Boy dies from flesh eating disease!


JLM
#1
Calgary boy died from flesh-eating strep infection, grandpa says - Calgary - CBC News

How incredibly stupid (and cruel) can some idiots be?
 
Sal
#2
oops...

http://forums.canadiancontent.net/ho...t-calgary.html
 
Liberalman
+1
#3
Life and death decisions are for trained professionals not doctor wannabes.
 
Walter
+1
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by Liberalman View Post

Life and death decisions are for trained professionals not doctor wannabes.

Nor gubmints.
 
damngrumpy
+2
#5
I hope the time has come when the medical world will be consulted instead of
these so called remedies for serious illness. Its time to have the law step in,
good on em, the parents of a child with flesh eating disease who feed the kid
some kind of seaweed or the equivalent deserve what they get
 
WLDB
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by Walter View Post

Nor gubmints.

They do it all the time whether it be with the armed forces, the judicial system or enacting laws on the subject. Thats part of what they are there for.

If the parents of this kid get off the laws need to be changed. This kids death was pointless and easily could have been prevented.
 
Walter
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by WLDB View Post

They do it all the time whether it be with the armed forces, the judicial system or enacting laws on the subject. Thats part of what they are there for.

If the parents of this kid get off the laws need to be changed. This kids death was pointless and easily could have been prevented.

Agreed, but where will you draw the line? Say a parent only lets their child listen to gangsta rap and the kid becomes a misogynist, do we then charge the parents after the kid beats up his GF?

A racist black parent teaches their son to hate whites and he goes around doing the "knock-out game", do we charge the parents?
Last edited by Walter; Nov 23rd, 2013 at 07:04 PM..
 
spaminator
#8
is flesh eating disease contagious?
 
SLM
+3
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by Walter View Post

Agreed, but where will you draw the line? Say a parent only lets their child listen to gangsta rap and the kid becomes a misogynist, do we then charge the parents after the kid beats up his GF?

A racist black parent teaches their son to hate whites and he goes around doing the "knock-out game", do we charge the parents?

Parents right now are required to provide the necessities of life. They have to feed them, they have to clothe them. In the case of an illness, that would include seeking medical treatment to prevent death.

Thoughts and philosophies of life aren't the same thing.
 
Sal
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by spaminator View Post

is flesh eating disease contagious?

depends on what you read...it's call necrotizing faciitis... for the most part I would say no
 
Christianna
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by Walter View Post

Nor gubmints.

So Walter what does the government have to do with that child dying? Only you would find something political about a boys death.
 
Walter
+1
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by Christianna View Post

Only you would find something political about a boys death.

You're right.
 
taxslave
+1
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by Christianna View Post

So Walter what does the government have to do with that child dying? Only you would find something political about a boys death.

Lots. There are a lot of similarities between this unfortunate death and JWs refusing transfusions. Many people insist that is wrong as well. Why should the government be permitted to decide what is best for everyone?
 
Sal
+1
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

Lots. There are a lot of similarities between this unfortunate death and JWs refusing transfusions. Many people insist that is wrong as well. Why should the government be permitted to decide what is best for everyone?

they shouldn't, but a child shouldn't die because of some bizarre held belief by their parent
 
SLM
+1
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

Lots. There are a lot of similarities between this unfortunate death and JWs refusing transfusions. Many people insist that is wrong as well. Why should the government be permitted to decide what is best for everyone?

The government isn't deciding. Society is deciding.
 
taxslave
+1
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by SLM View Post

The government isn't deciding. Society is deciding.

How does that make it right?
 
SLM
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

How does that make it right?

In society we need to have standards of acceptable behaviour. For example, it's contrary to standards of acceptable behaviour to take the life of another. Is that right? Does that not 'interfere' with our choices?
 
taxslave
+1
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by SLM View Post

In society we need to have standards of acceptable behaviour. For example, it's contrary to standards of acceptable behaviour to take the life of another. Is that right? Does that not 'interfere' with our choices?

The problem is who gets to decide when and how society gets to override someone else's choices. That is why I compare it to JW's refusal to have transfusions. Granted it becomes more complicated when a child is involved.
 
gerryh
+1
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

Granted it becomes more complicated when a child is involved.


and that is exactly what has happened here. A child has died because of his parent(s) beliefs.
 
WLDB
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by Walter View Post

Agreed, but where will you draw the line? Say a parent only lets their child listen to gangsta rap and the kid becomes a misogynist, do we then charge the parents after the kid beats up his GF?

A racist black parent teaches their son to hate whites and he goes around doing the "knock-out game", do we charge the parents?

You cant really charge a person for their views. Well, not in most places anyway. If the kid grows up to be a misogynist he wont be well liked. If he beats up his gf, then he should be charged. There is a huge difference between imparting screwed up views on their kid and neglecting them. The actions this kids parents took led to his death. It was easily preventable.
 
SLM
+1
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

The problem is who gets to decide when and how society gets to override someone else's choices. That is why I compare it to JW's refusal to have transfusions. Granted it becomes more complicated when a child is involved.

Exactly. Had this been an adult, it would be an entirely different story altogether. But there is a provision within the criminal code that requires parents provide the necessities of life to a child. I would think this would qualify.
 
WLDB
+1
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

The problem is who gets to decide when and how society gets to override someone else's choices. That is why I compare it to JW's refusal to have transfusions. Granted it becomes more complicated when a child is involved.

If they want to refuse treatment or transfusions for themselves thats totally fine. The kid didnt get a choice. He is dead because of his parents beliefs. If a parent makes a decision which puts a kids life in danger that decision should be overridden. Parents cant (and shouldnt) be allowed to do whatever they want with their kids. Children are not property.
 
Retired_Can_Soldier
+5
#23  Top Rated Post
Funny, if this had been some crazy Christian family using prayer and faith to try and heal the kid, the holistic herbal hippies would be freaking right out.

Bloody stupidity. Absolutely cruel and unusual punishment by an idiot who should never have been a parent to begin with.
 
taxslave
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by WLDB View Post

If they want to refuse treatment or transfusions for themselves thats totally fine. The kid didnt get a choice. He is dead because of his parents beliefs. If a parent makes a decision which puts a kids life in danger that decision should be overridden. Parents cant (and shouldnt) be allowed to do whatever they want with their kids. Children are not property.

Agreed. But we still have to have a limit on when society or government can override a parent's decision. If we reversed this and say a kid died because the parent chose to go to a medical doctor instead of a Naturopath would you still feel the same about it?
Another thing to ponder on is at what point do we draw the line in medical intervention.
 
Retired_Can_Soldier
+2
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

Agreed. But we still have to have a limit on when society or government can override a parent's decision. If we reversed this and say a kid died because the parent chose to go to a medical doctor instead of a Naturopath would you still feel the same about it?
Another thing to ponder on is at what point do we draw the line in medical intervention.

When a child's life is at risk. Period.
 
taxslave
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by Retired_Can_Soldier View Post

When a child's life is at risk. Period.

It is not that simple. I consider going to a pill pusher putting my health/life at risk but am fine with my Naturopath. I would rather go to a vet than a doctor. Far safer.
 
SLM
+2
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

It is not that simple. I consider going to a pill pusher putting my health/life at risk but am fine with my Naturopath. I would rather go to a vet than a doctor. Far safer.

But you are an adult and can make these decisions for yourself. A child cannot.
 
Retired_Can_Soldier
+2
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

It is not that simple. I consider going to a pill pusher putting my health/life at risk but am fine with my Naturopath. I would rather go to a vet than a doctor. Far safer.

That's your choice. You want to put a minors life at risk that's another matter altogether.
 
CDNBear
+4
#29
There's something to be said for having to need a license to have kids.
 
SLM
+1
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post

There's something to be said for having to need a license to have kids.

As impractical as that would actually be, I can so understand that sentiment.
 

Similar Threads

62
18