| News & Current Events The forum to discuss things that are happening in the world today. |
 | | 
6th June 2002, 12:01 AM
| | Cogito ergo sum
48 
| | Join Date: 20th March 2002 Location: Allen, TX
Posts: 897
Blessings: 91,559
Reps: 109 (power: 0) | | | Manslaughter, or Murder?
Here's the heartbreaking story of two Seventh-Day Adventist parents letting their child die by withholding medical treatment. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydispl...ection=general
I live in the Baptist country in Texas and, religious conviction or not, I am confident that this couple would have been convicted of murder in Texas. The death penalty would have also been a very real possibility.
OK. So I think it's a clear case of murder. What do you guys think? Could you go along with the religious defense when a minor's life is placed at risk? |
6th June 2002, 12:24 AM
|  | Survivor
40   
| | Join Date: 1st March 2002 Location: California
Posts: 4,038
Blessings: 91,477
Reps: 31 (power: 0) | | | I read the article...hmmm...well I am a nurse in a trauma center and I have seen people deny blood transfusions and such due to religious beliefs. These parents were clearly told that their child would die if he were NOT given the Vitamin B12, so they are responsible for that. I can not begin to put myself in their shoes, they were smearing garlic on the baby's feet? I have never even heard of that. I do not understand the actions of these parents, I have a daughter and I would do anything to preserve her life.
Amie
__________________ To the world you may be somebody...but to somebody you may be the world... |
6th June 2002, 12:30 AM
| | Senior Member
| | Join Date: 30th January 2002
Posts: 764
Blessings: 91,039
Reps: 17 (power: 0) | | | It's a tough issue. Personally, I could never watch one of my children die (when I have some) if there was anything within my power to do to save their lives.
But if you believe that the action being performed that might save their life will doom your child to hell for eternity, then it's a different story.
So, in short: I don't know. There's a reason why I'm not responsible for making these sorts of decisions.
__________________
"Where there is a will to condemn, there is evidence." |
6th June 2002, 12:54 AM
| | Cogito ergo sum
48
| | Join Date: 20th March 2002 Location: Allen, TX
Posts: 897
Blessings: 91,559
Reps: 109 (power: 0) | | Originally posted by strathyboy
It's a tough issue. Personally, I could never watch one of my children die (when I have some) if there was anything within my power to do to save their lives.
But if you believe that the action being performed that might save their life will doom your child to hell for eternity, then it's a different story.
So, in short: I don't know. There's a reason why I'm not responsible for making these sorts of decisions.
What if the son was 14 years old and proclaimed himself to NOT be a 7th-Day Adventist?
Would the parents still have a right to invoke their religious beliefs and withhold the treatment that would save his life? Against his desire to live? |
6th June 2002, 12:57 AM
| | Legend
| | Join Date: 2nd January 2002
Posts: 17,138
Blessings: 1,100,700
Reps: 55,386,685,686,280,104 (power: 55,386,685,686,308) | | | Murder involves a lot more than neglect. Murder involves premeditated intentions of killing someone, along with the actual act that kills the victim, and a few other special circumstances.
However, I think that allowing a child to die, is one of the most dispicable and horrific forms of manslaughter on the books.
That's just my two cents.
John |
6th June 2002, 01:10 AM
|  | Hallelujah Adonai Yeshua!
31    
 | | Join Date: 6th April 2002 Location: Central Valley of CA
Posts: 5,485
Blessings: 85,085
Reps: 26,688,655,888 (power: 26,688,670) | | Originally posted by Ray K
What if the son was 14 years old and proclaimed himself to NOT be a 7th-Day Adventist?
Would the parents still have a right to invoke their religious beliefs and withhold the treatment that would save his life? Against his desire to live?
I'm gonna have to side with bear on this one. I think it's despicable. However, Strathyboy had a good point, but honestly Ray K you have rasied an extremely difficult question to answer from the constitutional perspective. I bet our founding fathers had no idea this would happen in the future. Even if they did, I wonder if they woudl have changed something.
