Girl dies of stupid parents

[Cyberman]

Stimbo you should have told everyone that you were making a deep and meaningful statement by posting without words.

Shit, you're right. I missed that trick!

[IATIA]

But that's just how I think. Faith is a cancer on society and needs to disappear.

Along with proper medical care, faith can provide a will to live. I suspect that is why a lot of widows die. I have seen my fair share of long term spouses dying within months of each other. That was their life and without their spouse, the will is weakened or gone.

[Cyberman]

I can vouch for that.

[IanHulett]

But that's just how I think. Faith is a cancer on society and needs to disappear.

Along with proper medical care, faith can provide a will to live. I suspect that is why a lot of widows die. I have seen my fair share of long term spouses dying within months of each other. That was their life and without their spouse, the will is weakened or gone.

My will to live and do something in with my life actually strengthened when I gave up my faith. hallelujah.

[Tonus]

Here's a view from a christian "death cultist". I see no reason why living to 100 would be better than living to 17 just because it's longer. I measure the value of our lives according to quality, not quantity.

Well then... all else being equal, living to 100 is better than living to 17. The only consistent difference between the two is that the former is far, far longer than the latter. And longevity can provide quality, seeing as few people want to die young and many people make their greatest contributions to society in their middle and advanced ages.

[dyresand]

This is why death cultists do not deserve nice things.

[IATIA]

Fixed for those that would like to see.

[Cyberman]

I don't know what you did but thanks. Would you like to stay on as my scientific advisor?

[Esquilax]

I think you're being dishonest here. If my dog has cancer and I let him die a natural death, I'm going to be charged with animal abuse?

If you allow your dog to suffer unnecessarily- which is more in keeping with the two human examples we're talking about- when life saving treatment is both available and already in the process of deployment to the individual in question, then yes, I would call that animal abuse.

However, the troublesome part here is that the analogy isn't remotely appropriate; I happen to be in favor of voluntary euthanasia when that volunteering is done by a competent adult, which would align fairly well with the pet comparison. But that's not what's happening here: in both human cases under examination, the decision is being made by legal minors, and enabled by the adult guardians who are supposed to be looking out for the minor's best interests, and the objective there is not to die in either case. For all your handwaving about being with Jesus, the truth is that both minors wanted to live, their actions weren't the ones of people looking to die, it's just that their proposed courses of action were not factually based, and were short term plans looking for an easy fix rather than the realistic one chemo provides. This isn't a case where the people in question wanted to die, or had no other options available; they both wanted to live, and were evidently had the ability to get life saving chemo delivered to them. Your comparison is top to bottom malformed, Lek.

Besides, even if they did want to die, the correct, responsible option there is not to just throw up our hands and say "oh, well, what can we do? They want to die." You preserve the child's life and address the problem- and a child entertaining suicidal thoughts is definitely a problem- instead of enabling it. There is no sense in which you have the moral high ground here by stepping aside and allowing children to neglect their health until they waste away and die.

If so, the law is messed up. Anyway, is seems you didn't get the point of my comments. With our pets people often forgo medical treatment, even though it could save the pet's life. It may be too painful for the pet or just too expensive. Often, they just let the pet live out its natural life. If you agree that this is okay, then why is it not okay to stop excruciating chemo at your daughter's request and pursue alternative treatment?

Because the daughter is not mentally mature enough to make that determination? Of course she doesn't want the chemo, just like any number of kids don't want their vaccination shots, or to bathe regularly, or eat a balanced diet, or all sorts of things that, although helpful in the long run, do not mesh with the short term sensibilities of children. But it's not the job of a parent to enable everything their kid wants; it's the parent's job to do what's best for their child, even if it hurts them in the short term.

But let's illustrate this with an example: a child breaks his arm badly, so badly that the bone is sticking through the skin. This child, evidently afraid and suffering, expresses that he doesn't want to go to the hospital to get treated for his injury, because he fears the pain of being treated. If the child does not receive treatment, his injury will become infected and he will die.

Are the parents justified in keeping this child from any form of medical treatment? And if not, why not? The situation is the same, the rationale for withholding proper care is the same as in your view... what differentiates the two cases such that one is an unjustified lack of treatment, where the other is a justified lack?

You will allow your dog to die in peace, but not your daughter. In your estimation, why is there a moral imperative to continue painful treatment against her will any more than to provide the same to your pet?

The treatment will save her life. Being alive sometimes means doing painful things for long term benefit; she may not understand it at the moment, but it's for her own good. And if you're truly advocating for the short term cessation of pain, with its associated long term suffering and death, then you need to grow the hell up.

Of course someone should be arrested for murder. This instance is not murder.

But you've just spent the last twenty or so pages of this thread telling us that the death of this child doesn't matter because she now has eternal life in heaven. A consistent usage of that logic would render murder as a charitable act, as it gets the person to heaven faster; certainly, if you're thinking consistently it shouldn't be a crime, in your estimation.

Can you justify this sudden halt in your own premises?

We are to live our lives for God and not end life when we are still meant to live.

How did you decide the children in these cases were no longer meant to live?

I don't know how long we should struggle against a life threatening, natural disease, though. There comes a time when one needs to make a decision to continue to pursue treatment or allow nature to run its course.

So how do you make that decision? Aside from post-hoc rationalizations for convenience, how would you make that decision in the moment? Toss aside the easy hindsight with which you've been excusing every bad behavior that has been linked in this thread, and actually give a cogent argument now. It's pretty easy to be you in this discussion, when nobody else knows more than the vaguest details about what your position here actually is.

[robvalue]

Who's to say living to 100 is better than living to 17...

So murder your kids?

This case is murder. They put their kid on a 0% success treatment. It's the equivalent of leaving her to starve.

If a message from jesus is the only reason adults are making a drastic decision like this, then those adults aren't fit to be making decisions for anyone.