# 9 m/o dies from eczema



## Kookaburra (May 5, 2009)

Baby dead after parents ignored medical advice.

Sometimes I hate people.:angry:

Though- I had no idea eczema could get that bad. I get it pretty severe during the winter, but I'm never complaining about it again!


----------



## bstone (May 5, 2009)

You need to have a license to drive a car. You need to have a license to get married. Makes sense you should need a license to have babies.


----------



## himynameismj (May 6, 2009)

bstone said:


> You need to have a license to drive a car. You need to have a license to get married. Makes sense you should need a license to have babies.



i really hope that isn't a serious statement.


----------



## amberdt03 (May 6, 2009)

bstone said:


> Makes sense you should need a license to have babies.



i agree, some people have no clue


----------



## Sasha (May 6, 2009)

himynameismj said:


> i really hope that isn't a serious statement.



Why not? People who operate a car are first tested on competence and can get their license taken away when proven to be irresponsible with it, yet we let them birth human lives willy nilly and turn a blind eye when they're irresponsible and border on abusive (even a lot of abuse gets a blind eye.).

People SHOULD have a license to have a baby, there are too many people out there who shouldn't be parents and are.


----------



## bstone (May 6, 2009)

himynameismj said:


> i really hope that isn't a serious statement.



After working on the ambulance at Children's Memorial Hospital in Chicago for 2 years I can firmly tell you it's an incredibly serious statement.


----------



## subliminal1284 (May 6, 2009)

himynameismj said:


> i really hope that isn't a serious statement.



I totally agree with that, you cant adopt a child or even adopt a animal from the animal shelter without proving you can provide them with a good home, I dont think people should be allowed to have babies unless they can prove they are financially secure and can provide the child a decent home.


----------



## amberdt03 (May 6, 2009)

subliminal1284 said:


> they can prove they are *financially secure*



if you wait till you're financially secure, you'll never have kids. thats something every parent i know has told me.


----------



## subliminal1284 (May 6, 2009)

Depends on your definition of financially secure, I was referring to people living in a run down house in the ghetto living off food stamps and welfare, some even have more kids to get a bigger welfare check. 9 times out of 10 those kids will grow up to be criminals because thats the type of envoroment they have been around their whole life. If you're considered to be at the poverty level you should not be allowed to have kids whatsoever.


----------



## amberdt03 (May 6, 2009)

subliminal1284 said:


> If you're considered to be at the poverty level you should not be allowed to have kids whatsoever.



well if that's the case then i wouldn't be here today.


----------



## subliminal1284 (May 6, 2009)

Neither would I, but I still believe thats the way it should be.


----------



## silver (May 6, 2009)

subliminal1284 said:


> Depends on your definition of financially secure, I was referring to people living in a run down house in the ghetto living off food stamps and welfare, some even have more kids to get a bigger welfare check. 9 times out of 10 those kids will grow up to be criminals because thats the type of envoroment they have been around their whole life. If you're considered to be at the poverty level you should not be allowed to have kids whatsoever.



uhmmm 

"Most Americans (58.5%) will spend at least one year below the poverty line at some point between ages 25 and 75."
from the book: The great risk shift: The new insecurity and the decline of the American dream.


----------



## VFFforpeople (May 6, 2009)

To the original post, that is horriable, any punishment is to good for them. You need to have common sense to have children, I have 3. My first two years I lived under the poverty line with them. Now we live better of than prior, but still improving. So, yes I can see what you are saying about financially able and blah, truth is you never will be ever, and if you are then you will lack in some areas more important than money (I know, shocking something more important than money). That is unconditional love, and respect for them. This story makes me angry and yet sad at how one can just watch their child suffer..my daughter sneezes and I grab webmd or call my buddies who are higher medical training lol. (knowing that it is nothing serious).


----------



## Kookaburra (May 7, 2009)

VFFforpeople said:


> To the original post, that is horriable, any punishment is to good for them. You need to have common sense to have children, I have 3. My first two years I lived under the poverty line with them. Now we live better of than prior, but still improving. So, yes I can see what you are saying about financially able and blah, truth is you never will be ever, and if you are then you will lack in some areas more important than money (I know, shocking something more important than money). That is unconditional love, and respect for them. This story makes me angry and yet sad at how one can just watch their child suffer..my daughter sneezes and I grab webmd or call my buddies who are higher medical training lol. (knowing that it is nothing serious).



