Religion v Child safety

  • Thread starter Grayfox
  • 164 comments
  • 6,339 views
11,985
Australia
Australia
I_Grayson_Fox_I
A four-year-old cancer patient's parents will be forced to allow her to receive a blood transfusion despite their religious objections.

Supreme Court Justice Richard White ordered on Friday that the girl receive life-saving treatment for her leukaemia, News Limited reports.

The SA girl's parents are strict Jehovah's Witnesses and had objected to the blood transfusion.

News Ltd reports that paediatric oncologist Petra Ritchie warned the girl would die within weeks without it.


http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8477292/cancer-patient-4-must-get-blood-judge


What do you think.

Should the be a point where religion should end and the safety of your child begin.

And should the kids be taken off their parents if they refuse to get child treated for any medical issues?
 
I think that putting the life of a child after religious beliefs is a disgrace to the religion that allows it to happen in the first place.

Sure, everyone is allowed their own beliefs (maybe not where I live) and they should be respected but from the point of view of the law wouldn't stopping her from having a life saving blood transfusion be classed as some form of manslaughter if the child was to die?

Morally, I think it's completely wrong, but that's coming from somebody who refuses to take vital mental medication because of certain beliefs, but I'm only harming myself.
 
This is the exact same thing as pregnant woman who test positive for HIV. They are forced to take drugs to "help" with the disease in order to make sure the baby lives. In reality the drugs themselves cause more harm and put a huge risk of death of the baby and the mother. There are a lot of things about religion that should be ignored like human sacrifices etc, but it should be a choice to take drugs not legally forced upon.
 
Unless they're handing out it for free, I don't believe the government should be able to force healthcare like that on any child regardless of the situation. Even if they are free, I think the legal ability to do this should only be granted on a case by case basis. Since I don't think the government should be spending that kind of money and time babysitting the children that produce other children, they should let parents be parents, no matter how dumb they are. I think those people are disgusting, shortsighted, and not fit to be parents. The implications from this, however, are far reaching and scary.

e - Oh, ok. This wasn't a US issue. Whew.
 
Putting religious beliefs before the life and safety of their own daughter? Unacceptable. I'm personally not religious. And while I have nothing against it, this is too far. If they find saving lives objectionable, I will find religion objectionable. And I'm not sure if the child should be taken away from their parents, but I believe the girl's parents deserve to get in some kind of hot water, for lack of a better term. Refusing the safety of a child for religious beliefs is simply wrong. They crossed the line there.
 
they should let parents be parents, no matter how dumb they are.

There is a point where the parents aren't doing their job so someone has to step in for the sake of the child. This is one of those cases and is no different in my mind than letting a child starve or being physically/sexually abusive towards them.

Child welfare is one of the areas I'm fine with when it comes to government spending money as they can't help themselves like an adult can.

e - Oh, ok. This wasn't a US issue. Whew.

Why should that make any difference?
 
This is one of those cases and is no different in my mind than letting a child starve or being physically/sexually abusive towards them.
Exactly my thoughts. I'm all for religious freedom, but when people decide that other people should die, that's where the line is drawn as far as I'm concerned. If it's your own life/body, then by all means go ahead and kill yourself, but not when another person is at stake and they are not (legally or mentally) able to make their own choice.
 
Religious freedom, IMO, doesn't mean you can control the lives of others. I'm all for this child being given a blood transfusion.
 
Why should that make any difference?

Because the US government can be heavily swayed with precedent. Once a case of something comes up and is deemed 'okay' somewhere, other places that have similar laws use that as reasoning behind why they do it as well. This case will have no impact on US law whatsoever.

The other bit of mine that you quoted was obviously talking about parents who neglect certain health issues with their kids, not ones that directly introduce hardship or abuse. We're not going to force kids to take vitamins, go to the dentist, get (all) vaccines, etc. Additionally, Australia has a form of universal health care. That makes it slightly more reasonable for them to force whatever chemo therapy or treatment they want on the family, as it wouldn't financially burden them. Something like that in the US could be seen as monumentally more unconstitutional for that reason alone.
 
To me, the answer is obvious. The parents religion shouldn't have any say when it comes to their child's survival. The child comes first.
 
Not surprising considering Lestadians are pedophiles.

Shows exactly why religions are the worst problem in the world.
 
This is the exact same thing as pregnant woman who test positive for HIV. They are forced to take drugs to "help" with the disease in order to make sure the baby lives. In reality the drugs themselves cause more harm and put a huge risk of death of the baby and the mother. There are a lot of things about religion that should be ignored like human sacrifices etc, but it should be a choice to take drugs not legally forced upon.

Blood transfusion =/= drugs.

IMHO... it should be the child's decision, not the parents'. Once the parents refuse life-saving treatment for their child, the child becomes a ward of the state and their rights as parents are gone.
 
Did anyone bother to even look at the link in the OP? Did you do any research into this case before handing down your opinions? I don't see how you can answer this without more facts than are presented in the link.

I'm old enough to know, or have known many people suffering from cancer. I went through 2 years of treatments for throat cancer myself, which is, for now, completely cured. My father had leukemia many years ago, he was "treated" aggressively, including blood transfusions. They managed to keep him alive for almost 2 years with the treatments. I can tell you, if it ever happens to me, I will not take the blood transfusion and suffer like he did. Too many times "life saving" treatment only means that the life will be prolonged for some amount of time, regardless of how much suffering the person would endure for that extra time. Somewhere the "quality of life" factor has to be considered.

I don't believe in withholding medical treatment of a child because of religious beliefs. As far as this particular case, I don't have nearly enough information to make an informed decision. I do admire everyone that doesn't let that stop them from chiming in though.
 
Well I also had leukemia when I was young and those blood transfusions as well as the chemo saved my life.

When you are younger you have a higher chance of survival.

I also remembered about this article

A judge who ordered an infected mother to vaccinate her newborn child against Hepatitis B has reignited debate about the rights of parents.

Brisbane Supreme Court Justice Jean Dalton made the order despite the mother and father opposing vaccination on religious and other grounds.

The order was made after doctors made an urgent application to give the baby, who was just 40 hours old, two preventative injections.

Justice Dalton made the order last year but only published her reasons on Friday.

During the application the court was told the newborn had a 20 per cent chance of being infected by her mother.

If the baby was infected, it was almost certain to develop a chronic infection and would be at risk of cancer and liver disease, the court heard.

The parents opposed the application on the grounds they did not agree with vaccination because of religious beliefs. The father also had philosophical concerns about the financial agendas of pharmaceutical companies in distributing these drugs.

However, Justice Dalton said the immediate welfare of the child outweighed the parents' concerns, and ordered they take the baby to hospital immediately.

But Justice Dalton refused to make orders about a future vaccination schedule for the virus, advising the parents to seek legal assistance if they wished to continue their dispute against treatment.

Civil libertarian Terry O'Gorman, QC, said the court had acted appropriately on ordering the parents to treat the child.

It had also respected the rights of the parents by not ruling on treatment beyond the initial injections that needed to be administered quickly.

"When there is a clash between the parents' beliefs and the health and wellbeing of a just-born child, it is appropriate the court takes the side of the child ... " he told AAP.

But the Australian Vaccination Network - which campaigns about the risks of vaccination - said the order violated the rights of the parents to decide if their child should be vaccinated.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8469556/judge-ordered-parents-to-vaccinate-newborn
 
As far as this particular case, I don't have nearly enough information to make an informed decision. I do admire everyone that doesn't let that stop them from chiming in though.
Just because you can't make an informed decision, doesn't mean other people can't either. I don't find it acceptable that parents are allowed to sentence their underage children to death, I don't need any more information for that.

It's not about your personal choice regarding your own life. It's about your personal choice regarding someone elses life.
 
Unless they're handing out it for free, I don't believe the government should be able to force healthcare like that on any child regardless of the situation.

Replace "healthcare" with "food" and re-read.

Some religions might require starvation, or torture, or sacrificial killings. Religion is not a wild card that allows you to abuse your child. It's a wild card that allows you to abuse yourself.
 
Religion in general seems packed full of immoral practices such as this one. The parents are attempting to violate the child's right to life and the judge has ruled correctly.
 
Replace "healthcare" with "food" and re-read.

Some religions might require starvation, or torture, or sacrificial killings. Religion is not a wild card that allows you to abuse your child. It's a wild card that allows you to abuse yourself.

The main difference, of course, being that your example would be the introduction of direct abuse into the child's life. I mentioned that already. The real implication here is whether or not denying medical care is, actually, abusive.
 
The main difference, of course, being that your example would be the introduction of direct abuse into the child's life. I mentioned that already. The real implication here is whether or not denying medical care is, actually, abusive.

Yes.

Basic medical care is your responsibility as a parent. Not necessarily $100,000 cutting edge procedures, but if your kid breaks their arm and you don't set it, you're an abusive parent who should lose custody.
 
For sure. With regards to this case, the real question would be regarding financial responsibility. In a country where the parents wouldn't be forced to pay up the many hundreds of thousands of dollars such care would cost, the issue is pretty much null and void. Here, however, it's a much bigger turkey we're talking about. Hence, why I said initially that I'm happy this case isn't US based.
 
Danoff
Religion is not a wild card that allows you to abuse your child. It's a wild card that allows you to abuse yourself.

I'm religious. Does that put me in the same group as the extremists that flew those planes into the twin towers? Or how about the London bombings?
I am fine with people who disagree with my views, although I'm not fine with those who do not bother to differentiate between religions. I expect to share none of the burden of guilt that Jehovah's Witnesses, or any person from whatever religion or cult have done wrong in the name of their beliefs.

I cannot speak for other religions, but I happen to be a Christian because I sincerely believe it to be true - nothing else. What else can I do but believe what I think to be true?

It's too simple to say religion is the problem. People are.
 
No, the thing in contention here is the precedent that the government could force medical treatment on a family regardless of their consent.
 
No, the thing in contention here is the precedent that the government could force medical treatment on a family regardless of their consent.

Yes, they can. Also food, clothing, shelter, education, etc. See the broken arm example. And yes, it's still the responsibility of the parents to foot the bill on all of the above.

Tank
I'm religious. Does that put me in the same group as the extremists that flew those planes into the twin towers?

Yes. That group being called "religious people".

Tank
It's too simple to say religion is the problem. People are.

I'm not saying religion is the problem, I'm saying religion does not give you an excuse to abuse your children.
 
But ya see, in order to do that in the US, you have to take custody away from the parents.

e - And then, on top of that, all the cost goes straight to the taxpayers anyway, which leads back to the wonderful discussion of healthcare by the state instead of healthcare by profit.
 
Ok. That's fine. We do that for food, education, clothing and shelter. I have no problem with removing custody for refusal of basic medical care - as it is very similar to balling up your fist and punching your kid in the face.
 
Back