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

[lostwanderingsoul]

so if a Jewish child is sick and a doctor says eating pork may help cure him then the parents should let him eat pork? where do we draw the line? cutting someone's heart out will of course kill them but refusing treatment that may or may not help is different. it is the same thing with vaccines. many parents have religious objections to vaccines but many schools will not allow children in without vaccines. is the child being hurt by not getting a vaccine? there may be long term effects some day but not right away. so who should decide?

 

[outhouse]

It is right, IMO, that competent people should have the right to determine medical care for themselves and their non-mature children.

There is a difference between competent and willfully ignorant that can cause possible harm because refusal of common treatments.

How would you like to have a medical procedure forced on you because someone thought it beneficial? .

There is a difference between beneficial and life threatening, and your obviously trying to use words to manipulate the truth of the matter.


There is no excuse for religious fanaticism in the medical field. You cannot twist words in any possible way or provide any excuses to make is socially acceptable,

 

[outhouse]

no one would ever tell an atheist that he can't make a decision based on the fact that he is an atheist so why can you tell someone they can't make a decision based on their religion. is there an attempt to stamp out all religious belief and only let those who have no religion run everything?

Religious belief one way or the other has no bearing on proper medical treatment.


We don't see fanaticism and fundamentalism effecting medical decisions out of atheist like we do with religious fanatics who flat out refuse proper treatment.

An atheist who made the same choice would be in the same boat. There is no special treatment here. Its just common sense and refusal of common sense.

 

[gnostic]

no one would ever tell an atheist that he can't make a decision based on the fact that he is an atheist so why can you tell someone they can't make a decision based on their religion. is there an attempt to stamp out all religious belief and only let those who have no religion run everything?

What emergence said... *nods head*

 

[gnostic]

There is a difference between beneficial and life threatening, and your obviously trying to use words to manipulate the truth of the matter.


There is no excuse for religious fanaticism in the medical field. You cannot twist words in any possible way or provide any excuses to make is socially acceptable,

Damn right.

 

[gnostic]

Just some precisions :

Mail Online and Telegraph's Dubai drowning tale is old news

Story of an Asian father whose daughter drowned in the sea after he allegedly stopped lifeguards from saving her dates back almost two decades.

The Mail, Telegraph, Metro and even Sky News all jumped on the story, which came via Agence France Press.

Apparently the article – which originated on the website Emirates 24/7 – was from an interview in which lifeguards were asked to recount the strangest things that had happened to them. As someone who bothered to check out where it came from tells Monkey: “They mentioned this case of the Asian man who prevented his daughter’s rescue, but, and here’s the catch – it was from 1996.”

http://www.theguardian.com/media/mediamonkeyblog/2015/aug/11/mail-online-telegraphs-dubai-drowning

That made be the case.

This is however a debate forum, and the questions of doing the right thing over matters of honors, cultures or religions are relevant today as it happened in 1996. The problems are still happening here and there, so I don't any problem discussing today's issues and comparing them with yester-news.

 

[Poisonshady313]

so if a Jewish child is sick and a doctor says eating pork may help cure him then the parents should let him eat pork?

In a matter of life or death, if the pork is what will save the child's life, then yes.

 

[Parsimony]

so if a Jewish child is sick and a doctor says eating pork may help cure him then the parents should let him eat pork? where do we draw the line?

That would depend. Is pork the only treatment? Will the child die if they don't eat pork? Are alternative treatments available?

cutting someone's heart out will of course kill them but refusing treatment that may or may not help is different.

If a child is bleeding so much that they will die if treatment is refused, then giving them blood will help. That's the circumstance that I'm talking about. In circumstances where transfusion is not necessary, then the parents should be free to decide whether or not they will accept it.

it is the same thing with vaccines. many parents have religious objections to vaccines but many schools will not allow children in without vaccines.

I've heard this, but which religious group is it that opposes vaccines and for what reasons? That's something I've been wondering for a while now.

is the child being hurt by not getting a vaccine? there may be long term effects some day but not right away. so who should decide?

That would depend on the specific risks involved, but it doesn't seem to be a life-or-death scenario like my earlier example.

 

[MARCELLO]

As far I know, in countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia,the father has all the rights about his family; he just pays the blood money in case he kills a member of his own family.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I support a parent's right to make decisions regarding medical treatment for their child.

Including denying that child an urgent medical procedure without which they would die?

This assumes the parents are competent and caring, not willfully negligent.

So, if a child needs an urgent blood transfusion and the parent denies it to them, is the parent competent and caring or willfully negligent?

Opposers try to make it appear that since Jws refuse a single medical procedure, (a procedure doctors admit carries significant, life-threatening risks) that we deny our children medical care.

