Parents on their way to prison for not providing medical care for child.

[David1967]

Heartbreaking article. Do you believe that if life saving medical care is available, a parent has the right to withhold it due to religious beliefs? If so, where do you draw the line? What procedures would you deny your child due to your religion? My thoughts are that if an adult wants to not receive medical care, that's their choice. However when a child is involved I believe that the state has a duty to step in and save that child. Please read and give your thoughts.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime...d-to-prison/ar-AAzPFXD?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=AARDHP

 

[Vee]

However when a child is involved I believe that the state has a duty to step in and save that child. Please read and give your thoughts.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/a-religious-oregon-couple-didn’t-believe-in-medical-care-after-newborn’s-death-they’re-headed-to-prison/ar-AAzPFXD?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=AARDHP

I'm not sure how it works over there, but here in France if the parents and the doctors can't reach an agreement about the treatment of a minor, the case is solved in court.

 

[Nakosis]

Heartbreaking article. Do you believe that if life saving medical care is available, a parent has the right to withhold it due to religious beliefs? If so, where do you draw the line? What procedures would you deny your child due to your religion? My thoughts are that if an adult wants to not receive medical care, that's their choice. However when a child is involved I believe that the state has a duty to step in and save that child. Please read and give your thoughts.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/a-religious-oregon-couple-didn’t-believe-in-medical-care-after-newborn’s-death-they’re-headed-to-prison/ar-AAzPFXD?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=AARDHP

Faith healing?

I'd like to make a derogatory comment about folks who trust in faith healing but this is just too sad.

 

[MonkeyFire]

Would you heal hell? Why does God and Heaven need that at all? God forbids knowledge of good and evil (because he is ready to intervene, but you practice violence and hatred).

 

[Revoltingest]

There are times when religious beliefs become so dysfunctional
that they interfere with the rights of others, in this case, the child.
Then it's the state's function to protect the one at risk.

 

[MonkeyFire]

There are times when religious beliefs become so dysfunctional
that they interfere with the rights of others, in this case, the child.
Then it's the state's function to protect the one at risk.

Pacifism requires understanding and the divine middle. You must know when to accept loses and do the greater good.

 

[nPeace]

Heartbreaking article. Do you believe that if life saving medical care is available, a parent has the right to withhold it due to religious beliefs? If so, where do you draw the line? What procedures would you deny your child due to your religion? My thoughts are that if an adult wants to not receive medical care, that's their choice. However when a child is involved I believe that the state has a duty to step in and save that child. Please read and give your thoughts.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/a-religious-oregon-couple-didn’t-believe-in-medical-care-after-newborn’s-death-they’re-headed-to-prison/ar-AAzPFXD?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=AARDHP

I think parents are responsible for caring for their minor children.
They have the right to chose what kind of schooling they will receive; what religious,or spiritual education they want their child to have, etc.
They most certainly have the right to decide what their child will or will not be subjected to, in the matter of health care.

For example, when a child is prescribed medicine, a parent may take a look at the ingredients, and decide if the child can actually use it.

Whether that is for physical or religious reasons is not the issue.
If is is for physical reasons, the doctor finds an alternative - he doesn't insist on what he prescribes, because he is interested in the child's overall wellbeing - physical, mental, emotional.
So what's the problem with the religion reason again?

Clearly it's a bias against a religious view. It's the same as a violation of one's rights to religious freedom.
Parental Rights and Liability
The legal concept of parental rights generally refers to a parent's right to make decisions regarding a child's education, health care, and religion, among other things.

Where is the parent murdering the child, by using alternative medicine?

I read the article after posting.
In a case where a parent does nothing to aid an obviously sick child, they have neglected to care for their child as they ought to. It's child neglect. The law has the right to determine the punishment lf it is against the law.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Parents on their way to prison for not providing medical care for child.

Good!

 

[Quintessence]

Let's have universal and affordable health care actually be a thing and then we'll talk about this question. There can be no duty for the state to provide health care for children when there is no state provided health care to begin with.

 

[Mox]

Religious beliefs cannot be allowed to interfere with the health and safety of another individual, regardless of their relationship.
I think we are all agreed, pretty much.

So...

 

[Revoltingest]

Let's have universal and affordable health care actually be a thing and then we'll talk about this question. There can be no duty for the state to provide health care for children when there is no state provided health care to begin with.

No, it would be wrong to wait for some idealized system.
The state has the power now to rectify such assaults on
children, & it should do so when required.

 

[Quintessence]

No, it would be wrong to wait for some idealized system.
The state has the power now to rectify such assaults on
children, & it should do so when required.

Not talking about an idealized system. Remarking upon the foolishness of claiming someone has an obligation to do something when the means are lacking to actually meet said obligation. It replaces one alleged problem with another whilst also trampling on a citizen's privacy and culture. If folks want to have an authoritarian state where the government dictates everything about one's private life and culture, sure. Don't stop there. Don't let these people breed in the first place. If we're going to pass judgement like this on someone else's way of life, go all out or leave them alone.

 

[Revoltingest]

Not talking about an idealized system. Remarking upon the foolishness of claiming someone has an obligation to do something when the means are lacking to actually meet said obligation.

Whether it's a legal obligation or not, for the state to step in when
parents cause physical harm to children is both useful & legal.
Protection of civil liberty is government at its best, with children
being the most in need.

It replaces one alleged problem with another whilst also trampling on a citizen's privacy and culture.

An endangered child is an "alleged problem"?
And once again, for the state to step in when one person's
religious practice would harm another is both useful & legal.
Some beliefs must be "trampled", eg, the belief that its
righteous to murder doctors, or deny medical care to kids.

If folks want to have an authoritarian state where the government dictates everything about one's private life and culture, sure. Don't stop there. Don't let these people breed in the first place. If we're going to pass judgement like this on someone else's way of life, go all out or leave them alone.

To prevent parents from harming their own children is hardly authoritarian.
Consider that the relationship of a parent to a child is relatively far more
authoritarian than government's prevention of religiously motivated harm.
We place limits on religious practice, eg, no human sacrifice, no killing of
rivals, no stoning of adulterers, no amputating the hands of thieves.
This is just how it is in a diverse society with a secular legal system.

Btw, colored fonts are prone to corrupting quoted responses.
Yours is doing it, making extra work for this to appear.

 

[Twilight Hue]

That church needs to be held accountable too. From what I'm reading about it , its quite a piece of work considering there's been multiple deaths already from that sect.

Obviously the parishioners themselves don't have a gift of discernment, or even an ounce of Common Sense either. Mush for brains is all I can say.

 

[Father Heathen]

Not talking about an idealized system. Remarking upon the foolishness of claiming someone has an obligation to do something when the means are lacking to actually meet said obligation. It replaces one alleged problem with another whilst also trampling on a citizen's privacy and culture. If folks want to have an authoritarian state where the government dictates everything about one's private life and culture, sure. Don't stop there. Don't let these people breed in the first place. If we're going to pass judgement like this on someone else's way of life, go all out or leave them alone.

If you actually consider the abuse and/or neglect of children be an "alleged problem" and a mere matter of culture and privacy, then I hope you never have children. Disgusting...

 

[Mox]

To prevent parents from harming their own children is hardly authoritarian.

Quite.

To say it is, is somewhat hyperbolic and entirely devoid of any recognition of the rights of those that are disaffected by religious belief, ie sick children denied access to proper treatment.

I couldn't care less about parent's religious sensitivities when it comes to protecting children's lives, that doesn't make me Hitler.

 

[David1967]

There are times when religious beliefs become so dysfunctional
that they interfere with the rights of others, in this case, the child.
Then it's the state's function to protect the one at risk.

Not an emoji for this so I'll just say "triple winner".

 

[David1967]

Pacifism requires understanding and the divine middle. You must know when to accept loses and do the greater good.

?

 

[Mox]

If you actually consider the abuse and/or neglect of children be an "alleged problem" and a mere matter of culture and privacy, then I hope you never have children.

We need not give that view much consideration, it is patently unacceptable.

 

[stvdv]

Do you believe that if life saving medical care is available, a parent has the right to withhold it due to religious beliefs?

Disclaimer: I am not so gullible believing in Big Pharma; so my view is big negative, stop reading if you love Big Pharma
I believe that we should follow the Law of the Country. But I do not agree with all the Laws.

Parents should have the right IMO.
Reason "Big Pharma who controls hospital bills is sick itself"
Big Pharma, Rothschild and others control the money flow
Do you for 1 second believe that they care for this child?
[I have this picture burned on my eyes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phan_Thi_Kim_Phuc]

Of course they want "all kids in hospital", someone else to milk.
When they make healthcare for free, then they have a say in it (maybe)

I was in India, my Master put up a few Super Speciality Hospitals
All the people got free operations. Then we are talking about helping

America hospitals is just business. Big business. At least according Google
Correct me if I am wrong here. If it's all for free, I stand corrected.