Great topic Ray!
__________________
“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.”
- St. Augustine |
6th June 2002, 01:52 AM
| | Cogito ergo sum
48
| | Join Date: 20th March 2002 Location: Allen, TX
Posts: 897
Blessings: 91,559
Reps: 109 (power: 0) | | Originally posted by TheBear
Murder involves a lot more than neglect. Murder involves premeditated intentions of killing someone, along with the actual act that kills the victim, and a few other special circumstances.
However, I think that allowing a child to die, is one of the most dispicable and horrific forms of manslaughter on the books.
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. |
6th June 2002, 01:58 AM
| | Cogito ergo sum
48
| | Join Date: 20th March 2002 Location: Allen, TX
Posts: 897
Blessings: 91,559
Reps: 109 (power: 0) | | Originally posted by coastie
I'm gonna have to side with bear on this one. I think it's despicable. However, Strathyboy had a good point, but honestly Ray K you have rasied an extremely difficult question to answer from the constitutional perspective. I bet our founding fathers had no idea this would happen in the future. Even if they did, I wonder if they woudl have changed something.
Great topic Ray!
The constitutional issue is very straightforward and I'm glad you framed it that way.
The child has a constitutional right to life, and the parents have a constitutional right to practice their religion. These rights are in conflict in this case, so which takes precedence?
I think it's clear that "right to life" trumps "right to religious freedom". This is the same "right to life" that the Supreme Court ruled in "Roe v. Wade" that an unborn child has after the first trimester. So if an unborn child gains that right six months BEFORE birth, then it should still have that same right six months AFTER birth.
Remember, that 6-month-old baby did not hold the religious beliefs of his parents.
The more I ponder this, the more clear-cut I think it is. Murder.  |
6th June 2002, 02:38 AM
| | Hallelujah Adonai Yeshua!
31
| | Join Date: 6th April 2002 Location: Central Valley of CA
Posts: 5,485
Blessings: 85,085
Reps: 26,688,655,888 (power: 26,688,670) | | I think it's clear that "right to life" trumps "right to religious freedom". This is the same "right to life" that the Supreme Court ruled in "Roe v. Wade" that an unborn child has after the first trimester. So if an unborn child gains that right six months BEFORE birth, then it should still have that same right six months AFTER birth.
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.
Ridiculous! Everybody has the right to their own life. Just because they don't have the ability to proclaim their will to live doesn't mean that they do not deserve it.
__________________
“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.”
- St. Augustine |
6th June 2002, 09:50 AM
|  | The Narn rule!
48  
| | Join Date: 8th May 2002 Location: Maaleh Adumim, Israel
Posts: 1,963
Blessings: 102,346
Reps: 4,638 (power: 15) | | | Hi all!
Bear posted:
"However, I think that allowing a child to die, is one of the most dispicable and horrific forms of manslaughter on the books."
Ray K posted:
"The more I ponder this, the more clear-cut I think it is. Murder."
Both Da Bear & Ray are very right. Constitution, shmonstitution. In 1858, future Secy. of State William H. Seward spoke of a "higher law" than the Constitution vis-a-vis slavery. Allowing their child to die on account of their religious beliefs is NO different than the Canaanites burning their children to Molech (which the Tanakh repeatedly condemns). The parents are cold-blooded, selfish murderers.
ssv
__________________
"Peace, peace to him that is far off and to him that is near." [Isaiah 57:19]
Eleanor of Aquitaine: Of course he has a knife. He always has a knife. We all have knives. It's 1183 and we're barbarians. How clear we make it. Oh, my piglets, we're the origins of war. Not history's forces nor the times nor justice nor the lack of it nor causes nor religions nor ideas nor kinds of government nor any other thing! We are the killers; we breed war. We carry it, like syphilis, inside. Dead bodies rot in field and stream because the living ones are rotten. For the love of God, can't we love each other just a little? That's how peace begins. We have so much to love each other for. We have such possibilities, my children; we could change the world. (From The Lion in Winter) | | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
| | |
