信自然療法死全家！

咁如果西醫表明無能為力既情況之下
重應唔應該繼續接受治療?
定放棄任何治療?
定尋找另類治療?
邊個選擇先叫盡咗父母責任?

我會認為可以註冊醫生同意下去尋找另類治療、雙管齊下，大前提係西醫已經表明無能為力，而且係經評估過既另類療法
當有嚴重疾病，首先要進行既應該係有根據且愛規管既治療，而唔係冇足夠實證支持既另類治療，當然我唔係完全否定另類療法既功用

其實限制父母醫療行為 + 強制教育
已經係專制，不民主的表現

你唔好off哂topic得唔得，個post重點唔係乜乜物物既主義制度

因為個post有講開，加拿大人信另類治療，被人判左罪

當時個自然療法醫生已經叫父母帶個仔去急証，而對父母都冇咁做

咁都冇理由干預父母自由，判佢坐監

法律連尊重下學術自由和思想自由都唔識？

無視左成個過程

成個過程係，父母堅持用另類治療，唔用正規治療，結果孩子慘死。法院判父母有罪，要坐監

問題係 : 法庭走走干預父母選擇醫療的自由，怪責受害者，且是赤裸裸剝削父母的選擇權。知唔知咩叫思想自由和學術自由，咩叫尊重多元化和多樣化社會？咩叫blame the system not blame the victim ? 家陣人地唔信任西醫，西醫唔思考點樣令公眾接受，反而是要剝奪公眾父母的選擇權，係咪不思進取？

咁點解唔係控告醫生?
另，如果個家長堅持用西醫療法，個細路死咗，又駛唔駛告個家長?

而家情況係，好多自然療法根本未有根據、研究，只係好多人9up、無限放大嗰少數既所謂奇蹟，如果父母盲信，我講多次，係盲信，咁佢仲堅持用自然療法佢本身係一定有責任
如果佢因為西醫療法而死，父母已經盡左責任，帶佢去接受認可既治療

呢些咪係精英主義 lor

咁如果西醫表明無能為力既情況之下
重應唔應該繼續接受治療?
定放棄任何治療?
定尋找另類治療?
邊個選擇先叫盡咗父母責任?

我會認為可以註冊醫生同意下去尋找另類治療、雙管齊下，大前提係西醫已經表明無能為力，而且係經評估過既另類療法
當有嚴重疾病，首先要進行既應該係有根據且愛規管既治療，而唔係冇足夠實證支持既另類治療，當然我唔係完全否定另類療法既功用

其實限制父母醫療行為 + 強制教育
已經係專制，不民主的表現

你唔好off哂topic得唔得，個post重點唔係乜乜物物既主義制度

因為個post有講開，加拿大人信另類治療，被人判左罪

當時個自然療法醫生已經叫父母帶個仔去急証，而對父母都冇咁做

咁都冇理由干預父母自由，判佢坐監

法律連尊重下學術自由和思想自由都唔識？

個case唔係講緊專業治療對另類治療，而係父母知道兒子好有可能患有腦膜炎而未有提供適切治療，亦導致兒子死亡。因此法院認為呢對即使父母愛佢地的兒子並關心兒子的情況，但行為上不幸引致兒子死亡，因此被判刑。事實上案件同學術自由和思想自由並未有關係。

判辭：
https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2016/2016abqb353/2016abqb353.html

// The Stephans were not convicted because they gave Ezekiel natural remedies or because of any blameworthy act of commission.Their blameworthy conduct is an omission, a failure to act. The blameworthy conduct is a marked departure from an objective standard, which is not as serious as a marked and substantial departure such as is required in a criminal negligence charge. //

//Both of them are caring and attentive parents. They were both aware of Ezekiel’s condition and symptoms. They both participated in decisions and cared for him throughout including providing natural supplements to him. Neither of them intended to put Ezekiel’s life at risk but on Monday they both believed he had meningitis, discussed going to a doctor, and decided not to. So there is much they knew, decided and did together; but there are also significant differences in their actions.//

//He took no real action when Ezekiel experienced irregular breathing on Tuesday, and when Ezekiel stopped breathing he called his father before calling 911. When Ezekiel started breathing again he told the 911 operator the ambulance did not need to be dispatched.//

//In the trial, the evidence was that Ezekiel became sicker and sicker, to the point he actually stopped breathing before his parents finally sought medical attention. This is far beyond a child who simply has the sniffles.//

//Society has every right to expect that the minimal required standards of care will be followed, particularly where the risk relates to the life of a vulnerable young child.//

Sentence: 4 months + prob. (husband) & 3 months CSO (wife)

咁點解唔係控告醫生?
另，如果個家長堅持用西醫療法，個細路死咗，又駛唔駛告個家長?

而家情況係，好多自然療法根本未有根據、研究，只係好多人9up、無限放大嗰少數既所謂奇蹟，如果父母盲信，我講多次，係盲信，咁佢仲堅持用自然療法佢本身係一定有責任
如果佢因為西醫療法而死，父母已經盡左責任，帶佢去接受認可既治療

呢些咪係精英主義 lor

咁如果西醫表明無能為力既情況之下
重應唔應該繼續接受治療?
定放棄任何治療?
定尋找另類治療?
邊個選擇先叫盡咗父母責任?

我會認為可以註冊醫生同意下去尋找另類治療、雙管齊下，大前提係西醫已經表明無能為力，而且係經評估過既另類療法
當有嚴重疾病，首先要進行既應該係有根據且愛規管既治療，而唔係冇足夠實證支持既另類治療，當然我唔係完全否定另類療法既功用

其實限制父母醫療行為 + 強制教育
已經係專制，不民主的表現

你唔好off哂topic得唔得，個post重點唔係乜乜物物既主義制度

因為個post有講開，加拿大人信另類治療，被人判左罪

當時個自然療法醫生已經叫父母帶個仔去急証，而對父母都冇咁做

咁都冇理由干預父母自由，判佢坐監

法律連尊重下學術自由和思想自由都唔識？

個case唔係講緊專業治療對另類治療，而係父母知道兒子好有可能患有腦膜炎而未有提供適切治療，亦導致兒子死亡。因此法院認為呢對即使父母愛佢地的兒子並關心兒子的情況，但行為上不幸引致兒子死亡，因此被判刑。事實上案件同學術自由和思想自由並未有關係。

判辭：
https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2016/2016abqb353/2016abqb353.html

// The Stephans were not convicted because they gave Ezekiel natural remedies or because of any blameworthy act of commission.Their blameworthy conduct is an omission, a failure to act. The blameworthy conduct is a marked departure from an objective standard, which is not as serious as a marked and substantial departure such as is required in a criminal negligence charge. //

//Both of them are caring and attentive parents. They were both aware of Ezekiel’s condition and symptoms. They both participated in decisions and cared for him throughout including providing natural supplements to him. Neither of them intended to put Ezekiel’s life at risk but on Monday they both believed he had meningitis, discussed going to a doctor, and decided not to. So there is much they knew, decided and did together; but there are also significant differences in their actions.//

//He took no real action when Ezekiel experienced irregular breathing on Tuesday, and when Ezekiel stopped breathing he called his father before calling 911. When Ezekiel started breathing again he told the 911 operator the ambulance did not need to be dispatched.//

//In the trial, the evidence was that Ezekiel became sicker and sicker, to the point he actually stopped breathing before his parents finally sought medical attention. This is far beyond a child who simply has the sniffles.//

//Society has every right to expect that the minimal required standards of care will be followed, particularly where the risk relates to the life of a vulnerable young child.//

Sentence: 4 months + prob. (husband) & 3 months CSO (wife)

咁點解唔係控告醫生?
另，如果個家長堅持用西醫療法，個細路死咗，又駛唔駛告個家長?

而家情況係，好多自然療法根本未有根據、研究，只係好多人9up、無限放大嗰少數既所謂奇蹟，如果父母盲信，我講多次，係盲信，咁佢仲堅持用自然療法佢本身係一定有責任
如果佢因為西醫療法而死，父母已經盡左責任，帶佢去接受認可既治療

呢些咪係精英主義 lor

咁如果西醫表明無能為力既情況之下
重應唔應該繼續接受治療?
定放棄任何治療?
定尋找另類治療?
邊個選擇先叫盡咗父母責任?

我會認為可以註冊醫生同意下去尋找另類治療、雙管齊下，大前提係西醫已經表明無能為力，而且係經評估過既另類療法
當有嚴重疾病，首先要進行既應該係有根據且愛規管既治療，而唔係冇足夠實證支持既另類治療，當然我唔係完全否定另類療法既功用

其實限制父母醫療行為 + 強制教育
已經係專制，不民主的表現

你唔好off哂topic得唔得，個post重點唔係乜乜物物既主義制度

因為個post有講開，加拿大人信另類治療，被人判左罪

當時個自然療法醫生已經叫父母帶個仔去急証，而對父母都冇咁做

咁都冇理由干預父母自由，判佢坐監

法律連尊重下學術自由和思想自由都唔識？

個case唔係講緊專業治療對另類治療，而係父母知道兒子好有可能患有腦膜炎而未有提供適切治療，亦導致兒子死亡。因此法院認為呢對即使父母愛佢地的兒子並關心兒子的情況，但行為上不幸引致兒子死亡，因此被判刑。事實上案件同學術自由和思想自由並未有關係。

判辭：
https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2016/2016abqb353/2016abqb353.html

// The Stephans were not convicted because they gave Ezekiel natural remedies or because of any blameworthy act of commission.Their blameworthy conduct is an omission, a failure to act. The blameworthy conduct is a marked departure from an objective standard, which is not as serious as a marked and substantial departure such as is required in a criminal negligence charge. //

//Both of them are caring and attentive parents. They were both aware of Ezekiel’s condition and symptoms. They both participated in decisions and cared for him throughout including providing natural supplements to him. Neither of them intended to put Ezekiel’s life at risk but on Monday they both believed he had meningitis, discussed going to a doctor, and decided not to. So there is much they knew, decided and did together; but there are also significant differences in their actions.//

//He took no real action when Ezekiel experienced irregular breathing on Tuesday, and when Ezekiel stopped breathing he called his father before calling 911. When Ezekiel started breathing again he told the 911 operator the ambulance did not need to be dispatched.//

//In the trial, the evidence was that Ezekiel became sicker and sicker, to the point he actually stopped breathing before his parents finally sought medical attention. This is far beyond a child who simply has the sniffles.//

//Society has every right to expect that the minimal required standards of care will be followed, particularly where the risk relates to the life of a vulnerable young child.//

Sentence: 4 months + prob. (husband) & 3 months CSO (wife)

補多句：
// Society has every right to expect that the minimal required standards of care will be followed, particularly where the risk relates to the life of a vulnerable young child. //

咁點解唔係控告醫生?
另，如果個家長堅持用西醫療法，個細路死咗，又駛唔駛告個家長?

而家情況係，好多自然療法根本未有根據、研究，只係好多人9up、無限放大嗰少數既所謂奇蹟，如果父母盲信，我講多次，係盲信，咁佢仲堅持用自然療法佢本身係一定有責任
如果佢因為西醫療法而死，父母已經盡左責任，帶佢去接受認可既治療

呢些咪係精英主義 lor

咁如果西醫表明無能為力既情況之下
重應唔應該繼續接受治療?
定放棄任何治療?
定尋找另類治療?
邊個選擇先叫盡咗父母責任?

我會認為可以註冊醫生同意下去尋找另類治療、雙管齊下，大前提係西醫已經表明無能為力，而且係經評估過既另類療法
當有嚴重疾病，首先要進行既應該係有根據且愛規管既治療，而唔係冇足夠實證支持既另類治療，當然我唔係完全否定另類療法既功用

其實限制父母醫療行為 + 強制教育
已經係專制，不民主的表現

你唔好off哂topic得唔得，個post重點唔係乜乜物物既主義制度

因為個post有講開，加拿大人信另類治療，被人判左罪

當時個自然療法醫生已經叫父母帶個仔去急証，而對父母都冇咁做

咁都冇理由干預父母自由，判佢坐監

法律連尊重下學術自由和思想自由都唔識？

個case唔係講緊專業治療對另類治療，而係父母知道兒子好有可能患有腦膜炎而未有提供適切治療，亦導致兒子死亡。因此法院認為呢對即使父母愛佢地的兒子並關心兒子的情況，但行為上不幸引致兒子死亡，因此被判刑。事實上案件同學術自由和思想自由並未有關係。

判辭：
https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2016/2016abqb353/2016abqb353.html

// The Stephans were not convicted because they gave Ezekiel natural remedies or because of any blameworthy act of commission.Their blameworthy conduct is an omission, a failure to act. The blameworthy conduct is a marked departure from an objective standard, which is not as serious as a marked and substantial departure such as is required in a criminal negligence charge. //

//Both of them are caring and attentive parents. They were both aware of Ezekiel’s condition and symptoms. They both participated in decisions and cared for him throughout including providing natural supplements to him. Neither of them intended to put Ezekiel’s life at risk but on Monday they both believed he had meningitis, discussed going to a doctor, and decided not to. So there is much they knew, decided and did together; but there are also significant differences in their actions.//

//He took no real action when Ezekiel experienced irregular breathing on Tuesday, and when Ezekiel stopped breathing he called his father before calling 911. When Ezekiel started breathing again he told the 911 operator the ambulance did not need to be dispatched.//

//In the trial, the evidence was that Ezekiel became sicker and sicker, to the point he actually stopped breathing before his parents finally sought medical attention. This is far beyond a child who simply has the sniffles.//

//Society has every right to expect that the minimal required standards of care will be followed, particularly where the risk relates to the life of a vulnerable young child.//

Sentence: 4 months + prob. (husband) & 3 months CSO (wife)

補多句：
// Society has every right to expect that the minimal required standards of care will be followed, particularly where the risk relates to the life of a vulnerable young child. //

父母幫個仔帶去自然療法
所謂「好返」都算。之後呢班父母就會陷入幸存者偏差同確認偏差。不斷將自己仔女既case宣傳比親朋戚友知。

親朋戚友一定會聽聞到「有效」既自然療法case。因為無效既已經死晒或者轉返正統醫療啦。

情形就好似一班on9師奶，甚麼科學方法都不懂。陷入兩種心理偏差就誤以為疫苗有害，幫仔女做決定，最後父母受害，仔女受害，不信者亦因為你唔打疫苗受害，深信者推波助瀾更加陷入惡性循環。

岩啊，隔硬立法打疫苗可能侵犯人權。咁唔立法，長遠而言，就係侵害緊你口中既科學護教徒人權。香港依家好重視人權，竟然唔強制打疫苗。

父母幫個仔帶去自然療法
所謂「好返」都算。之後呢班父母就會陷入幸存者偏差同確認偏差。不斷將自己仔女既case宣傳比親朋戚友知。

親朋戚友一定會聽聞到「有效」既自然療法case。因為無效既已經死晒或者轉返正統醫療啦。

情形就好似一班on9師奶，甚麼科學方法都不懂。陷入兩種心理偏差就誤以為疫苗有害，幫仔女做決定，最後父母受害，仔女受害，不信者亦因為你唔打疫苗受害，深信者推波助瀾更加陷入惡性循環。

岩啊，隔硬立法打疫苗可能侵犯人權。咁唔立法，長遠而言，就係侵害緊你口中既科學護教徒人權。香港依家好重視人權，竟然唔強制打疫苗。

滑波謬誤。點會長遠侵害科學權利？家陣唔強制，市場和家長都有得自由選擇，選擇接受咩的醫療體系。良性競爭來。

講法律漏洞位人兄
人地條法律係沒有提供生命所需
唔係限制你去選擇其他醫療方法
而作為父母係有責任去做任何野去提供physiological need比個嬰兒
而呢個case 入面個victim係個嬰兒 唔係個父母
其實無論西醫又好自然療法又好 你睇完普通GP/乜醫師都好
發覺自己個BB食完藥/治療完都仲唔退燒無改善 而你又知道佢咁燒落去會死 都由佢繼續發 唔call emergency service 送佢去醫院
咁你又覺得邊個係culprit?

父母幫個仔帶去自然療法
所謂「好返」都算。之後呢班父母就會陷入幸存者偏差同確認偏差。不斷將自己仔女既case宣傳比親朋戚友知。

親朋戚友一定會聽聞到「有效」既自然療法case。因為無效既已經死晒或者轉返正統醫療啦。

情形就好似一班on9師奶，甚麼科學方法都不懂。陷入兩種心理偏差就誤以為疫苗有害，幫仔女做決定，最後父母受害，仔女受害，不信者亦因為你唔打疫苗受害，深信者推波助瀾更加陷入惡性循環。

岩啊，隔硬立法打疫苗可能侵犯人權。咁唔立法，長遠而言，就係侵害緊你口中既科學護教徒人權。香港依家好重視人權，竟然唔強制打疫苗。

滑波謬誤。點會長遠侵害科學權利？家陣唔強制，市場和家長都有得自由選擇，選擇接受咩的醫療體系。良性競爭來。

你只係識講下名詞講下定義。
依家自然療法咪即係同疫苗既情況差唔多囉。因為一班無知既人，令到一班知識不足既人受害。

你明唔明白點解要90％既人打疫苗先有叫做有效？有d疫苗如果只有一半人打疫苗一半唔打，基本上疫苗都變得無效 你明唔明點解？

選擇相信有效市場理論，我都唔知講咩好。當左市場神之手，絕對理性。吹你唔脹。搬你套經濟學黎當勝過科學，大家唔同語言

講法律漏洞位人兄
人地條法律係沒有提供生命所需
唔係限制你去選擇其他醫療方法
而作為父母係有責任去做任何野去提供physiological need比個嬰兒
而呢個case 入面個victim係個嬰兒 唔係個父母
其實無論西醫又好自然療法又好 你睇完普通GP/乜醫師都好
發覺自己個BB食完藥/治療完都仲唔退燒無改善 而你又知道佢咁燒落去會死 都由佢繼續發 唔call emergency service 送佢去醫院
咁你又覺得邊個係culprit?

咁父母信另類治療
掉返轉 如果睇西醫，西醫醫死左或救唔返 ，或者西醫宣告無力醫治，罪又在父母上？

講法律漏洞位人兄
人地條法律係沒有提供生命所需
唔係限制你去選擇其他醫療方法
而作為父母係有責任去做任何野去提供physiological need比個嬰兒
而呢個case 入面個victim係個嬰兒 唔係個父母
其實無論西醫又好自然療法又好 你睇完普通GP/乜醫師都好
發覺自己個BB食完藥/治療完都仲唔退燒無改善 而你又知道佢咁燒落去會死 都由佢繼續發 唔call emergency service 送佢去醫院
咁你又覺得邊個係culprit?

咁父母信另類治療
掉返轉 如果睇西醫，西醫醫死左或救唔返 ，或者西醫宣告無力醫治，罪又在父母上？

講法律漏洞位人兄
人地條法律係沒有提供生命所需
唔係限制你去選擇其他醫療方法
而作為父母係有責任去做任何野去提供physiological need比個嬰兒
而呢個case 入面個victim係個嬰兒 唔係個父母
其實無論西醫又好自然療法又好 你睇完普通GP/乜醫師都好
發覺自己個BB食完藥/治療完都仲唔退燒無改善 而你又知道佢咁燒落去會死 都由佢繼續發 唔call emergency service 送佢去醫院
咁你又覺得邊個係culprit?

