retired_heidus17

On to page 2 of an OTF discussion involving morals, ethics and religion, and it hasn't all sunk into mindless name calling and insults. amazing.

retired_kimmymarlo

it's about to.

I'll withdraw myself from it, lest I cause it to slide in any way, shape, or form.

retired_sedimohasel

Daaaaave probably hasn't seen the thread yet

retired_musiclova31

spirituality isn't really the issue here - so let's not let the discussion descend into a simple religious bash.

this is about social organisations being allowed to place its followers lives at risk with absolutely no proof that their alternative will in any way shape or form benefit said follower over sound medical advice.

retired_kris10nicole

I'd have thought given the weight given to precedent in british law, a high court ruling would go some way to deciding the law in itself? I'm no lawyer though, so that could be (and probably is) complete ********. </BLOCKQUOTE>
as australian law is based on the law of our mighty, benevolent and utterly hopeless at sports masters, the same would apply here i think. and there have been plenty of high profile cases in this country where the decision has favoured the medicos - but the law still stands in terms of who has the right on behalf of a minor. </BLOCKQUOTE>

So regardless of whether the law still stands as such, the fact that the medics are now winning those cases says that it's not that clear cut as to whether the parents could simply refuse treatment on behalf of the child. Which was my original point.

Next time you're going to argue with me, just read your from and have a think, would you?

retired_heidus17

Because adopting the beliefs of those round you is a natrual human trait that does not incur on being 'of sound mind'. Having paranoid delusions that Martians are out to get you would only be the same if you were brought up surronded by those beliefs, and generally people arent (and I assume the hypothetical person you were referring to earlier wasnt, as you seemed to want to make a connection between crazies and the religious)

retired_annmariealexander

gimme a sec!

FitZiggy

what if the docs had given her the blood anyway and she survived. she would probably have topped herself afterwards

retired_kimmymarlo

your second paragraph basically absolves religious people of their responsibility towards their faith, which I disagree with wholeheartedly.

retired_heidus17

no, its about followers being able to make their own choices, listen to their 'social organisations' or the 'sound medical advice'. faith vs science. it's their choice, no one elses.