religion and sick children

equivariant

From today's indo

http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/parenting/parents-who-believe-in-miracles-torturing-dying-children-doctors-warn-3200263.html

yet another example of the damage inflicted by the muddled thinking of the religious.
It's also interesting that this article is deemed acceptable enough to warrant (relatively uncritical)
discussion in our national media. One might imagine that 20 years ago, such a report would never have seen
the light of day, or if it did, it would have been lambasted by the church before it ever got to the pages of the
indo.


(maybe this should be in 'Hazards ...' but it might be interesting enough to warrant its own thread)

haulagebasher

Yeah it's a terrible delusion they get themselves into and totally selfish too.This article brings to mind the case of Baby K in the USA. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_K . In this case a diagnosis was made early in the pregnancy, usuing ultrasound, that the baby had anacephaly (a monstrosity where the baby has no crainium or brain). Absolutely no chance whatsoever of survival or even developing any semblence of awareness. Anyway the mother demanded to go to term and baby was born. She defied medical advice and insisted on long term artificial life support until the courts finally ruled that it be switched off when the “child” was nearly 3. And why did she do it?? RELIGION

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

parents desperately clinging to hope their children won't die?

what bastards

Stercus Accidit

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

parents desperately clinging to hope their children won't die?

what bastards

Sarcasm, how unlike you.

ShooterSF

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

parents desperately clinging to hope their children won't die?

what bastards

Don't be silly. It's the issue of needless suffering people put their child through when there's no hope. I'm not for the life of me going to suggest realising and accepting that should be an easy thing to do but it's something I think people should try to do. We put humans through more suffering than we'd let any other animal go through.

On the topic it still strikes me as strange that this articles is not about atheists as it would make more logical sense. We're the ones (ignoring the atheist who believes in the AL) who think this is the only existence we have where as for many religious not only will their child stop suffering the will go to a better blissful existence where someday they will be reunited for eternity. You'd think we'd be the ones hoping against hope really. Still I guess human nature takes precedent at a time like this and even religions claims can't ease it.

equivariant

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

parents desperately clinging to hope their children won't die? willing to inflict pain on others because of irrational beliefs

what bastards

FYP.

Believe me, as a parent I know it would break my heart to watch my child die, but it would break my heart even more to watch my child suffer needlessly and to put all her other family members through needless anguish. It's funny how the religious, who often proudly proclaim that death is just a transition to the 'afterlife', are the ones who will deny its reality most fervently in the face of all evidence and reason.

Galvasean

Two things from your post shooter, that I was going to bring up:

ShooterSF wrote: »

We put humans through more suffering than we'd let any other animal go through.

It always strikes me as strange how when a dog, cat or hamster is terminally ill and in terrible pain we choose the less painful option (which is usually letting them die / 'putting them down') as it is considered the humane thing to do, but when it is other humans in the same situation we, by in large, rarely even consider the 'humane' option.

ShooterSF wrote: »

On the topic it still strikes me as strange that this articles is not about atheists as it would make more logical sense. We're the ones (ignoring the atheist who believes in the AL) who think this is the only existence we have where as for many religious not only will their child stop suffering the will go to a better blissful existence where someday they will be reunited for eternity. You'd think we'd be the ones hoping against hope really. Still I guess human nature takes precedent at a time like this and even religions claims can't ease it.

It always strikes me as strange how religious people seem more likely to cling on to life, any life regardless of how painful / uncomfortable, despite their claims to knowing that death is but the beginning and a much more blissful existence awaits. Studies have shown that non-believers tend to be better at 'letting go' in such situations, despite there being no pt of gold waiting for them at the end of the rainbow. I suppose in an atheists case, no life would be considered better than a very painful and undignified one?
In the case of the religious who cannot let go despite the fact that their beliefs tell them that an eternity of bliss awaits, one wonders if they truly believe at all?

krudler

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

parents desperately clinging to hope their children won't die?

what bastards

but in the Baby K case the affliction is a fatal disease, anencephaly is where a foetus develops with most or all of its brain missing, most are aborted or die during childbirth, that woman kept a child alive with zero quality of life for nearly 3 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anencephaly (pic of a newborn with Anencephaly in link so might be a bit disturbing).

