Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
religion and sick children
Options
Comments
-
Chuck Stone wrote: »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.
But if my dog was sick and in pain with no chance of recovery not even free prolonging of his life would make me feel it was the right thing to do. I'd consider putting him out of his suffering the ethically right thing to do. It's insane that I can make that choice for an animal but if I was to develop a terminal painful illness I couldn't make the same decision for myself!0 -
MagicMarker wrote: »You have a knack for asking irrelevant questions.
Do you agree or disagree with the sentiments expressed by MrPudding?
Irrelevant? Ha, he is the person who is equating the rights of Animals to Humans. I asked a very simple question with a very simple yes or no answer.0 -
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.
I think that is totally uncalled for. What is worse is using these children who suffer as a bat to bash religious people with. Good on you!
"I dont agree with you so I like to torture children" Yeap thats it alright!
Look at the stats in the article.
There was 203 cases looked at. In 186 cases aggressive treatment was stopped at is was proving unsuccessful. There is no breakdown at all if these people were or were not religious but one can confidently assume that there is a good mix. So taking that axiom not all religious people are out there making their children suffer.....
17 cases treatment was pursed by the parents against the wishes of the medical staff. 11 out of those 17 were because of religious belief, this means 6 were not. Blows the case out of the water the ONLY religion is a factor here. What was the motive of those 6 people? They wanted to be cruel for the sake of it? Maybe they enjoyed torturing their own child, after all they were not taking this stand on a religious ground so there must have been a rational reason for it. Right?
Some of 11 cases where religion was a factor were resolved and the child left to die after further discussion with religious and spiritual leaders.
One went to the high court to be resolved. So that is one out of 203, a .5% ratio where the parents could be deemed blinded to reality by their religious faith.
So again, why are some people painting this as an "us" vs "them" scenario when religion is NOT the only factor in unnecessary further treatment of children.
By all means discuss the topic, but lets widen the scope to include all in society and not limit it to the usual "religion is evil" mantra that is often touted on this forum. Many here cant tell the wood from the trees.0 -
It's not being "spun" here. People are simply pointing out that religious people prolong the final agonies of terminally-ill children for religious reasons -- I don't think anybody disputes that?Its been spun here as 'Religious people torturing children'.
So far, you haven't addressed the question I asked originally:
Would you like to address that question? Or would you like to continue to avoid it by saying that this is just another case of atheists being nasty towards the religious?robindch wrote:Should religious freedom really extend that far?
Should religious people be able to do anything, so long as they can claim that it's an expectation of their religion? Or should the pain suffered by a dying child be taken into account at some point?0 -
Means that around 5% of the sample prolonged the inevitable for religious reasons. While it's bad that it happens at all, it's good that the level is as low as that. And even then, the article does suggest that it happens mostly amongst immigrant communities only, so it's reasonable to assume that in a couple of generations, it probably won't happen.11 out of those 17 were because of religious belief, this means 6 were not.
So, back to the question -- is it fair of the religious to put their religious beliefs above the death of a child? Or is it so presumptuous to even ask that question, that it should never be asked?0 -
Advertisement
-
Irrelevant? Ha, he is the person who is equating the rights of Animals to Humans. I asked a very simple question with a very simple yes or no answer.
We're complaining that people have the right to euthanise an animal suffering with no hope of recovery but not themeselves or child. What has that to do with equating animal and human rights?
Do you support the right to euthanasia in any circumstances for humans?0 -
It's not being "spun" here. People are simply pointing out that some religious people prolong the final agonies of terminally-ill children for religious reasons -- I don't think anybody disputes that?
Some religious people robindch, do you dispute that its ALL religious people or that ONLY religious people do this?So far, you haven't addressed the question I asked originally:Would you like to address that question? Or would you like to continue to avoid it by saying that this is just another case of atheists being nasty towards the religious?
Well clearly you are trying to paint that this issue is the sole domain of the religious when the stats claim otherwise in black and white. If there is more balance here then you will not have people calling you up on it.Should religious people be able to do anything, so long as they can claim that it's an expectation of their religion? Or should the pain suffered by a dying child be taken into account at some point?
