I hope I'm not the only one bothered by this

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/a/AP-Faith-Healing.html

[mouthbreather]

You're not. I, too hate websites that make you sign up for an account before they let you view information.

Oh, bugger.

Well, here's the text: sorry it's so long; AP wire report


Filed at 1:40 p.m. EDT

By The Associated Press

CLIFTON, Colo. (AP) -- The last breath of infant Billy Ray Reed came much the same as the first -- in his parents' trailer with church members surrounding him.

Without ever seeing a doctor, the 2-day-old boy died July 9 of complications from a hole in his heart.

According to the coroner's report, Billy Ray's parents noticed that he was having trouble ,breathing and that he was turning blue. But they considered him fussy and thought he was getting better after they prayed for him, the coroner said.

[/u]Remainder of article deleted by the Moderator.[/u]
Moderator's Notes: This is an AP wire report and as such it is copyrighted information. From the bottom of the page linked above:

The information contained in this AP Online news report may not be republished or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.

The copyrighted article previously pasted below has been deleted by UncleBeer. My suggestion to you, is that, in the future, you make your own summary of articles such as this. C&P'ing small portions to illustrate your own points is acceptable under Fair Use laws; republishing through the means you used is not.

As you might suspect, The Chicago Reader is a staunch supporter of the Fair Use laws and copyright protections in general. Please do not do this again. Thank you, UncleBeer.

[Edited by UncleBeer on 08-09-2000 at 10:12 AM]

[Danalan]

It's sad, but I believe well within their religious rights. We allow all kinds of stupidity in the name of religion, why should this be different? If they believe that these kids go to a heavenly paradise when they die, who are we to disagree?

Well, yeah, but in a country where abortion is protested vigorously, isn't it a bit strange that people don't mind babies dying essentially of neglect?

I mean, if a mother leaves her baby of the steps of a church, she's considered a criminal.

It's just the double standard that really bothers me.

[psycat90]

I agree with Danalan, it is sad and distrubing yes. But it is within their rights. And I don't quite see the double standard here. I don't think these parents are intentionally neglecting their children. They simply have a different set of beliefs. They lost a loved one. The thought of now condemning them murderers sounds as off as the OP.

[Danalan]

Religion is not logical. It's designed to satisfy emotional (spiritual) longings, not to make sense. I'm sure that the people most scandalized by the death of these children are the same people who are most unreasonably against abortion. The members of this (wacky) church would be against abortion because it's a medical procedure, and not from the King James bible, rather than claiming a fetus is a child.

[okatym]

Originally posted by blessedwolf
Well, yeah, but in a country where abortion is protested vigorously, isn't it a bit strange that people don't mind babies dying essentially of neglect?

I mean, if a mother leaves her baby of the steps of a church, she's considered a criminal.

It's just the double standard that really bothers me.

Yea, right. People don't mind babies dying of neglect. It's no big deal.

To suggest that abortion is the sensible alternative to babies dying of neglect is ridiculous. (One could argue that this is a double standard) One does not justify or contradict the need for the other. Nobody I know, pro-life or pro-choice, would hear this story and "NOT MIND".

Many pro-life people are trying to make the "baby on the steps" thing legal. Your suggestion that this is a double standard by pro-lifers is uninformed.

-Katy

Originally posted by psycat90
They simply have a different set of beliefs. [/b]

But then, if my religion included such things as animal sacrifice or self-mutilation, would that be protected under the Constitution in the same way that substituting prayer for medical treatment is protected?

Okay, re-reading my earlier posts, I've decided that my abortion parallel was pretty far off.

Can I take it back?

[Saint Zero]

I call this type of behavior "Murder". There is also that commandment that tell us not to kill/murder.

[okatym]

Originally posted by blessedwolf
Okay, re-reading my earlier posts, I've decided that my abortion parallel was pretty far off.

Can I take it back?

Of Course you can take it back. I wasn't up to another abortion discussion anyway, and I was starting to worry.
Thanks!
:::kiss kiss::::

-Katy

[Baglady]

blessedwolf asked: if my religion included such things as animal sacrifice or self-mutilation, would that be protected under the Constitution in the same way that substituting prayer for medical treatment is protected?