We shoot horses who break their leg yet put people through months or years of tortuous medical treatment and for what?

Northclare

Galvasean wrote: »

Two things from your post shooter, that I was going to bring up:

ShooterSF wrote: »

We put humans through more suffering than we'd let any other animal go through.

It always strikes me as strange how when a dog, cat or hamster is terminally ill and in terrible pain we choose the less painful option (which is usually letting them die / 'putting them down') as it is considered the humane thing to do, but when it is other humans in the same situation we, by in large, rarely even consider the 'humane' option.

ShooterSF wrote: »

On the topic it still strikes me as strange that this articles is not about atheists as it would make more logical sense. We're the ones (ignoring the atheist who believes in the AL) who think this is the only existence we have where as for many religious not only will their child stop suffering the will go to a better blissful existence where someday they will be reunited for eternity. You'd think we'd be the ones hoping against hope really. Still I guess human nature takes precedent at a time like this and even religions claims can't ease it.

It always strikes me as strange how religious people seem more likely to cling on to life, any life regardless of how painful / uncomfortable, despite their claims to knowing that death is but the beginning and a much more blissful existence awaits. Studies have shown that non-believers tend to be better at 'letting go' in such situations, despite there being no pt of gold waiting for them at the end of the rainbow. I suppose in an atheists case, no life would be considered better than a very painful and undignified one?
In the case of the religious who cannot let go despite the fact that their beliefs tell them that an eternity of bliss awaits, one wonders if they truly believe at all?

Can you copy and paste a link of those Studies Sean thanks.

legspin

Never underestimate the lengths a parent will go to to keep their child alive, especially when the cause is hopeless and to all intents and purposes already lost. Grief can cause people to do strange things.

Turtwig

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

parents desperately clinging to hope their children won't die?

what bastards

If their child was shot in the leg, foot, heart, head, arm and torso, they'd have no objection. The problem is these diseases can be quite complicated and invisible. The person on the outside, including the doctor, is often left completely oblivious to the actual suffering the sufferer goes through. The doctor though is able to imagine it a little.

I get it, it's great that parents want their kids to survive, but there comes a point when that just inflicts needless excruciating torture and torment on the child.

aidan24326

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

parents desperately clinging to hope their children won't die?

what bastards

It depends on the situation. Where there's hope you'll cling to that hope of course and that's understandable but keeping a child artificially alive where their prognosis is extremely bleak is just plain selfish.

I'm sure being told your baby has anencephaly is devestating but it's difficult to see what the mother was trying to achieve by keeping the baby superficially 'alive' when it had no chance at all of ever living anything resembling a human life. I'd accept her mental state could have been anything though.

Galvasean wrote: »

It always strikes me as strange how when a dog, cat or hamster is terminally ill and in terrible pain we choose the less painful option (which is usually letting them die / 'putting them down') as it is considered the humane thing to do, but when it is other humans in the same situation we, by in large, rarely even consider the 'humane' option.

This is something that's always baffled me. But there's no doubt whatsoever that it's religiously influenced.

Take the case of Tony Nicklinson in England, who has the nightmarish condition known as 'Locked-in-Syndrome'

wiki wrote:

Locked-in syndrome is a condition in which a patient is aware and awake but cannot move or communicate verbally due to complete paralysis of nearly all voluntary muscles in the body except for the eyes. Total locked-in syndrome is a version of locked-in syndrome where the eyes are paralyzed as well

He's been fighting in the UK Courts for several years to be allowed to die, as he says, 'with dignity'. As he finds his situation completely miserable and intolerable (not difficult to imagine why).

So far he's basically being told that a decision to allow this could only be taken at parliamentary level, which of course would be subject to all the usual political bullsh1t and probably drag on for so long he'll be dead anyway. And of course the Bishops would drone on about interfering with God's will.

Multiple messages to his twitter account make references to God's plan, God's will, God's purpose for him etc etc So he's supposed to accept a life of intolerable misery because that's what God actually wants? WTF are these people on? If Locked in Syndrome is God's plan for me then God can seriously fcuk right off.

MrPudding

I have always found it interesting that humans seem to be excluded from being treated humanely, when it comes to medical treatment. Pets - treat them humanely. Humans - make them suffer. That does bug me.

MrP

aidan24326

Slightly off-thread, but:


Coincidentally, the guy I mentioned in a previous post, who has Locked-In Syndrome, had his High Court legal bid to be allowed end his life rejected today.

Yahoo wrote:

Locked-in syndrome sufferer Tony Nicklinson has been left "devastated and heartbroken" after losing his High Court battle for the legal right to end his life when he chooses with a doctor's help.

Mr Nicklinson's wife, Jane - standing by her weeping husband's side - described the decision as "one-sided".

She said: "You can see from Tony's reaction he's absolutely heartbroken."
They now plan to appeal against the decision and hope they will be able to organise a hearing before the end of the year

http://uk.lifestyle.yahoo.com/locked-man-loses-aided-death-bid-132622494.html


Yet if your pet cat or rabbit was suffering with no hope of recovery you'd be fully expected to give them a humane death??

haulagebasher

Yes those anacephalic baby pictures are horrendous. What a monstrous affliction. However some rare cases do survive on their own. Example being Nicholas Coke who has an enclosed cranium but has no brain. Funnily enough though, his eyes move in unision and he makes various facial expression. There must be some bits of brain there, especially with the eyes seemingly being able to move somwhat coherently. Limb movements too. See: http://goo.gl/70NVN for details.OTOH, baby K and others have a more monstrous version with an apparently open skull.An equally if not more terrifying mostrosity is the "harlequin baby" - absolutely fightful stuff, but strangely interesting. Going even more off topic still is the condition "'schistosomus reflexus" - where a fetus is born wholly or partially inside out. Usually happens to calfs and the photos are most horrifying. Apparently, sometimes the calf can be still alive and moving when born - terrifying, t'would be like something out of an alien abduction film.

strobe

Galvasean wrote: »

Two things from your post shooter, that I was going to bring up:

ShooterSF wrote: »

On the topic it still strikes me as strange that this articles is not about atheists as it would make more logical sense. We're the ones (ignoring the atheist who believes in the AL) who think this is the only existence we have where as for many religious not only will their child stop suffering the will go to a better blissful existence where someday they will be reunited for eternity. You'd think we'd be the ones hoping against hope really. Still I guess human nature takes precedent at a time like this and even religions claims can't ease it.

It always strikes me as strange how religious people seem more likely to cling on to life, any life regardless of how painful / uncomfortable, despite their claims to knowing that death is but the beginning and a much more blissful existence awaits. Studies have shown that non-believers tend to be better at 'letting go' in such situations, despite there being no pt of gold waiting for them at the end of the rainbow. I suppose in an atheists case, no life would be considered better than a very painful and undignified one?
In the case of the religious who cannot let go despite the fact that their beliefs tell them that an eternity of bliss awaits, one wonders if they truly believe at all?

I don't think it's that strange really. It's what I would expect to find. Fear of death, both one's own and other people's, is one of the main causes (for want of a better word) of religious belief, probably the main cause, so it seems perfectly logical to me that the same people who profess to hold religious beliefs of an afterlife would often be the ones that would have the most difficulty facing death.

They are religious precisely because they can't accept death. But for a lot of them, while the religious beliefs they hold may help them cope a little better with their fear of death in general, day to day, when it comes to actual life or death situations, their fears often override their coping mechanism.

georgieporgy

strobe wrote: »

I don't think it's that strange really. It's what I would expect to find. Fear of death, both one's own and other people's, is one of the main causes (for want of a better word) of religious belief, probably the main cause, so it seems perfectly logical to me that the same people who profess to hold religious beliefs of an afterlife would often be the ones that would have the most difficulty facing death.

They are religious precisely because they can't accept death. But for a lot of them, while the religious beliefs they hold may help them cope a little better with their fear of death in general, day to day, when it comes to actual life or death situations, their fears often override their coping mechanism.

I think you should ponder that a bit more . Just the slightest effort of google research throws up many examples of the opposite opinion. For example Maximilian Kolbe

[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Near the end of July, a prisoner apparently escaped, and men from Kolbe's bunker were paraded in the blazing midday sun, knowing what to expect. One man from each line was selected at random, including a sergeant, Francis Gajowniczek. He cried out in a despairing voice, "My wife, my children, I shall never see them again!" Then a man stepped out from the ranks and offered to take Gajowniczek's place. He was prisoner 16670, Father Maximilian Kolbe. The SS man, "Butcher" Fritsch, did not care who went to the Bunker, so long as there were ten of them, so he nodded. "Who are you?" he asked carelessly. "I am a Catholic priest. I wish to die for that man. I am old; he has a wife and children." Father Kolbe and the nine others were led off to the death chamber of Cell 18.[/FONT]
http://www.myhero.com/go/hero.asp?hero=mkolbe

UDP

georgieporgy wrote: »

I think you should ponder that a bit more . Just the slightest effort of google research throws up many examples of the opposite opinion. For example Maximilian Kolbe

[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Near the end of July, a prisoner apparently escaped, and men from Kolbe's bunker were paraded in the blazing midday sun, knowing what to expect. One man from each line was selected at random, including a sergeant, Francis Gajowniczek. He cried out in a despairing voice, "My wife, my children, I shall never see them again!" Then a man stepped out from the ranks and offered to take Gajowniczek's place. He was prisoner 16670, Father Maximilian Kolbe. The SS man, "Butcher" Fritsch, did not care who went to the Bunker, so long as there were ten of them, so he nodded. "Who are you?" he asked carelessly. "I am a Catholic priest. I wish to die for that man. I am old; he has a wife and children." Father Kolbe and the nine others were led off to the death chamber of Cell 18.[/FONT]
http://www.myhero.com/go/hero.asp?hero=mkolbe

I note strobe said "for a lot of them". Anyway extreme altruism exists in other species such as brazilian ants so I don't think it has anything specifically to do with being religious or not.

JimiTime

Its quite disgusting that the desperation of parents is being used as some sort of atheist one-upmanship.

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

Its quite disgusting that the desperation of parents is being used as some sort of atheist one-upmanship.

What do you reckon about the claims of parents "torturing" children?

Should religious freedom really extend that far?

JimiTime

JimiTime wrote: »

Its quite disgusting that the desperation of parents is being used as some sort of atheist one-upmanship.

It's disgusting that children are being "tortured". But nevermind that while there's atheists out there

jank

Galvasean wrote: »

Studies have shown that non-believers tend to be better at 'letting go' in such situations, despite there being no pt of gold waiting for them at the end of the rainbow. I suppose in an atheists case, no life would be considered better than a very painful and undignified one?
In the case of the religious who cannot let go despite the fact that their beliefs tell them that an eternity of bliss awaits, one wonders if they truly believe at all?

What studies would these be?

jank

MrPudding wrote: »

I have always found it interesting that humans seem to be excluded from being treated humanely, when it comes to medical treatment. Pets - treat them humanely. Humans - make them suffer. That does bug me.

MrP

Do you think animals should have the same rights as humans?
Do you think animals are the same as humans?

jank

bluewolf wrote: »

It's disgusting that children are being "tortured". But nevermind that while there's atheists out there

Well tortured is a subjective term here and the situation is extremely complex which transcends religion completely, but anyway carry on with the agenda...

oldrnwisr

jank wrote: »

What studies would these be?

I'm a bit short on time at the moment but I believe this is what Galvasean was referring to:

Religiousness and Spiritual Support Among Advanced Cancer Patients and Associations With End-of-Life Treatment Preferences and Quality of Life


Quotes from the study:

"Religiousness was significantly associated with wanting all measures to extend life (odds ratio, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.08 to 3.57)."

"Religious individuals more frequently want aggressive measures to extend life."

I will post up some more examples this evening if I get a chance.

JimiTime

robindch wrote: »

What do you reckon about the claims of parents "torturing" children?

Should religious freedom really extend that far?

Spin, thats all. I mean, why not spin it as 'religious parents value life more'? As I said, its disgusting turning a parents desperation to see their child live into some kind of religion/atheist thing. Absolutely tasteless.

MagicMarker

jank wrote: »

Do you think animals should have the same rights as humans?
Do you think animals are the same as humans?

