Jehovah’s Witness dies after she refuses blood

vibe666 · 17-11-2014 5:35pm

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

When the child dies the parents should be charged with murder.

i'm not even sure that would be possible after a judge has basically sanctioned what they are doing.

nozzferrahhtoo · 17-11-2014 5:52pm

drkpower wrote: »

i havent seen you join it (which seems unusual for someone who claims he wants to explore the matter). As i said earlier, if you do have something to add on that point, i'm all ears, but otherwise im just wasting my time on you.

And as I said before no one is forcing you to spend any of your time on anything. You can worry about who you reply to in your own way, and how you invest that time. Choosing to invest it and moaning about it has nothing to do with me.

But you mention "outcome" and to me the outcome appears the same. Two people under two delusions, each of them with exactly the same amount of substantiation (that is to say: None) refuse treatment, and die. So I am merely exploring what the distinctions are between how we treat those two people and why we do so.

Yet our reaction to both of them as a species seems, on the whole, to be different and I am not seeing any meat being added to that distinction except people worry about what the implications and effects might be if we open that pandoras box and explore ways to rectify it.

drkpower wrote: »

Of course, while it is interesting to discuss whether a religous belief amounts to a genuine psychiatric 'delusion', it is effectively pointless without also considering the policy consequences of an affirmative answer.

I prefer to deal with what is right, or what is true, first. And deal with the implications of that later. What is true or real remains true or real regardless of what the implications of it might be. Which is why I have not been dragged down that tangent of discussing the implications where you want to bring me, but am sticking to the point I originally made about it, in and of itself, where I started. If I wish to discuss the distinction and you wish to discuss the implications of making the distinction or implementing it, then we are talking past each other and your fear of wasting your time is well founded.

The fact is that the two examples I gave are equally unsubstantiated. Therefore they are both equally delusional to my mind. At least no one has offered me a useful distinction or methodology of distinction that I can employ except that one is "religion" and the other is not........ and the former deserves some special treatment unknown and contextually labile.

drkpower wrote: »

Do you genuinely believe that those with delusional religous beliefs should have their medical, financial and social decision making interfered with by the courts or the state? (because that - or something like it - is the natural consequence of your holding such a position).

I never expressed or implied such a belief per se. What I AM saying is that where there IS a policy of over ruling a patients medical choice to refuse treatment because we deem them to be deluded in their reasoning for making that choice.......... and GIVEN religious belief in a god is no less delusional or offers no level of substantiation any different to any other delusion.......... then other than "the courts" being scared of the can of worms it will open........... where is the distinction? What is the _actual_ difference between the two deluded people...... that we as a species are pandering to........ not the implied distinction in law or the effect of employing law...... but the actual difference to which we are responding in the first place.

If the only distinction that can really be argued coherently is that including religion delusion in with the other delusions will cause turmoil then so be it, I accept that this is the argument, but it does not sit well with me as anything more than a cop out with an all too human moan of "I know we should do the right thing but its so haaaaaaaaaard".

drkpower wrote: »

If you fail to address the second question, you are really just the kid who runs up to a religious person, points, laughs and calls them 'crazy' or 'delusional', and runs off again giggling. It may be good for kicks, but it doesnt achieve anything!

Not an accurate analogy of anything I am saying or doing on this thread at all, no.

drkpower · 17-11-2014 6:01pm

You still havent actually addressed the distinction that the medical and legal professions have made between religous beliefs and other delusions!

Im not sure if you are doing that deliberately or not but i'm not going to waste my time trying to figure it out!