In many cases, blood transfusions ARE necessary medical procedures with no (or less reliable) alternatives. In those cases, do you advocate denial of blood transfusitons? As I have already said, many hospital procedures carry significant, life-threatening risks - especially when not carried out properly. Blood transfusions are no different, and are in fact significantly less dangerous than many other procedures carried out in hospitals around the world against which the JWs have no objection. Blood transfusions account for significantly fewer fatalities per year than many cancer treatments, for example.

That is nonsense, of course, and slanderous.

Is it or is it not true that a JW would deny a child a blood transfusion even if there are no alternatives or the alternative is potentially more harmful? The examples I have given of children who have DIED as a direct result of refusing a blood transfusion should be sufficient proof that this is, indeed, the case.

 

[rusra02]

There are alternatives to blood transfusions, and many dedicated doctors are realizing this. The U.S. Army does also, as shown here. No doctor can guarantee a patient will die if they do not receive a blood transfusion or live if they have one. Jws want doctors to do everything they can to help a Jw patient who is sick or has an accident. Alternative treatments are available in virtually all cases, and Jws appreciate skilled physicians who are willing to help us while respecting our Bible-based stand on abstaining from blood. (Acts 15:28,29)

 

[ImmortalFlame]

There are alternatives to blood transfusions, and many dedicated doctors are realizing this.

In many cases, yes. In some cases, there are currently no alternatives, otherwise people wouldn't be dying from a lack of one.

The U.S. Army does also, as shown here. No doctor can guarantee a patient will die if they do not receive a blood transfusion or live if they have one.

No doctor can guarantee anything about any procedure.

Jws want doctors to do everything they can to help a Jw patient who is sick or has an accident.

Unless that involves a blood transfusion. If it does, then JWs are happy to let themselves or their children die, or settle for less optimal treatment. Is that true or false?

Alternative treatments are available in virtually all cases, and Jws appreciate skilled physicians who are willing to help us while respecting our Bible-based stand on abstaining from blood. (Acts 15:28,29)

So why did all of those children die after they (or their parents) refused blood transfusions?

I have already asked you: in a situation where there are no (or less reliable) alternatives to blood transfusion, do you think it is right for a parent to deny a blood transfusion to their child? Is it or is it not true that JW would deny a child a blood transfusion even if there are no alternatives or the alternatives are potentially more harmful?

No more red herrings, I want straight answers.

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

I read somewhere that this is old news????

 

[rusra02]

In many cases, yes. In some cases, there are currently no alternatives, otherwise people wouldn't be dying from a lack of one.


No doctor can guarantee anything about any procedure.


Unless that involves a blood transfusion. If it does, then JWs are happy to let themselves or their children die, or settle for less optimal treatment. Is that true or false?


So why did all of those children die after they (or their parents) refused blood transfusions?

I have already asked you: in a situation where there are no (or less reliable) alternatives to blood transfusion, do you think it is right for a parent to deny a blood transfusion to their child? Is it or is it not true that JW would deny a child a blood transfusion even if there are no alternatives or the alternatives are potentially more harmful?

No more red herrings, I want straight answers.

I have already clearly explained that Jws "abstain from blood." (Acts 15:28,29) I reject your premise that there are "no (or less reliable) alternatives" to blood transfusions. Jws simply ask that these safer, non-blood procedures be used to help their children, and themselves. And many healthcare providers agree non-blood treatment is more reliable in many cases than dangerous blood transfusions.

 

[Pastek]

This is however a debate forum, and the questions of doing the right thing over matters of honors, cultures or religions are relevant today as it happened in 1996. The problems are still happening here and there, so I don't any problem discussing today's issues and comparing them with yester-news.

Sure, i'm not saying it's too old to be debated, just that many newspapers jumped on this story.

 

[gnostic]

Sure, i'm not saying it's too old to be debated, just that many newspapers jumped on this story.

Too often, stupidity and crime in the name of honor, in the name of specific culture or ethnic group, and in the name of religion, get cover-up. Too often they get reported.

What the father did to his daughter, was despicable. But things like this is still happening elsewhere, so it should be confronted, discussed and dealt with, not ignored.

Silence help no one, especially women and girls who are more vulnerable in some societies or communities.

 

[Shad]

I read somewhere that this is old news????

Yes it was years ago. It is somewhere in the thread.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I have already clearly explained that Jws "abstain from blood." (Acts 15:28,29) I reject your premise that there are "no (or less reliable) alternatives" to blood transfusions.

So when people die as a result of not receiving a blood transfusion, the cause of that is...?

Jws simply ask that these safer, non-blood procedures be used to help their children, and themselves. And many healthcare providers agree non-blood treatment is more reliable in many cases than dangerous blood transfusions.

Give me an example.

Also, you STILL haven't answered either of my questions.