excuse. How convenient that "religious practices" is not to be treated the same as those whose beliefs do not revere the sanctity of ALL life . . . God Bless. |
|
Date: 3/30/2008 5:51:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
Sorry for misinterpreting the second question, but I think you’ll see that I did deal with cases where the patient’s wishes are not known. I said that measures ought to be taken to ensure that the state knows what people want in this circumstances in as far as is possible. If this it not known, it should fall to the next of kin to decide, since they are most likely to know what the patient would have wanted. I do not think I agree with your argument that a brain-damaged person’s quality of life should be measured relative to other brain-damaged people - couldn’t you say that a slave’s life should be compared to other slaves, not to free men in that case? I’m going to leave the abortion example aside, as I have above, since I have not made up my mind, as I’ve said, but I think I offered a decent picture as to how I would incorporate that example if I shared your stance on the life of the foetus. (by the way, accusing me of back-pedalling concerns the arguments I’ve made and is a perfectly fair criticism in principle. You’ve always been perfectly reasonable and polite in discussing things with me, and you seem to be consistent in that regard. ) |
|
Date: 3/30/2008 5:56:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
Oh, also I will point out the weakness in the above if you include talk of the foetus - since presumably the foetus does not yet “want” anything in the sense that it is not yet self-aware and thus couldn’t want anything one way or another (even if it could, the idea of a suicidal baby is a bit hard to fathom.) I think it would be fair to assume that the foetus “wants” to live (if you decided that the foetus should be considered in the same category as the other examples). |
|
Date: 3/30/2008 6:40:00 PM
From Authorid: 11240
The GUARDIAN is the one who has the "wants" DP, not the human being that is not having medical treatment sought at the behest of the Guardian's "desires" (whether that desire is to have one healed by God, to not have a baby, or to go marry your girlfriend). And, here you go again with misinterpretations: The notion that "treatment of slaves" shouldn't be compared with "treatment of slaves" but rather "treatment of free people" totally DISREGARDS what you have said in "print" regarding the inequalities that are present within the differing CLASSIFICATIONS of human beings dependent on their capabilities (e.g., of accruing wealth), or capacities (as to a certain level of education, for instance;), therefore, should the subject of discussion be the treatment of slaves (or prisoners, or astronauts, or incapacitated people in the care of guardians!) then the correct standard of comparison is not ALL OTHER PEOPLE, it is a comparison of people that fit into that CLASSIFICATION as that is the only "equality measure" that is valid once you start breaking down the comparison of a human being with a human being to otherwise refer to them as a CLASSIFIED group of people ("slaves") UNLESS you are arguing against having such a classification of that sort at all -- WHICH IS NOT WHAT WE ARE DOING HERE SO STICK WITH THE SUBJECT, PLEASE. I think it is fair to say that you haven't added any argument to my last comment but are rather really looking hard to find something to be contrary about. JMHO. God Bless. |
|
Date: 3/30/2008 7:01:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
The job of the guardian(s) surely is to protect the person(s) in his/her/their care. The guardian is supposed to want what is best for the person(s) in question. If this can be shown to not be the case, then appropriate measures would certainly be called for. You said “Schiavo's quality of life is not to be compared with how she was previous to this brain damage -- it is to be compared with OTHER brain damaged people!” I don’t see why, if we use this logic, I could not claim that someone who is enslaved should have their quality of life be compared to other slaves, not to the life they led before they were enslaved. By comparing the slave to the free man (one classification to another) we can see the inequality in the life of the slave, and take measures to raise their quality of life, to the level of the free man (at least on a most basic level). If such a thing is impossible ( where we cannot bring someone out of a vegetative state ) then we must defer to the wishes of the person in question - failing that, their guardian who should be best place to judge what the person would have wanted.
