What Would Solomon Do?

[Leah Zero]

http://www.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/europe/09/04/britain.siamese.ap/index.html

The gist: conjoined twins were born last month to a European couple of undiscolsed origin. The girls are attached at the pelvis; "Jodie" is purported to be strong and alert, but "Mary" depends on her sister's heart and lungs (one set between them).

The parents sought out medical care in Britain superior to their native country's, where the twins would most likely have perished. Now, British court wants to force the parents to consign the twins to an operation that will potentially save Jodie but indubitably kill Mary.

If no operation is performed, there is an 80-90% chance both girls will die.

The parents do not want the operation performed, contravening with a religious rationale—in sum, it is not God's will to kill one to save the other; lives must be given equal opportunity.

This case invokes questions similar to those conjured in abortion debates. As for myself, I waffle—if the couple earnestly wanted their children to live or die per natural/divinal selection, why did they seek care in Britain in the first place...?

[tracer]

Reminds me of this old thread:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=23036

[jmullaney]

I read in a book the other day that the most popular form of birth control in Britain in the 19th century was infanticide. But, killing one person to save another is wrong, even if there is only a 10-20 percent chance that both would live. If Mary could give consent, that would be one thing, but since she can not I think leaving it to the fates isn't such a bad idea morally. Tough one though.

[Arnold Winkelried]

This is a thorny issue. I can't fault the parents for seeking the best medical care for their children, they were doubtless unaware of the consequences that could follow.

This is one of those hard-to-make decisions that has no good answer. I suppose I would rely on statistical information if no other data is provided, i.e.
What are the odds of the one child surviving after the operation? It seems that 80-90% odds that both will die is almost tantamount to a hopeless situation. And survive until what age (without the operation), anyway?

[Polycarp]

Hmmm..."quality of life" issues would suggest that leaving them as conjoined is not the optimum solution. However, it would appear from the evidence at hand that they are surviving healthily as conjoined twins for the moment.

If somebody appointed me judge here, I would say not to kill Mary for Jodie's benefit. But be prepared to operate when a child their age dies with intact heart and lungs. Then transplant them into Mary and do the disconjoining operation as soon as she is stable.

Net result: two healthy, separated twins.

[Arnold Winkelried]

Of course what Polycarp says is reasonable. Again, to me it boils down to - what are the chances of being able to have both children survive, vs. the chances for a single child?

Assuming the following:
chances for both children to survive - 10%
chances for one child to survive - 90%

Then I would say that a government may be justified in ordering the operation even in spite of the disagreement of the parents. If the percentages were 50% then there would be no reason to compel the children to have to go through the operation. I don't think that "we should let God decide" should be a valid reason for foregoing an operation if there are clear medical reasons for doing so.

[Leah Zero]

Respectfully, Polycarp, I think your resolution is too idealistic. Granted, there's no brimming cornucopia of medical data being spilled here, but implicit is the prediction that only Jodie has a reasonable chance at life.

Also, Mary would not be "killed" per se. The operation would simply remove the twin with the heart and lungs. Although I suppose you could argue the semantics of that one till you turn plaid in the face. Hmmm...

[Phil_15]

At the risk of a highjack, Arnold I must submit that I don't believe the government should overule the rights of the parents especially when it comes against a religious objection for a particular medical procedure. There have already been several threads touching on this from several sides.

Leah, I feel reasonably sure the parents were trying to do their best to do whatever they could to insure the safety and perhaps the quality of life for BOTH their daughters. I try to imagine their anguish in learning the actual situation. Thankfully I have never nor ever will be in that position.....therefore have no idea which way I would "waffle."

[jb_farley]

polycarp, while I think your reasoning is valid, I don't think the facts are quite straight. the quality of life issue is not an issue at all, because, joined together, they only have a limited life span. Most conjoined twins are of the "one is strong and healthy and the other is definitely not" variety. As Mary grows weaker and weaker, her systems will start to shut down. Since she is still attached to her sister, Jodie's systems will falter as well. The two will probably die of heart or lung failure within hours of each other.

There was a case much like this a few years back at the Childrens' Hospital over my way. I believe the twins were ultimately separated, but I can't recall if the healthier of the two survived.

It is exactly cases like this that make me sure the state should not meddle in such intimate and heartbreaking affairs. Abortion comes to mind. Although I am strongly pro-life, and would do everything in my power to keep a child who I helped conceive, I cannot and will not make a judgement about others in a similar position. Interestingly enough, Catholic doctrine would agree with me (at least in the extreme cases). For example, if an abortion needed to be performed lest the mother die an untimely death, the Church takes no position (although certain philosophers and theologians within the church may not follow suit).

I say the British Government should not be handing down judgements to two parents struggling with an ultimately heartbreaking situation.

[APB]

The English courts (not the British Government) are adjudicating between the rights of the parents, 'Jodie' and 'Mary', all of which are in conflict with each other. That is what the law courts are there for.

[Arnold Winkelried]

Originally posted by Phil_15
At the risk of a highjack, Arnold I must submit that I don't believe the government should overule the rights of the parents especially when it comes against a religious objection for a particular medical procedure.

We will have to disagree on this. My opinion is that if the situation is clear-cut (such as "If this medical procedure is withheld there is a 100% chance the child will die") the parents' religious considerations should be swept aside. The problem in my mind is where to draw the line, which is of course the difficulty in this case, and without more knowledge of the prognoses for the different procedures it's very difficult to make a decision.

[Phil_15]

Arnold Winkelried

My opinion is that if the situation is clear-cut (such as "If this medical procedure is withheld there is a 100% chance the child will die") the parents' religious considerations should be swept aside.

Arnold, I understand your position, but I submit that in the vast majority of cases there is no clear-cut solution when dealing with medicine. Granted, the percentages may greatly favor one course of action over another, but the parents are RESPONSIBLE for the upbringing of their children and their welfare, not the state. What is the result if a state sanctioned procedure leaves a comatose child? Who pays for the care? Does the state now insist that the parents pull the plug? Does the child become a ward of the state? Does the state pull the plug? Where is the separation of church and state?

Ideally, the parents should make the best decision. But who determines "BEST" in each case? Again, the parents have the moral and LEGAL duty to raise and care for their children and until the perfect dividing line ("where to draw the line" in your words) is found, I think that the state should keep their nose out of the heartrending decisions that parents may have to make at some time.

(Note: Dealing with stupid and irresponsible parents is another thread :))

[Arnold Winkelried]

To answer your questions Phil_15

What is the result if a state sanctioned procedure leaves a comatose child? Who pays for the care?

If the parents refuse to pay for it then the state should pay for it.

Does the state now insist that the parents pull the plug? Does the child become a ward of the state? Does the state pull the plug?

Here comes the issue of "what are the chances of the child ever coming out of the coma?" I personally think that as long as there is a chance of the child coming out of the coma life support should continue, which I think (absent a parent's decision) is the policy followed by hospitals, but I don't know for sure.

Where is the separation of church and state?

This in my mind is exactly why religious beliefs should not come into play in the case of a child's medical care or upbringing. If a doctor (or a panel of doctors) determines that a child needs a blood transfusion (for example), then it shouldn't matter if the parents object for religious reasons or non-religious reasons.

I disagree with the attitude "Who knows what's best for a child? Obviously the parents." For example, if my child is sick, I don't know what treatment they need, I'm not a medical professional. The doctor probably knows what's best for them, not me. Of course a parent should make a decision concerning a child's welfare, but in some cases another person is more qualified in making the decision.

[jb_farley]

Arnold, I have a question for you (and for anyone else who would agree with you). Please keep in mind that yes, I disagree strongly with you, but it is a not terribly abiding opinion.

Why is there such a moral impetus to utilize new technologies? The ability to separate twins of this variety is a rather recent development. Do we have an imperative to change our beliefs as soon as the future becomes possible?

Look at a more black and white case (favorable to your side). What of antibiotics? If a parent of yore would pray for their child to get better, and prayer was for the most part the most efficacious method of health-improvement that people knew of, should they be forced to change their moral outlook?

Should we insist that all countries which rely on non-western medicine be forced to start treating their children with our methods, or risk sanctions or revocation of trading benefits?

