Refusal of Medical Care: Child Abuse?

[gnomon]

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I don't think the mother should be arrested and I don't think any medical treatment should be forced on the child without the parents' consent. When you start saying that you are going to override someone's beliefs for any reason, you are stepping on dangerous ground. There is always the question of where we draw the line, but this is her child, and if chemotherapy goes against their religious beliefs, then it's their business. I mean, Amish people generally don't have to give their kids what our society considers appropriate medical care because of their beliefs. And I agree with Storm, when we have thousands of kids and parents who WANT the medical care but can't get it, why is the media raising a big stink about this one family that has the means to get the care but just doesn't want it?

Your last question makes the case even worse.

Thousands of kids who cannot get treatment but here is someone who can and they deny it to pursue a fraud's claims. Using the fact that many people need and want valid, proper medical care and watching someone else **** it all away and destroy their child and possibly their family......I'll just hold my tongue for a moment.

Also, some form of medical treatment is being forced upon the child no matter what. Be it modern cancer treatment, mother's natural medicine pursuit or if they give up and rely on faith alone. That one of the least effective should be considered necessary and considered legally respected because of a person's religious beliefs is insulting to a rational mind.

As far as the Amish. They are citizens of the United States. All laws pertaining to child welfare should pertain to them just as well. When you believe in equality under the law and wish to remain consistent it is the only viable and logical stance to take.

edit: It should also be noted that the state has indeed taken legal actions against the parents of Amish children with dire medical conditions. The thing is Amish society does not prohibit the use of conventional medicine along religious grounds as a rule like Jehovah's Witness's do regarding blood transfusions. And even the JW's vary on that issue. So when the so called dogma is vague on the issue how can anyone defend a religious exemption claim except that it is their personal belief. There's opening a whole door of abuse.

 

[Lindsey-Loo]

What if parents don't take their kids to the doctor because they don't want to pay for it or just can't be bothered?

That's differant than refusing medical treatment because of religious or cultural reasons. As for your other question, I don't see how I could be against an abortion that is for a religious or cultural reason.

But I have yet to hear one of those. Refusing medical treatment for your child because you can't be bothered is wrong. Getting an abortion because you don't want a baby is wrong.

 

[blackout]

I decided against the X-rays and bloodwork after taking my antibiotics for brochitis not long ago,
not because I had anything against x-rays or blood work,
but because I wanted to be sure I had the money to pay the mortgage instead. you know?

Priorities. I was quite sure it had cleared up, so after finding the state would only cover less than half of it, I just didn't go. We are lucky to have a clinic a few towns away, where I can get a reduced visit fee along with the kids... but with 4 kids and two adults... and regular monthly bills we can just barely pay, you know we only go when there is a REAL NEED to go.
Especially me and my kids dad. We only go when we feel like we are at deaths door.
Like the bronchitis. "Frivilous" visits are not an option. Nor are "extras" like my x-rays.
I just choose not to worry about it.

We were very very lucky to be in a lower bracket when my daughter broke her arm the other year.
All but the doctor and the anesthesiologist were covered by the state. (over $1,000 together)
That bill was over $11,000 all together! To the uninsured like us, well that could be the last straw that costs you your home. Then what? Obviously you can't leave your kids untreated when it's serious. (well to many of us parents it's obvious anyway)
But you also can't leave them without a roof over their head.

I'm glad the state offers what it does, but if we were to recieve full benefits,
our income would have to go down to where we could not pay our regular bills.
Mortgage, home phone (no cell), electric, oil, internet.
(and of course manditory car and homeowners insurance) That is all we have.
I really need a new (used) vehicle, yet I cannot get one.
My daughter "needs" braces (to have the expected smile of our American culture)...
I'm waiting to see what the state will and won't pay on that. We'll see.
I'd like my tubes tied. Will someone do it for free? Don't think I won't ask.

It is a problem. If the state mandates a treatment, I think they damn well better pay for it as well.... no?
If people (neighbors, friends, family, school) "expect" you to go for things like "well visits" and braces....
they better damn well open up their wallets before they open up their mouths.

 

[Autodidact]

That's differant than refusing medical treatment because of religious or cultural reasons.

And this is what bothers me, as an atheist, about religionists. They don't just want equality, or to have their views accorded the same respect as anyone else. Because they're RELIGIOUS views, they're entitled to special consideration. If you don't take your kid to the doctor because you don't feel like it, it's a crime. If you don't feel like it because your religion tells you not to, it's O.K. Meanwhile, your child is just as dead.

As for your other question, I don't see how I could be against an abortion that is for a religious or cultural reason.

But I have yet to hear one of those. Refusing medical treatment for your child because you can't be bothered is wrong. Getting an abortion because you don't want a baby is wrong.

But doing either because of your religion is O.K.

 

[gnomon]

It is a problem. If the state mandates a treatment, I think they damn well better pay for it as well.... no?

I don't know. I seriously doubt the parents of those children who died from diabetic complications were hurting for necessary funds to provide medical treatment responsible parents were able to provide. Those who subjected their children to alternative religious healing that resulted in the death of a child were definitely not covered by this issue.

While medical costs are an issue they are not an issue regarding parental responsibility to child welfare. They are an issue regarding availability of child welfare. But the responsibility still exists.

I can see where the state mandates expensive treatment that the state should aid in financing as well. I fully support it. In fact I think the majority of social welfare should be aimed at children's welfare and those who are constitutionally incapable of achieving what is considered normal function (i.e. mental hospitals, rehab clinics, etc.).

 

[blackout]

I'm just saying, how can you demand a person "use" a service they cannot possibly pay for?

I wasn't speaking for every case. If you're insured, it's not a problem I would think.
I'm also not trying to set the idea up as some kind of excuse for neglegence.

 

[gnomon]

I'm just saying, how can you demand a person "use" a service they cannot possibly pay for?

I wasn't speaking for every case. If you're insured, it's not a problem I would think.
I'm also not trying to set the idea up as some kind of excuse for neglegence.

That's a good point. The state should not put a party in the position of a catch-22.

The resources available to uninsured individuals will vary from one locality to another so the state cannot expect that a party has the financial means to support any necessary medical treatment. The costs are definitively not prohibitive to the state so some requirement that the state fork over the bill in such cases would not be too demanding.

It also falls in the line with putting the greatest importance on the best interest of the child.

 

[Inky]

My general opinion is that doing something for religious reasons is exactly as valid as doing it for any other reason. A person can have deeply seated philosophical or emotional convictions that have the same pull on their actions we associate with religious belief, and is that somehow less important because it's not part of a religious framework?

As for refusing medical treatment for a child...certainly if a parent's religion required them to kill their child outright, it would be murder and their faith shouldn't get them off the hook at all. If it required them to subject their child to a ritual that had, say, a 50% survival rate, and s/he died, that would probably be manslaughter or reckless endangerment or something, but certainly we shouldn't go "well, it's their religion, what can you do". But what about a ritual with a 95% survival rate - do we prosecute the parents with reckless endangerment for the 5% that die? (To me the answer is yes.) Does it make a difference if the religion is five years old with twenty members, or five thousand years old with thousands of members?

Certainly we have no right to actively put someone else in physical danger (whether it's a child or not) in order to follow the rules of a religion. So the difference to me is that it's inaction rather than action, which from a legal standpoint is basically neglect versus active abuse (I don't know the official terms, but there's a legal difference). I don't have a sure answer, but in my opinion any law based on preventing harm shouldn't be lifted for the sake of religion, because that's basically saying it's legally permissible to harm others if your faith demands it.

 

[painted wolf]

My problems with this case....

1) the parents were fine with treatment the first time... The mother changed her mind when it reminded her of her sister, who also died of cancer... The father is still fine with treatment.

2) they bought into a phony "wannabe" tribe to give themselves 'religious' reasons to avoid medical treatment... they are actually Catholics. The whole wannabe thing totally cheezes me off anyway...

3) The kid can't read.... at all.... how can he be truly informed about any procedure?

4) the kid claims to be a 'shaman' or 'medicine man' and yet he has not clue as to what that means or how he got it... *hint: they payed for it...

There are so many things wrong with this case that it boggles my mind.

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

Inky makes a good point. Lindsey: If the parents' religion requires them not to "spare the rod," can they get an exception to child abuse statutes to beat their children?

 

[themadhair]

Did anyone else notice that the expert witnesses the parents brought to trial agreed with the other doctors?


How bad is your case when your own expert witnesses harm your case?

 

[DallasApple]

I think it is at least child neglect when a life threatening disease has a chance to be cured and you say "no thanks".

What bothers me more..is when a child has something like diabetes.Which is highly controllable with medications.But their life is cut short by decades.


With brain cancer..with a pretty bad prognosis I can even see not wanting to put the child through more pain and suffering only to die anyway.

Thats a hard decision.I would treat it if had the means available.

Love

Dallas

 

[Smoke]

The whole wannabe thing totally cheezes me off anyway...

It always galls me when hucksters and flim-flam men try to dress up their scams as Native traditions. Of course, this case would be pretty galling even without that aspect of it.