|
|
Date: 3/30/2008 8:47:00 PM
From Authorid: 4309
"but are rather really looking hard to find something to be contrary about." <----Conspiracy!!!! |
|
Date: 3/31/2008 11:09:00 AM
From Authorid: 11240
By comparing two different classifications of people, DP, we would be comparing two UNEQUAL entities. Do you not practice what you write? Your argument seems to be saying that though everyone is not of the same standard physically (in your analogy, slaves) there is still a standard we should be trying to get them to achieve (free men), and probably the only way to achieve that is to dispose (outlaw slavery) of "it" (that "it" in my understanding of your attempt to cross-pollinate classifications, is a human being, DP, aka Terri Schiavo). So, you have, therefore, taken any WORTH of that human being as a human being (who you've agreed, again in "print") should be afforded, by virtue of being a human being, dignity and respect. And your idea of treating a fellow human being with dignity and respect is to let her starve to death. But, oh yes, we need all this "metaphysical" meanderings in this post, because otherwise you would have been done with it a long time ago. Once again, if you don't understand simple mathematical concepts such as Equality, Value (or worth if you prefer), Valid Comparisons, Sets (or classifications if you prefer;), Sub-Sets, (and to why you would ever need to break down a set into "Different" sub-sets;), etc., etc., etc., then take some courses in math instead of all this philosophy crap you keep coming up with which has no application in THE REAL WORLD. God Bless. |
|
Date: 3/31/2008 12:54:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
Philosophy has every application in the real world Deb, but I’m not going to defend it here. (political philosophy, philosophy of language, action theory etc. are all relevant here just to give some examples).
“your idea of treating a fellow human being with dignity and respect is to let her starve to death” - this is pretty much what it comes down to. Treating someone with respect means respecting their decisions. If we don’t know explicitly what they want, then we have to try and do our best to do what we think they would have wanted. Treating someone with respect and dignity by the way would seem to exclude making a media spectacle out of the situation to score cheap political points. I’m pretty sure South Park had a particularly good episode on the subject : ) |
|
Date: 3/31/2008 3:20:00 PM
From Authorid: 11240
If her supposed wishes were known, why in the world did it take so long for her husband to starve (respect;) her? Why didn't he just let that occur in the first place? There. Equality of death as to this Wisconsin girl -- just let nature take its course (the indignity of it all!). I wouldn't have a problem with treating those two equally. But to give her the idea that she was going to be fed (even though her brain couldn't communicate that to another person) FOR YEARS! and then to take away her food source is more criminal than what these parents allowed happen. That's the REAL WORLD, DP, not shown on TV for ALL of them either . . . God Bless. |
|
Date: 3/31/2008 4:13:00 PM
From Authorid: 62100
Deb...I would say that in the other two cases that sure you *could* say that someone was guilty of not exercising due care in relation to those incidents if you wanted to dig deep enough and blame someone..but in the cases of abortion- it's not always cut and dry..sure on one level you could say that she who became pregnant failed to exercise due care by not taking birth control..but then again, what if she were raped?? That wouldn't then be a case of her not exercising due care..especially if she were not sexually active..correct?? And in the case of a baby who will be born with deformities..you can't blame anyone for that unless it was a case of the mothere being negligent enough to take drugs and alcohol and the deformities being a result of that..but you also can't blame parents who know that they couldn't handle that type of responsibility, to care for a child with a major handicap and thus deciding to end the pregnancy..sure, everyone knows when they set out to procreate that nothing is guaranteed and that there are risks of congenital deformities..and while it takes a strong couple to know that they can accept, love , and be able to care for said child..I personally believe it takes an equally, and possibly even stronger person, to realize that the quality of life for such a child in their care would not be as good as if the child were to be healthy..handicapped children are special and require alot of time, patience, and yes...money..and if someone knows that they can't provide that then they are in my opinion not failing to exercise due care..but exercising rational thought and doing what they feel is best for themselves and what would have been their future child...in the case of Terri Schiavo, if I'm not mistaken, her husband was guilty of being human and hoping for the best, and from his statements..attempting to give her a chance to recover..but that once he was informed that this wouldn't happen he then began fighting for her to be taken off of her machines due to his understanding of her wishes..I don't see where he could be guilty of failure to exercise due care...while she remained alive and hooked up to her machines he continued to demand the BEST care for her (and this is according to statements made by her health care providers where she was residing..they said that he was very demanding in fact and insisted upon his wife's hair and makeup being just as she would have worn it)...he took her to see specialists and kept up on the newest technologic advances searching for any way conceivable that she might have some type of ACTIVE functionality..