Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Sriram on November 01, 2015, 04:22:25 PM
-
Hi everyone,
A little girl who is dying prefers to stay at home and go to heaven rather than undergo (presumably painful) treatment in the hospital.
http://us.cnn.com/2015/10/27/health/girl-chooses-heaven-over-hospital-part-1/index.html
********************
Julianna Snow is dying of an incurable disease. She's stable at the moment, but any germ that comes her way, even just the common cold virus, could kill her. She's told her parents that the next time this happens, she wants to die at home instead of going to the hospital for treatment.
If Julianna were an adult, there would be no debate about her case: She would get to decide when to say "enough" to medical care and be allowed to die.
But Julianna is 5 years old. Should her parents have let her know how grave her situation is? Should they have asked her about her end-of-life wishes? And now that those wishes are known, should her parents heed them?
When Julianna told her parents how much she hated NT suctioning, her mother tried to make her understand why they'd done it. "I told her that even though it was really hard in the hospital, it let her get better and come back home to us, so wasn't it worth it?" Michelle remembers.
Julianna would never answer. That's when Michelle decided to have a conversation about heaven.
Michelle asked Julianna, then 4 years old, if she were to get very sick again, did she want to go back for more treatments, or did she want to die at home?
Julianna's answer was loud and clear. She chose heaven over the hospital.
Now Michelle and Steve had to decide: Would they abide by her wishes?
*********************
Any views?
Sriram
-
Disgraceful :(
-
This is little girl that is dying Shaker. It was a conversation she had with her mom when she was 4 YEARS OLD. A scared little girl Shaker, nothing disgraceful about it. What saddens me is that her parents are not encouraging her to keep fighting anymore. She knows she is dying Shaker and she is scared of that. Of course you wouldn't understand a parent trying to alleviate some of that fear for their little girl with heaven talk.
What is disgusting is your one worded and very stupid comment.
You've got no idea Vlad and I doubt if Shaker's words were clarified, especially for you, even then you'd never be able to grasp it.
ippy
-
This is little girl that is dying Shaker. It was a conversation she had with her mom when she was 4 YEARS OLD. A scared little girl Shaker, nothing disgraceful about it. What saddens me is that her parents are not encouraging her to keep fighting anymore. She knows she is dying Shaker and she is scared of that. Of course you wouldn't understand a parent trying to alleviate some of that fear for their little girl with heaven talk.
What is disgusting is your one worded and very stupid comment.
You've got no idea Vlad and I doubt if Shaker's words were clarified, especially for you, even then you'd never be able to grasp it.
ippy
Not that it matters, but it ain't Vlad this time but the one who talks to monkeys on rocks and lives with a snork.
-
This is little girl that is dying Shaker. It was a conversation she had with her mom when she was 4 YEARS OLD. A scared little girl Shaker, nothing disgraceful about it. What saddens me is that her parents are not encouraging her to keep fighting anymore. She knows she is dying Shaker and she is scared of that. Of course you wouldn't understand a parent trying to alleviate some of that fear for their little girl with heaven talk.
But it's not just about alleviating her fear. The girl has made a choice to refuse future treatment and that choice was based partly on false information.
-
Disgraceful :(
I agree, disgraceful that you should question other peoples' perfectly legitimate experiences and undertanding (or are you, hypocritically, saying that the holding of any understanding is disgraceful?)
-
You've got no idea Vlad and I doubt if Shaker's words were clarified, especially for you, even then you'd never be able to grasp it.
ippy, Shaker is concerned that beliefs that are no less legitimate to those believed by him and yourself, amongst others, should be being passed on to children.
Have you ever noticed that the only people who don't want young people to be able to make a choice between a variety of equally legitimate beliefs are the likes of yourself?
-
Disgraceful :(
I agree, disgraceful that you should question other peoples' perfectly legitimate experiences and undertanding
What experiences and "undertanding" [sic]? Do you know the family?
-
ippy, Shaker is concerned that beliefs that are no less legitimate to those believed by him and yourself, amongst others, should be being passed on to children.
They're not legitimate.
-
But it's not just about alleviating her fear. The girl has made a choice to refuse future treatment and that choice was based partly on false information.
Interesting to see you saying that the medics - who you usually support - had given the family false information, jeremy?
-
ippy, Shaker is concerned that beliefs that are no less legitimate to those believed by him and yourself, amongst others, should be being passed on to children.
They're not legitimate.
And your evidence for this is ...? Come on Shaker, you have made comparable comments on other threads, but never provided any supporting evidence for them. Isn't it time you put up or shut up?
-
ippy, Shaker is concerned that beliefs that are no less legitimate to those believed by him and yourself, amongst others, should be being passed on to children.
They're not legitimate.
And your evidence for this is ...? Come on Shaker, you have made comparable comments on other threads, but never provided any supporting evidence for them. Isn't it time you put up or shut up?
I've certainly made the comment many times that such beliefs are precisely that, with absolutely no evidence whatever to support them. They are not legitimised by evidence.
You must have missed these. Perhaps they disappeared into the ether along with the responses to my questions about numerous bald assertions you've made - the "good reasons" why homosexuality has been "viewed with revulsion through history and across cultures", and where I've employed the negative proof fallacy more than you (or indeed at all) amongst them.
-
In response to the OP, I can't imagine the agony of having a child dying and in pain. Whatever the rights and wrongs of it, I find I can't judge someone for giving their child a way out of it.
-
This is little girl that is dying Shaker.
Yes. Having mastered the arts of reading and comprehension some considerable time ago, I gleaned this fact from having read the article.
It was a conversation she had with her mom when she was 4 YEARS OLD.
I refer you to my previous response.
A scared little girl Shaker, nothing disgraceful about it.
That's not what I was referring to as a disgrace, though.
What saddens me is that her parents are not encouraging her to keep fighting anymore. She knows she is dying Shaker and she is scared of that. Of course you wouldn't understand a parent trying to alleviate some of that fear for their little girl with heaven talk.
What is disgusting is your one worded and very stupid comment.
What is a disgusting is that a four year old girl facing death is having her head filled with the entirely unevidenced beliefs of her mother, predicated on a belief system which given her age - which means her lack of critical thinking skills - she cannot possibly be expected to understand ... because the adults who hold such beliefs don't claim to understand them either. For reasons best known to herself these may very well be beliefs that this woman holds, but given that I've always been of the opinion that children and religion go together like children and depleted uranium shells, inside her own head is where they should have stayed. It's not necessary to say anything one way or the other about what adults believe about death - there's no call for it. And don't give me any bullshit about "If the child raises it first" - no child of 4/5 initiates conversations about this sort of thing spontaneously; they have to pick it up from somewhere else, usually in the home, i.e. from the parents. Anybody who works with children of that age knows that if out of the blue they suddenly demonstrate an awareness of sexual matters far, far too advanced for them, stuff that they wouldn't otherwise be capable of grasping until a good many years later, something is very badly wrong somewhere - they're picking it up from an outside source somehow. Well, the same applies here.
Five-year-old Julianna Snow has never been healthy enough to attend Sunday school at the City Bible Church in Portland, Oregon, where her family belongs, so most of what she knows about heaven, she knows from her parents.
They tell her that heaven is where she'll be able to run and play and eat, none of which she can do now. Heaven is where she'll meet her great-grandmother, who shared Julianna's love of shiny, sparkly, mismatched clothes.
Julianna knows dick about heaven. The same goes for her parents. These are her parents's beliefs, which in their lumpen heaven-as-playground-next-door-to-McDonalds crassness unsurprisingly appear to be at the level of sophistication of a five year old.
The heaven-instead-of-healthcare brigade are not exactly unknown amongst American Christians after all, probably because heaven doesn't have to be paid for via your taxes*.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/aug/02/us-daughter-pray-death
* As Marx (of so very many - Joe Hill of course being the best known) observed a long while ago, it's always easier to convince the credulous that they'll have pie in the sky when they die by and by than it is to find the money and put the hard yards into making their actual lives in the real world better. Prayer and pious hopes are free; schools and hospitals cost money.
-
Shaker, I could not agree with you more.
Foe reasons that I will not go into I have had to refrain from commenting up to now. I too find the idea that this child knows what she is talking about to be incredibly unlikely.
This case seems to run along the same lines as Floo's diatribe against Sunday School indoctrination, the child's vision of dying and of heaven to follow are obviously those impalnted in her head by her parent or parents and no amount of Christian indignation is going to change that!
If the child is refused treatment what is to say that her future between now and death is going to be free of pain up to thge point of agony and, if she does suffer such agony the reresponsibilty for inflicting that pain/agony will all be upon the parent/parents heads.
To love your religious beliefs more than your childs life suggests that these parents may well be JW's.
-
Wrong jeremy, that girl made her wished known that she would rather die at home than go back to the hospital for further painful treatments. That her parents and the child have a Christian faith and believe heaven awaits, is NOT false information. Now if they told their dying little girl that nothing awaits her after death, would you call that false information? I would. The girl knows she is dying and she has stated to her parents that that scares her. They believe in a heaven and you cannot tell them that that is false. Why should they believe you? What info do you have to show them they are wrong? This is a dying little girl, she knows it and a belief in what awaits her after death is something that she can cling to in her final days. This isn't a time to parade the heaven and God doesn't exist BS. She's dying.
Even if there's a heaven, there's nothing in Christian theology to say she's going there.
But if you're actually justifying Christianity as a comforting fairy tale, who cares whether it's true, she needs it, well maybe we're in agreement for once.
-
That her parents and the child have a Christian faith and believe heaven awaits, is NOT false information.
Yes it is.
Now if they told their dying little girl that nothing awaits her after death, would you call that false information?
Of course not, because nothing does await.
I would.
Ye, because you are in the grip of the Christian delusion.
