I simply can't fathom that period. Diabetics have serious problems. I am a diabetic. Not type one but type 2. Type one is a very serious disease. These parents SHOULD be held liable for their daughters death! Period.
In a nut shell, it would seem to me that, by charging the parents, the government has decided there is no God.
I agree. God provides all He can to assist us on this earth. His hands will always guide the doctors and nurses. Our children are His gifts to us to provide and take care of them as much as we can. They should be charged.
They didn't decide there is no God. They decided that the parents were neglectful and didn't take care of their daughter. God has nothing to do with the decision made.
I see where Clif is going. What if they had given her homeopathic treatments in place of prayer, and they were not successful? Since they are not FDA approved, the outcome might be the same. Now I am all for busting up cults, and I will probably be in the minority here - but I would like the right to parent and treat my children for illnesses as I see fit. What is next? Forced medication for ADHD instead of diet and behavior modification?
But if they had left their daughter in the care of a doctor and the daughter died, would they be charged? It's ok to have faith in a human, but not have faith in God.
God gave the human (doctors) the resources and the education to help the sick child. God also supplied the parents of the dead child with (somewhat of) a brain, which, just like the parents of the parents of the dead child, use to take care of children in the 21st Century.
Be that as it may, as far as the government is concerned, it's ok to have faith in a human, but not ok to have faith in God. God gave lots of things to man, but still wants you to have faith in Him. As I said, if the parents had placed the child in the care of a doctor and the child died, the parents would not be charged. Since they decided to put their child in the care of God, the parents are charged. What's the difference?
Clif, you are a smart guy, I know you know the difference. I get your point and why you are asking a rhetorical question, for the sake of argument. I am not feeling it today, arguing with you, when you already know the logic. Wonder if God will take care of your financial planning, since you inquired about that on another thread. Hmmm, even better, wonder if I can just have the orthodontist send the bill to Heaven, and pray God pays the bill.
You keep saying that, and yet you keep responding. Here's a hint. if you don't want to argue, don't argue. If it were my financial planning and I put it in his hands, then he might or he might not, that's up to Him. But that is completely beside the point. The point is, and you seem to be continually missing it, not whether or not God will handle it. It's the question of, why does the government allow one to put their faith in a human with little or no repercussions for the decision, and yet of we put the same faith in God, there are major repercussions. Once again, and I will keep stating it until you get it. If the parents put their child in the care of a doctor and the child died, the parents would not be charged would they? But they put their child in the care of God and now they are charged. Why? Can you give me any other valid answer that does not indicate that the government does not believe in God?
Then please explain the point of charging the parents because they put their child in the care of God when the parents would not have been charged of they had put their child in the care of a human doctor. The point is that the government has effectively declared that there is no God.
But what if the parents put their child in the care of a doctor and the doctor was neglectful...then the doctor would be held liable. I'm guessing that's the government's angle. The parents have to be held liable b/c God neglect to answer their prayers. Since God isn't a physical being on earth, at the moment. Yeah that's reaching...but anyway.
I agree and I honestly don't have an answer to what the gov. is doing. This will definitely be an interesting case to follow.
The government has said there is a potential that the parents were negligent in treatment of their daughter, and has decided that a jury of their peers should decide.
Yes. So? If a doctor used a generally unsupported medicine as sole treatment for an issue with a patient, he would be under malpractice investigation, wouldn't he?
