Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Do Parents Have the Right To Refuse Medical Treatment for Faith Healing?

page: 7
12
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by smyleegrl
 


Aw dang. Sorry! I should have checked. But it's true, it really is a good story.




posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by ObservingTheWorld
 


So you are totally okay with virgin sacrifices, child brides and pedophilia? These are religious practices. Please tell me if you condone human sacrifice. If anything is okay under the guise of religion, then any practice should be deemed okay so long as you say 'God told me to'.

For the record, I've got a problem with a lot of religous practices, and honestly don't agree with most. How I feel about these other issues, may or may not be the same as how I feel about this particular issue, which, quite simply is whether or not a parent has the right to choose what type of medical treatment their child recieves.

As far as human sacrifice, maybe you should take a look at this website. The evidence connecting vaccines with infant mortality (and very specifically S.I.D.S.) and other significant health problems is growing. Apparently because it is hidden behind the guise of disease prevention and public safety it's an acceptible form of human sacrifice?


So the sins of their fathers shall apply to their children? Wow, okay. So if someones parents were criminals, then they too must be considered as such?

That is a grave misinterpretation of what I said.


Please note: Religion is NOT a free for all. You cannot commit any act you want under the guise of religion and be free from repercussions.

There is a distinct difference between using the religious scapegoat and standing by what you believe, especially when it comes to medical treatment. I'm pretty sure that because they had already lost a child, and suffered the threat of criminal prosecution that they aren't using their religious beliefs as a scapegoat, and despite what had happened to them previously, they stood by their belief.


We as a society determine what is evil, and that which we determine to be evil we have punishments for those acts.

So, we are allowed to bully others into our point of view by punishing something that we don't agree with, or the results of which we don't like?

Gotcha.

Did these parents go to an individual that had training in the medical field or is the 'herbal treatment' given to them by just someone who believes they have the answer?

Why should it matter? You do realize that individuals that have training in the medical field don't have all the answers, right? You do realize that there are tons of lawsuits every day against these very people and the solutions they peddle because they don't know what they are doing, or thought that they had all the answers and it wound up doing more harm than good? How many lawsuits are there because of antibiotics?

Do you know? Lots!

Zithromax
Gentamicin
Levaquin
Tequin

There are many others, and maybe you should read this article, or this one or maybe even this one.


Like it or not, we have rules setup in society. These rules are here mainly because society said this is the way it is.

Um, no. We have rules in society because whomever introduced these rules was a really good spokesman that pushed the agenda for their own purpose, or for the purpose of someone who paid them to do so and usually for the sake of profit, and always for the sake of control, not as you seem to believe, for the betterment of society. Uneducated people blindly follow and repeat these so called experts because they trust that the information that they are given is accurate. Get enough people, repeating what they have been told and suddenly you have a majority opinion that people will follow, simply because the majority of people "believe". Enough people to follow the crowd and suddenly you have a "societal norm".

Here's a really good example manipulation. It's worked really well up until recently when people started discovering the propaganda and the misinformaton that they were given.

Or how about this one?

Or this one?

Continued



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 12:48 PM
link   
I live by what I call the C.A.R.E. rule.
Consider
Appreciate
Respect
Empathize

OR
Consider
Appreciate
Respect
Educate

If anything, I try to provide information for alternatives that people may not know are available, and that may come in line with religious beliefs. Unfortunately the options keep getting smaller because they are being deemed criminal.

I consider, appreciate, respect and empathize with someone else's point of view. It doesn't mean I have to agree with it, but neither will I bully them into doing something against their belief simply because I (or the majority of society) don't agree. It's not a valid or (more importantly) effective argument. To take it one step further, and make that belief or practice criminal, to make it the job of the government or a government agency to make decisions regarding what type of medical treatment is deemed necesary, is opening the door to allow people to abuse their control. You can see an example of that here and here.

Guess what, in both of those cases it isn't the parent that got to make the decision, it was "the government" (social services). You may think that these are isolated cases, but they aren't.

How long before you won't be able to choose your own medical treatment?
How long before this becomes the norm.

Proof it is already happening.

Once we hand over our children's medical decisions to someone else, and very specifically to the government, we open up the door to allow them to make more decisions regarding how our children are educated, fed, housed, clothed and guided, along with the probability of corruption and abuse of that power.

If we do that do we not also support this idea?

Once we surrender the ability to make choices for our children how much more difficult will it be to have our own rights to make decisions for ourselves taken away?

Attempting to outlaw religious practices, and specifically those that concern medical care, is only opening the door to more and more extreme and bigoted response from those who wish to continue their practice at the cost of un-involved innocent lives, and one more precarious step towards completely surrendering our basic freedoms and ultimately our free will.