The girl knows she is dying and she has stated to her parents that that scares her. They believe in a heaven and you cannot tell them that that is false. Why should they believe you? What info do you have to show them they are wrong?
What info do you have to show them that they are right?
This is a dying little girl, she knows it and a belief in what awaits her after death is something that she can cling to in her final days. This isn't a time to parade the heaven and God doesn't exist BS. She's dying.
And she has made a decision based partly on false information.
-
The decision of the parents is based on a belief, of course...but that does not necessarily mean that they are wrong. There is no evidence that there is no heaven or that the girl will not go there.
There are enough NDE's in the world to provide evidence that there could indeed be a heaven....and the parents/girl's decision could be correct. Many children have had NDE's and been very happy with the experience.
-
The decision of the parents is based on a belief, of course...but that does not necessarily mean that they are wrong. There is no evidence that there is no heaven or that the girl will not go there.
There are enough NDE's in the world to provide evidence that there could indeed be a heaven....and the parents/girl's decision could be correct. Many children have had NDE's and been very happy with the experience.
Well, I'm not going to mince my words here. That is absolute, unmitigated rubbish. Thank goodness that Shaker and others have posted. I tried reading the woolly, sanctimonious-type posts but had to scroll past them.
So glad to see you're back, Shaker. Keep well!
-
You've got no idea Vlad and I doubt if Shaker's words were clarified, especially for you, even then you'd never be able to grasp it.
ippy, Shaker is concerned that beliefs that are no less legitimate to those believed by him and yourself, amongst others, should be being passed on to children.
Have you ever noticed that the only people who don't want young people to be able to make a choice between a variety of equally legitimate beliefs are the likes of yourself?
Perhaps the little girls mother should have suggested she could spend her time at a Father Christmases toy making factory on the north pole instead?
After all it would be equally as truthful, legitimate and equally as distasteful.
The only difference between you and Vlad on this thread Hope, is that Vlad doesn't get it and the determination of yours to not get it.
ippy
-
The decision of the parents is based on a belief, of course...but that does not necessarily mean that they are wrong. There is no evidence that there is no heaven or that the girl will not go there.
There are enough NDE's in the world to provide evidence that there could indeed be a heaven....and the parents/girl's decision could be correct. Many children have had NDE's and been very happy with the experience.
There is no evidence that there is no heaven or that the girl will not go there. Prat.
ippy
-
The decision of the parents is based on a belief, of course...but that does not necessarily mean that they are wrong. There is no evidence that there is no heaven or that the girl will not go there.
There is no evidence that there is a heaven and that the girl will go there. She was lied to in a decision about life or death.
-
Shaker, I could not agree with you more.
Foe reasons that I will not go into I have had to refrain from commenting up to now. I too find the idea that this child knows what she is talking about to be incredibly unlikely.
This case seems to run along the same lines as Floo's diatribe against Sunday School indoctrination, the child's vision of dying and of heaven to follow are obviously those impalnted in her head by her parent or parents and no amount of Christian indignation is going to change that!
If the child is refused treatment what is to say that her future between now and death is going to be free of pain up to thge point of agony and, if she does suffer such agony the reresponsibilty for inflicting that pain/agony will all be upon the parent/parents heads.
To love your religious beliefs more than your childs life suggests that these parents may well be JW's.
Except J W 's are doing it out of love for their child.
Because they believe blood transfusions will deprive their child of heaven.
And if heaven does not exist?
I find this part of the JW belief to be tantamount to manslaughter at best and murder at worst.
-
The child is dying.
There is no advantage I can see, in forcing a child who is dying anyway,to accept there is no heaven and that long and painful hospital procedures are all there is to look forward too.
There is no advantage you can see and no advantage I can see, but it is her life not yours or mine or even her parents'.
I think atheists who would ram their own beliefs down the throat of a four year old child ..... Disgraceful!
I wouldn't want to ram any beliefs down her throat, that's the point.
What matters is the child, if the child is happy believing in heaven, it would be immeasurably cruel to deny the child their beliefs.
But the child is taking a decision to shorten her life based partly on the belief that she is going to heaven. It may be that, if she had doubts about that, she would want to endure the pain she has to go through to stay alive for a little longer.
However what would never be acceptable would be a bunch of one true way'ist atheists forcing their own POV on death on a vunerable four year old.
But it's OK, in your opinion, for a bunch of one true way'ist Christians to do the same.
-
There is no 'ok' in this situation. God alone knows what it must be like to see your child suffering so.
-
Regardless of whether there's a heaven or not - I think everyone knows where I stand on that issue - ultimately this is a question of whether the girl wants to undergo painful treatment to extend her life marginally or to accept death a short while earlier with a better quality of life in the meantime.
As an atheist, faced with that decision, I genuinely don't know what I'd do - I suspect I'd opt for better life rather than more life, but I don't think anyone really knows until they're there.
If there's a heaven then, presumably, the girl's going there sooner or later - I'm not sure how the faith element feeds into the picture. If they were denying treatment because they thought prayer would work then we'd have an issue, but regardless of what she thinks is happening after her death this is about her right to choose the death that works for her. So far as I can tell they are hoping that there's a heaven as they believe, as a bolster against the pain - I don't think I'm alone in thinking that's one of the main reasons the idea persists - but they aren't denying the very real situation of the disease and its implications.
It's just saddening that it should happen so young, with all the implications for a 'benevolent' deity in heaven that brings with it.
O.
-
If faced with the same situation...atheists would perhaps choose...
to convince the child that, since there is no heaven or God... she should choose between being put in a coffin and getting decomposed... or a painful treatment that would drag her life on for a few more months. Nice choice for the poor girl!
And its not as if they really KNOW that there is no heaven and God! Its just their juvenile belief....in spite of plenty of evidence to the contrary!
-
There is no 'ok' in this situation. God alone knows what it must be like to see your child suffering so.
Who?
ippy
-
If faced with the same situation...atheists would perhaps choose...
If faced with the same situation, I don't suppose very many people can accurately predict what they'd choose - events of that magnitude have a way of changing your perspective.
to convince the child that, since there is no heaven or God... she should choose between being put in a coffin and getting decomposed... or a painful treatment that would drag her life on for a few more months. Nice choice for the poor girl!
I suspect most atheists wouldn't think to involve the idea of god in the discussion at all - they'd be too caught up in what they see as the realities of the situation to turn it into a debate about, to them, mythic ideas. It's as likely as a Christian parent worrying if actually the child might have to consider whether they'd get into Valhalla on the off-chance the Norsemen had it right.
And its not as if they really KNOW that there is no heaven and God!
And very few of them would claim that they do KNOW - they don't see any reason to accept the idea, so they dismiss it, but logically it's a (remote) possibility.
Its just their juvenile belief....in spite of plenty of evidence to the contrary!
Well, it's hardly juvenile to look at the available evidence critically and realise that none of it supports the idea. As to your contention that there's plenty of evidence... there might be, but none of it is either convincing or reliable.
O.
-
Well, I'm not going to mince my words here. That is absolute, unmitigated rubbish. Thank goodness that Shaker and others have posted. I tried reading the woolly, sanctimonious-type posts but had to scroll past them.
So glad to see you're back, Shaker. Keep well!
Unfortunately for you, Susan, the posts you refer to are no more 'absolute, unmitigated rubbish' than the ones that Shaker, you and others post. Over the years this and other boards havee been up and running, have yet to see any evidence in support of your stance - or at least no support that doesn't crumble under even the most basic scrutiny. Unfortunately, despite the claims of some here, science doesn't answer all he questions people ask, and is unlikely to do so, since it is based on only one part of reality.
-
Over the years this and other boards havee been up and running, have yet to see any evidence in support of your stance - or at least no support that doesn't crumble under even the most basic scrutiny.
Wishful thinking, unless you can provide examples of this 'basic scrutiny' that aren't inherently fallacious.
Unfortunately, despite the claims of some here, science doesn't answer all he questions people ask, and is unlikely to do so, since it is based on only one part of reality.
Everything isn't yet known, and science doesn't claim that it is anyway, but the real issue here are those who ask spurious questions in the first place (usually 'why' instead of 'how'), and then when they are told not to be so silly they triumphantly claim science has no answers.
-
If there was a chance of saving this little girl then it would be beyond wrong. There isn't. So why not heaven, or fairyland, or a neverending dreamy sleep?
I guess the parents' faith must mean they can face losing her more easily. But my friend lost a child and she said to me that the worse thing was when she realised she would never need to ask him to do anything again, never call his name. How on earth one finds a way to live with that I have no idea, but my friend has found a way to accommodate it into her life. Ben Hardwick's mum said in an interview a few years after he died that she only ever gets to hold him now in her dreams.
I find I can't judge anyone for trying to make losing a child easier.
-
Over the years this and other boards havee been up and running, have yet to see any evidence in support of your stance - or at least no support that doesn't crumble under even the most basic scrutiny.
In the main, though, the posts we put up don't need to support anything - they're pointing out that the burden of proof for claims like gods, heaven, spirit etc. lies with the claimant.
Unfortunately, despite the claims of some here, science doesn't answer all he questions people ask, and is unlikely to do so, since it is based on only one part of reality.
Well, firstly, science might just not answer all those questions yet; secondly science might adequately answer those questions but they might not like or accept the answer; thirdly, you assert that science is based on only one part of reality, but you can't justify the claim.
O.
-
If faced with the same situation...atheists would perhaps choose...
to convince the child that, since there is no heaven or God... she should choose between being put in a coffin and getting decomposed... or a painful treatment that would drag her life on for a few more months. Nice choice for the poor girl!
And its not as if they really KNOW that there is no heaven and God! Its just their juvenile belief....in spite of plenty of evidence to the contrary!
