What a stupid comparison !
Murder by faith
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
What a stupid comparison !
Hmm because there is no justice for kittens?
Or because human beings are "special"?
I'm just wondering what defines something as wrong or right decision.
Don't ask me. Ask a Muslim scholar. They are infallible.
House commentary
Notes on Idiocy
Now that is an interesting dialogue. Specifically, I find it interesting because both parties bothered to post when typing words was about all the effort they were willing to put into it. Actually thinking about what they were saying, apparently, was a bit too much to ask.
Now, I agree that the feline comparison is stupid. The Mulsim scholar zinger, though—ooh! like that was original—suggests that the original denunciation of the feline comparison was more personal than substantial. And that's the thing.
The role of Devil's Advocate is supposed to be constructive, and not arbitrary. The opposition to stupidity is inherently expected to transcend what it criticizes or denounces.
Should we pretend that the differences between human and feline behavioral patterns are too subtle for S.A.M.'s perception? Maybe we can convince ourselves that Myles' sarcasm actually communicates something of a useful answer. In truth, it is easy enough to see the differences between the behavior of house cats and human beings. For instance, when the family cat looks you in the eye after spending eighteen hours refusing to accommodate the needs of the kitten while getting drunk with friends and says, without a trace of irony, "A happy mother is the most important thing to raising a healthy, happy child", we can talk about how to punish the freakin' cat.
Okay? Easy enough?
Cats certainly demonstrate a certain logical structure at work, but they do not appear to argue logical structures the way humans do. Their behavioral patterns do not change so apparently as those of humans. If your cat is an addict, it will whine and yowl. It will not lie, cheat, and steal. Perhaps this is related to its lack of opposable thumbs, but I would need to see the peer-reviewed article from one or another psychological or psychiatric journal before I can readily accept that thesis.
Okay, for the record, I have seen dogs steal a stash before, and, yes, it's as funny as it is tragic watching a dog try to eat marijuana. Perhaps cats are just smarter, though. Or maybe they're just not strong enough to open a stash box. But my cat never tried to eat my cigarettes. Rather, she just yowled and yelled until I went outside to smoke, and then she came out, made an effort to get in my way when I exhaled, and proceeded to chill out.
And, yeah, she's really pissed that I dropped nicotine.
Trying to make a point about whether or not human beings are "special" seems to deliberately overlook the obvious. And, frankly, that's not particularly helpful.
If the Devil's Advocate is supposed to be a moron, then what the hell is going on with the rest of us?
So, for the record, it is unethical for people to play the idiot just because they're feeling bitter today. And while this lapse might seem fairly minor in the world at large—and I would agree until we add up the cumulative effect of millions of people acting this way—it is brought into particularly sharp contrast by the notion that one is allegedly participating in a discussion purported to be about Ethics, Morality, and Justice.
If I really believed S.A.M. and Myles to be stupid, I wouldn't bother saying a damn thing. But there is a certain incongruity about deliberate bad faith in an argument about ethics. Maybe it's an artistic statement; if so, it's very poorly executed.
Notes on Idiocy
Now that is an interesting dialogue. Specifically, I find it interesting because both parties bothered to post when typing words was about all the effort they were willing to put into it. Actually thinking about what they were saying, apparently, was a bit too much to ask.
Now, I agree that the feline comparison is stupid. The Mulsim scholar zinger, though—ooh! like that was original—suggests that the original denunciation of the feline comparison was more personal than substantial. And that's the thing.
The role of Devil's Advocate is supposed to be constructive, and not arbitrary. The opposition to stupidity is inherently expected to transcend what it criticizes or denounces.
Should we pretend that the differences between human and feline behavioral patterns are too subtle for S.A.M.'s perception? Maybe we can convince ourselves that Myles' sarcasm actually communicates something of a useful answer. In truth, it is easy enough to see the differences between the behavior of house cats and human beings. For instance, when the family cat looks you in the eye after spending eighteen hours refusing to accommodate the needs of the kitten while getting drunk with friends and says, without a trace of irony, "A happy mother is the most important thing to raising a healthy, happy child", we can talk about how to punish the freakin' cat.
Okay? Easy enough?
Cats certainly demonstrate a certain logical structure at work, but they do not appear to argue logical structures the way humans do. Their behavioral patterns do not change so apparently as those of humans. If your cat is an addict, it will whine and yowl. It will not lie, cheat, and steal. Perhaps this is related to its lack of opposable thumbs, but I would need to see the peer-reviewed article from one or another psychological or psychiatric journal before I can readily accept that thesis.
