Parents on their way to prison for not providing medical care for child.

[Mox]

Yes parents have the right IMO.
Reason "Big Pharma who controls this is sick itself"

 

[Skwim]

I say, forget the slap on the wrists: six years in prison. Kill the parents, and yesterday no less. Ba Da Bing! Ba Da Bang! You're dead.

.

 

[Quintessence]

Whether it's a legal obligation or not, for the state to step in when parents cause physical harm to children is both useful & legal. Protection of civil liberty is government at its best, with children being the most in need.

Obviously.

It's probably a good time to point out I didn't read the article (don't really consider MSN a reputable news source). My frame of reference in my responses is "not providing medical care," not "parent cause physical harm to children." If you want to continue to respond a position that isn't mine and stuff I didn't say, well... okay.

In any case, I don't consider humans, children or otherwise, to be the most in need organisms on this planet by a very, very, very, very long shot. I really can't get interested in issues like this when humans are responsible for a sixth mass extinction and doing very little to make amends for that.

 

[Revoltingest]

If you want to continue to respond a position that isn't mine and stuff I didn't say, well... okay.

So you think that might be my intention, eh.
If there's miscommunication, it's better to
clarify things than to imply a straw man.

In any case, I don't consider humans, children or otherwise, to be the most in need organisms on this planet by a very, very, very, very longshot. I really can't get interested in issues like this when humans are responsible for a sixth mass extinction and doing very little to make amends for that.

This is a separate issue, & one I've held forth upon (advocating
population control for the sake of both people and critters.)

 

[Quintessence]

So you think that might be my intention, eh.

I don't know. It just seemed there was some disconnect between what I meant to communicate and what was understood. Which is, of course, at least partially my bad. I think the intersection between religious freedom and health care is complicated. I'm having a crotchety moment with it. Am I too young to be crotchety? *laughs*

This is a separate issue, & one I've held forth upon (advocating
population control for the sake of both people and critters.)

I have a hard time seeing them as separate since efforts to prolong human lives increase population numbers in very direct ways.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I think parents are responsible for caring for their minor children.
They have the right to chose what kind of schooling they will receive; what religious,or spiritual education they want their child to have, etc.
They most certainly have the right to decide what their child will or will not be subjected to, in the matter of health care.

For example, when a child is prescribed medicine, a parent may take a look at the ingredients, and decide if the child can actually use it.

Whether that is for physical or religious reasons is not the issue.
If is is for physical reasons, the doctor finds an alternative - he doesn't insist on what he prescribes, because he is interested in the child's overall wellbeing - physical, mental, emotional.
So what's the problem with the religion reason again?

Clearly it's a bias against a religious view. It's the same as a violation of one's rights to religious freedom.
Parental Rights and Liability
The legal concept of parental rights generally refers to a parent's right to make decisions regarding a child's education, health care, and religion, among other things.
Where is the parent murdering the child, by using alternative medicine?

I read the article after posting.
In a case where a parent does nothing to aid an obviously sick child, they have neglected to care for their child as they ought to. It's child neglect. The law has the right to determine the punishment lf it is against the law.

However, as a Society, we do retain the right to limit Religious Freedom.

For starters, you cannot impose your religion onto other folk, against their will.

And it's a very fine line, when parents are forcing Bronze Age "Medicine" onto children who are unequipped to make an informed consent.

Moreover? Not all religion is Respected Equally.

In the not too distant past, there were Religions that taught the First Born had to be Sacrificed (killed) as an offering to the Main God.

Such Belief would not be respected, nor granted Freedom To Practice.

In this instance, Freedom Of Religion is ECLIPSED by a Prohibition To Murder, and in the Eyes of the Law, killing a firstborn is seen as Murder.

By the same principle, withholding Life Saving Medical Treatment, is akin to Murder-- although that's not the actual intent, it is the consequence.

So, Freedom Of Religion is Stopped: Cold, if there are actual Lives On The Line.

This is as it should be, I would think.

 

[Revoltingest]

I have a hard time seeing them as separate since efforts to prolong human lives increase population numbers in very direct ways.

It's a libertarian thing.
Government's greatest role is ensuring civil liberties.
Regarding the infant in the OP's link, it died because
the parents denied it proper medical care.
If we're ever to address population control, it most
definitely won't thru allowing wrongful death.
Hence their being separate issues.

 

[stvdv]

Do you believe that if life saving medical care is available, a parent has the right to withhold it due to religious beliefs?

I believe that we should follow the Law of the Country. But I do not agree with all the Laws.

I believe that sometimes hospitals do a bad job
1) Asking very much money; Big Pharma is a bit maffia like. Not good for spiritual person IMO
2) In nature very weak will die. Where does Big Pharma playing for God stop?

And what is Truth, what is Right?
There is no Truth, Right for everyone. 1 country different from other country.
What if costs are very high, and parents go bankrupt. If state pays okay, if not then not okay IMO
What is the effect if you force parents to pay such bills. Is it natural, is it God's will? How you know for sure?
Maybe the parents go crazy, and then all other 4 kids get also in trouble

State wanting to control too much is not so good IMO. And when they do it because of control/power/money it's really bad IMO.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

It's a libertarian thing.
Government's greatest role is ensuring civil liberties.
Regarding the infant in the OP's link, it died because
the parents denied it proper medical care.
If we're ever to address population control, it most
definitely won't thru allowing wrongful death.
Hence they're being separate issues.

Hear! Hear!

It is one of the Dichotomies of our modern society, that we should (I believe) do our best to help keep alive, those who are most vulnerable among us; naturally children automatically fall into this category.

Yet, we also recognize that there are simply too many humans on Earth-- and we ought to be taking some form of positive steps to remedy that. One, naturally, is quality sex-education, with easy access to preventatives. This is an easy step to make, and keeps things (more or less) voluntary.

Educated people naturally have fewer offspring.

Alas, the negative side-effect of this? Is that un-educated people keep popping out spawn that they cannot possibly care for properly...

... and we are back to my point one: We then become Obligated to Care for these Unwanteds.

*le sigh*

 

[dawny0826]

Not talking about an idealized system. Remarking upon the foolishness of claiming someone has an obligation to do something when the means are lacking to actually meet said obligation. It replaces one alleged problem with another whilst also trampling on a citizen's privacy and culture. If folks want to have an authoritarian state where the government dictates everything about one's private life and culture, sure. Don't stop there. Don't let these people breed in the first place. If we're going to pass judgement like this on someone else's way of life, go all out or leave them alone.

Oregon has a State Children's Health Insurance Program. States are required at least until 2019 not to make cuts to their CHIPs as per the Affordable Health Care Act. The largest percentage of children without access to health care are those that would typically qualify for CHIP or Medicaid. Most, if not all states have programs in place to support families with reaching positive outcomes in situations of existing or potential neglect or abuse.

Most States have resource to justify enforcement of child welfare and endangerment laws.

The ethical challenge here is that a newborn baby can't provide its consent to the cultural practices of its parents. We're not talking about engaging a newborn in cultural or religious activities. We're talking about a newborn dying because its parents neglected to seek medical care. Should cultural or religious practice be given priority over the rights and/or autonomy of an individual to health and safety?

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Heartbreaking article. Do you believe that if life saving medical care is available, a parent has the right to withhold it due to religious beliefs? If so, where do you draw the line? What procedures would you deny your child due to your religion? My thoughts are that if an adult wants to not receive medical care, that's their choice. However when a child is involved I believe that the state has a duty to step in and save that child. Please read and give your thoughts.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/a-religious-oregon-couple-didn’t-believe-in-medical-care-after-newborn’s-death-they’re-headed-to-prison/ar-AAzPFXD?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=AARDHP

No one should be allowed to deny their child any potentially life-saving medical procedure.

 

[ChristineM]

Refusing treatment for a suffering child is child abuse.

Refusing treatment that would save a childs life and that child dies is premeditated murder.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm having a crotchety moment with it. Am I too young to be crotchety? *laughs*

Contrary to popular myth, crotchetiness doesn't always get worse with age.
May you escape it's grip...crotchetiness that is, not old age.
The latter is useful (considering the alternative).

