Religion... yeah, real effective.

[the Interceptor]

I could say that about any religion. Anything that teaches you that you'll live forever heads in the direction of endangering human life.

Well if you ask me, we should outlaw any religion.

And since when did "endangers human life" = "outlaw"? Cars endanger human life. So does beer. So can love.

Yes, but that's a different story. I might get up from my chair right now, trip and die of a broken neck. Should we outlaw chairs because of that? Surely not. Life always has a certain level of danger. Coming back to the given case and its crucial difference however, the danger of life was well avoidable.

 

[V1P3R]

Are you claiming that I'm modifying my position to get out of argument? I hope not.

No but I am for anyone that is trying to get out of their parenting duties...

 

[Pako]

It's hard to fix stupid.

 

[V1P3R]

But you never get full on it...

 

[Omnis]

Who's this fascist baldy? Guys who use the state to coerce "morality" make me sick.

The defense attorney is absolutely right.

Well if you ask me, we should outlaw any religion.

Yes, but that's a different story. I might get up from my chair right now, trip and die of a broken neck. Should we outlaw chairs because of that? Surely not. Life always has a certain level of danger. Coming back to the given case and its crucial difference however, the danger of life was well avoidable.

No, it isn't a different story. "Yes, but ..." means you lose.

 

[Keef]

Nope, I don't think the parents should be required to provide care for diabetes.

I don't either.

Manslaughter: Involuntary

Involuntary manslaughter usually refers to an unintentional killing that results from recklessness or criminal negligence, or from an unlawful act that is a misdemeanor or low-level felony (such as DUI). The usual distinction from voluntary manslaughter is that involuntary manslaughter (sometimes called "criminally negligent homicide") is a crime in which the victim's death is unintended.

For example, Dan comes home to find his wife in bed with Victor. Distraught, Dan heads to a local bar to drown his sorrows. After having five drinks, Dan jumps into his car and drives down the street at twice the posted speed limit, accidentally hitting and killing a pedestrian.

But the parents did break the law. It's not required to treat anything. It's not even required to let your kid see daylight, as was the case with Genie--the feral girl found in LA back in the day. But if harm to the child results, the act becomes criminal. Genie's father was charged with child abuse, I believe, because she lived through the ordeal, though severely compromised.

 

[V1P3R]

💡 It's not about the PARENTS providing care for Diabetes it's for them getting the damn kid to the hospital to treat it...

 

[Danoff]

But if harm to the child results, the act becomes criminal.

Nope. If that were true it would be criminal to teach your child to ride a bike.

In my opinion, the law of Involuntary Manslaughter is not enforced enough, as was the case when a couple different women recently in the Cincinnati area left their babies in their cars as they went to work. The kids died because of the summer heat. Neither women were convicted of anything, even though both cases were blatant involuntary manslaughter.

That's not the same as this, not by a longshot. Parents are required to provide for their child's safety to a reasonable extent, but that doesn't mean they're on the hook to treat the child for any disease that comes along. I want you to think about what distinguishes these cases:


Parent refuses to feed child - child dies
Parent refuses to get child treated for illness - child dies
Parent refuses to jump in front of bullet - child dies

Each one of those has the same result, but arrives at that result in a different way.

💡 It's not about the PARENTS providing care for Diabetes it's for them getting the damn kid to the hospital to treat it...

Either way, someone HAS to treat it right? Because no matter the disease the child has, the child has a right to be treated for the illness? Whether it costs $1 or $1 Trillion, we have to pay it because how can you put a price on the life of a child?

It doesn't matter if you turn over control of the child's health to the government, you have the same problem - a certain level of care (not necessarily health care) can be required, but beyond that, it can't be.

I'm not entirely convinced that children are entitled to any health care, let alone that they're entitled to ANY health care.

 

[Keef]

Parent refuses to feed child - child dies
Parent refuses to get child treated for illness - child dies
Parent refuses to jump in front of bullet - child dies

1. If they refused to feed the child a case for murder could be made, because the refusal implies malice.

2. Assuming the parents were aware of the dangers, a case for involuntary manslaughter could be made. There's even less of a chance of it being an "accident" than the drowning scenario, because the parents were aware of the disease beforehand, whereas a drowning could happen randomly. As for child endangerment, the parents placed the child in harm's way by refusing treatment. But the kid died. Which means endangerment is invalid.