Yes blessedwolf, and it is. Animal sacrifice are performed by the believers of Santeria (Cuban in origin) and Voodoo (Haiti). I believe both have been vigorously fought for by the ACLU.

There are also many records of religious self-mutilation in our country. Everything from the Sun Dance (Native American), self-flaggelation (mostly in the Philippines but not unseen in the US).

[Shadowfox]

[i]Originally posted by okatym
Many pro-life people are trying to make the "baby on the steps" thing legal. Your suggestion that this is a double standard by pro-lifers is uninformed.

-Katy

They just recently passed a law here in Michigan where if you leave your newborn baby at a hospital or clinic, they will not prosecute you for child abandonment.

http://www.michiganlegislature.org/i...dll/BillSearch

(I hope this link works)

[Shadowfox]

Oops. If you click that link above, it takes you to a search engine. Type in bill #5543 to get the info on this particular law.

[BlindFaithe]

Such a hornets nest we stir up when we try to define what is right, wrong, legal, ethical ... moral. We can never come up with a universal set of codes, rules or laws because there are too many of us with varied beliefs and ways of thinking.

I see no set of laws in place in either religion or governmental law which states we HAVE to avail ourselves of every medical procedure, treatment or drug. Did this family hurt you? Do you feel threatened by their actions? Do you feel your children are in danger by what they've done? No? Then you have no right to say what they can or cannot do. Sorry, but I feel very strongly about this. Parents are the guardians of their children but it is the parents alone who decide for their children. The line between when it is this and when it crossed into abuse is so unclear it is dangerous to throw an all encompassing blanket of laws over it. Each event needs to be taken seperatly and decided on it's own merits.

I don't like it when people claim this or that based on religious rights and freedom, I've no belief in god or an after-life and using a religion to do ones thinking is a cop-out to avoid consequences for actions. 'The bible says this and that and so I have no choice.' Bull. We can even choose what religion we practice so as to be sure to get one taylor suited to our wants and desires. These parents made choices for whatever reason and a chlld died. If there is a god, they will be judged accordingly; if not, they're fellow Terrins doing the best they can. Even if they are hiding from life behind the door of religion.

Governmental laws are to protect the whole .. are we, as a whole, endangered? No. These people are not going to come after your kids. We all make choices that may result in the death of our child: letting them take their bike out and they get hit by a car, allowing them to go on a field trip and the bus crashes, sending them to grandmas for a summer visit and the plane crashes. Death happens. It's tragic. Since I don't believe in god I find what the parents did to be weak-minded and stupid, but I'm not willing to push this over into a criminal case because they, like me, should be allowed to choose.

I will one day face a choice as difficult as this one and would like to know it is still mine to make.

[Satan]

To answer what someone above said, *NO*, this is *NOT* legal.

It is neglect and unless someone goes to the Supreme Court and says that pressing charges is unconstitutional as a threat to freedom of religious expression, the jurisdiction is well within its rights (opinion: and within it's DUTY) to prosecute them just as they would someone who hit a child too hard and inadvertantly killed said child.

I believe that precedent shows that this would not happen, and if the jurisdiction chooses to not press charges, they are not doing their job.

[psycat90]

I agree this needs to be in GD.

And perhaps I am mistaken but I believe in most states the jurisdiction is such that it is legal. The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment gives you the right to worship or not as you choose. The government can't penalize you because of your religious beliefs.

[Danalan]

By the way blessedwolf, I'm extremely bothered by this too. I'm not trying to defend the actions of this cult. I would hope that Child Protective Services could take these children away from their obviously looney parents, so the child could get proper medical treatment. It qualifies as neglect in my eyes.

I guess that tolerance of the religious beliefs of others cuts all ways. . .

[Chronos]

When a newborn baby is turning blue and gasping for breath, to not take that baby to the hospital and let it die, for whatever reason, is neglegent homicide, plain and simple. Freedom of religion never justifies homicide. No, the victim wasn't myself, or a family member. Then again, neither was a family member a victim of any other murder, and those still need to be prosecuted.