 

[Revoltingest]

Refusing treatment for a suffering child is child abuse.

Refusing treatment that would save a childs life and that child dies is premeditated murder.

I wouldn't call it "murder" if the intent, however misguided, was life.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Refusing treatment for a suffering child is child abuse.

Refusing treatment that would save a childs life and that child dies is premeditated murder.

Well the couple doesn't appear to be very mentally sound. The mother was found cradling her dead newborn around praying family and friends because they didn't want to go to the hospital for the birth.

I can only guess and imagine they were laying on the hands, speaking in tongues and all that for a resurrection of some sort to occur like Lazarus if the behavior of Pentecostals give a clue.

It's their surviving child that was refused treatment by the parents oblivious apparently to the fact they already had one dead newborn on their hands which should have rang a bell and raise the red flag that Faith isn't what people romantically envisioned it to be.

There's nothing pretty about hard reality when it comes to things like this.

 

[Mox]

In any case, I don't consider humans, children or otherwise, to be the most in need organisms on this planet by a very, very, very, very long shot. I really can't get interested in issues like this when humans are responsible for a sixth mass extinction and doing very little to make amends for that

Not a particulary rational line of reasoning that.
That's like saying I don't care about Blue Whales because Gorillas are more endangered.

Also it's not as if human children bear any responsibility whatsoever for the wilfully indifferent ecosystem wrecking antics of SOME human adults.

PS If you are disinterested in human welfare, then why respond to this topic in the first place?

Puzzling.

 

[Robert Vincelette]

Because the kind of faith that withholds medical treatment comes from the delusion that one can know that God conforms to some fanciful model of something nobody can know, such clinging to ignorance is without the right to have the community or the state to use whatever physical force is necessary to defend the child against the parents irresponsible act of murder. A civil penalty such is prison is on order for parents who are so unfit that they choose to make-believe and act on a lethal make-believe magical thinking process.
But a belief by faith without claim to certainty does not give the parents the right to obey a god they made themselves believe requires them to kill their innocent child.

 

[nPeace]

However, as a Society, we do retain the right to limit Religious Freedom.

When you say we, I am assuming you mean the Law.
The law has the right to make laws, and enforce them. It doesn't have the right to break them - although some nations do.

For starters, you cannot impose your religion onto other folk, against their will.

Can you give an example of

impose your religion onto other folk, against their will

And it's a very fine line, when parents are forcing Bronze Age "Medicine" onto children who are unequipped to make an informed consent.

Can you give an example of

forcing Bronze Age "Medicine" onto children who are unequipped to make an informed consent.

Moreover? Not all religion is Respected Equally.

In the not too distant past, there were Religions that taught the First Born had to be Sacrificed (killed) as an offering to the Main God.

Such Belief would not be respected, nor granted Freedom To Practice.

In this instance, Freedom Of Religion is ECLIPSED by a Prohibition To Murder, and in the Eyes of the Law, killing a firstborn is seen as Murder.

By the same principle, withholding Life Saving Medical Treatment, is akin to Murder-- although that's not the actual intent, it is the consequence.

So, Freedom Of Religion is Stopped: Cold, if there are actual Lives On The Line.

This is as it should be, I would think.

Whether a religion is respected equally or not, is beside the point, imo. Religion is religion. All are not the same - they vary.

There are laws against various things - murder, rape...
If a religion is carrying out illegal activities, then the law is within its rights to enforce the law.

Withholding life saving medicine is subject to opinion.
For example, doctors do not agree on what is 'life saving medicine'.
Doctors practices are not all the same. Thank God.

Freedom of religion cannot be stooped cold, unless that applies to all religion - which would require a reversal of the law.
The law is within its right to act against a violation of law - not religious freedom - unless as I said it reverses that law with - no more freedom of religion.

 

[ChristineM]

I wouldn't call it "murder" if the intent, however misguided, was life.

If you know that denying medication will cause death then i cannot see it any other way.

 

[Mox]

I have a hard time seeing them as separate since efforts to prolong human lives increase population numbers in very direct ways.

I wonder if you would whistle that tune whilst you were lying in your sick bed, pumped full of antibiotics and analgesics.