Religion v Child safety

[ShobThaBob]

The 10th. The laws regarding patients' rights vary from state to state.

 

[Danoff]

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?

Parents don't have the right to abuse their child. I'm fine for a judge to decide that parents are abusing their children in ALL cases. Whether it's physical abuse, emotional abuse, malnutrition, or withholding basic medical care. In none of these cases do parents have the right.

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.

Judges cannot remove your rights. You either have them or you do not.

 

[Pako]

What the article does not explain is if the use of synthetic plasma was used in stead. My father in-law was a Jehovah's Witness. When he went in for his quadrupedal bypass surgery, they used synthetic plasma for the surgery. This was acceptable to the "elders of the congregation."

Looking back, there was an interesting discussion at the long table of the Hospital cafeteria. I was sitting there surrounded by JW's all talking about how considerate the doctors were in providing an alternative to a blood transfusion. Being the non-JW that I am, I quickly announced to all of them that if my wife (their daughter/sister/aunt) got in a wreck and needed a blood transfusion or any other medical attention, that I would be sure that everything was done in my power and the power of the hospital to ensure her life was spared. If was a rather intense conversation to have with my in-laws and the rest of their immediate family. Good times....

 

[ShobThaBob]

Parents don't have the right to abuse their child. I'm fine for a judge to decide that parents are abusing their children in ALL cases. Whether it's physical abuse, emotional abuse, malnutrition, or withholding basic medical care. In none of these cases do parents have the right.

We've already come to the conclusion that cancer treatment is not basic medical care.

Judges cannot remove your rights. You either have them or you do not.

Not according to lawmakers, governments, lawyers, and philosophers.

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

 

[Danoff]

We've already come to the conclusion that cancer treatment is not basic medical care.

Yes. Why are you mentioning it again?

Not according to lawmakers, governments, lawyers, and philosophers.

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

So, if a judge orders an innocent man executed, you think he has lost his right to life? That's absurd.

 

[ShobThaBob]

Yes. Why are you mentioning it again?

Because you're fine when you think it's cut and dry, but since these cases (minus the emergency case posted) are not cut and dry, there is gray area. You still haven't said much about what to do about that gray area, which is why I keep bringing it up. Judges are far from infallible, and would you want a judge forcing a complex treatment onto your child that you didn't think was in his best interest? That's where this issue lies.

So, if a judge orders an innocent man executed, you think he has lost his right to life? That's absurd.

It was taken away from him by court, much the same way a judge can take away your right to consent to treatment for your child. I personally do not believe that life is an inalienable right. It's something that should be cherished and preserved, but not at all cost. Legal rights are reflections of what a country finds important to protect and uphold. Philosophical rights are reflections of an individuals (or groups) overall belief system.

 

[Danoff]

Because you're fine when you think it's cut and dry, but since these cases (minus the emergency case posted) are not cut and dry, there is gray area.

But cancer is cut and dry too.

You still haven't said much about what to do about that gray area, which is why I keep bringing it up. Judges are far from infallible, and would you want a judge forcing a complex treatment onto your child that you didn't think was in his best interest?

Obviously if I didn't think it was in my hypothetical child's best interest I wouldn't want it to be forced on my hypothetical child. But the same can be said of other things children have rights to - food, education, clothing, shelter.

If you're a nudist maybe you think it's not in your kids' best interest for them to have clothing. Doesn't matter.

It was taken away from him by court, much the same way a judge can take away your right to consent to treatment for your child.

The court found that the man was guilty of an activity that absolves him of his rights (logically). An innocent man still has his right to life - a right which is infringed if he is put to death (even if it's the government that does it).

I personally do not believe that life is an inalienable right.

Luckily it is regardless of whether you think so.

It's something that should be cherished and preserved, but not at all cost.

That's up to the individual.

Legal rights Laws are reflections of what a country finds important to protect and uphold.

Fixed.

 

[ShobThaBob]

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/legal-rights/

I'll just leave that there since you don't want to acknowledge the existence of something every major country has as its basic protocol with which they make their laws.

 

[Danoff]

I refuse to acknowledge the significance of law in this discussion, not its existence.

 

[GTsail]

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.

Are you saying that its ok to neglect/abuse your children as long as there is no specific law against it? Are you implying that by law, parents have the "right" to treat their children in whatever manner they wish? With no limitations?

Danoff and Niky have been ably addressing the morality of this, so I thought that I would take a look at some of the State Laws in regard to this.

What I found is that each US State seems to be somewhat different when it comes to defining "Child Abuse and Neglect" (I've looked closely at 10 states so far).

However, there is a common theme that runs thru each State's Child Abuse laws: they generally consider "neglect" to be "Child Abuse", and "neglect" includes the failure by a parent/guardian to provide minimally adequate food, clothing, shelter and medical care.

So it seems to me, that if a parent withholds life-saving medical treatment (ie. blood transfusions), this would be considered "neglect" in most states, and therefore against the law.

There are some States that address this issue directly in their laws, and specifically acknowledge that the courts may have to order medical services for a child (and over-ride the parent's wishes).

For example, Alabama's Child Abuse laws say:

"A parent who fails to provide medical treatment to a child due to the legitimate practice of religious beliefs shall not be considered negligent for that reason alone. This exception shall not preclude a court from ordering that medical services be provided to the child". See link here: Alabama Code section 26-14-7.2

So under Alabama law, the parents might not get labeled "neglectful", but the courts fully expect to order medical services if necessary.

Oklahoma's law, which is similar, addresses the issue as follows:

"A child is not considered abused or neglected for the sole reason that the parent, in good faith, selects and depends upon spiritual means alone through prayer, in accordance with the tenets and practice of a recognized church or religious denomination, for the treatment or cure of disease or remedial care of such child. Nothing contained in this paragraph shall prevent a court from immediately assuming custody of a child and ordering whatever action may be necessary, including medical treatment, to protect the child's health or welfare".

So in Oklahoma, the court may assume custody of the child, and order medical services as necessary.

Texas law says:

"Neglect".... Failing to seek, obtain, or follow through with medical care for a child, with the failure resulting in or presenting a substantial risk of death, disfigurement, or bodily impairment to growth, development, or functioning of the child". See link: Texas Code section 261.001

Texas does not seem to have a religious exception to this law, so in Texas, a parent would likely get charged with "neglectful" child abuse, and the courts would order the necessary medical services.

Interestingly, I have found one State, Mississippi, which makes it a parent's responsibility to provide adequate medical care, but then allows a religious exemption, and then is silent on the courts being able to over-ride the religious wishes of the parents.

Mississippi code section 43-21 (L)(i): "Neglected child", means a child: whose parent/guardian...or any person responsible for his care or support, neglects or refuses, when able so to do, to provide for him proper and necessary care or support, or education as required by law, or medical, surgical, or other care necessary for his well-being: provided, however, a parent who withholds medical treatment from any child who in good faith is under treatment by spiritual means alone through prayer in accordance with the tenents and practices of a recognized church or religious denomination by a duly accredited practitioner thereof shall not, for that reason alone, be considered to be neglectful under any provision of this chapter". See link here: Mississippi Code section 43-21-105

So, in Mississippi, it may be perfectly legal for parents to withhold life-saving blood transfusions if done for religious reasons.

I would consider it immoral, but until the Mississippi law get changed, it may be perfectly legal to withhold medical care to your children in Mississippi, if done for religious reasons.

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[ShobThaBob]

I refuse to acknowledge the significance of law in this discussion, not its existence.

That doesn't seem very bright since judges are the only people that can force this upon anyone. Last I checked, judges interpreted laws, not morality.

Sail, that was one hell of a post, and a good one at that. An interesting thing to note is that in all of these cases (including the one where the child died from a tooth infection) none of the parents have been charged with breaking any kind of law.

In most states, it's the direct assumption that medical care must be sought out by parents. In all of the cases presented, medical care has, indeed, been sought out. After that point, the gray area appears. At what point can parents expect a judge to NOT intervene when they do not give consent for medical treatment. There are clauses in each state which protect against prosecution for not giving consent, but realistically, when can the state be reasonably expected to step in?

Going back to the patient in the first post, if the parents didn't want to treat the leukemia at all (as apposed to refusing on the basis of blood transfusions) would there be a different outcome? Again, not familiar with PH law, but in the US, I'm not so sure they would intervene.

Fact -parents have a legally protected right to not give consent to treat their children.

Fact - not seeking medical attention is neglect in some cases.

Fact - a judge can overrule a parents right to not give consent if they decide there is a reasonable chance the child will live.

So, what is that reasonable chance? Cancer treatment can be ghastly, painful, and not effective. I believe that in some cases, parents choosing to treat their children who have next to no chance to live is child abuse. There are plenty of situations where allowing someone to pass is the right and moral thing to do.

 

[Keef]

That doesn't seem very bright...

Sometimes laws are wrong and sometimes what's correct isn't socially acceptable. Are you able to think outside the box? If so, do it. One very important factor that separates humans from the rest of the animal kingdom is our ability to solve abstract problems.

 

[ShobThaBob]

When it comes to our rights, I don't want judges thinking outside the box or in terms of their own morality. Do you?

 

[Keef]

Their morality? Humans' rights to life, liberty, and property exist beyond any law or any judge's interpretation of the world around him. These rights are natural consequences of our intelligence; reason dictates that they must be true.

What I mean by "think outside the box" is that you need to throw laws aside, ignore them in this discussion, and understand that natural rights exist like advanced mathematics, just waiting to be understood by an intelligent being.

 

[ShobThaBob]

That actually has nothing to do with this discussion. As outlined so excellently by Sail, the law is what allowed, and what could prevent this sort of thing from happening depending on where the situation occurs. There are states which specifically allow a parent to refuse those blood transfusions. There are countries where doing such a thing could make you lose custody of your child. Since natural rights have no bearing on the outcome of the situation, I don't see why they have a place in the discussion of the situation.

 

[Danoff]

It's not that they have no place in the discussion, but that they have no relevance to determining morality.

As you and Sail point out, laws conflict. Which is the moral position? That's the heart of this discussion - not which is the legal position.

I'm far less interested in what is legal where than I am in what should be legal or illegal everywhere.

 

[ShobThaBob]

Isn't imposing your morality and values on people who don't hold the same values wrong? Seems to me that it's no different than imposing a religion on other people.

Regardless, you haven't said much about what should be legal, despite me asking you to clarify what your position on the gray area is.

 

[DK]

In Ireland there is a debate going on concerning parents' rights vs. children's rights, mainly in education. Those who say the parents should have the right to send their child to a certain school over the right of the child to pick their own school are often those butthurt over the weakening of the Catholic Church's iron grip on Irish society.

 

[niky]

The 10th.

Cite to me the specific line in any Bill of Rights that says any parent has the absolute power of life and death over their child. Remember... again... your rights end where another person's rights begin.

Isn't imposing your morality and values on people who don't hold the same values wrong? Seems to me that it's no different than imposing a religion on other people.

Regardless, you haven't said much about what should be legal, despite me asking you to clarify what your position on the gray area is.

Imposing religion versus imposing death? Let me think on that a minute...

 

[ShobThaBob]

Cite to me the specific line in any Bill of Rights that says any parent has the absolute power of life and death over their child. Remember... again... your rights end where another person's rights begin.

Is there any particular reason you're ignoring the parts of this thread which specifically outline this as a states issue and not a federal issue? Again, as pointed out by Sail, there are states which make specific provisions for this type of action and make it legally protected. There's nothing to remember, in some states, those rights do not end and are extended as long as that child does not have the legal right to grant consent for medical procedures.

Also, the idea of universal rights is obviously a belief system. Some people believe in different universal rights than others. No belief system is more correct or wrong than others. There's nothing complicated about that.

 

[Danoff]

Isn't imposing your morality and values on people who don't hold the same values wrong?

No.

Do you think serial killers should be put in jail? Isn't that imposing your morality on people who don't hold the same values?

Regardless, you haven't said much about what should be legal, despite me asking you to clarify what your position on the gray area is.

I've answered every question fully. If you have a question, ask it.

 

[Keef]

Isn't imposing your morality and values on people who don't hold the same values wrong?

There is only one morality and logic dictates that anybody who thinks differently is wrong. I define morality as the protection of life, liberty and property. Danoff will probably have his own definition but the point is the same - anything which illegitimately violates any person's natural rights is immoral. Moral actions aren't necessarily kind or polite either, but they are fair and not contradictory.

 

[ShobThaBob]

There is only one morality and logic dictates that anybody who thinks differently is wrong. I define morality as the protection of life, liberty and property. Danoff will probably have his own definition but the point is the same - anything which illegitimately violates any person's natural rights is immoral. Moral actions aren't necessarily kind or polite either, but they are fair and not contradictory.

If you don't mind, I'm gonna answer this question in the newly created rights thread.

Do you think serial killers should be put in jail? Isn't that imposing your morality on people who don't hold the same values?

There is no morality involved with upholding the law. If no law exists stating that a serial killer will go to jail, then he probably won't. Having your own morality and enforcing it on others are two very different things. I would certainly support the establishment and enforcement of laws which kept serial killers off the street.

I've answered every question fully. If you have a question, ask it.

At what point do parents have a right to consent? What you're suggesting is that if (according to the doctor) a treatment will save a child's life, the parent is abusing their child by withholding it. At what % of life expectancy does it become child abuse to withhold vs making the tough decision to not continue treatment?

 

[Danoff]

If no law exists stating that a serial killer will go to jail, then he probably won't... I would certainly support the establishment and enforcement of laws which kept serial killers off the street.

Isn't that imposing your morality on people who don't hold the same values?

At what point do parents have a right to consent? What you're suggesting is that if (according to the doctor) a treatment will save a child's life, the parent is abusing their child by withholding it. At what % of life expectancy does it become child abuse to withhold vs making the tough decision to not continue treatment?

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.

There is no morality involved with upholding the law.

There is often morality involved with upholding the law - especially when the law is immoral. Upholding anti-drug laws which require incarcerating pot smokers, for example, is immoral. Cop, judge, prosecutor, or politician - it is immoral to be responsible for the existence or enforcement of an immoral law.

 

[ShobThaBob]

Sorry, but morality is relative until everyone values the same thing. That still didn't answer my question about when a parent loses their right.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

Sorry, but morality is relative until everyone values the same thing. That still didn't answer my question about when a parent loses their right.

He answered right here:

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.

They lose the right when the procedures are simple, effective and inexpensive. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Danoff]

Sorry, but morality is relative until everyone values the same thing.

Agreement is meaningless. The day everyone agrees on what is moral, morality is meaningless because everyone would understand that doing wrong is wrong.

We'll never get 100% agreement on morality. There will always be serial killers, there will always be murderers who believe that because they can do it, they should do it.

Likewise with all knowledge for that matter. Nobody says "you know, some people believe the earth is flat. Until everyone agrees the Earth is round, we can't know for sure." Nonsense, knowledge does not depend on agreement.

1+1=2 whether we all agree or not. Human rights exist whether we all agree or not. Abandoning your child to illness may in fact be a natural thing to do - something that animals do all the time. But the natural thing to do often involves absolving you of your own rights.

In the wild, one animal might kill another animal for something that it wants (a mate, food, etc.). This is a natural thing to do. It also demonstrates that you are an animal and have no rights of your own - so we can lock you in a cage, or kill you. Same goes for abandoning (in any number of ways) your children. Animals in nature might do it, but it demonstrates that you are an animal and have no rights of your own - so we can lock you in a cage, or... if your crime was bad enough, kill you.

 

[ShobThaBob]

He answered right here:

They lose the right when the procedures are simple, effective and inexpensive. Correct me if I'm wrong.

That isn't a real answer. All of those things are relative. I'm looking for numbers and specifics.

 

[ShobThaBob]

Agreement is meaningless. The day everyone agrees on what is moral, morality is meaningless because everyone would understand that doing wrong is wrong.

We'll never get 100% agreement on morality. There will always be serial killers, there will always be murderers who believe that because they can do it, they should do it.

Likewise with all knowledge for that matter. Nobody says "you know, some people believe the earth is flat. Until everyone agrees the Earth is round, we can't know for sure." Nonsense, knowledge does not depend on agreement.

1+1=2 whether we all agree or not. Human rights exist whether we all agree or not. Abandoning your child to illness may in fact be a natural thing to do - something that animals do all the time. But the natural thing to do often involves absolving you of your own rights.

In the wild, one animal might kill another animal for something that it wants (a mate, food, etc.). This is a natural thing to do. It also demonstrates that you are an animal and have no rights of your own - so we can lock you in a cage, or kill you. Same goes for abandoning (in any number of ways) your children. Animals in nature might do it, but it demonstrates that you are an animal and have no rights of your own - so we can lock you in a cage, or... if your crime was bad enough, kill you.

Everything that you're talking about is constructed on a society with similar values. Since that is a base requirement to see those rights upheld, I don't see them as natural, instead being a reflection of what the society holds to be most important to them. It varies from culture to culture.

 

[Danoff]

Everything that you're talking about is constructed on a society with similar values. Since that is a base requirement to see those rights upheld, I don't see them as natural, instead being a reflection of what the society holds to be most important to them. It varies from culture to culture.

Law varies from culture to culture. Enforcement varies from culture to culture. Rights stem from logic - which does not vary, so they do not vary.