View Full Version : Faith Healing
gettin2dizzy
22-01-09, 07:55 PM
Another story this year, poor girl.
They should really stop religious biggots being able to pass on beliefs like this. John Travolta should be prosecuted equally, and Scientology held responsible for its actions
Trials for Parents Who Chose Faith Over Medicine
Published: January 20, 2009
WESTON, Wis. — Kara Neumann, 11, had grown so weak that she could not walk or speak. Her parents, who believe that God alone has the ability to heal the sick, prayed for her recovery but did not take her to a doctor.
(http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/21/us/21faith.html?_r=3&th=&adxnnl=1&emc=th&pagewanted=1&adxnnlx=1232569102-61pZNDsvN5eVxIgVpaPeaA#secondParagraph)http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/01/21/us/21faith1_190.jpg (javascript:pop_me_up2('http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2009/01/21/us/21faith.1.html',%20'21faith_1',%20'width=720,heigh t=600,scrollbars=yes,toolbars=no,resizable=yes'))
After an aunt from California called the sheriff’s department here, frantically pleading that the sick child be rescued, an ambulance arrived at the Neumann’s rural home on the outskirts of Wausau and rushed Kara to the hospital. She was pronounced dead on arrival.
The county coroner ruled that she had died from diabetic ketoacidosis (http://health.nytimes.com/health/guides/disease/diabetic-ketoacidosis/overview.html?inline=nyt-classifier) resulting from undiagnosed and untreated juvenile diabetes (http://health.nytimes.com/health/guides/disease/diabetes/overview.html?inline=nyt-classifier). The condition occurs when the body fails to produce insulin, which leads to severe dehydration (http://health.nytimes.com/health/guides/disease/dehydration/overview.html?inline=nyt-classifier) and impairment of muscle, lung and heart function.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/21/us/21faith.html?_r=3&th=&adxnnl=1&emc=th&pagewanted=1&adxnnlx=1232569102-61pZNDsvN5eVxIgVpaPeaA
What? He killed his son too? :???:
God works in mysterious ways - shame they didn't realise that he works by providing hospitals :roll:
gettin2dizzy
22-01-09, 08:01 PM
What? He killed his son too? :???:
God works in mysterious ways - shame they didn't realise that he works by providing hospitals :roll:
He chose to take his son off his 'anti-seizure' medicine, as it conflicted with his Scientology beliefs. Then he dies of a seizure.
I don't think he should be prosecuted for manslaughter! But he should be for neglect. It was his duty to provide the best for his son.
Oh, and :
An essay on the site signed Pastor Bob states that the Bible calls for healing by faith alone. “Jesus never sent anyone to a doctor or a hospital,” the essay says. “Jesus offered healing by one means only! Healing was by faith.”
Religion - the cause of all lifes problems.
He chose to take his son off his 'anti-seizure' medicine, as it conflicted with his Scientology beliefs. OH ! didn't know that , thanks for that gem.
Oh, and <snip>:
But Jesus was actually meeting these people in person - how can they expect the same result without actually meeting Jesus in person :smt102
i guess their faith is so strong they think they are with Him?
I kinda understand though that you can't pick & choose. If you believe Scientology (or whatever) is best for your family then why would you pick & chose bits from it. He obviously believed taking him off the siezure suppresion medication was best for him as he probably believed his son would be cured of the siezures rather than have them suppressed.
Bet the Scientologists were up in arms with Obama's speech he ignored them saying USA was Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu & non believers :lol:
maviczap
22-01-09, 09:28 PM
Religion - the cause of all lifes problems.
A big +1 on that one
shonadoll
22-01-09, 09:45 PM
I followed the Travolta thing thoroughly, and didn't see where they had done in intentionally- they had him supervised pretty much constantly. The story I heard was that the anti seizure meds stopped working, so they took him off it - have to say as a parent I maybe would have done the same thing, by all accounts taking meds that don't work aren't a good thing.
But the diabetic girl- absolutely reprehensible.
Speedy Claire
22-01-09, 10:00 PM
I didn`t read anywhere that the Travolta`s had taken their son off his medication due to their religious beliefs?? where`s that printed?? If that were true then surely they`d be facing some sort of charges??
As for the above.... absolutely shocking and glad they`re being prosecuted, RIP Kara
Ceri JC
23-01-09, 09:25 AM
"Her parents, who believe that God alone has the ability to heal the sick, prayed for her recovery but did not take her to a doctor."
Obviously missed the bit in the bible about not testing God. :smt083
Gazza77
23-01-09, 10:37 AM
"Her parents, who believe that God alone has the ability to heal the sick, prayed for her recovery but did not take her to a doctor."
Obviously missed the bit in the bible about not testing God. :smt083
I bet God is sat there thinking "well as they prayed for her to be healed, I decided to provide them with medical care so she should be healed. If only they'd have listened to my answer and used what I provided...." :smt115
SoulKiss
23-01-09, 10:55 AM
I bet God is sat there thinking "well as they prayed for her to be healed, I decided to provide them with medical care so she should be healed. If only they'd have listened to my answer and used what I provided...." :smt115
I was thinking nothing of the sort...............[-o<
I bet God is sat there thinking "well as they prayed for her to be healed, I decided to provide them with medical care so she should be healed. If only they'd have listened to my answer and used what I provided...." :smt115
Did they not know that god has delegated his/her powers to doctors...
This is truly shocking. Poor girl.
Flamin_Squirrel
23-01-09, 11:18 AM
This is truly shocking. Poor girl.
I'm shocked it doesn't happen more often. Try watching a film called Bible Camp. I could only endure 15 mins of watching those kind of idiots. I turned off when it showed a young boy being home tought by his idiot mother that 'science doesn't prove anything', while using a laptop.
idiot monther.
quite an apt spelling error that - cross between mother and monster...
Flamin_Squirrel
23-01-09, 11:34 AM
quite an apt spelling error that - cross between mother and monster...
T'was just a typo 8)
DanAbnormal
23-01-09, 11:35 AM
How are people really that dumb?
Filipe M.
23-01-09, 11:51 AM
How are people really that dumb?
You answered your own question there...
yorkie_chris
23-01-09, 04:01 PM
Why are so many septics religious fanatics? Nutters.
gettin2dizzy
23-01-09, 04:32 PM
Why are so many septics religious fanatics? Nutters.
Septics? :rolleyes:
;)
Now whilst I don’t think that this is in any way correct or moral; it is what they believed in.
As a democracy don’t we profess to stand up for individuals rights and their beliefs... or does this only happen when they agree with our own?
I´m just playing devil’s advocate here.
yorkie_chris
23-01-09, 04:44 PM
Septic tank - yank.
It is what they believed in... so fackin what? Do you think the poor lass had such a strong belief in it that she was prepared to die for it at such a young age?
Even if she did, that's basically suicide. And I don't think many of you would agree that an 11 year old can make that choice say by smoking...
How are people really that dumb?
That's a bit harsh on FS! It was just a typo.
Septic tank - yank.
..
Or some play on sceptic :-k
gettin2dizzy
23-01-09, 04:48 PM
I didn`t read anywhere that the Travolta`s had taken their son off his medication due to their religious beliefs?? where`s that printed?? If that were true then surely they`d be facing some sort of charges??
Well Jett had suffered from seizures all of his life. The Scientologist doctors had diagnosed him with 'Kawasaki Syndrome' (a somewhat relevant condition given the forums topic!) which was what had apparently caused his lifetime of seizures.
The interesting part is that if you look in to Kawsaki syndrome, it is NOT associated with seizures one bit ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawasaki_syndrome ), it's a skin rash that can cause heart problems if left untreated. Jett had been diagnosed with Autism (a closely related illness to epilipsy), but Scientology denounces any mental condition, and in particular doesn't believe in prescribed medication for such illnesses. As such, the Travoltas refused his mental illness and took him off the anti-seizure medication he was previously prescribed. Apparently with scientology you can 'connect your spirit with your body' and any mental illness will disappear.
His seizures were so bad that Travolta's own brother was campaigning for Jett to be taken in to care to deal with his Autism.
the_lone_wolf
23-01-09, 04:49 PM
As a democracy don’t we profess to stand up for individuals rights and their beliefs...
how far does that extend?
Woman kills her three sons because god told her to do it... (http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/03/29/children.slain/index.html)
How is that different from killing your child by denying them life saving treatment because you think god told you not to, except that using a rock is quicker and less painful for the child?...
In both cases the parents are clearly not fit to care for children, and the kids should be taken from them
gettin2dizzy
23-01-09, 04:51 PM
Now whilst I don’t think that this is in any way correct or moral; it is what they believed in.
As a democracy don’t we profess to stand up for individuals rights and their beliefs... or does this only happen when they agree with our own?
I´m just playing devil’s advocate here.
But the child had the right to medical attention and a life, above the right of the mother to inflict her beliefs on her child. She has a duty of care to look after that child until she is capable of making such decisions herself.
She has a duty of care to look after that child until she is capable of making such decisions herself.
But the mother/Mr Travolta believes with all that they hold true that the utmost bestest care for their child is to withold medical treatment and trust in the Lord. Praise Be! Can I have a Hallelujah
I´m not saying I disagree however, how is this different from school children being sent to school with DNR requests made from their legal guardians.
For example jehovah's witness´s will make such requests, and only send their children to schools once the schools have been briefed on these requests.
These children are in the same position ie; not old enough to make a fully informed decision themselves, and so the legal guardian has made it for them.
Whilst we believe that this decision is the wrong one it is their decision. We profess to stand up for other´s rights to believe in what they choose so long as it isnt against the laws of the country.
yorkie_chris
23-01-09, 05:12 PM
I thought neglecting children was against the law?
We profess to stand up for other´s rights to believe in what they choose so long as it isnt against the laws of the country.
...and as long as it doesn't affect other people. Cranks taking life and death decisions about other people surely is excluded.
But it's not neglect, it's the parents doing what they think is best. Frankly I was surprised Karen Mathews could be convicted of kidnap when I assume she had legal custody of Shannon :???:
gettin2dizzy
23-01-09, 05:20 PM
I´m not saying I disagree however, how is this different from school children being sent to school with DNR requests made from their legal guardians.
For example jehovah's witness´s will make such requests, and only send their children to schools once the schools have been briefed on these requests.
These children are in the same position ie; not old enough to make a fully informed decision themselves, and so the legal guardian has made it for them.
Whilst we believe that this decision is the wrong one it is their decision. We profess to stand up for other´s rights to believe in what they choose so long as it isnt against the laws of the country.
If a Jehovas Idiot takes their child in to hospital, the doctor is bound by the Hippocratic oath they took to treat the child, regardless of the parents wishes. If they are on life support and want the machine turned off, it has to go through the courts. Regardless of what pieces of paper they carry, they have no say.
...and as long as it doesn't affect other people. Cranks taking life and death decisions about other people surely is excluded.
As I said I´m just putting another view into the mix.
It could be argued that doctors make life and death decisions every day. Yes, fully informed decisions based on their vast experience however, these are parents making informed decisions about their children.
If a doctor gave child resuscitation after express wishes from the parent requesting them not to, our legal system would have no problem in defending that parent’s right to make that decision. (Please correct if I am wrong here)
yorkie_chris
23-01-09, 05:28 PM
If someone asked me to stand by and watch a child die I'd be hard pressed not to break their neck for them.
G2D .. the reason why I am raising this point as it was a discussion I had not long ago with a school. They had a policy in place that they would respect parents wishes. If what your saying is true then the schools legal obligation is first and foremost for the duty of the care of the child regardless of the parents wishes, unless of course they have a legal DNR paper and that of course then bounds them.
YC.. I dont think you are on your own there I dont know anyone with first aid skills who could watch a child die without trying to help.
Biker Biggles
23-01-09, 05:49 PM
I think DNRs concerning those too young to make informed decisions have to be agreed by more than just a parent.
So a JW parent saying their otherwise healthy kid should not be given life saving treatment following a road accident would not be acceptable to a doctor, I suspect.
gettin2dizzy
23-01-09, 06:17 PM
G2D .. the reason why I am raising this point as it was a discussion I had not long ago with a school. They had a policy in place that they would respect parents wishes. If what your saying is true then the schools legal obligation is first and foremost for the duty of the care of the child regardless of the parents wishes, unless of course they have a legal DNR paper and that of course then bounds them.
If the school and parents have an agreement it makes no difference. It is not within their power to accept such 'contracts'.
DNR orders take ages to go through legally, and are bound by huge rules such as that resuscitation would :
-Result in a poor quality of life
-Be unlikely to succeed
They also have to be agreed by a non-executive director of the NHS, and then they're checked and reviewed the whole time.
You can't have an order for someone who is otherwise-well. TV dramas do nothing here but butcher the law.
