religion and sick children

doctoremma

jank wrote: »

By that extension then, we should give these great apes the right to vote and a passport.

I'd quite happily give chimps the right to vote and a passport. Not sure they'd do anything productive with either, mind. And obviously, they would only be allowed to vote in their own constituencies, so it's not something I'm going to worry about too much.

Although...maybe there's an argument against allowing one species to vote for legislation affecting another? A biological constituency, if you like....

Bannasidhe

JimiTime wrote: »

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!

Or perhaps -as the article states

“While it is vital to support families in such difficult times, we are increasingly concerned that deeply held belief in religion can lead to children being potentially subjected to burdensome care in expectation of 'miraculous’ intervention,

So some parents, waiting for their God to intervene and perform a miracle (which by definition is a mighty rare event) allow their children to suffer needless and often painful medical treatment that is futile. They deny their children the right to die and seek to delay them joining God? That makes no sense. It is cruel, it is selfish.

As someone who went through both chemotherapy and radiotherapy as an adult I can testify it is awful, so awful that the second time I was diagnosed with cancer I seriously considered not undergoing treatment.

My aunt, a devout Catholic, was dying of lung cancer but with continued treatment she may have gained a month or two of 'life' - she refused as she believed what she was enduring was not 'life' - it was existence and, given her deep faith, she accepted it was her time to die and was in great form in the days before she died as she absolutely believed she was about to join her parents in the Afterlife she has been taught awaited those who believe.

Surely, if one is deeply religious one should accept the will of God - in the case of these children it is God's will that they 'join him' and they are being kept alive by science and science alone. Is that not defying God's will by using artificial methods to preserve life while hoping he will change his mind?

ShooterSF

Now why did I hold out any hope Jank would offer his suggestion for legalising euthanasia.

Also Jimi given your views of an afterlife would you not suggest the ethical thing to do in a situation where a child has no hope of a decent life (see Anencephaly) would be to hasten their journey to said afterlife where they can be without suffering?

LittleBook

Right to Die Campaigner Tony Nicklinson Dies

Tony Nicklinson's death comes just days after he lost his High Court battle for an assisted suicide warning that he had been condemned to a life he said was worse than death.

It emerged that Mr Nicklinson had been refusing food for up to seven days after learning the outcome of his appeal on Tuesday of last week.

He suffered pneumonia and deteriorated rapidly. In 2004 Mr Nicklinson issued an advanced directive refusing any life sustaining treatment should he fall ill.

That poor man. He literally had to starve to death. Although I'm hoping this was not the case and that something happened behind the scenes to ease his passing.

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Surely, if one is deeply religious one should accept the will of God - in the case of these children it is God's will that they 'join him' and they are being kept alive by science and science alone. Is that not defying God's will by using artificial methods to preserve life while hoping he will change his mind?

No response to this? Anyone????

doctoremma

LittleBook wrote: »

Right to Die Campaigner Tony Nicklinson Dies



That poor man. He literally had to starve to death. Although I'm hoping this was not the case and that something happened behind the scenes to ease his passing.

I'm in tears watching the news this minute. The reports are that he contracted pneumonia and refused treatment - it is being quoted as 'his opportunity'. The pictures of him crying in sheer despair are heart-wrenching.

The police have stated that they aren't going to investigate his death.

Bannasidhe

doctoremma wrote: »

I'm in tears watching the news this minute. The reports are that he contracted pneumonia and refused treatment - it is being quoted as 'his opportunity'. The pictures of him crying in sheer despair are heart-wrenching.

The police have stated that they aren't going to investigate his death.

A small mercy for his wife.

At least the torture this poor man had to endure is over and he had the full support of his wife in his courageous and sadly futile battle to be allowed the dignity of an easy passing from an existence that was unbearable.

Imagine if she hadn't supported him...:eek: now think of the children who are suffering similar torment because their parent's selfishness.

vibe666

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Surely, if one is deeply religious one should accept the will of God - in the case of these children it is God's will that they 'join him' and they are being kept alive by science and science alone. Is that not defying God's will by using artificial methods to preserve life while hoping he will change his mind?

i know what you mean, but the problem is, that there's just no real guidance from a higher power on these kinds of issues.

i mean if there was at least some kind of book or something to follow, like a set of instructions on how to handle the things life throws at you?

if there was, it would probably say something along the lines of..

