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

[RedhorseWoman]

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.

There is definitely a difference between a parent's asking a doctor to find an alternative treatment if they believe that a particular treatment will cause more harm than good and refusing to allow any treatment because of religious beliefs.

 

[nPeace]

There are cults among christianity that forbid blood transfusions--- and those among that cult frequently die as a result of such silly and sadly delusional ideas.

Since there isn't a Higher Authority that actually moves into reality, and interferes? These cultists take the bible, and interpret it to fit their delusions: They believe blood transfusions are Magically Evil.

That's fine if they are adults; I firmly agree that people have the right to commit suicide in the manner of their choosing, if that's what they want to do.

But they don't get to force that idiocy onto defenseless children. Children cannot make informed consent.

Unfortunately, it's not illegal to force these delusional ideas onto defenseless kids...

But Wait! That's Not ALL!

There are also equally delusional folk, who think vaccines are Magically Evil. They keep their kids from getting life saving vaccinations-- and many of these kids are now actually dying.

Sickening.

How do I know this is not just your opinion, or misinformation?
So far you haven't even given me a shred of information to show that what you assert is as you claim Bronze Age.
What's your source?

 

[Stevicus]

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

I agree that the state should step in and save the child.

Where does it say in the Bible that people shouldn't go to the doctor if they're sick? I don't get the logic. Even if it's a matter of faith that God will heal their child, then one could apply the same idea to just about anything. Why bother buying or growing food? God will provide. Why bother building shelter? God will provide. Where does it say that people aren't supposed to do for themselves?

Besides, when Jesus healed people in the Bible, weren't they unhealable by the methods available at the time? Lepers and other incurables with no other hope - Jesus cured them. No one else could have helped them, and few people wanted to help them anyway. But in this case, there were people who wanted to help. The couple was advised more than once to seek medical care, which was available.

 

[nPeace]

There is definitely a difference between a parent's asking a doctor to find an alternative treatment if they believe that a particular treatment will cause more harm than good and refusing to allow any treatment because of religious beliefs.

The doesn't add up to me. What's the difference?

 

[RedhorseWoman]

There are cults among christianity that forbid blood transfusions--- and those among that cult frequently die as a result of such silly and sadly delusional ideas.

Since there isn't a Higher Authority that actually moves into reality, and interferes? These cultists take the bible, and interpret it to fit their delusions: They believe blood transfusions are Magically Evil.

That's fine if they are adults; I firmly agree that people have the right to commit suicide in the manner of their choosing, if that's what they want to do.

But they don't get to force that idiocy onto defenseless children. Children cannot make informed consent.

Unfortunately, it's not illegal to force these delusional ideas onto defenseless kids...

But Wait! That's Not ALL!

There are also equally delusional folk, who think vaccines are Magically Evil. They keep their kids from getting life saving vaccinations-- and many of these kids are now actually dying.

Sickening.

What is equally ridiculous (with the JWs, at least) is that blood transfusions are considered a sin against God and can cause a person willfully accepting a transfusion to be expelled from the congregation, but blood fractions are okay. I'm not sure of the exact breakdown of what is considered "not a sin" and what is considered a "gross sin" but I highly doubt that any practicing JW actually knows what their leaders will allow them to accept or not.

 

[RedhorseWoman]

The doesn't add up to me. What's the difference?

I think that the difference is that in the first case, the parents have done their research and they feel that the particular treatment prescribed is not correct for their child. They might be wrong in their thinking, but at least they are trying to do what's best for the child and not denying treatment.

The second case is where parents, due to religious beliefs, refuse any type of treatment simply because they believe that medical treatment of any type is a sin against God.

 

[nPeace]

I think that the difference is that in the first case, the parents have done their research and they feel that the particular treatment prescribed is not correct for their child. They might be wrong in their thinking, but at least they are trying to do what's best for the child and not denying treatment.

The second case is where parents, due to religious beliefs, refuse any type of treatment simply because they believe that medical treatment of any type is a sin against God.

I believe a loving parent will want the best for their child, and try to protect it from harm.
Here is a situation.
Let's step back in time, and shift location.
So we are in an undeveloped country. It's steeped in witchcraft. Medical practices are not very advanced - primitive, for argument's sake.

A couple's child is ill. Doctors do not know the cause. The voodoo priest offer to cure the child.

The parents' religious beliefs forbid them getting involved in witchcraft. They feel to do so will not only harm them, but their child also.
They decide to pray.

Your thoughts.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

How do I know this is not just your opinion, or misinformation?
So far you haven't even given me a shred of information to show that what you assert is as you claim Bronze Age.
What's your source?

The Internet. The whole thing, is but a few clicks away. You, too, can use the Google to see if there are Xianist Cults who believe blood transfusions are Magically Evil.

You can also discover that members of this sad cult, frequently die as a result of their addiction to this Mythology.

What's even better? They are YOUR sources! You need not trust in ANYTHING I say-- seeing as how you appear to have trust issues.

But as for my Bronze Age claim? How old do you imagine the bible is?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I believe a loving parent will want the best for their child, and try to protect it from harm.
Here is a situation.
Let's step back in time, and shift location.
So we are in an undeveloped country. It's steeped in witchcraft. Medical practices are not very advanced - primitive, for argument's sake.

A couple's child is ill. Doctors do not know the cause. The voodoo priest offer to cure the child.

The parents' religious beliefs forbid them getting involved in witchcraft. They feel to do so will not only harm them, but their child also.
They decide to pray.

Your thoughts.

Since it can be shown, with multiple examples, that praying does absolutely nothing for the child's health?

We can simply dismiss that part as irrelevant. Pray or don't-- has no bearing either way.

As for the "witch doctor"? He's not licensed as a medical doctor, so your post is really a Straw Man. Or Moving The Goal Posts-- perhaps a bit of both.

Rather disingenuous of you, really...

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

What is equally ridiculous (with the JWs, at least) is that blood transfusions are considered a sin against God and can cause a person willfully accepting a transfusion to be expelled from the congregation, but blood fractions are okay. I'm not sure of the exact breakdown of what is considered "not a sin" and what is considered a "gross sin" but I highly doubt that any practicing JW actually knows what their leaders will allow them to accept or not.

From what I understand of the Examples of Jesus (in the bible)?

I quite imagine that getting a transfusion-- even if it is a sin-- isn't a Fatal Action. Would not Jesus be able to forgive the person who got the transfusion to save their life.

I mean, that's kinda how it's supposed to work, right?

Moreover, I would seriously think that letting someone actually die--because they didn't get a needed medical procedure? Would be a much worse sin... a sin that they took to their grave...

... which, if I understand The Rules, means they are off to hell...

.... ooops!

 

[Stevicus]

From what I understand of the Examples of Jesus (in the bible)?

I quite imagine that getting a transfusion-- even if it is a sin-- isn't a Fatal Action. Would not Jesus be able to forgive the person who got the transfusion to save their life.

I mean, that's kinda how it's supposed to work, right?

Moreover, I would seriously think that letting someone actually die--because they didn't get a needed medical procedure? Would be a much worse sin... a sin that they took to their grave...

... which, if I understand The Rules, means they are off to hell...

.... ooops!

I don't even understand why getting a transfusion would be a sin anyway. After all, if (according to some religions) we're all children of God and brothers and sisters to each other, what's wrong with sharing some blood with one's brethren? As long as they're the same blood type, that is.

What baffles me even more is that one thinks of hell as the place where the worst sort of people would go - mass murderers, tyrants, terrorists, serial killers, but it also includes people who got blood transfusions.

 

[RedhorseWoman]

From what I understand of the Examples of Jesus (in the bible)?

I quite imagine that getting a transfusion-- even if it is a sin-- isn't a Fatal Action. Would not Jesus be able to forgive the person who got the transfusion to save their life.

I mean, that's kinda how it's supposed to work, right?

Moreover, I would seriously think that letting someone actually die--because they didn't get a needed medical procedure? Would be a much worse sin... a sin that they took to their grave...

... which, if I understand The Rules, means they are off to hell...

.... ooops!

You are correct. From what I have read in the scriptures, eating an unbled animal (which was actually the original prohibition) was a very minor thing if a person's life was at risk if they did not eat. Nowhere that I have seen was there a condemnation by God and a very likely death sentence if the person wasn't properly repentant for eating the blood.

Jesus also stressed that life was the most important thing. JWs, in my opinion, worship the symbol of life by denying a person treatment that could save their life. Additionally, the prohibition never included any sort of medical use of human blood given voluntarily, but only the eating of animal blood when an animal was killed for food. Pouring the blood out on the ground was a way to show respect for the life that was taken in order to sustain the life of the person who killed the animal for food.

JWs don't believe in a Hell of torment. To them, Hell is simply the grave, but a JW who willfully and unrepentantly accepted a blood transfusion would be considered to be one who would be destroyed by God with no hope of a resurrection into Paradise.

 

[RedhorseWoman]

JWs will frequently put forward the argument that bloodless surgery is much safer than one that involves taking a blood transfusion. That, in my opinion, is true. I'd much rather have a doctor who would perform elective surgery without blood if at all possible.

However, the problem with their argument is that the times when a blood transfusion would be considered essential would be in the case of a traumatic injury and not in the case of elective surgery.

I and my family have lived through multiple scenarios involving the possibility of blood transfusion. When I was in my 20s, I was hospitalized with severe Crohn's disease and my blood count had gone down to 3. I refused a blood transfusion, and, thankfully, I made it through, but I will say that my recovery was extremely slow and I was laid up for months trying to regain my strength.

Several years later, my mother underwent hip replacement surgery and found a doctor who performed the procedure without the use of a transfusion. She did well and recovered fairly quickly.

Fast forward another decade or so, and my father, who was on blood thinners for a heart condition, developed a small intestinal fissure that would not clot. Being the stoic that he was, he said nothing to my mother for several days and was slowly bleeding out the whole time.

By the time she discovered what my father had been hiding from her, he was in a dire situation and in the emergency room. They tried every non-transfusion treatment that was available at the time, to no avail. By the time my mother called me and asked me to go to the emergency room, my father was in a coma and literally looked like a corpse due to the massive blood loss.

The only option to save his life at that point was a blood transfusion and, since he was in a coma, the decision was up to my mother. I was inactive as a JW at the time, and she wanted me to help her make the decision, which, of course, I couldn't legally do. I could see the distress on her face. She knew that a transfusion would definitely save his life, and that without a transfusion, he would definitely die, but she was torn between her love for my father and her devotion to her religion.

Almost miraculously, my father came out of the coma very briefly, turned to the doctor, and said that he would accept the transfusion, then once again lost consciousness. I could see the relief on my mother's face. She knew she wouldn't lose her husband, and she hadn't had to disobey her religious leaders.

So, yes, JWs do have some good arguments for not accepting transfusions, but those arguments have no validity when the situation involves a traumatic situation where massive blood loss is involved. Sadly, most JWs would simply insist that the person die instead of accepting blood, and oftentimes, if they are informed of the situation, a hospital liaison committee will show up at the hospital to try to enforce the JW rules and prevent the JW from accepting a transfusion--purportedly to give them "strength" to resist.

 

[Etritonakin]

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

Neither apparently gave the child the necessary attention. Why would any present and responsible receive different judgments? If the state believes it is more informed -and has greater authority, save the child and educate the parents -not also let the child die and incarcerate the parents for that which they also neglected to do. That is, of course, assuming all involved are sincere and have he best interest of the child at heart -which is not always the case.

Why also let the child die and then incarcerate the parents for that which they also neglected to do?

Many fail to realize that justice is about the best possible outcome.

 

[nPeace]

@RedhorseWoman, @Stevicus

The Internet. The whole thing, is but a few clicks away. You, too, can use the Google to see if there are Xianist Cults who believe blood transfusions are Magically Evil.

You can also discover that members of this sad cult, frequently die as a result of their addiction to this Mythology.

What's even better? They are YOUR sources! You need not trust in ANYTHING I say-- seeing as how you appear to have trust issues.

But as for my Bronze Age claim? How old do you imagine the bible is?

Understandably, everyone has opinions, but to make statements based on opinionated views, rather than facts, only establishes that you let your emotions be your guide and judge. Hence, why you CANNOT provide any data to support your opinionated views.

On the internet, one can pull up any kind of information, but is it credible?
Here are a few I pulled up.
Blood and blood products

Since September 1991, all blood in the UK has been screened for hepatitis C. People who received blood for transfusions before this date might possibly have been exposed to hepatitis C.

If you have had an accident or operation in the UK which required a transfusion of blood or blood products before 1991 you may have been exposed to infected blood. It is worth noting that you may not be aware that you were given blood, especially if you were very ill afterwards. If you want to verify this, anyone who has received blood will find it mentioned in their medical records.

The World Health Organization (WHO) indicates that 89% of blood donations worldwide are currently screened following basic quality procedures. Forty-seven percent of the blood collected in developing countries is not screened in a quality assured manner. Thirty-nine countries (24%) reported that they do not routinely screen for HIV, hepatitis B, hepatitis C or syphilis. Nine countries reported that they do not screen for hepatitis C at all.

Medicine Without Blood
Proponents of “blood management” hope that transfusions will one day be a thing of the past.

But some members of a small but vocal subset of the medical community envision a future where transfusions are rare, and maybe even someday obsolete.

Their proposed alternative: patient blood management, a collection of medical practices and surgical techniques to help doctors minimize blood loss and avoid transfusions. And some have set their sights even further to bloodless medicine, which requires doctors to carry out normal medical procedures—including surgery—without transfusing the patient with blood, red cells, plasma, or platelets.

Because a blood transfusion can have complications, blood-management proponents argue that avoiding the practice altogether is in patients’ best interest.

...they’re asking: If doctors can avoid a transfusion, why wouldn’t they?

Why experts are rethinking blood transfusions

Alternatives to Blood Transfusions

What are the facts?
Blood transfusion is not the safest medical treatment. There are alternatives. Patients do not die from a lack of a blood transfusion.
Even many people who are not Jehovah's Witnesses request bloodless treatment, as a matter of preference.
They actually choose safer medical care.
Those are the facts.

Come on guys, why do we always have to do your research for you?
Here - Be well informed about Jehovah's Witnesses and how medical care benefits millions.

 

[PureX]

Yup, he probably thought, ''Maybe my religious beliefs are not so important after all, the British might be arrogant imperialists, but their medical science is to die for''

My Navajo friend Raleigh used to say, "You 'round-eyes' should go back to Europe where you came from ... but leave the plumbing".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Let's have universal and affordable health care actually be a thing and then we'll talk about this question. There can be no duty for the state to provide health care for children when there is no state provided health care to begin with.

The state has a duty to address child neglect regardless of whether universal health care is available.

 

[nPeace]

JWs will frequently put forward the argument that bloodless surgery is much safer than one that involves taking a blood transfusion. That, in my opinion, is true. I'd much rather have a doctor who would perform elective surgery without blood if at all possible.

However, the problem with their argument is that the times when a blood transfusion would be considered essential would be in the case of a traumatic injury and not in the case of elective surgery.

I and my family have lived through multiple scenarios involving the possibility of blood transfusion. When I was in my 20s, I was hospitalized with severe Crohn's disease and my blood count had gone down to 3. I refused a blood transfusion, and, thankfully, I made it through, but I will say that my recovery was extremely slow and I was laid up for months trying to regain my strength.

Several years later, my mother underwent hip replacement surgery and found a doctor who performed the procedure without the use of a transfusion. She did well and recovered fairly quickly.

Fast forward another decade or so, and my father, who was on blood thinners for a heart condition, developed a small intestinal fissure that would not clot. Being the stoic that he was, he said nothing to my mother for several days and was slowly bleeding out the whole time.

By the time she discovered what my father had been hiding from her, he was in a dire situation and in the emergency room. They tried every non-transfusion treatment that was available at the time, to no avail. By the time my mother called me and asked me to go to the emergency room, my father was in a coma and literally looked like a corpse due to the massive blood loss.

The only option to save his life at that point was a blood transfusion and, since he was in a coma, the decision was up to my mother. I was inactive as a JW at the time, and she wanted me to help her make the decision, which, of course, I couldn't legally do. I could see the distress on her face. She knew that a transfusion would definitely save his life, and that without a transfusion, he would definitely die, but she was torn between her love for my father and her devotion to her religion.

Almost miraculously, my father came out of the coma very briefly, turned to the doctor, and said that he would accept the transfusion, then once again lost consciousness. I could see the relief on my mother's face. She knew she wouldn't lose her husband, and she hadn't had to disobey her religious leaders.

So, yes, JWs do have some good arguments for not accepting transfusions, but those arguments have no validity when the situation involves a traumatic situation where massive blood loss is involved. Sadly, most JWs would simply insist that the person die instead of accepting blood, and oftentimes, if they are informed of the situation, a hospital liaison committee will show up at the hospital to try to enforce the JW rules and prevent the JW from accepting a transfusion--purportedly to give them "strength" to resist.

Sad. I think your experience should have told you something. Compromise is never an option. Either one is loyal to God, by obeying his laws, or one is not.
It indicate how much faith Jehovah's Witnesses have.
(Hebrews 11:6) . . .without faith it is impossible to please God well, for whoever approaches God must believe that he is and that he becomes the rewarder of those earnestly seeking him.

 

[nPeace]

Since it can be shown, with multiple examples, that praying does absolutely nothing for the child's health?

We can simply dismiss that part as irrelevant. Pray or don't-- has no bearing either way.

As for the "witch doctor"? He's not licensed as a medical doctor, so your post is really a Straw Man. Or Moving The Goal Posts-- perhaps a bit of both.

Rather disingenuous of you, really...

As usual Bob, you always say things like that, and you never show anything. It's all talk. Wherever is your evidence?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

Because you can only be interested in one thing at a time?