Faith Healing Parents Watch Their Child Die but Won’t Be Getting Jail Time for It

[SMOGZINN]

Did it happen on Sunday? Would've sucked if it happened on Sunday. Can you imagine your kid dying then not being able to buy booze on the way home?

Fucking Government!

The doctors should not be working on the Sabbath anyway.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

As much as I disagree with the people that do this it does fall under their freedom of religion and if you force people to stop this then it will cause a lot of other freedoms they have to be looked at and easier to revoke.

Last I checked freedom of religion wasn't a blank check for child neglect/abuse. I don't believe anyone has said they shouldn't be able to do it to themselves. Although, it shouldn't be a blank check for a fake medical license either.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Last I checked freedom of religion wasn't a blank check for child neglect/abuse. I don't believe anyone has said they shouldn't be able to do it to themselves. Although, it shouldn't be a blank check for a fake medical license either.

Why? If we are taking religion seriously, then how can we call it abuse if they really believe it?
Why is this abuse, and cutting of part of their penis not?

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Why? If we are taking religion seriously, then how can we call it abuse if they really believe it?
Why is this abuse, and cutting of part of their penis not?

They both are. We don't live in a perfect world.

 

[pelov]

Why? If we are taking religion seriously, then how can we call it abuse if they really believe it?
Why is this abuse, and cutting of part of their penis not?

Now that's a great point.

I suppose some "abuse" on account of religious practices is tolerated but when a child's life is at jeopardy then that's another matter entirely.

Although, a counter-point would be potential for bacterial infections during the snippety-snippet of the little kid's crickety-cricket.

Although deaths have been reported,[71] the American Academy of Family Physicians states that death is rare, and cites an estimated death rate of 1 infant in 500,000 from circumcision.[47] The penis is thought to be lost in 1 in 1,000,000 circumcisions.[74

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision

Well that doesn't seem so bad. The kid has a higher risk of dying on the car ride there.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

It's being a complete and utter dipshit. You have no leg to stand on here and your attempts to do so have been laughable.

I was presenting a part of the findings that disagree with your world view. While the limited strength of the countervailing argument is 'pathetic'; I would argue that I was only being a 'dip shit' If I tried to argue that both sides had equal merit. That is, i would argue, presenting both sides of the argument is not disingenuous unless I unreasonably try to argue that a clearly one-sided debate is 'equal'.

Instead, I found what limited evidence I could for the other side and presented it and then analysed the two perspectives. The failure to find significant other positive 'facts' surrounding the positive finding are part of a narrative built by a world-view that is looking to dis-believe. Much as if I said that most of what Ayashi says is a bunch of bullshit and he was only marginally right about XYZ. It contextualizes you true argument in a way as to lead to bias against it because of unrelated other things (ie your other posts).

As much as I disagree with the people that do this it does fall under their freedom of religion and if you force people to stop this then it will cause a lot of other freedoms they have to be looked at and easier to revoke.

So you are arguing that the right to liberty >> the right to life? or are you making a sub-basket for the right to liberty as it relates to religion being >> the right to life?

If we are taking religion seriously, then how can we call it abuse if they really believe it?
Why is this abuse, and cutting of part of their penis not?

Hum..
Right to life, right to a happy life, right to religious liberty...

we should define what we are arguing about on a principles level.

 

[Kadarin]

Who cares? The kid is in heaven now, right?

Exactly. Technically, they did him a favor as he now gets to bask in God's glory (provided he truly accepted Jesus as his Savior, etc.).

 

[GagHalfrunt]

As disgusting as the practice is, I have a lot more respect for these people than I do for other religious cuckoos. At least they have the courage of their convictions and place their faith in their God.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Exactly. Technically, they did him a favor as he now gets to bask in God's glory (provided he truly accepted Jesus as his Savior, etc.).

Right. If they truly believe that letting their child die of a infection is the only way to save his soul from eternal damnation, then do we have the right to override their belief? Assuming that we accept that they love their child and want to do what is best for him, then we have to accept that they are making a moral choice. Do we only allow parents to make religiously based moral choices when they agree with our religion? If so, do we really have freedom of religion?

 

[TheVrolok]

Right. If they truly believe that letting their child die of a infection is the only way to save his soul from eternal damnation, then do we have the right to override their belief? Assuming that we accept that they love their child and want to do what is best for him, then we have to accept that they are making a moral choice. Do we only allow parents to make religiously based moral choices when they agree with our religion? If so, do we really have freedom of religion?

To be fair, circumcision these days is far more tradition than it is religion. Silly tradition, yes, but rarely truly religious. Most parents have the kid cut because daddy's cut, not because they fear damnation.

 

[gonzaga1751]

So this happened pretty close to where I live but I guess I was away at college at the time it happened(2009). There are a lot of religious people around here. The fact that it took over 3 years for a verdict is crazy.

 

[pelov]

Right. If they truly believe that letting their child die of a infection is the only way to save his soul from eternal damnation, then do we have the right to override their belief?

I believe we do. They clearly didn't pray hard enough and their child died because the parents were dirty sinners.