The only place for debate I see is whether or not praying can be considered a treatment or not. If it can, then treatment was sought, but it failed. Oops. If it cannot be considered treatment, then we're back to involuntary manslaughter because they knew the risks but ignored them--recklessness.

3. The parent would have much mourning to do, but the criminal here would be the shooter. That could either be murder or manslaughter.

But you know, I'd love to be able to just ignore my kid and let him die when I didn't want him any longer.

 

[Danoff]

1. If they refused to feed the child a case for murder could be made, because the refusal implies malice.

It's negligence. They didn't kill the child, they just didn't give it something they were legally required to.

Here the parent is asked to give up a small portion of their productivity to keep the child healthy to within reason.

2. Assuming the parents were aware of the dangers, a case for involuntary manslaughter could be made. There's even less of a chance of it being an "accident" than the drowning scenario, because the parents were aware of the disease beforehand, whereas a drowning could happen randomly. As for child endangerment, the parents placed the child in harm's way by refusing treatment. But the kid died. Which means endangerment is invalid.

The disease placed the child in harms way. The refusal of treatment would be negligence if the child has a right to that from the parents.

To prevent this the parent is asked to give up a potentially infinite amount of resources and some constitutionally guaranteed rights to provide an unlimited quantity of healthcare.

3. The parent would have much mourning to do, but the criminal here would be the shooter. That could either be murder or manslaughter.

To prevent this the parent is asked to give up their life.

You seem to be of the opinion that a parent can required to give up anything but their life for their child. Why?

 

[V1P3R]

But you know, I'd love to be able to just ignore my kid and let him die when I didn't want him any longer.

Or if you're that impatient just shoot em. Cheaper too...

 

[Danoff]

But you know, I'd love to be able to just ignore my kid and let him die when I didn't want him any longer.

Or if you're that impatient just shoot em. Cheaper too...

That's really not helpful. Nobody here hates children, wants to ignore their kids, is cold-hearted, etc. etc. Let's try to keep this civil.

 

[Keef]

It's negligence. They didn't kill the child, they just didn't give it something they were legally required to.

According to Wikipedia, '"Criminal negligence becomes "gross" when the failure to foresee involves a "wanton disregard for human life."' That's the basis of involuntary manslaughter.

Perhaps I'm not understanding the rights given to children by the law.

The disease placed the child in harms way. The refusal of treatment would be negligence if the child has a right to that from the parents.

I don't have an argument to that anymore because I've decided I don't understand a child's rights. I know they're different than an adults, but I don't know what they are.

To prevent this the parent is asked to give up their life.

Agreed, and I don't think that's necessary. Last time I checked the law doesn't hold any provisions for courtesy.

You seem to be of the opinion that a parent can [be] required to give up anything but their life for their child. Why?

I guess I'm not understanding the whole "right to life" thing as written in the Declaration of Independence. What does it matter if the kid was killed by his parents or a stranger? The kid's right to life was taken away, and that calls for punishment.

...

But you can't punish a disease. You're saying the root cause of the kid's death was the disease itself, not the disregard for treatment. If the kid wasn't sick none of this would have ever happened. The disease is natural, and you can't govern nature I suppose. So the kid's death is nobody's fault--it just happened. That's what you're saying?

I think I might have just talked myself through my problem.

 

[V1P3R]

You know, if we were back to the stone ages I'd have agreed it's nobodies fault and it's nature and natural selection but well... we aren't in the stone ages.

Too bad you can't punish stupid.

 

[sn00pie]

Too bad you can't punish stupid.

You can punish stupid just fine.

It costs around $300, or whatever the going rate is for an AK47.

 

[V1P3R]

two words... NOT ENOUGH.

 

[Pupik]

Danoff, would you not do anything in your power to help your wife, if she were in pain? If her ailment cost you a lot of money, time, and possibly anguish? Then why not a child that you can help, which you are responsible to taking care of in the first place?

A child (in this case, an 11-year-old) does not fully understand right from wrong, does not fully understand life and death, and likely does not see a future longer than the end of the week. A parent should do all they can to help them, and is responsible for diligently taking care of its needs. I personally think to exclude medical advice purely based on religious reasons, without a fully-qualified second opinion, is negligence.

(I hate to truck out this response, but you've already quoted me out of context at the end of the first page.) If you don't understand that, then until you are fully responsible and must care for another person's life, this discussion is akin to explaining the concept of a fine painting to a blind person.

 

[Shannon]

It's negligence. They didn't kill the child, they just didn't give it something they were legally required to.

That is completely inane as you're focusing on the act and not the outcome. If I don't feed a child (act: negligence) it dies. If I bash someone with a baseball bat (act: assault) and they die, then by your logic I should only be tried for assault and not murder because hey, the fact they died is irrelevant.

 

[Joey D]

This is truly sad. I respect everyone's right to practice their religion however they see fit, but can an eleven year old child even make a decision whether or not they agree with that belief? I don't know, perhaps, all eleven year old children are different.

I don't understand how a loving parent, whether religious or not, can do this to their child. I mean what if "God's answer" was giving this family the means to take care of their daughter through modern medicine? I'm often told that "God works in mysterious ways" or whatever the belief is. I know many religious people who will pray when either they become ill or a love one of theirs does, however they always get the best care they are able to as well. I suppose they are covering all bases.

Maybe someone who is religious can fill me in on the blanks here as I really don't know the ins and outs of most religions that are "standard" in the world.

 

[Duke]

Danoff, you're thinking make sense if only the parent's having the kids was responsible enough to realize what comes with parenting. Most parents don't... especially these days.

If you can't handle @$&^# kids then don't have them. Simple as that.

Exactly. But it's still not a situation that the law should be dictating.

And Pupik, I think that's the crux of what Danoff is saying. He's made no mention of what he PERSONALLY would do - just what he thinks the law should COMPEL you to do.

 

[V1P3R]

I guess if we were still back in I dunno the '60s or something I would have less anger toward religion concerning this matter, but in this day and age it's UNACCEPTABLE reason for someone to die. Someone religious has to show me some common sense of why religion is THAT important over human life. If they can't they NEED to get educated and lose the bull which is religion.

Three things that are worthless all around these days... (no particular order)

1. Religion
2. Marrage
3. Bush

 

[buickgnx88]

3. Bush

Well if you trim it...

 

[V1P3R]

You wish I was talking about that one.

 

[buickgnx88]

Yeah I have a weird mind, but it gets me through life.

 

[Omnis]

Danoff, would you not do anything in your power to help your wife, if she were in pain? If her ailment cost you a lot of money, time, and possibly anguish? Then why not a child that you can help, which you are responsible to taking care of in the first place?

Because that's not how things go at the Ayn Rand School for Tots.





Well, anyway, this is all victim blaming too. The parents were at least trying to help through prayer. If you would lock them up, you would be locking up every parent who lost their child to any other disease (cancer, pneumonia, etc), and perhaps even those who have miscarried.

 

[niky]

While I understand the point where you can't require absolute healthcare provision from the parents, the important question is whether they should be required to provide any healthcare at all.

In this case... it's diabetes. Hell, my whole family has diabetes... it's not that expensive to go on maintenance for diabetes, unless you live in Zimbabwe farming dust.

It goes down to the whole point of marriage and child-bearing... raising a child to adulthood and giving them a fair shot at life is the whole point of having one. To deny them the basic needs and opportunities needed to survive till adulthood is insane.

Unfortunately, there is a good point in what Danoff says... in that you can't criminalize this sort of thing... how can you convict parents who refuse chemotherapy because they can't afford it and the state won't pay for it? It's a slippery slope.

Of course, Darwin dictates that parents like these will kill off their offspring and not spread their imbecility into the gene pool. Sucks for the kids, though.

 

[the Interceptor]

Exactly. But it's still not a situation that the law should be dictating.

And Pupik, I think that's the crux of what Danoff is saying. He's made no mention of what he PERSONALLY would do - just what he thinks the law should COMPEL you to do.

I get that now, although I find it very hard to discuss the matter on this level.