(again if I remember all of this correctly it has admittedly been years since I read all of the material available for an ethics class)..I guess what it basically boils down to is that everyone has a different viewpoint as to what "quality of life" means to them, and that fact alone is what makes topics such as these become so heated and no one person can be 100% correct nor prove anyone 100% wrong..and sure..the more you debate a topic like this and get others viewpoints and begin to understand where they are coming from, you form a sense of that and there's bound to be some so-called "back pedaling" or so it is perceived..the bottom line for me is that for me personally..I think it's a shame that so many people would put a pet out of their misery when they are old and failing because they love them so much..yet they are reluctant to view human lives with just as much love and compassion..but on the other hand (a "back pedal if you will) you could always understand it if you look at it for what it is..you can theoretically replace a favorite pet in time, and get over the loss in time..but you can't replace a human being that you love....and we as humans are selfish, we want to keep our loved one with us forever..just like the fetus with a life threatening or life altering deformity, it takes a strong strong person to let them go....just my honest opinion.. |
|
Date: 3/31/2008 4:21:00 PM
From Authorid: 62100
So in effect what I'm saying also is that it's not a judgement that someone, or a fetus isn't good enough or that another life is more deserving..but more to the point that the fetus would have become a child who deserved better than someone could provide..and someone like Terri Schiavo was a person who deserved to be more than an empty shell who ultimately became a figurehead for right to lifers.. |
|
Date: 3/31/2008 4:24:00 PM
From Authorid: 11240
My position is to not charge any of these people, Xy. If you are going to keep coming up with sub-set after sub-set of the whole set of guardians of human beings who did not seek out medical treatment that would save the subject of their guardianship and offer each subset up with excuse after excuse as to why they shouldn't be thought of as being negligent, then this excuse (religious beliefs) is just as valid as the ones you're relying on. JMHO. God Bless. |
|
Date: 3/31/2008 4:40:00 PM
From Authorid: 62100
I can understand and respect your opinion Deb..I really can..believe me..it's very tough to sit and try to "sort it out"..believe me, being in medical care and in my ethics classes alone..it really makes you take a long hard look at yourself and those around you...It's just in my case I guess it's easier to rationalize and remain more objective about the other two examples because they make sense to me..but then again I'm not an overly religious person..so I can't understand having THAT much faith that you in effect condemn your 11 year old child to death..to me, children are reliant upon us to make educated decisions that protect them..as an adult Teri Schiavo could and probably (as we all should)should have had her wishes put in writing and notarized and a POA designated...I explained my feelings about the abortion issue and the many variants there..but if we let them off where would we draw the line..as you have been asking..if they are allowed to go free then that would set forth an action that people could legitimately start petitioning for ohh darn..what was her name?? The woman who drowned her 4 children in the bathtub because she was trying to save their souls...someone could be pressed to ask why she should be in jail..it could be said it was a religous belief that the devil was coming for her childrens souls and she had to save them and thus is not guilty.. |
|
Date: 3/31/2008 7:28:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
I think it’s obvious that the Schiavo case was handled badly whatever way you look at it, but I don’t agree with equating it too closely to the case of the Wisconsin girl. If the husband was deliberately trying to end her life, it’s certainly dissimilar since there seems to have been no malicious intent on the part of the girl’s parents. The parents had one objective (to see their daughter healed), they just chose a foolish (in my opinion) way to try and bring it about, and failed. |
|
Date: 3/31/2008 7:42:00 PM
From Authorid: 62100
I don't think anyone's really equating the two DP..the case is being used more as a comparison tool in which Deb was posing different situations and asking how anyone could want to charge the parents of the 11 year old girl for negligence yet at the same time be okay with the other cases.. |
Date: 3/31/2008 8:24:00 PM
From Authorid: 12341
I hope they are charged for being ignorant. Diabetes is treated every day for millions and insulin and other life saving medicines are readily available. Where was the court in this case? This isn't the dark ages. The child needed medical care. Whether or not they or yo believe in in medical care is not the issue. The child needed treatment and where was the courts and where did this happen? Not likely around here.  |
|
Date: 3/31/2008 8:29:00 PM
From Authorid: 12341
In my opinion they are guilty, I can't believe this happened recently. Why? Because no Doc or hospital would allow it. They all need to be charged with negligence. |
|
Date: 3/31/2008 8:34:00 PM
From Authorid: 12341
Where did this happen? I want to further research this story and perhaps make sure IT NEVER happens again. This is pure ignorance. Parents who deny medical care should be charged with being negligent but most courts would usually intervene in case like this. Where did this happen? |
|
Date: 3/31/2008 9:14:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 15070
Weston, Wisconsin Brenda. |
|
Date: 3/31/2008 9:18:00 PM
From Authorid: 4309
^^ First Provide the Link that tells us Type 1 or Type 2 diabetes. |
|
Date: 3/31/2008 9:39:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 15070
Type 1 diabetes
Results from the body's failure to produce insulin, the hormone that "unlocks" the cells of the body, allowing glucose to enter and fuel them. It is estimated that 5-10% of Americans who are diagnosed with diabetes have type 1 diabetes.