As I said I´m just putting another view into the mix.
It could be argued that doctors make life and death decisions every day. Yes, fully informed decisions based on their vast experience however, these are parents making informed decisions about their children.
If a doctor gave child resuscitation after express wishes from the parent requesting them not to, our legal system would have no problem in defending that parent’s right to make that decision. (Please correct if I am wrong here)
Anna - it wasn't an informed decision. On what basis can a moron's religious view be considered 'informed'? Because god told them? Or told somebody over 2,000 years ago?
As re last para, wrong. Court will uphold the welfare principle - the child's welfare comes first. The parents' wishes don't really come into it.
gettin2dizzy
23-01-09, 06:26 PM
Anna - it wasn't an informed decision. On what basis can a moron's religious view be considered 'informed'? Because god told them? Or told somebody over 2,000 years ago?
Wooo! It's taken me two years, but I've got Ed religion bashing!
My work here is done. No more upholding the lies that I have a motorbike ;)
Anna - it wasn't an informed decision. On what basis can a moron's religious view be considered 'informed'? Because god told them? Or told somebody over 2,000 years ago?
As re last para, wrong. Court will uphold the welfare principle - the child's welfare comes first. The parents' wishes don't really come into it.
What I meant by "informed" in that context was that they knew the consequences of not providing medical attention.
As I said I am not upholding the religious belief´s held but, trying to pose the moral question theoretically.
I stand very much corrected on the other subject.
gettin2dizzy
23-01-09, 06:58 PM
What I meant by "informed" in that context was that they knew the consequences of not providing medical attention.
As I said I am not upholding the religious belief´s held but, trying to pose the moral question theoretically.
I stand very much corrected on the other subject.
I appreciate the counter devils-advocate argument though. Otherwise bigots like me start believing their own tripe they type ;) hehe.
As a boring fact, the devils advocate doesn't operate anymore. It's almost as if the Catholic church is afraid of something ;) Mind you, the pope is a Nazi and no one minded that :rolleyes:
It's a very sad fact that this has happened. RIP Kara.
The parents held a belief, and that's their perogative. They will now have to live with the fact that their 'God' chose not to 'save' their child (they won't for a second believe they made a bad decision).
They will no doubt question their faith.
Assuming for a second that they are like any average parent, and will greatly mourn the loss of their child, then IMO, that's more than a sufficient punishment.
There's no evidence to show they acted maliciously, so I see no reason to berate them for their belief.
Whilst I don't condone their decision, and in fact feel so strongly about it I'd struggle not to enact YC's post should I even meet them, I think I'm with Anna on this one.
gettin2dizzy
23-01-09, 07:19 PM
It's a very sad fact that this has happened. RIP Kara.
The parents held a belief, and that's their perogative. They will now have to live with the fact that their 'God' chose not to 'save' their child (they won't for a second believe they made a bad decision).
They will no doubt question their faith.
Assuming for a second that they are like any average parent, and will greatly mourn the loss of their child, then IMO, that's more than a sufficient punishment.
There's no evidence to show they acted maliciously, so I see no reason to berate them for their belief.
Whilst I don't condone their decision, and in fact feel so strongly about it I'd struggle not to enact YC's post should I even meet them, I think I'm with Anna on this one.
This child was visibly dying for a long long time. To not even consult a doctor is reckless, and inexcusable. It wasn't malicious as they weren't wishing her to die. But that doesn't mean that they weren't neglectful in their care of the child.
Flamin_Squirrel
23-01-09, 07:22 PM
This child was visibly dying for a long long time. To not even consult a doctor is reckless, and inexcusable. It wasn't malicious as they weren't wishing her to die. But that doesn't mean that they weren't neglectful in their care of the child.
Agree. I think a custodial sentence for them is required too. I don't like the idea of people being made examples of, but I think this kind of negligence has to be shown to not be tolerated.
A custodial sentence for upholding their religious beliefs? Jews were also persecuted for their beliefs not so long ago.
Is this a wrong comparison to make?
gettin2dizzy
23-01-09, 07:32 PM
A custodial sentence for upholding their religious beliefs? Jews were also persecuted for their beliefs not so long ago.
Is this a wrong comparison to make?
Yes ;)
Even in her twisted philosophy, there is no part stating that god won't work his magic if she seeks medicinal help. That is neglectful.