Anyway, shouldn't law differentiate between reasonable and unreasonable measures in a case such as this? Meaning that when the parents had the money, the time and the opportunity to help the child, that they should be enforced to?

EDIT: I took a look into the German law. I don't know exactly which case this would be since I'm no lawyer, but I suppose it would be a "less serious case of mayhem with fatal consequences", which would be punished with imprisonment for between 1 and 10 years. There have been cases like this, and the parents were punished.

 

[Blake]

Exactly. But it's still not a situation that the law should be dictating.

So you’re happy for these parents to continue to raise their surviving children and potentially have more children?

 

[homeforsummer]

It's a pity that the cause of such an interesting discussion has come out of such a tragedy, though it's often the way.

Right, here's my take on it. The parents shouldn't be punished. They shouldn't be punished because they've lost their child through their own stupidity and blind faith in religion, so to punish them further wouldn't serve any purpose, though the law should consider how capable they are of looking after their other children.

As an atheist, it's impossible for me to fathom the thought process of someone that deeply faithful in their religion that they can see their child dying in bed and still not consider getting them to a hospital for emergency treatment, and just keep praying instead. It seems completely nonsensical and as others have stated, it's unfortunate for people to effectively let their religion dictate a situation that could easily have been solved with modern, easily and cheaply available medicine, without, to my eyes, compromising their religious beliefs.

If either parent had ever used any sort of medicine or treatment before in their lives, be it an epidural for the mother for the birth of her children, or just an aspirin if one of them had a headache, then it's hypocritical and plain stupid for them to deny their child medicine that could save their life, on the grounds of religious belief. Now obviously I'm talking hypothetically because I don't know whether either have had any medicine or treatment of any sort before, but I'd suspect it's likely.

It is my own personal opinion that a parent has a responsibility to look after a child until such age as they're old enough to fend for themselves in the wider world - to have their own job of a liveable wage, to go to the doctor themselves when they fall ill etc. These parents have failed in their responsibility and it's cost them a child. Although I don't feel they should be punished by law, their suitability as parents should be called into question as they are clearly incapable of providing what is needed for a child's basic survival, and that includes healthcare. Kids get ill all the time with different things and as they aren't able to deal with this themselves it falls solely down to the parents to provide adequate treatment, be that going out to buy a bottle of cough mixture from the chemist, or taking them to the hospital when their life is ebbing away and leaving them in professional hands.

 

[Danoff]

Danoff, would you not do anything in your power to help your wife, if she were in pain? If her ailment cost you a lot of money, time, and possibly anguish? Then why not a child that you can help, which you are responsible to taking care of in the first place?

VV

Don't make this personal. I'm talking about what should be REQUIRED by law. Not what I would do personally.

(I hate to truck out this response, but you've already quoted me out of context at the end of the first page.)

Where?

That is completely inane as you're focusing on the act and not the outcome. If I don't feed a child (act: negligence) it dies. If I bash someone with a baseball bat (act: assault) and they die, then by your logic I should only be tried for assault and not murder because hey, the fact they died is irrelevant.

Both the outcome and the intent have to be considered to determine the crime. But intent is the more important consideration. I listed cases which all had the same outcome in order to highlight the fact that intent is critical to any conversation about criminal activity.

Anyway, shouldn't law differentiate between reasonable and unreasonable measures in a case such as this? Meaning that when the parents had the money, the time and the opportunity to help the child, that they should be enforced to?

I think the law does need to differentiate between reasonable and unreasonable. And, in fact, standards like that exist in US law as it is now. But I do not think that the "reasonable" standard should depend on the resources of the parents.

Right, here's my take on it. The parents shouldn't be punished. They shouldn't be punished because they've lost their child through their own stupidity and blind faith in religion, so to punish them further wouldn't serve any purpose, though the law should consider how capable they are of looking after their other children.

I hate to say it but I actually disagree with this. While I agree that I don't think they should be punished, I don't think the reason is that they've already been punished enough. If they left their daughter locked in a room with no food or water for weeks and then discovered she was dead, I would say they should be punished, even though they lost their daughter.

The reason I don't think they should be punished is that I don't think they're criminals.