Harry Guerrilla
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2008
- Messages
- 28,951
- Reaction score
- 12,422
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
I'll be honest, I'm still trying to fully form my position on this and am unsure which side I'm coming in on.
For those going on about the "crazy religious" people, out of curiosity (as part of it makes me wonder how much of this is hatred for religions and part how much is hatred for christians) I'd ask this...
If this person was a...
athiest that was, to use a politically incorrect but more to the point term, a Hippy who didn't trust "the man" and the corporations and because of that wanted to use holistic healing.
American Indian family wanting to use traditional means of medicine due to their cultural traditions.
Wiccan who wanted holistic healing due to their religious beleifs.
Would all those be "Stupid ****s" and "lunatics" that were "brainwashing" their kid?
You just can't stand that religion = free thought.
Well it is frustrating. If my neighbors toddler fell in the pool and couldn't swim I'd be incredibly annoyed if her religious beliefs dictated we leave it in God's hand and wait it out to see if he learned to swim or drowned.
And when it comes to denying kids medical care based off absurd whacked out beliefs those beliefs are usually religious in nature.
This isn't to say religion is bad. But when religion has caused you to be delusional and allowed you to justify forsaking your child's welfare against all medical opinion then the religion deserves all the criticism it gets.
See? There it is.
You will always side against religion regardless of the situation.
You just can't stand that religion = free thought.
Jerry said:When it came to the next-of-kin issue, I sided with the law, just as I am doing here. You should take better notes.
My personal opinion was to have Terry's condition diagnosed using the latest diagnostic criteria; the very definition of her condition had been significantly changed since her original diagnosis years before.
Jerry said:Anyway, Terry's husband only wanted her dead so he could collect the insurance and live on with his new wife. Terry's parents were more than willing and capable of taking her in and caring for her; they even had the money to give her new treatments to improve her condition.
Jerry said:That seems to be what you want for the boy, but that's only your surrogate argument to once again stand against religion.
I think the crazy person deserves the criticism alone. If I read a comic book and jump off the roof because I think I can fly, I'm the crazy one.
True. But if someone's religious belief is so unsound that a mac truck can be driven through the holes in it then I feel compelled to at least attempt to drive some sense into them. :mrgreen: This is especially true when their religious obsession has become so toxic that it's dangerous to them and those around them.
Note you used the word "obsession" to describe the person.
Every religion has holes so big you can drive a mac truck through them. That's why religion depends on faith. But obsession...that's on the person who takes it to the point of unhealthiness.
Well it is frustrating. If my neighbors toddler fell in the pool and couldn't swim I'd be incredibly annoyed if her religious beliefs dictated we leave it in God's hand and wait it out to see if he learned to swim or drowned.
And when it comes to denying kids medical care based off absurd whacked out beliefs those beliefs are usually religious in nature.
This isn't to say religion is bad. But when religion has caused you to be delusional and allowed you to justify forsaking your child's welfare against all medical opinion then the religion deserves all the criticism it gets.
How do your comments here reflect the parent's views?
So if Terry Schiavo's husband told the press that Jesus wanted him to pull the feeding tube, you would have supported his decision, right?
What you imagine his motive to be is irrelevant. She made a conscious choice to give him the right to make those decisions for her when she married him.
And her parents were not able to improve her condition, because no such treatment exists. They just wanted to cling to the hope that some day they'd get their daughter back. That's perfectly understandable, but it should not be the basis for our legal system and certainly should not be the basis for random acts of nosiness by the US Congress.
Like I told Zyphlin earlier, my position would be exactly the same if the parents were non-religious hippies who mistrusted "The Man" and "corporate medicine."
The courts should still order the child to undergo chemotherapy because science suggests it is by far the best course of action.
To be perfectly honest, I don't really CARE what the moronic belief system of the parents is...the fact that they are denying their son life-saving medical care is evidence of neglect.
Well let's see she claims her son doesn't need treatment because they prefer to adhere to natural remedies like water. The water cure is more in line with their religious beliefs according to them. The court claimed the boy was not afraid of his cancer, he's afraid of the chemo. This is despite the fact that every medical opinion states his prognosis is fantastic if given chemo while death is inevitable without it. The boy is under the misguided impression that chemo will kill him while running from chemo will keep him alive and safe.
They show the mother a court ordered x-ray to prove to her that the tumor has in fact grown since treatment has been suspended.
She naturally takes the boy and flees to Mexico.
Where in the story does she not appear nuts?
How do your comments here reflect the parent's views?
And Anthony Hauser now agrees that Daniel needs to be taken back to a doctor for re-evaluation for the best treatment, said Calvin Johnson, an attorney for the parents.
The family was due in court Tuesday to report the results of a chest X-ray and their arrangements for an oncologist. But only Daniel's father appeared. He told Rodenberg he last saw his wife Monday evening.
You have pre-supposed that any belief system the parents have is moronic because of their choice. You don't agree with their choice, therefore they could be credentialed scientists themselves and wouldn't make any difference to you.
When you don't personally agree, you argue anything necessary to express it.
You begin with the answers you want and then compose the questions to suit.
That's not what I asked you.
You went off on religious beliefs, but read the entire story:
Does that sound like a parent who wants to treat their child's cancer with only water to you?
***
Will you people please stop ranting about religion and start reading the god damn article before opening your ****ing trap?
This is facetious. There is a consensus in the medical community that this boy needs treatment, that his prognosis is very good with treatment, and that he'll inevitably die at a young age without it. It's ridiculous to make comparisons to Terry's case no matter what your opinions were on that case. The circumstances are completely different. The factors at play aren't even remotely close to being the same. The parents belief system is moronic because they have turned their back on saving their child's life. There are no credentialed scientists arguing, "The water might work, it really might. ":roll:
Is the father the parent that has been viciously attacked in this thread? Nope. It's the goofball mother who took the kid and ran off to Mexico.
Yeah, the dad want's to take the child in to be evaluated for treatment, he really turned his back did he? :roll:
That's not what I asked either.
To defend this mother's behavior under the guise of defending religious freedom is complete malarkey. To turn a blind eye towards this child's need for the state to step in and protect him because you hysterically think the state's protection of this child somehow means big brother is going to dictate what type of hats you put your children in come next year's family Christmas photo is also malarkey.
I don't believe that the mother is doing this based on deeply held religious conviction. I think she's using it as an excuse. Apparently there is a state law on the matter. That I was not aware of. If it's vague--like it's quoted above--I think there's wiggle room, but not much. I don't like the idea that people can be compelled to have extraordinary medical procedures done--I'm very libertarian in that regard--My health, and my family's health is MY business. However--I very much support state's rights to decide matters. I guess I must concede that the state has the right to do this, but I disagree with the fundamental issue of saving people from their own stupidity. Freedom is more important to me than one family making a choice most people would not make--and to compromise liberty for that exception is not worth it, IMO.My Way News - Police look for Minn. mother, son who fled chemo
In Minnesota, District Judge John Rodenberg ruled last week that the Hausers were neglecting their son, and ordered them to consult doctors. He cited a state law requiring parents to provide necessary medical care for a child.
Most states have similar laws. A few have exemptions allowing parents to refuse treatment on religious grounds, and Minnesota was one of them.
Doesn't matter. What matters is for whatever reason he doesn't understand and is deluded about his circumstances. He did not tell the courts he accepts he may die without treatment and that is his choice. He told them he doesn't believe he's as sick as the drs. say, he doesn't believe he needs treatment, and he doesn't believe he may die.
If he were an older man, my father, I'd have him declared mentally unsound. I don't much care why he can't grip reality, it's only important to note that he hasn't. If he had a hold on reality, a grasp of the weight of his circumstances, and then made the choice that would be a bit different.
Whoa, I just...agreed with ADK...I need to lay down.
I don't believe that the mother is doing this based on deeply held religious conviction.
Religion is 100% what this is all about! This is another (dumb and brainwashed) couple who are so wrapped up in the tiny, stupid details of their religion that they can't see the big picture, that they can't think for themselves.
They are just as out-there as those who would kill their daughter because she dishonored the family by getting raped, or a Christian who believes the bible literally where it says, "an eye for an eye".
Where's the "body soverignty" crowd.:roll:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?