religion and sick children

equivariant

From today's indo

http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/parenting/parents-who-believe-in-miracles-torturing-dying-children-doctors-warn-3200263.html

yet another example of the damage inflicted by the muddled thinking of the religious.
It's also interesting that this article is deemed acceptable enough to warrant (relatively uncritical)
discussion in our national media. One might imagine that 20 years ago, such a report would never have seen
the light of day, or if it did, it would have been lambasted by the church before it ever got to the pages of the
indo.


(maybe this should be in 'Hazards ...' but it might be interesting enough to warrant its own thread)

haulagebasher

Yeah it's a terrible delusion they get themselves into and totally selfish too.This article brings to mind the case of Baby K in the USA. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_K . In this case a diagnosis was made early in the pregnancy, usuing ultrasound, that the baby had anacephaly (a monstrosity where the baby has no crainium or brain). Absolutely no chance whatsoever of survival or even developing any semblence of awareness. Anyway the mother demanded to go to term and baby was born. She defied medical advice and insisted on long term artificial life support until the courts finally ruled that it be switched off when the “child” was nearly 3. And why did she do it?? RELIGION

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

parents desperately clinging to hope their children won't die?

what bastards

Stercus Accidit

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

parents desperately clinging to hope their children won't die?

what bastards

Sarcasm, how unlike you.

ShooterSF

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

parents desperately clinging to hope their children won't die?

what bastards

Don't be silly. It's the issue of needless suffering people put their child through when there's no hope. I'm not for the life of me going to suggest realising and accepting that should be an easy thing to do but it's something I think people should try to do. We put humans through more suffering than we'd let any other animal go through.

On the topic it still strikes me as strange that this articles is not about atheists as it would make more logical sense. We're the ones (ignoring the atheist who believes in the AL) who think this is the only existence we have where as for many religious not only will their child stop suffering the will go to a better blissful existence where someday they will be reunited for eternity. You'd think we'd be the ones hoping against hope really. Still I guess human nature takes precedent at a time like this and even religions claims can't ease it.

equivariant

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

parents desperately clinging to hope their children won't die? willing to inflict pain on others because of irrational beliefs

what bastards

FYP.

Believe me, as a parent I know it would break my heart to watch my child die, but it would break my heart even more to watch my child suffer needlessly and to put all her other family members through needless anguish. It's funny how the religious, who often proudly proclaim that death is just a transition to the 'afterlife', are the ones who will deny its reality most fervently in the face of all evidence and reason.

Galvasean

Two things from your post shooter, that I was going to bring up:

ShooterSF wrote: »

We put humans through more suffering than we'd let any other animal go through.

It always strikes me as strange how when a dog, cat or hamster is terminally ill and in terrible pain we choose the less painful option (which is usually letting them die / 'putting them down') as it is considered the humane thing to do, but when it is other humans in the same situation we, by in large, rarely even consider the 'humane' option.

ShooterSF wrote: »

On the topic it still strikes me as strange that this articles is not about atheists as it would make more logical sense. We're the ones (ignoring the atheist who believes in the AL) who think this is the only existence we have where as for many religious not only will their child stop suffering the will go to a better blissful existence where someday they will be reunited for eternity. You'd think we'd be the ones hoping against hope really. Still I guess human nature takes precedent at a time like this and even religions claims can't ease it.

It always strikes me as strange how religious people seem more likely to cling on to life, any life regardless of how painful / uncomfortable, despite their claims to knowing that death is but the beginning and a much more blissful existence awaits. Studies have shown that non-believers tend to be better at 'letting go' in such situations, despite there being no pt of gold waiting for them at the end of the rainbow. I suppose in an atheists case, no life would be considered better than a very painful and undignified one?
In the case of the religious who cannot let go despite the fact that their beliefs tell them that an eternity of bliss awaits, one wonders if they truly believe at all?

krudler

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

parents desperately clinging to hope their children won't die?

what bastards

but in the Baby K case the affliction is a fatal disease, anencephaly is where a foetus develops with most or all of its brain missing, most are aborted or die during childbirth, that woman kept a child alive with zero quality of life for nearly 3 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anencephaly (pic of a newborn with Anencephaly in link so might be a bit disturbing).

We shoot horses who break their leg yet put people through months or years of tortuous medical treatment and for what?

Northclare

Galvasean wrote: »

Two things from your post shooter, that I was going to bring up:

ShooterSF wrote: »

We put humans through more suffering than we'd let any other animal go through.

It always strikes me as strange how when a dog, cat or hamster is terminally ill and in terrible pain we choose the less painful option (which is usually letting them die / 'putting them down') as it is considered the humane thing to do, but when it is other humans in the same situation we, by in large, rarely even consider the 'humane' option.

ShooterSF wrote: »

On the topic it still strikes me as strange that this articles is not about atheists as it would make more logical sense. We're the ones (ignoring the atheist who believes in the AL) who think this is the only existence we have where as for many religious not only will their child stop suffering the will go to a better blissful existence where someday they will be reunited for eternity. You'd think we'd be the ones hoping against hope really. Still I guess human nature takes precedent at a time like this and even religions claims can't ease it.

It always strikes me as strange how religious people seem more likely to cling on to life, any life regardless of how painful / uncomfortable, despite their claims to knowing that death is but the beginning and a much more blissful existence awaits. Studies have shown that non-believers tend to be better at 'letting go' in such situations, despite there being no pt of gold waiting for them at the end of the rainbow. I suppose in an atheists case, no life would be considered better than a very painful and undignified one?
In the case of the religious who cannot let go despite the fact that their beliefs tell them that an eternity of bliss awaits, one wonders if they truly believe at all?

Can you copy and paste a link of those Studies Sean thanks.

legspin

Never underestimate the lengths a parent will go to to keep their child alive, especially when the cause is hopeless and to all intents and purposes already lost. Grief can cause people to do strange things.

Turtwig

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

parents desperately clinging to hope their children won't die?

what bastards

If their child was shot in the leg, foot, heart, head, arm and torso, they'd have no objection. The problem is these diseases can be quite complicated and invisible. The person on the outside, including the doctor, is often left completely oblivious to the actual suffering the sufferer goes through. The doctor though is able to imagine it a little.

I get it, it's great that parents want their kids to survive, but there comes a point when that just inflicts needless excruciating torture and torment on the child.

aidan24326

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

parents desperately clinging to hope their children won't die?

what bastards

It depends on the situation. Where there's hope you'll cling to that hope of course and that's understandable but keeping a child artificially alive where their prognosis is extremely bleak is just plain selfish.

I'm sure being told your baby has anencephaly is devestating but it's difficult to see what the mother was trying to achieve by keeping the baby superficially 'alive' when it had no chance at all of ever living anything resembling a human life. I'd accept her mental state could have been anything though.

Galvasean wrote: »

It always strikes me as strange how when a dog, cat or hamster is terminally ill and in terrible pain we choose the less painful option (which is usually letting them die / 'putting them down') as it is considered the humane thing to do, but when it is other humans in the same situation we, by in large, rarely even consider the 'humane' option.

This is something that's always baffled me. But there's no doubt whatsoever that it's religiously influenced.

Take the case of Tony Nicklinson in England, who has the nightmarish condition known as 'Locked-in-Syndrome'

wiki wrote:

Locked-in syndrome is a condition in which a patient is aware and awake but cannot move or communicate verbally due to complete paralysis of nearly all voluntary muscles in the body except for the eyes. Total locked-in syndrome is a version of locked-in syndrome where the eyes are paralyzed as well

He's been fighting in the UK Courts for several years to be allowed to die, as he says, 'with dignity'. As he finds his situation completely miserable and intolerable (not difficult to imagine why).

So far he's basically being told that a decision to allow this could only be taken at parliamentary level, which of course would be subject to all the usual political bullsh1t and probably drag on for so long he'll be dead anyway. And of course the Bishops would drone on about interfering with God's will.