That is my position. I will defend it with logic and reason, not with an emotional response, or a religious or political agenda. You don't have to like it. You don't have to agree with it. You can call me names if it will make you feel better. It won't change my position in regards to whether or not a parent has a right to choose what type of medical treatment, education, or spiritual upbringing their child receives regardless of whether or not I would make those same decisions. I will not participate in anything that limits those choices for anyone or forces anyone into submission of something that goes against their belief.



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by ThreeSistersofLoveandLigh
 




I live by what I call the C.A.R.E. rule.
Consider
Appreciate
Respect
Empathize


So why doesnt your C.A.R.E. rule also extend to the children? Are they not persons? You are literally supporting denying them CARE.
edit on 30/4/13 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


Let me ask you this. Did the child stop eating (the article seems to indicate so)? Who made that decision?

That's not the same as denying the child sustenance.

By most people's logic, the parents would have been wrong if they decided to force feed the child because it goes against the child's choice not to eat.


Or is it that the child doesn't have the knowledge to know what the repercussions of not eating are and therefore the parent gets to decide what is best for the child?

Which one is it?

How is supporting a parent's right to make a decision for their child denying them care?

It's not, and parent's make that decision every single day.

If both parents are allergic to peanut butter, and they decide not to feed their child peanut butter based on the probability that the child will also have an allergic reaction to peanut butter is that denying them their right to have peanut butter?

Should the parent be punished if despite warnings it could kill their child they gave their child peanut butter anyway?

Should it be the government's decision on whether or not the child eats peanut butter? Should a stranger be able to decide?

If a child is running a fever and a parent decides to give them a cool bath to lower it rather than the currently accepted practice of giving a child tylenol or ibuprophen is that denying them medical treatment?

Should the parent be punished because they chose not to give their child Tylenol or Ibuprofen, even if the bath succeeded in lowering the fever?

These parent's chose a form of care: faith healing. They knew from experience what might happen, and they decided to make that decision anyway. You and others may not consider it one, but it is, and is no different than choosing an herbal remedy over mainstream medicine.

How is any one of these scenarios any different than the other?

Apparently the only decision that is correct is the one where the child lives, and there is no guaranteeing that whatever choice was made that the child would have.



posted on May, 1 2013 @ 03:53 AM
link   
reply to post by ThreeSistersofLoveandLigh
 




Let me ask you this. Did the child stop eating (the article seems to indicate so)? Who made that decision? That's not the same as denying the child sustenance.


Morally, it is the same. The end effect is the same. As you said:



Or is it that the child doesn't have the knowledge to know what the repercussions of not eating are and therefore the parent gets to decide what is best for the child?




By most people's logic, the parents would have been wrong if they decided to force feed the child because it goes against the child's choice not to eat.


Nonsense. By most peoples logic, parents with a child that refuses to eat have moral, ethical and legal obligation to try to feed it. With the help of a doctor, if it cannot be done otherwise (one example: anorexia).




How is supporting a parent's right to make a decision for their child denying them care?


Like this: parents decide to deny the child much needed care. By supporting their decision you agree with denying care for the child and you are no different than someone who support child molestation or abuse.




It's not, and parent's make that decision every single day.


They dont. If they do and it endangers their child, they go to prison.




Should the parent be punished if despite warnings it could kill their child they gave their child peanut butter anyway?


Absolutely.




Should it be the government's decision on whether or not the child eats peanut butter? Should a stranger be able to decide?


Yes, if parents are decide in such a way that the childs life will be in danger, then you are damn right that a stranger ought to step in. Children are not the property of the parents, they are human beings with rights, and so parental authority over them ought to be limited in some extreme cases.




If a child is running a fever and a parent decides to give them a cool bath to lower it rather than the currently accepted practice of giving a child tylenol or ibuprophen is that denying them medical treatment?


This is not harmful for the child. Cool bath is an accepted practice to lower body temperature and such alternative does not endanger the child. You are comparing letting the child die vs. a cool bath? wtf..




These parent's chose a form of care: faith healing. They knew from experience what might happen, and they decided to make that decision anyway. You and others may not consider it one, but it is, and is no different than choosing an herbal remedy over mainstream medicine.


And they are a bunch of child abusers that will pay for it. And the same applies to herbal remedy that causes the a child to die.


You view children as lower than animals. Sick.
edit on 1/5/13 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 03:03 AM
link   
No! You don't wait for any eteral belief to save who you love. You take any measure to insure that your loved ones receive the messasary medical treatment.





new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join