# Religion as child abuse... **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 27, 2000, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-as-child-abuse/47416 "2000-12-27T19:48:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2001, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-as-child-abuse/47416/101 "2001-01-01T21:06:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Alessan \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > Medical care is not a BASIC need (normally necessary for short-term survival). > > Huh? > > Tex, have you ever seen a man shot in the chest by an assault rifle? I have, and I can assure you that medical care was _very_ necessary for his short-term survival. \*\* Since when was a sucking chest wound the normal state for a human being? Marc ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2001, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-as-child-abuse/47416/102 "2001-01-02T03:44:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Stoidela \* > And I believe it absolutely is [the duty of every parent to accept the judgement of the medical community above their own], most particularly when the judgment of the medical community is “Your child will die”. So we should have a medical oligarchy? The parents’ interests lie in keeping their children healthy. The health care industry’s interests lie in getting as much money as possible from parents. Seems to me that the parents’ interests should take precedence. > [@](#): > > Parents have no special judgment. Yes they do. They have much more invested in their children than anyone else, and therefore can be better trusted to make the right decision. > [@](#): > > In matters of life and death, I believe it is the prudent thing, and should be the legally required thing, to accept the judgment of those who are specially trained to make such judgments and act accordingly. Should we allow only poli sci majors to vote? Only lawyers to serve on juries? Just because someone has special training, that doesn’t mean we should ignore everyone else’s opinion. > [@](#): > > And on what basis, by what logic, do you make the distinction between a) and b), given that medical care may be just as necessary to sustain health as eating and drinking and not beating? > > Don’t just say they are different…provide a rationale. All babies require food. Therefore, anyone who has a baby is, by having the baby, implicitly agreeing to provide the baby with food. Not all babies require blood transfusions. Therefore, people who have babies are not implicitly agreeing to provide blood transfusions. Not beating is different than providing health care for a completely different reason; not beating someone is something which everyone owes to everyone else, regardless of relationship. A parent has no more obligation to not beat a child than anyone else has an obligation to not beat that child. Pthalis: > [@](#): > > You don’t have guardianship or authority over anyone else’s children, nor can you personally deny somebody else’s kid medical care. Sure I can. You want me to pay for your kid’s operation? Sorry, I’m not going to. I just denied your kid’s medical care. > [@](#): > > Conceited? Yeah, it certainly is conceited to think that medical science could be responsible for the huge plunge in infant mortality, the survival rate of trauma victims, the eradication or near-eradication of diseases like polio, smallpox, bubonic plague, or the survivability of once-fatal cancers or burst appendixes. Thank you for pointing out my shameful conceit! Now don’t go switching your arguments. I was referring to your claim that medicine is undeniable. Now you’re trying to pretend that I objected to you saying that medicine’s **benefits** are undeniable. Yes, the medical community has done wonderful things. But that doesn’t mean it is always right. It is **this** belief, the belief that because it has been right before, the medical community will **always** be right, that I was calling conceited. > [@](#): > > Conistent with the scientific method? Is this a research project we are talking about? No, it’s life. And I believe that the basic principle underlying the scientific principle, that no person’s opinion should be declared sacred, is even more important in life than in any research project. > [@](#): > > What “really is at issue here” is whether or not we allow a superstition primacy over established scientific probability. No it’s not. I don’t believe that anyone here believes that “superstition” should take precedence over “established” scientific probability. If “superstition” were to take primacy over “established” scientific probability, then that would mean that, even if a parent **wants** to take their child to the doctor, they **have** to take their child to a priest or an acupuncturist or something of that nature. Have you seen anyone proposing such a situation? > [@](#): > > What is at issue is whether an abstract right to practice one’s religion is more important than the life of an innocent. Really? I take it that you of the opinion that people’s religion is less important than the life of an innocent? RTFirefly: > [@](#): > > First of all, I would contend that all slippery slope arguments are indicative of deep moral cowardice. They’re saying, “we’re afraid to make a call on the actual merits of the issue, so we’ll point out what might happen if we take this situation to its absolute extreme.” The problem is that anything taken to an extreme is generally pretty disastrous. > For instance, the right to bear arms, taken to its extreme, would put everyone on earth in posession of a weapon capable of destroying the earth. One person having one bad day can wipe out everyone. Does this show that allowing gun ownership is bad? Of course not. So slippery-slope arguments prove nothing, except that their user is afraid to deal with the pros and cons of an issue as it stands. This is a joke, right? Pretty funny, RTFirefly. I’m surprised no one else got it. I’ll rephrase it to make the punch line a bit more obvious: > [@](#): > > All slippery slope arguments all invalid. To take a principle, and take it to ridiculous extreme, is not a legitimite method of showing that principle to be flawed. To show you how this is true, let me take the slippery slope argument to ridiculous extremes, to illustrate how the principle of “slippery slope” is flawed. ---
**Author:** ![panzermanpanzerman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e9bcb4/32.png) [@panzermanpanzerman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panzermanpanzerman)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2001, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-as-child-abuse/47416/103 "2001-01-02T04:42:24Z")
\<\<\\>\> Easy. Since Roe v. Wade became case law throughout the country. So I’ll make a deal with you if you’re willing… You support the outlawing of abortion on demand in the absence of a clear and present danger to the life of the mother, and I’ll support legislation which allows a court to order mainstream medical care for a child over the wishes of a parent. Deal? If there’s no deal, then do spare us your “save the children” bleeding, will ya? ---
**Author:** ![Kyberneticist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/dc4da7/32.png) [@Kyberneticist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kyberneticist)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2001, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-as-child-abuse/47416/104 "2001-01-02T05:07:11Z")
Oh great, here we go again. panzer, there are several dozen abortion threads in GD. Feel free to peruse them. As has been covered hundreds of times within those extensive threads, few, if any, supporters of abortion rights feel that a child is being harmed. In fact, that is pretty much the whole issue under debate. (see here: [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard\_carrier/carrier-roth/](http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/carrier-roth/) for an example of the issues under discussion) I would like to point out that since you support abortion when there is a danger to the mother, it seems that you are already placing a lesser value on the fetus. This implies you don’t feel the fetus is fully human either. ---
**Author:** ![RoboDude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bbe5ce/32.png) [@RoboDude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RoboDude)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2001, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-as-child-abuse/47416/105 "2001-01-02T05:11:47Z")
* * * ## I take it that you of the opinion that people’s religion is less important than the life of an innocent? ## What’s wrong with that? The Constitution protects free speech, yet nobody seems to have a problem with laws prohibiting libel and child pornography. Why? Because it has been concluded that “inalienable rights” do not give you the right to harm others. ## All babies require food. Therefore, anyone who has a baby is, by having the baby, implicitly agreeing to provide the baby with food. Not all babies require blood transfusions. Therefore, people who have babies are not implicitly agreeing to provide blood transfusions. ## Not all babies require blood transfusions, therefore it it okay to deny blood transfusions to those that _do_ need them? Bullshit. People who become parents implicitly agree to provide their children with whatever care they need, which may or may not involve a blood transfusion. ## Yes, the medical community has done wonderful things. But that doesn’t mean it is always right. It is this belief, the belief that because it has been right before, the medical community will always be right, that I was calling conceited. I don’t think anyone here meant to imply that the medical community is right _all_ the time. However, the evidence shows that it is right enough that the consequences of not recieveng medical treatment for a serious condition **greatly** outweigh the risk of error. * * * \<\<\\>\> ## Easy. Since Roe v. Wade became case law throughout the country. Oh, give me a break. :rolleyes: Could we please leave the whole “fetus=human being” debate to the threads which were started for that purpose? ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2001, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-as-child-abuse/47416/106 "2001-01-02T05:37:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by The Ryan \* > \*\* > The parents’ interests lie in keeping their children healthy. The health care industry’s interests lie in getting as much money as possible from parents. Seems to me that the parents’ interests should take precedence. > \*\* That is false. In the instances we are discussing, the parents have demonstrated that their primary interest is in adhering to the principles of their faith. If their primary interest were their children’s health, they would be willing to do whatever was necessary to ensure it. They are not. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by The Ryan \* \*\* > > Yes they do. [have special judgment] They have much more invested in their children than anyone else, and therefore can be better trusted to make the right decision. > \*\* Again false. The best that can be said for parental judgment, and even then not all parental judgment, is that it probably has it’s heart in the right place. That certainly is no guarantee that the decision will be any more “right”. Mentally challenged people can and do give birth. It is sure that they love their children and want the best for them at least as much as any other parent. Would you trust them to always make the “right” decisions for them? People make stupid, destructive, wrong decisions for their kids every day. If they didn’t, psychologists would starve. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by The Ryan \* \*\* > > Really? I take it that you of the opinion that people’s religion is less important than the life of an innocent? > > \*\* An innocent PERSON, absodamnlutely. ---
**Author:** ![Sterra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8c91f0/32.png) [@Sterra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sterra)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2001, 9:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-as-child-abuse/47416/107 "2001-01-02T09:05:54Z")
So you would take an innocent person over the choice of the parents? ---
**Author:** ![RoboDude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bbe5ce/32.png) [@RoboDude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RoboDude)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2001, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-as-child-abuse/47416/108 "2001-01-02T15:23:55Z")
Hell yes! Parental authority does _not_ include the right to harm one’s child, or, through inaction, allow one’s child to come to harm. The fact that the parents in this case are doing it for religious reasons does not change anything. ---
**Author:** ![Ptahlis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a8b319/32.png) [@Ptahlis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ptahlis)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2001, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-as-child-abuse/47416/109 "2001-01-02T20:50:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by The Ryan \* > \*\* > Pthalis: > > > [@](#): > > > > You don’t have guardianship or authority over anyone else’s children, nor can you personally deny somebody else’s kid medical care. > > Sure I can. You want me to pay for your kid’s operation? Sorry, I’m not going to. I just denied your kid’s medical care. \*\* By that astounding application of logic I can deny you the opportunity to own the Taj Mahal because I won’t buy it for you. Let me restate what I said so that it is less able to be twisted into something ridiculously tangent to the argument: You have no temporal authority, beyond the boundaries of law set in this country, to prevent somone else’s child from receiving needed medical care merely because of a personal philosophical decision. (I threw “beyond the boundaries of law set in this country” in there to forestall obvious potential tangents like, “Well what if I adopt someone? What if I become a judge?” and the like.) > [@](#): > > \*\*Now don’t go switching your arguments. I was referring to your claim that medicine is undeniable. Now you’re trying to pretend that I objected to you saying that medicine’s _benefits_ are undeniable. Yes, the medical community has done wonderful things. But that doesn’t mean it is always right. It is _this_ belief, the belief that because it has been right before, the medical community will _always_ be right, that I was calling conceited. \*\* So you took this statement: > [@](#): > > \*“And while medicine is never a 100% guarantee, it has a huge mountain of evidence behind it. Its success is demonstrable, repeatable, and statistically undeniable.” - to mean that the medical community will always be right, even though I just said that it was never guaranteed? So you read that and thought “Ptahlis is saying that the medical community will always be correct in every decision?” Does your style of debate consist mainly of searching for semantic loopholes and deliberate misreading? > [@](#): > > \*\* > No, it’s life. And I believe that the basic principle underlying the scientific principle, that no person’s opinion should be declared sacred, is even more important in life than in any research project. \*\* There are no sacred opinions in the matter. Hence the oft-used admonition to “get a second opinion” when doctors are involved. There **are** , however, informed opinions based on evidence which, when followed, produce positive, verifiable results in a statistically overwhelming number of cases. On the other hand, you have an opinion that offers up scant “evidence” in the form of allegedly holy dictums and theological musings, the results of which (with regards to the effects on someone’s soul and/or the displeasure of some deity) are inherently untestable. You may devoutly believe that mentally repeating a magic word will fix a punctured lung, and I have no problem if you want to stay home and drown in your own blood for your belief. I do have a problem with it if you decide that **any** third party has to stay home while you repeat your word, _ **regardless** _ of whose child it is. > [@](#): > > * * * > > > [@](#): > > > > What “really is at issue here” is whether or not we allow a superstition primacy over established scientific probability. > > - > > No it’s not. I don’t believe that anyone here believes that “superstition” should take precedence over “established” scientific probability. If “superstition” were to take primacy over “established” scientific probability, then that would mean that, even if a parent _wants_ to take their child to the doctor, they _have_ to take their child to a priest or an acupuncturist or something of that nature. Have you seen anyone proposing such a situation? \*\* No, not until you brought it up. :rolleyes: Okay, please frame the statement you quoted in the context of this thread, wherein we are debating whether a parent’s religious belief should be sufficient reason to deny their child needed medical care in situations where death or permanent disability are the likely result, as determined by qualified medical personnel. Also, please note that “allow” does not mean “mandate,” nor vice versa. When our laws permit a parent to decide that needed medical care will not be applied to their child because of a religious belief, then the law is allowing superstition primacy over established scientific probability. \*\* > [@](#): > > Really? I take it that you of the opinion that people’s religion is less important than the life of an innocent? \*\* In a word, yes. Oh I support your right to decide otherwise for yourself. But not for any third party, child or otherwise. \*\* > [@](#): > > RTFirefly: > > This is a joke, right? Pretty funny, RTFirefly. I’m surprised no one else got it. I’ll rephrase it to make the punch line a bit more obvious: > > > [@](#): > > > > All slippery slope arguments all invalid. To take a principle, and take it to ridiculous extreme, is not a legitimite method of showing that principle to be flawed. To show you how this is true, let me take the slippery slope argument to ridiculous extremes, to illustrate how the principle of “slippery slope” is flawed. > > \*\* \*\* [/quote] RTF said that slippery slope arguments are ridiculous because they take things to extremes. In his example he applied slippery slope arguments to real world issues. Your paraphrase is not even close, since you apply an argument to itself. Slippery slope arguments are particularly unconvincing because they posit that once a situation moves in a particular direction that it must be in danger of moving to the logical extreme. These extremes are generally so ridiculous to contemplate that they show the slippery slope argument to be without merit. As to RTF’s statement ascribing moral cowardice to purveyors of the slippery slope, he nailed it dead on. If the only thing someone has to offer to a debate is the scare tactic of the slippery slope then they are at the least trying to sway people with fear rather than reason. With regard to this particular debate, I see no slope. If the law stated plainly that “Religious conviction is not sufficient reason to disallow medical care for any third party when such care is deemed necessary to save life or prevent permanent disability or disfigurement,” there is no reason that this must somehow lead to the demise of religion or religious freedom. If you believe this, then you should also believe that libel laws mean that we have no freedom of speech. Hell, according to this logic we’re already doomed, since polygamy, virgin sacrifice, and forcible conversions are already outlawed. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Bredin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/96bed5/32.png) [@John\_Bredin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Bredin)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2001, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-as-child-abuse/47416/110 "2001-01-02T21:47:09Z")
“I refer you to Dr. Gro Brundtland. I recognize that his having been the head of a socialist Scandinavian country…” IIRC, the good doctor is female. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2001, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-as-child-abuse/47416/111 "2001-01-03T02:46:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RoboDude \* > What’s wrong with that? The Constitution protects free speech, yet nobody seems to have a problem with laws prohibiting libel and child pornography. Why? Because it has been concluded that “inalienable rights” do not give you the right to harm others. There’s a big difference from prohibiting someone from doing something that harms another, and requiring someone to do something that helps another. > [@](#): > > Not all babies require blood transfusions, therefore it it okay to deny blood transfusions to those that _do_ need them? Bullshit. That’s not quite what I said. What I said was that this is a non-arbitrary distinction between blood transfusions and food. > [@](#): > > People who become parents implicitly agree to provide their children with whatever care they need, which may or may not involve a blood transfusion. So what if the child needs a heart transplant, and the parent is the only one with a compatible heart? Is the parent required to die to save the child? > [@](#): > > However, the evidence shows that it is right enough that the consequences of not recieveng medical treatment for a serious condition **greatly** outweigh the risk of error. In any randomly selected case, it is better to apply medical treatment than to not do so. However, the cases we are talking about are not randomly selected. Stoidela > [@](#): > > That is false. In the instances we are discussing, the parents have demonstrated that their primary interest is in adhering to the principles of their faith. If their primary interest were their children’s health, they would be willing to do whatever was necessary to ensure it. They are not. No, they just have a different idea than you do of what will be ensure their child’s health. > [@](#): > > Again false. The best that can be said for parental judgment, and even then not all parental judgment, is that it probably has it’s heart in the right place. That certainly is no guarantee that the decision will be any more “right”. No, of course it’s not a “guarantee”. I never said it was. All I said is that it does makes their judgement special. > [@](#): > > Mentally challenged people can and do give birth. It is sure that they love their children and want the best for them at least as much as any other parent. Would you trust them to always make the “right” decisions for them? I would certainly prefer them to make the decisions than having someone of equivalent mental capacity but without any ties to the child make the decisions. Are you trying to imply that people who have religious beliefs that differ from yours are mentally deficient? > [@](#): > > People make stupid, destructive, wrong decisions for their kids every day. Yes, I know. And I would rather that those people be the parents rather than some bureaucrat. Ptahlis > [@](#): > > (I threw “beyond the boundaries of law set in this country” in there to forestall obvious potential tangents like, “Well what if I adopt someone? What if I become a judge?” and the like.) Why should a judge be able to prohibit (as you seem to mean when you say “deny”) medical care, but a parent not be able to? > [@](#): > > So you read that and thought “Ptahlis is saying that the medical community will always be correct in every decision?” Right, sorry. It’s not that it’s always right. It’s that even when it’s wrong, we’re not allowed to question it. My mistake. > [@](#): > > Does your style of debate consist mainly of searching for semantic loopholes and deliberate misreading? It’s not my fault that you have made ambiguous statements. > [@](#): > > When our laws permit a parent to decide that needed medical care will not be applied to their child because of a religious belief, then the law is allowing superstition primacy over established scientific probability. Clearly, you do not understand the word “primacy”. > [@](#): > > Your paraphrase is not even close, since you apply an argument to itself. What’s wrong with that? > [@](#): > > If the law stated plainly that “Religious conviction is not sufficient reason to disallow medical care for any third party when such care is deemed necessary to save life or prevent permanent disability or disfigurement,” there is no reason that this must somehow lead to the demise of religion or religious freedom. But that’s not what we’re discussing. I would not have any problem with that, any more than I would have a problem with “Religious conviction is not sufficient reason to disallow the government to break into your house without a warrent and take whatever they want”. I am not objecting to doctors telling parents what to do on relgious grounds; I am objecting to it on parents’ rights grounds. Stoidela: > [@](#): > > An innocent PERSON, absodamnlutely [is more important than relgious freedom]. Ptahlis > [@](#): > > In a word, yes [An innocent person is more important than relgious freedom]. In that case, suppose that there is a religion that says that everyone must do everything they can to save the starving children in Africa. Are you going to donate all your disposable income to this cause, or do you consider your religious freedom to be more important than innocent lives? ---
**Author:** ![RoboDude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bbe5ce/32.png) [@RoboDude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RoboDude)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2001, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-as-child-abuse/47416/112 "2001-01-03T03:18:47Z")
* * * ## No, they just have a different idea than you do of what will be ensure their child’s health. The problem is that their idea of what their idea of what will ensure their child’s health has been repeatedly shown to be wrong. There is absolutely no evidence of prayer producing any benefits that could not be attributed to the placebo effect. Also, Stoidela’s statement is true for Jehovah’s Witnesses, who, IIRC, simply believe that blood transfusions are evil and that it is better to die than violate their idea of God’s law. * * * ## Are you trying to imply that people who have religious beliefs that differ from yours are mentally deficient? Anyone who practices a religion that directs its members to harm themselves or others or ignore parental obligations is fucked up, whether it involves virgin sacrifice or denying much-needed medical care. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2001, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-as-child-abuse/47416/113 "2001-01-03T04:43:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by The Ryan \* > **All babies require food. Therefore, anyone who has a baby is, by having the baby, implicitly agreeing to provide the baby with food. Not all babies require blood transfusions. Therefore, people who have babies are not implicitly agreeing to provide blood transfusions.** Close, but not quite. I would modestly propose that all babies are food. Therefore, anyone who has a baby is, by having the baby, implicitly agreeing to provide that baby as food. Not all babies require blood transfusions to be food. Therefore, people who have babies are not implicitly agreeing to provide blood transfusions when they provide babies as food. Of course the corollary of this is that if you want your baby to eat food rather than be food, you had best permit necessary transfusions. ---
**Author:** ![capacitor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e47774/32.png) [@capacitor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/capacitor)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2001, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-as-child-abuse/47416/114 "2001-01-03T04:51:41Z")
Sorry I’m late, but I was looking for the that cited the 2-7000 to one chance of hepatitis c transmisstd by blood. The site seems not tto be there anymore. However, I did find [this](http://www.hepcprimer.com/xmit/xmit-37.html). ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2001, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-as-child-abuse/47416/115 "2001-01-03T04:51:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by John Bredin \* > \*\*“I refer you to Dr. Gro Brundtland. I recognize that his having been the head of a socialist Scandinavian country…” > > IIRC, the good doctor is female. \*\* Wow! That’s terrific! Thanks for correcting me. My gender bias is embarassing, for in all these years I just assumed Brundtland was male. I shake my head in shame. Thanks again for setting me straight. ---
**Author:** ![capacitor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e47774/32.png) [@capacitor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/capacitor)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2001, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-as-child-abuse/47416/116 "2001-01-03T04:58:26Z")
RoboDude, Jehovah’s Witnesses are not into prayer healing. And they do not advocate that nothing is done. They want all that can be done but blood transfusions. The hospital’s turning blood transfusions into a crutch (to the tune of over 2,000,000 done a year in the US, many of which are not done for emergencies and some not needed) is what is pushing the blood transfusion movement. ---
**Author:** ![RoboDude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bbe5ce/32.png) [@RoboDude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RoboDude)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2001, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-as-child-abuse/47416/117 "2001-01-03T05:56:56Z")
* * * ## RoboDude, Jehovah’s Witnesses are not into prayer healing. ## I never said they were. ## And they do not advocate that nothing is done. They want all that can be done but blood transfusions. I am aware of that, but when the doctor says “your kid needs a blood transfusion or he/she will almost certainly die”, “all that can be done but blood transfusions” isn’t really much better than nothing. I am also aware that they are pushing for an artaficial blood substitute, but the fact remains that none exists at this time. They may not _want_ their doctrine to cause innocent people to die, but it is, and it will continue to do so until either they change their views (as they already did with regard to organ transplants) or some genius invents a suitable method of packaging hemoglobin. ---
**Author:** ![Ptahlis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a8b319/32.png) [@Ptahlis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ptahlis)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2001, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-as-child-abuse/47416/118 "2001-01-03T17:46:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by The Ryan \* > \*\* > There’s a big difference from prohibiting someone from doing something that harms another, and requiring someone to do something that helps another. > \*\* Not so big a difference, and not applicable to the discussion. Your tax dollars are required, and they help lots of people. Parents are required by law to provide the necessities of life to children, which would include the cost of a needed transfusion. Doctors and EMTs are already required by law to render necessary emergency care, so there’s no new requirement there either. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > _People who become parents implicitly agree to provide their children with whatever care they need, which may or may not involve a blood transfusion._ > > So what if the child needs a heart transplant, and the parent is the only one with a compatible heart? Is the parent required to die to save the child? \*\* Nope. In that case it is the life of one person against the life of another, not a religious conviction weighed against a life. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > \*\*_However, the evidence shows that it is right enough that the consequences of not recieveng medical treatment for a serious condition **greatly** outweigh the risk of error._ > > In any randomly selected case, it is better to apply medical treatment than to not do so. However, the cases we are talking about are not randomly selected. \*\* Since we are not debating the merits of any particular case, but the general principle of what policy should be, your objection does not apply. Are there cases where treatment goes awry? Yes. Are there cases where treatment is innefectual? Yes. These have been stipulated by all without objection. > [@](#): > > \*\*No, they just have a different idea than you do of what will be ensure their child’s health. \*\* Yeah, an idea that produces dead children. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Mentally challenged people can and do give birth. It is sure that they love their children and want the best for them at least as much as any other parent. Would you trust them to always make the “right” decisions for them? > > - > > I would certainly prefer them to make the decisions than having someone of equivalent mental capacity but without any ties to the child make the decisions. Are you trying to imply that people who have religious beliefs that differ from yours are mentally deficient? \*\* LOL! Yeah, there are a lot of functionally retarded med school graduates. And Stoidela never said anything about nor implied that people having different religious beliefs from hers were mentally deficient, although I suspect you knew you were putting words in her mouth. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*People make stupid, destructive, wrong decisions for their kids every day. > > - > > Yes, I know. And I would rather that those people be the parents rather than some bureaucrat. \*\* Gee, and here I thought we were talking about doctors making medical decisions. > [@](#): > > \*\*Ptahlis > > > [@](#): > > > > \*(I threw “beyond the boundaries of law set in this country” in there to forestall obvious potential tangents like, “Well what if I adopt someone? What if I become a judge?” and the like.) > > - > > Why should a judge be able to prohibit (as you seem to mean when you say “deny”) medical care, but a parent not be able to? \*\* They shouldn’t, nor did I say they should. But I see that even when an item is explicitly identified as a tangent you just can’t help yourself. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*So you read that and thought “Ptahlis is saying that the medical community will always be correct in every decision?” > > - > > Right, sorry. It’s not that it’s always right. It’s that even when it’s wrong, we’re not allowed to question it. My mistake. \*\* Where do you get this idea? Where is the law written that The Ryan is not allowed to question medical treatment? You simply shouldn’t be able to _prevent_ emergency care without a valid reason. No, “God doesn’t like it,” is not a valid reason, nor can questions be posed to run the clock out while a kid bleeds to death. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*When our laws permit a parent to decide that needed medical care will not be applied to their child because of a religious belief, then the law is allowing superstition primacy over established scientific probability. > > - > > Clearly, you do not understand the word “primacy”.\*\* You mean “the state of being first (as in importance, order, or rank)”? What definition are _you_ using? > [@](#): > > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Your paraphrase is not even close, since you apply an argument to itself. > > - > > What’s wrong with that?\*\* Apples and oranges. Not a valid comparison. Ridiculous hypothetical situations are not equivalent to a binary true/false dichotomy. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*If the law stated plainly that “Religious conviction is not sufficient reason to disallow medical care for any third party when such care is deemed necessary to save life or prevent permanent disability or disfigurement,” there is no reason that this must somehow lead to the demise of religion or religious freedom. > > - > > But that’s not what we’re discussing. I would not have any problem with that, any more than I would have a problem with “Religious conviction is not sufficient reason to disallow the government to break into your house without a warrent and take whatever they want”. I am not objecting to doctors telling parents what to do on relgious grounds; I am objecting to it on parents’ rights grounds.\*\* Yes, but you seem to be under the impression that the parents’ rights include the right to deny care based on religious conviction. So exactly what line would you draw? Do you believe that parents have absolute ownership of their kids? If religious conviction is to be one protected reason for allowing a child to die, what others are? Economic gain? Personal pleasure? Philosophy? Prophecy? > [@](#): > > \*\* > Ptahlis > > > [@](#): > > > > In a word, yes. [An innocent person is more important than relgious freedom]. > > - > > In that case, suppose that there is a religion that says that everyone must do everything they can to save the starving children in Africa. Are you going to donate all your disposable income to this cause, or do you consider your religious freedom to be more important than innocent lives? \*\* In the context of this debate, we are discussing people to whom we have an acknowledged obligation to, namely one’s children. That obligation includes providing for their welfare. In your hypothetical situation there is no such relationship. Silly questions like “What if my religion required you to volunteer for evisceration so others can live?” or “What is my religion asks you to slaughter puppies to feed the starving children in Bangladesh?” may be interesting tests if I was proposing this standard as an absolute value to be applied in every case, but I wasn’t. I was talking within the context of the current debate, not universally. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-as-child-abuse/47416.md?page=5)