You have a knack for asking irrelevant questions.

Do you agree or disagree with the sentiments expressed by MrPudding?

JimiTime wrote: »

Spin, thats all. I mean, why not spin it as 'religious parents value life more'? As I said, its disgusting turning a parents desperation to see their child live into some kind of religion/atheist thing. Absolutely tasteless.

Where's the spin?

recedite

This reminds me of the cases where Jehovahs Witness parents went against medical opinion in denying their kids blood tranfusions or transplants. Those are more unforgivable obviously because the doctors were trying to give treatment, not withdraw it. But still the principle is the same; how much do you pander to the offbeat views of the parent in a difficult medical situation?

I was told anecdotally (ie no evidence or proof whatsoever) that the practice in Dublin maternity hospitals, including those with a religious patronage, when a non-viable baby is born, is to take it downstairs and leave it for a while without further intervention. If there is no appropriate intervention possible, then none is attempted, and nobody consults the parents about what to do in that situation.

Chuck Stone

Galvasean wrote: »

It always strikes me as strange how when a dog, cat or hamster is terminally ill and in terrible pain we choose the less painful option (which is usually letting them die / 'putting them down') as it is considered the humane thing to do, but when it is other humans in the same situation we, by in large, rarely even consider the 'humane' option.

Not that strange really; it's a rational decision based on the costs of keeping the pet alive with no hope of recovery versus paying through the snout.

Healthcare is socialised (or risk spread) so the costs are not an immediate concern for the parents of children on life support; afaia there is no such profligacy when it comes to pets.

Galvasean wrote: »

It always strikes me as strange how religious people seem more likely to cling on to life, any life regardless of how painful / uncomfortable, despite their claims to knowing that death is but the beginning and a much more blissful existence awaits.

When it comes to religious people not letting their children on life support go I suspect one of the reasons is that they are afraid that they are being watched by the 'big fella' who will deny them entry into 'the happy place' for not following orders.

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

Spin, thats all. I mean, why not spin it as 'religious parents value life more'?

Because there's no evidence that religious parents do "value" life more. The point of this story is that the final agonies of dying children are being prolonged, by having them wait around for a religious miracle that will never come.

JimiTime wrote: »

As I said, its disgusting turning a parents desperation to see their child live into some kind of religion/atheist thing. Absolutely tasteless.

The article doesn't mention the word "atheist" once, so I've no idea why you're setting up a conflict where none exists.

The article is about suffering. Does the needless suffering of children not concern you? Or are you only interested in your religion?

If so, then you're rather like the heartless parents in this sad, sad story -- putting their cold, irrational religious beliefs ahead of inevitability and common human decency.

JimiTime

robindch wrote: »

The point of this story is that the final agonies of dying children are being prolonged, by having them wait around for a religious miracle that will never come.The article doesn't mention the word "atheist" once, so I've no idea why you're setting up a conflict where none exists.

Robindch, obtuse?!! Well i never. Its been spun here as 'Religious people torturing children'.

The article is about suffering. Does the needless suffering of children not concern you? Or are you only interested in your religion?

No, I just love torturing kids. I like em fried, how do you eat yours? Muppet:rolleyes:

If so, then you're rather like the heartless parents in this sad, sad story -- putting their cold, irrational religious beliefs ahead of inevitability and common human decency.

Disgusting.

ShooterSF

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Not that strange really; it's a rational decision based on the costs of keeping the pet alive with no hope of recovery versus paying through the snout.

Healthcare is socialised (or risk spread) so the costs are not an immediate concern for the parents of children on life support; afaia there is no such profligacy when it comes to pets.

But if my dog was sick and in pain with no chance of recovery not even free prolonging of his life would make me feel it was the right thing to do. I'd consider putting him out of his suffering the ethically right thing to do. It's insane that I can make that choice for an animal but if I was to develop a terminal painful illness I couldn't make the same decision for myself!

jank

MagicMarker wrote: »

You have a knack for asking irrelevant questions.

Do you agree or disagree with the sentiments expressed by MrPudding?

Irrelevant? Ha, he is the person who is equating the rights of Animals to Humans. I asked a very simple question with a very simple yes or no answer.

jank

robindch wrote: »

If so, then you're rather like the heartless parents in this sad, sad story -- putting their cold, irrational religious beliefs ahead of inevitability and common human decency.

I think that is totally uncalled for. What is worse is using these children who suffer as a bat to bash religious people with. Good on you!

"I dont agree with you so I like to torture children" Yeap thats it alright!

Look at the stats in the article.

There was 203 cases looked at. In 186 cases aggressive treatment was stopped at is was proving unsuccessful. There is no breakdown at all if these people were or were not religious but one can confidently assume that there is a good mix. So taking that axiom not all religious people are out there making their children suffer.....

17 cases treatment was pursed by the parents against the wishes of the medical staff. 11 out of those 17 were because of religious belief, this means 6 were not. Blows the case out of the water the ONLY religion is a factor here. What was the motive of those 6 people? They wanted to be cruel for the sake of it? Maybe they enjoyed torturing their own child, after all they were not taking this stand on a religious ground so there must have been a rational reason for it. Right?

Some of 11 cases where religion was a factor were resolved and the child left to die after further discussion with religious and spiritual leaders.
One went to the high court to be resolved. So that is one out of 203, a .5% ratio where the parents could be deemed blinded to reality by their religious faith.

So again, why are some people painting this as an "us" vs "them" scenario when religion is NOT the only factor in unnecessary further treatment of children.

By all means discuss the topic, but lets widen the scope to include all in society and not limit it to the usual "religion is evil" mantra that is often touted on this forum. Many here cant tell the wood from the trees.

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

Its been spun here as 'Religious people torturing children'.

It's not being "spun" here. People are simply pointing out that religious people prolong the final agonies of terminally-ill children for religious reasons -- I don't think anybody disputes that?

So far, you haven't addressed the question I asked originally:

robindch wrote:

Should religious freedom really extend that far?

Would you like to address that question? Or would you like to continue to avoid it by saying that this is just another case of atheists being nasty towards the religious?

Should religious people be able to do anything, so long as they can claim that it's an expectation of their religion? Or should the pain suffered by a dying child be taken into account at some point?

robindch

jank wrote: »

11 out of those 17 were because of religious belief, this means 6 were not.

Means that around 5% of the sample prolonged the inevitable for religious reasons. While it's bad that it happens at all, it's good that the level is as low as that. And even then, the article does suggest that it happens mostly amongst immigrant communities only, so it's reasonable to assume that in a couple of generations, it probably won't happen.

So, back to the question -- is it fair of the religious to put their religious beliefs above the death of a child? Or is it so presumptuous to even ask that question, that it should never be asked?

ShooterSF

jank wrote: »

Irrelevant? Ha, he is the person who is equating the rights of Animals to Humans. I asked a very simple question with a very simple yes or no answer.

We're complaining that people have the right to euthanise an animal suffering with no hope of recovery but not themeselves or child. What has that to do with equating animal and human rights?

Do you support the right to euthanasia in any circumstances for humans?

jank

robindch wrote: »

It's not being "spun" here. People are simply pointing out that some religious people prolong the final agonies of terminally-ill children for religious reasons -- I don't think anybody disputes that?

Some religious people robindch, do you dispute that its ALL religious people or that ONLY religious people do this?

robindch wrote: »

So far, you haven't addressed the question I asked originally:Would you like to address that question? Or would you like to continue to avoid it by saying that this is just another case of atheists being nasty towards the religious?

Well clearly you are trying to paint that this issue is the sole domain of the religious when the stats claim otherwise in black and white. If there is more balance here then you will not have people calling you up on it.

robindch wrote: »

Should religious people be able to do anything, so long as they can claim that it's an expectation of their religion? Or should the pain suffered by a dying child be taken into account at some point?

Can religious people do that now? Can I go out and kill someone and say god told me to and then be let off? Of course not, therefore what is the point you are making?

jank

robindch wrote: »

Means that around 5% of the sample prolonged the inevitable for religious reasons. While it's bad that it happens at all, it's good that the level is as low as that. And even then, the article does suggest that it happens mostly amongst immigrant communities only, so it's reasonable to assume that in a couple of generations, it probably won't happen.

Also means that almost 3% prolonged the inevitable for non-religious reasons but that was conveniently ignored again. So tell me, what made those 6 couples pursue unnecessary medical treatment for their child when their motive was utterly rational and non-religious?

robindch wrote: »

So, back to the question -- is it fair of the religious to put their religious beliefs above the death of a child? Or is it so presumptuous to even ask that question, that it should never be asked?

Is it fair that only the religious should be asked that question when others who pursue their own choice non-religiously and rationally don't have to answer.

Dave!

jank wrote: »

robindch wrote: »

Means that around 5% of the sample prolonged the inevitable for religious reasons. While it's bad that it happens at all, it's good that the level is as low as that. And even then, the article does suggest that it happens mostly amongst immigrant communities only, so it's reasonable to assume that in a couple of generations, it probably won't happen.

Also means that almost 3% prolonged the inevitable for non-religious reasons but that was conveniently ignored again. So tell me, what made those 6 couples pursue unnecessary medical treatment for their child when their motive was utterly rational and non-religious?

robindch wrote: »

So, back to the question -- is it fair of the religious to put their religious beliefs above the death of a child? Or is it so presumptuous to even ask that question, that it should never be asked?

Is it fair that only the religious should be asked that question when others who pursue their own choice non-religiously and rationally don't have to answer.

Everyone should have to justify keeping a child alive in that state, but we don't know the other parents' reasons, whereas we more or less know the religious parents' reasons, and we know that they're unjustified.

I like your choice of words above. It's the ATHEIST parents that we're letting away without explaining themselves!! :eek:

jank

ShooterSF wrote: »

We're complaining that people have the right to euthanise an animal suffering with no hope of recovery but not themeselves or child. What has that to do with equating animal and human rights?

Again do you think Animals should have rights that are equal to humans, its a very easy question that people have difficulty answering.

ShooterSF wrote: »

Do you support the right to euthanasia in any circumstances for humans?

In ANY circumstance. No of course not. In some circumstances I would be open to it.

jank

Dave! wrote: »

Everyone should have to justify keeping a child alive in that state, but we don't know the other parents' reasons, whereas we more or less know the religious parents' reasons, and we know that they're unjustified.

OK, so because it was taken on religious grounds it is automatically unjustified, yet when the decision is taken on non-religious grounds it is justified (or the very least conveniently ignored) as we don't know the full details?

Dave! wrote: »

I like your choice of words above. It's the ATHEIST parents that we're letting away without explaining themselves!! :eek:

Eh, no that is your words. The parents could be religious if all we know, all we do know is that they made their decision based on NON-Religious reasons.

recedite

jank wrote: »

Again do you think Animals should have rights that are equal to humans, its a very easy question that people have difficulty answering.

Off topic, but....
Beetles have less rights than cats, which have less than chimps, which have less than people.

Now a question for you; Do you think animals have souls?

ShooterSF

jank wrote: »

Again do you think Animals should have rights that are equal to humans, its a very easy question that people have difficulty answering.

Ok, no I don't. I think humans should have more rights but animals should be treated well where possible. That's why I have a problem with the fact that animals have more rights when it comes to choice of death (even if it's made by proxy)

In ANY circumstance. No of course not. In some circumstances I would be open to it.

Great as I meant any as in certain not any as in all. So have you any idea why people would oppose legalising euthanasia?

Dave!

jank wrote: »

OK, so because it was taken on religious grounds it is automatically unjustified,

Well if you're going to attempt to justify a decision on moral grounds, then you have to use logic that is accessible to everyone, otherwise it can hardly be considered moral.

jank wrote: »

yet when the decision is taken on non-religious grounds it is justified (or the very least conveniently ignored) as we don't know the full details?

No, if you have the details of why the decision was made in the other cases, then we can discuss them, if you don't then we can't. I'm sure that there are posters in here who consider it immoral to do this, in which case religious or secular justification is irrelevant... It's immoral regardless.

jank wrote: »

Eh, no that is your words. The parents could be religious if all we know, all we do know is that they made their decision based on NON-Religious reasons.