[psycat90]

I need to clarify as well that I in no way condone this behaviour. Personally, in my eyes, it is murder. But, as far as I can tell, the laws on the books say otherwise.

[Demo]

Originally posted by psycat90
I agree this needs to be in GD.

And perhaps I am mistaken but I believe in most states the jurisdiction is such that it is legal. The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment gives you the right to worship or not as you choose. The government can't penalize you because of your religious beliefs.

Sorry, but the freedom to worship as you like doesn't mean that you have the freedom to compromise another human's basic right to life.

This is, without a doubt, murder.

[OxyMoron]

As I understand it, the freedom of religion does not extend to medical decisions made for a minor. Parents just aren't entitled to neglect their children, no matter what the voices in their heads say. Often in these circumstances the state appoints a legal guardian to make sure that the child receives proper medical treatment. It's just horribly inefficient, since it only protects the children known to be sick.

[Asmodeus]

Freedom of religion does not even extend to what you can do to yourselves. Here in the south we have an obscure sect of the pentacostals who handle snakes...drink poison and other fun things. It is not legal in all southern states.

I for one believe that letting someone die with seeking all help available is murder.

[Profane]

I think it is murder. If an adult doesn't want to get medical help, fine, but the children have no say in the matter. Do you think they're ready to die? By the same argument if you were in a car crash obviously God meant for you to die. Wearing a seatbelt would be interfering with his will, right?
Isn't it in the bible that "God helps those who help themselves." How do these people know that modern medecine isn't part of His plan?

[Moirai]

As a new mom, reading something like this tears my heart out. It never used to affect me the way it does now.

Sorry, but those people allowed that baby to die, and it was wrong. Children have additional protections under the law due to their minority and relative inability to make certain decision for themselves. I hope they are prosecuted.

I would go to ANY LENGTH to protect the life of my son. I would probably even kill someone if he was in immediate danger. I could never sit back & hope that somehow he got better, and turned a more life-like shade than blue.

To me, these people are almost at the level of a thing I heard years ago about a woman and her mother, who couldn't get the woman's baby to stop crying. They decided it must be possessed, like the girl in "The Exorcist", so they set it on fire to drive the devil out.

I know, stupidity vs. religious freedom. But either way, a tragic end for people who had no way to speak for themselves.

PS- I am still pro-choice. But once someone is born, it's a whole other ballgame.

Geez! walk away from your desk for 16 hours, come back to a hornet's nest!

I ended up spending a lot of time thinking about this one last night. Decided that it has definitely turned into a GD question.
That's not how it was meant! Honest!

Cults are considered illegal because they manipulate and hurt people (Of course, I think that organised religion in general does that too, but that's a whole 'nother thread, ain't it?). For some reason, they are not protected under the constitution.
Why do we allow those who insist that Jesus is the only doctor they'll trust to cower under the umbrella of Freedom of Religion in this way?
Is it the whole Jesus thing? "He's a god we know, so it's OK"

Anyway, my big question I guess, is at which point should a constitutional right be superceded by a moral right?

But I suppose that if you start talking about moral right and wrong, you end up getting swept into a discussion on the nature of ethics.

But Dammit, murdering a child is wrong! Doesn't matter WHAT your ethical standards are, and it doesn't have to be in the Constitution for us to know it!

[Typo Negative]

Cults are illegal????? I don't think so.

Hey, I think these people are assholes, but they are not murderers. They did not intend their action, or lack of it, to cause harm. There are several religions that shun medical practices in favor 'faith healing'. The prayers that they feverishly offered up to God were supposed to bring about a divine cure.

Some of these odd-ball religions (I don't think it's right to brand them as cults) believe that submitting to medical practices would put their souls at risk, as some sort of insult to the Almighty.

To me, it's nonsense. But maybe they are true believers.

[TwistofFate]

I dont believe they are murderers, for they did not intend to kill the child, but they should still be held responsible for involuntary manslaughter. They neglected a sick child.

[Sn-man]

I could not let my child die without trying everything within my power to do. This includes medical treatment and prayer. I take issue with the attitude that medical treatment is required. I watched my grandfather rot in a bed in a coma for 5 weeks. He wasn’t there, he had not been since coming out of heart surgery. The hospital would not let him die because my grandmother did not have the proper paper work.
The real question is who has the right to deny medical treatment. Is only people of legal age 21 and up? Is it only for ourselves?

