Father lets daughter die to avoid male life-guards touching her

[Underhill]

Should "parts of culture" like this even be respected. I mean, if there was a culture that had included in it the abandonment of all sick children due to religious beliefs, would the world put up with it?

No.

 

[Riverwolf]

Not sure on that one brother.

The man is a product of the cultures from this geographic region that have a long history of being less then civilized towards women.

Im glad they are moving forward, but we can all agree the fanaticism and fundamentalism is still extreme there even today despite this happening 19 years ago

I'm not going to make such judgments based on the testimonies of Western media, which has a history of anti-Islamic sentiments.

Especially since horrible treatment of women is still common place in our own culture.

Instead, I'd want to know the views of Muslims from this region, from this region. It's also worth remembering that this article in particular said that the man in question was described as "Asian", and so it's entirely possible that he wasn't even native there.

 

[JoStories]

http://www.newser.com/story/211122/...rce=part&utm_medium=usatoday&utm_campaign=syn

Can anyone make any sense of this? Shouldn't this guy be locked up for this criminal behavior?

IMO, he should be charged with depraved indifference homicide. What an arse.

 

[JoStories]

Are you referring to Christian Scientists? I agree. If a person wants to hurt themselves like this, it is their business. But, once they subject their children to it, it becomes criminal.

Jehovah Witnesses will allow a child to bleed to death rather than give them blood. Christian Scientists won't allow any medical treatment and the Church of Scientology will let someone go insane rather than treat them with meds. Those are just three examples and doesn't include the idiotic parents who refuse to vaccinate their children.

 

[JoStories]

Refusing a blood transfusion for a child does not mean the parents do not love or deserve their children. Jehovah's witnesses seek the best medical care available for their children while respecting God's clearly stated law to "to abstain... from blood." (Acts 15:20) So successful have non-blood transfusion treatments proved in medical care, there are now numerous bloodless surgery centers around the U.S. and many non-witnesses are opting for bloodless surgery, to avoid the life- threatening dangers of blood transfusions. What Jws do for religious reason, others do because it is often safer to avoid blood transfusions.

No, it is not. There are almost no risks to blood anymore. And allowing a child to die rather than giving them the blood they need to survive, IMO, and as a 40+ APN, I can say that I find people who hold this attitude to be undeserving of children EVER. The only problem, which is extremely rare, from a blood transfusion is a reaction caused by allergy. And, as I said, that is extremely uncommon. Your POV makes me nauseous in the extreme.

 

[Deidre]

This is a tragedy...the father deserves to be severely punished for this.
Someone should have knocked this fool out to get to the woman.

Yes, what is that saying? All it takes for evil to prevail, is for good people to do nothing. Something like that.
In this case, it fits.

 

[Aquitaine]

Should "parts of culture" like this even be respected. I mean, if there was a culture that had included in it the abandonment of all sick children due to religious beliefs, would the world put up with it?

The way I always look at it is like this: what are the first four letters of the word "culture"?

 

[Donmax]

Religion can only answerer one way and that's because the fear of going against the written word of god is similar to going against life and death insurance in other words the small print according to their own beliefs of what gods law is, that's why religion is still fighting the same wars religion fought thousand of years back.

FEAR.

 

[outhouse]

I'm not going to make such judgments based on the testimonies of Western media,

Either am I.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia

Saudi Arabia 127th out of 136 countries for gender parity

Especially since horrible treatment of women is still common place in our own culture.

Bad here, and much worse there is no real comparison.

was described as "Asian",

Understood.

You do know that in this multi cultural muslim country that an Asian language has the highest spoken language after Arabic?

it's entirely possible that he wasn't even native there.

True but the odds of him not being muslim are almost zero.


This whole case any many other travesties to humanity are a direct result of fanaticism and fundamentalism native to this region.

 

[Riverwolf]

Either am I.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia

Saudi Arabia 127th out of 136 countries for gender parity

Dubai isn't in Saudi Arabia. It's in the United Arab Emirates.

Bad here, and much worse there is no real comparison.

I, frankly, am starting to question the "much" part of the "worse", given recent events.

Understood.

You do know that in this multi cultural muslim country that an Asian language has the highest spoken language after Arabic?

True but the odds of him not being muslim are almost zero.

This whole case any many other travesties to humanity are a direct result of fanaticism and fundamentalism native to this region.

And yet they're still illegal, and apparently frowned upon by the bulk of the people living there. In other words, widespread and horrible though it may be, it's fringe.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I wonder if anyone has noticed that this event actually happened in 1993 -- if it happened at all.

This is just an example of journalistic laziness and contemporary gullibility. Nothing more.

 

[rusra02]

Perhaps you should read this article in the New Yorker about the contribution made by Jws to medicine.http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-jehovahs-witnesses-are-changing-medicine

I have personally known people who have died young from AIDS acquired from a blood transfusion. Children are infected, as shown by this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/af...l-China-got-HIV-blood-transfusion-report.html

Jehovah's witnesses want the best care for their children, and in many cases that is with non-blood treatment. Our stand on abstaining from blood, however, is based on the true God's command in the Bible, and not the dangers inherent in blood transfusions.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Perhaps you should read this article in the New Yorker about the contribution made by Jws to medicine.http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-jehovahs-witnesses-are-changing-medicine

That article isn't about Jehovah's Witnesses contribution to medicine - it's about how their refusal to accept blood transfusions forces Doctors to find new ways to treat their conditions and operate on them.