Biker Biggles
23-01-09, 07:35 PM
If you cause someone to die through negligence or ommission when you could reasonably have been expected to have behaved differently you are looking at a serious criminal charge I would have thought.
I suggest that hiding behind religeous beliefs to justify this course of action(or inaction)shouldnt get you off.But its a mad mad world and you just never know.
This child was visibly dying for a long long time. To not even consult a doctor is reckless, and inexcusable. It wasn't malicious as they weren't wishing her to die. But that doesn't mean that they weren't neglectful in their care of the child.
Ah, but you're judging them on your belief system, not theirs.
Considering that they truely believed God was the sole being that could remedy their daughters illness, they did everything they could to ensure their daughter was returned to health. They preyed.
By our belief system, yes, what they did was completely atrocious. Someone in our society should (and probably would) at least be taken to court to attempt prosecution on one of possibly a few different charges for doing similar.
I view it though as they are clearly in a different culture. Would anyone want to prosecute a mother in Africa for watching her child die of malnutrition, whether or not the mother chose to give herself food over the child (human nature can be very dark at times)? That afterall is a different culture too.
gettin2dizzy
23-01-09, 08:07 PM
Considering that they truely believed God was the sole being that could remedy their daughters illness, they did everything they could to ensure their daughter was returned to health. They preyed.
They believe that god CAN heal. There is nothing to suggest that it is the ONLY way that they can be healed. For instance, I bet the parents have taken aspirin for a headache, regardless of god's touch.
Watching your child suffer and refusing to look in to alternative treatments is just deplorable.
Baph, I don't know if this is overstepping the mark (I'm not intentionally trying to stir, but if I am, I'll delete this bit happily). But my post on page 3 regarding John Travolta refusing that Autism exists, and contributing to his son's death; do you think differently about that?
Her parents, who believe that God alone has the ability to heal the sick, prayed for her recovery...
I say again, they believed that God was the sole being that could help.
Baph, I don't know if this is overstepping the mark (I'm not intentionally trying to stir, but if I am, I'll delete this bit happily). But my post on page 3 regarding John Travolta refusing that Autism exists, and contributing to his son's death; do you think differently about that?
Well done for remembering, but no, you haven't over-stepped the mark, so don't fuss about that. :)
For the specific case, I wasn't aware of it until this thread, the personal lives of celebrities is rarely on my mind, and I must of missed when this was in the news. Again, his belief, he's entitled to it. If he cared about his child as much as I do mine (or any other parent I'm aware of), the grief he would be left with (regardless of the cause) is almost unimaginable. He made a choice and has to live with the consequences.
As for Autistic spectrum in general, I can't really comment. I will however say that you wouldn't believe the number of trained medical professionals that stated (in writing too!) that there was nothing wrong with my son. Referral after refferal for approx 5 years, and we finally found someone that was able to demonstrate which pidgeon hole'd situation he fits into.
From a little googling about the Travolta case, I haven't seen anywhere that specifically, categorically states that Jett Travolta had any form of Autism. The seemingly only offical word on his health prior to death was Kawasaki Syndrome.
There is a lot of speculation about Jett being autistic, but I certainly haven't seen anything concrete.
gettin2dizzy
23-01-09, 08:43 PM
From a little googling about the Travolta case, I haven't seen anywhere that specifically, categorically states that Jett Travolta had any form of Autism. The seemingly only offical word on his health prior to death was Kawasaki Syndrome.
There is a lot of speculation about Jett being autistic, but I certainly haven't seen anything concrete.
Whilst I pop outside, not to smoke a cigarette :rolleyes: , have a search for a link between the treatable (2 weeks) kawasaki syndrome, and seizures.
Flamin_Squirrel
23-01-09, 08:50 PM
Ah, but you're judging them on your belief system, not theirs.
Well we have to judge them on someones belief system, and the predominant belief system in the west believes that people should not come to harm due to other peoples negligence.
Whilst I pop outside, not to smoke a cigarette :rolleyes: , have a search for a link between the treatable (2 weeks) kawasaki syndrome, and seizures.
One thing I have seen so far...
For a small percentage of children who develop coronary artery problems, Kawasaki disease is fatal, even with treatment.
I have also seen that treatment takes 10 days. According to the hype on the internet, Jett Travolta was given treatment, then stopped due to Scientology related beliefs.
Again, ignoring Scientology, kids can have Kawasaki Syndrome & recover from it without medication quite easily, though they risk futher complications by doing so.
I still haven't seen anything mentionning KS and autism together, unless it has the Travolta family name on it.
Well we have to judge them on someones belief system, and the predominant belief system in the west believes that people should not come to harm due to other peoples negligence.
Can you punish someone in another culture, for their actions, based on our culture?
Flamin_Squirrel
23-01-09, 09:01 PM
Can you punish someone in another culture, for their actions, based on our culture?
If they live in a country where practicing said culture is against the law, then yes absolutely.
gettin2dizzy
23-01-09, 09:08 PM
As for Autistic spectrum in general, I can't really comment. I will however say that you wouldn't believe the number of trained medical professionals that stated (in writing too!) that there was nothing wrong with my son. Referral after refferal for approx 5 years, and we finally found someone that was able to demonstrate which pidgeon hole'd situation he fits into.
I've worked for the NHS for a while, with too many meetings with Doctors. I will quite willingly express that they're the most arrogant group of human existence I've ever had to deal with.
From a little googling about the Travolta case, I haven't seen anywhere that specifically, categorically states that Jett Travolta had any form of Autism. The seemingly only offical word on his health prior to death was Kawasaki Syndrome.
There is a lot of speculation about Jett being autistic, but I certainly haven't seen anything concrete.
There's speculation yes, and no doctors direct hands-on diagnosis. But you have to be aware that Kawasaki syndrome is an easily treatable condition which has NO history of seizures. He was diagnosed this by Scientologist doctors, which immediately questions their credibility.
I'm not one for conspiracy theories in the slightest. So we can only look at the child's observed behaviour, and then likely conditions he was living in.
Whilst we we won't ever know for certain, it's apparent that he had the symptoms as observed by both family, neighbours and anyone who had contact with the child. That with the knowledge that scientology denounces such conditions, and that he died from one of his many seizures begs questionning. If the family were confident he didn't have a mental illness, why did they refuse to give him medication for it?
Whether it was Autism, or another mental illness. It's a sad fact of modern day society that a child dies from such an illness without serious investigation merely by the simple fact that Scientology can buy influence.
gettin2dizzy
23-01-09, 09:11 PM
One thing I have seen so far...
I have also seen that treatment takes 10 days. According to the hype on the internet, Jett Travolta was given treatment, then stopped due to Scientology related beliefs.
Again, ignoring Scientology, kids can have Kawasaki Syndrome & recover from it without medication quite easily, though they risk futher complications by doing so.
I still haven't seen anything mentionning KS and autism together, unless it has the Travolta family name on it.
Jett died of a seizure (well, it caused him to hit his head off a bath). KS isn't a cause of seizures, so it can be removed from the equation.
There's speculation yes, and no doctors direct hands-on diagnosis. But you have to be aware that Kawasaki syndrome is an easily treatable condition which has NO history of seizures. He was diagnosed this by Scientologist doctors, which immediately questions their credibility.
From what I've read, Kawasaki Syndromme can, and does cause seizures. Rare that it is, they still happen.
If the family were confident he didn't have a mental illness, why did they refuse to give him medication for it?
If I'm not sure what ails me, I refuse any medication. I do that on the basis that I remember the lectures at school about various diseases etc becoming acustommed to medicine & suitably adapting, so I'd rather my immune system cope by itself the majority of the time. That isn't how I react when the kids are ill though I hasten to add.
Whether it was Autism, or another mental illness. It's a sad fact of modern day society that a child dies from such an illness without serious investigation merely by the simple fact that Scientology can buy influence.
+1.
F_S, the local laws excempt a parent who treats their child solely with prayers from being charged criminally. The case rests on if they knew (beyond reasonable doubt) that her condition was deteriorating. We can't say, as we weren't there.
I don’t mean to throw the cat amongst the pigeons but, are you seriously trying to give a cybernet diagnosis of a medical condition to back an argument that says religious theories are not to be credited against scientific factual medical help?
What I can see here is that you are creating an argument by giving a diagnosis (not based on a medical examination) to then suggest that the Travolta family did not give their son the best medical help due to religious views.
Surely religious views are based on such fictional thoughts??
Theories and created scenarios to further discussions are all fine so long as that´s stated.