Yes, the parents were both well-off PhDs. Money doesn't guarantee  anything.


----------



## bstone (May 7, 2009)

Kookaburra said:


> Yes, the parents were both well-off PhDs. Money doesn't guarantee  anything.



They might have PhDs but they were idiots. Period.

On a simple quiz for new parents:

If your child is sick, do you:
1) Take him to the doctor
2) Take him to a crystal healer
3) Feed him stick and mud
4) Ignore him

Any answer other than 1 would say "no kids for you!"
They would have answered anything but 1.


----------



## "Doc" Fox (May 7, 2009)

Sasha said:


> Why not? People who operate a car are first tested on competence and can get their license taken away when proven to be irresponsible with it, yet we let them birth human lives willy nilly and turn a blind eye when they're irresponsible and border on abusive (even a lot of abuse gets a blind eye.).
> 
> People SHOULD have a license to have a baby, there are too many people out there who shouldn't be parents and are.



I'm a father of three daughters, and after some of the stuff I've seen other parents do with ther kid(s), I have to go with Sasha here, and I agree that people should have a licsnse, or at least a common sense class for parents.  That's my two cents on the issue, but I'm glad that the parents above are having to awnser for there actions.


----------



## firemedic7982 (May 8, 2009)

Sasha said:


> Why not? People who operate a car are first tested on competence and can get their license taken away when proven to be irresponsible with it, yet we let them birth human lives willy nilly and turn a blind eye when they're irresponsible and border on abusive (even a lot of abuse gets a blind eye.).
> 
> People SHOULD have a license to have a baby, there are too many people out there who shouldn't be parents and are.



She has a point. 

+1


----------



## Amack (May 10, 2009)

This is like comparing apples to oranges. Firstly, no singular individual retains control over others and their actions. People will always be stupid, or immature, or whatever adjective you care to employ for someone's sweeping incompetence. Secondly, you can't cure it. Human nature is human nature, for better or for worse. There are those of us who strive to ask the questions "why"? and in this circumstance, we long to decipher why "anyone in their 'right' mind would allow such maltreatment of their child"... The answer is simply explained with some brevity...within any society, there will always be deviant members, or in other words, members believed to not conform to societial norms and/or tenants. Actions of said "deviants" can be surgically ananlyzed, debated, interpreted, and rationalized or justified by different parties with different beliefs and worldviews. (Which, again, reverts back to human nature and the perpetual perplexing obsession to seek "why")

Thirdly, you  can never place a restraint or regulatory sanction on a human physiological process. To suggest, enacting a regulated liscensure of the human act of copulation resulting in procreative effect, would be just as absurd to lobby sanctioning of bowel movements .


----------



## bstone (May 12, 2009)

Amack said:


> This is like comparing apples to oranges. Firstly, no singular individual retains control over others and their actions.



False. Judges exert this authority constantly.



> People will always be stupid, or immature, or whatever adjective you care to employ for someone's sweeping incompetence.


True.




> Secondly, you can't cure it. Human nature is human nature, for better or for worse.


Breed it out of us. Please.



> There are those of us who strive to ask the questions "why"? and in this circumstance, we long to decipher why "anyone in their 'right' mind would allow such maltreatment of their child"... The answer is simply explained with some brevity...within any society, there will always be deviant members, or in other words, members believed to not conform to societial norms and/or tenants.


Perception of being a deviant is often subjective. However, withholding medical treatment from a child who could certainly be treated and cured is not subjective- it's objective in the observation of being cruel and deviant.



> Actions of said "deviants" can be surgically ananlyzed, debated, interpreted, and rationalized or justified by different parties with different beliefs and worldviews. (Which, again, reverts back to human nature and the perpetual perplexing obsession to seek "why")


Abuse of a child need not be subject to surgical analysis. 



> Thirdly, you  can never place a restraint or regulatory sanction on a human physiological process. To suggest, enacting a regulated liscensure of the human act of copulation resulting in procreative effect, would be just as absurd to lobby sanctioning of bowel movements .



This happens quite often by the judicial system. Bowel movements do not produce a sacred life. Copulation does. Thus, those who copulate ought to be subject to examination for purposes of assessment for correct parenting.


----------



## Amack (May 12, 2009)

bstone said:


> False. Judges exert this authority constantly.
> 
> 
> True.
> ...




