Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11
  1. #1 Death 2... Faith Healing 0 
    Vepr
    Guest
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,421
    I haven't been able to find what the teenager died from. I think this is a shame. And while I think that at a certain age "children" should be able to have some say in their medical treatment, I don't necessarily think they should have the final say. Although I doubt in this case it would have made a difference. I assume the parents supported his decision not to accept any medical treatment.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,852
    Wow. Arent there laws against assisting in someone's suicide? Kevorkian sure seems to get in trouble when he does it. Thats what these lunatics should be charged with. That and every kind of child abuse charge that could possibly stick. Religious freedom shouldn't give you the right to brainwash and kill your kids.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,852
    Quote Originally Posted by Phillygirl View Post
    I haven't been able to find what the teenager died from. I think this is a shame. And while I think that at a certain age "children" should be able to have some say in their medical treatment, I don't necessarily think they should have the final say. Although I doubt in this case it would have made a difference. I assume the parents supported his decision not to accept any medical treatment.
    He had a chronic urinary tract blockages. Apparently, this will basically cause urine to back up into your bloodstream, and it starts poisoning your organs. This little 14 year old kid's organs started shutting down, and he eventually died of heart failure. It could have been fixed with a simple catheter. I think the rents should get death, by plugging up their private bits while force feeding them water.

    http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/06/19/....ap/index.html
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Patent Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    1,784
    So a 16-year old refused treatment, an established constitutional right, based on religious grounds, which is within the statutory scheme of the state, and this is somehow the parents' fault?

    I guess then that we need to start having government-paid inspectors in every household, to make sure that parents aren't teaching their children any religious beliefs that conflict with the government-sanctioned secular humanism beliefs. Makes sense to me. After all, who needs religious freedom? We have government!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,421
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    He had a chronic urinary tract blockages. Apparently, this will basically cause urine to back up into your bloodstream, and it starts poisoning your organs. This little 14 year old kid's organs started shutting down, and he eventually died of heart failure. It could have been fixed with a simple catheter. I think the rents should get death, by plugging up their private bits while force feeding them water.

    http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/06/19/....ap/index.html
    He was 16, not 14. And while I do think medical treatment should have been administered, I also believe that he and his parents had the right to decide.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Senior Member YupItsMe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Vermont (yeah, I know)
    Posts
    530
    Quote Originally Posted by Phillygirl View Post
    He was 16, not 14. And while I do think medical treatment should have been administered, I also believe that he and his parents had the right to decide.


    The left doesn't believe a 16 year old has the right to choose whether or not to receive medical treatment, but they strongly believe that same 16 year old has the right to snuff out the life of a baby. Heard to grasp that kind of thinking.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    Power CUer
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    10,208
    Quote Originally Posted by biccat View Post
    So a 16-year old refused treatment, an established constitutional right, based on religious grounds, which is within the statutory scheme of the state, and this is somehow the parents' fault?

    I guess then that we need to start having government-paid inspectors in every household, to make sure that parents aren't teaching their children any religious beliefs that conflict with the government-sanctioned secular humanism beliefs. Makes sense to me. After all, who needs religious freedom? We have government!
    The problem is that he wasn't 18. Then, you could argue that he was legally an adult and had a right to choose his beliefs and his manner of death. As it is, until you're 18, you're wards of your parents and you don't have the same rights as an adult. It's a tough spot agewise.

    The interesting thing is that if he were a 16 year-old who had overdosed on drugs or had driven drunk and killed himself, we would not necessarily be wanting to charge the parents with anything. And yet, it can be argued, that the parents did just as much, if not more damage, to their children here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,852
    So are you guys OK with an underage Muslim girl consenting to castration because her parents spoonfed her a bunch of BS her entire life, guaranteeing she never even had the chance or faculties to realize that she has an option in the matter?

    It's child abuse, plain and simple. Remember the thread about that cult and the government giving the kids back to the cult members? How many here were calling for more intervention? I think this case engenders a little bit more sympathy because Christians are involved... but these arent run of the mill Christians..
    Last edited by wilbur; 06-20-2008 at 01:52 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    Patent Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    1,784
    Quote Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
    The problem is that he wasn't 18. Then, you could argue that he was legally an adult and had a right to choose his beliefs and his manner of death. As it is, until you're 18, you're wards of your parents and you don't have the same rights as an adult. It's a tough spot agewise.
    "Oregon law allows minors 14 and older to decide for themselves whether to accept medical treatment."

    You're right, it's a tough decision age wise, but I would think that the Oregon legislature spent some time considering the issue before reaching its decision.

    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    So are you guys OK with an underage Muslim girl consenting to castration because her parents spoonfed her a bunch of BS her entire life, guaranteeing she never even had the chance or faculties to realize that she has an option in the matter?
    No, because that is a different circumstance. There is no constitutional right to have specific surgery, even if it is on religious grounds.

    Are you OK with allowing a court to insist that a woman be kept on life support, even if there is evidence suggesting that she wants to be allowed to die? After all, the only excuse is religious brainwashing, right?

    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    It's child abuse, plain and simple. Remember the thread about that cult and the government giving the kids back to the cult members? How many here were calling for more intervention? I think this case engenders a little bit more sympathy because Christians are involved... but these arent run of the mill Christians..
    Um, I think that the government was right to return the children to the parents at the Yearning for Zion church. There were no allegations of child abuse, and the fact that polygamy was occurring among some is not sufficient to infer child abuse across the board.

    In fact, I believe that anti-polygamy laws should be abolished in view of religious expression. Remember, there's no law against having a bunch of women living with you and bearing children, it's only illegal once you start calling them your wives and taking care of them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •