Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Baby injured in an accident? Don't go to hospital get an emergency baptism instead
-
28-11-2013 2:29pm#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Church authorities were quick to distance themselves
I would say so
at least they are not encouraging it themselves
Not directly maybe. But IF a given church is teaching that unbaptized children risk hell then parents who believe that will strongly feel compelled to react to a possibly fatal injury by going for a baptism before trying to get medical treatment.
It seems crazy to us but GIVEN what the parents believed then what they did was the right thing to do! And if that church IS teaching this as fact (I do not know which church it is or what their teachings is) then they can distance themselves from it all they like but the fact is they are directly responsible for this tragedy.
Alas I read too many stories of children dying, often of very easily treatable conditions or cases, solely because what ever religion the parents happened to be was one that caused them to postpone or even refuse simple medical treatment.
Some time ago a beautiful young girl died because her religious parents thought the treatment for mild diabetes was an affront to god. Only this month we hear a story of a child who not just died, but died after over a week of agony and suffering, because the foster/adoptive parents chose prayer over medicine. The child could have been cured quickly and easily by a simple course of penicillin as it happens.
Religion has some awful affects on people and society but the one that brings me most often to, and over, the brink of tears is the ways in which it can warp the purest love we have as a species.... that of a parent for a child.... into such horror.
The most pernicious, hideous, egregiously horrifying aspect of it all is these parents likely watched their child die.... loving them dearly all the while.... thinking they were doing right by their kid. While people who read such stories instead picture hateful evil malignant and neglecting parents who do not really care for the child. Would that it were so because the fact such horror could be visited in the name of love makes it, for me, all the worse.
And all because of what these people believed about the nature of the universe and its creator. Or more specifically were spoon fed by clergy to believe. A clergy who then wipe their hands of it all, distance themselves from it, and declare "not our fault". Horrible.Exactly. The Jewish zombie became a catholic. No holes in the story at all.
There was at least two holes. One in each hand. Or so I hear
Sorry poor attempt to lighten my above text with humor.0 -
PopePalpatine wrote: »They were there on behalf of "Pure In Heart", they were giving away little books titled "The Case Against Condoms" (among others). :rolleyes:
Sorry for dragging the thread off-topic.
Why do I never meet these people? I would have SO much fun taking the piss and recording their reactions.0 -
-
-
Whilst on the subject of things that don't exist, that is another one. There is no such thing as mild diabetes. But it is perfectly possible to live with once you take the appropriate drugs.
<grabs insulin and coat>
I love this forum for its pedantry
I meant RELATIVELY mild, as in it was low on the continuum of the different forms of diabetes that are out there.
Clearly since it was FATAL in the case of the girl I mention, it was hardly "mild" in any non-relative sense of the word.0 -
-
Well there's insulin dependent diabetes and there's diabetes that can be managed mainly with diet. While neither are 'mild' one could be said to be milder than the other.
Which is milder?
I 'managed' mine by diet for 10 years then wham after an operation it went from not even registering as an issue to very very nearly ending up in an ICU - and it took 3 more years to 'stablise' to a get up 3 hours earlier then before so the side effects of the meds pass and I am fit to drive/speak/think...
I am at least 3rd generation Type II and my used to be 'mild' controlled by diet diabetes is mutating into Type I slowly but surely so some days I produce insulin and others I don't - so some days the meds work and other days they don't...Endocrinologist reckons it is 'interesting' but I don't think he would say it was 'mild'.
0 -
Bannasidhe wrote: »Which is milder?
I 'managed' mine by diet for 10 years then wham after an operation it went from not even registering as an issue to very very nearly ending up in an ICU - and it took 3 more years to 'stablise' to a get up 3 hours earlier then before so the side effects of the meds pass and I am fit to drive/speak/think...
I am at least 3rd generation Type II and my used to be 'mild' controlled by diet diabetes is mutating into Type I slowly but surely so some days I produce insulin and others I don't - so some days the meds work and other days they don't...Endocrinologist reckons it is 'interesting' but I don't think he would say it was 'mild'.
I'd put the non insulin dependent type as milder, or less severe, than the dependent type. While it can worsen, like yours, a lot of people manage it for years with no problems, whereas without drugs my brother would be dead in a couple of days regardless of how carefully he ate.
To clarify; I don't think diabetes of any kind is a trivial or 'mild' condition. It's a serious thing which should always be controlled with the input of a doctor.
I'm half expecting to develop it myself. My family enjoys Type I, Type II, and Gestational diabetes.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
It is amazing the tangents threads on this forum can go off on sometimes. A mere side anecdote used to beef up my main point has launched an entire off topic discussion about diabetes.
And given diabetes is linked to sweet foods... and given this is the A&A forum.... it is almost pre-destined in a divine kind of way that the conversation on this thread, like so many before it, will inevitably turn to biscuits. Sweet, sugary, biscuits.0 -
Bannasidhe wrote: »Endocrinologist reckons it is 'interesting' but I don't think he would say it was 'mild'.
I've only had to deal with hypothyroidism after half my thyroid decided to go nuts and inflate to about the size of an orange before I got rid of it. It was an obscure enough problem that had me spending 12 hours or more waiting around the hospital while nearly as many doctors poked around my throat and went "... huh. That's interesting. Hey, John, c'mere and have a look at this..."
In my meagre experience, it's never a good sign when the doc reckons you're an "interesting" case.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 23689
You could potentially call type 2 diabetes "mild" in that it may be controlled just by diet and exercise. Generally a young girl would be type 1 and insulin dependant whereas type 2 would often not be diagnosed until later in life. But then type 1 may then live a long a healthy life if properly controlled, but someone with type 2 might not get diagnosed until very late on and by then the multitude of additional complications could have taken hold and make for a very un-"mild" set of medical issues.
*I was going to put loads of *'s through that paragraph then stating "exceptions apply", but it would have looked silly with a * next to every other word.
I like cake.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »It is amazing the tangents threads on this forum can go off on sometimes. A mere side anecdote used to beef up my main point has launched an entire off topic discussion about diabetes.
And given diabetes is linked to sweet foods... and given this is the A&A forum.... it is almost pre-destined in a divine kind of way that the conversation on this thread, like so many before it, will inevitably turn to biscuits. Sweet, sugary, biscuits.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
My GP is referring me to someone who, I quote, "Likes weird stuff like that." .gaynorvader wrote: »Ouch! I'd seek out a dermatologist, GPs generally aren't good at unusual conditions.
I'd wager the GP is sending her to whoever s/he deems the most appropriate. 0 -
I'd wager the GP is sending her to whoever s/he deems the most appropriate.
In my own experience, some GPs can be quite blinkered when it comes to specialist conditions. My mother had a pain in her back, the GP offered her painkillers and eventually a surgery option. Then her friend told her about physiotherapy, which has helped her immensely. My Dad had problems walking any distance and was told by 2 GPs that he was just getting old, went to a third who sent him for tests and had a quadruple heart bypass less than a month later. When my mother went and told her GP she was feeling depressed she was told to essentially 'suck it up'.
I don't think it's the GP's fault (they can't know everything), and they're still my first port of call when I'm unwell, but if there's something wrong, you should pursue other avenues as well if a GP can't or won't help.0 -
Advertisement