咁父母信另類治療
掉返轉 如果睇西醫，西醫醫死左或救唔返 ，或者西醫宣告無力醫治，罪又在父母上？

講法律漏洞位人兄
人地條法律係沒有提供生命所需
唔係限制你去選擇其他醫療方法
而作為父母係有責任去做任何野去提供physiological need比個嬰兒
而呢個case 入面個victim係個嬰兒 唔係個父母
其實無論西醫又好自然療法又好 你睇完普通GP/乜醫師都好
發覺自己個BB食完藥/治療完都仲唔退燒無改善 而你又知道佢咁燒落去會死 都由佢繼續發 唔call emergency service 送佢去醫院
咁你又覺得邊個係culprit?

咁父母信另類治療
掉返轉 如果睇西醫，西醫醫死左或救唔返 ，或者西醫宣告無力醫治，罪又在父母上？

假如個父母睇左GP但係個細路無改善 仲要知道個病有機會整死個細路 但唔帶佢去醫院咪有罪囉

我明你個論點係講法律視西醫為最終醫療嘅方法係對嗰班唔信西醫嘅父母唔公平
但我諗呢個問題嘅側重點係喺父母呢個身分上
由於個bb只可以靠父母選擇醫療方法
父母唔應該剝奪bb接受西醫嘅權利
如果你係成年人理鬼你咩

加拿大的司法制度仲恐佈。
blame the victim
偽保護小孩。
明明父母都係受害者。
都要告埋佢地。
搞到佢地二次受傷，雙重受害。

好過啦不如諗下點提升醫療水平和科學教育。

父母幫個仔帶去自然療法
所謂「好返」都算。之後呢班父母就會陷入幸存者偏差同確認偏差。不斷將自己仔女既case宣傳比親朋戚友知。

親朋戚友一定會聽聞到「有效」既自然療法case。因為無效既已經死晒或者轉返正統醫療啦。

情形就好似一班on9師奶，甚麼科學方法都不懂。陷入兩種心理偏差就誤以為疫苗有害，幫仔女做決定，最後父母受害，仔女受害，不信者亦因為你唔打疫苗受害，深信者推波助瀾更加陷入惡性循環。

岩啊，隔硬立法打疫苗可能侵犯人權。咁唔立法，長遠而言，就係侵害緊你口中既科學護教徒人權。香港依家好重視人權，竟然唔強制打疫苗。

滑波謬誤。點會長遠侵害科學權利？家陣唔強制，市場和家長都有得自由選擇，選擇接受咩的醫療體系。良性競爭來。

你只係識講下名詞講下定義。
依家自然療法咪即係同疫苗既情況差唔多囉。因為一班無知既人，令到一班知識不足既人受害。

你明唔明白點解要90％既人打疫苗先有叫做有效？有d疫苗如果只有一半人打疫苗一半唔打，基本上疫苗都變得無效 你明唔明點解？

選擇相信有效市場理論，我都唔知講咩好。當左市場神之手，絕對理性。吹你唔脹。搬你套經濟學黎當勝過科學，大家唔同語言

疫苗有冇效係一回事
市民選擇權又係一回事
市民當然可以選擇或不選擇接受疫苗

屌你 疫苗有無效正正取決於市民有無選擇權 某些疫症會否消失正正取決於市民有無打疫苗/疫苗接種率 點樣分開黎睇呀大佬

加拿大的司法制度仲恐佈。
blame the victim
偽保護小孩。
明明父母都係受害者。
都要告埋佢地。
搞到佢地二次受傷，雙重受害。

好過啦不如諗下點提升醫療水平和科學教育。

傻鳩？
知唔知自己講緊咩？
你咁講嘅話，殺妻弒母嘅話自己都係victim?