Well I think these parents are definitely responsible with the child's death. And sorely misguided..but who knows maybe God was just ready for that child to come home..because I can't imagine how good a life the child could have had with parents willing to let them suffer..
All we can do is pray for situations like these, those of us that do pray..
I don't have any children, but if I did..I would go to almost any lengths to save their lives.
I don't know if I would label this situation as cold blooded murder..but these parents were in part responsible for not doing enough to save their own child..
I find it sickening.
Missy
__________________ Sometimes I wish I could just do everything I am supposed to do from the beginning but alas I am just a human.. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. All I can say is thank God for grace because without it.. I would be DOOMED. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Well, they were informed that he would die without treatment. Would insanity be a valid defense in this case since their motivating beliefs were not rational (i.e. based on faith)?
Sorry, I see manslaughter as an accidental/unintentional killing. So this is not manslaughter, in my opinion.
Regardless of what you or I feel is murder or manslaughter, the law clearly defines what they are, and makes clear distinctions between the two.
John
Last edited by TheBear; 6th June 2002 at 11:01 AM.
I have 4 children of my own and I could not imagine doing something like that, no matter what my religious beliefs. The parents knew that their child would die if he didn't get the injection and they chose to ignore it. They are guilty and should both be pervented from ever having kids in the future. I don't care what anyone says, I doubt God would want us to withhold medical treatment that would save our children.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"We Are Made Of Star Stuff" Carl Sagan
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Originally posted by Azrael I have 4 children of my own and I could not imagine doing something like that, no matter what my religious beliefs. The parents knew that their child would die if he didn't get the injection and they chose to ignore it. They are guilty and should both be pervented from ever having kids in the future. I don't care what anyone says, I doubt God would want us to withhold medical treatment that would save our children.
I believe the parents were doing what they believed was best but we have to be responsible for our actions. I would not with hold medication for my child and don't understand why anyone would. I understand why some say blood transfusions are wrong....that doesn't mean I agree I just understand what they believe. I believe its a messed up interpretation of God's word. If God didn't want us to take medicine or have blood transfutions it would be in black and white...a commandment...twisting and turning Bible verses to make a point to be different is a scary practice. I believe Manslaughter it is and not Murder.
__________________ PEACE. What I want most is peace Happiness, laughter, cheerful noises are great- But screaming, cursing, name calling-I can't tolerate. Give me freedom from this caotic life. Take me away from the troubles and strife. Life is simple...no need to worry. Why is everyone in such a hurry? Time here is short so take heed. JESUS is All that we Really need. Black Train
These parents didn't withhold conventional medical treatment from the child with the intent of "we're going to kill the kid." They honestly BELIEVED they were following their faith.
(Although, I have a big problem with them being Seventh-Day Adventists, because I live near one of the biggest, world-renown SDA medical centers, Loma Linda University MC. And the folks there DEFINITELY provide conventional medicine!)
I have heard in the past where the parents put up resistance and the doctor immediately contacts Child Welfare, and the child is made a ward of the State, and the treatment is allowed to begin. Many times, the parents are RELIEVED by this action, for they feel that the child should indeed be treated, but they cannot betray their teachings.
I'm surprised there wasn't an intervention by Child Welfare.
Good point! BUt I see what you posted differently than what you posted. Roe vs. Wade does take away the rights of the unborn child as well as the child, and (partly) because of case law such as this, these families are still able to kill their child because their rights outweigh the rights of their child.
Actually, the unborn child had no constitutional right to anything until "Roe v. Wade"
Once the first trimester passes, only the mother's right to life takes precedence over the unborn's right to life.
Can I make room here for an excuse... I was up for 28 hours yesterday
__________________ “Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.”
Right, and I never claimed to be a lawyer. I was expecting that perfectly valid response before I made the post!
Still, I think there is a moral difference between manslaughter and murder and it is based on intention.
Perhaps since I am a lawyer I can provide some useful insight on this topic?
In this jurisdiction, we differentiate between murder and culpable homicide. Unlike in the US, we do no distinguish between different degrees of murder - murder is murder is murder. It is the unlawful and intentional killing of another human being. Culpable homicid is exactly the same thing as manslaughter - it's just a more technical term. Culpable is the unlawful and negligent killing of another human being. The difference then does lie in the form that intention takes, viz. dolus or culpa (for those not fluent in Latin, that equates roughly to "intention" and "negligence").
In the instant case, it appears we are dealing with people who withheld medical treatment from their child when it was clear that the child would die as a result of not receiving said treatment. At least, it was a virtual medical certainty that the child would die. SHort of divine intervention, the child required that medicin to live.
In our law, the deliberte withholding of that medicine in the knowledge that the child would die leads necesssarily to the conclusion that the parents intended to let the child die, at least rather than supply it with the medicine. That intention is attenuated to some extent by the fact that as loving parents they probably would have preferred to see the child live than die, but then only through divine intervention. Since this last is so improbable as to be virtually a nil chance, the parents knew that their actions would almost inevitable lead to the death of the child. Dolus is therefore present and the parents would be found guilty of murder in this jurisdiction.
However, our legal system is more advanced than many ohers in that it adopts a two stage procedure after the summons/pleadings stage, viz. trial and sentencing. Although found guilty of murder, the moral guilt of the parents is not nearly as bad as that of a man who plans to kill another in a dark alley wih a half-brick. The parents did not set out to kill their child; they did not want it to die rather than live full stop. They were probably the most grieving people after the child's death. In addition, it was their strong MORAL conviction that led to their letting the child die. All this would be taken into account and although their legal guilt is assured such that they can unequivocally be found guilty of murder; their moral guilt is much lessened by the mitigating factors I have mentioned. This would be indicated in the sentence they would receive, which would
be relatively light in the circumstances. I would suggest that a suspended sentence of perhaps three to five years would suffice in the premises.
All of that is not to say that as Christians (supposedly) they should be thought of as being morally correct. I think that such an act is heinous. If I choose as a 26 year old not to have a blood transfusion, then that is my right. However, had I a 6 month old child, I could in all conscience allow them to have a transfusion and even if they later develop a moral distaste themselves for such procedures, I need never tell them.
Shame on those parents whose Pharisaic principles allow them to overturn God's commandments to care for our children!
__________________ Sean Ramsden
Contact me via email. I'm incredibly busy so please don't expect replies at all, let alone fast. Apologies To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Yep, I was wrong.
Linear Mode
