With a face like that why is she worried about stomach scars?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/West/03/1....ap/index.html


Sorry, couldn't resist. (smile face here).

"John Stone" wrote in message
om...
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/West/03/1....ap/index.html


Sorry, couldn't resist. (smile face here).

Lest the issue of concern be unduly glossed over, however, should that
charge stick, that establishes a precedence that could easily lead to things
such as a legal requirement to "donate" blood or tissue to a person whose
life is in danger, with the rationale that the risk to the "donor" is one of
only minor discomfort and cosmetics.

Frankly, I see that charge, partularly given the venue (Salt Lake City) as
another attempted "foot in the door" by the fanatic pro-lifers.

--
Byron "Barn" Canfield
-----------------------------
"Politics is a strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles."
-- Ambrose Bierce

In article gok4c.16856$mM.122519@attbi_s02, Byron Canfield says...

"John Stone" wrote in message
. com...
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/West/03/1....ap/index.html


Sorry, couldn't resist. (smile face here).

Lest the issue of concern be unduly glossed over, however, should that
charge stick, that establishes a precedence that could easily lead to things
such as a legal requirement to "donate" blood or tissue to a person whose
life is in danger, with the rationale that the risk to the "donor" is one of
only minor discomfort and cosmetics.

Phooey.

The (paradoxically named) Good Samaritan Principle is that one is not obliged to
save a stranger. If someone is drowning in a lake, everyone around is *not*
legally obliged to jump in to save that person (or even, legally to have to call
911). There is not an obligation to give blood at all (military situations may
be an exception, but that's covered by a different set of laws.)

Parents, however, *do* have affirmative responsibilities to their children. If
a parent stands by watching their own child drown in a lake, there will be
charges according to the law on the order of negligent homicide.

The relationship this woman has to the dead baby isn't one of a stranger, now is
it?



Frankly, I see that charge, partularly given the venue (Salt Lake City) as
another attempted "foot in the door" by the fanatic pro-lifers.

And I find this a prejudiced comment. There may be points of law to consider
in this case, but it's not the one you bring up, and it should have nothing to
do with your feelings about any set of residents in Utah.

Banty

On 12 Mar 2004 07:49:21 -0800, Banty wrote:
In article gok4c.16856$mM.122519@attbi_s02, Byron Canfield says...

"John Stone" wrote in message
.com...
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/West/03/1....ap/index.html


Sorry, couldn't resist. (smile face here).

Lest the issue of concern be unduly glossed over, however, should that
charge stick, that establishes a precedence that could easily lead to things
such as a legal requirement to "donate" blood or tissue to a person whose
life is in danger, with the rationale that the risk to the "donor" is one of
only minor discomfort and cosmetics.

Phooey.

The (paradoxically named) Good Samaritan Principle is that one is not obliged to
save a stranger. If someone is drowning in a lake, everyone around is *not*
legally obliged to jump in to save that person (or even, legally to have to call
911). There is not an obligation to give blood at all (military situations may
be an exception, but that's covered by a different set of laws.)

Parents, however, *do* have affirmative responsibilities to their children. If
a parent stands by watching their own child drown in a lake, there will be
charges according to the law on the order of negligent homicide.

The relationship this woman has to the dead baby isn't one of a stranger, now is
it?


It's not that cut and dried, though. Yes, the parent would probably be
charged if they idly stood by while their child drowned in a lake. On the
other hand, I can't see any court that would convict a parent, if, for
example, they refused to donate a kidney to their child, who would
die without one, even if parent was the only suitable donor. And in this
particular case, the situation is more akin to the latter, than the
former scenario.

And it's going to get even stickier considering that at least
one of the children apparently survived, which opens up the
whole "Well, the doctors were obviously not infallible in their
opinions" can of worms.

That being said, I think the mother is an absolutely despicable
human being, and would happily see her used as a live crash-test-dummy
in tests that don't involve the use of seatbelts. But I can't
support the idea of the law charging people who choose not to undergo
major abdominal surgery, no matter what the reason.

In article , user says...

On 12 Mar 2004 07:49:21 -0800, Banty wrote:
In article gok4c.16856$mM.122519@attbi_s02, Byron Canfield says...

"John Stone" wrote in message
e.com...
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/West/03/1....ap/index.html


Sorry, couldn't resist. (smile face here).

Lest the issue of concern be unduly glossed over, however, should that
charge stick, that establishes a precedence that could easily lead to things
such as a legal requirement to "donate" blood or tissue to a person whose
life is in danger, with the rationale that the risk to the "donor" is one of
only minor discomfort and cosmetics.

Phooey.

The (paradoxically named) Good Samaritan Principle is that one is not obliged to
save a stranger. If someone is drowning in a lake, everyone around is *not*
legally obliged to jump in to save that person (or even, legally to have to call
911). There is not an obligation to give blood at all (military situations may
be an exception, but that's covered by a different set of laws.)

Parents, however, *do* have affirmative responsibilities to their children. If
a parent stands by watching their own child drown in a lake, there will be
charges according to the law on the order of negligent homicide.

The relationship this woman has to the dead baby isn't one of a stranger, now is
it?


It's not that cut and dried, though. Yes, the parent would probably be
charged if they idly stood by while their child drowned in a lake. On the
other hand, I can't see any court that would convict a parent, if, for
example, they refused to donate a kidney to their child, who would
die without one, even if parent was the only suitable donor. And in this
particular case, the situation is more akin to the latter, than the
former scenario.

Ah, but that hasn't been tested to my knowledge. There has been a case
concerning *cousins*, but there, there are no affirmative responsibilities.
These are from discussions back about 5 years ago (can't dig up the case law),
but at that point it simply hadn't come up.


And it's going to get even stickier considering that at least
one of the children apparently survived, which opens up the
whole "Well, the doctors were obviously not infallible in their
opinions" can of worms.

That being said, I think the mother is an absolutely despicable
human being, and would happily see her used as a live crash-test-dummy
in tests that don't involve the use of seatbelts. But I can't
support the idea of the law charging people who choose not to undergo
major abdominal surgery, no matter what the reason.

Banty

In article , Banty says...

In article , user says...

On 12 Mar 2004 07:49:21 -0800, Banty wrote:
In article gok4c.16856$mM.122519@attbi_s02, Byron Canfield says...

"John Stone" wrote in message
le.com...
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/West/03/1....ap/index.html


Sorry, couldn't resist. (smile face here).

Lest the issue of concern be unduly glossed over, however, should that
charge stick, that establishes a precedence that could easily lead to things
such as a legal requirement to "donate" blood or tissue to a person whose
life is in danger, with the rationale that the risk to the "donor" is one of
only minor discomfort and cosmetics.

Phooey.

The (paradoxically named) Good Samaritan Principle is that one is not obliged to
save a stranger. If someone is drowning in a lake, everyone around is *not*
legally obliged to jump in to save that person (or even, legally to have to call
911). There is not an obligation to give blood at all (military situations may
be an exception, but that's covered by a different set of laws.)

Parents, however, *do* have affirmative responsibilities to their children. If
a parent stands by watching their own child drown in a lake, there will be
charges according to the law on the order of negligent homicide.

The relationship this woman has to the dead baby isn't one of a stranger, now is
it?


It's not that cut and dried, though. Yes, the parent would probably be
charged if they idly stood by while their child drowned in a lake. On the
other hand, I can't see any court that would convict a parent, if, for
example, they refused to donate a kidney to their child, who would
die without one, even if parent was the only suitable donor. And in this
particular case, the situation is more akin to the latter, than the
former scenario.

Ah, but that hasn't been tested to my knowledge. There has been a case
concerning *cousins*, but there, there are no affirmative responsibilities.
These are from discussions back about 5 years ago (can't dig up the case law),
but at that point it simply hadn't come up.


And it's going to get even stickier considering that at least
one of the children apparently survived, which opens up the
whole "Well, the doctors were obviously not infallible in their
opinions" can of worms.

That being said, I think the mother is an absolutely despicable
human being, and would happily see her used as a live crash-test-dummy
in tests that don't involve the use of seatbelts. But I can't
support the idea of the law charging people who choose not to undergo
major abdominal surgery, no matter what the reason.

(following up on myself - pushed "send" too early)

At any rate, the analogy you bring up (for instance, think of the physical
risks a parent takes on when swimming out into the lake for a child, vs. the
risks of surgery) is much more applicable than running around declaring that
everyone will be tied down and forced to give blood to strangers (or even just
strange violinists).

Banty

In article ,
user wrote:

On 12 Mar 2004 07:49:21 -0800, Banty wrote:
In article gok4c.16856$mM.122519@attbi_s02, Byron Canfield says...

"John Stone" wrote in message
.com...
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/West/03/1....ap/index.html


Sorry, couldn't resist. (smile face here).

Lest the issue of concern be unduly glossed over, however, should that
charge stick, that establishes a precedence that could easily lead to
things
such as a legal requirement to "donate" blood or tissue to a person whose
life is in danger, with the rationale that the risk to the "donor" is one
of
only minor discomfort and cosmetics.

Phooey.

The (paradoxically named) Good Samaritan Principle is that one is not
obliged to
save a stranger. If someone is drowning in a lake, everyone around is
*not*
legally obliged to jump in to save that person (or even, legally to have to
call
911). There is not an obligation to give blood at all (military
situations may
be an exception, but that's covered by a different set of laws.)

Parents, however, *do* have affirmative responsibilities to their children.
If
a parent stands by watching their own child drown in a lake, there will be
charges according to the law on the order of negligent homicide.

The relationship this woman has to the dead baby isn't one of a stranger,
now is
it?


It's not that cut and dried, though. Yes, the parent would probably be
charged if they idly stood by while their child drowned in a lake. On the
other hand, I can't see any court that would convict a parent, if, for
example, they refused to donate a kidney to their child, who would
die without one, even if parent was the only suitable donor. And in this
particular case, the situation is more akin to the latter, than the
former scenario.

And it's going to get even stickier considering that at least
one of the children apparently survived, which opens up the
whole "Well, the doctors were obviously not infallible in their
opinions" can of worms.

That being said, I think the mother is an absolutely despicable
human being, and would happily see her used as a live crash-test-dummy
in tests that don't involve the use of seatbelts. But I can't
support the idea of the law charging people who choose not to undergo
major abdominal surgery, no matter what the reason.




Given that the news reporters had not discussed anything WITH HER, but
only with other people, I'm not willing to make that judgement.

She doesn't seem to have a regular doctor, but rather was going from
place to place. Her description of a cesaerian was inaccurate (you
don't get cut from breast bone to pubic bone!). It strikes me as much
more likely that she was (1) ill educated, (2) frightened half out of
her wits (3) mentally not competent (4) and/or some combination of the
three.

I have a friend whose doctor reported her to protective services for not
following medical advice regarding her infant. Because the infant was
VERY small (born extremely early) and not gaining weight as fast as the
doctor wanted, the doctor wanted her to stop breast feeding and switch
to formula. In this case, my friend was well educated, researched
everything she could find, and decided the doctor was wrong -- never the
less, she had to endure an investigation by protective services. She
was cleared (and changed doctors!), but watching that unfold makes me
less likely to assume that the medical professionals were obviously
right, while the woman in question was definately wrong for not
following medical advice.

meh
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

"Banty" wrote in message
...
Parents, however, *do* have affirmative responsibilities to their
children. If
a parent stands by watching their own child drown in a lake, there will be
charges according to the law on the order of negligent homicide.

That is false.

There would be no charges, in the United States, unless there was suspicion
that the parent was complicit in the exposure of the child to the drowning
potential, or in the actual drowning of the child. Depsite the fact that
most parents would like to think that they would put their own lives on the
line for their children (and many would actually do so), there is no law
making any such requirement.

You must live in a different country.


--
Byron "Barn" Canfield
-----------------------------
"Politics is a strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles."
-- Ambrose Bierce

What a cheap shot. This is a mother who has just lost a baby and has been
arrested (presumably involving separation from her other newborn). What do you
EXPECT her to look like?

I have no idea whether she's actually done anything heinous, but I'd probably
think *worse* of her if she looked all coiffed and gorgeous under those
circumstances.

--Helen

"H Schinske" wrote in message
...
What a cheap shot. This is a mother who has just lost a baby and has been
arrested (presumably involving separation from her other newborn). What do
you
EXPECT her to look like?

I have no idea whether she's actually done anything heinous, but I'd
probably
think *worse* of her if she looked all coiffed and gorgeous under those
circumstances.

--Helen

I agree, the news story is obviously designed to make us think she's
dispicable. I'd like to hear her side of the story.

Judy