Type 2 diabetes
Results from insulin resistance (a condition in which the body fails to properly use insulin), combined with relative insulin deficiency. Most Americans who are diagnosed with diabetes have type 2 diabetes.
Gestational diabetes
Gestational diabetes affects about 4% of all pregnant women - about 135,000 cases in the United States each year.
Pre-diabetes
Pre-diabetes is a condition that occurs when a person's blood glucose levels are higher than normal but not high enough for a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes. There are 54 million Americans who have pre-diabetes, in addition to the 20.8 million with diabetes. (Taken from the American Diabetes Association Website: www.diabetes.com)
|
|
Date: 3/31/2008 11:37:00 PM
From Authorid: 4309
lul. I know what Type 1 and Type 2 are. I wanted the Link that showed for a fact what Type this child developed since every link I could find myself manually only said she developed a treatable diabetes. I of course did not look that long for it but I looked enough that I did not care to look it up myself anymore. |
|
Date: 3/31/2008 11:50:00 PM
From Authorid: 4309
Type 1 is an actual genetic problem with your pancreas. Type 2 Diabetes is something that you pretty much give yourself and definettly can be reversed with diet. Epigenetics and gene methylation will further explain the situations but as far as Type 2 Diabetes go people still give it to themselves even if they are more "Prone" to it due to DNA that was methylated being passed down. AKA Grandfather who ate poorly to cause the genes to be methlated but led such an active lifestyle that he would never develop type 2 diabetes passed on the methylated genes that made you with your less active lifestyle and probably even worse eating habbits more prone to develop diabetes than your friend who eats the same things as you and lives the same lifestyle you do. I only wished to know what type of diabetes this child had without searching myself. It also lets me chuckle inside if no one else knows but is throwing out all kinds of judgements when they do not know anything themselves. |
|
Date: 3/31/2008 11:54:00 PM
From Authorid: 4309
^^Basically I am making the Guess that since I could not easily find it, nobody else knows either and I want to see how "Right" my "Guess" is. My "guesses" being rare and all. The type the child had changes the discussion. It is not just a cut and dry she should have been seeking pill pushers after all when all the information isn't even put down here. |
|
Date: 4/1/2008 8:29:00 AM
From Authorid: 19613
I don’t understand how the type of diabetes would change the discussion? As I understand it both types are considered treatable (my father suffers from type 2 diabetes, my aunt reversed her type 2 with healthy diet, and my boyfriend has type 1 which he controls with insulin injections). According to http://www.worldontheweb.com/2008/03/31/15336/ - “Madeline died of ketoacidosis, a treatable though serious condition of type 1 diabetes in which acid builds up in the blood. Hardly anyone dies of ketoacidosis in the United States”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diabetic_ketoacidosis. |
|
Date: 4/1/2008 8:54:00 AM
From Authorid: 11240
What if we took "religious belief" out of the equation, Xy, and just used as the excuse that the parents are not of the mindset that the medical industry is a cure-all? After all, that is the conclusion that Mr. Schiavo came to according to what you were "taught" in your ethics class. Why is one excuse "excusable" and not the other? And, also, Xy, I have to stop you on your slippery slope argument right here: Andrea Yeates and the guy in the Baltimore hotel this weekend who drowned their own kids ACTIVELY murdered with their own hands. We are talking, in this post, about not an ACT which resulted in death, but the OMISSION of an act (i.e., procuring medical treatment) to which in one circumstance you find it perfectly acceptable (omitting Terri's life support), and the other you want to be seen as CRIMINAL. Do you all understand that? Making criminals of "ignorant" people? Is there a law that says you MUST SEEK medical treatment for yourself? A child is an extension of one's self. Once they reach the age of 18 they can make their own decisions regarding medical treatment. That this girl didn't make it to age 18, because the medical establishment didn't get involved, doesn't change the possibility that this girl, if treated at 11, would have disregarded the medical treatment at 18 and died as the result of nature taking its course. People DO THAT ALL time; in other words, they do not feel