ProfessorPlum · 17-11-2014 7:04pm

Just to expand things out a bit:
Say the patient refused 'conventional' medical treatment and instead preferred to put their eggs in the quack medicine basket - say homeopathy for example. I doubt very much that the courts would be comfortable over ruling them and taking their medical decisions out of their hands on the basis that they are delusional. So perhaps it's not crazy versus religious, but crazy versus 'other recognised beliefs', be it religion or quack medicine.
People are entitled to believe whatever they like, and make life decisions accordingly. It doesn't follow that they are crazy and unfit to make autonomous decisions. The only instance I'd really be in favour of overruling would be in the case of a dependant where decisions not based on evidence were being advocated.

drkpower · 17-11-2014 7:12pm

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Just to expand things out a bit:
Say the patient refused 'conventional' medical treatment and instead preferred to put their eggs in the quack medicine basket - say homeopathy for example. I doubt very much that the courts would be comfortable over ruling them and taking their medical decisions out of their hands on the basis that they are delusional. So perhaps it's not crazy versus religious, but crazy versus 'other recognised beliefs', be it religion or quack medicine.
People are entitled to believe whatever they like, and make life decisions accordingly. It doesn't follow that they are crazy and unfit to make autonomous decisions. The only instance I'd really be in favour of overruling would be in the case of a dependant where decisions not based on evidence were being advocated.

Precisely.

And the critical difference is that the homeopathy enthusiast has capable and working cognitive functions. They may make bad decisions, but they work. The court/state/you or I have no right to overrule such decisions.

On the other hand, The person with, for instance an intellectual disability or a psychiatric illness causing a 'true' delusion does not have capable and working cognitive functions. And the court must protect them.

Nozzle misses the point by referring to the 'outcome' (look, they both made 'crazy' decisions!) rather than focussing on the important bit. If we focused on the outcome, many more than the religious would be deemed incapable of making decisions.

Hotblack Desiato · 18-11-2014 1:07am

sheesh wrote: »

In general though, do you think people have similar - I am not saying exactly the same - values to the people that they grew up with.

They would start off with broadly the same influences, but where they go from there is up to them individually.

Just because you rejected you parents views on homosexuality does not mean you rejected their views on stealing, killing, obeying rules, charity etc. you didn't reject every value they taught you, you still shower, are polite to people. You did not come up with every single set of values you have right now by yourself and 'by magic' fit into Irish society.

No but (a) I never said that I did and (b) it's irrelevant anyway. There is nothing whatsoever hypocritical or contradictory about finding oneself in agreement with some values of one's family/religion/society while rejecting others. In as much as their actions are not to the detriment of others, nobody has to justify their values or beliefs to anyone else except themselves.

nozzferrahhtoo · 18-11-2014 10:59am

drkpower wrote: »

You still havent actually addressed the distinction that the medical and legal professions have made between religous beliefs and other delusions!

The only distinction I am being offered is the implications of MAKING That distinction. I am not being offered a basis for actually making such a distinction in the real world. If two people come before me, each espousing unsubstantiated nonsense that is leading them to choose to refuse life saving medical treatment..... exactly what distinction is available _to me_.

drkpower wrote: »

Im not sure if you are doing that deliberately or not but i'm not going to waste my time trying to figure it out!

You seem to keep obsessing textually over how you invest your time, while investing it anyway. I long ago with tongue firmly in cheek coined a phrase I call "Nozzferrahhtoo's first law of internet forum posting" which states that the probability of any user posting on a thread seems to increase in proportion to the number of times they have indicated they will not do so, or do not want to do so.

drkpower · 18-11-2014 11:11am

And you still ignore/cant see the critical difference, the difference that the medical & legal communities recognise. I have posted it a number of times now. If you are unable to counter it, thats fine, but at least have the intellectual honesty to say that.

nozzferrahhtoo · 18-11-2014 11:48am

drkpower wrote: »

And you still ignore/cant see the critical difference, the difference that the medical & legal communities recognise. I have posted it a number of times now. If you are unable to counter it, thats fine, but at least have the intellectual honesty to say that.

Nozzferrahhtoo's rule strikes again it seems. Anyway as I said the only meat and substance I have seen on this thread about a distinction is some (likely well founded) concerns about what it would mean to attempt to implement that distinction (or not) in law.

