Mother Jones - Comments for "Should Parents Who Call God Instead of the Doctor Be Punished?"

It is a complete nonsense. I am shocked to read about things like that nowadays. We are living in the modern society and still there are some naive people that believe GOD will do everything for them? It is crazy. This kid was absolutely innocent, and we can say that her parents left her to die. We have to do something with the people like these. But it is hard to look after everyone.. People just have to realize that the God won't do everything for them and that's all.

God's Love found in the care of people

i believe in God...as exemplified by Our Lord Jesus Christ (who is God the Son)...and He did heal a countless people because God intends our life to be healthier and and our life span longer...but we are all merely human beings...also capable to be in need of healing...

and as much as Lord Jesus Christ said, "love one another"...then we must also depend upon one another...especially for everyone's welfare to be cared for...human beings have been blessed by God with an intelligent mind...found in the search to alleviate the health of the needy...and that includes welfare professions to uplift the health of those who are in need...

therefore, everyone must appeciate this God-given gift when intelligence is used to uplift the health of all Humanity...then God's Love is found in the care of people...this could possibly be a better fulfillment for the purpose of religion for a genuine faith...to protect the welfare of the needy...

but in this situation...there is also God's forgiveness...but then again, caring to protect the life of others (especially one's children) is also part of the government system...such as the law...

When we will evolve to the

When we will evolve to the place where there is no place for religion in society, is when the police, military, government or some other man-made institution rules over us like little automatons, and takes away our freedom of choice, and makes our every decision. What can you, as a simple human being do for me that the almighty already hasn't done for me, and more? He has given me, and will continue to give me, my life and ability to the enjoy my life with His liberty and freedom. Take your secular religious notion and practice your damning theology on someone body else, and see and experience what real elimination of secular religion feels like and really means!

this is such a tricky

this is such a tricky subject. The way i think if you a doctor can save you please go to the doctor. I am not sure if the courts should get involved.

Jehovah's Witness Children & Blood Transfusions

SUMMARIES OF 1400 JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES MEDICAL & OTHER COURT CASES The following website summarizes over 900 court cases and lawsuits affecting children of Jehovah's Witness Parents, including over 400 cases where the JW Parents refused to consent to life-saving blood transfusions for their dying children: DIVORCE, BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS, AND OTHER LEGAL ISSUES AFFECTING CHILDREN OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES http://jwdivorces.bravehost.com The following website summarizes over 500 Jehovah's Witnesses Employment related lawsuits, etc, including DOZENS of court cases in which JW Employees refused blood transfusions, and/or other cases involving Worker's Comp, medical, health, and disability issues: EMPLOYMENT ISSUES UNIQUE TO JEHOVAH'S WITNESS EMPLOYEES http://jwemployees.bravehost.com

My family is JW and they do

My family is JW and they do accept medical treatment. [except for blood transfusions, of course]

Parents offering their

Parents offering their childrens' lives to their gods? We used to call it human sacrifice, didn't we?

A blind lunatic proffers insanity, and is corrected

How can a person possibly become this DERANGED. " The greatest terrorist threat to democracy is religious fundamentalist...and now we must sadly add that they are also a deadly threat to there very own children. In an enlightened society, governments purpose is to do the most it can, for the good of the most people. Any state or nation that does not protect its innocence children and others who can no longer speak for themselves is knowingly supporting torture and genocide. " 1. we are not a DEMOCRACY, we are a " republic, for which it stands". 2. Stragnely enough non religious fundamentalists just strangle , shoot, or beat their children to death. 70 percent of the USA claims last week to be "Christian" believers. FUNDAMENTALISM is fading fast, but WAS BIGTIME ALL OVER AT THE FOUNDING OF THIS NATION, YOU GODDAMNED QUACK ! Quakers Puritans and Amish/ 3. " Any state or nation that does not protect its innocence children ..." LET ME GUESS, YOU FORGOT ABOUT THE 50 MILLION ABORTIONS HERE, THE 4,500 ABORTIONS PER DAY, RIGHT ? and, you're all for them, 1000% ! 4. I'd like to point out that it takes a turd screaming "Christian fundamentalist !" from an abortionist mass murder supporter for them to defend their goddamned death cult of baby murder for the democrat women party equality platform. ____________________________________- Therefore it is the heigth of hilarity when some goobering moron spews out xtian fundamentalism that abhors abortion is the greatest threat to the children of the USA or any nation - No, it is absolutely proveable the greatest threat to the any generation of childen is in fact ABORTION. ________________- Anyway congratulations to the lunatic poster, you got one kill on the fundie wackos and they have 50 million kills on you. You're winning mister mass murderer.

