Quote:
Originally Posted by john ingram
It's like the adage of the drowning man who refuses help from passing boaters because he believes God will save him. When he dies and gets to heaven he demands to know why God didn't save him. God replies that he sent three boats by to rescue him, but he refused their help.
Perhaps instead of taking the tack that we know what is best for those who believe in faith healing, we should posit for them the possibility that God has sent to them medical solutions in lieu of miracles.
It's not as though these parents want their children to die. They're just severely misguided. And taking children away from their parents, against everyone's will, is no less traumatic than the alternative. We should be working harder to find middle ground, because that's what tolerance really means.
|
In the cases I'm aware of, people have worked as hard as they possibly can to find a middle ground - the cases are in court because one hasn't been found and a time-critical situation exists which needs to be resolved.
IMHO, some of these parents are choosing passive euthanasia for their own children while opposing euthanasia as a choice for others, but I don't think religion should enter into the equation at all - the only question the state needs to decide is whether or not the with-holding of treatment constitutes neglect or failure to provide, if it does, then intervene AND prosecute the parents.
Tolerance should not extend to giving someone a free pass for endangering the lives of others (and yes, I believe that the parents of children who die because they've been left in cars on hot days should be prosecuted too), religious beliefs, political beliefs, or personal philosophies notwithstanding. Religion should no more be a "get out of jail free" card for parents who endanger their children's lives than it would be for a stranger who did the same. If anything, parents should be held to a
higher standard of duty of care than pretty much anyone else in a child's life.