Which, while I am sure is an interesting topic, is not really what I am asking about at all. Snide and unwarranted comments about intellectual honesty in place of discourse certainly does not do it.

drkpower · 18-11-2014 12:11pm

^^^^Pretty dishonest, but to be expected.

- first and foremost, the courts believe that a necessary condition for depriving a person of their decision making power is some form of 'mental impairment and malfunctioning'. They do not accept that religious belief - however 'bonkers' we might find it - amounts to a form of mental impairment. Legal incapacity can arise where the functioning of the mind is impaired, but not where the mind is capable of functioning, but does so in an unwise or even irrational fashion; it has long been accepted in law that otherwise competent adults are entitled to refuse life saving treatment for any reason, including an irrational reason. [i think that even most atheists would accept that the 'religous', even those at the fringes, fall within the latter category (ie. they have functioning minds!)],

The crux of the matter (and the bit you havent addressed) is whether the person is capable of making a decision. If not, the courts offer protection. If they are capable of making a decision, but make a crazy one, the court doesnt offer protection. It is about process, not outcome. That distinction is a sensible place to draw the line, and these matters have been considered over decades by courts, doctors and ethicists all over the world, and all have come to a broadly similar view.

The difference is that typical medical issues that cause legal incapacity stem from a dysfunction/malfunctioning of the mind (the mind is not capable of working properly). With religously (or belief system) motivated decisions, the mind is fully capable of working properly, even though it comes to what most people consider to be an irrational decision (ie. i wont accpet a blood transfusion because god told me not to/god told me i would get better without one).

The courts feel that it is not their job to qualitatively assess the decision making of others. If people - who are fully capable of making a decision -choose to disregard medical evidence in favour of a decision based on a 'hunch' or unsubstantiated superstition, it is not for the courts to protect them against their own foolishness. The courts - instead - choose to protect those whose minds are not capable of working, as the latter are in need of protection. They fear - rightly - that if they get drawn into qualitatively assessing the decision making of those who make 'crazy' decisions based on religous reasons, they will logically have to do likewise for those who make 'crazy' decisions for other reasons.

And the critical difference is that the homeopathy enthusiast has capable and working cognitive functions. They may make bad decisions, but they work. The court/state/you or I have no right to overrule such decisions.

On the other hand, The person with, for instance an intellectual disability or a psychiatric illness causing a 'true' delusion does not have capable and working cognitive functions. And the court must protect them.

robindch · 18-11-2014 12:25pm

But in Canada, a court rejected doctors' wishes to treat a child for lukaemia because the kid concerned is "aboriginal" and her parents have a constitutional right to have the child treated by "traditional medicine" and this right has been judged more important than the conflicting right of the child to remain alive:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/treating-a-childs-cancer-is-not-an-abuse/article21614519/

drkpower · 18-11-2014 12:31pm

robindch wrote: »

But in Canada, a court rejected doctors' wishes to treat a child for lukaemia because the kid concerned is "aboriginal" and her parents have a constitutional right to have the child treated by "traditional medicine" and this right has been judged more important than the conflicting right of the child to remain alive:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/treating-a-childs-cancer-is-not-an-abuse/article21614519/

Wow.

That is a very strange decision, especially for Canada. Thankfully, the irish courts have been quite firm when it comes to kid's cases; any parental decisions (whether they be religously or othewrwise motivated) adversely affecting the life and health of their children will be set aside. And thankfully, refusals by parents are generally more straightforward than adult refusals. The former, if they adversely affect the life and health of the child will be set aside regardless of the parents legal capacity. The latter all depend on the level of the patient's capacity to make the relevant decision.

That Canadian decision is one to watch though.

One eyed Jack · 18-11-2014 1:34pm

drkpower wrote: »

Wow.

That is a very strange decision, especially for Canada. Thankfully, the irish courts have been quite firm when it comes to kid's cases; any parental decisions (whether they be religously or othewrwise motivated) adversely affecting the life and health of their children will be set aside. And thankfully, refusals by parents are generally more straightforward than adult refusals. The former, if they adversely affect the life and health of the child will be set aside regardless of the parents legal capacity. The latter all depend on the level of the patient's capacity to make the relevant decision.