Lastly, if a parent truely beleives that an act is evil (the killing of one of their children), does or should the government force the act upon the family?

[Sterra]

Well... id say this is clear cut... the twins nor the parents are British they just went there for medical care. Maybe this is really Britan seeing how much it can get away with?

[APB]

Neither the children nor the parents are British but they are being treated in a British hospital. It is the hospital which wants a ruling on the legal status of the possible courses of action.

[Arnold Winkelried]

Originally posted by jb_farley
Why is there such a moral impetus to utilize new technologies? The ability to separate twins of this variety is a rather recent development. Do we have an imperative to change our beliefs as soon as the future becomes possible?

Yes. If a new medical treatment is available that can save someone's life, it is criminal to refuse that treatment to an individual because you personally think it's against your moral code.

What of antibiotics? If a parent of yore would pray for their child to get better, and prayer was for the most part the most efficacious method of health-improvement that people knew of, should they be forced to change their moral outlook?

If a group of medical experts agreed that the treatment with the best chances of success is antibiotics instead of prayer, then antibiotics should be used. Here of course we get in the issue of "How much will the antibiotics help vs. what are the potential negative side-effects?"

Should we insist that all countries which rely on non-western medicine be forced to start treating their children with our methods, or risk sanctions or revocation of trading benefits?

If a country can have access to better medical treatment, then it would be remiss to deny them that medical treatment. If studies show that their non-western medical treatment is as effective as the western medicine there would obviously be no benefit in forcing a change. Most countries that don't use modern medical techniques seem to do so because a lack of funds, not because of a lack of belief in the efficacy of surgery, vaccines, etc...

Lastly, if a parent truely beleives that an act is evil (the killing of one of their children), does or should the government force the act upon the family?

Yes, if medical professionals determine that both children would die anyway, and that by killing one child you can save the other.

[Phil_15]

Arnold, the idea of the government intervening in the personal decisions of parents is disturbing to me because there is NO black and white to these issues. I find the notion [expanding the thread a little here] of trying to protect from harm, injury, or bad circumstance, EVERY kid, EVERY user of all kinds of tools or implements, or EVERY stupid moron who fails to use common sense is a high and lofty goal. But in doing or trying to do so, inevitably the rights of countless others are ground into the dust when establishing the criteria. Secondly, the costs associated with trying to enforce the rules and regs related to eliminating the small percentages that are left rise astronomically as the percentages get smaller and smaller. Some will always fall through the crack. That is indeed unfortunate and undesirable, but I submit IMHO that the moral, social, and economic condition of the country would be much better off if the government would kindly keep its snotty nose out of areas in which it has no business.

[casdave]

I started another thread about this issue and didn't pick this one up - sorry.
At the risk of repeating lots of points raised here, this is the link.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=37155

I only just read that the family are not British nationals and at the risk of being accused of a cop-out I really do not think that British courts should be ruling on this.
We do not have the cultural moral background which these parents are from to make a decision.
Put another way, how would you feel if the children were US citizens and British courts were making a decision not only about the lives of the children but also an implied comment on US moral culture.That is to say British courts decide to junk the sensitivities of the US in favour of their self-assessed morally high values.

If this condition had been detected early on in pregnancy how would the Catholic faith, which is that of the parents, have reacted to this ? Would it have been percieved as an aborted pregnancy ?

I am not sure of the US position as regards the Supreme court but I believe that it effectiveley makes laws that apply to all US citizens whereas British court do not have the same constitutional role, so that they can rule one thing in one case and it does not have to be applicable to all general law.ie an ad-hoc law for one special case.

I looked at your point Phil and can see something in it, it is not like the parents have wilfully neglected their children, parents already have the right to deny potentially life-saving treatment to their children, they can refuse vaccinations for them, its just that the hazard to health is not as immediate, in fact being too lazy to bring your children to attend vaccination programms in my opinion is greater evidence of neglect than these unfortunates have ever shown.

I'll repeat a point I made in the other thread and that is - what if the children are separated and the survivor, contrary to medical predictions, does badly - the moral basis for the decision will suddenly be looking somewhat weak.

