|
Post by stephen5000 on Apr 11, 2010 17:14:35 GMT -5
Personally, I think we have to emphasize that the laws of the Country you live in supersede any religion you are following, without exception. Religious freedom does not allow you to break the law. So if the action (or inaction) of a parent in these cases was determined to be a crime by the appropriate law, then they should be punished appropriately.
Many religious laws command people to commit murder, so we clearly can't let people do whatever they want in the name of religious freedom.
|
|
|
Post by bunnyfulwanderer on Apr 11, 2010 17:15:50 GMT -5
I think psychological and of course medical damage done to kids due to parents religion...well the law should have some say in it. of course!
this coming from a theist.
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on Apr 11, 2010 17:36:32 GMT -5
Also, I'm wondering what would happen if we put someone away for following their religion. America is supposed to be a country where we allow people to worship freely... if we put someone away because they did what they believe their faith says is right, wouldn't we have a revolt on our hands? I'd like to see people get arrested for it, I'm just having trouble seeing how you would manage that. Exactly - it's definitely not a good thing in this particular case, but arresting people for neglecting their child from medicine would be basically saying "Your religion is wrong, we are right." And that really isn't acceptable either. Scientology claims that they have the religious right to treat anyone they consider to be a threat to their religion in literally any way they feel like (called 'fair game'). If a scientologist following their Fair Game policy commits blackmail or another crime, should they be left unprosecuted because they were following their religion? I'm not making this up, there are religions that believe a lot of crazy shirt. The answer is, of course, 'no.' This is because blackmail is against the law, and religion does not excuse actions. So the question is not 'should we allow the religious to do as they please with their ill kids,' because that is bringing religion into the argument, and religion does not excuse actions. What we need to decide is -- absent any religion -- 'Should a parent be allowed to withhold their child from a necessary medical procedure that is highly likely to save the child's life?' The difference here of course is that blackmail/murder/etc. are all already covered under the law, while this may not be (unsure), and so if you try to make it illegal, people will feel their rights are being compromised. I argue that it's the child's rights being compromised, and that they never had (or should have had) the right to intentionally withhold necessary medical care from their child. I don't care if it's based on religion, or on paranoia, or because you didn't care about the child enough, or what other reason it is. Whether or not the reason is religion is utterly irrelevant. If it can be shown that a particular child is/was likely to die in the absence of medical care, and likely to live if they are/had they been provided that care, then I feel the law is within its right to (a) if the child has not died yet, confiscate the child and get him/her the care needed; and, (b) punish the parent within reason for the crime committed, which at the very least should include finding the parent unsuitable for raising children.
|
|
matttherobot
Meteorite
As I Spy From Behind My Giant Robot's Eyes
Posts: 26
|
Post by matttherobot on Apr 11, 2010 18:13:42 GMT -5
There is a difference between negligence and homicide. Which are we talking about? Obviously homicide is a criminal offense, but if parents neglect health care for their children due to personal reasons, I believe they are within their rights to do so.
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on Apr 11, 2010 18:46:26 GMT -5
They're not within their rights to neglect their child's food, water, shelter, clothing and so forth. Why should they be in their rights to neglect their child's health care? What possible legitimate reason could their be to intentionally withhold health care from your child if it is within your means to provide it?
|
|
matttherobot
Meteorite
As I Spy From Behind My Giant Robot's Eyes
Posts: 26
|
Post by matttherobot on Apr 11, 2010 19:04:45 GMT -5
They're not within their rights to neglect their child's food, water, shelter, clothing and so forth. Why should they be in their rights to neglect their child's health care? What possible legitimate reason could their be to intentionally withhold health care from your child if it is within your means to provide it? How do you determine what healthcare is? There is a difference between starving a child and determining what necessary medical procedures are. If I am a doctor and you have a child and that child is sick, say I recommend antibiotics, but you don't want your child to take them because you think that the antibiotics might be worse than the infection. Should I as a doctor, be able to call the state to force you to give the child the antibiotics? My view of you neglecting your child's healthcare is your view of actually providing healthcare. How can I as a 3rd party determine what is the right choice for YOUR child. People can make stupid choices, but the government's job cannot, I repeat, cannot be to make people not do stupid things. That is a losing battle, and of course if we are stupid and need to have decisions made for use, why is government any less stupid?
|
|
|
Post by rialvestro on Apr 11, 2010 19:32:21 GMT -5
They're not within their rights to neglect their child's food, water, shelter, clothing and so forth. Why should they be in their rights to neglect their child's health care? What possible legitimate reason could their be to intentionally withhold health care from your child if it is within your means to provide it? Um... on that note, there are religions where they practice fasting which is basically just starving yourself for a week. (I think it's only a week) and this is perfectly legal to do. There's most spicifics to it that I can't remember but still. And what about kids who just plain refuse to eat. You as a parent can and should provide food but that doesn't allways mean your child will eat it. Just from a personal stand point, I'll use a smaller example. Things like having your tonsils removed. Useless organ right, doesn't make a difference if you have them or not. They're useually taken out when a child starts complaining about sore throat and after surgery they get to eat alot of ice cream. Well I have problems with sore throat alot and I never had the surgery done. I've found that insted, I can just eat ice cream and the soreness will go away on it's own anyway so the surgery is actully rather unnessisary. And if people actully stop and think or do some research you find that not everything doctors tell you is true. It really depends on the spicific case not really as a whole become some times there are situations where the doctor would of actully caused more harm than good. The last few years before my great grand mother died she allready knew she was going to pass soon and my grand mother was staying with her for a while, she went threw all of her medication and found that alot of it, all perscribed by doctors was interacting badly with other medications and had her taken off of it. This is one case where my grand mother actully exstended my great grand mothers life by taking her off of most of her medication. She died in either late 2003 or early 2004 but her health started to majorly decline 4 years earlier. I came home from school as a softmore in high school, saw her dog in my house, I knew she was leaving him to me when she died and when I saw him I thought she was allready dead, turn out she just broke her hip. We had a few close calls with her like that and by the time she really did die I actully thought it was just a faulse alarm again. Didn't really hit me that she really was dead till about a week later. Anyway, it really should not be considered murder or neglect to ignore your doctor because they are just as capable of making mistakes as the parents are. Hell even the farmacy could give you the wrong medication for your perscription. If anything parent's should be charged for murder if they get medical care and fail to read the warning lables and side effects. A doctor, should know this stuff but you really think they're going to remember EVERYTHING from medical school. Allways double check them and if you see a warning that conflicts with medication you're allready taking go back to your doctor and get different perscriptions.
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on Apr 11, 2010 19:36:03 GMT -5
If we're just talking a 6-year-old with the flu that's one thing. People have withheld their child from hospital care for urgent medical problems that are guaranteed to kill the child without care, and nearly guaranteed to save the child if provided care. If your child is dying, and the hospital can help, you have no right to withhold that treatment.
And I'm not saying the government is smarter. They only need to rely on professionals in their field being smarter. Any case like this would end up before a jury anyway, so if it's borderline it probably wouldn't end in a conviction. But we need to set the standard. If it's a clear case of the parent(s) withholding hospital care for a fatal condition that could have been taken care of the hospital, they are unfit to be parents.
//Edit: I don't doubt that fasting one's self is legal. Withholding food from your kid for a week to force them to fast would get child services involved in a heartbeat.
|
|
|
Post by Jake on Apr 11, 2010 19:48:15 GMT -5
Out of interest, how often do children actually die from being neglected treatment? There can't be that many parents who do it...
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on Apr 11, 2010 19:56:03 GMT -5
No, there really aren't, which is perhaps part of the reason the problem isn't really heard a lot. But it does happen; I remember a story from a couple years back or so where the parents had gone on the run as it were. They were trying to prevent their kid from getting chemotherapy I think it was, doctors were fairly sure it would save his life. Apparently based on his condition he had a really high chance of living if he got it. Parents' religion went against it or something, and the whole thing wound up as a nation-wide search for where they had hid the boy. Thinking of that story, there must have been some sort of law on the matter, as I'm certain police were involved in the search. Off the top of my head, I don't remember how it worked out though.
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Apr 11, 2010 23:40:09 GMT -5
Also, I'm wondering what would happen if we put someone away for following their religion. America is supposed to be a country where we allow people to worship freely... if we put someone away because they did what they believe their faith says is right, wouldn't we have a revolt on our hands? I'd like to see people get arrested for it, I'm just having trouble seeing how you would manage that. We can and should be allowed to put people in prison for following their religeon if their religeon causes them to break the law, my evidence is every captured religeous terrorist. How do you determine what healthcare is? There is a difference between starving a child and determining what necessary medical procedures are. How can I as a 3rd party determine what is the right choice for YOUR child. People can make stupid choices, but the government's job cannot, I repeat, cannot be to make people not do stupid things. That is a losing battle, and of course if we are stupid and need to have decisions made for use, why is government any less stupid? Hold on... Keeping a children away from food until it dies is the same as keeping a child away from medicine until it dies. Are you suggesting that when I take a child to the doctor and the doctor sais "This child is starving to death, feed it now". I am within my rights to say, "No I will not feed this child, god will keep it alive, I think that food is worse than starvation". Secondly parents do not OWN their children and it is not YOUR child. Children have their own rights and parents should not be allowed to put them in danger. Also the government and the proffesionals who work for it don't make stupid decisions because it's in charge and formed by everyone else in the country. If you think the decisions the government makes are stupid, in all free countrys you are within your rights to change the government.
|
|
|
Post by bunnyfulwanderer on Apr 12, 2010 2:02:19 GMT -5
No, there really aren't, which is perhaps part of the reason the problem isn't really heard a lot. But it does happen; I remember a story from a couple years back or so where the parents had gone on the run as it were. They were trying to prevent their kid from getting chemotherapy I think it was, doctors were fairly sure it would save his life. Apparently based on his condition he had a really high chance of living if he got it. Parents' religion went against it or something, and the whole thing wound up as a nation-wide search for where they had hid the boy. Thinking of that story, there must have been some sort of law on the matter, as I'm certain police were involved in the search. Off the top of my head, I don't remember how it worked out though. I believe the main ones who have these sort of beliefs are minority faiths, such as Mormons and/or JW's also the Amish possibly (I'm not sure if they let them use modern medicine)
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on Apr 22, 2010 17:34:12 GMT -5
I just came across this today: www.the1585.com/oneamonth.htmIt's a long read for a case from a couple years back. It states that about 300 kids died in the last 25 years due to religious anti-healing policies, though it doesn't give citations.
|
|
Cortney
Star
[AWD:0c15]The Objectioner
The Bown
Posts: 885
|
Post by Cortney on Apr 22, 2010 19:22:13 GMT -5
If we can't have abortions then they can't kill of their kids. Kthx.
|
|
|
Post by GojuRyuKarateWolf on Apr 26, 2010 14:08:49 GMT -5
I say: screw those religions, IT'S A HUMAN LIFE! Those religions tick me off because they don't show any signs of moral fiber, or hope in mankind.
|
|
|
Post by krzych32 on Apr 26, 2010 14:15:02 GMT -5
Cortney, so you think that this is evil but abortion is okey? I really don't see that much of a difference.
|
|
|
Post by rialvestro on Apr 26, 2010 16:52:24 GMT -5
I say: screw those religions, IT'S A HUMAN LIFE! Those religions tick me off because they don't show any signs of moral fiber, or hope in mankind. Say what? I did not understand a word you just said. First of all religion has little to do with it. I have no religion. It is a human life and how does saying that = no sign of moral fiber? That's the total oppisite of no moral fiber. The whole reason the abortion thing is even debated about is because it's morally questionable. While allowing it could benifit man kind with stem cell research does that really justify murder? And for the mothers who use the argument, "it's my body, I'll do what I want." That's not technically accurate. There may only be one body visable to the world but while pregnant you have a second body that isn't yours growing inside you. After a set number of months before the baby is born it does become illegal to have an abortion but honestly who are we to decide when it is or isn't ok to abort an unborn baby. If we're going to make it OK to kill a fetus we might as well make it OK for the entire pregnancy untill the baby is born. The only reasons that really make it ok is that legally I don't think it's considered alive till the birth and because stem cell research could actully help save alot of lives. One life to save billions doesn't really seem that bad. I really don't know what to think of it myself. No one knows what thoughs children would have been like if they lived. They could of ended as killers and end many lives or they could end as doctors and save lives without giving their own. Who knows. I kinda feel that giving a kid up for adoption if you don't want or can't take care of your child is much better than having an abortion. Personally I wouldn't want any kinda cure that ended another life anyway. I wouldn't feel right about that. I don't even like the idea of organ doners. The whole idea of having a piece of someone elses body creeps me out.
|
|
|
Post by krzych32 on Apr 26, 2010 23:38:37 GMT -5
rialvestro, you are mixing two ideas, abortion and stem cell research are two different things. Stem cell research does not need killing a baby to get the cells. The cells can be collected during the birth, and then when that is done, they can be "farmed" in a lab.
|
|
|
Post by newschooled on Apr 27, 2010 0:13:32 GMT -5
Don't kill kids, kids.
This thread is now vanquished.
|
|
|
Post by rialvestro on Apr 27, 2010 7:44:23 GMT -5
rialvestro, you are mixing two ideas, abortion and stem cell research are two different things. Stem cell research does not need killing a baby to get the cells. The cells can be collected during the birth, and then when that is done, they can be "farmed" in a lab. If that's true then why was it allover the news and media that stem cells came from aborted fetuses? I was even taught in high school about it that the stem cells in aborted fetuses could be used to replicate human organs. And I'm not sure why but this same subject even came up at work a few weeks ago. Once a baby is fully developed at birth their stem cells if they even have any at that point can't be used for research. It's not two different things because stem cells are collected from aborted fetuses not live babies as you sugested.
|
|