Multiple messages to his twitter account make references to God's plan, God's will, God's purpose for him etc etc So he's supposed to accept a life of intolerable misery because that's what God actually wants? WTF are these people on? If Locked in Syndrome is God's plan for me then God can seriously fcuk right off.

MrPudding

I have always found it interesting that humans seem to be excluded from being treated humanely, when it comes to medical treatment. Pets - treat them humanely. Humans - make them suffer. That does bug me.

MrP

aidan24326

Slightly off-thread, but:


Coincidentally, the guy I mentioned in a previous post, who has Locked-In Syndrome, had his High Court legal bid to be allowed end his life rejected today.

Yahoo wrote:

Locked-in syndrome sufferer Tony Nicklinson has been left "devastated and heartbroken" after losing his High Court battle for the legal right to end his life when he chooses with a doctor's help.

Mr Nicklinson's wife, Jane - standing by her weeping husband's side - described the decision as "one-sided".

She said: "You can see from Tony's reaction he's absolutely heartbroken."
They now plan to appeal against the decision and hope they will be able to organise a hearing before the end of the year

http://uk.lifestyle.yahoo.com/locked-man-loses-aided-death-bid-132622494.html


Yet if your pet cat or rabbit was suffering with no hope of recovery you'd be fully expected to give them a humane death??

haulagebasher

Yes those anacephalic baby pictures are horrendous. What a monstrous affliction. However some rare cases do survive on their own. Example being Nicholas Coke who has an enclosed cranium but has no brain. Funnily enough though, his eyes move in unision and he makes various facial expression. There must be some bits of brain there, especially with the eyes seemingly being able to move somwhat coherently. Limb movements too. See: http://goo.gl/70NVN for details.OTOH, baby K and others have a more monstrous version with an apparently open skull.An equally if not more terrifying mostrosity is the "harlequin baby" - absolutely fightful stuff, but strangely interesting. Going even more off topic still is the condition "'schistosomus reflexus" - where a fetus is born wholly or partially inside out. Usually happens to calfs and the photos are most horrifying. Apparently, sometimes the calf can be still alive and moving when born - terrifying, t'would be like something out of an alien abduction film.

strobe

Galvasean wrote: »

Two things from your post shooter, that I was going to bring up:

ShooterSF wrote: »

On the topic it still strikes me as strange that this articles is not about atheists as it would make more logical sense. We're the ones (ignoring the atheist who believes in the AL) who think this is the only existence we have where as for many religious not only will their child stop suffering the will go to a better blissful existence where someday they will be reunited for eternity. You'd think we'd be the ones hoping against hope really. Still I guess human nature takes precedent at a time like this and even religions claims can't ease it.

It always strikes me as strange how religious people seem more likely to cling on to life, any life regardless of how painful / uncomfortable, despite their claims to knowing that death is but the beginning and a much more blissful existence awaits. Studies have shown that non-believers tend to be better at 'letting go' in such situations, despite there being no pt of gold waiting for them at the end of the rainbow. I suppose in an atheists case, no life would be considered better than a very painful and undignified one?
In the case of the religious who cannot let go despite the fact that their beliefs tell them that an eternity of bliss awaits, one wonders if they truly believe at all?

I don't think it's that strange really. It's what I would expect to find. Fear of death, both one's own and other people's, is one of the main causes (for want of a better word) of religious belief, probably the main cause, so it seems perfectly logical to me that the same people who profess to hold religious beliefs of an afterlife would often be the ones that would have the most difficulty facing death.

They are religious precisely because they can't accept death. But for a lot of them, while the religious beliefs they hold may help them cope a little better with their fear of death in general, day to day, when it comes to actual life or death situations, their fears often override their coping mechanism.

georgieporgy

strobe wrote: »

I don't think it's that strange really. It's what I would expect to find. Fear of death, both one's own and other people's, is one of the main causes (for want of a better word) of religious belief, probably the main cause, so it seems perfectly logical to me that the same people who profess to hold religious beliefs of an afterlife would often be the ones that would have the most difficulty facing death.

