Religion v Child safety

[ShobThaBob]

It's from my previous response that you ignored(irony).

But it's not First Degree Murder. It's actually not any degree of murder. It didn't make any sense to me.

I'm well aware they may not know, it's their job as a parent to make themselves informed.

According to you? Certainly not according to the law.

In the age of the internet, there is no excuse(at least good ones) for not being at least somewhat informed on your child's illness. Even if you don't have it at home there are always libraries and about a thousand other places that have internet. Not to mention you could always call a specialist and ask them questions.

Should, yes. Legally obligated? Definitely not.

You have only partially responded to posts, yet continuously accuse us of doing the same.

I'm ignoring food talk. Food is available from the state for free. Refusing free food is not the same as refusing healthcare. I'm also ignoring things that are simply false or just poking at me

Nobody said it was like going to the grocery store, other than you saying we did. Frankly, cancer keeps coming up because it's really one of the few instances where the government should step in if the parents aren't seeking treatment.

Why cancer? Why not everything. That's one of those important questions.

I'm sure the details are out there, I just don't have all the time in the world to sift through all the "copy & paste" articles that are more or less the same as the OP.

Probably.

Nobody has speculated anything.

I know That's why I'm being picky as to what I respond to. I want people to speculate. What happens after precedent is established is one of the most scary and interesting things to talk about in legal circles.

Seems about as clear as the sky outside my house, which is 100% clear.

Your argument on the other hand...

Again, I'm not arguing anything. I'm playing devil's advocate. Chances are, what I personally believe is a lot closer to what you and danoff believe. Having someone question your rationality behind something does not mean they don't agree with you

Have they tried?

At the point where they're looking at treatment options, the diagnosis has been well under way. So yes, they have tried.

Trying it and than giving up after a good effort is completely different than just not seeking treatment at all.

Of course. But that's where this precedent comes in. What if the doctor decides that the decision you're making is the wrong one. There is legal precedent for them to take away your right to refuse treatment of your child. That isn't what happened here, but there is now an argument for it if the doctor wants to fight it against the parents will.

We're getting somewhere. This is what I've been wanting to focus on.

It's actually easy.

If your child is sick, go to a doctor, don't just blow it off because your bible says so.

They obviously did go to the doctor. They didn't diagnose leukemia by themselves

Even if that does happen, nobody here other than you has brought it up, which means nobody said they were for it.

I believe danoff has made it very clear that he's for parents losing custody of their children if they can't afford to take them to the dentist.

She was able to, she was just too lazy.

Nope. She was actually spending a lot of money on her other sons tooth problems. She didn't have the extra money to do both, so she did what she thought was best

I think this lady could have found a dentist if she was really determined to.

She had one. She couldn't afford anything extra than what she was already paying.

She should have been...

For what? She didn't do anything illegal.

Most parents would stop at nothing to provide the best life possible for their child, I have known people that would literally be starving just so their kids could eat. Judging by the picture in that article, she wasn't exactly starving.

Nah, but food is free. Healthcare can be in triage cases, and definitely is not when it comes to dental care. If you can't pay, you get turned away.

Now the fun part where you complain we aren't answering your questions while only answering a very small percentage of mine and Danoff's posts.

To be fair, it is a lot of typing.

 

[Danoff]

The right to consent for another is very much a right in the US. It's not a privilege. A court is the only body able to take that right away.

It's not a privilege and it's not a right, it's a responsibility - an obligation - just like the obligation not to beat you child. It's not your "right" not to beat your child. It's your "responsibility" to not beat your child. It is a limitation on your freedom.

I highly suggest you look up the definition of child abuse for your state. The parents have done nothing prosecutable.

I suggest you think about the term for a little while and the reason it exists.

Ah, so you're in the keep it alive and give it the best life possible but the government won't pay for it camp. Brilliant. I see.

I'm in the don't abuse your child camp.

Think legally. Refusing treatment is not something that is prosecutable. End of story.

In this case, it is child absue, it is a crime, and it should be prosecuted. End of story.

But you just said up there that the government shouldn't be paying for it. Now I'm confused.

The government shouldn't be paying for medical care. I didn't say the government shouldn't put criminals in jail. It's not that confusing.

That doesn't make any sense at all and has nothing to do with rights as outlined by law.

Rights have nothing to do with law. They exist entirely independently of law. If you think otherwise, you think human rights do not exist.

You said children do not have rights (incorrect). Try killing one and you'll find out immediately that they have a right to life.

And what's your definition of basic medical treatment? The government is pretty well set on it being triage type care.

Agreed. In this case, the blood transfusion is triage type care.

There we go. That's what I'm talking about. What is that minimum threshold. Funny that you talk about setting a broken arm so much, as that's actually a far more advanced science and medical procedure than amputation. We've been successfully amputating people in horrible conditions for many hundreds of years. Fixing broken bones properly is comparatively new and advanced. That minimum threshold you just mentioned is where that real question is.

Setting a broken bone predates amputation, and yes it's basic. You may not be required to use cutting-edge technology to set the broken bone.

It actually is a right granted by law. Sorry.

Rights cannot be granted by law. Sorry.

If a child in the US gets polio we have a much bigger problem. The parents would not be prosecuted.

Should be.

Education is free and not sending your kid to school is obviously legal grounds for loads of prosecution.

It's grounds for prosecution for a reason. Consider the reason.

(and it's not free)

That's so beyond irrelevant I can't believe what would make you say that. There is no law requiring you to take your kids to dentist. There is a law saying you have to feed them, and food is available from the state for free. There is a law saying you have to take them to school, and schooling is provided from the state for free. Dentists, not so much. In none of the articles about the case was there any talk of prosecution. Why? Because the woman didn't do anything illegal.

She did do something criminal.

But that's not the law.

Makes zero difference to anything.

So parents who can't afford to take their kids to the dentist should be legally required to give up their kids to the state?

Yes.

 

[ShobThaBob]

It's not a privilege and it's not a right, it's a responsibility - an obligation - just like the obligation not to beat you child. It's not your "right" not to beat your child. It's your "responsibility" to not beat your child. It is a limitation on your freedom.

The right to consent is very much a legal one. I don't know what the law is like in your state, but what I am talking about is very much a legal right outlined in federal and state laws.

I suggest you think about the term for a little while and the reason it exists.

There's nothing to think about. What it entails is fairly well outlined and on the books.

I'm in the don't abuse your child camp.

Are we talking about your emotional and personal version of child abuse or the legal version?

In this case, it is child absue, it is a crime, and it should be prosecuted. End of story.

Show me your states statute and why. If it was a crime, she would have been charged, and she would have lost her children. None of that came close to happening. It wasn't even mentioned because it wasn't a remote possibility.

The government shouldn't be paying for medical care. I didn't say the government shouldn't put criminals in jail. It's not that confusing.

Ok, so you take the kids away from the parents that can't afford medical care. You are for that. So that means you're for the government paying for their medical care.

Rights have nothing to do with law. They exist entirely independently of law. If you think otherwise, you think human rights do not exist.

You said children do not have rights (incorrect). Try killing one and you'll find out immediately that they have a right to life.

Rights exist because the law upholds them. I never said children do not have rights, I said they have limited rights. One of the rights they do not have is the right to consent. (that may be different depending on your state and the child's age. It varies wildly.)

Agreed. In this case, the blood transfusion is triage type care.

Blood transfusion, yes. Chemotherapy, nope. If you get in a car wreck and go to the emergency room and require blood to live, they'll give it to you. They aren't going to give you chemo, however.

Rights cannot be granted by law. Sorry.

Yes, they can. Read - GLBT couples fighting for consent rights.

Should be.

Show me.

It's grounds for prosecution for a reason. Consider the reason.

Because you're legally required to send your kid to school and feed them. You're not legally required to take them to the dentist.

She did do something criminal.

Show me what she did. This is going to require you to show me a statute from Maryland explaining why this woman should be charged with child abuse.

Makes zero difference to anything.

Well, ya see, when it comes to prosecuting people for doing something criminal, the law kinda has everything to do with everything.

Yes.

Glad we're clear on that.

 

[Danoff]

The right to consent is very much a legal one.

Oxymoron. Rights are not legal in nature. Laws take into account rights, not the other way around.

I don't know what the law is like in your state, but what I am talking about is very much a legal right outlined in federal and state laws.

See above.

Are we talking about your emotional and personal version of child abuse or the legal version?

I'm talking about the rights of children and the violation of those rights (abuse). This has nothing to do with law.

Show me your states statute and why. If it was a crime, she would have been charged, and she would have lost her children. None of that came close to happening. It wasn't even mentioned because it wasn't a remote possibility.

Wrong. Law and crime are not synonymous. Locking someone in jail for smoking weed, for example, is a violation of rights, a crime, and perfectly legal. Sometimes the government commits crimes in the name of the law.

Ok, so you take the kids away from the parents that can't afford medical care. You are for that. So that means you're for the government paying for their medical care.

Not unless the kids are in state custody - which would be a very last resort. The kid gets taken away from his parents and given to new parents who are responsible for his care.

Rights exist because the law upholds them.

Completely and totally wrong. Rights exist independent of law and government. The function of law is to uphold them, but rights exist even if they are not upheld. If rights ceased to exist the moment they were not upheld they would hold exactly zero meaning. If you shoot me for no reason you have committed a rights violation. It doesn't matter if it was legal, it doesn't matter if you got away with it. None of that has any bearing on whether it was a rights violation.

I never said children do not have rights, I said they have limited rights.

Agreed.

One of the rights they do not have is the right to consent.

Agreed.

Blood transfusion, yes. Chemotherapy, nope.

Agreed.

Yes, they can. Read - GLBT couples fighting for consent rights.

Wrong. This is a misuse of the term "right". Human rights exist independent of law.

Show me.

Already done.

Because you're legally required to send your kid to school and feed them. You're not legally required to take them to the dentist.

No, the reason is not "because the law says so". The reason is because it's child abuse.

Show me what she did. This is going to require you to show me a statute from Maryland explaining why this woman should be charged with child abuse.

She refused to provide basic care for her child which resulted in his death. I don't give a rats ass what the law is in Maryland, that is child abuse. In fact, I would call it murder.

http://www.journaltimes.com/news/lo...cle_b96b0748-0167-11e0-b0eb-001cc4c03286.html

It doesn't matter that this woman is being charged with the death of her child. What matters is that she violated her child's right to basic care.

Well, ya see, when it comes to prosecuting people for doing something criminal, the law kinda has everything to do with everything.

It's meaningless. There are laws in this country (and every country) that violate our rights, and there are rights violations in this country (and every country) that go unprosecuted. From the point of view of what actually does constitute a crime, and what actually do constitute human rights the fact that some people get away with murder, and others get locked up for no reason, has no bearing on anything.

As I said before, makes zero difference to anything.

 

[ShobThaBob]

Oh, I get it. You don't understand what rights are. You see, there are two kinds - naturalistic and legal. What version of naturalistic rights to you believe in? The kinds outlined by Locke, Paine, or some document that you feel speaks to you and your beliefs? I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from.

 

[Danoff]

Oh, I get it. You don't understand what rights are. You see, there are two kinds - naturalistic and legal. What version of naturalistic rights to you believe in? The kinds outlined by Locke, Paine, or some document that you feel speaks to you and your beliefs? I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from.

Objective.

I very much understand what rights are - and I know this this:

You see, there are two kinds - naturalistic and legal.

Is incorrect. There is no such thing as legal rights. Legally there is prohibited and non-prohibited behavior.

 

[ShobThaBob]

It certainly is your prerogative to disagree with philosophers and the founding fathers, but it's pretty goofy. Suit yourself.

 

[Danoff]

It certainly is your prerogative to disagree with philosophers and the founding fathers, but it's pretty goofy. Suit yourself.

Philosophers disagree with each other, so it's not really possible to agree with them. I do largely agree with a philosopher, which is about as much as anyone can say.

Also the founding fathers were almost entirely correct - and pretty much everything I've said is consistent with their philosophy.

So... what are you talking about?

 

[niky]

So, Niky, you're saying that the state should have all say in treatments that a child will and will not get? Or is it just that a child will receive any treatment a state appointed doctor decrees? The parent should have no rights to refuse treatment?

No. I'm not mandating who has the right.

I'm just saying: If you're dooming the child to certain death, then you have lost absolutely all rights to object to anything done for the child. In fact, you have lost absolutely all rights to the child.

Put another way... A families' religion states that they have to offer their child up for human sacrifice at the end of the day by laying them out in the forest to die. They do it. Would it then be immoral for someone else to then collect and care for the child?

As a card carrying subscriber to the State's authority... in other words... you live on land administered by the State... you accept the services subsidized by the State... roads, medical care, electrical services... and you pay the nominal rent to live in the state (Taxes), you agree to the State's rules.

And there are, in those rules, rules about child abuse.

At the core of it, this is basically a case of child abuse. If you beat your child, that's child abuse. If you refuse food to your child, that's child abuse. If you refuse emergency medical treatment to your child, that's child abuse.

Under the laws of the State, once you commit child abuse, you lose the right to refusal. Simple.

On a more basic ethical (non-legal) level... you also lose the right to decide for the child.

-

Which isn't really a right... it's a duty.

-

You're confusing human rights with duties. One human has absolutely NO RIGHT to impose their will on another human. AT ALL. Parents only gain that temporary right as guardians of their children. And ONLY as guardians.

Children are NOT property.

Children are NOT extensions of their parents.

Children are NOT pets.

It's laughable that you talk about human rights, yet refuse to recognize the rights of the child, which are more basic. Only children have the right to force other people to do something for them... but only because those people brought them into the world and have the responsibility to care for them.

It's laughable that we're even having this conversation. There's never any argument about taking children away from families that beat them or starve them or abuse them... but bring the word "religion" into the mix, and suddenly it's okay to condemn a child to death?

Sheer hypocrisy.

 

[ShobThaBob]

First of all, I'm not familiar with laws in the Philippines, so I can't say much about the rights of children and parents in your country. However, in the US, the rights of a child do not include the right to give consent for medical treatment. If these parents were guilty of child abuse and neglect, I'm pretty sure the judge that ruled that the kid be treated would also have custody revoked. As far as I'm aware, that hasn't happened. So the parents haven't broken any laws, but are having their rights taken away.

The rest of what you said is really just random rhetoric and emotional pleas. None of these cases has been about emergency medical attention. Anyone can get that at an ER without insurance and without the consent of a parent.

 

[Danoff]

First of all, I'm not familiar with laws in the Philippines, so I can't say much about the rights of children and parents in your country.

Human rights do not change depending on where you were born or where you currently reside.

If these parents were guilty of child abuse and neglect, I'm pretty sure the judge that ruled that the kid be treated would also have custody revoked.

...because governments never allow rights to be trampled. The US, for example, doesn't have 15% of its prison population incarcerated for marijuana. Oh wait, we do.

None of these cases has been about emergency medical attention.

I was under the impression that the blood transfusion is required medical attention for the kid to survive.

 

[ShobThaBob]

Hence, the 'emergency' medical attention. It's not an emegency, he has an illness that, if untreated, will kill him. You're actually trolling me, aren't you?

 

[niky]

It's leukemia. Without blood transfusions, the child will die. Not enough red blood cells? You die.

If the child has leukemia and is undergoing chemo, they will definitely need blood, as chemo also lowers RBC counts.

The child could survive without the transfusions. But that's like saying that same small child could survive a cobra bite without antivenin... of course... a cobra bite is a one-time thing... leukemia is continuous.

If an adult patient refuses and dies thusly, I see no issue with it. Just as I see no issues with assisted suicide and euthanasia. Their life. Their call.

-

So how is it not an emergency if the child will die without treatment?

First of all, I'm not familiar with laws in the Philippines, so I can't say much about the rights of children and parents in your country. However, in the US, the rights of a child do not include the right to give consent for medical treatment. If these parents were guilty of child abuse and neglect, I'm pretty sure the judge that ruled that the kid be treated would also have custody revoked. As far as I'm aware, that hasn't happened. So the parents haven't broken any laws, but are having their rights taken away.

The rest of what you said is really just random rhetoric and emotional pleas. None of these cases has been about emergency medical attention. Anyone can get that at an ER without insurance and without the consent of a parent.

Children don't have the right to give consent because they are not considered mature enough to give it. Never did say anywhere in my post that they are legally allowed to give consent... I said that children are the only humans who have a right to impose themselves upon other humans... their parents... and what they force their parents to give them is food, shelter and care.

-

The rights of parents to refuse medical treatment are not absolute. If it's a treatment with a high chance of success (in this case, 85%) and the chances of the child dying without treatment are very high (actually... inevitable), then the courts will overrule the parents.

If it's an experimental treatment with no guarantee of success, then the courts will side with the parents.

 

[ShobThaBob]

So how is it not an emergency if the child will die without treatment?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_medicine

Emergency rooms do not treat cancer as far as I'm aware.

The rights of parents to refuse medical treatment are not absolute. If it's a treatment with a high chance of success (in this case, 85%) and the chances of the child dying without treatment are very high (actually... inevitable), then the courts will overrule the parents.
If it's an experimental treatment with no guarantee of success, then the courts will side with the parents.

Wooooow! Ding ding ding, that is what I am getting at. There we go. So, back to my original question. There are no laws that I'm aware of that take those rights away from parents unless custody is also taken away. What is going to be the basis for determining a treatment which a parent doesn't have the right to give consent?

Take that line of reasoning and apply it to everything else I have said, and you'll see that I'm not trying to fight anything, I'm trying to get opinions on what it will lead to and what a reasonable expectation for the future will be. I have anecdotally described a few (rather extreme) examples that aren't far fetched, but definitely scary.

 

[niky]

The courts have mandated treatment in the past without removing custody, though they can if the parents defy the court and run.

US Law is distressingly lax about it. If you can find a doctor who'll perform alternative medicine for you, you can opt your child out of cancer treatment... But only as long as said alternative treatment is supervised by an MD... But from cursory research, more and more states are not allowing parents to use the religion angle to deny medical care for their children. Often right after a court case against parents charged with homicide after not allowing their children to be treated fails.

What's so scary about the precedent? The courts can also grant the children the right to decide the course of their treatment if they are found to be mature enough (teens, mostly)... The basis is simply that the well-being of the child over-rides any rights the parent have to decide for it.

Remember, we are not talking about taking away your right to religion... your right to decide what medical treatment you personally receive... or your right to choose your own time of death (I strongly disagree with laws prohibiting euthanasia)... merely the privilege to make decisions for others regarding medical matters in which you may not be adequately informed or knowledgable in.

The alarmist tone in your previous posts about where that could go if you extrapolated that out further is extreme. Do we prosecute people for snubbing strangers in public, considering said stranger might be suicidal and may possibly jump in front of a train if snubbed? No. Do we charge people with homicide for leaving plants on the sill, causing a burglar walking across the ledge to slip and plummet to his death? No... though given some of the bizarre cases that have slipped through the courts, it wouldn't surprise me at all...

The dividing line is what is reasonable. That's why a 25% chance of recovery will not sway a judge, but an 85% chance will. It's always difficult with cancer, since chemotherapy treatment is often very destructive, which is why each case needs to be judged on its own merits. If the state were to force dangerous, unproven and possibly fatal treatment on children who have a great chance of recovering without any treatment at all (not likely with cancer), then you can start running for the hills...

 

[Jubby]

The courts have mandated treatment in the past without removing custody, though they can if the parents defy the court and run.

US Law is distressingly lax about it. If you can find a doctor who'll perform alternative medicine for you, you can opt your child out of cancer treatment... But only as long as said alternative treatment is supervised by an MD... But from cursory research, more and more states are not allowing parents to use the religion angle to deny medical care for their children. Often right after a court case against parents charged with homicide after not allowing their children to be treated fails.

What's so scary about the precedent? The courts can also grant the children the right to decide the course of their treatment if they are found to be mature enough (teens, mostly)... The basis is simply that the well-being of the child over-rides any rights the parent have to decide for it.

Remember, we are not talking about taking away your right to religion... your right to decide what medical treatment you personally receive... or your right to choose your own time of death (I strongly disagree with laws prohibiting euthanasia)... merely the privilege to make decisions for others regarding medical matters in which you may not be adequately informed or knowledgable in.

The alarmist tone in your previous posts about where that could go if you extrapolated that out further is extreme. Do we prosecute people for snubbing strangers in public, considering said stranger might be suicidal and may possibly jump in front of a train if snubbed? No. Do we charge people with homicide for leaving plants on the sill, causing a burglar walking across the ledge to slip and plummet to his death? No... though given some of the bizarre cases that have slipped through the courts, it wouldn't surprise me at all...

The dividing line is what is reasonable. That's why a 25% chance of recovery will not sway a judge, but an 85% chance will. It's always difficult with cancer, since chemotherapy treatment is often very destructive, which is why each case needs to be judged on its own merits. If the state were to force dangerous, unproven and possibly fatal treatment on children who have a great chance of recovering without any treatment at all (not likely with cancer), then you can start running for the hills...

I'm curious... if the child was never brought to a physician for diagnosis in the first place and passed away... what then? Action or no action at that point? (The whole tree falling with no one in the forest argument)

 

[Roger the Horse]

Religion is a complete danger to child safety, particularly when you get the sort of state funded bigotry that plagues the United Kingdom...

 

[Danoff]

Hence, the 'emergency' medical attention. It's not an emegency, he has an illness that, if untreated, will kill him. You're actually trolling me, aren't you?

This post convinces me it's the other way around.

 

[ShobThaBob]

This post convinces me it's the other way around.

Then what of the Bill of Rights? You agree with the founding fathers, but the bill of rights aren't actually rights?

 

[GTsail]

*****If these parents were guilty of child abuse and neglect, I'm pretty sure the judge that ruled that the kid be treated would also have custody revoked. As far as I'm aware, that hasn't happened. So the parents haven't broken any laws, but are having their rights taken away....

In my opinion, the parents could be charged with child abuse.

According to Maryland law (Montgomery County), "Child Abuse" includes "neglect (which is the failure to provide a minimum standard of care for a child's physical and emotional needs)" in addition to physical and sexual abuse. See link: Maryland Child Abuse law

The above law is pretty similar to Massachusetts Child Abuse law, which says: "Neglect: Failure by a caretaker, either deliberately or through negligence...to take those actions necessary to provide a child with minimally adequate food, clothing, shelter, medical care, supervision, emotional stability and growth, or other essential care...". See link: Mass Child Abuse law

Notice the part about "providing minimally adequate food/medical care".

So, if a judge/society reasonably decides that withholding blood transfusions could be considered "neglect", then the parents are subjecting their child to child abuse and the court can over-ride the parent's religious desires.

Similar to what Danoff mentioned earlier, when he said to consider the consequences if parents were withholding food:

1) Lets say that for religious reasons, the parents withheld all food from their 4-year old child, so the child will starve to death within a month.

2) Lets say that for religious reasons, the parents withheld life-saving blood transfusions from their 4-year old child, so the child will die within a month.

Aren't the two above situations very similar? Couldn't the parents be accused of "neglect"?

I for one, would applaud the courts/society for stepping into either of the above situations and protecting the 4-year old child.

I have found a link to another similar case where a judge ordered a hospital to give blood transfusions to another young child (3-month old baby boy): Irish Times Case

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[ShobThaBob]

Very likely, and, in my opinion, they should. I do think it's a form of child abuse. However, there is no guarantee that the child is going to live through the cancer treatment. So, at what point does the survival rate mean that the courts can or can't interfere with the parents' right to consent? That is the question.

And for that link - that is absolutely 100% child abuse. I don't see any gray area there. The kid fell rapidly ill and needed something immediately or else he would die. That is quite a bit different from the months of tests, consultations, and treatment options that come with having any form of cancer.

 

[Danoff]

Then what of the Bill of Rights? You agree with the founding fathers, but the bill of rights aren't actually rights?

What makes you think that this is my position?

 

[ShobThaBob]

Rights are not legal in nature. Laws take into account rights, not the other way around.

That. There are natural rights and legal rights. Legal rights are generally based on community morals and how the country wants to treat its populace.

 

[niky]

I'm curious... if the child was never brought to a physician for diagnosis in the first place and passed away... what then? Action or no action at that point? (The whole tree falling with no one in the forest argument)

As said. Neglect = Abuse.

Then what of the Bill of Rights? You agree with the founding fathers, but the bill of rights aren't actually rights?

Your freedom to practice religion extends to yourself and yourself only. When your freedom impinges on another person's rights, that isn't a right.

If your religion demands human sacrifice, your practice of religion impinges on the rights of the sacrificial victim.

In the same way, if your religion prohibits you, personally, from receiving blood, then so be it. But if you force the restrictions of that religion upon a minor to the point where it endangers their life, then the State can step in to prevent you from violating those child's rights.

As said... there's no conflict, because, again, the child is not an extension of the parent, and has his or her own inherent rights. You cannot hold one person's right to freedom of religion over another person's right to life.

 

[Danoff]

That. There are natural rights and legal rights. Legal rights are generally based on community morals and how the country wants to treat its populace.

Laws take into account rights

The bill of rights is a reflection of rights that exist regardless of whether the bill of rights exists or not. Hopefully that explains why this:

bill of rights aren't actually rights?

...is a misunderstanding of what I wrote.

 

[ShobThaBob]

It's an expression of those rights through the law, as is the right to consent. Like I said, you're entitled to your opinion on natural rights vs rights granted by law, but since rights granted by law are so vastly different from nation to nation, it's pretty much impossible to say that you don't believe in them. You just don't like that they're called rights.

And, niky, as I've said before, at what point does not giving medical consent to treatment an infringement on a child's right to life? Obviously children are not capable of giving it themselves, and obviously there are situations where it's best for parents to not give consent, but where is that line? And why does that question keep getting ignored?

 

[AudiPro]

My question is why didn't they put it up to the child. I understand that she is not LEGALLY an adult but she is still a human and does have say in her well being, so why didn't they ask her would you rather have a blood transfusion to save your life or not because of your religious values?

 

[Northstar]

My question is why didn't they put it up to the child. I understand that she is not LEGALLY an adult but she is still a human and does have say in her well being, so why didn't they ask her would you rather have a blood transfusion to save your life or not because of your religious values?

Have you ever talked to a 4 year old?

I doubt she would be able to comprehend what is being asked of her and would probably say no simply on the basis that it hurts.

 

[AudiPro]

Have you ever talked to a 4 year old?

I doubt she would be able to comprehend what is being asked of her and would probably say no simply on the basis that it hurts.

I know that a 4 year old wouldn't comprehend the whole idea of it but I'm pretty sure that's why we have the whole "dumbing things down" technique to make it more understandable. And pain or not a child that age would grasp the concept of pain over death.

 

[ShobThaBob]

Because children do not have the legal right to give consent to medical care.