Religion v Child safety

[ShobThaBob]

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.

Hospice - not painful. Chemotherapy - pretty awful. Are you seriously implying that a 4 year old has any remote mental capacity to understand medical terminology and survival rates?

 

[NLxAROSA]

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

And with good reason. Even though my own daughter understood the concept of death at age 4, that certainly doesn't apply to every 4-year old, and certainly doesn't imply they understand the full consequences of choosing that option. E.g. most kids that age will understand the concept of death, but more on a 'now I will go to grandma in the stars' level rather than 'this is the end', and they will certainly would pick that option over pain any time.

 

[Grayfox]

I would also like to ask these parents "where does it say in your bible(any religion) it is bad to get your child treated for medical issues.

If they can't it rules out any religious reason.

 

[niky]

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?

Haven't ignored it. I've answered that already. It's a case-to-case basis because no two cases are the same. Again... reasonable is the important term. Plastic bubble for a child wtih asthma? Not reasonable. Plastic bubble for a child with no immune system at all? Possibly.

-

If you want a universal (or close to it) bill of rights, the UN Bill of Rights is as close as you can get to it:

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

And there's a bill on Children's Rights, too.

http://www.un.org/cyberschoolbus/humanrights/resources/plainchild.asp

Again... the right of the individual to sustenance and good health care overrides the rights of another individual to dictate the health care of the first individual... whether they be children or adults.

-

It'll be funny if somebody finally sues their parents for wrongful circumcision in court...

 

[ShobThaBob]

In our country, it's not normal for a justice to be the only person who holds the sway over whether parents get the exercise rights granted to them by the state. If enough of these types of decisions are made, a ruling by a higher court will eventually set into a motion a law. You say when it's "reasonable." Depending on who you ask, reasonable could be any % at all. Vague terms that are wishy washy and open to extreme degrees of interpretation do not sit well with people when the lives of their loved ones are effected.

Also, it's funny that you mention the bill on Children's Right's. The US is one of 3 countries in the world to have no ratified it.

 

[Jubby]

As said. Neglect = Abuse.

Wait. Your equating not taking a child to the doctor because they're sick as child abuse?

If the parents do everything they believe is right and what their society believes, not neglecting the child by definition, and they try their own treatments, you're saying by not taking them to the doctor is abuse?

If that's the road you want to send society down, it becomes a slippery slope.

 

[Pupik]

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.

/thread.

 

[Santos i7]

Any person who risks their childs life because of any religious belief, should have their child taken away from them. They are obviously not fit to be parents.

 

[Crushed]

I think the child should have the choice in the first place and I don't think religion should have gotten in the way either. What is in their religion against a blood transfer?

 

[Grayfox]

What is in their religion against a blood transfer?

I am not religious and I have never read the bible but I do not think that their is an article in it about preventing your child from getting medical treatment, I think their are a few lines about how all life is sacred and the Thou shall not murder part as well.

 

[Jubby]

Has everyone looked up information on why some religions/belief systems do not look favorably on modern medical help?

Some folks are missing the point and think that some religions/belief systems just want to let the child (in this case) die without help.

Please, if you want to have an opinion on this topic, gain an understanding to both sides of the story. I say this just because the vast majority of the people in this forum (just based on observations over the last year) are either of a religion/belief set or hold a socioeconomic status that creates a severe bias towards the parents in the story. This is not aimed at everyone, so please do not take offense. I just see some pointed opinions that seem biased or show lack of information.

 

[Danoff]

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.

We have another word for it - "law".

 

[GTsail]

I think the child should have the choice in the first place and I don't think religion should have gotten in the way either. What is in their religion against a blood transfer?

I'm no expert on this, but the Jehovah's Witness prohibition on blood transfusions seems to stem from four passages in the Bible.

Examples:
Genesis 9:4: "But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it..."

Acts 15:29: "You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals..."

Here's a link to a website that talks about the JW beliefs on blood transfusions: Religious Tolerance website

According to this site, most other Christian and Jewish faith groups interpret these Bible passages as referring to dietary laws (eating meat with blood in it), rather than the use of blood for medical purposes.

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[ShobThaBob]

We have another word for it - "law".

Laws prohibit and set consequences for certain actions. Legal rights are specifically defined protected actions.

 

[Danoff]

Laws prohibit and set consequences for certain actions. Legal rights are specifically defined protected actions.

It's all law - which is unimportant to a discussion of morality.

 

[ShobThaBob]

When we're talking about a justice overriding a legally protected right, it's not about morality, it's about law. You keep wanting to talk about morality, but morality has no place in the courtroom. If the parents appeal and appeal all the way up to the supreme court, they aren't going to rule that parents only have the right to consent as long as they're making the correct moral decision. They're either going to set out specific circumstances under which parents lose that right, or say that judges doing it is unconstitutional and it will become illegal. You keep wanting to talk about morality, and I don't know why.

 

[Danoff]

...because that's all that matters in any of these discussions. What the law says is only relevant from the point of view of whether it is consistent with morality. The law is either moral or immoral, and so we discuss it on that basis.

It is either moral or immoral to allow parents to withhold medical treatment from their children. Whether the law permits it only reflects on whether our laws are moral.

 

[ShobThaBob]

Well, it's what I'm talking about, and since you're responding to me, I can't fathom why you would be talking about something different.

 

[Danoff]

I think you missed the point of the thread. The thread is not "please analyze the legal implications of this scenario". The thread is "does this make sense? is it moral?".

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?

Note the lack of request for investigation into the finer points of the penal code.

 

[ShobThaBob]

You're talking about the parents actions, I'm talking about the judges actions. There are plenty of different ways to analyze what happened.

 

[Danoff]

But only one that matters to those of us who don't have to deal with this first-hand... morality.

 

[ShobThaBob]

You don't care about the implications of it if you become a parent? The moral question is still there, too. At what time is it not immoral to not give consent to treatment?

 

[Danoff]

You don't care about the implications of it if you become a parent?

If I were to become a parent I would not abuse my child, so no.

The moral question is still there, too. At what time is it not immoral to not give consent to treatment?

Well that's a nice fuzzy grey area. Basic medical care. I'd say that parents shouldn't get their custody yanked immediately for being anywhere near the grey area. Again, and I know you're going to throw something when I say this, it would be like food.

At what point is it immoral to give your kids less food? Certainly that threshold is before the child dies. Torturing a child by refusing to give them enough food to be healthy is also child abuse. How do you know where that point is? Well, if you get near that point, a doctor, social worker, or judge is going to make it clear to you.

The reason I keep bringing up food is because nobody thinks this is all that complicated when it comes to food and the system works just fine addressing every single one of the exact same issues.

Can I conceive of a state going too far and requiring million dollar cancer treatment? Yes I can. Does that mean that we should allow parents to refuse any and all medical care that their child needs? No it does not.

 

[ShobThaBob]

So back to my question, what is that gray area? At what % of life expectancy does it become reasonable for a judge to step in and overrule your right to refuse treatment? It obviously isn't 85-90%, so how much lower is it?

 

[Danoff]

So back to my question, what is that gray area? At what % of life expectancy does it become reasonable for a judge to step in and overrule your right to refuse treatment? It obviously isn't 85-90%, so how much lower is it?

I don't think it has so much to do with life expectancy as much as what kind of care children can require of their parents. A child can get a rare disease that costs $100 trillion to cure, even if the cure is 100% effective it is doesn't give the child the right to have someone pay more money than God has.

I'd need to be a doctor to tell you what kind of procedures are simple, effective, and inexpensive, but that's basically the criteria. Nutrition, vaccinations against well known diseases, simple but effective surgeries that will prevent a lot of pain and disability in the future, antibiotics for infections, proper setting for broken limbs, emergency care for things like snake/spider bites, poison, severe cuts or trauma, etc. etc. Also easy drugs for alleviating pain.

Basically, children can require modest effort on their parents part to give them readily available and well-understood medicine. Cancer treatment is none of that, not modest effort, not readily available, and not well understood.

 

[ShobThaBob]

So you're fine with a Judge being the person to make that distinction instead of the person who has that right in the first place?

 

[Grayfox]

So you're fine with a Judge being the person to make that distinction instead of the person who has that right in the first place?

The parents to not always know what is best.

If they think medicine is an evil voodoo magic and using it will send you to hell.
It kinda states they do not know what is "BEST" for their child.

 

[niky]

Wait. Your equating not taking a child to the doctor because they're sick as child abuse?

If the parents do everything they believe is right and what their society believes, not neglecting the child by definition, and they try their own treatments, you're saying by not taking them to the doctor is abuse?

If that's the road you want to send society down, it becomes a slippery slope.

If it leads to pain or death for the child, isn't it abuse?

You don't have to take the child to the doctor for everything, but again... there's reasonable. If the child has a fever, reasonable is that you let the child rest and recuperate. If the child has dengue fever, reasonable is hospitalization... because chances of death are high.

As a parent, it's your responsibility to study and understand the dangers to the child. If you don't know simply because the dangers are completely unknown (i.e.: You live in a stone-age culture based in the rainforest), that's understandable. If you don't know simply because you choose to stick your fingers in your ears and go "tralalalala" when the doctor is talking simply because of some silly superstition, it's not.

So you're fine with a Judge being the person to make that distinction instead of the person who has that right in the first place?

Again, you're confusing rights with responsibiliites. The parent has the responsibility to make the decision for the child because the child can't. The parent doesn't have the right to withhold medical care from the child.

 

[ShobThaBob]

No, it's a legally protected right. There is no such thing as a legally protected responsibility, at least not in the US. The removal of the right requires a hearing by judge.

 

[niky]

No, it's a legally protected right. There is no such thing as a legally protected responsibility, at least not in the US. The removal of the right requires a hearing by judge.

So where in the bill of rights does it go?