Judges do not exert direct control over individuals...free will is intangible, and certainly as are the subsequent actions therein.
 Judges do, enact the interpretation and execution of the law, and in that right, I agree that ,within their granted power, decide upon an individual and his/her sentencing and consequence(s), and assert control over an individual's future (imprisonment, fines, death penalty etc.) 


Perception. Perception is relative, absolutely. However, there is such thing as "Societal Norms", or in plain terms, actions and behaviors that society as a whole agrees upon to be "usual" or "mundane" or "accepted practice". 
An example is the common call we all get for EDPs...why did somone call 911 in the first place for someone running around on stilts with a tennis racket in hand in a cemetary...simply because, culturally...that isn't commonly accepted or known practice in a place of reverence,respect and
rememberance. (I know that the above example is a bit absurd, but im sure you follow my point) 

A counter-argument that i will address for the above is that....cultural norms DO vary...so that's why I emplpoy the term "accepted practice" loosely, to allow theoretical margin for differences that occur socio-geographically across the world.

As far a child abuse being scrutinized or as I had formally put it "surgically analyzed", it certainly does....which ties into societal norms again with the old-world cultural practices of coining, cupping, or even Jehovah's Witnesses withholding blood transfusions on the basis of religious belief. Child abuse is serious, therefore it demands serious inquiry. What you or I believe is child abuse, may not be in the eyes of another culture, religious following, etc. ( Again, "Societal Norms")


And Lastly, copulation for any reason (for pleasure or procreation) cannot be restricted between two consulting adults by any law (at least in this country). To do so would be an infringement of Constitutional law. Which is why you will never see any "pre-screening for parents" ever. 

The legal ideaology is reactive (e.g. Social Services, foster care, etc)... not proactive.


----------



## Melclin (May 12, 2009)

Courts have often ruled on human physiology 
You can hardly stop people from having sex. Or not allow them to get pregnant. Its not going to work, people will have sex and have kids whether they're allowed too or not (not withstanding some sort of population wide birth control or other such nasty 1984 type things). And a government who did that would get voted out quick smart. And what would you do if someone did get preges without a liscence? Force and abortion? Its really not practical.

That being said. I agree with the idea that we have licenses for other things that require responsible operation (cars and so on), but people can, and do, have kids willy nilly. I'd put my money on some sort of mandatory "So you're going to be a parent" class. 

Aside from that, I've always liked the idea that citezenship might be urn't, rather than assumed. That involves a whole pile of ethical problems and different issues, but aside from the bigger picture, having a "how not to be a complete idiot" class and regular tests to maintain your "not an idiot" qualification (which would allow you to get a drivers licesnces, start a family, enjoy other benefits of citezenship) seems like a good idea. There are alot of things in life, that you just have to pick up, and aren't necessarily taught anywhere. Appropriate reasons to call an ambulance would be at the top of the curriculum if I ran the class. In practice it probably wouldn't work for any number of reasons, and it would be a pain in the arse and a waste of money, but I kind of like the idea of some sort of compulsory common sense class.


----------



## reaper (May 12, 2009)

"And Lastly, copulation for any reason (for pleasure or procreation) cannot be restricted between two consulting adults by any law (at least in this country). To do so would be an infringement of Constitutional law. Which is why you will never see any "pre-screening for parents" ever. "

Can you show me in the Constitution where it gives you the right to procreate? I must have missed that one. We used to do prescreening for parents. Ask your parents about having to get Rh-factor blood tests, before being able to get a marriage license. The only reason this was stopped, was do to advances in medicine.

I do not think we have the right to stop someone from having a child. I do believe that we can require parenting classes to teach the basics of raising a child. This would go a long way in keeping some parents from freaking out on small things that are normal for a baby.


----------



## Amack (May 12, 2009)

Melclin said:


> Appropriate reasons to call an ambulance would be at the top of the curriculum if I ran the class.



:beerchug:


----------



## Melclin (May 12, 2009)

reaper said:


> I do not think we have the right to stop someone from having a child. I do believe that we can require parenting classes to teach the basics of raising a child. This would go a long way in keeping some parents from freaking out on small things that are normal for a baby.