beholden to the medical industry to CHOOSE their time of death for them. In another recent post, people were all up in arms about the government "wanting" those in hospice care to die quicker! If you are opposed to the government "regulating" dying in that instance, and you do not believe that parents have any right of regulation, then all I can see is that people BELIEVE that it is the medical industry's domain to regulate when people die, and THAT is the gist of this case: These parents refused to give over such regulation. Oh, it is not criminal when the medical industry ignores, or is ignorant of, government regulations and becomes indebted to repaying the government back, but an individual certainly can't be ignorant of government NONregulations (meaning there is NO LAW which insists medical treatment needs to be procured), but be indebted to the criminal justice system. I really am asking: Do any of you feel compelled by LAW to seek medical treatment? God Bless. |
|
Date: 4/1/2008 10:49:00 AM
From Authorid: 62100
First of all you can't remove the religious aspect because this IS the reason in which these people did not act..that is a fact of this case..and Mr Schiavo made his decision after YEARS of looking for alternatives and hoping, then relaizing that the medical community had done all that they possibly could for his wife at that point in time..these people never even as much as procured any type of medical advice period..but aside from all of that..to answer your question..in as far as for myself..no, I don't feel compelled by LAW to procure medical help for myself..but rather compelled by my own feelings that I can't fight something off on my own and at that point I make an active decision to trust medical professionals who have more knowledge than myself...HOWEVER..when it comes to my daughter, it may not be a compelling factor in regards to the law..but I am compelled by the sense of doing whatever it takes to safeguard my daughter and keep her physically well...I brought that child into this world of my own free will, and as such it is my responsibility to care for her and protect her, and ensure her well being and health until such time as she is able to make those decisions for herself..and yes, I feel that were I negligent in that area and as such my daughter was to become gravely ill..or God forbid, die..then yes, I SHOULD be found guilty of neglecting her needs, because she is dependent on me to take care of her needs. |
|
Date: 4/1/2008 12:33:00 PM
From Authorid: 4309
^^ That is a lie. "Mr.Schaivo" fought for years in court and specifically mandated it that no TREATMENT at all be attempted. Where do you get your information, "Mr.Schaivo's" PR man? |
|
Date: 4/1/2008 12:36:00 PM
From Authorid: 4309
" I don’t understand how the type of diabetes would change the discussion?" " my aunt reversed her type 2 with healthy diet" |
|
Date: 4/1/2008 12:41:00 PM
From Authorid: 4309
"Date: 3/28/2008 3:57:00 PM From Authorid: 11240 I think I've finally figured this out, Wiley. DP IS A ROBOT! Someone has plugged "the opposite of Deb" into a computer program and that program is just spewing out the opposite of whatever I say. Of course it comes out all prosey and esoteric (that's the opposite of Deb), makes no logical sense (that's the opposite of Deb), and certainly can't agree with anything I've said (that's the opposite of Deb). No wonder it just keeps going and going and going; I'm thinking perhaps I'll just have to offer up the incentive . . . God Bless." Replace every Deb with Wiley though... |
|
Date: 4/1/2008 12:46:00 PM
From Authorid: 4309
"Date: 3/30/2008 8:47:00 PM ( Your Reply ) From Authorid: 4309 "but are rather really looking hard to find something to be contrary about." <----Conspiracy!!!!" |
|
Date: 4/1/2008 1:00:00 PM
From Authorid: 4309
Diabetic ketoacidosis can occur in both Type I and Type II diabetetics. It is just more likley to be in Type I and that Link to that site doesn't offer up definitive information of which type she had. It was written by a normal blogger Lynn Vincent and it was "Explaining" a Fox News Report that does not mention the Type the child had definitively. No where is referenced information that is definitive so she must have another secret source that isn't the Fox News article that everyone else has seen. (Me included). That or she made a "Guess" because ketoacidosis is usually the result of type 1, which was my "Guess" already but I do not like to say something is 100% fact without it being proven 100% fact. Someone that fasts too long and starves themselves to death can suffer ketoacidosis. Ketoacidosis does not = automatic Type 1 Diabetic source. Someone get me something more valid please. Someone that is not someone that will grasp at any straw too quickly and will actually make sure their information is 100% proven valid. |
