NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.wausaudailyherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080325/WDH0101/80325030

Update: Police say coffee shop owners believe lack of faith killed daughter

Diabetic condition highly treatable, expert says

Wausau Daily Herald

TOWN OF WESTON — An 11-year-old town of Weston girl died Sunday from a treatable form of diabetes after her parents prayed for healing rather than seek medical treatment, Everest Metro Police Chief Dan Vergin said this afternoon.
..
..
“It is our understanding that instead of seeking medical help, they chose to pray over her and their faith would heal her,” Vergin said.

“She got sicker and sicker until she was dead,” he told The Associated Press.

He said the family has no ties to a specific church or religion. “They have a little Bible study of a few people.”
..
..
Vergin said the girl had not seen a doctor since age 3. Police have not had contact with her family in the past.

The girl had attended Riverside Elementary School in the D.C. Everest School District during the first semester but didn’t return for the second semester.

The girl has three siblings, ranging in age from 13 to 16, the police chief said.

“They are still in the home,” Vergin said. “There is no reason to remove them. There is no abuse or signs of abuse that we can see.”


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,341869,00.html

Wisconsin Parents Didn't Expect Daughter to Die During Prayer
..
She had probably been ill for about 30 days, suffering symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, excessive thirst, loss of appetite and weakness, he said.
..
..
"We just noticed a tiredness within the past two weeks," she said. "And then just the day before and that day (she died), it suddenly just went to a more serious situation. We stayed fast in prayer then. We believed that she would recover. We saw signs that to us, it looked like she was recovering."
..
..
Leilani Neumann said the family is not worried about a police investigation into her daughter's death because "our lives are in God's hands. We know we did not do anything criminal. We know we did the best for our daughter we knew how to do."


Then there's of course this mild discrepancy:
But Leilani Neumann said her daughter, a straight A student, was in good health until recently.
..
..
According to Vergin, the parents told investigators Madeline last saw a doctor when she was 3 to get some shots. The girl had attended public school during the first semester but didn't return for the second semester, he said.





Freedom of religion is a grand thing, isn't it?

Should there be limits to it? Doesn't limiting put State above the doctrines of Faith, possibly dooming the child or adult patient to eternal damnation? Is personal belief when extended to children illegal?

Is saving a child or adult now worth risking an eternal afterlife in paradise?

You shouldn't stop said parents from refusing treatment, because it is not the government's responsibility nor role.

Maybe you have faith in Washington, sir, but I don't trust the wonderful brains who invaded Iraq and are killing social security to know or even care about what is best for me. The slippery slope is cliched, yes, but still just as threatening.

What if I believe a certain drug prescribed will hurt my child, and I refuse to give her the medication? Will you have the police force the pills down her throat, and have me arrested? Where do you draw the line? Does the state really know what's best?

Sorry, but I don't trust Washington that much...

You shouldn't stop said parents from refusing treatment, because it is not the government's responsibility nor role.

Even though in this case the child apparently suffered for a month before finally vaning away?

Why must stupid people breed?


Poor girl... If her parents weren't such morons, she would have had a chance.

She hadn't seen a doctor since she was 3. Correct me if I am wrong, but Tetanus is a 5 yearly shot atleast, as well as all the various other medical conditions that could have occured.

She is probably lucky to have lived until 11...

You shouldn't stop said parents from refusing treatment, because it is not the government's responsibility nor role.
<snip>

Sorry, but I don't trust Washington that much...
If a parent is seen to be incapable of raising their child, it is the responsibility of the government to step in and do something (Ever heard of Department of Community services or whatever your local equivalent is?). I guess on one hand it does raise the issue of how poor the said department is, but it still does not mean the parents are in the right.

As for your paranoia over Washington, It is not the government who issue treatment. IT IS DOCTORS! NOT POLITICIANS!!!

You shouldn't stop said parents from refusing treatment, because it is not the government's responsibility nor role.

Pah. If the parents can't do what's best for their daughter, then I don't think that holds. It should be the girl's decision, in my opinion. Parents schmarents, 11 years old is old enough to decide for yourself if you want to live or die...

Even though in this case the child apparently suffered for a month before finally vaning away?

No, it sets up a dangerous precedent. Do I feel for this poor girl? Hell yes. Life isn't fair, and some people get the shit end of the stick.

The Government is a horrible equalizer, it fails over and over again at "Making life fair."

Pah. If the parents can't do what's best for their daughter, then I don't think that holds. It should be the girl's decision, in my opinion. Parents schmarents, 11 years old is old enough to decide for yourself if you want to live or die...

Apparently the parents were not old enough to make that call, so how should the 11-year-old indoctrinated to the belief's of her parents be able to make the right decision when the decision is formed like this:
- Trust god and enter paradise or use tools of satan and face eternal damnation.

What if I believe food will hurt my child, and I refuse to give her food? Will you have the police force the food down her throat, and have me arrested? Where do you draw the line? Does the state really know what's best?


Bolded for changes. Would you argue freedom of religion to do this too? That god will fill their stomachs? How is it any different than praying to god that he'll send you some miracle cure for something treatable with actual medicines?

If a parent is seen to be incapable of raising their child, it is the responsibility of the government to step in and do something (Ever heard of Department of Community services or whatever your local equivalent is?). I guess on one hand it does raise the issue of how poor the said department is, but it still does not mean the parents are in the right.

As for your paranoia over Washington, It is not the government who issue treatment. IT IS DOCTORS! NOT POLITICIANS!!!

When should the police force you to take your prescription? Of course doctors prescribe treatments.

Doctors don't bust into your house with guns pulled, threatening to take your kids if you don't listen to them. The government does.

Bolded for changes. Would you argue freedom of religion to do this too? That god will fill their stomachs? How is it any different than praying to god that he'll send you some miracle cure for something treatable with actual medicines?

btw. I think denying starving children food is legal - in general, though I'm unsure if that applies to own children even though if you'd come from absolute poverty and couldn't actually afford to feed them.

Besides:
“They are still in the home,” Vergin said. “There is no reason to remove them. There is no abuse or signs of abuse that we can see.”

So not seeing a doctor or having children who don't attend to school is not abuse - While denying them food would probably count as abuse.

Bolded for changes. Would you argue freedom of religion to do this too? That god will fill their stomachs? How is it any different than praying to god that he'll send you some miracle cure for something treatable with actual medicines?

I'm not arguing freedom of religion, so much as freedom of parenting. The difference is quite stark, actually. Food is something any child cannot survive without. Medical treatment, however, is subject to debate.

Example: Poor single mother has Aids. One child has aids, one child is healthy. Mother chooses not to buy Aids medication for the child, because she must buy food for the family, and she cannot afford both medication and food. Should the government force her to buy the medication?

You might say "That's a special case!" Social Services doesn't give a shit about special cases. When you want the government to "fix" problems like this, they cannot address the specifics of each situation. That's the reason the IMF and WTO can't develop the third world, and the Department of Education can't fix inner-city schools.

With Social Services run the way they are in the US, there would be no difference between the Fundamentalist mother and the Aids-infected mother. Both would lose their children. Do you really want to go down that slope?

I'm not arguing freedom of religion, so much as freedom of parenting.


Like how some parents rape, imprison and beat their children to death? That sort of parenting?


The difference is quite stark, actually. Food is something any child cannot survive without. Medical treatment, however, is subject to debate.

Oh no, you don't get to argue this one. Medical treatment is for specific cases, I'll give you that. But when it's a condition like say, cholera, they will die without medication. That is not for debate.


Example: Poor single mother has Aids. One child has aids, one child is healthy. Mother chooses not to buy Aids medication for the child, because she must buy food for the family, and she cannot afford both medication and food. Should the government force her to buy the medication?

You might say "That's a special case!" Social Services doesn't give a shit about special cases. When you want the government to "fix" problems like this, they cannot address the specifics of each situation. That's the reason the IMF and WTO can't develop the third world, and the Department of Education can't fix inner-city schools.

With Social Services run the way they are in the US, there would be no difference between the Fundamentalist mother and the Aids-infected mother. Both would lose their children. Do you really want to go down that slope?

All this says is an argument against the way social services is run, and not social services itself.

It's still no excuse for people who are capable of doing something for charges which they are responsible for, i.e. their children, but refusing to do anything about it because they failed the reasonable person test and decided that faith healing somehow trumps practical medicine.

It's still no excuse for people who are capable of doing something for charges which they are responsible for, i.e. their children, but refusing to do anything about it because they failed the reasonable person test and decided that faith healing somehow trumps practical medicine.

Believing in alternative medicine is legal.

Indoctrinating children into believing in alternative medicine is legal.

Why shouldn't preferring alternative medicine to real medicine be legal as well - especially if the parents didn't know any better?

In this case, they again sought the VERY BEST cure they thought was available thanks to their own childhood indoctrination - If promoting and applying a dangerous idea isn't illegal then why should it be any different if it is done by a RESPONSIBLE - in their own indoctrinated mind - parent to a child?

I'm not arguing freedom of religion, so much as freedom of parenting. The difference is quite stark, actually. Food is something any child cannot survive without. Medical treatment, however, is subject to debate.

Example: Poor single mother has Aids. One child has aids, one child is healthy. Mother chooses not to buy Aids medication for the child, because she must buy food for the family, and she cannot afford both medication and food. Should the government force her to buy the medication?

You might say "That's a special case!" Social Services doesn't give a shit about special cases. When you want the government to "fix" problems like this, they cannot address the specifics of each situation. That's the reason the IMF and WTO can't develop the third world, and the Department of Education can't fix inner-city schools.

With Social Services run the way they are in the US, there would be no difference between the Fundamentalist mother and the Aids-infected mother. Both would lose their children. Do you really want to go down that slope?

Nonsense. Children have rights as well. Someone is supposed to make decisions in the best interest of the children. If it appears the parents aren't reasonably trying to do so, the government steps in. Here, they weren't making a hard choice between medication or food. They were making a choice between leaving this girl untreated or treating her. They essentially tortured their daughter with a criminal level of neglect.

Rights come with responsibilities. These parents didn't live up to those responsibilities and thus should lose their rights.

You shouldn't stop said parents from refusing treatment, because it is not the government's responsibility nor role.

Maybe you have faith in Washington, sir, but I don't trust the wonderful brains who invaded Iraq and are killing social security to know or even care about what is best for me. The slippery slope is cliched, yes, but still just as threatening.

What if I believe a certain drug prescribed will hurt my child, and I refuse to give her the medication? Will you have the police force the pills down her throat, and have me arrested? Where do you draw the line? Does the state really know what's best?

Sorry, but I don't trust Washington that much...

This is typical of spiritual bigotry. No one "owns" the life of another. The parent has a role in nurturing and protecting the child, that's all. In this instance the parents failed their daughter. In my view, they should be subject to whatever child abuse laws exist in the USA. That 11 year old girl had a right to a full life, her parents stole that right from her.

What they did constitutes great evil. Is this what Christianity is responsible for?

I'm not arguing freedom of religion, so much as freedom of parenting. The difference is quite stark, actually. Food is something any child cannot survive without. Medical treatment, however, is subject to debate.

Example: Poor single mother has Aids. One child has aids, one child is healthy. Mother chooses not to buy Aids medication for the child, because she must buy food for the family, and she cannot afford both medication and food. Should the government force her to buy the medication?

You might say "That's a special case!" Social Services doesn't give a shit about special cases. When you want the government to "fix" problems like this, they cannot address the specifics of each situation. That's the reason the IMF and WTO can't develop the third world, and the Department of Education can't fix inner-city schools.

With Social Services run the way they are in the US, there would be no difference between the Fundamentalist mother and the Aids-infected mother. Both would lose their children. Do you really want to go down that slope?

Its recognized that parents do not have absolute authority over their children. If a parent is raping, beating, and/or starving their child then the government should act to stop them. There is no reason to believe that in doing so we give government absolute license to the government to dictate everything a parent should do.

In the case of the Aids mother the woman lacks resources. I think many people here beleive she should have government subsidized foodstamps and medical care for the whole family.

Who is this "someone" who should act on behalf of the children? Why, your senator of course!

Why does the government have the right to dictate to a family what medical treatments they are to receive? G3N13 brings up a good point, should families not be allowed to practice alternative medicine? Is not praying alternative medicine?

Maybe you love the idea of a nanny state, but I don't trust our politicians to legislate what medical practices are "legitimate" for families to use. Frankly, I think most alternative medicine is a load of BS. I'm not, however, going to stop a mother from practicing alternative medicine because "someone has to do SOMETHING for the children!" I believe in a person's, and a parent's, right to choose medical treatments.

So parents should be allowed to treat their children's illnesses by feeding them, say, cyanide pills, if they believe it's 'alternative medicine'?

So parents should be allowed to treat their children's illnesses by feeding them, say, cyanide pills, if they believe it's 'alternative medicine'?

In general terms, feeding anyone cyanide pills isn't - per se - legal.

In general terms, seeking alternative medicine - faith healing, for example - is legal.

In general terms, feeding anyone cyanide pills isn't - per se - legal.

In general terms, seeking alternative medicine - faith healing, for example - is legal.

Should it be?

In this specific case(s)?

If it were not for the fact that innocent children are dying I would say "Great! the herd is thinning itself."

Should it be?

In this specific case(s)?

Of course not - I believe indoctrinated ignorance should not be a terminal disease.

However, I think ignoring modern medicine is legal regardless of the age of the patient, more accurately: For underaged persons their parents have complete and absolute right to dictate whether a certain treatment is acceptable on almost whatever basis they choose.

Alternative medicine:
"Any medical practice of form of treatment not generally recognized as effective by the medical community at large"
www.healthinsurancesort.com/health-insurance-terms.htm


So, something that is not proven to work...

hmm.. I think it is safer to go for the regular insulin injections...


You have to understand, that religous healing is basically letting the body sort itself out... In diabetes type 1 (as the girl would have), that is just not going to happen. The pancreas is not producing insulin (or atleast enough). There may be very rare cases of it happening, but without the insulin injections and blood glucose level monitoring, it will cause severe problems.

If the family had let it be that long, I'm sure seeing a doctor in the last month would not have done much more than maybe a couple of weeks/months...
Type I DM => decreased cell glucose => cell death => tissue damage => organ death.

This would take place over years.

Of course not.

It just happens that I really, really doubt such laws have an age limit.

Therfore, ignoring modern medicine is legal regardless of the age of the patient, more accurately: For underaged persons their parents have complete and absolute right to dictate whether a certain treatment is acceptable on almost whatever basis they choose.

Abusing yourself is legal regardless of your age. Do parents have a complete and absolute right to abuse their children? Do they have a complete and absolute right to determine what is and isn't abuse themselves?

Abusing yourself is legal regardless of your age. Do parents have a complete and absolute right to abuse their children? Do they have a complete and absolute right to determine what is and isn't abuse themselves?

Please, read my edited post.

edit:
For that matter, abusing someone else even with consent is not nearly always legal - In this case the other children were not deemed to be abused though (as is stated in the OP).

Manslaughter. Jail. Are we done here?

Of course not - I believe indoctrinated ignorance should not be a terminal disease.

However, I think ignoring modern medicine is legal regardless of the age of the patient, more accurately: For underaged persons their parents have complete and absolute right to dictate whether a certain treatment is acceptable on almost whatever basis they choose.

Please, read my edited post.

Um. You seem to be saying that you don't believe that people should be allowed to die as a result of ignorance, yet you continue to defend the parents in this case. The latter is clearly an example of the former.

Manslaughter. Jail. Are we done here?

Premeditated=murder, not manslaughter. Death penalty. Otherwise agreed.

Who is this "someone" who should act on behalf of the children? Why, your senator of course!

Why does the government have the right to dictate to a family what medical treatments they are to receive? G3N13 brings up a good point, should families not be allowed to practice alternative medicine? Is not praying alternative medicine?

Maybe you love the idea of a nanny state, but I don't trust our politicians to legislate what medical practices are "legitimate" for families to use. Frankly, I think most alternative medicine is a load of BS. I'm not, however, going to stop a mother from practicing alternative medicine because "someone has to do SOMETHING for the children!" I believe in a person's, and a parent's, right to choose medical treatments.

What the fuck are you talking about? Ask f the libertarians around here and I would think that most of them would agree that parents who act negligently should be punished.

Governments do not have the right to to dictate how families raise children but children have rights that the government should enforce. If a child is dying from an easily treatable disease then that parent is not fulfilling their duty to provide, protect, and take care of their children.

Nonsense. Children have rights as well. Someone is supposed to make decisions in the best interest of the children. If it appears the parents aren't reasonably trying to do so, the government steps in. Here, they weren't making a hard choice between medication or food. They were making a choice between leaving this girl untreated or treating her and damning her to hell. They essentially tortured their daughter with a criminal level of neglect.

Rights come with responsibilities. These parents didn't live up to those responsibilities and thus should lose their rights.

Bold my addition. Put yourself in their shoes. Would you rather send your daughter to hell, or leave her untreated for diabetes? Do I think that's sick thinking? Yes. Presuming you are a fundamentalist believer, however, the decision is obvious. One month of hell vs. an eternity of hell? I'll save her soul!

Non-religious people seem to find this concept hard to comprehend. Maybe I should translate -->

Should you give your child to the Hitler Youth, or pray that she'll find food on her own?

Um. You seem to be saying that you don't believe that people should be allowed to die as a result of ignorance, yet you continue to defend the parents in this case. The latter is clearly an example of the former.

Yes, I defend the parents because what they did was in my opinion completely legal and something they were indoctrinated - as kids - to do.

That doesn't mean I accept the whole shebang of faith healing or religious indoctrination at the cost of rational critical thinking.

People are so....fucking.....stupid.....

Believing in alternative medicine is legal.

Indoctrinating children into believing in alternative medicine is legal.

Why shouldn't preferring alternative medicine to real medicine be legal as well - especially if the parents didn't know any better?

In this case, they again sought the VERY BEST cure they thought was available thanks to their own childhood indoctrination - If promoting and applying a dangerous idea isn't illegal then why should it be any different if it is done by a RESPONSIBLE - in their own indoctrinated mind - parent to a child?

If promoting and applying that dangerous idea leads to people getting killed, manslaughter charges aren't that far away.

I dislike these sorts of fools. I have an uncle who talks like vegan, denounces like a fundie preacher, and has seriously tried denouncing medical practitioners everywhere by promoting some conspiracy nut theory about how dog food was superior for human consumption (some whacked out reasoning that they get different types of vitamins) because of a book written by a veterinarian, so I'll admit to a bit of bias against crazies like that.

Bold my addition. Put yourself in their shoes. Would you rather send your daughter to hell, or leave her untreated for diabetes? Do I think that's sick thinking? Yes. Presuming you are a fundamentalist believer, however, the decision is obvious. One month of hell vs. an eternity of hell? I'll save her soul!

Non-religious people seem to find this concept hard to comprehend. Maybe I should translate -->

Should you give your child to the Hitler Youth, or let her starve to death?

Someone who rapes a murders others so he can "save" his victims souls should be stopped. What's your point?

Yes, I defend the parents because what they did was in my opinion completely legal and something they were indoctrinated - as kids - to do.

That doesn't mean I accept the whole shebang of faith healing or religious indoctrination at the cost of rational critical thinking.

You're saying that they should get away with it. That's essentially accepting it, in this context.

However, I think ignoring modern medicine is legal regardless of the age of the patient, more accurately: For underaged persons their parents have complete and absolute right to dictate whether a certain treatment is acceptable on almost whatever basis they choose.

Like say, stabbing them multiple times with a steak knife through the femoral artery for "the vapors"?

Why not? If they claim it to be "alternative healing" I'm sure you'd be all for it.

