|
Post by devinnielson on Apr 10, 2010 21:13:07 GMT -5
There are many religious beliefs in the world and I wanted to know if religious rights abridge the rights of children. You see, many religions say that their version of healing is the only way. The people that believe in this religion cannot use conventional medicine. It would be in effect saying that their religion is false. I have no problem with people killing themselves in these situations but from time to time there are parents that cause the death of their child because of religious beliefs. Is this justified just because it's religion? Should there be legal actions against parents that do this?
|
|
|
Post by click3tyclick on Apr 10, 2010 21:23:55 GMT -5
Sadly, you can't take legal action for stupidity.
|
|
|
Post by Lex on Apr 10, 2010 21:28:26 GMT -5
Sadly, you can't take legal action for stupidity. It is sad, but it often depends on the stupidity.
|
|
|
Post by runforthefinish on Apr 10, 2010 21:31:49 GMT -5
-1 from the No's I misread the question :X
|
|
Mira
Meteorite
Rawr
Posts: 17
|
Post by Mira on Apr 10, 2010 21:37:40 GMT -5
I don't think that anything, under any circumstances can justify taking a human life.
|
|
|
Post by click3tyclick on Apr 10, 2010 21:40:37 GMT -5
I don't think that anything, under any circumstances can justify taking a human life. It doesn't count as taking a human life.
|
|
|
Post by Lex on Apr 10, 2010 21:43:08 GMT -5
I don't think that anything, under any circumstances can justify taking a human life. It doesn't count as taking a human life. It should be criminally negligent manslaughter at the least
|
|
|
Post by click3tyclick on Apr 10, 2010 21:51:22 GMT -5
|
|
Mira
Meteorite
Rawr
Posts: 17
|
Post by Mira on Apr 10, 2010 21:52:58 GMT -5
I don't think that anything, under any circumstances can justify taking a human life. It doesn't count as taking a human life. If the parents are the ones causing them to take their own life, I would consider the parents to be at fault.
|
|
bleabot
Moon
Set phazors to dance, Mr. Warf.
Posts: 109
|
Post by bleabot on Apr 10, 2010 22:05:40 GMT -5
I don't think that anything, under any circumstances can justify taking a human life. It doesn't count as taking a human life. Not using easily accessible medicine that can easily cure illness and letting the child die instead doesn't count as killing? I think that counts -- not as direct murder, but still as taking a life. How does it not count? =/
|
|
|
Post by rialvestro on Apr 11, 2010 2:52:38 GMT -5
Technically unless they are actully shooting, stabbing, poisoning, or otherwise directly doing anything to ententionally cause the kid to die these parents are not killing their children.
Indirectly maybe but offten times there's only X% that anyone will survive any medical procedure anyway so there's no way of judgeing for sure if the child would have lived if they had used conventional medicines.
Legally they can only be charged with murder if you can prove beyond any doubt that they caused the death to happen. And in all honestly if a child dies by sickness that's natural causes.
If anything doctors should be charged with murder every time a person dies in surgery.
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Apr 11, 2010 3:32:32 GMT -5
Rialvestro, I totally disagree with your idea of charging doctors with every death in surgery. Doctors are working for the good of the patient and actually are often charged with misconduct when the death can at all be attributed to their actions. It is also totally different to charging the parent with manslaughter now a problem here is that it isn't direct murder nor is it EXACT manslaughter, I would suppose it is partly neglect but the point is that it doesn't really matter whether there is an actual law against it, if a parent does something that aids in the death of a child it is up to the judge to sentence them appropriately and up to us to make a law.
Devinnielson, you claim "The people that believe in this religion cannot use conventional medicine. It would be in effect saying that their religion is false.". They CAN use conventional proven medicine, but they choose not too based on their beliefs. And it CAN'T be illegal to imprison someone based on their beliefs because obviously paranoid schizophrenics may believe that people on the bus are plotting to kill them and retaliate, murderers may believe that the person should die. Putting suicide bombers in prison is basically telling them their religeon is false, and their religeon has been proven to be false so there is nothing wrong with that.
- Quinn
|
|
|
Post by devinnielson on Apr 11, 2010 3:51:16 GMT -5
I really like the discussion thats going on here. Mostly because it's showing that we don't take it kindly that parents are doing this. To anyone in objection that thinks the parents are justified watch this.
|
|
RabbitWho
Star
Rebecca - How 'bout we all put or real names somewhere in our signatures or titles? [SKB:]
Posts: 808
|
Post by RabbitWho on Apr 11, 2010 4:19:09 GMT -5
Awesome question, I had the religious debate about 500 times between the ages of 14 and 20 and now I'm full to the teeth of it.. not that it's not an important or good discussion, just that there's nothing new I can bring to it or nothing new that can be explained to me. I fully understand and empathize with religious people because I used to be one and I know the comfort it brings. but this is an interesting question. I think you can't take them to court, because they really really wanted their children to get better. They thought they were doing their best for them... and it won't deter anyone because other people of the same faith will just say "Well their child was meant to die, it was gods will. My child is better so he will live" If you think "Well god wants my child to die so I should let him die." Then you are, in your mind, letting god murder your child. But if you are genuinely waiting for a miracle then you have nothing but good in your heart and I feel sorry for you I think that in the real world if you are put in Abraham's position of having to kill his own son then you have the right to fight god. If God is worth loving then he will forgive that. But some people wait for the angel to come at the last second. I think the ship has sailed when the kid has died, but the police should have full rights to kidnap a child and bring him to hospital if they have heard he needs to go and his parents won't bring him for religious reasons, or to break down the door of the house and protect a doctor who comes in to check the child before they kidnap him/her. They should be able to force treatment UNLESS it's some kind of long long painful treatment that might not even work in the end. The doctors in the video you showed should have been able to take the baby away. It's too late to send them to prison after, what's the good in punishing them? Loosing a child is the worst thing anyone can go through, sending them to prison will barely be a distraction from that hell.
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Apr 11, 2010 5:03:05 GMT -5
It's too late to send them to prison after, what's the good in punishing them? Loosing a child is the worst thing anyone can go through, sending them to prison will barely be a distraction from that hell. I don't think we should send anyone at all to prison if our only reason to is punish them. However we have to make sure this person doesn't do it again, we have to make sure people don't think they can get away with letting children die and most of all we have to keep dangerous people away from innocents. I agree with pretty much everything else you say though.
|
|
|
Post by Jake on Apr 11, 2010 10:46:19 GMT -5
The problem when it comes to arguments based around discussion is that both sides believe just as strongly as the other that they are right. So when one group says "How could you put your child at risk by turning down conventional medicine" the other group could just say back "Well I believe that I would have been killing my child if I turned down God's healing". And until it's proven whether or not there's a God (if it's ever proven) then there's not much we can do to pick a right side.
|
|
|
Post by rialvestro on Apr 11, 2010 10:50:45 GMT -5
Rialvestro, I totally disagree with your idea of charging doctors with every death in surgery. Doctors are working for the good of the patient and actually are often charged with misconduct when the death can at all be attributed to their actions. It is also totally different to charging the parent with manslaughter now a problem here is that it isn't direct murder nor is it EXACT manslaughter, I would suppose it is partly neglect but the point is that it doesn't really matter whether there is an actual law against it, if a parent does something that aids in the death of a child it is up to the judge to sentence them appropriately and up to us to make a law. - Quinn Maybe I don't fully understand the question being asked or you don't fully understand my opinion, or maybe even both but lets try and rephraise... I was speaking about how there's allways X% chance that even with surgery a person may still die on the opperating table as apposed to how ever long they would of had to live by letting it go untreated. If a person dies do to some medical problem that wasn't treated that's basically just natural causes. If a doctor opperates and the patient dies on the opperating table then the cause of death was the doctors performing the opperation not the illness. Now all I'm really saying is that unless you can prove without doubt that a child would have lived threw the surgery the parent is no more responsible for the child's death than the doctor would be if they had gone threw treatment and died anyway. You said the doctor is not responsible for a failed surgery because the doctor is working for the good of the patient but what about the parent? If the parent feels not getting treatment is what's best for their child is that not the same thing as what the doctor is doing when they perform surgery? I feel like it is the same thing and if you wanna charge every parent for murder that doesn't allow their child to see a doctor than you should also charge every doctor for murder who looses a patient on the operating table. Oh and what about cases of conjoined twins? In most cases like that the twins have to be seperated or they'll both die but when they are seperated one of them is going to die anyway. This is a case where no matter what you do someone dies. If both twins die from failer to seperate them, natural causes. If one twin dies in surgery to seperate them, it's the doctor's fault and in that particular instance said doctor knew that they were killing a child to save one. The parents also knew that they will loose both children if they don't concent to surgery and only one if they do. So in either case would you charge both parents and doctors for murder because in either case they all knew that someone would die? I personally only feel it's murder if the doctor causes it. He may be trying to save a life but he has to essentually end the life of one twin in order to save the other and that is murder. Doing nothing isn't murder, that's just allowing nature to take it's course, they would both die of natural causes that way. In doing nothing there's really no way the parent can be directly responsible for murder. It's really only if something is done and the person still dies the doctor is directly responsible for their death. Doctors are after all humans and they are capable of making mistakes just like anyone else. The only times they are actully charged with murder is when malpractice can be proven that they intentionally killed the person and it wasn't just an accident that happened durring surgery. Either way the doctor did still cause it to happen. Just one way is intentional, the other way is unintentional. If a parent allows their child treatment and the child dies, that's intentional, if the child dies from not getting treatment I feel that's unintentional. The parent just felt that their child was going to die either way and didn't want to take the risk of dieing sooner on the operating table. Why should they be charged with murder for that?
|
|
Engesa Green once more
Meteor
Once upon a time there was a suggestion that we should all write our names on our profile. I'm Ebbe.
Posts: 89
|
Post by Engesa Green once more on Apr 11, 2010 14:12:17 GMT -5
Since it is known as well as you can know anything (science) that medicationand surgery heightens the chance of survival I think it should be qualiufied as neglect when a parent does not allow for their children to go to the doctor.
Also, in the case with conjoined twins it isn't murder when the doctor removes one since that one would have died nomatter what, it is just saving the life of the other.
|
|
|
Post by helenwk on Apr 11, 2010 14:41:29 GMT -5
I'm not a lawyer, but I don't understand how you could charge someone with the death of their child if they refused to let their child use conventional medicine. What I mean is, wouldn't you have to prove that if they'd allowed their child to receive treatment that that child would still be alive? If the child could have died even with the treatment, then how can you say that it is totally the parent's fault that the child is dead? I'm honestly asking for answers, because I don't know.
Also, I'm wondering what would happen if we put someone away for following their religion. America is supposed to be a country where we allow people to worship freely... if we put someone away because they did what they believe their faith says is right, wouldn't we have a revolt on our hands?
I'd like to see people get arrested for it, I'm just having trouble seeing how you would manage that.
|
|
|
Post by Jake on Apr 11, 2010 16:30:21 GMT -5
Also, I'm wondering what would happen if we put someone away for following their religion. America is supposed to be a country where we allow people to worship freely... if we put someone away because they did what they believe their faith says is right, wouldn't we have a revolt on our hands? I'd like to see people get arrested for it, I'm just having trouble seeing how you would manage that. Exactly - it's definitely not a good thing in this particular case, but arresting people for neglecting their child from medicine would be basically saying "Your religion is wrong, we are right." And that really isn't acceptable either.
|
|