Can religious people do that now? Can I go out and kill someone and say god told me to and then be let off? Of course not, therefore what is the point you are making?0 -
Means that around 5% of the sample prolonged the inevitable for religious reasons. While it's bad that it happens at all, it's good that the level is as low as that. And even then, the article does suggest that it happens mostly amongst immigrant communities only, so it's reasonable to assume that in a couple of generations, it probably won't happen.
Also means that almost 3% prolonged the inevitable for non-religious reasons but that was conveniently ignored again. So tell me, what made those 6 couples pursue unnecessary medical treatment for their child when their motive was utterly rational and non-religious?So, back to the question -- is it fair of the religious to put their religious beliefs above the death of a child? Or is it so presumptuous to even ask that question, that it should never be asked?
Is it fair that only the religious should be asked that question when others who pursue their own choice non-religiously and rationally don't have to answer.0 -
Means that around 5% of the sample prolonged the inevitable for religious reasons. While it's bad that it happens at all, it's good that the level is as low as that. And even then, the article does suggest that it happens mostly amongst immigrant communities only, so it's reasonable to assume that in a couple of generations, it probably won't happen.
Also means that almost 3% prolonged the inevitable for non-religious reasons but that was conveniently ignored again. So tell me, what made those 6 couples pursue unnecessary medical treatment for their child when their motive was utterly rational and non-religious?So, back to the question -- is it fair of the religious to put their religious beliefs above the death of a child? Or is it so presumptuous to even ask that question, that it should never be asked?
Is it fair that only the religious should be asked that question when others who pursue their own choice non-religiously and rationally don't have to answer.
Everyone should have to justify keeping a child alive in that state, but we don't know the other parents' reasons, whereas we more or less know the religious parents' reasons, and we know that they're unjustified.
I like your choice of words above. It's the ATHEIST parents that we're letting away without explaining themselves!! :eek:0 -
We're complaining that people have the right to euthanise an animal suffering with no hope of recovery but not themeselves or child. What has that to do with equating animal and human rights?
Again do you think Animals should have rights that are equal to humans, its a very easy question that people have difficulty answering.
In ANY circumstance. No of course not. In some circumstances I would be open to it.Do you support the right to euthanasia in any circumstances for humans?0 -
Advertisement
-
Everyone should have to justify keeping a child alive in that state, but we don't know the other parents' reasons, whereas we more or less know the religious parents' reasons, and we know that they're unjustified.
OK, so because it was taken on religious grounds it is automatically unjustified, yet when the decision is taken on non-religious grounds it is justified (or the very least conveniently ignored) as we don't know the full details?I like your choice of words above. It's the ATHEIST parents that we're letting away without explaining themselves!! :eek:
Eh, no that is your words. The parents could be religious if all we know, all we do know is that they made their decision based on NON-Religious reasons.0 -
Off topic, but....Again do you think Animals should have rights that are equal to humans, its a very easy question that people have difficulty answering.
Beetles have less rights than cats, which have less than chimps, which have less than people.
Now a question for you; Do you think animals have souls?0 -
Again do you think Animals should have rights that are equal to humans, its a very easy question that people have difficulty answering.
Ok, no I don't. I think humans should have more rights but animals should be treated well where possible. That's why I have a problem with the fact that animals have more rights when it comes to choice of death (even if it's made by proxy)In ANY circumstance. No of course not. In some circumstances I would be open to it.
Great as I meant any as in certain not any as in all. So have you any idea why people would oppose legalising euthanasia?0 -
OK, so because it was taken on religious grounds it is automatically unjustified,
Well if you're going to attempt to justify a decision on moral grounds, then you have to use logic that is accessible to everyone, otherwise it can hardly be considered moral.yet when the decision is taken on non-religious grounds it is justified (or the very least conveniently ignored) as we don't know the full details?
No, if you have the details of why the decision was made in the other cases, then we can discuss them, if you don't then we can't. I'm sure that there are posters in here who consider it immoral to do this, in which case religious or secular justification is irrelevant... It's immoral regardless.Eh, no that is your words. The parents could be religious if all we know, all we do know is that they made their decision based on NON-Religious reasons.
Doesn't mean there was anything rational about their decision-making, though, does it? It could be purely driven by emotion0 -
Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »parents desperately clinging to hope their children won't die?
what bastards
Google image "anacephaly" and get back to us.0 -
Ok, no I don't. I think humans should have more rights but animals should be treated well where possible. That's why I have a problem with the fact that animals have more rights when it comes to choice of death (even if it's made by proxy)
Finally. The very fact you state the humans have more fundamental rights then animals means that there is an inherit difference between a man and a horse/cat/dog/chimp etc.
Therefore we should NOT be comparing the rights animals have to humans.
Of course I have an idea why, do you or is it all religions fault again. :rolleyes:Great as I meant any as in certain not any as in all. So have you any idea why people would oppose legalising euthanasia?
I would imagine that some people would be scared of the fact that they would not like some bureaucratic government official deciding on someone's life or if a life is worth having. It could quickly descend into people with mental and physical handicaps being euthanised to "ease" their suffering.
I don't want to Godwin this thread but by all means look up the facts of the euthanasia program of the Third Reich. Euthenisa might be the discussion now, eugenics might be the discussion in 20 years and so on.
I understand the merits of euthanasia but I also understand massive implications of society if it were to become the norm, acceptable and widespread. If you cant understand these reservations then I would suggest you take another look.
That is the fundamental difference between a man and an animal. An animal cant pass laws and perform genocide on an industrial scale. We all know what men are capable of.0 -
Well if you're going to attempt to justify a decision on moral grounds, then you have to use logic that is accessible to everyone, otherwise it can hardly be considered moral.
No, if you have the details of why the decision was made in the other cases, then we can discuss them, if you don't then we can't. I'm sure that there are posters in here who consider it immoral to do this, in which case religious or secular justification is irrelevant... It's immoral regardless.
Doesn't mean there was anything rational about their decision-making, though, does it? It could be purely driven by emotion
Finally we are getting somewhere. So we agree that this is an issue that is non-religious and more to do with the emotional state of the parents.0 -
Finally. The very fact you state the humans have more fundamental rights then animals means that there is an inherit difference between a man and a horse/cat/dog/chimp etc.
Therefore we should NOT be comparing the rights animals have to humans.
So we shouldn't point out that animals actaully have better rights than us in this regard even though we should treat humans better than animals? I think it's relevant.Of course I have an idea why, do you or is it all religions fault again. :rolleyes:
Well I doubt it's ALL religion's fault but most consider this life a test and oppose getting out early. Sure I've witnessed the churches handling of suicides and while they've got better at it it still carries a religious stigma.I would imagine that some people would be scared of the fact that they would not like some bureaucratic government official deciding on someone's life or if a life is worth having. It could quickly descend into people with mental and physical handicaps being euthanised to "ease" their suffering.
I don't want to Godwin this thread but by all means look up the facts of the euthanasia program of the Third Reich. Euthenisa might be the discussion now, eugenics might be the discussion in 20 years and so on.
I understand the merits of euthanasia but I also understand massive implications of society if it were to become the norm, acceptable and widespread. If you cant understand these reservations then I would suggest you take another look.
That is the fundamental difference between a man and an animal. An animal cant pass laws and perform genocide on an industrial scale. We all know what men are capable of.
You've been on this forum long enough to know the slippery slope fallacy is not an acceptable argument. There are no massive implications apart from the one's you're imagining. It will require strict wording and safety nets put in place but there's no reason to suggest we can't do that other than scaremongering (usually done by people with ulterior motives)0 -
0
-
What do you reckon about the claims of parents "torturing" children? Should religious freedom really extend that far?
Should we take it you don't want to address the question at hand?I would hazard a guess it was something to do with that cold, evil, irrational desire to see their dying child live.0 -
Advertisement
-
So we shouldn't point out that animals actaully have better rights than us in this regard even though we should treat humans better than animals? I think it's relevant.
Well "better" is a subjective word here. Sure on the face of it, it would be great to be a dog or a cat if a typical middle class house. All you do is sleep, eat, go for a walk, ride the neighbours pouch and fall asleep next to the fire. Not a bad life! Then again if your in Korea you might be someone's meal!:eek:
Pets whether we like it or not are mere comodities to people. Once they have used up their time, they are then put down. Do you think we should put down OAP's when their back gets sore and they get heard of hearing, like a dog?Well I doubt it's ALL religion's fault but most consider this life a test and oppose getting out early. Sure I've witnessed the churches handling of suicides and while they've got better at it it still carries a religious stigma..