|
Date: 4/1/2008 1:19:00 PM
From Authorid: 62100
He fought for years yes Wiley..but I do believe that I also read that he tried for years to find treatment as well..I don't honestly recall where I got the information specifically Wiley..as I explained I read all of this YEARS ago for a paper I was writing for an ethics course..and is there any need to be so hostile Wiley?? I have been nothing but polite in my replies so with all due respect chill out.. |
|
Date: 4/1/2008 2:35:00 PM
From Authorid: 11240
So, strictly on their "free" practice of their religious beliefs, they have no excuse? We offer excuses for giving "life-saving" vaccinations to children on the grounds of religious beliefs. Why would it be a legitimate excuse in one case but not the other? God Bless. |
|
Date: 4/1/2008 2:41:00 PM
From Authorid: 62100
Because I do believe..and I may be wrong here..that prior to refusing these life saving vaccinations based on religious beliefs that these people are first educated about the vaccinations and the risks posed by non acceptance of such..and at that point must sign an informed consent/declination form that attests by their signature that they HAVE been duly informed of these said risks...ALSO..ANYONE can refuse vaccinations..just if the children DON't Hve said immunizations they are not permitted to enter the public school systems and in the cases of adults not having these vaccinations prevents them from being able to acquire certain employment.. |
|
Date: 4/1/2008 2:50:00 PM
From Authorid: 62100
I stand corrected about the declination form as well as school..I think..here is information that I found regarding refusal of vaccinations based on religous practice:
RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION:
All states allow a religious exemption to vaccination except Mississippi and West Virginia.
The religious exemption is intended for people who possess a sincere religious belief against vaccination to the extent that if the state forced vaccination, it would be an infringement on their right to exercise their religious beliefs. Some state laws define religious exemptions broadly to include personal religious beliefs, similar to personal philosophical beliefs. Other states require an individual who claims a religious exemption to be a member of The First Church of Christ, Scientist (Christian Science) or another bonafide religion whose written tenets include prohibition of invasive medical procedures such as vaccination.
Some laws require a signed affidavit from the pastor of the church while others allow the parent to sign a notarized waiver. Prior to registering your child for school, you must check your state law to verify what your health department requires to prove your religious beliefs. The religious exemption is granted based on the First Amendment of the Constitution, which is the right to freely exercise your religion.
Because citizens are protected under the First Amendment of the United States, a state must have a "compelling State interest" before this right can be taken away. One "compelling State interest" is the spread of communicable diseases. In state court cases that have set precedent on this issue the freedom to act according to your own religious belief is subject to reasonable regulation with the justification that it must not threaten the welfare of society as a whole.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-113301726.html
|
|
Date: 4/1/2008 2:56:00 PM
From Authorid: 62100
And Wiley..here's some of that info about Mr. Schiavos attempts to find hope for his wife's recovery "Schiavo came home to her family in September; however, after becoming overwhelmed with her needs, the family sent her back to the College Park facility. In November, Michael took her to the University of California, San Francisco for an experimental procedure involving the placement of a thalamic stimulator implant in her brain. The experimental treatment took several months but was unsuccessful. Michael returned to Florida with her in January 1991 and admitted her as an inpatient to the Mediplex Rehabilitation Center in Bradenton, Florida. While there, he later said that he often took "her to parks and public places in hopes of sparking some recovery". On July 19, 1991, Schiavo was transferred to the Sabal Palms Skilled Care Facility,[21] where she received neurological testing and regular speech and occupational therapy until 1993.
