Faith healing death. Should parents rights be overridden?

[Tunnelcat]

This just cropped up in the news and it brings up the debate about the separation of church and state and parental rights. I know that this faith healing law is in a lot of states in the U.S. The question here is should the state violate someone's religious beliefs (the follower's of the Christ Church for example) in order to protect a child's health when the parents don't believe in using modern medicine but prayer instead?

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Health/story? ... 151&page=1

[Testiculese]

I'd say no, because it thins that herd.

I'd say yes, 'cause the child shouldn't suffer because of the idiocy of the parents.

[Tunnelcat]

Doctors DO make mistakes. They are not God either, although sometimes they think they are. The question is, who would you trust when your child gets sick, God or medicine? And who has the right to tell parents how to care for their children when no there is no malicious intent?

[Dedman]

Normally I would say no. In general I feel that the less the State intrudes on our lives the better off we are. But in this case kids are involved. The kids aren't making the choice to avoid medical treatment, the parents are.

I think some protection against patently bad decisions by the parents has to be provided to children who are too young or other wise can't make the proper decision for themselves.

I know that opens up a can of worms. What level of bad decision warrants State intervention. At what point does the right of the State supersede the right of the parents. I don't have an answer for that one.

[Xamindar]

How about this?

God inspires doctors to create ways to help and cure illnesses. So God created doctors. So you should let doctors do what they can and pray as well that it will go smoothly.

There, makes sense, right?

[CDN_Merlin]

Funny but just this week a 16 yr old girl died because her parents decided to Pray instead of bringing her to the hospital.

I'm all for forcing the parents to bring kids to doctors and then we fix both parents so they never have kids again.

[Kilarin]

I'm torn on this one.

In the first place, I really want these kids to get medical treatment and I think the doctors are nuts, and I think the state has a legitimate interest in protecting children.

But on the other hand, how do we know that the state has a better idea about medicine and health than the parents do? Back up only a hundred and twenty years and the state would have been requiring parents to have their children undergo bloodletting when they were sick. Which instead of helping, would have been more likely to kill.

I don't see a good solution to the conundrum.

[CDN_Merlin]

I'm torn on this one.

In the first place, I really want these kids to get medical treatment and I think the doctors are nuts, and I think the state has a legitimate interest in protecting children.

But on the other hand, how do we know that the state has a better idea about medicine and health than the parents do? Back up only a hundred and twenty years and the state would have been requiring parents to have their children undergo bloodletting when they were sick. Which instead of helping, would have been more likely to kill.

I don't see a good solution to the conundrum.

Todays medicine is a lot better than 150 years ago.
Also, have there been any incidents of parents praying to get their kids better and having it work and the doctors can't explain it? If so, what percentage of kids have been saved this way compared to kids being saved by doctors?

[CUDA]

Uhm the Apostle Luke was a Doctor.

[Dedman]

Also, have there been any incidents of parents praying to get their kids better and having it work and the doctors can't explain it? If so, what percentage of kids have been saved this way compared to kids being saved by doctors?

We will probably never know the answers to those two questions. Those are the types of cases that never make the news.

[Bet51987]

I'm torn on this one.

In the first place, I really want these kids to get medical treatment and I think the doctors are nuts, and I think the state has a legitimate interest in protecting children.

But on the other hand, how do we know that the state has a better idea about medicine and health than the parents do? Back up only a hundred and twenty years and the state would have been requiring parents to have their children undergo bloodletting when they were sick. Which instead of helping, would have been more likely to kill.

I don't see a good solution to the conundrum.

Kilarin. When you say you're "torn on this", are you implying that you can't decide whether the parents (of said link) were wrong? I have to know because my perception of you has always been right up there with the most level headed people. I'm speaking specifically of that link. I won't comment on what I think of you right now since it may be subject to change.

If I had my way, I would execute these people for murder.

Bettina

[Ferno]

If it were my kid, I'd get them looked at straight away. I go with what works, not what i'd like to happen.

These poor excuses for parents should be barred for having more kids.

[Kilarin]

my perception of you has always been right up there with the most level headed people.

I'm more of a sloped forehead type actually. (But thank you for the complement!)

are you implying that you can't decide whether the parents (of said link) were wrong?

Sorry! I wasn't clear at all. Absolutely I think those parents were wrong. I'm certainly in favor of praying for healing, but one of the miracles of healing is good doctors.

In my opinion the parents ABSOLUTELY should have sought medical treatment. No ifs, ands, or buts. I'm not the least bit torn about that.

Also, my gut says the case should be treated as manslaughter. My gut isn't always right, of course.

What I'm torn on is where exactly the government has the right to mandate medical treatment for minors over the parents objections. In a case like the above, it seems very clear, but it's a very slippery slope. What if the government wanted to force your child onto ritlin? I don't think ritlin is wrong in EVERY case, but it appears to me that medical community grossly over prescribes this type of drug in cases where children are not actually hyperactive, but only exhibiting the ordinary rambunctiousness of youth.

Heck, they've got a drug to treat SHYNESS now. That's just... WRONG.

Todays medicine is a lot better than 150 years ago.

Yes it is, and thank goodness for that. But todays medical community STILL changes it's mind on IMPORTANT issues all the time. Do a quick bit of reading on how you should put your child to bed in order to prevent Sudden Infant Death syndrome. Face down, face up, or on their side? Each time the medical community swears that they have all the research to back up the current answer, then a few years later they flip flop and say, oops, nope, that was the way that INCREASES SIDs, switch to the new method now.

Medicine is better, LOTS better, but so called "health science" is still VERY fallible. So even though this particular case seems simple and obvious, I'm still nervous about saying the government should mandate medical treatment for children over the objection of their parents. In this case, yes, absolutely, it seems that it should have been done. But what's the next case based on the same principle?

Just to give another wild example, suppose they solidify that genetic link to homosexuality the scientists are getting closer and closer to. Once they find it, the next step WILL be to try and develop a gene therapy treatment that can be used in vitro to "cure" the baby of it's homosexuality.

A LOT of people are going to be all for that. There will also be some that are absolutely horrified at the concept of changing a child that way. Should the government mandate the treatment over the parents objections, or not? Or should they outlaw the use of such treatment? It could make a major difference in the child's life and psychological health, either way. Exact same argument could be made about children born with ambiguous genitalia. Should the government be able to mandate a treatment, or to refuse to allow surgery to "repair" the condition? Who decides, the parents or the government?

I'd like to see cases like the Worthington one above STOPPED. It seems like child neglect to me. BUT, I'm also VERY nervous about such laws and where they will lead and how they could be abused. So on a moral level, I'm absolutely clear that the Worthingtons were wrong wrong wrong. On a legal level, I'm torn and don't have a good answer.

[CDN_Merlin]

The Gov't should be able to override the parents IF and only IF the child's life is in danger. ie: Cancer etc. For regular stuff like Ritalin, no way.

[Dedman]

Heck, they've got a drug to treat SHYNESS now.

Boy, I sure could have used that in High School. I might have even gotten a date.

[Spidey]

As I see it, this is the perfect example of why marriage should be controlled by the state. As Bee puts it “If I had my way” when you get married you would have to take child rearing courses, where the things expected of parents in regards to the welfare of the children would be taught, and the fact that they have obligations outside of their religious beliefs.

And a license to have children might not be a bad idea either.

I also believe that the laws regarding child welfare are too vague, and need to be clear regarding health care. It’s either illegal to deny health care to your children or it’s not, this cannot remain a gray area.

I also don’t think throwing the book at these parents wouldn’t solve anything other than satisfying the anger of some people.

[grizz]

Heck, they've got a drug to treat SHYNESS now.

Boy, I sure could have used that in High School. I might have even gotten a date.

They'd a had to come up with one to treat ugly before I could'a got a date.

[Will Robinson]

I think if the state can say starving a child is abuse then denying fundamental, proven, life saving, free and available health care is abuse.

When the kid is an adult he/she can choose to fast or shun medical attention in the name of religion or even just pure stupidity, until then it is neglect by the parents to decide for the child that a supreme being is the only 'doctor' they will seek for their dying child. If you can't vote for president until you're 18 then, as far as the government is concerned, you can't vote for God to be the only doctor till then either. Make it a law, I'd call it the A fighting Chance for Children of Stupid Parents Act.

Something is wrong with a parent who thinks they should withhold care for a helpless child in favor of divine intervention!
My take on it is, if there is a god who wants me to sit around and wait for him to heal my children instead of my taking action to get them help from mortals he better get his ass down here, throw some of those miracles around or at least open up a clinic with his name on the sign out front and show me he's on the job! Otherwise I'm going to assume I'm the one most responsible for my children's safety.

My default inclination when faced with religious teaching is, OK, but what if there really is no God, where does this course of action leave me then?
That's the acid test. If it doesn't pass that test then I'm going with my instincts and to hell with the preacher.

I'm more than willing to be shown that God wants me to do otherwise....but it's going to be God who shows me not some guy who one day decided he's going to be Gods spokesman.

My instincts tell me those people in that report are either criminal or stupid.

[Testiculese]

Again...what does marriage have to do with having kids?

Since the government shouldn't be in charge of anything other then foreign policy and road maintenance (to simplify), the obvious legal question is no, they should not interfere.

Morally, the parents are a choice of words that will not display on this forum.

[Duper]

Again...what does marriage have to do with having kids?

hehe,

Get married, HAVE some kids and then you will understand.

[Bet51987]

...the obvious legal question is no, they should not interfere.

So, we let the child die?

Kilarin, your back on top Thanks.

Bee

[Grendel]

I call it \"evolution in action\". Fine w/ me.

[Ford Prefect]

We had a case in Canada where a 15 year old girl with Crones disease was forced to take blood transfusions to save her life even though she was a practising and devout Jehovah's Witness who's religion forbids the transfer of blood products. Was she old enough to make that decision? Hard call. She was an intelligent and well spoken young woman.

I am also reminded of the old story of the person trapped on the roof top in a flood who prays for God to rescue them. A boat comes but they refuse and will wait for God, A helicopter comes but they will wait for God. They drown and when they see God ask why He did not rescue them. God's reply is that he sent a boat and a helicopter.

As Xamindar indicated in his post. If you believe in God then he must have had a hand in giving the doctors the knowledge they have.

[Dakatsu]

I think if the state can say starving a child is abuse then denying fundamental, proven, life saving, free and available health care is abuse.

When the kid is an adult he/she can choose to fast or shun medical attention in the name of religion or even just pure stupidity, until then it is neglect by the parents to decide for the child that a supreme being is the only 'doctor' they will seek for their dying child. If you can't vote for president until you're 18 then, as far as the government is concerned, you can't vote for God to be the only doctor till then either. Make it a law, I'd call it the A fighting Chance for Children of Stupid Parents Act.

Something is wrong with a parent who thinks they should withhold care for a helpless child in favor of divine intervention!
My take on it is, if there is a god who wants me to sit around and wait for him to heal my children instead of my taking action to get them help from mortals he better get his ass down here, throw some of those miracles around or at least open up a clinic with his name on the sign out front and show me he's on the job! Otherwise I'm going to assume I'm the one most responsible for my children's safety.

My default inclination when faced with religious teaching is, OK, but what if there really is no God, where does this course of action leave me then?
That's the acid test. If it doesn't pass that test then I'm going with my instincts and to hell with the preacher.

I'm more than willing to be shown that God wants me to do otherwise....but it's going to be God who shows me not some guy who one day decided he's going to be Gods spokesman.

My instincts tell me those people in that report are either criminal or stupid.

Quoted for teh maximum truthiness, especially the title of the bill!

If the child is in danger, give'em to a stranger! (just came up with that!)

This should be pretty odvious, as if your religion says to throw your baby off of the roof of your house, I bet that the feds would get that kid away from you. If it harms the child, then the government should intervene (and ONLY if the kid is in danger, otherwise keep the feds away!)

I am also reminded of the old story of the person trapped on the roof top in a flood who prays for God to rescue them. A boat comes but they refuse and will wait for God, A helicopter comes but they will wait for God. They drown and when they see God ask why He did not rescue them. God's reply is that he sent a boat and a helicopter.

I love that joke!

[roid]

If it were my kid, I'd get them looked at straight away. I go with what works, not what i'd like to happen.

These poor excuses for parents should be barred for having more kids.

you know... there might actually be a way of doing that.

If you can put something into their environment that disturbs human reproductive cycles. Some chemical, some source of radiation.

Something that would be trivial for a scientist/doctor to be able to find and fix - but they never will because they'll never find what it is without the help of scientists/doctors - they'll instead insist on finding the cause with prayer.
And they'll eventually die out. Such is the fate of unadaptable species.

It would be a sick kindof "funny".

[snoopy]

I have a number of separate comments on this topic:

First: In keeping with my libertarian leanings, I feel, quite strongly, that this should not be legislated on a national level. That being said, cases such as this should probably find a way to fall under criminal neglect laws that already exist, on a state level. The biggest problem I have is that the law would have to be written quite ambiguously, and that would give judges lots of free reign to decide how to interpret it. Obviously, the starting point is that it should only apply to \"clear\" life-or-death situations, where the disease is something that has a well proven, reliable cure, and is also likely to be fatal if not treated.

Now, what's \"likely to be fatal?\" What's a \"well proven cure?\" What about \"well proven preventions?\"

Here's an example: Some people will tell you some vaccines given these days actually do more harm than good- I've seen stuff about lead content in the vaccines in the news recently, and there are rare cases where the vaccine actually gives the child the disease. Suddenly, the value and validity of these vaccines are in question, when at some point in the past people probably could have made a strong case for failing to get those vaccines being criminally negligent.

So, should parents be forced to vaccinate their kids?

Finally, on the legal end, we should absolutely not go the Chinese, communist route of trying to control who can and can't have children. More control over (the state's recognition of) marriage would do nothing to control childbirth, and any more drastic measures to control childbirth would be a gross violation of personal rights. Anyone seen Gattaca?


Second,

Lets put this in perspective. It seems like every month or so I see a story in the news about another baby that got abandoned in a dumpster in the Philadelphia area. While it's a valid pursuit to try to save children from nut jobs with crazy religious beliefs, the numbers aren't in it. Far more children are neglected, abused, and killed by parents who are involved in drug abuse and crime than well-meaning but misguided parents. Find the parents guilty of criminal neglect, slap them on the wrist, advise them to think a little bit more about what their church is telling them, and move on. When I say move on, I mean throw your resources back into fighting crime and drugs- where far more damage is done on a daily basis.


Third,

I had a third comment, but I can't remember it now.

Oh. I got it. I'm convinced that the idea of separation of church and state is a myth. Things like this only highlight the fact, in my mind. The two are irreversibly intertwined.

[Testiculese]

Separation of morality and state is what is intertwined. The church has only an auxiliary role in that.

You can't legislate morality unless you adopt socialism. You can't adopt socialism unless you fully adopt it, otherwise, it's...well, it's what we have now. The state should either just go ahead and remove all the people's rights and legislate everything (Hillary), or it should leave people alone and not legislate anything. You can not have it both ways.

Yes, Bee, the child dies. It happens 50,000 times a day, every day. This is the real world. If the parents are too brain-dead to understand the most basic principles of life, then they don't deserve to create it. Nature takes care of it.

[Bet51987]

Separation of morality and state is what is intertwined. The church has only an auxiliary role in that.

You can't legislate morality unless you adopt socialism. You can't adopt socialism unless you fully adopt it, otherwise, it's...well, it's what we have now. The state should either just go ahead and remove all the people's rights and legislate everything (Hillary), or it should leave people alone and not legislate anything. You can not have it both ways.

Yes, Bee, the child dies. It happens 50,000 times a day, every day. This is the real world. If the parents are too brain-dead to understand the most basic principles of life, then they don't deserve to create it. Nature takes care of it.

It's 50,000 too many. We may not be able to help the child that is drowned in a bathtub because the parent is ticked at his mate, but in the case mentioned in the OP, doctors should have the right to overrule religious nut cases when a child's life is in danger. The doctors should have the right to call the police and the police should have laws on their side to take the child to a hospital. No lawyers, No bibles, no "freedom needs to be protected" jerks, should be allowed to intervene. The childs safety should be paramount.

Then, a social worker should monitor the parents from now on. I want legislation on the books, specific to this type of religious abuse.

Bee

[Duper]

No you DON'T want legislation on the book. Testi points are valid. You do NOT want this to become a socialist government. you can not write a law for every little thing. or EVERY big thing. The human condition is just too greatly varied to cover ever circumstance with a \"rule\".

Sure this is frustrating. It's appalling, but you,.. YOU specifically can effect only what you can effect; those who immediately surround you. IF you were in a place to exact such laws, I would hope you could step back and see the whole war and not just shoot singular arrows into the fray hoping to do some good.

[Grendel]

Grow up, girl. Your chance to give something to the world is to be a good example to others. Demanding regulations of every aspect of live isn't one.

[Bet51987]

I call it "evolution in action". Fine w/ me.

If this is what you mean by a good example, then I rather not grow up.

Bee

[Spidey]

I love the extremes here, one wants blood…and the other could care less.

[fliptw]

Moral issues aside, Do not make the assumption that the government is competent do to the job here.

[Ford Prefect]

Bee you don't have to go to extremes, just move to Canada. In the case I quoted and in others that have occurred here the child was \"apprehended\" by the child services department of the Provincial government and treatment was enforced.
That's a bit harsh when the \"child\" is an older teenager with definite opinions on religion but that's what happens if the doctors decide that the \"child's\" (under 19) life is in danger. There are some outs though:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/s ... hub=Canada

At the heart of the Manitoba Court of Appeal case is whether the girl should continue to be recognized as a \"mature minor,\" or be under the wing of Child and Family Services and forced to have the treatment when her doctor says it's necessary.

It's a Socialist Hell here you know so there's lots of room for more people. No one wants to live here.

[Spidey]

Vee have vays to make you take za Blood.

I'm sorry, but that’s just wrong.

[Spidey]

Finally, on the legal end, we should absolutely not go the Chinese, communist route of trying to control who can and can't have children. More control over (the state's recognition of) marriage would do nothing to control childbirth, and any more drastic measures to control childbirth would be a gross violation of personal rights. Anyone seen Gattaca?

The Chinese are trying population control, what we need here is “Idiot” control.

As far as the marriage comment goes…I wasn’t inferring “childbirth control” I just thought it would be a good idea to have child rearing classes as a prerequisite.

[Wings]

Darwin awards. The children probably would grow up to be just as stupid as the parents.

[Tunnelcat]

OK, update. The parents have been indicted on two counts, second-degree manslaughter and criminal mistreatment. This is the first use of this new law here in Oregon.

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonia ... xml&coll=7

I'm also unsure of this law. On one hand, children cannot make their own medical decisions and must rely on the parents for medical care and survival, as has gone on through all of human history.

On the other hand, parents don't want to have the state or any government agency micromanaging them on how to best raise their children.

As an example of state ordered medical care, many parents are now opting out of vaccinations for their children due to the perceived or even real risk of getting autism from the preservatives in the vaccines. Does the state force this for the benefit of others so that diseases won't be spread at school, despite parent's fears? It may come down to what's best for society as a whole verses what rights parents have in certain cases.

Of course, the medical community claims all vaccines are safe, but some things have been shown to be harmful long after we've all been used as beta testers. The polio vaccine is a good example. It was tauted as safe and effective, which it was, but they may have unknowingly infected countless people with a simian virus (SIV) because (although it's been denied), chimpanzees may have been used by one group of researchers to incubate the polio virus to create the vaccine.

Now antidepressants are being pushed for children, despite the growing concern that they may cause suicide in some teenagers, and parents are still drugging up their kids at the behest of the medical and pharmaceutical interests, since they know best. (Sarcasm)

[snoopy]

Let me play a devil advocate a little bit, though I may be trying to convince myself.

Why should the parents be found guilty of ANY crime? In a sense, the only crime they could possibly be charged with would be involuntary manslaughter. Should they be punished for their ignorance? They where trying to do the best thing they possibly could to heal the child, within their comprehension of things. I've heard of miraculous healing, and believe that it happens. Why shouldn't it be recognized as the parent's valid way of trying to save their child, if it is indeed something that has happened in the past? What if, due to all these stories of how the medical world has screwed things up, the parents honestly thought that prayer had a better chance of working than trusting their child to a medical community that doesn't seem to be able to get anything right?

Now, the parents where clearly wrong. But, it begs the question, should people be help responsible for their ignorance? Furthermore, last I checked, it was the government that was in charge of public schooling. Thus, if people are held responsible for their ignorance, shouldn't the government be help responsible for failing to properly educate these people? If anything, charges against the government should be brought, of failing in their schooling.




And now, for an opinion that I really hold: Bet, here's why I think micromanagement is the wrong way to go: You are inevitably going to have wrongs done, stupidity enacted, ignorance revealed, and mistakes made. If you maintain freedoms, it's individuals that do it, and individuals that live with the consequences. If you give the government all the power, it's now both people and the government doing the things, and it ends up being the whole society that pays the consequences for the government screw-ups. By centralizing power, you make those who hold it more empowered to abuse it. By centralizing power, the greater the consequences when the imperfect humans who wield it screw up.

My suspicion is that the parents are paying enough of a price in what they are doing to themselves with the guilt.

[Will Robinson]

I'm thinking that if public schools can't allow prayer because it is the equivalent of government supporting religion then government can't let people use religion as an excuse for negligence.
It's a simple case of separation of church and state.

Hey work with me here people! It's at least as logical as the right to privacy = abortion....