[UncleBeer]

I agree with the opinions expressed above, this is off to Great Debates.

Blessedwolf, you may want to re-post a summary of the article in your own words since I had to delete the majority of it.

[Medea's Child]

Hi. I'm one of those sick cultists. Been one since I was born. By choice, ever since I could think through the logic of my religion.

They were not neglecting their child. There is a profound difference between abuse and prayer. Abuse and neglect are symptoms of apathy or direct hate of a child and I doubt those parents felt either toward that child. I know my parents don't hate me. They love me, just as all of you who are parents love your children and do everything in your power to take care of them. There ideas of what power is are different. Not neglectful, just different.

It is a tough decision for parents from these religions, every time. At least in my religion. Do you give in to a violent, disturbing method of medicine that is accepted, or do you heal as you have found is right, risking censure? It is a tough decision as a practitioner of a healing religion. How do you explain to your friends that you don't think drugs fix problems? They can accept it mentally when you are smiling and happy, it makes you odd, but they live. When you are sick and refusing medication the people who love you are hurt.

This last year in college I started taking drugs just to make my friends feel better. Talk about peer pressure. A pill for every ill is a new thing to me and horrifies me every time. My method of healing is not one of drugs and helplessness. I don't give myself up to a chemical reaction, I combat the idea of imperfection. Another debate for another time...

The point I am trying to make is that those parents were not neglectful, they were doing what they knew to be correct. You may know something entirely different is right. You don't and shouldn't have the right to dictate that.

The fire I'm going to draw for this is already scaring me...

[matt]

Medea's Child:

I respect your point of view, and I agree that the parents were doing what they considered best for their child. It is also far from clear that they were ignoring obvious danger signs - this sort of thing can happen to any parents who decided to wait a while before calling the doctor.

Thing is, this child needed surgery, not drugs. How does your personal philosophy consider surgery? I presume you would remove a splinter, set a broken bone, maybe stitch or bandage a cut?

[NiceGuyJack]

Religion claims another life…. So, what is new? The dead bodies keep piling up and ignorance bread new martyrs.
Christians don’t feel singled out, religious slaughter has been going on long before your religion saw the light of day.

[NiceGuyJack]

Sometimes spell checkers don't help.

bread should read breed

[Satan]

Originally posted by Medea's Child

They were not neglecting their child. There is a profound difference between abuse and prayer.

Is there a profound difference between neglect and neglect? Neglect is a form of abuse. And whether you got into a little prayer circle and prayed for the best or sat in the next room high on crack while your child died of a treatable condition, you have neglected your child, and this neglect allowed your child to die.

I know my parents don't hate me. They love me, just as all of you who are parents love your children and do everything in your power to take care of them. There ideas of what power is are different. Not neglectful, just different.

According to your logic, your parents would have shown how much they loved you after you were hit by a car by praying for you instead of applying a torniquet.

If that is love, I'm glad my parents version of it was different. And if this is what God wants, I am glad to have nothing to do with this God of yours.

But personal opinion aside, it is illegal to neglect your children, period. I could bring a million cites up if you wish to show this. The right to swing your fist ends at the tip of your childs nose.

It is a tough decision for parents from these religions, every time.

Then I suggest you not breed.

Do you give in to a violent, disturbing method of medicine that is accepted, or do you heal as you have found is right, risking censure?

I would like English here what is "violent" and what is "roght," please.

It is a tough decision as a practitioner of a healing religion.

Newsflash: There is no such thing as a "healing religion," in terms of physical health.

How do you explain to your friends that you don't think drugs fix problems?

I had a headache. I tool an Advil. It went away quicker than if I had not taken it.

That drug fixed my problem.

This last year in college I started taking drugs just to make my friends feel better.

And this has to do with the endangerment of a child... How?

My method of healing is not one of drugs and helplessness.

As far as I am concerned, you can not treat yourself if you wish. You're an adult. You want to kill yourself, potentially? You want to risk dying? Fine!