You're saying that they should get away with it. That's essentially accepting it, in this context.

I accept their behaviour because they were indoctrinated to it: They didn't know any better, are - most likely - within the law in following their upbringing and more importantly they acted like RESPONSIBLE parents would do - They sought the best possible cure known to them.

Consider if this 11-year-old girl wouldn't have suffered from diabetes: Would we have cared about her destiny? Would she have done things differently IF she was one of the parents? I think a resounding no to both is the answer: It is currently completely legal to promote dangerous ideas and bring children up in this kind of environment - It is NOT abuse, it is NOT neglect and I think the general public views it as responsible parenting....if things don't go wrong (like in this case)

I tend to see these things as effects rather than actual causes.

While I'd ban following, teaching and indoctrinating actively dangerous religious beliefs I OTOH think such freedom - freedom of belief and expression - is a precious thing and also that drawing a definite line would be nigh impossible.

Overall I still think being brought up as, in my view, ignorant shouldn't be a death sentence to anyone.

Like say, stabbing them multiple times with a steak knife through the femoral artery for "the vapors"?

Why not? If they claim it to be "alternative healing" I'm sure you'd be all for it.

Foregoing normal treatment is legal.

Stabbing someone multiple times isn't even if it is done with consent.

Foregoing normal treatment is legal.

Stabbing someone multiple times isn't even if it is done with consent.

Not eating is legal. Not feeding your children isn't. Children can not consent to such practices. We usually have parents decide what children should do. Government makes sure the parents do not act negligently.

Foregoing normal treatment is legal.

Stabbing someone multiple times isn't even if it is done with consent.

Did you, or did you not, say this?


absolute right to dictate whether a certain treatment is acceptable on almost whatever basis they choose.

So what is it to be?

I'll give you that inaction isn't a crime. But inaction can also be construed to mean willingly giving up your right to something because you refused to be responsible for it.

Not eating is legal. Not feeding your children isn't. Children can not consent to such practices. We usually have parents decide what children should do. Government makes sure the parents do not act negligently.

Not eating is legal.

Denying someone else food is also legal.

Denying food from someone else legally dependent on you giving them food that you have available is illegal.

Denying from treatment is legal.

Denying a child from taking a treatment is also legal, they don't make parents sign those consents for nothing (this fact from US tv-soaps so I could be mistaken here! :D).

Choosing an alternative medicine over traditional medicine is also legal.

The question is: Is choosing an alternative medicine for your child legal?

Not eating is legal.

Denying someone else food is also legal.

Denying food from someone else legally dependent on you giving them food that you have available is illegal.

Denying from treatment is legal.

Denying a child from taking a treatment is also legal, they don't make parents sign those consents for nothing (this fact from US tv-soaps so I could be mistaken here! :D).

Choosing an alternative medicine over traditional medicine is also legal.

The question is: Is choosing an alternative medicine for your child legal?

So it would be all right for me to physically block you from entering the supermarket?

So what is it to be?

I was referring to legal treatments, like say surgical operations opening the child's skull open with a drill and saw.

I'll give you that inaction isn't a crime.

In this case it isn't even inaction.

The parents consulted the best medic known to them, God.

So it would be all right for me to physically block you from entering the supermarket?

No - unless you were in a position & authority to do so or you caught me stealing food - but if you were starving and came to me for food would I really be legally bound to give you some in the USA?

Here where I live I probably would because leaving someone dying when you can help them is a crime.

The question is: Is choosing an alternative medicine for your child legal?

Its legal, usually. Draining her blood to the point of death would be considered illegal

Its legal, usually. Draining her blood to the point of death would be considered illegal

In this case the parents didn't do anything of that sort.

I'm not arguing freedom of religion, so much as freedom of parenting. The difference is quite stark, actually. Food is something any child cannot survive without. Medical treatment, however, is subject to debate.

Example: Poor single mother has Aids. One child has aids, one child is healthy. Mother chooses not to buy Aids medication for the child, because she must buy food for the family, and she cannot afford both medication and food. Should the government force her to buy the medication?

You might say "That's a special case!" Social Services doesn't give a shit about special cases. When you want the government to "fix" problems like this, they cannot address the specifics of each situation. That's the reason the IMF and WTO can't develop the third world, and the Department of Education can't fix inner-city schools.

With Social Services run the way they are in the US, there would be no difference between the Fundamentalist mother and the Aids-infected mother. Both would lose their children. Do you really want to go down that slope?

Then I would argue that nobody should be forced to choose between food and medicine because both are equally essential.

Anyway, obviously medical treatment isn't up for debate. It's quite obvious that if you don't treat a treatable disease like this the child is going to die. It's practically the same as not giving food.

I agree that nobody should be forced to undergo unwanted medical treatment (informed consent is very important in medical ethics) but when the life of someone who can't give informed consent (an 11 yo girl) is in danger the government should step in and make sure her parents don't abuse her.

No - unless you were in a position & authority to do so or you caught me stealing food - but if you were starving and came to me for food would I really be legally bound to give you some in the USA?

Here where I live I probably would because leaving someone dying when you can help them is a crime.

If your job was to dispense food, then yes, you would be. But you can't block someone else from receiving food if the food isn't yours, just as you can't block someone from receiving medical treatment.

I hope at least that the other kids are getting medical checkups right now. Type 1 diabetes is hereditary!

If the parents won't consent to that, take the kids off them.

In this case the parents didn't do anything of that sort.

No one has a problem with their use of alternative medicine, prayer in this case I believe. We have issue with their lack of use of insulin shots. Their daughter died. They had a duty to keep her healthy. They did not use the treatment that was known to be effective. They were negligent.

But you can't block someone else from receiving food if the food isn't yours
You can very well stop someone from taking someone else's food too...Citizen arrest, an' all that.

.. just as you can't block someone from receiving medical treatment.
STRAWMAN par excellence.

Taking basic idea of not having to give your food to a starving stranger, then changing it to blocking a path to supermarket refuting that and then comparing it to a child receiving medical treatment. :D

If the Child is too young to defend itself or think for itself then it's abuse.

However this child wasn't a helpless infant and so we must accept this happened. You can't take away the right to choose one's fate just because it's a child who's old enough to think but not old enough to vote.

No one has a problem with their use of alternative medicine, prayer in this case I believe. We have issue with their lack of use of insulin shots. Their daughter died. They had a duty to keep her healthy. They did not use the treatment that was known to be effective. They were negligent.

This brings us back to my original question:
Is choosing an alternative medicine [over traditional medicine] for your child legal?

The piece in brackets comes from the previous statement in the post, which was: Choosing an alternative medicine over traditional medicine is also legal.

Meh. It was the parent's decision. They can live with the guilt.

Oh, and on the "alternative medicine" question ... it's only "alternative" if you weigh it up against the mainstream medicine. I.e. go to a damn doctor!

If the doctor says "your child has diabetes and needs insulin" and you then make a decision that such treatment is Satanic, well I don't know. But willful ignorance of the doctor's opinion is below the standard of a Duty of Care for your own children.

That's the level of incompetence where you lose your kids. It's called "neglect."

You can very well stop someone from taking someone else's food too...Citizen arrest, an' all that.


STRAWMAN par excellence.

Taking basic idea of not having to give your food to a starving stranger, then changing it to blocking a path to supermarket refuting that and then comparing it to a child receiving medical treatment. :D

Not having to give your food to a starving stranger has no relevance whatsoever to this topic. The implication of Tech-gnosis is that if you can't deny your child food, you can't deny your child medical treatment. Hence the initial comparison of food to medical treatment in this little exchange. You proceeded to assert that denying someone food is legal, which in the context of the analogy is strange to say the least.

The parents consulted the best medic known to them, God.

And god provided treatment...it's called a hospital.

The 2 threads about this remind me of an old joke:

A woman is living in a village, one night she gets a flooding warning. The woman climbs on top of her roof and starts praying to god for deliverance. A few hours later, a boat shows up, the people in the boat shout to her, asking her to swim to the boat so she can be rescued. The woman shouts back that god will save her. After a few minutes of trying to convince the woman, unsuccesfully, the boat moves on. Meanwhile the woman is still praying. At dusk, a helicopter hovers over her house, a guy in the helicopter shouts down that the woman should climb into the basket they lowered. The woman shouts back that god will save her.
Come dawn, the woman has died of exposure.
She's standing in front of the throne in heaven, and accuses god of not hearing her prayers. God responds: I sent a boat AND a helicopter, what more do you want ?

Meh. It was the parent's decision. They can live with the guilt.

You'd be fine with them torturing or raping their own children, I guess?

"They can live with the guilt." :rolleyes:

This brings us back to my original question:
Is choosing an alternative medicine [over traditional medicine] for your child legal?

I'm no lawyer, but I think that when you're praying for a month and it's obvious your alternative 'medicine' isn't helping you're neglecting the child if you don't try to search for better health.

I don't think searching 'alternatives' should be illegal (although don't think this should be encouraged in any way or form), but refusing to help your child should. Your right to choose alternative 'medicine' stops where it becomes harmful for your child.

This brings us back to my original question:
Is choosing an alternative medicine [over traditional medicine] for your child legal?

The piece in brackets comes from the previous statement in the post, which was: Choosing an alternative medicine over traditional medicine is also legal.

Choosing to forego treatment that will save one's child is negligent. The issue of alternative medicine is not important.

If the Child is too young to defend itself or think for itself then it's abuse.

However this child wasn't a helpless infant and so we must accept this happened. You can't take away the right to choose one's fate just because it's a child who's old enough to think but not old enough to vote.

OK, I have no idea what the "vote" thing has to do with it ... but you'd be OK with a right for any 11-year-old to walk out of their parents house at any time, saying "I'm going to the doctor because I think I'm sick" ...?

Because you'd HAVE to allow that if you insist that the 11-y-o is responsible for her own actions.

Choosing to forego treatment that will save one's child is negligent.

