Religious Freedom or Child Abuse?

[Storm]

Should the free expression of religion include the right to deny life-saving medical treatment to one's children?

On the one hand, my knee-jerk reaction is to oppose any restriction on the free exercise of religion. Once we start legislating which theologies are or aren't legitimate, where does it end?

On the other hand is my equally strong belief that the state has a moral obligation to protect children from abusive parents, and medical neglect qualifies.

I honestly don't know what my stance on this is.

What say you?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My feeling on the matter:

Parents are the stewards of children, not their owners. A child is not some piece of property that parents are free to do as they please with; a child is a living, breathing person with all the rights that go along with that status.

Parents are entrusted to make decisions on behalf of their child. While we usually give the benefit of doubt to the parents that their decisions are in the best interest of the child, this is not absolute. When the parents' decisions clearly run counter to the child's best interest, and when the child's fundamental rights (e.g. the right to life) are at stake, I think we can conclude that the parents have abdicated their responsibility just as much as if they had physically abandoned the child, and the child and parents should be treated accordingly.

 

[Storm]

I understand and sympathize, but I am also troubled by the prospect of denying parents the right to raise their children according to the principles of their religion. It strikes me a slippery slope. How do you address that concern?

 

[Panda]

I understand and sympathize, but I am also troubled by the prospect of denying parents the right to raise their children according to the principles of their religion. It strikes me a slippery slope. How do you address that concern?

If the parents beliefs cause avoidable harm to the child then it is child abuse.

 

[Storm]

If the parents beliefs cause avoidable harm to the child then it is child abuse.

That doesn't answer my question. There are those who would argue that raising a child to any religion constitutes avoidable harm.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I understand and sympathize, but I am also troubled by the prospect of denying parents the right to raise their children according to the principles of their religion. It strikes me a slippery slope. How do you address that concern?

We clearly spell out what a child's rights are. I don't see how there's any other way to address the balance. A child doesn't have the "right" to be left at home when her parents go to church, but she does have the right to life.

Also, we give the parents the benefit of the doubt; in unclear cases, we side with the parents... whether this means that they let their kids watch more TV than I think is proper, take them to a church that teaches them things that I would disagree with, feed them sugary cereals in the morning, or make them wear a hijab.

 

[darkendless]

Should the free expression of religion include the right to deny life-saving medical treatment to one's children?

On the one hand, my knee-jerk reaction is to oppose any restriction on the free exercise of religion. Once we start legislating which theologies are or aren't legitimate, where does it end?

On the other hand is my equally strong belief that the state has a moral obligation to protect children from abusive parents, and medical neglect qualifies.

I honestly don't know what my stance on this is.

What say you?

Tough question but ill have to go with preservation of a child's well being. I'd be shocked but not suprised to see a JW deny their child a blood tranfusion after a severe car accident because its against their religious beliefs. A terrible thing to witness, i don't know how i could live with myself if i let my child die like that.

Then again its their religion, we can be as cynnical as we want about its idealogy but we're not the ones on the inside.
However its my personal belief that in an emergency like the one i stated above, the child must come first.

 

[Storm]

We clearly spell out what a child's rights are. I don't see how there's any other way to address the balance. A child doesn't have the "right" to be left at home when her parents go to church, but she does have the right to life.

Also, we give the parents the benefit of the doubt; in unclear cases, we side with the parents... whether this means that they let their kids watch more TV than I think is proper, take them to a church that teaches them things that I would disagree with, feed them sugary cereals in the morning, or make them wear a hijab.

It's not just the parents, though. At what point do the child's rights include freedom of religion? An infant clearly cannot choose to refuse medical treatment, but what about a 5-year-old? 10? 17? Do we force medical treatment on minors in violation of their own beliefs?

Is there any difference between forcing the parents to violate the tenets of their religion and forcing the child?

 

[Storm]

Tough question but ill have to go with preservation of a child's well being. I'd be shocked but not suprised to see a JW deny their child a blood tranfusion after a severe car accident because its against their religious beliefs. A terrible thing to witness, i don't know how i could live with myself if i let my child die like that.

Then again its their religion, we can be as cynnical as we want about its idealogy but we're not the ones on the inside.
However its my personal belief that in an emergency like the one i stated above, the child must come first.

I pose the same question to you: what if the child themself rejects treatment?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's not just the parents, though. At what point do the child's rights include freedom of religion? An infant clearly cannot choose to refuse medical treatment, but what about a 5-year-old? 10? 17? Do we force medical treatment on minors in violation of their own beliefs?

That one's a tougher question, I think.

To me, the standard is this: what would that child likely choose as a grown and (hopefully) rational adult? In the case of a 5-year-old and probably even the 10-year-old, I think we should normally do what is needed to save the child's life, even over the child's immediate objection. However, for the 17-year-old, except in extreme cases like cult brainwashing (which I think would raise issues of whether the person is competent to make their own decisions, regardless of age), the odds are pretty slim that he'd have a complete change of heart on an important issue in less than a year. Generally, I'd say the wishes of a 17-year-old should be followed, assuming age is the only reason why he or she wouldn't be considered fully responsible for his or her own decisions.

 

[Storm]

Forgive me for repeating myself, but none of the replies so far adress my core concern. What troubles me is the precedent of legislating value judgements on theology. Once we start down that road, where does it end?

That one's a tougher question, I think.

To me, the standard is this: what would that child likely choose as a grown and (hopefully) rational adult? In the case of a 5-year-old and probably even the 10-year-old, I think we should normally do what is needed to save the child's life, even over the child's immediate objection. However, for the 17-year-old, except in extreme cases like cult brainwashing (which I think would raise issues of whether the person is competent to make their own decisions, regardless of age), the odds are pretty slim that he'd have a complete change of heart on an important issue in less than a year. Generally, I'd say the wishes of a 17-year-old should be followed, assuming age is the only reason why he or she wouldn't be considered fully responsible for his or her own decisions.

My problem here is that it makes your moral judgement of a religious belief the law. You believe that it is irrational to eschew medical treatment for religious purposes. Maybe you're right, but aren't you troubled by the idea of legislating which religious practices are acceptable?

 

[Storm]

bump in hopes of getting some believers' perspectives....

 

[DallasApple]

Screw the parents belief..(sorry)...Medical intervention and life saving efforts should be made for the innocent that DONT have anyting to do with what the parents believe..

Say...I have a three week old baby with a double ear infection ...I say NO ANTIBIOTICS...My childs ear infection goes to his brain and kills him...I should be put in jail..PERIOD.And steralized on top of that...

What if "my religion" said that "God will feed my child" so I do NOT have to feed him?????

Where do you draw the line?????

Love

Dallas

 

[DallasApple]

I understand and sympathize, but I am also troubled by the prospect of denying parents the right to raise their children according to the principles of their religion. It strikes me a slippery slope. How do you address that concern?

The slippery slope should be for the parents to slide down..Not children suffering needlessly...

Love

Dallas

 

[Storm]

Where do you draw the line?????

That question applies to the other side as well.

 

[DallasApple]

That question applies to the other side as well.

I trust the other side over parents who would deny a child medical intervention..

Of course it "applies" ..But if you are so ignorant you let a child suffer over your "beilief" then you need the "other side" to intervene...IMHO>>.

Love

Dallas

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My problem here is that it makes your moral judgement of a religious belief the law.

I don't really think it does. There are plenty of other aspects of the law where the "reasonable person" test is used as a standard. I think it's defensible to assume that a child would grow to become a "reasonable person" unless we have reason to believe otherwise.

Now... I acknowledge that figuring out what constitutes a "reasonable person" can be difficult, but I think it's necessary, and IMO it's inevitable that some definition of what constitutes one will be implicit in any law on the subject.

But all that are the details of a larger principle: I think the standard should be the child's views, either what they actually are or our best estimation of what they would be when the child reaches adulthood.

You believe that it is irrational to eschew medical treatment for religious purposes. Maybe you're right, but aren't you troubled by the idea of legislating which religious practices are acceptable?

Not really, because there's a moral judgement inherent in any position on the issue. The freedom of the parents has value; so does the life of the child. Any decision we make about the tradeoff between these things will implicitly have a moral judgement associated with it for the value of both these things relative to each other. Ignoring this problem doesn't avoid the moral judgement; it just means that the moral judgement hasn't been done in a transparent way.

 

[logician]

My feeling on the matter:

Parents are the stewards of children, not their owners. A child is not some piece of property that parents are free to do as they please with; a child is a living, breathing person with all the rights that go along with that status.

Parents are entrusted to make decisions on behalf of their child. While we usually give the benefit of doubt to the parents that their decisions are in the best interest of the child, this is not absolute. When the parents' decisions clearly run counter to the child's best interest, and when the child's fundamental rights (e.g. the right to life) are at stake, I think we can conclude that the parents have abdicated their responsibility just as much as if they had physically abandoned the child, and the child and parents should be treated accordingly.

The classic case is the Christian scientist's refusal to get medical treatment for their children.

 

[DallasApple]

I dont think the government has interfered thus far (for the majority) in the decisions parents make for their children.You know why???..Most parents will do ANYTHING to ease their childrens pain and extend their lives...

Love

Dallas

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I dont think the government has interfered thus far (for the majority) in the decisions parents make for their children.You know why???..Most parents will do ANYTHING to ease their childrens pian and extend their lives...

And I think that's also the case when it comes to Jehova's Witnesses, Christian Scientists, and other religious adherents that have refused medical care for their children on religious grounds. It's just that they have a very different view of things than the norm; they really do think the effects of a blood transfusion or some sort of surgery on the child's soul would be worse than the effects of the child's disease on their body.

Personally, I don't question their love for their children. That love may be horribly, fatally misguided, but it's still real love.