Doesn't mean there was anything rational about their decision-making, though, does it? It could be purely driven by emotion

Cienciano

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

parents desperately clinging to hope their children won't die?

what bastards

Google image "anacephaly" and get back to us.

jank

ShooterSF wrote: »

Ok, no I don't. I think humans should have more rights but animals should be treated well where possible. That's why I have a problem with the fact that animals have more rights when it comes to choice of death (even if it's made by proxy)

Finally. The very fact you state the humans have more fundamental rights then animals means that there is an inherit difference between a man and a horse/cat/dog/chimp etc.
Therefore we should NOT be comparing the rights animals have to humans.

ShooterSF wrote: »

Great as I meant any as in certain not any as in all. So have you any idea why people would oppose legalising euthanasia?

Of course I have an idea why, do you or is it all religions fault again. :rolleyes:

I would imagine that some people would be scared of the fact that they would not like some bureaucratic government official deciding on someone's life or if a life is worth having. It could quickly descend into people with mental and physical handicaps being euthanised to "ease" their suffering.
I don't want to Godwin this thread but by all means look up the facts of the euthanasia program of the Third Reich. Euthenisa might be the discussion now, eugenics might be the discussion in 20 years and so on.

I understand the merits of euthanasia but I also understand massive implications of society if it were to become the norm, acceptable and widespread. If you cant understand these reservations then I would suggest you take another look.

That is the fundamental difference between a man and an animal. An animal cant pass laws and perform genocide on an industrial scale. We all know what men are capable of.

jank

Dave! wrote: »

Well if you're going to attempt to justify a decision on moral grounds, then you have to use logic that is accessible to everyone, otherwise it can hardly be considered moral.



No, if you have the details of why the decision was made in the other cases, then we can discuss them, if you don't then we can't. I'm sure that there are posters in here who consider it immoral to do this, in which case religious or secular justification is irrelevant... It's immoral regardless.



Doesn't mean there was anything rational about their decision-making, though, does it? It could be purely driven by emotion

Finally we are getting somewhere. So we agree that this is an issue that is non-religious and more to do with the emotional state of the parents.

ShooterSF

jank wrote: »

Finally. The very fact you state the humans have more fundamental rights then animals means that there is an inherit difference between a man and a horse/cat/dog/chimp etc.
Therefore we should NOT be comparing the rights animals have to humans.

So we shouldn't point out that animals actaully have better rights than us in this regard even though we should treat humans better than animals? I think it's relevant.

Of course I have an idea why, do you or is it all religions fault again. :rolleyes:

Well I doubt it's ALL religion's fault but most consider this life a test and oppose getting out early. Sure I've witnessed the churches handling of suicides and while they've got better at it it still carries a religious stigma.

I would imagine that some people would be scared of the fact that they would not like some bureaucratic government official deciding on someone's life or if a life is worth having. It could quickly descend into people with mental and physical handicaps being euthanised to "ease" their suffering.
I don't want to Godwin this thread but by all means look up the facts of the euthanasia program of the Third Reich. Euthenisa might be the discussion now, eugenics might be the discussion in 20 years and so on.

I understand the merits of euthanasia but I also understand massive implications of society if it were to become the norm, acceptable and widespread. If you cant understand these reservations then I would suggest you take another look.

That is the fundamental difference between a man and an animal. An animal cant pass laws and perform genocide on an industrial scale. We all know what men are capable of.

You've been on this forum long enough to know the slippery slope fallacy is not an acceptable argument. There are no massive implications apart from the one's you're imagining. It will require strict wording and safety nets put in place but there's no reason to suggest we can't do that other than scaremongering (usually done by people with ulterior motives)

JimiTime

jank wrote: »

Eh, no that is your words. The parents could be religious if all we know, all we do know is that they made their decision based on NON-Religious reasons.

I would hazard a guess it was something to do with that cold, evil, irrational desire to see their dying child live. The bast@rds!

robindch

robindch wrote: »

What do you reckon about the claims of parents "torturing" children? Should religious freedom really extend that far?

JimiTime wrote: »

I would hazard a guess it was something to do with that cold, evil, irrational desire to see their dying child live.

Should we take it you don't want to address the question at hand?