My point exactly and well put. I have to learn to be more succinct :blush:


----------



## Amack (May 12, 2009)

reaper said:


> "And Lastly, copulation for any reason (for pleasure or procreation) cannot be restricted between two consulting adults by any law (at least in this country). To do so would be an infringement of Constitutional law. Which is why you will never see any "pre-screening for parents" ever. "
> 
> Can you show me in the Constitution where it gives you the right to procreate? I must have missed that one. We used to do prescreening for parents. Ask your parents about having to get Rh-factor blood tests, before being able to get a marriage license. The only reason this was stopped, was do to advances in medicine.
> 
> I do not think we have the right to stop someone from having a child. I do believe that we can require parenting classes to teach the basics of raising a child. This would go a long way in keeping some parents from freaking out on small things that are normal for a baby.




Refer to the Equal Protection clause under the 14th Ammendment:
NOTE:
It isn't explicitly stated in the Constitution, however the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled numerous times since 1943 that there is a "fundamental right to procreate", which in a notable case was interpreted in a case regarding criminal sterilization of prisoners (see link).

I believe you misinterpreted my claim "pre-screening for parents"...per your response. Allow me to clarify: You won't see any legislation that precludes anyone from having a child in U.S. (again assuming two consentual parties)

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=7530


----------



## reaper (May 12, 2009)

There is no protection under the Amendment for Procreation. The case you stated was only about not taking away the ability permanently. The Equal Protection Amendment is only used as a last resort in most cases, that go before the courts.

We are not talking about not allowing people to procreate. We are talking about required parenting classes. Will people find a way around it? Sure they will. But, the majority will benefit from them.


----------



## Amack (May 12, 2009)

reaper said:


> There is no protection under the Amendment for Procreation. The case you stated was only about not taking away the ability permanently. The Equal Protection Amendment is only used as a last resort in most cases, that go before the courts.
> 
> We are not talking about not allowing people to procreate. We are talking about required parenting classes. Will people find a way around it? Sure they will. But, the majority will benefit from them.



Ahh, I misunderstood the scope of your post, as I interpreted it as your lobbying for legally authorized procreation.

As far as mandating parenting classes, that just opens up a schism of arguments. Now, you are talking about a "standardization" of parenting, upbringing, amidst a multi-cultural canvas of pre-existing notions, cultural and/or religious beliefs, which again could be possibly argued against with a extrapolitive interpretation of the First Ammendment.

Should responsible parents take an active role in their self-edification of child care and parenting...definitely...should they _have _to...absolutely not.

I personally advocate learning as much as you can about the child you are going to bear into this world.


----------



## Alexakat (May 12, 2009)

I just recently completed my L&D shift for my paramedic class & one of the ladies on the unit was pregnant with her *9th child*.  She also told me that she lives in a homeless shelter with all of her children.  When asked if she wanted to have her tubes tied or wanted information about birth control after delivery of her 9th child, she looked at the nurse with wide eyes & said "No.  I want to have more children..."

This I don't understand!


----------



## bstone (May 12, 2009)

Alexakat said:


> I just recently completed my L&D shift for my paramedic class & one of the ladies on the unit was pregnant with her *9th child*.  She also told me that she lives in a homeless shelter with all of her children.  When asked if she wanted to have her tubes tied or wanted information about birth control after delivery of her 9th child, she looked at the nurse with wide eyes & said "No.  I want to have more children..."
> 
> This I don't understand!



She's insane. Period. Tie her tubes for her.


----------



## reaper (May 13, 2009)

Amack said:


> Ahh, I misunderstood the scope of your post, as I interpreted it as your lobbying for legally authorized procreation.
> 
> As far as mandating parenting classes, that just opens up a schism of arguments. Now, you are talking about a "standardization" of parenting, upbringing, amidst a multi-cultural canvas of pre-existing notions, cultural and/or religious beliefs, which again could be possibly argued against with a extrapolitive interpretation of the First Ammendment.
> 
> ...




I am not talking about how to raise your child. I am talking about a class on how to take care of a child. Dealing with sickness,preventive care, Nutrition, and the like.

That is something that needs to be taught to new parents who have never dealt with it before.


----------



## Melclin (May 13, 2009)

reaper said:


> i am not talking about how to raise your child. I am talking about a class on how to take care of a child. Dealing with sickness,preventive care, nutrition, and the like.
> 
> That is something that needs to be taught to new parents who have never dealt with it before.



+1 .................


----------

