Faith Healing

[yorkie_chris]

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...

[Stu]

Originally Posted by DanAbnormal

How are people really that dumb?

That's a bit harsh on FS! It was just a typo.

Originally Posted by yorkie_chris

Septic tank - yank.

..

Or some play on sceptic

Originally Posted by Speedy Claire

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]

Originally Posted by anna

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...

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

Originally Posted by anna

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.

[Stu]

Originally Posted by gettin2dizzy

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

[anna]

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]

I thought neglecting children was against the law?

Originally Posted by anna

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.

[Stu]

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