Polycarp wrote:
Darn it, this wouldn’t be an issue if we had good artificial or lab-grown organs. Get off your butts, synthetic organ researchers!
Arnold:
Not in Ohio they wouldn’t. Or Virginia, for that matter, and I would guess several other states as well.
Thank you for the correction pldennison. I should amend my statement to say “In the US state in which I live …”
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.
That’s one I wonder about also, as in the case of the child discussed in this 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)
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.
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?
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.
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” ?
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.
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?
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”.
Arnold
Thanks for making my point! 
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.
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. (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 given
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.
emphasis mine. In this case the government is not asking the parents’ permission. In fact, the parents have blatantly said “NO!”
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.