Since when was a sucking chest wound the normal state for a human being?
Marc
So we should have a medical oligarchy? The parents’ interests lie in keeping their children healthy. The health care industry’s interests lie in getting as much money as possible from parents. Seems to me that the parents’ interests should take precedence.
Yes they do. They have much more invested in their children than anyone else, and therefore can be better trusted to make the right decision.
Should we allow only poli sci majors to vote? Only lawyers to serve on juries? Just because someone has special training, that doesn’t mean we should ignore everyone else’s opinion.
All babies require food. Therefore, anyone who has a baby is, by having the baby, implicitly agreeing to provide the baby with food. Not all babies require blood transfusions. Therefore, people who have babies are not implicitly agreeing to provide blood transfusions. Not beating is different than providing health care for a completely different reason; not beating someone is something which everyone owes to everyone else, regardless of relationship. A parent has no more obligation to not beat a child than anyone else has an obligation to not beat that child.
Pthalis:
Sure I can. You want me to pay for your kid’s operation? Sorry, I’m not going to. I just denied your kid’s medical care.
Now don’t go switching your arguments. I was referring to your claim that medicine is undeniable. Now you’re trying to pretend that I objected to you saying that medicine’s benefits are undeniable. Yes, the medical community has done wonderful things. But that doesn’t mean it is always right. It is this belief, the belief that because it has been right before, the medical community will always be right, that I was calling conceited.
No, it’s life. And I believe that the basic principle underlying the scientific principle, that no person’s opinion should be declared sacred, is even more important in life than in any research project.
No it’s not. I don’t believe that anyone here believes that “superstition” should take precedence over “established” scientific probability. If “superstition” were to take primacy over “established” scientific probability, then that would mean that, even if a parent wants to take their child to the doctor, they have to take their child to a priest or an acupuncturist or something of that nature. Have you seen anyone proposing such a situation?
Really? I take it that you of the opinion that people’s religion is less important than the life of an innocent?
RTFirefly:
This is a joke, right? Pretty funny, RTFirefly. I’m surprised no one else got it. I’ll rephrase it to make the punch line a bit more obvious:
<<<Because since when does my freedom to do anything include my freedom to hurt another person? >>>
Easy. Since Roe v. Wade became case law throughout the country.
So I’ll make a deal with you if you’re willing… You support the outlawing of abortion on demand in the absence of a clear and present danger to the life of the mother, and I’ll support legislation which allows a court to order mainstream medical care for a child over the wishes of a parent.
Deal?
If there’s no deal, then do spare us your “save the children” bleeding, will ya?
Oh great, here we go again.
panzer, there are several dozen abortion threads in GD. Feel free to peruse them.
As has been covered hundreds of times within those extensive threads, few, if any, supporters of abortion rights feel that a child is being harmed. In fact, that is pretty much the whole issue under debate. (see here: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/carrier-roth/ for an example of the issues under discussion)
I would like to point out that since you support abortion when there is a danger to the mother, it seems that you are already placing a lesser value on the fetus. This implies you don’t feel the fetus is fully human either.
I take it that you of the opinion that people’s religion is less important than the life of an innocent?
What’s wrong with that? The Constitution protects free speech, yet nobody seems to have a problem with laws prohibiting libel and child pornography. Why? Because it has been concluded that “inalienable rights” do not give you the right to harm others.
All babies require food. Therefore, anyone who has a baby is, by having the baby, implicitly agreeing to provide the baby with food. Not all babies require blood transfusions. Therefore, people who have babies are not implicitly agreeing to provide blood transfusions.
Not all babies require blood transfusions, therefore it it okay to deny blood transfusions to those that do need them? Bullshit. People who become parents implicitly agree to provide their children with whatever care they need, which may or may not involve a blood transfusion.
Yes, the medical community has done wonderful things. But that doesn’t mean it is always right. It is this belief, the belief that because it has been right before, the medical community will always be right, that I was calling conceited.
I don’t think anyone here meant to imply that the medical community is right all the time. However, the evidence shows that it is right enough that the consequences of not recieveng medical treatment for a serious condition greatly outweigh the risk of error.
<<<Because since when does my freedom to do anything include my freedom to hurt another person? >>>
Easy. Since Roe v. Wade became case law throughout the country.
Oh, give me a break. :rolleyes: Could we please leave the whole “fetus=human being” debate to the threads which were started for that purpose?
That is false. In the instances we are discussing, the parents have demonstrated that their primary interest is in adhering to the principles of their faith. If their primary interest were their children’s health, they would be willing to do whatever was necessary to ensure it. They are not.
Again false. The best that can be said for parental judgment, and even then not all parental judgment, is that it probably has it’s heart in the right place. That certainly is no guarantee that the decision will be any more “right”. Mentally challenged people can and do give birth. It is sure that they love their children and want the best for them at least as much as any other parent. Would you trust them to always make the “right” decisions for them? People make stupid, destructive, wrong decisions for their kids every day. If they didn’t, psychologists would starve.
An innocent PERSON, absodamnlutely.
So you would take an innocent person over the choice of the parents?
Hell yes! Parental authority does not include the right to harm one’s child, or, through inaction, allow one’s child to come to harm. The fact that the parents in this case are doing it for religious reasons does not change anything.
**
By that astounding application of logic I can deny you the opportunity to own the Taj Mahal because I won’t buy it for you. Let me restate what I said so that it is less able to be twisted into something ridiculously tangent to the argument: You have no temporal authority, beyond the boundaries of law set in this country, to prevent somone else’s child from receiving needed medical care merely because of a personal philosophical decision. (I threw “beyond the boundaries of law set in this country” in there to forestall obvious potential tangents like, “Well what if I adopt someone? What if I become a judge?” and the like.)
**
So you took this statement:
- to mean that the medical community will always be right, even though I just said that it was never guaranteed? So you read that and thought “Ptahlis is saying that the medical community will always be correct in every decision?” Does your style of debate consist mainly of searching for semantic loopholes and deliberate misreading?
** There are no sacred opinions in the matter. Hence the oft-used admonition to “get a second opinion” when doctors are involved. There are, however, informed opinions based on evidence which, when followed, produce positive, verifiable results in a statistically overwhelming number of cases. On the other hand, you have an opinion that offers up scant “evidence” in the form of allegedly holy dictums and theological musings, the results of which (with regards to the effects on someone’s soul and/or the displeasure of some deity) are inherently untestable. You may devoutly believe that mentally repeating a magic word will fix a punctured lung, and I have no problem if you want to stay home and drown in your own blood for your belief. I do have a problem with it if you decide that any third party has to stay home while you repeat your word, regardless of whose child it is.
**
No, not until you brought it up. :rolleyes: Okay, please frame the statement you quoted in the context of this thread, wherein we are debating whether a parent’s religious belief should be sufficient reason to deny their child needed medical care in situations where death or permanent disability are the likely result, as determined by qualified medical personnel. Also, please note that “allow” does not mean “mandate,” nor vice versa. When our laws permit a parent to decide that needed medical care will not be applied to their child because of a religious belief, then the law is allowing superstition primacy over established scientific probability.
**
**
In a word, yes. Oh I support your right to decide otherwise for yourself. But not for any third party, child or otherwise.
**
**
[/quote]
RTF said that slippery slope arguments are ridiculous because they take things to extremes. In his example he applied slippery slope arguments to real world issues. Your paraphrase is not even close, since you apply an argument to itself.
Slippery slope arguments are particularly unconvincing because they posit that once a situation moves in a particular direction that it must be in danger of moving to the logical extreme. These extremes are generally so ridiculous to contemplate that they show the slippery slope argument to be without merit. As to RTF’s statement ascribing moral cowardice to purveyors of the slippery slope, he nailed it dead on. If the only thing someone has to offer to a debate is the scare tactic of the slippery slope then they are at the least trying to sway people with fear rather than reason.
With regard to this particular debate, I see no slope. If the law stated plainly that “Religious conviction is not sufficient reason to disallow medical care for any third party when such care is deemed necessary to save life or prevent permanent disability or disfigurement,” there is no reason that this must somehow lead to the demise of religion or religious freedom. If you believe this, then you should also believe that libel laws mean that we have no freedom of speech. Hell, according to this logic we’re already doomed, since polygamy, virgin sacrifice, and forcible conversions are already outlawed.
“I refer you to Dr. Gro Brundtland. I recognize that his having been the head of a socialist Scandinavian country…”
IIRC, the good doctor is female.
There’s a big difference from prohibiting someone from doing something that harms another, and requiring someone to do something that helps another.
That’s not quite what I said. What I said was that this is a non-arbitrary distinction between blood transfusions and food.
So what if the child needs a heart transplant, and the parent is the only one with a compatible heart? Is the parent required to die to save the child?
In any randomly selected case, it is better to apply medical treatment than to not do so. However, the cases we are talking about are not randomly selected.
Stoidela
No, they just have a different idea than you do of what will be ensure their child’s health.
No, of course it’s not a “guarantee”. I never said it was. All I said is that it does makes their judgement special.
I would certainly prefer them to make the decisions than having someone of equivalent mental capacity but without any ties to the child make the decisions. Are you trying to imply that people who have religious beliefs that differ from yours are mentally deficient?
Yes, I know. And I would rather that those people be the parents rather than some bureaucrat.
Ptahlis
Why should a judge be able to prohibit (as you seem to mean when you say “deny”) medical care, but a parent not be able to?
Right, sorry. It’s not that it’s always right. It’s that even when it’s wrong, we’re not allowed to question it. My mistake.
It’s not my fault that you have made ambiguous statements.
Clearly, you do not understand the word “primacy”.
What’s wrong with that?
But that’s not what we’re discussing. I would not have any problem with that, any more than I would have a problem with “Religious conviction is not sufficient reason to disallow the government to break into your house without a warrent and take whatever they want”. I am not objecting to doctors telling parents what to do on relgious grounds; I am objecting to it on parents’ rights grounds.
Stoidela:
Ptahlis
In that case, suppose that there is a religion that says that everyone must do everything they can to save the starving children in Africa. Are you going to donate all your disposable income to this cause, or do you consider your religious freedom to be more important than innocent lives?
No, they just have a different idea than you do of what will be ensure their child’s health.
The problem is that their idea of what their idea of what will ensure their child’s health has been repeatedly shown to be wrong. There is absolutely no evidence of prayer producing any benefits that could not be attributed to the placebo effect. Also, Stoidela’s statement is true for Jehovah’s Witnesses, who, IIRC, simply believe that blood transfusions are evil and that it is better to die than violate their idea of God’s law.
Are you trying to imply that people who have religious beliefs that differ from yours are mentally deficient?
Anyone who practices a religion that directs its members to harm themselves or others or ignore parental obligations is fucked up, whether it involves virgin sacrifice or denying much-needed medical care.
Close, but not quite. I would modestly propose that all babies are food. Therefore, anyone who has a baby is, by having the baby, implicitly agreeing to provide that baby as food. Not all babies require blood transfusions to be food. Therefore, people who have babies are not implicitly agreeing to provide blood transfusions when they provide babies as food.
Of course the corollary of this is that if you want your baby to eat food rather than be food, you had best permit necessary transfusions.
Sorry I’m late, but I was looking for the that cited the 2-7000 to one chance of hepatitis c transmisstd by blood. The site seems not tto be there anymore. However, I did find this.
Wow! That’s terrific! Thanks for correcting me. My gender bias is embarassing, for in all these years I just assumed Brundtland was male. I shake my head in shame. Thanks again for setting me straight.
RoboDude, Jehovah’s Witnesses are not into prayer healing. And they do not advocate that nothing is done. They want all that can be done but blood transfusions. The hospital’s turning blood transfusions into a crutch (to the tune of over 2,000,000 done a year in the US, many of which are not done for emergencies and some not needed) is what is pushing the blood transfusion movement.
RoboDude, Jehovah’s Witnesses are not into prayer healing.
I never said they were.
And they do not advocate that nothing is done. They want all that can be done but blood transfusions.
I am aware of that, but when the doctor says “your kid needs a blood transfusion or he/she will almost certainly die”, “all that can be done but blood transfusions” isn’t really much better than nothing.
I am also aware that they are pushing for an artaficial blood substitute, but the fact remains that none exists at this time.
They may not want their doctrine to cause innocent people to die, but it is, and it will continue to do so until either they change their views (as they already did with regard to organ transplants) or some genius invents a suitable method of packaging hemoglobin.
Not so big a difference, and not applicable to the discussion. Your tax dollars are required, and they help lots of people. Parents are required by law to provide the necessities of life to children, which would include the cost of a needed transfusion. Doctors and EMTs are already required by law to render necessary emergency care, so there’s no new requirement there either.
**
Nope. In that case it is the life of one person against the life of another, not a religious conviction weighed against a life.
**
Since we are not debating the merits of any particular case, but the general principle of what policy should be, your objection does not apply. Are there cases where treatment goes awry? Yes. Are there cases where treatment is innefectual? Yes. These have been stipulated by all without objection.
**
Yeah, an idea that produces dead children.
**
LOL! Yeah, there are a lot of functionally retarded med school graduates. And Stoidela never said anything about nor implied that people having different religious beliefs from hers were mentally deficient, although I suspect you knew you were putting words in her mouth.
**
Gee, and here I thought we were talking about doctors making medical decisions.
**
They shouldn’t, nor did I say they should. But I see that even when an item is explicitly identified as a tangent you just can’t help yourself.
**
Where do you get this idea? Where is the law written that The Ryan is not allowed to question medical treatment? You simply shouldn’t be able to prevent emergency care without a valid reason. No, “God doesn’t like it,” is not a valid reason, nor can questions be posed to run the clock out while a kid bleeds to death.
You mean “the state of being first (as in importance, order, or rank)”? What definition are you using?
Apples and oranges. Not a valid comparison. Ridiculous hypothetical situations are not equivalent to a binary true/false dichotomy.
Yes, but you seem to be under the impression that the parents’ rights include the right to deny care based on religious conviction. So exactly what line would you draw? Do you believe that parents have absolute ownership of their kids? If religious conviction is to be one protected reason for allowing a child to die, what others are? Economic gain? Personal pleasure? Philosophy? Prophecy?
In the context of this debate, we are discussing people to whom we have an acknowledged obligation to, namely one’s children. That obligation includes providing for their welfare. In your hypothetical situation there is no such relationship. Silly questions like “What if my religion required you to volunteer for evisceration so others can live?” or “What is my religion asks you to slaughter puppies to feed the starving children in Bangladesh?” may be interesting tests if I was proposing this standard as an absolute value to be applied in every case, but I wasn’t. I was talking within the context of the current debate, not universally.