Religious Freedom or Child Abuse?

[Father Heathen]

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?

It ceases to be a right when it violates someone else's right (in this case the child's).

 

[DallasApple]

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.

I dont deny its based on love..Its the ignrorance that leads to the waste that they have no right to..

If I have an infant today...and I say ...lay him in the yard...the Lord will feed him as he does the birds....And I TRULY believe that ..I am not bad...Im a good person that loves my child...But my child has to eat ...So he should be removed from my care...and taken to a safe place where he can get some formula...

Thats all I'm saying...

Love

Dallas

 

[Storm]

It ceases to be a right when it violates someone else's right (in this case the child's).

OK, same question: what if the child doesn't want the treatment? When do we extend the right of freedom of religion?

 

[DallasApple]

OK, same question: what if the child doesn't want the treatment? When do we extend the right of freedom of religion?

How old is the child?...And who has whispered in his or her ear?

Love

Dallas

 

[Storm]

How old is the child?...

How old do you think they should be before they get the right to freedom of religion?

And who has whispered in his or her ear?

Does that matter if the child believes?

 

[DallasApple]

How old do you think they should be before they get the right to freedom of religion?


Does that matter if the child believes?

It depends on the child...as far as age...

And yes it matters....brainwashing can overcome our ability to be rational...

Love

Dallas

 

[Storm]

It depends on the child...as far as age...

And yes it matters....brainwashing can overcome our ability to be rational...

Love

Dallas

So raising your child to your beliefs is brainwashing? Or is that only when you don't like the beliefs?

 

[gnomon]

I don't see any slippery slope.

Our society routinely denies the practice of religious and cultural beliefs without a second thought. Polygamy, female circumcision, honor killings.......hate crimes.

The issue of religious freedom to me is simply this. If a guardian commits an act that a non-believer would be held liable by law than that guardian would be held liable as well. In other words, when there is a child's well being at stake the state shall make no distinction as to the regards of the religious belief of the planet. I, personally, don't care about other people's religious beliefs in this regard. There is no historical precedent in my opinion that society is in any way more tolerant, enlightened or progressive by granting religious beliefs any superior status over other beliefs.

As far as the child themselves there is a bit of an issue there. It is dishonest to state that an infant can put forth the same rational belief system that a six year old can or that a six year old can put forth the same rational belief system that an adolescent is able to do. Case in point is the father of an adolescent girl in Canada. A family of JW's, the father wanted to seek a proscribed treatment for his daughter. The rest of the family did not want treatment on the grounds of religious reasons and even the daughter did not want treatment. The father won the case and earned nothing but hatred and enmity from his family including his daughter.

And to this day his daughter is alive to hate his guts.................

This viewpoint probably does not strike most as tolerant but every day my view of any religion as a rational practice grows thin. The notion that any individual should be exempt from liability for religious reasons is an egregious one to me and should be fought be everyone who believes in the equitable application of law.

The latter is what the question is really about. Should religious belief trump the equality. If one family can be held liable for child neglect and another cannot based on religious beliefs then one is receiving greater protection under the law. Irrational behavior masked as spirituality is no excuse for ignorance and poor judgment.

 

[madhatter85]

It is truely a waste i believe, especially when it is a child who dies because of religious beliefs. To me it's the same as a ritual sacrifice. the ones who make the descision to let the child die, end up making a martyr out of thier child. "He died for his beliefs." no, he died for yours, and it was a waste of a perfectly good life because you feel you are better than modern medicine. God gave us medicine, and great minds to help figure out how to help those in need.

 

[darkendless]

The latter is what the question is really about. Should religious belief trump the equality. If one family can be held liable for child neglect and another cannot based on religious beliefs then one is receiving greater protection under the law. Irrational behavior masked as spirituality is no excuse for ignorance and poor judgment.

I think that was a terrific response. Why should religion be held above anything else, it is not an excuse.

 

[Storm]

It's an interesting perspective.

 

[Father Heathen]

OK, same question: what if the child doesn't want the treatment?

A child lacks the proper maturity and understanding to make an informed, independent decision. Same reason we still wouldn't allow a 11 year old girl to sleep with a 42 year old man even if she "consented" to it.

When do we extend the right of freedom of religion?

When the child becomes an adult.

 

[Storm]

A child lacks the proper maturity and understanding to make an informed, independent decision. Same reason we still wouldn't allow a 11 year old girl to sleep with a 42 year old man even if she "consented" to it.

When the child becomes an adult.

I also find troubling the notion that our First Amendment rights are dependent upon age.




Am I the only one who finds this issue difficult?

 

[Father Heathen]

I also find troubling the notion that our First Amendment rights are dependent upon age. Am I the only one who finds this issue difficult?

Do you violate your child's 1st amendment rights by giving him a "time out" for being a potty mouth?

 

[gnomon]

I also find troubling the notion that our First Amendment rights are dependent upon age.




Am I the only one who finds this issue difficult?

Many of our rights are age dependent.

It's a very difficult issue. Any informed opinion is not arrived at lightly.

 

[ChristineES]

Wow. This is a tough question. On one side, parents have the right to raise their children in their faith but on the other side, parents are also obligated to protect their children the best they can.

I have to agree that the safety of the children comes first.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I also find troubling the notion that our First Amendment rights are dependent upon age.

I think it would be more accurate to say they're dependent on responsibility, which in turn is generally dependent upon age.

Am I the only one who finds this issue difficult?

I don't.

I think the end points are clear: a newborn baby isn't capable of rational judgement and action; a 30-year-old adult of normal mental capability hopefully is. In between, there's a transition to rationality (and therefore to the capacity to take the responsibility required to exercise one's rights onesself, IMO), but it's going to be different for everyone. On the one hand, we should make the best assessment of each person's abilities that we can, but on the other, the law needs to be workable.

 

[Mjolnir]

I also find troubling the notion that our First Amendment rights are dependent upon age.




Am I the only one who finds this issue difficult?

I find it difficult. Adolescents should not be denied their rights to believe in the religion they choose or no religion at all. Religion is meaningless if it is forced on someone. More than half the adolescents do not even care about religion. For those that do, I think people should respect their freedom.

 

[spiritually inclined]

I do not support abuse, whether it is sanctioned by religion or not. Any parent willingly denying their children needed medical treatment, especially to save the child's life, should not have a child. This article, Human Sacrifice Has Been Legalized, by Greg Irwin, sums it up well for me:

Laws in these United States have the effect of allowing human sacrifice in the name of religious liberty. These laws have overturned the child protection laws which used to be in place and allow parents to kill their own children if they believe that their deity requires it.

The methods of sacrifice may be agonizing even torturous. The helpless victims may pass through long months of suffering and endure endless pain while being sacrificed. All of this while child protection authorities, by law, must do nothing.

Although we generally think only of the Christian Science Church in this regard, these laws also apply to any nut group that rejects medicine and chooses to rely on wishful thinking and mumbo jumbo, instead. No one can know the true number of children who have been sacrificed to the Christian god by parents who denied medical aid, but one is too many. In a final perversion of justice, in many states, the same people, i.e., Christian Science practitioners, who assist in the sacrificial killing are entitled to payment from the state's Medicaid funds.

A typical wording in a state law is, "Parents who rely solely on spiritual treatment in accordance with the beliefs of a recognized church are not considered to have failed to provide adequate care." Of course, we all know that "spiritual treatment" really means "no treatment" and that is true even when the child has an entirely treatable disease or disorder. In previous times, before antibiotics, before vaccines, before science, a reliance on magic made no difference in the outcome. It didn't help, but it didn't hurt, either. But today, how can a failure to provide modern medical treatment for a sick child be anything but a "failure to provide adequate care"?
A correspondent of ours writes, "When I was 14, I nearly died of a burst appendix. There was accompanying peritonitis and internal gangrene. Even with the most modern medical care, death was but a moment away. I was in extreme pain and recovery was slow. I cannot imagine the callousness and stupidity of those who would force a child to suffer through this, especially since it is becoming unnecessary. I cannot imagine a parent wanting to serve a monster god who would demand it.

"If an Atheist were to refuse to provide insulin for a diabetic child, it would be a crime. If a Christian Scientist does the same it is an expression of faith.

"I wish that every faith healer's and every Christian Science practitioner's appendix would burst right now, today. Let them have the godly joy of refusing treatment but leave our children alone. Let our children grow up in a safe home with loving parents who provide the care which is needed."
-- signed by Greg Irwin

Madalyn Murray O'Hair: Woman, Atheist, Anarchist

James

 

[DallasApple]

The bottom line is parents have the responsibility to care for children..Not say "suffer" and if you die its Gods will..NO...get your head out of the sand..and face REALITY..If you don't its YOUR will ..Not Gods..

We are not drones or robots We dont float around on a mystical God cloud that sustains us.....Even Jesus thirst..He ATE..he drank ...he slept..Why??? Because his BODY needed it..

Why in the WORLD would you exclude life saving medication or medical surguries??

We were gifted ...with a BRAIN...Lets use it people..

Love

Dallas