So for the lazy, the jist of it is this: this kid has leukemia and is undergoing chemo. His red blood cell count crashes out, as is often the case in chemo, so they stopped treatment. A blood transfusion would've allowed the chemo to resume and bumped his chances for survival from, well, zero, to seventy percent. Initially refusing because it went against his religious beliefs, the state seeks a court order to force him to get a transfusion, but the judge refuses it, and the kid dies.
Once in a while, if I'm asked why I am an atheist, I point out shit like this. All other things being equal, this kid's religion killed him. Pretty much any other kid with leukemia would've gotten the transfusion, and while he still might have died, it would've been after every effort was made to save his life.
And the asskicker? The kid was apparently indoctrinated to be a JW, so he quite possibly didn't even know any better. It's not as if he were an adult who converted later in life. Like I said, it's a damn shame an innocent kid had to die for no reason.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Blindy. wrote, obviously thinking too hard:
Hell yeah! Darwin in action!
That statement makes no sense.
quote:
There was much rejoicing when Blindy. said this:
Hell yeah! Darwin in action!
Hell yeah! I'm glad someone died because they were brainwashed by religion!
What kind of stupid ass response is this.
Alaan fucked around with this message on 11-30-2007 at 03:51 PM.
It doesn't make any sense to me at all.
It is things like this and all the door to door preaching that give them a bad rap.
It sucks that a belief killed him.
quote:
Check out the big brain on Blindy.!
Hell yeah! Darwin in action!
Fuck you.
Second, why the fuck was a 14-year old kid allowed to make such a life changing decision (one that ended his own life earlier than it may have otherwise), and why isn't this judge being punished somehow over his decision?
Now, I noticed that the person who has legal rights over the kid sided with his position (due to the fact that she was a JW as well), but the whole article makes it sound as though the kid was the one who ultimately decided what was best for him.
quote:
Willias wrote this stupid crap:
First off,Fuck you.
Second, why the fuck was a 14-year old kid allowed to make such a life changing decision (one that ended his own life earlier than it may have otherwise), and why isn't this judge being punished somehow over his decision?Now, I noticed that the person who has legal rights over the kid sided with his position (due to the fact that she was a JW as well), but the whole article makes it sound as though the kid was the one who ultimately decided what was best for him.
The kid probably said it first, and the aunt, his legal guardian, signed off on it. If the legal guardian signed off and OKed his decision, what can the judge do?
quote:
Falaanla Marr probably says this to all the girls:
The kid probably said it first, and the aunt, his legal guardian, signed off on it. If the legal guardian signed off and OKed his decision, what can the judge do?
Right, I realize that. But as I said, the article makes it sound as though his legal guardian didn't have anything to do with the final decision, though she supported it.
quote:
Did someone say Falaanla Marr:
Hell yeah! I'm glad someone died because they were brainwashed by religion!What kind of stupid ass response is this.
If the kid dies he doesn't pass on the retarded parent's genes.
His biological parents did not want him dying. Willias fucked around with this message on 11-30-2007 at 07:28 PM.
quote:
Blindy. said this about your mom:
If the kid dies he doesn't pass on the retarded parent's genes.
I'm pretty sure religion isn't carried over in genes. The kid's future kids might have been more sensible.
This is a sad story.
My grandfather was a Christian Scientist but he had the sensibility to get treatment when he got cancer. Zair fucked around with this message on 11-30-2007 at 07:33 PM.
So, How the fuck does this kid get allowed to refuse it, other than by benefit of his belief in some higher deity? Anakha's Wii fucked around with this message on 11-30-2007 at 08:07 PM.
It's sad when someone dies like this as the result of religion. We can't, or at least shouldn't, go around acting like we know what's best for others though.
quote:
Willias was listening to Cher while typing:
I'm thinking the judge is a dumbass.
Right, because what we need is more government telling us what we should do...
I'm tired of all these cries for govt stipulations every time something bad happens. People need to wake up and realise the only way to be free is to stop having the govt fucking babysit you. Yes, bad shit happens in life. Grow a backbone and deal with it without crying to mommy to make it stop happening. You want something to be done about it? Do it yourself. Go out and try to convert them to the way you believe. Want a company to stop treating the animals so badly? Go out and spread the word about how bad it is and get people to boycott. Or, make an animal friendly farm and offer an alternative.
Its pathetic how people expect someone else to take care of what they believe are problems. A kid died because of what he believed. At least he believed in something strong enough to die for it. Do any of you believe in something strong enough that you'd die for it? Instead of crying what a tragedy somebody stop this travesty, maybe you should show respect for his choice, whether you agree with his religious beliefs or not.
And for the record, I really despise religion, so don't think I'm some religious nut protecting the right to religion. Religion cause more harm than good, imo. But I don't believe in forcing my beliefs onto others, which is exactly what this thread is suggesting should be done. That's no better than "brainwashing", as its been called in this thread, kids to believe in religion. You all may disagree with someone's religious choices, but that doesn't mean you're right.
edit: typo Ragabash fucked around with this message on 12-01-2007 at 02:50 AM.
quote:
Right, because what we need is more government telling us what we should do...
Wait. You mean it doesn't already enforce certain things regarding health, especially towards children?
The kid's wishes shouldn't have been respected because of his age.
quote:
Its pathetic how people expect someone else to take care of what they believe are problems. A kid died because of what he believed. At least he believed in something strong enough to die for it.
What the fuck, are you trying to make this kid look like some kind of religious freedom martyr? :V
I don't know why the fuck you're preaching to me man, I agree with a lot of the shit you're saying.
But a 14 year-old kid shouldn't have this much influence over whether or not a medical problem should or should not be solved. Willias fucked around with this message on 12-01-2007 at 03:10 AM.
And no, I'm not trying to make him into a martyr. This thread just pisses me off because of all the "ohhh we need to stop this shit right now!" attitude I'm seeing, and he's the topic of conversation.
So what if he was 14. He believed that to accept the transfusion would deny him entrance into heaven. Believed it so strongely he accepted death. Suppose you did force him to. You have a 50 50 chance that he would either A) come to terms with it with age and be grateful or B) forever decry his status cause he knows he would never ever be granted admission into heaven. Why should anyone make that choice for him, simply because of his age? The only one that had a "right" to do so supported his decision. Stay out of their business and live your life.
edit: another typo *sigh* Ragabash fucked around with this message on 12-01-2007 at 03:38 AM.
quote:
ACES! Another post by Naimah:
The judge was respecting the kids religious wishes. I agree, the kid made the wrong decision and was probably misinformed by his parents at some point. All that is regretable but parents should be allowed to raise thier children how they want to and the state shouldn't be able to require anyone to receive a particular medical treatment or any at all for that matter.It's sad when someone dies like this as the result of religion. We can't, or at least shouldn't, go around acting like we know what's best for others though.
Children are different from adults. As a society, we have mandated certain (albeit, arbitrary) ages which we allow our members to do certain things. We don't allow 7 year olds to drive. We don't allow 6 year olds to vote. And yes, we don't allow 20 year olds to drink. Although you may not agree with every specific case, I hope you can agree that there is a specific and legitimate difference in how we treat children and adults.
In most cases we defer to the parents of children for their life decisions. How they are schooled, what kind of spiritual guidance they receive, what kinds of foods they eat and what activities they engage in. If the parents are incapacitated or dead we allow relatives or some other type of guardian to make decisions for them. We do this because we have determined that children are unable to manage their own lives. In this particular case for whatever reason the biological parents don't have custody a relative does.
His guardian happens to be a Jehovah's Witness. They have somewhat unusual views and as a society we allow them to raise their children as they see fit. This, however, has limits. If child X had parents in the religion Y which believes you can only go to heaven if you are molested each week by a priest, we would disallow that. Or child A in religion B, which says you must remove a finger, toe etc. each year to follow it. We would probably intervene and prevent the parents from mutilating the child.
We do this because, as before, children are unable to make these kinds of decisions for themselves. And if a parent wants to do something like that to a child we use common sense and say "I don't think a 10 year old is mature enough to decide whether he should cut off his arm for religious beliefs." We intervene through the legal system.
A 14 year old child is not mature enough, they aren't developed enough to decide they want to die for a faith they have been indoctrinated into. They aren't old enough to personally question doctrine, they haven't psychologically or physiologically developed enough to do it. Yes it's a judgment call; every person is different. But in the case of serious, permanent damage to a child, as a society we don't let parents make the wrong call. And we shouldn't.
But I guess ideology trumps pragmatism every time.
quote:
Noxhil2 enlisted the help of an infinite number of monkeys to write:
But I guess ideology trumps pragmatism every time.
It's not quite as simple as that.
Yes, children are not adults, no matter what they may think or what we may think. But in this case, the decision was not easy at all.
This child will be forgotten in a few days. Had the judge intervened, there would be protests until doomsday. The separation of church and state, usually, means that this wouldn't happen. In this particular ruling, though, it means that the state couldn't risk oppressing someone's freedom of religion.
I don't agree with the decision, but I understand it.
I still don't think letting the kid die was the right choice, but I guess from a more political standpoint (I guess that's what you'd call it) it's better in the long run. :/
quote:
Noxhil2's account was hax0red to write:
His guardian happens to be a Jehovah's Witness. They have somewhat unusual views and as a society we allow them to raise their children as they see fit. This, however, has limits. If child X had parents in the religion Y which believes you can only go to heaven if you are molested each week by a priest, we would disallow that. Or child A in religion B, which says you must remove a finger, toe etc. each year to follow it. We would probably intervene and prevent the parents from mutilating the child.
I don't agree with their view point so they are stupid and we should ignore it. Even compare them to rapists!
How very progressive of you.
quote:
Naimah Model 2000 was programmed to say:
I don't agree with their view point so they are stupid and we should ignore it. Even compare them to rapists!How very progressive of you.
I didn't name any particular religion. I pointed out that putting something under the umbrella of religion doesn't excuse it being wrong. I just used somewhat extreme examples to illustrate the point.
quote:
Mr. Parcelan enlisted the help of an infinite number of monkeys to write:
This child will be forgotten in a few days. Had the judge intervened, there would be protests until doomsday. The separation of church and state, usually, means that this wouldn't happen. In this particular ruling, though, it means that the state couldn't risk oppressing someone's freedom of religion.
I didn't think about it from that angle. I'm not sure who exactly would protest; many of the religious right are staunchly "pro-life" and it seems disingenuous to say it's not okay to kill an embryo but protest against a potentially life-saving treatment. They certainly came out for Terri Schiavo.
quote:
Noxhil2 had this to say about dark elf butts:
I didn't think about it from that angle. I'm not sure who exactly would protest; many of the religious right are staunchly "pro-life" and it seems disingenuous to say it's not okay to kill an embryo but protest against a potentially life-saving treatment. They certainly came out for Terri Schiavo.
My recollection of the Terri Schiavo case is a little sketchy, but let me try to piece together what I remember. Schiavo's staunchly religious parents did not want her non-religious, or at least less religious husband, deciding to take her off of life support.
Whereas in this case, a religious child refused a blood transfusion as recommended by his religious parents. He died, yes, it was a silly reason, yes, but there was no conflict of faith going on.
As staunch as the pro-lifers are, they're more upset about the freedom of religion. Sort of like how some people justify a benevolent God taking away their loved ones as it being "their time," I imagine this is how many religious people are looking at it, as opposed to the Schiavo case when it was someone else deciding her fate.
Maybe his guardian refused the treatment?
quote:
Callalron still thinks SARS jokes are topical, as evidenced by:
Maybe I missed something somewhere, but since when are 14 year olds considered competent enough to make discisions concerning their own medical treatment? A 14 year old can't get their ears pierced without parental permission, let alone decide about a transfusion.Maybe his guardian refused the treatment?
Generally, in the case of minors, the guardian's wishes don't really matter in circumstances such as this. If the kid was 4 and the guardian was refusing treatment, the state would assume custody and make every effort to save the child's life. The oddity here is this particular judge decided that this kid was a sound enough individual to determine his own fate. I personally don't buy that for a second, but since psychology is a fuzzy science, there's really no empirical consensus on the matter.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