Seizures are very uncommon. Maybe during the acute episode during a high fever; fevers themselves can cause seizures sometimes. But Kawasaki syndrome is rarely a cause of encephalitis (swelling of the brain) or residual brain problems. I'm sure there are exceptions to the rule, but I can't speak to that.
Kawasaki syndrome is not believed to be one of the etiologies of autism.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=what-is-kawasaki-syndrome&page=2
EDIT: Anna, to whom were your comments directed? I'm at work, and working whilst talking on the .Org is confusing my brain. Especially as I have to type it all in damn HTML. :(
gettin2dizzy
23-01-09, 09:30 PM
From what I've read, Kawasaki Syndromme can, and does cause seizures. Rare that it is, they still happen.
I haven't seen this. Anywhere credible mention it? I think even Aspirin has it on the list of side effects though ;)
If I'm not sure what ails me, I refuse any medication. I do that on the basis that I remember the lectures at school about various diseases etc becoming acustommed to medicine & suitably adapting, so I'd rather my immune system cope by itself the majority of the time. That isn't how I react when the kids are ill though I hasten to add.
That only applies to bacteria based infections. You can grow a tolerance for some meds though. But I wouldn't refuse treatment on this basis.
F_S, the local laws excempt a parent who treats their child solely with prayers from being charged criminally. The case rests on if they knew (beyond reasonable doubt) that her condition was deteriorating. We can't say, as we weren't there.
The law is very fuzzy here. You are convincted with neglect very often, regardless of their religious views. As a general rule, you will get prosecuted.
I don’t mean to throw the cat amongst the pigeons but, are you seriously trying to give a cybernet diagnosis of a medical condition to back an argument that says religious theories are not to be credited against scientific factual medical help?
What I can see here is that you are creating an argument by giving a diagnosis (not based on a medical examination) to then suggest that the Travolta family did not give their son the best medical help due to religious views.
Surely religious views are based on such fictional thoughts??
Theories and created scenarios to further discussions are all fine so long as that´s stated.
Yes. And I'm no MD ;) But autism is an observed condition rather than tested (hence why it can be difficult to diagnose people with mild forms) and people of far higher authority than me have stated this. Epilepsy and autism are very closely related which is why autistic people tend to suffer from seizures fairly often.
I haven't seen this. Anywhere credible mention it? I think even Aspirin has it on the list of side effects though ;)
See my post above, Scientific American.
And I'm no MD ;) But autism is an observed condition rather than tested (hence why it can be difficult to diagnose people with mild forms) and people of far higher authority than me have stated this. Epilepsy and autism are very closely related which is why autistic people tend to suffer from seizures fairly often.
Oh believe me, there are tests for autism, but those tests are usually carried out by means of observation. Pedant? Me? :lol:
Autism is a very wide spectrum of mental issues. The vast majority of these issues don't give seizures (my son being a prime example), but the ones that do bring seizures with them, have more people suffering from them, so gain more limelight.
:smt115Okay sure Autism can be diagnosed by observation however; the child in question was diagnosed by a medic.
To question his diagnosis on religious grounds is surely another discussion.
An engineer can be a member of scientology as can an MD. So a doctor of the medical profession can be discredited on the grounds of his religion?
:smt115Okay sure Autism can be diagnosed by observation however; the child in question was diagnosed by a medic.
Yup, and in the vast majority of cases, the diagnosis is by medically trained people making observations. :)
Yup, and in the vast majority of cases, the diagnosis is by medically trained people making observations. :)
:smt019 did i not make my point???;)
:smt019 did i not make my point???;)
Hey, if you don't want the backup, just say so.:smt019 :lol:
Hey, if you don't want the backup, just say so.:smt019 :lol:
:rolleyes:... I just thought you were taking the mick out of the way I had written it!!.... my bad:(
gettin2dizzy
23-01-09, 10:12 PM
:smt115Okay sure Autism can be diagnosed by observation however; the child in question was diagnosed by a medic.
To question his diagnosis on religious grounds is surely another discussion.
An engineer can be a member of scientology as can an MD. So a doctor of the medical profession can be discredited on the grounds of his religion?
Yes. Scientologist doctors are famed for their "somewhat" slated views on medicine.
They don't believe in Psychiatry for a start. At all.
Yup, and in the vast majority of cases, the diagnosis is by medically trained people making observations. :)
In many cases the "trained" people will still not give a diagosis.They just class the child as having"global development delays"
vBulletin® , Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.