Were are getting someone then. It is good of you to acknowledge this as the facts of the article prove it.You've been on this forum long enough to know the slippery slope fallacy is not an acceptable argument. There are no massive implications apart from the one's you're imagining. It will require strict wording and safety nets put in place but there's no reason to suggest we can't do that other than scaremongering (usually done by people with ulterior motives)
So it’s in my head then, this slippery slope I am talking about? Strict wording, safety nets etc. So we are relying on government officials to judge who can and cannot die legally? You can of course disagree with this but to say that any misgivings about euthanasia are just imagined is being utterly naïve, deliberately so. If so then why the strict wordings, safety nets etc. that you advocate in the first place? Sure its just another piece of legislation that can be passed in the Dail over a brunch. No need to worry, right?
The slippery slope argument is real, not saying its true or right but the argument is real.A study from the Jakobovits Center for Medical Ethics in Israel argued that a form of non-voluntary euthanasia, the Groningen Protocol, has "potential to validate the slippery-slope argument against allowing euthanasia in selected populations".[24] Anesthesiologist William Lanier says that the "ongoing evolution of euthanasia law in the Netherlands" is evidence that a slippery slope is "playing out in real time".[25] Pediatrician Ola Didrik Saugstad says that while he approves of the withholding of treatment to cause the death of severely ill newborns where the prognosis is poor, he disagrees with the active killing of such newborns.[26] Countering this view, professor of internal medicine Margaret Battin finds that there is a lack of evidence to support slippery slope arguments.[27] Additionally, it is argued that the public nature of the Groningen Protocol decisions, and their evaluation by a prosecutor, prevent a "slippery slope" from occurring
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia_and_the_slippery_slope0 -
-
Jank, the point that was made originally was that it's sad that we treat animals more humanely than humans. As in when animals are in suffering we put them out of their misery, but we don't do this for people.
Now, you appear to agree with this (under certain circumstances), so what in the name of jesus are you arguing for? You're taking a point that was made and extending it to circumstances that it was not intended for.
You just seem to want to argue for the sake of arguing.0 -
Yes, we are different species. I don't think humans automatically have more fundamental rights than other animals (why separate "humans" and "animals"?), I think our society has conferred more rights on our own species than on others. I suspect a society of chimps would confer more rights on its own members than on a human (even if those rights aren't established by the same process).Finally. The very fact you state the humans have more fundamental rights then animals means that there is an inherit difference between a man and a horse/cat/dog/chimp etc.
I'd be very loathe to use the conferral of different rights as proof that humans are somehow qualitatively "better" than chimps (or even ants). That seems to be a path that might lead to a bizarre set of conclusions....
Actually, I think it's quite useful. You (and I) are very close to chimps after all. If we don't advocate torture (whether physical or mental) for some great apes, why on earth would we advocate torture (albeit, not direct) for one particular species of great ape?Therefore we should NOT be comparing the rights animals have to humans.0 -
Well "better" is a subjective word here. Sure on the face of it, it would be great to be a dog or a cat if a typical middle class house. All you do is sleep, eat, go for a walk, ride the neighbours pouch and fall asleep next to the fire. Not a bad life! Then again if your in Korea you might be someone's meal!:eek:
Pets whether we like it or not are mere comodities to people. Once they have used up their time, they are then put down. Do you think we should put down OAP's when their back gets sore and they get heard of hearing, like a dog?
What has this got to do with the point that we treat terminally ill and in agony animals better than humans? You have lost me. Not for the first time.Were are getting someone then. It is good of you to acknowledge this as the facts of the article prove it.
So it’s in my head then, this slippery slope I am talking about? Strict wording, safety nets etc. So we are relying on government officials to judge who can and cannot die legally? You can of course disagree with this but to say that any misgivings about euthanasia are just imagined is being utterly naïve, deliberately so. If so then why the strict wordings, safety nets etc. that you advocate in the first place? Sure its just another piece of legislation that can be passed in the Dail over a brunch. No need to worry, right?
The slippery slope argument is real, not saying its true or right but the argument is real.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia_and_the_slippery_slope
What are you on, seriously? No one mentioned forced euthanasia or that the state chooses who dies. It would be up to a patient and doctor to come together and agree it or in the cases of children born with no hope of life, their parents and doctor. You make reference to the point that I don't see it as an easy thing to implement correctly and safely but that it is doable and then your next sentence is "Sure its just another piece of legislation that can be passed in the Dail over a brunch. No need to worry, right?" Where the hell did that come out of? And are you suggesting that we don't bother trying to land a good balance because it's hard work? Oh jebus forbid that our TD's tax their brains a bit and come up with something. And also what's the scaremongering about the state about? We elect them and we can change them if they do wrong. It's not some tyrannical dictatorship!
Anyways how about you suggest a system for euthanasia you'd be happy to see implemented since you're for it in certain circumstances.0 -
I would hazard a guess it was something to do with that cold, evil, irrational desire to see their dying child live. The bast@rds!
Sometimes people's desire to see their dying child live blinds them to the child's own pain.
Sometimes people have trouble getting past their own feelings when it comes to doing what's right for someone else.
I have had pets put down when they were terminally ill - and I am very aware of the temptation to keep putting off the decision, hoping that (1) somehow they might recover (even for a short while), or (2) that maybe they will die unexpectedly, sparing you the task of killing them yourself.
However when you are putting off tough decisions to spare yourself emotional pain, you may very well be causing unnecessary distress to another creature or person. Your own pain should not have priority over the pain of someone else.
I have huge sympathy for parents in these situations, but sometimes the kindest thing for the baby is the hardest thing to do. Some people just don't have the strength to spare the child unneeded pain.
And sometimes religious belief makes a tough decision impossible, by imposing moral absolutes that give no room for the kinder option.0 -
Sometimes people's desire to see their dying child live blinds them to the child's own pain.
Or maybe, the fact that their child IS NOT YET DEAD, leads them to cling on to their life. At the end of the day, if you believe that there is any chance of survival, then pain or no pain, life is what you will choose. Many people, children or otherwise can suffer great great pain and live to tell the tale. I certainly wouldn't be so cold as to spin it as cold, or as 'torturing children'.Sometimes people have trouble getting past their own feelings when it comes to doing what's right for someone else.
You cannot spin death of their child as doing the right thing. If they switch off the machine for the sake of the child, its the right thing. If they believe there is hope, and keep up the bedside vigil its the right thing. Just because a parent does not give up hope, does not mean its some kind of selfish cruelty.I have had pets put down when they were terminally ill - and I am very aware of the temptation to keep putting off the decision, hoping that (1) somehow they might recover (even for a short while), or (2) that maybe they will die unexpectedly, sparing you the task of killing them yourself.
However when you are putting off tough decisions to spare yourself emotional pain, you may very well be causing unnecessary distress to another creature or person. Your own pain should not have priority over the pain of someone else.
Assuming that the parents in these cases are just thinking about themselves, is not the same as knowing that this is the case. I think its rather cold to start judging these people.I have huge sympathy for parents in these situations, but sometimes the kindest thing for the baby is the hardest thing to do. Some people just don't have the strength to spare the child unneeded pain.
This is not about sparing a child unneeded pain. This is about hope. The hope that while there is breath in their lungs, there is a chance however slim. So even if they are in such pain, if life comes out from it, its worth it.And sometimes religious belief makes a tough decision impossible, by imposing moral absolutes that give no room for the kinder option.
Again, all this 'kinder option' nonsense is just a way of people feeling self righteous, and what a disgusting means they use to boost them onto this moral high horse. That being the pain, emotion, despair and hope of parents of dying children. Its tasteless.0 -
You don't have to like it for it to be true.0
-
MagicMarker wrote: »Jank, the point that was made originally was that it's sad that we treat animals more humanely than humans. As in when animals are in suffering we put them out of their misery, but we don't do this for people.
Now, you appear to agree with this (under certain circumstances), so what in the name of jesus are you arguing for? You're taking a point that was made and extending it to circumstances that it was not intended for.
You just seem to want to argue for the sake of arguing.
The general point I am making is that this issue is not a wholly religious one, yet some posters are using this issue as yet another stick to beat religion with. To me that is pretty low.0 -
Advertisement
-
doctoremma wrote: »
Actually, I think it's quite useful. You (and I) are very close to chimps after all. If we don't advocate torture (whether physical or mental) for some great apes, why on earth would we advocate torture (albeit, not direct) for one particular species of great ape?
By that extension then, we should give these great apes the right to vote and a passport.0
Advertisement