Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by James on January 1, 2011 at 9:06pm

To a point, I feel that it should be allowed solely due the freedoms we enjoy. But I certainly think that anyone who refuses to seek proper medical attention should be liable to be charged negligent death or some form of manslaughter. Sadly, we can't legally force an individual to seek medical attention. But in most of these cases it is a child in the care of parents or guardians that suffers the worst possible fate. Thusly, they are legally responsible for the child's well being. People that hide behind religion when a child dies from lack of proper care should be made an example of, such that everyone else will understand that there are consequences to inaction in these cases and that proper medical care should never be ruled out due any religious conviction.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Wayne on January 1, 2011 at 9:16pm

It's obviously your choice to take treatment or not, but to endanger a child... that's going a bit far, but yeah...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James on January 1, 2011 at 10:01pm

Iagree that refusing a child proper medical care is horribly disgusting negligence, and should certainly be a punishable offense.

 

Do I think that parents should use prayer as an alternative to actual medical care? No, of course not. However, I don't think there is any legal way to tell parents that they can't pray. We can however hold them accountable if praying is ALL they do.

 

The best option I can think of is if people that see this going on report it to child services. If that is done, there is the real hope that they will intervene, get the child the help it needs, find the parents unfit and a child will not need to needlessly die. That really is the most important part here. Even if the parents go to jail after the fact, that doesn't help the child if they had to die an easily avoidable death. The parents may say it's 'gods will' but the only thing they are guilty of is being born into a toxic family environment. So it really is important that people come forward before it's too late.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joli on January 1, 2011 at 10:26pm

These people have been charged guilty and will spend up to 10 years in prison.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Doug Reardon on January 1, 2011 at 9:16pm

No!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kris Feenstra on January 1, 2011 at 9:30pm

I will assume that you are referring to cases where the parents refuse medical treatment in favor of prayer.  This actually comes up far more often than it should.

 

In the eyes of the law, I think it should be considered negligence with the possibility of criminal charges.  We have to make laws based on what can rationally be supported and defended, and faith healing just doesn't fit the bill.  I respect a parent's rights to raise their child as best they see fit, but what the parent owns is the bond of parent to child, not the child itself.  The child is no person's property and deserves protection under the law against undue harm.  Neglecting a child with persistent symptoms of illness is undue harm, regardless of the intentions.

 

Some might consider this religion discrimination and an assault on freedom, but I'm inclined to disagree.  Child protection laws do not specifically target any religion; human law simply cannot be held accountable to unfounded superstition and to reason at the same time.  The parents place priority on supernatural law, allowing their children to pay the forfeit of health and life for it.  The parents, too, should be willing to accept the penalty of law for placing supernatural law above human law. 

 

I suppose, the complex issue for me is at what point is a child capable of refusing medical treatment with their own voice.  For instance, if a twelve-year-old refuses medical treatment in favor of faith healing, I would abide by their decision provided they were given a psychological evaluation.  Perhaps they would be little more than a victim of their culture, of their parents, of superstition, but people die tragically all the time.  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dustin on January 1, 2011 at 10:01pm

They are filthy excuses for human beings - And should be fully prosecuted under the law.   

 

We all know that if a parent had sexual intercourse with their child ... and said ... "Oh , but my FAITH tells me that it's OK!"  They would be considered very sick individuals indeed.  

 

But to refuse medical treatment - how is this any different?  

 

They are endangering the life a child.  I don't give a fuck whether it's their child or not.  If they can't be rational human beings ... they shouldn't be allowed to have children in the first place.  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Malcolm on January 2, 2011 at 11:25am

Well, even in the case of sexual intercourse with a child, some cultures permit it because it is allowed in their religion. For example, among the prophet Mohammad's many wives was at least one who was under the age of 10 when he married (and begin sexual relations with) her. This has been used at various times in some countries (but certainly not in all Islamic countries) for justifying permitting this kind of behavior generally.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Julien on January 1, 2011 at 10:03pm

Yes, you can rely on prayer when it comes to your own well-being. When it comes to other people (especially children that can't really decide for themselves), you should not be allowed to have such an option.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dave G on January 2, 2011 at 2:28pm

Pretty much what E. Nigma said. You can choose for yourself, but not for others and certainly not for children who are dependent on their caretakers to made the best (not most faith-supported) decision on their well-being.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Isaac on January 1, 2011 at 10:19pm

No. It is reckless endangerment.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bryn on January 1, 2011 at 10:26pm

I think that parents should be allowed to pray for their children as long as it is not the child's only form of treatment. Other than that, prayer is utterly harmless, and I see no problem with it. Opting out of treatments that actually work, however, should be considered negligence or child abuse, and if a child dies from a treatable disease as a result of said negligence, manslaughter.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page