The acquittal is a direct result of a stupid Washington state law:

The legislature finds that there is a significant need to protect children and dependent persons, including frail elder and vulnerable adults, from abuse and neglect by their parents, by persons entrusted with their physical custody, or by persons employed to provide them with the basic necessities of life. The legislature further finds that such abuse and neglect often takes the forms of either withholding from them the basic necessities of life, including food, water, shelter, clothing, and health care, or abandoning them, or both. Therefore, it is the intent of the legislature that criminal penalties be imposed on those guilty of such abuse or neglect. It is the intent of the legislature that a person who, in good faith, is furnished Christian Science treatment by a duly accredited Christian Science practitioner in lieu of medical care is not considered deprived of medically necessary health care or abandoned. Prosecutions under this chapter shall be consistent with the rules of evidence, including hearsay, under law.

The judge in this case declined to dismiss the case based on the law and prosecuted the Swezeys anyway.

The issue here is the law that allows something like this to occur.

[1997 c 392 § 507.]

Their state assembly must have been super bored that year. I was honestly expecting the 1920s but 1997? Sweet jesus!

 

[chusteczka]

The less government control, the better.

No government should be telling its citizens what decisions to make regarding family. No government should obligate anyone to assume (significant) debt associated with the attempt for modern science to heal someone.

No government will take away my right to die.

Just because we have modern science and health care does not obligate me or anyone else to use it. Especially at the high costs associated with our health care system.

You guys need to get your heads on straight and stop assuming control of other people's lives.

 

[Ns1]

No government will take away my right to die.

The issue is not your right to die, it's your child's right to live.

 

[chusteczka]

The issue is not your right to die, it's your child's right to live.

In this world of suffering, who has the right to live?
No one has the right to live and no government should be attempting to control that.

 

[Ns1]

No one has the right to live

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree there.

 

[mnewsham]

The less government control, the better.

No government should be telling its citizens what decisions to make regarding family. No government should obligate anyone to assume (significant) debt associated with the attempt for modern science to heal someone.

No government will take away my right to die.

Just because we have modern science and health care does not obligate me or anyone else to use it. Especially at the high costs associated with our health care system.

You guys need to get your heads on straight and stop assuming control of other people's lives.

Well my religion tells me I should torture my children until the age of 8 and then ritually sacrifice them to my god and feed their bodies to pigs.

No fucking government can tell me otherwise it's MY fucking family and my god damn right.

 

[SlitheryDee]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree there.

No, he's right. You don't have the right to live. Or to say it better, your right to live has already been exercised when you were born. You have lived. Continuing to live is not a right, because it is subject to uncontrollable circumstances. All we can really do is punish the people who may or may not be responsible for your death, which won't help you after you die.

 

[Ns1]

No, he's right. You don't have the right to live. Or to say it better, your right to live has already been exercised when you were born. You have lived. Continuing to live is not a right, because it is subject to uncontrollable circumstances. All we can really do is punish the people who may or may not be responsible for your death, which won't help you after you die.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree there.

 

[PowerEngineer]

It seems to me that when it comes to perceived quality of life (and it turns out quality of life is nothing but perception) then placebo effects are essentially the same thing as real effects.

Yes, I certainly agree that the placebo effect is real. The placebo effect, however, is caused by the patient's expectation that the treatment will help them get better -- even though no treatment is given.

It makes sense that believers feel better when they know others are praying for them, but the fact that they feel better can be (IMHO) attributed to the placebo effect. I'm guessing that they'd feel just as much better if others only said they were praying for them (and not actually doing so).

I agree that situations like this that pit one freedom against another are thought provoking. Let me suggest (as others in the thread have), that individuals should (and do) have greater flexibility to prioritize freedoms in the way that suits them when only they are affected. I think you get a lot less leeway when your attempt to prioritize freedoms when others (e.g. children) are affected. My two cents...

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

In this world of suffering, who has the right to live?

Everyone.

Maybe you live in a "world of suffering" -- given your apparent debilitating idiocy, that isn't much of a stretch to believe.

No one has the right to live and no government should be attempting to control that.

No, he's right. You don't have the right to live. Or to say it better, your right to live has already been exercised when you were born. You have lived. Continuing to live is not a right, because it is subject to uncontrollable circumstances. All we can really do is punish the people who may or may not be responsible for your death, which won't help you after you die.

Two morons.

 

[SlitheryDee]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree there.

Really? I said nothing about society's responsibility for protecting your life. That's really what people mean when they allude to a right to anything isn't it?

 

[SSSnail]

Let them be, nature will sort it all out. I wonder if the parents also ” faith heal” when they're sick... :hmm:

 

[DrPizza]

So, let me get this straight - it's okay for the state to say "we don't care if your kid is 18 or 19 years old. If you serve alcohol to your son or daughter during a high school graduation party, we WILL charge you, and you'll be fined." (I got a letter in the mail from the county sheriff when each of my sons graduated from high school.)

But, the state is okay with me neglecting my kids and letting them die, based on some superstitious belief?

That's pretty fucked up.

 

[Ns1]

Really? I said nothing about society's responsibility for protecting your life. That's really what people mean when they allude to a right to anything isn't it?

Not really. I would presume I would have a right to live no matter what society I was in, ie someone could not kill me for da lulz cuz I have a right to live.

In your example...

Continuing to live is not a right, because it is subject to uncontrollable circumstances. All we can really do is punish the people who may or may not be responsible for your death, which won't help you after you die.

...we are punishing someone else because they took my right [to live] away, thus they deserve the punishment.