That Canadian decision is one to watch though.

I think it's important to relate the Judges decision in the Canadian case though to an Irish context. The decision in that case wasn't made on the grounds of religious beliefs, but on ethical grounds. The aborigines (or in this case - First Nation Canadians) would be akin to an ethnic group such as travellers in Ireland. They have their own way of life, customs and culture which the Canadian Government are reluctant to interfere with, in the same way as the Irish Government are reluctant to interfere with the way of life, customs and culture of travellers in Ireland.

nozzferrahhtoo · 18-11-2014 1:45pm

drkpower wrote: »

^^^^Pretty dishonest, but to be expected.

^^^^ Still throwing out the insults when things do not go your way. But let us see which is really being honest here.

Take the first paragraph you just pasted to start with.

1) The first sentence just talks about the grounds for contravening a patients decision making power. Not what I asked.
2) The next bit says they do not consider religious belief to be mental impairment. AGAIN not what I asked.
3) You then finished up with the statement that in law irrational reasons are not used to mediate whether adults can refuse treatment. AGAIN not what I asked.

So basically I am saying your answers are not answering what I actually asked, and you are throwing out insults at my honesty despite the fact your answers are not answering what I actually asked.

So who is the dishonest one really? Shall I purchase you a mirror? I really do not need someone pretending to be a lawyer telling me how the courts view the decision making process about when to impinge on a patients right to choose... because it is simply not what I have been talking about.

You say "The crux of the matter (and the bit you havent addressed) is whether the person is capable of making a decision" and that might be the crux of the matter for you, but it is NOT the crux of anything I have been talking about.

drkpower · 18-11-2014 1:50pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I think it's important to relate the Judges decision in the Canadian case though to an Irish context. The decision in that case wasn't made on the grounds of religious beliefs, but on ethical grounds. The aborigines (or in this case - First Nation Canadians) would be akin to an ethnic group such as travellers in Ireland. They have their own way of life, customs and culture which the Canadian Government are reluctant to interfere with, in the same way as the Irish Government are reluctant to interfere with the way of life, customs and culture of travellers in Ireland.

Fair point, but i could not imagine the irish courts making a similar decision.

There is an accepted 'zone of parental responsibility' where parents are allowed to make decisions that wider society believe are detrimental to the welfare of their children. But that zone is very tightly drawn. The famous legal case is the 'PKU case' where the court held that the parents could refuse the performance of the PKU test (which is a simple test on a newborn that seeks to determine whether the baby has a metabolic disorder). The court were swayed by the fact that the level of risk to the baby was minimal (although clearly not non-existent; if the baby had PKU, the opportunity to treat would have been lost).

But if the level of risk was similar to the kid in the canadian case, the irish courts (god bless their souls...) would have decided differently (unless there is some real scientfic merit to the parents' chosen treatment, which certainly doesnt seem to be the case).

drkpower · 18-11-2014 1:59pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

.......telling me how the courts view the decision making process about when to impinge on a patients right to choose... because it is simply not what I have been talking about. .

And yet more dishonesty....

nozzferrahhtoo wrote:

Given the patient refusing treatment solely on religious grounds is under the delusion of unsubstantiated nonsense, is not then a case to be made, or at least to be argued by better minds that yours or mine, that they are similarly incapable of making "the correct" decision given they are under the delusion of unsubstantiated nonsense?.

.... oh i wonder where such a case might be made....? But no, you havent been talking about the courts. They are totally irrelevant to what you have been talking about!!!

nozzferrahhtoo · 18-11-2014 2:03pm

drkpower wrote: »

And yet more dishonesty....

Nice of you to preface your post with such an accurate description of the content to follow.

But again my position is clear. I am discussing what basis we as a species have for reacting differently to two equally unsubstantiated delusions. Quoting my own posts back at me does not change that this is what my position has been all along.