DYSTOPIA

I find it amazing in a society and a website that in voracious rabidity defends the right to slaughter 50 million babies in cold blood suddenly finds a heart for life if they are opposing a religion. ___________ In both cases, the life of the child should be the concern. I frankly see clearly the politcal action committee and platform of the democrats in their murderous baby abortion scheme for "equal womens rights" is A TERRORIST OPERATION THAT USES MURDER OF INNOCENT CIVILIANS IN ORDER TO FURTHER A POLITCAL GOAL. ___________ I see as well the religious group is different in the sense that they BELIEVE their actions will produce life, not death. _________ Therefore in the former case of terrorist political action of abortion on demand, those conjoined to the matter are guilty of premeditated murder in the first or accomplice degree. While those accidentally causing death for the 14 year old much the opposite of their intent, could be charged at best with a negligent homocide, although I'm not certain even that is proper. I would say that in the climate we have today they would have to be charged with INSANITY instead. I cannot imagine even a small minority of answers from authorities or the general public that would say they thought the prayerful healing would work. So - the defense definitely is insanity. _______________- In the case of the 50 million abortions, however, the murderers and their supporters know full well they are exterminating a baby (unique DNA human different from the mothers DNA can be used as court evidence for example), and they have their excuses and justifications for it, which are wholly defined by their politcal movement for it. It IS TERRORISM. Classical definition. No punishment of course is allowed because, like 3rd world heckholes or middle east barbaric sand governments who allow other atrocities on a regular basis, the crime of baby murder has been made legal. ________________________ So the two crimes are different, the religious one is a crime of insanity, we must go with that because we have very little scientific evidence if any that religious prayer miracle healings work. In the abortion murder scenario, it would be a first degree for the mother and doctor, and close to that for attendants and helpers, in an HONEST society. Of course in that same spirit of honesty and rule of law - exceptions for the mother's life is absolutely neccessary, although should NOT be required. If a pregnant Mother wants to go through with a risky delivery that may in fact cost her life, she should be allowed, as one cannot demand she assist in murder of her own child. She has the right to take the risk or avoid it. Self defense, no compulsion to murder, or a hope that both survive with a happy ending. __________________________- PS - for those ready to pounce I am not a bible thumping right wing christian. I am a scientist.

This is what happened to me.

This is what happened to me. I'll have hip problems my entire life from not getting proper treatment as a teen for a dislocated hip. It could have easily been fixed with physical therapy, but after waiting three years (till I became a legal adult and could seek medical care without my parents' approval) there was only so much that could be done. Some days it still pops out of place and gives me great pain. I didn't chose that; the adults who were responsible for my care left it to "god" and he failed to show up. If god really cured these people, no one would object.

I too was raised in a

I too was raised in a faith-healing cult. Too many people I knew personally died as a result of these religiously protected practices. If adults want to rely on prayer for their own health, fine. But they shouldn't be permitted to force these decisions on children, who need the protection of all citizens from dangerous beliefs and practices. We need to quit being so damn deferential.

Sick child care versus preventative

I wish this article (and others on this topic) would be clear about the difference in treating life-threatening illnesses versus minor illnesses or the choice for certain preventative care. I agree that religious beliefs should not put a child at risk of harm or death. I know people of diverse faiths - fundamentalist Christian and some Hindus - who choose not to have their children vaccinated and face similar criticism for it. As a mother, I have left prescriptions unfilled in lieu of seeking a more homeopathic option. At what point, will I no longer have that option? Will I have no choice but to pad the pockets of the health care industry?

Perspective

Your point is taken to heart. Note that I don't refuse 'any and all' medical treatment for myself or my family, and I wholeheartedly agree with those who commented on this site regarding the tragic stupidity of people who blindly turn away good-proven help in the face of pain and death for their children. My concern (and I don't think this to be selfish, but necessary) is more of a slippery slope nature. I don't want to be 'forced' by a panel of physicians and politicians to 'accept' what they consider 'good odds of success.' The mention in the article of the child with lymphoma as case in point. One doctor might claim a 90% chance of survival, another 70%, and another 80%, but they are only discussing 'survival' rates, not anything else. Living or dying is not the only consideration here. Plus, predicting survival rates is like predicting the weather...it's scientifically based sure, but there's a lot of speculation going on there. Then at what point do we say a treatment has good odds of success (60%...50%)...what if all the treatments available have odds of success less than 50%, do you still force the patient to 'accept' the 'best' one...do these odds take into consideration the humiliation of radiation poisoning, balding, teeth falling out, uncontrollable bodily functions, etcetera...who decides these 'symptoms' are worth the 40% chance of survival! Sorry for the rambling nature of this, the point is that it is up to me and my family to ultimately weigh the 'odds' of the various treatments offered, get second opinions when possible (which could include from other cultures) and decide what makes the most sense. The day I get overruled by a bureaucrat and police officer is the day I stop taking my children to the hospital (bad for society and my family)...then you all would decry me as irresponsible and criminal, and I would continue living (alienated in poorer health) as the last truly free person out there.

Perspective

I don't doubt that the numbers you listed are correct. However, I don't think you're thinking of this in the right way. I looked around for the number of people who seek medical treatment in a year, but my google skills have failed me. I did find that the same number of people were treated by injuries sustained by lawn tools as were killed by iatrogenic causes The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) reminds consumers to practice safety and common sense when working in their yards and gardens this summer. About 230,000 people each year are treated in hospital emergency rooms for injuries relating to various lawn and garden tools. http://www.kidsource.com/CPSC/riding.mower.cpsc.html Point being, what do you think the chance is of dying because of medical treatment? I'll be generous and say 3%. What do you think the chance is of dying of total absence of medical treatment? I won't even venture a guess, but I whink we can agree that it would be way above 3% Maybe by an order of magnitude. Look at death rates from the 19th century. How many people died of TB and Cholera and Polio? Now we have simple treatments or vaccines for all of these. I understand being skeptical of the bullshit pharma-run healthcare system we have now, but you have to believe that most doctors still take their Hippocratic Oath seriously. Top 5 causes of death by number, 2004 # Heart disease: 652,091 # Cancer: 559,312 # Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 143,579 # Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 130,933 # Accidents (unintentional injuries): 117,809 Again, 225,000 is a big number and should be a hell of a lot smaller, but if your kid has the measles or is vomiting blood or has turned yellow, let a doctor take a shot before he dies.