lostwanderingsoul
Well-Known Member
just wait til the muslims take control of the USA and you will see the same thing here.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Father lets daughter die to avoid male life-guards touching her
- Thread starter leibowde84
- Start date
gnostic
The Lost One
Actually it does mean that parents don't love their children, if they put their stupid religion over their children.
Those JW parents not only don't deserve their children, but they should lose their custody over the children, and rot in prison if they die, because of their negligence.
The real depravity (and tragedy) is that they can have children at all.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Yet people merrily go on about something that didn't happen recently - if it happened at all.I posted that on post 36
Such is the world in which we live.
I support a parent's right to make decisions regarding medical treatment for their child. This assumes the parents are competent and caring, not 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. That is nonsense, of course, and slanderous.
I guess your judgment applies also to non-witness parents who decide for bloodless treatment of their children because of the life-threatening risks of blood transfusions, not for religious reasons. Let's just take the children from anyone who for any reason disagrees with current medical practices. And send them to prison too.
samuraiincarnate
New Member
I am wondering if the girl was wearing a swimsuit or was in full Islamic clothing. I can't imagine how someone would allow their daughter run around the beach with a swimsuit but then become furious if someone has to touch her to save her life. Something is fishy here.
outhouse
Atheistically
You make it sound as if there are no negative aspects to said fanaticism. There is no credible excuse for refusing medical treatment on religious grounds alone.
Is it right for ignorance and fundamentalism to dictate medical treatment?
lostwanderingsoul
Well-Known Member
if there is no excuse for making decisions on religious grounds then does anyone really have religious freedom? maybe this is just what atheists and non religious people want - do away with a person's religious freedom because they don't believe in religion. just try to tell an atheist he can't do something because of his atheism and you will be in court so fast you will not know what happened
gnostic
The Lost One
Any treatment could carry risk, rusra. There is always a possibility of complication.
But if your child is suffering great pain or even dying, and if there is a possibility that blood transfusion could save her, with lesser risk than the alternative, then you should take one that have the least risk.
I am not saying that you should always go for blood transfusion. No, rusra, I would prefer to take careful consideration with all possible treatment, and choose the one that carry the least risk. If that treatment is not blood transfusion, then that's fine, choose the alternative, I don't have any problem with that. BUT if the alternatives have GREATER RISK than it is your child's best interest to choose blood transfusion.
You should not dismiss one treatment because of some silly religion. You quoted Acts about blood, but what do some stupid authors from 1st century know about modern medicine or medical treatments?
I think following the doctor or specialist's medical advice is better than follow what some stupid hack teachings of any religion. I am not saying blood transfusion is the best treatment, I am saying that you should consider all option, and take into account of what the doctors say, and get second or even third opinion of other doctors, and not because what JW demand of you. Do you get what I am saying?
But if your child is suffering great pain or even dying, and if there is a possibility that blood transfusion could save her, with lesser risk than the alternative, then you should take one that have the least risk.
I am not saying that you should always go for blood transfusion. No, rusra, I would prefer to take careful consideration with all possible treatment, and choose the one that carry the least risk. If that treatment is not blood transfusion, then that's fine, choose the alternative, I don't have any problem with that. BUT if the alternatives have GREATER RISK than it is your child's best interest to choose blood transfusion.
You should not dismiss one treatment because of some silly religion. You quoted Acts about blood, but what do some stupid authors from 1st century know about modern medicine or medical treatments?
I think following the doctor or specialist's medical advice is better than follow what some stupid hack teachings of any religion. I am not saying blood transfusion is the best treatment, I am saying that you should consider all option, and take into account of what the doctors say, and get second or even third opinion of other doctors, and not because what JW demand of you. Do you get what I am saying?
lostwanderingsoul
Well-Known Member
it takes one with no religion to tell someone they should not obey their religious beliefs
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
No longer much of a problem in the UK. The Courts or a JP fast track such cases and override parents objections. But some parents do not even allow their children to see doctors in case it involves Blood.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
True.. however these acts reflect badly on a culture, particularly when there is little or no action taken by authorities to stamp out such attitudes, or prosecute the guilty.
Glad to hear that. I have long been a fan of European countries' forward thinking and in particular, their national healthcare plans. I recognize the drawbacks but they far outweigh the limitations, IMO. Given the current state of this country, IE: Trump running the front for candidate for president???? WTH people.... I have been wanting to emigrate for quite a number of years. In fact, one of my dearest friends did and he moved to the UK. These parents should not be parents. IMO.
Agreed, adding that the authorities should act to do the right thing first to the situation ignoring attempts to stop them, before the case of prosecuting the guilty even arises.
Pastek
Sunni muslim
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
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
It is right, IMO, that competent people should have the right to determine medical care for themselves and their non-mature children. How would you like to have a medical procedure forced on you because someone thought it beneficial? A frontal lobotomy, for example.
lostwanderingsoul
Well-Known Member
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?
Now let's not be so hasty. This isn't a case of "all religious practices should be allowed" vs. "no religious practices should be allowed". Many religious practices are perfectly fine because they do not infringe upon the rights of others. However, imagine for just a moment that someone wanted to revive the ancient Mayan religious practice of human sacrifice to their gods. No one here (at least no one here in their right mind) would defend their right to cut out the hearts of their enemies under the banner of "religious rights". Why? Because it violates the victim's right to life.
If someone wishes to deny their child a blood transfusion when other options are available, then that's perfectly fine. However, if the child is dying from blood loss and needs that transfusion in order to survive, then the parent should be charged with criminal negligence if the child dies if they took action to prevent the transfusion from taking place. They infringed upon their child's right to life. If they are the ones who are bleeding to death, then they can make the decision to reject the transfusion since it is their own life they are considering. But some one else's life? No. No one should be allowed to let their own child die through negligence when readily-available treatment exists which would allow them to live.