Where freedom of religion ends

[Me Myself]

The role and virtue of being a parent is to be the protector and carer for a fully vulnerable person. There’s a duty to act in the best interests of that child, and to be frank, a decision is made on their behalf based on personal religious skews, such as the withholding of life saving blood transfusions, is far from acting in their best interest, and shouldn’t be tolerated.

False. They don´t accept blood transfusions exactly because they feel it would damage the child.

I could agree that the child takes decision for himself if he has some age (maybe even early like 8 years old). But in general senses, I feel the parents should be in charge.

 

[Alex_G]

False. They don´t accept blood transfusions exactly because they feel it would damage the child.

I could agree that the child takes decision for himself if he has some age (maybe even early like 8 years old). But in general senses, I feel the parents should be in charge.

Not unquestionably in charge. High stakes means respect for some1's worldview can be trumped. Even if they truly believe that their actions are in the best interest of the child it only lends to demonstrate the potential dangers of devout religious belief.

 

[Draka]

False. They don´t accept blood transfusions exactly because they feel it would damage the child.

I could agree that the child takes decision for himself if he has some age (maybe even early like 8 years old). But in general senses, I feel the parents should be in charge.

In the case of blood transfusions they "believe" it would damage the child "spiritually". That is religion based. It has no basis in actual physical medicine and should not be a determining factor when considering the life of a child. If an adult, responsible for their own life and of age to make their own decisions wants to base their medical treatment upon their beliefs then there is no issue with that. Doing so for a child who isn't even old enough to fully and completely understand such beliefs is an act of cruelty.

 

[Me Myself]

Not unquestionably in charge. High stakes means respect for some1's worldview can be trumped. Even if they truly believe that their actions are in the best interest of the child it only lends to demonstrate the dangers of some religious belief.

If the children shares the worldview of the parent in the subject, then he shouldn´tbe forced to take the medical care.

If the children asks for it and the parent doesn´t want to, I say they force the parent.

 

[Me Myself]

In the case of blood transfusions they "believe" it would damage the child "spiritually". That is religion based. It has no basis in actual physical medicine and should not be a determining factor when considering the life of a child. If an adult, responsible for their own life and of age to make their own decisions wants to base their medical treatment upon their beliefs then there is no issue with that. Doing so for a child who isn't even old enough to fully and completely understand such beliefs is an act of cruelty.

I am fully aware that it is religion based.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Are we talking about denying blood transfutions?

I say the parents should decide....

I don't. We don't allow parents to beat their children to death or to poison them. I see no reason to allow patents to do something that has the same effect.

 

[Alex_G]

In the case of blood transfusions they "believe" it would damage the child "spiritually". That is religion based. It has no basis in actual physical medicine and should not be a determining factor when considering the life of a child. If an adult, responsible for their own life and of age to make their own decisions wants to base their medical treatment upon their beliefs then there is no issue with that. Doing so for a child who isn't even old enough to fully and completely understand such beliefs is an act of cruelty.

Yeah, additionally its the fact that the content of religious belief is in fact almost entirely arbitrary when considering certain topics such as modern day healthcare. It has no authority on such matters, even if its perceived to be by some. In that sense, to use such arbitrary information to inform your decisions is irresponsible and dangerous, and thus not a good demonstration of morally defendable parenting.

 

[Me Myself]

I don't. We don't allow parents to beat their children to death or to poison them. I see no reason to allow patents to do something that has the same effect.

There is a deep diference between harming someone and not healing someone.

 

[Quiddity]

There is a deep diference between harming someone and not healing someone.

Are blood transfusions only a matter of healing?

 

[Alex_G]

If the children shares the worldview of the parent in the subject, then he shouldn´tbe forced to take the medical care.

If the children asks for it and the parent doesn´t want to, I say they force the parent.

You just changed your point. If the parent is making medical decisions for a child its because they are incapable of informed consent on their own. By definition they arnt going to be capable of having a complicated worldview that might include such things as denying a blood transfusion on religious grounds. If a child demonstrates an obvious ability to understand the given treatment options and ramifications he/she can be deemed competent to make a decision. (Gillick competence i believe its called)

But a parent using religious information which is arbitrary with respects to the medical field to make medical decisions for a vulnerable party, is not ok.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's one example where I'd agree with you. The problem is that it doesn't even have to be death to intervene. There are some people that think teaching them your faith in general is a form of abuse. What do you do with that?

Evaluate it on a case-by-case basis, and consider what the response would be if it wasn't religiously motivated.

I don't think it's child abuse to teach a child religion, but at the same time, actual abuse shouldn't get a free pass just because it's religious.

 

[Me Myself]

Are blood transfusions only a matter of healing?

I am no medic and may be missing something. By all means tell me.

As far as I know or can think of right now, kinda yeah. If you need blood and blood is not given to you, that would be a case of not leting your body get what it needs to heal.

I am not saying I would do this, I don´t believe blood trasnfusion to be bad in itself, but it´s simply my stand on the matter.

If the child cant /wont say "I want the blood" and the parents don´t want to, then it´s nature taking it´s course. We are all going to do someday.

 

[9Westy9]

There is a deep diference between harming someone and not healing someone.

and neither are better than healing someone

 

[Quiddity]

Evaluate it on a case-by-case basis, and consider what the response would be if it wasn't religiously motivated.

I don't think it's child abuse to teach a child religion, but at the same time, actual abuse shouldn't get a free pass just because it's religious.

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

 

[Quiddity]

I am no medic and may be missing something. By all means tell me.

As far as I know or can think of right now, kinda yeah. If you need blood and blood is not given to you, that would be a case of not leting your body get what it needs to heal.

I am not saying I would do this, I don´t believe blood trasnfusion to be bad in itself, but it´s simply my stand on the matter.

If the child cant /wont say "I want the blood" and the parents don´t want to, then it´s nature taking it´s course. We are all going to do someday.

Actually, I don't know either. I just thought that not all blood transfusions were the same. Some do save your life; while others simply maintain and prolong it.

We are two blind men talking here....lol

 

[Alex_G]

I am no medic and may be missing something. By all means tell me.

If the child cant /wont say "I want the blood" and the parents don´t want to, then it´s nature taking it´s course. We are all going to do someday.

The point is that the child cant be expected to be capable of saying 'I want the blood'. Thats why their a vulnerable party incapable of giving valid informed consent. Thats why such huge responsibility lies on the parents to make decisions on their behalf. However, i believe that when powerful evidence and universal medical advice is to give a certain treatment, the parents arnt morally free to deny it on the basis of arbitrary religious beliefs they hold. A child shoudnt die for such a reason ever.

 

[Me Myself]

The point is that the child cant be expected to be capable of saying 'I want the blood'. Thats why their a vulnerable party incapable of giving valid informed consent. Thats why such huge responsibility lies on the parents to make decisions on their behalf. However, i believe that when powerful evidence and universal medical advice is to give a certain treatment, the parents arnt morally free to deny it on the basis of arbitrary religious beliefs they hold. A child shoudnt die for such a reason ever.

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.

 

[Debater Slayer]

What about stories like:

Police: Girl Dies After Parents Pray for Healing Instead of Seeking Medical Help | Fox News
Son dies slowly as parents pray – In Session - CNN.com Blogs

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

 

[Draka]

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.

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.

 

[Alex_G]

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.

No, but the child cant provide informed consent. They cant say yes or no to the specific treatment on account of them not being able to grasp all the information and ramifications attached, such that an adult can. How can you expect a child to actively ask for a transfusion on their own?? A child’s silence isnt synonymous with them competently deciding that they don’t want the treatment.

Thats why you have the scenario of a parent making decisions for their child in the first place. And my point is its their responsibility to make their decision based on the best medical and professional information available, and not based on their religious scripture, which has no real authority.