And once again: Telling me that, for example, the courts only step in for mental impairment is not even remotely close to answering that question. So you are simply talking past me, and have the gall to call me dishonest when I point this true and accurate fact out.

I do _not care_ when and why the courts step in. My point/question once again is simply to ask that when two people present with unsubstantiated delusions.... why is it we react differently to one, and not the other..... simply because we call one "religion" and the other not.

And once again: Telling me that, for example, the courts do not consider such delusions to be a "mental impairment" is.... you guessed it.... once again not even remotely close to answering that question. I do not care who classifies them as "mental impairment" or not. I am merely asking why we treat them differently _to each other_ regardless of whether they are considered "mental impairment" or not.

It is like I am asking for the difference between oranges and apples and you are insisting on ignoring the question and telling me that scientists consider them both to be fruit.

drkpower · 18-11-2014 2:06pm

^^^

It is quite sad. You ask a question:

Given the patient refusing treatment solely on religious grounds is under the
delusion of unsubstantiated nonsense, is not then a case to be made, or at least
to be argued by better minds that yours or mine, that they are similarly
incapable of making "the correct" decision given they are under the delusion of
unsubstantiated nonsense?.

I answer it and provide the distinction the courts, and medical professions have made. You flatly refuse to address, counter or give your view on that distinction.

And then you whinge and whinge and multiquote and post for page on page pretending that you never asked the question in the first place!!!

nozzferrahhtoo · 18-11-2014 2:16pm

drkpower wrote: »

It is quite sad.

Again lovely that you preface your posts so accurately with a summary of them.

I will make it even simpler for you.

When I ask "What is the difference between X and Y" an answer to this question is not "The courts do not use X or Y to do Z".

That is what I am doing in the text you pasted twice now, but somehow you do not see it. You are answering something I am simply not asking and rather than listen to me tell you what my own question is, you insist on pretend it is other than it is.

Who knows what I mean by my own words best? Me or you? Clearly you think you, but it is not so. You are simply misreading what it is I am asking, and then acting like this failure is my fault.

robindch · 18-11-2014 3:31pm

drkpower wrote: »

^^^^Pretty dishonest, but to be expected.

No need for that kind of language

ProfessorPlum · 19-11-2014 3:24am

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

My point/question once again is simply to ask that when two people present with unsubstantiated delusions.... why is it we react differently to one, and not the other..... simply because we call one "religion" and the other not

I think the basis of your point is unfounded. We don't react differently because one is religion. We react differently because the other is a 'decision' made by a person who is mentally unfit to make such a decision. A religious person is not necessarily mentally unfit, in the same way as someone who supports homeopathy is not. And you can continue to expand that line of thinking to include those who are just not interested in continuing with medical treatment etc etc. just because you do not agree with someone's decision does not mean it is not their decision to make.

nozzferrahhtoo · 19-11-2014 9:17am

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

I think the basis of your point is unfounded. We don't react differently because one is religion. We react differently because the other is a 'decision' made by a person who is mentally unfit to make such a decision.

But on what basis? Ì fear that rather than answer my question you have become something of an example of what I mean. The only information I have given you on either hypothetical person is that both of them are operating under an ENTIRELY unsubstantiated truth claim. So why is one more mentally fit or unfit than the other? What is the actual difference between the two people I suggested?

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

just because you do not agree with someone's decision does not mean it is not their decision to make.

Then it is quite fortunate I never made any such claim, is it not?

Brian Shanahan · 19-11-2014 10:21am

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

I think the basis of your point is unfounded. We don't react differently because one is religion. We react differently because the other is a 'decision' made by a person who is mentally unfit to make such a decision. A religious person is not necessarily mentally unfit, in the same way as someone who supports homeopathy is not. And you can continue to expand that line of thinking to include those who are just not interested in continuing with medical treatment etc etc. just because you do not agree with someone's decision does not mean it is not thei mer decision to make.

But, the thing is, those who refuse medical treatment because of religion are ignoring modern knowledge for the, at best, well-intentioned but badly uninformed opinion of people who did'nt have the first clue about medicine. And, you can see the mental capacity issue turing up with the modern religions, for example in Scientology most participants are considered brainwashed (even in legal settings) and thus incapable.mentally of making an imformed decision.

The other issue is that these decisions rarely affect only those making them. Take the religiously inspired anti-vaccination drives, if you live in an area with too low a vaccination take up even if you do the right thing and get your kids vaccinated it may not workbecause of the way herd immunity works. Take also the exasserbation of STIs (mainly AIDS) due to reigious bans on cindom use in Africa.

Frankly, when you make your choices not on the best info available to you, buton Iron-Age creation myths or the lies of swindling hucksters, logically you should be deemed mentally incapable to make decisions.

drkpower · 19-11-2014 12:20pm

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

But, the thing is, those who refuse medical treatment because of religion are ignoring modern knowledge for the, at best, well-intentioned but badly uninformed opinion of people who did'nt have the first clue about medicine. And, you can see the mental capacity issue turing up with the modern religions, for example in Scientology most participants are considered brainwashed (even in legal settings) and thus incapable.mentally of making an imformed decision..

Has a scientologist been delared legally incapable to make a decision based upon their beliefs alone? I would be very interested to see that.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Frankly, when you make your choices not on the best info available to you, buton Iron-Age creation myths or the lies of swindling hucksters, logically you should be deemed mentally incapable to make decisions.

I absolutely agree that those who refuse medical treatment because of religion are ignoring modern knowledge, medical best practice and every bit of common sense that i can see. That may be stupid, irresponsible and foolhardy. But it doesnt mean they have no legal decision making capacity.

Are you really suggesting that those who make decisions based on anything other than best medical evidence (ie. based on a hunch, or superstition, or upon religous beliefs) should have their decisions ignored and that the state should decide their medical, financial and social decisions for them?

Brown Bomber · 19-11-2014 12:46pm

drkpower wrote: »

Has a scientologist been delared legally incapable to make a decision based upon their beliefs alone? I would be very interested to see that.

I absolutely agree that those who refuse medical treatment because of religion are ignoring modern knowledge, medical best practice and every bit of common sense that i can see. That may be stupid, irresponsible and foolhardy. But it doesnt mean they have no legal decision making capacity.

Are you really suggesting that those who make decisions based on anything other than best medical evidence (ie. based on a hunch, or superstition, or upon religous beliefs) should have their decisions ignored and that the state should decide their medical, financial and social decisions for them?

By right these same incompetent people should be sectioned and be locked up as they must surely be an immediate danger to themselves and to others.

sheesh · 20-11-2014 12:49am

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

They would start off with broadly the same influences, but where they go from there is up to them individually.

No but (a) I never said that I did and (b) it's irrelevant anyway. There is nothing whatsoever hypocritical or contradictory about finding oneself in agreement with some values of one's family/religion/society while rejecting others. In as much as their actions are not to the detriment of others, nobody has to justify their values or beliefs to anyone else except themselves.

I'm not looking for a fight with you I wasn't calling you a hypocrite because you share beliefs with your parent (you're not) I'm saying that she got her from value system from her parents and her peers and she was not going to betray them, it was a sincerely held belief and she kept to it.

I'm just saying people have different beliefs because of different circumstances in their lives and it does not make them wrong. When it comes down to it there is no right and wrong you may think they are delusional for believing in a god because you can see their delusion.

But that probably means we are all delusional, in our own way.

Hotblack Desiato · 20-11-2014 1:08am

sheesh wrote: »

When it comes down to it there is no right and wrong you may think they are delusional for believing in a god because you can see their delusion.

But that probably means we are all delusional, in our own way.

Being willing to refuse a very successful and safe treatment and leave her husband a widower and her child an orphan because of a fringe* interpretation of a religious text is perhaps taking one's principles a little far though, no?

As I said in the previous post it's fine to believe whatever you want provided it doesn't have an adverse effect on other people. A young mother dying needlessly certainly falls into that category.