Perhaps. But not even seeking medical advice is WORSE. They didn't know what the doctor would recommend ... it could have been something they would have no problem with, like fresh fruit for scurvy, or vegetables for rickets.

Perhaps. But not even seeking medical advice is WORSE. They didn't know what the doctor would recommend ... it could have been something they would have no problem with, like fresh fruit for scurvy, or vegetables for rickets.

Agreed.

Not having to give your food to a starving stranger has no relevance whatsoever to this topic.
...
...
You proceeded to assert that denying someone food is legal, which in the context of the analogy is strange to say the least.

It had relevance to the post that was made which was something in order of 'not eating is legal but that doesn't make not feeding your children legal'.

To which I replied, among other things:
Denying someone else food is also legal.

By which I obviously meant
Denying someone else [independent of you from eating your] food is also legal.

The part in brackets derives from the following line, which was, badly written, here fixed:
Denying food that you have available from someone else legally dependent on you is indeed illegal.

I attacked the analogy: Denying food from yourself is legal, but denying food from your child is not therefore child has a right to medicine - by first demonstrating that you can legally deny someone else your food, which also carries the hidden implication that you can't deny someone else independent of you from access to medicine - why else would I've stated the obvious? - and you can also legally deny a treatment (under what limits, I'm still quite uncertain) from your child.

Then I proceeded to draw a conclusion of my own by stating that choosing alternative treatment for yourself is legal and asking whether a parent choosing alternative medicine for their child over traditional medicine is illegal.


It was indeed a bad post - sorta - but in my defence I have to say I wrote it under pressure to be as fast as possible :D

Agreed.

I guess this is one of those cases, where we just have to agree to agree. :cool:

I'm way too drunk for this. I should go watch some TV.

Choosing to forego treatment that will save one's child is negligent. The issue of alternative medicine is not important.

It is, IF choosing alternative medicine over traditional care for your children is legal.

In that case they sought BEST KNOWN CURE - as indoctrinated to the parents when they were kids - and acted as responsible parents within the law.

You'd be fine with them torturing or raping their own children, I guess?

"They can live with the guilt." :rolleyes:

Nope.

And those have nothing to do with the topic.

It is, IF choosing alternative medicine over traditional care for your children is legal.

In that case they sought BEST KNOWN CURE - as indoctrinated to the parents when they were kids - and acted as responsible parents within the law.

If the best known cure was draining blood and she died from blood loss would you feel the same way?

These people should know that doctors exist, that their child was ill, and that doctors may have been able to cure her. They did not see a doctor. She died. They were negligent.

If a person is too stupid to defend their own argument or think for itself, then it's abuse ... to argue with them.

If a person is too stupid to defend their own argument or think for itself, then it's abuse ... to argue with them.

self-abuse

Nope.

And those have nothing to do with the topic.

Of course they don't! But you stated your position as a principle: parents' rights trump human rights (of the child.)

I gave two examples that principle would allow. The principle is wrong.

If the best known cure was draining blood and she died from blood loss would you feel the same way?

Yes, but only if that is taken completely out of context :p

(ie. it's the mid 1600s and best known treatment IS draining blood and if it doesn't work continue until the patient either is cured or dies).

Ok, that was pointless - In reality killing someone by giving them actively hurtful treatment, be it stabbing them to death or not, is illegal.

In this case it would have been COMPLETELY legal treatment...at least IF the patient would have been an adult.

These people should know that doctors exist, that their child was ill, and that doctors may have been able to cure her. They did not see a doctor. She died. They were negligent.

That doesn't matter IF it is legal to choose alternative medicine over traditional medicine and IF parents are within their rights to deny potentially lifesaving cure from their child (like for example blood transfusion or surgery).


In case you don't notice this post contains a lot of ifs.

self-abuse

"Self-abuse." Oxymoron. US euphemism for masturbation.

It wasn't directed at you. :)

Of course they don't! But you stated your position as a principle: parents' rights trump human rights (of the child.)

I gave two examples that principle would allow. The principle is wrong.

Nope

Different circumstances entirely.

Besides, there is no 'right' to health care.

"Self-abuse." Oxymoron. US euphemism for masturbation.

I was thinking more along the lines of self-mutilation. Mental masochism.

It wasn't directed at you. :)

I didn't think it was. :)

Another sign of the insane war against reality and science put forth by fundamentalist ignorance.

We are seeing laws past where teachers can't mark a student wrong on a test if they say 2+2=95 if the student says "My God says it's so. Such laws are being proposed or have passed one house in Kansas and a couple of other states.

Another sign the dumbing down of a nation had its consiquences.

Anyone seen Idiocracy? If something does not change, that is America's future. We are well on the way.

Ignorant parents who kill a child in the name of faith. I wish someone had the opportunity to step in and save her. Government, family friend, school teacher.

All this creationism taught as science crap is insane. It leads to horrible events like this.

Negligence by faith. :headbang:

The analogy with "providing food" is flawed, because others can provide food to a hungry child (eg a school can, or the child can beg food from others, or pick it out of a bin.) The child knows what they need! They're hungry, even a mouse can make THAT decision.

The child cannot get medical treatment without the parent's permission. The child may not know that a doctor is what they need (not having seen a doctor since they were 3, it figures ...) This is a decision the parent has MORE obligation to make responsibly, than whether to provide food!

I was referring to legal treatments, like say surgical operations opening the child's skull open with a drill and saw.


So they do not have the


absolute right to dictate whether a certain treatment is acceptable on almost whatever basis they choose.

When it comes to non-legal, to which I presume you mean medically sanctioned, treatments correct?

Then the following clearly is not allowed by the logic of your argument.


In this case it isn't even inaction.

The parents consulted the best medic known to them, God.

Unless of course, you mean treatments not barred by law, to which brings the sticky point of willful negligence, and manslaughter charges, where death isn't the desired effect, but is still brought about by actions that anyone who does not fail the "reasonable persons" test would know to be detrimental.

Take for example, sleeping pills. Legal medication. But by some strange thought process, a retard of a parent decides that feeding his child 300 of the tablets, it would cure his illness. Unsurprisingly, the child dies. Or a parent who decides that his diabetic son, of which he knows the condition, does not need insulin, denying them of it, and that prayers suffice. Again, the child dies.

Or perhaps the deranged lunatic who unplugs critical ward patients from life support machines.

Will you argue that these persons are not guilty of manslaughter then?

The child cannot get medical treatment without the parent's permission. The child may not know that a doctor is what they need (not having seen a doctor since they were 3, it figures ...) This is a decision the parent has MORE obligation to make responsibly, than whether to provide food!

Like Trollgard pointed out: Is there an inalienable right for healthcare (in USA)?

Another sign of the insane war against reality and science put forth by fundamentalist ignorance.

We are seeing laws past where teachers can't mark a student wrong on a test if they say 2+2=95 if the student says "My God says it's so. Such laws are being proposed or have passed one house in Kansas and a couple of other states.

Another sign the dumbing down of a nation had its consiquences.

Anyone seen Idiocracy? If something does not change, that is America's future. We are well on the way.

Ignorant parents who kill a child in the name of faith. I wish someone had the opportunity to step in and save her. Government, family friend, school teacher.

All this creationism taught as science crap is insane. It leads to horrible events like this.

Negligence by faith. :headbang:

Utterly silly post! There are good points in there, but you seem to have a will to go "over-the-top." To sacrifice credibility to show your commitment to a position.

Wanna join my team? I need a competent suicide bomber ... :D

So they do not have the



When it comes to non-legal, to which I presume you mean medically sanctioned, treatments correct?

I don't know the law.

But my point was quite clear: The parents can (to an extent?) refuse standard treatment from their child and can choose alternative treatment instead because neither is illegal (or are they?).

Unless of course, you mean treatments not barred by law, to which brings the sticky point of willful negligence, and manslaughter charges, where death isn't the desired effect, but is still brought about by actions that anyone who does not fail the "reasonable persons" test would know to be detrimental.

In this case the treatment they chose by itself was NOT detrimental.

It was foregoing the standard treatment that was detrimental.

The question is: Are parents within their rights to do so?

Will you argue that these persons are not guilty of manslaughter then?

If they can convince the jury that their intent was exactly what you proposed then I can hardly see how they would be convicted of manslaughter.

Rather, they'd be technically not guilty but sentenced to psychological treatment for being clinically insane.

Utterly silly post! There are good points in there, but you seem to have a will to go "over-the-top." To sacrifice credibility to show your commitment to a position.

Wanna join my team? I need a competent suicide bomber ... :D

Silly response yourself. Where did suicide bomber come from? Grasping mate. No I would not like to join any such team.

Like Trollgard pointed out: Is there an inalienable right for healthcare (in USA)?

There are NO inalienable rights (in USA).

Seriously, yes there are. A right to sanitation and clean water, free of charge. A right to vaccination in childhood. A right to a medical checkup, in childhood. ALL free of charge, or else why speak of "rights"?

These are human rights, for every person on earth. Not everyone has them, and we should consider that before asking if a smoker has a right to a heart transplant, or infertile couples to IVF.

There is some basic level of health-care which is a human right. I am quite serious about that, even if my position seems compromised by questions of cost or personal responsibility for health. Then there is a grey area, where it really depends on which country you live in and how you care for your own health. Then there are things like gym membership, cosmetic surgery, psychological services for people who don't have a diagnosed mental illness, where healthcare is in no way a right.

I don't know the law.

But my point was quite clear: The parents can (to an extent?) refuse standard treatment from their child and can choose alternative treatment instead because neither is illegal (or are they?).


Abuse and neglect technically isn't illegal either. But by law, you forfeit your rights over your children, and the state can take them from you. And before you argue that the state has no right to do that, keep in mind that they also are involved in divorce cases for custodial rights.


In this case the treatment they chose by itself was NOT detrimental.

It was foregoing the standard treatment that was detrimental.

The question is: Are parents within their rights to do so?

The treatment they chose by itself WAS detrimental. They chose to do nothing. This is no different than starving a child to death because you think it will cure them.

Parents do not have a right to deliberately toss out their responsibilities as parents and still keep their children by state law.


If they can convince the jury that their intent was exactly what you proposed then I can hardly see how they would be convicted of manslaughter.

Manslaughter is causing accidental death. What happened here was accidental death. The cause was neglect.


Rather, they'd be technically not guilty but sentenced to psychological treatment for being clinically insane.

Their status of possible clinical insanity is not something you, nor I, am fit to judge upon without a panel of psychiatric evaluators of this particular pair of parents. Until then, manslaughter charges still hold.

Silly response yourself. Where did suicide bomber come from? Grasping mate. No I would not like to join any such team.

Well parried. To the substance:

"Government, family friend, school teacher" are sound ideas I haven't seen yet in the thread. I'd add "doctor" since Mandatory Reporting (by any govt employee or licensed health professional) states that is a crime for any of these people to NOT report suspected abuse or neglect. It even trumps Patient Confidentiality.

Perhaps this is wrong, detracts from the "firstly, do no harm" ethos of doctors.

Abuse and neglect technically isn't illegal either. But by law, you forfeit your rights over your children, and the state can take them from you. And before you argue that the state has no right to do that, keep in mind that they also are involved in divorce cases for custodial rights.

But IS foregoing standard medical treatment abuse?

The treatment they chose by itself WAS detrimental. They chose to do nothing. This is no different than starving a child to death because you think it will cure them.

They did not choose to do nothing - They merely chose faith as their healing method.

I'm sure they made a greater physical effort than many other would do to save another human being.

Parents do not have a right to deliberately toss out their responsibilities as parents and still keep their children by state law.

They did no such thing. They merely showed their responsibility in non-standard way.

Manslaughter is causing accidental death. What happened here was accidental death. The cause was neglect.

It was not accidental death - It was an accident directly caused by law sanctioned indoctrination to dangerous religious beliefs.

Their status of possible clinical insanity is not something you, nor I, am fit to judge upon without a panel of psychiatric evaluators of this particular pair of parents. Until then, manslaughter charges still hold.

You yourself proposed the examples? Are you saying the invented characters in your example actually don't follow your example?

...a retard of a parent...deranged lunatic...

Both of those - if true - are completely valid legal defences.

But IS foregoing standard medical treatment abuse?


It's called neglect.


They did not choose to do nothing - They merely chose faith as their healing method.

I'm sure they made a greater physical effort than many other would do to save another human being.

It doesn't matter. Building a 100 foot solid gold tower to isolate your child so that he/she can starve to death to "cure" him/her of a cold takes a lot more effort than feeding them, but it's still neglect.


They did no such thing. They merely showed their responsibility in non-standard way.

You mean like those vegan parents who put their newborn on a low carb, low protein diet and watched it literally starve to death some time ago?

Or how about parents who claim that tossing their kids into the freezer was their way of showing responsibility, they just didn't know it had fatal results?

Will you defend those too?

When someone dies, and it is shown it was directly because of your actions, and that you failed the reasonable person's test, it's manslaughter. If you passed the reasonable person's test, it's murder.


It was not accidental death - It was an accident directly caused by law sanctioned indoctrination to dangerous religious beliefs.

It's still an accidental death, unless the dead 11 year old came back to life, he's still dead.


You yourself proposed the examples? Are you saying the invented characters in your example actually don't follow your example?

...a retard of a parent...deranged lunatic...

Both of those - if true - are completely valid legal defences.

Well fine, a religiously extreme parent and socially maladjusted medical practitioner. Happy?

Abuse and neglect technically isn't illegal either. But by law, you forfeit your rights over your children, and the state can take them from you.

It's bad law. The presumption is that losing your children is already a form of punishment. In some cases (parents hate the children and neglect them, yet feel responsibility not to abandon or kill them) we may actually reward the parents by taking the responsibility away from them.

By adding unambiguous punishment (jail) to the notional punishment of taking the kids away, we actually protect the kids -- parents who want out will give their kids up BEFORE they abuse or neglect them. They lose the kids either way, but avoid jail by bailing out early.

And before [they] argue that the state has no right to do that, keep in mind that they also are involved in divorce cases for custodial rights.

That's different. If it's contested, there are two equal (adult) parties, and the state need only choose between their competing (adult) rights. To intercede on the part of a child (with less than adult rights) against one or more adults ... is more difficult, and really quite different. It's advocacy: the assertion of rights of a child, by the state.

I think the state should do that. The state rewards people for taking on the job of parenting (by giving them money) ... and it should punish them materially for fucking up the job of parenting.

The treatment they chose by itself WAS detrimental. They chose to do nothing. This is no different than starving a child to death because you think it will cure them.

It's a difference of degree. Degrees of ignorance. To be ignorant of the need for food is so mindbogglingly ignorant that we cannot credit it, whereas it is apparent that the need for medical care when a child is sickening is ... apparently ... debatable.

Parents do not have a right to deliberately toss out their responsibilities as parents and still keep their children by state law.

We need to define the rights of children, and write them into law. Competent medical examination should be one such right. Medical treatment should be decided case by case, but examination is essential to bring cases to the attention of the law.

Manslaughter is causing accidental death. What happened here was accidental death. The cause was neglect.

Manslaughter is a serious enough charge. If the parents intended to kill the girl, I don't think it can be proved, what with the religious bullshit muddying the waters. They should be charged with manslaughter, or criminal negligence leading to death.

And if God wants to testify in court, as a medical expert, let him.

Come to think of it, lets sue the bastard for medical malpractice!

If a parent is seen to be incapable of raising their child, it is the responsibility of the government to step in and do something (Ever heard of Department of Community services or whatever your local equivalent is?). I guess on one hand it does raise the issue of how poor the said department is, but it still does not mean the parents are in the right.

As for your paranoia over Washington, It is not the government who issue treatment. IT IS DOCTORS! NOT POLITICIANS!!!

Doctors are not much more trustworthy... What with their propensity to throw medication (especially antibiotics) at every minor infection, cut or bruise... American's immune systems are the weakest in the world...

Things seem to have gone quiet for now, so I'll address this post more thoroughly.

Another sign of the insane war against reality and science put forth by fundamentalist ignorance.

Meh.

We are seeing laws past where teachers can't mark a student wrong on a test if they say 2+2=95 if the student says "My God says it's so.

In a mathematics test? Prove it.

Such laws are being proposed or have passed one house in Kansas and a couple of other states.

Link to it please. It is not my place to find the law you so vaguely refer to and prove that it allows a student to be marked "not wrong" in a maths test.

ie. prove it.

Another sign the dumbing down of a nation had its consiquences.

Dumbing down the curriculum in schools certainly has consequences. For the students. I don't disagree.

Anyone seen Idiocracy?

No. Someone else could comment perhaps.

If something does not change, that is America's future. We are well on the way.

Just to get teleological on your ass, we are and have always been well on the way to the future. There is an awful lot of the past! ;)

Ignorant parents who kill a child in the name of faith. I wish someone had the opportunity to step in and save her. Government, family friend, school teacher.

Agreed, at last. The school, and the school system (families do move from one area to another, particularly over the school holidays) should have been asking questions in the first few days of the new term. They should have been asking to see a doctor's certificate to explain why this child was not attending school.

If the family cannot or will not provide a doctor's certificate to prove the child is sick, it is time for government agencies (necessarily allied with the school system) to be directly investigating where the child is during school hours.

They visit the house. They see the sick child. They ask to see a medical diagnosis. If that isn't forthcoming, they come back with a doctor. By stages, the government takes over responsibility for the child. There are plenty of opportunities for the parents to compromise, to take responsibility.

The bottom line is: someone takes responsibility for the child's health. Leaving it to God just doesn't cut it.

All this creationism taught as science crap is insane. It leads to horrible events like this.

Oh, bullshit.

Negligence by faith. :headbang:

Parenthood is a higher standard of responsibility than simply living an individual life. I'm fine with faith, fine with ignorance, fine even with outright scorn of the consequences of one's actions, when those consequences affect only the other people who choose to associate with the negligent person, and that person themself.

When a person drives a car negligently, or operates a firearm negligently, or raises kids negligently, that's another matter. We do whatever it takes to stop their ignorance causing harm.

In all likelihood the US government could not, at any ofv its levels, rule that parents must provide "standard" medical care to their children. For one thing they would be effectively destroying an entire recognized psuedo-religion(I don't accept the Jehovahs witnesses as religion, but the feds apparently do, hell if I know why). Jehovahs witnesses believe that several things we accept as normal, are sinful, such as say, those all important blood transfusions during surgery, and I think some vaccinations(don't quote me on that last bit). Now, that being said, there HAVE been rulings in the past that the government, if made aware of such a situation, may compel the parents to treat the child with "accepted" medicine. Feds dropped the ball on this one, parents are not responsible as a result of there, to my knowledge, having been no ruling mandating that all parents provide all children with proper medical treatment, which is the issue at hand. They had a responsibility to treat their children as best they were able, and they did that, to the best they knew. The police and local services have decided that they weren't negligent, so why the hell are you all harping on and on and on and on about freaking negligence? It's already been decided, so why keep saying they were?

Doctors are not much more trustworthy... What with their propensity to throw medication (especially antibiotics) at every minor infection, cut or bruise... American's immune systems are the weakest in the world...

IMO, over here anyway, that tends to be in response to a certain class of patient in an attempt to get them to shut up. Doesn't make it much better, but it's more laziness than incompetence. You'd have to be an utterly useless doctor to not know antibiotics don't work for certain things.

Got a source for the immune systems comment?

If a pair of gay parents let their child die this way, it would be CLEAR EVIDENCE that children require hetero parents because gays just can't make healthy families.

If a pair of atheist parents let their child die this way, it would be CLEAR EVIDENCE that godlessness = bad parenting.

If a pair of Muslim parents let their child die this way, it would be CLEAR EVIDENCE that Islam is a hateful, barbaric religion for people who like killing babies.

But since it's Christians, we've all got to make polite noises about how everyone's private faith is their private business and we respect that oh-so-much.

These parents intentionally allowed their child to die a painful death. They are a serious and immediate danger to their other children.

In my opinion, the appropriate course of action would be to institutionalize both parents for the remainder of their lives. I'd say just throw them in jail for murder, but they're clearly mentally ill and require serious professional help.

In my opinion, the appropriate course of action would be to institutionalize both parents for the remainder of their lives. I'd say just throw them in jail for murder, but they're clearly mentally ill and require serious professional help.

Unfortunately, being stupid isn't really a crime, and to make it murder, you have to prove intent. Manslaughter from gross stupidity/negligence appears to be a good enough fit.

This kind of thing makes me so angry. If her stupid parents had just taken her to hospital, she would probably have been fine. But a, they were to stupid to believe that or b, they knew that would be the case and didn't want it to conflict with their religion. Religion claims yet another life.

If this was a Muslim family that did this, anyone who brought it up would be called a bigot. Yay for double standards!

If a pair of Muslim parents let their child die this way, it would be CLEAR EVIDENCE that Islam is a hateful, barbaric religion for people who like killing babies.

But since it's Christians, we've all got to make polite noises about how everyone's private faith is their private business and we respect that oh-so-much.

If this was a Muslim family that did this, anyone who brought it up would be called a bigot. Yay for double standards!

lulz

lulz

That's what SHE said.

I’d say just throw them in jail for murder...
You’re claiming they intentionally killed their daughter?

First post here. The number 1 thing to being a good parent is-
TO MAKE SURE YOUR CHILD DOES NOT DIE! You do this by doing everything possible to keep them alive, even if you disagree with it.

I honestly can not figure these people out.

Abortion=murder
Death Penalty = a good thing BUT

Religious Sacrifice=murder, but freedom of religion right?

but letting your child die because of religious beliefs = ok?

If something can be done to prevent death, and that aint done and you let them die-isnt that a criminal act?

/signed confused

This is a clear cut case of neglect if I've ever seen one. Parents don't own their kids, they have a responsibility to take care of them. Part of that responsibility involves taking reasonable steps to ensure your child doesn't die, at the very least. Accessing readily available healthcare is a reasonable step, as is feeding them. Talking about the parents religious rights is all well and good, but when those rights conflict with a kid's right to life, there should be no contest. The parents should be executed for murder.

You’re claiming they intentionally killed their daughter?
I think it's a reasonable assumption to make. If I falsely imprisoned someone who I knew needed vital medical treatment to survive and they died through lack of that treatment, it would make me a murderer. Regardless of any hysterical religious crap I came out with. Same as if I imprisoned someone else without food.

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13559949']I think it’s a reasonable assumption to make. If I falsely imprisoned someone who I knew needed vital medical treatment to survive and they died through lack of that treatment, it would make me a murderer.
Only if you knew that your actions would kill the individual you were imprisoning. I assume that the poor girl’s parents did not believe their actions would kill her; indeed, they believed that prayer would cure her.

From what little information we can glean from the report, it does not appear that the parents intentionally set out to kill their daughter. Thus they cannot be accused of murder. Neglect, certainly. Manslaughter, most probably.

But not murder.

If this was a Muslim family that did this, anyone who brought it up would be called a bigot. Yay for double standards!

Anyone who said something like

"SEE? THIS IS WHY MUSLIMS ARE TEH SUCK!" would be called a bigot.

Pointing out that denying a child necessary medical treatment is neglect has nothing to do with any particular religion, nor would any particular religion be a valid excuse.

Allowing someone to die "because God will heal them, or if He doesn't, then it is God's will that they die" is both against Christianity, or at least against the Judeo-Christian tradition, and batshit insane.

Legally, I don't believe they have the right to let their child die. They didn't do all they could. I don't care how fundamentalist people are; I'm pretty sure there are exceptions to every rule for the preservation of life. Religious folks aren't always top-notch at following them, but the law says to preserve life first. I know that Judaism says this, and if Judaism says it, then it's buried in Christianity somewhere and probably Islam.

This is a case of a flawed interpretation of the Bible doing someone innocent in. It wouldn't be any different than an orthodox Jew or Muslim starving to death in the desert and coming upon a pig and deciding to starve rather than eat the pig - if your life depends on it, damnit, eat the fucking pig. Take the fucking blood transfusion. And undergo the fucking medical treatment. If you say God created everything, then God created blood transfusions, medical procedures, and pigs, and they can make our lives better. God gave us a brain. We need to fucking use it.

That said, I believe the correct charge is negligent homicide, and if my knowledge of the law is correct, the maximum sentence is ten years in prison. May they serve every one of them. Fucking jackasses.

Only if you knew that your actions would kill the individual you were imprisoning. I assume that the poor girl’s parents did not believe their actions would kill her; indeed, they believed that prayer would cure her.

From what little information we can glean from the report, it does not appear that the parents intentionally set out to kill their daughter. Thus they cannot be accused of murder. Neglect, certainly. Manslaughter, most probably.

But not murder.
I see your point. While that may seem like a textbook definition of manslaughter, I still think they need to be made an example of. If you let them off with manslaughter when others in similar circumstances are convicted of murder, then it sends a message that crackpot fundamentalist beliefs are a means of avoiding the responsibilities that the rest of society have to live by. I don't think that "God told me to do it" should be tolerated as a way of absolving yourself of full responsibility. If I was in some cult that said that shooting random people would heal all their illnesses, would it absolve me of full responsibility when I murdered someone? Even if I genuinely, 100% believed it? The parents need at least life without parole (Or possibly even execution) to make an example of them.

“They are still in the home,” Vergin said. “There is no reason to remove them. There is no abuse or signs of abuse that we can see.”

No abuse? Bullshit. Being a nutter does not make child abuse not child abuse. Saying nuttiness is religion shouldn't excuse it.

No, she died because her parents were stupid.

From what I've read, they weren't aware that she was diabetic. They saw her getting sicker and sicker, and instead of taking her to a doctor, they prayed.

The mother has stated that "she didn't have a fever" which is the criteria that many parents use when deciding whether or not to go to the doctor.

Ordinary, atheist parents have failed to take their children (or even themselves) to a doctor in time, preferring to believe in their own intellectual infallibility ("I can't possibly have the flu" - Jim Henson).

You’re claiming they intentionally killed their daughter?
Actually, I'm claiming that they are mentally ill and are a danger to themselves and others. I'm claiming that their mental illness has already resulted in the painful, preventable death of a child.

Now, if it were shown that both of these parents were mentally disabled to a large degree, then perhaps their "religious beliefs" could be viewed as merely a symptom of their disability. But if, as the article suggests, they are adults of normal brain function, then I see two possibilities:

They are mentally ill to the point where they actually believed their actions were correct

or

They intentionally watched and did nothing while their child died a painful death, knowing exactly what they were doing.

I am choosing to believe the former, to give the parents the benefit of the doubt.

Only if you knew that your actions would kill the individual you were imprisoning. I assume that the poor girl’s parents did not believe their actions would kill her; indeed, they believed that prayer would cure her.

From what little information we can glean from the report, it does not appear that the parents intentionally set out to kill their daughter. Thus they cannot be accused of murder. Neglect, certainly. Manslaughter, most probably.

But not murder.
I think the problem is that there is a difference between legal and colloquial uses of "murder."

Broadly speaking, murder is the unlawful killing of a human person. In terms of that definition, I would consider this situation a case of murder. These parents were criminally negligent and their actions resulted in the death of a human person. That would be an unlawful killing.

The actual legal definition of murder is different in several key places, and under the legal definition (at least in my state) these parents did not commit murder.

Now, before I go on, some definition is in order, because I know US, English and Scots law all differ on their ideas of what constitutes murder.

In this discussion, I’m defining murder as the intentional killing of another individual, and I’m defining manslaughter as the unintentional yet avoidable killing of another individual.

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13560007']I see your point. While that may seem like a textbook definition of manslaughter, I still think they need to be made an example of. If you let them off with manslaughter when others in similar circumstances are convicted of murder
For example? Name a case where someone has unintentionally allowed someone to die through their actions, and has been convicted for murder.

I’m not defending the parents on religious grounds; all I’m saying is that we cannot accuse them of something they did not do. They did not kill their daughter intentionally, so they should not be tried for murder. However, they did unintentionally kill her, and her death could be avoided. Thus, they should be tried for manslaughter. Manslaughter is a serious crime; and if convicted, the parents aren’t being ‘let off’.

I don’t think that “God told me to do it” should be tolerated as a way of absolving yourself of full responsibility.
And I’m not saying they should be tolerated at all. But on the same level, we shouldn’t be convicting people of crimes they didn’t commit.

No - unless you were in a position & authority to do so or you caught me stealing food - but if you were starving and came to me for food would I really be legally bound to give you some in the USA?

Here where I live I probably would because leaving someone dying when you can help them is a crime.

Eh, it varies from state to state, and even from town to town(Some have different ordinances and such), but for the most part no, you are not legally bound. Some places might having something of a "Good Samaritan" law, but I've never seen one.

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." - Galileo Galilei

Maybe this needs to be placed in more public places. Or on the very first page of the Bible. Because it seems like people are forgetting this small little fact that humans have a brain for a reason.

I'm not arguing freedom of religion, so much as freedom of parenting. The difference is quite stark, actually. Food is something any child cannot survive without. Medical treatment, however, is subject to debate.

Example: Poor single mother has Aids. One child has aids, one child is healthy. Mother chooses not to buy Aids medication for the child, because she must buy food for the family, and she cannot afford both medication and food. Should the government force her to buy the medication?


No, the government should buy the medication FOR her.

Why must stupid people breed?


Poor girl... If her parents weren't such morons, she would have had a chance.

She hadn't seen a doctor since she was 3. Correct me if I am wrong, but Tetanus is a 5 yearly shot atleast, as well as all the various other medical conditions that could have occured.

She is probably lucky to have lived until 11...

Every 10 years, but you should eliminate 1 year of effectiveness for every time you're cut...
Or at least that's what I was told by an E.R. Doc...

*sigh*


I propose a new law. The government will give me a crowbar, and pay for my transportation costs as I travel the country, beating people like those mentioned in the article and the other one about the 15 month old to within an inch of their lives.

If a just and loving God really existed, then the parents would have been the ones who died as a result of their "faith" instead of their innocent kid.

Although maybe God simply looked down, saw those parents, and said, "Holy fuck, I gotta get that kid the hell away from those crazy assholes."

Although maybe God simply looked down, saw those parents, and said, "Holy fuck, I gotta get that kid the hell away from those crazy assholes."

Im going with that. He probably forsaw that when she was 16 she would lose her virginity in the backseat of a car and her parens would stone her. So he intervened.

So...

Abortion = Murder

but!

Watching your child suffer for 30 days before she dies = perfectly ok?

eh?!

*sigh*


I propose a new law. The government will give me a crowbar, and pay for my transportation costs as I travel the country, beating people like those mentioned in the article and the other one about the 15 month old to within an inch of their lives.That's disgusting.

That's disgusting.

Only if you are on the recieving end.

So...

Abortion = Murder

but!

Watching your child suffer for 30 days before she dies = perfectly ok?

eh?!Deus lo vult.

Only if you are on the recieving end.Or if you have a conscience.

Or if you have a conscience.

I silence my conscience with violent video games.

I silence my conscience with violent video games.Good to know.

Fine, instead of beating people who believe in Faith Healing, which results in the death of their children, instead lets catch them early before they do any harm and send them to reeducation camps.

Or if you have a conscience.

what is a conscience exactly? and why is it important?
can't people figure things out without resorting to talking about er...something something, so there. er that didn't quite come off as i'd hoped.

clarity?

Fine, instead of beating people who believe in Faith Healing, which results in the death of their children, instead lets catch them early before they do any harm and send them to reeducation camps.

you mean school or college?
yeah my one is a bit of a prison. certainly looks like one. abliet without the nice food.

*sigh*


I propose a new law. The government will give me a crowbar, and pay for my transportation costs as I travel the country, beating people like those mentioned in the article and the other one about the 15 month old to within an inch of their lives.

That's disgusting.

Yeah. A crow bar will get all rusty, use a wooden baseball bat.

Yeah. A crow bar will get all rusty, use a wooden baseball bat.

if there is a heaven, they play baseball there, all the time. don't use my holy instrument to bash people's faces in. Use a shovel like civilized folk do. ;)

if there is a heaven, they play baseball there, all the time. don't use my holy instrument to bash people's faces in. Use a shovel like civilized folk do. ;)

or a chainsaw! yeeehaww

or a chainsaw! yeeehaww

Bludgeoning wounds are where is at.

So...

Abortion = Murder

but!

Watching your child suffer for 30 days before she dies = perfectly ok?

eh?!
If this logic doesn't seem to make sense to you, that is because you are failing to BELIEVE hard enough. Your lack of faith is why America is currently being destroyed by brown-skinned communist abortion doctors and their gay lovers. I'll pray for you.

Yeah. A crow bar will get all rusty, use a wooden baseball bat.

if there is a heaven, they play baseball there, all the time. don't use my holy instrument to bash people's faces in. Use a shovel like civilized folk do. ;)

But then we get back to the rust issue . . .

But then we get back to the rust issue . . .

the owner of a rusty shovel is a person not worthy of my time. keep your garden instruments clean people!:p

Bludgeoning wounds are where is at.

oh no they ain't! they got nothing on good old chainsaws, they are so much more practical afterward.
*tries to start up chainsaw*
*runs into distance*
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa....

Two in one week?

What is the world coming to?

Two in one week?

What is the world coming to?
Faith.
It's wonderful isn't it?
I suppose the world could be reverting to pre-industrial ideas of faith to find solidity, thus resulting in increased extremist activity. Then again i could be wrong. aww my eyes hurt.

Bold my addition. Put yourself in their shoes. Would you rather send your daughter to hell, or leave her untreated for diabetes? Do I think that's sick thinking? Yes. Presuming you are a fundamentalist believer, however, the decision is obvious. One month of hell vs. an eternity of hell? I'll save her soul!

Non-religious people seem to find this concept hard to comprehend. Maybe I should translate -->

Should you give your child to the Hitler Youth, or pray that she'll find food on her own?

Because, of course, the 11th commandment was "Thou shalt not get your children proper medical care, for Diabetes is a gift from the Lord Thy God, and showing common sense will garner you an eternity of torment."

Faith.
It's wonderful isn't it?
I suppose the world could be reverting to pre-industrial ideas of faith to find solidity, thus resulting in increased extremist activity. Then again i could be wrong. aww my eyes hurt.

No, that's not faith, that's stupidity. I have faith. I also get my ass to a dentist when I have a toothache, my doctor at least once a year for a checkup, the gyn clinic, etc etc etc. When I am sick, I seeking fucking medical treatment.

No, that's not faith, that's stupidity. I have faith. I also get my ass to a dentist when I have a toothache, my doctor at least once a year for a checkup, the gyn clinic, etc etc etc. When I am sick, I seeking fucking medical treatment.

so what's fucking medical treatment like? i've never had that before.

... I'll pray for you.

I call for a controlled experiment before risking that on a living human. :p
Three lab rats. A devout believer prays for one, the second isn't prayed for at all. And you pray for the third with all the sincerity you can muster.
What I'm expecting to see is no difference between the first two. The third one will take sick and die.

so what's fucking medical treatment like? i've never had that before.

You need pretty good insurance for that, and most prostitutes aren't registered providers.

(I swung as hard as I could before, no-one replied. So now I'm just going to fart around.)

I think these parents are possibly so delusional (or "faithful", whatever you wanna call it) as a result of their belief system that they were not fully aware of the extent of their daughter's illness.

This is probably a simple meeting of several unfortunate circumstances.

What if I believe a certain drug prescribed will hurt my child, and I refuse to give her the medication? Will you have the police force the pills down her throat, and have me arrested? Where do you draw the line? Does the state really know what's best?

Sorry, but I don't trust Washington that much...

My opinion is that while Doctors aren't all-knowledgeable and do make mistakes. they have been educated in Medicine and therefore have a much more informed view on that drug than you do.

If a pair of gay parents let their child die this way, it would be CLEAR EVIDENCE that children require hetero parents because gays just can't make healthy families.

If a pair of atheist parents let their child die this way, it would be CLEAR EVIDENCE that godlessness = bad parenting.

If a pair of Muslim parents let their child die this way, it would be CLEAR EVIDENCE that Islam is a hateful, barbaric religion for people who like killing babies.

But since it's Christians, we've all got to make polite noises about how everyone's private faith is their private business and we respect that oh-so-much.

These parents intentionally allowed their child to die a painful death. They are a serious and immediate danger to their other children.

In my opinion, the appropriate course of action would be to institutionalize both parents for the remainder of their lives. I'd say just throw them in jail for murder, but they're clearly mentally ill and require serious professional help.

QFT.

Stuff like this is why I'm an atheist. But, if they are going to argue that God will protect their daughter, I say to them, who do you think sent the disease? Hmm?

Another sign of the insane war against reality and science put forth by fundamentalist ignorance.

We are seeing laws past where teachers can't mark a student wrong on a test if they say 2+2=95 if the student says "My God says it's so. Such laws are being proposed or have passed one house in Kansas and a couple of other states.

Another sign the dumbing down of a nation had its consiquences.

Anyone seen Idiocracy? If something does not change, that is America's future. We are well on the way.

Ignorant parents who kill a child in the name of faith. I wish someone had the opportunity to step in and save her. Government, family friend, school teacher.

All this creationism taught as science crap is insane. It leads to horrible events like this.

Negligence by faith. :headbang:

I can NOT move to Japan fast enough!!!!!!!!!! :(

-Rafe

For those of you arguing that the parents acted responsibly based on their beliefs, I posit this scenario:

Two parents of three children are regularly on hallucinogenic drugs. One day, during one of their hallucinations, one of them believes that the floor has lit on fire, and they see their child on the floor, and so they pick them up and throw them into a pool of water, to save them from the flames. Then the hallucination ends, and it turns out what they thought was a pool of water was actually an open third story window. The child is dead. They have two more children, and no intention of getting off the hallucinogens. the parent did the best they could to protect their child, but because the parent's reasoning was not based in reality, they were incapable of doing so.

For those of you arguing that the parents acted responsibly based on their beliefs, I posit this scenario:

Two parents of three children are regularly on hallucinogenic drugs. One day, during one of their hallucinations, one of them believes that the floor has lit on fire, and they see their child on the floor, and so they pick them up and throw them into a pool of water, to save them from the flames. Then the hallucination ends, and it turns out what they thought was a pool of water was actually an open third story window. The child is dead. They have two more children, and no intention of getting off the hallucinogens. the parent did the best they could to protect their child, but because the parent's reasoning was not based in reality, they were incapable of doing so.

That's pretty much what I said too..

For those of you arguing that the parents acted responsibly based on their beliefs, I posit this scenario:

I'm not the fish you were baited for. But I'm probably all you'll get.

Two parents of three children are regularly on hallucinogenic drugs. One day, during one of their hallucinations, one of them believes that the floor has lit on fire, and they see their child on the floor, and so they pick them up and throw them into a pool of water, to save them from the flames. Then the hallucination ends, and it turns out what they thought was a pool of water was actually an open third story window. The child is dead. They have two more children, and no intention of getting off the hallucinogens. the parent did the best they could to protect their child, but because the parent's reasoning was not based in reality, they were incapable of doing so.

The other kids should be taken away from those parents. This is such a random act that something equally bad (or at least bad) could happen to the other kids for no reason. Or at least, no reason we could predict and guard against.