They are religious precisely because they can't accept death. But for a lot of them, while the religious beliefs they hold may help them cope a little better with their fear of death in general, day to day, when it comes to actual life or death situations, their fears often override their coping mechanism.

I think you should ponder that a bit more . Just the slightest effort of google research throws up many examples of the opposite opinion. For example Maximilian Kolbe

[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Near the end of July, a prisoner apparently escaped, and men from Kolbe's bunker were paraded in the blazing midday sun, knowing what to expect. One man from each line was selected at random, including a sergeant, Francis Gajowniczek. He cried out in a despairing voice, "My wife, my children, I shall never see them again!" Then a man stepped out from the ranks and offered to take Gajowniczek's place. He was prisoner 16670, Father Maximilian Kolbe. The SS man, "Butcher" Fritsch, did not care who went to the Bunker, so long as there were ten of them, so he nodded. "Who are you?" he asked carelessly. "I am a Catholic priest. I wish to die for that man. I am old; he has a wife and children." Father Kolbe and the nine others were led off to the death chamber of Cell 18.[/FONT]
http://www.myhero.com/go/hero.asp?hero=mkolbe

UDP

georgieporgy wrote: »

I think you should ponder that a bit more . Just the slightest effort of google research throws up many examples of the opposite opinion. For example Maximilian Kolbe

[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Near the end of July, a prisoner apparently escaped, and men from Kolbe's bunker were paraded in the blazing midday sun, knowing what to expect. One man from each line was selected at random, including a sergeant, Francis Gajowniczek. He cried out in a despairing voice, "My wife, my children, I shall never see them again!" Then a man stepped out from the ranks and offered to take Gajowniczek's place. He was prisoner 16670, Father Maximilian Kolbe. The SS man, "Butcher" Fritsch, did not care who went to the Bunker, so long as there were ten of them, so he nodded. "Who are you?" he asked carelessly. "I am a Catholic priest. I wish to die for that man. I am old; he has a wife and children." Father Kolbe and the nine others were led off to the death chamber of Cell 18.[/FONT]
http://www.myhero.com/go/hero.asp?hero=mkolbe

I note strobe said "for a lot of them". Anyway extreme altruism exists in other species such as brazilian ants so I don't think it has anything specifically to do with being religious or not.

JimiTime

Its quite disgusting that the desperation of parents is being used as some sort of atheist one-upmanship.

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

Its quite disgusting that the desperation of parents is being used as some sort of atheist one-upmanship.

What do you reckon about the claims of parents "torturing" children?

Should religious freedom really extend that far?

coffee_cake

JimiTime wrote: »

Its quite disgusting that the desperation of parents is being used as some sort of atheist one-upmanship.

It's disgusting that children are being "tortured". But nevermind that while there's atheists out there

jank

Galvasean wrote: »

Studies have shown that non-believers tend to be better at 'letting go' in such situations, despite there being no pt of gold waiting for them at the end of the rainbow. I suppose in an atheists case, no life would be considered better than a very painful and undignified one?
In the case of the religious who cannot let go despite the fact that their beliefs tell them that an eternity of bliss awaits, one wonders if they truly believe at all?

What studies would these be?

jank

MrPudding wrote: »

I have always found it interesting that humans seem to be excluded from being treated humanely, when it comes to medical treatment. Pets - treat them humanely. Humans - make them suffer. That does bug me.

MrP

Do you think animals should have the same rights as humans?
Do you think animals are the same as humans?

jank

bluewolf wrote: »

It's disgusting that children are being "tortured". But nevermind that while there's atheists out there

Well tortured is a subjective term here and the situation is extremely complex which transcends religion completely, but anyway carry on with the agenda...

oldrnwisr

jank wrote: »

What studies would these be?

I'm a bit short on time at the moment but I believe this is what Galvasean was referring to:

Religiousness and Spiritual Support Among Advanced Cancer Patients and Associations With End-of-Life Treatment Preferences and Quality of Life


Quotes from the study:

"Religiousness was significantly associated with wanting all measures to extend life (odds ratio, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.08 to 3.57)."

