Girl Dies After Parents Pray for Healing Instead Getting Medical Help

[Evo]

Then it's child abuse, pure and simple. The parents knew that other options existed, yet purposefully withheld them from the child, so the child could not make an informed decision about her own body. Throw 'em in jail.

- Warren

Yes, it is child abuse.

 

[DaveC426913]

Question re: child abuse.

Is there any consaideration in the criteria for child abuse that accounts for whether the parents felt that they were doing the right thing or not.

Certainly if the parents could not defend their actions as loving and considerate, then there's an obvious case for abuse. But I don't know if this is such a clear-cut case of abuse. The parents honestly felt that they were doing the right thing.

 

[DaveC426913]

No. Parents are responsible for providing the best possible environment for their children

but 'Best' is a subjective term.

A child, like all people, is ultimately the only person with any right to make decisions about his or her own body.

This is not true. Though I grant that you think it should be.

Any other system of belief results in contradictions, and thus is not rational.

That is not exactly a compelling criteria when it comes to real life, now is it?

 

[Evo]

Question re: child abuse.

Is there any consaideration in the criteria for child abuse that accounts for whether the parents felt that they were doing the right thing or not.

Certainly if the parents could not defend their actions as loving and considerate, then there's an obvious case for abuse. But I don't know if this is such a clear-cut case of abuse. The parents honestly felt that they were doing the right thing.

The parents are crazy. If they thought the child was inhabited by demons and the only way to save her was to cut off all of her limbs and set her on fire, you're ok with that because they had good intentions?

These psycho parents allowed their daughter to die a horrible, slow, painful death because they are insane.

 

[chroot]

Again, the parents cannot "do the right thing or not" with respect to someone else's body. The parents had a responsibility to educate the child about the various options available to her, and thus failed to meet that responsibility.

This really has nothing to do with what the parents thought was the "right thing to do." That's entirely, completely irrelevant. Imagine some parents who really, truly thought that repeatedly molesting their daughter was the "right thing to do" -- we'd throw them in jail just the same. This case is, in reality, no different, because it is still an example of parents trying to remove the rights of their children to do what they wish with their bodies. That's the problem here. The parents' beliefs are fun for discussion, but have no bearing on the real issue.

- Warren

 

[chroot]

but 'Best' is a subjective term.

No, it is not. The best environment is the one in which the child grows to adulthood with the greatest understanding of the world possible. The parents obviously were aware of doctors and hospitals, yet chose not to pass this information on to their dying daughter.

This is not true. Though I grant that you think it should be.

It must be true in any society that values basic human rights. These parents will be thrown in jail for what they have done, which indicates quite well that it is true.

That is not exactly a compellnig criteria when it comes to real life, now is it?

What, should we not analyze the behavior of one person (a parent) with respect to another (a child)? We have an entire branch of government, the judicial, specifically to make such analyses.

- Warren

 

[DaveC426913]

The parents are crazy. If they thought the child was inhabited by demons and the only way to save her was to cut off all of her limbs and set her on fire, you're ok with that because they had good intentions?

Straw man. That is not whatg happened. An argument based on a fantasy you make up yourself needs no rebuttal.

 

[Evo]

Straw man. That is not whatg happened. An argument based on a fantasy you make up yourself needs no rebuttal.

Read the article and tell me that child had an informed choice. Don't be so ridiculous.

 

[DaveC426913]

What, should we not analyze the behavior of one person (a parent) with respect to another (a child)? We have an entire branch of government, the judicial, specifically to make such analyses.

Of course we should.

What I am objecting to here is the automatic knee-jerk reaction that so many people have to "religion".

We go to great lengths to squelch sexism (pidgeon-holing individuals based on ther sex) and racism (pidgeon-holing people based on their ethnicity) but do we ever stop to think why we want to quell that behaviour?

People should be judged as individuals, with the facts at hand. The parents may well go to jail for their stupidity. But so many people just slap the label "religious" on anything and consider it synonymous with "idiot zombie" or whatever and then judge that. Straw man!



Man, if there's one thing I'm learning hanging around here it's that atheistic-types and scientifically-minded types are the most enthusiatic to commit for the very crimes they accuse non-atheists and non-scientists of.

It seems to me that if "we" are going to claim moral superiority over those that we think are slaves to their faiths we'll have to take the higher road: tolerance and civility. No??

 

[DaveC426913]

Read the article and tell me that child had an informed choice. Don't be so ridiculous.

what? I never suggested that.

You tried to posit a scenario where parents cut off limbs and set children on fire, and then you asked us to judge that.

That is a textbook straw man argument. Straw man arguments are put forth when the real argument is too weak to attack.

 

[Evo]

what? I never suggested that.

You tried to posit a scenario where parents cut off limbs and set children on fire, and then you asked us to judge that.

That is a textbook straw man argument. Straw man arguments are put forth when the real argument is too weak to attack.

It wasn't a strawman argument you said this

Question re: child abuse.

Is there any consaideration in the criteria for child abuse that accounts for whether the parents felt that they were doing the right thing or not.

Certainly if the parents could not defend their actions as loving and considerate, then there's an obvious case for abuse. But I don't know if this is such a clear-cut case of abuse. The parents honestly felt that they were doing the right thing.

So, basically you say anything a parent does to a child if they think they are doing the right thing is OK. So my scenario is simply an example of what you yourself said. Don't try to get out of it.

 

[DaveC426913]

It wasn't a strawman argument you said this

So, basically you say anything a parent does to a child if they think they are doing the right thing is OK. So my scenario is simply an example of what you yourself said. Don't try to get out of it.

And then you created a fantasy out of whole cloth involving amputation and fire. I am not obliged to address your fantastical scenario.

 

[gravenewworld]

God only answers to tithes and offerings, not prayers.

 

[OmCheeto]

Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God
... god

Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s
... god

They are guilty, by both their law and Caesar's law.

I say hang them.

 

[binzing]

Mentor fight! (Cartman from Southpark voice, joke off of "Cripple fight" or "Race War")

 

[DaveC426913]

She's beautiful when she's mad.

 

[Poop-Loops]

Long thread, don't know if this was posted or not:

 

[Evo]

And then you created a fantasy out of whole cloth involving amputation and fire. I am not obliged to address your fantastical scenario.

But it addressed exactly what you were saying, that if the parent thinks it is right, it's ok.

I'm saying...NO IT'S NOT.

So are you retracting what you said? Are you now saying that what a parent thinks is right can't be wrong?

 

[DaveC426913]

But it addressed exactly what you were saying, that if the parent thinks it is right, it's ok.

Show me a parent that thinks your scenario is right.

Are you now saying that what a parent thinks is right can't be wrong?

Are you claiming knowledge of a parent that thinks this?


Thus is the nature of a straw man argument.

If you want to take issue with a scenario, use the scenario that's in front of us. Or concede that it's difficult to create a compelling argument on the scenario before us.

 

[Evo]

Show me a parent that thinks your scenario is right.

I'm a parent. I would listen to the medical assessments. I would not pray to a supernatural being.

I think the majority of parents will go with sound medical assessments.

 

[siddharth]

That's just it. It's not religion, it's insanity. And no, of course we should never tolerate child abuse. I don't see this as a religious thing, done by religious people. It was a crazy thing, done by crazy people.

I think religion was a major factor in this case. The parents believed that prayers to a supernatural deity would be answered, and even now blame the death on a lack of faith, and not a lack of medical treatment. They even believe that she can be resurrected.

Are the parents going to be charged with murder due to neglect? Also, there are 3 other kids in that household who might potentially be in danger.

 

[Gokul43201]

Straw man. That is not whatg happened. An argument based on a fantasy you make up yourself needs no rebuttal.

It is not a strawman proposition by any means. It is entirely within the logical argument you set up, that the decision becomes difficult if the parent claim they were acting in the child's best interests. Your demands for statistical support both weaken your own argument, and are in addition, irrelevant to the logic of your argument.

When the defense doesn't have a real argument to make, they appeal to to a jury's subjective instincts by arguing moral relativism. This is likely what you saw in whichever show it was, and if you hadn't mentioned it, my reaction would have been: "Wow! I haven't heard such drivel since I last watched Allly McBeal many years ago!"

Also, there are 3 other kids in that household who might potentially be in danger.

"Might potentially be"? No way! They absolutely are in grave danger! Their minds are being destroyed every day thay continue to live in that madhouse. That, to me, is just another form of murder.

 

[DaveC426913]

I'm a parent. I would listen to the medical assessments. I would not pray to a supernatural being.

I am also a parent. So?

Your disbelief in a supernatural being colours your opinion of how a large portion of the world actually works. The fact is, the belief in a supernatural being is the default. Praying to the supernatural is human. It cannot be discounted in any reasonably accurate world view.


Don't misunderstand, I am NOT saying that so many believing it makes it right, not at all; I am only saying that it is fact, and must be factored into any compassionate view of the world and of what humanity is.

The problem with the line of thinking where only rational beliefs are allowed to exist in the world is that the reductio ad absurdum leads to us all being robots.

 

[Gokul43201]

Don't misunderstand, I am NOT saying that so many believing it makes it right, not at all; I am only saying that it is fact, and must be factored into any compassionate view of the world and of what humanity is.

The compassionate thing to do would be to lock all these dangerous "believers" up in prisons. It wouldn't be the moral thing to do though.

 

[siddharth]

I am also a parent. So?

Your disbelief in a supernatural being colours your opinion of how a large portion of the world actually works. The fact is, the belief in a supernatural being is the default. Praying to the supernatural is human. It cannot be discounted in any reasonably accurate world view.

Don't misunderstand, I am NOT saying that so many believing it makes it right, not at all; I am only saying that it is fact, and must be factored into any compassionate view of the world and of what humanity is.

I think that is completely irrelevant to this case. IMO, even if a billion people *believe* that prayer works, the *fact* is that it doesn't, and the parents who hoped that the child would get better through prayer only are guilty of neglect and abuse. It's hard to be compassionate when ignorance of reality leads to a child being killed.

The problem with the line of thinking where only rational beliefs are allowed to exist in the world is that the reductio ad absurdum leads to us all being robots.

No. People are perfectly capable of love, creativity, emotion, compassion, etc while being rational.

 

[DaveC426913]

It is not a strawman proposition by any means.

Of course it is. It's a bait & switch.

"If you think guns should be allowed for citizens, that's just like saying it's OK to let your kids play with guns. Do you think it's OK to let your kid play with a gun?"

The only response to this is: "Uh, let's talk about whether guns be allowed allowed for citizens shall we?"

 

[Gokul43201]

Of course it is. It's a bait & switch.

"If you think guns are OK, that's just like saying it's OK to shoot your neighbour. Do you think it's OK to shoot your neighbour?

It depends on what you mean by thinking "guns are OK". Since that argument is incoherent, I can not judge its usefulness. Your previous argument was pretty clear though.

 

[DaveC426913]

This is fun, but I got to git to bed.

For now:

I really don't see how fighting intolerance and hatred with intolerance and hatred accomplishes anything or makes us better as a people.

Surely we fight it with empathy and education (and not just them, but us too).

 

[DaveC426913]

It depends on what you mean by thinking "guns are OK". Since that argument is incoherent, I can not judge its usefulness. Your previous argument was pretty clear though.

Already edited.

 

[Gokul43201]

"If you think guns are allowed for citizens, that's just like saying it's OK to let your kids play with guns. Do you think it's OK to give your kid a gun?"

The only response to this is: "Uh, let's talk about whether guns are allowed for citizens shall we?"

Actually, that is the only response that is not allowed. The premise of the argument, for some reason, is that in my view, "guns are allowed for citizens" (whatever that means) so there's nothing to talk about there. The only argument to be had is whether the conclusion follows logically from the premise.

 

[DaveC426913]

I just realized I let Evo put words in my mouth.

This needs correcting.

This is what I said:

"Certainly if the parents could not defend their actions as loving and considerate, then there's an obvious case for abuse. But I don't know if this is such a clear-cut case of abuse. The parents honestly felt that they were doing the right thing."

