Religious freedom vs. medical care

[Islander]

Adults who believe in faith healing and the power of prayer eschew medical care. That’s fine for them, but what about children in their care? Last year, 300 children died because their parents belonged to Christian sects that refuse a doctor’s treatment. Not long ago, an 11-year-old Wisconsin girl with treatable diabetes died because her parents insisted on withholding treatment and merely prayed for her. The case went to court and the parent spent six months in jail. That seems like a nod to exceptions for faith-based neglect and/or manslaughter.

This is a real gray area. Should freedom of religion extend to denying lifesaving care to minors?

[WednesdayAddams]

Ignoring a child's illness to the point that they die is not 'faith.' It's criminal neglect plain and simple.

[mlerose]

I've heard of similar stories of minor children of Jehovah's Witnesses that need lifesaving treatments including blood transfusions, but their parents refuse care. There have been some instances where the state has had to intervene and petition the courts to overrule the parents.

No, I don't think religious freedom should be granted in that case. A legal adult should be able to refuse medical treatment, but not refuse to allow medical treatment for their minor children.

[WednesdayAddams]

Well...it depends on the medical treatment. But as far as life saving measures I agree.

[HoHoHo]

It's not always faith-based in the religious sense, either.

There was a court-case here a few years ago in which the parents had refused conventional medical care for a toddler with leukaemia on the grounds that the treatment would be too traumatic and distressing (apparently, they thought that dying from leukaemia would not be). The court ordered the treatment to go ahead after taking into account the likelihood of the treatment being successful (our courts have historically refused to order the continuation of futile care).

I find it equally disturbing when decisions about medical care for adults are made by family who do not share the religious/philosophical/ethical views about medical treatment which are held by a patient who is unable to give informed consent.

I really don't see it as a "grey area" in terms of Constitutional rights. Australia's Constitution has an almost identical clause to the US Constitution regarding religious freedom, but our High Court has pretty consistently taken the view that religious freedom doesn't trump criminal or civil liability or magically waive a legal duty of care.

[Islander]

My first marriage was to a Christian Scientist. If a family member was sick or injured, members of the church would come over to pray and “know the truth for it.” However, his parents had the good sense to understand that things like broken arms needed medical attention despite what Mary Baker Eddy thought. But there are religious extremists who are beyond the reach of common sense. Do we break down doors to remove their children with life-threatening conditions?

[Wretched Creature]

We had this case in our region this year where parents refused chemotherapy for their son based on religious beliefs (some sort of holistic, herbal, new-agey thing, if I remember right). The mother even went so far as to "run away" with her son after the court ruled against the parents, although they later returned and submitted to chemotherapy as ordered. I think basing decisions about medical care on religious beliefs is laughable, but in this case I found myself more inclined to agree with the parents. I don't think their sage waving and random-vitamin therapy is going to save their kid's life, but he is their kid, so shouldn't they be the ones making this type of decision?

IMHO, believing that some sort of invisible Woo-Woo will cure your kid's cancer should be something that makes one ineligible to bear children, but we don't place those kinds of limits on reproduction in this country. If we're going to let just anybody choose to create children, then is it fair to tell them they can't make other life-and-death decisions for their kids? How about the anti-immunization forces ? Do we take their kids away or, better yet, shrink-wrap them to protect the children of more sensible parents? How about parents who raise their kids on Cheetos and Mountain Dew? What makes a parent incompetent to care for its child, and who ultimately makes the decision?

I have strong feelings on both sides of this issue and no useful solution, and I'm glad I'm not in a position where I'll have to deal with it. It seems like the sacred-child-of-society slope is getting more slippery all the time. If I were a youngster like most of you folks, I'd be inclined to gather up my uterus and ovaries and go live in a cave.

[Radical Edward]

Originally Posted by Islander

But there are religious extremists who are beyond the reach of common sense. Do we break down doors to remove their children with life-threatening conditions?

Yes.

I went to school with a girl who was born with a hole in her heart. Her stepmother refused to allow her to have the surgery needed to fix it (when she was old enough, around 10 I think) due to religious reasons. She lived to be 13, and died in a hospital sometime between the end of eighth grade and the start of our freshman year of high school. I always thought her parents should have gone to prison for murder. Sad side story: apparently when she died she was already registered, and nobody notified the school that she wouldn't be coming. She was on all the teachers' rosters and was included in roll calls on our first day of high school and was marked absent all day until fifth period when somebody burst into tears in a history class and went and told the principal that she had died. If only she had just been absent....

[HoHoHo]

FWIW, I'm in favour of adult children being able to sue their parents for failure to provide adequate medical care during childhood where that choice has resulted in provable, long-term damage. We attach that legal liability to perfect strangers, and IMHO the legal duty of care owed by a parent to a child should be significantly greater than that owed by any stranger.

[Darmund]

I fully agree that religious nutjobbery is no excuse for letting a family member die. It raises an interesting question though... who pays for it? If the parents object to, for example, life-saving chemotherapy for a kid on religious grounds, and we as a society say the kid has to have it anyway, do we also have the right to say the parent has to pay for it too? Or does society foot the bill? If so, that opens another huge can of worms: what about people who will claim religious nutjobbery knowing that means they won't have to pay the bills?

[HoHoHo]

Originally Posted by Darmund

I fully agree that religious nutjobbery is no excuse for letting a family member die. It raises an interesting question though... who pays for it? If the parents object to, for example, life-saving chemotherapy for a kid on religious grounds, and we as a society say the kid has to have it anyway, do we also have the right to say the parent has to pay for it too? Or does society foot the bill? If so, that opens another huge can of worms: what about people who will claim religious nutjobbery knowing that means they won't have to pay the bills?

There are certainly laws here which allow for money spent on essentials for minors to be recovered from the parents. I'd be surprised if there aren't similar laws in the US. I don't see it as fundamentally different from who picks up the cost when children are removed from parental care.

[Victor Frankenstein]

Originally Posted by Islander

Do we break down doors to remove their children with life-threatening conditions?

If the parents wouldn't take their children to a doctor because they thought doctors were actually evil bugmen from Venus, the state should kick the door open and take the children.

I think the same should be true for people who don't take their children to the doctor because they believe in a magical man who lives in the clouds.

The two play the same in my head.

[Darmund]

Originally Posted by HoHoHo

There are certainly laws here which allow for money spent on essentials for minors to be recovered from the parents. I'd be surprised if there aren't similar laws in the US. I don't see it as fundamentally different from who picks up the cost when children are removed from parental care.

Hmm. Yeah, I guess if you're going to say (as I would) that religious freedom ends when you're endangering someone else's welfare, economic coercion isn't unreasonable either. So never mind, not that interesting a question after all!

[Radical Edward]

Originally Posted by Darmund

I fully agree that religious nutjobbery is no excuse for letting a family member die. It raises an interesting question though... who pays for it? If the parents object to, for example, life-saving chemotherapy for a kid on religious grounds, and we as a society say the kid has to have it anyway, do we also have the right to say the parent has to pay for it too? Or does society foot the bill? If so, that opens another huge can of worms: what about people who will claim religious nutjobbery knowing that means they won't have to pay the bills?

Hell yes the parents should fucking pay for it. They made the decision to have the kid, and to take on the resulting financial burden for whatever care that child would need for 18 years. If they are destitute that's one thing (if they are destitute they shouldn't have had a kid), but refusing to pay because they think God is going to save their kid is shitty as.... well, shit.

[HoHoHo]

Originally Posted by 7

If the parents wouldn't take their children to a doctor because they thought doctors were actually evil bugmen from Venus, the state should kick the door open and take the children.

I think the same should be true for people who don't take their children to the doctor because they believe in a magical man who lives in the clouds.

The two play the same in my head.

I assume that the US has compulsory education laws like most Western countries. If we accept that the state has the right to interfere in the education process in the child's interest, how can we deny its right to interfere on the child's behalf when the stakes are life-threatening? To do so is to endorse the notion of children as property, whose needs are to be met or not at the whim of their owner (I realise that to some extent that is the legal reality in the US, but that's a discussion for another thread).

[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.

[Darmund]

Originally Posted by john ingram

We should be working harder to find middle ground, because that's what tolerance really means.

I think tolerance is pretty overrated. Some people are just stupid.

[john ingram]

Reactionary stupidity is no more noble than natural stupidity.

[HoHoHo]

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.

[ulfhjorr]

Originally Posted by john ingram

Reactionary stupidity is no more noble than natural stupidity.

Indeed, and it is the religious nutjobs who are displaying both kinds -- both the natural stupidity to fall for the steaming loads of crap that they swallow and the reactionary stupidity to cling to it when presented with reality.

On the other hand, I find it hard to see stupidity in wanting to protect children from very real harm inflicted on them because of their parents' stupidity.

[HoHoHo]

Just out of interest, at what age can a child give informed consent for medical care on their own in the US? Here, parents have no automatic right of access to their children's medical records once a child turns 14 and doctors can only violate their medical confidence under pretty extreme circumstances.

[john ingram]

Originally Posted by ulfhjorr

Indeed, and it is the religious nutjobs who are displaying both kinds -- both the natural stupidity to fall for the steaming loads of crap that they swallow and the reactionary stupidity to cling to it when presented with reality.

Stupidity takes many forms. Referring to someone else's beliefs as "steaming loads of crap" is only one of them.

Just because you don't believe it, doesn't make it a steaming load of crap. This is reactionary stupidity. I don't like it, therefore it must be dumb.

[john ingram]

Originally Posted by HoHoHo

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.

And living in the same county as someone else should not grant you the right to dictate how someone else raises their child. Where is the line drawn?

[ulfhjorr]

Originally Posted by john ingram

Stupidity takes many forms. Referring to someone else's beliefs as "steaming loads of crap" is only one of them.

Just because you don't believe it, doesn't make it a steaming load of crap. This is reactionary stupidity. I don't like it, therefore it must be dumb.

Yeah, you're right. It would be much better to just shrug your shoulders and say "well, it's their belief" when talking about the idea that you can pray away cancer or that the reason your kid died was because you weren't strong enough in your faith, not because he had a fever of 103 and you did nothing to help him. Yep, that's such a stunningly brilliant idea that it should be taken seriously and not subjected to derision at all.

Right.

[Victor Frankenstein]

Originally Posted by HoHoHo

Just out of interest, at what age can a child give informed consent for medical care on their own in the US? Here, parents have no automatic right of access to their children's medical records once a child turns 14 and doctors can only violate their medical confidence under pretty extreme circumstances.

I would assume 18 - at least in most States.

[Fish]

The minute the government admits that prayer is an effective means of curing a disease, or admits that prayer is an approved alternate treatment at least the equal of proven medical solutions, that's when the churches line up to be counted as "healthcare providers." That's when the government starts to hand money over to any self-ordained nutjob who can wield an aspergillum.

That is as good a reason as any for governmental institutions like the DHHS, NIH, CDC, and FDA to regard "healing power of prayer" with the same scrutiny, and without sentimental attachment, as they would give any purported cure (such as rubbing your face with magic pizza, drinking dog piss, and sticking weasels up your butt). If prayer had any real, tangible, reliable benefit to the patient, and withstood rigorous double-blind testing, then sure — always bearing in mind what the standard for comparison is. Aspirin works even if you don't believe in it.

[WednesdayAddams]

Originally Posted by john ingram

And living in the same county as someone else should not grant you the right to dictate how someone else raises their child. Where is the line drawn?

Just short of forcing an innocent person to die so you can have that right.

[WednesdayAddams]

Originally Posted by WednesdayAddams

Just short of forcing an innocent person to die so you can have that right.

To expand on this:

Every law is restricting someone's rights somewhere. The right to privacy, the right to free speech, the right to vote....ALL of our rights have limitations. Nowhere in the constitution do I recall reading a clause guaranteeing the right to smoke in a public place. In the same way, I don't recall seeing the 'right to raise one's children without interference from the state' in there either unless you're really stretching the privacy laws. Anyone claiming some inherent 'right' as a citizen needs to be shown a copy of the Constitution and asked which of those clauses they're applying. More often than not, people are confusing 'rights' with what they think they ought to be allowed to do.

[kayaker]

Why didn't Jebus save the kids? Maybe they were bad kids.

[john ingram]

Originally Posted by WednesdayAddams

Just short of forcing an innocent person to die so you can have that right.

Forcing? That's a little hyperbolic, don't you think? It's not as though these parents are throwing their kids into gas chambers.

[john ingram]

Originally Posted by WednesdayAddams

Anyone claiming some inherent 'right' as a citizen needs to be shown a copy of the Constitution and asked which of those clauses they're applying. More often than not, people are confusing 'rights' with what they think they ought to be allowed to do.

It's not in the Constitution. It's in the Bill of Rights. Ninth Amendment:

Originally Posted by TEH DOCUMENT

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

[WednesdayAddams]

Originally Posted by john ingram

Forcing? That's a little hyperbolic, don't you think? It's not as though these parents are throwing their kids into gas chambers.

No, they're just letting them die. Dead is dead. It's not a little owie they'll recover from later and go on the talk circuit to whine about how weird their parents were. They are dead, and the people who are supposed to be caring for and protecting them sat back and let it happen. There is no excuse for that kind of neglect.

[john ingram]

But who are you to say that they're wrong? Can you prove that somewhere there's not a man in the clouds who approves of this?

[WednesdayAddams]

Originally Posted by john ingram

It's not in the Constitution. It's in the Bill of Rights. Ninth Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Right. No rights that already exist shall be infringed. The fun part is proving said right is legal and does not infringe on other laws already extant. Since neglect is illegal, doing so even for religious reasons is not a right.

[LordVor]

Originally Posted by john ingram

And taking children away from their parents, against everyone's will, is no less traumatic than the alternative.

John, I think that is the single stupidest sentence you've ever written. When "the alternative" is near certain death of their child, taking the child away by force is several orders of magnitude of less traumatic.

[HoHoHo]

Originally Posted by john ingram

And living in the same county as someone else should not grant you the right to dictate how someone else raises their child. Where is the line drawn?

You seem to be arguing from the position that the right of parents to raise their children in any way they wish should be absolute. My position is that not only should it not be absolute, but there are already legal restrictions on parental rights and those restrictions are not based on religion even if their existence affects those practising certain faiths more than it affects others.

I'm just as legally restricted from allowing my children to marry before age 18, having my female children circumcised, denying my children an education, and having multiple spouses as any other Australian - and I'm unequivocably atheist. I am also restrained from failing to provide adequate care for my children (well, not now, because the youngest is about to turn 18).

To take it a step further, I'm legally required to ensure that all children in my vehicle are wearing age appropriate restraints and that no-one in my vehicle smokes if there are children under 16 in the vehicle. I also cannot serve alcohol to under 18s. The law doesn't just regulate my responsibility towards my own children, it regulates my responsibility towards the children of others as well. And my religious, political or philosophical beliefs do not - and in my opinion should not - exempt me from complying with those laws.

It really is quite interesting to see how two different nations with essentially the same establishment clause interpret its meaning. We also have quite different attitudes about the rights of parents in general (you can quite literally leave home here in your early teens without any need for formal "emancipation" from your parents, and there's a definite transfer of legal power from parent to child which starts happening around puberty).

My contention is that if you allow parental power to be absolute, then you effectively make children the property of their parents in the same way that slaves were the property of their masters - and that is a highly undesirable legal status to inflict on anyone, let alone the vulnerable, IMHO. I really don't see any moral difference between a child dying as a result of the actions of the parents and a child dying as the result of their intentional inaction, and I don't believe that there should be a difference in legal culpability between abuse and neglect.

A question for you. Peter Singer postulated a world in which parents would have the right to terminate the lives of their disabled children for a period of several years following birth. Do you really see any difference between Singer's proposal and giving parents the right to decide on the basis of their faith whether their child lives or dies? While I accept that there may be situations where causing active or passive harm to others may be the lesser evil, I reject absolutely the notion that religion/faith alone is ever sufficient reason for doing so.

For the record, I do not believe that religious beliefs are inherently more worthy of tolerance than political or philosophical beliefs, so I'm using the word "faith" in a fairly broad context here.

FWIW, I believe that the UK decision several years ago to compel the separation of conjoined twins was wrong, not because of the parents' faith but because the likelihood of either twin surviving the separation was so low. It was essentially experimental medicine and I don't believe that the courts should be able to compel that.

[WednesdayAddams]

Originally Posted by john ingram

But who are you to say that they're wrong? Can you prove that somewhere there's not a man in the clouds who approves of this?

I don't need to. All I have to do is cite the law. Parents are free to believe whatever they like. They are not free to neglect or abuse their child. That is illegal.

[HoHoHo]

Originally Posted by john ingram

But who are you to say that they're wrong? Can you prove that somewhere there's not a man in the clouds who approves of this?

Can you prove that there's not some man in the clouds who wanted the World Trade Centre bombed? Or does your religious tolerance only extend to Christian beliefs?

[Fish]

Originally Posted by john ingram

It's not in the Constitution. It's in the Bill of Rights. Ninth Amendment:

The intent of the Ninth Amendment was to say, "Although we have enumerated several rights here, we are not implying that they are the only rights retained by the people." They didn't want to expand the federal powers by implication. It was a school of thought which divided the Founding Fathers: was the Constitution a document that gave all power to the government and set aside certain things for the people — all powers not prohibited are permitted — or did it give all power to the people and set aside certain things for the government, i.e., all powers not permitted are prohibited?

The Constitution contains no law against murder, for instance. Does that mean that murder is a right reserved for the people, according to the Ninth Amendment? I suspect that no court in the nation would agree.

Originally Posted by john ingram

But who are you to say that they're wrong? Can you prove that somewhere there's not a man in the clouds who approves of this?

If you're the one advocating that the right to free, uninterrupted parenting, even unto the death of the child, should exist, I declare it is you who must prove there is an invisible man in the clouds who approves.

Until that point, I think it should be treated as a specialized form of murder — murder by deliberate neglect — which is a crime we have empowered the state to prosecute. Otherwise, how do you draw a line between a parent who refuses to treat a child because he (the parent) believes in faith healing, and a parent who refuses to feed a child because the parent is a Breatharian?

[bufftabby]

Originally Posted by HoHoHo

Can you prove that there's not some man in the clouds who wanted the World Trade Centre bombed? Or does your religious tolerance only extend to Christian beliefs?

Unless you're positing that the bombers of the WTC were in fact the parents of the victims, that's not exactly a valid analogy.

[Islander]

Said simply, there are crimes of omission as well as crimes of comission. Withholding medical care for your child in a life-threatening condition is the former, and should carry the same penalty as the latter.

[WednesdayAddams]

Originally Posted by bufftabby

Unless you're positing that the bombers of the WTC were in fact the parents of the victims, that's not exactly a valid analogy.

If one action which harms people based on religious belief is valid, so are they all. No picking and choosing. Either it's inviolate or it isn't. The hoho's analogy is valid.

[bufftabby]

Originally Posted by WednesdayAddams

If one action which harms people based on religious belief is valid, so are they all. No picking and choosing. Either it's inviolate or it isn't. The hoho's analogy is valid.

I disagree, but thanks for the ruling.

[HoHoHo]

Originally Posted by bufftabby

Unless you're positing that the bombers of the WTC were in fact the parents of the victims, that's not exactly a valid analogy.

It'll do when my argument is essentially that neither parenthood nor belief systems are a valid reasons for causing harm to others. john ingram's argument seems to be that belief systems should be a valid excuse for harming others and that parents in particular should be allowed to use them as a defence against the consequences of illegal acts. I am arguing that the religion of parents in no more relevant to whether or not they should be prosecuted for the harm they cause than is the religion of terrorists.

If you're the one advocating that the right to free, uninterrupted parenting, even unto the death of the child, should exist, I declare it is you who must prove there is an invisible man in the clouds who approves.

Nope. The mere existence of a god would no more mean that his wishes should be complied with than the wishes of any other dictator.

[bufftabby]

Also, that's not even to say that I agree that religious beliefs permit any sort of egregious behavior, along the lines of letting children go without medical care OR bombing buildings. I think it's more of a question of personal autonomy as it extends to one's children, and religion as the basis for these decisions is irrelevant. If I don't think my child should receive treatment, it shouldn't matter why or why not; what really matters is whether I should be able to make this decision or not. Personally, I'm not sure where this line should be drawn, but I don't think the fact that terrorists don't have the right to commit bombings will affect my decision.

[bufftabby]

Originally Posted by HoHoHo

I am arguing that the religion of parents in no more relevant to whether or not they should be prosecuted for the harm they cause than is the religion of terrorists.

This, I agree with. I don't think religion should enter into it. I think it's irrelevant why the parents want to act/fail to act, and the only issue is whether they should be allowed to do so for any reason.

[WednesdayAddams]

Originally Posted by bufftabby

Also, that's not even to say that I agree that religious beliefs permit any sort of egregious behavior, along the lines of letting children go without medical care OR bombing buildings.

No, I got that.

I think it's more of a question of personal autonomy as it extends to one's children, and religion as the basis for these decisions is irrelevant. If I don't think my child should receive treatment, it shouldn't matter why or why not; what really matters is whether I should be able to make this decision or not.

The courts and the laws disagree with you. 'Should' does not come in to play. Parents are not generally allowed to refuse standard medical care for their children, regardless of the reason. This is considered criminal neglect.

Because children are not considered able to make responsible medical decisions for themselves. Parents are expected to make those responsible decisions until such time as the law recognizes the children as adults. Failure to do so (regardless of the reason) is illegal, and at that point the state has the duty and the right to step in.

U.S.C.A. Title 42, Chapter 67, Sec. 5106a orders states to provide services through CPS against medical neglect up to and including competency hearings against the parents should they withhold care.

SHOULD you be able to make that decision? Yes. Unfortunately, there's no way of knowing if you're going to invoke some esoteric belief as an excuse for not doing what is in your child's best interest. So the state provides for that.

Once again, refer back to my opinion WRT idealists and what 'should' be.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by HoHoHo

Nope. The mere existence of a god would no more mean that his wishes should be complied with than the wishes of any other dictator.

That wasn't really my point. John essentially said, "I believe parenting is a universal and unabridged right, to be exercised at the discretion of the parents alone, and you have to prove why it isn't." I am putting the burden of proof back where it belongs, nothing more; if he wishes for that right to exist, on that basis, it is his job to prove it, not mine.

[HoHoHo]

Originally Posted by bufftabby

Also, that's not even to say that I agree that religious beliefs permit any sort of egregious behavior, along the lines of letting children go without medical care OR bombing buildings. I think it's more of a question of personal autonomy as it extends to one's children, and religion as the basis for these decisions is irrelevant. If I don't think my child should receive treatment, it shouldn't matter why or why not; what really matters is whether I should be able to make this decision or not. Personally, I'm not sure where this line should be drawn, but I don't think the fact that terrorists don't have the right to commit bombings will affect my decision.

If we're talking solely about religion should be a basis for restraining the state from being able to prevent harm to those who are legally unable to make their own decisions about life-threatening situations, I don't think that our views are very different. I just don't see religion as any different to any other belief system and object to it being accorded any special status at law.

For me, the acid test should be "the best interests of the child" and I believe that there exist (fortunately rare) situations in which the best interests of the child should be determined by someone other than the parents - especially when the consequences are irrevocable, and the need to make decisions is time-critical.

As I've already said upthread, I absolutely believe that adult children should be able to sue their parents for any long term harm they have suffered as a consequence of their parents failing to provide appropriate medical care when they were fully able to do so. So know, I don't think that you, me, or any other parent should always have an absolute and inalienable right to make decisions which will harm my child to the point of death. When there is disagreement about what is "in the best interests of the child, I absolutely believe that the state has both a right and a duty to act as guardian ad litem for the child until the issue is resolved.

[bufftabby]

Originally Posted by WednesdayAddams

The courts and the laws disagree with you. 'Should' does not come in to play. Parents are not generally allowed to refuse standard medical care for their children, regardless of the reason. This is considered criminal neglect.

Because children are not considered able to make responsible medical decisions for themselves. Parents are expected to make those responsible decisions until such time as the law recognizes the children as adults. Failure to do so (regardless of the reason) is illegal, and at that point the state has the duty and the right to step in.

U.S.C.A. Title 42, Chapter 67, Sec. 5106a orders states to provide services through CPS against medical neglect up to and including competency hearings against the parents should they withhold care.

SHOULD you be able to make that decision? Yes. Unfortunately, there's no way of knowing if you're going to invoke some esoteric belief as an excuse for not doing what is in your child's best interest. So the state provides for that.

Once again, refer back to my opinion WRT idealists and what 'should' be.

You misunderstand me. I did not say, 'I should be able to make this decision,' I said, "whether I should be able to make this decision or not", "whether" being the key word there. I personally fall on the side of NO, much like the courts and the laws do. As I said, I'm not sure where this line should be drawn. To elaborate, how far should forcing medical care extend, particularly in light of the vaccination debate. Once again, refer back to my opinion that religion should have no bearing on this. I don't care why some parents believe their child shouldn't be vaccinated; the only relevant bit is whether they should be allowed to treat vaccinations as either optional or necessary medical procedures.