retired_heidus17

suicide not allowed either i think

retired_sedimohasel

Whether you grow up with crazy people around you teaching you crazy things or whether you were already crazy in the first place doesn't really matter to me. In the end you believe in crazy things and isn't the whole point of that "sound mind" law to prevent people believing in crazy things to harm themselves or others?

retired_musiclova31

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? </BLOCKQUOTE>
yeah settle down gramps, you'll give yourself a coronary in your haste to prove how smart you are.

several high profile cases does not equate to all, a majority, or even a significant minority of instances where a doc is challenging the parents right to select/refuse treatment for their child given how often that right is exercised every day.

your second paragraph basically absolves religious people of their responsibility towards their faith, which I disagree with wholeheartedly. </BLOCKQUOTE>
only if you really believe that organised religion is still primarily about spirituality.

which it isn't.

retired_musiclova31

you STILL haven't satisfactorily answered my first post questioning whether indeed a true free choice is being exercised though.

retired_fabricodalacosta

suicide not allowed either i think </BLOCKQUOTE>

Had that been the case, the JW's in her family would have turned their backs on her apparently.

retired_sedimohasel

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

Some people are not open-minded/educated/critical thinkers so they end up believing in whatever their parents believe in. I think that's the kind of examples he was talking about

retired_kris10nicole

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? </BLOCKQUOTE>
yeah settle down gramps, you'll give yourself a coronary in your haste to prove how smart you are.

several high profile cases does not equate to all, a majority, or even a significant minority of instances where a doc is challenging the parents right to select/refuse treatment for their child given how often that right is exercised every day.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

It was an excuse for a dig as i'm going in a minute. Keep your kilt on.

As for the argument, i agree with what you said there in general, but seeing as we're talking about parents refusing a childs transfusion, which by definition is likely to make it potentially a life or death case, i don't think the general or run of the mill cases are particularly relevant here.

retired_tikoalegendre

I bet those JW's who have bleeding gums after brushing their teeth feel like eternal torment is seconds away.

retired_sedimohasel

you STILL haven't satisfactorily answered my first post questioning whether indeed a true free choice is being exercised though. </BLOCKQUOTE>

And I didn't get an answer as to why it would be more acceptable to believe in a man walking on water than a Martian coming to earth to rape you?
The fact that more people believe in something or that this belief has been around for longer are irrelevant to the fact that they are both completely irrational behaviour.

retired_berrysale

It doesn't matter whether it's religion vs science or not. What is the real issue is people are allowed to have their own freedom to refuse treatment.

Whether or not religion influences their decision is immaterial. It's the individual's right to choose.