Just don't do this to a kid who doesn't know any better, thank you.

The point I am trying to make is that those parents were not neglectful, they were doing what they knew to be correct.

What they "know is correct" is not. Ignorance is not an excuse. If a child is sick, it needs a doctor. Period. And if a sick child dies of something a doctor could have prevented but the child was willingly not brought to the doctor, this is neglect causing the death of the child. Period.

You may know something entirely different is right. You don't and shouldn't have the right to dictate that.

We do have the right to tell people they need to be responsible for their children. Endangering them is not showing responsibility, and neglecting them is illegal.

The fire I'm going to draw for this is already scaring me...

Maybe because you're wrong?
__________________
Yer pal,
Satan

_{I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Four months, 14 hours, 32 minutes and 1 second.
4904 cigarettes not smoked, saving $613.03.
Life saved: 2 weeks, 3 days, 40 minutes.}

"Satan is not an unattractive person."-Drain Bead
_{Thanks for the ringing endorsement, honey![/i]}

[pldennison]

As I understand it, the freedom of religion does not extend to medical decisions made for a minor. Parents just aren't entitled to neglect their children, no matter what the voices in their heads say.

Is there a profound difference between neglect and neglect? Neglect is a form of abuse. And whether you got into a little prayer circle and prayed for the best or sat in the next room high on crack while your child died of a treatable condition, you have neglected your child, and this neglect allowed your child to die.

Unfortunately, in many states (including Ohio and Virginia), the law specifically states that not seeking medical attention for a child is not neglect or abuse, as long as the parents are attempting to heal the child through prayer "in accordance with the tenets of a recognized religious body. (Ohio Revised Code 2919.22, Virginia Code 18.2-371.1)"

It goes without saying that I think such laws are a mistake, for several reasons.

[Medea's Child]

matt, thanks for the respect. Its a refreshing thing. In my religion medicine is not outlawed, it doesn't "endanger you soul" or any such thing, just most people don't find it as useful as healing. Personally, I consider surgery as a violent invasion of the body. I got to go through that earlier this year. ("You mean to tell me that cutting someone up is the 'good' method? Leave me to my quackery, please!") The idea of some guy in a white coat straping me down, knocking me out and cutting holes in me is so different than what I accept as healing, as heath. It sounds to me like assault and battery. Healing, as I enjoy it, is a pleasurable experiance. It is the overwelming wholeness, a resurgence of Love and Life, none of this cutting and bleeding bit.

Satan, I am saying that I was never neglected as a child. There is a difference between healing prayer and being high on crack. One is focused care for the child and one is utter lack of care.

It is, and should be, illegal to abuse children, to hate them, to injure them, to be apathetic toward them. It is not(at least where I live), and should not be, illegal to include them in a caring religion. Amount of allowable medical atention is a personal choice in my religion. As a child, my tolerance was actually lower than my parents. The biggest fight I ever had with my mother was when my little sister broke her arm and was taken to the hospital. My father would heal his own arm, but not his daughter's? I was livid, the hypocrasy I saw in that action horrified me.

Oh, I will breed. It will be lovely. No immunizations! No check ups! No constant lectures about germs! I'm sure you are scred now. Its a relaxing childhood. Innocent, pure, no fear mongering, full of love. I hope that I can be as wonderful of a parent as mine are.

Medicine as violence. Hurried doctors who tripple schedule appointments and don't care about you, your happiness, or your life. High tech procedures that inject radiation as a way to help diagnoses. Removal of body parts. People feel as though all of this cannot be helped, cannot be avoided. Yet I have avoided it.

I have been actually cared for by my health care. When I can't solve a problem on my own, mental, physical, emotional, I call someone who has known me my whole life, who will talk with me no matter what time of day it is. Plus I get to turn to God! Healing is a perfect moment, where ugliness is stripped away and only purity, love and wellness are left.

Knowing this, feeling this elegant rightness that enforces Life and health is the "right" I spoke of. The choice is not only availible, it is clear, at least for my family. The fact that it draws active hatred by people who do not see it is about the only downfall. Its like being gay, only less accepted.

"Newsflash: There is no such thing as a "healing religion," in terms of physical health."