Rubbish! There is absolutely NO evidence to the contrary, just belief!
-
I wouldn't want to ram any beliefs down her throat, that's the point.
If this was your case, I think you would find it very difficult to change the habit of a lifetime - a least the habit according to your lifetime on this board, jeremy.
But it's OK, in your opinion, for a bunch of one true way'ist Christians to do the same.
There may a few Christians who ram stuff down their children's throat, but then that applies to just about every set of philosophies, jeremy.
You do love this term 'one-true wayists' don't you. Realistically, it refers to just about everyone who has the good of humanity in their sights - they all believe that their philosophy, even if not their specific deity(ies) is best for humanity.
-
And its not as if they really KNOW that there is no heaven and God! Its just their juvenile belief....in spite of plenty of evidence to the contrary!
Rubbish! There is absolutely NO evidence to the contrary, just belief!
[/quote]OK, but then nor is there any scientific evidence whatsoever for the non-deity stance.
-
Well, I'm not going to mince my words here. That is absolute, unmitigated rubbish. Thank goodness that Shaker and others have posted. I tried reading the woolly, sanctimonious-type posts but had to scroll past them.
So glad to see you're back, Shaker. Keep well!
Unfortunately for you, Susan, the posts you refer to are no more 'absolute, unmitigated rubbish' than the ones that Shaker, you and others post. Over the years this and other boards havee been up and running, have yet to see any evidence in support of your stance - or at least no support that doesn't crumble under even the most basic scrutiny. Unfortunately, despite the claims of some here, science doesn't answer all he questions people ask, and is unlikely to do so, since it is based on only one part of reality.
OK Hope
Will you please post on this board the exact spacial co-ordinates of Heaven so that those of use with astronomical telescopes can get a look at it.
If you can't then shut up about heaven being a fact until you can.
-
The decision of the parents is based on a belief, of course...but that does not necessarily mean that they are wrong. There is no evidence that there is no heaven or that the girl will not go there.
There are enough NDE's in the world to provide evidence that there could indeed be a heaven....and the parents/girl's decision could be correct. Many children have had NDE's and been very happy with the experience.
There is no evidence that there is no heaven or that the girl will not go there. Prat.
ippy
I'm so glad that you agree with the underlying idea that Sriram is trying to put over, ippy. It's taken you a mighty long time to do so, tho.
-
And its not as if they really KNOW that there is no heaven and God! Its just their juvenile belief....in spite of plenty of evidence to the contrary!
Rubbish! There is absolutely NO evidence to the contrary, just belief!
OK, but then nor is there any scientific evidence whatsoever for the non-deity stance.
[/quote]
Again, the burden is not on disbelievers to disprove every claim - no-one asks for the evidence of the non-existence of the lost Chicken-God of the Fairy kingdoms, let alone Zeus, Odin, Ameratsu, Marduk...
O.
-
Well, it's hardly juvenile to look at the available evidence critically and realise that none of it supports the idea. As to your contention that there's plenty of evidence... there might be, but none of it is either convincing or reliable.
O, I'm not sure that 'realise that none of it supports the idea' is a legitimate claim; after all, there have been plenty of professional people from journlists to scientists who have looked at the available evidence critically and - to use your terminology - realised that all of it supports the idea.
Neither can 'realise' anything in this respect - unless you (like Gordon the other day) have evidence that has never been published publically; the best you can claim is 'believe'.
-
The decision of the parents is based on a belief, of course...but that does not necessarily mean that they are wrong. There is no evidence that there is no heaven or that the girl will not go there.
I assume Hope is away today - he must have left you in charge of the negative proof fallacy.
-
Again, the burden is not on disbelievers to disprove every claim - no-one asks for the evidence of the non-existence of the lost Chicken-God of the Fairy kingdoms, let alone Zeus, Odin, Ameratsu, Marduk...
O.
Sorry, O, if someone starts a thread with what they want to be seen as a statement of fact, the burden of proof is on that person and anyone supporting them. I have never seen any threads started by folk who hold a stance similar to yours ever provide evidence for it.
-
I assume Hope is away today - he must have left you in charge of the negative proof fallacy.
Shaker, are you suggesting that belief can never be supported by evidence? If you are, perhaps you need to rethink all your own posts as all they are are statements of your own belief.
-
I assume Hope is away today - he must have left you in charge of the negative proof fallacy.
Shaker, are you suggesting that belief can never be supported by evidence? If you are, perhaps you need to rethink all your own posts as all they are statements of your own belief.
Which belief is that?
-
O, I'm not sure that 'realise that none of it supports the idea' is a legitimate claim; after all, there have been plenty of professional people from journlists to scientists who have looked at the available evidence critically and - to use your terminology - realised that all of it supports the idea.
No, they've realised it doesn't disprove their ideas, and they've held on to their faith in spite of the lack of evidence. There is no way to reason to gods, if there were evidence we'd have scientists using science to point it out rather than having to rely on William Lane Craig's attempts.
Neither can 'realise' anything in this respect - unless you (like Gordon the other day) have evidence that has never been published publically; the best you can claim is 'believe'.
No, I can realise the evidence doesn't support the claim. I can then not believe the claim or I can believe the claim regardless - personally I'm in the former category. I don't 'realise' there's no god, I just realise there's no reason to think there is - lack of belief follows from that.
O.
-
Which belief is that?
To be honest, I wouldn't know. All I can say is that there is no scientific evidence to support your belief - or at least, you've never manged to produce any when challenged to do so.
-
Again, the burden is not on disbelievers to disprove every claim - no-one asks for the evidence of the non-existence of the lost Chicken-God of the Fairy kingdoms, let alone Zeus, Odin, Ameratsu, Marduk...
O.
Sorry, O, if someone starts a thread with what they want to be seen as a statement of fact, the burden of proof is on that person and anyone supporting them. I have never seen any threads started by folk who hold a stance similar to yours ever provide evidence for it.
Then you can address that positive claim, but that still doesn't shift the burden of proof generally on to us to disprove every claim any more than it puts the onus on Christians to disprove all the gods they don't believe in.
O.
-
Hi everyone,
A little girl who is dying prefers to stay at home and go to heaven rather than undergo (presumably painful) treatment in the hospital.
http://us.cnn.com/2015/10/27/health/girl-chooses-heaven-over-hospital-part-1/index.html
********************
Julianna Snow is dying of an incurable disease. She's stable at the moment, but any germ that comes her way, even just the common cold virus, could kill her. She's told her parents that the next time this happens, she wants to die at home instead of going to the hospital for treatment.
If Julianna were an adult, there would be no debate about her case: She would get to decide when to say "enough" to medical care and be allowed to die.
But Julianna is 5 years old. Should her parents have let her know how grave her situation is? Should they have asked her about her end-of-life wishes? And now that those wishes are known, should her parents heed them?
When Julianna told her parents how much she hated NT suctioning, her mother tried to make her understand why they'd done it. "I told her that even though it was really hard in the hospital, it let her get better and come back home to us, so wasn't it worth it?" Michelle remembers.
Julianna would never answer. That's when Michelle decided to have a conversation about heaven.
Michelle asked Julianna, then 4 years old, if she were to get very sick again, did she want to go back for more treatments, or did she want to die at home?
Julianna's answer was loud and clear. She chose heaven over the hospital.
Now Michelle and Steve had to decide: Would they abide by her wishes?
*********************
Any views?
Sriram
What a very sad situation. :( If treatment is not going to improve the poor child's condition then it is kinder to let her die sooner rather than later in her own home. However, a child of that age should never have been told how grave her condition is, imo. It is for the parents in consultation with the medics to make the decisions.
-
Which belief is that?
To be honest, I wouldn't know. All I can say is that there is no scientific evidence to support your belief
I've already asked you which 'belief' you're referring to and you've just said you don't know; yet here you are referring to it again. Which alleged belief of mine are you talking about?
Started on the gin early today?
-
Good grief Hope,
Is there a fairy kingdom? Are there any unicorns?
People claim they exist and many claim they had seen them so going by your logic despite no 'scientific' evidence to support them only hearsay and ancient literature you MUST believe in both as there is no 'scientific' evidence to disprove them either! ::)
Gibberish I notice you never actually address this when people point it out...
-
No, they've realised it doesn't disprove their ideas, and they've held on to their faith in spite of the lack of evidence. There is no way to reason to gods, if there were evidence we'd have scientists using science to point it out rather than having to rely on William Lane Craig's attempts.
I wasn't referring to people of faith, but those who had no faith before investigating the evidence.
No, I can realise the evidence doesn't support the claim. I can then not believe the claim or I can believe the claim regardless - personally I'm in the former category. I don't 'realise' there's no god, I just realise there's no reason to think there is - lack of belief follows from that.
Unfortunately, 'realisation' is a rather more formal concept than 'belief', O. To realise something is the share something with humanity as a whole. Clearly, what you think the truth you believe you have realised, isn't agreed upon by many others across this world.
-
Good grief Hope,
Is there a fairy kingdom? Are there any unicorns?
People claim they exist and many claim they had seen them so going by your logic despite no 'scientific' evidence to support them only hearsay and ancient literature you MUST believe in both as there is no 'scientific' evidence to disprove them either! ::)
Gibberish I notice you never actually address this when people point it out...
Have you ever met anyone who claims to be a fairy or an animal that claims to be a unicorn? I doubt it. That's where your analogy breaks down. If you're concerned with gibberish, perhaps you need to look closer to home than my posts.
-
Neither can 'realise' anything in this respect - unless you (like Gordon the other day) have evidence that has never been published publically; the best you can claim is 'believe'.
What on earth are you on about?
What you are referring to was my comment (to Spud) that the evidence shows that the Earth is very old: and there is copious evidence for this. Don't tell me you are another one these pour souls who are so highly credulous and misguided that they actually believe that the earth is young but was created to look old (which was the point at issue in my exchange with Spud).
-
There is no 'ok' in this situation. God alone knows what it must be like to see your child suffering so.
I agree and I'm not going to judge the parents; they think they are doing the best for their child and maybe they are, but they aren't telling the truth about her options.
-
You don't know that, it isn't your choice to make. ( that the child would definately choose hospital if she was an atheist)
You're right, I don't know that. I wouldn't dream of trying to make the choice for her. What makes you think I would? Being honest about the likelihood of heaven existing is not making the choice for her, it is giving her accurate information to work with.
Lots of adults with all their faculties choose not to have long and painful treatment when it will only extend their life by a very small amount.
If it were me in that position, I would make the same decision as this little girl even though I know it's the end and there is no heaven awaiting my presence.
So, if you faced this question by doctors, would you even give your child any choice?
Yes, of course I would. It's not for me to decide these things on behalf of another human being. But I would not tell my child that it's a choice between heaven a bit sooner and more treatment, I'd tell them it is a choice between dying a little bit sooner and more treatment.
Plus JeremyP, I see no evidence that these parents are one true waists.
I was merely echoing your own comments. They have indoctrinated her in their beliefs. They haven't told her "this is what we believe, but it is possible we are wrong". The are one true wayists in exactly the sense that you used it to refer to atheists
You've made a lot of assumptions.
What about quality of life, did you read about the likely state of the child after all these painful procedures?
I've made no assumptions at all and I think she has made the right decision. Certainly, if it were me in that position, I would make the same decision.
-
to convince the child that, since there is no heaven or God... she should choose between being put in a coffin and getting decomposed... or a painful treatment that would drag her life on for a few more months. Nice choice for the poor girl!
You do understand that they don't put you in a coffin until after you are dead, don't you?
-
Well, I'm not going to mince my words here. That is absolute, unmitigated rubbish. Thank goodness that Shaker and others have posted. I tried reading the woolly, sanctimonious-type posts but had to scroll past them.
So glad to see you're back, Shaker. Keep well!
Unfortunately for you, Susan, the posts you refer to are no more 'absolute, unmitigated rubbish' than the ones that Shaker, you and others post. Over the years this and other boards havee been up and running, have yet to see any evidence in support of your stance - or at least no support that doesn't crumble under even the most basic scrutiny. Unfortunately, despite the claims of some here, science doesn't answer all he questions people ask, and is unlikely to do so, since it is based on only one part of reality.
So you think there is another part of reality Hope and your evidence for this is?
ippy
-
No, they've realised it doesn't disprove their ideas, and they've held on to their faith in spite of the lack of evidence. There is no way to reason to gods, if there were evidence we'd have scientists using science to point it out rather than having to rely on William Lane Craig's attempts.
I wasn't referring to people of faith, but those who had no faith before investigating the evidence.
I'd wager there are vanishingly few of those, and I'd be suspicious of any claim that they'd come to faith through evidence.
Unfortunately, 'realisation' is a rather more formal concept than 'belief', O. To realise something is the share something with humanity as a whole.
Not really. Evolution and man-made climate change are both manifestly real, but there are still deniers out there. To realise something is to come to the only possible conclusion via logical or deductive means - that some people are incapable of that degree of critical thinking doesn't stop it being a realisation. The first person to realise something still realises it, even before the rest of the world even knows there's a debate.
Clearly, what you think the truth you believe you have realised, isn't agreed upon by many others across this world.
I have my beliefs - and lack of beliefs. I've realised that my lack of belief in a god is justified by the absolute absence of any credible evidence.
O.
-
I wouldn't want to ram any beliefs down her throat, that's the point.
If this was your case, I think you would find it very difficult to change the habit of a lifetime - a least the habit according to your lifetime on this board, jeremy.
That's utter nonsense.
You do love this term 'one-true wayists' don't you.
You really are a piece of work.
Read the damn thread, then you'll find out that I wasn't the first person to use that term, I was merely echoing the person who did use it first.
-
If faced with the same situation...atheists would perhaps choose...
to convince the child that, since there is no heaven or God... she should choose between being put in a coffin and getting decomposed... or a painful treatment that would drag her life on for a few more months. Nice choice for the poor girl!
And its not as if they really KNOW that there is no heaven and God! Its just their juvenile belief....in spite of plenty of evidence to the contrary!
Firstly there is no 'evidence to the contrary' so lets close down that line of discussion shall we.
And without doubt in this case the parents have convinced the child that there is a god and a heaven, whether or not that it the case.
In reality, without that view being promulgated by adults I doubt very much that a 4 or 5 year child is mature enough to espouse the concept of god and/or heaven anyway.
Getting back to the actual case - this is without doubt a tragic situation and regardless of the religious or otherwise view of the parents the decision to continue with treatment that may be painful but futile or decide to discontinue treatment must be just about the most awful thing a parent may have to do. But I do think that the parents with the clinical team have to take that decision in the best interests of the child. I don't think a 4 or 5 year child is mature enough to make those decisions, nor is it fair to transfer decision making on to that child. Perhaps age 10 or 11, maybe, but not 4-5.
To my mind the parents (with support of the clinical team) need to decide and then support their child completely through the consequences of their decision, where that be the withdrawal of treatment and death or the continuation of perhaps painful treatment and maybe extended life.
-
Yes, agree with this. The issue of whether there is an actual god or heaven is, as usual, a complete irrelevancy.
-
If the parents did indeed give the burden of responsibility of deciding her future to the child, then it could well be considered an abdication of responsibility by the parents.
-
If the parents did indeed give the burden of responsibility of deciding her future to the child, then it could well be considered an abdication of responsibility by the parents.
I think it really rather depends on the four year old, and I'd imagine that dealing with a lethal condition probably forces you to grow up quicker than anyone would have wanted. Ultimately, if they think she's got some sort of grasp of the situation - and I'd imagine she does - then she deserves to have her say. For all that her parents face losing their child, which is in itself an horrific thing for anyone, it's ultimately her life, not theirs. They're responsible for keeping her safe so far as they can, but this isn't something they can fight on her behalf.
O.
-
If the parents did indeed give the burden of responsibility of deciding her future to the child, then it could well be considered an abdication of responsibility by the parents.
I think if you read the article it does appear that the parents were effectively leaving the decision to the child, and also in a way transferring responsibility for their grief onto the child due to her decision. This is how the conversation is reported in the article between Michelle (the mother) and Julianna (her 5 year old daughter).
'Michelle: Julianna, if you get sick again, do you want to go to the hospital again or stay home?
Julianna: Not the hospital.
Michelle: Even if that means that you will go to heaven if you stay home?
Julianna: Yes.
Michelle: And you know that mommy and daddy won't come with you right away? You'll go by yourself first.
Julianna: Don't worry. God will take care of me.
Michelle: And if you go to the hospital, it may help you get better and let you come home again and spend more time with us. I need to make sure that you understand that. Hospital may let you have more time with mommy and daddy.
Julianna: I understand.
Michelle: (crying) - I'm sorry, Julianna. I know you don't like it when I cry. It's just that I will miss you so much.
Julianna: That's OK. God will take care of me. He's in my heart.'
Now I'm not sure I am really convinced this is a true reflection of the conversation as the daughter's responses seem a touch contrived and not quite the words a 5 year old would chose. But of this is a true reflection I do think the parents are abrogating their responsibility for taking such important decisions as there is no way that a 5 year old has (to use medical ethics terminology) the capacity to consent in such an important decision.
-
http://www.smh.com.au/world/terminally-ill-julianna-snow-5-wants-to-go-to-heaven-not-hospital-20151030-gkmtys.html
How is giving that child the cold and hopeless view of the atheist truthful? They have no proof that their view is true. Shaker and Jeremy's god is atheism and that would override allowing the child a belief that heaven awaits. Shaker and Jeremy would insist that it is true that heaven is not there but for this cold atheist view they have no proof.
Jeremy tells us that the parents are not being truthful, the girls doesn't know her real options. That's a pile BS to swallow. The little girl's mom is a neurologist, Jeremy is a? I think the girl knows her real options Jeremy. Atheism has nothing for the dying and scared.
"Heaven Are You Ready"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6twEXynopo
Moving aside from this particular issue, do you really think that a 5 year old child is really mature enough to fully understand the consequences of such a decision and therefore give genuine consent. I don't. If you do then necessarily you must think that a 5 year old is able to (and should) make all decisions for themselves, given that very few would be as critical as this one.
-
How is giving that child the cold and hopeless view of the atheist truthful?
How is it 'cold'? It's only cold if you depict this life as somehow worthless - we focus on what we can do in this life. That her life is destined to be short is a tragedy, but it doesn't become less of a tragedy by pretending something else is coming. As to how it's truthful - because it's based on the best available evidence.
They have no proof that their view is true.
She's four or five, and isn't going to last much longer. There isn't time to tell her about the Seedhie Court, Heaven, Nirvana, Purgatory, Hades, Valhalla and who knows how many other unevidenced by unfalsifiable afterlife claims. There is no proof that there's no afterlife, but there's no reason to think there is.
Shaker and Jeremy's god is atheism and that would override allowing the child a belief that heaven awaits.
So she should be lied to? Give the child false hope that they'll meet again that might lead an impressionable mind to not make the most of the time she has left because she doesn't realise that it's all the time she has left?
Shaker and Jeremy would insist that it is true that heaven is not there but for this cold atheist view they have no proof. Jeremy tells us that the parents are not being truthful, the girls doesn't know her real options. That's a pile BS to swallow. The little girl's mom is a neurologist, Jeremy is a? I think the girl knows her real options Jeremy. Atheism has nothing for the dying and scared.
