I have my faith, but this sends me up the wall. What do you guys think?

Parents pick prayer over docs; girl dies - Yahoo! News

And I realize that. I know that it will probably never be illegal. I wish it was, though. LIke I've said before, I think people should be able to do whatever they want to with THEIR bodies, but I don't think they should be able to do whatever they want with their children's bodies. There is a limit, like with the example that Gadgetlady posted, where the state SHOULD step in and say, "We won't allow you to do this." I think there is a point where the physical well-being of the child comes before the parent's or guardian's religious rights.

Theres a big difference between a child getting sick and a child being sacrificed. The child sacrifice is damage that is inflicted by another human being.

This family chose God rather then modern medicine to heal their child.

Again, I think its stupid but thats what the family believes. If we locked upevery parent who's belief in not using all of modern medicine millions would be put away.

Also, again, don't be so quick to pass laws against somone else's beliefs. As an atheist I am sure you can understand people trying to enforce their beleifs on you and your family is a bad thing. Just imagine how angry you would be if they could make laws also.

Edited April 1, 200818 yr by snuffy65

Theres a big difference between a child getting sick and a child being sacrificed. The child sacrifice is damage that is inflicted by another human being.

This family chose God rather then modern medicine to heal their child.

Again, I think its stupid but thats what the family believes. If we locked upevery parent who's belief in not using all of modern medicine millions would be put away.

Also, again, don't be so quick to pass laws against somone else's beliefs. As an atheist I am sure you can understand people trying to enforce their beleifs on you and your family is a bad thing. Just imagine how angry you would be if they could make laws also.

True, there is a big difference. One's outright abuse and the other's just neglect. But if religious freedom trumps all, where do you stop? Where do you draw the line? It can be argued that once a parent/guardian refuses to seek care for their child, whatever the child is suffering from becomes their fault, and therefore IS damage that is being inflicted upon one person by another. That could especially be said in situations where the illness is completely and easily curable.

I just think it's horrible that someone can be exempt from being punished for another person dying just by claiming that their religious beliefs forbade them from doing something. I just think there has to be a limit, and for me that limit is when it concerns someone that is completely under the control of a guardian or parent and has no option but to do what the parent/guardian decides, regardless of what they might believe or want.

Theres a big difference between a child getting sick and a child being sacrificed. The child sacrifice is damage that is inflicted by another human being.

This family chose God rather then modern medicine to heal their child.

Suppose the family didn't feed the child, saying instead that their nourishment would come from God? That's not damage inflicted by another, but rather the withholding of something that would otherwise preserve the child's life.

This may be one of our stickiest topics yet. I think part of the issue is that it's the parents' will imposed on the child, but not as cut and dry as that.

Some religions (sects) believe in mass suicide. If those parents were to attempt (or succeed) to kill their child in the name of their religion, would that be ok because it's their faith? (I'm not even making an argument here, just posing some questions).

And what's the real difference between parents having "faith" that killing their child (directly - giving them poison) is the right thing to do, and believing that killing their child (indirectly - failing to seek medical help) is the right thing?

Religions indeed need their individualisms and freedoms. But can we let that supersede law (abuse/neglect)? We don't in the instances that are coming to mind... but it's late and I may well be overlooking something obvious.

Something like Jehaova's Witnesses and blood transfusion -- I see that a little differently. To me, consenting to or declining a blood transfusion is along the same lines as a DNR order. Either way you're letting people do what they can to a point, and that degree of intervention is better than nothing at all.

We all know the mind is powerful, and its ability to change things with the body is well-documented. I have no doubt people can fix or improve some physical ailments by improving their stinking thinking. No doubt at all. But sometimes it's no where near enough, and I have empathy for the young child who never gets the opportunity to live because someone thinks it is a standalone treatment (thoughts, prayer... word of choice).

I'll have to give this one more thought.

Wheetsin, what about the "patient's bill of rights"? It expressly states that a patient can refuse all or any part of treatments or therapy. Seeking a cure is taking the Pt's bill of rights (or a DNR order) to an extreme.

Like Snuffy, I'm not really siding with the parents on this one. However, SOMEbody has to play the devil's advocate!

Most of my opposition to forcing the parents to administer meds against their beliefs comes from my disgust at having the government pry into our private lives.

No, the difference there is that as an adult, I can choose my own method of medical care....whether it be a naturopath, an acupuncturist, a shaman, or even a witch doctor. But when you're making those questionable decisions on behalf of a child....THAT's a problem.

That is exactly how I feel. If an adult wants to refuse treatment - fine. No problem. But, a child doesn't have the knowledge behind the choice, and the parents should make the decisions on what's best for the health of the child - not their own religious choice.

I personally feel they should be convicted and laws put into place to prevent this kind of thing. Children don't have choices and some parents are just stupid people who breed.

I agree, but with a caveat: UNLESS the practice of their religion endangers the life or causes the death of another person (especially a child). This is an extreme example, but if satan-worshippers believe in child sacrifice, should we allow them to freely practice their religion?

I don't believe this is a case of murder, but I do believe it is a case of neglect.

I'm going to have to agree w/ya Gadget ***Mark date/time ....LOL***

I struggled with putting cornea implants in my 15yr old Lab, I could never imagine sitting watching a child die w/out medical attention.

I'd most definitely call this neglect.

Suppose the family didn't feed the child, saying instead that their nourishment would come from God? That's not damage inflicted by another, but rather the withholding of something that would otherwise preserve the child's life.

In my mind a parent only needs to provide food Water and shelter to their child. You folks are going against their religion.

If doctors found that something that would save your childs life, but would also damn your child to hell, which would you choose?

In my mind a parent only needs to provide food Water and shelter to their child. You folks are going against their religion.

If doctors found that something that would save your childs life, but would also damn your child to hell, which would you choose?

WHAT?! Food, water and shelter are the bare minimum requirements for the SPCA when investigating animal cruelty.

How do you KNOW what damns a child to hell? I have a hard time believing God would want a child to go through that pain and suffering. Damning souls is not as tangible (or good) as saving a life. How do these parents bet their child's life on whether or not God approves or disapproves of medicine?

Remember the joke about the believer and the flood? He prays for help from God, and a truck comes...guy says no-God will save me. Flood waters rise and he's on his roof...a boat comes. No, God will save me. On his tippy toes....a helicopter comes. No, God will save me. He drowns, gets to Heaven and asked God what happened. God says, "I sent a truck, a boat and a helicopter!"

Kind of true, I was thinking of birth control vs. religion.

Isn't it Catholic that do not believe in forms of birth control? It's a medical intervention, but what if a woman needs it (I do) to regulate hormones & periods. I would become anemic if I didn't use them. So if I was Catholic, does that mean I couldn't use them? That's something I always wondered about.

And what about abortions? This does not reflect my personal ideals, but what if they said.. if you stay pregnant, the baby will kill you.. do to irregular circumstances. And let's say your religion considers abortion murder. What do you do in those situations?

Much more extreme than the ones posted (well, not considering they did die from this), but something to think about none the less.

I don't think there's consensus in the Catholic church. I think in a more traditional view it's bad (as is everything but abstinence), but on more modern views it's ok as long as it doesn't interfere with conception (their view of when life starts). (Emphasis on THINK) Since a birth control does its work prior to conception, I think it has become much more acceptable.

My family is Catholic and I know my (expletive) cousins have been on birth control since they started their periods. And still had kids by the time they finished high school anyway.

I just used that because I vaguely remember a friend in high school who would lecture me on using BC-- even though I was a virgin, because it's not natural or something.. she told me about her religion.. so long ago, and I was only mildly interested, so I didn't quite retain her religion or argument.. just the jest.

Kind of true, I was thinking of birth control vs. religion.

Isn't it Catholic that do not believe in forms of birth control? It's a medical intervention, but what if a woman needs it (I do) to regulate hormones & periods. I would become anemic if I didn't use them. So if I was Catholic, does that mean I couldn't use them? That's something I always wondered about.

And what about abortions? This does not reflect my personal ideals, but what if they said.. if you stay pregnant, the baby will kill you.. do to irregular circumstances. And let's say your religion considers abortion murder. What do you do in those situations?

Much more extreme than the ones posted (well, not considering they did die from this), but something to think about none the less.

As a practicing Catholic - it is true that "the rhythm method" is the preferred form of Birth Control.....But I don't see that as a mandate w/in the Church. Truly they've evolved (not much for my liking at times) - how ridiculous would it be to rely on a montly calendar & risk the HUGE upside of an unplanned pregnancy - then be dead set against abortion. It's a slippery slope so to speak.

I was put on BC pills @ the age of 15 for much of the reasons you mention....Didn't mean I couldn't take communion.

Abortion is another issue (thread), & Gadget will eloquently state her view on this, however as a Pro Choice person, who has had discussions w/my Priest - that too does not prevent my ability to recieve communion.

In my mind a parent only needs to provide food Water and shelter to their child.

Law has long disagreed with this. Providing food, water and shelter classifies as both abuse and neglect, and if the product of the environment lived, it would probably be feral at best.

By your rationale, locking an infant or toddler in a shack (not heated or cooled) in the mountains, or desert, or wherever... and leaving them there -- forgetting they exist -- provided there's water and food within reach, is acceptable parenting? Or at least fulfills the responsibilities ofa parent?

Edited April 1, 200818 yr by Wheetsin

Law has long disagreed with this. Providing food, Water and shelter classifies as both abuse and neglect, and if the product of the environment lived, it would probably be feral at best.

By your rationale, locking an infant or toddler in a shack (not heated or cooled) in the mountains, or desert, or wherever... and leaving them there -- forgetting they exist -- provided there's water and food within reach, is acceptable parenting? Or at least fulfills the responsibilities of a parent?

My comment about only food,water, and shelter maybe a bit vague. Intentionally hurting a child like sacrifices, starvation, mutilations, and anything a parent does to harm the child should be illegal and the parents should be dealt with.

However, these people did not treat an illness with modern medicine. Yes it was stupid of them, but this family was choosing whether to save a child by defying their god which in turn would damn both the parents and the child to hell.

Again this sounds stupid to alot of people but its what they believe. Theres religions that would starve their children before they would feed them meat. Theres religions that have some kind of restriction that could potentially hurt or kill a child.

People are asking how far can religions go before being stop? Well if these parents were prosecuted how far could the state go to interfere with the church?