Skip to main content

View Diary: Family Chooses Prayer Over Medicine, Kills Their Second Child in Four Years (439 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Are you seriously suggesting that parents (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rieux, Smoh, earicicle, cris0000

    who are desperately trying every method to save their child is somehow morally equivalent to these people? Otherwise I'm scratching my head over the relevance of this post. And if so, holy hell...

    •  I think it can be. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lgmcp, milton333, erush1345, Wood Dragon

      Well, at least it can be cruel and heartless to go that route of every method to save. Yes, I am willing to say that.

      You seem to be of the opinion that they were going out of the way to hurt these children, and that's not true. They just disagree with medical intervention, and it is matter of degree. I can see that.

      No, I have no problem with for God's sake, give the kid an antibiotic, but then I do have things I wouldn't support.

      www.stacysmusings.wordpress.com

      by Magenta on Tue Apr 23, 2013 at 02:00:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  There is a fundamental moral difference (10+ / 0-)

        between a parent who tries every method available to help/save their child and one who eschews tested, proven and obvious methods for the sake of just praying. There really is.

        Does it happen that the parent who desperately tries to save his child may end up prolonging suffering without realy benefit? Perhaps, but unless you're in the position of the parent and/or doctor and have the foggiest clue what the odds of survival vs. suffering ratio is, leveling such criticism is arrogant, unfair and borderline despicable.

        I in no way suggested these parents deliberately wanted their child to hurt, so don't put arguments on me that I didn't make. But that doesn't mean that they weren't responsible for a massive moral failing, one far worse than a parent seeking any method to save his child. Just because they didn't intend to cause harm doesn't excuse or mitigate their culpability in doing so by failing to seek out common and effective medical treatment.

        •  Unfair and despicable even to point out (5+ / 0-)

          that such cases can and do occur? Considering I'm not attacking any family in specific, you don't leave a lot of room for discussion, do you?    

          I do, in fact, argue that faith in medical science can, when taken too far, be just as delusive and cause just as much suffering, as faith in prayer when taken too far.  

          I work with doctors who provide critical care, and I can tell you that they are keenly aware of my point and most do not find it despicable.

          "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

          by lgmcp on Tue Apr 23, 2013 at 02:18:08 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Unfair and despicable to make an argument (7+ / 0-)

            of moral equivalence. It is not morally equivalent, at all.

            These parents in this diary didn't eschew legitimate medical treatment for their children because they believed doing so would harm their child more. They didn't fail to seek treatment out of a desperate love to make sure their child had a chance to live. No, they failed to do so because they believed that seeking medical treatment would be an indictment on their own faith--that it wasn't sufficient to heal their child. That is a morally reprehensible and selfish position to take, and in no way is morally comparable to a parent who is willing to do anything to save his/her child from dying.

            •  You define one course of action (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              smartalek

              as stemming all from ego, and the other as stemming all from altruism.  I don't think it's that simple, and your absolute certainty that you can judge the distinction, I find questionable.  

              A desire to save lives is noble, but should in my view be be weighed against the amount of suffering.   A desire to save souls is certainly conceived by those who hold it as equally noble, yet we, and the law, insist it be weighed against suffering.  

              "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

              by lgmcp on Tue Apr 23, 2013 at 04:11:47 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Christian science doesn't believe that (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                lgmcp, Cassandra Waites

                seeking medical treatment for one's otherwise helpless child is a problem for the soul of the child, but rather for that of the parents, since it's their decision that denotes the lack of true faith. So no, it's not about saving their child's soul, but their own.

                Yes, that is inherently more selfish than a parent desperate to save his own child by any means possible, even if he goes too far as you would judge it.

        •  Hmmm .... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          lgmcp

          You say this: "Does it happen that the parent who desperately tries to save his child may end up prolonging suffering without realy benefit? Perhaps, but unless you're in the position of the parent and/or doctor and have the foggiest clue what the odds of survival vs. suffering ratio is, leveling such criticism is arrogant, unfair and borderline despicable."

          But you are weighing the decisions of other parents, no? Because we all do to some extent. We're all arrogant, unfair and despicable, sometimes.

          And yes, I do think that sometimes the desperate need to save a child no matter the cost to the child is a rather cruel, selfish decision. Just as I think sometimes the decision to put religious principle ahead of common sense is.

          You are assuming all massive human failings are on one side, and I have seen massive human failings that I think are based on desperation that is, de facto, although not intentionally cruel.

          I can't say these people are trying to hurt their children. They are making decisions I would never make, absolutely. But that happens.

          www.stacysmusings.wordpress.com

          by Magenta on Tue Apr 23, 2013 at 02:32:01 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Again, just because they didn't intend (7+ / 0-)

            to hurt their child doesn't make what they did remotely morally acceptable.  Holy shit, this post almost reads as saying that the actions of the parents in this story are actually morally better than a parent who tries anything he can to save his child! Are you fucking kidding me?

            Look, there's a really simple and clear moral difference between a parent who is willing to do anything he can to save his child versus one who is unwilling to attempt proven, tested and common medical science because to do so would somehow indicate said parent's faith is insufficient. That the former may go too far and end up causing undue prolonging of suffering to his child is indeed terrible, but it's still a morally superior position than intentionally medically neglecting one's child.

            That's what you and lgmcp seem to be blindly missing here: the motives of the parents weren't about the child at all, but about preserving their sense of worthiness to the deity they worship. They put their child's well being second to their sense of religious self-worth. That is utterly inexcusable.

            •  No, not better. Not worse. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              lgmcp, Reepicheep

              I think parents in these situations make very difficult decisions that I'm glad I've not had to make.

              But I am still reluctant to tell parents those decisions that they have to make. Really, quite similarly to the idea I can't tell a woman what decisions she has to make if she finds herself pregnant. We all have our limits and our demarcations.

              You can't entirely know the parents motives, any more than I can know the motives of any parent making a medical decision for their child. You think there is no ego to "this can't happen to my child, and these medical procedures will work?"No, I don't think that's always a purely self-less thing. It's not giving up, no matter how awful the consequence, because dammit, that's your kid, your property. I mean, I get that, I do. But it's still selfish sometimes. And not always children, certainly see it with adults.

              You're the one determining what is morally superior or morally inferior. I'm just seeing a great tragedy that these folks aren't willing to accept that maybe God sent the doctor and the hospital and the antibiotics.

              Yes, I do find that sort of disturbingly stupid. But I also get it, because I do see lengths I wouldn't go to that others have. And I just see it as sad.

              www.stacysmusings.wordpress.com

              by Magenta on Tue Apr 23, 2013 at 03:13:39 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Its sad. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                smartalek

                In this case it is also criminal neglect. Children are not the property of their parents.  

                "YOPP!" --Horton Hears a Who

                by Reepicheep on Tue Apr 23, 2013 at 05:30:52 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Yes, worse. (0+ / 0-)

                That you cannot see that is a complete failure of moral judgment on your part, simple as that.

                There are times when making moral value judgments are absolutely necessary, and this is one of them. Playing the game of moral equivalency with this is ridiculous.

                If you seriously think there is a moral equivalence here, as you state, then your morality is deeply, deeply flawed.

                •  OK, then. (0+ / 0-)

                  Thanks for judging my entire morality based on Internet comments. Deep analysis and all.

                  Judge away.

                  www.stacysmusings.wordpress.com

                  by Magenta on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 10:20:12 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I am only judging your morality (0+ / 0-)

                    as pertaining to this situation, not your entire morality or as pertaining to any other.

                    You're making moral judgments, too, so no high horse, please.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site