I have personally known people who have died young from AIDS acquired from a blood transfusion. Children are infected, as shown by this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/af...l-China-got-HIV-blood-transfusion-report.html

Firstly, the Daily Mail is never a reliable source of information or news about anything, period. Secondly, these kinds of mistakes do happen, but they can happen with almost almost any medical procedure. Properly monitored and actioned, blood transfusion is no less harmful than almost any other kind of treatment.

Jehovah's witnesses want the best care for their children, and in many cases that is with non-blood treatment.

And in many cases, it isn't:

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/pregnant-...fter-mother-and-baby-die-20150406-1mf570.html
http://www.cftf.com/comments/kidsdied.html

Allowing children to die can hardly be said to be the "best care", can it?

Our stand on abstaining from blood, however, is based on the true God's command in the Bible, and not the dangers inherent in blood transfusions.

Then God is a lunatic. And a parent allowing their child to die purely because of a religious belief is a monster.

 

[rusra02]

That article isn't about Jehovah's Witnesses contribution to medicine - it's about how their refusal to accept blood transfusions forces Doctors to find new ways to treat their conditions and operate on them.


Firstly, the Daily Mail is never a reliable source of information or news about anything, period. Secondly, these kinds of mistakes do happen, but they can happen with almost almost any medical procedure. Properly monitored and actioned, blood transfusion is no less harmful than almost any other kind of treatment.


And in many cases, it isn't:

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/pregnant-...fter-mother-and-baby-die-20150406-1mf570.html
http://www.cftf.com/comments/kidsdied.html

Allowing children to die can hardly be said to be the "best care", can it?


Then God is a lunatic. And a parent allowing their child to die purely because of a religious belief is a monster.

Are you accusing the newspaper of lying? Is it your position that AIDS (and other diseases) are not transmitted to children (and adults) through blood transfusions? Since you admit blood transfusions can be "harmful", who can rightly insist another person must accept potentially lethal treatment?
Nor do Jws "allow" their children to die. So your saying they do so is false, IMO. They seek the best medical care possible for themselves and their children. Jws appreciate skilled medical people who help us while respecting our conscientious decision to "abstain from blood." (Acts 15:28,29)
Millions have risked their lives for what they believe in, and many have died. Do you consider them misled?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Are you accusing the newspaper of lying?

No, the story is probably true, but the Daily Mail is still a notoriously unreliable source that tends to present a skewed view of more complicated issues. I was advising you not to use it as reliable source.

Is it your position that AIDS (and other diseases) are not transmitted to children (and adults) through blood transfusions?

Nope, nor did I even imply that. I explicitly said " these kinds of mistakes do happen, but they can happen with almost almost any medical procedure".

Since you admit blood transfusions can be "harmful", who can rightly insist another person must accept potentially lethal treatment?

I also explicitly said:

"Properly monitored and actioned, blood transfusion is no less harmful than almost any other kind of treatment."

Basically ALL medical treatments are "potentially lethal" or "harmful", especially when carried out incorrectly or without the proper checks - as in the case of someone being transfused with HIV-infected blood. The blood wasn't properly scanned, as should be standard practice, and the patient was given the infected blood. What you're arguing is like arguing because surgeons occasionally don't take enough care and leave surgical equipment inside of patients, that nobody should ever have surgery. It's nonsense.

Nor do Jws "allow" their children to die.

The articles I linked to clearly show they do.

So your saying they do so is false, IMO. They seek the best medical care possible for themselves and their children.

Unless that best medical care is a blood transfusion, in which case they settle for anything other than the best or, at worst, allowing that child to continue to be sick or die.

Jws appreciate skilled medical people who help us while respecting our conscientious decision to "abstain from blood." (Acts 15:28,29)
Millions have risked their lives for what they believe in, and many have died. Do you consider them misled?

If they hold a belief that blood transfusions are inherently dangerous and the Bible is a reliable barometer for reality, yes.

In this case, do you agree with the father's decision to allow his daughter to die rather than be touched by the lifeguards?

 

[rusra02]

In this case, do you agree with the father's decision to allow his daughter to die rather than be touched by the lifeguards?

Of course not. And I wonder why the father didn't try to save his daughter himself.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Of course not. And I wonder why the father didn't try to save his daughter himself.

So, would you agree with a parent denying their child an urgent medical procedure?

 

[outhouse]

I wonder if anyone has noticed that this event actually happened in 1993 -- if it happened at all.

This is just an example of journalistic laziness and contemporary gullibility. Nothing more.

I posted that on post 36

 

[gnostic]

Talk about stupidity in the name of religion or in the name of honor.

 

[gnostic]

Are you referring to Christian Scientists? I agree. If a person wants to hurt themselves like this, it is their business. But, once they subject their children to it, it becomes criminal.

Yeah. True.

It's called negligence and child abuse or child endangerment.

The father in the OP should not only be jailed, he should also lose custody of any other children he may have that he hasn't kill yet, because of his stupidity.