posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 08:13 PM
Originally posted by Ocelot
I don't see how this is a difficult topic. Their child needed urgent medical care in order to survive. The parents refused it, the child died as a
result, so they are resposible for his death. They deserve to go to jail.
And that's easy for us to say, because we don't share the same religious beliefs as those parents.
If you have a genuine belief that your methods are better than those of someone else....what then are you to do?
(fwiw, I don't think anyone is disputing the fact that they're responsible for the child's death - obviously, they are...and don't think for one
second that I'm condoning the actions; I'm merely trying to see it from both sides)
Turn the tables for a sec (this is
a conspiracy board, after all...).
For the sake of argument, say you have a child with leukaemia. You believe that more harm than good will be done by the standard treatment (chemo is
toxic, after all); you'd much rather either use perhaps holistic healing methods, or find another option; you don't believe the government's
version of cure rates, and genuinely believe that there's a better method. How would you feel if the government stepped in and decided that your
child WILL get treatment, despite your wishes? What if the treatment directly results in the child's death? (not unheard of)
To use an actual case: You're pregnant. You've had your scans, and the scans show massive deformities, which are considered "incompatible with
life". You'd rather not abort the fetus, but the state steps in and mandates it anyway, "for the sake of the child's potential quality of
life". What if you want to enjoy that small life, if only for a very short period after the birth before it dies?
It's very easy to sit here and condemn the parents, because none of us have been through this situation; I'm just not sure how much government
interference I want when it comes to healthcare decisions - it's a very slippery slope, and there's currently nothing in place to protect abuse of