"Religious individuals more frequently want aggressive measures to extend life."

I will post up some more examples this evening if I get a chance.

JimiTime

robindch wrote: »

What do you reckon about the claims of parents "torturing" children?

Should religious freedom really extend that far?

Spin, thats all. I mean, why not spin it as 'religious parents value life more'? As I said, its disgusting turning a parents desperation to see their child live into some kind of religion/atheist thing. Absolutely tasteless.

MagicMarker

jank wrote: »

Do you think animals should have the same rights as humans?
Do you think animals are the same as humans?

You have a knack for asking irrelevant questions.

Do you agree or disagree with the sentiments expressed by MrPudding?

JimiTime wrote: »

Spin, thats all. I mean, why not spin it as 'religious parents value life more'? As I said, its disgusting turning a parents desperation to see their child live into some kind of religion/atheist thing. Absolutely tasteless.

Where's the spin?

recedite

This reminds me of the cases where Jehovahs Witness parents went against medical opinion in denying their kids blood tranfusions or transplants. Those are more unforgivable obviously because the doctors were trying to give treatment, not withdraw it. But still the principle is the same; how much do you pander to the offbeat views of the parent in a difficult medical situation?

I was told anecdotally (ie no evidence or proof whatsoever) that the practice in Dublin maternity hospitals, including those with a religious patronage, when a non-viable baby is born, is to take it downstairs and leave it for a while without further intervention. If there is no appropriate intervention possible, then none is attempted, and nobody consults the parents about what to do in that situation.

Chuck Stone

Galvasean wrote: »

It always strikes me as strange how when a dog, cat or hamster is terminally ill and in terrible pain we choose the less painful option (which is usually letting them die / 'putting them down') as it is considered the humane thing to do, but when it is other humans in the same situation we, by in large, rarely even consider the 'humane' option.

Not that strange really; it's a rational decision based on the costs of keeping the pet alive with no hope of recovery versus paying through the snout.

Healthcare is socialised (or risk spread) so the costs are not an immediate concern for the parents of children on life support; afaia there is no such profligacy when it comes to pets.

Galvasean wrote: »

It always strikes me as strange how religious people seem more likely to cling on to life, any life regardless of how painful / uncomfortable, despite their claims to knowing that death is but the beginning and a much more blissful existence awaits.

When it comes to religious people not letting their children on life support go I suspect one of the reasons is that they are afraid that they are being watched by the 'big fella' who will deny them entry into 'the happy place' for not following orders.

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

Spin, thats all. I mean, why not spin it as 'religious parents value life more'?

Because there's no evidence that religious parents do "value" life more. The point of this story is that the final agonies of dying children are being prolonged, by having them wait around for a religious miracle that will never come.

JimiTime wrote: »

As I said, its disgusting turning a parents desperation to see their child live into some kind of religion/atheist thing. Absolutely tasteless.

The article doesn't mention the word "atheist" once, so I've no idea why you're setting up a conflict where none exists.

The article is about suffering. Does the needless suffering of children not concern you? Or are you only interested in your religion?

If so, then you're rather like the heartless parents in this sad, sad story -- putting their cold, irrational religious beliefs ahead of inevitability and common human decency.

JimiTime

robindch wrote: »

The point of this story is that the final agonies of dying children are being prolonged, by having them wait around for a religious miracle that will never come.The article doesn't mention the word "atheist" once, so I've no idea why you're setting up a conflict where none exists.

Robindch, obtuse?!! Well i never. Its been spun here as 'Religious people torturing children'.

The article is about suffering. Does the needless suffering of children not concern you? Or are you only interested in your religion?

No, I just love torturing kids. I like em fried, how do you eat yours? Muppet:rolleyes:

If so, then you're rather like the heartless parents in this sad, sad story -- putting their cold, irrational religious beliefs ahead of inevitability and common human decency.

Disgusting.