Matthew 19:14 - But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come to me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven

or words to that effect, so at least they'd have an idea of what their god wanted them to do.

Galvasean

Northclare wrote: »

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

Sorry for the delay in responding (eeh gadz, it's been a week!), haven't been using the A&A forum much lately. I had a google for you there and it would appear that my statement is at least partially incorrect. It would appear the studies I referred to were in relation to people who are 'moderately' religious (as opposed to very religious). Just pop in 'religiosity+fear of death' into Google and you should find some info on the topic.
Sorry again for the delay (and apologies if someone answered already. I'm just starting to read through the thread now).

Galvasean

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?

jank wrote: »

By that extension then, we should give these great apes the right to vote and a passport.

This is why no one likes debating with you Jank. You argue against points no one is making.

jank

vibe666 wrote: »

i know what you mean, but the problem is, that there's just no real guidance from a higher power on these kinds of issues.

i mean if there was at least some kind of book or something to follow, like a set of instructions on how to handle the things life throws at you?

if there was, it would probably say something along the lines of..or words to that effect, so at least they'd have an idea of what their god wanted them to do.

Yet if you read this thread you will see that not all religious people are like that and equally not all non-religious people are utterly rational about it either....

Hanging on, hoping for any chance of a turn around that will save your child from what ever disease is killing them transcends religion completely. I just hope people at least become aware of this.

jank

Galvasean wrote: »

This is why no one likes debating with you Jank. You argue against points no one is making.

I can see clearly what points people are trying to make much like in this thread where people are using sick and dying children as a points scoring exercise to assert their own already made up opinion that religion is bain of everything even though there are fact that prove otherwise. This is why people have a problem with some atheists.

Bannasidhe

jank wrote: »

Yet if you read this thread you will see that not all religious people are like that and equally not all non-religious people are utterly rational about it either....

Hanging on, hoping for any chance of a turn around that will save your child from what ever disease is killing them transcends religion completely. I just hope people at least become aware of this.

However, non-religious people are unlikely to prolong their child's suffering in hope of a miracle - which is what this thread is about.

recedite

jank wrote: »

Hanging on, hoping for any chance of a turn around that will save your child from what ever disease is killing them transcends religion completely. I just hope people at least become aware of this.

Anyone can hope for a turnaround, but when the doctors say it's time to let go, and the parent says "No, I prayed for a miracle and I'm going to get one" then they are very specifically letting religion get in the way of expert opinion. This is not a universal attitude of all caring parents that "transcends religion completely".

MrPudding

jank wrote: »

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

As has been pointed out, these questions are largely irrelevant. Whether animal rights and human rights does not really change the point I was making. When an animal is suffering it is considered humane to end its suffering. When a human is suffering the "humane" option is not available. I find this odd, and it has nothing to do with relative rights.

If you want to bring rights into it then I think it is even more odd. Animals have less rights, in most regards, than humans. Despite this they appear to have an advantage in that they are expected to suffer when there is a person that can make that decision for them. Humans, on the other hand, only have the option of refusing treatment and sustenance in the hope that the suffering is shortened. So for me the animal with the better rights is at a disadvantage in this area.

MrP

ShooterSF

jank wrote: »

In ANY circumstance. No of course not. In some circumstances I would be open to it.

ShooterSF wrote: »

Now why did I hold out any hope Jank would offer his suggestion for legalising euthanasia.

Since you've posted again, any chance you could outline where and how you would be open to euthanasia?

vibe666

jank wrote: »

Yet if you read this thread you will see that not all religious people are like that and equally not all non-religious people are utterly rational about it either....

i'd suggest YOU go back to post #1 and read both the thread title and the link in the OP.

nobody is saying that ALL religious people with dying kids are doing this this or ALL non-religious people aren't, but the whole point of this thread is to discuss an article explaining that a majority of people doing this (at least in a particular hospital) ARE religious types, which is what is being discussed.

ShooterSF wrote: »

Since you've posted again, any chance you could outline where and how you would be open to euthanasia?

i'm thinking he'd start with anyone frequenting the A&A forum here.

jank

Bannasidhe wrote: »

However, non-religious people are unlikely to prolong their child's suffering in hope of a miracle - which is what this thread is about.

Em, No. Perhaps you should read the thread, especially this post.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80297432&postcount=34

You will find that 3% of non-religous people are likely to do this compared with 5% of religous people. The difference is negiable and indicates yet again that this is not a wholly religious issue.

jank

recedite wrote: »

Anyone can hope for a turnaround, but when the doctors say it's time to let go, and the parent says "No, I prayed for a miracle and I'm going to get one" then they are very specifically letting religion get in the way of expert opinion. This is not a universal attitude of all caring parents that "transcends religion completely".

And what about the parents who are not religous? What are their reasons for continuing treatment against medical advice?

jank

vibe666 wrote: »

i'd suggest YOU go back to post #1 and read both the thread title and the link in the OP.

Well let us see.

Thread Title: "Religion and sick Children", hmm not off to a good start..

First line of the OP: "yet another example of the damage inflicted by the muddled thinking of the religious." Well that came quick!

Lastly the OP goes on a rant stating that 20 years ago such an article wouldn't have been published because of some magical influence the church has over the media.

So please, figure my cynicism in this matter.

vibe666 wrote: »

nobody is saying that ALL religious people with dying kids are doing this this or ALL non-religious people aren't, but the whole point of this thread is to discuss an article explaining that a majority of people doing this (at least in a particular hospital) ARE religious types, which is what is being discussed.

Robindch did, I called him up on it and he didnt reply back to me.

Now if there was an apporporaite level of balance to this topic I would have no issue. But to focus on the 5% of couples while ignoring the rest of the 95%, never mind the 3% of the non religious couples that did extactly the same as those baby eating, torture loving religous nut cases just make the whole arguement seem like nothing than a stupid witch hunt.

What is more, people are using sick and termnally ill children to score this point. Now you tell me if that isn't low.

jank

ShooterSF wrote: »

Since you've posted again, any chance you could outline where and how you would be open to euthanasia?

I think in the case of Tony Nickelson it could have merit. Now I am not clued into the case but as far as I know it was the courts of the UK that dismissed him, not some church or religous organisation. Aren't people free to go to Holland or Switzerland to avail of assisted death services?

It would be interesting if a poll was conducted to see how many people agree with it or not. It is a topic that is deeply complex and emotive.

robindch

jank wrote: »

Robindch did, I called him up on it and he didnt reply back to me.

Robin did reply back to you here.

As with the Ratzinger-apology discussion, you seem to be having insuperable trouble understanding or recalling anything I write.

vibe666

jank wrote: »

Now if there was an apporporaite level of balance to this topic I would have no issue.

any discussion here on the topic will be a heck of a lot more balanced than it would have been in the Christianity forum, if the thread had even been allowed to exist without being locked. :rolleyes:

jank wrote: »

But to focus on the 5% of couples while ignoring the rest of the 95%, never mind the 3% of the non religious couples that did extactly the same as those baby eating, torture loving religous nut cases just make the whole arguement seem like nothing than a stupid witch hunt.

i'm not sure how you can use the phrase witch hunt with a straight face. in face i'm actually not sure that anyone of a religious disposition should ever be allowed to use the phrase given that the phrase wouldn't even exist were it not for the church persecuting, torturing and viciously murdering thousands of innocent women.

doctoremma

jank wrote: »

Aren't people free to go to Holland or Switzerland to avail of assisted death services?

It would be interesting if a poll was conducted to see how many people agree with it or not. It is a topic that is deeply complex and emotive.

I believe that anyone found to be assisting a suicide is liable for prosecution in their home country (certainly the UK, suspect Ireland too), even when it was carried out legally in another country.

My quick Google suggests that nobody has ACTUALLY been prosecuted in the UK for assisting a suicide that took place abroad but that obviously doesn't mean it's legal.

MrPudding

doctoremma wrote: »

I believe that anyone found to be assisting a suicide is liable for prosecution in their home country (certainly the UK, suspect Ireland too), even when it was carried out legally in another country.

My quick Google suggests that nobody has ACTUALLY been prosecuted in the UK for assisting a suicide that took place abroad but that obviously doesn't mean it's legal.

This is a very trick area, in fact there have been a number of cases regarding this specific thing, Debbie Purdy's case probably being the most famous.

The issue is that there isn't really any guidance on what, exactly, helping someone to commit suicide is. There are obviously some easy examples, feeding them the pills to overdose or injecting them directly.

Where it becomes more complicated, and where some case law has been generated, without any real result, is accompanying some to a country where they can avail of assisted suicide.

If you read the legislation it is apparently a someone who merely travels with a person to, for example, the Dignitas Clinic in Switzerland, might find themselves being arrested on there return.

Several people has tried to resolve this uncertainty through the courts, by trying to force the DPP to actually say whether or not they would presecute. The DPP have managed to avoid directly answering the question, they throw out the old "case by case basis" or "prosecution must be in society's interest" lines. So no real confirmation.

What this means in real terms is we end up with really sad stories like this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/oct/17/law-switzerland

No prosecutions resulted form his suicide, but my understanding is his parents did not accompany him to Switzerland due to the risk of prosecution on their return. So he died without his parents at his side. Not acceptable.

MrP

ShooterSF

jank wrote: »

I think in the case of Tony Nickelson it could have merit. Now I am not clued into the case but as far as I know it was the courts of the UK that dismissed him, not some church or religous organisation. Aren't people free to go to Holland or Switzerland to avail of assisted death services?

It could have merit? It should be as clear as day he should have been allowed to end his life. You are correct in your pre-emptive defence of the church, the courts made the decision based on the law of the land. The question arises as to why the law is the law. And as for going to Holland or Switzerland I'm flabergasted at how cold you can be. These people are in pain and should be allowed to end their life surrounded by their loved ones not making a death trek accompanied by someone they could be getting in trouble for helping them. I wonder how much thought you gave this subject or did you just set out to clarify that it wasn't the church's doing?

It would be interesting if a poll was conducted to see how many people agree with it or not. It is a topic that is deeply complex and emotive.

It's complex yes as I've already said. We need to have the right safeguards in place but it's doable. This leaves "emotive". In what way? I have yet to see one argument other than the slippery slope (the same technique the religious use against gay marriage) offered online or off. I can imagine such a poll on this forum anyway would be hugely one sided but am willing to put that to the test.

jank

vibe666 wrote: »

any discussion here on the topic will be a heck of a lot more balanced than it would have been in the Christianity forum, if the thread had even been allowed to exist without being locked. :rolleyes:

So because they are unbalanced its OK for A+A to be the same? Sorry but the excuse "Well at least we are better than those guys" doesn't cut it.

vibe666 wrote: »

i'm not sure how you can use the phrase witch hunt with a straight face. in face i'm actually not sure that anyone of a religious disposition should ever be allowed to use the phrase given that the phrase wouldn't even exist were it not for the church persecuting, torturing and viciously murdering thousands of innocent women.

Well done, you got another dig in, but you may address the question in your own time.

jank

ShooterSF wrote: »

It could have merit? It should be as clear as day he should have been allowed to end his life. You are correct in your pre-emptive defence of the church, the courts made the decision based on the law of the land. The question arises as to why the law is the law. And as for going to Holland or Switzerland I'm flabergasted at how cold you can be. These people are in pain and should be allowed to end their life surrounded by their loved ones not making a death trek accompanied by someone they could be getting in trouble for helping them.

The Law is like that I suppose because humans regardless of race, religion or creed generally value human life and are probably very uncomfortable with laws which allow people to kill other people even if it is voluntary. China for example doesn't allow it, I don't think the USSR ever did but then again they are not good example of human rights or human life.

Taking it further when we allow children die, adults or parents are making a decision for them. The same could be said for severely handicapped people. That would be classified by some as involuntary or murder by others as humane.

ShooterSF wrote: »

I wonder how much thought you gave this subject or did you just set out to clarify that it wasn't the church's doing?

Unfortunately, that was a clarification that had to be made as plan untruths were written in this thread. I am sure you want clarity and transparency when discussing a topic such as this?

ShooterSF wrote: »

It's complex yes as I've already said. We need to have the right safeguards in place but it's doable. This leaves "emotive". In what way? I have yet to see one argument other than the slippery slope (the same technique the religious use against gay marriage) offered online or off. I can imagine such a poll on this forum anyway would be hugely one sided but am willing to put that to the test.

Doable in what way? When you break it down, everything is doable on paper. What might be acceptable to you may not be acceptable best practice and so on. The devil is always in the detail. Legislation like this would be a nightmare to implement, no one would touch it. Ireland will never take any lead on this until there is a clear prescient made in the UK.

What euthanasia program would you implement? What would be unacceptable in your view.

ShooterSF

jank wrote: »

The Law is like that I suppose because humans regardless of race, religion or creed generally value human life and are probably very uncomfortable with laws which allow people to kill other people even if it is voluntary. China for example doesn't allow it, I don't think the USSR ever did but then again they are not good example of human rights or human life.

