This article talks about religious exemptions from requirements to get medical care for your children. Those are bad enough, but some of those, I at least understand. I don’t agree with the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ stance on blood transfusions, but at least I understand why they think that. I can even understand (but of course not agree with) the idea that vaccinating against diseases might thwart the will of God or the gods. I think that believing that faith healing is somehow better than medicine for treating diseases is stupid, but at least I see where they are coming from.
But religious exemptions from hearing tests for newborns? Religious exemptions from blood tests for lead levels? Some states allow those. WTF? Which religion(s) have a problem with those things, and what is their objection to them? I could understand religious objections to some particular treatment for those conditions, but I don’t understand the objection to screening for them. Anyone able to enlighten me?
There’s just three short passages in the Bible that have people handling venomous snakes as part of a religious ceremony. In other words, it doesn’t have to make much sense for some people to consider something religious.
And politicians will pass silly laws to gather votes.
Some strains of religion are against any medical intervention at all. Prayers and faith in God are the only medicine required, and if you still die, become mentally disabled, lose your limbs or get cancer, it was God’s will and therefore good. Shame on you medical zealots for trying to interfere in God’s will!
Some states allow exemption if the parents object. This is, AFAIK, a political exemption available for natural health / conspiracy nutcases who couch their objection in religous terms for legal purposes.
We had a go-around on another board with a poster who is very pro-vaccine and politically liberal, because when she had her kids, she did not want them to have the vitamin K shot or the erythromycin eye ointment because she and her husband did not believe it was necessary.
Ooooookay. They did have to sign waivers. And they have no professed religious views that I’m aware of.
For some people, the human body is inviolate, and you shouldn’t stick things into it. That means anything that involves a needle for an injection or blood draw is out. Some people I guess don’t understand what the ear looks like, or how the test of the tympanic membrane works, because they object to the newborn hearing test as “invasive” as well. They don’t object to hearing tests for older children that involve them wearing headphones. I’m not sure how they feel about taking temperatures. They’re probably fine with underarm, aural and anal are probably out. I don’t know about oral.
People who have this particular belief are not against medicine as a whole, they are just against anything invasive. They’ll take pills, because it’s normal to take things in through your mouth, but they won’t take injections or suppositories, or anything by IV.
There is apparently biblical prooftext for Christians, but this isn’t my belief, I’m not prepared to defend it, and I don’t know what the prooftext is. Then, there are some Newagey types who have a similar belief about the body being inviolate. I have no idea what the source of the belief is, just that I’ve encountered it among homeopathy/astrology/Reiki types. Some of them won’t take medicine, because they don’t put “chemicals” in their bodies, and it’s useless trying to explain to them that food is just chemicals. They have all sorts of inconsistent beliefs, like refusing to eat “processed” foods, because they think that means only things like Kraft Mac & Cheese, and they’re perfectly content to eat tofu and yogurt and peanut butter, not to mention baked goods. Don’t bother to try to explain that anything that’s cooked is processed.