Where freedom of religion ends

[Draka]

They show that some people should have never participated in the biological process of reproduction.

How so very very true.

 

[Me Myself]

Not quite. In the case of a child requiring surgery or an accident that resulted in a loss of blood then giving blood may be required. Basically, the doctors come to the parent to sign a consent form for surgery with the information that blood would be necessary for the success of the surgery. If the parent refuses then it is indeed a denial of a life-saving procedure. The surgery may have a very high success rate and the child may come through with flying colors as long as blood is available. Without the blood the surgery could fail. In this case, denying blood may be the sole reason for death.

Everyone dies eventually. Demographics is a problem.

In any case, the subject bored me. Morality is subjective, and I wouldn´t be primareily affected by this anyways. What I said were my two cents, I understand why you all disagree. so I think that´s that.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That sounds resonable to me. However, the bold part can get tricky because it assumes anything that is not religiously motivated is generally ok.

I don't think it does; that wasn't my intent, anyhow. My point was that the spectrum of non-religious things that a parent could teach a child ranges from very beneficial to outright abuse. When we're looking at religious teaching, I think we should ignore its religious aspect and use the same thresholds for good vs. objectionable vs. "take the child way for his own good".

 

[Quiddity]

I don't think it does; that wasn't my intent, anyhow. My point was that the spectrum of non-religious things that a parent could teach a child ranges from very beneficial to outright abuse. When we're looking at religious teaching, I think we should ignore its religious aspect and use the same thresholds for good vs. objectionable vs. "take the child way for his own good".

A case by case basis is probably best then; not just for religious folks but for all.

 

[Draka]

You should clarify this statement. Most everything affects a person's life physically. Eating too much fat. Vegetarian diets. Wearing high heels. etc. I know that you mean affects in a negative way but that is subjective as well. So be specific and tell us where you think the line should be drawn.

Unless the person wearing the high heels is jamming them into the feet of others and so on, I don't see your point. I thought my point was quite clear. If your religious beliefs cause a physical affect upon another then your right to your beliefs is personally infringing upon another. Might as well say that person A's religious beliefs require them to eat the left arm of their 2nd cousin on their 30th birthday. Such a belief does not give them call to do such an action. Likewise, if someone believes that going to a doctor is going against what they think their god wants they should not have the ability to deny anyone else from going to a doctor. Even their own child. If a child has asthma they need medical care, and can live quite well if they have proper medical care. If a parent decides not to seek medical care for their child and instead "pray away" the asthma, they are in effect deciding to kill said child via their beliefs. If any parent decided to let their child suffer and not be treated for such a condition and did not have a religious reasoning behind it the child would be taken away from them and they would be cited for neglect. I'm simply saying that why should standards for neglect and abuse be any different just because religion is involved?

 

[Kerr]

The problem is that they are not "denying" anything. they are not asking for it, and if their child isn´t asknig for it, there is no actual denial. There is "nobody choosing to x", but no denial. If the child asked for it and the parent didn´t want to permit it, then there would be denial.

If a child needs a treatment to survive then the doctors would probably suggest it, and if the parents say no then it is denial. In that case the health and well being of the child should absolutely take priority.

 

[Me Myself]

Smoking

 

[Kerr]

Everyone dies eventually.

Are you really saying that dying children are no big deal, or have I misunderstood you?

EDIT:

Going to bed now .

 

[Duck]

Draka I agree with your sentiments in principle. Children can be and are removed from homes by Child Protective Services (in whatever incarnation here in the USA) for a number of parental behaviors (child neglect, domestic violence, "unfit" parenthood, substance abuse (legal and illegal), criminal behavior, failure of rehab (on the parents part) and loss of child custody during divorce proceedings) and some activities of the child (criminal behavior typically). Quite often the religious activities of the parent are overlooked, I am not sure how much of that is due to a reluctance on the part of authorities to interfere with 1st amendment rights IOT avoid allegations of religious persecution or if some of that is due to the behavior of the parents otherwise not generating attention (e.g. not in trouble with the law, or otherwise standing out from the crowd).

I see no reason that religious behavior of the parent, that would otherwise result in the child being removed from the home, should be exempt from action by CPS. If I refused to take my child to a treatment center for a broken limb due to an unfortunate skateboarding incident because I felt that exposure to XRAY radiation was some government attempt to produce super powered mutated humans it is likely that the child would be removed from my home and I would be sent for psychiatric evaluation.

Why should the belief that Deity will heal the limb as Deity will be treated any differently? (Isn't it a truthful statement that God helps those that help themselves?)

All that said, I am wary of governmental interference in the family. I feel that many times the CPS system has failed to act properly, either by lack of followup in cases that legitimately fall under their purview or by overzealous action by the CPS workers. Cases where children have suffered terrible abuse or actually died while supposedly under CPS care/supervision are rampant. Then there is the actions of the CPS in completely unrelated cases...anecdotally within my own family my sister fell off the slide and broke her arm AT SCHOOL. Prior to my mother being allowed to see my sister, who was injured AT SCHOOL, CPS questioned my 5 year old sister regarding life at home, despite being told that this particular incident (with WITNESSES unrelated to our family) happened AT SCHOOL during recess playing on the slide. My mother was also questioned by CPS regarding life at home and her relationship to my sister, with the implication (this is the impression my mother gave me when we were talking about this a few years before her death) that CPS was considering whether to remove my sister (and the other children, ie me and my brother) from our home because my sister fell off the slide AT SCHOOL. Relation of this story in combination with news reports indicating the failures of the CPS system to prevent terrible abuses and deaths of their charges pretty much cemented my distrust of the system.

 

[Draka]

Basically we are looking at situations like this:

doctor: We need to do *this* for Kimberly, it's her best chance at survival. If she has *this* she should make a full recovery.
parent: No.
doctor: If she doesn't get *this* her chances aren't good. She could very well not make it through the night.
parent: no, my religion is against that.
doctor: You do realize that if you don't allow us to help her Kimberly has very little chances of surviving? That she will probably die?
parent: god's will be done...

Or

neighbor: your child looks bad. have you taken him to a doctor?
parent: oh no, we've been praying. god will provide.
neighbor: um, ok, but Bobby is really pale and he can't breathe too well. I think you really need to take him to the ER
parent: no. god will take care of Bobby.

In both cases like this social services and maybe even an ambulance should be called (in the second case). Perhaps the hospital lawyer as well. Whatever it takes to step in on behalf of the child in question. No child should get a death sentence due to their parent's religious beliefs.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

I'm simply saying that why should standards for neglect and abuse be any different just because religion is involved?

They shouldn't but you are making very general statements and assuming everyone will understand what you mean. Physical affect is meaningless unless you put in the term negative and even then you have to specifically state what you consider negative. Nor can you simply use the term religious belief as a cause. Lets say a family is vegetarian because of religious belief but the government decides that to be healthy you must follow their diet plan which includes meat. Are parents no longer allowed to raise their children as vegetarian because it doesn't fit with what the government has decided is in their best interest? This is the kind of BS you are opening society up to with your suggestion and why I suggest caution. I agree that we should make some changes in how the law looks at this situation but it is extremely important that the solution is implemented with great care.

 

[Draka]

They shouldn't but you are making very general statements and assuming everyone will understand what you mean. Physical affect is meaningless unless you put in the term negative and even then you have to specifically state what you consider negative. Nor can you simply use the term religious belief as a cause. Lets say a family is vegetarian because of religious belief but the government decides that to be healthy you must follow their diet plan which includes meat. Are parents no longer allowed to raise their children as vegetarian because it doesn't fit with what the government has decided is in their best interest? This is the kind of BS you are opening society up to with your suggestion and why I suggest caution. I agree that we should make some changes in how the law looks at this situation but it is extremely important that the solution is implemented with great care.

So basically you don't have issue with my stance...you have issue with how I describe my stance? I'm not writing a law here. I'm not trying to pass a bill where my language need be beyond exact. I'm expressing my position and, it appears, most people including yourself, are understanding my stance. Why must I over-explain my stance?

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

So basically you don't have issue with my stance...you have issue with how I describe my stance? I'm not writing a law here. I'm not trying to pass a bill where my language need be beyond exact. I'm expressing my position and, it appears, most people including yourself, are understanding my stance. Why must I over-explain my stance?

Because its easy to simply point out problems, shouldn't we also seek solutions? I don't actually have an issue with your description, I only asked for more clarification of your position. I think most everyone will agree with the general aspect of your position but the debate will come over possible solutions and their implimentation. I assumed you would want to discuss all of the above rather than merely making a grand statement and then bowing out.

 

[Draka]

Because its easy to simply point out problems, shouldn't we also seek solutions? I don't actually have an issue with your description, I only asked for more clarification of your position. I think most everyone will agree with the general aspect of your position but the debate will come over possible solutions and their implimentation. I assumed you would want to discuss all of the above rather than merely making a grand statement and then bowing out.

I haven't bowed out. What I've been saying is why can't religious reasons be ignored when it comes to medical procedures and treatment of children? If someone were to deny treatment of a child for any other reason steps would be taken. Those steps are already in existence. So why aren't they used more when it comes to denial based on religion? Why should it matter WHY denial of treatment is made...the issue should simply be denial...not WHY.

 

[ChristineES]

As I said in another thread, I have a problem when parents deny their children medical treatment because of their faith. A child until a certain age, shouldn't be held to the rules that their parents live by- if the child isn't old enough to make a decision of whether or not to follow that faith. It is a bit tougher when a child, who is a teenager, makes the decision to follow his parents wishes and deny treatment that may effect their life or endanger it if they don't get it.

Parents do have the right to teach their child about their faith or religion, but they should not be able to force that child to follow it if the child does not want to.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I haven't bowed out. What I've been saying is why can't religious reasons be ignored when it comes to medical procedures and treatment of children? If someone were to deny treatment of a child for any other reason steps would be taken. Those steps are already in existence. So why aren't they used more when it comes to denial based on religion? Why should it matter WHY denial of treatment is made...the issue should simply be denial...not WHY.

Religion gets special dispensation in a number of ways. Painting things as sacred often exempts them from rational review.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

When people would rather let their 8 year old or 6 month old die believing that their prayers are enough to save them from a treatable injury or disease rather than take them for proper medical care then their religion and their beliefs are the direct cause of their child's death. People who refuse to seek proper medical treatment of their pets can have their pets taken away and have legal charges brought against them for animal neglect and abuse. Why should children be treated differently just because a religion is involved?

Because children are raised to believe in religion, nonhumans aren't. I think if a child believes it themselves, then it's alright. If the parents told them to believe it, then no.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

I haven't bowed out. What I've been saying is why can't religious reasons be ignored when it comes to medical procedures and treatment of children? If someone were to deny treatment of a child for any other reason steps would be taken. Those steps are already in existence. So why aren't they used more when it comes to denial based on religion? Why should it matter WHY denial of treatment is made...the issue should simply be denial...not WHY.

Partly because of tradition. We traditionally allow parents total control over their children and to remove any aspect of that right is something that must be done carefully. In order to implement what you are suggesting we would have to create a legal structure to do so. First we would have to determine when a parents legal rights to make decisions for their children should be taken away and put in the hands of others. The line must be very clearly defined so that there will be no legal reprocussions. Also, who makes the decision to terminate parental rights? A doctor? A judge? Social services? All of these questions must be answered and new laws put into place.

Now, it may sound simple enough to create these laws but the trick it to create them in a manner that minimises abuse by the system itself. The example I gave before of the vegetarian family not being able to raise their children as vegetarians is a valid scenario. History shows us time and time again how the government will step in to dictate beliefs to its citizens. French catholics in Louisiana had to send their children to public schools where they were beaten for speaking French. Native Americans had it much worse. Things like that are not that far in our past and could easily be part of our future. That is why we must choose our solutions with great care.

 

[Levite]

More than ethical, in case of danger of death, if there is a mainstream medical treatment available that is proven to be effective it must be used.

I think I mostly agree with you. And if it's a simple situation like, "We need to operate and give blood transfusions or your kid will die, but if we operate and give blood transfusions, then your kid will almost surely make a 100% recovery" then yes, I think whatever the religious beliefs of the parents, it is society's role to ensure that a child below the age of majority receives such treatment.

My only reservation comes with, let's say (God forbid), the case of a kid with terminal illness, who is in the end stages. I think it should be within the rights of the parent to refuse heroic measures on behalf of their child, to let the poor kid die with some dignity in a hospice program, or at home. And I don't believe that the government or doctors should have the right to refuse, and give heroic measures anyway, even if it will give the kid another few days, or weeks, or perhaps even months of life. And by the same token, even if a doctor or the government knows that the treatment being requested by a parent will only prolong a kid's life a few hours, they should not be able to refuse the parents' request to provide such treatment unless it is defensibly unethical for them to do so.

My guess is that probably in the vast majority of situations that might arise, I would agree that kids below the age of majority should receive life-saving treatment, regardless of the religious or philosophical beliefs of the parents. But bioethics is all about gray areas, so I hate to be too sweepingly general in my comments.

 

[Draka]

Partly because of tradition. We traditionally allow parents total control over their children and to remove any aspect of that right is something that must be done carefully. In order to implement what you are suggesting we would have to create a legal structure to do so. First we would have to determine when a parents legal rights to make decisions for their children should be taken away and put in the hands of others. The line must be very clearly defined so that there will be no legal reprocussions. Also, who makes the decision to terminate parental rights? A doctor? A judge? Social services? All of these questions must be answered and new laws put into place.

Now, it may sound simple enough to create these laws but the trick it to create them in a manner that minimises abuse by the system itself. The example I gave before of the vegetarian family not being able to raise their children as vegetarians is a valid scenario. History shows us time and time again how the government will step in to dictate beliefs to its citizens. French catholics in Louisiana had to send their children to public schools where they were beaten for speaking French. Native Americans had it much worse. Things like that are not that far in our past and could easily be part of our future. That is why we must choose our solutions with great care.

What on earth are you talking about? Why are you bringing up stuff that has absolutely no bearing on the topic whatsoever?

Look, it's actually very simple.

If someone were to refuse to take their 7y/o asthmatic child to a doctor or clinic because they flat out were too lazy to bother, or for some reason believed that evil spirits lived in inhalers and were shot into a person using them, then DHS would step in and claim neglect and see to it that the child was medically taken care of. What is the difference between that and refusing to take the child because the parent believes if they put their hands together and beg that the child will magically get better on their own? Nothing. The options and the laws already exist. What is wrong is that they let religious reasoning slide as an excuse when if anyone else did the exact same thing the law would step in and act on the child's behalf. The laws already exist, they just need to be implemented across the board and stop going soft on religious beliefs as excuses to not take care of people's kids.