Why would we look to China or the USSR for guidance on this :eek:

Taking it further when we allow children die, adults or parents are making a decision for them. The same could be said for severely handicapped people. That would be classified by some as involuntary or murder by others as humane.

Those are issues that need discussion.

Unfortunately, that was a clarification that had to be made as plan untruths were written in this thread. I am sure you want clarity and transparency when discussing a topic such as this?

Yet you felt no need to clarify your opinion that it's ok to make people travel to kill themselves?

Doable in what way? When you break it down, everything is doable on paper. What might be acceptable to you may not be acceptable best practice and so on. The devil is always in the detail. Legislation like this would be a nightmare to implement, no one would touch it. Ireland will never take any lead on this until there is a clear prescient made in the UK.

And that won't change if we don't make some noise and try and change it. How defeatist.

What euthanasia program would you implement? What would be unacceptable in your view.

Now we're at the meat of it, ok. To start I suggest we'd legislate for the assisted suicide of mentally capable adults as this seems the easiest case. They would need to consult with a doctor (or preferably more than one) and the doctor would have to sign off on it. They would need to see that the patient was mentally capable of making such a decision, that the patient had little or no chance of recovery and that the illness was affecting their quality of life. The options of how they are assisted then varies from a physician administering it at the patients home allowing them comfort of surroundings and family or if in hospital (similar to Oregon I believe) the patient could given a vile to consume when they felt they were at breaking point. This option would allow you to make the arrangement ahead of time.

After that is legislated for we then can look at giving other people power to euthanise such as a family member or such. This decision could be made while mentally healthy out of concern of a sharp change in said circumstances. Again a consultation woth a doctor and a written request on what grounds the family member is to have this decision would be needed. This I imagine would take along time to iron out before we could look to bring it in to law but would be comparable to dnr orders.

Alongside that we'd have to look at children and the mentally ill (Just to be clear here we're talking mentally ill people who go on to develop terminal painful illnesses not euthanising people because of mental illness). This would be the hardest area. I'd still look to legislate for it in some fashion even if highly restricted so that we could at least help some suffering. Perhaps at the request of a guardian a group of doctors could weigh up the suffering against any hope of recovery and where no hope is found allow said guardian to make the decision.

I'm open to discussion of any concerns here but that would be my initial approach. Also, what I typed above is what I meant so no need to imagine wildly different scenarios and then accuse me of supporting them and if you are going to just offer more difficult what if's could you acknowledge these points first, thanks.

Oh and as a side pointer, something I came across on wiki while googling assisted suicide in oregon:

"Opinion by religious affiliation
In one recent study dealing primarily with Christians, Southern Baptists, Pentecostals, and Evangelicals and Catholics tended to be opposed to euthanasia. Moderate Protestants, (e.g., Lutherans and Methodists) showed mixed views concerning end of life decisions in general. Both of these groups showed less support than non-affiliates, but were less opposed to it than conservative Protestants. Respondents that did not affiliate with a religion were found to support euthanasia more than those who did. The liberal Protestants (including some Presbyterians and Episcopalians) were the most supportive. In general, liberal Protestants affiliate more loosely with religious institutions and their views were not similar to those of non-affiliates. Within all groups, religiosity (i.e., self-evaluation and frequency of church attendance) also correlated to opinions on euthanasia. Individuals who attended church regularly and more frequently and considered themselves more religious were found to be more opposed to euthanasia than to those who had a lower level of religiosity.[6]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia_in_the_United_States#Oregon

doctoremma

I have little issue with allowing mentally competent patients to make the decision to be assisted in death.

I don't think I could sanction this if the patient is not mentally capable, but there are two scenarios that immediately spring to mind; patient alive and awake but unable to make an informed decision (lets say, Alzheimers) and patient comatose on a life support machine (lets say, car crash).

In the case of Alzheimers, even if the patient has previously, while in a mentally capable state, indicated their wishes to be assisted in death, I'm not sure I am confident enough that people might not change their minds. Who knows how you might feel if your mental health deteriorates?

For a car crash patient on life support with little sign of life, I'd be more happy to act on their previous wishes (if they were documented on a medical card/in their wallet/etc).

The really tricky bit in my thinking is where you have a patient who is not able to make a decision (even if they have previously indicated their wishes) but is suffering in physical pain.