I am not saying the parents are right but where medical science does not have all the answers then their wishes should prevail.

[Arnold Winkelried]

Originally posted by Phil_15
Arnold, the idea of the government intervening in the personal decisions of parents is disturbing to me because there is NO black and white to these issues.

So what should happen if parents decide that their religion dictates beating their child for discipline? Should the government intervene? Or are you speaking only of medical decisions? Then suppose a child has a ruptured appendix and the parents don't want surgery because they think they can heal the child through prayer? Should the government intervene?

In the USA (or in my country of origin, Switzerland) the government would intervene in both of the situations I have mentioned above, and I believe rightly so.

Originally posted by casdave
I'll repeat a point I made in the other thread and that is - what if the children are separated and the survivor, contrary to medical predictions, does badly - the moral basis for the decision will suddenly be looking somewhat weak.

I agree. Which is why the decision should depend on the medical prognosis as offered by experts in the field. If the odds of a single child surviving are very high, and the odds of the joined children surviving very low, the operation should be done even without the approval of the parents.
A similar argument could be advanced against any surgical procedure. Nothing is 100% predictable. The child being treated for the ruptured appendix can die on the table. Nevertheless the odds are much greater if the operation is performed.

[tracer]

Polycarp wrote:

But be prepared to operate when a child their age dies with intact heart and lungs. Then transplant them into Mary and do the disconjoining operation as soon as she is stable.

Net result: two healthy, separated twins.

Darn it, this wouldn't be an issue if we had good artificial or lab-grown organs. Get off your butts, synthetic organ researchers!

[pldennison]

Arnold:Then suppose a child has a ruptured appendix and the parents don't want surgery because they think they can heal the child through prayer? Should the government intervene?

In the USA (or in my country of origin, Switzerland) the government would intervene in both of the situations I have mentioned above, and I believe rightly so.

Not in Ohio (http://orc.avv.com/title-29/sec-2919/sec-2919.22.htm) they wouldn't. Or Virginia (http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-371.1), for that matter, and I would guess several other states as well.

[Arnold Winkelried]

Thank you for the correction pldennison. I should amend my statement to say "In the US state in which I live ..."

[pldennison]

Actually, Arnold, I think we're both half-right. The laws I quoted don't imply at all that the state wouldn't intervene, but does state that the parents would not be guilty of a crime for withholding medical care. Interesting conundrum, from a purely objective perspective.

From a subjective one, I am glad I am not these parents, and am not faced with this decision. I quite literally do not know what I would do.

[Spider Woman]

Why is there such a moral impetus to utilize new technologies?

That's one I wonder about also, as in the case of the child discussed in this (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=35998) pit thread. The child was born essentially without a functioning brain, and but for modern technology, would have died shortly after birth. But because of the invasive medical procedures performed upon her, she lived 16 months, with no hope of her life ever being improved in any way.

The scenario in the OP is a little different because modern technology might actually provide one or both of the girls with a normal life, and the parents already made the decision to avail themselves of that technology.

It would be extremely difficult for me to decide what measures to take (I'm glad I don't have to). The idea of getting more medical opinions, possibly from outside that hospital, might provide more information. Doctors are not infallible, and in the US there often seems to be a tacit policy (or maybe professional courtesy?) within hospitals not to override the decisions of other doctors within the group.

I wish that Polycarp's idea would be a possibility, and I wonder if it is a feasible one in this case, and whether it has been discussed?

If, in the end, they decide to go with the original medical opinion, I think I would decide to let Jodie live, and Mary die, and would agonize about it for the rest of my life as to whether or not I did the right thing.

(welcome, leah; thought-provoking topic)

[jb_farley]

So what should happen if parents decide that their religion dictates beating their child for discipline? Should the government intervene?

There is a major difference between actively harming your child and defending it via religion, and doing what you believe to be truely good thereby passively harming your child.

Or are you speaking only of medical decisions?

Here's a medical example to wet your whistle. My boy has a bum heart, and an extremely rare tissue type which only a handful of other people in the world share. Coincidentally enough, the neighbor's kid has suffered severe brain damage and has the same tissue type. Would I be justified in taking his still beating heart out of his chest, thereby killing him, to save my son?

