|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted May 11, 2009 10:40 PM |
|
|
Angelito:
Quote:
Has every american soldier get to judged by the court because he was part of a group which killed civilists in iraq/afghanistan (colleteral damage so to say...)?
Murder =/= combat situation. 
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted May 11, 2009 10:59 PM |
|
|
Can you be less arbitrary?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 11, 2009 11:11 PM |
|
|
Soldiers are supposed to kill those whom they think are enemy combatants. That's why they're soldiers. Their coercion is legitimized.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted May 12, 2009 08:07 AM |
|
|
That's why I was talking about killing civilists, not soldiers. Read again.
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 12, 2009 02:41 PM |
|
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 15, 2009 05:10 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Has every american soldier get to judged by the court because he was part of a group which killed civilists in iraq/afghanistan (colleteral damage so to say...)?
Murder is murder I heard......
It is impossible to have a war without collateral damage. A civillian accidentally being killed through collateral damage is not murder.
The terrorists hide among the civilian population and attack from there when possible. In a perfect world there would be no civilian casuality but we do not live in a perfect world.
Real world battles is not played on a HOMM battlefield with only military units present.
America does prosecute US soldiers who deliberately kill civilians. The group of several that raped a girl and killed her and her parents were tried and are in prison.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 16, 2009 12:21 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 00:22, 16 May 2009.
|
Ok my previous post is too old to edit. But here is a case related to the first post of the thread.
A child has cancer. He underwent a treatment buy now has refused furthur treatment. His parents support his decision to reject more treatments. A judge is ordering him to undergo another evaluation and furthur treatments if the doctor recommends treatment.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ap_on_he_me/us_med_forced_chemo
Should a judge have the right to order you to receive treatment? Bear in mind that the boy is 13 years old and that 13 year old girls can get abortions without parental consent.
I do not think a judge shuold be able to order the child to continue treatment.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 16, 2009 12:27 AM |
|
|
That is a difficult question.
If it were an adult, I would unequivocally say that he has the right to refuse treatment. But as he's a child, I just don't know.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted May 16, 2009 01:40 AM |
|
|
Quote:
that the family's Catholicism and adherence to the Nemenhah Band are not in conflict, and that she has used natural remedies to treat illness.
Quote:
his mother insisted the boy wouldn't submit to chemotherapy for religious reasons
Quote:
Doctors have said Daniel's cancer had up to a 90 percent chance of being cured with chemotherapy and radiation. Without those treatments, doctors said his chances of survival are 5 percent.
Well, thats someting that should be highlighted. The familie is catholics.
What is not properly said, is that Nemenhah Band might be quite effektive. But in most cases its not someting against this.
What is said is this:
*The boy must atleast be checked how bad it is
*If its cureable, then it must be cured
There is already enogh storys of people dieing of very simpel things because they did not let a doctor cure them, of that simpel thingy. What basicaly the court did was right, if he is beyond simpel curing they will let him be cured by the alternativ medicines.
____________
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 16, 2009 03:02 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 03:04, 16 May 2009.
|
Quote:
What basicaly the court did was right, if he is beyond simpel curing they will let him be cured by the alternativ medicines.
How far should the court go to force the child to accpet treatment? If the child physically fights against it should police officers restrain him and apply some sort of drug to knock him out?
Should the child be prosecuted for not following the orders of the court?
Does a 13 year old child have the right to "life, liberty, and persuit of happiness?" The liberty to refuse medical treatment?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 16, 2009 03:33 AM |
|
|
A 13-year old? No. He is not yet capable of making fully rational decisions.
His parents? Eh...
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 16, 2009 03:44 AM |
|
|
Quote:
A 13-year old? No. He is not yet capable of making fully rational decisions.
His parents? Eh...
Neither are most adults.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 16, 2009 03:46 AM |
|
|
Well, yes, but in a free society, the system rewards those who are more capable of making rational decisions. (Too bad they tend to have fewer children.  )
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 16, 2009 10:08 AM |
|
|
The problem with the 13-year old is a different one.
The 13-year-old doesn't want treatment (decides against it) only because his parents educated him very thoroughly in a splinter-group interpretation of a religion. Here religion interferes with reason, and the main point is, that a 13-year-old should never come into a position that reason interferes with religion, but that's slightly off-topic.
On-topic is, that a 13-year-old is considered not fully responsible for his doings which is obviously true for ALL important decisions, no matter on what they are based. Deciding over his life has to be considered important, and important decisions of 13-year-olds, when considered harmful, are generally rejected.
Normally, this is done by the parents, but in this case THEY are the actual problem. Simply spoken, the parents seem to be willing to sacrifice her child on the altar of their religious beliefs - obviously their belief is more important for them than the life of their child, but the question is, whether they act in the best interest of him.
Which means, the judge did the right thing by ordering another check.
For me that is not even debatable, but obvious.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted May 16, 2009 10:26 AM |
|
|
From what i understood from the article, the kid would be cured in 1 or 2 treatmens since he his disease is easy to get rid of.
If he delay it way to long, it will not be that easy to get rid of.