I don't feel that's what should be done with the parents in the case of this thread. They have delusions about the real causes of sickness, they have delusions about the power of prayer to deal with same. It does not follow that they would leave one of their other children in front of an oncoming train and pray, or that they would let him/her sleep on a park bench and trust in the Lord to choose their fate.

Rather, I would say that these parents are not competent to make medical decisions on behalf of their surviving children. This responsibility should be taken away from them, and given to child protection services. The other kids should have a thorough medical examination, or are removed from the parents.

It is tempting, from the vantage point of the internet, to punish these parents out of all proportion to their crime. But we should remember that they have just lost a child. They have relied apon their faith and their God, and been kicked in the guts for it. They should be tried for manslaughter, ie negligence leading to death, and they should both serve time for it ... this is only fair, it follows from what they did and failed to do. Punishment would harm their surviving children ... but such is the awful majesty of the law.

But there we must stop. We should not remove their other children unless we can prove that they are at risk (eg, are diabetic and are refused treatment, or are being abused but the abuse allowed as a "test of faith.") Removal of children as punishment is unfair.

I reject your supposedly analogous situation. As you have drawn it (delusions of fire with no real basis, delusions of water where there is a window, drastic action despite voluntarily mental impairment) the abuse/neglect is so unpredictable that there is a real possibility of something unpredictably lethal happening to the other kids.

For those of you arguing that the parents acted responsibly based on their beliefs, I posit this scenario:

Two parents of three children are regularly on hallucinogenic drugs. One day, during one of their hallucinations, one of them believes that the floor has lit on fire, and they see their child on the floor, and so they pick them up and throw them into a pool of water, to save them from the flames. Then the hallucination ends, and it turns out what they thought was a pool of water was actually an open third story window. The child is dead. They have two more children, and no intention of getting off the hallucinogens. the parent did the best they could to protect their child, but because the parent's reasoning was not based in reality, they were incapable of doing so.

QFT

I reject your supposedly analogous situation. As you have drawn it (delusions of fire with no real basis, delusions of water where there is a window, drastic action despite voluntarily mental impairment) the abuse/neglect is so unpredictable that there is a real possibility of something unpredictably lethal happening to the other kids.

I have a feeling some of the denizens of NSG would use the same phrase (bolded) to describe these parents' religion...

I have a feeling some of the denizens of NSG would use the same phrase (bolded) to describe these parents' religion...

At least their practice of it, yes.

I'm not the fish you were baited for. But I'm probably all you'll get.


It seemed like there was more than just you making that argument, but ok.
The other kids should be taken away from those parents. This is such a random act that something equally bad (or at least bad) could happen to the other kids for no reason. Or at least, no reason we could predict and guard against.

I don't feel that's what should be done with the parents in the case of this thread. They have delusions about the real causes of sickness, they have delusions about the power of prayer to deal with same. It does not follow that they would leave one of their other children in front of an oncoming train and pray, or that they would let him/her sleep on a park bench and trust in the Lord to choose their fate.
But it does follow that if anther one of their children turned out to also be diabetic (it is hereditary) that the same could happen. Or if one gets a bad infection, or any number of other easily treatable maladies.

Rather, I would say that these parents are not competent to make medical decisions on behalf of their surviving children. This responsibility should be taken away from them, and given to child protection services. The other kids should have a thorough medical examination, or are removed from the parents.
Yeah, I could see that, and would accept that, but there are some people arguing for total medical control of the parents, and they're the one's I'm really arguing against.

I have a feeling some of the denizens of NSG would use the same phrase (bolded) to describe these parents' religion...

The scenario is one where the parents are suffering delusions brought about by a deliberate act (taking drugs). Is religious faith under a person's control in that way? Can they "just say no" to something they don't believe IS a delusion?

Hmm. "Just say no to God" ... could be a handy little slogan. ;)

The scenario is one where the parents are suffering delusions brought about by a deliberate act (taking drugs). Is religious faith under a person's control in that way? Can they "just say no" to something they don't believe IS a delusion?

Hmm. "Just say no to God" ... could be a handy little slogan. ;)

Would it be any better if the delusions were a mental disability?

Would it be any better if the delusions were a mental disability?

It would be quite different in terms of responsibility; the same in terms of consequences.
That is, the drug takers have a choice, the disabled person has presumably had assistance to overcome their limitations and can't really do any better. In both cases, the child is at higher risk than an average child.

Where does "ideologically impaired judgement"* fall, though? Is it something the parents chose? Is it something they can choose to stop?

*I'm referring to the christian parents of the thread subject here.

It seemed like there was more than just you making that argument, but ok.

Reading the thread over, I see only Gardiaz arguing the parents' rights to do what they did with any vigour, and they were demolished in the first few pages.

Even Sanmartin, who I find flagrantly wrong on most subjects, wouldn't make a firm defence of the parents. Sanmartin did however attack the effectiveness of medicine in a way which implied an endorsement of the parents' 'decision.'

G3N13 allowed for some parental discretion, but only in a more general case.

Trollgaard posted a single statement implying that bad conscience was punishment enough, but I think it was just flamebait.

But it does follow that if anther one of their children turned out to also be diabetic (it is hereditary) that the same could happen.

Yep. See:

I hope at least that the other kids are getting medical checkups right now. Type 1 diabetes is hereditary!

If the parents won't consent to that, take the kids off them.

I was sort of hoping to get an argument there. It might suffice to leave the kids living with the parents, but enforce medical examination.

Or if one gets a bad infection, or any number of other easily treatable maladies.Yeah, I could see that, and would accept that, but there are some people arguing for total medical control of the parents, and they're the one's I'm really arguing against.

We lack opponents. It's an NSG lovefest. :)

We lack opponents. It's an NSG lovefest. :)

We have reached consensus! Fluffles all around!
:fluffle::fluffle::fluffle:
:fluffle::fluffle::fluffle: <- The maximum amount of love allowed in any post.
:fluffle::fluffle::fluffle:

We have reached consensus! Fluffles all around!


:fluffle::fluffle::fluffle::fluffle:
_:fluffle::fluffle::fluffle:
___:fluffle::fluffle:
_____:fluffle:
Now that /\ would be the maximum...

:f
Now that /\ would be the maximum...

:fluffle:

:fluffle:

:eek: a MHiJ :fluffle:
___:D

:eek: a MHiJ :fluffle:
___:D

well i lack the energy for a cool comment, or even an insightful one, so i'll just post roughly what i'm thinking.
:fluffle:
i should do that more often.

:fluffle:

Shit!! another one!!

*runs away*

Shit!! another one!!

*runs away*

come back here, there's more where they came from!:D
:fluffle:

come back here, there's more where they came from!:D
:fluffle:

oh okay...
:fluffle::fluffle::fluffle::fluffle::fluffle::fluffle:http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/love072.gif:fluffle:

The parents are fucktards!
:fluffle:
They should be hit with a stick!
:fluffle:
We know what's right!
:fluffle:
We are never wrong!
:fluffle:
They're Christians, too!
:fluffle:
If they were Muslim, they'd still be fucktards!
:fluffle:
Trolls can't touch this!
:fluffle:
It's a clear cut case!
:fluffle:
All's right with the world now!
:fluffle:
Next problem to solve, please!
:mad:

oh okay...
i am clever:
fixed.
That smiley is a weird one, i wonder who invented that eh? still, back to fluffles!
:fluffle:
The parents are fucktards!

They should be hit with a stick! we like sticks

We know what's right! and what's left too

We are never wrong! ah well what i really meant was...

They're Christians, too!...well maybe

If they were Muslim, they'd still be fucktards!...uh what?

Trolls can't touch this!...:D we'll see about that

It's a clear cut case your honour, however i think i should point out that i need a rest from thinking now, my brain has slowly melted over time.

All's right with the world now in a tautological sense of the word. i mean what?

Next problem to solve, please!

Fixed. hope you like the newer version.
How do skinless sausages hold together?
What happens when time goes backward?

Or if they're too hypothetical, what were fluffles origional purpose?
:fluffle:

What happens when time goes backward?

Couldn't care less, unless it has something to do with abortion or capital punishment. Or guns.

Or if they're too hypothetical, what were fluffles origional purpose?
:fluffle:

They are meant to be hugs I think. But all the emoticons only show the head, and normal people don't hug by giving each other headlocks ... so there's that odd head-rubbing thing instead.

They don't really look like people kissing, which is the only other interpretation.

In any case, they're gross and I can see why some people utterly despise them.

BUT THEY ARE OUTNUMBERED, BWWaaHAAARHARRR!
:fluffle::fluffle:
:fluffle: :confused: :fluffle:
:fluffle::fluffle:

Couldn't care less, unless it has something to do with abortion or capital punishment. Or guns.



They are meant to be hugs I think. But all the emoticons only show the head, and normal people don't hug by giving each other headlocks ... so there's that odd head-rubbing thing instead.

They don't really look like people kissing, which is the only other interpretation.

In any case, they're gross and I can see why some people utterly despise them.

you changed your tune, you used loads of them before, what gives?

you changed your tune, you used loads of them before, what gives?

Real hugs are good. We should have a :hug: smilie that doesn't look so sexual.

Speaking of which, I've always found :gundge: to be rather gross too. ;)

Real hugs are good. We should have a :hug: smilie that doesn't look so sexual.

Speaking of which, I've always found :gundge: to be rather gross too. ;)

Well Nobel Hobos, that second one i didn't consider gross until i thought about it in a..different way, now it does look disgusting.

fixed.
That smiley is a weird one, i wonder who invented that eh? still, back to fluffles!
:fluffle:

:D
:fluffle::fluffle:

Well Nobel Hobos, that second one i didn't consider gross until i thought about it in a..different way, now it does look disgusting.

Yeah, the first time I saw it, I thought of the slime gun in (I think) Quake 1.

EDIT: Snipped a bit here. I'll keep the unpleasant meme to myself! :fluffle: