Your god, maybe, but not mine. Must be nice to have a direct line to god. A god. Any god.
I have no problem with the government stepping in if a parent is endangering the life of his or her child by refusing medical treatment. If a person wants to destroy his own life by praying or eating roots or doing a dance instead of getting surgery, that’s his right and his problem. If he wants to do the same thing for a minor child who can’t make his own decisions, that’s a problem. Parents have control over their upbringing of their children, including their education, religious indoctrination, cultural upbringing and a lot of other issues. They don’t have the right to sacrifice their children to their religion.
“Right to health” is very vague and people are right to point that out. But I’m a little surprised people are giving Curtis LeMay a hard time about this. I do think this is an issue where most Dopers, and particularly a lot of atheists here, would agree with him.
It’s convenient at first, but then God starts drunk dialing you to complain about his ex-girlfriends. That gets very annoying.
Not even in Israel?
There are non-harmful exorcisms?
It’s my understanding that Israel has a secular government and no state religion, so why would the Bible be legally relevant there? The state of Israel does not follow Biblical law.
Keep in mind here, Curtis – this isn’t a practice limited to Christians. Plenty of religions and cults don’t believe in modern medicine. Hell, it’s not even limited to religions, I’ll bet.
Guys, I don’t think this is supposed to be another of Curtis’s religious debates so much as “how much control should parents have – by law – over their child’s health care?” When does it become time for the state to step in? And in many of these cases, it’s USUALLY because of religious beliefs. How far does your right to practice your religion, and refuse medical treatment go – when it comes to your child?
And what is the history of such. It’s an interesting subject, and can we PLEASE not start yet ANOTHER “religion SUX!!!” thread – there are about fifty open already. Gah.
Theoretically, that is true. Optimally, that is very true. Practically, it is not.
It is? Ooops!
Well, there go my afternoon plans. Killjoy.
One of the few things those of us who are members of religious minorities agree with the Christian right on is that we don’t want the government telling us what we can and can’t do in the name of religion. We don’t want it to be easy for the government to take away your kids because of your religion. That idea makes us very nervous, because it’s not too far from that to taking kids away from their parents because of the social disadvantages the kids get from growing up in a minority religion.
I don’t like religions that frown on modern medical care, but I think their adherents’ children should be able to be taken away only in life or death situations. It sets a really bad precedent, otherwise.
If you were going to do that, you should have done it before the weather got cold and rainy.
You mean Athena, I think. Please cease your blasphemy for your own sake. I would be unhappy to learn that you had been transformed into a spider.
Curtis, I think the issue of religious beliefs is a red herring. Perhaps I could re-cast your question by generalising it: “Should the State have the power of intervention to save the life of a minor in spite of the parents’ wishes?” To which my answer is categorically, “Yes.” For example, I don’t know about the U.S. but here we have social workers and charity workers who rescue children from abusive parents. Well, they’re supposed to. Read up on ‘Baby P’ for a particularly sad recent case.
Where are you setting the bar? A right to medical care, or right to life? Medical care - specifically timely, appropriate care - greatly increases one’s chances of surviving illness or injury, but it does *not *guarantee survival. In some circumstances (cancer or catastrophic injury come to mind), medical care may be provided even though the patient’s death from illness or injury is inevitable. In these cases, treatment is intended to preserve the patent’s quality of life, not the patient’s life per se.
I think it’s important to frame the discussion to exclude both religion and the notion of “right to life” in favor of a notion of a general right to health care. Regarding religion, I see no reason to privilege religious objections (“God says don’t consume blood”) over cultural objections (“Traditionally we think an infant isn’t fully human, so we don’t treat them if they get sick” or “Well, what if there’s some truth to what they say about vaccines?”) if they’re equally illogical. Regarding “life” versus “health care,” I see no reason to apply this in cases where a child might die, but not in cases where a child might “only” suffer long-term consequences from lack of treatment.
For example, say Janet breaks her leg. It’s a simple fracture, no penetration of the skin, the ends of the bone are pretty much where they need to be; it’s just a painful crack, really. Should her parents be able to deny her treatment (i.e. setting the break) because they believe God doesn’t approve of such things? What if they, personally, just don’t trust hospitals? After all, Janet may be permanently disabled if her leg isn’t set, but chances are she won’t die.*
What about pain relief? Suppose Jerry slices his leg open accidentally and his parents take him to have the wound stitched. Should a parent be able to say, “No novocain for Jerry - God fordids it?” How about “No novocain for Jerry - I’ve heard that anaesthetics can contribute to learning disabilities?” Jerry’s body will heal as long as he gets his stitches, but should his parents be able to deny him freedom from pain while it happens?
Full disclosure: I believe that parents should not be able to cite religious or cultural belief as a reason to deny medical care to a child who is not capable of making such a decision (most minor children or an incompetent adult child). I also believe that a minor who can demonstrate that he or she understands the *medical * (not religious) implications of refusing treatment should be able to refuse treatment, provided that safeguards are in place to ensure that refusal of *one kind *of treatment is not interpreted by parents or guardians as a refusal of *all *treatment.
*Yes, I know that broken bones *can *kill.
Actually, if a broken bone is not taken care of, it CAN lead to serious medical complications.
-Bone Fracture
-Compartment Syndrome
I believe some fractures, if not treated, can lead to gangrene. How would said parents know how severe it is? (Or even be able to tell it was broken in the first place?)
Quartz, I think in this case the reason because religion IS germane to the discussion is because we’re discussing the issue of freedom to practice one’s beliefs vs. rights of a child.
And see, what I think is awful is the government carving out exceptions in the law in deference to religion. “You’re responsible for providing adequate medical care for your kids. Oh, unless God tells you not to, then that’s okay.” What other things are normally illegal but become legal to do when God tells you to?
The government’s stance toward religion ought to be, IMO, entirely religion-neutral. As far as the government’s concerned and as far as the law is concerned whether or how you’re religious should have zero bearing on your relationship with the government.
Yeah, this seems like the important thing to me. It’s not telling you what you can and can’t do in the name of religion - religion shouldn’t enter into it, or have an effect on the government’s stance one way or the other. It should be about what you do, not why you’re doing it.