In my experiance, I beg to differ. I have had physical problems and healed them. If you want a recount, I can give examples. I have found that people simply don't trust my word because the healing didn't come on a medical chart. Or came to fast for explination. Physical healing is not some long drawn out process, full of pain and recordable moments, it is just a bit of catch time releasing the world to its proper flow. I cannot prove to you what you refuse to believe. Just as you cannot take away from me what I know.

"What they "know is correct" is not. Ignorance is not an excuse. If a child is sick, it needs a doctor. Period. And if a sick child dies of something a doctor could have prevented but the child was willingly not brought to the doctor, this is neglect causing the death of the child. Period."

Its not ignorance. My mother was a nurse before she joined my religion. She found something better. I'm in school for Chemical Engineering. Not just backwoods hicks join these cults.

Children do not need doctors. What if the doctor screws up and kills the child? Was the parent still neglectful, or did they simply do what they thought was best and it failed?

Or we could continue to suppose these people were members of my actual religion, which doesn't believe in death. No death, no dying, no hell.

"Maybe because you're wrong?"

Not at all. I just don't like fighting. I like knowing other people's opinions and expressing mine, but true argument is against my nature. In general I'd rather smile and drop a wild conflict than lose friends. I like the people here and I don't want to fight with them. On the other hand, I follow my religion, and would like to share the thoughts that were probably going through those parent's minds. Any way I can gain more tolerance for religious freedom I will. Its not asking much, just that I be allowed to practise my beliefs. Even if I'm ten.

[Monster104]

Medea's Child, I understand and respect your view, but you made you choice of how you live willingly and fully informed. However, and infant has no capability to do this, and the parents must do what's in the best interests of the child's health, not in the best interests of their religion.

The idea of some guy in a white coat straping me down, knocking me out and cutting holes in me is so different than what I accept as healing, as heath. It sounds to me like assault and battery.

So, if you had appendicitis (sp?), which can easily kill you if it bursts, would you 'assault' your body to remove the appendix, or would you just hope your healing practices work? It's your choice, you're old enough to make your own decisions, an infant is not.

It is not(at least where I live), and should not be, illegal to include them in a caring religion.

A religion who's practices result in the death of an infant does not sound very caring to me.

Children do not need doctors. What if the doctor screws up and kills the child? Was the parent still neglectful, or did they simply do what they thought was best and it failed?

They don't need doctors?? That's news to me. A doctor screwing up is the doctor's fault; not the parent's fault, not the medical profession's fault.

When I was around 6 years old, I had cut my head open rather severely by running into the corner of a wall. My parents took me to the doctor and I got 27 stitches. If my parents hadn't taken me to the doctor and had instead prayed for me, I would have bled to death right there on the kitchen floor.

When my friend was 8, he got pneumonia, a very serious case. His parents kept him home because they didn't know how serious it was. That is, until one day they went to check on him, and his skin was cold and slightly blue, he had a low pulse, and was barely breathing. He was rushed to the emergency room and was in there for a week. He would have died if his parents kept hoping he would get better without taking him to the hospital.

So what was that again about children not needing doctors?

A child in with a life-threatening condition should and must be taken to a doctor to get the best possible care that they can in the hands of a professional, not some religious witch doctor mixing potions and chanting weird songs (note: Extreme sarcasm, take it with a fistful of salt). If a child dies at the hospital, at least the parents did the right thing and tried to help their child. If they just pray and the child dies, that is neglect. It is not providing the full possible care that they can for a child.

[pldennison]

No immunizations! No check ups! No constant lectures about germs! I'm sure you are scred now. Its a relaxing childhood. Innocent, pure, no fear mongering, full of love.

Please explain by what moral right you could possible allow your child to carry communicable, deadly diseases and pass them on to other children? If you don't care if your kids die from polio or measles or mumps, bully for you, but how dare you allow other people's children to be exposed because of your irresponsibility? Maybe you ought to think about that. Your kids won't live on an island, and you have no right to get other people's kids sick.

Last year (almost EXACTLY a year ago, actually), when I broke my leg, I'm glad there was an orthopedic surgeon (Dr. Duret Smith, an expert in the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome, as it happens) who fixed it for me, rather than someone who said some gibberish over me and left me crippled for life. If you believe in a higher power, you have to believe he endowed members of the medical profession with their skills for a reason.

[Gaudere]

There's no reason why the parents can't pray AND take their child to a doctor. If God gave us the ability and intelligence to investigate the workings of our bodies and determine what works and what doesn't (Works: if your child is bleeding heavily, get a doctor to stitch it up. Doesn't work: hope really hard that your kid doesn't die), I fail to see why it is disrespectful of us to use this knowledge. If you can show scientific, not anecdotal, evidedence that serious illnesses and injuries like broken limbs, gunshot wounds, appendixitis, pneumonia, diabetes, chicken pox, heart attacks, etc. have higher rates of recovery and less complications when prayer alone is used, rather than medical attention, I am willing to listen. But so far it seems as if the weight of the evidence reinforces that medical treatment is a vastly more effective cure than prayer alone. You can make that choice for yourself, but while I'd allow a grownup to handle poisonous wild snakes without any safeguards if they feel they must, I wouldn't let them hand one to their three-year-old. I respect religion, but not when it makes people deny the evidence in front of their faces--evidence of the merit of medicine and the deadliness of poisonous snakes, for instance.

[Medea's Child]

Monster,
The idea is not to help the religion, its to help the child. My religion believes that such help comes from God. I don't pray because it will up some goal board for my religion, I pray because it puts me in line with God. God created me to be perfect, and has no problem maintaining me in perfection.

Are you Christian, Monster? Can you honestly say that you know that God could do nothing to heal your bleeding head? Then you are probably right, and the decision was correct. I know differently. When I get severly cut, I know God knows I am whole. And thus, I am. The Creator isn't one that I will disagree with.

I am old enough now, but what of when I was an infant? I was born funny colored and the hospital wanted to keep me there, and wanted me on drugs for years. Some blood problem. I am fine, and have been. I am glad I have been raised as I was. No shots, no doctors. I make that choice now, would you take it away from me as a child?

The "would have died if not for medicine" have as much affect on me as my "I have been healed of" stories do on you. I don't wear shoes a lot. My feet have been torn up by every thing imaginable, big rusty nails, scissors, pins, toothpicks, glass, etc. Not a mark on them, my big feet, not even from the nail that went through one, or the bottle that sliced off my toe. Most were healed in a matter of minutes, clean. This proves to me that healing is much more loving and good than medicine.

This proves nothing to you, I bet.

My religion is the best possible care I choose for myself. Why would I demand any less for anyone I love? How could I? How could I justify it any more than leeching them, or the witch doctor's potions?

I do not demand that your children, your siblings are brought to my religion for healing, even though I know it works better than what you use. Why do you wish to take that from me? Because you know that I am wrong? Are you that confident in your own unfailing discrimination that you know you never make mistakes? That the way you live your life is the only way that is good?

Is it just a fluke that I have survived my awful, brainwashing childhood? No antibiotics, no cough syrup, no stitches, no doctors, its a wonder I can stand and walk! Is it wrong for me to revel in my free childhood, where I learned that love could heal anything? That God was loving and protective, closer than the breath I breathed? That everyone could truly follow Christ and heal not unnaturally, but supernaturally?

How is that neglect? Man lives by more than bread alone, and the more part I always had in spades.

[tracer]

blessedwolf quoted the AP article as saying:

Without ever seeing a doctor, the 2-day-old boy died July 9 of complications from a hole in his heart.

A hole in ones heart would have been impossible to repair without 20th-century surgery. A hundred years ago, this baby would have died, period, whether he was surrounded by friends and family praying over him or the finest doctors in the world or both.

It's nice that we now have surgeons capable of saving this infant's life, but should we really force a family to use expensive newfangled surgery technology just because it exists?

[andros]

Oh, I will breed. It will be lovely. No immunizations! No check ups! No constant lectures about germs!

Phil beat me to it. I can only "me too," and I can't do it enough. Your refusal to immunize alone is risking not only your child's health but the health of my child. And that's just wrong.

Now, you can say all you want that your child will not contract some communicable and life-threatening disease, Praise God, and I won't have to worry about it. Wrong. The folks in the OP thought their kid wouldn't die.

I'm sure you are scred now.

Yup. And very sad.

[NiceGuyJack]

I thought maybe I'd just ad a little bit of fact here.

Only a hundred years ago people in the West had huge families.
More than ten kids were not unheard of. Why? Because, people expected some of their kids to die. After medical scientific advances the risk of your kids dying was reduced and so did the size of the average family.

I know what this tells me. I’m sure you’ll make your own conclusion.

[ricksummon]

People who refuse medical treatment for their children on the basis that God will save them are no different than the witch hunters of old who lit people on fire with full confidence that if they were innocent, God wouldn't let them burn. God is not a magician who grants wishes. He expects mortals to take responsibility for their own lives, and by extension, the lives of their children, because children can't do it for themselves.

When Jesus was tempted by the devil, the devil told him that if he was really the Son of God, he should turn stones into bread. Jesus refused. The devil then said that if Jesus was really the Son of God, he could throw himself off the temple and God would save him. You know what Jesus said to that? "You shall not put the Lord thy God to the test." Faith healers, that means YOU. If you really believe in faith healing, then why don't you believe in divine justice, too? By that logic, we should just hook everyone accused of murder up to the electric chair because God wouldn't let them die if they were innocent. And do I really need to bring up the old joke about the two boats and a helicopter?

[Drain Bead]

Can you honestly say that you know that God could do nothing to heal your bleeding head?

God can and does do something. God made it possible for men to gain knowledge, and to use that knowledge to help others. God created the child who would eventually grow to be the doctor. God gave him the strength and brains to get through medical school. God made certain that the doctor would know how to stitch up my head.

You, on the other hand, seem to think that God can do everything directly, when it's obvious He won't. I'm sure the parents of that little kid thought that God could do something to heal him, and they prayed their hearts out. And it didn't work. All they had to do was realize that God likes it when we help one another, and that's why doctors exist. Doctors help humanity, and anything that helps humanity is blessed by God. Invasive treatment or not, it's the difference between a dead child and a living one. But I guess God wanted that kid dead, huh? Or did the family not pray hard enough, or the right way? Because God didn't listen.

Or maybe He did, and the family of that child didn't listen to Him.

And as for the not vaccinating your kids line...well, I will be praying to your God and my God and any God who will listen that you are sterile. Not vaccinating your own children is one thing, but risking everyone else's due to your misguided ideas of what God will do for you is the most horrifyingly selfish thing I've ever heard of. And since parenting is the ultimate act of selflessness, I don't think you'd be very good at it.

[neutron star]

CNN has the full text of the article online and you don't even have to sign up for anything. Click here.


There was also a similar thread on this subject started by me a couple months ago, in which David B and Holly went 'round and 'round in circles with a logic-deficient dougie_monty. Read it at your own risk. You may be tempted to yank your hair out at the roots.

[Ptahlis]

Does nobody else see the irony here? Medea, after all, killed her own children.

After going head to head with the ridiculously stupid ideas espoused by dougie-monty in the other thread, I really have no wish to do so again in this one, except to say that I fervently hope that the full weight of the law falls upon not only the parents in this story, but any other parent who allows a child to die in this fashion.

[Tzel]

Originally posted by Drain Bead

And as for the not vaccinating your kids line...well, I will be praying to your God and my God and any God who will listen that you are sterile. Not vaccinating your own children is one thing, but risking everyone else's due to your misguided ideas of what God will do for you is the most horrifyingly selfish thing I've ever heard of. And since parenting is the ultimate act of selflessness, I don't think you'd be very good at it.

I agree with the rest of your post, but this part seems to betray a mentality of viewing children as some kind of property. "Not vaccinating your own children is one thing, but ..." Why should people get to tinker with another human's being very existence just because they have the right combination of organs that are in working order? Endangering the life of "your" child is just the same as endangering the life of someone else's child. The only difference is that parents will be quite pissed if their kids are endangered by someone else, but not quite so indignant at themselves for being foolish with their own kids. Children are individuals, and suffer the same no matter who inflicts said suffering upon them.