Schiavo's husband trained and became a respiratory therapist and emergency room nurse. In 2004, he was hired as a nursing supervisor at the Pinellas County Jail in Florida.
In mid-1993, just months after Michael and Terri received the money for her rehabilition (in February, 1993[17] from the lawsuit), she contracted a urinary tract infection and Michael halted most therapy for his wife and entered a "Do Not Resuscitate" (DNR) order. Jay Wolfson[22] later wrote a report stating that Michael's decision had been based on consultation with his wife's physician and was "predicated on his reasoned belief that there was no longer any hope for Theresa's recovery."[23] He later rescinded this after the Schindlers and the Sabal Palms nursing home protested.[citation needed]"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo#Rehabilitation_efforts
|
|
Date: 4/1/2008 2:57:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
My point Wiley, was that if the girl had type two diabetes (unlikely given her age), she could have treated it, as my aunt did. Of course she would need to know that she had type two in the first place to know what to do about it. If she had type one and was properly diagnosed it seems that she could also have treated the condition. From my reading of the wikipedia article it does seem to be the case that ketoacidosis is not necessarily always caused by diabetes. However, it does seem that anyone who suffers from this disease exhibits obvious symptoms (if she was starving, her parents might be even more culpable). Thus, I didn’t see why it mattered whether she had type one or two (though perhaps it would change things if she had neither.) The rest of your comments which referenced me were unnecessary and childish. |
|
Date: 4/1/2008 2:58:00 PM
From Authorid: 62100
From 1998 to the end of 2002, the Schindlers were locked in a struggle in the courts, first to decide if Schiavo should be removed from life support and then the appeals by her parents to block this determination. This legal struggle received no notable publicity. This phase started with her husband's initial petition to have the feeding tube removed and involved four legal decisions of note. Michael did not directly make the decision about whether Terri should live or die. He petitioned the court, asking it to act as Terri's surrogate and determine what she would decide to do if she were able. The court determined that Terri would not wish to continue life-prolonging measures. While Michael remained interested and visible in the proceedings, he had conceded control to the court and the Schindlers now faced the decision of the court. In many ways, the legal status at the end of these five years was the same as immediately after these initial court decisions, but up until the end of this time, the story had received little coverage in the media, and thus it was still a family affair.
One objection the parents had was to Schiavo dying by dehydration. However, numerous studies have shown that for terminally ill patients who choose to die, deaths by dehydration are generally peaceful, and not associated with suffering, when supplemented with adequate pain medication.[24][25][26][27][28][29]
Schiavo's husband insisted that she had expressed her wishes not to be kept on life support with no hope for improvement. During a trial in 2000, testimony was heard from witnesses on both sides to establish Schiavo's wishes regarding life support. The court determined that she had made "credible and reliable" statements that she would not want to be "kept alive on a machine," based on expert testimony, finding that Americans do not want to live "with no hope of improvement," and that her condition in a persistent vegetative state had "long since satisfied" the requirement that there be no hope of improvement.[30] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo#Rehabilitation_efforts
|
|
Date: 4/1/2008 3:04:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
“An autopsy showed Madeline Neumann died Sunday of diabetic ketoacidosis, a condition that left too little insulin in her body, Everest Metro Police Chief Dan Vergin said.”
http://www.startribune.com/templates/Print_This_Story?sid=17056406
There’s another source for you by the way. Apparently using Google is grasping at straws these days… |
|
Date: 4/1/2008 3:11:00 PM
From Authorid: 62100
"In October 2002, on remand by the Second District Court of Appeal, an evidentiary hearing was held in Judge Greer's court to determine whether new therapy treatments could help Schiavo restore any cognitive function. In preparation for the trial, a new computed axial tomography scan (CAT scan) was performed, which showed severe cerebral atrophy. An EEG showed no me |
