How is depression from an "external" source inherently different from depression from an "internal" source?As an analogy, the same way your blood sugar can vary depending upon what you eat, but also upon the degree of effectiveness of your pancreas and liver.
If you eat a potato, your blood sugar will spike, but that's not usually an issue. If your blood sugar is elevated when you've not eaten anything all day, that's an issue. But if you eat enough high-carb food (and spike your blood sugar high enough/often enough), you will cause chemical changes in your pancreas and liver that will cause them to behave differently, differently enough to push you into that second group.
That's why early-stage type 2 diabetes can be controlled by lifestyle changes, but sometimes it progresses to the point where insulin supplements are necessary. Similarly, early-stage depression caused by external factors can be controlled by CBT, up to a point.
On the other hand, if you simply don't produce the right chemicals, no amount of talk therapy or diet change is going to help much.
I'm not asking for an analogy or your opinion.
I'm asking for evidence.
Or do doctors test their dopamine, serotonin and other chemical levels or in some other fashion determine directly that the depression is internally caused?
No. They can rule out a few other medical causes, but the diagnosis is still from talking.
They're trying apparently
No biological tests confirm major depression.[123] Biomarkers of depression have been sought to provide an objective method of diagnosis. There are several potential biomarkers, including Brain-Derived Neurotrophic Factor and various functional MRI techniques.
One study developed a decision tree model of interpreting a series of fMRI scans taken during various activities. In their subjects, the authors of that study were able to achieve a sensitivity of 80% and a sensitivity of 87%, corresponding to a negative predictive value of 98% and a positive predictive value of 32% Linky
<analogy to type 2 diabetes>OTOH, we're dealing with the brain here and what the brain does is learn and change and rebuild itself. If there's any truth at all to what Sissyl says just above, those stressors that trigger the first episode of depression change the brain to make further episodes more likely and worse.
Er, yes? But having said that, if the stressors are the cause of the first episode of depression, the brain learns to be depressed. Eventually it learns to be depressed sufficiently strongly that it doesn't require the external stressors any more, and you're in a more or less permanent case of depression. That's the analogy I was trying to draw.
By the same token, if the brain is learning how to be depressed, it can also learn how not to be depressed (assuming that it's not too set-in-its-ways) and that's a large part of what CBT does.
If that wasn't the case, then the depression episodes shouldn't require the initial triggering event, people susceptible to depression should just have them.
So, yes, you're absolutely correct, and that's why behavioral and cognitive therapies work in the first place (because the brain can learn "better" responses), and also why they stop working (because there comes a point where it's too hard to teach the brain new habits).
Drugs, are, frankly, a blunter instrument. If I give you a drug, it will change your neurochemistry regardless of how you think about it (in the same way that injecting insulin into your bloodstream will affect your blood sugar at the cellular level, and your pancreas doesn't get much of a vote).
You see the same thing with diabetes treatment, which is why I raised the analogy. If lifestyle changes work, great. If not, I have some mild drugs at my disposal (oral medicine, generally). If that still doesn't work, we have additional techniques. It's a ladder. Left untreated, the patient will generally progress in the bad direction. With proper treatment, we can generally get people to move in the good direction.
The analogy to depression is similar -- a course of drugs may actually get you to a position where CBT works and you don't need the drugs any more. That's the hope, in fact. But medicine doesn't always work the way you want.
If that is the case, if experience can create depression and susceptibility to depression by changing the brain, then there's no fundamental reason therapy can't change the brain as well.
Yes, there is. Time. The brain's response to stimulus is non-linear, and follows (as so much else in biology does) a roughly S-shaped curve -- the math wonks call it a logistic curve. Basically, there's an early point in the system where a little change in the environment has relatively little effect on the brain, and we call this "not learning." There's a middle region where a little change in the environment produces a large neural response, and there's another region where the neural response has already been saturated and it more or less stops responding to changes because it's already responded as much as it can. (The math wonks call this "saturation.")
So, yes, if you had enough time, CBT might be able to shift someone with severe depression, but the treatment time is much longer and you're much more likely to have negative events over the course of it (like the patient committing suicide, which is generally not considered a good thing).
This is assuming, of course, that the only reason for depression is experiential, and there's nothing about the patients neurostructure that would predispose them to severe depression in a way that CBT can't touch.
The effect is that CBT works well for mild-to-moderate depression caused by external factors. Outside of that zone, drugs generally do better, at least initially and sometimes "at all."
As an analogy, the same way your blood sugar can vary depending upon what you eat, but also upon the degree of effectiveness of your pancreas and liver.
How is depression from an "external" source inherently different from depression from an "internal" source?I'm not asking for an analogy or your opinion.
You asked how it works, and I answered you. I can recommend a number of neurobiology courses if you want to learn about changes in serotonin receptors.
You asked how it works, and I answered you. I can recommend a number of neurobiology courses if you want to learn about changes in serotonin receptors.As an analogy, the same way your blood sugar can vary depending upon what you eat, but also upon the degree of effectiveness of your pancreas and liver.
How is depression from an "external" source inherently different from depression from an "internal" source?I'm not asking for an analogy or your opinion.
No, I didn't ask how it works. It's not that far back here's a link to my post if you need it. I asked for proof of the assertion that the internal/external causes of depression create different kinds of depression that operate differently......
Can you provide evidence of this or not?
Because if you're claiming that treatment works on one source of depression and not on another, you are claiming that they're different in nature. If they're different, that difference can be measured and shown.
I'm asking for some place where that measuring has been done. If it hasn't been measured, then to make that claim is only that, a claim. It's not a fact.
Well, there used to be a discussion about endogenous (internally caused) and exogenous (externally caused) depression. The thinking was that this should show up in treatment studies. If there were different causes, and therefore different mechanisms of pathology, this should be clearly visible. To my knowledge, this difference didn't show up at all. Depression is depression, whatever originally might have caused it. When you break it down after the knowledge we have today, the only clear correlation is that it is rather common for the first episode of depression to follow some sort of crisis or stress. With the following such episodes, no such correlation has been found. In all likelihood, then, using the stress-vulnerability model, there is a large part of the population that can react with depression, and will do so more often when put through something bad enough. Typically, this happens in the teenage years. After this, they keep getting depressive episodes where no real triggering cause can be identified. Note that it is far from every case where you can find a likely trigger even the first time.
Another thing worth noting is that for each depressive episode you have had but did not get treatment for, the next episode becomes more likely, comes sooner, gets more severe, and gets harder to treat. Eventually, a certain situation called refractory depression happens (usually when the person is in his/her sixties), where depression is a constant, and more or less impossible to treat. We also know that depression causes loss of neuron dendrites (connections to other neurons), and that at least SSRI can reverse this degeneration to some degree.
Depression is depression, that's a simple statement, but very accurate. It's diagnosed by presentation of symptoms, not by cause.
The discussion of internal vs. external cause seems like an unnecessary attempt to discredit ideas. Regardless of whether a person became depressed through lack of social contact, and thus developed depressive brain activity, or they had a neurochemical imbalance that led them to develop depressive brain activity, the result is the same. Focusing exclusively on the origin is just a chicken or egg argument.
Meanwhile declaring that depression cured without medication cannot be clinically diagnosed depression sounds like the "no true Scotsman" fallacy applied to medical diagnosis. If a person presents with symptoms consistent with depression, meeting the diagnostic criteria, then they can be clinically diagnosed with depression. The method by which they receive treatment is irrelevant to that diagnostic process.
(Even though we're really off topic from the thread, I just wanted to say I'm really enjoying the conversation, thanks for being reasonable everybody)
No, I didn't ask how it works.You asked how it works, and I answered you. I can recommend a number of neurobiology courses if you want to learn about changes in serotonin receptors.As an analogy, the same way your blood sugar can vary depending upon what you eat, but also upon the degree of effectiveness of your pancreas and liver.
How is depression from an "external" source inherently different from depression from an "internal" source?I'm not asking for an analogy or your opinion.
You know, the question you asked is quoted above. It was answered.
If you want to move the goalposts because you didn't like the answer you received,... that's your perogative, of course. But don't try to pretend that your question wasn't answered.
Depression is depression, that's a simple statement, but very accurate. It's diagnosed by presentation of symptoms, not by cause.
Yes, but part of the problem is that diagnosis is not treatment.... and, as been pointed out repeatedly in this thread, not all patients respond equally to the same treatment.
The discussion of internal vs. external cause seems like an unnecessary attempt to discredit ideas.
Not really. It's an attempt to understand the various causes of depression in an effort to understand and predict what sort of treatments will work better on any given patient.
Stating that "depression is depression" is, frankly, not very helpful, because there are nearly as many different conditions that present as depression as there are that present as fever.
(Even though we're really off topic from the thread, I just wanted to say I'm really enjoying the conversation, thanks for being reasonable everybody)
In regards to this - I am still following the conversation as well. As the OP of this thread, it can go as far off the original topic as people want to take it. I'm not going to ask a moderator to shut it down, so as long as the discussion stays civil and nobody gets flagged it should be able to keep going.
Diabetes huh?
George, a well known diabetes sufferer who has several very bad blood sugar drops in his history and is on large doses of insulin but still doesn't have good stability, comes in to the hospital. He is not making sense when he talks, he was found shouting at people on the street, and he's very angry, but doesn't seem to be taking in information at all.
His blood test comes back, and his glucose levels are dangerously low.
What do you, as his emergency ward doctor, do?
a) Hit him with full treatment via injections and infusions, against his will, FAST?
b) Respect his autonomy (he did say he wanted no part of injections) and let him talk to a nurse about further lifestyle changes?
Now, most of you would probably choose a. Why would the fact that another patient is suffering from severe depression instead change this equation, if it does?
Diabetes huh?
George, a well known diabetes sufferer who has several very bad blood sugar drops in his history and is on large doses of insulin but still doesn't have good stability, comes in to the hospital. He is not making sense when he talks, he was found shouting at people on the street, and he's very angry, but doesn't seem to be taking in information at all.
His blood test comes back, and his glucose levels are dangerously low.
What do you, as his emergency ward doctor, do?
a) Hit him with full treatment via injections and infusions, against his will, FAST?
b) Respect his autonomy (he did say he wanted no part of injections) and let him talk to a nurse about further lifestyle changes?Now, most of you would probably choose a. Why would the fact that another patient is suffering from severe depression instead change this equation, if it does?
If George is on insulin treatment (is there a non-injectable insulin?), as you stated, then he has previously been informed of the risks, consequences, and possible side effects. Therefore giving him additional treatment in the manner you described would be no significant abrogation of his consent, merely an extension.
However, if he has filed official paperwork to declare his opposition to any form of injection, or carries self same on his person (much as a Jehovah's Witness might in regards to blood transfusion), then I absolutely would not use any treatment that included injections. Not only in respect of his wishes, but also because I have no desire to be sued, nor fired from my job for opening the hospital to legal action. In that event, we'll try the gumline glucose gel, and some orange juice. Patients here in the US can be tremendously litigious.
Stating that "depression is depression" is, frankly, not very helpful, because there are nearly as many different conditions that present as depression as there are that present as fever.
This supports the contention that prescribing anti-depressants should not be an automatic first step.
No, I didn't ask how it works.You asked how it works, and I answered you. I can recommend a number of neurobiology courses if you want to learn about changes in serotonin receptors.As an analogy, the same way your blood sugar can vary depending upon what you eat, but also upon the degree of effectiveness of your pancreas and liver.
How is depression from an "external" source inherently different from depression from an "internal" source?I'm not asking for an analogy or your opinion.
You know, the question you asked is quoted above. It was answered.
If you want to move the goalposts because you didn't like the answer you received,... that's your perogative, of course. But don't try to pretend that your question wasn't answered.
I haven't moved the goal posts at all. Someone made a claim, I'm asking for proof.
I don't want your opinion or an analogy. I get WHAT you're trying to say. I just don't believe it to be true. Do you have evidence to share that shows serotonin is different in people who have "internal depression" compared to people who have "external depression"?
Right now, it sounds like an assumption that someone just made up because it "makes sense" to them. Just because it "makes sense" to them is not EVIDENCE that it is true.
My own personal experience runs contrary to the claim that was made that "external depression" and "internal depression" are different. So it doesn't "make sense" to me. I'm willing to change my mind, but I would like to see some evidence first.
Do you have any to share?
Depression is depression, that's a simple statement, but very accurate. It's diagnosed by presentation of symptoms, not by cause.
Yes, but part of the problem is that diagnosis is not treatment.... and, as been pointed out repeatedly in this thread, not all patients respond equally to the same treatment.
The discussion of internal vs. external cause seems like an unnecessary attempt to discredit ideas.Not really. It's an attempt to understand the various causes of depression in an effort to understand and predict what sort of treatments will work better on any given patient.
Stating that "depression is depression" is, frankly, not very helpful, because there are nearly as many different conditions that present as depression as there are that present as fever.
I don't think "depression is depression".
I think that the external/internal is a false division. There are different types of depression, but those aren't two of them.
If George is on insulin treatment (is there a non-injectable insulin?), as you stated, then he has previously been informed of the risks, consequences, and possible side effects. Therefore giving him additional treatment in the manner you described would be no significant abrogation of his consent, merely an extension.
However, if he has filed official paperwork to declare his opposition to any form of injection, or carries self same on his person (much as a Jehovah's Witness might in regards to blood transfusion), then I absolutely would not use any treatment that included injections. Not only in respect of his wishes, but also because I have no desire to be sued, nor fired from my job for opening the hospital to legal action. In that event, we'll try the gumline glucose gel, and some orange juice. Patients here in the US can be tremendously litigious.
Which is not answering my question. Thing is, while knowing about such paperwork would make things very simple, you don't have that information. All you have is someone in a very dire situation, and you have the cure at hand. As it stands, the person says he doesn't want it. It is very clear that he is not in a mental state where he even understands what he's saying no to.
Treat, or no treat?
If George is on insulin treatment (is there a non-injectable insulin?), as you stated, then he has previously been informed of the risks, consequences, and possible side effects. Therefore giving him additional treatment in the manner you described would be no significant abrogation of his consent, merely an extension.
However, if he has filed official paperwork to declare his opposition to any form of injection, or carries self same on his person (much as a Jehovah's Witness might in regards to blood transfusion), then I absolutely would not use any treatment that included injections. Not only in respect of his wishes, but also because I have no desire to be sued, nor fired from my job for opening the hospital to legal action. In that event, we'll try the gumline glucose gel, and some orange juice. Patients here in the US can be tremendously litigious.
Which is not answering my question. Thing is, while knowing about such paperwork would make things very simple, you don't have that information. All you have is someone in a very dire situation, and you have the cure at hand. As it stands, the person says he doesn't want it. It is very clear that he is not in a mental state where he even understands what he's saying no to.
Treat, or no treat?
In the case that that is all the information I have, then yes, treat. He is in immediate risk of death.
Unlike someone with (even severe) depression.
Really? He doesn't even want to stay there. His condition brings a serious risk of suicide. So, are you saying he should be locked up without treatment then? Just, you know, wait the six to eighteen months until it has run its course?
Diabetes huh?
George, a well known diabetes sufferer who has several very bad blood sugar drops in his history and is on large doses of insulin but still doesn't have good stability, comes in to the hospital. He is not making sense when he talks, he was found shouting at people on the street, and he's very angry, but doesn't seem to be taking in information at all.
His blood test comes back, and his glucose levels are dangerously low.
What do you, as his emergency ward doctor, do?
a) Hit him with full treatment via injections and infusions, against his will, FAST?
b) Respect his autonomy (he did say he wanted no part of injections) and let him talk to a nurse about further lifestyle changes?Now, most of you would probably choose a. Why would the fact that another patient is suffering from severe depression instead change this equation, if it does?
this is what hard candies are for.
There are certainly kids who have all those problems (I've even met some) and absolutely need medication, but having been caught in the tendency to throw a pill at the issue has given me serious doubt in the reported numbers. Medication may certainly be the answer for some, but it shouldn't be treated as a one-size-fits-all solution.
I dislike it even as a "its the only way to keep them in class" solution.
Really? He doesn't even want to stay there. His condition brings a serious risk of suicide. So, are you saying he should be locked up without treatment then? Just, you know, wait the six to eighteen months until it has run its course?
Critically low blood sugar brings an immediate risk of death. Once he's stable, he's free to go. If he wants to go home, lock the door, and unbalance his blood sugar so be it, but absent a DNR, it's the duty of a hospital to provide treatment to prevent immediate death.
A more appropriate analogy to forcibly mediating a severely depressed person would be forcing an insulin regimen (because, like anti-depressants, it's not a one time thing) on a severe diabetic, on the basis that they might suffer irreversible neuropathy and blindness otherwise. Don't consider changes to diet and exercise, just go right to insulin, do not pass go, do not collect $200.
No. Not at all. A severe diabetes does not impair you mentally. Severe depression does. So, the patient wants to go home. You see a serious risk of suicide. He says that everything will be okay... somehow. Do you let him go home?
Severe diabetes can throw you off mentally from what I have seen. But that is only my experience.
Not the diabetes itself. Having a too high or too low blood sugar does, however.
Splitting hairs, my lady?
Not at all. Diabetes is the faulty hormonal regulation of blood glucose levels, a disease that is lifelong. It is only in episodes of too low or too high blood sugar that the condition becomes acute, life threatening and the diabetic's mental faculties are affected. Sorry to come off as a pedant about it, but it is rather relevant to the discussion above.
No. Not at all. A severe diabetes does not impair you mentally. Severe depression does. So, the patient wants to go home. You see a serious risk of suicide. He says that everything will be okay... somehow. Do you let him go home?
Are we still talking about the diabetic George? Once his blood sugar is stable to the point it's no longer an immediate risk of death, yes he's free to leave.
If we're not talking about George anymore, but rather a person with depression, do I see a risk of suicide because the person has expressed suicidal ideation, or planning? Or am I assuming a risk of suicide because I feel they're severely depressed?
From looking into it, the rate of suicide among major depressive disorder is about 3.4%. I couldn't find rates for "severe" depression specifically, but that number is hardly reflective of something I would consider worth stripping free will from an entire category of people for.
When you ask the depressed patient about suicidal ideation and planning, he looks into the floor, takes a long time answering and says "No. I just want to go home."
When you ask the depressed patient about suicidal ideation and planning, he looks into the floor, takes a long time answering and says "No. I just want to go home."
If that's all, then I have no reason to stop them. I certainly don't have any justification to forcibly medicate in that scenario. I don't begin with the assumption that the person is suicidal, and nothing you've added has shown me otherwise. What would I do, call the psych unit and say "I've got a patient who's not showing any signs of being suicidal, but they're severely depressed. We'd better involuntarily commit them for 72 hour observation and medication." ?
It's not perfect, but it's far better (in my opinion) than taking away a person's choice, and treating them as incapable. If you treat someone as though that are incapable, you encourage them to be incapable. Not all, or even most if the statistics are any indication, of the people with depression are incapable. I have no reason to believe this is not also true of the subset that has severe depression.
Is it worth it to forcibly violate the will of many, risking their minds and bodies, to save a few?
Not to mention that you might teach them that hospitals are places to be avoided. If I was held against my will for 3 days, then billed for it, I wouldn't want to chance a repeat performance.
This is quite true. My knowledge that a counselor/psychologist is required to report certain things makes me nervous about the idea of talking with one. The idea that I might be locked up if an overzealous therapist decides I said the wrong thing would make it very difficult to ever trust one enough to be completely open.
It's actually my empathy that makes me unable to support the idea of forcibly medicating depressed people. I would hate for it to be done to me.
Not to mention that you might teach them that hospitals are places to be avoided. If I was held against my will for 3 days, then billed for it, I wouldn't want to chance a repeat performance.This is quite true. My knowledge that a counselor/psychologist is required to report certain things makes me nervous about the idea of talking with one. The idea that I might be locked up if an overzealous therapist decides I said the wrong thing would make it very difficult to ever trust one enough to be completely open.
It's actually my empathy that makes me unable to support the idea of forcibly medicating depressed people. I would hate for it to be done to me.
To my knowledge experience, and practice, the only things one "cannot say" relate directly to having an ACTIVE PLAN to harm oneself or other people backed up by realistic MEANS to bring the plan about. Someone who wishes to blow themselves away that lacks access to a gun or firearm of any sort, and has never used one or even been around one a day in their lives, and lacks the funds to buy one requires watching and active therapy, but not an immediate hospitalization. Someone who has the same desire and talked about their weekends at a gun range firing off a few rounds to relax with a gun that they own is probably going to end up in the hospital for observation. It's not about saying the wrong thing, it's about having the means to actually carry out what one is actively planning to do.
When something is missed, a career usually follows the life. I've seen that happen, and I've almost had that happen to me. I wouldn't wish it on anyone.
|
Would you equally object to a doctor giving someone who was bleeding out (say from trauma) a transfusion if they had a braclet saying they opted not to take another individual's blood for religious reasons? We'll even say the person is unconscious so you can't simply ask them.
Eta: Or, to avoid the religious topic assume they are under the influence and cannot consent to a life saving, emergency, procedure.
Presumably they were of sound mind when getting the bracelet.
Despite the down playing of very serious side effects and some very barbaric lines of treatment, keep in mind, these medicines generally (not always of course, but much more oftten than not) are very good for the people that need them and often lead to a signifint improvement in the quality of a person's life.
Would you equally object to a doctor giving someone who was bleeding out (say from trauma) a transfusion if they had a braclet saying they opted not to take another individual's blood for religious reasons? We'll even say the person is unconscious so you can't simply ask them.
Eta: Or, to avoid the religious topic assume they are under the influence and cannot consent to a life saving, emergency, procedure.
Avoiding the religious topic is a dodge because that's most likely the reason they are refusing the transfusion. Now, I'm not a religious person and I believe many religious beliefs are utterly ridiculous. That being said, I respect their right to live their life as they see fit. Their religious belief doesn't require anything from me, so there is no reason for me to hold it against them.
Now go on Google and look up Jehovah's Witness blood transfusions. See how many times a state has taken away both the religious freedom AND autonomy of a Witness in order to perform a blood transfusion. Against the will of the parents and the recipient. That is wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. And it will never be right for any reason ever.
Despite the down playing of very serious side effects and some very barbaric lines of treatment, keep in mind, these medicines generally (not always of course, but much more oftten than not) are very good for the people that need them and often lead to a signifint improvement in the quality of a person's life.
Would you equally object to a doctor giving someone who was bleeding out (say from trauma) a transfusion if they had a braclet saying they opted not to take another individual's blood for religious reasons? We'll even say the person is unconscious so you can't simply ask them.
Eta: Or, to avoid the religious topic assume they are under the influence and cannot consent to a life saving, emergency, procedure.
Avoiding the religious topic is a dodge because that's most likely the reason they are refusing the transfusion. Now, I'm not a religious person and I believe many religious beliefs are utterly ridiculous. That being said, I respect their right to live their life as they see fit. Their religious belief doesn't require anything from me, so there is no reason for me to hold it against them.
Now go on Google and look up Jehovah's Witness blood transfusions. See how many times a state has taken away both the religious freedom AND autonomy of a Witness in order to perform a blood transfusion. Against the will of the parents and the recipient. That is wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. And it will never be right for any reason ever.
I agree with both points. I think it's an absurd belief, but it's their right to believe it, and not my right to violate it.
As far as I'm concerned, any religious belief one has that affects only themself is their choice. As soon as it affects another person, it's no longer okay (unless the other person shares the belief).
The state taking custody of children of Jehova's witnesses to give them a needed blood transfusion is a good thing. Parents have power over their children, but killing them for the sake of the parents' beliefs as this amounts to is Not Okay. Not to mention that parents in this situation still go to the hospital with their children and usually don't object too strongly about it.
The state taking custody of children of Jehova's witnesses to give them a needed blood transfusion is a good thing. Parents have power over their children, but killing them for the sake of the parents' beliefs as this amounts to is Not Okay. Not to mention that parents in this situation still go to the hospital with their children and usually don't object too strongly about it.
That's a good example of what I meant about affecting other people. Or parents that only use "faith healing" for critically ill children. That really ought to be treated as a crime. Do it to themselves if they insist, but not someone who is completely dependant on them for care.
No argument there. I still maintain that the loss of your mental faculties due to a treatable condition should not mean complete and utter ruin for people.
The state taking custody of children of Jehova's witnesses to give them a needed blood transfusion is a good thing. Parents have power over their children, but killing them for the sake of the parents' beliefs as this amounts to is Not Okay. Not to mention that parents in this situation still go to the hospital with their children and usually don't object too strongly about it.
Sorry but you're wrong. Parents are allowed to raise their children according to their faith. Calling it brainwashing or indoctrination just so you can assume control when you think it's bad is wrong.
Getting medication to treat illnesses is not against their faith, getting someone else's blood injected into them is. Saying that if you go to the hospital then you accept anything they're going to do is kinda silly.
The state taking custody of children of Jehova's witnesses to give them a needed blood transfusion is a good thing. Parents have power over their children, but killing them for the sake of the parents' beliefs as this amounts to is Not Okay. Not to mention that parents in this situation still go to the hospital with their children and usually don't object too strongly about it.That's a good example of what I meant about affecting other people. Or parents that only use "faith healing" for critically ill children. That really ought to be treated as a crime. Do it to themselves if they insist, but not someone who is completely dependant on them for care.
If you're intent on treating it as a crime then maybe it's best to take away the children of parents who are predisposed to do so before it comes up. That would be the best way to handle it, right? Then you can explain to the children how they've been being brainwashed by their parents and you're doing it for their own good.
How far do you go? When does your desire to do what you believe is the right thing not override someone else's desire to live as they like? Some pretty horrible things have been done in the name of "for your own good".
The state taking custody of children of Jehova's witnesses to give them a needed blood transfusion is a good thing. Parents have power over their children, but killing them for the sake of the parents' beliefs as this amounts to is Not Okay. Not to mention that parents in this situation still go to the hospital with their children and usually don't object too strongly about it.That's a good example of what I meant about affecting other people. Or parents that only use "faith healing" for critically ill children. That really ought to be treated as a crime. Do it to themselves if they insist, but not someone who is completely dependant on them for care.If you're intent on treating it as a crime then maybe it's best to take away the children of parents who are predisposed to do so before it comes up. That would be the best way to handle it, right? Then you can explain to the children how they've been being brainwashed by their parents and you're doing it for their own good.
How far do you go? When does your desire to do what you believe is the right thing not override someone else's desire to live as they like? Some pretty horrible things have been done in the name of "for your own good".
When it comes to letting kids die because of their parents beliefs?
It seems a pretty simple line to me. Nor does it require taking the kids away from their parents and explaining they've been brainwashing them.We give parents lots of free rein to raise their children how they see fit, but it's not unlimited. You can't let them die because you have faith god will heal them. You can't beat them too much. You can't lock them in basement. Even if you really do think that's what God wants you to do.
How do you determine when is the appropriate time to take a child away from the parents? Should children of parents of certain faiths be removed just in case? Do you understand that in some faiths people are ok with letting their children die because they go to whatever God they worship? Do you have the right to violate that belief? If so, what gives you the right to violate that belief? At what point does your belief trump the belief of others? Do you save the life of a child who you know will have to be under constant medical care? What do you do if you know the parents can't afford that? How early do you start? Do you ban abortion because unborn children are still people?
You're trying to make an anti-religious slippery slope here that doesn't exist.
Exactly my take as well.
Sorry but you're wrong. Parents are allowed to raise their children according to their faith. Calling it brainwashing or indoctrination just so you can assume control when you think it's bad is wrong.
Not too long ago, a baby died because its vegan mother didn't know how it needed to be fed.
A bit further back, a kid died because his religious parents refused to take him to the hospital, since they believed in "faith healing".
Abusive parenting is abusive parenting. I don't care if they hide behind religion or claim the voices in their head made them do it. You do what's best for the child, not the parents.
No argument there. I still maintain that the loss of your mental faculties due to a treatable condition should not mean complete and utter ruin for people.
I don't think that it does. Then again, I'm more concerned about people being assumed to have lost their mental faculties.
Some pretty horrible things have been done in the name of "for your own good".
And even more horrible things have been done in the name of "my religion says I have to". Your point is?