Okay, for the record, I have seen dogs steal a stash before, and, yes, it's as funny as it is tragic watching a dog try to eat marijuana. Perhaps cats are just smarter, though. Or maybe they're just not strong enough to open a stash box. But my cat never tried to eat my cigarettes. Rather, she just yowled and yelled until I went outside to smoke, and then she came out, made an effort to get in my way when I exhaled, and proceeded to chill out.
And, yeah, she's really pissed that I dropped nicotine.
Trying to make a point about whether or not human beings are "special" seems to deliberately overlook the obvious. And, frankly, that's not particularly helpful.
If the Devil's Advocate is supposed to be a moron, then what the hell is going on with the rest of us?
"If evil were a lesser breed than justice, after all these years the righteous would have freed the world of sin." (OK Go!)
So, for the record, it is unethical for people to play the idiot just because they're feeling bitter today. And while this lapse might seem fairly minor in the world at large—and I would agree until we add up the cumulative effect of millions of people acting this way—it is brought into particularly sharp contrast by the notion that one is allegedly participating in a discussion purported to be about Ethics, Morality, and Justice.
If I really believed S.A.M. and Myles to be stupid, I wouldn't bother saying a damn thing. But there is a certain incongruity about deliberate bad faith in an argument about ethics. Maybe it's an artistic statement; if so, it's very poorly executed.
Last edited:
tiassa, i dont know if someone has already said this but situations like this happen so frequently there is leglislation in Australia to deal with it
The most common one is JWs who refuse transfusions for there kids. This has been banned, if a JW tries to do it the case is refered straight to the gardianship board who will automatically side with the doctors.
Im against prision on priniciple (for anything to be honest) but i do think they need pycological help. However i think the failure is in the health system to CATCH people like this BEFORE this happens. Didnt the school, a friend, nabor, health proffessional, ANYONE see this happerning before their eyes? Why didnt they call DOCS or DYFA or whatever its called??????
The most common one is JWs who refuse transfusions for there kids. This has been banned, if a JW tries to do it the case is refered straight to the gardianship board who will automatically side with the doctors.
Im against prision on priniciple (for anything to be honest) but i do think they need pycological help. However i think the failure is in the health system to CATCH people like this BEFORE this happens. Didnt the school, a friend, nabor, health proffessional, ANYONE see this happerning before their eyes? Why didnt they call DOCS or DYFA or whatever its called??????
Actually we did alot of work on this in ethics. This is where clinical med gets REALLY hard
For instance there was an 10 YO (i think) boy who was dying of lukimia. He had one round of bone marrow transplants and it didnt work, the doctors had sugested a second round but the chances were less than 10% that a second round would be successful. The parents wanted him to have the second round but it caused him so much pain he didnt feel the gain was worth it. The three options were nothing and he would die with in the month, chemo and he would die with in 3 months or take a chance on the second round of bone marrow and he would probably die with in the year. He was willing to keep going with the chemo but didnt want the bone marrow because it would mean he would die in hospital away from his friends and family and it would put him through huge amounts of pain
The doctors after talking to him and evaluating his arguments decided that he was compitant to make the decision in his own best interests and so sided with him. Personally i think they made the right decison with in the current legal framework (i would like euthanasia to be avialable but its not) and so the kid went home and died with his friends and family.
Another example came from an Australian medical drama called "all saints". The story was situated around a pt involved in a car acident who presented at the A&E uncontious and in need of surgury. Her father came in and said she was a card carrying JW and she shouldnt be given blood even if she died. Her husband came in and said that she had spoken to him about it and that she didnt belive in that anymore and the doctors should take all nessary steps.
What do you do?
For instance there was an 10 YO (i think) boy who was dying of lukimia. He had one round of bone marrow transplants and it didnt work, the doctors had sugested a second round but the chances were less than 10% that a second round would be successful. The parents wanted him to have the second round but it caused him so much pain he didnt feel the gain was worth it. The three options were nothing and he would die with in the month, chemo and he would die with in 3 months or take a chance on the second round of bone marrow and he would probably die with in the year. He was willing to keep going with the chemo but didnt want the bone marrow because it would mean he would die in hospital away from his friends and family and it would put him through huge amounts of pain
The doctors after talking to him and evaluating his arguments decided that he was compitant to make the decision in his own best interests and so sided with him. Personally i think they made the right decison with in the current legal framework (i would like euthanasia to be avialable but its not) and so the kid went home and died with his friends and family.