What what i understood from the article, if it has spread so it would be a major pain to get rid of(more than 3 treatments), the system will leave the brat alone.
Think back to the time yourself was a immature brat at the age of 13, for me its soon 4 years ago and i was somewhat mature for my age. But i was still a heck of a brat, and thats a little point. I would still be ignorant, i would in some cases know whats best for me but in others i would not know. Add on the the brat in this case is raised by higly religius parents and are religius himself.
The question the court asked themself i belive was: "Should we let this kid just die because he refuses treatment? From the information we got, he can be cured in 1 or max 2 goes. He will oppose it, but he is still young enogh to know alot."
Anybody who fully understands "life, liberty and persuit of happiness" should be able to do so. If don't understand the concept, or what follows it then your most likely not at the point.
____________
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 16, 2009 05:24 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 17:25, 16 May 2009.
|
Quote:
The problem with the 13-year old is a different one.
The 13-year-old doesn't want treatment (decides against it) only because his parents educated him very thoroughly in a splinter-group interpretation of a religion.
As opposed to your splinter-group interpretation of a religion? And I assume you must be able to read his mind since you "know" why he decided to refuse treatemnt.
Should everyone be required to align themselves to your religious beliefs?
Quote:
Here religion interferes with reason,
You mean his decision conflicts with your religious beliefs. Or are you saying that your religious beliefs are the correct ones and the ones he should be required to follow?
Quote:
and the main point is, that a 13-year-old should never come into a position that reason interferes with religion, but that's slightly off-topic.
Again, it is your opinion that religion should not enter into a decision and that his religion should not be followed. So I'm guessing you an inside word from God about what religion is correct.
He made a decision based on his beliefs (and of what the doctors and other told him.) His parents backed up his decision.
Quote:
Normally, this is done by the parents, but in this case THEY are the actual problem. Simply spoken, the parents seem to be willing to sacrifice her child on the altar of their religious beliefs - obviously their belief is more important for them than the life of their child, but the question is, whether they act in the best interest of him.
So again, everyone must accept your relgion (or at leas the religion of the judge.) Are you a prophet from God?
You want to make decisions for the child and for the parnets based on your religous beliefs.
The parents love the child. You don't. The judge does not.
Quote:
Which means, the judge did the right thing by ordering another check.
So the judge has a right to impose his religious beliefs on the child and on the parents. He is the pope of the state religion?
Quote:
For me that is not even debatable, but obvious.
Yes, if you think the judge should be able to impose his religion on others.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted May 16, 2009 07:49 PM |
|
|
Quote:
As opposed to your splinter-group interpretation of a religion? And I assume you must be able to read his mind since you "know" why he decided to refuse treatemnt.
Should everyone be required to align themselves to your religious beliefs?
You mean his decision conflicts with your religious beliefs. Or are you saying that your religious beliefs are the correct ones and the ones he should be required to follow?
Again, it is your opinion that religion should not enter into a decision and that his religion should not be followed. So I'm guessing you an inside word from God about what religion is correct.
He made a decision based on his beliefs (and of what the doctors and other told him.) His parents backed up his decision.
So again, everyone must accept your relgion (or at leas the religion of the judge.) Are you a prophet from God?
You want to make decisions for the child and for the parnets based on your religous beliefs.
The parents love the child. You don't. The judge does not.
So the judge has a right to impose his religious beliefs on the child and on the parents. He is the pope of the state religion?
Yes, if you think the judge should be able to impose his religion on others.
Mind to calm down? Your ruining the hidden flamewar of OSM!
The shame about your blind outrage here is that we are not a collected bunch of people under a religion. We are a giantic bunch of people gotting in idea of what knowledge and choice is. We also got an idea of what Christianity is, and we enjoy to label the ekstremists. We do that to most Abrahemic religions, but thats another matter. Some of us have even had their big religious experience, so don't say we don't know what we are talking about. Because soe kind of do. And some know extremely well.
The judge obeys logic and law, so by the law killing people is forbidden. The kid will die from this disease, so he would indirectly murder the brat by just letting him go. There is always the chance that some of the alternativ stuff might work, but thats a undocumented gamble! So it can't be taken as a part of the calcuation. So the judge have the choice betwhen a cure and a kill.
The only really fanatic atheistic religion i know about is the people of Darwinisme. Or rather agnostic religion might be a better term.
____________
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 16, 2009 08:16 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Mind to calm down? Your ruining the hidden flamewar of OSM!
I am not involved in a flame war. I quoted JJ calling the religious beliefs of aother a "splinter-group interpretation of a religion" and basically was asking him why theirs is a "splinter-group interpretation of a religion" and his is not.
There were quite a few derogatory comments about religion or religious people in his post. I am not a follower of Native Amerian religion but they have a right to live by their religin.
Quote:
The shame about your blind outrage here
I am not blind or outraged. I was expressing my opinion that the Native American religion should be able to be practiced by those who wish to practice it and asking why other had a right to override their religious practices such as natural healing.
Quote:
We also got an idea of what Christianity is, and we enjoy to label the ekstremists
The parents nor the son are Christians. They follow a Native American (Indian) religion.
I don't care if you label me as an extremist as long as I am able to point out the extemism of others too. I have always said I wiil "play nice" or otherwise as everyone else plays. I prefer nice but some others do not--or at least they only want others to play nice but not have to play nice themselves.
Quote:
The judge obeys logic and law, so by the law killing people is forbidden. The kid will die from this disease, so he would indirectly murder the brat by just letting him go. There is always the chance that some of the alternativ stuff might work, but thats a undocumented gamble! So it can't be taken as a part of the calcuation. So the judge have the choice betwhen a cure and a kill.
There is no law saying that a person must receive medical treatment in the US.
There is a baic right of freedom of religion in the Constitution.
So the personal opinion of the judge should not matter. He has his own opinions based on religion and whatever else. I believe the weight of the law is that any person should be free to make his own medical decision or have his parents make his medical decisions. The child wants to reject treatment and the parents support the chld. Should not the law allow the child to exercise his freedom of religion and his freedom to control his own body?
Many people say (and the law is in many states) that a 13 year old girl has freedom to control her own body and so should be free to get an abortion evern without parental consent. How then can a 13 year old boy not have the same right to control his own body? Especially if his religious belief is also involved?
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted May 16, 2009 09:16 PM |
|
|
Quote:
For me that is not even debatable, but obvious.
Sorry but I disagree here JJ. I mean it's not like a case of "evil parents vs abused child" since the child 'agrees' with the parents, and obviously is not suffering from trauma or fear or anything like that (or I missed that part). There is no reason the judge would know "what's better" for the child in this respect. Even more so, 13 years is a completely different subject than 4 or 6, which would be more acceptable for "somebody else decides".
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 17, 2009 09:39 AM |
|
|
Right.
I wonder, if anyone here - including Elodin - actually read the article. From Elodin's posts I quote only this:
Quote:
The parents nor the son are Christians. They follow a Native American (Indian) religion.
I'm not keen on having another useless argument with him (or with you, Elodin, if you prefer direct reference). But keep this quote in mind. I'm just going to quote now from the article. Highlights are mine.
Quote:
A Minnesota judge ruled Friday that a 13-year-old cancer patient must be evaluated by a doctor to determine if the boy would benefit from restarting chemotherapy over his parents' objections.
This is the court rule. 58 page reasoning. The Judge states that the child has been medically neglected.
Quote:
The judge wrote that Daniel has only a "rudimentary understanding at best of the risks and benefits of chemotherapy. ... he does not believe he is ill currently.
Sounds like a really informed decision, right?
Quote:
Daniel was diagnosed with Hodgkin's lymphoma and stopped chemotherapy in February after a single treatment. He and his parents opted instead for "alternative medicines" based on their religious beliefs.
Daniel's parents have been supporting what they say is their son's decision to treat the disease with nutritional supplements and other alternative treatments favored by the Nemenhah Band.
Colleen Hauser told the New Ulm Journal newspaper that the family's Catholicism and adherence to the Nemenhah Band are not in conflict, and that she has used natural remedies to treat illness.
You see that? The family's Catholicism? They are Catholics, they just have adopted the alternative treatments of the Nemenhah Band.
Now, for the Nemenhah Band. I found this, for example:
Quote:
As to the Nemenhah Band themselves, they are new organization that hold beliefs similar to that of local Native Americans as well as the Mormon Church — although neither group recognizes the Nemenhah Band as a part of them. Their leader, Philip “Cloudpiler” Landis has a criminal past and spent a few months in jail several years ago for charges of fraud. After leaving jail he started the group which he allows others to join for a small fee of $250. To top it off, whenever members of the Nemenhah Band get sick they also have to pay Landis for the natural medicines too.
The article Elodin cited even knows what kind of fraud: Quote:
Nemenhah was founded in the 1990s by Philip Cloudpiler Landis, who said Thursday he once served four months in prison in Idaho for fraud related to advocating natural remedies.
Landis said he founded the faith after facing his diagnosis of a cancer similar to Daniel Hauser. He said he treated it with diet choices, visits to a sweat lodge and other natural remedies.
The doctors say this, though:
Quote:
Doctors have said Daniel's cancer had up to a 90 percent chance of being cured with chemotherapy and radiation. Without those treatments, doctors said his chances of survival are 5 percent.
And this is what happened before the thing went to court:
Quote:
After the first chemotherapy treatment, the family said they wanted a second opinion, said Bostrom, a pediatric oncologist who recommended Daniel undergo chemotherapy and radiation.
They later informed him that Daniel would not undergo any more chemotherapy. Bostrom said Daniel's tumor shrunk after the first chemotherapy session, but X-rays show it has grown since he stopped the chemotherapy.
"My son is not in any medical danger at this point," Colleen Hauser testified at a court hearing last week. She also testified that Daniel is a medicine man and elder in the Nemenhah Band.
The family's attorney, Calvin Johnson, said Daniel made the decision himself to refuse chemotherapy, but Brown County said he did not have an understanding of what it meant to be a medicine man or an elder.
Court filings also indicated Daniel has a learning disability and can't read.
The Hausers have eight children.
You were saying, Death?
|
|
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
