Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

Anyone remember the last episode of mash...?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 48 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 3 Apr 2013 10:15:16 BDT
Bellatori says:
There has been much discussion about what constitutes moral.

In the last episode of mash as I recall, a mother suffocates her child because the fear that if it cries it will get the coach load of people killed as they are in enemy territory in Korea. By the by she does not do this deliberately it merely happens as part of her desperation.

I then read this...

"Syrians fleeing the violence in their country in recent months have been sedating their children to keep them quiet as they escape, according to the UN Refugee Agency.

Some refugees fleeing warfare in Laos during the 1970s gave their babies opium to knock them out for the journey."

Still OK with this morally. I worry a bit but, yes I can understand this. The aim is ultimately the welfare of the child. I think we can agree that that is understandable...

Now read this...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21977785

At what point do we slide over the morally acceptable divide...?

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2013 12:46:04 BDT
I remember the last episode of MASH well, but alas I have little access to the internet here at work, so could you summarise the article you cite please.

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2013 12:58:48 BDT
In a nutshell, parents drugging their children to keep them quiet on planes.

For me certainly that's morally wrong, in the examples you give there are obvious benefits for the child, not being caught and executed a prime one but to drug them for essentially an easy life I can't agree with. To paraphrase a comment from the article, we should not be medicating children unless there is specific need to do so.

Posted on 3 Apr 2013 12:59:13 BDT
Dan Fante says:
I would be tempted to give a baby a safe dose of anti-histamine for example on a long haul flight but, then again, we haven't had a holiday abroad for the last 3 years because of our young son since we don't think it's fair even to take him on a short haul flight, with all that entails, until he's a bit older. It does seem a bit wrong though. I think I'd only go long haul if we had close relatives that lived abroad and they couldn't travel here for whatever reason (eg too elderly so it might be their only chance to see the baby).

Posted on 3 Apr 2013 13:02:12 BDT
K. Hoyles says:
Oh dear, you guys obviously haven't suffered weeks of sleepless nights with a young baby...

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2013 13:26:57 BDT
Bellatori says:
Oh yes I did, Karen, I had two children and now a grandson... When I picked grandson and parents up at Malaga airport last week they looked anything BUT cool and calm. He needed a nap but the flight was simply too much . They had had a poor time (and I suspect so had the other passengers). On the way home he was apparently fine.

Drugging him with calpol would, in my mind, be a total nono.

The way back was better because he was not tired and therefore they could keep him entertained. Maybe we should simply ban under 3s from flying or have a special (expensive) section for parents who want to fly with young kids....!? ...or not!

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2013 13:31:35 BDT
"Oh dear, you guys obviously haven't suffered weeks of sleepless nights with a young baby..."

I have 3 children, I'm well aquainted with sleepless nights with a young baby. If they need painkillers for whatever reason fine, if they need antihistimines for chicken pox etc again fine, but drugging them to obtain a side effect, and in this case just to keep them quiet is wrong.

To be fair I would imagine a lot of it is because of the snide and rude comments you would get of other passengers, my son has aspergers and we get quite a few if he has one of his meltdowns while we're out, I know this upsets my wife but I'm of the opinion that I couldn't give an [expletive deleted] what other people think.

Sorry, bit of a side track there.

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2013 13:36:47 BDT
K. Hoyles says:
We took our two everywhere with us - I'm not talking about travel, but lack of sleep! My son was up at least 3 times a night until the age of three - sleep deprivation is a good reason to resort to sedatives - for the mother, of course!

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2013 13:46:13 BDT
K. Hoyles says:
Sweet - my daughter also has Aspergers, and meltdowns were the norm, so I sympathise. If its any consolation, she is now 19 and meltdowns are very rare. You may not approve of this, but if she was threatening a meltdown on a trip we gave her a glass of coca-cola, which seemed to calm her down within seconds. I normally avoided additives, sugar etc, but this seemed to do the trick. I mentioned it to another mother with an Asperger teenager, and she confessed she used the same trick. Only coke though, not Pepsi or one-cal, nothing with aspartame.

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2013 14:05:21 BDT
Thanks, I'll keep the coke trick in mind. With my lad we usually try and spot the early warning sides and head it off before it becomes a full blown meltdown. My lad has a bit of an obsescion with dinosaurs so I'll just crouch down so I'm eye level with him then just ask loads of questions about them, while he's concentrating on them he usually forgets about what ever was bothering him.

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2013 14:16:25 BDT
Bellatori says:
That is very smart of you! Not having an Asperger's kid I would not think of this sort of thing. It is always good to learn...

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2013 14:29:12 BDT
K. Hoyles says:
Sweet - We didn't start the coke trick until she was 10, by the way, in case you were wondering. As you say, distraction works well when they are very young. All the best.

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2013 17:11:49 BDT
Out of interest, what has this got to do with religion?

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2013 17:18:32 BDT
K. Hoyles says:
Nothing, Mr B. Would you like a biscuit?

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2013 17:42:52 BDT
Garscadden says:
I assume because it is about a moral decision. And Christian's at least seem to be of the opinions that morals are a purely religious area. And also that morals are not relative, thus that drugging a child to keep it quiet on a journey is either always moral, or always immoral.

My view - drugging a child to keep it quiet is immoral, always. That _does not_ mean that under some circumstances it is not the correct thing to do. Sometimes we do things that we know are immoral, but that we judge are the correct thing to do in the situation.

I have no kids of my own, and when I travel on a plane crying kids do really annoy me, but... do i think the parents should drug them? Not at all, I should just be more forgiving :)

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2013 19:29:38 BDT
Bellatori says:
My wife's cousin had a child very late in life and she and her husband have not a clue about parenting. When they came to my elder daughter's wedding, the young shaver was a nightmare on the plane. My brother in law actually asked a stewardess if there was anything they could do... the captain, tongue in cheek I hope, suggested gagging him and tying him to a seat. I was fortunate in that I drove so escaped the misery. However, when the time came for the return journey the couple were given a warning that, should he misbehave they could find themselves unable to book flights on any airline and they would be blacklisted.

Maybe drugging is not so immoral after all...?!!!

Posted on 3 Apr 2013 19:41:08 BDT
AJ Murray says:
Why don't they just give the drugs to the parents? That way they won't give two hoots what their horrendous offspring get up to.

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2013 19:43:01 BDT
Bellatori says:
I can never remember who said "Mother love (of a child) is what stops parents doing the decent thing and strangling the horror at birth!"

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2013 19:46:57 BDT
Henry James says:
For a bit more of a moral dilemna:
I understand that 10,000 years ago, in our hunter-gatherer days (NO, I wasn't there), that if mothers had twins, they would regularly kill one of them because they knew that both would not survive the lifestyle anyway, and that if she tried to keep both alive both would likely die.
How do we grade this mommy on morality?

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2013 19:51:10 BDT
Henry James says:
Bellatori: righto. Regarding the relation of this question to religion, Deuteronomy gives us a number of scenarios in which it is permitted to stone your child to death. Disobedience etc.
And what do you Freudians think Abraham's motivation was in so readily agreeing to sacrifice Isaac? (He had argued vigorously against killing all the Sodomites, by comparison).

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2013 21:07:54 BDT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2013 21:44:20 BDT
AJ Murray says:
-"You live in a society in which abortion is a means of contraception..."

You've said this several times now, do you not understand what contraception means?

Posted on 3 Apr 2013 21:48:16 BDT
Last edited by the author on 3 Apr 2013 21:49:16 BDT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2013 23:10:54 BDT
Garscadden says:
Do you also think we shouldn't use The Burial at Thebes as a foil to understand our approach to morality, betrayal and family? It's just a play, after all.

In reply to an earlier post on 4 Apr 2013 02:18:09 BDT
light says:
I would definitely drug my children to save our lives, but only then, not for other reasons.

I had 2 children who didn't sleep through the night until they were at 3 years old. I never once thought of giving them an anti-histamine to get them to sleep, like they do nowadays. Many times I thought I would lose it but I hung in there remembering how much I loved my children.

We took our toddler to a restaurant once because it had been a long time since we went out to eat as a family, but that was the last time until he was older, it wasn't worth it, he wouldn't sit still, I kept fussing with him to keep him entertained, I didn't enjoy my dinner, it was a waste of money and I didn't want to be a nuisance to those around me.

I've heard other people say that they bring their toddlers to the restaurants because that's what they want to do, regardless if their child behaves or not, they are paying money and deserve to eat out like other people do, they simply don't care.

I don't like to go out to eat and have to sit next to someone whose children are screaming, throwing things, getting out of their seats......I rarely go out to eat and I like to enjoy myself when I do.

There have been deaths at day care centers of babies being given benedryl to get them to take a nap.
‹ Previous 1 2 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  13
Total posts:  48
Initial post:  3 Apr 2013
Latest post:  7 Apr 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions