International hunt for Jehovah's Witness parents who snatched son, 5

[One Above All]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2737458/BREAKING-NEWS-Police-launch-major-investigation-boy-5-brain-tumour-snatched-hospital-parents.html

Full title: 'Time is running out for this little boy': International hunt for Jehovah's Witness parents who snatched son, 5, with brain tumour from hospital as police say his feeding tube battery will run out TODAY
Five-year-old Ashya King was taken from hospital by his parents yesterday
He was taken without doctors' consent and is suffering from a brain tumour
The youngster needs 24-hour-a-day care and doctors fear for his life
Police have now launched a hunt for his parents - who have fled to France
Family friend says they would only have acted 'with good intentions'
The family belong to the Jehovah's Witness religion, it emerged today
But it is believed they had not raised any worries about his care
Police had never dealt with the family, who were unknown to social services
Boy's devastated grandmother urges her son to return to Britain

The boy:

The thing whose vagina he came out of (right), and the thing who fucked the aforementioned vagina (left)[1]:

If anyone sees these things (the ones in the picture above), kick their asses until they tell you where their son is. Then call the cops. Or call the cops first, then kick their asses in "self defense". If you see the boy, call an ambulance first and keep him away from his parents. If they approach within a five meter radius, kick their asses.

1.	I refuse to acknowledge them as human, or even people; hence the terms I use here.

[jaimehlers]

With all due respect, OAA, what good will not acknowledging them as human do?  There are better outlets for your completely understandable anger at these people than to try to deny that they're humans, albeit particularly stupid ones who care more about their religious beliefs than about their son's life.  In short, they've de-personafied their son just as you've de-personafied them.  To them, he is not a person, he is simply the container for a 'soul' which will go off to wherever Jehovah's Witnesses believe souls go off to after their "biological containers" die.

I think we've had far more than enough of that kind of idiotic de-personification in the past.  It needs to stop, which means not perpetuating it by doing it to people like this.  That doesn't mean I think your idea of thrashing them is a bad one, mind.

[One Above All]

With all due respect, OAA, what good will not acknowledging them as human do?  There are better outlets for your completely understandable anger at these people than to try to deny that they're humans, albeit particularly stupid ones who care more about their religious beliefs than about their son's life.  In short, they've de-personafied their son just as you've de-personafied them.  To them, he is not a person, he is simply the container for a 'soul' which will go off to wherever Jehovah's Witnesses believe souls go off to after their "biological containers" die.

I think we've had far more than enough of that kind of idiotic de-personification in the past.  It needs to stop, which means not perpetuating it by doing it to people like this.

I have something called "standards", and these things don't meet my standards to be deserving of the terms "human" or "person". I don't give a shit if you think it's "idiotic" or an outlet. It's neither. An outlet would be what would happen to them if I happened to pass them by on the street and saw their faces, or the game I'm playing at the moment (although, if I saw them on the street, any other outlet would become irrelevant, unless I were restrained).
Note that I would not kill them, nor do I advocate their (or anything else's) deaths.

[One Above All]

Dante, if you've got something to say, you'd better say it to my face. Do you think that beings who kidnap their own children just so they can die 24 hours later deserve the label of "human" or "person"?

[Nam]

With all due respect, OAA, what good will not acknowledging them as human do?  There are better outlets for your completely understandable anger at these people than to try to deny that they're humans, albeit particularly stupid ones who care more about their religious beliefs than about their son's life.  In short, they've de-personafied their son just as you've de-personafied them.  To them, he is not a person, he is simply the container for a 'soul' which will go off to wherever Jehovah's Witnesses believe souls go off to after their "biological containers" die.

I think we've had far more than enough of that kind of idiotic de-personification in the past.  It needs to stop, which means not perpetuating it by doing it to people like this.

I was going to applaud this until this part:

That doesn't mean I think your idea of thrashing them is a bad one, mind.

So not calling them human is bad, perpetuating violence is good. That, too, is idiotic.

-Nam

[Dante]

Dante, if you've got something to say, you'd better say it to my face.

Or what? What happens if I don't? So scary to even contemplate..... But, since you're in Portugal, I think, and I'm not, saying it to your face is literally going to be a tad difficult.

Do you think that beings who kidnap their own children just so they can die 24 hours later deserve the label of "human" or "person"?

In the broadest definition of the terms? Yes. You like to play "dictionary" with theists as much as the next guy, so don't start making up your own definitions just because you're angry. It doesn't become you.

[jaimehlers]

I have something called "standards", and these things don't meet my standards to be deserving of the terms "human" or "person". I don't give a shit if you think it's "idiotic" or an outlet. It's neither. An outlet would be what would happen to them if I happened to pass them by on the street and saw their faces, or the game I'm playing at the moment (although, if I saw them on the street, any other outlet would become irrelevant, unless I were restrained).
Note that I would not kill them, nor do I advocate their (or anything else's) deaths.

If you de-personify people, for whatever reason, you simply open the door to someone else de-personifying you.  Standards or no standards, when you act in such a way towards other people, you lose the right to complain when someone else does the same thing to you, or to someone you care about, because you were willing to act in such a callous manner in the first place.

That is why I call it idiotic.  Because it simply perpetuates a cycle that has long since needed to die, of people finding excuses to treat other people as if they are not people so they don't have to justify how they treat them.

To answer the question you directed at Dante, yes, I think that people who kidnap their children to 'rescue' them from having their lives spared deserve to be called people.  They may be the lowest of the low, but they are still people.  Trying to pretend that they are not people simply puts up the pretense that "real people" would not do that, yet it's clear that people can and do such things.  And that exposes the pretense as false (aka, the "no true person" fallacy).

I am not saying you don't have a right to hate and detest these people[1].  But you rob your very justified moral outrage of its strength by trying to de-personify them.  At least, amongst people who find this sort of behavior despicable and vile.  What they see is you acting as if you can declare that people are not people, and they recoil from it.  You drive away the very people who would otherwise share your outrage.

1.	in my opinion, if their actions resulted in the death of their son, they deserve to be executed, and I am not normally in favor of the death penalty

[jaimehlers]

So not calling them human is bad, perpetuating violence is good. That, too, is idiotic.

Not good, necessary.  This sort of behavior, where parents sentence their children to die out of religious sentiment, can and should not be tolerated.  Maybe saying they should be thrashed (implying that it was okay for random people to thrash them) was the wrong thing to say, but I believe they deserve punishment up to and including the death penalty if their actions resulted in the death of their son.

[Zankuu]

Five-year-old Ashya King was taken from hospital by his parents yesterday
He was taken without doctors' consent and is suffering from a brain tumour [...]

What was the child's prognosis? I think that's important. Legal guardians are well within their right to refuse treatment if the prognosis is poor. Now if they just left the hospital without officially AMA discharging their son and his prognosis was positive, then I can understand the ethical issue and police involvement.

[One Above All]

Or what? What happens if I don't? So scary to even contemplate..... But, since you're in Portugal, I think, and I'm not, saying it to your face is literally going to be a tad difficult.

Expressions. Look it up.

In the broadest definition of the terms? Yes.

Good for you. I don't.

You like to play "dictionary" with theists as much as the next guy, so don't start making up your own definitions just because you're angry. It doesn't become you.

My standards arose from several events such as this, but they persisted long after the anger had (mostly) subsided. I just figured we should have some standards as to what is considered a "person". I simply took the first step toward that. You're free to call them whatever you wish, as long as you make your thoughts clear.

If you de-personify people, for whatever reason, you simply open the door to someone else de-personifying you.  Standards or no standards, when you act in such a way towards other people, you lose the right to complain when someone else does the same thing to you, or to someone you care about, because you were willing to act in such a callous manner in the first place.

That is why I call it idiotic.  Because it simply perpetuates a cycle that has long since needed to die, of people finding excuses to treat other people as if they are not people so they don't have to justify how they treat them.

You think that my "de-personification" is what allows me to be angry at them or have a strong desire to cause them pain. It is not. My anger is due to what they did. The "de-personification" has the same root, but it is more logical than pure emotion.

To answer the question you directed at Dante, yes, I think that people who kidnap their children to 'rescue' them from having their lives spared deserve to be called people.  They may be the lowest of the low, but they are still people.  Trying to pretend that they are not people simply puts up the pretense that "real people" would not do that, yet it's clear that people can and do such things.  And that exposes the pretense as false (aka, the "no true person" fallacy).

Wrong. All beings of the species Homo sapiens sapiens are born with the titles "person" and "human". It's when they do shit like this that the right to said titles vanishes into thin air. To me, they used to be people. They were people up until the moment when they did this. The instant they did it, however, they lost the right to call themselves "people". They were still people when they did it. People can do and have done this and worse. However, when they did so, they rescinded their "personhood". At least, as far as I care.
Being non-persons doesn't mean they should be treated differently than persons. They're still sentient beings, and they knowingly did something horrible. If someone with Alzheimer's, for example, did something during an "episode" that resulted in someone's death, I highly doubt anyone with even the slightest ounce of morality would advocate their death or any sort of punishment. This was a different situation. Unless it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt that they were in a delusional state (maybe intoxicated, or just out of their minds with adrenaline) when they did this, I wouldn't lose a single Planck time of sleep over their life sentences. Being non-persons just means, to put it bluntly, that they're inferior (morally speaking).

I am not saying you don't have a right to hate and detest these people[1].

1.	in my opinion, if their actions resulted in the death of their son, they deserve to be executed, and I am not normally in favor of the death penalty

Small note: to me, "hate" means "dislike strongly enough to wish death upon someone/something". Therefore, I do not hate. I don't want them executed or otherwise killed, and I would gladly see anyone who did so go to prison.

What was the child's prognosis? I think that's important. Legal guardians are well within their right to refuse treatment if the prognosis is poor. Now if they just left the hospital without officially AMA discharging their son and his prognosis was positive, then I can understand the ethical issue and police involvement.

The latter is exactly what they did, which is why the police are looking for them.

[jaimehlers]

You think that my "de-personification" is what allows me to be angry at them or have a strong desire to cause them pain. It is not. My anger is due to what they did. The "de-personification" has the same root, but it is more logical than pure emotion.

No, I thought no such thing.  I recognize that your attempt to de-personify them is an attempt to cope with your anger, but it is not a very good way of doing so.  If anything, it's worse than simply letting yourself be angry at them, because it doesn't really deal with the anger.  As you say, it's your attempt to be logical about it, but it's logic fueled by anger, which makes you more likely to make mistakes and less likely to recognize them or listen to other people.

After I saw Zankuu's post, I went and read the actual article, where I noticed some indications that there might well be more to this than meets the eye.  For example, "later updates from the family to their friends spoke of continued tests and a 'short life expectancy'."  They may well have thought that rather than leave their son in the hands of doctors who told them that their son would probably die soon, that they would seek treatment elsewhere.  I don't know that, of course.  Nobody does.  And that's the real point here.  Nobody currently knows why they took their son away from the hospital except them.

So maybe you should wait to pass judgment until you have more information on what happened and why?  Because it is illogical to draw conclusions about why an event happened when the information you possess about that event is as incomplete as this obviously is.  I made that mistake earlier when I simply relied on the bullet point summary you posted here rather than reading the full article for myself.

[One Above All]

No, I thought no such thing.

That's good.[1]

I recognize that your attempt to de-personify them is an attempt to cope with your anger, but it is not a very good way of doing so.

I'll assume this was due to poor wording on my part, so I'll clarify:
My "de-personification" is rooted in their actions (and my own morality, obviously). It's not rooted in my anger.

After I saw Zankuu's post, I went and read the actual article, where I noticed some indications that there might well be more to this than meets the eye.  For example, "later updates from the family to their friends spoke of continued tests and a 'short life expectancy'."  They may well have thought that rather than leave their son in the hands of doctors who told them that their son would probably die soon, that they would seek treatment elsewhere.  I don't know that, of course.  Nobody does.  And that's the real point here.  Nobody currently knows why they took their son away from the hospital except them.

You know what could have been more useful than taking their son away without informing the doctors, on a feeding tube that has a battery that will last another... twelve hours or so? Talk to the fucking doctors and ask for/demand that their son be safely (or as safely as possible, given his condition) moved to another hospital.
I do not, for one second, believe that they're going to seek help. And by "help" I mean a means that can actually help. This excludes prayer, New Age "medicine", ancient Chinese "medicine", any kind of weird diet ("Eat only food that starts with the letter 'P'!"), and animal sacrifice, for starters.

So maybe you should wait to pass judgment until you have more information on what happened and why?  Because it is illogical to draw conclusions about why an event happened when the information you possess about that event is as incomplete as this obviously is.  I made that mistake earlier when I simply relied on the bullet point summary you posted here rather than reading the full article for myself.

They didn't talk to the doctors, who would have been able to move their son as safely as possible. They didn't take him to another hospital (obviously, or they would have reported it already), which could have helped. They just took him.

1.	I mean this literally. No sarcasm, snarkiness, or anything like that.

[nogodsforme]

No matter how angry we get on an internet forum, this is going to be a tragedy for this family. The parents are apparently beyond reason due to their religious indoctrination. The best motive would be that they know their son will not recover no matter what the doctors do, and they want him off the machines so he can die with them in their arms and go to Jehovah. At worst, the child could be saved but there would have to be some intervention like a blood transfusion that they would not want.

AFAIK, JW's don't do "faith healing" or new age remedies. I hope the authorities find the boy and can save him. I don't really care what happens to the parents. They are, as I said, probably beyond reason.[1]

I feel for the grandmother, the family and the friends. 

1.	My JW brother died of kidney failure, refusing some treatments that might have helped. He was an adult, however, and made his own decisions.

[jaimehlers]

I'll assume this was due to poor wording on my part, so I'll clarify:
My "de-personification" is rooted in their actions (and my own morality, obviously). It's not rooted in my anger.

It's also apparently an attempt to deal with your anger.  As it is a well-known fact that anger and other emotions tend to affect the logical, rational facilities of the brain, it is not possible for me to believe that this is not at least partially the case with you, seeing as you were talking about thrashing the parents in your OP.  You may not believe that you anger is influencing your judgment.  You may even be right.  But at the moment, I don't find that to be especially likely because of my experience dealing with my own anger.

You know what could have been more useful than taking their son away without informing the doctors, on a feeding tube that has a battery that will last another... twelve hours or so? Talk to the fucking doctors and ask for/demand that their son be safely (or as safely as possible, given his condition) moved to another hospital.
I do not, for one second, believe that they're going to seek help. And by "help" I mean a means that can actually help. This excludes prayer, New Age "medicine", ancient Chinese "medicine", any kind of weird diet ("Eat only food that starts with the letter 'P'!"), and animal sacrifice, for starters.

No doubt.  However, it's clear from reading the article that this family has been dealing with grief, fear, sorrow, and emotional pain for quite some time.  Weeks, at least.  None of those emotions are conducive to making calm, rational, intelligent decisions, and all of them tend to provoke irrationally stupid ones.  While I'm hardly a psychologist, I don't actually think they're in their right minds right now, let alone in a state to react calmly and rationally.  It is at least something you should consider before you decide that they no longer qualify as humans because of their actions.

They didn't talk to the doctors, who would have been able to move their son as safely as possible. They didn't take him to another hospital (obviously, or they would have reported it already), which could have helped. They just took him.

Which is exactly the sort of unthinking, irrational panic decision I would expect from people who have undoubtedly been on an emotional roller coaster since this whole mess began.  I'm not saying that it justifies their actions, because it doesn't.  But this isn't like those stupid people who make the decision to not give their children immunizations based on religious convictions or other things along those lines; they clearly have been having doctors care for their son.  Honestly, I'm not even sure if their religious beliefs have anything to do with this decision at this point.  Seriously, think about it.  If this were a premeditated decision to pull their son out of the hospital in order to go for, say, faith-based treatment, wouldn't it have made sense for them to do more or less what you said what they should have done?  Or else not brought him in to begin with, rather than bringing him in for most of a month, having him undergo medical procedures (such as an emergency surgery which is why he has the food tube to begin with) to deal with the brain tumor, and then, all of a sudden, grabbing him out of the hospital and running?

It's precisely because it is such a stupid and irrational decision that I think they aren't in their right minds - and not because of religious indoctrination.  That would provoke them to react in different ways, still stupid, but recognizable as the typical stupidity of those severely indoctrinated by their religious beliefs.

[One Above All]

<snip>

This is getting boring, so I'll finish with this:
I have and had considered their emotional state. However, when put in a situation where they might (and most likely will) lose someone they love (assuming they love their son), people (using a broad definition of the term) won't do something that will, in all likelihood, kill whomever they're trying to protect within a day. They'll keep them safe. And how do you keep a hospital patient - who requires 24/7 care - safe? Keep him in the hospital and let him get the 24/7 care he needs. You know what my mom did the first two times I almost died? She took me to the hospital and kept me there. And she's severely overprotective; almost to the point of being neurotic. She's also catholic. What happened here was either a simultaneous, complete, and utter mental breakdown of two people, or they just didn't give a shit. Which do you suppose is more likely?

[jaimehlers]

What happened here was either a simultaneous, complete, and utter mental breakdown of two people, or they just didn't give a shit. Which do you suppose is more likely?

The former - albeit, probably not a complete and utter breakdown.  Most people are not very rational when they have to deal with an emotional maelstrom like this, day after day after day.

The reason I don't consider the latter likely is because I'm not making assumptions about them based on the fact that they're religious, and because I understand how it is when you're engulfed in a maelstrom of negative emotions, day after day after day.  I understand just how much that can twist the psyche so that actions which normally wouldn't even be considered seem reasonable.  Do you?  From the way you're acting here, it seems not.  You apparently would rather condemn than even make the slightest effort to try to understand.

[nogodsforme]

I suspect that One is not a parent, or has had to care for someone who was dying.

I fit both categories and, as I said before, I recognize the tragic nature of the situation more than I can identify with the anger. Watching elderly people die, painfully, hopelessly, gradually losing their dignity and their personality, is horrible enough. Having a child with a fatal illness, watching all that happen to your sweet baby, has to be harder than almost anything else a person ever has to bear.

If the parents have retreated so far into their religion (or some other fantasy like new age, or drugs, or drink or any other craziness) that they can't see their way out again, I can understand. I don't know what I would do in their situation and hope it is something I never have to face.

[One Above All]

They were found. Thankfully, the kid is still alive.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2738742/BREAKING-NEWS-Terminally-ill-boy-Ashya-5-alive-police-Spain-Jehovahs-Witness-father-explains-parents-snatched-hospital-went-run.html

[Graybeard]

From the link:
"In the video, Jehovah's Witness Mr King, 51, called for police to stop the 'ridiculous chase', saying their son was 'perfectly healthy' and the family wanted to be 'left in peace'.

'There is nothing wrong with him, he is very happy actually. Since we took him out of hospital, he has been smiling a lot more.'

He added: 'We're not neglecting our son, he's in perfectly good health. My son is smiling, he's happy, we're doing things as a family.

'We just want to be left in peace. He's very sick. I just want to get on with his treatment. I'm not coming back to England if I cannot give him the [proton beam therapy] treatment I want [for him], which is proper treatment. I just want positive results for my son.'

From an undated article on the site Cancer Research UK[1] http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2013/09/16/proton-therapy-is-coming-to-the-uk-but-what-does-it-mean-for-patients/

Proton beam therapy:

But is it working?

So far it’s difficult to tell, as the numbers of patients affected by any one type of cancer are very small, particularly for very rare childhood tumours. This makes it hard to compare survival with people who’ve been treated in other ways.

The data on adults from the UK treated abroad seem to show that they are doing well after proton therapy, but the patients who get the treatment have been selected for it specifically because their doctors think they have a good chance of doing well from it.

For children, the outcomes seem to be comparable to the standard treatment they would have received in the UK. However, it’s too early to say whether the kids who’ve had proton therapy suffer fewer long term side effects than those who had conventional radiotherapy, which is where the really big benefits could lie (assuming that both treatments are equally effective).

The Wiki Article is more positive but may not be as accurate/neutral: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_therapy

It seems that the fact that they are JWs does not have a bearing on the case. It also seems that proton beam therapy has been judged inappropriate by doctors but that the father does not accept this.

Without further,detailed, information on the tumour and the criteria and limitations for funding any treatment, it is not possible to have a valid opinion on the rights and wrongs of the case.

1.	Cancer Research UK's articles on all kinds of treatment are always neutral and balanced so as not to give false hope

[nogodsforme]

I am glad they have been found safe. I hope the boy gets proper treatment, and lives a long and happy life.