1. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    11 Oct '16 21:047 edits
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-37604951

    "India Parents Investigated After Jain Girl Dies from 68 Day Fast"

    Aradhana Samdariya, a 13 year old Jain girl in India, has died shortly after a
    religious fast of 68 days, during which she (reportedly) consumed only boiled water.
    Her parents claimed that her fast was completely voluntary and they did nothing wrong.
    Senior Jain leaders have expressed their approval of the fast and stated that
    it's wrong for outsiders (including the legal authorities) to criticize the parents.
    Some Jain leaders have claimed that there was no reason to believe that the fast was life-threatening.
    The girl was not supposed to die, and the fact that she did should be explained as "God's will".
    an 'act of God' that could not be prevented any more than something like a typhoon.

    Many Jains believe that fasting (perhaps unto death) is an essential part of their faith.
    The wealthy parents organized a funeral procession in which she was celebrated as a child saint.
    Her manner of death seems admired for showing her absolute devotion to her religion.
    The parents may gain prestige in their community for having such a 'saint' as their child.

    As far as I can tell, nearly all the American writers (whether religious or not, whether
    'conservative' or 'liberal' ) at RHP practically unconditionally support the right of parents
    to bring up their children in any way that they please and oppose the 'interference' of state
    authorities into how the children are treated, particularly if the parents claim a religious objection.
    Should parents have the right to put their religion's demands ahead of their child's life?

    I also have noticed that many Westerners object to Muslim girls wearing hijab on the alleged
    grounds that they have no free choice because their parents or community compel them to do so.
    Some Indians reject these Jain parents' insistence that their daughter's fast was truly voluntary.
    I note that if an unmarried 13 year old Indian girl had fallen pregnant, then she usually
    would need her parent's consent before she could get a legal abortion because Indian
    law seems to regard her as too immature to make their decision on her own.

    So should a Jain have the right to fast unto death in service of one's religious faith?
    Should a Jain *child* have the same right as a Jain *adult* to make that choice?

    As a possible (though not exact) analogy, should a Jehovah's Witness *child* have the right
    to refuse a blood transfusion after being informed that it's needed to save one's life?
  2. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86387
    12 Oct '16 01:482 edits
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    Should parents have the right to put their religion's demands ahead of their child's life?

    As a possible (though not exact) analogy, should a Jehovah's Witness *child* have the right to refuse a blood transfusion after being informed that it's needed to save one's life?
    Should parents have the right to put their religion's demands ahead of their child's life?

    Child sacrifice to religious beings, or in fact for any reason, is never a good thing and I would say this was especially true when the parents were the catalyst.

    As a possible (though not exact) analogy, should a Jehovah's Witness *child* have the right to refuse a blood transfusion after being informed that it's needed to save one's life?

    Absolutely not; children depending on age and country, do not have the same rights of refusal of medical care as adults. There are numourous academic and research articles about medical ethics available online if one needs an intellectual boost in this notion.

    The other situation is where the child is not particularly religious but the parents choose not permit medical care (blood) anyway.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/08/judge-rules-jehovahs-witness-boy-blood-transfusion

    The whole thing is a pitiful, sordid bastardisation of religious devotion. I've posted on it many times in here but the JW protagonists will defend their religion's practices with the usual blind commitment of the deluded and morally compromised.
  3. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    12 Oct '16 10:44
    Originally posted by divegeester
    [b]Should parents have the right to put their religion's demands ahead of their child's life?

    Child sacrifice to religious beings, or in fact for any reason, is never a good thing and I would say this was especially true when the parents were the catalyst.

    As a possible (though not exact) analogy, should a Jehovah's Witness *child* have the ...[text shortened]... eir religion's practices with the usual blind commitment of the deluded and morally compromised.
    The parents are still at fault, this is a primative rite and should have no part in 21st century life and the same with JW's refusing medical help that would save a child's life.

    God's will my ass. It is modern medicine that heals not pithy words from a priest.
  4. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86387
    12 Oct '16 11:54
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    The parents are still at fault, this is a primative rite and should have no part in 21st century life and the same with JW's refusing medical help that would save a child's life.

    God's will my ass. It is modern medicine that heals not pithy words from a priest.
    "In the absence of a miracle the latest from medical science will be fine"
  5. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    12 Oct '16 13:371 edit
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-37604951

    "India Parents Investigated After Jain Girl Dies from 68 Day Fast"

    Aradhana Samdariya, a 13 year old Jain girl in India, has died shortly after a
    religious fast of 68 days, during which she (reportedly) consumed only boiled water.
    Her parents claimed that her fast was completely voluntary and they ...[text shortened]... e right
    to refuse a blood transfusion after being informed that it's needed to save one's life?
    As a possible (though not exact) analogy, should a Jehovah's Witness *child* have the right to refuse a blood transfusion after being informed that it's needed to save one's life?

    This has been tested in court. It depends whether or not the minor can demonstrate to the court that they have a valid grasp of the principles and fully understand the consequences of their actions.

    The Jain case is a poor comparison for while I note that you correctly state its not an exact analogy its in my opinion so far removed that no logical comparison can be drawn because it was the direct consequence of the adherents will, not a reaction to a situation over which the minor has no jurisdiction as in the case of haemophilia or some other life threatening ailment which would normally warrant an intravenouses blood transfusion.
  6. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86387
    12 Oct '16 13:571 edit
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    This has been tested in court. It depends whether or not the minor can demonstrate to the court that they have a valid grasp of the principles and fully understand the consequences of their actions.
    While they are in a hospital bed unconscious?
  7. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86387
    12 Oct '16 13:581 edit
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    This has been tested in court. It depends whether or not the minor can demonstrate to the court that they have a valid grasp of the principles and fully understand the consequences of their actions.
    Suppose the minor cannot "demonstrate to the court that they have a valid grasp of the principles and fully understand the consequences of their actions" - I guess they die huh?
  8. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    12 Oct '16 14:14
    Originally posted by divegeester
    Suppose the minor cannot "demonstrate to the court that they have a valid grasp of the principles and fully understand the consequences of their actions" - I guess they die huh?
    I refuse to believe you are so bereft of substance and reason. In such a case the court overrules the child and issues a court order to administer an intravenous blood transfusion.
  9. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    12 Oct '16 14:17
    Originally posted by divegeester
    While they are in a hospital bed unconscious?
    how can someone? anyone demonstrate to a court that they are fully cognizant of religious principles when they are unconscious? man I often think at times you must be semi-conscious that amount of drivel that you post.
  10. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86387
    12 Oct '16 14:18
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    I refuse to believe you are so bereft of substance and reason. In such a case the court overrules the child and issues a court order to administer an intravenous blood transfusion.
    Oh I see what you are saying - sorry, I thought you were implying that the default position was the parents had the final say.

    So under what circumstances would a child ever be denied a blood transfusion?
  11. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    12 Oct '16 20:381 edit
    Originally posted by sonhouse to Divegeester
    The parents are still at fault, this is a primative rite and should have no part in 21st century life
    and the same with JW's refusing medical help that would save a child's life.

    God's will my ass. It is modern medicine that heals not pithy words from a priest.
    In 1981 there was a hunger strike by Irish prisoners (PIRA and INLA) in Northern Ireland,
    resulting in ten deaths (including a recently elected MP, Bobby Sands).
    UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher dismissed all the Irish hunger strikers as 'common criminals'
    who deserved to die if they chose. Her intransigent attitude was a public relations disaster.
    Obviously, few 'common criminals' were willing to fast unto death for what they believed in.

    While the hunger strikers were still conscious, British doctors refused to intervene by force-feeding.
    Once a hunger striker become unconscious, the British authorities allowed his family the
    right (of which the PIRA seemed to disapprove) to ask for medical intervention to save his life.
    So great pressure was placed upon the hunger strikers' family members to act or to stand aside.
    Reportedly, one hunger striker told his mother that he would never speak to her again if
    she asked for medical intervention to save his life, and he would resume his hunger strike
    as soon as he regained consciousness--so he died. As more hunger strikers died, however,
    the families of the remaining hunger strikers began asking for medical intervention to
    save their loved ones' lives. It became clear to the PIRA leaders that the hunger strike
    was unsustainable because most families preferred to have a living son than a dead hero.
    The hunger strike was settled after the UK government agreed to almost all of the hunger strikers' original demands.

    In my view, a crucial difference is that all the Irish hunger strikers were all grown men.
    Given that the law has recognized that a 13 year old girl has fewer rights (including being
    able to enter legal contracts without her parent's consent), I would say that she does not
    have a legal right to undertake a hunger strike (or fast) that would endanger her life.
  12. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86387
    12 Oct '16 20:41
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    In 1981 there was a hunger strike by Irish prisoners (PIRA and INLA) in Northern Ireland,
    resulting in ten deaths (including a recently elected MP, Bobby Sands).
    UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher dismissed all the Irish hunger strikers as 'common criminals'
    who deserved to die if they chose. Her intransigent attitude was a public relations disaster. ...[text shortened]... oes not
    have a legal right to undertake a hunger strike (or fast) that would endanger her life.
    What has this topic got to do with the point of your OP with is about religious fasting of juveniles?
  13. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    12 Oct '16 21:46
    Originally posted by divegeester
    What has this topic got to do with the point of your OP with is about religious fasting of juveniles?
    Divegeester seems to have ignored my words 'crucial difference' in my earlier post.

    My point was that Irish nationalist *adults* have the legal right to fast unto death in service of their ideology.
    But a 13 year old girl does *not* have the same legal right to do so in service of her ideology.
  14. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    12 Oct '16 21:47
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    Divegeester seems to have ignored my words 'crucial difference' in my earlier post.

    My point was that Irish nationalist *adults* have the legal right to fast unto death in service of their ideology.
    But a 13 year old girl does *not* have the same legal right to do so in service of her ideology.
    The law is entirely different in the case of minors and its to be expected. Gender is not the issue.
  15. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    12 Oct '16 21:511 edit
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    The law is entirely different in the case of minors and its to be expected. Gender is not the issue.
    My usage of '13 year old girl' was intended *only* to refer to the dead person in my original post.
    It was *not* intended as any implication (I note Robbie Carrobie's typical ludicrous distortion)
    that a 13 year old girl should be treated differently from a 13 year old boy under the law.
Back to Top