Another example came from an Australian medical drama called "all saints". The story was situated around a pt involved in a car acident who presented at the A&E uncontious and in need of surgury. Her father came in and said she was a card carrying JW and she shouldnt be given blood even if she died. Her husband came in and said that she had spoken to him about it and that she didnt belive in that anymore and the doctors should take all nessary steps.
What do you do?
On ethical significance
Because we're human? Would you purport that nature—or God—is extraneous?
I figure the fact that the species has selected in such a manner as to not only allow abstract consideration of ethics but also to encourage it in the form of visceral reactions experienced by many when encountering tales such as this one is not just some random lark on the part of God or nature.
Now, for my part, for instance, I'm both a father and a storyteller. So this sad happening confounds me in two ways. On one hand, it puzzles me as a parent; as I said previously, it is literally beyond my comprehension right now to understand how I could possibly be expected to leave my daughter to die. To the other, that lack of comprehension is compelling in itself. That has to be one hell of a story. I mean, how do people become so depraved? How is it that fiction becomes so damnably important as to kill one's children?
I can wrestle all I want over how I should feel, or whether I have any "right" to feel anything about this. But even throwing away the right to have feelings, there is a compelling desire to understand objectively how the hell it comes to this.
In truth, S.A.M., I do find the question of why we attach ethical significance to human behavior a bit different from the discussion you were having with Myles. But that's beside the point. I'd rather entertain the ethical consideration than suffer the petty disagreement that preceded it.
To get back to the question of what defines a "right" choice?
Generally, right choices are defined by a dynamic relationship between general principle and situational specifics. Our general principles tend toward life. This is why many would keep a child alive exclusively by life support, why they oppose doctor-assited suicide, and why Americans argue so ferociously about whether an embryo is the functional equivalent of an eleven year-old child.
Situationally, what is the point of parenthood? Is there a point to parenthood? Were our parents just blowing smoke when they said their children were the most important things in the world to them? Perhaps that's what I don't understand. My daughter is my first known blood relative on the planet; she is a validation of this idea so prevalent among my parents' generation. Even when using it to whine on their own behalf, people lean on the idea. Do we know what our mothers sacrificed for us? Do we care how much they gave up for us? Yeah, I have a bit of a hard time understanding what it all means—I haven't given up nearly enough for my daughter—but I'm damn well aware of the idea and its power. And this is the situational expectation of parents. To hold the child in such low esteem in pursuit of their own religious zeal is a situational violation, too. If you're a parent, the children come before you. The first shall be last, and the last shall be first; blessed are the meek. These are lessons of many generations.
And while neither custom nor principle are a guarantee of moral propriety, they provide an outline, a testament to the lessons learned so far and the perspectives by which those lessons are given and received.
If our concern is so exclusively ourselves, why do we bother having children? I mean, come on, not every pregnancy is unplanned. Not every child can be "blamed" on a broken condom or too much to drink. So what's the deal? Are people planning families for their own amusement, like puppies to train or something? It seems almost an exercise in cruelty in that context.
And perhaps the living endeavor is a sad joke unto itself, but in that case God or nature is either cruel or extraneous. To be honest, I thought nihilism was something we were supposed to outgrow. There isn't necessarily an answer, so people invent gods and stuff. To simply surrender to the absurdity, though, is exactly that: a surrender.
Even Sisyphus is happy.
S.A.M. said:
Because we're human? Would you purport that nature—or God—is extraneous?
I figure the fact that the species has selected in such a manner as to not only allow abstract consideration of ethics but also to encourage it in the form of visceral reactions experienced by many when encountering tales such as this one is not just some random lark on the part of God or nature.
Now, for my part, for instance, I'm both a father and a storyteller. So this sad happening confounds me in two ways. On one hand, it puzzles me as a parent; as I said previously, it is literally beyond my comprehension right now to understand how I could possibly be expected to leave my daughter to die. To the other, that lack of comprehension is compelling in itself. That has to be one hell of a story. I mean, how do people become so depraved? How is it that fiction becomes so damnably important as to kill one's children?
I can wrestle all I want over how I should feel, or whether I have any "right" to feel anything about this. But even throwing away the right to have feelings, there is a compelling desire to understand objectively how the hell it comes to this.
In truth, S.A.M., I do find the question of why we attach ethical significance to human behavior a bit different from the discussion you were having with Myles. But that's beside the point. I'd rather entertain the ethical consideration than suffer the petty disagreement that preceded it.
To get back to the question of what defines a "right" choice?
Generally, right choices are defined by a dynamic relationship between general principle and situational specifics. Our general principles tend toward life. This is why many would keep a child alive exclusively by life support, why they oppose doctor-assited suicide, and why Americans argue so ferociously about whether an embryo is the functional equivalent of an eleven year-old child.
Situationally, what is the point of parenthood? Is there a point to parenthood? Were our parents just blowing smoke when they said their children were the most important things in the world to them? Perhaps that's what I don't understand. My daughter is my first known blood relative on the planet; she is a validation of this idea so prevalent among my parents' generation. Even when using it to whine on their own behalf, people lean on the idea. Do we know what our mothers sacrificed for us? Do we care how much they gave up for us? Yeah, I have a bit of a hard time understanding what it all means—I haven't given up nearly enough for my daughter—but I'm damn well aware of the idea and its power. And this is the situational expectation of parents. To hold the child in such low esteem in pursuit of their own religious zeal is a situational violation, too. If you're a parent, the children come before you. The first shall be last, and the last shall be first; blessed are the meek. These are lessons of many generations.
And while neither custom nor principle are a guarantee of moral propriety, they provide an outline, a testament to the lessons learned so far and the perspectives by which those lessons are given and received.
If our concern is so exclusively ourselves, why do we bother having children? I mean, come on, not every pregnancy is unplanned. Not every child can be "blamed" on a broken condom or too much to drink. So what's the deal? Are people planning families for their own amusement, like puppies to train or something? It seems almost an exercise in cruelty in that context.
And perhaps the living endeavor is a sad joke unto itself, but in that case God or nature is either cruel or extraneous. To be honest, I thought nihilism was something we were supposed to outgrow. There isn't necessarily an answer, so people invent gods and stuff. To simply surrender to the absurdity, though, is exactly that: a surrender.
Even Sisyphus is happy.
This is a sticky issue. As the story says, she was sick a month before she died. Likely started out looking a lot like the flu, as diabetes can. Since the parents were not medical doctors they probably just trusted in rest, fluids, feeding her well and paryaer to help her get better. Then as it got worse they probably though it was a prolonged bout of something nasty but curable. What parent thinks to themselves "Oh that might be childhood diabetes." and like most cases of diabetes she had he good times and bad. In this case the parents did not know the seriousness of the illness and when she fell into a coma they probably thought that it was fever or chill induced. Since she was probably retaining water at this point so they had no fear of dehydration.
Face it Tiassa, you cannot actually say they knew the seriousness of the situation. To them it appeared much less harmful that it truly was.
Face it Tiassa, you cannot actually say they knew the seriousness of the situation. To them it appeared much less harmful that it truly was.
Bells
Staff member
They would have had some indication that she was ill. From your link in the OP:
She had probably been ill for about a month, suffering symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, excessive thirst, loss of appetite and weakness, the chief said Wednesday..
And then of course, they would definitely know something was very wrong when she lapsed into a coma:
"the girl's aunt told a sheriff's dispatcher Sunday afternoon in a call from California. "And she called my mother-in-law today ... and she explained to us that she believes her daughter's in a coma now and she's relying on faith."..."
The family, when they found out that she was ill sought help for the girl, something the parents had failed to do, and they were the ones who contacted the authorities, but sadly, it was too late for the child.
"Family members elsewhere called authorities to seek help for the girl.
"My sister-in-law, she's very religious, she believes in faith instead of doctors ...," the girl's aunt told a sheriff's dispatcher Sunday afternoon in a call from California. "And she called my mother-in-law today ... and she explained to us that she believes her daughter's in a coma now and she's relying on faith."
The dispatcher got more information from the caller and asked if an ambulance should be sent.
"Please," the woman replied. "I mean, she's refusing. She's going to fight it. ... We've been trying to get her to take her to the hospital for a week, a few days now."
The aunt called back with more information on the family's location, emergency logs show. Police and paramedics arrived within minutes and immediately called for an ambulance that took her to a hospital.
But less than an hour after authorities reached the home, Madeline - a bright student who left public school for home schooling this semester - was declared dead."
Source
"My sister-in-law, she's very religious, she believes in faith instead of doctors ...," the girl's aunt told a sheriff's dispatcher Sunday afternoon in a call from California. "And she called my mother-in-law today ... and she explained to us that she believes her daughter's in a coma now and she's relying on faith."
The dispatcher got more information from the caller and asked if an ambulance should be sent.
"Please," the woman replied. "I mean, she's refusing. She's going to fight it. ... We've been trying to get her to take her to the hospital for a week, a few days now."
The aunt called back with more information on the family's location, emergency logs show. Police and paramedics arrived within minutes and immediately called for an ambulance that took her to a hospital.
But less than an hour after authorities reached the home, Madeline - a bright student who left public school for home schooling this semester - was declared dead."
Source
All that comes to mind is 'what in the hell were they thinking?'..
Ah geez Sam, maybe because we are, as Tiassa said, human?S.A.M. said:
There comes a point where humans can act and be just down right stupid. What parent, upon seeing a child fall ill and get progressively worse, does not call or seek medical help for that child, instead preferring to stay "fast in prayer"? At what point did they intervene? Ah yes, when she died, they attempted to resort to interfering by giving her CPR. Why bother with the CPR at all by that point? The question that needs to be asked to the parents is 'why didn't you take her to a doctor or the hospital' when she became so ill'?
The mother had called a family member and told them that the girl had slipped into a coma. She still had not called an ambulance or the doctor, instead preferring to pray by her bedside. They believed she would recover and they kept praying. One would assume that by the time the child had lapsed into a coma, outside help needed to be sought... Yes? No?
We attach ethical significance to human behaviour because it is necessary, and as this case proves, it can be vital to the survival of one's life. For example, the priest where my mother goes to Church once told my cousin this joke, when she asked him after a family wedding, if she could come to see him so he could pray over her, because she was sick and in pain. He was surprised that she had not sought medical help, instead holding fast to the belief that faith and God would heal her. The joke:
"There was once a family who lived in a house.. warnings had been given of heavy rain and flooding in the area where the family lived.. So the family began to pray for God to save them from the flood..
As the water lapped against their front porch, a big truck arrived, with rescuers to remove them from their house, lest they become stranded in the flood. The family refused, saying "God will save us".. The truck went away and they continued to pray for God to save them...
As the water kept rising, they were forced to move to the second story of their house.. A boat arrived with rescuers to rescue them from the flood. They refused again, saying "God will save us".. The rescue boat left and they continued to pray for God to save them...
The flood waters kept rising and they were forced to retreat to the roof of their house, still praying for God to save them while sitting in the rain on their roof. A helicopter arrived to rescue them from the flood and again, they refused. Saying "God will not let us die, he will save us".. The helicopter left and still they prayed.
The flood waters rose and they all ultimately died. When they got to heaven, they demanded from God, "Why didn't you save us.. we prayed and prayed and you didn't save us".. God replied.. "I sent you a truck, you refused. I sent you a boat, you refused. I then sent you a helicopter and you still refused.. the only reason you died was because you were just too damn stupid to recognise help when it got to you"..."
As the water lapped against their front porch, a big truck arrived, with rescuers to remove them from their house, lest they become stranded in the flood. The family refused, saying "God will save us".. The truck went away and they continued to pray for God to save them...
As the water kept rising, they were forced to move to the second story of their house.. A boat arrived with rescuers to rescue them from the flood. They refused again, saying "God will save us".. The rescue boat left and they continued to pray for God to save them...
The flood waters kept rising and they were forced to retreat to the roof of their house, still praying for God to save them while sitting in the rain on their roof. A helicopter arrived to rescue them from the flood and again, they refused. Saying "God will not let us die, he will save us".. The helicopter left and still they prayed.
The flood waters rose and they all ultimately died. When they got to heaven, they demanded from God, "Why didn't you save us.. we prayed and prayed and you didn't save us".. God replied.. "I sent you a truck, you refused. I sent you a boat, you refused. I then sent you a helicopter and you still refused.. the only reason you died was because you were just too damn stupid to recognise help when it got to you"..."
In other words, don't be so stupid as to ignore what help there is, just because it does not fit into whatever box you may think it should come in.
Bells
Staff member
Fair enough. But if you have a child, who after having been ill for some time, lapses into a coma or faints and cannot be revived.. something even the mother recognised since she rang a relative interstate to advise them of the girl's illness that she had lapsed into a coma.. you wouldn't call for help?
At what point would a reasonable person be expected to realise that it was serious? When she was throwing up? When she was drinking copious amounts of water and was still thirsty? When the fever set in? When all three of the above combined? How about when she is bedridden? When she loses consciousness? When you think she's lapsed into a coma? Even after all that, you don't think the parents could tell it was serious?:bugeye:
I have a 1 year old child who is prone to having convulsions when he gets a temperature.. he tends to get it as he's coming down from a fever.. The temperature might be very mild or it could be very high.. sometimes he'll have it and other times he will not.. I can assure you, each time that boy gets a temperature, we do all we can to control it and each time he has had a febrile convulsion, we have taken him to the hospital, just in case. The last time he had it was particularly scary because he threw up violently just after he had it.. scared the bejesus out of us.. As the doctors said to us, it is a very frightening thing to see a child have a convulsion and they always advise parents to bring the child straight to the hospital, no matter how mild it might have been. Because you simply never know. And if ever there was a time where either of my children became that sick, to the point where they were throwing up, drinking a lot and still thirsty and then losing consciousness... I'll put it this way, it would never get to that point before I called for help.
But, Bells you are operating under the presumption that the parents understood the symptoms when they occured. Except for the coma, we have no indication they thought any other rest of the symptoms were out of the ordinary for flu, cold or something minor.
Hell, I had a rash and fever for three days and didn't go to the hospital untill i had a 106 fever. turned out the beginning of cellulitus(sp?) an infection of the fat under the skin. It can be nasty if left untreated. I just thought i had an extreme flu.
Likely the Thirst never registered untill after the doctors told them that was one of the symptoms. the fevers were probably very mild and who hasn;t had a day bedridden wth a cold or flu. Yeah they should have gotten help when she lapsed into a coma, but they trusted in their faith becuase they didn't know how serious it was.
And I must point out most Diabetics never realize that they are untill they have a serious incident. It's easy to brush off all the warning signs. My father did for years and is now terminally ill becuase of it.
We do not have all the details and likely never will, so none of us can decide what is fitting. It is very tragic, but in the end the people paying the worst price are the parents whose lives and fatih have been shattered. Their torment will go on forever. Jailing them isn't going to do anything except put the stain of their torment on our hands. Just let them live on, preferably with no other children.
and people mocked me when i said religion is harmful if not tempered with reason.
I didn't, but remeber this could have just as easily been an Atheist family that just thinks modern medicine is a scam. We have one of those down the block. It's not the religious belief that was the problem but the medical belief.
now people that stupid i just have to meet
Severe delusion is unfit to survive in the modern world and those parents are a prime example of it. They are not guilty of a crime. They are just horrifically deluded and that delusion has earned them a spotlight so that others might learn.
i dont know about the US but there are very strict recomendations about fevors in children, same with vomiting and the runs
we are NOT talking about a young adult with a strong imune system ready to fight off a flu here ANYWAY, we are talking about a child. If a baby has a fevor they should be seen by a nurse, doctor or a paramedic, same with vomiting\the runs that lasts longer than a few hours (in the case of the vomiting) or a day (in the case of the runs)
Children can become seriously dehydrated VERY fast and so a visit to a doc "just in case" is a VERY good move
As for dihabities not being treated im sure your refering to type 2 diahbites. Type 1 the child STAVES no matter how much food they eat, its VERY ovious something is wrong which is why people take there child to see a doctor and find it out. No parent is surposed to know the DSM but they ARE surposed to know when something is out of the ordanary for the child and seek help
we are NOT talking about a young adult with a strong imune system ready to fight off a flu here ANYWAY, we are talking about a child. If a baby has a fevor they should be seen by a nurse, doctor or a paramedic, same with vomiting\the runs that lasts longer than a few hours (in the case of the vomiting) or a day (in the case of the runs)
Children can become seriously dehydrated VERY fast and so a visit to a doc "just in case" is a VERY good move
As for dihabities not being treated im sure your refering to type 2 diahbites. Type 1 the child STAVES no matter how much food they eat, its VERY ovious something is wrong which is why people take there child to see a doctor and find it out. No parent is surposed to know the DSM but they ARE surposed to know when something is out of the ordanary for the child and seek help
Bells
Staff member
As I said, fair enough if the other symptoms did not register with the parents that something was seriously wrong. They prayed and hoped she'd get better. But when it gets to the point where a child loses consciousness and you think she has lapsed into a coma and you still do nothing about it but keep praying? When it gets to the point where relatives interstate are the ones who actually call the authorities to seek help for the child, recognising that the child was seriously ill? Again, what the hell?
The parents should be jailed for being negligent in the care of their child.
Challenger78
Valued Senior Member
Ok.Religion is one thing, this is neglect. Being religious is forcing someone to read a book/wear special clothes, do special things. This is just plain stupid.