* OK so technically this is argumentum ad populum, but if the vast majority of your (broad) co-religionists think your interpretation is nuts, it might give some pause for thought??

sheesh · 20-11-2014 4:19pm

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Being willing to refuse a very successful and safe treatment and leave her husband a widower and her child an orphan because of a fringe* interpretation of a religious text is perhaps taking one's principles a little far though, no?

As I said in the previous post it's fine to believe whatever you want provided it doesn't have an adverse effect on other people. A young mother dying needlessly certainly falls into that category.

* OK so technically this is argumentum ad populum, but if the vast majority of your (broad) co-religionists think your interpretation is nuts, it might give some pause for thought??

Oh your not wrong clearly she should have taken the transfusion and just said "ah feck it I want grow old with my husband and watch my kid grow up!"

I wonder if there had been more time to look at the options would she have made a more pragmatic decision. I suppose she thought she was doing the right thing.

robindch · 21-01-2015 12:17pm

robindch wrote: »

But in Canada, a court rejected doctors' wishes to treat a child for lukaemia because the kid concerned is "aboriginal" and her parents have a constitutional right to have the child treated by "traditional medicine" and this right has been judged more important than the conflicting right of the child to remain alive:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/treating-a-childs-cancer-is-not-an-abuse/article21614519/

Makayla Sault, the 11-year old girl at the center of a different, but very similar case in Canada, has died:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/01/20/makayla-sault-the-child-who-refused-chemotherapy-in-favor-of-faith-based-alternatives-has-died/

The parents released a statement blaming her death on chemotherapy and not their withdrawal of medical care.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/01/19/makayla-sault-who-refused-chemotherapy-for-leukaemia-in-favour-of-alternative-treatments-has-died/

According to the National Post, the decision to withdraw care was prompted in part by Makayla’s claim that Jesus had visited her and told her that she was free of leukaemia:

National Post wrote:

“I have asked my mom and dad to take me off the treatment because I don’t want to go this way any more,” Makayla said in a recorded statement last spring. “I asked him, ‘Can you heal me,’ and he said, ‘You are already healed,’ and he held out his hands to me and I saw the holes in his hands and I knew that it was Jesus. And he told me, ‘Do not be afraid.’”

BlaasForRafa · 21-01-2015 7:10pm

robindch wrote: »

Makayla Sault, the 11-year old girl at the center of a different, but very similar case in Canada, has died:

The parents released a statement blaming her death on chemotherapy and not their withdrawal of medical care.

It's enough to make ones blood boil, the parents are directly responsible for their daughters death yet they have the gall to blame chemo for it. They are obviously massive amounts of denial going on in the parent's heads, it's almost like a form of brainwashing.

If there wasn't this ridiculous constitutional ruling in their favour I wonder would the parents be subject to negligent homicide or manslaughter proceedings?

robindch wrote: »

According to the National Post, the decision to withdraw care was prompted in part by Makayla’s claim that Jesus had visited her and told her that she was free of leukaemia:

Interesting, I wasn't aware that Jesus was a part of Native American folklore, unless the Mormons were right and Jesus a comeback tour of America after his retirement concert in Jerusalem :rolleyes:

aidan24326 · 22-01-2015 2:37pm

So child says 'jesus visited me and told me I'm healed' - parent's response is 'grand so, we'll take you off the medication'. The mind boggles. There seems to be no limit to the level of stupidity you can get away with once it falls under the protected label of religious belief.

nozzferrahhtoo · 22-01-2015 2:38pm

Wish I had thought of it when I was younger. Jesus just came and says I REALLY need more pocket money and computer games.

Maybe I will try it if I ever crash my car. Jesus told me I do not actually need my glasses to drive any more. How was I to know??

robindch · 26-01-2015 11:59am

Mmmmm, trees.

http://www.earthporm.com/woman-spent-last-14-years-photographing-worlds-oldest-trees/

Jehovah’s Witness dies after she refuses blood

Comments