Atheism doesn't, no, but atheists (mostly) do. Similarly, religion doesn't actually have anything for the dying and the scared, it just pretends that it does: thankfully, the religious despite their religion do as well.
It's compassion, and whilst you might look at the responses here and think them cold and hopeless, formally presented in a debate fasion, do you think that's how they'd be put across to a scared, pained four year old?
O.
"Heaven Are You Ready"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6twEXynopo
[/quote]
-
I have to ask ... why is this even being reported in the media? Surely only to spin it one way or another?
-
Well, I'm not going to mince my words here. That is absolute, unmitigated rubbish. Thank goodness that Shaker and others have posted. I tried reading the woolly, sanctimonious-type posts but had to scroll past them.
So glad to see you're back, Shaker. Keep well!
Unfortunately for you, Susan, the posts you refer to are no more 'absolute, unmitigated rubbish' than the ones that Shaker, you and others post. Over the years this and other boards havee been up and running, have yet to see any evidence in support of your stance - or at least no support that doesn't crumble under even the most basic scrutiny. Unfortunately, despite the claims of some here, science doesn't answer all he questions people ask, and is unlikely to do so, since it is based on only one part of reality.
So you think there is another part of reality Hope and your evidence for this is?
ippy
Good luck!
-
This is a very intelligent dying little girl. Heaven hasn't just been sprung on her. She is a Christian with Christian parents. Heaven is something we believe to exist. I can't recall ever not knowing about heaven.
I get that. I'm not suggesting that she should, because she's in an unfortunate situation, suddenly have her entire world-view ripped asunder and be told that it's all a lie. I'd prefer a world where she hadn't been brought up being told that these things were true, but that's an hypothetical, it's not about this situation.
You, like Jeremy and Shaker, offer nothing but the coldness of your atheism.
Perhaps, perhaps not. I can see how the idea of heaven might be a personal comfort at times like these, but I also see that it's a comfort to the sort of idiot in the US that votes against climate change legislation because it doesn't matter, he'll be in heaven soon and heaven's perfect. That the idea might be comforting doesn't make it true, and doesn't stop the belief having consequences as well as benefits.
You say it's true but you have no proof.
No, I don't, pay attention. I say that there are innumerable claims about possible afterlives out there, some still believed and some not, and all with exactly the same evidence: none. In the absence of any substantiation for the idea of an afterlife I'd rather we concentrated on what's demonstrably real: how about focussing on this life rather than the next.
She knows her time is short staying at home or going for more painful treatments and I thank God she knows Heaven awaits her.
The point is, though, that if Heaven isn't real she's making that 'informed' decision based on faulty information. She's forgoing spending time with her parents, albeit in pain, because she thinks she's going to get another chance to see them. If she new this was all the time she had, would she make the same decision? Would I? Would you? I'm not sure, until we're there, any of us know.
O.
-
Outrider,
This is a very intelligent dying little girl. Heaven hasn't just been sprung on her. She is a Christian with Christian parents. Heaven is something we believe to exist. I can't recall ever not knowing about heaven. You, like Jeremy and Shaker, offer nothing but the coldness of your atheism. You say it's true but you have no proof. She knows her time is short staying at home or going for more painful treatments and I thank God she knows Heaven awaits her.
We know nothing about her intelligence, nor her maturity.
I ask again do you belief a 5 year old girl (any 5 year old girl) has the maturity to fully understand the consequences of the decisions she takes, particularly on matters as critical and complicated as medical decisions that may result in life or death. I don't.
And surely if a 5 year old is mature enough to make such (literally life and death) decisions she must be mature enough to take decisions with much more trivial consequences - such as whether to go to school or play all day, whether to eat only pizza rather than a balanced diet, what time to go to bed etc etc.
Parents have parental responsibility and that involves making decisions for their children in the best interests of the child when that child does not have the maturity (capacity to consent in ethics terms) to take that decision for themselves). Fundamentally this isn't a religion/non religion issue for me (although it gets wrapped up in that) but fundamentally one of responsibilities and obligations of the parents.
-
The point is, though, that if Heaven isn't real she's making that 'informed' decision based on faulty information. She's forgoing spending time with her parents, albeit in pain, because she thinks she's going to get another chance to see them. If she new this was all the time she had, would she make the same decision? Would I? Would you? I'm not sure, until we're there, any of us know.
O.
IF heaven is real....then what? Then...the child has made the best decision possible. And since no one else KNOWS to the contrary...and merely believe so...the parents have a right to tell her what they believe.
-
Why are the hard of thinking so desperately wedded to the negative proof fallacy? Why?
-
IF heaven is real....then what?
And if Valhalla is real and she hasn't chosen to fight? And if Nirvana is right and in giving in to pain she's doomed to go down the chain? And if Hades is the reality... and so on. Why single out one unevidenced afterlife claim?
Then...the child has made the best decision possible.
Unless the 'life is sacred' interpretation is that in choosing not to keep trying she's committed suicide, in which case it's hell for her. Unless she's not old enough to genuinely accept Jesus into her life, in which case it's purgatory for her... and so on.
And since no one else KNOWS to the contrary...and merely believe so...the parents have a right to tell her what they believe.
I've not said they don't have that right. I'm not advocating banning religion. I just wish people were bright enough that they didn't need the fairy tales. If there is this loving god, the question isn't should she stay home or should she have the treatment, the question is 'Why the hell does a four year old have to deal with this in the first place?'.
How can you read about this girl and still think that there's something all-powerful up there looking out for us? Utter nonsense.
O.
-
I ask again do you belief a 5 year old girl (any 5 year old girl) has the maturity to fully understand the consequences of the decisions she takes, particularly on matters as critical and complicated as medical decisions that may result in life or death. I don't.
And surely if a 5 year old is mature enough to make such (literally life and death) decisions she must be mature enough to take decisions with much more trivial consequences - such as whether to go to school or play all day, whether to eat only pizza rather than a balanced diet, what time to go to bed etc etc.
Parents have parental responsibility and that involves making decisions for their children in the best interests of the child when that child does not have the maturity (capacity to consent in ethics terms) to take that decision for themselves). Fundamentally this isn't a religion/non religion issue for me (although it gets wrapped up in that) but fundamentally one of responsibilities and obligations of the parents.
Exactly.
-
Outrider....you are again starting with the same premise and expecting everyone to go along with you. When you agree that you have no proof against heaven don't expect everyone to accept your logic and abandon all belief in a heaven. Its as simple as that.
What you say may sound logical to you but not to someone who accepts heaven and God as real. Your arguments about unicorns and fairies don't wash because these are not within the purview of logic in the first place.
As Niels Bohr said...'no..no...you are not thinking...you are just being logical'.
-
What you say may sound logical to you but not to someone who accepts heaven and God as real. Your arguments about unicorns and fairies don't wash because these are not within the purview of logic in the first place.
Why are they not in the "purview" of logic but gods and afterlives are? Specifically and exactly please.
This is, needless to say, a monumental exercise in special pleading that your favoured woo is logical but other kinds of woo that you don't buy into (rare for you, since you seem to believe every kind going) isn't.
-
Outrider....you are again starting with the same premise and expecting everyone to go along with you. When you agree that you have no proof against heaven don't expect everyone to accept your logic and abandon all belief in a heaven. Its as simple as that.
What proof do you have that Valhalla is not real? Do you expect to only get in if you die in battle? What proof do you have that Nirvana is not real? Do you really expect to be reincarnated based upon whether you've forgone experiencing this life while you have it? What proof do you have that Anubis is not waiting to weigh your heart? What proof do you have that you aren't going to join the queue waiting to get into Hades?
You don't accept at least most of these notions, if any, yet you can disprove none, nor offer me any more evidence for any of the Christian conceptions of heaven than you can for any of the others. It's not for me to 'disprove' heaven, it remains just an assertion until you can back it up.
What you say may sound logical to you but not to someone who accepts heaven and God as real.
No, even some people who accept heaven as real can accept that it's a matter of faith, not reason, and that it isn't for non-believers to try to prove that there isn't a celestial teapot.
Your arguments about unicorns and fairies don't wash because these are not within the purview of logic in the first place.
And you think becoming a ghost is?
As Niels Bohr said...'no..no...you are not thinking...you are just being logical'.
And Bohr was explaining counter-intuitive ideas to people who couldn't let go of their preconceptions to actually pay attention to the data, the exact opposite of this situation. You are reading, but you aren't understanding.
O.
-
Do you all get your nickers in a twist over children being told Santa and his reindeer are going to deliver their presents on Christmas Eve?
::)
Children grow out of that. It's part of growing up.
The other kinds of fairy tale linger in some people, however.
-
Do you all get your nickers in a twist over children being told Santa and his reindeer are going to deliver their presents on Christmas Eve?
::)
The consequences of believing in Santa are trivial.
I might get my knickers in a twist if I thought that a 5 year old child was making a decision to refuse treatment which would certainly result in death if they had been taught to believe that if they died they'd live forever in lapland with Santa and get presents every day of the year.
More so if I felt that the patents were abrogating their fundamental parental responsibilities for decision making when their child is too young (as 5 most certainly is) to have the capacity to consent and therefore make the decisions for themselves.
This case was in the US - I would be pretty confident that were it in the UK the court would be asked to intervene and to determine the course of action in the best interests of the child. This has happened on a number of occasions which children very much older than this child where the court isn't convinced that the child has capacity to consent. In fact below the age of 16 (sometimes even 18) a child is presumed not to have the capacity to consent unless there is clear proof otherwise. In those circumstances decisions must be taken by someone else (usually, but not always, the parents) in the best interests of the child.
Now it may well be that the decision to withhold treatment would be confirmed through the courts, but the point is that the decision needs to be taken by someone in the best interests of the child, not by the child if that child does not have the capacity to consent (which would definitely be the case for a 5 year old).
To clarify - this would be if there was clear evidence that the parents were not taking the decision themselves but leaving it up to the child, which seems to be the inference of the information we have on this case.
-
Well, I'm not going to mince my words here. That is absolute, unmitigated rubbish. Thank goodness that Shaker and others have posted. I tried reading the woolly, sanctimonious-type posts but had to scroll past them.
So glad to see you're back, Shaker. Keep well!
Unfortunately for you, Susan, the posts you refer to are no more 'absolute, unmitigated rubbish' than the ones that Shaker, you and others post. Over the years this and other boards havee been up and running, have yet to see any evidence in support of your stance - or at least no support that doesn't crumble under even the most basic scrutiny. Unfortunately, despite the claims of some here, science doesn't answer all he questions people ask, and is unlikely to do so, since it is based on only one part of reality.
So you think there is another part of reality Hope and your evidence for this is?
ippy
Good luck!
You've made me smile Shaker, do you think, the usual long silence we get most times anyone gives Hope a poser similar to the one I gave him, poor old Hope I reckon he goes into his replica monk's cell and dons the sackcloth and ashes?
Well Shaker, the evidence certainly does seem to point that way.
ippy
-
Outrider....you are again starting with the same premise and expecting everyone to go along with you. When you agree that you have no proof against heaven don't expect everyone to accept your logic and abandon all belief in a heaven. Its as simple as that.
What you say may sound logical to you but not to someone who accepts heaven and God as real. Your arguments about unicorns and fairies don't wash because these are not within the purview of logic in the first place.
As Niels Bohr said...'no..no...you are not thinking...you are just being logical'.
I doubt Richard Feynman would have agreed with Niels; R Feynman was supposed to be a genius.
ippy
-
Stepping away from the whole religious aspect for a moment.
Even the experts are undecided on how much say a four year old should have about their own treatment in some circumstances.
It's that that seems to be the bone of contention.
Not the religion.
In part two of Srirams article it goes on to discuss the plus and minuses of that.
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/27/health/girl-chooses-heaven-over-hospital-part-2/index.html
This gives both sides on the debate on a four/five year old having a POV that is taken into account ( has nothing to do with religion really)
Without realizing it, Michelle and Steve had stepped into a heated debate.
Bioethicist Art Caplan has read Michelle's blogs, and he thinks she's made the wrong decision.
"This doesn't sit well with me. It makes me nervous," he says. "I think a 4-year-old might be capable of deciding what music to hear or what picture book they might want to read. But I think there's zero chance a 4-year-old can understand the concept of death. That kind of thinking doesn't really develop until around age 9 or 10."
He says Julianna's parents shouldn't put any stock in what she has to say about end-of-life decisions. Maybe she chose heaven over the hospital because she feels how much her parents hate to see her suffer; young children often pick up cues from their parents and want to please them, he says.
Caplan, before he started the bioethics program at New York University a few years ago, worked at the University of Pennsylvania and consulted on end-of-life cases at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia with Dr. Chris Feudtner, a pediatrician and ethicist there. Caplan respects him a great deal.
Feudtner, it turns out, disagrees with Caplan about Julianna.
"To say her experience is irrelevant doesn't make any sense," he says. "She knows more than anyone what it's like to be not a theoretical girl with a progressive neuromuscular disorder, but to be Julianna."
At his hospital, he has asked dying children her age what they want to do, and in the appropriate circumstances, he has taken it into consideration.
For example, he doesn't take their opinion into account when it's a black and white decision -- children with treatable leukemia must get chemotherapy, for example, no matter how hard they protest. But when the choice is gray, when there's more than one reasonable option, as there is with Julianna, he has put stock in their wishes.
As for a 4-year-old not having the mental capacity to think through death, he's found that even adults often don't think through such issues as carefully as one might like.
"My 86-year-old father died in April, and I'm not sure he truly got it," he says. "He was bed-bound from cancer, and he said, 'If this is the best I get, get me a Smith & Wesson.' Did he mean that? I don't know."
Feudtner, the chairman of the American Academy of Pediatrics section on hospice and palliative medicine, says as best he can tell from Michelle's blogs, Julianna's choice for heaven over the hospital is reasonable and her parents are right to listen to her.
"Palliative care isn't about giving up. It's about choosing how you want to live before you die," he says. "This little girl has chosen how she wants to live."
It depends which doctor or bioethicist you think has it right, religion really is a bit of a red herring.
🌹
I'm not actually convinced they are disagreeing fundamentally.
I suspect both are taking a relatively orthodox line on consent issues linked to children.
Typically that means that in circumstances where the child does not have the capacity to consent, the decision needs to be taken by someone else (usually the parents, but not always) and that decision must be based on what is in the best interests of the child.
Now there will also be an expectation (really a requirement) to try to understand what the child thinks, taking account of their level of maturity. However, unless the child is actually deemed to have capacity to consent, that opinion of the child is not determinative - it helps inform the decision, but cannot be considered to be more than one element of information that helps guide the decision.
Clearly the older, and more mature the child, the closer to determinative that opinion becomes, but in the case of a 4 year old (which appears to be the age at which this view from the child arose) it would be a long way from being determinative.
So I think both ethicists are accepting that the decision cannot be the child's but needs to come from another person on the basis of best interests. Both also appear to recognise that trying to understand the child's view is important - the only real disagreement seems to be on the 'weight' that should be given to the child's views in relation to someone else making the decision.
No serious ethicist would really suggest that a 4 year child is ever actually able to give consent in such circumstances, and indeed nor does Feudtner. He is clear that the child's views should be taken into consideration, in appropriate circumstances and that the parents were 'right to listen to her'. What he isn't saying is that the child should make the decision.
-
Professor Davey
I don't think anyone is really saying four year olds should be making their own decision only that in some cases young children may be mature enough for their POV to b taken into account.
🌹
But the tenor of the article is that the decision to 'choose heaven over hospital' was taken by the 4 year old and her parents then supported her decision.
That's what I think is wrong - a 4 year cannot make such a decision and although (appropriate to her maturity, which as a 4 year old is very limited) her view should be listened to and taken into account, the decision must be taken by an adult (usually the parents) in the child's best interests.
And actually the parents fail in many ways in how they are discussing things with their daughter if you compare it with the 'gold standard' approach from the cancer.net info you have provided. So for example failing to ask open questions, but posing direct yes/no type questions on whether she wants to go to hospital or heaven. Also the info you provided is clear that parents need to talk about death and dying, and not use euphemisms, but that's exactly what the parents seem to do, using going to heaven as a euphemism for dying.
Actually the key info which demonstrates that she really has very little understanding of the situation is her comment about her brother. She has been told that the parents won't be there (yet) but her grandma is. But no-one has told her about her brother so she asks whether he will be there too. Now if she had any real understanding she would appreciate that a perfectly healthy brother isn't going to die just because she dies.
Now I understand that the parents are in a terrible situation but they do appear (at least from the article) to be abrogating their own responsibility by leaving the decision to a 4 year old. But also once the child has said this they seem to be continually reinforcing her view. One key issue in consent is that you can change your mind, and certainly a 4 year old may be extremely likely to change year mind in the year from 4 to 5. Yet the parents appear (again from the article) to be giving her very little opportunity to change her mind - cementing her view from a year ago in place. That also isn't right.
The final thing that actually worries me about the article is the lack of definitive clinical diagnosis. The article implies that she has a disease linked to a specific genetic mutation, which these days is easy to detect, yet they say they haven't been able to detect that mutation. It may be she does not have the condition that they currently think, and once a proper diagnosis is reached that the actual condition might be more readily treatable.
-
I think the fact that the mother introduced the topic suggests that she had decided it was a probable outcome that her daughter would choose 'heaven'. You don't suggest to a four year old a trip to Disneyland unless you are already sure you can take them there. The parents appear to have decided to let their daughter die if she agreed.
-
I think the fact that the mother introduced the topic suggests that she had decided it was a probable outcome that her daughter would choose 'heaven'. You don't suggest to a four year old a trip to Disneyland unless you are already sure you can take them there. The parents appear to have decided to let their daughter die if she agreed.
This article very much reflects my views on the matter:
http://www.bioethics.net/2015/10/can-a-5-year-old-refuse-treatment-the-case-of-julianna-snow/
-
I think the fact that the mother introduced the topic suggests that she had decided it was a probable outcome that her daughter would choose 'heaven'. You don't suggest to a four year old a trip to Disneyland unless you are already sure you can take them there. The parents appear to have decided to let their daughter die if she agreed.
This article very much reflects my views on the matter:
http://www.bioethics.net/2015/10/can-a-5-year-old-refuse-treatment-the-case-of-julianna-snow/
I would not say "Point Proven" but I would say that the parents decisipon is seriously called into question.
As, I think, so are their motives.
-
My impression is that the girl's parents have decided to refuse treatment which, as she has a terminal illness, is different from refusing chemo for a cancer that could result in remission. For whatever reason - probably to make themselves feel better - they have 'included' her in the discussion and want to feel she's part of it. As they have blogged about her I guess making this public is an extension of that.
My daughter was nearly four when her favourite friend died. She used to draw pictures of him to try to make sense of where he was. I couldn't tell her much because I didn't really have an answer. I could have lied and said I was sure he was in heaven but I wasn't and kids can smell a lie a mile off.
-
My impression is that the girl's parents have decided to refuse treatment which, as she has a terminal illness, is different from refusing chemo for a cancer that could result in remission.
And that is another rather confusing issue.
In the article it is claimed (although there appears to be no definitive diagnosis) that she has Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease, and a brief trawl of information about this condition reveals that it isn't life threatening and that most people with the condition have normal life expectancy.
So it is all very strange - if she does have this condition it would appear to be incorrect to claim she has a terminal illness. If she doesn't have it, then surely there is a need to find out what condition she does have (and of course whether or not it is terminal).
So there are rather a lot of parts to this story that don't quite add up.
-
According to everything I've read the medical team in charge of her care support the family's decision. I wouldn't have thought they could do that unless she is terminally ill - in fact a court order to force continued treatment would be the likely outcome.
Seeing a loved one suffering is terrible, but one thing that isn't often acknowledged is that it is our own pain at their suffering that we sometimes find hard to bear. Whether that is the case here, I have no idea.
I find the most worrying aspect the sentimentalising the death of a child. The death of my friend's son was the ugliest thing I've ever experienced.
-
According to everything I've read the medical team in charge of her care support the family's decision. I wouldn't have thought they could do that unless she is terminally ill - in fact a court order to force continued treatment would be the likely outcome.
Seeing a loved one suffering is terrible, but one thing that isn't often acknowledged is that it is our own pain at their suffering that we sometimes find hard to bear. Whether that is the case here, I have no idea.
I find the most worrying aspect the sentimentalising the death of a child. The death of my friend's son was the ugliest thing I've ever experienced.
Actually we've heard very little from the medical team and that which we have seems rather confused. So in the CNN article, that everything else seems to be based on, in one place we are told that the medical team found it:
'hard to give Michelle and Steve a prognosis' and that 'he sent her DNA to a specialized genetics lab at the University of Miami for a wider search. They couldn't find anything definitive, either' yet elsewhere the article claims that:
'There's no debate about the medical facts of Julianna's condition.'
Well those statements are incompatible, either there is no debate or there is uncertainty about prognosis - there can't be both.
From what I've read elsewhere her condition isn't in itself life threatening (as cancer might be) although some of the symptoms, if untreated, could be life threatening, in her case build up of fluid on the lungs. So it is rather like claiming diabetes to be a terminal illness. Sure if you fail to have insulin it can be fatal, but it is treatable (but not curable).
So as I said there are a lot of things in this story that don't add up. And perhaps that's because we a reading it through the prism of the popular press which likes to sensationalise.
-
Actually I'm struggling to find any credible medical source that suggests that CMT is fatal (i.e. terminal), but lots that specifically says it isn't fatal, and rarely reduces life expectancy, for example from the NHS, the leading USA NIHR, neuropathy centre in chicago etc etc.
As I've said, lots doesn't add up here.
-
This is a tragedy for sure - I'm just perplexed that the parents seem to have allowed this to become, in my view, a sideshow with them in the starring roles.
I'd have thought this would be a private matter for most families in these awful circumstances.
-
My impression is that the girl's parents have decided to refuse treatment which, as she has a terminal illness, is different from refusing chemo for a cancer that could result in remission.
And that is another rather confusing issue.
In the article it is claimed (although there appears to be no definitive diagnosis) that she has Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease, and a brief trawl of information about this condition reveals that it isn't life threatening and that most people with the condition have normal life expectancy.
So it is all very strange - if she does have this condition it would appear to be incorrect to claim she has a terminal illness. If she doesn't have it, then surely there is a need to find out what condition she does have (and of course whether or not it is terminal).
So there are rather a lot of parts to this story that don't quite add up.
No it doesn't, in Srirams link it was the medics ( who were unable to do any more) who offered the choice to the parents, who then consulted with their child.
Which is different to the parents making up their own mind and offering the child a choice and then going to the medics.
:-\
Why would the medics describe CMT disease as terminal, when all other medical information seems to suggest it isn't.
Actually what appears to be the case is that her disease isn't terminal, but she is more susceptible to infections that due to her condition may lead to pneumonia, which if untreated could kill her. That isn't the same as her having a terminal illness.
Go check out CMT disease and see if you can find a reputable source that describes it as terminal or fatal. They don't, quite the reverse.
-
This is a tragedy for sure - I'm just perplexed that the parents seem to have allowed this to become, in my view, a sideshow with them in the starring roles.
I'd have thought this would be a private matter for most families in these awful circumstances.
I agree - why on earth would you opt for all this publicity.
I can understand in cases where perhaps publicity might mean donations that may help send the child to a private clinic for treatment. But that doesn't seem to be the case here.
-
This is a tragedy for sure - I'm just perplexed that the parents seem to have allowed this to become, in my view, a sideshow with them in the starring roles.
I'd have thought this would be a private matter for most families in these awful circumstances.
I agree - why on earth would you opt for all this publicity.
I can understand in cases where perhaps publicity might mean donations that may help send the child to a private clinic for treatment. But that doesn't seem to be the case here.
The more I have read here, the more the word 'exploitation' does begin to come to mind.
-
This is a tragedy for sure - I'm just perplexed that the parents seem to have allowed this to become, in my view, a sideshow with them in the starring roles.
I'd have thought this would be a private matter for most families in these awful circumstances.
I agree - why on earth would you opt for all this publicity.
I can understand in cases where perhaps publicity might mean donations that may help send the child to a private clinic for treatment. But that doesn't seem to be the case here.
The more I have read here, the more the word 'exploitation' does begin to come to mind.
Agreed.
-
This is a tragedy for sure - I'm just perplexed that the parents seem to have allowed this to become, in my view, a sideshow with them in the starring roles.
I'd have thought this would be a private matter for most families in these awful circumstances.
I agree - why on earth would you opt for all this publicity.
I can understand in cases where perhaps publicity might mean donations that may help send the child to a private clinic for treatment. But that doesn't seem to be the case here.
It's actually sounding more and more implausible. If she isn't terminally ill then presumably the medical team could be in all sorts of trouble for this. I dunno, I smell a rat.
If it's all genuine then it's just bizarre.
-
This is a tragedy for sure - I'm just perplexed that the parents seem to have allowed this to become, in my view, a sideshow with them in the starring roles.
I'd have thought this would be a private matter for most families in these awful circumstances.
I agree - why on earth would you opt for all this publicity.
I can understand in cases where perhaps publicity might mean donations that may help send the child to a private clinic for treatment. But that doesn't seem to be the case here.
It's actually sounding more and more implausible. If she isn't terminally ill then presumably the medical team could be in all sorts of trouble for this. I dunno, I smell a rat.
If it's all genuine then it's just bizarre.
I haven't found any evidence to suggest that CMT as a disease is ever terminal. And actually if you get into the details it isn't clear that the medical staff in this case are claiming it to be.
The focus seems to be on invasive intervention that might be necessary were she to develop pneumonia and be unable (due to her condition) to clear fluid from her lungs. The issue seems to be whether this life saving intervention should be provided in the future if she needs it. And to balance that against the quality (and quantity of life) if she lives rather than dies.
Now there doesn't actually seem to be an issue on quantity of life, the medical opinion seems clear that patients even with extreme CMT have a life expectancy the same as, or barely shorter than, those without the condition.
There is clearly an issue on quality of life - if an intervention is highly invasive, painful and distressing but merely perpetuates a life that has very little quality, and perhaps only briefly then quite reasonably that intervention may be seen to be 'futile' and not recommended. Do not resuscitate notices being obvious examples.
But here is the tricky thing in this case. Imagine the parents had chosen not to allow intervention last time and she had dies (and she presumably would have done), the child would have lost more than a year of life with parents, friends, family etc which (from what I gather) has been pretty good (as far as it can be in her circumstances). There seems to be a clear view that currently she is 'living life to the full' as much as her condition allows. So image in another years time she gets an infection and develops pneumonia requiring naso-tracheal suctioning - which is pretty awful - what to do. With this she might have another 2 years before needing this again, and so on. Who is to know how either the parents, or even the child, will feel about that when the time comes, and in retrospect whether they'd feel this was the right thing to do or the wrong thing. I'm not getting any feeling that the parents feel they should have let her die last time.
This seems to be the heart of the issue (which is sensationalised and brought across inaccurately by the popular press).
But the bottom line is that although this should be considered and discussed, a decision should only be taken at the time it is needed. The parents and the child might feel very different is she needs intervention at the age of 7 than they do now when she is 5.
-
I've read a quote from the doctor in charge of her care who says that she doesn't 'have long left'. The nurse seems more concerned with the pain that the treatment causes.
???
-
I've read a quote from the doctor in charge of her care who says that she doesn't 'have long left'. The nurse seems more concerned with the pain that the treatment causes.
???
Can you provide a link please.
The issue is that this doesn't seem to accord with the suggestion that she has CMT, which even in severe cases doesn't seem to be terminal.
Like I have said several times, something here doesn't add up.
-
My mobile's about to go flat but will try later. It was in one of the CNN articles and I got there via Huff Post.
-
Here.
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/27/health/girl-chooses-heaven-over-hospital-part-2/
He believes that when Julianna gets another infection, the hospital will likely not be able to save her. "For her, there is no light at the end of the tunnel," he says, his voice trailing off. "She doesn't have a long time to live."
-
Here.
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/27/health/girl-chooses-heaven-over-hospital-part-2/
He believes that when Julianna gets another infection, the hospital will likely not be able to save her. "For her, there is no light at the end of the tunnel," he says, his voice trailing off. "She doesn't have a long time to live."
Thanks.
Which does accord with:
'CMT is not life-threatening, and most people with the condition have the same life expectancy as a person who does not have CMT.'
http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/Charcot-marie-tooth-disease/Pages/Introduction.aspx
'CMT is not a fatal disease and the disorder does not affect normal life expectancy.'
http://peripheralneuropathycenter.uchicago.edu/learnaboutpn/typesofpn/hereditary/charcotmarietooth.shtml
'CMT is not considered a fatal disease and people with most forms of CMT have a normal life expectancy.'
http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/charcot_marie_tooth/detail_charcot_marie_tooth.htm
Again, something not adding up.
-
Here.
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/27/health/girl-chooses-heaven-over-hospital-part-2/
He believes that when Julianna gets another infection, the hospital will likely not be able to save her. "For her, there is no light at the end of the tunnel," he says, his voice trailing off. "She doesn't have a long time to live."
Very sad Rhi, I have every sympathy for this little girl, I just find that nauseous spoon fed trite nonsense from the parents sounds so awful, they might just as well tell her something exactly similar, substituting Legoland in the pace of heaven.
I don't know what would be the best thing to say, it's a difficult call, but I'm certain saying those things to her about heaven is really sickening.
ippy.
-
Here.
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/27/health/girl-chooses-heaven-over-hospital-part-2/
He believes that when Julianna gets another infection, the hospital will likely not be able to save her. "For her, there is no light at the end of the tunnel," he says, his voice trailing off. "She doesn't have a long time to live."
Very sad Rhi, I have every sympathy for this little girl, I just find that nauseous spoon fed trite nonsense from the parents sounds so awful, they might just as well tell her something exactly similar, substituting Legoland in the pace of heaven.
I don't know what would be the best thing to say, it's a difficult call, but I'm certain saying those things to her about heaven is really sickening.
ippy.
I'm going to re-post this piece about the story, which seems extremely apt.
http://www.bioethics.net/2015/10/can-a-5-year-old-refuse-treatment-the-case-of-julianna-snow/
particularly:
'The Snows explained death as going to heaven—a place to play and be with deceased relatives. This is in line with most 5-year-olds’ understandings of death. But this is not understanding for informed consent. They have essentially told their child, the choice is between being in the hospital or playing with grandma. Of course she chose heaven, who wouldn’t? The child lacks competency to make this choice, capacity to make this choice, and a sufficient cognitive development to understand.
The parents are painting a coercive picture. What would Julianna say, if death was explained as “ceasing to exist. As sleeping, not dreaming, and never ever waking up. Never ever playing again. Never ever seeing anything or anyone ever again” or as “cold, dark, and lonely with worms gnawing through your body.” A hospital could be described as a place to make you better. These descriptions are equally coercive and because children are impressionable, likely to lead to a different preference by the child.'
Now of course the parents aren't going to, and shouldn't, terrify the poor girl with alternative pictures of what death might be like, but that doesn't change the point that by completely sugar coating the notion of what will happen after death that the child will, of course choose this over something she knows (hospital and invasive therapeutic intervention) which she remembers to be very unpleasant.
And there is also a problem in the way the parent's describe her and later them getting to heaven. Now leaving aside whether any of this is true, they tell her that:
'And it probably means that you will go to heaven by yourself, and Mommy will join you later.'
Note firstly 'probably' - not definitely. But also she says that mommy will join you later. What does that mean to the child. I suspect the child will think that mommy will join her in a few hours or maybe tomorrow. I doubt if the mother said, this morning you are going to grandma's and mommy will join you later, that that would mean maybe in 30 years. No the expectation will surely be in the mind of the child that it will be very soon.
So the parents do seem to have done everything to make heaven attractive in comparison with hospital, so not very surprising that the child choses it. But the big point here (which the article alludes to) is that the parents seem to be absolving themselves of their responsibility to make that choice as the parent of a 4 year old (and a terrible choice it is). Either they are genuinely letting the child chose, which is completely wrong as she doesn't have the capacity to make a choice of that magnitude. Or they are shying away from taking responsibility for their own choice by focusing on what she wants. Either way this isn't great. Again from the article:
'In no way should a five year old be making a choice as to whether to live or die. This is a case where paternalism needs to override the child’s autonomy. If the parents want to decide to pursue no further treatment, they have the right to make that choice. But it needs to be their choice. They can’t avoid guilt by putting moral responsibility on a 5-year-old. At the same time, if they can’t make a choice or don’t want to, this may be a place for the state to step in, as it did for Cassandra C.'
-
I believe in some cases of repeated pneumonia there can be significant scarring of the lungs. Could this be the case here?
Note, I'm not trying to defend anyone, just trying to make sense of why her doctors think she is terminally ill.
-
I believe in some cases of repeated pneumonia there can be significant scarring of the lungs. Could this be the case here?
Note, I'm not trying to defend anyone, just trying to make sense of why her doctors think she is terminally ill.
I got my asthma from having suffered pneumonia three times in four years from age 18 months.
I'm told that my lungs have scaring from those infections - I am now 69, I am still alive - if i can survive three bouts of pneumonia at 18 months I am sure a four year old has a better chance than that they are apparently giving her!
Andm to add insult to those injuries I was, for 40 years, despite being asthmatic, a heavy smoker. I gave up 20 years ago.
-
Here.
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/27/health/girl-chooses-heaven-over-hospital-part-2/
He believes that when Julianna gets another infection, the hospital will likely not be able to save her. "For her, there is no light at the end of the tunnel," he says, his voice trailing off. "She doesn't have a long time to live."
Very sad Rhi, I have every sympathy for this little girl, I just find that nauseous spoon fed trite nonsense from the parents sounds so awful, they might just as well tell her something exactly similar, substituting Legoland in the pace of heaven.
I don't know what would be the best thing to say, it's a difficult call, but I'm certain saying those things to her about heaven is really sickening.
ippy.
I'm going to re-post this piece about the story, which seems extremely apt.
http://www.bioethics.net/2015/10/can-a-5-year-old-refuse-treatment-the-case-of-julianna-snow/
particularly:
'The Snows explained death as going to heaven—a place to play and be with deceased relatives. This is in line with most 5-year-olds’ understandings of death. But this is not understanding for informed consent. They have essentially told their child, the choice is between being in the hospital or playing with grandma. Of course she chose heaven, who wouldn’t? The child lacks competency to make this choice, capacity to make this choice, and a sufficient cognitive development to understand.
The parents are painting a coercive picture. What would Julianna say, if death was explained as “ceasing to exist. As sleeping, not dreaming, and never ever waking up. Never ever playing again. Never ever seeing anything or anyone ever again” or as “cold, dark, and lonely with worms gnawing through your body.” A hospital could be described as a place to make you better. These descriptions are equally coercive and because children are impressionable, likely to lead to a different preference by the child.'
Now of course the parents aren't going to, and shouldn't, terrify the poor girl with alternative pictures of what death might be like, but that doesn't change the point that by completely sugar coating the notion of what will happen after death that the child will, of course choose this over something she knows (hospital and invasive therapeutic intervention) which she remembers to be very unpleasant.
And there is also a problem in the way the parent's describe her and later them getting to heaven. Now leaving aside whether any of this is true, they tell her that:
'And it probably means that you will go to heaven by yourself, and Mommy will join you later.'
Note firstly 'probably' - not definitely. But also she says that mommy will join you later. What does that mean to the child. I suspect the child will think that mommy will join her in a few hours or maybe tomorrow. I doubt if the mother said, this morning you are going to grandma's and mommy will join you later, that that would mean maybe in 30 years. No the expectation will surely be in the mind of the child that it will be very soon.
So the parents do seem to have done everything to make heaven attractive in comparison with hospital, so not very surprising that the child choses it. But the big point here (which the article alludes to) is that the parents seem to be absolving themselves of their responsibility to make that choice as the parent of a 4 year old (and a terrible choice it is). Either they are genuinely letting the child chose, which is completely wrong as she doesn't have the capacity to make a choice of that magnitude. Or they are shying away from taking responsibility for their own choice by focusing on what she wants. Either way this isn't great. Again from the article:
'In no way should a five year old be making a choice as to whether to live or die. This is a case where paternalism needs to override the child’s autonomy. If the parents want to decide to pursue no further treatment, they have the right to make that choice. But it needs to be their choice. They can’t avoid guilt by putting moral responsibility on a 5-year-old. At the same time, if they can’t make a choice or don’t want to, this may be a place for the state to step in, as it did for Cassandra C.'
Had a good read of your link and find I have to agree with the Addendum, although my personal reasons for having such a dislike of religions, makes way religion was thrown in by the parents very distasteful.
I think the addendum is logical and rational, no matter how much I dislike the effects of religions and the nonsense they spread.
(By the way Proff, are you an American)?
ippy
-
(By the way Proff, are you an American)?
ippy
No.
Out of interest why would you think I was? Is there something of a midwest drawl in my writing style ;D
-
(By the way Proff, are you an American)?
ippy
No.
Out of interest why would you think I was? Is there something of a midwest drawl in my writing style ;D
No, English English, Mummy.
ippy
-
(By the way Proff, are you an American)?
ippy
No.
Out of interest why would you think I was? Is there something of a midwest drawl in my writing style ;D
No, English English, Mummy.
ippy
Fair enough - was only using the term used in the article.
-
Hi Everyone,
Here is Part 2 of the little girl's story. She is deteriorating rapidly.
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/27/health/girl-chooses-heaven-over-hospital-part-2/index.html
**************
Michelle: Julianna, if you get sick again, do you want to go to the hospital again or stay home?
Julianna: Not the hospital
Michelle: Even if that means that you will go to heaven if you stay home?
Julianna: Yes... I hate NT (naso-tracheal suction, where a tube was placed down her nose into her lungs without sedation). I hate the hospital.
Michelle: Right. So if you get sick again, you want to stay home. But you know that probably means you will go to heaven, right?
Julianna: (nods)
Michelle: And it probably means that you will go to heaven by yourself, and Mommy will join you later.
Julianna: But I won't be alone.
Michelle: That's right. You will not be alone.
****************
Extremely sad!
Sriram
-
The key word in all this is incurable - it doesn't matter what treatment she receives, the little girl is dying - and miraculously, the girl and her family have come to terms with the situation.
Why would any sane compassionate person wish to criticise or interfere?