Where freedom of religion ends

[Trey of Diamonds]

But not in the way you suggested... or at least not in the way I think you're suggesting. We may need to take into account that people are likely to try to work around a ban, for instance, but we don't need to take into account that a practice is religious.

Of course we do, unless you are suggesting throwing out religious freedom.

I don't think we disagree. My point was just that the practical obstacles to eliminating it are less in the West than other areas.

Ah, you're right, we agree totally.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

You seem to want to throw everything possible at the wall and see if anything will stick. I am speaking medically. I am saying that the right to believe as you wish ends at the medical decisions of someone else. I am saying that that includes your own child. You can teach your child what it is you believe. You can explain to them why. You can personally adhere to your own beliefs as well. However, what cannot be done is to use your religion as a scapegoat for child abuse and neglect.

But they don't see it that way, if they did you would have a point. What you are saying here is that a person does not have the right to follow their religious traditions when you don't like the outcome of those traditions. You have to accept that that is what you're doing. You have to accept that in their eyes you are endangering the souls of their children. Until you accept that you will never understand their resistance to your demands that they give up their religious freedom. For that is exactly what you are doing. You are saying that what they believe is nonsense and you will decide what will happens to their children whether they like it or not. If you can't, at the very least, try to understand how that would feel to them and how you would feel if someone did that to you then you shouldn't be allowed to make those decisions either.

I fail to see what is so hard to understand on this point. Why should Betty and Joan be treated differently in regards to their children if they both refuse to take their fever-stricken children to the hospital? Should it matter that Betty happens to believe that god will save her child and Joan doesn't want to miss a marathon of Desperate Housewives? Should Betty get a pass and Joan get in trouble? No.

That's because you don't feel that their beliefs deserve any respect. In your eyes they have crossed a line and commited abuse so you should be allowed to treat them with disdain and force them to subject their children to your beliefs no matter what the consequences to their souls. This is a situation in which you are unable to have any empathy and because of that you have no objectivity either.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Of course we do, unless you are suggesting throwing out religious freedom.

No, but I am suggesting that religious freedom isn't (or at least shouldn't be, IMO) something distinct in and of itself, but is merely a subset of other more general freedoms like belief, conscience and expression... which still means that the "religious" aspect of something doesn't need special regard. A religious belief should have no greater status than any other deeply held belief.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's because you don't feel that their beliefs deserve any respect. In your eyes they have crossed a line and commited abuse so you should be allowed to treat them with disdain and force them to subject their children to your beliefs no matter what the consequences to their souls. This is a situation in which you are unable to have any empathy and because of that you have no objectivity either.

It doesn't mean that at all; it means that whatever respect the beliefs deserve, it's not as much as is deserved by the life or well-being of an innocent child.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

No, but I am suggesting that religious freedom isn't (or at least shouldn't be, IMO) something distinct in and of itself, but is merely a subset of other more general freedoms like belief, conscience and expression... which still means that the "religious" aspect of something doesn't need special regard. A religious belief should have no greater status than any other deeply held belief.

Maybe in Canada, but in the US, Freedom of Religion is a very distinct thing that must be considered by itself. Not saying it should be that way, just that it is that way.

It doesn't mean that at all; it means that whatever respect the beliefs deserve, it's not as much as is deserved by the life or well-being of an innocent child.

I was speaking to Draka directly in that quote, addressing her comments about the family using religion as an excuse to abuse their children. This is not what they are doing. It may be abuse but to suggest that the family is doing it on purpose and using religion as an excuse is wrong.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Maybe in Canada, but in the US, Freedom of Religion is a very distinct thing that must be considered by itself. Not saying it should be that way, just that it is that way.

Hmm. When did this become a US-specific discussion?

In any case, I was talking more about an ideal situation than the current state of the law in any particular place.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Hmm. When did this become a US-specific discussion?

In any case, I was talking more about an ideal situation than the current state of the law in any particular place.

The discussion may not be US-specific but my comments have. I don't mean to hi-jack the thread, just clarifying.

The ideal situation is easy to see, getting from point A to point B is the hard part, full of pot holes and land mines.

 

[4consideration]

People seem to want to use the claim that they are free to believe however they want and should be able to practice their beliefs without any infringement. However, the freedom to believe and practice as you wish ends the moment it affects anyone else. Or at least it should. This specifically includes children. Even your own. When a person's religious beliefs affect the health and safety of others then their right to believe as they wish has just overstepped another's right to their own life. Just like a smoker affects the health and life-expectancy of those around them, those who feel that medical decisions should be based upon beliefs affect the health and life-expectancy of family members and others perhaps in their care. If a person wants to make medical decisions for themselves based upon their beliefs then they have every right to do so, but they should not have the right to make medical decisions for others based upon those beliefs. This includes their own children. It is my opinion and stance that anyone who attempts to deny proper medical treatment to their children based upon their own personal religious beliefs should have their legal rights to make medical decisions for their children denied and the child be declared a ward of the state in regards to medical care so that they can receive proper treatment.

The right to a person's religious beliefs ends the moment it physically affects another person's life.

_____________________________________

I agree with what I highlighted in red. But I think it should be applied to your own position as well to as others. You have just provided the argument as to why your opinion (or mine) should carry no weight in the choice to receive or not receive medical care for someone else, or their children.

Someone will be making medical decisions. Who? You cannot reasonably say that no one will make a decision. A decision requires a person to make that decision.

Even if you say, that it should be left up to the doctor, I can't agree with you. Which doctor? Most of the doctors I have had in my life have been wonderful. But, some have been awful. Are we just rolling the dice here?

(The first time I ever thought about this issue, I immediately jumped to an idea that everyone should seek medical care when ill, because that is what I thought best. However, over time my position on it has changed alot.)

Here is the issue as I see it about health care in general, and anyone making someone's decision for them against their will -- or imposing a decision:

As I understand it (I was not born then) there was a time when the use of leeches, for bloodletting, was a commonly understood and accepted medical practice for addressing a variety of ailments.

Now, can you consider the possibility that there are people that view current medical procedures in the same way you may think about using leeches? Assuming you think it not an effective medical procedure, and potentially harmful (or not) -- would you believe that such a medical procedure ought to be imposed upon you, or you children?

I, personally, think that there are many tremendously valuable medical procedures. However, I also think that there is a really good probably that some of the standard, commonly accepted pratices of today may someday soon be considered barbaric, backward and actually harmful.

Do we really have the right to impose procedures on other people -- procedures that in many cases the hospital will require a person to sign a waiver for -- because it is recognized that the medical procedure itself carries a risk of causing death.

If I think I have a right for my opinion to over-ride someone else's choice over getting a medical procedure or medication, here is the question I ask myself:

Am I confident enough, that I know that a medical procedure is guaranteed to produce a positive result, and to not cause harm that would not have occurred otherwise... am I so confident that I can claim a right to make a decision over someone else's life (or their child) that I would be willing to risk my own if I am wrong?

My answer is usually, no. Therefore, I claim no right for my belief to over-ride that of another parent.

And it is not a good enough argument to say that I have the right to do so simply because I have declared myself right (and actually omniscient) in the situation.

 

[Draka]

But they don't see it that way, if they did you would have a point. What you are saying here is that a person does not have the right to follow their religious traditions when you don't like the outcome of those traditions. You have to accept that that is what you're doing. You have to accept that in their eyes you are endangering the souls of their children. Until you accept that you will never understand their resistance to your demands that they give up their religious freedom. For that is exactly what you are doing. You are saying that what they believe is nonsense and you will decide what will happens to their children whether they like it or not. If you can't, at the very least, try to understand how that would feel to them and how you would feel if someone did that to you then you shouldn't be allowed to make those decisions either.



That's because you don't feel that their beliefs deserve any respect. In your eyes they have crossed a line and commited abuse so you should be allowed to treat them with disdain and force them to subject their children to your beliefs no matter what the consequences to their souls. This is a situation in which you are unable to have any empathy and because of that you have no objectivity either.

So you want me to have empathy for those who would rather their children suffer and/or die because of their religious beliefs? I feel for the children myself. As for their beliefs deserving respect, as I have said, they are free to live by whatever their beliefs are. For themselves. But to expect that their small children should live by beliefs they are most likely too young to even understand, let alone agree with, is just too much. If a 28 year old person decides that they will not seek medical treatment or accept a blood transfusion based upon their beliefs, then that is their decision to make and they have every right to make that decision no matter how many others may disagree with it. HOWEVER the 5 year old child of a person who does not believe in seeking medical treatment or blood transfusions may lose out on the ability to even grow old enough to establish beliefs of their own and make medical decisions for themselves. And why? Because they have a parent who makes life and death decisions for others based upon their own internal religious beliefs. How is that fair?

Quite simply, since the system is already in place, it should be followed and not allow excuses for neglect or manslaughter via neglect...regardless of religion.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

So you want me to have empathy for those who would rather their children suffer and/or die because of their religious beliefs?

Yes.

But to expect that their small children should live by beliefs they are most likely too young to even understand, let alone agree with, is just too much.

I know, that is why you can't see the situation objectively, only emotionally.

Because they have a parent who makes life and death decisions for others based upon their own internal religious beliefs.

This is what religious freedom is. What you are suggesting is placing limits on religious freedom, something I'm not opposed to. But don't suggest that the situation isn't about religion because you personally disagree with the religion in question. Also understand that once you start imposing restrictions on one religion that it opens the door to more and more restrictions on more and more religions, maybe even your own. This is as dangerous a situation for religion as the Patriot Act is for privacy.

How is that fair?

Life isn't fair. We all have to deal with that fact.

Quite simply, since the system is already in place, it should be followed and not allow excuses for neglect or manslaughter via neglect...regardless of religion.

No, the system in place allows for religious freedom. The system must be changed to remove certian religious freedoms for your suggestions to become reality. I know you want a simple solution but if there was one don't you think it would have been implemented already? There is nothing simple about singling out a religion and stripping it of its freedoms. Period.

 

[Draka]

Trey, it's already done, people already get charged with manslaughter when they let their children die due to medical neglect caused by religious beliefs. Hospitals will take people to court for the right to treat a child whose parents have denied treatment on the grounds of religion and have won. It seems to vary depending on locations, but it does happen. When people bother to step up for the children...it happens. Parents may have the right to refuse certain treatments based upon their religion however, if the treatment or procedure is considered medically necessary for survival the hospital and social services can, and do, step in. Unfortunately, it is often not enough. Sometimes the doctors will simply take the answer they get from the parents without pursuing it with a social worker. Sometimes relatives or friends will feel they have no right to get involved and will not call for help. These are things that should be done, and can be done. Yes, this country has religious freedom, but it has already been shown that religious freedom is not prized as highly as the life of a child.

Medical neglect
Medical neglect is the failure to provide appropriate health care for a child (although financially able to do so), thus placing the child at risk of being seriously disabled or disfigured or dying. According to NCANDS, in 2005, 2 percent of children (17,637 children) in the United States were victims of medical neglect (USDHHS, 2007). Concern is warranted not only when a parent refuses medical care for a child in an emergency or for an acute illness, but also when a parent ignores medical recommendations for a child with a treatable chronic disease or disability, resulting in frequent hospitalizations or significant deterioration.

Even in non-emergency situations, medical neglect can result in poor overall health and compounded medical problems.

Parents may refuse medical care for their children for different reasons religious beliefs, fear or anxiety about a medical condition or treatment, or financial issues. Child protective services agencies generally will intervene when:

Medical treatment is needed in an acute emergency (e.g., a child needs a blood transfusion to treat shock);
A child with a life-threatening chronic disease is not receiving needed medical treatment (e.g., a child with diabetes is not receiving medication); or
A child has a chronic disease that can cause disability or disfigurement if left untreated (e.g., a child with congenital cataracts needs surgery to prevent blindness).
In these cases, child protection services agencies may seek a court order for medical treatment to save the child’s life or prevent life-threatening injury, disability or disfigurement.

Although medical neglect is highly correlated with poverty, there is a distinction between a caregiver’s inability to provide the needed care based on cultural norms or the lack of financial resources and a caregiver’s knowing reluctance or refusal to provide care. Children and their families may be in need of services even though the parent may not be intentionally neglectful. When poverty limits a parent’s resources to adequately provide necessities for the child, services may be offered to help families provide for their children.

Child NeglectChronic Child Neglect

 

[Valjean]

How do you "choose" a religious belief? Aren't you compelled to follow the weight of evidence?

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Trey, it's already done,

If its already done then why are we having this conversation? Because it isn't that simple. Inadaquate laws are being sometimes enforced every now and then. I hardly call that done.

 

[Draka]

If its already done then why are we having this conversation? Because it isn't that simple. Inadaquate laws are being sometimes enforced every now and then. I hardly call that done.

Because too many let it slide. Just because it is done in some cases, in some areas, doesn't mean it is done enough. The whole mindset that religious views must be honored and that protecting children somehow infringes on a parent's rights to their religion jeopardizes the lives of still so many children. Otherwise we wouldn't hear about kids dying because their parent's wouldn't have them treated.

 

[Me Myself]

So you want me to have empathy for those who would rather their children suffer and/or die because of their religious beliefs?

To be fair it would be inmoral of them to put their kids in treatments when they believe (truly believe) that that is going to taint their souls for ever.

I am not saying that the result of helping them is undesirable, but I am certanly saying that it would be immoral for them to give their kids something that they think will taint them eternally because of some years of their lifes.

I agree with Trey, that saying that the believe is an "excuse" to abuse the children is far far away from what happens in this kind of cases. I doubt thwey say "you know what? I don´t really like this kid of us my lovely JW wife of mine. may we let him die and try for a better one? It´s cool, we will excuse it with our religious believes. MwahahahahMWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!"

To the least you do understand that is not the case, yes?

 

[Draka]

I understand that such people believe that they are somehow doing good in some warped way. But then, so does the woman who thinks evil spirits live in asthma inhalers and so doesn't let her severely asthmatic kid use one. I suppose in some slight way I might feel sorry for them, for their state of mind, but I feel more sorry for their children. I don't know, call me a ***** a guess. I'll own up to that. I just really have a hard time issuing good feelings towards anyone who would rather watch their child die than have everything done possible to save their life. I also have to wonder about their true motivations. Do they really believe their god would punish a small child for its life being saved or cared for in such a way as to better its life, OR are they really afraid that their god would smite them for using such methods to save their own child? Are they trying to save the soul of their child or save their own soul at the expense of their child? Do they believe in a god that would punish a child for something beyond their control OR do they fear a god that would punish a parent for saving their child? Whose soul do they really think they are saving?

 

[waitasec]

Because too many let it slide. Just because it is done in some cases, in some areas, doesn't mean it is done enough. The whole mindset that religious views must be honored and that protecting children somehow infringes on a parent's rights to their religion jeopardizes the lives of still so many children. Otherwise we wouldn't hear about kids dying because their parent's wouldn't have them treated.

and there it is...

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Because too many let it slide. Just because it is done in some cases, in some areas, doesn't mean it is done enough. The whole mindset that religious views must be honored and that protecting children somehow infringes on a parent's rights to their religion jeopardizes the lives of still so many children. Otherwise we wouldn't hear about kids dying because their parent's wouldn't have them treated.

It's not a matter of letting it slide, its a matter of conflict between governmental rights to step in for the child and a parents rights to raise their children in their own belief system. Currently the system allows for either way, leaving it up to the individuals involved to decided which takes precedent. It isn't a matter of enforcing existing laws like you think. Its a matter of creating laws that will clearly define where this line is, when it is crossed and what to do about it. Until laws like that are created we will always be stuck with cases falling on either side of the fence.

 

[waitasec]

It's not a matter of letting it slide, its a matter of conflict between governmental rights to step in for the child and a parents rights to raise their children in their own belief system. Currently the system allows for either way, leaving it up to the individuals involved to decided which takes precedent. It isn't a matter of enforcing existing laws like you think. Its a matter of creating laws that will clearly define where this line is, when it is crossed and what to do about it. Until laws like that are created we will always be stuck with cases falling on either side of the fence.

nonetheless, child abuse is child abuse...no matter how you look at it.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

nonetheless, child abuse is child abuse...no matter how you look at it.

No arguements here.

My point has only been that the situation is complex and does not have an easy solution. The laws in place are not enough and new laws which clearly define when the government should step in for the rights of the child in cases where religious freedom are involved need to be created. Also, it should be understood that creating such laws is dangerous and opens us up to abuse by the authorities should those laws be expanded to cover more than the original abuse they were written for. So when those laws are created, they need to be done so with great caution.