Then suppose a child has a ruptured appendix and the parents don't want surgery because they think they can heal the child through prayer? Should the government intervene?

No, I don't think the government should. First of all, exercise some empathy and put yourself in their shoes. Here are parnets, raised ina faith system since, birth, fervent believers in the power of Christ, and sure that medical treatment would place the soul of their child in jeopardy.

They do not want harm to come to their child! That is the furthest thought from their minds. They have seen the efficacy of prayer (not in a way that would hold up to you or me), and believe that if their child dies anyway, it was the will of god. But at least the soul isn't in hell.

If they had, from the very beginning, an intent to kill their child, then I would say lock them up. But that is evidently not the case.


Finally, Arnold, I would say in response to "if a new medical treatment is available that can save someone's life, it is criminal to refuse that treatment to an individual because you personally think it's against your moral code" is an immensely scary proposition. Not by itself, but as a response to my question. Technology should run roughshod over morality? Fine, then so be it.

[Arnold Winkelried]

Originally posted by jb_farley
There is a major difference between actively harming your child and defending it via religion, and doing what you believe to be truely good thereby passively harming your child.

There obviously is a difference. I was responding to the statement "the idea of the government intervening in the personal decisions of parents is disturbing to me", and emphasizing that there are many cases were the government intervenes in a parent's personal decisions.
In any case, let me ask you this: suppose the parents beating the child did it to prevent him engaging in activities that would endanger the child's immortal soul? Would that be justified? What if my religious text says "infraction X committed by your child shall be punished by a beating" ?

Here's a medical example to wet your whistle. My boy has a bum heart, and an extremely rare tissue type which only a handful of other people in the world share. Coincidentally enough, the neighbor's kid has suffered severe brain damage and has the same tissue type. Would I be justified in taking his still beating heart out of his chest, thereby killing him, to save my son?

Is the other child "brain-dead"? Is there no consciousness at all, nor any hope or ever regaining any kind of brain activity? If so, I would personally decide that the child is dead, and that if the heart can be used to save another child, it should be so used. However my view is probably in the minority in today's society, AFAIK a family member's consent is needed before harvesting any organs.

No, I don't think the government should. First of all, exercise some empathy and put yourself in their shoes. Here are parnets, raised ina faith system since, birth, fervent believers in the power of Christ, and sure that medical treatment would place the soul of their child in jeopardy.
They do not want harm to come to their child! That is the furthest thought from their minds. They have seen the efficacy of prayer (not in a way that would hold up to you or me), and believe that if their child dies anyway, it was the will of god. But at least the soul isn't in hell.

And I argue that religious beliefs should not be the concern of the government. What if I told you that I believe that my child should not get an operation because the Invisible Pink Unicorn told me so? Or if my daughter is drowning in the ocean, should I have the right to tell the lifeguard "I forbid you to rescue her! This is a test by (insert deity here). If (my chosen deity) wills it, she will swim back to shore." How do you pick which religious beliefs to respect, and which not to?


Finally, Arnold, I would say in response to "if a new medical treatment is available that can save someone's life, it is criminal to refuse that treatment to an individual because you personally think it's against your moral code" is an immensely scary proposition. Not by itself, but as a response to my question. Technology should run roughshod over morality? Fine, then so be it.

I say that the greater morality is in saving someone's life rather than allowing them to die for the sake of a problematic soul. In those cases, yes, technology should run roughshod over a person's "morality".

[Phil_15]

Arnold

And I argue that religious beliefs should not be the concern of the government. What if I told you that I believe
that my child should not get an operation because the Invisible Pink Unicorn told me so? Or if my daughter is
drowning in the ocean, should I have the right to tell the lifeguard "I forbid you to rescue her! This is a test by
(insert deity here). If (my chosen deity) wills it, she will swim back to shore." How do you pick which religious
beliefs to respect, and which not to?

Thanks for making my point! :D Your first and last sentences form the cormerstone of my arguement. The government has no right to dictate MEDICAL (please note that this is a debate regarding medical, OK?) treatment or procedures that go against a families religious beliefs because there is NO WAY to reasonably differeniate and thus write the legislation much less administer the law. Secondly, the idea that in order to save an extremely small percentage would allow the government to diminish the rights of potentially 1000's is absolutely unacceptable to me! I don't buy it.

[DrMatrix]

I can't believe that anyone would say that a parent is justified in withholding vital medical help to a child on religious grounds. Allowing a religious exemption is quite the opposite separation of church and state. It is allowing those of certain religions to commit what would be a crime for anyone else.

I read the Ohio (http://orc.avv.com/title-29/sec-2919/sec-2919.22.htm) and Virginia (http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-371.1) links provided by pldennison. If I read this right, this means there are acts that a person who belongs to certain religions can commit, that would be a felony for me! This is appalling. (Though, sadly not shocking.) I wonder what they would do if someone refused medical treatment for their child because they would rather pray to Satan. There was a woman in New York that cut her child open because the child was possessed by devils. She expected to find snakes in her blood. No. This is very, very wrong! The state has an obligation to cast aside religion in deciding what is in the best interests of the child. Do you think the government should be deciding which religions are "recognized"? And making members of recognized religions exempt from certain crimes?

Arnold Winkelried said:
"If a new medical treatment is available that can save someone's life, it is criminal to refuse that treatment to an individual because you personally think it's against your moral code"

I take this a given. If you want to call it roughshod, whatever. It's still a givenOriginally posted by jb_farley
Here's a medical example to wet your whistle. My boy has a bum heart, and an extremely rare tissue type which only a handful of other people in the world share. Coincidentally enough, the neighbor's kid has suffered severe brain damage and has the same tissue type. Would I be justified in taking his still beating heart out of his chest, thereby killing him, to save my son?
Would you be justified? No, but if you are talking brain dead and his parents give consent, I see no problem with taking his "still beating heart out of his chest". (I don't think I could bring myself to ask them though.) If you are talking minor brain damage then, no, certainly not. Something in between...I don't know...probably not.

In the case in the OP. The parents tried to follow their convictions. The state, though, has an overriding obligation to look after the welfare of the children, even if this means sacrificing one of the two girls. Don't get me wrong; my heart aches for the parents. They will lose a daughter. That would tear anyone apart. But rather lose one daughter than two.

[jb_farley]

No, but if you are talking brain dead and his parents give consent, I see no problem with taking his "still beating heart out of his chest".

emphasis mine. In this case the government is not asking the parents' permission. In fact, the parents have blatantly said "NO!"

[APB]

Let me repeat the point I first made several days ago - it is the courts, NOT the British government, which has been ASKED to rule on the case. The British government has not made any comment whatsoever on the case, as to do so would be sub judice. Attributing the decisions to the British government is to misunderstand completely the context of the case.

Parents, whether British nationals or not, do not have an absolute right in English law to judge the interests of their children. In this case, such a right would necessarily conflict with the rights of at least one of the twins. That said, it may be that the final outcome of the case will be a ruling that in this particular instance their views ought to override other objections.

That the parents are not British is irrelevant, not least because the European Convention of Human Rights is about to be incorporated into English law. The English courts will take care to ensure that any judgment does not contravene the terms of that Convention, which almost certainly already applies in whichever country the parents originate.

[jb_farley]

APB, are the Bristish Courts not part of the government? I did in fact read your last post, but was a bit puzzled by your insistence on this topic. What's the straight dope?

[APB]

In common parlance, no, although both are servants of the Crown. Using the phrase 'the British government' in this context carries incorrect connotations which are meaningless in Britain and which are liable to be misunderstood by non-Britons. The most obvious of these is that the decision is somehow a political one. At the risk of oversimplifying the matter, the courts are here acting as an impartial broker adjudicating between several parties who disagree. The source of that disagreement is an uncertainty as to the legality of the proposed courses of action. No one in Britain disagrees that the courts have a right to act in this case, although there is no clear public concensus as to what would be the most appropriate solution.

[casdave]

To clarify , or maybe make things even more opaque, the courts are only mandated to make decisions on the letter of the law and are not allowed to take into account opinions wether popular or otherwise.
This has led to the spectacle of the British judiciary acting both on behalf of the Government on European law and yet others, in the same field, in the position of prosecuting the Government in the same arena.

When cases come up like this which might have a political dimension the judges rule on the wording of the law but the Home Secretary, who is a politician, can look at the ruling which is then treated as expert advice and make a differant decision.
Naturally going against the advice of your experts has to be explained in print and it is generally justified as being in the public interest.

One such case that has required the intervention of Home Secretary and his Attorney General is that of General Pinochet.

There are times when our judiciary will look at a case and refuse to rule on the grounds that the issue is political and as such should be dealt with by politicians.

[APB]

casdave - I did not wish to imply that the courts would consider public opinion. What I meant was that the debate in Britain has not been about whether the courts have the power to consider this particular case. (The view has been expressed that it might have been better had the courts not become involved, but that's not quite the same thing.)

What you say about cases with a political dimension is true, but, so far, there has been no political dimension to the case in question.

What has been objectionable about this thread is that most of the discussion has rested on American constitutional, legal and cultural assumptions without acknowledgement that the parties in the case are not American and that it is being heard in a non-U.S. court. The idea that this case involves the government/state interfering in the rights of individuals and that therefore some major constitutional principle has been violated seems very odd to most Britons.

[Arnold Winkelried]

Originally posted by Phil_15
Thanks for making my point! :D Your first and last sentences form the cormerstone of my arguement. The government has no right to dictate MEDICAL (please note that this is a debate regarding medical, OK?) treatment or procedures that go against a families religious beliefs because there is NO WAY to reasonably differeniate and thus write the legislation much less administer the law. Secondly, the idea that in order to save an extremely small percentage would allow the government to diminish the rights of potentially 1000's is absolutely unacceptable to me! I don't buy it.

So you are agreeing that all religious beliefs should be treated the same. So am I. You are saying that all religious beliefs should be respected. I am saying that none should be. Read the example Dr. Matrix mentioned above about the woman in New York who cut her child open to rid her child of devils. Are those religious beliefs to be respected as well?

And you are saying that it's OK to sacrifice an extremely small percentage in order to slightly enhance the rights of thousands more people? I don't buy that either. It's not like the government is hovering over every pediatrician's office and asking the doctor to report right back to them with the parent's decision. As far as I can tell, there is intervention only in small numbers of cases.

[Arnold Winkelried]

Also, since Phil_15 was pointing out that the discussion is about medical issues:

Passively neglecting a child and allowing them to get sick or die because you believe in "healing by prayer" is just as surely harming the child as, for example, forcing them to go through a procedure such as female genital mutilation that you might choose for religious beliefs.

[SuaSponte]

Originally posted by DrMatrix
I can't believe that anyone would say that a parent is justified in withholding vital medical help to a child on religious grounds. Allowing a religious exemption is quite the opposite separation of church and state. It is allowing those of certain religions to commit what would be a crime for anyone else.

I read the Ohio and Virginia links provided by pldennison. If I read this right, this means there are acts that a person who belongs to certain religions can commit, that would be a felony for me! This is appalling.

Actually, no, DrMatrix. Remember, we are talking about criminal law here, so the issue is intent. What the Ohio and Virginia statutes say is that if a parent in good faith believes he is helping their child through prayer, they have not intended to abuse their child, and therefore have not committed a crime.
Nor is this unusual. Intent is almost always considered when a crime is prosecuted. The only crime I can recall that doesn't have an intent component in the Model Penal Code is statutory rape if the victim is, IIRC, under 12. Also, the parents really have to believe. I would think that a baptized Christian Scientist who hasn't been to services in 15 years would have serious trouble proving they were acting in good faith if they didn't seek treatment for their kid.
And remember, the fact that the behavior isn't a crime doesn't mean the states of Ohio or Va. wouldn't intervene to force medical treatment. Children are not property, and the state is obliged to consider the civil rights of both parent and child equally.
Finally, I noticed a curious thing about the statutes. They both require that the parent be following the teachings of a "recognized" religion. Recognized by whom? I forsee huge First Amendment problems there.
Sua

[DrMatrix]

Originally posted by SuaSponte
Remember, we are talking about criminal law here, so the issue is intent. What the Ohio and Virginia statutes say is that if a parent in good faith believes he is helping their child through prayer, they have not intended to abuse their child, and therefore have not committed a crime.
Nor is this unusual. Intent is almost always considered when a crime is prosecuted.
<snip>
Finally, I noticed a curious thing about the statutes. They both require that the parent be following the teachings of a "recognized" religion. Recognized by whom? I forsee huge First Amendment problems there.
Sua [/B]Is lack of intent an excuse for a crime? I thought that intent was considered as providing a motive or in evaluating the severity of the crime for sentencing purposes. Involentary manslaughter is still manslaughter, isn't it? What about the woman I mentioned above who thought her daughter was possessed by the devil or demons? Her intent was to help the child.

About recoginzing certain religions, some organizations are recognized as churches for tax purposes. I don't know if this is what they intended. The whole idea really bothers me.

[sailor]

While I do not want to get into other aspects of the debate I do want to point out that the fact that the parents are foreigners has no bearing. The law is the law of the land and applies to *all* within that jurisdiction.

The parents went to England *because* they had that problem. When you enter a country you take the good with the bad.

Can you imagine someone saying "we want to go to the USA for its superior health care but we want to be immune from local laws and observe our own beliefs". How about African people who want to perform genital mutilation on their daughters? Should they be allowed to do it in the US? I don't think so.

When you are in a country you are subject to its laws. if you don't like them you should stay home.

[jb_farley]

DocMat,

The woman with the snakes is obviously suffering from some type opf mental condition. I would wager that she didn't have a full enough grasp of good vs. bad, and therefore will be sent somewhere for treatemtn.

unless, of course, she's in texas.

[DrMatrix]

IMO anyone who "treats the physical or mental illness or defect of the child by spiritual means through prayer alone" must have some kind of mental condition and definitely doesn't have a full grasp of good vs evil. (Quoted text from Ohio (http://orc.avv.com/title-29/sec-2919/sec-2919.22.htm).)

If intent is an excuse for commiting what would be a crime, then why include the language in the Ohio and Virginia bills?

[jb_farley]

Dr, what a wily use of a quote! For those who haven't gone to the site, here's the full sentence:

It is not a violation of a duty of care, protection, or support under this division when the parent, guardian, custodian, or person having custody or control of a child treats the physical or mental illness or defect of the child by spiritual means through prayer alone, in accordance
with the tenets of a recognized religious body.

I think that might be why they included the language. Remember that at the dawn of germ theory, society would probably condemn someone who didn't use folk remedies or prayer to heal their child, eschewing them for what we call 'medicine'.

What if stem cell research advances a great deal in the next ten years, but cloning doesn't keep pace. Will you have me arrested if I don't use aborted embryonic tissue to give my child a new liver? If so, then you are preaching bullshit. You are right in believing morality should be redefined as technology increases; however, you have espoused completely trashing morality as soon as it is paced by technology.

That is not a healthy mindset to have in this day and age.

[Arnold Winkelried]

Originally posted by jb_farley
I think that might be why they included the language. Remember that at the dawn of germ theory, society would probably condemn someone who didn't use folk remedies or prayer to heal their child, eschewing them for what we call 'medicine'.

If there is a still controversial and not yet fully accepted medical procedure that is being advocated for your child, then of course I don't suggest forcing it on you. That is why the scientific approach is superior to the faith-based approach, in that treatment has to have proven itself in many case studies before it is recommended.

What if stem cell research advances a great deal in the next ten years, but cloning doesn't keep pace. Will you have me arrested if I don't use aborted embryonic tissue to give my child a new liver?

If there is a medical procedure that can be used to allow your child to live, and you refuse that procedure on grounds of your personal belief system, then yes, the decision should be taken out of your hands.

That is not a healthy mindset to have in this day and age.

Saying "I refuse the use of this medical procedure because it isn't described in my 2000-year-old religious text" is not a very healthy mindset either. In fact it can lead to physical harm much more often than the opinion that one should take advantage of proven medical treatment when available.