Evo interpreted this as

"So, basically you say anything a parent does to a child if they think they are doing the right thing is OK."

and

"If they thought the child was inhabited by demons and the only way to save her was to cut off all of her limbs and set her on fire, you're ok with that because they had good intentions?"

Please read what I actually said:

"...don't know if this is such a clear-cut case of abuse <because> the parents honestly felt that they were doing the right thing..."

All I said was that, because the parents were not deliberately or neglectfully injuring their child, that this may factor into their judgement. That is not condoning it, that is acknowledging a grey area. Like the difference between first and second degree murder. That is all I meant. And all I said.

 

[sas3]

"The family operates a coffee shop in Weston, which is a suburb of Wausau Wisconsin"

Next time I go up North I will have to stop in and have a cup of coffee and hear the story from the parents if they are not in jail (and I hope they are put in jail before they can kill again).
I really feel sorry for the children who are left. Why does this weird stuff always seem to happen here in Wisconsin?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Abraham and Isaac

I think religion was a major factor in this case. The parents believed that prayers to a supernatural deity would be answered, and even now blame the death on a lack of faith, and not a lack of medical treatment. They even believe that she can be resurrected.

And therein lies one very clear distinction: I have never encountered any religion that claims that resurrection can be achieved by faith [less end times prophesies]. All but the most extreme religions recognize that there is nothing "evil" about qualified medical care, so these folks were way beyond even the fringes of faith.

This reminds me of Alabama: Hang out a sign that says "church" and you're a preacher!

Given events like Jonestown and groups like Heaven's Gate, it is clear that "blind faith" rather than "informed faith" can lead to an insane acceptance of what is taught. So my take on this is that it was either a form of temporary insanity due to exposure to this small "bible group", or they were nuts all along. But that's the easy part. At what point does the government intervene in matters of faith; esp given that 80-90% of Americans have faith of some sort about which no two persons would agree?

Dave was making the point that the parents likely believed they were doing the right thing. Are we to allow the government to determine what is and is not right in these matters? Does that pose any potential problems? I don't think parents have the right to "faith" their children to death, but where do we draw the line, and who draws it?

In Hospital Deaths from Medical Errors at 195,000 per Year USA
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/11856.php

In the US, hospitals surely kill more people each year than religion does. Frankly, due to my long exposure to the medical field through Tsu and my own work, I'm terrified of hospitals!

Must a parent decide what is best for a child based on the odds; if so, what odds? For example, if there is a 1% chance of recovery without help, and a 99.9% chance of recovery with help, the choice seems pretty easy. But what if the chance of recovery without help is 10%? Is a parent allowed to have faith given that 10%. What if the odds are 40-60? May a parent refuse treatment for a child if they feel it is too cruel? Is a parent legally bound to accept a diagnoses if it is unclear or contested? What if different doctors give different diagnoses and the parents have no "faith" in their opinions? At what point do the actions of the parent become criminal?

 

[siddharth]

And therein lies one very clear distinction: I have never encountered any religion that claims that resurrection can be achieved by faith [less end times prophesies]. All but the most extreme religions recognize that there is nothing "evil" about qualified medical care, so these folks were way beyond even the fringes of faith.

I think you may have misunderstood what I said. Of course, I'm not saying that *all* religious people are like this. Just saying that religion and religious beliefs played a significant role in this case. You can't dismiss this incident as saying it's got nothing to do with religion. These people may not represent your idea of what constitutes normal religious people, but my point is that their inaction was a direct result of a belief that a supernatural entity can answer prayers.

At what point does the government intervene in matters of faith; esp given that 80-90% of Americans have faith of some sort about which no two persons would agree?

How about, when (in)action due to a belief in faith, which contradicts scientific understanding, is directly going to cause physical harm to a dependent individual?

Dave was making the point that the parents likely believed they were doing the right thing. Are we to allow the government to determine what is and is not right in these matters? Does that pose any potential problems?

We already allow the government to determine what is right and wrong in many matters. Why is this situation significantly different? After all, it's clear that preventing life-saving medical treatment to a child because of religious beliefs is wrong.

In Hospital Deaths from Medical Errors at 195,000 per Year USA
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/11856.php

In the US, hospitals surely kill more people each year than religion does. Frankly, due to my long exposure to the medical field through Tsu and my own work, I'm terrified of hospitals!

And, how many lives are saved due to hospitals? I don't understand the point of this comparison at all.

 

[wolram]

Why should anyone care any more, as long as it is not one of your own?, this world is totally nuts, life in one country is valueless in another it is sacrosanct, where is the humanity?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I think you may have misunderstood what I said. Of course, I'm not saying that *all* religious people are like this. Just saying that religion and religious beliefs played a significant role in this case. You can't dismiss this incident as saying it's got nothing to do with religion. These people may not represent your idea of what constitutes normal religious people, but my point is that their inaction was a direct result of a belief that a supernatural entity can answer prayers.

So your point is that we should not have freedom of religion?

How about, when (in)action due to a belief in faith, which contradicts scientific understanding, is directly going to cause physical harm to a dependent individual?

I listed some of the problems that I see: A late edit above.

We already allow the government to determine what is right and wrong in many matters. Why is this situation significantly different? After all, it's clear that preventing life-saving medical treatment to a child because of religious beliefs is wrong.

Again, the problem I see is that many situations are not so clear.

And, how many lives are saved due to hospitals? I don't understand the point of this comparison at all.

The majority of Americans will tell you that they are saved by faith, and many more people have faith than go to hospitals each week. But really it was just an observation of irony, in part: Hospitals are a great place to get sick or injured.

The point is that the odds of something like the events in this story are probably much smaller [in the US] than the chance of getting sick or injured in a hospital, so let's keep faith in perspective. All but a small fraction of people of faith go to the hospital when needed, and stories like this are relatively rare.

I will go out on a limb and make the claim that in the US, in practical terms, for all the good they do, hospitals are probably statistically far more dangerous than religion. And in spite of my contempt for the extremists who helped put Bush in power... there are a lot of churches out there that help people in practical terms, such as by providing food and clothing, so you can't claim that religions are all about faith and brainwashing. They do tremendous good through community services and foreign aid programs.

My brother-in-law is a die-hard atheist, but much to my surprise he now supports my sister's efforts to involve the kids in Church activities because he likes the safe and wholesome environment that it provides for his children.

 

[siddharth]

So your point is that we should not have freedom of religion?

Um.. no. My point is that religious beliefs should not interfere with reality when treating children.

I listed some of the problems that I see in a late edit above.

Must a parent decide what is best for a child based on the odds; if so, what odds? For example, if there is a 1% chance of recovery without help, and a 99.9% chance of recovery with help, the choice seems pretty easy. But what if the chance of recovery without help is 10%? Is a parent allowed to have faith given that 10%. What if the odds are 40-60? May a parent refuse treatment for a child if they feel it is too cruel? Is a parent legally bound to accept a diagnoses if it is unclear or contested? What if different doctors give different diagnoses and the parents have no "faith" in their opinions? At what point do the actions of the parent become criminal?

If the treatment is unclear, has no consensus, has a low success rate, etc, then a parent has the right to withhold treatment.

However, there are clear cut scenarios, such as this incident, where there is overwhelming evidence that the existing treatment works effectively and is a routine treatment. Preventing this treatment solely because of religious beliefs is the point where the actions of the parents become criminal.

The point is that the odds of something like the events in this story are probably much smaller [in the US] than the chance of getting sick or injured in a hospital, so let's keep faith in perspective. All but a small fraction of people with faith go to the hospital when needed, and stories like this are relatively rare.

Yes, but don't you agree that these rare cases can be prevented if there are laws which allow the government to interfere and treat the child?

I will go out on a limb and make the claim that in the US, in practical terms, for all the good they do, hospitals are probably statistically far more dangerous than religion.

I think that's a crazy comparison. How bout looking at how many lives are directly saved by treatment in hospitals, and how many lives are directly saved by prayer alone (ie, none)?

there are a lot of churches out there that help people in practical terms, such as by providing food and clothing, so you can't claim that religions are all about faith and brainwashing. They do tremendous good through community services and foreign aid programs.

Sure, I was never claiming that religion was all about faith and brainwashing.

 

[VashtiMaiden]

Guys, you know what? I really don't think religion is always involve whenever you say "pray, etc.". Some people doesn't have any religion but they believe in God.

My parents prayed when my brother is near to death...and it works.. but i believe it is because of their FAITH. Before we go to the doctor, etc., my parents pray first. It does work bec. of our faith. No religion involve. And anyway, I don't believe in doctors.

 

[siddharth]

My parents prayed when my brother is near to death...and it works.. but i believe it is because of their FAITH. Before we go to the doctor, etc., my parents pray first. It does work bec. of our faith. No religion involve. And anyway, I don't believe in doctors.

Ok, but please, continue going to the doctor after praying.

 

[EL]

My parents prayed when my brother is near to death...and it works.. but i believe it is because of their FAITH. Before we go to the doctor, etc., my parents pray first. It does work bec. of our faith. No religion involve. And anyway, I don't believe in doctors.

How do you know the praying worked? Never considered that it could be the doctor who cured your brother?

 

[VashtiMaiden]

How do you know the praying worked? Never considered that it could be the doctor who cured your brother?

Actually, we didn't go to the doctor.

 

[VashtiMaiden]

Ok, but please, continue going to the doctor after praying.

yeah.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Um.. no. My point is that religious beliefs should not interfere with reality when treating children.

That is an extreme case - the point to which you had responded.

You can't dismiss this incident as saying it's got nothing to do with religion. These people may not represent your idea of what constitutes normal religious people, but my point is that their inaction was a direct result of a belief that a supernatural entity can answer prayers.

I disagree. This is about two people who have mental problems. Unless you can show that faith typically leads to this type of behavior, it is not logical to assign this as a faith problem. It is a mental issue, pure and simple.

If the treatment is unclear, has no consensus, has a low success rate, etc, then a parent has the right to withhold treatment.

At what odds?

However, there are clear cut scenarios, such as this incident,

What odds are "clear cut", and whose odds?

Yes, but don't you agree that these rare cases can be prevented if there are laws which allow the government to interfere and treat the child?

Yes and I made that pretty clear in my post.

I think that's a crazy comparison. How bout looking at how many lives are directly saved by treatment in hospitals, and how many lives are directly saved by prayer alone (ie, none)?

First of all, to say that none are saved by prayer is a faith statement. You can test all that you want but you can never rule out the divine with logic. And you are only assigning value based on a treatment-cure scenario. There are other contributions that have value. And for the record, churches do save lives as well - many many lives. Many times the last stop that saves a person from the grave is religious transformation. In fact the former pastor of Tsu's church was a MIT Ph.D. in nuclear chemistry who was driven to drink by his profession. He worked on the Star Wars systems and eventually couldn't take the pressure. He ended up a gutter drunk who only escaped his death trap through religion. And as is apparent, he went on to join the ministry and was a much happier person for doing so than he had ever been before.

 

[siddharth]

I disagree. This is about two people who have mental problems. Unless you can show that faith typically leads to this type of behavior, it is not logical to assign this as a faith problem. It is a mental issue, pure and simple.

I disagree as well :)

Remember that a lot of people of this particular religion believe in a deity who resurrected himself after death. These people are only extending that belief to the child. I am attributing this partly to faith, because their inaction was a direct result of an aspect of faith. (ie, god answers prayers, and prayer cures the sick).

At what odds?

What odds are "clear cut", and whose odds?

"Clear cut" is when available scientific evidence shows that there is a successful treatment available, where the biological cause of the ailment is understood, and the reason the treatment works is known, and when there is no scientific evidence behind the alternative choice.

Yes and I made that pretty clear in my post.

Ok, I must have not seen that. In fact, after reading your posts, I thought you were arguing the contrary. Thanks for clearing that up.

First of all, to say that none are saved by prayer is a faith statement. You can test all that you want but you can never rule out the divine with logic. And you are only assigning value based on a treatment-cure scenario.

To say none are saved by prayer is a statement based on scientific evidence. You can't rule out an invisible dragon with logic either.

There are other contributions that have value. And for the record, churches do save lives as well - many many lives.

I'm not questioning this. As I said in the previous post, I'm questioning the use of prayer alone to attempt to treat a potentially fatal ailment in a child, when there's medicine which clearly works. In my opinion, this is a form of child abuse, and there should be laws which prevent and discourage these scenarios from happening.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

There is an old church joke about this sort of thing.

There was a great flood. A man of great faith was warned by the police that he needed to evacuate, to which he replied, "Don't worry. I have faith that God will save me!"

The waters rose and eventually he had nowhere left to go but to the roof of his house. As he sat there, some people in a boat came by and offered him a ride to safety. He yelled to them: "Don't worry. I have faith that God will save me!"

The waters continued to rise and he was now standing on the peak of his roof and knee-deep in water. A helicopter came by and dropped him a rope. He refuse the rope while yelling to the helicopter pilot: "Don't worry, I have faith. God will save me!"

Within the hour he had drowned.

Being quite angry about all of this [dying a horrible death and all], he went to God to complain: I lived a good life. I went to church, I followed your commandments, I helped others when I could, and to the end I had faith. Why did you abandon me?

Abandon you? God replied. I sent the police, a boat, and a helicopter, what more did you need??

 

[EL]

Actually, we didn't go to the doctor.

So you're saying your brother was near dying and you didn't take him to a doctor?
If so, I think you should be put in prison.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I disagree as well :)

Remember that a lot of people of this particular religion believe in a deity who resurrected himself after death. These people are only extending that belief to the child. I am attributing this partly to faith, because their inaction was a direct result of an aspect of faith. (ie, prayer cures the sick).

But there is no basis for the belief that they have. Nowhere does Christianity teach of self-resurrection. It is like blaming physicists for crackpot theories. And again, unless you can show that religion in the US leads to this sort of behavior generally, your statement is unfounded. It is not my opinion. It is a fact.

"Clear cut" is when available scientific evidence shows that there is a successful treatment available, where the biological cause of the ailment is understood, and the reason the treatment works is known, and when there is no scientific evidence behind the alternative choice.

At what odds? Nothing is certain even in medicine; especially in medicine!

To say none are saved by prayer is a statement based on scientific evidence. You can't rule out an invisible dragon with logic either.

Science does not address issues of dieties. To use science for something that by definition can't be tested is fallacious. Science can never rule out the existence of God or divine intervention, so faith and prayer can always be logically justified though personal experience. You assume that people have no reason to have faith, but I don't know of anyone who believes in invisible dragons.

I'm not questioning this. As I said in the previous post, I'm questioning the use of prayer to attempt to treat a potentially fatal ailment in a child, when there's medicine which clearly works.

What odds are "clearly"?

 

[VashtiMaiden]

So you're saying your brother was near dying and you didn't take him to a doctor?
If so, I think you should be put in prison.

It was in the middle of the night actually, and no doctors available.

 

[Cyrus]

It was in the middle of the night actually, and no doctors available.

Please do not think that because your parents decided to pray for your brother that it made him get better.

 

[siddharth]

But there is no basis for the belief that they have. Nowhere does Christianity teach of self-resurrection. It is like blaming physicists for crackpot theories.

There *is* basis for their belief that their prayers will be answered in their religion. In fact, that's the whole point of praying! I gave the resurrection example to point out that people can believe a person came back from the dead. It doesn't take a big leap of faith to extend that to others. The initial premise of resurrection and of healing by prayer has a basis in religion.

At what odds? Nothing is certain even in medicine; especially in medicine!

What odds are "clearly"?

Why is this relevant to this issue? There will *always* be some uncertainty regarding any medical treatment, and no treatment is 100 percent effective.

The point is, when the efficacy of the treatment is based on scientific evidence and is known to work, while the alternate is prayer which has no scientific evidence, isn't this scenario clear enough where the parent is guilty of neglect?

Science does not address issues of dieties. To use science for something that by definition can't be tested is fallacious. Science can never rule out the existence of God or divine intervention, so faith and prayer can always be logically justified though personal experience.

Replace God with invisible dragon, and my point is made.