Org Mobile Site
Originally Posted by :
He added that they were "very good people, raising their family, who made a bad decision, a reckless decision". He added: "God probably works through other people, some of them doctors."
Actually the history of medicine has shown that God, through his church minions (and as god doesn't exist, therefore the church minions are god) have been openly hostile to the kind of science and understanding that has brought us modern medicine.He added that they were "very good people, raising their family, who made a bad decision, a reckless decision". He added: "God probably works through other people, some of them doctors."
Originally Posted by Papewaio:
Meh, it doesn't matter what they believe, Evolution wins yet again.
Too harsh Pape, too harsh.Meh, it doesn't matter what they believe, Evolution wins yet again.
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat:
I'm more worried about this than about the death of the child. Outrageous. A judge of the same cult judging fellow cultists.
America has a law, and reason. That ought to be the guiding principle of a judge. Not the membership or not of the same persuasion as s/he himself.
Faith replacing medicine, and cult membership replacing justice. What a travesty. This would not not stand if race instead of faith was at the basis of this case. ('You are good White people. I'll excuse you for killing a negro. The White race works through your hands')
///
I think six months is about right. My sense of justice does not really cry for excessively long imprisonment.
These parents are a mere symptom of a larger wrong. They were send as children to authorities who told them a Supreme Being interferes in their lives. Talks to them directly. Hears their prayers. They were told by another authority, their teacher, that this Being created the world by his own hands, and that they should mistrust rational science. They are told as adults by another authority, a judge, that this Supreme Being will be the one to pass judgement on them, so that He should be the guiding principle of their conscience and their actions, instead of the words and deeds of their fellow man.
So all that is their fault, really, is actually taking these authorities for their word.
Perhaps interpreting their words unconventionally. Who can blame them? 'Jesus heals, you need to pray, he will hear you! Oh, but you do need to call a doctor, because Jesus might, in fact, not hear you after all'. This ambiguity is too much for most minds.
So I say, in a theocracy, as is the case here, one can scarcely blame the individual. Not these small-minded simple folk, but their judge, their creationist teacher and their priest should stand trial.
I'm more worried about this than about the death of the child. Outrageous. A judge of the same cult judging fellow cultists.
America has a law, and reason. That ought to be the guiding principle of a judge. Not the membership or not of the same persuasion as s/he himself.
Faith replacing medicine, and cult membership replacing justice. What a travesty. This would not not stand if race instead of faith was at the basis of this case. ('You are good White people. I'll excuse you for killing a negro. The White race works through your hands')
///
I think six months is about right. My sense of justice does not really cry for excessively long imprisonment.
These parents are a mere symptom of a larger wrong. They were send as children to authorities who told them a Supreme Being interferes in their lives. Talks to them directly. Hears their prayers. They were told by another authority, their teacher, that this Being created the world by his own hands, and that they should mistrust rational science. They are told as adults by another authority, a judge, that this Supreme Being will be the one to pass judgement on them, so that He should be the guiding principle of their conscience and their actions, instead of the words and deeds of their fellow man.
So all that is their fault, really, is actually taking these authorities for their word.
Perhaps interpreting their words unconventionally. Who can blame them? 'Jesus heals, you need to pray, he will hear you! Oh, but you do need to call a doctor, because Jesus might, in fact, not hear you after all'. This ambiguity is too much for most minds.
So I say, in a theocracy, as is the case here, one can scarcely blame the individual. Not these small-minded simple folk, but their judge, their creationist teacher and their priest should stand trial.
Originally Posted by Andres:
I concur.
What about the impartiality of the judge? Isn't that a fundamental principle in the US as well? This judge is clearly not impartial. A disgrace
To make it worse, he brings God into his judgement. Religion has nothing to do with the law and doesn't belong in the motivation of a verdict
I concur.
What about the impartiality of the judge? Isn't that a fundamental principle in the US as well? This judge is clearly not impartial. A disgrace
To make it worse, he brings God into his judgement. Religion has nothing to do with the law and doesn't belong in the motivation of a verdict
Originally Posted by Idaho:
Actually the history of medicine has shown that God, through his church minions (and as god doesn't exist, therefore the church minions are god) have been openly hostile to the kind of science and understanding that has brought us modern medicine.
Interesting posts all round, but missing a crucial point. These people are unlikely to cease believing in God, so lambasting their religion is pointless, unless you just want to assert your intellectual superiority. That seems to be what people are doing here.Actually the history of medicine has shown that God, through his church minions (and as god doesn't exist, therefore the church minions are god) have been openly hostile to the kind of science and understanding that has brought us modern medicine.
These people are not murderous, they are misguided and a longer prison term would not solve this. Telling them, "God would have wanted you to call a docter" is both a more effective punishment and has a better chance of changing their behaviour. Under the circumstances, the Judge's sentence is probably the best that can be managed.
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
These people are not murderous, they are misguided and a longer prison term would not solve this. Telling them, "God would have wanted you to call a docter" is both a more effective punishment and has a better chance of changing their behaviour. Under the circumstances, the Judge's sentence is probably the best that can be managed.
One of the things I can never square with the religious is that there is an arbitrary line drawn by each religious person between "god's will", "me following god's will", "me interpretting god's will". What this basically means is that a religious person can do nothing, choose to do something with doctrinal justification, choose to do something with general justification. All the while claiming that god is responsible for it all.These people are not murderous, they are misguided and a longer prison term would not solve this. Telling them, "God would have wanted you to call a docter" is both a more effective punishment and has a better chance of changing their behaviour. Under the circumstances, the Judge's sentence is probably the best that can be managed.
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
Interesting posts all round, but missing a crucial point. These people are unlikely to cease believing in God, so lambasting their religion is pointless, unless you just want to assert your intellectual superiority. That seems to be what people are doing here.
These people are not murderous, they are misguided and a longer prison term would not solve this. Telling them, "God would have wanted you to call a docter" is both a more effective punishment and has a better chance of changing their behaviour. Under the circumstances, the Judge's sentence is probably the best that can be managed.
I think you're missing my point.Interesting posts all round, but missing a crucial point. These people are unlikely to cease believing in God, so lambasting their religion is pointless, unless you just want to assert your intellectual superiority. That seems to be what people are doing here.
These people are not murderous, they are misguided and a longer prison term would not solve this. Telling them, "God would have wanted you to call a docter" is both a more effective punishment and has a better chance of changing their behaviour. Under the circumstances, the Judge's sentence is probably the best that can be managed.
The impartiality of the judge is a fundamental principle of your legal system. Even appearing to be not impartial is enough to be problematic and make the judgement invalid (at least, that's how it is in Belgium). This judge at least appears to be biased and prejudiced. I take it you don't want biased judges.
I also fail to see why he needs to refer to God and religion in the motivation of his judgement. The only motivations should be legal ones, not religious. I hope you can see the dangers of bringing religion as a law making factor into your judicial system. If that's something that wouldn't make you feel uncomfortable, then there's probably no point for us to discuss this together.
Originally Posted by Idaho:
One of the things I can never square with the religious is that there is an arbitrary line drawn by each religious person between "god's will", "me following god's will", "me interpretting god's will". What this basically means is that a religious person can do nothing, choose to do something with doctrinal justification, choose to do something with general justification. All the while claiming that god is responsible for it all.
There is? I thought is was the opposite, the line is almost impossible to see. Maybe you should try talking to Christians that aren't from Belmont Chapel and don't stand in the middle of the High Street on a saturday with a megaphone.One of the things I can never square with the religious is that there is an arbitrary line drawn by each religious person between "god's will", "me following god's will", "me interpretting god's will". What this basically means is that a religious person can do nothing, choose to do something with doctrinal justification, choose to do something with general justification. All the while claiming that god is responsible for it all.
Originally Posted by Andres:
I think you're missing my point.
The impartiality of the judge is a fundamental principle of your legal system. Even appearing to be not impartial is enough to be problematic and make the judgement invalid (at least, that's how it is in Belgium). This judge at least appears to be biased and prejudiced. I take it you don't want biased judges.
I also fail to see why he needs to refer to God and religion in the motivation of his judgement. The only motivations should be legal ones, not religious. I hope you can see the dangers of bringing religion as a law making factor into your judicial system. If that's something that wouldn't make you feel uncomfortable, then there's probably no point for us to discuss this together.
My Judicial system is ultimately overseen by a theocratic monarch, perhaps you are thinking of the American legal system?I think you're missing my point.
The impartiality of the judge is a fundamental principle of your legal system. Even appearing to be not impartial is enough to be problematic and make the judgement invalid (at least, that's how it is in Belgium). This judge at least appears to be biased and prejudiced. I take it you don't want biased judges.
I also fail to see why he needs to refer to God and religion in the motivation of his judgement. The only motivations should be legal ones, not religious. I hope you can see the dangers of bringing religion as a law making factor into your judicial system. If that's something that wouldn't make you feel uncomfortable, then there's probably no point for us to discuss this together.
Regardless, I see no evidence that the Judge used Christianity in his judgement any more than you would expect (to expect anyone not to apply their principles to judgements is absurd). I assume the conviction came from a jury trial, and the comments from the Judge are from his public delivery of of his judgement, when he addressed the convicted.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it so that in the US the jury decides if the suspect is guilty or not and the punishment itself is decided by the judge.
These people could have received up to 25 years. The judge had to make a decision on the punishment. Allthough I don't necessarily disagree with 6 months, the motivation seems at least partially inspired by the judges' own beliefs and thus the judge has not been impartial, or at least, does not appear to have been impartial when taking his decision.
He also appears to bring religion into his decision making. The only thing that matters is the law and nothing but the law.
These people could have received up to 25 years. The judge had to make a decision on the punishment. Allthough I don't necessarily disagree with 6 months, the motivation seems at least partially inspired by the judges' own beliefs and thus the judge has not been impartial, or at least, does not appear to have been impartial when taking his decision.
He also appears to bring religion into his decision making. The only thing that matters is the law and nothing but the law.
Originally Posted by Philippvs:
(to expect anyone not to apply their principles to judgements is absurd).
No, it's not.(to expect anyone not to apply their principles to judgements is absurd).
Originally Posted by Andres:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it so that in the US the jury decides if the suspect is guilty or not and the punishment itself is decided by the judge.
These people could have received up to 25 years. The judge had to make a decision on the punishment. Allthough I don't necessarily disagree with 6 months, the motivation seems at least partially inspired by the judges' own beliefs and thus the judge has not been impartial, or at least, does not appear to have been impartial when taking his decision.
He also appears to bring religion into his decision making. The only thing that matters is the law and nothing but the law.
No, it's not.
Yes, trial by jury is basic to the U.S. legal system in all 50 states and all U.S. possessions. Religion is held to be relevant only to the extent that religious doctrines underly -- in a historical sense -- many of the codified laws in this union. It is NOT held to be directly relevant. However, the freedom of religion IS held to be a basic right, and most of the classic defense of such cases rests on this basic right superceding any other authorities' ability to condemn the actions of believers in these instances.Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it so that in the US the jury decides if the suspect is guilty or not and the punishment itself is decided by the judge.
These people could have received up to 25 years. The judge had to make a decision on the punishment. Allthough I don't necessarily disagree with 6 months, the motivation seems at least partially inspired by the judges' own beliefs and thus the judge has not been impartial, or at least, does not appear to have been impartial when taking his decision.
He also appears to bring religion into his decision making. The only thing that matters is the law and nothing but the law.
No, it's not.
Judges are required to administer the procedures of the court impartially according to the legal and procedural codes of the polity sanctioning their efforts. In most instances, Judges are the ones charged with sentencing offenders once guilt has been determined (certain states limit this power with mandated sentences for some/all offenses).
From the limited points quoted in the article, it cannot be presumed that the judge was also an avid Christian Scientist. He may have referenced God more as a means of "reaching" the two persons being sentenced than in any authoritative way. I'd need to look at the whole sentencing document to know for sure.
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh:
I'd need to look at the whole sentencing document to know for sure.
Will it be made publically available on the internet?I'd need to look at the whole sentencing document to know for sure.
I like reading US judgements; they're much more pleasant to read than our verdicts which are usually written in horrible and archaic French/Dutch
These are public record material. They are not automatically posted on the internet, but usually end up there after a "Freedom of Information" request is filed. Currently, you can find the original complaint and one motion to dismiss using:
State of Wisconsin -vs- Dale R. Neumann
I suspect the ruling will be available in due course.
State of Wisconsin -vs- Dale R. Neumann
I suspect the ruling will be available in due course.
Originally Posted by Papewaio:
What I'm saying is that they have already been sentenced by the laws of nature. Our justice system pales in comparison to them cutting off the branches of their own tree.
The happiness is not aimed at the death of the child, it is aimed at how puny our system of laws is compared with the laws of nature. Ours we can plead, bargin, parole, get let off. The other always gets its man and is fair in a very unforgiving manner. Mind you just because we all die doesn't mean we should be giving the system an assist.
What I'm saying is that they have already been sentenced by the laws of nature. Our justice system pales in comparison to them cutting off the branches of their own tree.
The happiness is not aimed at the death of the child, it is aimed at how puny our system of laws is compared with the laws of nature. Ours we can plead, bargin, parole, get let off. The other always gets its man and is fair in a very unforgiving manner. Mind you just because we all die doesn't mean we should be giving the system an assist.
Originally Posted by Papewaio:
Meh, it doesn't matter what they believe, Evolution wins yet again.
And they let you wear green?Meh, it doesn't matter what they believe, Evolution wins yet again.
Originally Posted by pape:
The happiness is not aimed at the death of the child, it is aimed at how puny our system of laws is compared with the laws of nature. Ours we can plead, bargin, parole, get let off. The other always gets its man and is fair in a very unforgiving manner. Mind you just because we all die doesn't mean we should be giving the system an assist.
But we as a people evolved to be religious because historically it has been a big advantage. So the child dying is a loss for evolution not "A win for evolution The happiness is not aimed at the death of the child, it is aimed at how puny our system of laws is compared with the laws of nature. Ours we can plead, bargin, parole, get let off. The other always gets its man and is fair in a very unforgiving manner. Mind you just because we all die doesn't mean we should be giving the system an assist.
".Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr:
Amazing how the same people who said people were "sick" for wanting that Belgian guy that stabbed all those babies to get a longer sentence, suddenly demand justice for people who caused their child's death through their religious beliefs.
I thought it was all about rehabilitation? How is prison supposed to 'rehabilitate' these people?
Unless you believe that being religious is a psychological illness, I don't see the relevance.Amazing how the same people who said people were "sick" for wanting that Belgian guy that stabbed all those babies to get a longer sentence, suddenly demand justice for people who caused their child's death through their religious beliefs.
I thought it was all about rehabilitation? How is prison supposed to 'rehabilitate' these people?
That guy should be sent to forced mental treatment, not prison, if he was found to be mentally ill, like we do with all other mentally ill people. I don't see why people thinks that's somehow a lower punishment though, a being forced in a mental hospital is basically the same thing as a prison, except that it's tailored to the needs of the mentally ill, so that they get a shot at rehabilitation. Also, in a mental hospital you don't have a time limit. You stay there until you're healthy or die.
As I haven't heard anyone claim that these people are mentally ill, it's prison time for them. They killed their own child, that usually gets you around 10 years in prison. I don't see any any circumstances here that should reduce their sentence, so 10 years it is.
That being said though, I wouldn't object to their priests, etc taking some of the blame/punishment too.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
Unless you believe that being religious is a psychological illness, I don't see the relevance.
That guy should be sent to forced mental treatment, not prison, if he was found to be mentally ill, like we do with all other mentally ill people. I don't see why people thinks that's somehow a lower punishment though, a being forced in a mental hospital is basically the same thing as a prison, except that it's tailored to the needs of the mentally ill, so that they get a shot at rehabilitation. Also, in a mental hospital you don't have a time limit. You stay there until you're healthy or die.
As I haven't heard anyone claim that these people are mentally ill, it's prison time for them.
They watched their child die slowly, suffering excruciating pain, without seeking medical treatment. Hardly the actions of a sane mind. I believe they should be in a mental institution.Unless you believe that being religious is a psychological illness, I don't see the relevance.
That guy should be sent to forced mental treatment, not prison, if he was found to be mentally ill, like we do with all other mentally ill people. I don't see why people thinks that's somehow a lower punishment though, a being forced in a mental hospital is basically the same thing as a prison, except that it's tailored to the needs of the mentally ill, so that they get a shot at rehabilitation. Also, in a mental hospital you don't have a time limit. You stay there until you're healthy or die.
As I haven't heard anyone claim that these people are mentally ill, it's prison time for them.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
They killed their own child, that usually gets you around 10 years in prison. I don't see any any circumstances here that should reduce their sentence, so 10 years it is.
I would say that it was manslaughter by gross criminal negligence rather than murder, they didn't intend to kill their child, but their staggering stupidity resulted in their child's death regardless. What's more worrying is that they are still allowed to look after their own remaining children.They killed their own child, that usually gets you around 10 years in prison. I don't see any any circumstances here that should reduce their sentence, so 10 years it is.
Originally Posted by miotas:
They watched their child die slowly, suffering excruciating pain, without seeking medical treatment. Hardly the actions of a sane mind. I believe they should be in a mental institution.
That's for the psychiatrists to decide. If they are found to be insane, then of course they belong in a mental institution. But remember that Josef Fritzl was found to be sane...They watched their child die slowly, suffering excruciating pain, without seeking medical treatment. Hardly the actions of a sane mind. I believe they should be in a mental institution.
Originally Posted by miotas:
They watched their child die slowly, suffering excruciating pain, without seeking medical treatment. Hardly the actions of a sane mind. I believe they should be in a mental institution.
Well, that's where the double standard comes into play.They watched their child die slowly, suffering excruciating pain, without seeking medical treatment. Hardly the actions of a sane mind. I believe they should be in a mental institution.
If you do something crazy because you think you're God, Napoléon, Ceasar or a Jupiterian, you go to a mental institution.
If you do something crazy because of your religion, people will say it's a cultural thingy, and that the responsible shouldn't be punished in an overly harsh way. Except if he's muslim because those have quite a - well deserved IMO - bad reputation at the moment.
I don't understand this inconsistency: If you believe The Lord will heal your kid through prayer alone, why would you plead anything in a court of law? Would you not stand mute, offer no defense, and pray The Lord to deliver you from teh evil court?
Originally Posted by Meneldil:
Well, that's where the double standard comes into play.
If you do something crazy because you think you're God, Napoléon, Ceasar or a Jupiterian, you go to a mental institution.
If you do something crazy because of your religion, people will say it's a cultural thingy, and that the responsible shouldn't be punished in an overly harsh way. Except if he's muslim because those have quite a - well deserved IMO - bad reputation at the moment.
Precisely.Well, that's where the double standard comes into play.
If you do something crazy because you think you're God, Napoléon, Ceasar or a Jupiterian, you go to a mental institution.
If you do something crazy because of your religion, people will say it's a cultural thingy, and that the responsible shouldn't be punished in an overly harsh way. Except if he's muslim because those have quite a - well deserved IMO - bad reputation at the moment.
I don't care if people are religious as long as they don't do something harmful to others because of it. I don't think that it would do any good to lock these two away for decades, as I assume they didn't mean for this to happen and are sad themselves, but that they don't get forced into some sort of therapy is mind boggling.
Wether this is because of the judge is an outspoken christian too - I think that a lot of atheists would also hesistate before branding this sort of "divine interventionism" a disorder, sadly.
Originally Posted by Kralizec:
I don't care if people are religious as long as they don't do something harmful to others because of it. I don't think that it would do any good to lock these two away for decades, as I assume they didn't mean for this to happen and are sad themselves, but that they don't get forced into some sort of therapy is mind boggling.
Alright then, answer me this:I don't care if people are religious as long as they don't do something harmful to others because of it. I don't think that it would do any good to lock these two away for decades, as I assume they didn't mean for this to happen and are sad themselves, but that they don't get forced into some sort of therapy is mind boggling.
I have a huge fight with my wife of 15 years, the mother of my 3 kids. She's cheating, and the marriage is likely to end. I spend the evening drinking and crying. In the middle of the night, drunk as hell, I cannot stand being alone anymore, I need someone to talk to, or else who knows what I might do? I get in the car - and I run over and kill your only son(and you're sterile now).
Should I get punished? If so, then just a little or hard?
I'd be more lenient with you than with most DIU'ers, but still some jailtime with a long probation.
What does that have to do with the topic?
What does that have to do with the topic?
Originally Posted by Kralizec:
I'd be more lenient with you than with most DIU'ers, but still some jailtime with a long probation.
What does that have to do with the topic?
This:I'd be more lenient with you than with most DIU'ers, but still some jailtime with a long probation.
What does that have to do with the topic?
Originally Posted by :
I assume they didn't mean for this to happen and are sad themselves
I never meant to run over anybody, and honestly I didn't mean to DIU at all, my life was falling to pieces remember. And honestly it's that cheating whore's fault... Anyway, I'm also extremely saddened by the death and it will probably haunt me until I die.I assume they didn't mean for this to happen and are sad themselves
So, why can't I get that one month of jail per year that you gave to the others? My offense was one of circumstance and instant, theirs took place over at least months, maybe years, surely I should get an even lighter sentence?
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
So, why can't I get that one month of jail per year that you gave to the others? My offense was one of circumstance and instant, theirs took place over at least months, maybe years, surely I should get an even lighter sentence?
When did Kralizec suggest they get one month of jail per year (and what do you even mean by one month per year?)? He suggested they shouldn't be locked away for decades, and should get therapy. That could still easily mean numerous years in jail. He also suggested a lighter sentence then usual considering your circumstances. Looking at what he's said, he could easily assign you a lighter sentence than the couple in question. So, why can't I get that one month of jail per year that you gave to the others? My offense was one of circumstance and instant, theirs took place over at least months, maybe years, surely I should get an even lighter sentence?
Ajax
Originally Posted by ajaxfetish:
When did Kralizec suggest they get one month of jail per year (and what do you even mean by one month per year?)?
That was the punishment given by the court in this case.When did Kralizec suggest they get one month of jail per year (and what do you even mean by one month per year?)?
And I didn't see Kralizec say anything about supporting it.
Ajax
Ajax
Originally Posted by ajaxfetish:
And I didn't see Kralizec say anything about supporting it.
Ajax
....and at that, you are correct. And I didn't see Kralizec say anything about supporting it.
Ajax
It seems I've been reading things quicker than I should've.... Anyway, I blame the swine flu.
yes, I actually do have it.... otherwise I would've been at work now instead of posting here
You can post with the flu? 
Blimey when I had it last christmas I couldn't move off the couch for 4 days. Even peed in a bucket. I'm impressed at your indefatigability.
Blimey when I had it last christmas I couldn't move off the couch for 4 days. Even peed in a bucket. I'm impressed at your indefatigability.
Originally Posted by InsaneApache:
You can post with the flu?
Blimey when I had it last christmas I couldn't move off the couch for 4 days. Even peed in a bucket. I'm impressed at your indefatigability.
Ah, but you don't have my Mighty Viking constitution! You can post with the flu?
Blimey when I had it last christmas I couldn't move off the couch for 4 days. Even peed in a bucket. I'm impressed at your indefatigability.
The hard part(40 in fever) lasted 12 hours before I killed it with painkillers.... The rest of the time, like now, I'm walking about as I please. Inside my apartment, that is... I've gotten a hard reminder that I'm sick every time I've walked the 50 meters to the postbox and picked up the newspaper in the morning these days.... Those 50 meters are a killer.
What would people's thoughts be on a similar situation where the parents counted on homeopathy to heal their child instead of taking them to a hospital?
CR
CR
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit:
What would people's thoughts be on a similar situation where the parents counted on homeopathy to heal their child instead of taking them to a hospital?
CR
The same for me.What would people's thoughts be on a similar situation where the parents counted on homeopathy to heal their child instead of taking them to a hospital?
CR
If a couple kills one of their children by putting their faith in quasi-science or faith healing, they should be put in jail.
What usually makes these cases hard to decide is when they have other children as well. I don't think that locking both parents away for multiple years and putting the rest of the children in foster care would be the ideal solution in most cases.
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit:
What would people's thoughts be on a similar situation where the parents counted on homeopathy to heal their child instead of taking them to a hospital?
CR
There was a case here in australia about 6 months back http://www.smh.com.au/national/paren...0605-bxvx.htmlWhat would people's thoughts be on a similar situation where the parents counted on homeopathy to heal their child instead of taking them to a hospital?
CR
I say it's the same, I would have nothing against them trying it, but if it doesn't seem to be working then they should go straight to the doctors.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO